Curators of the Buddha: The Study of Buddhism Under Colonialism

Reviewed by Russell T. McCutcheon

The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
Vol.36 No.1 (March 1997)
pp.12-124

COPYRIGHT 1997 Society for the Scientific Study of Religion


            Edited by Donald Lopez of the University of Michigan, Curators of 
            the Buddha contains an introduction and six substantial essays. 
            Besides Lopez, the contributors include Charles Hallisey (Harvard), 
            Stanley Abe (Duke), Robert Sharf (McMaster), Gustavo Benavides 
            (Villanova), and Luis Gomez (Michigan). As the title suggests, the 
            essays are generally focused around critiques of various figures in 
            the history of the study of Buddhism, from Thomas W. Rhys Davids to 
            C. G. Jung and D. T. Suzuki. Lest the reader see this volume as but 
            another play on the theme of "great men," scrutiny of the work and 
            lives of such figures in their historical context simply provides 
            one an opportunity to, in Lopez's words from his introduction, 
            "excavate the contested grounds" upon which Buddhist Studies have 
            been constructed. Accordingly, the volume is not really about 
            Buddhism nor is it even about scholars of Buddhism. Instead, the 
            essays together examine the social, political, and economic 
            conditions that made the very notion of "Buddhism" and "Buddhist 
            Studies" possible and desirable at a specific moment in European 
            colonial history. 
            Lopez's introduction is particularly helpful in situating these 
            essays within a wider discursive context by allowing the 
            nonspecialist to read the papers as providing yet more evidence of 
            how reified, abstract, and totalized categories of scholarship are 
            complicit with larger issues of geopolitics. Scholars of religion 
            have so far not done a particularly good job of addressing the 
            colonial origins of their field. It is not insignificant that the 
            study of religion dates to the hallowed academic halls of 
            nineteenth-century colonial empires and was reborn in America in the 
            1960s, just as, in Lopez's words, the efflorescence of popular 
            interest in Asian religions during the Vietnam war insured the 
            permanence of 'World Religions' . . . in the American university 
            curriculum" (9). Instead of addressing the geopolitical origins of 
            the field, scholars most often simply immerse themselves in methods 
            that supposedly elevate and recapture - but often appropriate - the 
            insider's supposedly pure experiences, a method that sadly forsakes 
            the requirements of theorizing necessary to the study of human 
            cultural products. That this volume explicitly seeks to analyze and 
            historicize the colonialist methods and theories of an earlier 
            generation of Buddhologists is therefore to be welcomed, for it may 
            serve to heighten our awareness of the neocolonial practices that 
            continue to characterize the study of human cultures. Simply put, 
            the issues that this volume addresses are not isolated and of 
            relevance only in examining the history of the field; they are of 
            relevance for all scholars of religion today. 
            To provide an example of this colonialist and patronizing heritage, 
            Lopez discusses the case of Brian Houghton Hodgson (1800-1894), who 
            is credited with sending the first Sanskrit manuscripts for 
            translation to Eugene Burnouf in 1837. Hodgson was trained in 
            England to become an officer with the East India Company. He later 
            studied Persian and Sanskrit at the company's college in Calcutta, 
            became a tax assessor in Kumaon, in the Himalayan region, and, after 
            a number of advances within the Indian service (including assistant 
            reader at the Court of Nepal), ended his career as a colonial 
            administrator in 1843. Throughout his career, Hodgson collected 
            Sanskrit manuscripts and employed "natives" to assist him in 
            translating and studying them. If one sees the colonialist project 
            as one of essentialization, dehistoricization, decontextualization, 
            homogenization, universalization, and romanticization - all of which 
            bore a material and financial profit for the home nation - then one 
            finds in Hodgson's career as colonial administrator and manuscript 
            conduit a wonderful example of the colonialist dynamic active in 
            much nineteenth-century scholarship. For it was largely due to such 
            efforts that "Buddhism" became a purely textual and philosophical 
            construct infinitely accessible to readers in Paris and London. Such 
            readers had little need to inquire about living, complex human 
            beings and institutions when they had ancient and supposedly pure 
            manuscripts at their fingertips. Accordingly, once one acquired the 
            necessary linguistic skills, there was no longer the need for the 
            "native" informant. 
            The volume will surely find a number of readers who specialize in 
            the study of Buddhism in any one of its many epochs and forms (that 
            "Buddhism" is presumed by many scholars to be divisible into a 
            pristine but largely dead original or pure form, followed by a 
            number of varying but nonetheless degraded forms, is precisely the 
            assumption that this volume tackles throughout!). Yet it should also 
            attract the attention of readers interested in applying the work of 
            such diverse writers as Aijaz Ahmad, Pierre Bourdieu, James 
            Clifford, Michel Foucault, and Edward Said to the study of religion 
            and culture. Equipped with a host of critical reading strategies 
            derived from the work of these and other writers, scholars are now 
            increasingly interested in the mechanisms that created such 
            transhistorical essences as "religion," "faith", "the West," "the 
            East," "the Orient," let alone "Hinduism" and "Buddhism." AS such, 
            Curators of the Buddha owes much to Said's work in the late 1970s - 
            a debt fully acknowledged by Lopez. However, lest one assume that 
            this volume is a relatively unoriginal application of Said's now 
            widely known thesis, Lopez points out that the particular case of 
            the study of Buddhism is far different from the study of the Islamic 
            Orient. Traditionally, the latter stood in for a whole host of 
            political, religious, military, and economic threats to the 
            uniformity, identity, and power of the European world, whereas the 
            former was historically ancient (much like ancient Greece or Egypt) 
            and geographically distant from Europe. All the same, similar sets 
            of essentializing tools handy in caricaturizing and disarming the 
            Orient were employed by scholars in their largely nostalgic 
            representations of the essence of Buddhism - whether that be found 
            in some Sanskrit or Pali master text or in the timeless insights of 
            the Zen experience of satori. 
            That the study of religion is among the last to confront the 
            challenge of postcolonial criticism (for we have all seen the sparks 
            fly when it was applied to literary criticism and anthropology) is 
            indeed intriguing. However, if we agree with Benavides when, in his 
            essay on Giuseppe Tucci, he notes that "'religion' is the name given 
            to those practices and presuppositions which, infinitely malleable 
            both by insiders and outsiders, articulate a culture's, or perhaps 
            just an elite's, unspoken understanding of itself" (162), then we 
            might have an indication as to why the study of religion has been so 
            resilient to such critical scholarship. Given the utter dominance, 
            from the colonial to the modern era, of defining religion in terms 
            of personalistic experiences and various states of individual 
            consciousness, "religion," understood both by the insider and 
            scholarly outsider as well as the sum total of an individual's 
            scruples, a private feeling, or one's ultimate concern, has been an 
            ideal rhetorical and ideological construct. That volumes such as 
            Curators of the Buddha are now appearing suggests that such reified 
            categories are not quite as essential and impervious to critical 
            study as they were once thought to be. 
            RUSSELL T. McCUTCHEON Southwest Missouri State University 
            Springfield, Missouri