paper

How the Swans Came to Lake Michigan: The Social Organization of Buddhist Chicago Author(s): Paul David Numrich Source: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Jun., 2000), pp. 189- 203 Published by: Wiley on behalf of Society for the Scientific Study of Religion Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1387502 Accessed: 15-03-2020 13:02 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley, Society for the Scientific Study of Religion are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.69 on Sun, 15 Mar 2020 13:02:19 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

How the Swans Came to Lake Michigan: The

Social Organization of Buddhist Chicago'

PAUL DAVID NUMRICH*

An analysis of the social organization ofBuddhist groups and networks in metropolitan Chicago sheds light on the

social organization of Buddhism and other new religions in American cities generally. Following an overview of

the history and geography of Buddhist Chicago, this essay examines the dynamics underlying the emergence of

local Buddhist groups and networks under two main headings: religious identities and sociologicalfactors. First,

Buddhism s various branches, traditions, and lineages are discussed; sociological factors discussed include

organizational types, ethnic/racial distinctions, sociologicalfunctions played by Buddhism for "culture Buddhists "

and "convert Buddhists, " and the role of local social dynamics in the emergence, proliferation, and interaction of

Buddhist groups. As the field of American Buddhist studies enters a period of renewed productivity, this essay

offers a conceptualframework for understanding major issues that can benefit both researchers within the field

and interested social scientists outside of it.

The recent surge in American Buddhist studies provides significant grist for the mill of the

social scientific study of Buddhist groups in the United States. More comprehensive treatments of American Buddhism appeared in 1998-99 than in the previous 25-year span (Prebish and Tanaka

1998; Prebish 1999; Seager 1999; Williams and Queen 1999), though none was systematically

informed by a social scientific perspective.

This essay examines the social organization of Buddhist Chicago, focusing on dynamics

underlying the emergence of local Buddhist groups and the formation of their organizational networks both within and beyond the Chicago region. In so doing, this essay offers a conceptual

framework for understanding major issues in American Buddhist studies that can benefit researchers

within that field and interested social scientists outside of it. Following a brief historical and

geographical overview of Buddhist Chicago, these considerations are gathered under two main

headings: 1) religious identities, which includes a discussion of Buddhism's various branches,

traditions, and lineages; and 2) sociological factors, which offers important insights on typologies

of Buddhist groups, ethnic/racial distinctions within Buddhist America, sociological functions

played by Buddhism for "culture Buddhists" and "convert Buddhists," and the role of local social dynamics in the emergence, proliferation, and interaction of Buddhist groups. A concluding section

generalizes from this study of Buddhist Chicago, speculating about Buddhism and other new religions in America's cities.

In entitling his engaging narrative treatment of Buddhism in America, How the swans came to the lake, the late journalist (and Buddhist) Rick Fields played on remarks by a visiting Tibetan teacher in the 1970s. Asked why he had come to America, the teacher responded, "If there was a

lake, the swans would go there" (Fields 1992: 328). This essay explores how the various "swans" (groups) came to this particular "lake" (Chicago) and organized their collective Buddhist life, and what this might say about other "birds" and other "lakes."

*Paul David Numrich directed the Buddhist Chicago Project, Office of Social Science Research, University of Illinois at Chicago (MC 307), Chicago, IL 60607-7136. E-mail: pnumrich@,uic.edu.

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.69 on Sun, 15 Mar 2020 13:02:19 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

190 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

HISTORICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL OVERVIEW OF BUDDHIST CHICAGO

Prior to 1893, the year the World's Parliament of Religions convened on the shores of Lake

Michigan, Chicago had no known Buddhist groups. Anagarika Dharmapala, the celebrated

Ceylonese religious reformer, was one of several Asian Buddhist representatives at the Parliament.

On his next visit to America in 1897, Dharmapala founded an American branch of his Maha

Bodhi Society, a local affiliate of which opened thereafter in Chicago (Tweed 1992: 31, 44). The

Theosophical Society in west suburban Wheaton and Open Court Publishing Company in downstate

LaSalle showed serious interest in Buddhism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Following an influx of former Japanese-American internees during World War II, two local

Japanese temples were established in 1944, with at least three more opening in the 1950s. Increased

Asian settlement after the 1965 Immigration Act led to the establishment of numerous temples

serving a variety of ethnic-Asian populations in the next three decades. Local non-Asian interest

in Buddhism increased slightly after World War II, and significantly after the 1960s, out of which

several Buddhist centers emerged. The great majority of Buddhist groups in metropolitan Chicago

today formed after 1970, consistent with national trends (Morreale 1998). As of this writing, more

than a century after the 1893 World's Parliament, metropolitan Chicago has 67 verified Buddhist

groups.

Map 1 locates the permanent meeting places of 64 Buddhist groups in the Chicago region

(another three "float" among more than one meeting place). The circumscribed geographical distribution of these Buddhist groups stands out, with notable presence in only two of the six

metropolitan counties (Cook and DuPage), and significant concentration on Chicago's north side

and near north suburbs.2 The groups meet in a variety of facilities, from private residences to

remodeled churches and other buildings. Only one ethnic-Asian group, Midwest Buddhist Temple

(established 1944), has constructed a new facility specifically for use as a Buddhist temple (opened

1971), an understated Japanese-style structure in the fashionable Lincoln Park area of Chicago.

Chicago Buddhists lag behind two other non-Judeo-Christian religious groups, Hindus and

Muslims, in building such new facilities locally (Numrich 1997).

Estimating the number of Buddhists in greater Chicago is fraught with the difficulties inherent

in all such demographic endeavors, including determination of who constitutes a "Buddhist" (Nattier 1998; Tweed 1999). Self-reports from the local Buddhist community place the number as high as

150,000. No standardized "membership" categories exist across the variety of local Buddhist organizations, which report participant figures ranging from less than 10 to several hundreds. The

largest Buddhist organizations in metropolitan Chicago, with perhaps 2,000 constituents each, are Soka Gakkai International-USA and a few ethnic-Asian temples. As in the US overall, ethnic Asians comprise the numerical majority of the Buddhist community in metropolitan Chicago, notwithstanding media-and, until recently, even scholarly preoccupation with convert Buddhists.

