A Buddhist Response to the Nature of
Human Rights
Kenneth Inada
[This article was first
published in Asian Perspectives on Human Rights, eds. Claude E.Welch,
Jr., and Virginia A. Leary (Boulder, Co.: Westview Press, 1990),
pp.91-103. The editors are grateful to Claude E.Welch, Jr. and Kenneth
Inada for permission to republish it. The orthography of the original
version has been retained.] [This article was first published in Asian
Perspectives on Human Rights, eds. Claude E.Welch, Jr., and Virginia A.
Leary (Boulder, Co.: Westview Press, 1990), pp.91-103. The editors are
grateful to Claude E.Welch, Jr. and Kenneth Inada for permission to
republish it. The orthography of the original version has been
retained.]
It is incorrect to
assume that the concept of human rights is readily identifiable in all
societies of the world. The concept may perhaps be clear and distinct in
legal quarters, but in actual practice it suffers greatly from lack of
clarity and gray areas due to impositions by different cultures. This is
especially true in Asia, where the two great civilizations of India and
China have spawned such outstanding systems as Hinduism, Buddhism,
Jainism, Yoga, Confucianism, Taoism and Chinese Buddhism. These systems,
together with other indigenous folk beliefs, attest to the cultural
diversity at play that characterizes Asia proper. In focusing on the
concept of human rights, however, we shall concentrate on Buddhism to
bring out the common grounds of discourse.
Alone among the great
systems of Asia, Buddhism has successfully crossed geographical and
ideological borders and spread in time through out the whole length and
breadth of known Asia. Its doctrines are so universal and profound that
they captured the imagination of ail the peoples they touched and
thereby established a subtle bond with all. What then is this bond? It
must be something common to all systems of thought which opens up and
allows spiritual discourse among them.
In examining the
metaphysical ground of all systems, one finds that there is a basic
feeling for a larger reality in one's own experience, a kind of reaching
out for a greater cosmic dimension of being, as it were. It is a deep
sense for the total nature of things. All this may seem so simple and
hardly merits elaborating, but it is a genuine feeling common among
Asians in their quest for ultimate knowledge based on the proper
relationship of one's self in the world. It is an affirmation of a
reality that includes but at once goes beyond the confines of sense
faculties.
A good illustration of
this metaphysical grounding is seen in the Brahmanic world of Hinduism.
In it, the occluded nature of the self (atman) constantly works to
cleanse itself of defilements by yogic discipline in the hope of
ultimately identifying with the larger reality which is Brahman. In the
process, the grounding in the larger reality is always kept intact,
regardless of whether the self is impure or not. In other words, in the
quest for the purity of things a larger framework of experience is
involved from the beginning such that the ordinary self (atman)
transforms into the larger Self (Atman) and finally merges into the
ultimate ontological Brahman.
A similar metaphysical
grounding is found in Chinese thought. Confucianism, for example, with
its great doctrine of humanity (jen), involves the ever-widening and
ever-deepening human relationship that issues forth in the famous
statement, “All men are brothers.” In this sense, humanity is not a mere
abstract concept but one that extends concretely throughout the whole of
sentient existence. Confucius once said that when he searched for jen,
it is always close at hand. [1] It means that humanity is not something
external to a person but that it is constitutive of the person's
experience, regardless of whether there is consciousness of it or not.
It means moreover that in the relational nature of society, individual
existence is always more than that which one assumes it to be. In this
vein, all experiences must fit into the larger cosmological scheme
normally spoken of in terms of heaven, earth and mankind. This triadic
relationship is ever-present and ever-in-force, despite one's ignorance,
negligence or outright intention to deny it. The concept that permeates
and enlivens the triadic relationship is the Tao. The Tao is a seemingly
catchall term, perhaps best translated as the natural way of life and
the world. In its naturalness, it manifests all of existence; indeed, it
is here, there and everywhere since it remains aloof from human
contrivance and manipulation. In a paradoxical sense, it depicts action
based on non action (wu-wei), the deepest state of being achievable. The
following story illustrates this point.
