Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The Dharma and the Social Contract
Simonthepilgrim
Veteran
In a thread about the Catholic Church's change to its teaching on Limbo, Nirvana says, in answer to my statement about "human rights" being matters of faith and not objective, scientific laws:
As I reminded myself of Rawls' work, I was freminded of his importance in reminding us of Aristotle's work on justice. He also writes passionately about the "social contract".
Now I know that Buddhism, particularly modern Buddhism in the West, has worked hard to establish itself as a practice for the individual but, at the same time, as individuals we are also involved in society. In parts of the Christian churches, social action is seen as integral, even central, to their existyence. We, too, as Buddhists stress the interconnectedness of all sentient beings and we find Buddhist activists in many fields.
It is rare, however, in my experience, to find Buddhists discussing the nature of society and its relationship to its members in terms of the Dharma.
I can across these words today:
It is the human mind that is the final measuring rod in science. It is human diligence in calibrating the instruments and human acumen reporting the results that give us science.
Now if a thorough-going man such as John Rawls undertakes a study objectively quantifying what human fairness is, that is science. There is a point at which philosophy is at the very summit of human achievement.
As I reminded myself of Rawls' work, I was freminded of his importance in reminding us of Aristotle's work on justice. He also writes passionately about the "social contract".
Now I know that Buddhism, particularly modern Buddhism in the West, has worked hard to establish itself as a practice for the individual but, at the same time, as individuals we are also involved in society. In parts of the Christian churches, social action is seen as integral, even central, to their existyence. We, too, as Buddhists stress the interconnectedness of all sentient beings and we find Buddhist activists in many fields.
It is rare, however, in my experience, to find Buddhists discussing the nature of society and its relationship to its members in terms of the Dharma.
I can across these words today:
"Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence."
0
Comments
I agree with you almost completely on what you said. But I think the use of the word 'faith' is slightly misleading to say the least. It suggests the suspension of judgement and promotes some kind of belief without evidence.
But if we take a rational, even scientific look into the human mind and society, we can realize that we don't need faith to treat other human beings with dignity and respect.
No matter how you look at an issue like human rights, whether from an altruistic or selfish standpoint, you can see that there are good, sound reasons for all human beings to have basic rights. Even the most utilitarian person realizes that they need other people for their survival. And it would stand to good reason that to fulfill their own selfish desires, other people need to be free to help him achieve those desires. Hence, inter-dependence.
*I like that quote by the way. Confucius said something similar I think. Here's a rough quote.
I can't find my 'Analects' anywhere.
That, is a matter of Faith and Legal Fact.
I agree that it is a fact. But you don't have to believe in anything on insufficient to realize that all humans deserve those rights. Faith is the belief in something to which there is no evidence for or at the very least evidence is wanting. 'Faith' suggests something religious at work and human rights have little to do with religion.
BTW, the first quote is completely my own. Be that as it may, I hope you will consider the words and not their source!!!!!
I agree. Rights are not 'inalienable'. That is simply the ideal. They should be inalienable. We have seen all too often how rights can be easily taken away by an oppressive government.
Prove to me that you love your parents, your children, your spouse? I am not disagreeing with you at all here, I think we are just talking semantics. I just don't feel that human rights require some kind of leap of faith or some type of suspended disbelief. Even many of the primates have been shown to treat each other well when they realize that they are all interdependent. They generally don't like rapists, thieves, or cheaters. There is nothing illogical about that. It is biological.
I have quite deliberately used the word "faith" because I think it is time to rescue it from those who have stolen it from us. It is not the exclusive property of the religious and should be taken back. Faith in humanity, faith in the value of good laws and of justice, these are good foundations for social justice and a benign social contract. In the same way, unless we have some faith in the value of the Buddha's teachings, where would be the point in listening? Faith is what keeps us going when all around seems bleak. Faith in each other keeps partners together and faith in a better future can help the refugee survive.
I must stress that I believe that the rights granted by the Magna Carta and the Forest Charter, developed and extended by law, restated in the US Bill of Rights and the UN Universal Declarations are vital statements of just such a faith. But they cannot be taken for granted or assumed to be some sort of 'natural' attribute of human beings: they are to be fought for and defended, precisely because we have faith in their value.
