View the h-buddhism Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-buddhism's December 2006 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in h-buddhism's December 2006 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the h-buddhism home page.
Reply-To: Todd Perreira <firstname.lastname@example.org> So far as I can tell, the term “Theravāda Buddhism” did not enter the currency of discourse prior to the 20th century. I’ve looked at various accounts given by missionaries, monks, and scholars in the 19th century and early 20th century and cannot find any reference to “Theravāda Buddhism”. Some of the early missionary accounts in Siam (late 1820s-1870s), e.g., were recorded by individuals working among the Chinese diaspora in Bangkok. They note that the Siamese, like the Chinese, are “Buddhist” but fail to make any distinction whatsoever between the Buddhism of China and that of Siam. (See, e.g., __Early Missionaries in Bangkok: The Journals of Tomlin, Gutzlaff and Abeel 1828-1832__; and __A Missionary in Siam (1860-1870)__ by Rev. N. A. McDonald). In his address to the World’s Parliament of Religions Anagarika Dharmapala goes to some length to demonstrate his familiarity with the state of the field (Orientalism) up to that time (1893). While much of his talk is apologetic and presents Buddhism as monolithic and universal, he also notes the conflicting opinions of Western scholars over Buddhist doctrine yet never makes any reference to the term “Theravāda”. Three years later, in his general introduction to __Buddhism in Translations__ (1896), Harvard scholar Henry Clarke Warren writes of the “South Buddhists” of Ceylon, Burma, and Siam. (xv) Significantly, there is no entry for “Theravāda” in Hastings (1912). The term, however, does appear in the Encyclopedia’s subject index but typically in reference to “original” or “orthodox” Buddhism. In none of the articles do we find “Theravāda” used as a descriptor for the Buddhism of Sri Lanka, Burma, Siam, and Cambodia. Indeed, the terms that seemed to have currency at this time are: “Southern Buddhism,” “orthodox Buddhism,” “original Buddhism,” “Sinhalese Buddhism,” “Hinayānist” and “Buddhism of the Southern school.” The entry for “Siam”, e.g., declares: “Their religion, like that of Cambodia, is Southern, or orthodox, Buddhism, with Pāli as its sacred language, and called Sinhalese Buddhism.” (XI, 482). Similarly, the entry for Cambodia states: “At the present day the official religion of the Khmèrs is Sinhalese Buddhism.” (III, 156). There are two articles on Burma both of which describe the form of Buddhism variously as “Hinayānist” or “Buddhism of the Southern school”. There is a notable bias against Mahayāna in these entries as, e.g., the following: “The Northern (Mahāyāna), or debased ritualistic School of Buddhism, was the first to come into Burma from the North…. In the early centuries A.D. the Southern (Hīnayāna), or purer School of Buddhism from Ceylon, began to have influence…” (III, 20) There is no mention of “Theravāda” in T.W. Rhys Davids entry on “Ceylon Buddhism”. In his article on “Hīnayāna” he does, however, twice make reference to “the original school of the Theravādins.” (VI, 686) While we have yet to solve the mystery as to how “Theravāda Buddhism” came to signify Buddhism in South and Southeast Asia, the evidence I’ve looked at points to a period after Hastings (1912). Todd Perreira University of California, Santa Barbara Franz Metcalf Review Editor, Journal of Global Buddhism http://www.globalbuddhism.org