On the Care and Confinement of the Insane in Early Modern and Contemporary East Asian Buddhism

Event date: 21:00 (Taiwan Time) August 1, 2022
Organizer: University of British Columbia

This talk explores the intersections between Buddhism/Buddhist institutions and madness/mental institutions. It begins with a general discussion of the place of madness within the Buddhist tradition by tracking references to madness in a variety of sources (from doctrinal texts to law codes). Following that general discussion, the talk moves to the intriguing history of the institutional connections between Buddhist monasteries and mental institutions in early modern and contemporary Taiwan, China, and Japan.

I introduce some case studies of sites where modern mental hospitals grew up within the precincts or adjacent to Buddhist monasteries. What, I will ask, is the historical relationship between the older Buddhist monasteries and the new mental hospitals? Have there been institutional connections between the monasteries and the hospitals throughout history?

In addressing these questions, we encounter a history of the fundamental role played by Buddhist monasteries in the therapy of those beset with mental illnesses. Due to modern changes in the care for the mentally ill—including a move toward mandatory hospitalization—the earlier history of the connections between the Buddhist monasteries and those afflicted with mental illness became hidden. One of the primary goals of this talk is to recover some of that history and show the role that was played by Buddhist temples in providing therapies, magical cures, and day-to-day care for the mentally ill.

Discussants

Emily Baum Associate Professor of Modern Chinese History, UC Irvine

Jia-Fu Lee Director of Dementia and Disability Care Center, Department of Community and Long-Term Care, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital

Event date: 8:00 (Taiwan Time) Friday, March 31, 2022
Organizer: Columbia University

Shortly after the Buddha passed into nirvana, a group of five hundred arhats gathered in a cave to compile and memorize his teachings, both his discourses (dharma) and the monastic code (vinaya). This event is known to Buddhist history as the First Council. At the conclusion of the council, Ananda, the Buddha’s cousin and personal attendant, was placed on trial. The charges included encouraging the Buddha to ordain women and failing to encourage the Buddha to live for an aeon. This lecture will describe the circumstances that led to these charges and will consider the significance of Ananda’s crimes for modern Buddhist communities.

Discussants

Bernard Faure Professor of Japanese Religion, Columbia University

Chien-Te Lin Director of the Institute of Religion and Humanities, Buddhist Tzu Chi University

Lecture Report:
The Trial of Ānanda: Some Thoughts for Modern Times

Yin-Cheng Distinguished Lecture Series by Dr. Donald S. Lopez Jr. (University of Michigan), March 30, 2022

Report by Alexander Sogo (Columbia University)

With the support of the Tzu Chi Foundation 慈濟基金會, the final lecture of the 2021/2022 season of the Yin-Cheng Distinguished Lecture Series on Buddhism was hosted by Columbia University on March 30, 2022. The virtual event featured a talk by Professor Donald S. Lopez Jr. (the University of Michigan) entitled “The Trial of Ānanda: Some Thoughts for Modern Times.” The lecture was held via Zoom and streamed live via Youtube, where a recording of the event is still available for viewing on the Tzu Chi Studies (慈濟論述) Youtube channel. The lecture was delivered in English with live translation into Chinese.

Following greetings and acknowledgements by representatives of both the Tzu Chi Foundation and Columbia University, Prof. Lopez delivered his forty-minute lecture. The event’s two discussants, Professor Bernard Faure (Columbia University) and Professor Chien-Te Lin (Tzu Chi University 慈濟大學), then gave their comments on the content of the lecture, adding details and providing questions for discussion. Finally, Professor Zhaohua Yang (Columbia University) led a short question-and-answer session by collecting the audience’s questions from the Zoom chat function.

[insert image 1]

From left to right: Dr. Rey-Sheng Her (Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation, Tzu Chi University), Professor Donald S. Lopez Jr. (the University of Michigan), Professor Zhaohua Yang (Columbia University), and Professor Bernard Faure (Columbia University). Screenshots by Ngoc Le (UBC Frogbear). Republished with permission.

The event began with an address by Dr. Rey-Sheng Her, Deputy CEO of Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation 佛教慈濟基金會and Associate Professor at Tzu Chi University, in which Dr. Her thanked the organizers at Columbia University and the speaker. Prof. Yang, the Sheng Yen Assistant Professor of Chinese Buddhism at Columbia University, briefly introduced Prof. Lopez, who then began his lecture.

Prof. Lopez is the Arthur E. Link Distinguished University Professor of Buddhist and Tibetan Studies and Arthur F. Thurnau Professor at the University of Michigan. His numerous publications focus on Indian and Tibetan Buddhism. He has written on Indian

Buddhist scholastic philosophy,[1] the history of the European encounter with Buddhism,[2] transformations in Western perceptions of the Buddha,[3] and the Tibetan author Gendün Chöpel (1903–1951).[4] Prof. Lopez has also been particularly active in bringing Buddhist scholarship to a larger audience, producing numerous translations, anthologies, and reference works that are now frequently used in college classrooms and beyond.

Prof. Lopez began his talk, “The Trial of Ānanda: Some Thoughts for Modern Times” with a brief summary of his work on anthologizing Buddhist sources for English readers. He expressed his gratitude to the Tzu Chi Foundation, explaining that he included works by the organization’s founder, Dharma Master Cheng Yen 證嚴  (1937­–), in his 2002 edited sourcebook.[5] He suggested that although his talk focused on the ancient past, there is much that is worth contemplating for a contemporary Buddhist audience, and distinctions between classical and modern Buddhism need not always be rigorously applied.

Prof. Lopez then explained the position of Ānanda, a cousin of the Buddha and his personal attendant, during the famous first Buddhist council. The council is thought to have been held soon after the Buddha’s passing into nirvāṇa in order to collect, recite, and record the Buddha’s teachings before they were lost as his followers themselves passed away. Ānanda was selected to recite the sermons of the Buddha because he had personally attended to the Buddha for the last twenty-five years of his life and supposedly had perfect powers of memorization. At the council, held in a cave near Vulture Peak, Ānanda is said to have flawlessly recited every sermon of the Buddha. This recitation became the basis for later sūtra literature.

However, Ānanda is then said to have been put on trial for five failures in his duty as attendant to the Buddha. Of these five, Prof. Lopez focused on three. The first is the charge that Ānanda had not asked the Buddha to clarify which rules of the monastic code were “minor” and therefore could be discarded after the Buddha’s passing. Although the Buddha is said to have excused all minor infractions after his passing into nirvāṇa, the definition of “minor” remained unclear. Prof. Lopez explained that the prominence of this problem in the Questions of Milinda (P. Milinda Pañha), a text thought to be from the second century CE, shows that the identification of minor rules continued to be a source of consternation for monastic communities for many centuries after the Buddha’s death.

Prof. Lopez then discussed Ānanda’s next supposed crime: asking the Buddha to allow women to join the monastic community as nuns. Ānanda is said to have requested the foundation of an order of nuns on behalf of Mahāpajāpatī—the Buddha’s aunt and foster mother. Although he initially refused, the Buddha eventually relented after being reminded that Mahāpajāpatī raised him and cared for him in his youth. The Buddha reluctantly allowed for the formation of an order of nuns but also issued a dire prophecy, warning that the entry of women into the saṅgha will cause his teachings to die out in a mere five hundred years.

This well-known story has been enormously influential throughout the history of Buddhism, but Prof. Lopez discussed some historical details that may change how modern readers should interpret the story. He argued that the account of Ānanda and Mahāpajāpatī likely dates from long after the Buddha’s death and therefore reflects not the Buddha’s own teachings but rather the priorities of later male monastic writers. In this view, prophecies placed in the mouth of the Buddha should not be taken as predictions of the future but as commentary on the then present. In the story of Ānanda and Mahāpajāpatī, an author, probably around the turn of the Common Era, sought to problematize and lament the burgeoning of a female monastic order in his own time.

Ānanda’s third crime was failing to ask the Buddha to live longer. Prof. Lopez explained that when the Buddha had become old and frail, he told Ānanda that a Buddha can in fact live for an eon (kalpa). To this statement, Ānanda said nothing, and the Buddha passed into nirvāṇa three months later. Ānanda was then charged with the crime of silence, failing to request that the Buddha stay on earth for an eon.

Having discussed these ancient Buddhist stories, Prof. Lopez then spoke on how we can learn from them as present-day scholars and followers of Buddhism. These three accusations levelled at Ānanda, Prof. Lopez argued, are laments by Buddhist writers living in various times and places. Many monks and nuns throughout the centuries have struggled to keep the precepts and wished that Ānanda had asked the Buddha to clarify which rules could be ignored. Similarly, many monks from ancient times up to our present day have wished that the Buddha did not allow women to enter the saṅgha. Finally, many followers of the Buddhist path have desperately wished that they themselves could have lived when the Buddha was alive and hear his teaching first-hand. Had Ānanda asked the Buddha to live for an eon, the never-ending struggle of interpretation could have been eased.

As a conclusion, Prof. Lopez reminded us that Buddhism was and still is not as egalitarian as many believe. He enumerated historical and present grounds for exclusion from the saṅgha, including illness, gender, deviation from sexual norms, and even particular occupations. He explained that these and other discriminatory barriers within the Buddhist tradition are not the words of the enlightened Buddha, but rather those of not-yet-enlightened monks, responding to the prejudices of both their monastic circles and the lay communities that supported them. These prejudices, therefore, have no place in our current day.

After Prof. Lopez brought his lecture to a close, Prof. Faure (Columbia University) offered his comments and remarks on the topic. After briefly suggesting that the discardable “minor” rules mentioned by the Buddha should certainly include the one hundred extra rules placed on female monastics due to their focus on mere etiquette, Prof. Faure argued that by blaming Ānanda for failing to ask the Buddha to extend his existence, the early tradition turns Ānanda into a scapegoat. The Buddha, after all, had by that time already promised Māra that he would extinguish himself. The trial of Ānanda should therefore not be taken at face value, but instead should be read as a clash between two distinct early traditions of interpretation. After diving into the details of Ānanda’s other crimes not discussed by Prof. Lopez, Prof. Faure concluded by explaining that what a crime is for one person could be a pious act for another. In Japan, for example, a rite performed by women to express thanks to Ānanda is recorded as early as the tenth century.

Prof. Lin (Tzu Chi University) then gave his comments on the lecture. Prof. Lin argued that the conflicts seen in the trial of Ānanda can be resolved by analysing them from the perspective of the Dharma. The heart of the Dharma was not invented by the Buddha but rather is an indisputable truth belonging to all beings. Because the Vinaya must not contradict the Dharma, the Buddha’s decision to allow women to be ordained and his choice to enter nirvāṇa were in fact completely independent from Ānanda’s encouragement. Next, Prof. Lin argued that equality is a basic value of Buddhism. Equality is logically deducible from the theory of interdependence, and therefore the restoration of full ordination of Buddhist nuns across the world is crucial. Finally, Prof. Lin explained the important role that women and nuns play in current Taiwanese Buddhism, reminding us that lack of gender equality is a net loss for Buddhism as a whole.

