“Protestant Buddhism”

The term “Protestant Buddhism” was introduced in 1970 by Gananath Obeyesekere to describe a development in Ceylonese Buddhism that started with Anagarika Dharmapāla almost a century earlier.¹ The notion was further developed in a 1988 book he co-authered with Richard Gombrich,² but variants of the term have also been used outside the Ceylonese (Sri Lankan) context – in reference to certain trends in Western Buddhism, for example, as well as to the switch from “self-power” 自力 jiriki to “other-power” 他力 tariki in Japanese Pure Land Buddhism.³ The term is also sometimes used in a more general sense in reference to varieties of contemporary Buddhism that share certain key features with Protestantism. The Ceylonese case described by Obeyesekere and Gombrich is the paradigmatic example of such Protestant Buddhism (in this more general sense), but not the only one. It is Protestant Buddhism in this more general sense that is the topic of this article.

This rather long and rambling article consists of two main parts divided into many shorter sections. The first part consists of three section discussing Christian Protestantism, the Protestant influence on (early) Buddhology, and historical “Protestant Buddhism” in Ceylon/Sri Lanka, respectively. The second part discusses – based on the first part – what “Protestant Buddhism” in general is or would be like.

Protestantism

Protestantism is a branch of Christianity that arose from 1517 onward in opposition to Roman Catholicism. There are many varieties of Protestantism, but most of those share a number of key tenets that have Latin names starting with sol-, meaning “only”, and that are, therefore, usually referred to as solae. The most important are sola scriptura, sola fide, and solo Christo.

According to the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Bible is the highest source of (religious) authority, outranking church tradition and any personal authority in ecclesiastic hierarchy. A consequence of this doctrine is the necessity of serious, but critical, study of scripture. The doctrine of sola fide holds that believers are pardoned for sins for their faith in Christ only (rather than for a combination of faith and good deeds). And according to the doctrine of solo Christo, salvation is by Christ alone, meaning that Christ is the only mediator between God and human individuals, and thus, that no priestly class is necessary for sacraments. This last doctrine (or an implication thereof) is also known as the “universal priesthood of believers”. In distinction from the Catholic church (before the Reformation, at least), all lay believers have the right and duty to read the Bible (in their native language!) and to take part in the organization and other affairs of the church.

While these three solae are arguably the most important doctrines of Protestantism, they are – obviously – not the only ones, nor even the only solae. For example, according to soli Deo gloria, only God should be venerated, in distinction of the veneration of Mary, saints, and angels in Catholicism. Furthermore, in addition to shared core doctrines like these, Protestantism is (historically, at least) also associated with a number of cultural trends and phenomena such as the promotion of education (to be able to read the Bible and participate in church affairs), the promotion of rationalism/​rationality and (experimental) science, a certain work ethic, individualism (which should be obvious from the solae themselves), political involvement, and support for religious freedom and other civil rights.

Protestantism and Academic Buddhology

Academic Buddhology has been heavily influenced by Protestantism since its inception in the 19th century, especially with regards to its methodological assumptions. According to Gregory Schopen, “the methodological position frequently taken by modern Buddhist scholars, archaeologists, and historians of religion looks, in fact, uncannily like the position taken by a variety of early Protestant reformers who were attempting to define and establish the locus of ‘true religion’”.⁴ Particularly, Academic Buddhology has always been predominantly scriptural, effectively adopting its own version of sola scriptura, although in the last four decades or so this strong focus on scripture has gradually been supplemented by archaeological and other research.⁵

19th century Buddhology took this scriptural focus to extremes. Many of the early experts on Buddhism, such as Eugène Burnouf, who published his Introduction à l’Histoire du Buddhisme Indien in 1844,⁶ never visited a Buddhist country and didn’t meet any practicing Buddhists either. In their view, the Buddhism practiced in Asia was corrupted and degenerated and “real” Buddhism could only be exposed by studying scripture, and Mahāyāna Buddhism with its veneration of various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas was especially degenerate, showing influence not just of sola scriptura, but of soli Deo gloria as well, but also revealing a kind of hankering for authenticity that is not of Protestant origin.

It is worth emphasizing this latter point. If Protestants in general would prioritize authenticity, they would try to reconstruct Christ’s original teachings and reject Bible books that are of later date or that are obviously tampered with. Scholars of early Christianity like Bart Ehrman do part of that work – that is, in Ehrman’s many books, aspects of Christ’s original teachings and other aspects of early Christianity are discussed – but research like this does not in any way affect Protestant beliefs. The protestant principle of sola scriptura even prevents that – scripture is taken as the sole authority as it is, and if research shows that certain parts of scripture are forgeries or that Christ most likely held very different views on certain matters than what the Bible seems to claim, then that is ignored. In other words, other research doesn’t really matter – only scripture matters. That is what sola scriptura means. An adoption of this same attitude within Buddhism (rather than within a particular sect or school of Buddhism!) would imply a similar acceptance of all Buddhist scripture as it is. Some sects of schools can have more restrictive views on scripture, of course, but then we’re talking about a Protestant(ish) version of that sect or school rather than about Protestant Buddhism. For example, “Protestant Theravāda” would (and indeed does) reject Mahāyāna scripture and only recognize the Pāli Canon.

