The androgynous; asexual Buddha of contemporary popular imagination stands in stark contrast to the muscular; virile; and sensual figure presented in Indian Buddhist texts. In early Buddhist literature and art; the Buddha’s perfect physique and sexual prowess are important components of his legend as the world’s “ultimate man.†He is both the scholarly; religiously inclined brahman and the warrior ruler who excels in martial arts; athletic pursuits; and sexual exploits. The Buddha effortlessly performs these dual roles; combining his society’s norms for ideal manhood and creating a powerful image taken up by later followers in promoting their tradition in a hotly contested religious marketplace. In this groundbreaking study of previously unexplored aspects of the early Buddhist tradition; John Powers skillfully adapts methodological approaches from European and North American historiography to the study of early Buddhist literature; art; and iconography; highlighting aspects of the tradition that have been surprisingly invisible in earlier scholarship. The book focuses on the figure of the Buddha and his monastic followers to show how they were constructed as paragons of masculinity; whose powerful bodies and compelling sexuality attracted women; elicited admiration from men; and convinced skeptics of their spiritual attainments.
#1191444 in Books Belknap Press 2013-01-07 2012-12-10Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.32 x 1.75 x 6.66l; 2.68 #File Name: 0674050185832 pages
Review
17 of 18 people found the following review helpful. Lincoln as PhilosopherBy Robin FriedmanAbraham Lincoln continues to inspire Americans. Beginning with Harry Jaffa's books; "Crisis of the House Divided" (1959) and "A New Birth of Freedom: Abraham Lincoln and the American Civil War" (2004) various scholars have tried to develop what they see as Lincoln's philosophy from the welter of his political speeches and writings. The most recent book to do so is John Burt's massive; "Lincoln's Tragic Pragmatism: Lincoln Douglas; and Moral Conflict." (2013). Burt is Professor of English at Brandeis University. While Jaffa interpreted Lincoln within the natural law tradition that begins with Aristotle; Burt offers a highly modern; liberal Lincoln whose thought resembles features of John Rawls and Kant.As did Jaffa; Burt concentrates on the Illinois debates between Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in 1858 for election to the Senate. He tries to be fair to Douglas and to explain how his position differed from Lincoln's. He argues that Douglas tried to compromise on a somewhat ad hoc basis with the goal of preserving the Union and saving it from bloodshed. For Burt; Douglas is frequently but unjustifiably portrayed as a relativist; moral skeptic; or apologist for slavery; The risk of Douglas' willingness to compromise; for Burt; was a moral relativism. Burt offers insightful comparisons and contrasts between Lincoln and Douglas throughout his study. They shared more in common than sometimes supposed.Much of the book is an explanation of the phrase "tragic pragmatist" that Burt applies to Lincoln in his title and uses to develop Lincoln's thought. Lincoln's position begins with a moral opposition to slavery. But Lincoln showed a willingness to compromise and to accept American constitutional law as it was. The constitution permitted slavery in the states but Lincoln denied that it required that slavery be allowed to expand into the territories. Lincoln's position allowed compromise but not the abandonment of its moral core. If the danger of Douglas' position was relativism; the danger to Lincoln's was fanaticism and theology. Lincoln and Douglas in their debates identified and attacked the weaknesses in each other's respective positions while not responding fully to the respective criticism leveled against one another. Only in the Second Inaugural Address; Burt argues; did Lincoln successfully meet the challenges that Douglas had posed during their debates.The book shows an extraordinary degree of erudition and uses a variety of approaches. Long sections of the book offer detailed background to the 1858 debates; as the compromises of 1850; the Kansas-Nebraska Act; and the fight over slavery in Kansas are discussed in detail. With his training in literature; Burt offers detailed analyses of speeches and articles by Lincoln and Douglas as well as by other political figures of the 1850's. With Lincoln; the book proceeds beyond the 1858 debates and covers many of the famous speeches and the writings of his presidency. There are discussions of the Emancipation Proclamation; the Gettysburg Address; the First and Second Inaugural Addresses as well as of other speeches that may be less familiar to the general reader.The book has a large philosophical sweep; discussing figures such as Rawls; H.L.A. Hart; Ronald Dworkin; and Kant. But this is only the beginning in a work that also finds much to learn from Husserl; Kierkegaard; Hegel; Niebuhr; Arendt; among many others. Much space is given over to differing views of textual interpretation; whether in law; politics or literature. The English poet John Keats' theory of "negative capability" is expounded and given a good deal of attention.Burt finds the source of Lincoln's moral position in the Declaration of Independence's statement that "All men are created equal" rather than in theology. Lincoln used the Declaration to attack slavery. But for most of his career; Lincoln argued only for the end of slavery rather than for full equality for African Americans. Burt argues that one can commit of a position; i.e. "all men are created equal" without fully understanding the full implications of the position; which becomes clear only with time and events. Lincoln realized in part but not in full the meaning of Thomas Jefferson's ringing language. In Burt's hands; this distinction between what he calls concept and conception becomes the basis for an interpretive theory and for a theory of law.The book moves uneasily between history and philosophy. The historical sections are thorough and stay close to the texts. Burt shifts back and forth between history and lengthy philosophical analyses. At times these analyses stray far from Lincoln and Douglas and seem more to address contemporary American political issues. Beyond a basic liberalism; many of the texts Burt discusses are not coherently integrated with one another. The subject matter and chronology of the presentation also tends to shift without clear preparation or organization. The book moves unclearly from the background of the debates to the content. I sometimes found a lack of preparation or cohesion as the book moved from one section to another.A key section of the book involves Lincoln's speech in Peoria in 1854 in which he offered moral opposition to the expansion of slavery while trying to compromise with and not reject the humanity of his opponents. From that speech; Burt elides into Lincoln's "house divided" speech of 1858 and then into the debates with Douglas. The debates are thematically discussed in chapters focusing upon the conspiracy charges that Lincoln and Douglas leveled against each other; Douglas' charges that Lincoln was a moral fanatic; Douglas' charge that Lincoln favored full racial equality; and the responses of Lincoln and Douglas in their debates to the Dred Scott decision. There is much to be learned from Burt; but much as well that is disorganized; unconvincing; and confusing. Although Burt seems to want to reject theology; his discussion of Lincoln's ultimate position in the final pages of the book seems to rely heavily on at least a quasi-theology and on a metaphysics that recognizes a vaguely idealistic absolute. On the whole; the book is stronger as history than as philosophy.The book consists of over 700 pages of frequently difficult text followed by nearly 100 pages of dense and substantive endnotes that will pose a challenge to readers without backgrounds in pre-Civil War American history and in philosophy. The book will reward readers with a strong interest and background in Lincoln. While it offers much that is valuable; the book should be read carefully and critically.Robin Friedman6 of 12 people found the following review helpful. Edit this bookBy Brian A. RobideauThis book is so poorly written and edited that it is unreadable. The subject matter is fascinating but the work to find meaning in the tangled sentences is just too steep a price to pay.9 of 9 people found the following review helpful. Endless but important and interestingBy Eric J. CassellThe book seems endless and yet it reveals a history of the US prior to the civil war that is not really known to most of us. In some ways (but only some) it is like the present period of US history where the underlying struggle is not clear but is clearly important and; I think; not what it seems. It is well written; but philosophical in tone. Not for the faint of heart.