A cook named Ting is
alleged to have used the same carving knife for some 19 years without
sharpening it at all. When asked how that is possible, he simply
replied:
What I care about Is
the way (Tao), which goes beyond skill. When I first began cutting up
oxen, all I could see was the ox itself. After three years I no longer
saw the whole ox. And now--now I go at it by spirit and don't look with
my eyes. Perception and understanding have come to a stop and spirit
moves where it wants. I go along with the natural makeup, strike in the
big hollows, guide the knife through the big openings, and follow things
as they are. so I never touch the smallest ligament or tendon, much less
a main joint ... I've had this knife of mine for nineteen years and I've
cut up thousands of oxen with it, and yet the blade is as good as though
it had just come from the grindstone. [2]
Such then is the master
craftsman at work, a master in harmonious triadic relationship based on
the capture of the spirit of Tao where the function is not limited to a
person and his or her use of a tool. And it is clear that such a spirit
of Tao in craftsmanship is germane to all disciplined experiences we are
capable of achieving in our daily activities.
Buddhism, too, has
always directed our attention to the larger reality of existence. The
original enlightenment of the historical Buddha told of a pure
unencumbered experience which opened up all experiential doors in such a
way that they touched everything sentient as well as insentient. A Zen
story graphically illustrates this point.
Once a master and a
disciple were walking through a dense forest. Suddenly, they heard the
clean chopping strokes of the woodcutter's axe. The disciple was elated
and remarked, “What beautiful sounds in the quiet of the forest!” To
which the master immediately responded, “you have got it all upside
down. The sounds only make obvious the deep silence of the forest!” The
response by the Zen master sets in bold relief the Buddhist perception
of reality. Although existential reality refers to the perception of the
world as a singular unified whole, we ordinarily perceive it in
fragmented ways because of our heavy reliance on the perceptual
apparatus and its consequent understanding. That is to say, we perceive
by a divisive and selective method which however glosses over much of
reality and indeed misses its holistic nature. Certainly, the hewing
sounds of the woodcutter's axe are clearly audible and delightful to the
ears, but they are so at the expense of the basic silence of the forest
(i.e., total reality). Or, the forest in its silence constitutes the
necessary background, indeed the basic source, from which all sounds
(and all activities for that matter) originate. Put another way, sounds
arising from the silence of the forest should in no way deprive nor
intrude upon the very source of their own being. Only human beings make
such intrusions by their crude discriminate habits of perception and,
consequently, suffer a truncated form of existence, unknowingly for the
most part.
Now that we have seen
Asian lives in general grounded in a holistic cosmological framework, we
would have to raise the following question: How does this framework
appear in the presence of human rights? Or, contrarily, how does human
rights function within this framework?
Admittedly, the concept
of human rights is relatively new to Asians. From the very beginning, it
did not sit well with their basic cosmological outlook. Indeed, the
existence of such an outlook has prevented in profound ways a ready
acceptance of foreign elements and has created tension and struggle
between tradition and modernity. Yet, the key concept in the tension is
that of human relationship. This is especially true in Buddhism, where
the emphasis is not so much on the performative acts and individual
rights as it is on the manner of manifestation of human nature itself.
The Buddhist always takes human nature as the basic context in which all
ancillary concepts, such as human rights, are understood and take on any
value. Moreover, the concept itself is in harmony with the extended
experiential nature of things. And thus, where the Westerner is much
more at home in treating legal matters detached from human nature as
such and quite confident in forging ahead to establish human rights with
a distinct emphasis on certain “rights,” the Buddhist is much more
reserved but open and seeks to understand the implications of human
behavior, based on the fundamental nature of human beings, before
turning his or her attention to the so called “rights” of individuals.
An apparent sharp rift
seems to exist between the Western and Buddhist views, but this is not
really so. Actually, it is a matter of perspectives and calls for a more
comprehensive understanding of what takes place in ordinary human
relationships. For the basic premise is still one that is focused on
human beings intimately living together in the selfsame world. A
difference in perspectives does not mean non communication or a simple
rejection of another's view, as there is still much more substance in
the nature of conciliation, accommodation and absorption than what is
initially thought of. Here we propose two contrasting but interlocking
and complementary terms, namely, “hard relationship” and “soft
relationship.”