[insert image 2]

Professor Chien-Te Lin (Tzu Chi University) giving comments. Screenshot by Ngoc Le (UBC Frogbear). Republished with permission.

The host of the event, Prof. Yang (Columbia University), then presented Prof. Lopez with questions submitted from the live audience. These questions dealt with the contradiction between the Buddha’s wisdom and the apparent misogyny found in many early texts, as well as the ever-vexing question of the historicity of the Buddha himself. Prof. Yang then gave concluding remarks and thanked the speakers, the participants, and the Tzu Chi Foundation, bringing the 2021/2022 season of the Yin-Cheng Distinguished Lecture Series on Buddhism to a close.

Bibliography

Lopez Jr., Donald S., ed. A Modern Buddhist Bible: Essential Readings from East and West.

Boston: Beacon Press, 2002.

———. A Study of Svātantrika. Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications, 1987.

———. Buddhism and Science: A Guide for the Perplexed. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 2008.

———. Elaborations on Emptiness: Uses of the Heart Sūtra. Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 1996.

———.  From Stone to Flesh: A Short History of the Buddha. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 2013.

———. Gendun Chopel: Tibet’s First Modern Artist. Chicago: Trace Foundation and Serindia,

———, ed, trans. In the Forest of Faded Wisdom: 104 Poems by Gendun Chopel. A bilingual ed.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.

———. Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 2018.

———. The Heart Sūtra Explained: Indian and Tibetan Commentaries. Albany: SUNY Press,

1987.

———. The Madman’s Middle Way: Reflections on Reality of the Tibetan Monk Gendun Chopel.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.

[1] Lopez, A Study of Svātantrika; idem, The Heart Sūtra Explained; idem, Elaborations on Emptiness.

[2] Idem, Prisoners of Shangri-La; idem, Buddhism and Science.

[3] Idem, From Stone to Flesh.

[4] Idem, The Madman’s Middle Way; idem, In the Forest of Faded Wisdom; idem, Gendun Chopel.

[5] Idem, A Modern Buddhist Bible.

Event date:19:00-21:00 (EST) Friday, February 18, 2022
Organizer: Princeton University

This talk comes at the end of a day-long symposium at Princeton University on the topic of “Translating Buddhist Philosophy for the Philosophy Curriculum,” focusing around a new English translation of the Twenty Verses and Exposition by the 4th/5th century Indian Buddhist philosopher Vasubandhu.

Vasubandhu would surely have been thrilled to learn that centuries after the composition of his work, philosophers would choose to spend their time reading and thinking about his words, ideas, and arguments. He might well have been intrigued by the questions motivating the symposium’s engagement with his text: In what form, with what supporting material, and to what end could Vasubandhu’s Twenty Verses and Exposition become a part of the curriculum in Euro-American style philosophy departments today, if at all? This talk will speak to this question by stepping back from Vasubandhu and his text to contemplate the broader project of whether, and if so how, to bring Buddhist philosophers and philosophical texts from classical India into our contemporary philosophy curriculum. It will address this question by evaluating the various ways Buddhist philosophy has been understood in modern scholarship, and by comparing modern philosophers’ methods with those in traditional Buddhist scholastic texts.

Lecture Report: “Philosophy, Philosophers, and Buddhist Scholastic Texts (Śāstra)”

Yin-Cheng Distinguished Lecture Series
Princeton University, February 18, 2022, at 7:00–8:45 pm
Lecture by Professor Parimal G. Patil (Harvard University) Response by Professor Katherine (Trina) Janiec Jones (Wofford College)

Report by Sinae Kim and Kentaro Ide (Princeton University)

Supported by the Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation, the keynote lecture of the Yin-Cheng Distinguished Lecture Series on Buddhism was hosted virtually by the Center for Culture Society and Religion (CCSR) of Princeton University on February 18, 2022. This lecture came at the end of a day-long symposium at Princeton University on “Translating Sanskrit Buddhist Philosophy for the Philosophy Curriculum,” focused on a new translation of Vasubandhu’s (ca. fifth century) Twenty Verses and Exposition. The keynote speaker was Professor Parimal Patil from Harvard University, whose lecture was entitled “Philosophy, Philosophers, and Buddhist Scholastic Texts (Śāstra).” The respondent was Professor Katherine (Trina) Janiec Jones from Wofford College. The lecture was conducted by Zoom Webinar and YouTube live stream, with simultaneous English and Chinese channels. The recording of the lecture was also made available online. The event started with a welcoming address by Professor Jonathan Gold from the Department of Religion at Princeton University. Prof. Gold first extended his deep appreciation to the Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation and Princeton CCSR for their general support, to Professor Jinhua Chen and Vicky Baker at the University of British Columbia for helping to organize this event, to Jennifer Klumpp and Jenny Wiley Legath at Princeton CCSR for their work, and Dr. Rey Sheng Her, Deputy CEO of Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation and Associate Professor at Tzu Chi University, for his leadership in this lecture series. Prof. Gold then introduced the academic careers and research interests of Prof. Patil and Prof. Jones. The event then proceeded to Dr. Rey Sheng Her’s welcoming remarks. Prof. Patil gave a sixty-minute talk, followed by Prof. Jones’s response. The floor was then opened to questions from the audience.

Prof. Patil is a professor of Religion and Indian Philosophy at Harvard University, where he has taught since receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 2002. From 2011–2017, he was Chair of the then newly formed Department of South Asian Studies. He teaches in three program units: Philosophy, South Asian Studies, and the Study of Religion. In particular, he focuses on Buddhist philosophy in India, the old and new epistemologists, Indian traditions of physicalism and skepticism, and contemporary Anglo-American philosophy of religion. His books include Against a Hindu God: Buddhist Philosophy of Religion in India on Buddhist epistemology and the philosophy of language and mind that supports it, and Buddhist Philosophy of Language in India, a study of Jñānaśrīmitra’s (b. 975–1000) Monograph on Exclusion, which is co-authored with Lawrence J. McCrea. He is currently working on two book-length projects on the new epistemologists of late pre-modern and early modern India, the tentative titles of which are A Reader in the New Epistemologists and Belief, Desire, and Motivation in the Philosopher’s Stone. In addition to philosophy, he also has interests in classical Sanskrit literature and literary theory and the history of Buddhism in India.

Prof. Jones also received her Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, and is a professor of Religion at Wofford College. She served as Wofford’s first Associate Provost for curriculum and co-curriculum from 2014 to 2021. While her training was in Indian philosophy and religion, she has published on topics ranging from the post-9/11 Religious Studies classroom to religious hybridity. Her most recent article is entitled “A Theology of Increasing Adequacy: Process, Practicality, and Relationship.” She is currently working on a book about her parents’ experiences with dementia in their final years and how her own training in Buddhist studies impacted her ability to cope with their dissolving sense of personal identity.

In his lecture entitled “Philosophy, Philosophers and Buddhist Scholastic Texts (Śāstra),” Prof. Patil shared his perspective on the broader project of whether and how to bring Buddhist philosophers and philosophical texts into our philosophy curriculum. He divided his remarks into three parts: 1) he discussed what he meant by “Buddhist philosophy” and shared controversial thoughts on the state of the field; 2) he introduced a few typical Buddhist framing narratives and suggested some ways to break through them; and 3) he concluded by providing his suggestions for the Buddhist philosophy project.

Prof. Patil’s discussions in Part One and Part Two were based on the history of Buddhist philosophy in India. In Part One, he proposed that we need to see the term “philosophy” in “Buddhist philosophy” as an academic discipline rather than an intellectual practice. Patil responded to possible counterarguments, such as that this frame would be too restricted and distort the projects of many Buddhist authors and be therefore irresponsible. This, he suggested, has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The adjective “Buddhist,” said Prof. Patil, could also be treated like the terms “ancient” and “modern.” According to him, a focus on “philosophy” as an academic discipline provides a helpful place to answer why Buddhist philosophy has not yet become a part of the discipline of philosophy. He said the decrease in including Buddhist philosophy in the academic discipline of philosophy is not primarily due to professional philosophers’ prejudice or lack of interest. Instead, he argued, it is simply because those working on Buddhist philosophical texts are not yet philosophers of sufficient caliber to be hired in the top-ranking philosophy departments in North America. There are also many other problems: few adequate translations of Buddhist philosophical texts; few explanatory materials suitable for those who have not studied the primary languages; and even fewer high-quality peer-reviewed articles on this topic. He also pointed out the profoundly Eurocentric nature of much curriculum design, a shocking level of ignorance of non-western philosophy, and specific institutional considerations. He did not find any of these particularly demoralizing, since they point us to exactly what we need to do. He suggested that those in appropriate positions should train a new generation of philosophers who can read primary texts, produce translations, and participate in philosophical engagements.

In Part Two, Prof. Patil talked about common Buddhist narratives by dividing them into four frames. The first framing narrative is the so-called six “orthodox” Indian philosophy systems that are paired into three: Sāṃkhya-Yoga, Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika, and Mīmāṃsa-Vedānta. These six systems have been presented in opposition to the three “heterodox” traditions: Buddhism, Jainism, and Physicalism. This six systems framework has usually been presented as historically grounded and valuable for making sense of the history of philosophy in India. However, Prof. Patil argued that this framework is neither historically grounded nor conceptually sound; it completely distorts what Indian philosophy is and masks the critical role of Buddhist philosophy. The mythical distinction between orthodox and heterodox not only tells nothing about the history of philosophy in classical India but also profoundly distorts the history of Buddhist philosophy in India. Prof. Patil traced the historical origins of doxography through such works as Madhusūdhana Sarasvatī’s sixteenth-century treatise, written to prove the superiority of nondual Vedānata. Later, the myth of “six systems” was adopted by modern Western orientalists and Indologists like Friedrich Max Müller (1823–1900), which have had a lasting influence on studies of Indian philosophy. Prof. Patil argued that uncritical application of this framework, which itself is a historical construct, hinders sound understanding of philosophical debates that cut across the mythical orthodox and heterodox divide, such as debates about whether testimony is a source of knowledge, or whether or not scripture is authorless.

This also often minimizes the critical and innovative role of Buddhism. For example, Buddhist philosopher Dignāga’s (ca. 480–540) work promoted a significant transformation in the self-conception and organization of Sanskrit philosophy. Under the influence of Dignāga’s “Buddhist” philosophy, there was an “epistemological turn” not only among Buddhist philosophers but also among Sanskrit philosophers in general. This prompted Sanskrit philosophers to reconfigure their philosophical inquiry as a theory of knowledge. Beginning with Dignāga, Sanskrit philosophers started to read and criticize their opponents’ works in a far more detailed and systematic way. The critical exchange between rival philosophical traditions became more intimate, using a shared conceptual framework to formulate and pursue philosophical questions. Prof. Patil said that if we choose to understand the history of philosophy in India within the framework of the orthodox and heterodox systems, most of what is exciting and essential about Buddhist philosophy will be lost.

