Reviewed by: Enlightenment and the Gasping City: Mongolian Buddhism at a Time of Environmental Disarray by Saskia Abrahms-Kavunenko, and: The Buddha’s Footprint: An Environmental History of Asia by Johan Elverskog Leslie E. Sponsel Enlightenment and the Gasping City: Mongolian Buddhism at a Time of Environmental Disarray by Saskia Abrahms-Kavunenko. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2019. Pp. xiv + 234. $125.00 hardcover, $30.95 paper, $20.99 e-book. The Buddha’s Footprint: An Environmental History of Asia by Johan Elverskog. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2020. Pp. xiii + 176. $55.00 hardcover, $49.95 e-book. Eco-Buddhism, also called ecodharma, green Buddhism, and Buddhist environmentalism, is increasingly pursued. There were only around ten publications about eco-Buddhism prior to 1970, but more than two hundred were published during the decade 1990–2000 alone.1 Some scholars assert that Buddhism is inherently environmental.2 This idea is challenged by Johan Elverskog based on his selection and interpretation of passages from sacred texts and numerous other sources cited in his forty-eight pages of notes. Elverskog marshals his argument in meticulous detail in ten main chapters foreshadowed by a preface and an introduction. Elverskog writes that Buddhism is the only religion that spread throughout Asia (p. 1). He attempts an ambitious survey of the entire environmental history of Asia, with exclusive attention to Buddhism. His temporal focus is the premodern period (500 BCE–1500 CE). He argues that during this time, Buddhism became a major force in the commodity frontier, responsible for resource extraction, deforestation, agricultural expansion (especially [End Page 321] wet rice production), and urbanization. Buddhists substantially transformed the natural landscape, which contributed to the development of protocapitalism in Asia. This environmental transformation of Asia was driven by Buddhism’s “prosperity theology” (p. 3). Elverskog claims that prosperity theology was the core of Buddha’s teachings, and it was rigorously pursued by followers. Wealth evidenced the accumulation of good karma and the elevation of spiritual status. Donating wealth to monasteries increased merit. Premodern Buddhism glorified wealth production, as reflected in audacious monastery construction and ornamentation. This rapacious materialism was necessary to sustain a growing number of monasteries as Buddhism spread throughout Asia. In some cities, hundreds of monasteries were occupied collectively by thousands of monks supported by laity. Buddhism transformed Asia’s natural landscapes. It was an expansive religious, social, economic, and political system based on generating wealth. Elverskog says that these remarkable phenomena are grossly neglected by scholars studying the history of Asia, its environment, and Buddhism. Contrary to the common image of premodern Buddhism in contemporary imagination, this omission is not purely ascetic and apolitical. Elverskog asserts that this new understanding does not necessarily undermine the utility of modern eco-Buddhism. Yet he also casts doubt on “ecoBuddhist fantasies” (pp. xiii, 5) in various ways, criticizing eco-Buddhism for its purportedly mistaken view of history. There are serious problems with Elverskog’s book. Generalizing about all of Asia, Buddhism, and 2,500 years of history is problematic. Elverskog’s generalizations involve complex, diverse, and dynamic phenomena. But Buddhism was modified in adapting to regional and local circumstances. Elverskog claims that there is a “unified environmental history of Asia” (p. 73). Nonetheless, he recognizes the need for detailed local considerations (p. 118). For instance, Thailand’s environmental history does not accord with Elverskog’s interpretation of the sequences and consequences of the spread of Buddhism throughout Asia: Buddhism became the dominant religion in Thailand by the twelfth century, but massive deforestation did not start until the mid-twentieth century with so-called Westernization.3 Given the multitudinous [End Page 322] contexts in which Buddhism spread, any unified environmental history is unlikely. Buddhism is not the only religion influencing Asian history and environments. Islam in Indonesia and Shintoism in Japan as well as Daoism and Confucianism in China are ignored by Elverskog’s Buddhism-centric history. Elements of other religions, such as animism, are often incorporated in or added to Buddhist beliefs and practices. Religious hybridization occurred throughout Asia in premodern times. Moreover, prosperity theology contradicts core principles of Dharma.4 Buddha’s Four Noble Truths consider greed to be among the main causes of suffering, even...
Read full abstract
Jun 20, 2021
Philip Bockholt 
Open Access