Unravelling the influence of Weber's sociology on Theravada studies since

CONSTRICTIVE CONSTRUCTS:
UNRAVELLING THE INFLUENCE
OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY
ON THERAVADA STUDIES SINCE
THE 1960S

Phibul Choompolpaisal

The present article assesses the substantial impact of Weber’s sociology upon studies

of Theravada Buddhism. In doing so, it reviews several important works on

Theravada Buddhism with a view to analysing the use, influence and implications of

Weber’s sociology in Buddhist studies. After providing a broad overview of this

influence in Theravada studies the discussion culminates with a more detailed

discussion of the impact of Weber’s sociology on the study and representation of Thai

Buddhism.

Introduction

On a global scale, as a reflection of the increasing popularity of sociology,

many academics in the 1950s sought to study ‘Oriental societies’

through

Weber’s sociological views as portrayed in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of

Capitalism (1904 – 05, translation 1930; henceforth 1930). As Bellah’s (1963) paper

‘Reflections on the Protestant Ethic Analogy in Asia’ reflects, many academics from

1949 to 1962 used Weber’s hypothesis

to help explain the process of socio-

economic change in Asian countries as well as the growing importance of

entrepreneurship in Asian societies (Bellah, 1963, 52). Following this sociological

trend, academics in the field of Indian studies (including Singer,

Elder,

McClelland

and Ames

) in the 1950s and the 1960s also attempted to employ

Weber’s (1930) ideas in their studies.

In the study of Theravada Buddhism, many writings in the 1950s and the

1960s by Leach,

Bechert, Evers, Obeyesekere,

Tambiah

and others

also

showed a new tendency to employ sociological theories including those of

Contemporary Buddhism, Vol. 9, No. 1, May 2008

ISSN 1463-9947 print/1476-7953 online/08/010007-51

2008 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/14639940802312600

Weber’s. In turn, I contend that, through a transfer of information and ideas, most
contemporary writers on Buddhist studies on both South Asia and Southeast Asia
have been either directly or indirectly influenced by Weber’s sociology, whether
the reception of such influence on the part of these scholars is conscious or not.
Despite more than four decades of such influence, no attempt has been made to
explore how and why Weber’s sociology has become so influential to the entire
field of Buddhist studies. Nor have academics critically assessed the use of Weber’s
sociology in this field.

While the writing process of major works on Buddhist society can be

regarded as a process of construction or synthesis (the fusing together of
information gathered and ideas imposed behind the framing of works), this paper
may be regarded as the de-construction (or an analysis) of major works in the field.
The aim, then, of the present paper is to unravel pieces of information and
elements of ideas that underlie the construction of each work using a
hermeneutical approach.

In other words, I am seeking to find out or interpret

the factors, especially the conceptual frameworks, behind the construction of
each work, in order to explain how this leads the authors to construct their
representation of Theravada in particular ways. These factors (as will be illustrated
hereafter) are a combination of: (1) specific conceptual frameworks (western
sociologically theoretical worldviews, western perceptions of things, specific fixed
academic views influencing the way the research was conducted, etc.); and
(2) specific academic ways of using and representing such information. My aim is
then to deconstruct accounts of Buddhist societies and explore how each
interpretation comes about because of the fusing together of information, ideas
and methodology, whether this academic process of producing works on the part
of scholars be conscious or not. This paper then represents the first attempt to
review and critically analyse the ways in which Weber’s sociology has influenced
the construction of knowledge in Theravada Buddhist studies since the 1960s. This
paper will review several of the most influential works on Buddhist studies in both
Sri Lanka and Thailand. It will focus on how each author’s ideas, arguments,
underlying methodology, explanations and conclusion are shaped or influenced
by Weber’s sociology. In this way, the present paper will help to broaden our
understanding of academic interpretations of Theravada Buddhism by
transcending what each author says to give an analysis of how and why he/she
says this.

As already indicated, methodologically speaking, the paper will review and

analyse the creation of each academic work from a hermeneutical perspective.
From a hermeneutical view, each work, its arguments and conclusion come about
due to the fusing together of: an interpreter’s pre-understanding; information and
ideas provided by previous authors; and the interpreted’ (or the subject that an
academic is attempting to study), which in a discussion of this paper is ‘the
Buddhist societies and the lives of the native Buddhists’. Within these categories,
an interpreter’s position is determined by his/her personal ideas, interests,
academic background, expertise, theoretical considerations and preferred

PHIBUL CHOOMPOLPAISAL

methodology—the combination of these factors leads to an interpreter’s
pre-understanding. In undertaking research, each author also either obtains or is
partly influenced by further ideas and information as provided by other authors’
works. ‘Pre-understanding’ and the adoption of other authors’ ideas and
information, in turn, create an academic interpretation of ‘the interpreted’ as
reflected by an interpreter. Since ‘the meaning of the interpreted’ is defined by an
interpreter, it becomes a reflection of how an interpreter perceives ‘the
interpreted’. The meaning of the ‘interpreted’ is thus the product of both
interpreter and interpreted, and not necessarily the same as the interpreted itself.

In reflecting on academic works, I assume in this paper that neither

academic knowledge as constructed in the field of Buddhist studies nor insiders’
explanations necessarily portray a single reality of Buddhist societies. I agree with
Gombrich that what ‘insiders’ (or theologians) consciously explain they believe
and practise may or may not be the same as what they are unconsciously doing
(see Gombrich, 1971). However, since academics’ works are often influenced
by their own ‘pre-understanding’, sociological ideas and a transfer of ideas and
information, their resulting interpretation may not be acceptable to or even
recognisable by ‘insiders’. That is why insiders’ interpretations of Buddhist
societies are not necessarily the same as those of academic outsiders.

In this paper, an understanding of Weber’s influence and how each work is

constructed will help us to see how it can be problematic merely to take
information and ideas from other academics. This is because each interpretation of
a Buddhist society is often the by-product of some ‘pre-constructed’ sociological
ideas, and thereby has limitations due to its own ‘pre-understanding’,
methodology and theoretical underpinnings. Information and sociological ideas
as derived through an academic process can then become too specific, limited and
sometimes unrealistic to insiders, and as such may misrepresent the interpreted in
ways of which the new interpreter and his/her audience are unaware. In my view, it
is high time that we become more aware of three types of information and ideas:
(1) information and ideas as obtained and perceived through some specific
academic theoretical and methodological approach; (2) beliefs and practices as
consciously perceived by ‘insiders’; and (3) the real context of the society. This will
help us better understand: each author’s and insiders’ position; how each author
seeks to interpret the ‘sign’ (each local Buddhist community) and which approach
he/she takes to study it; how ‘the signified’ (or each interpretation of the sign)
comes about; and a contrasting picture between the ‘sign’ (each local Buddhist
community that an author studies) and ‘the signified’ (an author’s representation
of that local Buddhist community), or between ‘reality’ and ‘academic
representation’. This will, it is hoped, help raise an academic awareness about a
void within the insider – outsider dialogue (or the theologian – sociologist dialogue)
that has emerged over decades in Buddhist studies.

In spite of an effort being made to deal with as many works as possible in

the field of Buddhist studies in Sri Lanka and Thailand, this paper can only explore
a selection of the more important works. Many more academic ‘voices’ could have

INFLUENCE OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY ON THERAVADA STUDIES

been included had I had more space. I must also emphasise at the outset that
although this paper offers criticism and challenges many works, I nevertheless
appreciate the valuable contributions that such works have made. Indeed, it is my
very appreciation of these works that has led me to read such studies extensively
and thence to trace the genre back as far as possible to the beginnings of what
might be called ‘the Weberian sociological study of Theravada Buddhism’. Finally,
although this paper argues that academic interpretations are not always
acceptable to ‘insiders’, it does not intend to suggest that such work should be
rejected. Rather, it simply attempts to point out a void within insider – outsider
dialogue in Buddhist studies. This is because insiders and outsiders have different
worldviews and methodologies for the study of Buddhism. So academic
interpretations are valid, but only within western academic worldviews and not for
insiders inhabiting traditional Buddhist worldviews.

In organising this paper, I shall start by discussing some of Weber’s main

sociological ideas. After that, I shall look at academic works on Theravada Buddhism
in the 1960s, focusing on the important works of Bechert, Evers and Obeyesekere.
I shall then move on to explore the influence of Weber’s sociology on Buddhist
studies in Sri Lanka through an analysis of the major works of Gombrich,
Obeyesekere and Bond during the 1970s and 1980s. Finally, I will look at Weber’s
influence on even very recent Buddhist studies in Thailand, focusing on works of
Keyes, Tambiah, Suksamran, Jackson and Swearer during the 1970s and 1990s.

Weber’s sociology

I will now briefly explore Weber’s ideas as expressed in Economy and Society

(1968)

and The Methodology of Social Sciences (1949), as it will subsequently help

understand how Weber’s ideas have influenced Buddhist studies. Combining both
subjective and objective modes of interpretation, Weber believes it is important to
understand subjectively social behaviour/action (which is guided by the intention
to achieve a particular goal) in order to be able to objectively reconstruct the
meanings of social action. Therefore, Weber proclaims that social behaviour can
only be fundamentally understood through a subjectively empathetic investi-
gation of the individual action rather than an objective enquiry into the
collectives.

Weber hypothesises that an interpreter, possessing imaginatively

empathetic skills, can perfectly understand the action of the interpreted as if (s)he
himself/herself were the interpreted.

However, because of the complexities of the social world, Weber believes it

is not possible to grasp the totality of social phenomena. He therefore only seeks
to approximate social reality and explain it causally. To this end, Weber can be
seen by theorists as proposing an academic technique that became useful for
academics who seek to study (religious) societies or any social phenomenon. By
coining the phrase, ‘ideal-type’, Weber can be seen as proposing that one way to
study any specific society (Society A) was by ‘comparing and contrasting’ this
society that we wished to study (Society A) with the theoretical model society (the

PHIBUL CHOOMPOLPAISAL

‘ideal-type’ Society B), which we already knew about.

For Weber, through a

‘comparative’ method, an ‘ideal-type’ society (or an ‘ideal-type’ pattern of
behaviours of people in the model Society B) became the conceptual framework
of reference, or a yardstick. By comparing the society that we were studying
(Society A) with the ‘ideal-type’ Society B, we can then evaluate and understand
the society we are studying, or ‘the actual actions of the interpreted’ (the observed
pattern of behaviours of people in society we are studying). By this comparative
method, Weber was seen by theorists as proposing at least two kinds of ‘ideal-
type’ society: the ‘rational’ and the ‘irrational’. While the former, based on ‘rational
actions’ of people, operates a logical mode of thinking and/or in a more
modernised way, the latter—which has traditional and more archaic features—
operates on an illogical basis, driven by emotional and other human distortions.
These two modes (rational and irrational) became ‘ideal-types’, a model
conceptual framework of reference that academics could use to compare and
contrast with the actual society they were studying in order to understand and
represent it (as well as the actual actions of people in that society).

Therefore, apparent benefits that academics could take from Weber’s ideas

included the possibility of explaining a (religious) society, either by ‘comparing
and contrasting’ it with Weber’s case studies (Weber’s Society A, Calvinism, etc.), or
by using the model conceptual framework, ‘ideal-type’ Society B, as developed by
Weber from those case studies. The latter requires one to assume that there was
no major difference between Weber’s model society of Calvinism and the
particular society (any new society A) that an academic is trying to interpret
(Parkin, 1982, 30 – 31).

By this means, Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1930)

proposes that through the westernisation and modernisation process, Calvinist
society has been transformed from being ‘irrational/traditional’ into ‘rational
capitalism’. Unlike ‘traditional’ Calvinism as an ‘ideal-type’ religion in the
traditional period, reform Calvinism as an ‘ideal-type’ religion in the modern
period becomes ‘rational capitalistic’ religion. For Weber, the ‘rational capitalistic’
reform Calvinism consists of both ‘the rational spirit of capitalism’ (or ‘the
normative’) and ‘the accumulation/wealth of materials’ (or ‘the institution’), and
therefore it ‘causally’ generates and promotes capitalist economic activity. When
the followers of Calvinist religion are inspired by the Calvinist teachings,
particularly the doctrine of ‘duty’, the religious path of ‘salvation’ and the values of
inner-worldly asceticism, ‘the rational spirit of capitalism’ functions to generate
and accelerate the surplus capital by:

(1)

encouraging the labourers to perform their good duty by working hard for their

(religious) community in response to their ‘salvation anxiety’,

(2)

encouraging the capitalists to invest the capital in order to increase productivity,

and

(3)

limiting consumption through encouraging an ascetic compulsion to save.

INFLUENCE OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY ON THERAVADA STUDIES

From the above conditions, Weber’s thesis then attributes the success and spread
of Calvinism to the rise of the bourgeoisie. This is because when the bourgeoisie
financially supports the ascetic priests, the priests provide teachings for the laity;
and these teachings encourage the labour to perform their good duty by working
hard. The Protestant Ethic, historically creating the values of the ‘capitalist spirit’,
therefore becomes the mechanism that indirectly helps generate secular activities
and legitimates social power. On the whole, Weber (1930), who proposed the
central idea of ‘rational capitalism’ (or ‘rational economic’ features of religion),
makes a connection between religious beliefs (and salvation anxiety), religious
duty, the investment of capital, an increase in productivity, the limit of
consumption, the existence of a surplus, and the overall effects of religion on the
growing economy and capitalism. So, when I use the phrase, ‘rational capitalistic’
(or ‘rational economic’) hereafter, it reflects all of the above conditions of ‘rational
capitalism’ regarded by Weber as having existed in Calvinist society.

While providing an important analysis of the mutual relationship between

religion and socio-polity, Weber’s Sociology of India (1958) also indicates his
awareness of the limitations of his own work (developed in relation to Calvinism)
when applied to oriental society. As Bechert points out, Weber claims—when
writing about Indian religion

—that Buddhism was originally a ‘specifically

unpolitical and antipolitical class religion’ (Bechert, 1991, 181); and that the
characters of Buddhism and oriental society were traditionally ‘irrational’ in a sense
that Buddhism and other oriental religions did not instigate social, economic and
political changes,

and in this were thus distinct from Calvinist society (Bechert,

1991, 181 – 182). For Weber, Buddhism was ‘a “product of quite positively
privileged classes”’ (Bechert, 1991, 181 – 182). He suggests that it ‘never attempted
to alter the world’s social order’ (Bechert, 1991, 181 – 182). He thus concludes that
it ‘was unable to develop a “rational economic ethic”’ (Bechert, 1991, 181 – 182).
In other words, for Weber, his conception of ‘rational capitalism’ is only applicable
to Calvinist society in the West. Weber explains this on the grounds that, from his
studies in India and China, he finds that in oriental society neither the ‘capitalistic
spirit’ nor ‘the institution’ (the accumulation of the wealth) has been developed
properly. For Weber, unlike the West, the East is not characterised by ‘rational
capitalism’ because oriental religions cannot provide a motivational drive for the
‘rational spirit’ to build up. Thus, Weber argues that the socio-economic nature of
oriental society remains ‘irrational’. While Weber endeavours to generalise his
theory of the approximation of social and historical reality as far as possible, he is
still aware of the differences between societies, particularly between the West and
the East.