A second framing narrative engages notions of “Right View,” the “Path,” and ethics. As Prof. Patil said, it is widely thought that what makes Buddhist philosophy distinct from contemporary philosophy is that Buddhist philosophers see their world as part of the path to nirvāṇa, and therefore intrinsically connected to questions of how we ought to live. According to him, this is a false and misleading way to understand Buddhist philosophy in India. While Buddhist philosophers related to the Buddha in one way or another, the major project of Buddhist philosophers in India, he suggested, concerned the rejection of metaphysical justifications and, thus, was primarily ontological and epistemological. As Prof. Patil said, Vasubandhu’s verses, for example, seem to reveal little of this kind of philosophical preoccupation with the “Path.” Furthermore, the works of Buddhist philosophers such as Dignāga and Jñānaśrīmitra do not necessarily support the view that the “Path” was the focal point of Buddhist philosophy. Prof. Patil warned that this view could prevent in-depth studies of many dense debates on ontology, metaphysics, language, and mind as developed in Buddhist philosophical texts.

The third framing narrative was that of schools, textual traditions, and commentaries. Prof. Patil said another framing narrative that we ought to set aside is schools such as Abhidharma, Madhyamaka, and Yogācāra. The term “school” suggests an institutional structure. But Prof. Patil pointed out that there are often no clear agreements and disagreements among different schools. He also opined that identifying individual philosophers as representing philosophical schools is equally unhelpful. For example, Vasubandhu’s Treasury of Metaphysics was written from the perspective of the Vaibhāṣika interpretation of Abhidharma textual tradition, his commentary on the Treasury was written from the perspective of the Sautrāntika interpretation of Abhidharma text tradition, and Twenty Verses and Exposition was written from the perspective of the Yogācāra tradition. Prof. Patil emphasized that Vasubandhu was neither confused nor inconsistent, arguing that Vasubandhu’s philosophical commitment was not to schools but to more subtle lines of argument regarding mental content. He also pointed out that there are many internal variations and practitioners within single schools, It would therefore be misleading to describe individual authors within the framework of schools. Instead, he suggested it would be more accurate to think of them as belonging to a single textual tradition. Sanskrit philosophers look back to “foundational texts” that serve as the source of their basic concepts and arguments. In other words, what Sanskrit philosophers share is not a philosophical standpoint but building blocks and common textual resources offered by their predecessors. As Prof. Patil stressed, that Indian philosophers belong to a “textual tradition” does not mean their works are merely exegetical and lack philosophical creativity. In the Sanskrit philosophical world, the majority of works presented themselves as “commentaries,” which do not just clarify the meaning of the texts on which they are commenting but, in fact, develop the root texts’ arguments. Commentaries are creative and uniquely authoritative practices. Philosopher-commentators consumed the preexisting texts, trying to make good use of them to articulate their own philosophical claim.

The fourth frame was decolonization. Unlike the first three framing narratives he discussed, Prof. Patil said that the frame of decolonization is one we should embrace. Based on the critical examinations of the first three interpretive frameworks, Prof. Patil envisioned the “decolonization” of Buddhist philosophy in integrating Buddhist philosophical texts into our contemporary philosophy curriculum. However, Prof. Patil warned that mere inclusion of Sanskrit philosophical texts in the Euro-American centric curriculum of philosophy is by no means satisfactory, and that one should not move too quickly at the expense of carefully considering how to do justice to Sanskrit philosophical texts. This means understanding the texts’ arguments on their own terms, outlining the contexts of philosophical debates, and accounting for intellectual practices and reading conventions that do not follow our conventions.

Prof. Patil explained this point by taking an example from a tenth-century Indian Buddhist philosopher: Jñānaśrīmitra’s concept of “conditionally-adopted position.” Jñānaśrīmitra’s “conditionally-adopted position” is a sort of “white lie,” a statement that is not entirely true but includes at least a partial element of truth and serves an appropriate conventional purpose. Jñānaśrīmitra introduced this concept to explain how it becomes possible for humans of different levels of insight to engage in conventionally successful inferential and conceptual activity in the absence of a “real” object. According to Prof. Patil, this theory allows the philosopher to meet different requirements for commenting on the textual sources offered by Dharmakīrti (ca. 600–670). While Jñānaśrīmitra at least partially legitimates Dharamakīrti’s claim that perception is free from the inferential process, he also takes a different position from his predecessor: the position that the distinction between perception and inference cannot be made. The concept of a “conditionally-adopted position” thus enables Jñānaśrīmitra to theorize the lower orders of conventionality, while highlighting the Buddhist position that nothing ultimate is expressed through linguistic, conceptual conventions. As the case of Jñānaśrīmitra illustrates, to do justice to Sanskrit philosophical texts becomes possible only through in-depth reflection on the intellectual practices and debates in which philosophers developed their arguments.

Prof. Patil ended the lecture by providing three suggestions. First, we ought to take a broadly counterfactual approach to India’s Buddhist history of philosophy. After carefully reading a primary text, we ought to ask ourselves what the authors would say if they were here today, how they would characterize the philosophical problems and explain their most important arguments. And we also need to ask ourselves what we would say to them if we were in their place. This exercise aims to create a productive dialogue between two philosophers who see each other as epistemic peers. We need to focus on a single author, text, and line of argument to do this.

Second, we need to produce high-quality translations of primary texts and encourage interdisciplinary, collaborative research among scholars, which requires good philosophical and philological training. Lastly, we need to highlight how Buddhist arguments were constantly being updated. For instance, the works of Vasubandhu, Dignāga, and Dharmakīrti were received, studied, and commented on both by their successors and critics, and this created lines of Indian philosophical debate regarding the nature of language and mind. To discover and recover such lines of argument through history is essential for future studies of Sanskrit Buddhist philosophy.

Following the talk, Prof. Jones made her response by first stating appreciation for Prof. Patil’s thoughtful talk and for the support of the Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation. Her response mainly focused on the question of the Buddhist philosophy curriculum with which Prof. Patil began his talk. She shared her personal experience of job interviews in 2001 during which she was asked whether she could create new courses on Islam rather than on her own expertise, Buddhist philosophy. She brought this up because it underlined the confusion of categories in American universities. She pointed out how this revealed that Buddhism was categorized as other; a category in which Islam was also included. While teaching Islam to undergraduate students, she realized how vital it is to have high-quality translations of primary sources and explanatory materials geared to non-specialists. She argued that translations should not only be done by specialists for specialists. She emphasized the importance and difficulty of writing good accessible books for non-specialists. By non-specialists, she meant two groups: teachers and students with no substantial training in Buddhist studies. Based on her experience serving as an associate provost at Wofford College, she concluded by asking practical questions about the realities on the ground and expressed her concern about the current moment and future of higher education, asking: “How would the prospect to include Vasubandhu into curricula be received in your department on your campus? How would you marshal good arguments for making this change?”

The question and answer session covered a broad range of topics, including the feasibility of providing courses on Buddhist philosophy in many schools due to marketing and financial constraints; the possibility of an online platform that could share lectures and materials; how scholars in the humanities combat double standards in academia; how to understand the idea of grouping and labeling textual traditions in relation to schools in the history of Indian philosophy; the role of the “Path” beyond the “Right View” in Vasubandhu’s Treasury of Metaphysics; and the role of practice or the lack thereof in our interpretation of philosophical texts.

Bibliography

Patil, Parimal G. Against a Hindu God: Buddhist Philosophy of Religion in India. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009.

McCrea, Lawrence J., and Parimal G. Patil. Buddhist Philosophy of Language in India: Jñanasrimitra on Exclusion. New York: Columbia University Press, 2010.

Jones, Katherine Janiec. “A Theology of Increasing Adequacy: Process, Practicality, and Relationship.” Journal of Interreligious Studies, no. 34 (2022): 66–76.

Event date:13:00-15:00 (UTC) Monday, January 24, 2022
Organizer: Oxford University

While confronting whiteness is often seen as the work of progressive social justice, Buddhist practice and philosophy offers a rich framework for, and imperative to do, such work. Methodologically combining ethnographic and philosophical approaches, this paper aims to show both what contemporary Buddhists have done to alleviate the suffering caused by whiteness and what resources the tradition offers for extending such work. It begins by situating Buddhist approaches to “waking up from whiteness” within the larger movement for racial justice within American Buddhism.

Next, it shows how the Yogacara school of Buddhist philosophy provides helpful tools for practitioners in recognizing and being liberated from whiteness, which from the perspective of Yogacara is an historically conditioned, socially embedded identity structure that has the power to shape our worlds of experience and that can and should be made an object of inquiry, understanding, and relinquishment. Finally, we reflect on the responsibility of Buddhist scholars in Buddhist racial justice work.

Lecture Report:
“Whiteness is a Sankhāra”: Racial Justice as Buddhist Practice

Yin-Cheng Distinguished Lecture Series on Buddhism
Lecture by Dr. Ann Gleig (University of Central Florida) and Dr. Joy Brennan (Kenyon College).
24 January 2022

Report by Qingniao Li and Huynh Quoc Tuan (both at University of Oxford)
February 5, 2022
Screenshots by Qingniao Li and Huynh Quoc Tuan

On January 24, 2022, the fifth lecture in the Yin-Cheng Distinguished Lecture Series on Buddhism 2021–2022 was hosted by the Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford, in cooperation with the Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation. The title of the lecture was “‘Whiteness is a Sankhāra’: Racial Justice as Buddhist Practice.” It was jointly given by two guest speakers, Dr. Ann Gleig (University of Central Florida) and Dr. Joy Brennan (Kenyon College), and was responded to by discussant Dr. Jessica Zu (University of Southern California Dornsife).

The lecture was conducted online via Zoom webinar and live streamed via YouTube with two audio channels in English and in Chinese. The lecture was delivered in English with simultaneous Chinese interpretation.

Dr. Matthew Orsborn, Departmental Lecturer of Buddhist Studies at the Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford, was the chair and moderator of the lecture. He opened the event with a welcoming address and introduced the guest speakers and the discussant.

Before getting into the lecture proper, Dr. Orsborn invited Dr. Rey-Sheng Her, Deputy CEO of Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation and Associate Professor at Tzu Chi University, to say a few words on behalf of the Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation, the sponsor of the lecture. On behalf of the Tzu Chi Foundation and Dharma Master Cheng Yen, Dr. Her expressed his gratitude to all the participants and speakers.

