In recent decades, high-profile controversies concerning monks involved in law and politics, as well as in serious violent conflict across South and Southeast Asia have revealed our current knowledge of relevant causes and consequences to be insufficient. This has generated renewed scholarly interest in the study of Buddhism, law, and politics. Benjamin Schonthal’s book on Buddhism, Politics and the Limits of Law is part of this exciting and timely new generation of scholarly engagement on Buddhism and law in Asia. As a leading scholar in the field, Schonthal demonstrates and cements his position as a pioneer in the contemporary study of Buddhism and law. His book joins a small but growing body of literature exemplified in such works as the edited volume Buddhism and Law, the special journal issue of Buddhism and Law in Asia (of which Schonthal is the co-editor), and Walton’s Buddhism, Politics and Political Thought in Myanmar. In addition, Schonthal is on the editorial board of a new journal, Buddhism, Law and Society, which was launched in 2016 and is set to become the latest forum for this growing body of research. In short, Schonthal’s work represents a new turn in the study of contemporary Buddhism and comparative law, and marks the consolidation of this area of study. In Buddhism, Politics and the Limits of Law, Schonthal offers a rich, empirical analysis of a timely and sensitive issue across Asia—the interaction between constitutional law and Buddhism. His book exhibits exemplary socio-legal research—a quality that has been previously recognized, as his thesis (upon which the book is based) received the Law and Society Association Dissertation Prize (2013). His book is written in a compelling and accessible style, beginning with an opening story that raises the anomaly of monks (emblematic of religion and the private sphere) in court (symbolic of the public sphere). This powerful visual conundrum of who should stand up to honour whom in a courtroom—religious monks or the secular judge— pulls the reader into this intriguing dilemma. Methodologically, Schonthal builds upon the idea of microhistory and expands on this to develop the concept of constitutional microhistory (illustrated well in Chapter 6, p. 18). This approach enables Schonthal to justify and advocate for the use of sources and materials beyond normative sources of constitutional law. The animating idea central to Schonthal’s work is the concept of pyrrhic constitutionalism (pp. 11–17). As comparative constitutional law scholars should note, Schonthal is careful to explain that, by “constitutionalism,” he is referring to a narrow understanding of “practices of drafting and adjudicating constitutional law,” rather than the wider use of government limited by law (p. 12). His idea then of pyrrhic constitutionalism is one in which the practice of constitutional law may upset the intended aims of the law, including its broader influence on social life.

中文翻译：

---

Benjamin Schonthal，《佛教，政治与法律的局限：斯里兰卡的顽疾立宪主义》（纽约：剑桥大学出版社，2016年），第320页。精装版：86.00美元。

在最近的几十年中，有关僧侣的法律和政治争议以及南亚和东南亚的严重暴力冲突引起的备受争议的争论表明，我们对相关原因和后果的了解不足。这引起了人们对佛教，法律和政治研究的新的学术兴趣。本杰明·舍恩塔尔（Benjamin Schonthal）撰写的有关佛教，政治和法律界限的书，是这一激动人心且及时的新一代亚洲佛教和法律学术活动的一部分。作为该领域的杰出学者，Schonthal展示并巩固了他在当代佛教和法律研究中的先驱地位。他的书加入了少量但不断增长的文学作品，例如编辑的《佛教与法律》，亚洲的佛教与法律专刊（由Schonthal担任编辑），以及Walton在缅甸的佛教，政治与政治思想。此外，Schonthal还是新杂志《佛教，法律与社会》的编辑委员会成员，该杂志于2016年发行，并将成为这一不断发展的研究机构的最新论坛。简而言之，Schonthal的作品代表了当代佛教和比较法研究的新转折，标志着这一研究领域的巩固。在《佛教，政治与法律的界限》中，Schonthal对整个亚洲及时而敏感的问题（宪法与佛教之间的相互作用）进行了丰富，实证的分析。他的书展示了典范的社会法律研究-一种先前公认的品质，他的论文（该书所依据的论文）获得了法律与社会协会论文奖（2013年）。他的书以引人入胜且易于理解的风格写成，开头的故事引发了法庭上僧侣（宗教和私人领域的集会）（公共领域的象征）的反常现象。这种强大的视觉难题让谁应该站起来在法庭上尊敬谁（宗教和尚或世俗法官），这使读者陷入了这个有趣的难题。在方法论上，Schonthal建立在微观历史学的概念上，并在此基础上进行扩展以发展宪法微观历史学的概念（在第6章，第18页中有很好的说明）。这种方法使Schonthal能够为宪法法律规范性来源以外的来源和材料的使用辩护和主张。Schonthal作品的核心动画观点是脓性宪政主义（第11-17页）。正如比较宪法学的学者应该注意的那样，舍恩塔尔谨慎地解释说，通过“宪法主义”，他指的是对“起草和审判宪法的实践”的狭义理解，而不是受法律限制的政府的广泛使用（p 12）。他当时的泻药宪政思想是一种宪政实践，可能会破坏法律的预定目标，包括其对社会生活的更广泛影响。”，而不是法律所限制的政府的广泛使用（第12页）。他当时的泻药宪政思想是一种宪政实践，可能会破坏法律的预定目标，包括其对社会生活的更广泛影响。”，而不是法律所限制的政府的广泛使用（第12页）。他当时的泻药宪政思想是一种宪政实践，可能会破坏法律的预定目标，包括其对社会生活的更广泛影响。