Chapter 1. Buddhist modernism¶

With this essay, the book begins the final stage of mapping Buddhist history, covering the modern and contemporary periods. The preceding eleven essays traced the geographical strands of India, Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia, China, and Tibet from antiquity into the modern period. The present essay brings them together around the problems shared by the tradition as a whole in a modern setting. The challenges of modernity, and Buddhist responses to them, are shared across all Buddhist traditions, regardless of region or school.

The subject of this chapter is "Buddhist modernism." The Buddhist studies scholar David McMahan systematized the term, which refers to strategies for reconstructing Buddhism that developed across Buddhist traditions in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Their purpose was to adapt Buddhism to modernity. Understanding Buddhist modernism is a prerequisite for understanding all active Buddhist traditions today.

1. What is Buddhist modernism?¶

"Buddhist modernism" refers to an orientation in thought and practice that emerged across multiple traditions, regions, and centuries. It does not designate a school, nor is it a doctrine invented by one person. The common ground lies in similar responses to the problems of defending Buddhism in an age that takes science as authoritative, redefining practice in an age that values individualism, and relating Buddhism to political identity during the formation of nation-states.¹

McMahan identifies several characteristic features of Buddhist modernism:

Demythologization sets aside the mythical elements of traditional Buddhist literature and practice, including deities, ghosts and spirits, heavens, hells, miracles, and past lives, or reinterprets them as metaphors while retaining a "rational core." The approach has a structural resemblance to the demythologizing movement in twentieth-century Protestant theology associated with Bultmann and others, although there was no direct influence.

Psychologization redefines Buddhism as a psychology, a system for analyzing mental processes and treating psychological suffering, rather than a religion requiring faith in sacred authority. The redefinition made dialogue between Buddhism and Western psychology possible, from Freud and Jung to later cognitive science. It also prepared the conceptual ground for mindfulness to enter clinical settings.

Universalism presents Buddhism as a wisdom tradition suitable for everyone, rather than a religion belonging to a particular people or culture. Claims that "Buddhism is scientific" or "Buddhism transcends all religions" express this universalism.

Individualism emphasizes personal experience in practice and personal awakening, with less emphasis on participation in monastic communities or ritual traditions. Modernizing Buddhists strongly emphasize "find out the truth for yourself" (ehipassiko, "come and see"), a value with textual grounds in the Pāli canon.

Compatibility with science is the claim that Buddhist insights are compatible with, or even in agreement with, modern science, especially physics and neuroscience. It serves to defend Buddhism in an age of rising scientific authority.

Different combinations of these features, in different proportions across traditions and regions, produce diverse forms of Buddhist modernism.

2. Historical background: Colonial encounters and intellectual clashes¶

The rise of Buddhist modernism is inseparable from the encounters of the colonial era. In Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, China, and Japan, Buddhism faced the impact of Western powers, including Christian missionary activity, to varying degrees. It also faced the challenges of Western modernity: science, reason, and individualism.

The colonial encounter worked in two directions at once:

From outside: Western scholars, especially British Orientalists, discovered and translated large quantities of Buddhist literature, constructing an image of "original" or "pure" Buddhism. This image was often highly rationalized and demythologized, presented as "true Buddhism" freed from superstition. The Pali Text Society, founded in 1881, and Max Müller's Sacred Books of the East series were both products of this scholarly construction.²

From within: Asian Buddhist reformers adopted some of the frameworks of Western scholars. They used them to criticize what they regarded as "superstition" or "degeneration" in local traditions, while demonstrating to the West that Buddhism possessed a profound rational core compatible with modernity.

The convergence of external scholarship and internal reform produced what Richard Gombrich and Gananath Obeyesekere call "Protestant Buddhism." Its criticism of ritual, idol worship, and monastic authority in traditional Buddhism used the language of the Protestant Reformation against Catholicism. It opposed priestly authority, emphasized individual reading of scripture and inward experience, and gave less importance to outward ritual.³

The Theosophical Society also played an important role. Founded in New York in 1875, it became influential in Sri Lanka in the 1880s. Its founders, Henry Steel Olcott (1832 to 1907) and Helena Blavatsky (1831 to 1891), combined Buddhism with a synthesis of Eastern and Western esoteric traditions. They described the Buddha as the greatest reformer and rationalist in human history, and Buddhism as a universal wisdom tradition unburdened by theological dogma. Olcott participated in the Buddhist revival in Sri Lanka and helped design the five-colored Buddhist flag still in use today. At the symbolic level, this repackaged Buddhism as a "religion" with a unified global image.