To repeat myself:
It is the human mind that is the final measuring rod in science. It is human diligence in calibrating the instruments and human acumen reporting the results that give us science.
Now if a thorough-going man such as John Rawls undertakes a study objectively quantifying what human fairness is, that is science. There is a point at which philosophy is at the very summit of human achievement.
The fact that human rights may be overlooked and denied does not diminish their real existence. One can overlook anything and deny anything if convenient or if the price is right. The fact that I cannot grasp at the air and hold it in my hand does not make it any less real. Scientific instruments, however, can show it to be real.
If you're asking for empirical evidence of human rights, you cannot look in the physical sphere, as that is not the sphere that they inhabit. Rights inhabit the sphere of measurements itself. To see rights most clearly, we first have to examine wrongs and go investigating what makes wrong actions wrong. Then you arrive at the place where one finds rights abiding: namely what OUGHT to have been done to avoid the harms inflicted by the wrong actions. Knowing WHAT OUGHT TO BE is methodical and precise. Just as when I walk into my room and see a bear in my bed, I know precisely what is amiss and that things are not as they ought to be, or usually should be.
This is just an outline. However, the scientific instrument, which is the human mind, can and must reach certain conclusions about justice. And justice is to give to each what that person deserves, not only what he or she has earned or won. The Universal Declarationof Human Rights spells these right out very well: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
The US was founded upon faith, and today there is a great diversity of faith available. Therefore, in the US, the idea that all men are created equal and have certain absolute rights is as humanly true as can be possible.
Anyway, this is a great thread.
And Nirvana,
I'm really starting to get your sense of humour. It's sort of complex and it's fun to "get it".
Of course the Declaration is law and, as such, subject to change or, even, to total repeal.
The confusion here is between "faith" and "religion", a bit of spin that is dogging us at every turn. They are not the same and their conflation causes terrible problems. There are any number of Buddhist texts where the Tathagata and others stress the importance of faith: faith in the value of the Dharma, faith in our teachers. Faith, at this level, requires constant testing and callibration against experience and reality.
The theft of the notion of faith and turning it into a mindless acceptance of another's word leaves us without a useful description of the hope-filled movement forward towards a goal envisaged but not yet achieved. This is precisely what goes on with the social contract which is always subject to questioning and rebalancing.
Good one, thank you.....
Thanks for the almost exegetical insight about faith, dear Pilgrim. I think you have pointed out something here which is radically true. Religion is a crazy mixed-up mess, but faith, or confidence, is the very bedrock of rationality. One has to have faith or trust that the underlying fabric of reality consists of a substance which is fundamentally regular and predictable. For example, to be able to live a sane life, a person has to believe that at least 99.9999% of the time things cannot happen by themselves without an outside cause.
In other words, SCIENCE itself is based on FAITH in theories.
The whole issue of BEING and THE OUGHT is that they really are related. One does not even question the being of a thing until it is gone: The earth is terse, terra firma, until an earthquake occurs; Light is quite taken for granted until one is plunged into sudden unexpected darkness...
Rights are things that really do exist, since the mind can find them so very easily. They are not imagined things such as dragons and unicorns; no, they are not a fiction, but something more like a goalpost. One might succeed in arguing that the equator is an imaginary line, but to argue that the thirty-yard line is not real would be a falsehood —as it IS the place where the kickoff occurs in football. One would just as well say that the game of football does not exist.
Rights can be seen by those whose minds are not clouded by ignorance, selfishness, greed, or delusion, or minds caught up in the turmoil of passions and hatred, &c.
A Faith is a Belief. A Scientific Theory is a Belief also, although usually much more sophisticated and having a powerful integrity about it.
Whether one believes that Human Rights belong more to the realm of Faith than to, as it were, the realm of real commodities COULD indeed make a difference. Especially if the wrong sort of people came to power; those filled with hatred of some group, paranoid, megalomaniacal, you name it.
I'd rather say that Human Rights unquestionably exist than risk the slippery slopes of history.
KIND REGARDS TO ALL,
Nirvy
Palzang
Don't believe everything you think! (BTW, is that yours or a quote? I love it.)
