Is there a “Dharma of History”?
有無佛法性史觀？
Leiden, May 29-31, 2006
兩千零五年一月在萊登大學所舉行的研討會計劃書
Alexander L. Mayer (University of Illinois), Axel Schneider (Leiden University)
Ever since the encounter between the East and the West, both were drawn into the vortex of a shared history creating and laying open both centripetal and centrifugal forces. Within this vortex, previously virtually independent historical streams began to interact and merge. One of the most significant elements of this interaction may be seen in the ways how new constellations created new necessities of accounting for one's own past and present in light of the other. Both the Western intellectual and the Chinese Buddhist traditions are marked by an inherent claim to hold and represent a universally valid truth, whatever its name. Within the ongoing process of encounter it has remained a crucial problematic how the different truth-claims relate to each other, and how they delimit each other.
The Western intellectual horizon is delineated by the originally Greek vision of a "spirit of science" (Husserl) that historically unfolds in terms of the universality of logos/reason/rationality, but in tandem with a strong theistic eschatology. In all practical matters this double horizon tends toward a thorough materialism and nihilism on the one hand, assuming that all that can be known with certainty is of the nature of matter, and that no good can claim to possess any ground apart from the subject claiming it. On the other hand, it fosters a strong belief in progress, sometimes even with chiliastic overtones, that easily fuses with this "spirit of science". The unfolding of the scientific-materialistic normativity is thus no mere accidental aspect of the occidental constitution of history under the umbrella of the "spirit of science". Does the "spirit of science" necessarily lead to a rejection of the Buddhist Dharma, or is it able to meet the Buddhist Dharma under the premises of a shared intelligibility?
At the core of the Buddhist vision we find the assessment that the "human condition" will by necessity prevail over whatever historical or cultural progress there may be. This vision that is embedded within the first two of the "Four Noble Truths" does not present itself as a vision of history qua history, but, if at all, as a vision of historicity. Would it then necessarily preclude a "Buddhist vision of history"? What would history mean here, and would the notion of history in any way add to the clarifying of the human situation? Would the other crucial aspect of the Buddhist vision, purification and deliverance, the third and fourth of the Noble Truths, find a place within history? This second aspect, from a Western point of view, will usually be relegated to the sphere of soteriology, that is "religious belief", that is outside the scope of true knowledge. Would the Buddhist vision propose to understand that the "human condition" and its manifold historical stages and manifestations can only be properly understood in light of human nature transcending the human condition? Does this vision of the Dharma reject the "spirit of science", or is it able to meet it on its own ground?
While the Western claim of history being the stage for the realization of the "spirit of science" certainly is strongly contested within the West itself, at the same time the technological and political consequences arising from the notion of the historical unfolding of rationality have constituted an ever more powerful normative fact. How do Buddhist thinkers respond to the pervasive impact of the scientific-materialistic view, and to the normative power of facts created within the technological unfolding of that vision? How and where does one's own tradition find a place within this ever expansive context that is ultimately global in character? Do Chinese thinkers, Buddhist or influenced by Buddhist thought - academics (Yang Wenhui, Ouyang Jingwu, Liang Qichao, Zhang Taiyan, et al.), and monks (Taixu, et al.) - when they investigate and reflect on the issue, rather opt out of the constraints of the "spirit of science" (the centrifugal, particularizing approach; e.g. Ouyang Jingwu?), or do they rather seek to position themselves under the umbrella of that spirit (the centripetal, accommodative approach, e.g. in Hihan bukkyo)? Or, do they reject both, preferring to settle down with an epochal suspending of the problematic? How do thinkers influenced by Buddhism negotiate the tension between the cultural particularity of Buddhism (in Western terms), and its claim to be a universal message?
It is important to ask to what extent Buddhism has been seen by modern Chinese Buddhist or Buddhist influenced thinkers to constitute a challenge or a feasible counter-force to the Western notion of a global Weltgeschichte, which would in itself relegate the Buddhist Dharma to a non-universal status, as Hegel has already suggested for all non-Western civilizations. The challenge not the least arises in the context of Western assumptions of the universal relativity and culturality of all traditions of thought, often - on the side of the West - going hand in hand with an implicit or explicit claim to a position of superiority. Do we find with Chinese Buddhist or Buddhist influenced thinkers a notion of a universal "Dharma of history" as encompassing and surmounting all particular notions of regional histories, both of the Dharma and non-Dharma? And how can one argue for that?
By "Dharma of history" we must not first of all think of an element beside other elements such as society, culture, and so on, or of a "philosophy of history", that is musing about the meaning and telos of history, but rather of that which allows human beings to see themselves occupying a middle-ground not so much in-between, but rather together with all past and future generations. Such a "Dharma of history" is beyond the history of the historical Dharma, and would encompass all history as the unfolding of that middle-ground.
