Buddhism, r/atheism, Human Rights...

[Queequeg]

Setting aside questions about the theoretical basis of human rights and cultural self determination, this is the advantage of the doctrine of the 'right', civil, human, or whatever:

They are compulsory. They provide a rubric to justify the use of violence, a right reserved only to the sovereign, to control the activities of another when they act in an unjust manner toward others.

Compassion, the Golden Rule, etc. a are voluntary norms that are limited to self regulation - by themselves they are only prescriptive, not compulsory. If a person chooses not to abide by the ideal, there is nothing one can do to compel their observance of the ideals.

In Buddhist texts directed to rulers, it is urged that law breakers be punished. So clearly, coercive action is contemplated in the Buddhist world view.

So then, if we are to have the rule of law, the standard needs to be identified and defined. It cant just be the arbitrary whim of the ruler.

People keep suggesting compassion, but no one has yet to explain how this works. These vague suggestions are as good as useless. More is necessary for compassion to be actualized.

[Kim O'Hara]

Setting aside questions about the theoretical basis of human rights and cultural self determination, this is the advantage of the doctrine of the 'right', civil, human, or whatever:

They are compulsory. They provide a rubric to justify the use of violence, a right reserved only to the sovereign, to control the activities of another when they act in an unjust manner toward others.

Compassion, the Golden Rule, etc. a are voluntary norms that are limited to self regulation - by themselves they are only prescriptive, not compulsory. If a person chooses not to abide by the ideal, there is nothing one can do to compel their observance of the ideals.

In Buddhist texts directed to rulers, it is urged that law breakers be punished. So clearly, coercive action is contemplated in the Buddhist world view.

So then, if we are to have the rule of law, the standard needs to be identified and defined. It cant just be the arbitrary whim of the ruler.

People keep suggesting compassion, but no one has yet to explain how this works. These vague suggestions are as good as useless. More is necessary for compassion to be actualized.

Hi, Queequeg,
I wanted to dig into the theoretical basis of human rights to see if there was one, because we would have strong foundations if there is and (at least) be able to acknowledge our position is arbitrary if there isn't. It seems that there isn't. The UN people drafting the UDHR must have looked longer and harder than most but they obviously couldn't find one.
That strongly suggests human rights are simply a matter of agreement within a society. If so, they have no more (nor much less) moral or legal force than any of our other agreements - drive on the left side of the road (in my society ), be married to no more than one other person at a time, pay your taxes, etc.
That said, the human rights (I'm strenuously resisting the temptation to put the phrase is quotes!) we have come up with are (mostly) supported and encouraged by most religions ... which is probably why they seem to have the force of natural law (or divine law, according to taste and inclination).

As Buddhists, the encouragement we get is the teaching on compassion - which is why I keep returning to that idea. It works for us because we are Buddhists and actualising it is part of our practice. It doesn't work for non-Buddhists, of course, and it will never have any legal or moral force in the wider Western society in the foreseeable future.

If you're looking for a basis for human rights which is stronger than these two (law for everyone, religion for those who have one), where are you going to look?


Kim

[anjali]

People keep suggesting compassion, but no one has yet to explain how this works. These vague suggestions are as good as useless. More is necessary for compassion to be actualized.

Certainly. Compassion is cherishing other living beings and wishing to release them from their suffering. Obviously that's not enough to actually relieve people of their suffering. Suffering has to be identified and actions taken to relieve it. Compassion in action can take many forms. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Human Rights: "Human rights are norms that help to protect all people everywhere from severe political, legal, and social abuses." Human rights are one form of compassion in action.

[Queequeg]

First, I want to emphasize that I have no set ideas about these subjects, and raise these questions because I have yet to find satisfactory answers. There may not be any, as has been suggested in this thread and elsewhere, but I want to see the analysis played out. As for positive responses, I am pushing beyond the usual vague appeals to compassion because they dont seem to go beyond platitude. Many Buddhist leaders express support for human rights, at least their aim if not method but I have not found support articulated in enough detail to inform practical action. As I've written above, I am also interested in ways that Buddhism can, and should IMHO engage in the West, to both transform Western culture and expand the scope of dharma, which has happened each time Buddhism was introduced into a culture/civilization.

