the case, as Buddhist intellectual elites have devoted
considerable effort to exploring in theory and in prac-
tice various levels of awareness. Contrary to common
assumptions, however, meditative practices do not al-
ways have as their goal a calm mind ( ́amathas ). In the
context of a discussion of the connection between Bud-
dhism and modernity it is significant to note that the
mental states that are the goal of VIPASSANA(SANSKRIT,
VIPAS ́YANA) meditation—awareness, discrimination,
analysis—are congruent with the analytical attitude
that allows one to master the world. In more general
terms, the exploration of one’s subjectivity can be said
to constitute a central component of one’s attempt to
distance oneself from the tyranny of the past. But this
exploration of levels of consciousness did not lead
Buddhists to a mastery of the physical world similar to
the one that occurred in the West since the scientific
revolution, bringing us back to the point made at the
beginning of this entry about the need to distinguish
a modernity that takes place mainly in cultural terms
from one that encompasses economic and technolog-
ical attainments. It should be added that one of the
components of the Buddhist revival that has taken
place in Sri Lanka has involved a revival of vipassana
meditation among the urban middle classes.
Institutional modernity
There are intimations of Buddhist modernity not just
at the philosophical or psychological level, but also at
the institutional level. We have already seen how
throughout Buddhist history attempts were made to
put distance between monks and supernatural pow-
ers. A further step in that direction was taken when it
was determined that position in the san ̇gha would de-
pend exclusively on seniority, and that decisions
would be made by majority vote or consensus. An-
other significant characteristic of the san ̇gha is the fact
that, in principle, administrative positions could not
be inherited because monks were expected to be celi-
bate. It goes without saying that to a greater or lesser
extent all these regulations were breached in practice.
We know, for example, that monks had property and
that they were able to keep prebends within the fam-
ily by passing administrative positions from uncle to
nephew. Similarly, one needs to keep in mind that the
seniority system is overruled by GENDERconsidera-
tions, insofar as even the most junior monk is con-
sidered senior to even the most senior nun. Despite
this, gender-based taboos prevalent in South Asia gen-
erally do not apply to Buddhists; for example, whereas
menstruating women are not allowed to enter Hindu
temples, their Buddhist counterparts can enter their
own temples. More generally, it is important to note
that even when disregarded in practice, that certain
regulations had to be honored at least in theory es-
tablishes an abstract legal framework. Even more sig-
nificant is the fact that such a framework was not
transcendentally legitimized.The economics of modernity
It would be worthwhile to examine the conditions that
may have contributed to the emergence of this radi-
cally modern understanding of the world. In broad
swathe, the process of urbanization, political central-
ization, and monetarization of the economy that took
places in northern India in the sixth century B.C.E. can
be understood as constituting a radical change that re-
quired a readjustment of the ideological system that
includes religion. In this sense, Buddhism can be un-
derstood as a critique of the new order, but also as a
commentary. Money, for example, can be related both
to asceticism and to the concept of dharma. Money is
in some ways analogous to asceticism because it sym-
bolizes the solidification of labor, and, insofar as it is
not spent, money constitutes a deferral of the satisfac-
tion of one’s desires. Money is also related to the con-
cept of dharma in that just as all of reality can be
analyzed in terms of dharmas, all economic interac-
tions—labor, commodities, one’s position in the world
in relation to labor—can be analyzed using money as
the means of universal convertibility. In a hierarchical
society in which one’s chances in life were determined
by one’s position in the hierarchy, money, as the ulti-
mate solvent, can have liberating effects. In this regard,
insofar as it dissolves qualitative relationships into
quantitative ones, money dissolves hierarchies, and in
that sense it functions as does language in relation to
sensory objects: as a label, as a mere designation. That
in a society such as India the cash nexus can be liber-
ating can be seen even today in the case of the B. R.
AMBEDKAR Buddhists of Maharashtra: As Timothy
Fitzgerald shows, besides being highly literate and re-
sisting actively the power of brahmins and Marathas,
Ambedkar Buddhists are willing to work only for cash.
Given the importance of money in Buddhism, it is
not surprising that it was urban groups, above all mer-
chants, who identified most readily with this approach
to life. This was also the case for the land-based gaha-
pati,who were also early supporters of the san ̇gha. The
gahapatiare especially relevant, not only because they
constituted networks of traders who can be regarded
as having helped the expansion of Buddhism; asMODERNITY ANDBUDDHISM