In this lecture, Dr. Gleig and Dr. Brennan combine ethnographic and philosophical approaches to show both what some Buddhists have done to alleviate the suffering caused by whiteness and what resources the tradition offers for extending such work. According to the two speakers, while confronting whiteness is often seen as the work of progressive social justice, Buddhist practice and philosophy offers a rich framework for and imperative to do such work. The lecture begins by situating Buddhist approaches to “waking up from whiteness” within the larger movement for racial justice within American Buddhism. Drawing from Critical Whiteness Studies, the speakers identify whiteness as a contingent historic sociocultural category that maintains oppressive power relations. Situating it within the wider context of racial justice work in American Buddhism, here they focus specifically on white awareness work that also articulates whiteness as a form of conditioning that impedes Buddhist practice, community, and liberation. The lecture was delivered in two parts. The first part was given by Dr. Gleig and the second part by Dr. Brennan.

Lecture Part 1

In the first part of the lecture, Dr. Gleig first briefly introduced the topic, then explored the methodology and main contents of the talk.

Before moving to other issues related to whiteness, Dr. Gleig asked “What is whiteness?” To answer this, she emphasized the historic and contingent construction of whiteness for which the field distinguishes “whiteness” as a social practice and as white-skinned people. While white-skinned people are conditioned by whiteness and benefit from it at the expense of those deemed non-white, they are not reducible to it. She found that, as Eric Tranby and Douglas Hartman note, some of the key analytic insights of Critical Whiteness Studies are the recognition that (i) the Jim Crow era of white supremacy in the United States has been replaced by a subtler legitimation of structural dominance; (ii) the construction of white identity as normative, ahistoric, and universal; and (iii) the centrality of individualistic ideals to whiteness.

Dr. Gleig noted that recent years have seen an increase of primary literature and secondary scholarship documenting and contextualizing the racial justice efforts of American Buddhists of Colour across heritage and convert communities. One major area has illuminated the exclusion of Asian American Buddhist heritage communities from mainstream narratives of Buddhism in America. Another major area has been to trace how Buddhists of Colour in white majority saṃghas have attempted to make their communities more inclusive.

Dr. Gleig drew our attention to the significance of white awareness work for white practitioners. She added that, within this broader field of racial justice in American Buddhism, Buddhists of Color have increasingly called on white practitioners to confront their white conditioning. This is articulated both as a practice of inclusive community and a practice of liberation. For example, La Sarmiento, the founder of the People of Color (POC) Affinity Group at Insight Meditation of Washington said that: “Talking to white folks is pretty exhausting. They need to do their own work.”

In addition, a number of pieces by white American Buddhists that interweave data on structural racism with Buddhist teachings have appeared in primary literature such as community documents, the mainstream Buddhist press, and Buddhist blogs. These narratives name whiteness as a form of conditioning that is a barrier to Buddhist practice, community, and awakening. The last few years have seen the emergence of white awareness Buddhist groups in and across American Insight and Zen communities. One of the most noticeable ones is the New York Insight Meditation Center, founded in 1997.

Lecture Part 2

In the second part of the lecture, Dr. Joy Brennan showed how the Yogācāra school of Buddhist philosophy provides helpful tools for practitioners in recognizing and being liberated from whiteness. According to Dr. Brennan, early Yogācāra thought offers an account of the nature of the mind, the mind’s relationship to the world of experience, and the mind’s role in perpetuating delusion that can diagnose key delusive features of whiteness.

In modern whiteness studies, whiteness is often understood to have three major features: individualistic, ahistorical, and transparent to itself. However, as Dr. Brennan pointed out, when situating this diagnosis within a Yogācāra Buddhist framework, whiteness is a historically conditioned and socially embedded identity structure that has the power to shape our worlds of experience. According to Dr. Brennan, this identity structure can and should be made an object of inquiry, understanding, and relinquishment.

In addition, Dr. Brennan suggested that Yogācāra offers a Buddhist path and practice-based set of responses to the delusion intrinsic to, and suffering wrought by, whiteness as a collective identity structure. There are three Yogācāra teachings that can be applied to the problems of whiteness. First, it is possible and necessary to gain insight into the historicity and intersubjectivity of the mind, nondualism between subjective awareness and its objects, and the collective aspect of karma. Second, Yogācāra names the state of awareness that occurs beyond the delusive state that fails to recognize the nature of the mind as historically conditioned, intersubjective, and nondual. Third, Yogācāra recognizes that the practitioners’ aspirations to themselves are reality-forming. We must constantly cultivate insight, relinquish our delusions, and aspire toward a new world not constructed based on those delusions. Therefore, Dr. Brennan believed that the Yogācāra texts support the idea that right understanding of their concepts entails actualizing them, and in turn, actualizing them entails seeing how our own constructed psycho-social identities work in relation to our shared worlds of experience.

By way of conclusion, Dr. Brennan reflected on the responsibility of Buddhist scholars in Buddhist racial justice work. Dr. Brennan pointed out that, as scholars such as Joseph Cheah and Natalie Quli have shown, orientalist constructions of what does and does not count as real Buddhism have resulted in the marginalization and exclusion of Asian American Buddhists. When alt-right white Buddhists claim that Buddhist antiracism work is illegitimate as there is no textual precedence for it, they are also reflecting and reproducing that history. Indeed, alt-right Buddhists explicitly draw on Buddhist Studies scholarship to support their white supremacist and deeply misogynist interpretations of the tradition. Therefore, Dr. Brennan urged that Buddhist scholars should take Buddhist antiracist work more seriously. She remarked: “Our choice is not whether or not to have impact, but rather what impact we will have. Will our scholarship merely reproduce and re-center preexisting social and religious power dynamics and demographics, or will it give voice to those at the margins?”

Response from Discussant

Continuing the discussion from the question Dr. Brennan raised above, in her response, Dr. Zu thought that post-orientalist study urged scholars to take seriously Asian Buddhist thinkers as equal co-producers of knowledge, instead of passive informants, and take seriously their insights as knowledge, instead of anthropological, philological, or historical data. According to Dr. Zu, these thinkers emphasized the importance of making knowledge serve humanistic values and they also vehemently debated on what should be the core values. In addition, they also asked themselves, their contemporaries, and the few Westerners who cared to converse with them the same question raised today: “what is scholarship for?”

Returning to the theme of the lecture, Dr. Zu stressed that: “Whiteness is NOT about which identity box we check. Rather, it is a psycho-social structure in which we are all conditioned by and implicated in. We all need to unlearn this harmful conditioning.”

Q&A:

This thought-provoking lecture invited many excellent questions from the audience, for example:

(1) “Is this phenomenon of ‘White Identity’ unique, since ‘culture is hidden from its owners’?”

(2) “Dr. Brennan has clearly made the case for how and why Yogācāra philosophy can contribute to this discussion. Do you think that Yogācāra philosophy is uniquely suited to engaging in these conversations, or are there other schools of Buddhist philosophy that can also engage in productive conversation with issues of whiteness?”

(3) “Has Prof. Gleig found any attempt by anti-racial awareness Buddhists to link their own stances to ancient, ‘traditional’ (so to speak) Buddhist texts, besides adopting ‘antimodernist,’ conservative, and alt-right themes? In other words, did such communities put any effort in presenting an essentialized Buddhism which rejects critical race theory on (supposed) ‘inherently Buddhist doctrinal basis’?”

Take-home Messages:

To conclude the event, Dr. Orsborn invited the speakers and discussant to say a few last words, a kind of “take-home message” to the audience. Dr. Gleig quickly replied with a smile: “Racial justice work is Buddhist!” Dr. Brennan emphasized that “collective identity structures are also identity structures as the Buddha-dharma analyses them. That was true at the time old texts were written and it’s true now, and we have to take it seriously.” For Dr. Zu, “We all need to do both individual and collective work.”

Dr. Orsborn wrapped up the lecture by offering his final thoughts:

“This is obviously a critical topic not just for Buddhist studies or even for humanities at large, but this is something where we see that Buddhism can be applied in this era of racial tensions and issues that we seem to be seeing increasingly occurring in this globalized world and in society that we live. It’s some really important material here and it’s really powerful food for thought.”

Bibliography

Brennan, Joy. Mind Only on the Path: Centering Liberation in Early Yogacara Thought. Forthcoming.

Gleig, Ann. American Dharma: Buddhism Beyond Modernity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019.

Gleig, Ann, and Amy Langenberg. Abuse, Sex and the Sangha. New Haven: Yale University Press, forthcoming.

Gleig, Ann, and Scott Mitchell, eds. The Oxford Handbook of American Buddhism. New York: Oxford University Press, forthcoming.

Zu, Jessica Xiaomin. Liberation Buddhology: Lü Cheng (1896–1989) and the Birth of a Yogācāra Social Theory. Forthcoming.

Discussants

Lin Anwu Professor, Institute of Religion and Humanity, Tzu Chi University

Imre Hamar Professor, Chinese Studies, Eötvös Loránd University

Lecture Report: All is One: Buddhism’s Enrichment and Advancement of Chinese Philosophy from the Past to Present

Yin Cheng Distinguished Lecture Series
Lecture by Professor Wei Daoru (Peking University)
January 4, 2022

Report by Michael Cavayero 柯偉業[1] (Peking University 北京大學)
June 14^th, 2022
Screenshots by the Yin-Cheng Distinguished Lecture Series Organizers

The fourth lecture of the Yin-Cheng Distinguished Lecture Series on Buddhism, “All is One: Buddhism’s Enrichment and Advancement of Chinese Philosophy from the Past to Present,” supported by the Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation 慈濟功德會 and hosted virtually by Peking University 北京大學, commenced on January 4^th, 2022 (7:30 PM Beijing Time (CST)). The lecture, given by Professor Wei Daoru 魏道儒 from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences 中國社會科學院, focused on the relationship between the concepts of “one” (yi 一) and “many” (duo 多) in Buddhism and particularly on the evolution of these terms in the Avataṃsaka sūtra (Ch. Huayan jing 華嚴經) along with their influence on Chinese philosophy in both premodern and modern times. Prof. Wei, whose research focuses primarily on Huayan Buddhism, Chinese religions, and Chinese culture, is the author of numerous books,[2] along with multiple articles written in Chinese, Japanese, and English.

Professor Lin Anwu 林安梧 of Taiwan Tzu Chi University 台灣慈濟大學 and Professor Imre Hamar of Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest, Hungary, both served as the lecture’s co-discussants.

The lecture attracted over a thousand participants worldwide via Zoom and the Lecture Series’ live stream YouTube channel.

The event began with a welcome address from organizers, including Peking University’s Prof. Wang and Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation representative Dr. Her. It then proceeded to the main lecture given by Prof. Wei, followed by comments given by the two co-discussants. Following this, the organizers opened the floor to audience members online for questions and discussion.