I would caution the shallow analysis of secular humanist arguments for Human Rights. They are so allergic to any hint of religion that they are almost useless as sources - see the thread above concerning the know-nothing brand of atheists. Much of the analysis applies to them, but the difference is many of them know better and they sidestep any reference to Western religion because their motive is to insist Human Rights apply universally to all regardless of race, ethnicity, culture, creed or religion. To admit the religious basis of rights would open them to easy criticism.

Its been a while since I studied this stuff in depth, but as I recall, human rights derive from natural law rights that came to be identified and developed in the Enlightenment. The concept can originally be found in Roman law which held that certain relationships compelled certain claims and privileges and reciprocal responsibilities between parties. In the European Middle Ages rights evolved to apply in the feudal context and god was insinuated because rulers were of course chosen by God. In the Enlightenment, we see the effort to find Gods order in Nature and the emergence of Natural Law. This is when rights as we know them really came into their own as a major concept. Hobbes, Locke, Spinoza, Rousseau developed the idea - rights were found to derive from the nature of reality itself. To illustrate, take the most basic right of all - the right to live. Being alive, they reasoned, one should be able to live. Implied in this is that one should not be deprived of life by another. One hence has a right to live and therefore life cannot be taken without a good reason. That is pretty compelling. Whether it stand up to anatman or sunyata - well... In any event, other rights are more or less derived from this right - the right to be free, to do as one wishes so long as it does not interfere with another's right to live and be free, etc.

There are instances where the Buddha of the Pali canon declared that people had certain responsibilities based on their relationships. For instance, I recall the Buddha declared that a husband had a responsibility to care for and support his wife and family. The leap to a right, an enforceable claim, of course is not made. In counsel to rulers, however, rulers are urged to punish criminals and reward good citizens - that is a prescription for activity which aims to control another's behavior. This is a step toward rights, but effort to compel another's compliance with norms just are not applied to prescribed responsibilities.

Jeremy Bentham was an enlightenment era critic of the idea of rights, arguing that they are nothing more than creatures of social contract. Basically like driving on the wrong side of the road or monogamy. But, his views are not what steered the American and French revolutions to aspire to some of the greatest ideals humans have worked toward. It was Natural Law ideas of rights that captured the imaginations and inspired people to the ideals that were championed.

I've said enough about my views on the appeal to compassion. That said, I'm pushing the issue because I think Buddhism has more to contribute to the public dialogue on subjects like human rights other than vague declarations that we support them because we're compassionate. Buddhism is more than a private matter - its no less than a radical movement , in the Mahayana anyway, to cause all beings to awaken and reveal this saha world as a Buddha land. As such it goes, in my view, beyond just a matter of personal taste, and it is profound and robust enough to venture into the dharma sphere of political theory discourse and even transform it. If, in the West, our means of interaction is through the rights rubric - and I can't speak to other countries, but it is a major and consuming matter in the US - Buddhism needs to step up and engage on these terms. Otherwise it just a private matter and I thought Mahayanists settled that question a long time ago. Most critically, the world needs it.

[LastLegend]

What about right of other beings/animals to live?

[Kim O'Hara]

I would caution the shallow analysis of secular humanist arguments for Human Rights. ... they sidestep any reference to Western religion because their motive is to insist Human Rights apply universally to all regardless of race, ethnicity, culture, creed or religion. To admit the religious basis of rights would open them to easy criticism.

Yep.

... as I recall, human rights derive from natural law rights that came to be identified and developed in the Enlightenment. The concept can originally be found in Roman law which held that certain relationships compelled certain claims and privileges and reciprocal responsibilities between parties. In the European Middle Ages rights evolved to apply in the feudal context and god was insinuated because rulers were of course chosen by God. In the Enlightenment, we see the effort to find Gods order in Nature and the emergence of Natural Law. This is when rights as we know them really came into their own as a major concept.

Yep, yep, yep.

Hobbes, Locke, Spinoza, Rousseau developed the idea - rights were found to derive from the nature of reality itself. To illustrate, take the most basic right of all - the right to live. Being alive, they reasoned, one should be able to live. Implied in this is that one should not be deprived of life by another. One hence has a right to live and therefore life cannot be taken without a good reason. That is pretty compelling.