Obeyesekere’s and Gombrich’s “Protestant Buddhism”

Obeyesekere and Gombrich write that “the utility of the label ‘Protestant Buddhism’ lies in its double meaning. It originated as a protest against the British in general and against Protestant Christian missionaries in particular. At the same time, however, it assumed salient characteristics of that Protestantism”.⁷ Hence, the term “Protestant” is used in two senses: (1) as a variant of “protest” to refer to the fact that Protestant Buddhism arose in opposition to something; and (2) more literally in reference to Christian Protestantism to emphasis some significant similarities therewith. Of course, Christian Protestantism also arose “in protest” to something, namely Roman Catholicism, and that immediately reveals a very big difference between the two “Protestantisms”.

“Catholic” comes from the Greek καθολικός, meaning “universal”, and Roman Catholicism was indeed nearly universal in much of Europe prior to the Reformation. Hence, Protestantism arose in response to a hegemonic variant of the same religion/​worldview. Protestant Buddhism, however, arose in response to externally imposed views originating in an alien religion/​worldview. This is such a fundamental disanalogy that it raises doubts about the appropriateness of the term “Protestant Buddhism” immediately. Moreover, Protestant Buddhism could not even have originated from something analogous to the Reformation as there is nothing analogous to Catholicism in Buddhism. There is no hegemonic or “universal” (i.e., “catholic”) variant of Buddhism and there hasn’t been for thousands of years. (That said, in Sri Lanka/Ceylon and other parts of South-East Asia, Theravāda was hegemonic and thus locally “catholic”.)

Of the solae mentioned above, Obeyesekere and Gombrich emphasize the solo Christo and its variant/​implication “universal priesthood of believers”. They write that

The essence of Protestantism as we understand it lies in the individual’s seeking his or her ultimate goal without intermediaries. In Christianity this means rejecting the priest and the saint as essential links between men and god; in Buddhism it means denying that only through the Sangha can one seek or find salvation, nirvana. The most important corollaries of this rejection are spiritual egalitarianism, which may or may not have consequences for practical life, and an emphasis on individual responsibility that must lead to self-scrutiny. Religion is privatized and internalized: the truly significant is not what takes place at a public celebration or in ritual, but what happens inside one’s own mind or soul. At the same time religion is universalized: its injunctions apply to everyone at all times and in all contexts.
…
The hallmark of Protestant Buddhism, then, is its view that the layman should permeate his life with his religion; that he should strive to make Buddhism permeate his whole society; and that he can and should try to reach nirvana. As a corollary, the lay Buddhist is critical of the traditional norms of the monastic role; he may not be positively anticlerical but his respect, if any, is for the particular monk, not for the yellow robe as such. ⁸

The rejection of intermediaries like priests (in Christianity) or monks (i.e., the Saṅgha; in Buddhism) is the essence of the Protestant doctrine of solo Christo indeed, but that term is, of course, entirely inappropriate in the Buddhist context. (The other term, “universal priesthood of believers”, is much less problematic.) What “Protestantism” means for both is eliminating the role of the clergy and other religious professionals and making religion a lay affair.

In addition to this “essence” of Protestantism/​Protestant Buddhism, Obeyesekere and Gombrich mention four other “characteristics of Protestant Buddhism”:

(1) It abandoned Buddhism’s traditionally eirenic treatment of other religions and decorous style of presentation for a polemical stance.
(2) It had a fundamentalist approach to Buddhism.
(3) It claimed that Buddhism was not a religion but a philosophy.
(4) Intertwined with all the above, especially the last – it depended on English-language concepts.⁹

(1) refers to the adoption of a relatively direct and confrontational polemical style that was largely absent in Buddhism, but much more common in the West. I suppose that it could be argued that some of the Reformers also adopted such a style, but a significant disanalogy is that the traditional styles of debate and ways of dealing with other views in Roman Catholicism and (non-/pre-Protestant) were very different.

(2) is closely related (and influenced by) the hankering for authenticity in 19th century Buddhology mentioned in the previous section as well as to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. Obeyesekere and Gombrich write that

the fundamentalist suspicion of “later accretions” has been influential. The [Christian] missionaries sometimes conceded certain qualities to the Buddha and his teachings but claimed that contemporary Buddhism was degenerate and moribund; Protestant Buddhists generally accepted this evaluation.
Furthermore, Protestants defined their position vis-a-vis Roman Catholicism, which they caricatured as a mass of ritual and superstition. In the eyes of Protestant Buddhists, Mahayana holds an analogous position: the pristine simplicity of the faith has been obscured by mumbo jumbo.¹⁰

While they call the analogy between Catholicism and Mahāyāna “unfortunate (and absurd)”, in using the term “Protestant Buddhism” rather than “Protestant Theravāda”, Obeyesekere and Gombrich effectively adopt the Theravāda exceptionalism/fundamentalism that they mention as a characteristic of (Ceylonese) Protestant Buddhism. The “fundamentalism” they see in this “Protestant Buddhism” is not Buddhist fundamentalism (if that exists at all), but Theravāda fundamentalism!