Also, I'm sorry I couldn't resist grossly exaggerating the number of [nearly] identical posts you made in the Some Gripes about Drugs thread under The American Buddhist. It was only about five or six. (Did I say "only?" OMIGOSH! That computer of yours was really vexing, eh?
How I turned 5 or 6 into 142 was really naughty, but then I was thinking of you at the time...
Palzang
Is it ok for me to feel a bit of pride in that I got the Aquinas quote without using the internet?
I was asked, back in my former life as a Presbyterian minister, to meet with a Zen Abbot to discuss Christianity and Buddhism. It was not meant as a debate, and indeed it wasnt. As a matter of fact, it was not well publicized, and I was the only Christian in a room of Buddhists. What happened was fascinating. They did not feel the need to defend their religion, and since I was outnumbered (and known to be sympathetic) they really opened up in terms of asking hard questions of themselves.
Anyway, the thing we all came away with, was the Buddhism dealt the the whole notion of "practice" much better than Christians (These were from the Kwan Um school of Zen) but did very poorly when it came to social ethics.
I find that really interesting, given the Taoist roots of Ch'an Buddhism, which to my mind is a book on governing.
I can't believe I missed this in the former posts. :zombie: The Declaration really has nothing to do with American governement other than it being separate from colonial rule. If anything, it was just a list of grievances against the king.
Correct. The Constitution is the law. It is an elastic clause which has its ups and downs. It is subject to change. It can be good in the case of making slavery illegal and be bad in granting too much executive power. On the state level, a constitution that is elastic can be bad as well when it inhibits on the rights of homosexuals.
True, you did say legal fact, but I am not sure exactly what makes it "legal." It is a political fact, but I am not sure how it is a legal fact.
But for the record, I was responding to the statement "Of course the Declaration is law and, as such, subject to change or, even, to total repeal" which you did NOT say.
And I am sorry you have had a hard month. I dont say that glibly. I work with soldiers on a regular basis at the hospital.
No.
Your point about the different social engagement between some groups of Buddhists and Christians is one which has worried many people when they encounter the Dharma. It arises, I believe, from the difference in socio-economic presuppositions and history between 'East' and 'West'.
The encounter between Buddhism and Western values had led to a revisiting of the social scope of the Buddha's teachings by writers like Thich Nhat Hanh and the Engaged Buddhist approach. This comes much closer to the Christian movements for social justice.
It remains a valid criticism of some parts of the Buddhist family that far too little notice is taken of the social, a sort of fatalistic shrug at poverty and injustice. Mind you, the Christian churches, despite fine words on peace and justice, still have a long way to go!
Palzang
Many schools of Christianity would say much the same, Palzang.
If by "fix" you mean establish a kind of utopia where there is no suffering, yes, you are right on the money. If by fix, you mean totally eliminating problems, again, I agree.
But there are lesser levels of "fixing" that call for social involvement. While we have not fixed the racial issues in America, I think it is fair to say that we have made a sizable dent in the problem, and this is in part due to the whole civil rights movement.
I guess what i am really saying is that it is in no way an "either/or" thing; either we focus on social issues and try to make this a better world, or we stay on our cushion until we are liberated. I am not saying that you imply this, but too often that seems to be the attitude that surrounds any religious commitment and social issues. (The other being, "With our religion, we can fix the world!")
Someone once told me, if it was worth doing, it was worth doing poorly, if that was all you could do.