RELIGIOUS IDENTITIES IN BUDDHIST CHICAGO

Worldwide Buddhism divides into three major branches, and subdivides into numerous traditions and lineages of Buddhist perspectives and practices. The Theravada branch predominates in South and Southeast Asia, and includes subdivisions according to country (Kampuchea, Laos, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Thailand), as well as variant groups and movements within those countries. (Use of "Hinayana" for this branch of Buddhism, once standard among historians and sociologists of religion, is now generally avoided because of the pejorative connotations of the word Hinayana, or "Lesser Vehicle," being a slight on Theravada by Mahayana, the "Greater Vehicle" branch.) The Mahayana branch predominates in East Asia (China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam), and includes a greater variety of subdivisions than the Theravada branch. One

well-known Mahayana tradition, stemming from dhyaina (Sanskrit, "meditation") practices

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.69 on Sun, 15 Mar 2020 13:02:19 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF BUDDHIST CHICAGO 191

Map 1: Buddhist Groups with Permanent Meeting Places in Metropolitan Chicago

LRKE MICHI GRN

MCHENRY LRKE COUNTY COUNTY

E OOK( COUNTY

KRNE COUNTY

OUPRGE

| ~~~OUNTY C zHICRGO l

| COUNTY COOK COUNTY t

Locations approximate, 1 999. Hap prepared by Rlan G. Wagner, Pluralism Project.

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.69 on Sun, 15 Mar 2020 13:02:19 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

192 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

originating in India, today comprises the Ch'an lineage in China, the S'on lineage in Korea, and

the Zen lineage in Japan, as well as sub-lineages within each country, e.g., Japanese Soto and

Rinzai Zen. The third, and smallest, major branch of worldwide Buddhism, Vajrayana, predominates

in InnerAsia, especially Tibet, where several Vajrayana traditions and lineages developed, including

the Gelugpa of the Dalai Lama. (Some scholars subsume Vajrayana under the Mahayana branch.)

Categorization by Buddhist branches, traditions, and lineages governs much of the literature

in American Buddhist studies, from Layman's (1976) pioneering work to Morreale's (1998) latest handbook of Buddhist centers. Buddhist groups representing all of these religious identities are

found in the Chicago region today. Indeed, the salience of religious identities in the formation of

local Buddhist groups and their organizational networks is remarkable.

One-fifth or less of the local groups can be considered truly eclectic or syncretic in Buddhist

perspective and/or practice, and even this small number is deceivingly high since it includes

several groups historically linked to one person, Reverend Gyomay Kubose of the Buddhist Temple

of Chicago (established 1944). The great majority of local groups were founded to perpetuate a

specific branch, tradition, or lineage of Buddhism. Twelve local groups fall within the Theravada

branch, 41 within Mahayana (about half practicing some particular form of dhyana-derived meditation), and 7 within Vajrayana. Map 2 identifies the 64 groups from Map 1 by their branch identities.

Distinctions of religious identity often contribute to the proliferation of local Buddhist groups.

In 1976 the Chicago Thai immigrant community founded its first temple, Wat Dhammaram, which

adheres to the Mahanikaya monastic tradition within Thai Theravada Buddhism. Wat

Padhammachart split off from Wat Dhammaram in 1986 primarily for sectarian reasons, as lay

leaders founded the new temple according to Dhammayuttika monastic reforms within Thai

Theravada (Numrich 1996). In 1997 another local Thai temple emerged at least partly from sectarian

sentiments, as some lay members of Wat Dhammaram facilitated the opening of Dhammakaya

International Meditation Center of Chicago, an affiliate of Dhammakaya Foundation, a meditation-

oriented renewal movement within Thai Theravada.

Solidarity of religious identity is often expressed locally, as "birds of a feather flock together" for mutually beneficial activities. For instance, Theravada monks from separate ethnic temples

(e.g., Burmese, Cambodian, Thai) and even distinct sectarian expressions (e.g., Wat Dhammaram and Dhammakaya mentioned above) gather for the periodic monastic rituals of their shared major

branch of Buddhism. Also, some Vajrayana centers with a common lineage cooperate in bringing itinerant lamas (teachers) to town.

Exclusivist notions prevent some local groups from participating in any Buddhist interaction

beyond their specific religious identity. For instance, Nichiren Shoshu denies the legitimacy of all

other expressions of Buddhism; thus Myogyoji Temple remains isolated on principle, declining even the invitation to join the Buddhist Council of the Midwest, the local inter-Buddhist association (on such associations, see Numrich 1999). Some Zen and Vajrayana centers discourage their members from attending centers of a different tradition or lineage (although individuals may do

so nonetheless). One Zen teacher explained that the various expressions of Buddhism operate on "different frequencies," with distinct "practice technologies." Using the hypothetical example of a Tibetan speaker addressing a Zen group, he asserted that the Zen audience would soon be turned off by the lack of relevance to their own Buddhist practices. Contacts at two local Vajrayana centers expressed similar views on the importance of maintaining religious distinctions. One cautioned against creating confusion in members' minds as to lineage and even sub-lineage identity, while another spoke of the sufficiency of the teachings of his group's founder, rendering the syndrome of "sitting around" at a variety of meditation centers unnecessary. This reticence on the part of some local Zen and Vajrayana leaders to foster inter-Buddhist exchanges calls for further investigation since it goes against perceptions about the affinities shared by such Buddhist converts

(Fronsdal 1998; Nattier 1998).

Contacts from a variety of local groups expressed a willingness to cooperate with other groups

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.69 on Sun, 15 Mar 2020 13:02:19 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF BUDDHIST CHICAGO 193

T Therauada (12)

Map 2: Buddhist Groups by M Mahagana (39) Major Branch of Buddhism V Uajragana(8)

S No specific branch identitg (5)

M

[LRKE MICHI GfN

MCHENRY LRKE COUNTY COUNTY

| T C EOK COUNTY . 4o

KlRNE I COUNTY

M ~ '

ECOUNTY HIVCOOK COUNTY

Locations approximate, 1 999. Map prepared by Alan 6. Wagner, Pluralism Project.