Nope. Sorry, but that is not at all convincing, however worthwhile the results might be.
To illustrate, take a possible right - the right to bash up little old ladies. Being able to bash up little old ladies, we could reason, one should be able to keep on bashing up little old ladies. Implied in this is that one should not be deprived of the opportunity to bash up little old ladies by another. One hence has a right to bash up little old ladies ... That is not very compelling, really, is it? But the structure of the argument is the same.

Jeremy Bentham was an enlightenment era critic of the idea of rights, arguing that they are nothing more than creatures of social contract. Basically like driving on the wrong side of the road or monogamy.

I'm obviously on Bentham's side in this.
Don't get me wrong: I don't for a minute believe that human rights (as currently understood) are a bad thing - the UDHR was a very good thing and has had many good results, etc. etc. But the foundations of the concept make very little sense.
I think there's a far better argument (for the same results) from social justice than from natural/divine law.

But, his views are not what steered the American and French revolutions to aspire to some of the greatest ideals humans have worked toward. It was Natural Law ideas of rights that captured the imaginations and inspired people to the ideals that were championed.

Yep - great results, as I said, but we must remember that people often do good things for weak or bad reasons.

I've said enough about my views on the appeal to compassion. That said, I'm pushing the issue because I think Buddhism has more to contribute to the public dialogue on subjects like human rights other than vague declarations that we support them because we're compassionate. Buddhism is more than a private matter - its no less than a radical movement , in the Mahayana anyway, to cause all beings to awaken and reveal this saha world as a Buddha land. As such it goes, in my view, beyond just a matter of personal taste, and it is profound and robust enough to venture into the dharma sphere of political theory discourse and even transform it. If, in the West, our means of interaction is through the rights rubric - and I can't speak to other countries, but it is a major and consuming matter in the US - Buddhism needs to step up and engage on these terms. Otherwise it just a private matter and I thought Mahayanists settled that question a long time ago. Most critically, the world needs it.

I agree with what you're saying about the need. Beyond that, I'm a bit lost.
Are you saying we could argue for human rights in a secular or pluralist society from a religious (i.e. Buddhist) standpoint? If so, I can't see that working out particularly well.
Are you saying that, as Buddhists, we should be more engaged in the human rights field than we are? If so, I would agree, however little you respect my reasons for agreeing.
Or are you looking for something else?


Kim

[Queequeg]

I agree with what you're saying about the need. Beyond that, I'm a bit lost.
Are you saying we could argue for human rights in a secular or pluralist society from a religious (i.e. Buddhist) standpoint? If so, I can't see that working out particularly well.
Are you saying that, as Buddhists, we should be more engaged in the human rights field than we are? If so, I would agree, however little you respect my reasons for agreeing.
Or are you looking for something else?

First, I want to emphasize that I have no set ideas about these subjects, and raise these questions because I have yet to find satisfactory answers. There may not be any, as has been suggested in this thread and elsewhere, but I want to see the analysis played out.

I think you might be taking this discussion too personally if you think I have little respect for your reasons. You are giving voice to views commonly held by Buddhists, and so in this thread, you are a proxy. Its not a matter of respect or not respect for you as a person. I have no idea who you are. As I've repeatedly written, I'm pushing beyond the usual vague responses. That's all.

If you look into Buddhist texts, the descriptions of compassionate action easily run into thousands upon thousands of pages. But when it comes to dharmas novel to the Buddhist world view, such as modern representative democracy, are we to believe that Buddhism has nothing to say except, "Let' be nice."? That's nonsense. But, its all our teachers are able to do because they themselves are limited to the worlds from which Buddhism has emerged. The fact is, Buddhism for the most part is still stuck in a medieval world. Some of its most celebrated teachers are not even one generation removed from transport by pack animals. As a whole, Buddhism has not come to terms with modernity.

When Buddhism came into contact with Chinese civilization, it was a tremendous, raucous affair spanning several centuires, because Chinese civilization had its own all encompassing, apparently universal and inevitable competing world view. That is what is happening now in the introduction of Buddhism to the West. This is a tremendous challenge, and also a tremendous opportunity as a Buddhist to be so fortunate to witness and participate in this process - Buddhism will either rise to this challenge and grow as it has in the past, or it will wither and be just another archaic worldview preserved in some sort of ritual until its last practitioner dies off, just like so many other great religious and philosophical movements that are nothing more than artifacts and history.

