tiation has involved less a movement away from reli-
gion than the coming into being of two separate do-
mains, the religious and the secular.
Concepts of modernity and causality
The concept of modernity has been used in a Buddhist
context, mainly when studying reform movements of
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The concept of
modernity has not been used, however, when study-
ing the emergence of the movement or the character-
istics of the dharma. The main reason for this has to
do with the assumption that although the time of
modernity’s birth may be uncertain, its place of birth,
the West, is certain. Against this view it is worth con-
sidering whether instead of thinking in terms of one
modernity, one should think in terms of multiple
modernities. Thinking in terms of multiple moderni-
ties forces us to consider the differences between a
modernity that combines heightened reflexivity and
technological development, as in the West since at least
the seventeenth century, and a modernity understood
mainly in cultural terms. This means that even as we
seek to identify the constitutive elements of modernity,
we must keep in mind that those characteristics are not
found all at once. For example, in the world in which
Buddhism appeared there was no technological equiv-
alent to the Buddha’s concern with causality. On the
other hand, as we shall see below, one can establish a
correlation between the Buddhist analysis of reality in
terms of dharmas and the use of coins in northern In-
dia in the sixth century B.C.E.
Causality is present at the beginning of Buddhism,
when, according to the Mahatanhasankhaya-suttaof
the Majjhimanikaya,the Buddha teaches: “When this
exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that
arises.” Causality is similarly present as the principle
that underlies the relation among the FOUR NOBLE
TRUTHS: DUHKHA(SUFFERING), the cause of suffering,
the cessation of suffering, and the PATHthat leads to
that cessation. The counterpart of a causal chain whose
components can be identified is a conception of the
world based on the principle of correlation, a concep-
tion in which various aspects of reality resonate with
each other, allowing those who can manipulate such
correlations to claim special rights and powers for
themselves. The Buddha rejected such an organic un-
derstanding of society, which was exemplified by the
brahmins’ claims to have been born from the mouth
of the primordial being, Purusa. According to the
Assalayana-suttaof the Majjhimanikaya,the Buddha
ridiculed those claims, pointing out that brahmin
women give birth just like everybody else. This issue is
related to the contrast between the Buddhist and the
traditional Indian understanding of language. While
the former regards the connection between words and
reality as arbitrary, so that words are understood as la-
bels, the latter, being a “sonic” view of reality, regards
the connection between words and reality as involving
an intrinsic connection between the very sound of
words and the things named by them.
It is this assumption of a nonarbitrary connection
between words and things that underlies the belief in
the efficacy of RITUALand of practices generally labeled
as magic. It is worth noticing in this regard the Bud-
dha’s refusal to be considered a magician in the sense
of being a mayavin,a possessor of maya(understood
in this context as “fraud” or “deceit”)—this, despite
the fact that he was believed to possess supernatural or
magic powers (rddhi) and was known as das ́abala(en-
dowed with ten powers). The Buddhist rejection of the
ritual powers claimed by brahmins and by priests in
general is still present today, for, at least in theory, Bud-
dhist monks are not supposed to have sacramental
powers analogous to those that depend on a person’s
birth or those that Catholic priests claim to have ob-
tained through ordination. The distance established
between monks and sacramental powers is further
demonstrated by the fact that the return of monks to
lay status is common, especially in Southeast Asia. It
is true that throughout the Buddhist world, including
Sri Lanka and southeast Asia, monks engage in ritual
practices, such as the parittaceremony, the selling of
AMULETS AND TALISMANS, and the preparation of as-
trological charts, love philters, and the like. But it is
also true that when seeking to return to a scripturally-
based religion, Buddhist reform movements have been
able to find canonical support for the rejection of what
reformers considered superstitious practices.Subjectivity and intentionality
The condemnation or at least mistrust of ritual prac-
tices, especially of the wasteful expenditures associated
with them, has been central to attempts at modern-
ization. Equally important have been efforts to move
religious practices away from the material world and
toward a spiritual realm, a realm that has frequently
been equated with the domain of morality. All these
processes are ultimately linked to an emphasis on sub-
jectivity, will, and intentionality. We encounter all of
them in Buddhism, long before they became the pre-
occupation of medieval Christians. We find an early
example when the Buddha advises Sigalaka to engageMODERNITY ANDBUDDHISM