3. Typical strategies of reconstruction¶

Scientific Buddhism¶

"Buddhism is scientific" is one of Buddhist modernism's most popular claims, and one that most deserves close examination. Its specific form changes with the period:

In the nineteenth century, the Buddha was presented as a rationalist whose atheism, meaning his rejection of creation by Brahmā, and emphasis on empirical verification made him resemble a scientist.

In the twentieth century, Buddhist impermanence was presented as compatible with uncertainty in quantum mechanics, and dependent origination as compatible with systems thinking. The Buddhist view that "everything is process" was presented as compatible with process philosophy.

In the twenty-first century, Buddhist meditation is said to correspond to measurable changes in the brain studied by neuroscience, and meditation (mindfulness) can be tested in clinical research. Buddhist theories of mind provide a reference framework for the science of consciousness.

In this book's view, some parts of these claims have substance, while others are strained analogies. Dialogue between Buddhism and science is certainly possible, and much valuable dialogue has taken place. The claim that "Buddhism is scientific" needs examination because it presupposes science as the highest epistemological standard, then declares that Buddhism meets it. Establishing Buddhism's value within a framework of modernity effectively concedes that framework's priority. Such an argument expresses a modernist stance rather than a statement without a standpoint.⁴

The emphasis on lay agency¶

In traditional Buddhism, monks and nuns occupied the center of practice. Laypeople participated in religious life chiefly through offerings and merit, while intensive practice was the pursuit of a minority. Buddhist modernism fundamentally challenged that structure by opening practice, especially meditation, to everyone, without requiring ordination or long periods in a monastery. Essay 9's discussion of Sri Lanka and Burma already showed the change in the line from Ledi Sayadaw to Goenka. It also occurred in East Asia through different routes.

The emphasis on lay practice did make practice more democratic, giving more people access to meditative tools. It also detached Buddhist practice from the traditional monastic institution, shifting the standard of effective practice away from traditional authoritative recognition and toward personal experience. Decentralization of this kind is a structural feature of Buddhist modernism and its greatest point of internal contention.

Buddhism and nationalism¶

The connection between Buddhism and nationalism has appeared repeatedly in earlier chapters. Examples include Dharmapāla's Sri Lankan nationalism, "Buddhism for the protection of the nation" in Meiji Japan through Buddhist cooperation under State Shinto, and China's Humanistic Buddhism and national revival. Buddhist nationalism in Burma (Essay 9) and Tibetan nationalism in exile (Essay 11) are further examples. Binding Buddhism to national identity has been one of the most widespread forms of Buddhist modernization in modern history. It has also been among those with the most damaging consequences, including ethnic conflict and exclusionism.

The position taken in this book is that Buddhist doctrine does not necessarily lead to nationalism. History also contains extensive Buddhist transmission across national and ethnic boundaries. The combination of nationalism and Buddhism was prompted by historical conditions, including colonialism and the formation of nation-states, rather than by an inherent necessity within Buddhism.

4. Humanistic Buddhism: East Asia's path to modernization¶

Buddhist modernism in East Asia, especially China and Taiwan, followed a path different from both Theravāda and Tibetan Buddhism. It is generally called "Humanistic Buddhism" in Taiwan and "Humanity Buddhism" internationally. Its foundational figure was Master Taixu (1890 to 1947).

Taixu's program of reform¶

During the Republican period, Taixu proposed the slogan "Buddhism for human life" (rensheng fojiao), which later developed into "Humanistic Buddhism" (renjian fojiao). His central criticism addressed several entrenched problems in Chinese Buddhism at the time:

• A focus on funerals: Buddhism had declined into a ritual religion devoted chiefly to funerals and rites for delivering the dead, earning descriptions such as "a religion of the dead" or "Buddhism of ghosts and spirits."
• Monastic insularity: large numbers of monks remained within monasteries performing their daily services, cut off from society.
• Superstition: various popular beliefs unrelated to the Buddha's true teaching had entered monasteries.