If Buddhism is silent on Human Rights beyond, "It advances interests common to my practice of compassion", then what can be said? I referenced an article by Kenneth Inada where he argued that Buddhists are basically powerless in the face of human rights violations. Maybe its also true that Buddhism is silent in the face of modernity.

I don't think that's true. But to get beyond the limited world view embodied in traditional Buddhism, we're going to need to be more intellectually adventurous.

Hobbes, Locke, Spinoza, Rousseau developed the idea - rights were found to derive from the nature of reality itself. To illustrate, take the most basic right of all - the right to live. Being alive, they reasoned, one should be able to live. Implied in this is that one should not be deprived of life by another. One hence has a right to live and therefore life cannot be taken without a good reason. That is pretty compelling.

Nope. Sorry, but that is not at all convincing, however worthwhile the results might be.
To illustrate, take a possible right - the right to bash up little old ladies. Being able to bash up little old ladies, we could reason, one should be able to keep on bashing up little old ladies. Implied in this is that one should not be deprived of the opportunity to bash up little old ladies by another. One hence has a right to bash up little old ladies ... That is not very compelling, really, is it? But the structure of the argument is the same.

That is an absurd argument. Please see the writings of the thinkers I referenced to see the argument in full. These people are highly respected as some of the foundational thinkers of the Modern West. They would not have been so compelling to people if their argument was so simplistic.

[Malcolm]

[
As a whole, Buddhism has not come to terms with modernity.

Modernity has yet to come to terms with desire, hatred and ignorance.

There is nothing particularly noble about "modernity" (read, post-Hegelian Western culture) and nothing especially difficult about living in a so called modern culture. Sentient beings are still the same — afflicted by the three poisons — and Buddhadharma is still relevant to that state of affairs and always will be.

[Queequeg]

Modernity has yet to come to terms with desire, hatred and ignorance.

There is nothing particularly noble about "modernity" (read, post-Hegelian Western culture) and nothing especially difficult about living in a so called modern culture. Sentient beings are still the same — afflicted by the three poisons — and Buddhadharma is still relevant to that state of affairs and always will be.

I certainly did not suggest modernity is noble or that living in it is particularly difficult. However, short of some catastrophic decline of modern civilization, these are the conditions human being will be living in, the context in which they will have to come to terms with desire, hatred and ignorance. I didn't even come close to suggesting that Buddhadharma is not relevant today. In fact, I think my whole argument is that it IS relevant.

That said, would the Buddha, if he were to appear today, be counseling someone in breathing meditation using the example of a blacksmith's bellow? No, more likely he'd be referring to spin class.

[Kim O'Hara]

Hobbes, Locke, Spinoza, Rousseau developed the idea - rights were found to derive from the nature of reality itself. To illustrate, take the most basic right of all - the right to live. Being alive, they reasoned, one should be able to live. Implied in this is that one should not be deprived of life by another. One hence has a right to live and therefore life cannot be taken without a good reason. That is pretty compelling.

Nope. Sorry, but that is not at all convincing, however worthwhile the results might be.
To illustrate, take a possible right - the right to bash up little old ladies. Being able to bash up little old ladies, we could reason, one should be able to keep on bashing up little old ladies. Implied in this is that one should not be deprived of the opportunity to bash up little old ladies by another. One hence has a right to bash up little old ladies ... That is not very compelling, really, is it? But the structure of the argument is the same.

That is an absurd argument. Please see the writings of the thinkers I referenced to see the argument in full. These people are highly respected as some of the foundational thinkers of the Modern West. They would not have been so compelling to people if their argument was so simplistic.

