Review: [untitled] Author(s): John Schroeder Source: Philosophy East and West, Vol. 49, No.

2, "Subjectality" : Li Zehou and His Critical Analysis of Chinese Thought (Apr., 1999), pp. 235-237 Published by: University of Hawai'i Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1400214 . Accessed: 08/07/2011 07:31
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uhp. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Hawai'i Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy East and West.

http://www.jstor.org

various faiths and passions and philosophies beyond the Christianand Buddhist communities.The poignancy and urgency of the philosophical questions and persistinghumanconcerns addressedby these thinkers(Whathappensafterwe die? By whose power can our lives be transformed-human power or divine? How can we escape our habitsof self-love?)are significantenough to be the basis for interaction across all kinds of boundaries,and the more voices encouraged to enter the dialogue, the betterfor us all. This book models for all of us a generousspiritof learning fromthose outside our own narrowcommunities,and this is its greatestcontribution. BuddhistSaints in India:A Study in BuddhistValuesand Orientations. Reginald By A. Ray. New York:OxfordUniversityPress.1994. Pp. xviii + 508.
Reviewedby JohnSchroeder,St. Mary'sCollege of Maryland

Buddhist Saintsin India:A Studyin BuddhistValuesand Orientations ReginaldA. by is an excellent study of early Indian Buddhismthat highlights the struggle Ray between the early monastic community and the forest saints, who were pivotal scholarsbecause workfor Buddhist This is an important playersin IndianBuddhism. it outlines the spiritual ideals and religious practices of early Indian Buddhism, early Buddhisthisargues for the priorityof the forest renunciantin understanding the early monasticcommunity.The main of tory,and offersa detailed reconstruction that of the book, however, is to argueagainsta one-sided readingof Buddhism point the importantrole of the forest saint in the formationof early Buddhist neglects history. The book begins by challenging a common assumptionthat is shared by Buddhist historiansand scholars.Most scholars,says Ray, read early Buddhismthrough which sees the developmentof what he calls the "two-tieredmodel of Buddhism," of between the poles of monasticismand lay life. The structure Buddhismhovering from the Theravadatraditionand offersa this "two-tieredmodel" derives primarily normative vision of Buddhism as composed of two lifestyles:that of the monk (bhiksu) occupying the occupying the uppertier and that of the layperson(upasaka) lower;and both are thoughtto have been institutedby the Buddha.This model has that it is now accepted as a given by so dominatedthe depictionsof early Buddhism most scholars. Ray challenges the historicalaccuracy of this model by arguingthat it neglects the and some of the most important influential figuresin early Buddhisthistory: forest saints. Moreover, this "two-tiered model" that scholars so readily accept as an was in fact createdby the monastictraditions readingof early Buddhism appropriate in an effortto normalizetheir own lifestyleover and againstthe forestsaints. Ray's argumentthat the monastic Buddhistsconstructedthe "two-tieredmodel" in order to marginalizethe forest saints is the most provocative and radical aspect of his book, and it questionsthe way early Buddhismis usuallyconceived.

Philosophy East & West Volume 49, Number 2 April 1999 235-237 ? 1999 by University of Hawai'i Press

235

Againstthe "two-tieredmodel," which privilegesthe monasticideal, Rayargues thatforestBuddhism was the highestideal of earliestBuddhism, and that,even if the Buddhadid teach "town and village renunciation" he (monasticism), saw it as inferiorto the foresttype. The early Buddhist as community,says Ray,took Shakyamuni its ideal by following his own path: they dwelt at the foot of trees or in mountain retreats,practiced meditation, performed "magical" feats, and proclaimed their realizationto others out of compassion. They wore rags for robes, sought alms, searchedfor an enlightenedteacher,and engaged in intensespiritual practices,all of which are antitheticalto monastic life. In fact, it is their devotion to meditation, as opposed to textual learning,that distinguishesthe forest renunciantsfrom their fellow monastics. Ray supportshis view that the highest ideal of early Buddhismwas the forest type througha varietyof sources. He examines early texts such as the Theragatha and Thergatha,the Udana, and the Samyuttanikaya, of which reverethe forest all he examines hagiographicdepictions in which the saint is an object of devosaint; tion; and he shows how the differentideal types of Buddhistsaints, the arhats,the and pratyekabuddhas, the bodhisattvas,were originallyconceived within the early Buddhistcommunityas non-monasticforestdwellers. Given the cultic statusof the forest saints in the formativestages of early Buddhism, however, why do we find so few referencesto them from the Pali monastic sources?Ray'sanswer is thatthe early monastictradition"repressed" forestsaint the in order to idealize its own vision of Buddhism.FollowingWeber's descriptionof monastic Buddhism,Ray notes that the transition fromcomplete forest renunciation to "town and village" renunciationcoincides with a markedshift in the structure of the Buddhist it moves fromcharismatic to traditional it community: figures authority; is more "bureaucratic," more markedby definitiveformsand codified procedures; and it no longertakes food given only as alms, wears ragsfor robes, or lives under trees, but insteadtakes settled monasticismas its highestvalue. The most significant featureabout this shift, however, is that meditationis no longera definingfeatureof a Buddhist's One of the earliestexpressionsof monasticBuddhism, example, life. for the Old Skandhaka,devalues meditationin favor of behavioralpurityand textual SOtra and the Milindapanha analysis, and other texts such as the Mahaparinirvana render the wandering mendicant invisible by normalizing their own brand of monasticBuddhism. of Accordingto Ray,the denigration meditation,stupaworship, and a wanderinglifestyle,as well as the idea thatthere are only two authenticforms of Buddhism(monasticand lay), must be seen as a power strugglein the early Buddhist community:
Now it may be observedthatthese devaluations takentogetherare nothingotherthanthe two-tiered model of Buddhism,which the Old Skandhakais developing in order to the and of accomplishits centralpurposeof establishing authenticity normativity its own, settled monastickindof Buddhism. Thus in its earliestBuddhistrendition,the two-tiered model of Buddhismis ideological in characterand part of the attemptof one kind of Buddhism assertits own special normativity the expense of others.(p. 29) to at

236

PhilosophyEast& West

Againstthis "two-tieredmodel" by which early IndianBuddhismis usuallyread, Ray suggeststhat we should read the historyof early Buddhismas a dynamic interaction not just between monasticand lay life-but between monastic,lay, and forest of life. To neglect this third "tier"would mean a diminished understanding what Buddhismis all about, says Ray, and would simply continue the ideological early bias of the Pali monastictraditionin its attemptto marginalizethe forestsaint.What model" of Buddhismis that it has fewer is interestingfor Ray in this "three-tiered hierarchicalconnotations:each one exemplifies a supreme value in Buddhistlife, fulfillment: and each, in its own way, expressesa lifestyleconducive to spiritual thanthe particular value rather It is realizedpeoplewho are of supreme lifestyles by or whichtheybecomerealized in which,once realized, theyarefound.Anymodelof and to Buddhist typesmustremain someextentrelative open,forno one can everknow in as can individual orwillattain one situation a howmuch,from spiritual any viewpoint, to another. 438) (p. opposed model" over the "twoWhether or not the readeraccepts Ray's "three-tiered tiered model," and whetheror not he is rightabout seeing the highest ideals of early The Buddhismin the foresttype is perhapsunimportant. real value of this book and its significancefor most Buddhistscholarsmay be that it offersa clear pictureof the whose spiritualdisciplinesare practicesand lifestylesof those Buddhistrenunciants not found in the monasteriesor formal doctrines of academic Buddhism.In this to contribution Buddhiststudies. sense, BuddhistSaintsin Indiais an important

Book Reviews

237