Furthermore, (2) is not necessarily a “Protestant” characteristic. In the previous section, I mentioned that academic scholars of early Christianity have shown that certain parts of the Bible are forged or otherwise inauthentic and that Jesus probably held quite different views about certain topics than what the vast majority of Christians believe. Within Protestant Christianity, there are two different kinds of response to findings like this (although these might be two ends on a spectrum): the fundamentalist response is to deny (or ignore) these findings and stick to (a literal interpretation of) received scripture; the liberal response is to more or less accept these findings and approach scripture more as myths packed with important moral lessons and other kinds of wisdom, but not as literally true. The same two approaches are possible within Protestant Buddhism, although the fundamentalist approach seems a more likely response for a Protestant sectarian. Theravāda fundamentalism, for example, is not at all uncommon. For a Protestant Buddhist (rather than a Protestant Theravādin) fundamentalism appears an unlikely attitude, on the other hand. And among Protestantish followers of Mahāyāna Buddhism, the liberal attitude is probably much more common. For example, the Japanese Buddhist reformer Inoue Enryō 井上圓了 wrote in 1887 that

Although there is much talk among Christians that the original texts of Buddhism are Indian, that Mahāyāna is not the Buddha’s teaching, that Śākyamuni [i.e., the Buddha] really did no exist, and so forth, this doesn’t even concern me a little bit. That person’s biography may not be detailed/​accurate and the origin of those teachings may be unclear, but I would never be so blind and ignorant to believe those teachings based on biography or origin. I will only believe it if it agrees with today’s philosophical reasoning, and I will reject it if does not.¹¹

(3) and (4) are not particularly “Protestant” either. The idea that Buddhism is a philosophy rather than a religion is widely shared among Buddhist Modernists and Western Buddhists, but I don’t think I have ever heard a Protestant Christian claim that Christianity is a philosophy rather than a religion. Furthermore, the claim is quite debatable, but I have already written several pages about the topic elsewhere and won’t repeat that here.¹²

In addition to these essentials and characteristics, Obeyesekere and Gombrich also mention some cultural aspects of (Ceylonese) Protestant Buddhism. Like Christian Protestantism, the Buddhist variant promoted rationality/​rationalism and there are similarities in their work ethics as well. Regarding the latter, they write that “the new value system was articulated into a powerful ethic of this-worldly asceticism”,¹³ and emphasize Dharmapāla’s personal work ethic and influence thereof on the movement as a whole. With regards to the promotion of rationality and science typical of Protestantism they write that Dharmapāla saw Buddhism

as contrasted to Christianity (and other religions) by the very fact of its rationality; hence the Protestant Buddhist claim that Buddhism is not a religion but a philosophy. Early Protestant Buddhists tended to follow Dharmapala at least in favoring rationality in the Weberian sense, for instance in economic life. Many of them clung to parts of the traditional cosmology, as for example the belief in planetary influences, but claimed them to be science congruent with modern Western science.¹⁴

Redefining “Protestant Buddhism”

To get a clearer picture of what Protestant Buddhism in general (as opposed to its specific Ceylonese variant) could be, let’s return to the solae and cultural characteristics mentioned above. I’ll attempt to give appropriate Sanskrit versions of the Latin solae, but that’s really mostly to amuse myself, so don’t pay too much attention to those neologisms – they are not what matters in the following, although they sometimes do help a bit in getting to the point.

From Sola scriptura to sūtramātra, dharmamātra, or āmnāmātra?

What is the Buddhist equivalent of sola scriptura? The answer to this question depends entirely on the Buddhist equivalent of scripture, but it is not immediately obvious that there is such an equivalent. Of course, there are many Buddhist scriptures including the Pāli Canon, a long list of Mahāyāna sūtras, and much more, but that collection of texts cannot really be compared to the Bible, either in size, or in religious role. We could translate sola scriptura into Sanskrit as sūtramātra (or Pāli suttamatta, but I’ll only give Sanskrit translations hereafter), thus changing the ultimate authority of the Bible into the ultimate authority of the sūtras, but I think that this kind of misses the point.

When the Buddha was approaching his death, Ānanda worried about how his followers would continue without their teacher. The Buddha’s reply to Ānanda was that

it may be that you will think: “The Teacher’s instruction has ceased, now we have no teacher!” It should not be seen like this, Ananda, for what I have taught and explained to you as Dhamma and discipline will, at my passing, be your teacher.¹⁵

In the context of Buddhism, the Sanskrit term Dharma (Pāli: Dhamma) refers to the Buddha’s teachings, and here the Buddha says that his teachings should be the teacher after his death and thus the ultimate authority. These teachings – that is, the Dharma – eventually took the form of sūtras, but that is merely their accidental form and not their essence. (For philosophical reasons it’s a bit strange to speak of “essences” in the context of Buddhism, but let’s ignore that.) Taking this into account, it may seem more appropriate to take dharmamātra as the closest equivalent of sola scriptura, but that isn’t exactly right either because if we switch back to Christianity from that perspective, the Protestant equivalent should be a prioritizing of Christ’s teachings, which take up only a small part of the Bible as a whole.

The closest Sanskrit equivalent of “scripture” or “sacred text” I know of is āmnā, but I don’t think that is a common term in a Buddhist context (but I may be mistaken). So the most literal translation of sola scriptura might be āmnāmātra. But that term doesn’t seem to fit all that well either.

Sola scriptura is a rejection of church tradition in favor of a scriptural approach. Whether a similar attitude in Buddhism could be called sūtramātra, dharmamātra, or āmnāmātra is, of course, a rather minor problem. What is more important is what exactly this attitude would entail. It is worth emphasizing that Protestant Christians do not reject all Christian philosophical and theological texts. In the contrary, there are many texts besides the Bible that play important roles in the Protestant worldview. By implication, a Buddhist application would not necessitate a rejection of commentaries and Buddhist philosophical texts either, but that – in a way – only makes the problem worse: there just are far too many texts.