The Western view on
human rights is generally based on a hard relationship. Persons are
treated as separate and independent entities or even bodies, each having
its own assumed identity or self-identity. It is a sheer “elemental” way
of perceiving things due mainly to the strong influence by science and
its methodology. As scientific methodology thrives on the dissective and
analytic incursion into reality as such, this in turn has resulted in
our perceiving and understanding things in terms of disparate realities.
Although it makes way for easy understanding, the question still
remains: Do we really understand what these realities are in their own
respective fullness of existence? Apparently not. And to make matters
worse, the methodology unfortunately has been uncritically extended over
to the human realm, into human nature and human relations. Witness its
ready acceptance by the various descriptive and behavioral sciences,
such as sociology, psychology and anthropology. On this matter,
Cartesian dualism of mind and body has undoubtedly influenced our
ordinary ways of thinking in such a manner that in our casual perception
of things we habitually subscribe to the clearcut subject-object
dichotomy. This dualistic perspective has naturally filtered down into
human relationships and has eventually crystallized into what we refer
to as the nature of a hard relationship. Thus, a hard relationship is a
mechanistic treatment of human beings where the emphasis is on beings as
such regardless of their inner nature and function in the fullest sense;
it is an atomistic analysis of beings where the premium is placed on
what is relatable and manipulable without regard for their true
potentials for becoming. In a way it is externalization in the extreme,
since the emphasis is heavily weighted on seizing the external character
of beings themselves. Very little attention, if any, is given to the
total ambience, inclusive of inner contents and values, in which the
beings are at full play. In this regard, it can be said that postmodern
thought is now attempting to correct this seemingly lopsided dichotomous
view created by our inattention to the total experiential nature of
things. We believe this is a great step in the right direction.
Meanwhile, we trudge along with a heavy burden on our backs, though
unaware of it for the most part, by associating with people on the basis
of hard relationships.
To amplify on the
nature of hard relationships, let us turn to a few modern examples.
First, Thomas Hobbes, in his great work, Leviathan, [3] showed
remarkable grasp of human psychology when he asserted that people are
constantly at war with each other. Left in this “state of nature,”
people will never be able to live in peace and security The only way out
of this conundrum is for all to establish a reciprocal relationship or
mutual trust that would work, i.e., to strike up a covenant by selfish
beings that guarantees mutual benefits and gains, one in which each
relinquishes certain rights in order to gain or realize a personal as
well as an overall state of peace and security. This was undoubtedly a
brilliant scheme. But the scheme is weak in that it treats human beings
by and large mechanically, albeit psychologically too, as entities in a
give-and-take affair, and thus perpetuates the condition of hard
relationships.
Another example can be
offered by way of the British utilitarian movement which later was
consummated in American pragmatism. Jeremy Bentham's hedonic calculus
[4] (e.g., intensity of pleasure or pain, duration of pleasure or pain,
certain or uncertainty of pleasure or pain, purity or impurity of
pleasure or pain, etc.) is a classic example of quantification of human
experience. Although this is a most expedient or utilitarian way to
treat and legislate behavior, we must remind ourselves that we are by no
means mere quantifiable entities. John Stuart Mill introduced the
element of quality in order to curb and tone down the excesses of the
quantification process, [5] but, in the final analysis, human nature and
relationships are still set in hard relations. American pragmatism fares
no better since actions by and large take place in a pluralistic world
of realities and are framed within the scientific mode and therefore it
is unable to relinquish the nature of hard relationships.
In contemporary times,
the great work of John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, [6] has given us yet
another twist in pragmatic and social contract theories. His basic
concept of justice as fairness is an example of the reciprocal principle
in action, i.e., in terms of realizing mutual advantage and benefit for
the strongest to the weakest or the most favored to the least favored in
a society. Each person exercises basic liberty with offices for its
implementation always open and excess available. It is moreover a highly
intellectual or rational theory. It thus works extremely well on the
theoretical level but, in actual situations, it is not as practical and
applicable as it seems since it still retains hard relationships on
mutual bases. Such being the case, feelings and consciousness relative
to injustice and inequality are not so readily spotted and corrected.