Apart from Weber’s theorisation of ‘ideal-type’ and main analysis of Calvinist

society as explained above, there are other sociological ideas of Weber that are
developed as by-products of Weber’s analysis of Calvinist religion. Examples of
these ideas that also influenced subsequent scholars are Weber’s theorisation of
‘charismatic leadership’ and socio-religious – political changes. Moreover, Weber’s
analysis of primitive Buddhism and other Indian religions (which can be seen as

PHIBUL CHOOMPOLPAISAL

another ‘ideal-type’ different from the ‘ideal-type’ of Calvinist society) has also
influenced academic authors who sought to study Buddhism through a
sociological approach. As Bechert points out, Weber (1958) is influential in
provoking many academic thoughts; for example, the idea that changes in socio-
political conditions led to changes in religion, the mutual relationship between
Buddhism and rulers (the socio-political use of Buddhism ‘as a means of mass
domestication’, etc.), the relationship between Buddhism and social classes, and
so forth (Bechert, 1991, 186).

In my opinion, some criticisms may be directed at Weber’s ideas and

methodology. In approximating social reality, to what extent is the ‘ideal-type’
that provides a frame of reference reliable? In a case where the ‘ideal-type’
happens to be unreliable, is the whole project still reliable? If we change the ‘ideal-
type’, will we not reach completely different conclusions as to the role of religion
and its discourses? How can we assess the extent to which it is reliable to study
any religion in comparison with Calvinist society as the ‘ideal-type’ society? Is the
presupposition that the model of Calvinist society may be applicable to study
other religions acceptable? What will happen with our studies if we ignore this
Weberian idea and choose to use a different religious society to be our model for
the purpose of comparison? Is such comparison the best technique to achieve
understanding? Furthermore, can we as interpreters really imaginatively
empathise with the actual actions of the interpreted? When an interpreter
assumes that his/her empathetic skills are sufficient to fully understand ‘the
interpreted’, does he/she not overstate his/her abilities? Last but not least,
although Weber argues that his hypothesis is not applicable to explaining any
society that lacks a feature of ‘rational capitalism’, it is difficult to establish
objectively if a given society is ‘rational capitalistic’ or not. The vagueness of the
phrase, ‘rational capitalism’ can lead to several different interpretations.

Sociological writings in Buddhist studies from 1960s (Bechert,
Evers and Obeyesekere)

In the 1960s, three influential authors—Bechert, Evers and Obeyesekere—

produced pioneering works on Theravada Buddhist societies in English and
German languages by instilling western theory and/or Weber’s sociology into their
studies. While Obeyesekere, whose works will be considered later, focused
specifically in his studies on Buddhism in Sri Lanka, Bechert and Evers applied a
sociological perspective to the study of Buddhism in South and Southeast Asia
more generally. The key works of Bechert and Evers are: Bechert’s three volume
Buddhismus, Staat und Gesellschaft in den La¨ndern des Theravada Buddhismus
(1966, 1967, 1973); and Evers’ three consecutive works ‘The Formation of a Social
Class Structure: Urbanization, Bureaucratization and Social Mobility in Thailand’
(1966); ‘The Buddhist Sangha in Ceylon and Thailand. A Comparative Study of
Formal Organisations in Two Non-Industrial Societies’ (1968), and Loosely
Structured Social Systems, Thailand in Comparative Perspective (1969).

INFLUENCE OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY ON THERAVADA STUDIES

Evers categorises Buddhist studies within the field of Asian studies, and his

writings during the 1960s and 1970s owe a great deal to Weber’s hypothesis. In
contrast, Bechert regards Buddhist studies as a specific area of studies, separate
from Asian studies and from the study of Indian religions. In addition to using
Weber, Bechert also employs Marx, as appropriate to the particular aspect of
Buddhist societies on which his study focuses. Unlike Bechert and Evers,
Obeyesekere seeks to study Buddhism more locally in South Asia in the context of
Indian religions and culture. Methodologically, Obeyesekere brings together
Weber’s sociology and other theories (Durkheim, Freud, Hegel, etc.) in his studies
(as will be shown later). While Bechert (1966 – 73) and Evers (1966 – 69) obtain most
of their information from western documents, Obeyesekere bases his works more
on anthropological fieldwork. A more focused area of studies and Obeyesekere’s
greater proficiency in sociological theory enable Obeyesekere to study Buddhist
societies in greater depth and from a greater number of perspectives. This allows
him to provide an account of both socio-polity and ‘personality and culture’ in
South Asian Buddhist societies, a point to which I shall return below.

When focusing more on socio-political dimensions of Buddhism, Bechert’s

(1966, 1967, 1973) use of Marx’s ideas leads him to argue that modern Buddhism
provides a basis for political operations. This is why Evers comments in his review
of Bechert’s 1966 work that Bechert is overly concerned with ‘political doctrines,
like Marxism, socialism, democracy, nationalism and social-revolutionary ideas’
(Evers, 1967).

Elsewhere, drawing more on Weberian theory concerning the relationship

between socio-economic change and Buddhist societies, Bechert produces the
following works that focus more on socio-economic-political dimensions of
Buddhism: ‘Theravada Buddhist Sangha: Some General Observations on Historical
and Political Factors in its Development’ (1970), ‘Einige Fragen der Religionsso-
ziologie und Struktur des su¨dasiatischen Buddhismus’ (1968),

‘Buddhism and

Society’ (1979), and ‘Max Weber and the Sociology of Buddhism’ (1991). Under
Weber’s influence (1930, 1958), Bechert (1970) focuses on reform Buddhism and
changes in social structure and economic interests, and Bechert (1968) uses
Weber’s concepts of Buddhist historical writing and his ideas of the use of
Buddhism as a means of ‘domestication of the masses’.

Overall, Bechert in his

writings from the 1970s to 1991 argues that: changes in social and political
dimensions result in religious changes; in turn, social, political and religious
changes bring about economic changes;

and Asoka provides the ideal concepts

of kingship in Buddhist societies.

This last point means that the ruler is

responsible for protecting and preserving the Sangha and Buddhism. In return,
Buddhism is used as a means to exert political power over the country. The Sangha
is therefore politically significant.

While Bechert began to use Weber in the 1960s, it was not until 1991 that he

first attempted to explain why and to what extent Weber’s ideas were applicable
to a study of Buddhist societies. He challenges Weber’s ideas of the apolitical and
irrational (traditional) economic nature of Buddhism and argues (against Weber’s

PHIBUL CHOOMPOLPAISAL

own view, mentioned above) for the applicability of those ideas of Weber derived
from his study of Calvinism (Weber, 1930, 1958) to Buddhist societies. Bechert
argues that Weber’s main sources on Buddhism from the 1880s to the 1890s are
outdated, contain factual errors and do not accurately portray the nature of
Buddhism.

He argues that Weber was overly concerned with the spiritual and

traditional dimension of primitive Buddhism and lacked the considerations of
Buddhist teachings in ‘rationally economic terms’ (Bechert, 1991, 193). Bechert
(1991, 193) also argues for the inseparable connection between Buddhism and
rational economic factors and between Buddhism and socio-politics. Although
Bechert’s argument is very reasonable, he still has not provided enough evidence
to show how and in which way Buddhism can become ‘rational economic’ like
Calvinism. The fact that Weber’s (1958) information is outdated does not
necessarily mean that Buddhist societies can become ‘rational capitalistic’.

Evers takes a different position in his three consecutive works mentioned

above (Evers, 1966, 1968, 1969) and his Monks, Priests and Peasants: A Study of
Buddhism and Social Structures in Central Ceylon (Evers, 1972). He combines
approaching Buddhist societies sociologically through Weberian views (Weber,
1930) with the use of statistics and documents in English. In reviewing sociology
developed in relation to other continents that have been applied to Southeast
Asia, Ever writes ‘the theories of the great German sociologist Max Weber were
used to explain social and religious change in Southeast Asia’ (1980, 6). Evers
draws upon Weber’s work because he feels he ‘needs a theoretical foundation,
independent of the nature of later interpretation’ (Evers, 1968, 20). All of his works
(1966 – 1972) reflect that Evers maintains the same methodological and theoretical
stance.

For example, while Evers (1966) looks at the social, political and

economical processes of urbanisation in Thailand, Evers (1968) explores
comparatively the social structures of Buddhism in Ceylon and Thailand.
Employing the same Weberian view, both works (Evers, 1966, 1968) come to the
similar conclusion that:

the more formalized and strict the structure of a society, the less formalized and

strict is the structure of formal organizations, whose organizational goals are

compatible with the norms and values of that society. (Evers, 1968, 32; cf. Evers,

1966, 488)

Evers is both directly and indirectly influenced by Weber’s ideas. As a result

of Weber’s direct influence, all of Evers’ works look at the comparative social
structures of oriental societies through Weber’s views (1930) of: ‘rationality of
organizations’ (for instance, see Evers, 1968, 33 – 35) and the ‘ideal type of
bureaucracy’ (Evers, 1968, 33). Evers is occasionally indirectly indebted to Weber’s
ideas through Parsons (1960), another follower of Weber. Parsons’ influence leads
to Evers’ argument that ‘the Sangha is, therefore, also predominantly a pattern-
maintenance organization whose function is mainly expressive’ (Evers, 1968, 23).

Through the use of Weber’s theories in conjunction with other sociological

theories, Obeyesekere’s works from the 1960s to 1970s deal with a wider range

INFLUENCE OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY ON THERAVADA STUDIES

of themes than Bechert and Evers, ranging from socio-economic – political,
societal, and psychological, through to paradoxically conceptual and behavioural
dimensions of Buddhism. In his paper on ‘The Great Tradition and the Little
Tradition in the Perspective of Sinhalese Buddhism’ (Obeyesekere 1963),

Obeyesekere explains the psychological function of Buddhism in Sri Lanka using
Weber’s concepts. This allows him to draw a dividing line between ‘the great
tradition’ (or ‘Theravada Buddhism’) and ‘the little tradition’ (or ‘Sinhalese
Buddhism’). Drawing on the terminology and interpretations of Redfield and
Slater,

Obeyesekere explains that belonging to ‘the Great tradition’ (Theravada

Buddhism), religious ‘virtuosos’ seriously aim at salvation and thereby claim a
logical rejection of the gods (1963, 150 – 151). Weber’s idea of the ‘motivational’
function of religion informs Obeyesekere’s argument that Buddhism has a
psychologically motivational function that benefits most Sinhalese Buddhists who
belong to ‘the little tradition’. That is why most Sinhalese Buddhists who are more
interested in worldly benefits in this or subsequent lifetimes than in the ultimate
soteriological goals of Buddhism believe in the power of the deities.
As Obeyesekere explicitly states:

The motivational explanation (as explained by Weber) would state why beliefs

that seem contradictory continue to be believed in: there is a strong human

need for these beliefs. For example, however much doctrinal Buddhism devalues

magic and the gods and divests them of power, universal human motives

require the existence of these phenomena. (Obeyesekere 1963, 150)

In his paper on ‘Theodicy, Sin and Salvation in a Sociology of Buddhism’,

Obeyesekere (1968) explores the behavioural and doctrinal concepts of Buddhism
through Weberian and Hegelian theories. Influenced by Hegel’s views of
‘dialectic’,

Obeyesekere uses a ‘deduction’ method to show the self-

contradictory nature of Buddhist teachings and practice. Here, Weber’s ideas
(1930)

help Obeyesekere formulate an argument as to the function of religion in

the context of ‘social actions’. Obeyesekere argues that, as in Christianity, in
Buddhism ‘suffering is treated as a “given” . . . it is endemic to social life’ (1968, 7).
Following Parsons—whose ideas are influenced by Weber (1930)—Obeyesekere
explains the ‘dialectic’ of Buddhism that in social life ‘there is often a discrepancy
between hope and experience, fact and wish, utopia and actuality . . . The
frustrations (suffering) . . . require alleviation through symbolic techniques (of
religion)’ (1968, 7).

In his paper ‘Religious Symbolism and Political Change in Ceylon’,

Obeyesekere (1970) brings together: Weber’s (1930) socio-political ideas; Warner’s
(1959, 1961) idea of ‘social space’;

and Durkheim’s (1915) sociological ideas.

In it, he aims at ‘studying the changes that have occurred in Buddhism as a result
of massive social changes, especially political changes in recent times’ with an
emphasis on ‘the urban and the city context’ (Obeyesekere 1970, 59). Following
Weber’s hypothesis, Obeyesekere argues that socio-economic – political changes
in Ceylon (Sri Lanka) brought about religious changes and the changing beliefs

PHIBUL CHOOMPOLPAISAL

of Sinhalese Buddhists.

On the one hand, Obeyesekere uses information about

political changes and the emerging middle class from Wriggins’ (1960) Ceylon:
Dilemmas of a new Nation and Singer’s (1964) The Emerging Elite to support his
Weberian argument. On the other hand, Obeyesekere supports Weber’s ideas by
taking a ‘phenomenological’ approach.

The latter is achieved by ‘driving a car

along and around the city of Colombo’ and reflecting on the social and cultural
changes of the Ceylonese through the ‘spatial shifts’ of symbolic/social objects
(Obeyesekere 1970, 59 – 66). Central to the idea of ‘social space’ is his argument
that the symbolic/social objects with their ‘spatial meanings’ in the public place
can represent and reflect the meanings of the social, cultural and religious lives of
the people. This ‘spatial representation’ helps explain socio-political and religious
changes in Ceylon, and helps Obeyesekere to communicate Weber’s ideas in a
descriptive, easy-to-understand way. Obeyesekere’s reflections on the ‘spatial
meanings’ of symbolic objects, as well as other evidence, lead to his Weberian
argument that, due to a cultural shift, a new model of contemporary Buddhism
can be called ‘Protestant Buddhism’ because: through ‘rationalization’, ‘many of its
norms and organizational forms are historical derivatives from Protestant
Christianity’; and it is ‘a protest against Christianity and its associated Western
political dominance prior to independence’ (Obeyesekere 1970, 59 – 63).

In his paper on ‘Personal Identity and Cultural Crisis. The Case of Anagarika

Dhammapala of Sri Lanka’, Obeyesekere (1976) again adopts Weber’s (1930) ideas
to explore through psychological, individual-behavioural and socio-political
dimensions the influence of a charismatic leader’s actions and role upon society.
As in his earlier work (1970), Obeyesekere is explicit that:

The interpretation and frame of analysis are influenced strongly by Erik Erikson

and Max Weber. I [Obeyesekere] have in a sense attempted to relate Erikson’s

psychological orientation to Weber’s sociological one. (1976, 250, note 3)

This leads to Obeyesekere’s conclusion that:

The role, and the individual playing it, could only have been effective at a

certain juncture in history . . . A charismatic leader’s influence on the group
makes sense only . . . [when] the groups wants to be influenced. (1976,

249 – 250)

In other words, in a specific event, social circumstances result in the eruption of a
charismatic leader, whose actions and ideas in turn lead to social changes.

While we can see Weber’s influence on several of Obeyesekere’s works as

discussed in relation to some of his other writings above, Obeyesekere prefers to
draw on the ideas of Freud and Durkheim to deal in more depth with the
psychological theme of ‘personality and culture’ (through ritual, myth, personal
symbols and culture). Works that use this approach include Obeyesekere’s
Medusa’s Hair: An Essay on Personal Symbols and Religious Experience (1981),
The Cult of the Goddess Pattini (1984), and ‘The Ritual Drama of the Sanni Demons’
(1969).

INFLUENCE OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY ON THERAVADA STUDIES

The way in which Obeyesekere draws on Freud and Durkheim is explained

in his The Work of Culture. Symbolic Transformation in Psychoanalysis and
Anthropology (1982).

Obeyesekere accepts that he is influenced by Freud’s ideas

through Jacob and Spiro,

and by Durkheim’s ideas through Leach.

