Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
In World Religions: Belief, Culture and Controversy, ed. Elisabeth McCaffrey. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2011.
http://religion.abc-clio.com/.
colonialist Christian missionaries castigated the most populous religion of Asia, persuading its
adherents to convert through arguments that at times included physical abuse, deprivation of
economic opportunities, and threats of eternal damnation. In response, members of the colonized
Buddhist elite defended the legitimacy of Buddhism by utilizing the same descriptive terms western
advocates employed to convince colonizing governments to halt or at least alter the strategies of
missionary proselytizing. The problem with this approach, however, was that outside of a small
percentage of the intellectual elite and an even smaller number of monastics, the millions of
Buddhists in Asia were not practicing this scientific Buddhism for the simple reason that
Buddhism was never a science and its philosophy had never been separated from its other religious
aspects.
While the arrogance of colonialists precludes the possibility that they intended to follow a millennia
old Buddhist model of scholarship, they accidentally did just that. Their new Buddhism, so they
claimed, represented the true teachings of the Buddha that had been misunderstood and adulterated.
Unbeknownst to them, hundreds of Buddhist schools had previously taken a similar approach to
introduce their new doctrines and practices.
However, these colonialist-era scholars were largely unaware of Buddhist history, and thus their
particular presentation was not guided by previous precedence, but fueled by their belief that they
(like the Christian missionaries they loathed) understood what inferior races had not. With their
best interests at heart, scholars of the colonial era believed that they could save the Buddhas true
teachings from the heathen Buddhists of Asia.
Numerous contemporary scholars of religion maintain that the current argument that Buddhism is a
non-theistic philosophical science of the mind rather than a religion is a product of this colonialist
legacy, albeit a more complex and sophisticated version of it. Moreover, these same scholars argue
that contemporary figures such as the XIV Dalai Lama frame their religion in secular scientific terms
for the same reasons that colonized Asians adopted western terminology, to preserve their religion
and prevent their people from being converted to foreign ideologies (such as communism and
democratic capitalism).
In conclusion, much of the doctrinal and meditative sophistication revered by those who adamantly
insist Buddhism is a non-theistic/scientific/philosophy of mind was developed by thousands of
Buddhist thinkers over the course of two thousand years. To argue that these doctrinal systems are
based on reasoning, privilege personal experience, and bear some resemblance to both science and
western notions of philosophy is to make a reasonable argument. However, it is also to ignore the
remaining history of Buddhism and the accompanying approaches that simultaneously became more
theistic, more faith based, and more ritualistic over this same period of time. In other words, to say
that Buddhism is non-theistic, philosophic, or scientific is to privilege particular teachings while
excluding a significant portion of Buddhists and Buddhisms. It is not to reiterate or illuminate the
original teachings of the Buddha.