But perhaps that doesn’t matter. Perhaps, the essence of sola scriptura isn’t so much in the text(s) chosen, but in the prioritization of text itself. What matters is that church tradition, ecclesiastic/​monastic authority, and other non-scriptural sources are downgraded and that ultimately, scripture is the one and only arbiter of religious truth. Text before tradition in short (and by extension, reason before authority).

Sola fide doesn’t apply

Recall that according to the doctrine of sola fide, believers are pardoned for sins for their faith in Christ only (rather than for a combination of faith and good deeds). What could possibly be the Buddhist equivalent of this doctrine? I suppose that “are pardoned for their sins” could be roughly translated as “achieved liberation/​awakening”. Of course, these two are very different, but they are the goals of religious belief or practice in the two traditions. “Faith in Christ” could then be translated as “following the Path” (leaving aside which variant of the Buddhist Path that is exactly). Then, the Buddhist equivalent of sola fide would be that following the Path is sufficient for awakening (instead of a combination of following the Path and good deeds). The problem is that this is standard Buddhism, and thus doesn’t set Protestant Buddhism apart from Buddhism in general. And I don’t think that there is another plausible interpretation of sola fide that does. Hence, this solae doesn’t apply.

From Solo Christo to mārgamātra

The Buddhist equivalent of solo Christo is not Buddhamātra. As mentioned above, according to the doctrine of solo Christo, salvation is by Christ alone, meaning that Christ is the only mediator between God and believers, and therefore, no priests or other religious professionals (i.e., monks etc.) are necessary for sacraments. Even if we substitute “liberation” for “salvation”, Buddhism just doesn’t claim that “liberation is by the Buddha alone” (i.e., Buddhamātra). That said, some variants of Pure Land Buddhism are quite Protestant in this sense as they proclaim something like Amitābhamātra – that is, the doctrine that liberation can only be achieved through faith in Amitābha alone. (This is the aforementioned switch from “self-power” 自力 jiriki to “other-power” 他力 tariki.)

The relevant point of solo Christo is the rejection of professional intermediaries between God and believers, in favor of the “universal priesthood of believers”. Similarly, in Ceylonese Protestant Buddhism, this took the form of “denying that only through the Sangha can one seek or find salvation, nirvana”.¹⁶ The similarity is superficial, however, and a similarity in traditional soteriological roles of religious professionals between Christianity and Buddhism is nearly absent. Of course, at a glance there appear to be similarities between the ritual roles of priests and monks in Catholicism and traditional Buddhism, but that similarity, again is superficial.

In traditional Buddhism it isn’t so much the saṅgha (Pāli; Sanskrit: saṃgha) that is the intermediary between believer and liberation, but karma (Sanskrit; Pāli: kamma) and rebirth. Good karma assures a good rebirth, and therefore, through meritorious acts – such as (financially) supporting the saṅgha – the believer builds up the karma needed to (eventually) become a competent monk able to achieve liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth (either in this world or in some “Pure Land”). In return for supporting the saṅgha, monks perform rituals, but it is the support itself that produces the merit, not the ritual. (I’m oversimplifying things here, but as a rough sketch, this is close enough.) Consequence hereof is a religious division of labor in which (in theory, at least) monks work towards their own liberation by following (some version of) the Path, while laymen work towards better rebirth (by supporting monks) to eventually (after many rebirths) be able to work towards their own liberation. So, monks (and nuns) are Path-followers, and laymen are future-monk-hopefuls-and-current-monk-supporters (or something like that). What Protestant Buddhism does is skipping the intermediary chain of rebirths and change laymen into Path-followers. The essence of this aspect of Protestant Buddhism, thus, is focusing on the Path (Sanskrit: mārga) as the only way towards liberation and rejecting the traditional lay role of supportive merit-gathering. Hence, we could call this mārgamātra (“path only”), but that obviously is a very different concept with very different connotations than solo Christo.

Doctrinal authority, sola scriptura, and dharmamātra (again)

Both Protestant Christianity and Protestant Buddhism reject a second mediating role of the religious professional class, namely, that between lay believer and scripture. In both Protestantisms, the lay believer does not just have the right to study scripture by themselves, but is expected to do so. (Even if not all Protestant Christians actually seriously study scripture nowadays.) This, then, is an aspect of the “universal priesthood of believers” that is more closely related to sola scriptura than to solo Christo. An important corollary hereof is that doctrinal authority is shifted away from monks, priests, or saṅga towards the laity. This doesn’t mean that every lay believer’s opinion counts equal, however. Rather, Protestantism makes doctrinal authority transparent by switching from a reliance on traditional, transcendent authority to expert authority (which is closely related to both sola scriptura and to a strongly rational attitude; on the latter, see also below). Hence, theological authorities in Protestant Christianity are often university professors, who achieved their position of authority due to their merits as scholars of scripture and related matters. The same could be true for Protestant Buddhism (and arguably should be true if it is to deserve that label), although I’m not sure how true it was for movements that have been called “Protestant Buddhism”.

If this aspect of Protestant Buddhism would be given a Sanskrit name, dharmamātra might be the most appropriate. Above, I quoted the Buddha saying to Ānanda that after his death, the Dharma would be the teacher, but also mentioned that, in practice, as guardian and chief interpreter of the Dharma, the saṅgha has always played an intermediary role between believer and Dharma. Protestant Buddhism rejects that intermediary role in favor of “Dharma only” (dharmamātra) instead of “Dharma-through-the-saṅgha”.