Prof. Wei’s lecture focused on the following aspects or questions: 1. The relationship and unique characteristics of “one” and “many” in the Avataṃsaka sūtra (i.e., Ch. Huayan jing); 2. The unique characteristics and relationship of “one” and “many” in the larger Huayan tradition; 3. The influences of Huayan hermeneutical interpretations of “one” and “many” on Song 宋 dynasty (960–1279) Confucian philosophy; 4. The connection between the concepts of “one” and “many” and their unique characteristics in Chinese philosophy; 5. The significance of Huayan discussions of “one” and “many” in modern and contemporary times.

Prof. Wei’s lecture emphasized the importance of the Huayan tradition in developing the concepts of “one” and “many” in Chinese Buddhism and allowing these concepts to become a recognized field in Sinitic philosophy. Prof. Wei expounded on the semantic meanings and more profound significance of these terms, explaining their functions in holistic thinking and, particularly, in recognizing the integral nature of all phenomena as one and of the same larger universal entity.

Prof. Wei also examined how specialised Huayan terminology conveys this holistic thinking and the ideal worldview (which Buddhism describes as ultimate reality). The terms Prof. Wei specifically highlighted include concepts such as “one is all,” “no error is not removed,” and “no single thing is not the same [as everything else]” (yijiyiqie, wuguobuli, wufabutong一即一切, 無過不離, 無法不同). Prof. Wei also highlighted the new interpretation of the “Dharma-realm of interdependent origination” (fajie yuanqi 法界緣起) concept cited in the Huayan shixuan men 華嚴十玄門 [Ten Mysterious Gates of the Huayan].

Prof. Wei contrasted Huayan Buddhism’s equal emphasis on both concepts of “one” and “many” with traditional Chinese philosophy’s more apparent emphasis on “one” and neglect of “many.” Prof. Wei likewise underscored Huayan’s emphasis on the integral nature of the entirety and its diverse parts as a response to traditional Chinese thinking. Finally, Prof. Wei extrapolated on applying Huayan’s unique worldview to modern social and political thinking.

Following Prof. Wei’s presentation, Professor Lin of Tzu Chi University commented on the richness of the discussion. He noted that the Sinification of Buddhism becomes reflected in Huayan terminology and the critical nature of analysing key terms in Huyan works. Furthermore, Prof. Lin cited the evident connections between Huayan concepts of “one is all” and modern iterations of “Humanistic” or “Engaged Buddhism” (Renjian Fojiao人間佛教). Prof. Lin also made several suggestions concerning Prof. Wei’s interpretations of the concept of the “four types of Dharma-realm of interdependent origination” sifajie yuanqi 四法界緣起.

Pro. Hamar (Eötvös Loránd University) noted a salient relationship between the concepts of “one” and “many” in Prof. Weis discussion and those found in the greater context of Mahāyānan Buddhist cosmology, which likewise emphasizes the existence of both “one,” “original” (or “historical”) Buddha and a “universe of (multiple) Buddhas.” Prof. Hamar pointed out the significant relationship between these dichotomies and asked for Prof. Wei’s further explanation. Following this, Prof. Hamar also pointed out the different semantic interpretations of the logograph ji 即 in Western translations, particularly citing English translations, which often translate this word as “determines” or “defines,” as in, “one [determines or defines] all.” Following Prof. Hamar’s comments, Prof. Wei first noted the distinctions in emphasis concerning “multiple” Buddhas and bodhisattvas (which have a more literal numerical meaning) and the concepts of “one” and “many” in Huayan philosophy. A significant difference is the concepts of “multiple bodhisattvas” or “one historical Buddha” that define “the material world” or a world of “conditions” youwei fa 有爲法. This notion is distinct from an “unconditioned” wuwei 無爲 state, like that of the so-called dharmakāya (fashen 法身) that Huayan emphasizes. In the Huayan worldview and epistemology, distinct “conditions” become eradicated. Finally, regarding the different Western language interpretations of the character ji 即 brought into question, Prof. Wei maintained that the best interpretation is still “is,” as in “one is all.” This translation most accurately coveys Huayan’s definitive sentiment.

Following the dialogue, members of the online audience raised several questions regarding Huayan’s “one” and “many” conceptual framework compared to Confucian idealism. In response, Prof. Wei reiterated the different respective goals of Buddhism and native Chinese philosophy, particularly Confucianism. In summary, Buddhism emphasizes an ideal holistic worldview, while Confucian thought balances social concepts of hierarchy, resulting in their distinct theoretical arguments.

Finally, Prof. Wang made several concluding remarks about the overall discussion and supplemented the dialogue, pointing out how concepts of “one” and “many” also reflect the unique merging of Indian and Chinese ideas, which culminated in the medieval period epitomised in Huayan philosophy. Lastly, Prof. Wang noted the pertinence of recognising the “integral nature of all things,” particularly in today’s world, which still faces much conflict and division.

Michael Cavayero 柯偉業, Assistant Professor in the School of Arts at Peking University and a Research Fellow of Peking University’s Research Center for Texts and Art served as the lecture’s translator.

Bibliography

Wei Daoru 魏道儒. Huayanxue yu Chanxue 華嚴學與禪學 [Huayan Studies

and Chan Studies]. Beijing: Religious Culture Publishing

House宗教文化出版社, 2011.

———. Songdai Chanzong wenhua 宋代禪宗文化 [Chan Culture in

the Song Dynasty]. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Ancient Books

Publishing House 中州古籍出版社, 1993.

———. Zhongguo Huayan zong tongshi 中國華嚴宗通史 [A

General History of the Huayan School in China]. Nanjing:

Jiangsu Ancient Books Publishing House江蘇古籍出版社, 2001.

[1] Michael Cavayero (b. 1987–) is an Assistant Professor in the School of Arts at Peking University 北京大學藝術學院. He is also cross-appointed as a Research Fellow at Peking University’s Research Center for Buddhist Texts and Art 北京大學佛教典籍與藝術研究中心. His research focuses on medieval Buddhist translation texts and language as well as their relationship to art historical terminology, including the early theoretical history of Chinese painting.

[2] Wei, Zhongguo Huayan zong tongshi; Huayanxue yu Chanxue; Songdai Chanzong wenhua; among others

[3] All screenshots are by the Yin-Cheng Distinguished Lecture Series Organizers and republished with permission courtesy of Peking University and the Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation.

Discussants	Chin-Lon Lin CEO, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation	Ming-Nan Lin Vice Superintendent, Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital
	André Laliberté Professor, Department of Political Studies, University of Ottawa

Lecture Report: Fostering Education beyond the Classroom Examples from Republican Buddhism and their Legacy Today

Yin-Cheng Distinguished Lecture Series by Dr. Stefania Travagnin (SOAS),
December 8, 2021

Report by Xian’ao Shi (University of British Columbia)
January 14, 2022

On December 8, 2021, the organisers of the Yin-Cheng Distinguished Lecture Series invited Dr. Stefania Travagnin as their third speaker of the series. Following the virtual lecture by Dr. Rey-Sheng Her 何日生, this lecture was also held online. The event began with opening remarks by Professor Jinhua Chen from the Department of Asian Studies at the University of British Columbia. He introduced the lecture series by acknowledging the Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation 佛教慈濟慈善事業基金會, which supported this lecture series, and other colleagues from partner institutions. Dr. Her, Deputy CEO of the Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation and Associate Professor of Tzu Chi University 慈濟大學, followed with further remarks to participants and organisers of the lecture series. Prof. Chen then introduced Dr. Travagnin’s research and career trajectory.

Dr. Travagnin currently teaches at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. Before joining SOAS, she was the founding director of the Centre for the Study of Religion and Culture in Asia at the University of Groningen (2013–2020). She obtained a B.A. and M.A. in Chinese Studies from Ca’ Foscari University (2000), and a Ph.D. in the Study of Religions from SOAS (2010). She has done extensive fieldwork research among Buddhist communities in mainland China and Taiwan, and was a visiting scholar in several institutions such as Academia Sinica 中央研究院, the Center for Chinese Studies 漢學研究中心at the National Central Library 國家圖書館in Taipei, the Institute of Religious Studies 宗教文化研究所at Sichuan University 四川大學, and the Graduate Institute of Religious Studies 宗教研究所at the National Cheng-chi University 國立政治大學. Her research and publications analyse several aspects of Buddhism in modern mainland China and Taiwan, including the life and writings of the monk Yinshun 印順 (1906–2005), the meanings of Renjian Fojiao 人間佛教 (Humanistic Buddhism), the conceptual and institutional history of saṅgha education, the history and practice of Buddhist nuns in Republican China and Taiwan, the reception history of traditional texts and values in the modern era, and the Buddhist adoption of media and artificial intelligence. Her publications include an edited volume on religion and media in China,[1] and a three-volume series on concepts and methods for the study of Chinese religions.[2] She is now co-directing the research project “Mapping Religious Diversity in Modern Sichuan,” which is funded by the CCKF and offers the first comprehensive study of the modern religious history of Sichuan.

Dr. Travagnin’s lecture, “Fostering Education beyond the Classroom: Examples from Republican Buddhism and their Legacy Today,” focused on Chinese Buddhist education for society at large, outside the temples. It explored several cases from the first half of the twentieth century when new venues and possibilities opened for Buddhist education. She remarked that Buddhist education in China is a channel through which to see the contribution of Buddhism to contemporary and future global society. She began by asking two broad questions: how education practices in China have tried to be instrumental for the foundation of ethical sustainability and what this lesson from China might teach contemporary and future global society. In the introduction, she contextualised the formation of Buddhist education in China within the history of Chinese education. She pointed out that the Chinese perceived education, which was Confucian-framed, as moral education. She then argued that educational activities within Buddhist communities developed in parallel to Confucian education, and also influenced the development of Chinese public education. She indicated that Buddhism (and Daoism) in China have shaped non-religious and Confucian-based education in many ways, including (1) Daoist/Buddhist master-disciple relations, which became a model for the teacher-pupil connection in Confucian understandings of education; (2) the notion of textual collections as canonised knowledge, which suggests the concept of orthodox knowledge; (3) the presence of spaces and structures of learning within Buddhist temples that inspired the Confucian academies (shuyuan 書院); (4) Buddhist temples that offered space for non-Buddhists to retreat and study secular subjects; and (5) temples becoming a place for women’s education, which had a great impact on women’s literacy and learning. She also pointed out how Confucian education entered the Buddhist temple and affected the ways that monks and nuns also learned. For instance, Confucian texts were included in the curriculum of temples in the pre-modern period. And from the late Qing 清 (1644–1911), Buddhist monastics brought secular education into the temple, and or proposed secular or moral education outside the temple premises.