Hi, Queequeg,
Dealing with the simpler question first ...
I have seen the writings of these gentlemen - all of them at second hand and many of them at first hand - and on this point they fail to convince me. As I say, I'm with Bentham - also well respected - on it. It seems to me that the argument for Natural Law is no argument at all - that they start from Divine Law (which may be mistaken but is at least logically consistent) and remove God but don't recognise that Law doesn't exist without a Lawgiver. Similarly, Rights are granted to a person by a higher authority, either worldly (e.g. lord of the manor granting grazing rights to peasants) or divine; no authority, no rights.
It's an unbelievably big hole in their argument, I know, and all I can suggest is that they and everyone who listened to them were so used to the idea of Divine Law that they just couldn't conceive of a universe which operated without moral laws.
As for your example, "to live" can be replaced by any grammatically similar phrase without harming its structure, and doing so simply points up its circularity. Try it for yourself.


Kim

[Kim O'Hara]

I think you might be taking this discussion too personally if you think I have little respect for your reasons. You are giving voice to views commonly held by Buddhists, and so in this thread, you are a proxy. Its not a matter of respect or not respect for you as a person. I have no idea who you are. As I've repeatedly written, I'm pushing beyond the usual vague responses. That's all.

No, I wasn't taking it personally - I was aware of being a proxy for all those who simply say "compassion"

If you look into Buddhist texts, the descriptions of compassionate action easily run into thousands upon thousands of pages. But when it comes to dharmas novel to the Buddhist world view, such as modern representative democracy, are we to believe that Buddhism has nothing to say except, "Let' be nice."? That's nonsense. But, its all our teachers are able to do because they themselves are limited to the worlds from which Buddhism has emerged. The fact is, Buddhism for the most part is still stuck in a medieval world. Some of its most celebrated teachers are not even one generation removed from transport by pack animals. As a whole, Buddhism has not come to terms with modernity.

When Buddhism came into contact with Chinese civilization, it was a tremendous, raucous affair spanning several centuires, because Chinese civilization had its own all encompassing, apparently universal and inevitable competing world view. That is what is happening now in the introduction of Buddhism to the West. This is a tremendous challenge, and also a tremendous opportunity as a Buddhist to be so fortunate to witness and participate in this process - Buddhism will either rise to this challenge and grow as it has in the past, or it will wither and be just another archaic worldview preserved in some sort of ritual until its last practitioner dies off, just like so many other great religious and philosophical movements that are nothing more than artifacts and history.

If Buddhism is silent on Human Rights beyond, "It advances interests common to my practice of compassion", then what can be said? I referenced an article by Kenneth Inada where he argued that Buddhists are basically powerless in the face of human rights violations. Maybe its also true that Buddhism is silent in the face of modernity.

I don't think that's true. But to get beyond the limited world view embodied in traditional Buddhism, we're going to need to be more intellectually adventurous.

Okay, this is certainly a worthwhile project.
Most of us, I think are engaged upon it at the personal level and we do the best we can with the knowledge and insight we've got. Some of our knowledge comes from our teachers - HHDL has been particularly active in this area, and Thich Nhat Hanh deserves a mention too.
What more can we do?
Write academic papers? Useful, but beyond most of us.
Write magazine articles for general audiences? Useful, and within reach of more of us?
Apply basic principles as best we can in our daily life? Yes, we can all do that. And every time we do it, Buddhism is engaging with modernity.

I know what I'm doing. What do you plan to do?


Kim

[anjali]

...I can suggest is that they and everyone who listened to them were so used to the idea of Divine Law that they just couldn't conceive of a universe which operated without moral laws.

To what extent do you believe that the law of karma is based on the principle of moral causation? And that the law of karma is universal?

[Malcolm]

Modernity has yet to come to terms with desire, hatred and ignorance.

There is nothing particularly noble about "modernity" (read, post-Hegelian Western culture) and nothing especially difficult about living in a so called modern culture. Sentient beings are still the same — afflicted by the three poisons — and Buddhadharma is still relevant to that state of affairs and always will be.

I certainly did not suggest modernity is noble or that living in it is particularly difficult. However, short of some catastrophic decline of modern civilization, these are the conditions human being will be living in, the context in which they will have to come to terms with desire, hatred and ignorance. I didn't even come close to suggesting that Buddhadharma is not relevant today. In fact, I think my whole argument is that it IS relevant.

That said, would the Buddha, if he were to appear today, be counseling someone in breathing meditation using the example of a blacksmith's bellow? No, more likely he'd be referring to spin class.