The rejection of an intermediary between believer and scripture and/or the Dharma also implies a repudiation of the common belief among Buddhists that one must have a teacher to properly (learn to) understand Buddhism. Such a teacher is another intermediary between believer and the Dharma (and typically a monk, priest, or other religious professional), which is exactly what Protestantism rejects. Furthermore, the repudiation of the necessity of a teacher/student relation – and thereby of the teacher/student transmission of the Dharma – as well as the rejection of traditional authority in favor of expert authority, also implies a rejection of the necessity of lineage, which is another common feature of traditional sectarian Buddhism.

Solo Deo gloria doesn’t apply

The Protestant doctrine of soli Deo gloria holds that only God should be venerated (in distinction of the veneration of Mary, saints, and angels in Catholicism). It might seem, perhaps, that the Buddhist equivalent would be the veneration of the Buddha (i.e., Siddhartha Gautama or Śākyamuni) and rejection of the veneration of other Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, but this incorrect for two reasons. First, the Buddha is nothing like the Christian God, and is a mere teacher. An exclusive veneration of the Buddha would be more similar to an exclusive veneration of Christ than like solo Deo gloria. And second, arguably, veneration doesn’t (need to) play an important role in Buddhism at all and certainly doesn’t have the direct soteriological function it has in Christianity. One doesn’t achieve liberation (in Buddhism) by venerating anything (even if one might gain some merit). For these reasons, I’m inclined to say the solo Deo gloria doesn’t apply at all.

Cultural characteristics

Above, I mentioned a number of cultural characteristics that are historically associated with Protestantism and some of these are mentioned or implied by Obeyesekere and Gombrich in the Ceylonese context as well. Rationality is, perhaps, the most obvious. Protestant Christians and Protestant Buddhists favor rationality in the sense of being reasonable and subject to reason and reasons, but also in the sense of favoring rational solutions for socio-economic and other problems. Second, and closely related to rationality, Protestant Christians and Protestant Buddhists have a favorable view of science, and tend to try to align their beliefs with science (even if they might misrepresent science and thereby deceive themselves in the process).

Third, both might favor a work ethic that values hard work, discipline, diligence, and prudence (among others), although this may be mere historical accident in the case of Protestant Buddhism. In Protestant Christianity, the work ethic follows from certain (more or less) theological views, but in case of Ceylonese, historical “Protestant Buddhism”, it seems mostly related to the personality of, and example set by Anagarika Dharmapāla, and I’m not seeing anything obviously similar in other “Protestantish” Buddhist movements around that time.

Fourth, both are more or less individualist, although some caveats are in order here. First, they are relatively individualist in comparison to traditional (pre-Protestant) culture, but not (necessarily) in comparison to the currently dominant forms of individualism in the West. And second, in case of Buddhism one would expect that this individualism – and especially the narcissistic or egocentric aspects of some kinds of individualism – are tempered or even negated by aspects of doctrine (such as no-self) and practice (such as meditation on lovingkindness or compassion).

Fifth, both favor sociopolitical involvement or engagement. And sixth, both tend to support religious freedom and other civil rights.

There may be other cultural characteristics of Protestantism that aren’t mentioned here, but that could be considered relevant, so these six should not be considered an exhaustive list. (One thing that comes to mind is the Protestant tendency to split up into competing sects over sometimes minute details of doctrine, but I doubt that this would be the case in Protestant Buddhism, for reasons explained below.)

A rough definition of Protestant Buddhism (in general)

Based on the foregoing, I propose the following six defining characteristics (or ten, if variants and elaborations are counted separately) of Protestant Buddhism:

(1) The (effective) abolition of the saṅgha by (1a) denying the difference between monastic practice and lay practice – that is, religious practice is essentially the same for all believers – and by (1b) denying the saṅgha’s traditional role as guardian and chief interpreter of the Dharma and thus as an intermediary between the Dharma and individual believers. (Notice that some Protestant Buddhists might obscure (1) by redefining “saṅgha” to refer to all believers, and that some Protestant Buddhists might prefer the term “practitioners” over “believers”.)

(2) The priority of scripture (and text in general) above tradition, ritual, and so forth.

Closely related to both (1b) and (2), (3) all believers have the right and are expected to study scripture and related relevant textual sources (such as Buddhist philosophy, but possibly also including relevant scientific findings). As a corollary of (1b), but also as an extension of (2) and (4), (3a) doctrinal authority is based on expert authority, and thus primarily on scholarly merit.

(4) A (strong) preference for rationality, both in the sense of being reasonable and subject to reason and reasons, and in the sense of favoring rational solutions for socio-economic and other problems. Related to this, (4a) a favorable view of science.

(5) A relatively individualist (but not narcissistic or egocentric!) attitude (tempered by Buddhist doctrine and practice), and (6) sociopolitical involvement or engagement.

Of these defining characteristics (1) to (3) are central, while (4) to (6) are more peripheral. Furthermore, the implications and importance of these characteristics might differ between (hypothetical) variants of Protestant Buddhism. Most importantly, and as already explained above, the scriptural focus in combination with the pro-reason and pro-science characteristics (i.e., 2 and 4) can give rise to two very different attitudes: a fundamentalist Protestantism that takes scripture literally, and a liberal Protestantism that favors a more figurative or allegorical reading. Analogously tho Christian Protestantism, in the fundamentalist variant, (4) and especially (4a) are downplayed, while they almost become part of the central characteristics in the liberal variant.