That is to say, lacunae exist as a result of hard relationships and they
keep on appearing until they are detected and finally remedied, but then
the corrective process is painfully slow. Thus the theory's strongest
point is its perpetually self-corrective nature which is so vital to the
democratic process. Despite its shortcomings, however, Rawls' theory of
justice is a singular contribution to contemporary legal and ethical
thought.
By contrast, the
Buddhist view of human rights is based on the assumption that human
beings are primarily oriented in soft relationships; this relationship
governs the understanding of the nature of human rights. Problems arise,
on the other hand, when a hard relationship becomes the basis for
treating human nature because it cannot delve deeply into that nature
itself and functions purely on the peripheral aspects of things. It is
another way of saying that a hard relationship causes rigid and stifling
empirical conditions to arise and to which we become invariably
attached.
A soft relationship has
many facets. It is the Buddhist way to disclose a new dimension to human
nature and behavior It actually amounts to a novel perception or vision
of reality. Though contrasted with a hard relationship, it is not in
contention with it. If anything, it has an inclusive nature that
“softens,” if you will, all contacts and allows for the blending of any
element that comes along, even incorporating the entities of hard
relationships. This is not to say, however, that soft and hard
relationships are equal or ultimately identical. For although the former
could easily accommodate and absorb the latter, the reverse is not the
case. Still, it must be noted that both belong to the same realm of
experiential reality and in consequence ought to be conversive with each
other The non-conversive aspect arises on the part of the “hard” side
and is attributable to the locked-in character of empirical elements
which are considered to be hard stubborn facts worth perpetuating. But
at some point, there must be a break in the lock, as it were, and this
is made possible by knowledge of and intimacy with the “soft” side of
human endeavors. For the “soft” side has a passive nature characterized
by openness, extensiveness, depth, flexibility, absorptiveness,
freshness and creativity simply because it remains unencumbered by
“hardened” empirical conditions.
What has been discussed
so far can be seen in modern Thailand where tradition and change are in
dynamic tension. Due to the onslaught of elements of modernity, Buddhism
is being questioned and challenged. Buddhist Thailand, however, has
taken up the challenge in the person of a leading monk named Buddhadasa
who has led the country to keep a steady course on traditional values.
[7]
The heart of
Buddhadasa's teaching is that the Dhamma (Sanskrit,Dharma) or the truth
of Buddhism is a universal truth. Dhamma is equated by Buddhadasa to the
true nature of things It is everything and everywhere. The most
appropriate term to denote the nature of Dhamma is sunnata (Sanskrit,
sunyata) or the void. The ordinary man considers the void to mean
nothing when, in reality, it means everything--everything, that is,
without reference to the self.
We will return to the
discussion of the nature of the void or sunnata later, but suffice it to
say here that what constitutes the heart of Buddhist truth of existence
is based on soft relationships where all forms and symbols are
accommodated and allows for their universal usage.
Robert N. Bellah has
defined religion as a set of normative symbols institutionalized in a
society or internalized in a personality. [8] It is a rather good
definition but does not go far enough when it comes to describing
Buddhism, or Asian religions in general for that matter. To speak of
symbols being institutionalized or internalized without the proper
existential or ontological context seems to be a bit artificial and has
strains of meanings oriented toward hard relationships. Bellah, being a
social scientist, probably could nor go beyond the strains of a hard
relationship, for, otherwise, he would have ended in a non-descriptive
realm. The only way out Is to give more substance to the nature of
religious doctrines themselves, as is the case In Buddhism. The Buddhist
Dharma is one such doctrine which, if symbolized, must take on a wider
and deeper meaning that strikes at the very heart of existence of the
individual. In this respect, Donald Swearer is on the right track when
he says:
the adaptation of
symbols of Theravada Buddhism presupposes an underlying ontological
structure. The symbol system of Buddhism then, is not to be seen only in
relationship to its wider empirical context, but also in relationship to
its ontological structure. This structure is denoted by such terms as
Dhamma or absolute Truth, emptiness and non-attachment. These terms are
denotative of what Dhiravamsa calls “dynamic being.” They are symbolic,
but in a universalistic rather than a particularistic sense. [9]
Swearer's reference to
an underlying ontological structure is In complete harmony with our use
of the term soft relationship. And only when this ontological structure
or soft relationship is brought into the dynamic tension between
tradition and modernity can we give full accounting to the nature of
human experience and the attendant creativity and change within a
society.