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.69 on Sun, 15 Mar 2020 13:02:19 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

194 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

across historical boundaries of Buddhist identity. Several cited lack of time as the only reason for

not following through in this regard. For whatever reasons, it appears that these lines are crossed

relatively infrequently by groups "on the ground." Based on my investigation, I would estimate that no more than half of the local Buddhist groups have inter-Buddhist dealings of any sort, and

many of these take place via membership in the Buddhist Council of the Midwest, a membership

held only nominally by some groups.

A large number of Chicago groups-at least two-thirds of the total-affiliate with extra-local

Buddhist networks specific to religious identity. Many of these national and international networks

appear to exert a certain amount of institutional authority over local affiliates. Examples include

Buddhist Churches of America (headquartered in San Francisco, CA), Dhammakaya Foundation

(Pathumthani, Thailand), Dhammayut Order in the United States ofAmerica (Ontario, CA), Karma

Triyana Dharmachakra Tibetan Buddhist Monastery (Woodstock, NY), Kwan Um School of Zen (Providence, RI), and Soka Gakkai International-USA (Santa Monica, CA, and Tokyo, Japan).

One local center headquarters its own small national network of Soto Zen meditation centers, called Udambara Sangha.

SOCIOLOGICAL FACTORS

Sociologists have delineated (and debated) various types of religious organizations since Max Weber (1930) and Ernst Troeltsch (1981) proposed the Church-sect dichotomy in the early

1900s (von Wiese and Becker 1932; Wach 1944; Niebuhr 1957; Johnson 1963; Gustafson, Goode,

Demerath, and Eister 1967; Wilson 1970; Yinger 1970; Beckford 1973; Stark and Bainbridge

1979; Johnstone 1997). Much of this discussion has been tied to the context of Western religions,

thus raising questions about the applicability of these typologies to Buddhist groups. A few observers

have attempted such an application to Buddhism in America (Fronsdal 1998; Nattier 1998). As

intimated above, some Buddhist groups in Chicago (and America generally) tend toward the sect-

type religious organization, particularly in their reformist and separatist sentiments. Although some groups represent the universal, or even established, "Church" in their Asian home countries (Bechert and Gombrich 1984; Ishii 1986), in America they necessarily shift to a denominational status due to this country's history of religious non-establishment and voluntaryism. For most Asian Buddhists, their first exposure to the full variety of Buddhism's branches, traditions, and

lineages came upon arrival in pluralist America. Their generally tolerant attitudes and openness to

cooperation with other Buddhists and even non-Buddhists place many local Buddhist groups into the denominational type as well. Some Buddhist groups in America have been featured in studies

of alternative or new religious movements (Needleman 1970; Needleman and Baker 1978; Tipton 1982; Preston 1988; Melton 1993), though the significant history of ethnic-Asian Buddhist

populations obviously makes Buddhism in America more than an American "new religion," a fact not always clear in the literature (see Numrich 1996: xxii, 78; Prebish 1999: 242-44). Studies of Buddhist groups in America sometimes appear under the increasingly problematic rubric of "cult" (Eister 1972; Stark, Bainbridge, and Doyle 1979; Melton 1986; 1992), the disfunctional connotations of which have been challenged (Gussner and Berkowitz 1988; Finney 1991).

Various sociological factors contribute to the social organization of Buddhist groups and networks in the Chicago region. These factors can be arranged under two headings: the "two Buddhisms" notion and local social dynamics.

"Two Buddhisms"

A latent rift between White and Asian-American Buddhists over the former's privileging of meditation above other practices surfaced recently in Buddhist circles nationwide.3 A related debate

arose in scholarly circles over the notion of America's "two Buddhisms."t As coined by the dean of American Buddhist studies, Charles Prebish (1979: 51), the "two Buddhisms" notion initially

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.69 on Sun, 15 Mar 2020 13:02:19 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF BUDDHIST CHICAGO 195

did not carry overtly ethnic/racial connotations. Prebish later redefined his dichotomy along these lines, positing a distinction between the Buddhism practiced by Asian Americans on the one hand, and non-Asian Americans (mostly European Americans) on the other (Prebish 1993; 1998; 1999: 58,296). Jan Nattier (1998: 189) rejects the usefulness of a simplistic "two Buddhisms" bifurcation into Asian-American and European-American camps as "clearly inadequate to the task, primarily because it fails to account for the full spectrum of racial and ethnic diversity in Buddhist America."

Nattier instead offers a tripartite typology of modes of transportation by which Buddhist groups arrived in America, labeled Elite, Evangelical, and Ethnic types. Prebish (1999: 296 n. 17) summarizes the current state of affairs in the field: "Each of these views has its supporters and detractors, and the two typologies have stimulated a very lively and useful debate."

But to place the primary emphasis on the ethnic/racial composition of Buddhist America, as this recent debate has tended to do, obscures the real value of a "two Buddhisms" approach. When the primary emphasis is placed instead on the function Buddhism plays in the lives of Buddhists in each category of America's "two Buddhisms," the notion retains its usefulness for understanding Buddhist America as a whole. To be sure, ethnic/racial distinctions continue to have relevance in such a usage, but secondarily to the respective sociological functions of Buddhism.