In favour of

Freud, he argues that ‘the minds of the people’ create and recreate ‘symbolic
forms’ (Obeyesekere 1990, xix). In other words, ‘the unconscious’ (or ‘the deep
motivation’) creates and recreates ‘the public’ (or ‘the culture’). Aligning himself
with the social anthropologists Spiro and Leach,

Obeyesekere argues that ‘belief

is central to the authenticity of the experience, as it is to the public legitimation of
that experience’. In other words, because ‘one shares the experiences (and beliefs)
with others’, ‘true beliefs’ are public and shared by the community. For
Obeyesekere, in expressing solidarity, ‘the collective representations’ including the
‘performance’, ritual and other forms of religious congregation (as an act of
‘externalization’) function to allow ‘the individual to view what is within himself as
a cosmic drama’ (1990, 26 – 27).

Overall, Obeyesekere’s investigation into both the personal and social lives

of the people helps provide a more thorough multi-dimensional understanding of
Buddhist societies. Obeyesekere’s pioneering works (1960s – 1970s) have
influenced subsequent authors by providing conceptual ideas of how to study
Buddhist societies and lives of the people, and by providing necessary information
for further investigation into Buddhist studies in South Asia. Gombrich’s works
from 1970s onwards, which I shall discuss in more detail below, are not only
influenced by Obeyesekere’s ideas and information, they are also created in a
similar vein to Obeyesekere’s works. We can find many similarities and links
between Obeyesekere’s (1970, 1976) papers and Gombrich’s (1988; Gombrich and
Obeyesekere 1988) works—the most notable being that: Gombrich and
Obeyesekere share their interests in studying ‘religious changes’ and their
interactions with socio-economic changes in the urban context; influenced by
Obeyesekere (1970), Gombrich (1988; Gombrich and Obeyesekere 1988) uses the
term ‘Protestant Buddhism’, and in using this term Gombrich studies Buddhism in
a way similar to how ‘Protestant Christianity’ has been studied; and Obeyesekere
(1970) provides useful information for Gombrich (1988; Gombrich and
Obeyesekere 1988).

Considering the works of Obeyesekere, Bechert and Evers together, these

writings reflect that there are at least three possible sociological ways of how to
explore the umbrella theme of ‘Buddhism, State and Society’ used during this
period: namely, by studying various dimensions of Buddhist society in-depth
through Weber’s worldviews; by employing other theories to help formulate the
main ideas and use Weber’s ideas as a subsidiary hypothesis, or vice versa; and by
employing other theories without Weber’s ideas. Using these three means,
authors can deal with ‘Religion and Society’ multi-dimensionally, looking at, for
example, socio-political – economic (Weber and Marx), internally mystical and/or
externally ritualistic (Weber and Durkheim), psychological and behavioural (Weber
and Freud), and phenomenological (Weber and phenomenological) aspects.

PHIBUL CHOOMPOLPAISAL

Theravada Studies since the 1970s with special reference to Sri
Lanka: the writings of Gombrich, Obeyesekere and Bond

In the 1970s, western writings on Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia showed a

new tendency that sought to employ sociological theories in exploring the socio-
political aspect of Buddhism in the modern context. Three well-known examples
of this tendency, which continue as popular resources to this day, are Gombrich
(1971), Tambiah (1976) and Spiro (1971). During this period each of these authors
broke new ground by publishing works under the main theme of ‘Buddhism and
Society’ in three different Theravadin countries: Sri Lanka, Thailand and Burma,
respectively. These pioneering works are: Gombrich’s Buddhism. Precept and
Practice: Traditional Buddhism in the Rural highlands of Ceylon (1971); Tambiah’s
studies on Thai Buddhism in ‘Buddhism and This Worldly Activity’ (1973) and
World Conqueror and World Renouncer: A Study of Buddhism and Polity in Thailand
against a Historical Background (1976); and Spiro’s Buddhism and Society: a Great
Tradition and Its Burmese Vicissitudes (1971).

Behind the creation of these three works lies the fusing together of different

areas of academic expertise with the use of Weber’s sociological ideas and other
western theory. In Gombrich (1971), Gombrich—with a background in both
Indology (and so the study of Pali texts) and anthropology—approaches his study
of Buddhism in Sri Lanka through the use of the philosopher Karl Popper’s
scientific ideas of ‘the rationality principle’ and Weber’s sociological ideas.

For

Gombrich, ‘the rationality principle’ as ‘the basic assumption of the social sciences’
is required to understand Buddhist society (1971, 14). Following Weber, Gombrich
argues that ‘people often really do things—perform ceremonies etc.—because of
what they believe to be the case’ (1971, 11 – 12), and that ‘“charismatic” individuals
and individual actions bring about many (religious and social) changes’ (1971, 13).
In his work on Burmese Buddhism, because of his position as a sociologist, Spiro’s
main argument portrays Durkheim’s idea that ‘religious ideas deal with the very
guts of life’ (Spiro, 1971, 6).

He brings together the ideas of Durkheim, Freud and

Weber.

While Tambiah (1973, 1), on Thai Buddhism, argues following Weber that

there exists ‘the relation between kinds of religious ethic and economic (and
political) activity’.

In the broader context of Buddhist studies in Europe, not only English-

language authors, but also—according to Gabaude’s (2000) paper ‘Buddhist
Studies in France, Belgium and Switzerland 1971 – 1997’—other western authors
(such as Gabaude, Bizot and Fussman) writing in French and German sought to
employ sociological and/or ethnographic methods in their Buddhist studies.
According to Gabaude, the writings of Buddhist studies in the West have become
the construction of a westernised reading of the East while native worldviews
have been overlooked. This can be clearly seen, as Gabaude points out, from the
fact that: firstly, the academic pattern of Buddhist studies in the West is similar to
the pattern of how the academic knowledge of Christianity has been constructed;
and secondly, looking at western studies on Buddhism from an outsider’s point

INFLUENCE OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY ON THERAVADA STUDIES

of view, one sees that western authors are often more concerned with social sides
of Buddhism (social, political, historical and economic aspects of Buddhist
societies) rather than religious sides of Buddhism (the doctrines and real practices
of the real people in society and the mystical/otherworldly life aspects of Buddhist
teachings) (Gabaude, 2000, 229 – 234). By looking at the works of Lamotte, Bareau,
Fussman and Bizot, Gabaude recapitulates four main ways of approaching
Buddhist studies as practised by French speaking scholars. The four approaches
are to study: textual context (Lamotte), social context (Bareau), historical context
(Fussman) and ritual context (Bizot) (Gabaude, 2000, 233 – 236). Gabaude then
argues that there has been a tendency for academics to study Buddhism from the
sociological, anthropological and historical worldview of ‘outsiders’. Gabaude
concludes that:

In France, (all the institutions) with the exception of the E´cole Pratique des

Hautes E´tudes School, the teaching and research about Buddhism was scattered

according to other disciplines: anthropology, history, sociology . . . They may

have never studied Buddhism in terms of its doctrines. They pretend to study

Buddhism ‘as it is here and now’ while, for them, philologists study Buddhism ‘as

it is nowhere’ . . . Buddhism is just a part of social life. (2000, 235 – 236)

I will now look at the influence of Weber’s sociology on Buddhist studies in

Sri Lanka in the 1970s and 1980s by reviewing the most influential works of
Gombrich (1971, 1988), Gombrich and Obeyesekere (1988), and Bond (1988).

In his 1971 and 1988 studies, Gombrich deals with the question of ‘religious

changes’ in Buddhist societies on both individual-behavioural and societal levels
through anthropological, textual, doctrinal, historical and sociological approaches.
While Gombrich (1971) focuses on an interpretation of people’s behavioural
beliefs and practice in a traditional Theravadin society, Gombrich (1988) provides
the broader context of the social history of (Theravada) Buddhism. Both works
focus on ‘religious changes’ because, Gombrich believes, to understand the
religion we need to study Buddhism from the past to the present in order to be
able to ‘speculate on the causes (of religious changes)’ (1971, 14). Doing this,
Gombrich studies the origins of Buddhism from historical and textual evidence,
but studies the present through the anthropological fieldwork-based methods.

On an individual-behavioural level, following Tylor and Weber, Gombrich

(1971, 13) argues that (changing) beliefs lead to (changing) practice, or in his
words, that ‘people often really do things—perform ceremonies . . . —because of
what they believe to be the case’. In this behavioural and psychological context,
Gombrich moves beyond Weber’s sociology to explain that there are distinctions
between ‘cognitive (or conscious) behaviour’, or ‘what they really believe and say
they do’, and ‘affective (or unconscious) behavior’, or ‘what they really believe and
really do’ (Gombrich, 1971, 5). However, on a societal level, Gombrich (1988)
argues following Popper and Weber that it is the social context that influences
people’s actions and beliefs. On the whole, Gombrich’s Popper – Weberian analysis
is persuasive because he is able to draw on a wealth of primary sources to support

PHIBUL CHOOMPOLPAISAL

his arguments. The following are Gombrich’s assumptions, which will illustrate
how Gombrich is influenced by Weber and Popper:

(1)

In explaining how to study religion, Gombrich follows Popper’s ‘method of

conjecture and refutation’, and so conducts his analysis by formulating a

hypothesis and testing it. If a hypothesis is falsified by any evidence, a new

hypothesis has to be formulated. If a hypothesis can correctly explain information

as obtained, it becomes ‘the (social) truth’ (Gombrich, 1971, 3). In both works

(1971, 1988), Gombrich explains the concepts of ‘religious changes’ and

‘unintended consequences’ in the first chapter. These concepts seem to serve as

his ‘hypothesis’, which is then tested through the subsequent chapters.

(2)

In presenting his understanding of what regulates an individual’s action,

Gombrich follows Popper’s concept of ‘the rationality principle’ and believes

that an ‘action (is) based on the beliefs and directed to the aims’.

(3)

Introducing the concept of ‘charismatic leadership’, a charismatic leader’s

actions in relation to social changes, Gombrich draws again on Weber to argue

that a charismatic leader’s actions ‘bring about many (social) changes’ (1971, 15).

He adds that these ‘social changes come about as the unintended or the

intended consequences of the actions and utterances of individuals’. This leads

to the following assumptions (itemised as (4) and (5)).

(4)

In presenting his understanding of what regulates social actions, or behaviour of

human collectivities, Gombrich studies ‘social changes’ in Buddhism by weaving

together Weber’s ideas in (3), with Popper’s strategy of ‘problem situation’,

Popper’s principle of ‘methodological individualism’ and Popper’s concept of

‘unintended consequences’. As Gombrich argues, there are always interactions/

communications between an individual person and socio-economic – historical

circumstances through ‘language’. Through these interactions:

4.1.

‘People’s thoughts and actions become largely the product of their

education and social circumstance.’

4.2.

An individual person’s feedback and patterns of ideas in response

to social problems are attempts to offer better viable solutions to

society. A ‘charismatic leader’ is capable of providing ideas that are

accepted by society.

4.3.

Individuals are influenced by the innovative ideas of a ‘charismatic

leader’. This leads to changes in the individuals’ patterns of behaviours,

and in turn it leads to ‘unintended consequences’ (or ‘religious

changes’), which are an historical innovation (Gombrich, 1988, 9– 18).

(5)

Leading on from (4), Gombrich therefore argues that Weber ‘scored one great

success when he showed the historical association of Protestant Puritanism

(chiefly Calvinism) with the rise of capitalism’ (1988, 13). This influences

Gombrich’s arguments in dealing with socio-economic aspects of Buddhism,

particularly in Chapter 7 (‘Protestant Buddhism’) and Chapter 8 (‘Current trend’)

in Gombrich (1988).

INFLUENCE OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY ON THERAVADA STUDIES

In Chapter 7 (‘Protestant Buddhism’) in Gombrich (1988), the author deals with
Weberian aspects of Buddhism by taking information from Malalgoda (1976),
Bechert (1966, 1967) and Obeyesekere (1970). Gombrich’s use of the phrase,
‘Protestant Buddhism’ indicates a transfer of information and ideas from the above
academics’ works to Gombrich (1988). The phrase ‘Protestant Buddhism’ reflects
Weber’s influence on Obeyesekere (1970), Malalgoda (1976), Gombrich (1988), and
Gombrich and Obeysekere (1988). The phrase also portrays some of the perceived
new features of Buddhism in response to modernity, as reflected and agreed by
most contemporary authors. These features, which shed light on the socio-
political interactions between Buddhism and politics, are what Bechert collectively
terms ‘buddhistische Modernismus’ (or ‘Buddhist modernism’).

Obeyesekere’s

phrase ‘Protestant Buddhism’ appears to be a virtual synonym of this. Although
the use of these two phrases is very close in application to each other, their
meanings paint two different pictures of the study of Buddhist societies. While
Buddhist modernism is a broader term that encapsulates modern developments
in oriental societies, and consequently their forms of Buddhism, as influenced by a
modernity that originated in the West, the term Protestant Buddhism is very
specific in that it attributes a great role to direct western influence and especially
to Christianity in transforming Buddhism in the East.

Two other publications on Buddhism in Sri Lanka contemporaneous with

Gombrich (1998) similarly reflect the influence of Weber’s sociological ideas:
Gombrich and Obeyesekere’s (1988) Buddhism Transformed. Religious Change in Sri
Lanka; and Bond’s (1988) The Buddhist Revival in Sri Lanka: Religious Tradition,
Reinterpretation and Response. Under Weber’s influence, the three works share the
following features:

(1)

Gombrich (1988), Gombrich and Obeyesekere (1988) and Bond (1988) are

interested in the question of what Bellah (1965) calls ‘religion and progress’, or

‘Buddhist identity’ and ‘religious changes’.

Here, while Gombrich (1988) and

Gombrich and Obeyesekere (1988) are directly influenced by Weber, Bond

(1988) is indirectly influenced by Weber (1930) through Bellah (1965).

(2)

Unlike Bechert (1966, 1967) and Evers (1960s – 1970s), these writings examine

the place of Buddhism in the contemporary world by placing recent religious

and socio-economic – political changes in the context of the modern religious

history of South Asia. Like Tambiah (1976), Gombrich and Bond are ambitious to

cover a long period of history.

However—unlike Tambiah (1976)—Gombrich

(1988), Gombrich and Obeyesekere (1988) and Bond (1988) focus on modern

history in looking at Buddhism in Sri Lanka.

(3)

Influenced by Weber’s (1930) ideas, they argue that western influence,

modernisation and Protestant Christianity have led to the emergence of

‘Protestant Buddhism’ with its ‘rational’ features. ‘Protestant Buddhism’, for

Gombrich, Obeyesekere and Bond, lies in its double meanings:

3.1.

Protestant Buddhism is a protest against British colonialism and

Protestant Christianity. As the three authors argue, Sinhalese

PHIBUL CHOOMPOLPAISAL

Buddhists believe it is everyone’s responsibility to preserve and fight

for the survival of Buddhism. This results in the blurred distinction

between the monastic role and the role of the laity in leading

religious activities.

3.2.

Protestant Buddhism further displays new salient features of

Buddhist society that are similar to those of Calvinist society, as

portrayed by Weber. Such features include the emergence of

‘charismatic leaders’ and the reform of society, the growth of an

urban middle class in Buddhist society, the development of modern

education, an expanding economy, the growth in publication of

Buddhist literatures, and the study of religion through texts.