Let us return to a
fuller treatment of soft relationships. In human experience, they
manifest themselves in terms of the intangible human traits that we live
by, such as patience, humility, tolerance, deference, non-action,
humaneness, concern, pity, sympathy, altruism, sincerity, honesty,
faith, responsibility, trust, respectfulness, reverence, love and
compassion. Though potentially and pervasively present in any human
relationship, they remain for the most part as silent but vibrant
components in all experiences. Without them, human intercourse would be
sapped of the human element and reduced to perfunctory activities
Indeed, this fact seems to constitute much of the order of the day where
our passions are mainly directed to physical and materialistic matters.
The actualization and
sustenance of these intangible human traits are basic to the Buddhist
quest for an understanding of human nature and, by extension, the
so-called rights of human beings. In order to derive a closer look at
the nature of soft relationships, we shall focus on three
characteristics, namely, mutuality, holism, and emptiness or void.
MUTUALITY
Our understanding of
mutuality is generally limited to its abstract or theoretical nature For
example, it is defined in terms of a two-way action between two parts
and where the action is invariably described with reference to elements
of hard relationships. Except secondarily or deviously, nothing positive
is mentioned about the substance of mutuality, such as the feelings of
humility, trust and tolerance that transpire between the parties
concerned Although these feelings are present, unfortunately, they
hardly ever surface in the relationship and almost always are
overwhelmed by the physical aspect of things.
What is to be done? One
must simply break away from the merely conceptual or theoretical
understanding and fully engage oneself in the discipline that will bring
the feelings of both parties to become vital components in the
relationship. That is, both parties must equally sense the presence and
value of these feelings and thus give substance and teeth to their
actions.
Pursuing the notion of
mutuality further, the Buddhist understands human experience as a
totally open phenomenon, that persons should always be wide open in the
living process. The phrase, “an open ontology,” is used to describe the
unclouded state of existence. An illustration of this is the newborn
child The child is completely an open organism at birth The senses are
wide open and will absorb practically anything without prejudice At this
stage, also, the child will begin to imitate because its absorptive
power is at the highest level. This open textured nature should continue
on and on. In other words, if we are free and open, there should be no
persistence in attaching ourselves to hard elements within the
underlying context of a dynamic world of experience. The unfortunate
thing, however, is that the open texture of our existence begins to
blemish and fade away in time, being obstructed and overwhelmed by
self-imposed fragmentation, narrowness and restriction, which gradually
develop into a closed nature of existence. In this way, the hard
relationship rules. But the nature of an open ontology leads us on to
the next characteristic.
HOLISM
Holism of course refers
to the whole, the total nature of individual existence and thus
describes the unrestrictive nature of one's experience. Yet, the
dualistic relationship we maintain by our crude habits of perception
remains a stumbling block. This stunted form of perception is not
conducive to holistic understanding and instead fosters nothing but
fractured types of ontological knowledge taking. Unconscious for the
most part, an individual narrows his or her vision by indulging in
dualism of all kinds, both mental and physical, and in so doing isolates
the objects of perception from the total process to which they belong.
In consequence, the singular unified reality of each perceptual moment
is fragmented and, what is more, fragmentation once settled breeds
further fragmentation.