On one side we find "culture Buddhists," Asian Americans for whom Buddhism serves an affirmative function of helping to maintain an ethnic group's cohesive way of life and heritage. Thus ethnic-Asian Buddhist temples typically provide the locus for a larger cultural matrix in which Buddhist religious practices form an integral part. Many ethnic-Asian Buddhists can be classified as immigrants and refugees, having come to the US through the "pull" of liberalized immigration policies since the 1965 Immigration Act and the "push" of political turmoil in Southeast

Asia in the aftermath of the Vietnam conflict. Chinese and Japanese Buddhists have now reached their fourth and fifth generations in America. For them the designation "immigrant" is inappropriate,

as it would be for fourth and fifth generation European Americans, but the designations "ethnic- Asian" or "culture" Buddhists properly reflect the sociological function Buddhism continues to fulfill in their social life.4

"Convert Buddhists" make up the other category in a "two Buddhisms" typology emphasizing sociological function. Here Buddhism serves a transformative function of providing an alternative religious identity for people dissatisfied with or disaffected from their religious upbringing (typically

Judaism or Christianity). For individuals in this category the key issue is identity change rather than continuity, as they undergo a worldview shift to a new religious self-understanding. Convert-

Buddhist centers generally offer more focused religious programming than culture-Buddhist temples because the former lack the larger cultural matrix characteristic of ethnic-Asian Buddhist populations. Convert Buddhism also lacks a significant inter-generational context, given its locus in the post-World War II baby boomer population (cf. Seager 1999: 241-42). Convert Buddhists in America are predominantly White, with some Black and Latino presence. All of these converts obviously share a loose ethnic identity in being non-Asian Buddhists, but the key distinction between them and ethnic-Asian Buddhists is clearly functional. When the latter refer to converts as "Americans" or "American Buddhists," as is often done, they are noting differences in understandings and expressions of Buddhism between the two groups (cf. Numrich 1996: 64).5

Current scholarship in American Buddhist studies is uneven in recognizing the importance of placing primary emphasis on sociological function in a "two Buddhisms" notion. Some have been sidetracked into the debate over the secondary issue of ethnic/racial identity per se. The recent compendium, American Buddhism, alludes to a functional "two Buddhisms" approach in entitling two of its four parts, "Asian American Buddhist Identities" and "Profiling the New Buddhists" (Williams and Queen 1999). In that volume, historian Thomas Tweed proposes several categories of Buddhist adherents and sympathizers in America, dividing adherents into "cradle Buddhists who inherited the faith and converts who chose it" (Tweed 1999: 73), thus picking up the functional distinctions emphasized here. Americanist Richard Seager's (1999) fine contribution to the field, Buddhism in America, prefers the labels "convert" and "immigrant," distinguishing among the

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.69 on Sun, 15 Mar 2020 13:02:19 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

196 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

latter "old line" (Chinese and Japanese) and recent Asian immigrants, for all of whom Buddhism

functions in culturally affirming ways. Although they grant primary consideration to the ethnicity/

race facet, even the two protagonists in the current debate regarding the usefulness of a "two

Buddhisms" notion recognize the sociological functions implicit in it: at one point Charles Prebish

describes what I call convert Buddhists as those "who embraced Buddhism primarily out of

intellectual attraction and interest in spiritual practice" (1998: 7), while Jan Nattier admits "a real distinction of sorts: most Buddhist Americans of Asian ancestry were born into the faith,.. .while

most European American Buddhists are recent converts" (1998: 188).6 The 67 Buddhist groups in metropolitan Chicago break out virtually half-and-half according

to the "two Buddhisms" dichotomy as articulated here. Culture-Buddhist groups represent at least eight different Asian nationalities, while convert groups are predominantly White, with appreciable

Black membership only in the Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai International groups, and negligible Latino membership anywhere. The mono-ethnicity of most local groups stands out:

only about one in 10 has a substantial ethnic diversity within its membership, "substantial" defined as a second ethnic presence of 20 percent or more of the total membership. This ratio is notably

lower than that found in Islamic Chicago, Islam being a comparable multinational world religion

divided into categories of "culture" (immigrant Muslims and their descendants) and "convert" (mostly Blacks). About three in 10 mosques in metropolitan Chicago have a substantially diverse

ethnic membership (Numrich forthcoming).

As with the lines of religious identity discussed earlier, it appears that ethnic boundaries are

crossed relatively infrequently by Buddhist groups "on the ground." Based on my investigation, I

would estimate that no more than half of the local Buddhist groups have any inter-ethnic dealings

whatsoever, most of this again facilitated by the Buddhist Council of the Midwest, in which some groups hold only nominal membership. Many ethnic-Asian monks appear to use such interactions

as opportunities to acculturate to their new American social environment by "getting out of the

temple," so to speak. The few ethnic-Asian networks that have formed to date in Buddhist Chicago run within

ethnic lines rather than across them, such as among Korean temples and Japanese temples, respectively. Thus, to a certain extent at least, ethnicity may provide a better predictor of local Buddhist group interaction than religious identity, recalling aspects of sociologist Andrew Greeley's

(1974) findings among German and Irish Protestants and Catholics. For instance, I discovered that two west suburban groups of Thich Nhat Hanh followers were "blissfully unaware of one another's existence," to borrow Nattier's (1998: 190) pithy observation about this phenomenon,

even though their respective members attend the same Hanh-oriented regional gatherings. The groups' mutual obliviousness can be attributed to their differing ethnic expressions of Hanh's Zen Buddhism, one group being Vietnamese, the other White. In another situation, local Theravada groups are aware of each other's presence, but their expressions of that branch of Buddhism differ

so greatly according to ethnicity and function Thai versus White, culture versus convert-that little interaction takes place (cf. Fronsdal 1998).

In Old wisdom in the new world I documented the phenomenon of "parallel congregations" of culture and convert Buddhists within immigrant Theravada temples in the US, wherein the two groups "pursue largely separate and substantively distinct expressions of a common religious tradition" (Numrich 1996: 144). This phenomenon has surfaced in other ethnic-Asian Buddhist contexts as well, including Japanese Buddhist Churches of America, ethnic-Chinese, and ethnic- Japanese Zen temples (Numrich 1996; Chandler 1998; Asai and Williams 1999). In Buddhist Chicago I discovered such congregational parallelism to some degree in about 10 ethnic-Asian temples, including Thai, Korean, Japanese, and Vietnamese temples.