I am pretty sure the Buddha would call a dashboard a dashboard, even though no one has really used horse drawn wagons for a hundred years in the US and England.

[Queequeg]

I know what I'm doing. What do you plan to do?

My friend, I think I've explained what I'm doing here in this particular thread. I understand if you don't have anything to add to the discussion beyond appeals to compassion. As I've made clear - neither do I - not conclusively anyway. I'm just probing and asking questions. I'm not putting Kim O'Hara on the spot as asking, "What are you, Kim O'Hara, doing to advance Buddhist Engagement in the West?"

I have seen the writings of these gentlemen - all of them at second hand and many of them at first hand - and on this point they fail to convince me.

Whether the arguments for the idea of inherent rights is convincing to you, or to me, or to anyone is beside the point. I have not anywhere argued that the idea of rights founded in Western theism and/or Natural Law should be viewed uncritically let alone accepted. As a general matter, I agree with your analysis. You'll have to pardon me that your absurd argument suggesting the right to beat up old ladies is comparable to the right to live suggests that you don't really understand these European Enlightenment thinkers. Alternatively, you do understand and so lack respect for the arguments that you are content to make a mockery of it rather than engage the ideas on their terms, bringing Buddhist insight to offer an earnest critique on those terms. This is really what I'm getting at with the critique of the vague appeal to compassion. You can bet anyone interested in Human Rights is interested because they are motivated by compassion. Should we all stop there because Kim O'Hara says they don't have anything to add beyond that?

As for your example, "to live" can be replaced by any grammatically similar phrase without harming its structure, and doing so simply points up its circularity. Try it for yourself.

I don't know about you, but life is not just a grammatical exercise for me. In Buddhism, we generally warn against being too literal in interpreting the texts - that they are more or less fingers pointing at something else. For those Enlightenment Thinkers, they had no illusion that what they were writing was literal truth - they too were reaching beyond the limits of language, appealing to reality itself as the basis.

So far as I know, there is no mature religious tradition, Buddhism included, that can readily explain the mystery of life. Buddhism takes life as a given and then offers means to relieve the suffering of life. The Mahayana goes much further into metaphysical speculation in proposing what life is compared to the Hinayana, but ultimately, paramarthasatya is knowable only by Buddhas, putting it presently outside the knowledge of ordinary beings. Enlightenment thinkers like Hobbes took life as a self evident given. Sure they had some idea that God was ultimately involved, but they didn't really venture any ideas beyond the vaguest reference. As you probably understand already, Natural Law is nominally about trying to understand God's will by understanding his creation. The term God probably bothers a lot of people, especially Westerners who come to Buddhism - you don't pick up this stuff unless you're dissatisfied with the traditions you come from. Setting aside baggage associated with God, what the Enlightenment thinkers were really talking about was the nature of ultimate reality, which they called God, and sure, had something to do with the Bible, but they were skeptical of its literal truth. Putting aside that controversial word for a moment, the nature of Enlightenment inquiry, perhaps most strikingly in the form of the Scientific Method, really is a detailed examination of phenomena to try and derive timeless truth from it. In this general sense, the Buddhist path is the same project - differing arguably only in field of endeavor, methodology, and of course, present conclusions.

When someone says they have a right to live simply because they live - I don't know if I can critique that without being obtuse. Sure I could, as touched on above, analyze life into emptiness, but sunyata does not devolve into nothing - there is always a remainder (saving Buddhism from nihilism) - something is still going on. Moreover, Buddhism certainly has prohibitions against taking life and the Buddha certainly taught that taking life has karmic consequence (nod to Anjali). If you actually read Hobbes, the moral right is not readily distinguishable from the nature of reality itself - and its not because God gave the right. If you actually read Leviathan, you see that the concept of right according to Hobbes is much more basic. Notwithstanding, we have what may equate to morality in Buddhism. Is it wrong to kill simply because that would not be compassionate and detrimentally affect our psychology, the rest being just illusion and delusion? Is killing or refraining from killing really only about the actor's own karmic evolution with nothing to do with the fact that killing someone puts a crimp in their pursuit of awakening? What is that which makes it wrong to take life other than a being's "right" to live? Sure there are Buddhist explanations, but the distinction becomes more and more labored the deeper you analyze the two traditions.