Taixu's program was to redirect Buddhism from serving death and the afterlife toward serving living people in their present lives. It centered on human liberation, participation in social reform, and the use of Buddhist wisdom to address modern problems. He also promoted the modernization of monastic education by founding Buddhist colleges, and emphasized academic Buddhist studies, especially dialogue with modern Western scholarship.⁵

Yinshun and historical research on Chinese Buddhism¶

Master Yinshun (1906 to 2005), Taixu's most important student, went further than his teacher in scholarship. He studied Chinese Buddhism through rigorous historical criticism, distinguishing the "Buddha's original intent" from later "theistic Buddhism" (tianhua fojiao). He understood the former as a teaching centered on people and concerned with actual life, and the latter as Mahāyāna developments toward mysticism and deification. Yinshun adopted modern historical methods and was willing to examine certain Mahāyāna developments critically. His strongly critical scholarly stance was far outside the mainstream of Chinese Buddhist circles at the time.⁶

Institutionalization in Taiwan: The four great Buddhist centers¶

The influence of the tradition of Taixu and Yinshun flourished in Taiwan, producing several of today's largest Buddhist institutions:

The four great centers are the most important institutional foundations of Taiwanese Buddhism today and the principal means of spreading Humanistic Buddhism among Chinese communities worldwide.⁷ Their practices differ considerably, from highly active social charity at Tzu Chi to a stronger emphasis on monastic meditation training at Dharma Drum Mountain. All share Humanistic Buddhism's central orientation toward people's present lives as the focus of Buddhist concern.

5. D. T. Suzuki and the global spread of Zen¶

Japan's Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki (1870 to 1966) played a distinctive role in the spread of East Asian Buddhist modernism. He was the most important figure in bringing Zen to the English-speaking world and one of the most important intermediaries between Buddhist modernism and Western audiences.

Writing in English, Suzuki presented Zen as a direct experience of mind beyond culture. He described it as a sudden awakening, satori, that depends on neither words nor rituals and occurs only in immediate intuitive apprehension. His Zen was highly detached from culture. It contained neither the daily routines of Japanese monasteries nor the institutions that certified teachers, only the pure "experience of awakening."

Suzuki's presentation was enormously successful. In the 1950s and 1960s, his Zen influenced Western intellectual life across philosophy, psychology, and literature. Heidegger corresponded with him, Fromm coauthored a book with him, and the writers he influenced included Kerouac and others of the Beat Generation. To a considerable extent, the Western image of Zen was Suzuki's construction.⁸

Critics, especially scholars of Japanese Buddhism such as Bernard Faure and Robert Sharf, argue that Suzuki's presentation was highly selective. It extracted one aspect of Zen experience, direct experience, while stripping away the monastic institutions, ritual traditions, teacher and student relationships, and cultural settings in which Zen had historically existed. It severed Zen from Japanese nationalism, although Suzuki had defended Japan's actions in the Second World War. Zen was presented as a universal spirituality without cultural baggage. Removing cultural context, demythologizing, and universalizing in this way is the most characteristic operation of Buddhist modernism.

5a. Secular Buddhism: Modernism's logical extreme and its rejection by the traditions¶

Buddhist modernism has an internal logical trajectory: demythologization → psychologization → universalism → removal of religion. At its furthest point stands the "Secular Buddhism" movement that arose in the English-speaking world in the twenty-first century. It explicitly abandons or suspends transcendent assumptions such as rebirth, the transmission of karma across lives, and a sacred Buddha, retaining only methods of meditation and an ethical framework.

The rise of secular Buddhism and its principal figures

Secular Buddhism as a consciously adopted position took shape chiefly in Western English-speaking Buddhist circles from the 1990s onward. Its most important representative is Stephen Batchelor (born 1953), a British author who trained in Tibetan Buddhism, in the Gelug school, and in Korean Zen before gradually turning toward a secular position. Several of his works constitute secular Buddhism's most systematic philosophical statement:

Buddhism Without Beliefs (1997) argues that Buddhism's core is a practical exploration of human life and should be treated as "agnostic." It neither affirms nor denies the literal reality of karma and rebirth, focusing only on practice that can be tested in the present.

Confession of a Buddhist Atheist (2010) develops the argument through autobiography. The historical Buddha was a person active within a specific political and social setting, whose teachings addressed concrete problems of his time. They did not necessarily presuppose eternal life, cosmic laws, or supernatural powers.

After Buddhism: Rethinking the Dharma for a Secular Age (2015) offers a more affirmative reconstruction. Starting from early Pāli texts, it reads the Four Noble Truths as "four practical attitudes toward suffering," rather than a set of metaphysical propositions about cosmic reality.⁹

At the organizational level, Ted Meissner launched the podcast The Secular Buddhist in May 2009; the community that formed around it became the Secular Buddhist Association in 2012, registered as a nonprofit in 2016, with Meissner as executive director, and promoted the position through podcasts and online communities. Noah Rasheta's Secular Buddhism podcast, launched at the end of 2015, also has a substantial English-speaking audience. These institutions and platforms turned secular Buddhism from an individual position into a community movement of some size.