Map 3 breaks out the 64 Buddhist groups with permanent meeting places in metropolitan Chicago according to the "two Buddhisms" dichotomy of culture Buddhists and convert Buddhists (63 of the 64 groups have a simple majority membership in one or the other category; a student

group at Northwestern University reports no majority). For both types, meeting places tend to be

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.69 on Sun, 15 Mar 2020 13:02:19 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF BUDDHIST CHICAGO 197

in or near residential pockets of constituents. The marked concentration of groups of both types

on the north side of the city of Chicago can be explained by the ethnic/racial diversity of that part

of town, with large pockets of Asian populations as well as the presence of many Whites who have resisted recent "White flight" trends. A spillover effect can be seen in the near-north suburbs

of Evanston and Skokie, home to nine Buddhist groups (five White, three ethnic-Asian, one without a simple majority). More than half of the groups in exurban northern Cook and DuPage counties fall into the culture-Buddhist category, a presence at least partially attributable to recent increases

in ethnic-Asian settlement in those outlying areas. Other factors come into play here as well, however, including practical considerations like availability, affordability, and adaptability of a proposed meeting site. Ethnic-Asian temples/centers in exurban locations typically serve a

predominantly commuter clientele, and long commutes often pose personal and organizational

problems (see the Thai case below). Buddhist individuals in both categories, culture and convert,

find modern life as heavily scheduled and urban travel as frustrating as anyone else, factors which

can affect participation levels in particular local Buddhist groups (see the Kwan Um case below). Observers have discussed class distinctions within Buddhist America, typically placing White

converts into a relatively high socioeconomic status, so-called "Elite Buddhists" (e.g., Nattier 1998). This discussion needs empirical grounding, a daunting task given the difficulties of gathering income and other pertinent data for the memberships of various local Buddhist groups. National

immigration studies indicate that some ethnic-Asian populations include a high status presence, especially due to the occupational preference provisions of the 1965 Immigration Act. A

reconnaissance of meeting places in suburban Chicago seems to bear out the need for testing current notions of "Elite Buddhism": 60 percent of the ethnic-Asian or culture-Buddhist groups meet in suburbs that rate as "desirable" according to a scale based on income levels and crime rates; less than 30 percent of suburban, White, convert-Buddhist groups meet in comparably "desirable" environs.7

Local social dynamics

Buddhist groups emerge, proliferate, and interact through a variety of local social dynamics,

as the foregoing discussion intimates. Factors such as institutional schism, lay initiatives, clergy

entrepreneurship, geography, and establishment of "daughter" organizations contribute to the social organization of Buddhist groups and networks in the Chicago region. The literature on Buddhist America lacks systematic analysis of such local social dynamics.

The history of Chicago's Thai temples illustrates several of these dynamics. Wat Dhammaram,

the first Thai temple in the region (established 1976), underwent a double schism in 1986. As noted earlier in this essay, one split-off temple, Wat Padhammachart, emerged on sectarian principle,

its laity preferring the Dhammayuttika monastic tradition to Wat Dhammaram's Mahanikaya tradition. The other split-off temple, Buddhadharma Meditation Center, emerged for non-sectarian reasons-it shares Mahanikaya identity with the parent temple including rifts within the lay leadership of the local Thai community (Numrich 1996). Sectarian sentiments and lay initiatives contributed to the emergence of another local Thai temple in 1997, the Dhammakaya International center also mentioned earlier. But geographical considerations played a part in this, too. The previous three Thai temples all located their facilities on the southwest side of the mnetropolitan region, a significant distance from pockets of Thai settlement on the north side of the region. Dhammakaya thus filled a geographical niche in serving many northside Thais whose regular temple participation was curtailed to major religious festivals due to the hardship or inconvenience of the long commute to the southwest side. A fifth Thai temple, Wat Phrasriratanamahadhatu (established 1993), opened on the north side as well, further filling this geographical niche. Yet this temple emerged as much through the entrepreneurial enterprise of its Thai abbot, who previously resided in a nearby Cambodian temple (see Warner 1993 on such entrepreneurship).

The significant role played by laity in the proliferation of Chicago Thai temples deserves

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.69 on Sun, 15 Mar 2020 13:02:19 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

198 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

Map 3: Buddhist Groups * Culture Buddhists (32) 0 Conuert Buddhists (31)

by Sociological Function No MajoritU (1)

0

LAKE MICHI GFN

MCHENRY LRKE COUNTY COUNTY

X COOK COUNTY ? 100

KRNE COUNTY

COUNTY CHICRGO O O

0~ *E

WILL 1 COllNTY COOK COUNiTY

Locations apprOHimate, 1999. Map prepared bg Rlan 6. Wagner, Pluralism Project.

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.69 on Sun, 15 Mar 2020 13:02:19 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF BUDDHIST CHICAGO 199

further comment. Many observers point out that American religious history is characterized by lay assertiveness and decision-making power in congregational affairs (see Numrich 1996: 142).

Sociologist R. Stephen Warner's (1993: 1066) notion of de facto congregationalism emphasizes

"an institututionalized bias of American religious life toward affectively significant associations

under local and lay control." Local lay people take initiatives throughout Buddhist America, and both culture and convert Buddhists will import the kind of Buddhism they need to satisfy their

religious longings, as did Thai laity in establishing new temples in Chicago.8 Institutional schism is one process by which a local Buddhist group gives birth to others.

Under more amicable circumstances a group sometimes establishes organizational "daughters" in

nearby locations. The four International Zen Dojo Sogenkai (IZDS) groups in metropolitan Chicago

provide a case in point. The director of the Japanese Culture Center on Chicago's north side

initiated contact with IZDS headquarters in Hawaii, seeking to establish a local IZDS branch to

complement the Culture Center's Aikido program. (IZDS was founded by a lay Aikido master

whose goal is to provide Zen training at all of his more than 100 Aikido centers nationwide.)

Following the opening of an IZDS branch in the Japanese Culture Center in 1996, the director

planted two "mission" Aikido/IZDS branches in the suburbs, one north, the other south. Another branch opened in the northern suburbs through the initiative of a local IZDS student who had

cultivated a clientele for his Zen therapy work.