Whether the argument for rights grounded in the fabric of reality is tenable, this idea takes up significant real estate in the "Mind of the Western (Wo)Man". True, deep engagement requires a meeting on the same ground - earlier in the thread I referred to engagement having to take place in relation to the same dharmas. If Buddhism is to have a beneficial affect in the West, to become indigenized, its going to have to get in there at the deepest levels of Western identity, raise questions about it, and offer alternative answers that will bring more benefit to the people in whose minds these ideas rattle around. To introduce Buddhism to the West and not engage at the deepest levels, electing instead to declare, "This is Buddhism. Get with it." That's as imperialistic as what the Western powers have done. Instead, as Buddhists, we engage at the most intimate levels, reaching out to others, speaking as they do, doing as they do, in an effort to share with them how dharma operates in their lives.

Ultimately, we have no disagreement on some points. Engagement between Buddhism and the West happens in the people who undertake Buddhism in the environment of the West.

[Kim O'Hara]

Hi, Queequeg,
We appear to spend quite a bit of time talking past each other, which is unfortunate. Here's one example:

I know what I'm doing. What do you plan to do?

My friend, I think I've explained what I'm doing here in this particular thread. I understand if you don't have anything to add to the discussion beyond appeals to compassion. As I've made clear - neither do I - not conclusively anyway. I'm just probing and asking questions. I'm not putting Kim O'Hara on the spot as asking, "What are you, Kim O'Hara, doing to advance Buddhist Engagement in the West?"

What I was trying to do here was ground the discussion in daily reality. I had mentioned a few things that people might do, used myself as one example and tried to prompt you, in turn, to move from abstractions to action or at least think about doing so.

I have seen the writings of these gentlemen - all of them at second hand and many of them at first hand - and on this point they fail to convince me.

Whether the arguments for the idea of inherent rights is convincing to you, or to me, or to anyone is beside the point. I have not anywhere argued that the idea of rights founded in Western theism and/or Natural Law should be viewed uncritically let alone accepted. As a general matter, I agree with your analysis. ...

Good enough. Let's leave it at that.

Ultimately, we have no disagreement on some points. Engagement between Buddhism and the West happens in the people who undertake Buddhism in the environment of the West.

That's good, too.

Whether the argument for rights grounded in the fabric of reality is tenable, this idea takes up significant real estate in the "Mind of the Western (Wo)Man". True, deep engagement requires a meeting on the same ground - earlier in the thread I referred to engagement having to take place in relation to the same dharmas. If Buddhism is to have a beneficial affect in the West, to become indigenized, its going to have to get in there at the deepest levels of Western identity, raise questions about it, and offer alternative answers that will bring more benefit to the people in whose minds these ideas rattle around. To introduce Buddhism to the West and not engage at the deepest levels, electing instead to declare, "This is Buddhism. Get with it." That's as imperialistic as what the Western powers have done. Instead, as Buddhists, we engage at the most intimate levels, reaching out to others, speaking as they do, doing as they do, in an effort to share with them how dharma operates in their lives.

I agree completely that we can't simply say, "Do this because the Buddha taught that we should." In a culturally and religiously pluralistic society (especially one that is increasingly secular, as the West is), moral and ethical imperatives may be informed by religion (any religion!) but they have to be framed in non-religious terms to gain widespread support (HHDL said as much, at greater length, in his Against Religion, which is worth reading if you haven't already seen it).
To me, framing our morality in non-religious terms points towards utilitarianism and social contracts, and I would be inclined to draw on Buddhism to help develop better social contracts - but then expect to be called on to show rationally why and how they are better.

This thread, particularly the first half dozen posts, may be of interest if you don't mind Theravadin perspectives:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=10642


Kim

[uan]

I had a formative experience in a Catholic teaching hospital whilst still a callow youth. I had been sent there to work as a wardsman. The supervising nurse was a Catholic nun, Sister Mary Louise. I was greatly moved by her compassion in the context of a busy suburban casualty ward. There were some things I saw that really awakened me to their idea of the 'sacred heart'. Some of the other sisters had the same quality. The hospital was Mater Misercordae, meaning 'mother of mercy'. I left there with the understanding that this wasn't simply figurative - there was a real quality of spirituality about those nuns.