Dr. Travagnin then discussed Buddhist contributions to Chinese education in the Republican era中華民國 (1912–1949), addressing both theory and practice. She first explained Buddhist arguments and debates about education by focusing on the theories of two representative figures, the monk Cihang 慈航 (1893–1954) and the lay intellectual Wang Enyang 王恩洋 (1897–1964). Cihang categorised Buddhism as a form of national education. He maintained that Buddhism offers guidance to society and compensates for the deficiencies of the other two kinds of education, those within the household and in public schools. In this way, Buddhism was seen to have a social function and the ability to rescue the nation (jiuguo 救國). As a reaction to a Chinese over-appreciation of Western culture, Wang Enyang stressed a necessary re-evaluation of Confucian and Buddhist values as part of an educational ideal to create a just society and better world in China and beyond. He promoted a “third new form” of culture and education (wenjiao 文教) based on the successful combination of Confucian and Buddhist principles, which he considered would perfect human virtues, develop civilization, and go beyond the binary of East and West.

By reviewing Cihang’s and Wang Enyang’s arguments, Dr. Travagnin concluded that they embraced foreign influences but also revived and reinforced the traditional assets of Chinese Confucian education and Mahāyāna Buddhism. Furthermore, these theories did not only show continuity with the pre-modern era, but also showed a renewed appreciation for contributions of Buddhism and Confucianism to ethical sustainability in the modern context.

Dr. Travagnin continued with a discussion of Buddhist education in practice during the Republican period and analysed three forms of teaching beyond the classroom, each of which embodied the values mentioned above. The first form consisted of leading by example. She argued that the leadership of model Buddhists in the community had been highly influential and was a practical way to influence and enhance the ethical sustainability of a social body. She pointed out that monastics and laity have led by example and inspired surrounding communities throughout the history of Chinese Buddhism. Master Cheng-yen 證嚴 and the Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation are just one case of this form of education. She then looked at other cases from the Republican era, like the nun Fangchong 方崇 (1841–192?) from Zhuyin Nunnery (Zhuyin si竹隱寺) in then Pi County (Pi xian 郫縣), Chengdu during the Republican era. Under the leadership of Fangchong, nuns in Zhuyin Nunnery carried out charitable activities such as distributing rice and other goods to the poor, and providing medicine and care for the ill. They also preached about Chan in the annual temple fair to explain Buddhist texts. In this way, Zhuyin Nunnery became a centre of inspiration and moral guidance for the families living in the surrounding villages. During her fieldwork in 2019, Dr. Travagnin found that the nunnery’s local impact continues to inspire today. She also showed a list of monastics who led by example in Republican Sichuan, including nuns from Suining 遂寧 and Neijiang 內江.

The second form of education beyond the classroom involved Dharma lectures to the army. Dr. Travagnin noted that starting from the late 1920s, and especially from the mid- to the late 1930s, military academies moved from Nanjing to the areas of Sichuan and Chongqing. Local Buddhist monasteries and Daoist temples hosted these military schools and became residential posts for troops. Generals often requested that monks and Buddhist laity lecture the army and the rest of the local community on various subjects such as karma, Pure Land teachings, and Yogācāra philosophy. Troops outside of Sichuan were also instructed by eminent monks and even lay teachers, such as Ouyang Jingwu 歐陽竟無 (1871–1943). Eventually, the military showed a deeper interest in Buddhism due to the close presence of the saṅgha. Young soldiers even decided to convert to Buddhism and some of them became monks. Some military figures sponsored Buddhist education for the saṅgha.

The third form of education beyond the classroom brought Dharma teachings and practice into prisons. Dr. Travagnin discussed how, in the mid-fifth century, offenders were brought into Buddhist temples where they were provided with education as a means of reform. Later, during the Tang Dynasty 唐朝 (618–907), vihāra were built under the auspices of the office of supervisory affairs. In these vihāra, inmates were encouraged to repent for their mistakes, and were guided by Buddhists and Buddhist teachings to change their lives (Fojiao ganhua 佛教感化). At the end of the Qing Dynasty, the Buddhist saṅgha, along with members of other religious traditions, started engaging with prisons following the “Prison Code of Qing Dynasty” Daqing jianyulü caoan大清監獄律草案 (1910). The practice of preaching in prisons was implemented especially during the Republican period, when Chinese prisons continued their reforms based especially on Japanese and Western models. Dr. Travagnin pointed out that the Buddhist educational practices carried out in prisons included lectures (jiangyan 講演), classes on Buddhism (shouke 授課), exegesis of texts (jiang jing 講經), nianfo 念佛, Buddhist chanting (fanbei 梵唄), and reading of Buddhist books. Different provinces adopted their own model within this general framework of Buddhist engagement in prisons. She explored the case of Sichuan province, where several hundreds of prison inmates became Buddhists following the efforts of monks such as Changyuan 昌圓 (1879–1945). At the end of this section, she indicated that the laity also played an important role in propagating the Dharma in prisons by organising local and national societies.

Newspaper clippings of Buddhist lectures in prison from the Quanguo baokan suoyin (全國報刊索引 National Press Index) database. Slide courtesy of Stefania Travagnin. Republished with permission.In the concluding section, Dr. Travagnin argued that these forms of Buddhist education, their interventions in society, and their contributions to social ethics are still present in the Chinese world today. Much of the force behind this, she explained, is the charisma of leading Buddhists who, like previous “eminent” saṅgha members, lead by example. Much of this activity falls under the category of Humanistic Buddhism. The example of Master Cheng-yen and the Tzu Chi organization 慈濟基金會, she argued, illustrates how the Buddhist heritage of engagement in social welfare continues today. She posited that what is happening today also echoes the traditional Confucian concept of education in China. Whether it is the Great Unity (datong 大同) or Pure Land on Earth (Renjian jingtu 人間淨土), it is a vision of society founded on ethical responsibility. The discourse of Humanistic Buddhism integrates Buddhist lessons with Confucian ideas. This has extended beyond China, reaching the Western world, and has become even more relevant for present and future society, including the implications of global citizenship and all the challenges this brings. She argued that Wang Enyang’s views on Confucian and Buddhist contributions to social ethics, as well as Cihang’s positioning of Buddhism within the educational sector, are all relevant to the contemporary global world. Finally, Dr. Travagnin ended the lecture with a quote from Wang Enyang: “Chinese education, intended as synergy of Confucianism and Buddhism, can contribute an important lesson to the rest of the world.”

During the discussion period that followed, Dr. Ming-Nan Lin 林名男, Vice Superintendent at Dalin Tzu Chi Hospital of the Tzu Chi Medical Foundation 佛教慈濟醫療財團法人大林慈濟醫院in Taiwan, delivered comments on behalf of Dr. Chin-Lon Lin 林俊龍, CEO of the Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation 佛教慈濟醫療財團法人and CEO of the Tzu Chi International Medical Association 國際慈濟人醫會. He shared the mission of the Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation. After briefly introducing the Four Missions and Eight Undertakings of the Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation, he focused on Tzu Chi’s mission of medicine. Currently, there are seven hospitals in Taiwan operated by the Tzu Chi Medical Foundation and the Tzu Chi International Medical Association, which are made up of more than 10,000 medical professionals, and conduct medical outreach services in fifty seven countries and regions. With vivid examples, Dr. Lin showed how Tzu Chi commissioners leave their footprint under the call of Dharma Master Cheng-yen. He said that Dharma Master Cheng-yen has always kept in mind what her Master, Dharma Master Yinshun told her: “To work for Buddhism and all living beings.” This became her lifelong mission and also the mission of Tzu Chi. Master Cheng-yen’s lay and monastic disciples also kept these words in their heart as they promoted the Four Missions and Eight Footsteps: “To emulate the Buddha’s heart and take Master’s mission as our own mission.” He believes this is an example of “leading by example” that echoes Dr. Travagnin’s lecture.

Following Dr. Lin’s comments, Professor André Laliberté, professor at the School of Political Studies and Co-Director of the Research Chair in Taiwan Studies at the University of Ottawa, shared his remarks. Having worked on the issue of Buddhist philanthropy for years, Prof. Laliberté pointed out that colleagues assembled by Wang Jia 王佳provided a rich study of philanthropy dating back to the early centuries of Chinese Buddhist, but there are very few fine-grained studies in English that document such activities before 1949. He explained that the lives of Buddhist philanthropists in centres of political power, such as Beijing and Nanjing, or trading hubs such as Shanghai and Guangzhou, have been studied more. However, there exist far fewer studies about Sichuan. The work of Dr. Travagnin and her team are starting to close that gap. He stressed the importance of knowing more about the Republican period because it brings back key moments in the long tradition of Buddhist philanthropy. These took on new forms, becoming more visible and leading to ramifications outside of China after 1949, and contributed to the renewal of Buddhist philanthropy. Knowing more about what Buddhist philanthropy accomplished during the Republican period, as well as seeing the achievements of Buddhist lay volunteers and monastics in difficult circumstances, can provide inspiration for today. He noted that Dr. Travagnin made clear that the Buddhist saṅgha and laypeople understood the importance of Buddhist education for providing ethical guidance and leading by example. Her lecture also demonstrated that by teaching Dharma to members of the military and in prisons, Buddhists contributed to protecting their nation during the Republican era in a way that was compatible with their idea of compassion in a time of uncertainty. Prof. Laliberté then briefly delineated the history of Buddhist philanthropy in mainland China and Taiwan after 1949, and noted the achievements of Buddhist monastics and laypeople like Tzu Chi, who strove to turn the idea of Humanistic Buddhism into a lived reality. He stated that Buddhist education in Republican China was an important foundation for contemporary Buddhist education and philanthropy. Lastly, he expressed his eagerness to read Dr. Travagnin’s research on Buddhism in the Sichuan area during the Republican period, as well as to learn more about the activities of lay Buddhists and charity associations beyond the educational sphere.

Dr. Travagnin then responded to Dr. Lin’s and Prof. Laliberté’s comments. She expressed her agreement with Dr. Lin that Buddhist teachings can have a therapeutic effect and help the medical professions, and added that the kind of education shown in Dr. Lin’s talk about Tzu Chi’s missions reflects the values of Tzu Chi members themselves. This is an example of how education in a larger sense can have value today. She also agreed with Prof. Laliberté that education can be a form of charity, not merely the delivery of Buddhist values. During the Republican period, temples organised activities, such as the distribution of medicine and food to the poor, both as individual temples and as part of the programs of the Chinese Buddhist Association Zhongguo Fojiao Hui 中國佛教會 in which lay people also participated. She recommended the book authored by Dr. Wu Hua 吳華 from Sichuan University,[3] which has a chapter on the Chengdu Buddhist Charity. She also mentioned Yan Yiqiao 延易橋, a Ph.D. student at the École Pratique des Hautes Études (Paris), whose research focuses on charity in wartime Chengdu and Chongqing.

