Book
Review by Cynthia Cavalcanti
In a highly ambitious, personal,
and scholarly treatise aptly titled Buddhism After Patriarchy, Rita Gross
attempts to revalorize the ancient tradition of Buddhism with the stated
intent of bringing it more in line with what she believes to be its "fundamental
values and vision" (p. 3). |
|
Perhaps in justification of
such an objective, especially for a feminist who might view religious traditions
as the hallmark of patriarchy, Gross reasons that however sexist Buddhist
tradition is or as has become, it is not irreparably so. One can and should,
she asserts, salvage a belief system that holds such clear promise for
embracing all of humanity.
To revalorize Buddhism, as
Gross would have it, means to repair and reconstruct it, an endeavor made
plausible given her unique insight that this ancient discipline is fundamentally
coherent with feminism-- notwithstanding claims to the contrary by some
feminist scholars and traditional male Buddhist practitioners. Buddhism
and feminism are bound by their respective views that attaining an androgynous
identity - a process which Gross argues is actually the undressing of self
and ego - is necessary and ultimately allows for and manifests the desired
higher states of consciousness and spirituality. Such a revalorization,
involving the synthesis of Buddhism and feminism, could create a model
of practicality and empowerment to be used by modern-day Buddhists to lead
rewarding lives here on Earth.
One cannot help but admire
the accomplishment of Gross in producing such a groundbreaking text which
critics have hailed as a magnum opus of revisionism. In bringing together,
at least on paper, seemingly disparate world views about relationships,
spiritual fulfillment, and the meaning of life, Gross is clearly demonstrating
that she is a formidable voice and one to be reckoned with in the various
fields of scholarship embraced by Buddhism, religious studies, and feminism.
This synthesis may not be accepted by mainstream Buddhists who are devoted
to privileging the male, and who are so opposed to feminism, given its
revolutionary reputation for wanting to place women in those most sacred
and reified places on reserve for men and the male image. This opposition
is exactly why, of course, Gross intends to challenge it. Such a state
of affairs is what is wrong with Buddhism, she reminds us throughout her
book.
To help illustrate her argument,
Gross surveys the images and stories about women in the three major periods
of Buddhist intellectual development: early Indian Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism,
and Indo-Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism. In this analysis, Gross searches for
a "usable past" (p. 4) as defined by feminist historians--that is, a past
that can validate the presence and worth of women within the birth and
flowering of major spiritual traditions. Gross performs a feminist analysis
of key Buddhist concepts, drawing a distinction between the historical
context which is likely to exhibit sexism, and core teachings of Buddhism
which do not. She asserts that the key concepts in all three periods are
incompatible with gender hierarchy and male privileging. She explores the
disparity "between the egalitarian concepts of Buddhism and its patriarchal
history" in order to rectify the contradiction. Such a progressive stance
by Gross aims to take Buddhism beyond its "current institutional form"
and its "conceptual structure."
Emphasizing methodology,
Gross includes appendices describing her unique three-pronged approach
that brings together religious studies, Buddhist studies, and feminist
scholarship, drawing methods, insights, and assumptions from each. While
seldom considered together by other scholars, for Gross the synthesis is
inevitable, representing the culmination of her own "social vision". Gross
brings an insider's understanding of Buddhism, an understanding which imbues
her analysis with an authenticity that would otherwise be lacking in a
purely sophist view. In her concluding remarks about methodology, Gross
hopes to persuade us that her multi-disciplined approach can serve as a
"most basic arbiter, judge, and peacemaker between divergent points of
view about religion" (p. 5).
Gross presents a key discussion
of egolessness, a Buddhist concept which promotes acceptance of the impermanence
of all things--the changing, and hopefully evolving, nature of individuality
and its interdependence on all things and others in the universe. While
she is careful to differentiate between egolessness in Buddhism and egolessness
in modern psychology, as the latter carries a negative association, Gross
affirms that both views are central to the discussion of whether it is
desirable and healthy to have an ego--that is, a clear sense of self, an
awareness of one's individuation.
She has it right when she
points to the error of monotheistic religions in attaching male ego to
immortality and omnipotence. In this context, she asserts that major obstacles
to spiritual fulfillment are erected by these patriarchal power moves.
In addition, she makes a fine and useful distinction between androcentrism,
patriarchy, and misogyny, making it clear that while Buddhism is influenced
by all three, it is essentially patriarchal. Further, she argues, such
a turn in the foundational intentions of spiritual movements is common
and characteristic of all major Eastern and Western religions. And so it
is patriarchy, rather than misogyny, that is mainly impeding the full participation
of women in religious society. It appears that Gross intends us to infer
that patriarchy is less immutable than, say, misogyny.
Interestingly, Gross does
not employ her various arguments to deconstruct modern psychology itself
as a patriarchal institution, using the concept of egolessness as her entry
point--not of course to launch a treatise on modern psychology, but to
provide insight as to how and when supra movements and seminal arguments
become co-opted by the male ego. This would have been of interest to many
feminists, like Gross, whose agenda is to hasten the demise of the already
self-destructing patriarchy and to supplant it with an androgyny-laden
universe. Even so, Gross' excellent scholarship offers to various disciplines,
beyond her intended Buddhist anthropology, an abundant and complex work
that is destined to fuel further debate, understanding, and agreement for
a more enlightened post-patriarchal humanity. Her discussion and language
are amply rich, affording much room for recasting and advancing key arguments,
not only as they relate to agenda, but to strategy as well.
As a lesbian feminist scholar
I recognize the opportunity to use Gross' work as a springboard for arguing
that the integrity of a religious discourse necessarily entails the experience
of lesbians. Beyond merely informing a body of scholarship, the inclusion
of female-centered relationships could have practical implications as well,
i.e., a greater understanding of how Buddhism, in this case, could accommodate
the spiritual needs of all women, including lesbians. Gross opens the way
for and invites this discussion, tying together as she does the Buddhist
concepts of egolessness, androgyny, and taking refuge in the Three Jewels.
The Three Jewels, or Three
Refuges, are axial to Buddhism and are expressed as an affirmation: I take
refuge in the Buddha; I take refuge in the dharma; I take refuge in the
sangha. The Buddha represents the embodiment of human potential; the dharma
is the Buddha's teaching; the sangha is the Buddhist community. After the
death of the Buddha, and before the emergence of Mahayana Buddhism, the
monastic sangha came to privilege itself over the lay membership, emphasizing
separation from society as the necessary path to enlightenment. The glorification
of aloneness is evident in the poem by the Tibetan poet Mila Repa:
I
have lost my taste for crowds
to
gain my freedom in solitude
have
given up bother
to
be happy in loneliness (p. 260).
Gross charges that "detachment
dependent on being alone" (p. 260), not unlike celibacy achieved in the
absence of potential sexual partners, is no great feat and, hence, not
a true measure of enlightenment. Aloneness is counter to the foundational
Buddhist practice of taking refuge in the sangha, as the third Jewel encourages
one to be a companion and to find companionship.
Clearly, Gross takes the
sangha to heart as she emphasizes in her scholarship the primacy of relationships
over individuation and the images of gender more apt to reside in the other
refuges. She informs us that unfortunately for women, and perhaps for men
as well, that the sangha has generally been regarded as a "poor third"
while lavish attention has been bestowed on the other two refuges. The
sangha needs to be viewed instead, says Gross, as the "matrix necessary
for the accomplishment of Buddhist concerns, especially freedom" (p. 259).
She reasons that the goal of Buddhism is liberation from suffering, a suffering
which comes from fixation on ego; furthermore, the greatest obstacle to
obtaining egolessness is the institutionalization of patriarchy, its privileging
of gender, and reification of gender roles and individuation. She asserts
that the reification and extension of male ego and phallocentrism are in
fact manifestations of the false belief in an "external savior" and a "vicarious
enlightenment" (p. 259) presumably eschewed by Buddhism. Such beliefs remove
women from their own spiritual center and establish men as the gatekeepers
of fulfillment.
Traditional Buddhist interpretations
have failed to grasp the importance of the sangha for those who want to
"emulate the Buddha [and] understand the dharma" (p. 260). The necessary
"instructions and... emphasis on how to be a ... sangha member" (Ibid.)
have been omitted as well. Gross seems to accept the conventional premise
of religious disciplines that we are fundamentally good and, at same time,
that we are not in touch with that good necessarily. She rejects the notion,
however, that aloneness and separation from others is the path to getting
in touch with our goodness. Rather, she sees the path as allowing oneself
to accept that "life conditions are fundamentally sane and satisfactory"
and are the ongoing goal of Buddhism (p. 284). This is a feminist view,
Gross tells us, which fundamentally sees joy instead of sorrow in life.
The goal of spiritual practice is to allow "ourselves to be fully human"
(p. 284). But, she adds, there must be discontent with things as they are
conventionally (such as the corruption of Buddhism by patriarchy), so that
we can attain things as they are in reality (p. 286). Gross moves away
from exalted states of consciousness glorified by patriarchs in favor of
a "sane" and earthly consciousness. She illumines the beauty and potential
in realizing divinity vis-a-vis community:
"When
we look out our windows, we will see the palace of the deities. When
we confront each other, we will converse with the deities. To become
sane, to live in community with each other and our earth, is to experience
freedom within the world--the mutual goal of feminism and of [post-patriarchal]
Buddhism"
(p.
288).
Buddhism
After Patriarchy by Rita M. Gross, State University of New York
Press, 1993, 317 pp
Reviewer Cynthia Cavalcanti
is a Ph.D. student in Religion and Social Ethics at the University of Southern
California. Her general area of interest is the intersection of gender,
ethnicity, and religion. Currently her focus is upon the religious/spiritual
experience of lesbians, particularly in Buddhism.
Review
from the International Gay & Lesbian Review, ONE Institute Press,
Los Angeles, CA
|