(4)

These works all present modern Theravada Buddhism as facing religious

‘dilemmas’ (or ‘dialectic,’ reminding us of Hegel’s concept of ‘dialectic’ as

portrayed through Weberian ideas in relation to Buddhism by both Obeyesekere

and Tambiah in Leach (1968)). They see conflict or dialectic between two

fundamentally opposed religious orientations in Buddhism—namely worldly and

other-worldly values; between the logical doctrine of karma in the Pali canon as

opposed to the devotional and/or magical beliefs and practices of the masses.

Despite the above similarities, Gombrich (1988) and Bond (1988) provide two
different interpretations of the characteristics of religious changes in Sri Lanka.
This is due to Bond (1988) being strongly influenced by Bellah (1965). While
Gombrich and Obeyesekere (1988) argue that religious changes have caused
‘confusion and discontinuity’ between the traditional and the present forms of
Buddhism,

Bond (1988), like Bellah (1965), sees such changes, which become the

reinterpretations and revival of Buddhism, as being ‘continuous’ and progressive
rather than disruptions. Examining the role of the laity, Gombrich and
Obeyesekere (1988) regard the rise of the social uplift movement Sarvodaya
and the practice of meditation led by the laity as distortions of the traditional
Buddhist ideals. However, Bond (1988), while agreeing that these developments
are new, argues that these two practices show the progressive and adaptable
characteristics of modern Buddhism because their reinterpretation of Buddhist
teachings helps people cope with the stress of modernity.

Furthermore, since Gombrich (1988) and Bond (1988) make use of different

terminologies (taken from different sources), they portray similar patterns of
religio-socio – political changes in Sri Lanka differently. While Gombrich (1988)
terms perceived developments in Buddhism with three phrases (‘spirit religion’,
‘Protestant Buddhism’ and ‘Post-Protestant Buddhism’), Bond (1988) categorises
religious changes into two types (‘reformism’ and ‘neo-traditionalism’), again
following Bellah. According to Gombrich and Obeyesekere (1988), ‘spirit religion’,
which is based on traditional practices of devotion and animism, emphasises the
different religion appropriate to the laity and the Sangha, the latter being
detached from spirit religion. In contrast, ‘Protestant Buddhism’ (or ‘Buddhism
proper’) with its ‘rationality’ in the Weberian (1930) sense, in providing a new set

INFLUENCE OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY ON THERAVADA STUDIES

of values for the urban middle-class in the modern context, undermines the
difference between the laity and the Sangha.

Gombrich and Obeyesekere (1988, 14) argue that ‘Protestant Buddhism’

develops out of the modern ‘rational’ socio-cultural context, and that this
development eventually brings ‘confusion’ to the minds of many ‘irrational’
people from a traditional background.

This leads the co-authors to adopt

another of Weber’s terms, ‘remystification’. They argue that in ‘remystifying’ a
society, the uneducated and socially/economically uncomfortable find the new
‘rationality’ of the socio-cultural context incompatible and so withdraw from or
evade society by practising meditation or devotion. In addition, through the same
‘remystification’ process, the middle classes with their ‘rational’ minds attempt to
live in this world, while following the logical doctrines of karma and practising
meditation.

On some occasions, the co-authors find Weber’s ideas alone are insufficient

to explain the psychological – behavioural aspects of Buddhism. They therefore
borrow ideas and terminology from other scholars to help explain on a more
psychological level practitioners’ experience of religious changes. Explaining the
relationship between meditation and possession, Gombrich (1988) adopts Lewis’
ideas

and Eliade’s terms (‘ecstasy’ and ‘enstasis’) in conjunction with Weber’s

ideas to help explain the practitioners’ experience. This is why Gombrich explains
that, because of the irrational minds of the uneducated, they evade social life and
practise meditation in ‘ecstatic’ emotion. In contrast, because the middle class can
possess a heightened awareness of their own experience, they can perform a
meditation practice in ‘enstasis’ (1988, 14 – 15, 452 – 454).

In contrast, as previously noted, Bond (1988) is influenced by Weber’s (1930)

ideas mainly through Bellah (1965) and partially through Tambiah (1976). Tambiah
(1976) enables Bond to argue for the applicability of Weber’s socio-political ideas
in Buddhist studies. In portraying social, political, economical and religious aspects
of Buddhism (Bond, 1988, 11 – 21), Bond (like Tambiah and Bechert) argues that
‘Weber undoubtedly overstated the extent to which early Buddhism was limited
to ascetics’ who ‘sought the true goal of religion’ (1988, 23). Bond’s adoption of
Weber’s (1930) ideas then allow him to support Bellah’s ideas, which in turn lead to
Bond’s portrayal of ‘the Dhamma for social action’, or the dialectic relationship
between ‘social context’ and ‘cosmologies’ (in Chapter 7). Bellah’s influence on
Bond (1988) is so substantial that most of Bond’s core arguments and ideas
depend on Bellah. To understand Bellah’s influence on Bond (1988), I will now
briefly look at Bellah’s ideas and position.

Like Obeyesekere and Gombrich later, Bellah regards ‘identity’, ‘continuity’

and ‘changes’ (or ‘religion’ and ‘progress’) as being central to the survival and
development of all religion through its history.

Drawing on Eliade’s explanation

of ‘spatio-temporal identity’, Bellah explains that the identity of each religion can
only be specified according to its own local and historical context (i.e. in a
particular area and at a specific time) (Bellah, 1965, 174 – 175). Influenced by
the ideas of Weber and of Geertz (1964), Bellah explains that ‘evolution’

PHIBUL CHOOMPOLPAISAL

is ‘the rationalization of religious symbolism’ (1965, 176 – 177). Through evolution,
Buddhism has ‘progressed’ from being ‘primitive’ to being ‘traditional’ (or
‘historic’) and then ‘modern’ (Bellah, 1965, 176 – 178). Explaining ‘primitive
societies’, Bellah adopts Durkheim’s idea that ‘religious roles, with few exceptions,
are embedded in the whole society’ (1965, 177). In contrast, in explaining ‘historic’
societies, like Obeyesekere and Gombrich, Bellah argues in favour of Weber (1930)
that ‘historic’ religion ‘provides the possibility of personal thought and action’
(Bellah, 1965, 177). From Bellah’s view, like Calvinistic society in the historic period,
Buddhism in the historic period with its ‘rational’ features is thus seen as
functioning to provide ‘fixed beliefs’ and ‘religious disciplines’, particularly the
doctrines of ethical ‘duty’. For Bellah and Weber, these beliefs psychologically
provide ‘motivation’ for people, and encourage people to work hard. The result is
the ‘progress’ of Buddhism through its history and the accumulation of worldly
benefits in Buddhist society. At the same time, while ‘progressing’ towards the
future, religion has to maintain its own ‘identity’ by ‘returning to the past’, or
going back to the original teachings of Buddhism (Bellah, 1965, 180 – 186).

Bellah follows Weber (1930) to argue that ‘Protestant Christianity’ in the

modern period is ‘undoubtedly the first religious movement to make a significant
contribution to modernization’ (1965, 198). According to Bellah, the ‘modern’
culture of Protestantism is characterised by the culmination of ‘rationalization’ and
the increase of ‘learning capacity in individual personalities’. At this end of
‘rationalization’, Protestantism implicates itself in this worldly society to the extent
that ‘ascetic religious motivation’ has been channelled ‘into economic and
political roles’ and the consequences are ‘the emergence of capitalistic and
democratic institutions’. In this situation, ‘religious obligation has primarily to do
with human welfare’ (Bellah, 1965, 194 – 199). As a response to modernity and
‘Protestant Christianity’, religion has to adapt itself. There are four possible ways to
adapt itself (or ‘four types of responses’): ‘conversion’, ‘reformism’, ‘neo-
traditionalism’ and ‘traditionalism’ (Bellah, 1965, 198 – 215).

The following three main arguments by Bond are the obvious result of the

influence of Bellah’s work (1965) upon his (Bond, 1988):

(1)

Like Bellah, and later Obeyesekere and Gombrich, Bond explains that the

‘progress’ of religion can be understood in terms of ‘identity, continuity and

changes’. Unlike Obeyesekere and Gombrich, Bond following Bellah sees the

progress of Buddhism as being ‘continuous’, or ‘the dynamic of the revitalization

process’ (Bond, 1988, 299). In other words, the history of Buddhism, for Bond, is

‘the living process through which people represented an ancient religious

tradition in modern times’ (1988, 299).

(2)

Like Obeyesekere, Gombrich and Bellah, Bond draws on Weber’s (1930) ideas to

frame his theory that there has been a change from ‘primitive’ to ‘modern’

societies through ‘rationalization’. Moreover, Weber’s ideas enable Bond to

exemplify and reinterpret specific dialectical relations between ‘social context’

and ‘cosmology’ (Bond, 1988, 299).

INFLUENCE OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY ON THERAVADA STUDIES

(3)

Unlike Obeyesekere and Gombrich, Bond draws on Bellah’s typology to argue

that there have been two patterns of responses of Buddhist society in Sri Lanka

towards modernity: ‘neo-traditionalism’ and ‘reformism’. In chapter two, Bond

explains that reformism has appeared since the mid-eighteenth century

(a reference to the activities and achievements of, in particular, the Sri Lankan

reform monk Saranamkara) and that the lay Buddhist associations (organised by

Olcott and Dharmapala) can be seen as the major vehicle of revival. In Chapters

3 – 7, Bond discusses in great detail the emergence of ‘neo-traditionalism’ and

how it becomes a more viable means to cope with pluralistic modern societies.

To sum up, I have included here, before turning to studies on Thailand, an
overview of the direct and indirect use of Weber in the study of Sri Lankan
Buddhism, not in order to criticise but to show how pervasive it is in studies of the
two Theravada countries most studied by western anthropologists in the postwar
period—most studied because of their relative security and openness.

I am

interested to observe that, in spite of the very different histories of these two
countries, and in the relationship between their respective secular authorities and
Sangha, the overall Weberian analyses developed regarding them are strikingly
similar. My own expertise is in Thai Buddhism, to which I now turn, for a more
detailed and analytical exploration of Weber’s influence in Buddhist studies.

Studies of Thai Buddhism in the West

In the field of Thai Buddhism, Keyes and Tambiah produced their writings in

the 1970s and 1980s under the umbrella theme of ‘Buddhism, State and Society’ by
employing Weber’s (1930) sociological ideas.

Written before he became

influenced by Weber, Keyes’ (1971) ‘Buddhism and National Integration in Thailand’
can be seen as a pioneering academic work in the field of Thai Buddhist studies
with its portrayal of the mutual relationship between Buddhism and kingship.
Centring on a socio-political aspect of Buddhism, Keyes (1971, 22–34) portrays the
political ideology that King Rama V uses the Sangha as a means to help create
national unity. On the same theme, Keyes’ (1987) Thailand: Buddhist Kingdom as
Modern Nation-State portrays the formation of Thailand as a modern nation. Some
parts of this latter work are produced under the direct influence of Weber (e.g.
Keyes’ interpretation of the doctrine of karma),

while some are under the indirect

influence of Weber through Turner’s ideas (particularly the concept of ‘charismatic
leaders’, political Buddhism and social changes).

In this work, Keyes explains the

modernisation process in Thailand through a legitimating ideology based on the
revitalised role of Buddhism and that of monarchy. Keyes depicts, on the one hand,
a mutual interaction between religion and polity creating social unity, and, on the
other hand, a tension behind the fac¸ade of unity. In Keyes’ (1978b) work on
‘Political Crisis and Militant Buddhism in Contemporary Thailand’, Keyes is very
much influenced by Turner’s Weberian ideas in attributing the rise of militant
Buddhism to the political crisis of the 1970s. Using Turner enabled Keyes to develop

PHIBUL CHOOMPOLPAISAL

his theory regarding a connection between the emergence of a ‘charismatic leader’,
socio-religious and socio-political changes and religious violence.

Not long before Keyes, Tambiah had similarly followed Weber’s conceptions

of the relationship between religion and secular activities, in producing his
‘Buddhism and This Worldly-Activity’ (1973) and World Conqueror and World
Renouncer (1976). In the former, Tambiah attempts to demonstrate the
applicability to the study of Buddhist societies of Weber’s paradigmatic idea of
the historical development from Protestant ethic to capitalism. Influenced by
Weber’s (1930, 1958) ideas, the latter gives an extensive account of Thai Buddhist
society in comparison with Buddhist societies in Burma, Sri Lanka and early India,
as well as with Brahmanical conceptions of world and societal order. At the outset
of Tambiah’s work (1973, 1), he explicitly accepts that ‘I (Tambiah) am an admirer
of Weber . . . (there exists) the relation between kinds of religious ethic and
economic (and political) activity’. Here, Tambiah establishes that a study of
modern Buddhism in Sri Lanka and Thailand can demonstrate the applicability of
Weber’s paradigmatic ideas of the relationship between religion and socio-polity
to modern oriental societies. Like Bechert, 1991, Tambiah contends that, because
Weber’s sources on Buddhism are outdated, Weber’s conclusion that his
sociological ideas of religious studies are not applicable to a study of the East is
unfounded. Tambiah’s (1973) work begins by exploring Weber’s ideas, and
thereafter argues for the development of Buddhism from ‘Ancient Buddhism’ to
‘semi-transformed Buddhism’ in Asoka’s period and ‘transformed Buddhism’ in the
modern period. Tambiah explains that the socio-politicisation of Asoka’s
Buddhism (as the exemplary Buddhism) initiated the historical transformation of
Buddhism. Consequently, the new tendency of Buddhism, which features the
mutual support between kingship and religion, has proved the applicability of
Weber’s Calvinist-religion model, more specifically an ‘ideal-type’ model of the
relationship between religion and society, to ‘transformed’ Buddhist societies. Like
Bechert, Tambiah argues that, because of the process of colonisation in Sri Lanka
and that of modernisation in Thailand, both Sri Lanka and Thailand have
undergone a process of transformation through which new oriental societies
possess the ‘rational spirit of capitalism’ as did Calvinist society.

Pursuing the same Weberian ideas, Tambiah (1976), like Bond (1988) later,

highlights both the ‘continuities’ of Buddhism in Southeast Asian Buddhist
societies across time and locality, and the ‘tensions’ between religion and polity.
Tambiah proposes that Buddhism includes a conception of proper political action
and structure with ‘kingship as the ordinating principle of the polity cum society’
(1976, 515). Tambiah’s (1976) work is problematic because it uses a single
Weberian theory to deal with a vast array of topics over a very long period of time.
As portrayed in both Tambiah (1973) and (1976), the historical development of
Buddhism and the emergence of modernised Buddhism are very similar to the
historical accounts of Calvinist religion in terms of the mutual interactions and
tensions between religion and socio-polity. Tambiah’s overriding concerns with
Weber’s ideas, coupled with his limited ability in any Thai language, results

INFLUENCE OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY ON THERAVADA STUDIES

in an absence of Thai materials in his lengthy work. This is problematic because
Tambiah’s overemphasis on a theoretical angle leads him to ignore the practical
dimensions of Thai polity. His work is then slanted heavily towards western theory,
thoughts and materials. His ‘macroscopic . . . panoramic and telescopic view of
the society’ (Tambiah, 1976, 3) reflects a lack of concern for context, here ignoring
how the native society functions in its own socio-cultural context.