Secular Buddhism's central claims

Secular Buddhism suspends or rejects rebirth as a literal cosmology and requires no belief in karma's transmission across lives. It gives less emphasis to refuge in the Three Jewels, or interprets refuge as a psychological or social commitment rather than a sacred vow. It understands meditation's effects through modern empirical frameworks such as neuroscience, and ethics as a shared human need rather than a command from the Buddha as a sacred authority.

Secular Buddhism concentrates many features of Buddhist modernism, taking demythologization, psychologization, and universalism so far that no "religious belief" in any special sense is required any longer.

Rejection by other Buddhist traditions

Secular Buddhism has prompted widespread criticism in traditional Buddhist communities. The criticisms come from several directions, with both a shared core and distinct emphases.

Theravāda criticism is the most systematic and philosophically weighty line of criticism. The American Theravāda monk Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu (lay name Geoffrey DeGraff, born 1949), abbot of Metta Forest Monastery (Wat Metta) in California, USA¹⁰, has written extensively to argue that removing rebirth deprives the Buddha's entire account of liberation of its internal coherence. His central point is that "suffering" in the Four Noble Truths includes suffering that repeatedly arises through immeasurable rounds of rebirth, not merely in this life. Its cessation, nirvāṇa, likewise aims at complete release from this structure of rebirth, not merely reduced psychological distress in the present life. If rebirth is suspended, practice becomes only a matter of "living this life a little better." In his view, this departs from the Buddha's teaching and becomes another form of psychotherapy. Bhikkhu Bodhi (born 1944), another important American Theravāda monk, takes a more moderate position. In his 2015 article "Facing the Great Divide" and his 2016 chapter "The Transformations of Mindfulness," he too criticizes the removal of mindfulness from its Buddhist context. In his view, removing mindfulness from its framework of kamma, rebirth, the Three Jewels, and the Noble Eightfold Path changes its liberative orientation and risks its appropriation for commercial purposes.¹¹

Criticism from Tibetan Buddhist communities often arises from dissatisfaction with secular Buddhism's treatment of mind. Tibetan traditions, especially Gelug and Kagyu, regard fundamental questions about mind (citta) as central premises of practice. These include whether mind continues after death and how original awakening or buddha-nature should be understood. They cannot be treated before practice as optional metaphysical matters that may simply be suspended. B. Alan Wallace (born 1950), a Tibetan Buddhist practitioner and scholar who was formerly a monk, is among secular Buddhism's most systematic critics. He argues that taking science as the ultimate epistemological authority and measuring practice by neuroscientific standards is precisely a form of cultural imperialism, forcing Buddhism to fit the confines of modern Western knowledge.

Responses from Asian Buddhist communities are often overlooked. Buddhist immigrant communities from Southeast and East Asia are frequently marginalized in the West. Almost all their everyday religious practices, including rites for the dead, temple visits to pray for blessings, and devout veneration of the Buddha, fall under "superstition" or "cultural packaging" within secular Buddhism's framework. Ann Gleig documents the tension in American Dharma (2019). In the West, the image of "serious" Buddhism often consists of highly educated white people sitting in meditation and reading books, while the traditional practices of Asian Buddhist communities are regarded as comparatively "impure." The contrast is itself a bias of cultural power.

The central logic of rejection

The various critics share a central argument. Secular Buddhism believes it has removed "cultural packaging" and retained the "core," whereas its critics hold that what it removed was precisely the core, and what it retained was a cultural preference, the preference of modern Western secular psychology. Karma without rebirth loses the framework connecting ethical action to its full consequences. Without nirvāṇa in a transcendent sense, the motivation for taking practice so far is lost. Without the Three Jewels (the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha) as objects of refuge, the institutional foundation that places individual practice within a traditional community is lost.

Another kind of criticism is less often made explicit, but is equally real. Rejection of secular Buddhism often targets its practitioners' communal identity rather than offering a purely philosophical refutation. Traditional communities are often unwilling to recognize secular Buddhists as Buddhists because they do not undertake precepts, or do so in nontraditional ways. They also object that secular Buddhists do not attach themselves to monastic lineages or recognize traditional authority. Institutionally, the rejection amounts to telling secular Buddhists that they do not belong to the community, so no direct refutation is needed. They do not qualify for admission in the first place.