Our temple, for example, is heavily involved in relative bodhicitta, i.e. charitable activities. For example, we have Tara's Babies and Garuda Aviary, organizations which rescue and take care of (sometimes for life) abandoned or abused dogs, cats, large exotic birds (such as cockatoos and parrots), even iguanas and a couple of land tortoises. We also have smaller programs, like maintaining bird feeders on our temple land in Sedona. We also run a number of programs to benefit human varities of sentient beings. During Katrina, for example, we donated large quantities of emergency food rations to people in the storm area. We also sent people into New Orleans to work with Best Friends and other organizations to rescue stranded dogs and cats. We've helped build homes with Habitat for Humanity, run GLBT and prison outreach programs, walked in AIDS walks and many other things. In other words, our lama keeps us hopping! Just Tara's Babies is a full-time job. It's located on our retreat land near Young, Arizona, which we just paid off ($2 million) after a massive fundraising effort. Our aim is to make Arizona a no-kill zone for dogs and cats brought into "humane" shelters by rescuing them from shelters where euthanasia is practiced, though we have a lot of development to do before that becomes a reality. Currently we have a number of feral dogs from Katrina, mostly pit bulls, who will probably never be adoptable. Garuda Aviary also has a large number of birds in a brand-new aviary at our temple in Maryland to provide lifetime care, if needed, for these beautiful birds. Obviously just feeding all these beasties costs a lot of money, so this is something that anyone can be a part of (just go to our website, www.tara.org).
So social service is a priority in our sangha, but we also understand the difference between relative and absolute bodhicitta.
Palzang
As far as social workings go, charity has great merit. It is a point I was trying to make in another thread, regarding the motivations some people have to go to war and risk their lives. I'm willing to risk my life to protect the people I love. What father wouldn't risk his to feed his children? The "social contract" is all these things, national identity, community, and religious affiliation, for that is where we form the bond that makes us "people" instead of "persons". It is long past time for the various entities in the world to start putting aside differences and working toward the common good. But, I'm afraid that last sentiment is nothing more than wishful thinking right now. Let us who know what is right do what is right, so that someday, we can strive together for the common good.
I think you raise an important point, Bushi. As my teacher has often said, it is up to each and every student to find their own enlightenment. I remember one excellent thing they taught us in basic training in the Air Force, and that was that ultimately you are the final arbiter of your actions, no one else. How you approach your path may be quite different than how someone else approaches their path. Does that mean that one or the other is better? No, not necessarily. You do what is right for you. I would hate to see Buddhism become a religion of "thou shalts" and "thou shalt-nots".
Palzang
in a later post, this same thread:
still later:
Yes, we must defend and be vigilant at all costs for human dignity and human rights! However I'd say it's because of their real presence. If some are blind to the rights of others, that speaks more to their blindness than to the unsubstantiality of rights. To my mind, saying that rights have their ultimate foundation in some kind of pious value, as it were —or mere principles— simply misses the mark. Rights are planted in justice and justice is planted deeper than in the mere topsoil of reason —extending into the more sandy underlayers of hope and the firmer bedrock of charity. Justice is rooted in compassion —and compassion, like memory, knows no chartable horizon.
I mention memory here because memory is one of the keys. In primitive societies a man may remember an injustice done years and years ago to him and then one day go out in rage with unsheathed sword to wreak revenge. It is forgivable not to respond with an open hand to one in need, but to turn the hand against him and knock him down in his hour of need when he is just asking for what is his is an act that cries out to the very Heavens. Such an act is carried into eternity as unforgiving memory (really bad karma). Without rights, human beings are nothing more than disposable commodities.
I say these rights do surely exist and exist concretely, though defend them we still must. So did the great fathers and mothers of the Enlightenment.
Here is an American, Thomas Jefferson:
These men and women of the Enlightenment believed that rights truly did exist, that the world was not made for any privileged class, and that no persons or groups of people had any business claiming ownership over the lives or interests of others, unless they be providers of care for their offspring. These men and women were spiritual giants, but they had more than just faith; they had first-hand experience of the wickedness that resulted from the fiction that some people had divine rights and most did not.
Whether Judaism, Christianity or Buddhism, none place faith in humanity. Each of these religions regards the majority of human beings as imperfect and subject to defilement.
To be humane and attracted to spirituality is a rare exception. Buddha said it is rare to be born humane.
It is an obstacle to the spiritual path to identify oneself with the masses. This is not clear seeing.
that is just rude. My Mother taught me If I had nothing constructive to say it was best to keep my mouth shut.
Besides, no one is talking about placing one ounce of faith in humanity, quite the opposite. The faith that is being alluded to here is faith in some power to preserve us through our darkest hours —the fear being that to say rights do not truly exist would create a slippery slope that would inexorably lead to gulags and the like imposed on subjugated masses by future Führers.