There are a few exceptions where Tambiah does not seek to apply Weberian

theory and does seek to pay attention to context. These are his studies focusing
on: the purely doctrinal and cosmological aspects of Buddhism; and the
interweaving of cosmological ideas with village life, a society that in his view can
be regarded as being ‘archaic’ or ‘apolitical’. These exceptions can be seen in
Tambiah’s (1970) Buddhism and the Spirit Cults in North-east Thailand; and in his
analysis of ‘the Brahmanical Theory of Society and Kingship’ (Chapter 2) and ‘Early
Buddhist Concepts of World, Dhamma and Kingship’ (Chapter 3) in Tambiah
(1976). While the themes still derive from the socio-political agenda, we see here
Tambiah’s intention to investigate religious texts and societies through their own
religious context.

Produced not long after these works by Keyes and Tambiah, Suksamran’s

(1982) Buddhism and Politics in Thailand: A Study of Sociopolitical Change and
Political Activism in the Sangha reflects the indirect influence of Weber’s sociology
through Keyes and Tambiah. As a native Thai with a background in political
science, Suksamran, unlike Keyes and Tambiah, does not intend to make use of
any western, let alone Weberian, theory to structure his study. As he says,
‘I [Suksamran] do not fully comprehend the issues in dispute in the sociological
and anthropological theories, for they are largely outside my field of interest’
(Suksamran, 1982, 4). This suggests that, since he does not understand sociological
theories, he is not directly influenced by these theories. Yet, while we might posit a
generalised influence of western thought through his background in political
science, it is Weber who most clearly does enter his work through Keyes and
Tambiah. Influenced by Keyes’ idea of the politicalisation of the Sangha, Suksamran
argues that ‘under certain socio-economic and political circumstances Buddhism
could be manipulated to provide legitimacy for rebellious or revolutionary
ideologies’ (1982, 5). This formulation of the socio-political ideas coupled with
Suksamran’s unrestricted use of materials in Thai enable him to go far deeper than
Keyes and Tambiah in analysing ideologically diverse political monks, both left-
wing and right-wing, in the dramatic changes emerging from 1973.

Unlike most western scholars, rather than focusing on politics and Buddhism

as inevitably set at odds with each other, Suksamran represents Thailand
positively, as having achieved the appropriate balance between politics and
Buddhism, in comparison with the neighbouring Buddhist countries of Southeast
Asia. Nevertheless, it could be argued that Suksamran, being an insider, does not
see potential alternative models outside this context. While Suksamran’s writing
reflects his main focus on the relationship between socio-politics and Thai
Buddhism from the perspective of a native Thai patriot, it fails to take into

PHIBUL CHOOMPOLPAISAL

consideration the broader context beyond Thailand: the socio-political changes in
the whole of Southeast Asia, in part reflecting global transformations, and the
effects of these on the changing role of religion; the influence of western
processes of colonialisation and hegemony; and the impact of modernisation and
the introduction of extreme consumerism to Southeast Asia. The above factors
have led to structural changes in politics, economics and religion in the whole of
Southeast Asia. This has also led to the transformation of Buddhism in Thailand
and neighbouring countries. Thailand, although not colonised by either France or
Britain, became a Cold War front, due to its geographical location, resulting in
modernisation and the rapid implementation of capitalism that in turn have
transformed Buddhism.

Western academics might question whether it is really

possible to have an ‘ideal/perfect’ balance between religion and politics.

On the whole, the most important influence of Keyes’ and Tambiah’s writings

during the 1970s and 1980s seems to be that they laid the foundation of knowledge
in this field, namely that: throughout the long history of Thailand there has always
been a mutual relationship between kingship/macro-politics and religion; and like
the reform in a Calvinist society, the reform in Thai society and Reform Buddhism (as
opposed to Tradition Buddhism) was politically initiated by King Mongkut. In a
religious sphere, as discussed in Tambiah’s (1976) writing, Buddhadasa’s work
initiates Reform Buddhism in Thailand with its provision of the highly philosophical
and rational concepts of Buddhist teachings. Buddhadasa’s teachings are seen by
Tambiah as challenging traditional Buddhism and providing a new interpretation of
Buddhism, which reflects the modern context of Thai society.

From 1989 onwards, writings (by Jackson, Keyes, Swearer,

Zehner,

Taylor,

etc.) reflect a tendency that seeks to study Thai Buddhism in four dimensions: a
sociological dimension, looking at the interaction between Thai Buddhism and
socio-polity; an anthropological dimension, concerning Buddhist rituals and
traditional beliefs and practice; the study of Buddhadasa’s works (concentrating
on either its doctrines or its relation to the role of socio-polity); and the study of ‘(new
or individualistic/reform) religious movements’ (such as, and in particular, the
Dhammakaya temples and/or the Santi Asoke organisation) in the urban context.

With the socio-political studies of the interaction between Buddhism and

socio-polity in the 1970s and 1980s forming the basic framework for knowledge of
modern Thai Buddhism, the writings of the 1990s on Buddhadasa and new
religious movements were an extension of that foundational knowledge, but
detailed the more complicated and fragmented mechanisms of modern Thai
Buddhism.

Thus influenced by the writings of the 1970s and 1980s, several

writings from 1989 onwards on the socio-political aspects of Buddhism shared the
same features:

(1)

Documenting the historical continuity of the interaction between socio-politics

and Buddhism from the thirteenth century until recently, and exploring the

accounts of Buddhism and Thai polity in the modern context from the reign of

King Mongkut in the nineteenth century until recently.

INFLUENCE OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY ON THERAVADA STUDIES

(2)

Encapsulating Weber’s and/or other sociological ideas, scholars (e.g. Jackson,

Keyes, Swearer, Zehner and Taylor) work on similar assumptions and reach

similar conclusions, namely that:

2.1.

Through modernisation, Thai Buddhism develops from Establish-

ment/Tradition Buddhism to Reform Buddhism. Tradition Buddhism

emphasises cosmology, and sees the legacy of kamma from one’s

previous existences as providing the explanation for one’s position

in this-worldly hierarchical society. Reform Buddhism rejects

cosmology, rituals and the legacy of kamma defining one’s fixed

place in society. Initiated by King Mongkut, Reform Buddhism

redefines one’s present/future place in the new capitalistic society

according to one’s own action in this life (Keyes, 1989). Reform

Buddhism is characterised by: ‘rational(-isation, or -ism)’ (Keyes,

1989, 124 – 142), ‘revitalisation’

(Zehner, 1990, 404 – 406; Swearer,

1991 note 87), ‘capitalism’ (Jackson, 1989; Taylor 1990, 154; Keyes

1987 Chapter 7),

‘secularisation’ (Zehner, 1990),

‘individualistic’

movements (Taylor, 1990), ‘internal conversion’

(Zehner, 1990),

‘fundamentalistic’ movements (Swearer, 1991), and ‘resistance and

protest’ (Swearer, 1999).

2.2.

Buddhism provides a set of beliefs and practices for lay people, it

sets out ‘the premises on which the power is legitimated in Thai

polity’ (Keyes, 1989, 128). Polity and religion reinforce each other as

reflections of an underlying cosmology (Keyes, 1989, 137).

2.3.

In the plurality of modern Thai society, each reform by each

charismatic leader is seen as an attempt to ‘establish a new social

configuration predicated upon radically different assumptions

about power to those which were previously accepted’ (Keyes,

1989, 136). In other words, different versions of dhamma are

employed to create different patterns of Thai polity.

2.4.

Paradoxically, hard as the members of the Sangha may try to detach

themselves from worldly life in pursuit of soteriological purposes,

they still return, and are still very much attached, to this worldly

socio-polity (Taylor, 1990, 1993a, 1993b).

In his Buddhism, Legitimation, and Conflict. The political Functions of Urban

Thai Buddhism, Jackson (1989) portrayed the complicated inter-relationship
between politics and Buddhism. Combining a thorough use of materials in Thai
and the use of western methodology, this work became the first writing in English
encompassing all the contemporary influential and well-known political and
reformist monks and movements (Phimonlatham, Buddhadasa, Kittivuddho, Santi
Asoke and Dhammakaya movements). Initially, Jackson’s thought is shaped by a
Thai scholar Krajaang Nanthapho’s (1985) bipolar notion of political conflict in
Thailand. Krajaang had systematically related the history of the ongoing conflicts
between the Mahanikaya order (a collective term for the various traditional orders

PHIBUL CHOOMPOLPAISAL

of the Sangha) and the Thammayutta order (the reformist order established by
Mongkut) up to 1932. Going further than Krajaang’s work, Jackson encompasses
the accounts of individualistic monks and movements to present an even more
sophisticated model of the differentiation of the elite and the conflicts between
competing factions of the elite.

Like Keyes, Tambiah and Suksamran, Jackson argues that ‘urban Thai

Buddhism’ is connected with, and functions as, a system of political legitimation. This
assumption underpins all analysis and runs as a theme throughout Jackson’s work.
The study can be seen in two dimensions. In the first dimension, following the trend
of the 1970s and 1980s writings by Keyes, Tambiah and Suksamran, Jackson studies
the formal relations between the state and the hierarchical organisation of the
Sangha throughout the modern history of Thai Buddhism. Here, the role of Thai
Buddhism as a united national institution is seen as being determined by, as well as
reflecting, the political legitimation of the state. In the second dimension, similar to
Keyes’ work, Jackson proposes that the fac¸ade of unity of Thai Buddhism masks real
divisions within the sociological structure of urban Buddhism where competing
Buddhist groups are sponsored by different informal systems of lay patronage.

Adopting Keyes’ paradigmatic idea, Jackson is indirectly influenced by

Weber’s ideology of the relationship between modernisation, religious discourses
and political reforms, emerging capitalism, an increasing importance of the role of
the elites and the role of charismatic religious leaders, and the conflicts within the
Sangha. Jackson’s work can be seen as a reinterpretation of Keyes’ and Kraajang’s
writings. By adopting Keyes’ framework of understanding, he can move beyond
Kraajang’s bipolar notion of Buddhist politics to acknowledge the fragmentation,
political conflicts and plurality of modern Buddhism. Owing to sociological theories,
Jackson uses the language of structural Marxism as influenced by Abercrombie, Hill,
and Turner’s (1980) ‘The Dominant Ideology Thesis’

to portray the same Weberian

ideas as presented by Keyes (1978b, 1987, 1989). These are as follows:

(1)

With the support of the Thai elite (or ‘urban Thai Buddhism’), Thai Buddhism

provokes, reflects and symbolises the capitalistic features of society. In addition,

as there exist several factions of the elite within so-called ‘Thai Buddhism’, there

exist historically ongoing political conflicts between religious movements in the

socio-political order.

(2)

Following Abercrombie, Hill, and Turner’s idea that ‘what has been important for

the stability of capitalism is the coherence of the dominant class itself, and

ideology has played a major role in securing this’,

and like Keyes, Jackson

argues that Buddhist discourses and practice, serving as ‘ideology’, help secure

urban Thai Buddhism and capitalism in Thailand.

Similar to, and coincident with, Jackson’s (1989) work, Keyes produced a

brief but concise, influential and insightful work on ‘Buddhist Politics and their
Revolutionary Origins in Thailand’ (Keyes, 1989). Like Jackson, Keyes briefly
proceeds through a historical account of the complicated interrelationship
between Buddhism and politics. Towards the end, he discusses individualistic

INFLUENCE OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY ON THERAVADA STUDIES

Buddhist movements through Weber’s ideas that the emergence of ‘charismatic
leaders’ had socio-political implications. Weber’s ideas help Keyes differentiate
Traditional Buddhism from Reform Buddhism through their relatively different
reinterpretations of the notions of kamma. Traditional Buddhism is seen by Keyes
as explaining the legacy of kamma from one’s previous existences, and it defines
one’s fixed place in society.

Keyes moves on to argue that, in contrast, reform Buddhists in the modern

period believe that it is not one’s previous kamma but one’s present actions in this
life that define one’s place in society. Focusing on one’s present action, Keyes
argues in favour of Weber that:

A violent revolution can be seen as a charismatic eruption which succeeds in

establishing a new social configuration predicated upon radically different

assumptions to those which were previously accepted. (Keyes, 1989, 136)

Based on these premises and influenced by Weber’s ideas, Keyes argues that, after
the fundamental changes of Thai Buddhism initiated by King Mongkut, the
continuity of interaction between polity and Buddhism is the source of tension
that is likely to lead to further changes. That is why there has been the eruption of
charismatic leaders; in turn, this has led to the emergence of individualistic reform
movements. Weber’s idea of the eruption of a charismatic leader leads to Keyes’
accounts of the four individualistic movements with their four ‘established civic
ideologies of the ruling elites’: Kittivuttho, Dhammakaya, Dhammic socialism and
Santi Asoke. Due to Keyes’ over-riding concerns with Weber’s political ideas, Keyes
studies these four movements only from a socio-political dimension and through
information available from outsiders to these movements.

This leads to Keyes’

conclusions that Kittivuttho can be regarded as a ‘militant Buddhism’ monk, or as
an actively politicised monk. Keyes (1978b) coins the phrase ‘militant Buddhism’ in
his work under the influence of Turner’s Weberian idea of ‘charismatic leadership’.
This phrase became synonymous with the phrase, ‘millennial Buddhism’, which
was also used by Keyes (1977). Both of these phrases suggest that the emergence
of ‘charismatic leaders’ had socio-political implications, and led to religious
‘violence’; the dhammakaya teachings target mass educated urban people,
students and high-ranking military, and other officials, and are capable of retaining
the potential for playing a significant political role; ‘Dhammic Socialism’, as
initiated by Buddhadasa, explains that the quest for salvation is to be found within
the world; and Santi Asoke’s fundamentalism introduces a powerful new element
into the political rhetoric of contemporary Thai politics (Keyes, 1989, 134 – 137).

I shall now look at the work of Donald Swearer who, like Gombrich,

combines textual and anthropological skills. Similar to Gombrich, Bond,
Obeyesekere, Tambiah and Keyes, Swearer—through his comparative studies—
suggests that ‘like the other great historical religions, institutional Theravada
Buddhism has also been closely intertwined with the cultural, social, economic,
and political orders’ (Swearer, 1991, 631). Following a similar approach to
Tambiah, which assumes the applicability of Weber’s model, Swearer argues that:

PHIBUL CHOOMPOLPAISAL

‘although Weber . . . described early Buddhism as an otherworldly mysticism, the
Pali texts of Theravada Buddhism portray a close relationship between the Buddha
and the reigning monarchs’ (1995a, 63), and ‘The material self-interest of a
growing Buddhist monastic order . . . reflect(s) the actual conditions of a
subsequent era’ (1995a, 63). This portrayal of the socio-political role of the Sangha
appears in many of Swearer’s works: ‘Fundamentalistic Movements in Theravada
Buddhism’ (1991), The Buddhist World of Southeast Asia (1995a), and ‘Centre and
Periphery: Buddhism and Politics in Modern Thailand’ (1999). In these three works,
Swearer similarly begins by portraying the two exemplary models of the princely
and moral status of the Buddha; and the kingship of Asoka and his embodiment of
dhamma in ruling the nation and supporting Buddhism. Like Tambiah, Swearer
uses these two model roles to help readers see the paradigm of the mutual
interaction between the nation and religion.