The Buddhist will
appeal to the fact that one's experience must always be open to the
total ambience of any momentary situation But here we must be exposed to
a unique, if not paradoxical, insight of the Buddhist. It is that the
nature of totality is not a clearly defined phenomenon. In a cryptic
sense, however, it means that the totality of experience has no borders
to speak of. It is an open border totality, which is the very nature of
the earlier mentioned “open ontology.” It is a non-circumscribable
totality, like a circle sensed which does not not have a rounded line, a
seamless circle, if you will. A strange phenomenon, indeed, but that is
how the Buddhist sees the nature of individual existence as such. For
the mystery of existence that haunts us is really the nature of one's
own fullest momentary existence. Nothing else compares in profundity to
this nature, so the Buddhist believes.
Now, the open framework
in which experience takes place reveals that there is depth and
substance in experience. But so long as one is caught up with the
peripheral elements, so-called, of hard relationships one will be
ensnared by them and will generate limitations on one's understanding
accordingly. On the other hand, if openness is acknowledged as a fact of
existence, then the way out of one's limitations will present itself.
All sufferings (duhkha), from the Buddhist standpoint, are cases of
limited ontological vision (avidya, ignorance) hindered by the
attachment to all sorts of elements that obsess a person.
Holism is conversant
with openness since an open experience means that all elements are fully
and extensively involved. In many respects, holistic existence exhibits
the fact that mutuality thrives only in unhindered openness. But there
is still another vital characteristic to round out or complete momentary
experience. For this we turn to the last characteristic.
EMPTINESS
Emptiness in Sanskrit
is sunyata. [10] Strictly speaking, the Sanskrit term, depicting zero or
nothing, had been around prior to Buddhism, but it took the historical
Buddha's supreme enlightenment (nirvana) to reveal an incomparable
qualitative nature inherent to experience. Thus emptiness is not sheer
voidness or nothingness in the nihilistic sense.
We ordinarily find it
difficult to comprehend emptiness, much less to live a life grounded in
it. Why? Again, we return to the nature of our crude habits of
perception, which is laden with unwarranted forms. That is, our whole
perceptual process is caught up in attachment to certain forms or
elements which foster and turn into so-called empirical and cognitive
biases. All of this is taking place in such minute and unknowing ways
that we hardly, if ever, take notice of it until a crisis situation
arises, such as the presence of certain obviously damaging prejudice or
discrimination. Then and only then do we seriously wonder and search for
the forms or elements that initially gave rise to those prejudicial or
discriminatory forces.
Emptiness has two
aspects. The first aspect alerts our perceptions to be always open and
fluid, and to desist from attaching to any form or element. In this
respect, emptiness technically functions as a force of “epistemic
nullity,” [11] in the sense that it nullifies any reference to a form or
element as preexisting perception or even post-existing for that matter.
Second and more importantly, emptiness points at a positive content of
our experience It underscores the possibility of total experience in any
given moment because there is now nothing attached to or persisted in
This latter point brings us right back to the other characteristics of
holism and mutuality. Now, we must note that emptiness is that dimension
of experience which makes it possible for the function of mutuality and
holism in each experience, since there is absolutely nothing that binds,
hinders or wants in our experience Everything is as it is (tathata),
under the aegis of emptiness; emptiness enables one to spread out one's
experience at will in all directions, so to speak, in terms of
“vertical” and “horizontal” dimensions of being. As it is the key
principle of enlightened existence, it makes everything both possible
and impossible. Possible in the sense that all experiences function
within the total empty nature, just as all writings are possible on a
clean slate or, back to the zen story, where the sounds are possible in
the silence (emptiness) of the forest. At the same time, impossible in
the sense that all attachments to forms and elements are categorically
denied in the ultimate fullness of experience. In this way, emptiness
completes our experience of reality and, at the same time, provides the
grounds for the function of all human traits to become manifest in soft
relationships.
It can now be seen that
all three characteristics involve each other in the selfsame momentary
existence. Granted this, it should not be too difficult to accept the
fact that the leading moral concept in Buddhism is compassion (karuna).