A point of fairness must be added to the criticisms. Traditional critics question the completeness of the framework, but their criticism cannot negate the facts at the level of experience. The ethical changes, reductions in suffering, and greater patience with others that secular Buddhist practitioners report are real as experiential changes. They are no different in kind from practitioners' reports in traditional settings. The substantive question is therefore what framework can adequately support and explain these effects and carry practice beyond well-being confined to this life. It is not whether ethical consequences remain after rebirth is removed. Critics who answer the first question as though it were the second fail to address half the issue.

In this book's view, the dispute between secular and traditional Buddhism is a real philosophical dispute over whether karma and rebirth are necessary. It is also a contest over identity and resources, concerning who has the right to use the name "Buddhism" and whose practices count. Both levels exist and should be treated separately. The philosophical dispute calls for philosophical tools, and the contest over identity and resources requires historical and sociological analysis.¹¹

6. Internal contradictions and criticisms¶

As a set of strategies for reconstruction, Buddhist modernism has drawn criticism from several directions:

Traditionalist criticism: after myths, rituals, rebirth, and deities are removed, is what remains still Buddhism? Traditionalists hold that karma and rebirth are the foundations of the entire logic of practice, not optional "mythical packaging." If practice in this life has no effect on the next, arahantship takes on a completely different meaning. Reducing Buddhism to psychological techniques fundamentally misunderstands the tradition; it is not a purification through rationalization.

McMahan's criticism is that Buddhist modernism created a new Buddhism rather than simply discovering "true Buddhism." Its close connections with Western Romanticism, the spirit of the Protestant Reformation, and psychological discourse produced a new religious form. It is better understood as part of a "global spiritual culture" than as a "revival of original Buddhism." The point is to place Buddhist modernism in history rather than disparage it. It has its own sources and context, rather than being a rootless universal wisdom.¹

The critique from political economy: certain forms of Buddhist modernism, especially corporate meditation and the commercial mindfulness industry, turn practice into an instrument for raising productivity and reducing stress. They serve existing political and economic structures rather than criticizing them. "Meditating before work helps you withstand stress" does not necessarily lead to "questioning whether the work itself should exist in this form." Scholars after McMahan, such as Ronald Purser with his critique of "McMindfulness," have advanced this perspective.

Feminist and postcolonial criticism: whose Buddhism is being transmitted, and whose version is treated as universal? Western Buddhist modernism often centers the perspective of highly educated white middle-class men, overlooking both traditional practices in Asian Buddhist communities, especially immigrant communities, and the question of women's status within the tradition.

7. The question of authenticity¶

Buddhist modernism raises the more fundamental question of what counts as "true Buddhism."

The question is more complex than it appears. Judging Buddhist modernism insufficiently authentic presupposes an original, pure "true Buddhism," free of historical accretions, against which it can be measured. Yet the history traced in this book's preceding eleven essays shows Buddhism changing constantly. Early Buddhism developed into the schools, the schools into Mahāyāna, and Mahāyāna into tantra. Transmission from India to China and from China to Japan also changed Buddhism. Every transmission is a re-creation, and every re-creation draws someone's criticism that "true Buddhism has been lost."

Acknowledging constant change does not mean that all versions are equally authentic or that any change is inconsequential. There are real differences among versions, with philosophical significance, and they have provoked real historical disputes. Ultimately, however, "authenticity" is a question of interpretation and politics, concerning who has the right to decide which Buddhism counts, on what authority, and in whose interests.

In this book's view, Buddhist modernism is a real construction of its time within Buddhism's long history. It is neither the restoration of an eternally true Buddhism nor a complete betrayal of Buddhism. It responded to actual historical pressures and raised substantive philosophical questions. Its effects on practice and society were also real. Criticisms of Buddhist modernism, including traditionalist and postcolonial criticisms, are equally real and necessary. Taking sides for or against Buddhist modernism is not this book's task. Placing it in history and clearly understanding its sources and consequences is, in the author's view, the more honest approach.

Further reading¶

• Ronald E. Purser. McMindfulness: How Mindfulness Became the New Capitalist Spirituality. London: Repeater Books, 2019. (A critique of the mindfulness industry's political economy; a recent form of Buddhist modernism.)

References¶