Finally, in the free discussion period, Prof. Chen asked whether the Buddhist practice of preaching in prisons during the Republican period was inspired by Christian examples. Dr. Travagnin considered that it was more closely related to the prison reforms taking place in China at the end of Qing Dynasty and during the Republican period which emulated reforms in Japan and Western countries. Christians were preaching in prisons in the Republican period, but this was not without rivalry between Christianity and Buddhism. She said that the cases she researched dated back to the pre-modern period, from the Northern Dynasties 北朝 (386–581) and Southern Dynasties 南朝 (420–589) to the Tang Dynasty, when convicts were sent to temples, but she had not yet investigated the late Imperial period. Dr. Her then asked what else we could do in schools and beyond schools with respect to Buddhist education in Taiwan. Dr. Travagnin suggested that it should be important to discuss moral values in school. She cited a saying from Lunyu 論語 [The Analects] that in the past men learned for their own improvement, but now men learn to impress others 古之學者爲己, 今之學者爲人.[4] It implies that Confucius saw this happening and expected students to return to the correct way of learning. She believed this passage from the Analects could also be applied to education today. Dr. Travagnin concluded that in today’s circumstances, especially in light of the pandemic, it is important to regard everyone as part of a single humanity and world, and to think about the moral values that can support a social sustainability.

Bibliography

Katz, Paul R., and Stefania Travagnin. Concepts and Methods for the Study of Chinese

Religions III: Key Concepts in Practice. Boston: De Gruyter, 2019. 

Laliberté, André, and Stefania Travagnin. Concepts and Methods for the Study of

Chinese Religions I: State of the Field and Disciplinary Approaches. Boston: De

Gruyter, 2019.

Muller, A. Charles, trans. “The Analects of Confucius 論語.” Resources for the Study of

East Asian Language and Thought. Accessed April 28, 2023.

http://www.acmuller.net/con-dao/analects.html

Scott, Gregory Adam, and Stefania Travagnin. Concepts and Methods for the Study of

Chinese Religions II: Intellectual History of Key Concepts. Berlin, Boston: De

Gruyter, 2020.

Travagnin, Stefania. Religion and Media in China: Insights and Case Studies from the

Mainland, Taiwan and Hong Kong. New York: Routledge, 2018.

Wu Hua 吳華. Minguo Chengdu Fojiao yanjiu (1912–1949) 民國成都佛教研究

(1912–1949) [A Study on Buddhism of the Republican China (1912–1949)].

Beijing: Zongjiao wenhua chubanshe 宗教文化出版社, 2017.

[1] Travagnin, Religion and Media in China.

[2] Laliberté and Travagnin, Concepts and Methods for the Study of Chinese Religions I; Scott and Travagnin, Concepts and Methods for the Study of Chinese Religions II; Katz and Travagnin, Concepts and Methods for the Study of Chinese Religions III.

[3] Wu, Minguo Chengdu Fojiao yanjiu (1912–1949).

[4] Confucius, Lunyu, 14:24. The English translation is based on A. Charles Muller’s translation of Lunyu and I make some amendments to it. See Muller, “The Analects of Confucius 論語.”

Event date: 21:00 (UTC+8) Tuesday, October 12, 2021
Organizer: Harvard University 

Discussants

Richard Madsen Professor Emeritus of Sociology, UC San Diego

Elise Anne DeVido Chair, Department of English Language and Literature, Tzu Chi University

Lecture Report: Exploring the Future of Buddhism through a Historical Perspective: With a Reference to the Tzu Chi School of Buddhism

Yin Cheng Distinguished Lecture Series
Lecture by Dr. Rey-Sheng Her (Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation)
October 12, 2021

Report by Harvard CAMLab
January 20, 2022

Supported by Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation 佛教慈濟基金會, the second lecture of the Yin-Cheng Distinguished Lecture Series on Buddhism was hosted virtually by Harvard University’s Chinese Art Media Lab (CAMLab) on October 12, 2021. The guest speaker was Dr. Rey-Sheng Her 何日生 from Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation whose lecture focused on the future of Buddhism through a historical perspective. The lecture attracted more than a thousand participants worldwide, joining in via Zoom or watching the YouTube and Facebook live stream.

The event started with a welcoming remark by the host, Professor Eugene Yuejin Wang from Harvard University. It then proceeded to the main talk given by Dr. Her, followed by a commentary session led by the host and two discussants, Professor Richard Madsen from the University of California San Diego, and Professor Elise Anne DeVido from Tzu Chi University 慈濟大學.

Prof. Wang, Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Professor of Asian Art and Founder of CAMLab at Harvard University, expressed his gratitude to the Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation, the University of British Columbia (UBC), and CAMLab for their generous support and coordinative effort, and then introduced the speaker, Dr. Her.

Dr. Her is the Deputy CEO of Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation and also the Associate Professor at Tzu Chi University. He was the Spokesman and Director of the Department of Literature and History of the Tzu Chi Foundation慈濟基金會. Dr. Her received his Ph.D. in Philosophy from Peking University, and M.A. on Communication Management, the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California. As a veteran media professional, he was a senior news anchor and TV program producer. The documentary he produced Great Love as Running Water─the History of Bone Marrow Transplantation, was selected as Best Documentary in Pacific Asia & Africa Regions of the Emmy Award International in 2004. Dr. Her has delivered speeches on Buddhism and Non-profit Organization (NGO) Management at Harvard University, the University of Oxford, Peking University 北京大學, Renmin University of China 中國人民大學, Beijing Normal University 北京師範大學, and the University of Hong Kong 香港大學, and many international symposiums.

Dr. Her’s lecture, “Exploring the Future of Buddhism through a Historical Perspective: With a Reference to the Tzu Chi School of Buddhism,” analyses the reasons underlying the disappearance of Indian Buddhism during and before thirteenth century, and the decline of Chinese Buddhism after Ming Dynasty明朝 (1368–1644). The modernization of Buddhism must aim to better the society and apply its philosophy, practices to contribute to the well-being of secular world. Buddhism could generate larger global impacts through reformulating Buddhist philosophy, reforming organizations, and promoting spiritual practices. The future of Buddhism relies on its continuous adaptation to and influences on our modern society.

Firstly, he provided an overview of the decline of Indian Buddhism during and before the thirteenth century. According to Dr. Her, the demise of Indian Buddhism in the thirteenth century must be attributed to the fact that in its middle and late stages, Indian Buddhism overemphasized abstract philosophy of mind and monastic self-cultivation, and lacked a universal “knowledge system” and “value system.” The emphasis on the management of monks and the lack of attention to the life of lay followers, as Max Weber said, was the key to the demise of Buddhism in India. Weber said that the demise of Buddhism was due to two factors. First, the lack of an organized community of lay followers. The second is the lack of a secular, rigorous ethic of life. In his final analysis, Dr. Her stated that Indian Buddhism had never established an ethic system of secular life, a socialized system of knowledge, and an organizational system of lay followers. It lacked a connection to secular life and failed to establish a real-world knowledge and value system. This is the main reason why Buddhism declined in India.

Then he moved on to discuss about the demise of Chinese Buddhism after the Ming and Qing 清 (1644–1911) Dynasties after one thousand and nine hundred years of its existence. Buddhism’s lack of exposition and construction of knowledge of the world led to its eventual reduction to a supplementary system rather than a mainstream one. The Chinese intellectuals ruled by Confucianism, and the common people in general turned to Taoist magic. In India, the upper class intellectuals revered Brahmin discernment, and the common people tended to Brahmin mysteries, incantations, and rituals. The decline of Chinese Buddhism repeated the fate of Indian Buddhism. The reason for the decline of Buddhism in the Ming and Qing dynasties in ancient China, after one thousand and nine hundred years of its existence, was the over-emphasis on monastic temples, leaving the worldly knowledge system to Confucianism, which pursues the way of officialdom and business. The lack of a worldly value and knowledge system in Buddhism led to its demise.

The last topic Dr. Her addressed was the rise of modern Buddhism and the establishment of Tzu Chi Buddhism. He talked about the influence of Tzu Chi on the historical development of Buddhism. First of all, as Master Yinshun 釋印順 (1906– 2005) said, primitive Buddhism did not attach importance to material improvement. Tzu Chi has developed Four Missions: charity, medicine, education, and culture, all of which are rooted in the life of the human world. Secondly, Tzu Chi establishes an earthly system of bodhisattvas, which, with its large, complete, and rigorous system of volunteers, can be called a Buddhist sect for lay people. The monasticization of lay followers is an important creation of Tzu Chi, and for Master Cheng Yen, it means the ideal of humanizing the bodhisattva. Last but not least, the third influence of Tzu Chi is the establishment of an ethical system for lay people. Traditional Buddhism lacked a system of ethics for lay people, an insight offered by Max Webber. Tzu Chi Buddhism, on the other hand, established the ethics and rituals of monastic life and the Ten Precepts of Tzu Chi, a combination of the five precepts of the Buddhist tradition and other principles and rituals of life adapted to contemporary society. This is the beginning and foundation of the Buddhist teachings to establish the ethics of lay people.

Dr. Her emphasized that the establishment of Tzu Chi Buddhism provides a new path for Buddhist social improvement and salvation on earth. The promotion of Tzu Chi’s Four missions and Eight Footprints allowed people to move from charity good deeds to all deeds of goodness, and connected Buddhist philosophy directly with the professionalism of contemporary society and make a substantial impact. With its Buddhist charity foundation, Tzu Chi has appropriately incorporated the spirit of Confucianism and Western scientific rationality, and is thus able to adapt to society and transform modern society to a certain extent while promoting the socialization of Buddhism.

Finally, Dr. Her ended the lecture by concluding that the practice of Tzu Chi Buddhism must enter the world and does not leave the world. Thus Tzu Chi balances its public and religious aspects. The challenge of Tzu Chi Buddhism is that it must integrate its public characteristic with religious orientation. The former embodies the latter, and the former is made through the latter. Benefiting all sentient beings is public and self-purification is religious, both of which go hand in hand in order to maintain the perpetual development of Tzu Chi. Dr. Her believes that Tzu Chi is still in the process of constructing these three goals, and as a charitable organization, Tzu Chi has invested much effort in charitable work.

Following the talk, Prof. DeVido from Tzu Chi University contributed by sharing her thoughts as neither a Buddhologist or an Indologist. She discussed briefly about the strengths and weaknesses of Weberian analysis, “Protestant Buddhism,” and “Decline and Revival” in Chinese Buddhist history. Ultimately, Prof. DeVido talked about the question of institutional sustainability (organization; membership; doctrine) by comparing Tzu Chi with three other global Buddhist organizations: Thích Nhất Hạnh’s 釋一行 (1926–2022) Plum Village Community (originated from Vietnam and France), Soka Gakkai International 創價學會 (originated from Japan), and Triratna Buddhist Order and Buddhist Community (originated from England and India). She ended her commentary with the summary that Dr. Her’s paper opens up new paths for macro-historical and comparative approaches to elucidate Tzu Chi’s unique contributions to Buddhism and to the world.