The evolution of Kwan Um Zen Community (Illinois) illustrates several social dynamics

underlying the establishment and proliferation of Buddhist groups. The local Kwan Um network,

with ties to Kwan Um Zen centers in Wisconsin and Indiana, and national headquarters in

Providence, Rhode Island, grew out of the now-defunct Chicago Meditation Center (Morreale

1988: 145-46). A small circle of mostly White meditators coalesced around shared interest in the

teachings of Korean S'on Master Seung Sahn (see Soeng 1998), who was brought to the region

for annual meditation retreats by a local Asian Indian. This small circle of meditators met for a

time in a Korean temple on Chicago's north side, but that relationship has deteriorated somewhat

due to ethnic differences between the Kwan Um group and the host temple, as well as because of

commuting inconvenience for some Kwan Um members. The local Kwan Um network now

comprises four meditation groups convened by individuals in or near their own residences, two in

the city, two in the suburbs.

CONCLUSION: OF BIRDS AND LAKES

One intention of this essay has been to bring together social science and American Buddhist

studies to introduce social scientists to key issues in the field of American Buddhist studies and

to apply useful social scientific insights to that field. Scholarship in both areas can benefit from

the cross-fertilization, as exemplified, for instance, in the foregoing clarification of the ethnic/

racial distinctions within Buddhist America and the importance of a functionalist analysis that

distinguishes culture Buddhists and convert Buddhists within America's "two B-uddhisms." Moreover, the Buddhist case clearly illustrates key analytical underpinnings of the so-called new

paradigm for the sociological study of religion in the US (Warner 1993). The pluralist, flexible,

and empowering characteristics of the American religious system have created a context in which

Buddhism now flourishes as a minority religion comprising ethnic-Asian populations and spiritual

seekers within a new American voluntaryism.

The local, "on the ground" contextualization of Buddhism as a social systenm within an American metropolis offers an important perspective for understanding Buddhist groups in the

US.9 Buddhist Chicago provides a case in point of Buddhist America, which exists, not just "generally," but concretely in specific localities with particular groups and organizational networks. It remains to identify some larger learnings from this focused study of Buddhist Chicago. What

can be said about the social organization of the "swans" (Buddhist groups) in America's many

''lakes'' (cities)? And what can we learn from a comparison of Buddhist "'swans"~ with other new

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.69 on Sun, 15 Mar 2020 13:02:19 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

200 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

"birds" (religious groups) in Chicago and elsewhere?

First, about Buddhist social organization in American cities. Chicago's Buddhist history is

significantly shorter than that of other important urban centers, particularly Honolulu, Los Angeles,

and San Francisco. The first Buddhist temple in the continental US was established in San Francisco

in 1853, four decades before the World's Parliament of Religions in Chicago. The first ethnic-

Asian Buddhist temples in Chicago were established only in 1944 with a wave of Japanese-

American ex-internees who had decided not to return to their home communities on the west

coast. Thus other American cities claim a different historical foundation than Chicago for their

present Buddhist social organization.

But I would argue that the formative dynamics of the present Buddhist social organization in

American cities have occurred since the 1960s, so in this sense Chicago constitutes a typical case.

The confluence of increased Asian immigration in the decades following the 1965 Immigration

Act and significant indigenous interest from Buddhist converts and sympathizers during the same

period brought about the extensive Buddhist social organization found in American cities today.

Tellingly, local inter-Buddhist associations did not begin to form in most urban centers until around

1980, yet today there are at least nine such associations across North America. One function

common to these local associations is to serve as watchdog for Buddhist minority rights, a legacy

of another post- 1960s dynamic civil rights affecting Buddhist social organization (Numrich

1999).

As to the question of how Buddhist social organization compares to that of other new religious

groups, the present study generates some intriguing speculations about selected "birds" that have

recently flocked to American cities, namely, Muslim, Hindu, and Sikh groups.

Although all four of these religions had comparably small pre- 1960 presences in the US, all

have been affected by the same post- 1960s dynamics mentioned above increased immigration,

significant indigenous interest, and a civil rights atmosphere. Moreover, all four religions retain internal distinctions according to religious identity, e.g., Islam's three major branches (Sunni,

Shi'ite, Sufi), Hinduism's group loyalties to various gods and gurus, and Sikhism's sectarian

subdivisions. Additionally, all of these religions have developed dual categories of "culture" and "convert" adherents in this country, with the respective affirmative and transformative functions

obtaining analogously in each instance ethnic and African-American Muslims, Asian-Indian

and White Hindus, ethnic and Gora ("White") Sikhs. Yet, of these four new religions, only in the Buddhist and Muslim forms of social organization

do we see an attempt to bridge such distinctions to any significant degree that is, assuming

Chicago to be representative of other American cities. The number of multi-ethnic congregations, though still not large, and the extent of interaction found in the Buddhist Council of the Midwest

and the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago, though certainly not full community representation, nevertheless find no counterpart among local Hindus or Sikhs. Perhaps the

universalist tendency is strongest among Buddhists and Muslims due to their status as multinational religions, a status that impresses immigrant co-religionists from around the globe who settle together

in American urban centers, thus providing an impetus to bridge historic boundaries within the faith. Although Hinduism and Sikhism contain some universalist doctrinal underpinnings, their immigrant cohorts remain mono-ethnic, and thus lack the impetus found in Buddhist and Muslim

circles. The divide between "culture" and "convert" adherents seems less antagonistic among local Buddhists than among local Muslims, despite the recent national rift over the "two

Buddhisms." This may be attributed to the fact that convert Buddhism in America historically has been more orthodox than convert Islam, the latter comprising many Black Muslim heterodoxies (Numrich forthcoming).