Influenced by Weber through Bellah,

Swearer (1991) argues that

Theravada Buddhism in the modern context features ‘fundamentalism’ (a virtual
synonym of ‘modernism’), as opposed to ‘traditionalism’. Like other essays in
Fundamentalism Observed, Swearer’s essay shares a tendency to define each
‘Buddhist fundamentalist group’ as ‘reactive/militant’ in reviving its own ‘identity’
(Marty and Appleby, 1991, ix – x). Influenced in his theoretical approach by Bellah
(1965) regarding a ‘fundamentalistic’ response of Asian religions to modernity as
being ‘neo-traditionalism’ and ‘nationalism’, Swearer (1991)—like Bond (1988)—
sees the dynamic role of modern Buddhism in Sri Lanka and Thailand as helping to
define and create ‘personal, communal, religious, social and national identity’. For
Swearer, the ‘fundamentalistic’ movements of Buddhism in both Sri Lanka and
Thailand are similarly shaped by a tendency to rationalise/demythologise the
Theravada worldview, an increasingly activist role for the laity, a reassertion of a
religiously grounded communal and nationalist identity. Despite these similarities
featuring ‘modernity’, Swearer argues that some aspects of ‘fundamentalism’ in
Theravada countries feature ‘postmodernity’. In other words, because of the
differences of conditions in different Buddhist societies, each fundamentalistic
movement has its own unique ‘identity’ and distinct features.

In studying Buddhism in Sri Lanka, Swearer relies to a large extent on Bond

(1988), Obeyesekere (1971)

and Gombrich (1971, 1988). Swearer adopts the

Weber-influenced term ‘Protestant Buddhism’, from Gombrich and Obeyesekere
(see Swearer, 1991, 681, note 24), as well as Obeyesekere’s notions of ‘identity’
(see Swearer, 1991, 681, note 26), and Bond’s conception of ‘revivalism’
(as influenced by Bellah). This is why Swearer argues that (like Calvinism)
‘Protestant Buddhism’ in Sri Lanka provides a moralistic ideology aimed at restoring
national pride and identity. This is because, Swearer argues, a moralistic ideology,
the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Paths, helps mobilise each individual
person to carry out his/her own personal and social moral ‘duty’ (1991, 637).

Swearer’s accounts of Reform Buddhism make references to Keyes (1989),

Jackson (1989), Zehner’s unpublished article (Swearer, 1991, 684, note 88), and the
Thai Buddhist Wasi (see Swearer, 1991, note 125) (who is not an academic). Swearer

INFLUENCE OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY ON THERAVADA STUDIES

also accesses information by going to observe both Dhammakaya and Santi Asoke
and reading published materials of these movements. According to Swearer, Santi
Asoke and Dhammakaya share the same ‘fundamentalistic’ features; namely, each
movement: replaces the ethos of conventional Thai Buddhism with its own;
develops its own unique ideology and religious practice; is led by a ‘charismatic
leader’; gains strong support; and can restore the integrity of national, community
and personal identity. However, the two movements are different from each other
in their expositions. Dhammakaya emphasises the simplified practice of meditation
and a simplistic and moralistic ideology for attracting the mass audience, the use of
technology and the centralisation of organisation and activities. In contrast,
focusing on the extreme observation of disciplines, Santi Asoke rejects mainstream
Buddhism and worldly life, consumerism, the national Sangha orders and rituals.
Santi Asoke is thus seen as creating a truly independent utopian community for its
small number of practitioners.

Chapters 2 and 3 of Swearer (1995a), and Swearer (1999), follow the same

line of thought and can be seen in many ways as rewritings of his earlier work
(Swearer, 1991). While similar methodologies, ideas and information are portrayed
in these two works, different geographical areas of study are presented. While the
comparative study of Swearer (1995a) looks at Buddhism in both South Asia and
Southeast Asia, Swearer (1999) draws on Thai Buddhism from a religio-political
angle. Presenting similar information to Swearer (1991), Swearer (1999)
experiments with the terms, ‘revitalization and reform’ and ‘resistance and
protest’, in an effort to show the complexity of voices of the reform Buddhism.
Utilising information from the works of Jackson (1989), Keyes (1989) and Swearer
(1991), Swearer (1999) concludes that: although new movements (Dhammakaya,
Buddhadasa, Santi Asoke and Sivaraksa) differ in many respects, each can be seen
as an attempt to ‘revitalize’ Buddhism as the foundation of Thai personal, cultural
and social identity; and excepting the Dhammakaya movement, many of the
voices of ‘revitalization and reform’, ‘resistance and protest’ are being heard from
the political periphery rather than the centre. Swearer’s use of the terms
‘revitalization and reform’ and ‘resistance and protest’ reflect at least three things.
Firstly, he is making a connection between changes in socio-politics and changes
in Buddhism. Secondly, he suggests that changes in politics and/or changes in
Buddhism in many cases lead to resistance, tolerance, protest or some degree of
violence. Thirdly, Swearer’s use of the terms, ‘revitalization’ and ‘protest’ shows
that, because Swearer is influenced by Wallace’s concept of a ‘revitalization
movement’, he seems to argue that religio-political protest or some degree of
violence occurs as a consequence of the ‘charismatic leaders’ lacking adaptation
skills. According to Wallace (1956), the ‘chain-like’ process of ‘revitalization’ consists
of at least: the charismatic leader’s creation of the new vision/doctrines (which is
seen as an emotional appeal to practitioners) through his supernatural experience,
his/her revelations to people, and an ability to adapt itself, and so forth. Wallace
(1956) adds that the ‘conflict and protest’ (or in Swearer’s phrase, ‘resistance and
protest’) can emerge as a reflection of the movement’s lack of adaptation skills.

PHIBUL CHOOMPOLPAISAL

By contrast, in other works, Swearer—rather uniquely among recent

western scholars on Thai Buddhism—is not predominantly influenced by Weber’s
sociology but seeks to take a holistic approach to Buddhist studies. These studies
contain various methodological perspectives ranging from the subjectivity of
experiences to the objectivity of specific methods, depending upon which theme
he studies. Swearer’s (1989a) For the Sake of the World: the Spirit of Buddhist and
Christian Monasticism shows, in my view, his ongoing awareness of the need for a
more balanced interpretation. This work allows the dialogues of ‘insiders’ in
religious studies to be represented. Also, he draws on comparative studies
between Buddhism and Christianity to establish an understanding based upon a
real ‘dialogue’ between believers of both religions as well as non-believers. This
study can be regarded as being the first attempt to bring ‘dialogical’ ideas
(or ‘hermeneutics’) to a study of Theravada Buddhism. Using this method Swearer,
in contrast to most authors, prioritises an ‘experiential’ interpretation siding with
‘insiders’. Swearer establishes this position by dealing with Buddhism in its own
religious context irrespective of economic – political dimensions, particularly
through his study of cosmology, mythology, rituals and beliefs. In this mode,
minimising the influence of western theory and perceptions, his studies are based
on Thai materials and/or his ethnographic fieldwork. This is portrayed in his works
Secrets of the Lotus: Studies in Buddhist Meditation (Swearer, 1971a), Toward the
Truth by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu. (1971b), Wat Haripunjaya: A Study of the Royal
Temple of the Buddha’s Relic, Lamphun, Thailand (1976), ‘Bhikkhu Buddhadasa on
Ethics and Society’ (1979), ‘Introduction Chapter’ in Dhammic Socialism (1986),
‘Buddhism in Southeast Asia’ in Encyclopedia of Religion (1987), Me and Mine.
Selected Essays of Bhikkhu Buddhadasa (1989b), ‘Hypostasizing the Buddha.
Buddha Image Consecration in Northern Thailand’ (1995b), the first Chapter of
The Buddhist World of Southeast Asia (1995a), and ‘Buddha Abhiseka’ (Consecrating
the Buddha Image) (1995b).

In this section I have traced the direct and indirect influence of Weber in

studies of Thai Buddhism from the 1970s, indicating how it set the themes,
terminology and interpretations for many authors, even those unfamiliar with
Weber. I have also noted some exceptions, where authors have attempted a more
hermeneutical or phenomenological approach. Figure 1 summarises how each
work mentioned has influenced, and been influenced by, other works in terms of
ideas, methodology and/or a transfer of information, leading to a pervasive
network of Weberian structures underlying much of Thai Buddhist studies.

Conclusions

While all the studies discussed above have been useful in highlighting

features of modern Theravada and in conveying impressions of Theravada to their
readership, I would now like to draw together the above analyses of the
theoretical and methodological frameworks employed by the scholars under
discussion to highlight some critical issues I deem worthy of consideration

INFLUENCE OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY ON THERAVADA STUDIES

in assessing the value of the approaches taken, and in reassessing potential
approaches that might be applied to our ongoing and future study of Theravada
Buddhism.

PHIBUL CHOOMPOLPAISAL

FIGURE 1

INFLUENCE OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY ON THERAVADA STUDIES

Weber’s influence on Buddhist studies

This paper has illustrated how and why Weber’s sociology has had such an

impact on most authors writing on modern Theravada Buddhism, including
Bechert, Evers, Obeyesekere, Gombrich, Bond, Spiro, Tambiah, Keyes, Suksamran,
Jackson, and Swearer. As illustrated, through a transfer of information and ideas,
Weber’s sociology has become a pervasive factor behind the framing of academic
ideas in Buddhist studies. The validity of several works, or at least the
interpretations and conclusions they reached, is thus based in large part on their
use of Weber’s sociology.

In studies of Buddhist societies, it is easy to see the conflict of interpretations

between ‘insiders’ and academics. There are two possible reasons for this conflict
of interpretations. One possibility is that, as Gombrich argues from an academic
point of view, insiders may not consciously know what they are unconsciously
practising. Weber’s sociology and/or other sociological theories can thus help us
either understand this from a sociological point of view or frame our ideas as to
how to study and represent Buddhist societies with solid arguments through
academic techniques. While what ‘insiders’ say can be true at the individual level,
they may be lacking the overall perspective of a society in flux that Weber’s
sociology provides. From the other perspective, we might argue that the
overemphasis of western Weberian perceptions may not allow insiders’ opinions
and full explanations of their own religious context to be heard. As insiders lack a
medium through which to explain, or a comprehension of the agenda at stake,
academics also risk losing some, much, or all of insiders’ information. This is
because it is possible that interviews conducted and information taken in the field
by academics may include only some, often prescribed (through the influence of
an ideal-type), parts of ‘what people believe and what people believe and do’.
Therefore, it is possible that both perspectives have validity, yet the question
remains: when the interpreted do not recognise themselves in the interpretation,
how applicable can the Weberian model be for an understanding of ‘what people
believe and what people believe and do’?

Theoretical responses to sociological methodology and the
application of Weber’s ideas to study oriental societies

Employing Weber’s sociology means authors assume that to some degree

there are similarities between Calvinist and Buddhist societies, and that Buddhist
societies share some of the main features of Calvinist societies. Here, the problem
arises in both the field of Asian studies and that of Buddhist studies in that we
might question: (1) how can we know that there exist similarities between
Calvinist societies (the ‘ideal-type’ society in the past at one specific location) and
contemporary Buddhist societies (the object of the study at present in another
location)?; (2) even in case such similarities exist, how can we know that we have
understood what has been explained by Weber correctly?; and (3) even

PHIBUL CHOOMPOLPAISAL

if Questions 1 and 2 are answered, how can we know to what extent we can apply
Weber’s sociology to our academic studies and how to do it? In response to the
last question, Bellah (1963) suggests that while more and more academics are
using Weber’s ideas, many of them seem not to know how to make a proper use of
Weber’s sociological ideas in their study of religious movements in Asian societies.
As Bellah writes, academics do ‘not grasp (the study of religious movements in
Asian societies) in its proper relation to the whole of Weber’s work’ (1963, 54).
Although Bellah (1965) himself employs Weber’s ideas in his works, he
acknowledges the bias it generates in Bellah (1963):

The search through Asia for religious movements which here and there have

motivational or institutional components analogous to the Protestant Ethic

ultimately proves inadequate. (Bellah, 1963, 57)

Agreeing with Weber on the difference between the East and the West,

Bellah argues that academics should consciously understand what Weber has
analysed in his work on The Protestant Ethic and realise the conditions necessary
before Weber’s theory could be applicable to their studies, rather than
automatically applying Weberian ideas to their subject. Bellah explains this on
the ground that academics should be concerned about a ‘motivational approach’
(1963, 54) and an ‘institutional approach (an institutional structure and its
historical development)’ in each local society (1963, 54 – 60), both of which have an
impact on ‘the transformation of the basic structure of society and its underlying
value-system’.

Since there has yet to be any work providing enough evidence as

to the applicability of Weber’s sociology to Buddhist studies, I agree with Bellah
that we should be more aware of the unconscious use of Weber’s ideas. Thus, we
need to look at: to what extent writers can really understand Weber’s ideas as
claimed by Weber; how conscious they are in employing Weber’s ideas in a way
that Weber himself would accept; and whether alternative or new theories might
serve such studies better.

Moreover, it is still problematic that we cannot pin down or convey exactly

the real meaning of the deeply problematic term ‘rationalization’ that haunts
many of these studies. While many works have portrayed Buddhist societies as
‘rational’ or ‘rationalized’ in some way, they have not sufficiently proved or
provided evidence to demonstrate how, why and to what extent Buddhist
societies are really ‘rational’ in a Weberian or any other sociological way. Although
there are certainly interactions between the development of Buddhism,
modernisation and social, economic and political changes, can these interactions
in contemporary societies only be portrayed through Weberian views of
‘rationality’? If these issues have yet to be resolved, the decision to employ
Weber’s theory in the study of Buddhist societies remains unfounded. Since these
issues have yet to be resolved, we must question the validity of academic works
that rely largely on Weber’s theories regarding Calvinist societies when looking at
Buddhist societies.

INFLUENCE OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY ON THERAVADA STUDIES

Unless we clarify these issues, while as academics we may dismiss ‘insiders’

as not consciously knowing what they are doing or understanding themselves in a
very specific socio-political context, ‘insiders’ may dismiss us for not consciously
knowing the fact that the creation of each work owes too much to ‘pre-
constructed’ Weberian ideas, or more accurately, dismiss us for projecting an alien
agenda onto their religion.

Given this conceptual gulf then, neither ‘insiders’ nor ‘academics’ accurately

explain or approximate Buddhist societies and lives of the people in the way that
they really are or a way that is mutually recognised. Is it not time we explored the
possibility of re-investigating and re-interpreting Buddhist societies in a way that
most ‘insiders’ and ‘academics’ would agree on, rather than assuming that the one
must be privileged over the other? These are, for me, the burning issues that will
guide my attempts to grapple with both representing and analysing Thai
Buddhism. In forthcoming works I hope to show specific cases where the
conclusions produced by the use of Weber may be fruitfully replaced by those that
take account of the insiders’ own agenda and perspectives.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank Kate Crosby, Andrew Skilton, David Azzopardi,

Alastair Gornall and Catherine Newell for their assistance in bringing this article

to its final form, as well as the virtual access to SOAS library that they gave while

the author was in Bangkok.

NOTES

1. According to Kilminster, in Britain alone there was a 450% increase in the output

of sociology graduates between 1952 and 1966. In the 1960s, 28 new university

departments of sociology were established in England. See Kilminster (1998,

147 – 149 and also Chapter 8).

2. The phrase ‘Oriental societies’ is used here not only to specify geographically the

East (Asian and African societies) as the separate entities from the West, but also

to point to the idea that the West as the ‘I’ produces the knowledge of the East

as ‘the other’. This idea of Orientalism connotes a relationship of power and

hegemony between the West and the East, and reflects the idea that the history

of the East as represented by the West is not necessarily real but what the West

has generated. See Said (1995).

3. See notes 1 and 2 in Bellah (1963, 52–53) for a list of works that had already

employed Weber’s ideas by the early 1960s.

4. See Bellah (1963, 52–53 with notes 2–3). Also see Singer (1956, 1964).
5. See Bellah (1963, 55 with note 9). Also see Elder (1959).
6. See McClelland (1962).

