early morning thoughts at Garrison - is "social justice" Buddhism?

I am pondering the question of social ethics. I am here at the Garrison Conference of Buddhist teachers and I have been somewhat disturbed that the agenda of the conference seems to have been almost entirely concerned with social issues rather than with teaching Buddhism. I am left with the impression that for many of the people here Buddhism and "social justice" equate. In fact, justice is not really a Buddhist concept at all except in the sense that we think that karma will take care of it. However, if justice were strictly applied we would all be in hell. The benefits that we receive from this universe consistantly out-weigh our deserts by a wide margin. "This is not me; this is not mine; this is not myself" the Buddha said and we could well add "I did not earn it; I do not deserve it; I did not make it myself; it is a gift." The Basic Buddhist stance in relation to life is gratitude leading to love, fellow feeling, sympathetic joy and equanimity; it is not demand, protest, self-affirmation, or anything to do with claiming rights. I do not say that if one is in a culture in which "rights" and "justice" are the common currency one should never employ such language; it might sometimes be upaya (skilful means) so to do, but were one to do so, if one were a Buddhist, one should have at least in oneself a recognition that skilful means is all it is and that Buddhism itself offers a more profound and more true basis that is one's real foundation. 
Modern society has become more and more concerned with ethics and so with "guidelines" and rules and correspondingly with complaint and sometimes one feels that "compassion" is shading off into "outrage". The main criticism of this stance comes from the "post-modern" quarter that points out the impossibility of having self-righteous certainty about any such position. Buddhism has a somewhat different angle, as, indeed, does what I, at least, understand as spirituality in general. Those who have a spiritual perspective, however framed, tend toward faith that gives deep assurance and permits a fundamental relaxation. This does make people easier to live with and more fun. The outcome is what some of our friends might recognise as ethical, but it is not achieved by an assertion of principle. It is arrived at by faith, gratitude and finding a refuge that is not self (either individual or collective). I would like to see society permeated by love, compassion and joy, but I am not convinced that this will come about by the kind of positivistic and assertive means that many people here seem to favour, any more than by the other widespread idea of retreating into one's own personal practice and introspective "mindfulness".

 

Comments

[David Brazier]

Of course, it is also interesting/ironic that there should be so much concern here about social justice ideas in a conference that is itself essentially an exercise in elitism. Not that I am always opposed to elitism - I just appreciate the irony. Rather than abolishing elites, I would prefer to see a proliferation of them until everybody can find somewhere to be special, rather than pursuing a uniformity that I would experience as drab and restrictive. It is nice to have been invited. One wonders how one was chosen. One doubts whether they (whoever they are) will take the risk of inviting one again. But, all in all, it has been fun and a great networking opportunity (for those who were invited :-) )

[scott ruplin]

Thanks for this great post. I cringe when I see progressive American political issues conflated with Buddhism (and I am, for the most part, progressive in my own politics, and a social worker in Oregon). Buddhists around the world believe all sorts of different things politically, and there's an inherent contradiction between trying to diversify American sanghas around ethnic and gender issues while restricting outreach to a narrower politics or ideology that will likely exclude or alienate many.

[David Brazier]

Thanks Scott - I think we are on the same page. :-)

[Tfitz1017]

Jumping in in the middle of all of this...Buddhism won't begin to have an impact on society until it moves beyond the "upper middle class parlors" that we seem to be stuck in these days. I'll add to what Scott said by pointing out that the more 'working class' oriented people tend to bring a sort of 'commom sense' attitude that I think is more conducive to thought along the lines presented in the dharma teachings. It's an unwieldy statement to make and the pitfalls of drawing lines once again becomes immediately apparent but still I think it needs to be said.

[David Brazier]

Thanks. Yes. I agree. Different social groups bring different perspectives. Also different individuals bring gifts and it is a shame if those of some individuals get excluded because of the groups to which they belong. At the same time, groups form around value norms and this is what gives them cohesion. To find the value norms that are "Buddhism" and not "middle class" "upper class" "working class" is a challenge. To be accepted one need "apologetics" that relate one's core values to those of the group that one wants to be accepted by; on the other hand, any apologetic exercise carries the risk that one lose the values that one was apologising (using the word in its strict techynical sense) for. Apologising in the technical sense can easily become apologising in the common sense. I agree with being socially inclusive - look at my work - but the issue is complex because a certain sort of "inclusivism" is itself merely a middle class liberal value. Ultimately one can only live and teach the Dharma with open hands to whoever comes, but we know that in society there are always gatekeepers. Thanks for posting.

[Joy Leftow]

It's very easy to say I will be this way and a struggle to actually behave this way on a daily basis - and to do so encourages others to behave this way too:

The Basic Buddhist stance in relation to life is gratitude leading to love, fellow feeling, sympathetic joy and equanimity; it is not demand, protest, self-affirmation, or anything to do with claiming rights. I do not say that if one is in a culture in which "rights" and "justice" are the common currency one should never employ such language; it might sometimes be upaya (skilful means) so to do, but were one to do so, if one were a Buddhist, one should have at least in oneself a recognition that skilful means is all it is and that Buddhism itself offers a more profound and more true basis that is one's real foundation.

karma happens sooner to some later to others and seems still not to affect others and according to the Buddhist stance we know that according to the laws of nature karma does affect.

[Joy Leftow]

Responding to above comments about finding the tenets practiced among the upper classes and parlors I have a different experience. Strangely in my neck of the woods up here in the northern tip of the Manhattan island where I live it is the middle and lower classes who seek out different schools of Buddhism and who are practicing other types of Eastern meditation practices, various types yoga etc which also incorporate a social and behavioral codes during ceremonies, prayers or other practices. It is amazing actually.

[Noelle Imparato]

The Buddha's teachings are one thing but lets not forget that a huge part of the traditional Buddhist literature revolves around the rules and regulations of monastery life. Early on Buddhists were mainly monks. Today as more and more Buddhists are lay people it might be expected that the discussion would revolve more and more around civil life, civil justice, etc. To be concerned by other people's life seems to me the normal outcome of a thinking that considers all lives are one, not I/ not me/ mot mine.

[David Brazier]

Noelle - this is a very interesting point. Why are so many people who have no intention of becoming monastics so interested in this great body of primarily renunciant literature? Actually, in passing, it cannot be true that the early Buddhists were mostly monks - they would have starved. The majority of Buddhists have always been lay. I guess, however, that they were illiterate for the most part. Nonetheless, in Asia, Buddhism has certainly been the "established religion" of numerous states, so it has not been without social effect, starting from King Ashoka, right through Kubilai Khan among others.