Compassion literally means “passion for all” in an ontologically
extensive sense. It covers the realm of all sentient beings, inclusive
of non-sentients, for the doors of perception to total reality are
always open. From the Buddhist viewpoint, then, all human beings are
open entities with open feelings expressive of the highest form of
humanity This is well expressed in the famous concept of bodhisattva
(enlightened being) in Mahayana Buddhism who has deepest concern for all
beings and sympathetically delays his entrance to nirvana as long as
there is suffering (ignorant existence) among sentient creatures. It
depicts the coterminous nature of all creatures and may be taken as a
philosophic myth in that it underscores the ideality of existence which
promotes the greatest unified form of humankind based on compassion.
This ideal form of existence, needless to say, is the aim and goal of
all Buddhists.
As human beings we need
to keep the channels of existential dialogue open at all times. When an
act of violence is in progress, for example, we need to constantly
nourish the silent and passive nature of nonviolence inherent in all
human relations. Though nonviolence cannot counter violence on the
latter's terms, still, its nourished presence serves as a reminder of
the brighter side of existence and may even open the violator's mind to
common or normal human traits such as tolerance, kindness and non-injury
(ahimsa). Paradoxically and most unfortunately, acts of violence only
emphasize the fact that peace and tranquillity are the normal course of
human existence.
It can now be seen that
the Buddhist view on human rights is dedicated to the understanding of
persons in a parameter-free ambience, so to speak, where feelings that
are extremely soft and tender, but nevertheless present and translated
into human traits or virtues that we uphold, make up the very fiber of
human relations. These relations, though their contents are largely
intangible, precede any legal rights or justification accorded to human
beings. In brief, human rights for the Buddhist are not only matters for
legal deliberation and understanding, but they must be complemented by
and based on something deeper and written in the very feelings of all
sentients. The unique coexistent nature of rights and feelings
constitutes the saving truth of humanistic existence.
NOTES
[1] Lu Yu (The Analects
of Confucius): VII, 29. Return
[2] The Complete Works
of Chuang Tzu, translated by Burton Watson (New York:Columbia University
Press, 1960), pp. 50-1. Return
[3] Thomas Hobbes,
Leviathan (New York: Hafner, 1926). Return
[4] Jeremy Bentham, An
Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (New
York:Hafner, 1948). Return
[5] John Stuart Mill
observed, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied; better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”
Utilitarianism, cited in Louis P. Pojman, Philosophy: The Quest for
Truth (Belmont CA: Wadsworth, 1989), p. 357. Return
[6] John Rawls, A Theory
of Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971). Rawls also has a
chapter on civil disobedience but it too is treated under the same
concept of justice as fairness and suffers accordingly from the elements
of hard relationships. Return
[7] Donald K. Swearer,
“Thai Buddhism: Two Responses to Modernity,” in Bardwell L. Smith, ed.,
Contributions to Asian Studies, Volume 4: Tradition and Change In
Theravada Buddhism (Leiden: E.J. Brilll, 1973), p. 80. “Without
reference to the self” means to uphold the Buddhist doctrine of non self
(sanskrit, anatman) which underlies all momentary existence and avoids
any dependence on a dichotomous self-oriented subject-object
relationship. For an updated and comprehensive view of Buddhadasa's
reformist's philosophy, see Donald K. Swearer, ed., Me and Mine:
Selected Essays on Bhikkhu Buddhadasa (Albany: State University of New
York Press, 1989). Return
[8] Robert N. Bellah,
“Epilogue” in Bellah, ed., Religion and Progress in Modern Asia (New
York: Free Press, 1965), p. 173. Return
[9] Swearer, “Thai
Buddhism,” p. 92. Return
[10] Etymologically
sunyata (In Pali, sunnata) means the state of being swollen, as in
pregnancy, or the state of fullness of being. Thus, from the outset. the
term depicted the pure, open and full textured nature of experiential
reality. Return
[11] Kenneth Inada,
“Nagarjuna and Beyond,” Journal of Buddhist Philosophy 2 (1984), pp.
65-76, for development of this concept. Return
Copyright 1995
---o0o---
Source: http://jbe.gold.ac.uk/
Update: 01-12-2004