This forum is not limited to talk about the spiritual path only. Some things are prerequisite for starting on the spiritual path, such as sufficient nourishment, good health, peaceful and harmonious environment, etc. This thread addresses the Social Contract. If you think that complete anarchy would be better, say that. Just don't be so dern negative. The world is a very big and wide place, and that which is in you is even greater than that which is in the world. So be bigger than that!
Nobody has all the answers, and nobody has the right to judge the earnest attempts by others to communicate things that are meaningful to them. (Now, if a person made a few trifling remarks about a sentiment in a post without even finishing the thought in the sentence from which it was lifted, that would be another matter... That happened recently and I expressed my judgment that the remark was impertinent. I kinda felt I was on shaky ground, but I really did try to keep some flavor of a civil tone.)
Please be civil and don't be so dogmatic. Say rather something like, "I suggest that the Buddha would say..." or something. "This is not clear seeing" sounds blatantly pompous to me. But then, maybe I'm just not putting enough faith in humanity or in human beings individually.
And what is this smiley thingie? In a post that is not particularly complimentary, leave it out!
Look, I'm not trying to pick here. There is no reason in the world for me not to accept people of a different mind as friends. We come here to listen, learn, interact, etc. Let's not forget at least to be cordial if not endearing.
Respectfully,
Nirvy
Agreed. Disagreed.
I must disagree strongly. Admittedly, post-Augustinian Calvinism has tended to emphasise 'original sin', although any competent theologian will understand that humans, created in the image and likeness of God, arise from what Saint Irenaeus called 'original blessing'. Our brothers and sisters in the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) are quite clear that each human carries 'that of God', immaculate and incorruptible, very similar to the Buddhist notion of Buddha Nature or the Hindu atman of the Brahman. Jung, too, spoke of our "falling asleep to our essence" which he saw as perfect, as did my teacher, Virginia Satir.
The basic statement of Christianity is pro-human: as Saint John puts it: God so loves the world. That we then go and get things wrong, make mistakes and so on, is simply a result of Noble Truths enunciated by the Tathagata and found in all scriptures in one form or another.
I regarded what I said to be constructive. (Note. I meant to say "identify oneself with the masses").
My post can help because it will enable a mind to see the world more clearly and find 'the means to escape' one's fears.
Where did I mention anarchy? I am referring to 'self-refuge' and refuge in the Dhamma.
This board does not have a large choice of smileys.
A spirit of friendship is good. I am glad I helped you clarify your thoughts & views.
Kind regards
DDhatu
:cool:
Hello Dhamma Dhatu,
I'm not so sure this last statement is true, but I'm not gonna argue about that.
I never said that you mentioned anarchy; but neither did you mention tyranny by a few. What was being addressed had bearing on Simon Pilgrim's statement from the first post in this thread:
It is rare, however, in my experience, to find Buddhists discussing the nature of society and its relationship to its members in terms of the Dharma.
I found that to be a very interesting idea, but it is one which you apparently think is unfounded. But I can make no sense of why you think it is misguided. I really cannot.
Now, I'm not claiming that you think in the following way, but from your overreaction to some ideas here, it appears that you may be against the idea of Buddhists discussing anything beyond personal practices and historical Buddhist teachings and languages such as Pali.
Again, I'm not saying that the following is your position, but I wonder. If you are against the idea of a social compact wherein the ruling authorities are given their authority only by the consent of those governed --and you are against anarchy as well, that really only leaves totalitarian government. Admitedly some of these might be benign enough, such as historically in Tibet and Nepal. However, any system in which the people are said not to have certain inalienable rights gives those at the top special, semi-divine rights by which murders and all sorts of indecencies can be carried out in their name. This goes on to this very day, especially on the continent of Africa.
Our founding fathers and mothers were witnesses to a stinking state of affairs where a few had the divine rights of kings while so many were held to have no real rights at all --especially if they did not conform to the official state religion. They ushered in a different kind of world and we are all better off because of it.
Why CAN'T Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, & Right Livlihood guide the nations and international debate? What's wrong with using core Buddhist ideals in dialogue about good government?
An interesting, although somewhat exclusive/elitist, take on the commonly-accepted translation of the Buddhist notion.