While there has already been substantial research on the writing of Buddhist histories of Buddhism, there is a dearth in reflection on the types of modern Buddhist or Buddhist inspired visions of history qua historicity since the Chinese encounter with the West. Is there a strictly Buddhist notion of history? Is there a specific Chinese Buddhist contribution to our understanding of "history"? Is there a Buddhist vision that can be called the truth of history, which will not only contribute to our understanding of the place of Buddhism within the scope of other options, but also accommodate other visions? Can there be a Buddhist "theory" of history? Can there be a "Dharma of history" beyond the particular histories of the Dharma that played an important role in the development of Chinese Buddhism? Did the Western intellectual context influence Buddhist modes of thought, not so much in terms of the history of Buddhism, but in terms of leading to a historicizing of Buddhist self-perceptions? Has the thought of impermanence, non-self, and suffering been historicized in a way, akin to the historicization of core notions of Western philosophy? How would different Buddhist orientations such as Mådhyamika, Yogåcåra and Tathågatagarbha respond to the question of a "Dharma of history", and its source, character, and direction?
Alexander Mayer
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
EALC/PSR
707 S. Mathews Avenue - FLB Rm. 3016
Urbana, IL 61801, USA
Axel Schneider
Chinese Department
Leiden University
Faculty of Arts
PO Box 9515
2300 RA Leiden
The Netherlands
Organization
The workshop is organized by Alexander L. Mayer (University of Illinois) and Axel Schneider (Leiden University) in close cooperation with the Chung-Hwa Institute of Buddhist Studies, Taiwan.
Contact K.a.aalderink@let.leidenuniv.nl
Programme
May 28, Sunday, Arrival
May 29, Monday
13.00 - 13.15: Opening
13.15 - 14.00: Keynote speech -- James Heisig: The Dharma of Historical Progress
14.00 - 14.15: Comment -- Chris Goto-Jones
14.15 - 15.00: Discussion -- Chair: Axel Schneider
15.00 - 15.30: Coffee break
15.30 - 16.00: Paper presentation -- John Maraldo: Methodology of the search for a "Dharma of History"
16.15 - 16.30: Comment -- Alexander Mayer
16.30 - 17.00: Discussion -- Chair: Lin Chen-kuo
May 30, Tuesday
09.00 - 09.30: Paper presentation -- Huang Yi-hsun: Song literatus Wang Sui's Buddhist Historical View
09.30 - 09.45: Comment -- Timothy Brook
09.45 - 10.30: Discussion -- Chair: Chris Goto-Jones
10.30 - 10.45: Coffee break
10.45 - 11.15: Paper presentation -- Timothy Brook: Time and Suffering in Buddhist Pasts and Presents
11.15 - 11.30: Comment -- Lin Chen-kuo
11.30 - 12.15: Discussion -- Chair: James Heisig
12.15 - 13.45: Lunch break
13.45 - 14.15: Paper presentation -- Gotelind Mueller-Saini: Buddhism and Modernity in Early 20th Century China -- The Case of
Ouyang Jingwu and Taixu
14.15 - 14.30: Comment -- Viren Murthy
14.30 - 15.15: Discussion -- Chair: Huang Yi-hsun
15.15 - 15.30: Coffee break
15.30 - 16.00: Paper presentation -- Axel Schneider: Liang Qichao's changing views of history -- evidence for Buddhist influence?
16.00 - 16.15: Comment -- Gotelind Mueller-Saini
16.15 - 17.00: Discussion -- Chair: Timothy Brook
19.00: Conference Dinner
May 31, Wednesday
09.00 - 09.30: Paper presentation -- Lin Chen-kuo: Echoes of Melancholy in Emptiness: Heidegger, Nishitani Keiji, and Mou Zongsan
on Nihilism, Metaphysics, and History
09.30 - 09.45: Comment -- John Maraldo
09.45 - 10.30: Discussion -- Chair: Alexander Mayer
10.30 - 10.45: Coffee break
10.45 - 11.15: Paper presentation -- Viren Murthy: Zhang Taiyan's Buddhist Response to Evolutionary Thinking and its relation to
History
11.15 - 11.30: Comment -- Axel Schneider
11.30 - 12.15: Discussion -- Chair: James Heisig
12.15 - 13.45: Lunch break
13.45 - 14.15: Paper presentation -- Alexander Mayer: Dharma of History: The Buddhist Premise in Contemporary Chinese Thought
on History
14.15 - 14.30: Comment -- Heisig, James
14.30 - 15.15: Discussion -- Chair: Christian Uhl
15.15 - 15.30: Coffee break
15.30 - 17.00: Concluding discussion -- Chairs: Alexander Mayer, Axel Schneider