PHIBUL CHOOMPOLPAISAL

7. See Bellah (1963, 59) for Ames’ paper ‘An Outline of Recent Social and Religious

Changes in Ceylon’. The published year is not mentioned in Bellah (1963).

8. Leach’s ideas are mainly influenced by Durkheim’s sociology. See Leach (1961,

296 – 301).

9. I shall discuss Bechert’s, Evers’ and Obeyesekere’s works below.

10. See Tambiah (1968).
11. That is, others scholars who apply Weber’s sociology to the study of Buddhist

societies. I am thinking in particular of Ames’ (1963) ‘Ideological and Social

Change in Ceylon’; de Young’s (1955) Village Life in Modern Thailand; Kaufman’s

(1960) Bankhaud, A Community Study in Thailand; Leach’s (1962) ‘Pulleyar and

the Lord Buddha’; Spiro’s (1965) ‘Religious Systems as Culturally Constituted

Defense Mechanisms’; Wriggins’ (1960) Ceylon: Dilemmas of a New Nation; and

Yalman’s (1964) ‘The Structure of Sinhalese Healing Rituals’—see Bellah (1963,

52 – 59) for references to all of these works. Also see notes 2 – 10 in Obeyesekere’s

paper in Leach (1968, 58 – 59).

12. In fact, both Heinz Bechert and David Gellner have provided some assessment of

Weber’s sociology and considered the use of Weber’s sociology in the field of

Buddhist (and Hindu, for Gellner) studies: Bechert (1991) and Gellner (2001).

However, both authors did so in order to defend the theoretical applicability of

Weber’s sociological ideas to Buddhist studies. Neither, in my view, provide

sufficient practical evidence to support their arguments. My approach here is

completely different in that I aim to stand back from the subject to give an

overview of how influential Weber’s sociology has become to the construction

of academic knowledge in the field of Buddhist studies. (I shall then follow this

with practical alternatives in subsequent publications.) The reason I think this is

so important is that, by seeking to defend the use of Weber’s sociology in this

field, neither Bechert nor Gellner considered the implications or consequences

of the use of Weber’s sociology in this field. I deem this a major blind spot that I

hope to shed light on in this paper.

13. My hermeneutical approach here is based on Gadama’s hermeneutics. I use this

methodology to help analyse and understand all the factors involved in the

process of interpretation of both texts and the context. By this means, it can help

better understand that academics come to a certain conclusion because of the

combinations of: the methodology and theory used, their pre-understanding,

and the types of information they gather. I base Gadamer’s hermeneutical ideas

on my reading of Gadamer (1975) Truth and Method.

14. Weber (1968) is translated by Ephraim Fischoff from the 4th German edition of

Weber’s Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (1925), with appendices from his Gesammelte

Aufsa¨tze zur Wissenschaftslehre (1922) and Gesammelte politische Schriften (1921).

15. Weber says: ‘for sociological purposes there is no such thing as a collective

personality which “acts”. When reference is made in a sociological context to a

state, a nation, a corporation, a family or an army corps, or to similar collectives,

what is meant is . . . only a certain kind of development of actual or possible

social actions of individual persons’ (1968, 14).

INFLUENCE OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY ON THERAVADA STUDIES

16. Kate Crosby has pointed out to me that ‘ideal type’ is a transcription and

anglicisation of the German phrase der Ideal-typ/us, rather than a translation,

which unfortunately—given that it confuses the two main connotations of the

German word Ideal and does not translate ‘Typus’—became universal in

Weberian studies before a more appropriate translation, such as perhaps

‘theoretical exemplar’ or ‘notional model’, could replace it (personal

communication).

17. Weber’s The Religion of India, the Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism (1958) in

English is translated from Weber’s Gesammelte Aufsa¨tze zur Religionssoziologie

(1923). When I refer to Weber (1958), I should make clear that I am relying on the

translation, not the original German, to access Weber (1923).

18. According to Bechert, Weber wrote that ‘there is “no bridge” from the ideal of

one who has achieved deliverance (arhat) to the “world of rational activitity”—

where rationality has naturally to be taken in Weber’s own understanding of the

term’ (Bechert, 1991, 182).

19. See note 1 in Bechert (1970, 761).
20. This phrase is from Bechert (1970, 1) and Bechert (1991, 186).
21. In Bechert (1991, 186), he agrees with Weber (1930) that there are ‘the influences

of altered social and political conditions on the further development of the

religion, and . . . consequences of these changes for economic development.

The thrust of his (Weber’s) thesis is that Buddhism, for the ruler, was particularly

useful as a means of mass domestication’. Also see Bechert (1991, 184 – 189).

22. See the four concepts of kingship in Bechert (1970, 766–767).
23. This explanation appears in all of Bechert’s papers (1970–1991).
24. The sources on Buddhism used by Weber referred to here are Hendrik Kern’s

Geschiedenis van het Buddhisme in Indie¨ (1882 – 84), translated into German by

H. Jacobi (1882 – 84), Kern’s Manual of Indian Buddhism (1896), and Hackmann’s

Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbu¨cher (1905 – 06). See Bechert (1991, 184 – 185).

25. See also Evers (1973) and Evers (1980, 6).
26. See also Obeyesekere (1963, 139, note 1).
27. Redfield (1956) uses the phrases ‘the Great tradition’ and ‘the Little tradition’ in

his work on Peasant Society and Culture, while Slater (1951), in Paradox and

Nirvana, a Study of Religious Ultimate with Special Reference to Burmese Buddhism,

uses the phrases ‘the Buddhism of the monastery’ and ‘the Buddhism of the

village’ to refer to the former and the latter, respectively. See also Obeyesekere

(1963, 139 with notes 9 and 19) for a further explanation of Redfield (1956) and

Slater (1951). Dumont and Pocock explain ‘the little tradition’ with the phrase

‘peasant culture’. See Obeyesekere (1963, 139 – 140) and Dumont and Pocock

(1957).

28. In his Introduction to Leach (1968), Leach discusses how ‘practical’ dimensions

of Buddhism can be explained by Hegel’s concept of ‘dialectic’. Framing the

main ideas in this way, all five articles in Leach (1968) show how the conception

of ‘dialectic’ is applicable to explaining different local societies. The articles

by Obeyesekere and Tambiah in Leach (1968) portray what they see as the

PHIBUL CHOOMPOLPAISAL

self-contradictory nature of Buddhism through Weber’s and Durkheim’s ideas in

a very Hegelian way.

29. My Weber (1930) is referred to by Obeyesekere as Weber (1963).
30. I accessed this paper in Obeyesekere, Reynolds, and Smith (1972). It was first

published in Modern Ceylon Studies in 1970 (see fnote 1 in Obeyesekere,

Reynolds, and Smith 1972). However, I indicated the published year 1970 here

for chronological clarity in other references because, as will be mentioned later,

Gombrich refers to the 1970 version.

31. See Obeyesekere (1970, note 15). See also Warner (1959, 1961).
32. Obeyesekere uses Durkheim (1915) to suggest that: Buddhism is ‘brought into

the hub of events’ (Obeyesekere, 1970, 64); and ‘the Buddha images and other

edifices located everywhere are visible public symbols of Buddhist nationalism

like a flag or the totem’ (Obeyesekere, 1970, 64).

33. Influenced by Weber, Obeyesekere explains that ‘the doctrinal or theological

corpus has been “transformed”—to use Weber’s term—on the behavioral level.

Such doctrinal transformations . . . occur under . . . the operation of social
structural and economic variables’ (1970, 58).

34. Reading between the lines, this paper’s methodology is: to visit and experience a

place; to reflect on the spatial meanings of the place (from the author’s

perspective); to provide some evidence together with theoretical considerations

to support the author’s argument; and to explain society through the author’s

reflections.

35. This work of Obeyesekere was first published in 1982. However, in this paper,

I use the second edition of Obeyesekere as published in 1990.

36. The American Spiro was a strong influence upon the Sri Lankan Obeyesekere’s

work, perhaps for two reasons. Firstly, Obeyesekere studied anthropology under

Spiro; and, secondly, they shared interests (see next and below).

37. Under the influence of Jacob’s lecture in 1956, Obeyesekere became interested

in looking at the theme of ‘culture and personality’ in its relation to religious

studies. This influence leads Obeyesekere to align himself with Spiro and Leach.

See Obeyesekere (1990, xiv).

38. Also see above for the relationship between Obeyesekere, Spiro and Leach,

which later influenced Obeyesekere’s work.

39. While Gombrich’s use of Weber presumably derives in large part from the

influence of his teacher Obeyesekere, the addition of Popper to the mix seems to

reflect the personal friendship between Gombrich’s family and Popper.

40. The influence of Durkheim also drives Spiro’s main argument in his paper

‘Religion: Problems of Definition and Explanation’ to define ‘religion’ as ‘an

institution consisting of culturally patterned interaction with culturally

postulated superhuman beings’ (1966, 96).

41. Spiro’s Buddhism and Society brings together three main ideas: ‘Durkheim’s

concern for religion as an instrument of social solidarity’ (1971, 425); Freud’s

conception that when (religious) beliefs can satisfy people’s needs, they can

function to provide a psychological motivation for each individual person; and

INFLUENCE OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY ON THERAVADA STUDIES

Weber’s idea that religious doctrines (particularly its soteriological doctrines) are

‘inimical to worldly action and hence to the development of rational,

bureaucratic capitalism’ (1971, 427).

42. Gombrich (1971, 18). Cf. Gombrich (1971, 14 –15) with note 14 in the present

article. This principle thus formulated in fact appears to combine Weber’s

Wertrational and Zweckrational, respectively.

43. See Chapter 3 in Bechert (1966).
44. As Bellah (1965) explains, as a response to modernisation, each religion has to

adapt itself through its development. While progressing through history, each

religion has to specify and maintain its own ‘identity’, its own limited religious

boundary that cannot be changed. At the same time, in interacting with socio-

historical changes, religion has to re-adjust itself in order to be sustainable.

45. Gombrich’s (1988) work chronicles Buddhism in ancient India from the Buddha’s

lifetime to the reign of Asoka, briefly covers Buddhism in Sri Lanka from the

tenth to eighteenth centuries, and nineteenth-century ‘Protestant’ Buddhism in

Sri Lanka. In Gombrich and Obeyesekere (1988), the co-authors move away from

writing about the long history of Buddhism to focus on the socio-historical

changes of Buddhism in Sri Lanka from the nineteenth to twentieth centuries.

In Bond’s (1988) work, the main content chronicles Buddhism in Sri Lanka from

the eighteenth to twentieth centuries, but some parts of the work go further to

cover Buddhism in ancient India from the reign of King Asoka up to the fifth

century (for example, see Bond, 1988, 23 – 33).

46. This idea of ‘discontinuity’ is presented throughout Gombrich (1988). See the

phrase ‘confusion and discontinuity’ in Gombrich and Obeyesekere (1988, 29).

47. Gombrich and Obeyesekere indicate that they are taking two of Weber’s

meanings of rationality—namely ‘systematic . . . mastery of reality by means of

increasingly precise and abstract concepts’, and the ‘methodical attainment of a

definitely given and practical end by means of an increasingly precise calculation

of adequate means’—but discard his use of ‘rationality’ in the sense of coherent,

systematic thought since ‘virtually all human thought could be claimed to be at

least partly rational in this sense’ (1988, 13). This distinction and the immediate

economical/immediate empirical science models then strongly influence their

subsequent use of the term ‘rationality’.

48. Gombrich and Obeyesekere deem this combination of societal involvement and

meditation ‘theoretically impossible in Buddhist doctrinal terms’ (1988, 15).

49. From a paper Lewis delivered to a conference on religious pluralism at Bristol,

UK, in April 1987, cited in Gombrich (1988, 12).

50. Also see Eliade’s idea of ‘ecstasy’ as opposed to ‘enstasis’ in (Gombrich 1988, 453).
51. Bellah’s idea of ‘religion and progress’ is influenced by Deutch. See Bellah (1965,

170 – 171, 202).

52. Both countries have maintained relative openness even during periods of

relative instability contemporary with, and in some cases directly reflected in,

some of the works under discussion. I am thinking here of the repeated political

and sometimes economic crises in Thailand from the early 1970s onward and of

PHIBUL CHOOMPOLPAISAL

the civil war, pan-ethnic unrest and Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) uprising in

Sri Lanka, as well as natural disasters in both. Under broadly parallel conditions,

which of course differ in the specific, other predominantly Theravada countries

(Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar) have entered varying degrees of selected and

imposed isolation.

53. This phrase was already used by Bechert as the title of his monumental (and

Weber-influenced) work, Buddhismus, Staat und Gesellschaft, discussed above.

54. See Keyes (1989, 122–123). Keyes’ explanation of Weber’s interpretation of the

concepts of karma first appeared in his work ‘Millenialism, Theravada Buddhism

and Thai Society’ (Keyes, 1977), where he makes the connection between the

doctrine of karma and the process of making Theravada Buddhist teachings

relevant to the socio-political world. Also see Keyes (1983a; 1983b; 1983c); these

three works provide a more in-depth analysis of concepts of ‘kamma’.

55. For Turner’s ideas, see Turner (1969) The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-

structure. Many of Turner’s works were published posthumously by Richard

Schechner (see a list of Turner’s works from the 1970s to 1980s in the reference

list).

56. My thanks to Kate Crosby for repeated prompts over the years to open my eyes

to potential alternative approaches other than the position taken by Suksamran,

and the importance of seeing the stance of Suksamran and other Thais on this

subject as best understood as an essentially locally comparative and also to

some extent patriotic perspective. The disparity between the apparent relative

contentment of Suksamran (and other Thai writers) and the apparent discontent

or discomfort of outsider authors on Thailand has been influential in my

attempts to unravel the constructs underlying writings on Thai Buddhism.

57. I shall discuss the writings of Jackson, Keyes and Swearer below.
58. See Zehner (1990).
59. See Taylor (1990).
60. We can perhaps see these developments both in terms of the development of a

more matured field of studies, positioned to examine more detailed

phenomena, as well as in terms of fragmentation and a move from broad

West – East divisions and macro-politics to the emergence of a focus on local

identities and issues that have affected many societies and fields of study in the

post-Cold War period.

61. For the term ‘revitalization movement’, see Wallace (1956).
62. The term ‘capitalism’ is found in both Marx’s and Weber’s works. While Jackson’s

use of this term is influenced by Abercrombie et al. (as will be discussed later),

most other scholars’ use of the term is adopted from Weber (1930).

63. The process of secularisation is explained in Berge (1967).
64. The definition of ‘internal conversion’ is explained in Geertz (1973).
65. As Taylor (1990, 137–138) explains, ‘religious “virtuosi” in their original and

essential separation from the wider social order are therefore . . . inevitably

drawn into a settled and domesticated mode of life . . . Reformers in fact may

exhibit certain theoretical features of the establishment religion . . . and reflect

INFLUENCE OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY ON THERAVADA STUDIES

more certain pragmatic political orientations and aspirations’. See also Taylor

(1990, note 8). Moreover, this idea appears in many places in Taylor’s works

(1990, 1993a, 1993b).

66. Following and adapting Marx, Abercrombie et al. emphasise the Marxist

ideology of ‘class, capitalism, interests and conflicts’ in explaining society.

67. As formulated by Hill with reference to Abercrombie and Turner’s (1980) The

Dominant Ideology Thesis (see Hill, 1990, 2).

68. For materials in Thai, Keyes obtains information from the two non-scholar Thai

Buddhist social critics Wasi and Sivaraksa, neither of whom belong to a reform

movement.

