{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020865139949109414, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0035623409669211198, 'mean_word_length': 4.957575757575758, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: Buddhist Spirituality 1: Indian, Southeast Asian, Tibetan, Early Chinese

eratures and ends up contributing far less than might have been the case by his mode of argument. Chapter 1 tries to trace the Enlightenment's influence on the concept of culture now prevalent. The argument does not follow any chronology, and it completely neglects the influence of Vico and Herder on modern anthropological theory. A plethora of quotations are adduced that tend to ornament rather than advance the arguments, since one wonders whether S. agrees with the general positions of the authors cited. And too many quotations are lifted from other authors' citations. The historical arguments in the subsequent chapters prompt similar misgivings in the reader. S. tries to set out how vernacularization and a consequent commitment to pluralism have been part of Christianity from the beginning. He provides an intriguing rereading of Acts and Paul. Inexplicably he cites as historical evidence to support his argument (135-36) a piece of fiction that is a parable about the present state of seminary education cast as a newly discovered letter from Early Christianity. Minor figures such as Otfried von Weissenberg are perhaps too slender a thread upon which to string the argument for vernacularization in Carolingian Europe. One gets the feeling that the historical account, because of occasional errors of fact and heavy reliance on secondary sources, is less than compelling. And so S.'s intriguing and important claims end up being less than substantiated by this book. The argumentation is too loose and isolated from larger discussions (except for that generated by Lesslie Newbigin, which is alluded to frequently). S. is a great admirer of Matthew Arnold, especially his Culture and Anarchy. The style of presentation of this book is strongly reminiscent of that famous essay. But that whimsical, sometimes jocular touch cannot carry the argument S. proposes.