Notice, by the way, that this is a rough definition of Buddhist Modernism (in general) as a (hypothetical) movement and that individual followers of such a movement may deviate significantly. This is obviously the case in Protestant Christianity as well. Not all Protestant Christians seriously study scripture, for example. (In fact, it seems that nowadays very few do.)

Fundamental differences between Buddhist and Christian “Protestantism”

It should be fairly obvious that there are some fundamental differences between “Protestantism” in Buddhism and Christianity, and it is worth emphasizing some of those differences. First of all, there is a very substantial difference in historical context: Christian Protestantism arose in response to a single hegemonic religion, Catholicism, while there hasn’t been a similar situation in Buddhism for millennia. As mentioned above, some varieties of Buddhism may have been (and/or still are) locally hegemonic, but the Buddhist world as a whole already consisted of very many different schools and sects.

One could, of course, object that Christianity was also divided before the reformation, namely, between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and that Protestantism was a response to the former and unrelated to the latter. By analogy, Buddhism was divided between Theravāda and Mahāyāna (and Vajrayāna!), and Buddhist Protestantism was a response to the former and unrelated to the latter. This is certainly true for the historical Protestant Buddhism that arose in Ceylon/​Sri Lanka. However, there is a disanalogy. Protestant Christians tend to accept the division between Western and Eastern Christianity and see their religion as a variant of Western Christianity (which, thus, consists of Protestantism and Catholicism mainly, while Eastern Christianity consists of variants of Eastern Orthodoxy). Analogously, Protestant Buddhists should accept the division between Southern and Eastern (or Northern) Buddhism¹⁷ and see their religion (or “philosophy”, in their own view) as a variant within Southern Buddhism, that is, a variety of Theravāda. Regardless of whether historical Protestant Buddhism really is a variety of Theravāda, the movement didn’t appear to see itself as such, however. That is, it presented itself as a reaction to Buddhism as a whole, and to Mahāyāna especially. (Which would be like Protestant Christians seeing themselves as a reaction to Eastern Orthodoxy especially.)

A closely related fundamental difference is that Christian Protestantism aspired to replace Catholicism, while Protestant Buddhism tend(ed) to strive for parallel existences. The goal was/is not to replace traditional Buddhism, but to offer an additional approach within Buddhism. (By implication, the Protestant Buddhism’s rejection of the saṅgha only concerns its own followers. Within protestant Buddhism there is no saṅgha, but that doesn’t mean that Protestant Buddhists demand that traditional Buddhists sects and schools abolish monks, nuns, priests, lamas, and so forth as well.)

Other obvious and very important differences concern the role of worship and the nature of salvation. In Protestant Christianity worship is fundamental – worship is what leads to salvation. In Buddhism, worship is non-essential and only relevant as a means to gain merit. In Christianity, salvation is going to heaven (after death). In Buddhism, salvation is nirvāṇa, transcending the cycle of death and rebirth.

These differences matter, but the terms “Protestant Buddhism” may obscure fundamental differences like these. Calling something in both Christianity and Buddhism “Protestant” may make those “things” seem more similar than they really are. And for that reason, it is possible that the term “Protestant Buddhism” is deceptive more than helpful.

What distinguishes Protestant Buddhism from Buddhist Modernism?

The notion of Buddhist Modernism was introduced by Heinz Bechert in 1966 in reference to a kind of Buddhism that emphasizes the rational elements in Buddhist thought, increases attention to this-worldly affairs, and increases the role of the laity.¹⁸ Protestant Buddhism (either in its historical Ceylonese variant or in the general sense suggested here) is a variety of Buddhist Modernism, which raises the question how the two notions (or movements) differ. Or more precisely: What sets Protestant Buddhism (in general) apart from the broader category of Buddhist Modernism?

To some extent, Protestant Buddhism could be seen as a more radical version of Buddhist Modernism. It doesn’t merely “increase the role of the laity”, but effectively abolishes the non-laity (i.e., the saṅgha). More importantly, however, two of the defining characteristics of Buddhist Modernism – namely, rationality and this-worldly affairs – are mere peripheral characteristics of Protestant Buddhism (4 and 6 in the definition above), while the central characteristics of scriptural focus and lay scriptural study (i.e., 2 and 3) are not essential characteristics of Buddhist Modernism. (It isn’t uncommon among Buddhist Modernists to completely reject scriptural study and to claim that “Buddhism is just a practice”.) I suppose that that, then, answers the question: Protestant Buddhism is a variety of Buddhist Modernism that prioritizes scripture and encourages (serious!) lay study of scripture. (This probably isn’t a complete answer, but is may be good enough to sketch the general difference.)

Internal sectarianism vs. Protestant X-Buddhisms

A few sections back, I mentioned in a parenthetical remark that Protestants (historically) have a tendency to split up. In case of Protestant Buddhism, sectarianism is a bit more complicated, however. Christian Protestantism arose in response to one hegemonic religion, Roman Catholicism, and then started to split up. That is, Protestant Christian churches are branches of one Protestant tree or family. An analogous situation is possible in Protestant Buddhism – that is, there could be branches splitting off from one Protestant movement that arose in response to the whole of traditional Buddhism – but this kind of internal sectarianism needs to be distinguished from a plurality of Protestant reactions to various Buddhist sects. Protestant Theravāda, for example, is a protestant response to Theravāda, and not a branch of Protestant Buddhism. And the same for Protestant Zen, and so forth. Let’s call such movements “Protestant X-Buddhisms” (in which X identifies the sect). The essential difference between such Protestant X-Buddhism and internal sects of Protestant Buddhism is historical or genetic. That is, there is a difference in temporal order: in case of Protestant X-Buddhism, the sectarianism is older and the Protestant reaction is later; in case of internal sects, the Protestant reaction (to Buddhism as a whole!) came first, and the sectarian branching off came later.