More research on local social organization patterns of Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs is needed to establish the validity of these generalizations. As to Buddhist Chicago and Buddhist America, other fruitful inquiries remain to be pursued, including an examination of interactions

between Buddhist groups and non-Buddhist groups. In Chicago, for instance, relations appear

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.69 on Sun, 15 Mar 2020 13:02:19 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF BUDDHIST CHICAGO 201

rather tense between the Buddhist and Christian segments of the Korean community, but apparently

not so in the Japanese community. Amicable relations obtain between Buddhist groups and certain

liberal Christian groups such as Unitarians and mainline Protestants, as well as in interfaith bodies

like the National Conference for Community and Justice and the Metropolitan Chicago

Interreligious Initiative. "Reverse conversions" (Buddhist-to-Christian) and secularization among

culture Buddhists also deserve attention for insights they might add to our understanding of Buddhist

social organization. Finally, Buddhist interactions with governmental agencies on all levels are of

interest, for instance with regard to federal immigration issues, state oversight of charitable

organizations, and city and county zoning regulations. Zoning disputes in particular have affected

the social organization of Buddhist groups in many American cities (e.g., Breyer 1993).

NOTES

1 The Buddhist Chicago Project, funded by the American Academy of Religion and Harvard's Pluralism Project in

1998-99, was housed in the Office of Social Science Research at the University of Illinois at Chicago. The methodology

of the Project, an extention of my research on Buddhist Chicago that began in 1987 (Numrich 1992; 1996), included

participant observations of Buddhist activities and meetings, interviews of Buddhist laity and clergy, and site visits to

virtually all of the 67 local Buddhist groups. My thanks to sociologists Henry C. Finney, Peggy Levitt, and R. Stephen

Warner, and three readers from JSSR for critiquing earlier drafts of this essay, though they are not accountable for

remaining inadequacies. Warner suggested the creative allusion in the title. 2 Conventional usage limits metropolitan Chicago to six counties (Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will) and

divides the city of Chicago into 77 "community areas."

3 Prebish 1999 provides the best summary of this rift, which played out interestingly in Tricycle:-The Buddhist Review 1994:4(1).

4 On Japanese culture Buddhism, see Radin 1946 and Kashima 1977; on Lao culture Buddhism, see Bankston 1997.

Chandler (1998: 23-4) argues that Chinese Buddhism in the US does not fit this model since Chinese immigrants generally did not bring Buddhism with them "as part of their 'cultural baggage'," instead "reconstructing" or

"discovering" their "inherited identity" after arrival here. However, their "conscious choice" to establish "Buddhist groups [that] act as an important link back to cultural China" (Chandler 's words, 30) bespeaks a function qualitatively different from the transformative Buddhism of American converts. Even for reconstituted Chinese Buddhists, Buddhism

serves an affirmative function of maintaining ethnic identity in America. 5 I am indebted to sociologist Henry C. Finney for suggesting the affirmative/transformative functions in his comments

as discussant of a paper I presented at the 1993 annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (cf. Numrich 1996: 146). As Finney himself would caution, we should not presume psychological or social deviance underlying the transformation of Buddhist converts (cf. Finney 1991).

6 Nattier's typology of Elite/Evangelical/Ethnic Buddhists can be interpreted as a refinement of a "two Buddhisms" dichotomy, Ethnic Buddhists on one side, with Elite and Evangelical Buddhists on the other side representing subtypes

of convert Buddhists differing only in mode of transportation. Nattier (1998: 321 n. 18) acknowledges how "remarkably similar" her typology is to that developed by Catherine Albanese in America: Religions and religion. In its most recent edition, Albanese (1999: 317) implies that there actually may be only two types, "ethnic" and "export," the latter comprising all converts to Buddhism-again "two Buddhisms."

7 A "desirable" suburb has both a median family income level above the regional median of $42,292 and a crime rate below the median regional rate (income data from Local community fact book 1995, Table I-1; crime data from Orfield 1996).

8 In the transportation-mode typology debated in the literature, such "importation" appears restricted to so-called Elite Buddhists, viz., mostly high status, European-American, meditation-oriented converts.

9 For analyses of Buddhist Toronto consistent with the approach taken here, see van Esterik 1992, chapter 5, and

McLellan 1998, an anthropologist and a sociologist, respectively.

REFERENCES

Albanese, Catherine L. 1981; 1992; 1999. America: Religions and religion. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Asai, Senryo, and Duncan Ryuken Williams. 1999. Japanese American Zen temples: Cultural identity and economics. In

American Buddhism: Methods andfindings in recent scholarship, edited by Duncan Ryuken Williams and Christopher S. Queen, 20-35. London: Curzon.

Bankston, Carl L., III. 1997. Bayou Lotus: Theravada Buddhism in southwestern Louisiana. Sociological Spectrum 17(4):453- 72.

Bechert, Heinz, and Richard Gombrich, editors. 1984. The world of Buddhism: Buddhist monks-and nuns in society and culture. New York: Facts on File.

Beckford, James A. 1973. Religious organization: A trend report and bibliography. Current Sociology 21(2):7-170. Breyer, Chloe Anne. 1993. Religious liberty in law and practice: Vietnamese home temples and the First Amendment.

Journal of Church and State 35(2):367-401.

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.69 on Sun, 15 Mar 2020 13:02:19 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

202 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

Chandler, Stuart. 1998. Chinese Buddhism in America: Identity and practice. In The faces of Buddhism in America, edited

by Charles S. Prebish and Kenneth K. Tanaka, 14-30. Berkeley: University of California Press. Eister, Allan W 1972. An outline of a structural theory of cults. Journalfor the Scientific Study of Religion 11(4):319-33. Fields, Rick. 1981, 1986, 1992. How the swans came to the lake: A narrative history ofBuddhism in America. Boulder and

Boston: Shambhala.

Finney, Henry C. 1991. American Zen's "Japan connection": A critical case study of Zen Buddhism's diffusion to the West. Sociological Analysis 52(4):379-96.

Fronsdal, Gil. 1998. Insight meditation in the United States: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In The faces of

Buddhism in America, edited by Charles S. Prebish and Kenneth K. Tanaka, 164-80. Berkeley: University of California

Press.

Greeley, Andrew M. 1974. Ethnicity in the United States: A preliminary reconnaissance. New York: John Wiley. Gussner, R. E., and S. D. Berkowitz. 1988. Scholars, sects and sanghas, I: Recruitment to Asian-based meditation groups in

North America. Sociological Analysis 49(2): 136-70.