69. See Swearer (1991, 633) and Swearer (1991, note 15).
70. Here, I refer to Obeyesekere’s (1971) ‘Social and Ethical Transformation in

Theravada Buddhism’ and ‘Personal Identity and Cultural Crisis: the Case of

Anagarika Dharmapala of Sri Lanka’.

71. These are Geertz’s words quoted in Bellah (1963, 57).

REFERENCES

ABERCROMBIE, N.

S. HILL

, and

B. S. TURNER

. 1990. Dominant ideologies. London: Unwin

Hyman.

ABERCROMBIE, N.

B. S. TURNER

. 1980. The dominant ideology thesis. London: Unwin Hyman.

BECHERT, HEINZ

1966, 1967, 1973. Buddhismus, Staat und Gesellschaft in den Landern des

Therevada-Buddhismus. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

———. 1968. Einige Fragen der Religionssoziologie und Struktur des sudasiatischen

Buddhismus. International Yearbook for the Sociology of Religion 4: 251 – 93.

———. 1970. Theravada Buddhist Sangha: Some general observations on historical

and political factors in its development. The Journal of Asian Studies 29 (4):

761 – 78.

———. 1979. Buddhism and society. The Wheel Publication. No. 265. Buddhist Therapy.

Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society.

———. 1991. Max Weber and the sociology of Buddhism. Internationales Asienforum

22 (3 – 4): 181 – 95.

BELLAH, ROBERT N.

1963. Reflections on the Protestant ethic analogy in Asia. Journal of

Social Issues XIX (1).

———. 1965. Epilogue: Religion and progress in modern Asia. In Religion and progress

in modern Asia, edited by R. N. Bellah. New York: Free Press, 168 – 229.

BERGE, PETER L.

1967. The sacred canopy: Elements of a sociological theory of religion.

Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

BOND, GEORGE D.

1988. The Buddhist revival in Sri Lanka: Religious tradition,

reinterpretation and response. Colombia: University of South Carolina Press.

DE YOUNG, J.

1955. Village life in modern Thailand. Los Angeles: University of California

Press.

DUMONT, L.

, and

D. F. POCOCK

. 1957. Contributions to Indian Sociology 1: 39 – 40.

PHIBUL CHOOMPOLPAISAL

DURKHEIM, E.

1915. The elementary forms of the religious life [Les formes elementaires de la

vie religieuse]. Translated by Joseph Ward Swain. London: Allen & Unwin.

ELDER, J.

1959. Industrialism in Hindu society: A case study in social change.

Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, MA.

EVERS, HANS-DIETER

. 1966. The formation of a social class structure: Urbanization,

bureaucratization and social mobility in Thailand. American Sociological View

31 (4): 480 – 8.

———. 1967. Review of Buddhismus, Staat und Gesellschaft in den La¨ndern des

Theravada-Buddhismus, Vol. I. Journal of Asian Studies 26 (3): 524.

———. 1968. The Buddhist Sangha in Ceylon and Thailand: A comparative study of

formal organizations in non-industrial society. Sociologus 18 (1): 20 – 35.

———. 1969. Loosely structured social systems, Thailand in comparative perspective.

New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies.

———. 1972. Monks, priests and peasants: A study of Buddhism and social structure in

central Ceylon. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

———. ed. 1973. Modernization in Southeast Asia. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

———. 1980. Sociology of Southeast Asia. Readings on social change and development.

New York: Oxford University Press.

GABAUDE, L.

2000. Buddhist studies in France, Belgium and Switzerland. In The state of

Buddhist Studies in the world 1972 – 1997, edited by D. Swearer, and S. Promta.

Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Printing House, 229 – 37.

GADAMER, HANS-GEORG

. 1975. Truth and method. London: Sheed & Word. (Second edition

published 2001).

GEERTZ, CLIFFORD

. 1964. The religion of Java. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.

———. 1973. The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.

GELLNER, D.

2001. The anthropology of Buddhism and Hinduism. Weberian themes. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

GOMBRICH, RICHARD F.

1971. Buddhist precept and practice: Traditional Buddhism in the

rural highlands of Ceylon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

———. 1988. Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern

Colombo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

GOMBRICH, R. F.

, and

G. OBEYESEKERE

. 1988. Buddhism transformed: Religious change in

Sri Lanka. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

HARRIS, IAN

, ed. 1999. Buddhism and politics in twentieth-century Asia. London and

New York: Continuum.

HILL, STEPHEN

. 1990. Britain: The dominant ideology thesis after a decade. In Dominant

ideologies, edited by Nicholas Abercrombie, Stephen Hill, and Bryan S. Turner.

London: Unwin Hyman, 1 – 37.

JACKSON, PETER A.

1989. Buddhism, legitimation, and conflict. The political functions of

urban Thai Buddhism. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

KEYES, CHARLES F.

1967. Isan: Regionalism in northeastern Thailand. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell

University Press.

———. 1971. Buddhism and national integration in Thailand. Journal of Asian Studies

30 (3): 551 – 67.

INFLUENCE OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY ON THERAVADA STUDIES

———. 1977. Millenialism, Theravada Buddhism, and Thai society. Asian Survey 36 (2):

283 – 302.

———. 1978a. Structure and history in the study of the relationship between

Theravada Buddhism and political order. Numen 25 (2): 156 – 70.

———. 1978b. Political crisis and militant Buddhism in contemporary Thailand.

In Religion and legitimation of power in Thailand, Laos, and Burma, edited by

B. L. Smith. Pennsylvania: ANIMA Books, 147 – 64.

———. 1983a. Introduction: The popular ideas of Karma. In Karma: An anthropological

inquiry, edited by C. F. Keyes, and E. V. Daniel. Berkeley: University of California

Press, 1 – 24.

———. 1983b. Merit-transference in the Kammic theory of Popular Buddhism.

In Karma: An anthropological inquiry, edited by Charles F. Keyes, and E. V. Daniel.

Berkeley: University of California Press, 261 – 86.

———. 1983c. Peasant strategies in Asian societies: Moral and rational economic

approaches: A symposium. Journal of Asian Studies XLII (4): 753 – 67.

———. 1987. Thailand: Buddhist Kingdom as modern nation-state. Bangkok: Duang

Kamol.

———. 1989. Buddhist politics and their revolutionary origins in Thailand. International

Political Science Review 10 (2): 121 – 142.

KILMINSTER, R.

1998. The sociological revolution. From the enlightenment to the global age.

London: Routledge.

LEACH, E. R.

1961. Pul Eliya. A village in Ceylon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. ed. 1968. Dialectic in practical religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

MALALGODA, KITSIRI

1976. Buddhism in Sinhalese Society 1750 – 1900. Berkeley: University

of California Press.

MARTY, M. E.

, and

APPLEBY, R. S.

, eds. 1991. Fundamentalisms observed. Chicago and

London: University of Chicago Press.

MCCLELLAND, D. C.

1962. The achieving society. Princeton, N.J. Van Nostrand.

NANTHAPHO, KRAJAANG

. 1985. Mahanikay-Thammayut: The internal contradictions of the

Thai Sangha, and the association of admistrative power between the secular and

religious spheres [Mahanikay-Thammakayut: Khwaam-khat-yaeng Phaay-nai

Khong Song Thai Kap Kaan-sorng-seep Amnaat Pok-khrorng Rawaang Faay

Aanaajak Kae Saasanaajak]. Nonthaburi: Samnak-phim Santitham.

OBEYESEKERE, G.

1963. The great tradition and the little tradition in the perspective of

Sinhalese Buddhism. The Journal of Asian Studies XXII (2): 139 – 53.

———. 1968. Theodicy, sin and salvation in a sociology of Buddhism. In Dialectic in

practical religion, edited by E. R. Leach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

7 – 40.

———. 1969. The ritual drama of the Sanni Demons. Comparative Studies in Society and

History 2 (2): 174 – 216.

———. 1970. Religious symbolism and political change in Ceylon. Modern Ceylon

Studies 1(1): 43 – 63.

PHIBUL CHOOMPOLPAISAL

———. 1972. Religious symbolism and political change in Ceylon. The two wheels of

Dhamma Essays on the Theravada tradition in India and Ceylon, edited by

B. L. Smith. Chambersburg, Pensylvania: American Academy of Religion.

———. 1976. Personal identity and cultural crisis. The case of Anagarika Dhammapala

of Sri Lanka. In The biographical process. Studies in the history and psychology of

religion, edited by F. E. Reynolds, and D. Capps. The Hague: Mouton, 221 – 252.

———. 1981. Medusa’s hair: An essay on personal symbols and religious experience.

Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.

———. 1984. The cult of the goddess Pattini. Chicago; London: University of Chicago

Press.

———. 1990. The work of culture. Symbolic transformation in psychoanalysis and

anthropology. 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, (First edition

published 1982).

OBEYESEKERE, G.

REYNOLDS, F. E.

, and

SMITH, B. L.

, eds. 1972. The two wheels of Dhamma:

Essays on the Theravada tradition in India and Ceylon. Chambersburg, Pa.:

American Academy of Religion. (First published in 1970 in Journal of Modern

Ceylon Studies.)

PARKIN, FRANK

. 1982. Max Weber, edited by P. Hamilton. London: Tavistock Publications.

PARSONS, T.

1960. Structure and process in modern societies. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.

REDFIELD, R

. 1956. Peasant society and culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

SAID, E. W.

1995. Orientalism. Western conceptions of the Orient. 4th edition. London:

Penguin Books.

SINGER, M.

1956. Cultural values in India’s economic development. Annals of the

American Academy of Political and Social Science 305: 81 – 91.

———. 1964. The emerging elite. A study of political leadership in Ceylon. Cambridge:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

SLATER, R. L.

1951. Paradox and Nirvana, a study of religious ultimate with special reference

to Burmese Buddhism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

SPIRO, M. E.

1966. Religion: Problems of definition and explanation. In Anthropological

approaches to the study of religion, edited by M. Banton. London: Tavistock

Publications, 85 – 126.

———. 1971. Buddhism and society: A great tradition and its Burmese vicissitudes.

London: Allen and Unwin.

SUKSAMRAN, SOMBOON

. 1982. Buddhism and politics in Thailand. Singapore: Institute of

Southeast Asian Studies.

SWEARER, DONALD K.

1971a. Secrets of the Lotus: Studies in Buddhist meditation. New York:

Macmillan Publishing Company.

———. ed. 1971b. Toward the truth. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

———. 1976. Wat Haripunjaya: A study of the Royal Temple of the Buddha’s Relic,

Lamphun, Thailand. AAR Studies in Religion No. 10. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars

Press.

———. 1979. Bhikkhu Buddhadasa on ethics and society. Journal of Religious Ethics

7 (1): 54 – 64.

INFLUENCE OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY ON THERAVADA STUDIES

———. ed. and trans. 1986. Dhammic socialism by Bhikkhu Buddhadasa. Bangkok: Thai

Inter-Religious Commission for Development.

———. 1987. Buddhism in Southeast Asia. In Encyclopaedia of religion, edited by Mircea

Eliade. Vol. 2. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 385 – 400.

———. 1989a. For the sake of the world: The spirit of Buddhist and Christian monasticism.

Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg-Fortress Press.

———, ed. 1989b. Me and mine: Selected essays of Bhikkhu Buddhadasa. Albany: State

University of New York Press.

———. 1991. Fundamentalistic movements in Theravada Buddhism. In Fundament-

alisms observed, edited by M. E. Marty, and R. S. Appleby. Chicago and London:

The University of Chicago Press, 628 – 90.

———. 1995a. The Buddhist world of Southeast Asia. Albany: State University of New

York Press.

———. 1995b. Hypostasizing the Buddha. Buddha image consecration in Northern

Thailand. History of Religions 34 (3): 263 – 280.

———. 1999. Centre and periphery: Buddhism and politics in Modern Thailand.

In Buddhism and politics in twentieth-century Asia, edited by I. Harris. London and

New York: Continuum.

TAMBIAH, S. J.

1968. The ideology of merit and the social correlates of Buddhism in a Thai

village. In Dialectic in practical religion, edited by E. R. Leach. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

———. 1970. Buddhism and the spirit cults in Northeast Thailand. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

———. 1973. Buddhism and this worldly activity. Modern Asian Studies 7 (1): 1 – 20.

———. 1976. World conqueror and world renouncer: A study of Buddhism and polity in

Thailand against a historical background. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

TAYLOR, J. L.

1990. New Buddhist movements in Thailand: An ‘individualistic revolution’,

reform and political dissonance. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies XXI (1):

135 – 54.

———.1993a. Buddhist revitalization, modernization, and social change in con-

temporary Thailand. Sojourn 8 (1): 62 – 91.

———. 1993b. Forest monks and the nation-state: An anthropological and historical

study in Northeastern Thailand. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

TURNER, VICTOR

. 1969. The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. London: Routledge &

K. Paul.

WALLACE, ANTHONY F. C.

1956. Revitalization movements. American Anthropologist 58:

264 – 81.

WARNER, W. L.

1959. The living and the dead. A study of the symbolic life. New Haven,

Conn.: Yale University Press.

———. 1961. The family of God. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

WEBER, MAX

. 1930. The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism [Die protestantische

Ethik und der ’Geist’ des Kapitalismus]. Translated by Talcott Parsons. London:

Allen and Unwin, (Originally published 1904 – 05).

PHIBUL CHOOMPOLPAISAL

———. 1949. The methodology of the social sciences. Translated and edited by

Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch. New York: Free Press. (Originally published

1904 – 17).

———. 1958. The religion of India: the sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism. Translated

and edited by H. H. Gerth and D. Martindale. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press. (Originally

published 1923).

———. 1968. In Economy and society. Translated by Ephraim Fischoff, edited by

Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. New York: Bedminster Press. (Originally

published 1921, 1922, 1925, 1956.).

WRIGGINS, HOWARDS, W.

1960. Ceylon: Dilemmas of a new nation. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton

University Press.

ZEHNER, E.

1990. Reform symbolism of a Thai middle-class sect: The growth and appeal

of the Thammakai movement. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies XXI (2): 402 – 26.

Phibul Choompolpaisal 91/2 Niran Ville Village 2, Soi Chalerm Prakiat 28,

Chalerm Prakiat Road, Dok Mai Sub-district, Pravet District, Bangkok 10250,

Thailand. E-mail: phibulart@yahoo.com

INFLUENCE OF WEBER’S SOCIOLOGY ON THERAVADA STUDIES

Wyszukiwarka

Podobne podstrony:
5 49 62 The Influence of Tramp Elements on The Spalling Resistance of 1 2343
3 The influence of intelligence on students' success
84 1199 1208 The Influence of Steel Grade and Steel Hardness on Tool Life When Milling
The influence of Aristotle on Alfarabi
Język angielski The influence of the media on the society
network memory the influence of past and current networks on performance
70 1003 1019 Influence of Surface Engineering on the Performance of Tool Steels for Die Casting
The influence of British imperialism and racism on relationships to Indians
The Influence of Bodybuilding on Martial Arts Training
Soliwoda, Katarzyna i inni The influence of the chain length and the functional group steric access
Conrad Hjalmar Nordby The Influence Of Old Norse Literature On English Literature
2000 Influence of Fiber Fermentability on Nutrient Digestion in the Dog
Nosal Wiercińska, Agnieszka i inni The Influence of Protonation on the Electroreduction of Bi (III)
1998 The influence of sugar beet fibre, guar gum and inulin on

więcej podobnych podstron