Buddhist Romanticism

ut scientific approach available in the West. At the same time, the
Romantic concept of the divided self also spoke to James’ understanding of
his own personal psychological issues.
But whatever the reason, even though Romantic ideas gave these
psychologists tools to advance their cause against deterministic
materialism, those ideas also ended up placing what were, from the point of
view of the Dhamma, severe limitations on their thought. These limitations
—which were then passed on to Buddhist Romanticism—will become clear
as we examine which principles of Romantic religion these psychologists
transmitted, whether intact or with modifications, to the 20th and 21st
centuries.
James
William James (1842–1910) played a
paradoxical role in the transmission of
Romantic religion to the present: rejecting the
monistic, organic Romantic view of the
universe, and yet arguing that many of the
principles of Romantic religion could thrive
even when divorced from their original
metaphysical context. In fact this was James’
main contribution to the survival of
Romantic religion: giving its principles
scientific respectability—at least within the
science of psychology—even as the fashions
of the physical sciences moved away from
organic metaphors for understanding the
universe and back to more mechanical ones.
Part of the paradox in James’ accomplishment can be explained by his
training both in philosophy and in psychology. As a philosopher, he
rejected the monism that underlay Romantic thought. In fact, the battle
against monistic idealism—the basic metaphysical assumption both of the
Romantics and of Emerson—was one of the defining crusades of James’
philosophical career. As a psychologist, however, he found useful
inspiration in the Romantic/Transcendentalist teaching on the religious
experience as a means of healing divisions within the psyche.
200