Actually I feel a strong affnity with Catholics and also Orthodox Christians. I don't think I could actually participate or convert, but regardless, I still have quite a Christian sensibility in many ways.

My experience (limited though it is) has been that many Christians embody compassion and loving-kindness much more so than many Buddhists I have come across. I think it's easy to forget what Jesus actually taught and focus on institutions of religious organizations, their less than stellar history, those practitioners that are the least common denominator, etc., yet Jesus's primary teaching was to "love God and love each other." There's also a strong teaching of putting aside your own ego, wants, desires, etc and to do God's will (not your own). The ultimate goal of Buddhism and Christianity may be different, but in practice there is a tremendous amount of overlap. I don't think following Christianity (the actual teachings of Jesus) for a couple of rebirths harms anyone on their path to realization and enlightenment. I'd liken it to a larger scale version of some of what ChNN teaches in Dzogchen - use whatever secondary practices you need, from whichever tradition, that helps you on your path.

[Myoho-Nameless]

Buddhism (as it exists now) does have a purely introverted tendency, which is an abandoning of the Mahayana if you think about it. In a previous and now dead media the honorable Queequeg said it probably has to do with various political reasons in Asia down through the ages, something about the lack of state sponsorship or something, as a result, Buddhism became the whole "escape into the mountains" stereotype. Retreated from society, or otherwise became a private exercise.

We can learn some things from the christians, and we wont if we keep assuming we are just so much better than they are.

[Kim O'Hara]

Buddhism (as it exists now) does have a purely introverted tendency, which is an abandoning of the Mahayana if you think about it.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. The way I think of it is that Theravada began as path for wandering ascetics and the Mahayana steered it towards the broader society.
One of the defining features of the Mahayana is the bodhisattva vow. Abandoning that vow - or downplaying it - is a "purely introverted tendency, which is an abandoning of the Mahayana". Theravada is often accused of the same "purely introverted tendency" and never had the same focus on compassion (although still more than some of its critics say).
But also Buddhism (any flavour!) in the West today doesn't have enough adherents to have the critical mass necessary for communal social engagement. The Christians of the US or the UK can set up Oxfam or World Vision on a support base of hundreds or thousands of parishes, each with tens or hundreds of active members. If Buddhists tried to do the same, it would have to begin far smaller - which means less publicity, which means less public support, etc, etc.
That said, I'm here on this DW largely for the engaged Buddhism, and on the other DW largely for the teachings.


Kim

[Myoho-Nameless]

But also Buddhism (any flavour!) in the West today doesn't have enough adherents to have the critical mass necessary for communal social engagement. The Christians of the US or the UK can set up Oxfam or World Vision on a support base of hundreds or thousands of parishes, each with tens or hundreds of active members. If Buddhists tried to do the same, it would have to begin far smaller - which means less publicity, which means less public support, etc, etc.
Kim

Probably because of the people we are attracting, because people of a social justice bent or whatever are going to be attracted to Christianity or secular humanism. As an introvert, being a benefactor and not a paladin suits me and I am glad Buddhism welcomes me, but we are not attracting paladins or enough of them, because of our introverted, self absorbed tendencies.

I am not sure if it is accurate or based completely on stereotypes of 1600s Japanese culture, but Shogun By James Clavel shows a "Buddhist" culture with only an emphasis on the "wisdom" half of Buddhism, none of the compassion. Lord Kashigi Yabu decrees Anjin-san must learn Japanese in 6 months or an entire village will be executed. But who cares? Any number of things could kill the peasants between now and then, earthquake, volcano, tsunami, thats Japan. And whatever, people are reborn so who cares? Blackthorn/anjin-san is motivated by a christian concern for the peasants and his newly earned status as a Samurai that he cannot live with this shame, and almost kills himself before Lord Yabu takes the decree back (without telling the peasants though).

Side note, I believe any Theravadin working for social justice etc could be considered a Mahayanist from a certain point of view.

[Myoho-Nameless]

Though yes, such things are likely complicated and we cannot really pin the causes down to one or two things.