After Prof. DeVido’s commentary, Prof. Madsen from the University of California San Diego made his remark by confining to the sociological framing of Dr. Her’s historical narrative, which is strongly influenced by the theories of Max Weber. In Professor Madsen’s comments, he tried to reframe Professor Her’s narrative along the lines suggested by Hans Joas, a German scholar who is now one of the most important sociologists of world religions. Prof. Madsen exemplified that there would be no forms in which the Buddhist vision would be perfectly realized, and different forms would become prominent in different contexts in history, shaped by the particular causes and conditions of the time. Finally, he proceeded to the reference of Tzu Chi and concluded that even though the fusion between a Buddhist vision and modern forms of organization creates tensions and provokes controversy, it is an overall healthy controversy and is to be expected with every religion in every era as it engages with its particular historical contexts.

Event date: 21:00 (UTC+8) Wednesday, September 22, 2021
Organizer：University of Cambridge

Speaker

Professor Eugene Y. Wang Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Professor of Asian Art Founder & Director of CAMLab Harvard University

Discussants

Professor Hui Tang Central Academy of Fine Arts

Professor Francesca Tarocco Ca’ Foscari University of Venice

Lecture Report:
Buddhist Art for the 21st Century: What Might It Look Like?

Yin Cheng Distinguished Lecture Series
Lecture by Professor Eugene Wang (Harvard University)
September 22, 2021

Report by Junfu Wong (University of Cambridge)
November 30, 2021
Screenshots by Carol Lee (Frogbear)

Supported by Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation, the inaugural lecture of the Yin-Cheng Distinguished Lecture Series on Buddhism was hosted virtually by the University of Cambridge on the 22nd of September 2021. The guest speaker was Professor Eugene Wang from Harvard University whose lecture focused on the future of Buddhist art in the twenty-first century. The lecture attracted more than a thousand participants worldwide, joining in via Zoom or watching the YouTube live stream.

The event started with a welcoming address by the organisers from the University of Cambridge. It then proceeded to the main talk given by Prof. Wang, followed by a brief commentary session led by two discussants, Professor Francesca Tarocco (Ca’ Foscari University of Venice) and Professor Tang Hui唐暉 (Central Academy of Fine Arts in China中央美術學院). After that, the floor was opened to questions from the audience.

Professor Barak Kushner, Head of the Department of East Asian Studies and co-chair of the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge, first extended his deep appreciation to the Buddhist Tzu Chi Charity Foundation for their generous support. Dr. Noga Ganany, Assistant Professor at the Department of East Asian Studies and the main organiser of the Yin-Cheng Distinguished Lecture Series at Cambridge, expressed our gratitude to the Foundation and introduced the speaker, Prof. Wang.

Professor Eugene Y. Wang is the Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Professor of Asian Art at Harvard University. He is a Guggenheim Fellow and winner of the 2006 Nichijin Sakamoto Academic Achievement Award from Japan for his book Shaping the Lotus Sutra: Buddhist Visual Culture in Medieval China.[1] His numerous publications range from ancient to modern and contemporary Chinese art and cinema. He is the art-history editor of the Encyclopedia of Buddhism.[2] His current research interests focus on the cognitive art history of luminance and topography of vision. He is also producing and directing a feature-length poetic documentary film, To the Moon, which charts the mental journey of Liu Kuo-sung 劉國松 (1932–), whose pictorial vision took off in the 1960s on cue of the Apollo moon landing. He is the founding director of Harvard CAMLab seeking to turn humanistic learning into sensorial experience. Among CAMLab’s projects is Shadow Cave, a research and an immersive-theatre exhibition that reconstructs and showcases the early Buddhist imaginary staging of optical experience in encountering Buddhahood and nirvana across Asia, ranging from Afghanistan to Pagan.

Prof. Wang’s lecture, “Buddhist Art for the 21st Century: What Might It Look Like,” heralded the kinds of art that can be pointedly labelled as Buddhist Art in the twenty-first century. He first took the audiences through certain Buddhism-tinged art events in the twentieth century to explore what Buddhist Art meant in the past century. To set the scene, he suggested that the vague nature of Buddhist Art in itself invites new explanations and expectations on how it might look in the twenty-first century. There is a general perception in scholarship that Early Buddhism is closer to the sensibility and philosophy of the twenty-first century. He then questioned if the same perception is also valid in the field of Buddhist Art. Before delving into the question, he argued that one thing we can observe when running through a list of the notable experimental artworks with Buddhist overtones in the past century was a pattern of moving away from conventional art marking practices in Buddhist iconic tradition, such as statue-making, to other more expressive, if not symbolic, ways of displaying the presence of the Buddha. In answering this broad enquiry, he took us through multiple major events of the long twentieth century, in which Buddhist ideas sparkled as a source of inspiration to many inventors and artists, both in the East and the West.

The first milestone he mentioned was the appearance of two completely different modes of artwork in the early twentieth century, that can both be understood within the framework of Buddhist art: one was a set of cartoon paintings drawn by Feng Zikai 豐子愷 (1898–1975) in his Protection of Sentient Beings (Hu sheng hua ji 護生畫集) which sought to arouse Buddhist compassion to all sentient beings, and the other was a set of portraits and photographs entitled “Oriental Beauties” 東方美人 in the Pei-Yong Pictorial News北洋畫報, 1928, that shared the same theme of aligning female nudity with Buddhism through portraying nude ladies posing in the manner of the Buddha. Both of which have challenged the concept of Buddhist Art and added new possibilities into Buddhist iconic tradition.

The second milestone was about electricity. One of the crucial events took place in the year 1897 when Tan Sitong 譚嗣同 (1865–1898) and Nikola Tesla (1856–1943) both by coincidence published their ground-breaking work on electricity and drew on Buddhist or Indian thoughts in their works. Drawing on concepts like ākāśa and śūnya, Tesla envisioned the existence of kinetic energy in space and conceived electricity as a wireless medium of communication that could connect disparate entities globally. The same set of concepts also fascinated Tan. He saw electricity as a medium that helped interconnect everything across time and space and fused them into one single organism. Their readings demonstrated a link between electricity and some key notions in Indian Buddhist philosophy.

From Tesla and Tan, Prof. Wang proceeded to mention another interesting event in history that many modern art exhibition centres were renovated from old power stations, such as the Tate Modern in London and the Power Station of Art in Shanghai. In 2012, the latter site served as the main venue for the Ninth Shanghai Biennale with a general theme “Reactivation” which unveiled the year’s focus on art, energy, and resources. Prof. Wang first introduced two drawings produced by Qiu Zhijie 邱志傑, the chief curator of the biennial, which functioned as a map of the exhibition but presented in a style similar to the blueprint of power stations. This design implied a sense of energetic regeneration in resonance with self-organisation or aspiration. Prof. Wang then analysed some of the artworks exhibited in the biennial that can be understood as instances of contemporary art with Buddhist overtones. That included the artwork entitled “Bodhisattva with Thousand Arms” done by the France-based artist Huang Yongping 黄永砯. The artwork incorporated typical iconographical representations of the Bodhisattva with Thousand Arms into a voltage-tower-like base resembling the Bottle Rack (1914) of Marcel Duchamp (1887–1968). Next to the line was Rebekkah, a group of sculptural replicas done by the British artist Simon Fujiwara who took inspiration from a teenager named Rebekkah who participated in the 2011 London Riot. Fujiwara asked Rebekkah to travel to China to participate in a unique social experiment. About a hundred life-size sculptural replicas of Rebekkah were created as an army that marched on allergorically and represented the power of unity and resonance. Likewise, the video photograph Sixty Minute Silence done by Gillian Wearing took on a similar notion of creating a sense of disintegration from uniformity and solemnity. It showed a group of friends and acquaintance who was asked to put on police uniforms and pose for photographs for sixty minutes.

Prof. Wang then compared two photographic projects included in the biennial to discuss how works of art can also communicate across space. One was a set of photographs by Zhuang Hui 莊輝and Dan’er 旦兒 that surveyed the Yumen 玉門 area in China, where the locals were facing the uncertainty of their future due to the decline of the once-rich oil industry there. The other was a set of photographs entitled Voir la mer by Sophie Calle of blind sitters who “gazed” at the ocean for the first time. These two photographic projects spoke of deeply humane feelings, which created a sense of synergy that resonated with Martin Heidegger’s concept of dereliction—“having been thrown into the world, abandoned and delivered up to oneself.”

Prof. Wang concluded that the artworks discussed gave rise to speculation of what Buddhist Art might look like in the future. He pointed out once again that Buddhist Art in the twenty-first century does not necessarily involve statue-making but thrive on other ecological medium or natural elements while harnessing multisensorial media technology geared toward a new horizon.

Following up on the talk, Prof. Tarocco made her remark by once again inviting the audiences to rethink about what Buddhist Art meant, but this time through another form of medium—the photograph. She tried to show how these photographs as new outlets for Buddhist visual culture during the late nineteenth century echoed with the contemporary artworks presented by Prof. Wang in his talk. By introducing the audiences to a different archive of photographs on Buddhist figures taken in late nineteenth century, Prof. Tarocco explained why many Buddhist schools had accepted photographs as a new means for expounding the dharma. Unlike portraits or other traditional visual mediums, Prof. Tarocco mentioned, photographs can break down the dichotomy between representation and reality, and thus make the original and the copy fused as one. She concluded by highlighting the dynamic interrelationship between agents and objects and addressing the implication of aesthetics and ethics presented by the materiality of Buddhist figures for the development of personhood in this new era of explosive urban growth.

Prof. Tang , on the other hand, contributed by sharing his thoughts as both a scholar and a creator of Buddhist art. By elaborating on the background and philosophy behind one of his major mural works created for the Tzu Chi Jinsi Hall 慈濟靜思堂, Prof. Tang explained the challenges he faced while creating this mural work and demonstrated how he used modern unconventional elements to represent Buddhist ideas and teachings.

Buddha, the Great Awakened One in the Cosmos (Yu zhou da jue zhe 宇宙大覺者), Tang Hui 唐暉, mosaic mural, 2000.

The followed Q&A session was marked by a lively discussion covering a broad range of topics such as the rise of contemporary Buddhist art and its engagement with the West; Western artists inspired by Buddhist Cave Arts; the circulation of images through the analogy of electronic circuits; the relationship between Darwinism and Buddhism under the lens of universalism; and the possibility of understanding consciousness in this post-human era through exploring Buddhism and technology side by side.

Bibliography

Buswell, Robert E. Jr., ed. Encyclopedia of Buddhism. New York: Gale, 2004.

Wang, Eugene Y. Shaping the Lotus Sutra: Buddhist Visual Culture in Medieval China.

University of Washington Press, 2005.

[1] Wang, Shaping the Lotus Sutra.

[2] Buswell, Encyclopedia of Buddhism.