one line description

I am going to break one of the basic rules of book reviewing here and criticise a book against an objective that the author did not attempt to reach. The reason for this is that Kalupahana has written a history of Buddhism from the viewpoint of academic philosophy, which I am not competent to adjudge. Instead, I will consider whether the book is likely to be of any use to the ordinary Buddhist practitioner.

The book is divided into two parts, Early Buddhism (by which Kalupahana means the Tipitaka) and Continuities and Discontinuities (by which he covers the major later texts). After a chapter on the Vedic and Upanishadic predecessors of the Buddha, Kalupahana works through the Buddha's philosophy as set out in the Pali canon, grouped by subject (chapters on the life of the Buddha, knowledge and understanding, experience and theory, etc) ending with a chapter on popular Buddhism. The second section has one chapter for each major author or text (e.g. Abhidhamma, the Diamond Sutra, Nagarjuna,... Dignaga,...) ending with chapters on the Tantras and Chán/Zen.

Kalupahana uses the review of the Buddha's own views (as he sees the text -- he doesn't cross-check them against the Agamas does) to argue for a particular interpretation of the Buddha's views, that "human knowledge, the conception of reality, moral principles, and means of communication are to be recognised as valid as long as they are useful and contribute to happiness among human beings...[The value of a theory] lies in how it contributes to the weal and woe of living beings in that particular context." [pp237-8] Thus, he argues, the Buddha was arguing against such absolute theories as idealism and nihilism, and the Buddha's own words should be interpreted in terms of, not only what the Buddha was arguing for, but what he was arguing against.

I found that I could understand this section and that it gave me a better understanding of the texts. In particular, I found the argument useful that the Buddha saw conceptual structures as useful but not absolutely true or false. Kalupahana's explanation carefully de-emphasises the subjects likely to put contemporary philosophers off Buddhism (e.g. rebirth, supernatural powers). I would describe this as a here-and-now account of Buddhism rather than a next-life account.

Kalupahana sees later Buddhism as a history of falling away from the Buddha's own ideas back to idealism, eternalism and Brahmanism, and attempts to return to the original path of the Buddha. Among the first group, he includes the authors of the Lotus Sutra, the Lankâvatâra Sutra and (unusually) Buddhaghosa; amongst the second group, Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, Dignaga, and the authors of the Buddhist Tantras (which, he argues, use the Hindu Tantra form to express Buddhist content).

I found this second part hard going. The complications of the Mahâyâna were a bit too much for my little mind. As Kalupahana is essentially saying, ignore all this stuff, it's nonsense, and Nagârjuna and so on have proved it to be nonsense, I don't think I need to understand it. But it may be of interest to those who think that the Lotus Sutra is of some value to them.

So is this book likely to be of use to the Buddhist practitioner? After reading so much on relativism, I will have to say it depends on the practitioner. The work, although clearly written, is in academic language and does require a degree of understanding. I would not recommend it as an introduction to Buddhism (except, perhaps, for academic philosophers). However, we read and hear many versions of Buddhism, even as lay 'householders', and we need to work out which ones to put into practice. Do they "harmonise with the Suttas and fit in with the rules of the Community"? [Mahâparinibbana Sutta, cited at p63] Some will, I think, find this book provides useful guidelines in answering this question.

Kalupahana, David. History of Buddhist Philosophy. 1992, University of Hawaii Press, . {paper|hard}back. number of pages pages.