Session 123: Compassion and Conflict in Theravada Buddhist Ethics

Organizer: Lori L. Witthaus, Grand Valley State University

Chair: Namita Goswami, DePaul University

Discussant: Michael DeWilde, Grand Valley State University

Keywords: Buddhism, South Asia, social activism.

In recent decades a new form of socially engaged Buddhism has emerged. Motivated by a call to apply Buddhist doctrine to social and political problems, socially engaged Buddhists have promoted "Buddhist solutions" to problems in areas such as human rights, distributive justice, and social progress. Socially engaged Buddhists perceive their activism as a form of Buddhist practice that leads to Nibbana. They contend that this "new" Buddhist practice not only represents a valid path toward liberation, it also signifies a historical evolution in the Buddhist tradition and the birth of a Buddhist ethics that infuses traditional Buddhism with a contemporary vision that is better prepared for the challenges of the future. This socially engaged Buddhist paradigm has received a mixed reception within the Buddhist tradition. Some embrace the new paradigm, some are hopeful but skeptical, while others completely reject the "new" Buddhism as a distortion. Some express concerns about the possible ideological uses of engaged Buddhism given the relation between Buddhism, politics and violence in traditional Buddhist societies such as Sri Lanka. This panel will attempt to give a voice to each of these positions. It is our goal to provide an historical overview of the socially engaged Buddhism movement, a critical analysis of its ethical foundations, an examination of the goals and motivations of the movement with respect to Buddhist canonical doctrine, and an objective appraisal of the success and failures of socially engaged Buddhism. We will also consider the potential dangers of the political uses of Buddhism.

Does the Doctrine of Skillful Means Justify Too Much? The Justice and Injustice of War in Sri Lankan Buddhism

Eric S. Nelson, University of Toledo

In this paper, I will examine the claim that the Buddhist doctrine of skillful means is too open or ambiguous such that it justifies unethical behavior. I am especially interested in how it has been used to justify behavior contrary to the basic ethical principles of Buddhism such as the rejection of violence and war. In the first part of the paper, I will consider how the question of skillful means is situated in the context of the debate about ethical antinomianism and nihilism developed in some critiques of Buddhism. In the second part of the paper, I will turn to classic discussions of skillful means in the Pali canon as well as contemporary discussions in Sri Lankan Theravada Buddhism. I will argue on this basis that it is only when skillful means is taken out of its original ethical context of loving-kindness, compassion, and ahimsa that it becomes a potentially dangerous doctrine used to justify unethical behavior. Like other forms of prudential and contextual ethics, such as Aristotelian and Confucian ethics, Buddhist ethics cannot be understand based on a single universal rule but must be seen as developing an ethical mode of comportment and disposition. Without this ethical orientation and context, a decontextualized notion of skillful means in particular and appropriate judgment in general can and has been used to justify violence and war in ways that run contrary to the teachings of the Buddha. In conclusion, I will consider whether this account leaves any room for "just-war-theory" in Buddhism.

Right Action vs. Right Intention: Buddhist Doctrines in Conflict

Lori L. Witthaus, Grand Valley State University

This paper will examine the theoretical foundations of the newly emerging social and political movements that are collectively known as socially engaged Buddhism. Defined as a liberation theology, socially engaged Buddhism is best understood as a religiously inspired form of social activism. Emerging from within the context of traditional Buddhism, socially engaged Buddhists attempt to delineate their goals and justify their social activism in two ways: by associating their goals and activism with traditional Buddhist doctrines and by disassociating their goals and activism from traditional Buddhist doctrines. Socially engaged Buddhists are motivated by both a desire to remain allegiant to the teachings of traditional Buddhism, and a desire to promote and justify radical social change under the name of Buddhism. Socially engaged Buddhists are not the first group of concerned beings who have recognized and attempted to combat social problems under the rubric of an organized religion. Nor are they the first Buddhists to engage in an organized effort to alleviate suffering in the world. Yet, within traditional Buddhism, socially engaged Buddhists are often regarded cynically as a non-traditional, highly controversial, and potentially dangerous group of social and political activists masquerading as Buddhists. Using examples from India and Sri Lanka, this paper will critically examine the theories and logical imperatives put forth by socially engaged Buddhists in an attempt to determine what motivates them to justify and classify their actions as a form of Buddhism.

Karma and Compassion: Justifying Engaged Buddhism

Jeffery D. Long, Elizabethtown College

Recent decades have seen the emergence of the phenomenon of "Engaged Buddhism." This form of Buddhist practice is aimed at the alleviation of suffering, not only in the fundamental Buddhist sense enshrined in the First Noble Truth, but in a more conventional sense, as including poverty, violence, exploitation, and the degradation of the environment. The peace and human rights activism of such figures as the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh are prominent examples of this contemporary Buddhist movement. Buddhists and scholars of Buddhism frequently draw a contrast between Engaged Buddhism and what is generally regarded as the more traditional, and typically Buddhist, attitude of detachment and withdrawal from worldly affairs, and a general indifference to the political and social issues taken up by contemporary Buddhist activists. This paper will take up this contrast and analyze it from two perspectives: one historical, the other philosophical. From an historical perspective, is this contrast actually adequate to the premodern Buddhist tradition? That is, have Buddhists traditionally been as withdrawn and otherworldly as this contrast would suggest? Using historical examples, this paper will argue that Buddhists have always been, albeit to varying degrees, engaged with their social and political contexts. From a philosophical perspective, can Engaged Buddhism be justified on traditional Buddhist grounds, or is it an innovation that has arisen from contact with the more socially engaged and activist cultures of the West? This paper will argue that Engaged Buddhism can, indeed, be justified on the basis of a traditional Buddhist worldview.