This difference, however, has very important implications. Protestant X-Buddhisms apply the Protestant scriptural focus to the scriptures (and other relevant texts) of some X-Buddhism. So, for example, followers of Protestant Theravāda study Theravāda scriptures exclusively. Hence, in case of Protestant X-Buddhisms, the scriptural selection or restriction is inherited from the X-Buddhism they are Protestant reactions to. In contrast, internal sects of Protestant Buddhism (if those would exist!) would start out with the whole of Buddhist scripture and then, for some (rational and not pre-existing-sectarian) doctrinal reason choose to branch off. This branching off can involve a selection of scripture, but the reason for that selection (and for the branching off) must be a rational, “Protestant” doctrinal reason. (If it is not, that is, if the real reason is a pre-Protestant sectarian reason, then the resulting sect is really a Protestant X-Buddhism and not an internal sect of Protestant Buddhism.)

The distinction between internal sectarianism and Protestant X-Buddhisms probably has an accidental (?) relation to the liberal/fundamentalist spectrum. I strongly doubt that a coherent fundamentalist Protestant Buddhism is possible. Fundamentalist Protestant X-Buddhisms – such as fundamentalist Protestant Theravāda – seem much more likely on the other hand. On the other side of the spectrum, a liberal Protestant attitude doesn’t seem to match well with Protestant X-Buddhism, but may also significantly temper a sectarian reflex within Protestant Buddhism (due to liberal tolerance for divergence of opinion). For these reasons, I’d expect both fundamentalism and (internal) sectarianism to be rare in Protestant Buddhism.

The problem of legitimacy

Traditional criteria for legitimacy within Buddhism are closely related to lineage and the saṅgha’s role as guardian and chief interpreter of the Dharma. Protestant Buddhism rejects both, and is, therefore, almost certainly not a legitimate variety of Buddhism from a traditional perspective.

On the other hand, it is possible to find support for central claims of Protestant Buddhism – most importantly, the focus on scripture/Dharma and the rejection of the intermediary role and doctrinal authority of the saṅgha – within scripture. The quote from the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta given above (in which the Buddha says that the Dharma will be his followers’ teacher after his death) can serve as one example. Given that scripture/Dharma is the final authority from a Protestant perspective, this is all Protestant Buddhism needs (from that perspective!).

These two considerations lead to an obvious circularity problem: one has to already accept Protestant Buddhism and its rejection of the saṅgha to consider Protestant Buddhism a legitimate variant of Buddhism.

A partial solution to this problem is to redefine “saṅgha” to include all committed, serious followers (i.e., everyone who indeed seriously studies the Dharma in Protestant Buddhism), which also solves the problem of the apparent requirement to seek refuge in the saṅgha in addition to the Buddha and the Dharma. However, while this is a common strategy among Buddhist Modernists, it doesn’t really solve the problem as such a “saṅgha” is not likely to be accepted as a legitimate doctrinal authority (because it lacks lineage, for example) by the traditional saṅgha.

Does Protestant Buddhism actually exist?

There is no Protestant Buddhist movement. Or to be more precise, there is no movement that corresponds (even roughly) to the definition of Protestant Buddhism in general given above. (There is or was a kind of “Protestant” Theravāda in Ceylon/Sri Lanka that has been called “Protestant Buddhism”, but that “Protestant Buddhism” is not the same as the more general variant discussed here.) Or at least, there is no Protestant Buddhist movement that is prominent enough to have been noticed by me.

That said, there are undoubtedly individuals who could be considered Protestant Buddhists by the definition given above, and there may have been Protestantish movements as well. The 12th/13th century reform movements in Japanese Buddhism were somewhat Protestantish, for example, although they didn’t emphasize scriptural authority and scriptural study (which are defining elements of Protestantism). The late 19th century “New Buddhists” in Japan (of which Inoue Enryo, quoted above, was one of the leading figures) seem even more Protestantish to me, although surely not fully “Protestant” either. And there are many academic Buddhologists that seem quite close to Buddhist Protestantism as well. To give just one example, Tom Tillemans starts his recent essay “Why I am a Buddhist” as follows:

No doubt many would insist that I am not. Buddhists often invoke rather rigid doctrinal tests to argue for what they think is essential, indispensable Buddhism and what isn’t. I fail many of those would-be tests, as I often have reserves about those doctrines. I am independent of Buddhist institutions, although know and respect tradition. I think of myself as a Buddhist philosopher in search of a viable transcendence without any external God-like figure. I am above all a Buddhist who seeks a way out from an absurd, but seductive, picture that holds much East-West thinking captive, viz., the conceptual tangle of metaphysical realism and self-aggrandizing individualism. Here, then, is a broad-stroke sketch of where I stand on a religion that was always more to me than an object of disinterested historical or sociological study.¹⁹

That “broad-stroke sketch”, which fills subsequent pages, is very philosophical and very academic. Significantly, in this quotation Tillemans implicitly discards traditional doctrinal tests and reserves the right to determine for himself whether he is a Buddhist or not, and the grounds upon which he rests his claim that he is a Buddhist are entirely scriptural (in a broad sense of “scripture”, including the Buddhist philosophical tradition). His approach to Buddhism is extremely rational and science-based. (He rejects reconstructionist approaches for that reason, for example.) He is independent from (and thus not part of) the saṅgha (or “Buddhist institutions”). And obviously, while he respects tradition, as a scholar he only recognizes expert authority (in addition to more direct evidence – especially textual evidence – of course). Hence, the attitude that permeates his essay is a very Protestant one.