Gustafson, Paul M., Erich Goode, Nicholas J. Demerath III, and Allan W. Eister. 1967. Reappraisal of church-sect typology. Journalfor the Scientific Study of Religion 6(1):64-90.

Ishii, Yoneo. 1986. Sangha, state, and society: Thai Buddhism in history. Translated by Peter Hawkes. Honolulu: University

of Hawaii Press.

Johnson, Benton. 1963. On church and sect. American Sociological Review 28(4):539-49.

Johnstone, Ronald L. 1997. Religion in society: A sociology of religion. 5th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kashima, Tetsuden. 1977. Buddhism in America: The social organization of an ethnic religious institution. Westport, CT:

Greenwood.

Layman, Emma McCloy. 1976. Buddhism in America. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Local communityfact book: Chicago metropolitan area 1990. 1995. Chicago: Chicago Fact Book Consortium.

McLellan, Janet. 1998. Buddhist identities in Toronto: The interplay of local, national and global contexts. Social Compass 45(2):227-45.

Melton, J. Gordon. 1986. Biographical dictionary ofAmerican cult and sect leaders. New York: Garland.

. 1992. Encyclopedic handbook of cults in America. Revised and updated edition. New York: Garland. . 1993. Another look at new religions. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 527:97-112.

Morreale, Don, ed. 1988. Buddhist America: Centers, retreats, practices. Santa Fe: John Muir. -. 1998. The complete guide to Buddhist America. Boston: Shambhala. Nattier, Jan. 1998. Who is a Buddhist? Charting the landscape of Buddhist America. In The faces ofBuddhism in America,

edited by Charles S. Prebish and Kenneth K. Tanaka, 183-95. Berkeley: University of California Press. Needleman, Jacob. 1970. The new religions. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

-, and George Baker, editors. 1978. Understanding the new religions. New York: Seabury. Niebuhr, H. Richard. 1957 [1929]. The social sources of denominationalism. Cleveland: Meridian. Numrich, Paul David. 1992. Americanization in immigrant Theravada Buddhist temples. Evanston, IL: Northwestern

University, Ph.D. dissertation. . 1996. Old wisdom in the new world: Americanization in two immigrant Theravada Buddhist temples. Knoxville:

University of Tennessee Press. .1997. Recent immigrant religions in a restructuring metropolis: New religious landscapes in Chicago. Journal of Cultural

Geography 17(1):55-76. . 1999. Local inter-Buddhist associations in North America. In American Buddhism: Methods andfindings in recent

scholarship, edited by Duncan Ryuken Williams and Christopher S. Queen, 117-42. London: Curzon. . Forthcoming. Facing northeast in a midwestern metropolis: The growth of Islam and the challenge of the ummatic ideal

in Chicago. New York: Auburn Project on Religion and Urban America. Orfield, Myron. 1996. Mapping the future. Portland, OR: National Growth Management Leadership Project. Prebish, Charles S. 1979. American Buddhism. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury.

. 1993. Two Buddhisms reconsidered. Buddhist Studies Review 10(2):187-206. . 1998. Introduction. In The faces of Buddhism in America, edited by Charles S. Prebish and Kenneth K. Tanaka, 1-10.

Berkeley: University of California Press. . 1999. Luminous passage: The practice and study of Buddhism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press. ,and Kenneth K. Tanaka, editors. 1998. The faces of Buddhism in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Preston, David L. 1988. The social organization of Zen practice. Constructing transcultural reality. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Radin, Paul. 1946. Japanese ceremonies and festivals in California. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 2(2):152-79. Seager, Richard Hughes. 1999. Buddhism in America. New York: Columbia University Press. Soeng, Mu. 1998. Korean Buddhism in America: A new style of Zen. In The faces of Buddhism in America, edited by

Charles S. Prebish and Kenneth K. Tanaka, 118-28. Berkeley: University of California Press. Stark, Rodney, and William Sims Bainbridge. 1979. Of churches, sects, and cults: Preliminary concepts for a theory of

religious movements. Journalfor the Scientific Study of Religion 18(2): 117-33. Stark, Rodney, William Sims Bainbridge, and Daniel P. Doyle. 1979. Cults of America: A reconnaissance in space and time.

Sociological Analysis 40(4):347-59. Tipton, Steven M. 1982. Getting savedfrom the sixties: Moral meaning in conversion and cultural change. Berkeley:

University of California Press. Tricycle: The Buddhist Review 1994:4(1). Troeltsch, Ernst. 1981 [1931]. The social teaching of the Christian churches. 2 volumes. Translated by Olive Wyon. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press. Tweed, Thomas A. 1992. The American encounter with Buddhism 1844-19 12: Victorian culture and the limits of dissent.

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.69 on Sun, 15 Mar 2020 13:02:19 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF BUDDHIST CHICAGO 203

Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

. 1999. Night-stand Buddhists and other creatures: Sympathizers, adherents, and the study of religion. In American Buddhism: Methods andfindings in recent scholarship, edited by Duncan Ryuken Williams and Christopher S. Queen,

71-90. London: Curzon.

van Esterik, Penny. 1992. Taking refuge: Lao Buddhists in North America. Np: Arizona State University Program for Southeast Asian Studies.

von Wiese, Leopold, and Howard Becker. 1932. Systematic sociology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Wach, Joachim. 1944. Sociology of religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Warner, R. Stephen. 1993. Work in progress toward a new paradigm for the sociological study of religion in the United

States. American Journal of Sociology 98(5):1044-93. Weber, Max. 1930. The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Translated by Talcott Parsons. London: George Allen

& Unwin.

Williams, Duncan Ryuken, and Christopher S. Queen, editors. 1999. American Buddhism: Methods andfindings in recent scholarship. London: Curzon.

Wilson, Bryan. 1970. Religious sects. New York: McGraw-Hill. Yinger, J. Milton. 1970. The scientific study of religion. New York: Macmillan.

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.69 on Sun, 15 Mar 2020 13:02:19 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms