Buddhist Modernism in the Philippines: Emerging Localization of Humanistic Buddhism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a fine paper, which adequately catalogues the presence of Humanistic Buddhism in the Philippines. I am not an expert on Humanistic Buddhism, but it seems to me like the use of source materials and information regarding the work of Foguangshan and Ciji in the Philippines has been extensively catalogued. 

But this description is part of the problem. I wanted to know more about why we should read about Humanistic Buddhism in the Philippines. Beyond this phenomenon being important to know for those who study in the Philippines or Chinese Buddhism abroad, what is the greater value and contribution of this topic toward the study of Buddhism? Transnational Buddhism? Global, contemporary Buddhism? Humanistic Buddhism?

This is to say that the paper needs more analysis and I think a more specific frame of analysis would help. The idea of 'modern Buddhism' is about 20 years old at this point and many scholars have moved past it. In fact, at the AAR in 2021 there was a panel in the Buddhism in the West section about moving beyond the Buddhist modernism paradigm. David McMahan himself agreed that he no longer uses it in his work. 

There are much more interesting lenses to work with for this paper. There is also an emic use of skillful means, which is unnecessary. Use theoretical and analytic concepts whenever you can. To me it seems like the idea of translation of Buddhism and Buddhist concepts would be more fruitful. Brooke Schedneck's Thailand's International Meditation Centres has a chapter on Translation. As well, Vicente Rafael's work on Catholic translation into the Philippines must be well-known to the author. I would start there and build your argument around the ways that Humanistic Buddhism is translated into the cultural context of the Philippines. In order to make a contribution, this article needs to say more than modern Buddhism is a practical way to spread Buddhism.

The Conclusion needs something more interesting than: “This kind of logic in the way Foguangshan and Ciji developed in the Philippines is characteristic of the Buddhist modernism described by Lopez (2002), McMahan 670 (2009), and others. “

My second point has to do with the data used. There is much important data from secondary sources but would like to see more primary data from author. The abstract notes some new inputs from key informants and there are a few of these virtual interviews cited. However, I think more should be done to flag these key informants and to let the reader know the new contributions here from primary sources. I also think the author should highlight the internal/emic primary sources used from the Humanistic organizations themselves. Without this attention to primary sources, the article just reads like a summary of recent activity of these 2 organizations in the Philippines.

Is there any other data the author can add from their own extensive work done in this field? I gather the author is a long time expert from references to their work. Do you have any perspectives from members who are not Chinese? There were some founding members of these organizations mentioned, but are they Chinese or not? Did the author interview them? Is there any other primary data that the author has gathered to consider Humanistic Buddhism’s appeal to Filipino Catholics? More clarity in the data and more primary data would add to this paper.

Author Response

Please see attached Word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article provides very detailed and well-researched information about Fo Guang Shan and Tzu Chi. It provides a strong review of the literature to place this work in relation to other work in the field, and draws from Donald Lopez, David McMahan, Anne Hansen, and others to provide a clear theoretical framework to examine the work of these two organizations. The thesis is clearly stated in the final paragraph of the introduction, and the author develops the thesis throughout the article. I found the article very informative, and it expanded my understanding of the work of Tzu Chi and Fo Guang Shan, how Taiwanese Buddhist organizations operate in a predominately Catholic developing country, and how their approach and activities reflect Buddhist Modernism.

While the paper is strong in these regards, there are a few minor areas where I think the article could be improved prior to publication. Primarily, I think that the methods could better be elucidated, and the author’s positionality could be better described. The final sentence of the introduction on page 2 includes the modifier, “Through interviews with key informants,” but beyond this limited description of the methods, we do not know much about the methods used for this piece. The author uses some very interesting and I think useful citation, where they cite interviews with informants similarly to published sources. This method of citation respects the validity of oral interview sources, and places it in parallel with written records. However, there is reason to believe that interviews are not the primary sources in some areas, as there are long stretches of information without citation. For example, from the citation of Judy Lao on page 11 (Line 533) to the statement on page 13, “These efforts have been documented in two books published by Ciji in Taiwan” (Lines 651-652), there are only two citations—Nakar and Vizcarra 2010 (Line 562) and Honasan 2019 (Line 645)—which are both works published by Tzu Chi itself. My sense is that this section is primarily derived from Tzu Chi published materials rather than interviews, very likely the two books referenced on page 13, but it would be useful to see those sources described before the information is presented, so we know the sources of the information as we read it. This is particularly important because during this section on Tzu Chi, I felt like I was reading promotional material about the organization. There is a relative lack of critical engagement with these sources. For the authors’ argument that the activities of these two organizations in the Philippines represent Buddhist modernity, a more critical approach may not be absolutely necessary, but if much of the description is based on the organization’s own promotional material, I think that that approach needs to be made more clear up front in regards to methods and sources. In future publications, I would also be curious about alternative perspectives that do not represent the organizations in quite as rosy framing as promotional materials.

 

Further, there is also the reference on page 8 that suggestions some participant observation, “For instance, at a funeral service for a senior monk in another temple, I personally witnessed the Foguangshan monastics very politely refusing the red envelopes offered to them for their presence and participation in the service.” (Lines 363-365). This also suggests that the author has taken an approach beyond interviews. I think it is great that the author is using diverse sources and methods, I just think it would be useful to know more about the methods. When was the author in the field? Where did the author visit? I am only left to guess as reading.

 

These suggestions of various methods highlight how positionality is important. I do not think the author necessarily needs to offer a more critical or “objective” perspective, but it would at least be useful to know their positionality. Are they a member of one of these groups or both? Are they a member of the Filipino community? The Chinese Filipino community? The Catholic community? This information will provide more information about the positionality of the author that would help the reader to interpret the paper with some basic knowledge of the author’s perspective and context.

 

The author references their 2015 book Chinese Buddhism in Catholic Philippines in footnote 2 on page 6. I have not read the book, but this reference makes me wonder how much of the material in this article is new and unpublished. I note at least four interviews cited as taking place in 2021, but a bit more description of the methods and sources would tell me how this paper goes beyond what may be published in the 2015 book as well.  

 

I also have a question about a statement on page 8: “According to my online interview with Helen Correa (2021), former president of Guangming College, Foguangshan considers interreligious dialogue as another manifestation of Buddhist modernism and the organization is against strict sectarianism and discrimination.”(Lines 390-393). This statement makes me curious about the informant’s awareness of an academic theory of Buddhist modernism. While I understood the author to be using academic theory to analyze information gathered from informants, this statement suggests a meta-awareness of the academic theory within the Foguangshan organization and makes me wonder if the organizations decisions are influences by academic theory, and consciously produces knowledge through the management of their organization in a reciprocal relationship with theory. I think it would be fascinating to further clarify and explore this point.

 

Finally, a note that the author’s identity seems to be clear as, Aristotle Dy, is referenced as conducting the interviews, and his online profile regarding his role as a Chinese Filipino Jesuit provided me some background on his positionality. While I think this review is expected to be anonymous, I think that background information provided some of the information about positionality that I think could enhance the article.

 

Author Response

Please see attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This article is much improved through more careful noting and contextualizing of sources and through the new analysis of translation. The theoretical use of translation works well in the Conclusion. I wish there was a way to engage this more throughout the text and rely less on modern Buddhism. But I agree with the author's response-- Buddhist modernism can still be useful in some cases.