I don’t think that Tillemans would ever call himself a “Protestant Buddhist”, however, and it is quite likely that very few others who could be appropriately labelled such would like the label. In its actual use, the term sometimes seems a bit derogatory, and it probably has unwelcome connotations to some (perhaps even many) people. (And I already mentioned above that the term might be deceptive moreover.) This might be one reason why there is no Protestant Buddhist movement while there are Protestant(ish) Buddhist individuals: they don’t have an attractive flag or label to organize themselves. (But there probably are other reasons as well. It it is not clear at all how such a movement could arise and organize itself, for example. It would need something to bring Protestant Buddhist individuals together, but I have no idea what that “something” could be.)

Then, what’s the point of all of this?

So, what’s the point, then, of writing this long and rambling essay about some merely hypothetical “movement” within Buddhism, a “movement” that isn’t even likely to come into existence, moreover?

Curiosity, mainly. A somewhat academic curiosity about what “Protestant Buddhism” would really mean. Having encountered (and used) the term many times, and coming from a liberal Protestant background myself (before becoming an atheist with Buddhist leanings), I got more and more curious about this notion of “Protestant Buddhism” and what it could really mean, aside from its (somewhat problematic) use to refer to an actual development in Ceylon/Sri Lanka.

That said, the closer I approached the end of writing this article, the more I sensed a regret about the non-existence of a Protestant Buddhism. I think that it would be rather interesting if Protestant Buddhism – in the sense of the rough definition above – really existed. I probably wouldn’t join such a movement, but I imagine that the discussions and intellectual output of such a movement could be quite fascinating (and would surely enrich Buddhist Modernism and modern Buddhism in general).

So, in the end, I’d like to say that Protestant Buddhism (in the sense intended here) should exist, but it should probably call itself by some other name.

If you found this article and/or other articles in this blog useful or valuable, please consider making a small financial contribution to support this blog, 𝐹=𝑚𝑎, and its author. You can find 𝐹=𝑚𝑎’s Patreon page here.

1. Gananath Obeyesekere (1970), “Religious Symbolism and Political Change in Ceylon”, Modern Ceylon Studies 1: 43–63.
2. Richard Gombrich & Gananath Obeyesekere (1988), Buddhism Transformed: Religious Change in Sri Lanka (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
3. “Power” here refers to the ability to achieve liberation/​awakening. Jiriki one achieving this by oneself through meditation, study, and so forth. Tariki is achieving this through the power of Amitābha Buddha.
4. Gregory Schopen (1997), Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on the Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India (Honolulu: University Of Hawai‘i Press), p. 13.
5. For an excellent overview of archaeological work on early Buddhism, see: Lars Fogelin (2015), An Archaeological History of Indian Buddhism (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
6. Eugène Burnouf (1844), Introduction à l’Histoire du Buddhisme Indien, Vol. 1 (Paris: Imprimerie Royale).
7. Gombrich & Gananath Obeyesekere, Buddhism Transformed, p. 7.
8. Ibid., pp. 215–6. Somewhat similarly, on p. 7 they write that “Protestant Buddhism undercuts the importance of the religious professional, the monk, by holding that it is the responsibility of every Buddhist both to care for the welfare of Buddhism and to strive himself for salvation. … The distinction
   between Sangha and laity is thus blurred, for religious rights and duties are the same for all.”
9. Ibid., pp. 218.
10. Ibid., pp. 220.
11. 故にヤソ教者中、インドに仏教の原書なし、大乗は仏説にあらず、釈迦は真に存するものにあらず等と喋々するものあるも、余がすこしも関せざるところなり。その人の伝記つまびらかならず、その教の由来明らかならざるも、余は決して伝記由来をもって、その教を信ずるがごとき無見無識のものにあらず。ただ余がこれを信ずるは、その今日に存するもの哲学の道理に合するにより、これを排するは哲理に合せざるによるのみ。— Inoue Enryō (1887),『仏教活論序論』, in:『井上円了選集』, Vol. 3: 327–93, pp. 327–8.
12. Lajos Brons (2022), A Buddha Land in This World: Philosophy, Utopia, and Radical Buddhism (Earth: punctum), pp. 177–84.
13. Gombrich & Gananath Obeyesekere, Buddhism Transformed, p. 215.
14. Ibid., p. 14.
15. Mahāparinibbāna Sutta. DN 16.6.1. Translation: Maurice Walshe (1995), The Long Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Dīgha Nikāya (Somerville: Wisdom).
16. Gombrich & Gananath Obeyesekere, Buddhism Transformed, p. 216.
17. The term “Northern Buddhism” isn’t always applied consistently.
18. Heinz Bechert (1966), Buddhismus, Staat und Gesellschaft in den Ländern des Theravāda-Buddhismus: Grundlage, Ceylon (Berlin: Metzer).
19. Tom Tillemans (2022), “Why I Am a Buddhist”, in: Mark Lamport (ed.), The Rowman & Littlefield Handbook of Philosophy and Religion (London: Rowman & Littlefield): 349–57.