Buddhism, as a religion, is scoped about the subject of happiness and "enlightenment." It also has always existed in a context of monarchy, aristocracy, and as a minority religion within societies prone to hostility towards both minorities and outsiders. As such, my observation is that it's scope has never been about directly proposing combattive ideas to transform society so much as using existing thought and ideas, by way of critical thinking, to tranform those ideas into sensible and humanistic or "enlightened" ideas. This is the concept behind zuiho bini.
The issue is how does one apply principle (not necessarily "Buddhist" principle -- but universal principle) to modern subjects, in a language that can shed a little light on current issues and help to tranform societies? Buddhist thinking can help us with this. Applying Buddhist principles of rationality can help us make "distinctions" between interpretations of principles that make sense and those that don't, and to make sense out of the seemingly conflictive moral choices around us.
Let us take Confucian principles as an example, on the surface, for instance, seem to have nothing to do with ideas such as "liberty, equality, property!" They'd be more "Appreciation and loyalty to Father, Teacher, Sovereign." Rather than being an opening for democratic principles they'd seem to be an opening for authoritarianism. Confucianism makes its principles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism
cultivate themselves morally;
participate in the correct performance of ritual;
show filial piety and loyalty where these are due;
cultivate humanity, or benevolence.
But the battle is really the same.
Authoritarianism is the (arrogant) notion that there exists "authority" because it is "written down." The authors (or the possessorship of rights granted by the authors) are the authorities, and the rest of us must obey them because they "know" what is "written." In a world where literacy is the property of oligarchs, this was the source of oligarchic and aristocratic control of society. To this day literacy is necessary to liberty partly because it frees people from being bound to authoritarian ideas. The notion of democracy is based on the idea that authority derives from and requires the consent of the people. The threshold for democracy is majority rule, but the goal is universal consensus.
Confucianism was created in an authoritarian context, but where the sages sought to transform the concept of the authorities. If the principles of humanism and benevolence are practiced by rulers than agreement or consensus is a practical possibility. Conversely, unjust and authoritarian rulers usually do not in reality practice either humanity or benevolence, but instead twist and bend principle and laws purportedly based on principle for their own arbitrary and unjust ends.
Confucian principles apply to democracy because democracy historically fails when the people don't practice "virtue" or "cultivation of morality." Authoritarian regimes fail for the same reason.
Buddhism arrived in China certain of its superiority. And it is said that initially Buddhist monks set the Confucian scholars on the run. There is a story told of how the Confucians had rites in which they'd demonstrate the superiority of Confucian thought by doing things that ordinarily would destroy the texts, only to have them survive. When the Buddhists came on the scene the sutras would survive but the Confucian texts would perish. Nichiren tells this story in one of his Gosho.
But the rest of the story is that Buddhism in China, became corrupt. People became monks who had no idea of what they were doing and whose main idea seemed to be avoiding work. This led to a resurgence of Confucian thinking and a persecution in which an effort was made to eliminate Buddhism in China around the time of Jikaku Daishi's visit. The sages became even more adept at their arguments. Nichiren said in his Gosho that the sages became even more devious, borrowing Buddhist ideas and calling them their own, but the truth is that Nichiren's own thinking reflected Confucian morality, and so Buddhism in China, Korea, and Japan adopted Confucian ideas of morality not just to survive but because those ideas were genuinely useful and valid principles. Essentially Confucianism was a different realm of religion being about ritual and political behavior, while Buddhism is about clear thinking and meditative mind-self-control-practice. Most medieval Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese believed elements of both. And that applies to Zen/Chan monks as well as to Nichiren himself.
Buddhism and Buddhist principles can illuminate what is useful and universal in Confucian thinking because they insist on ideas standing on their own merit and not based on the borrowed authority of "sages," "Gods", or "God-Men." Confucianism and Taoism seemed opposed to Buddhist ideas, but were able to benefit from this approach. Ultimately Buddhist, Taoist, Confucian, Christian, Judaism, Islamic, and other ideas all have core elements that can stand up to critical thinking, and other ideas that can't. Subjecting religion and political ideology to such treatment is called "making distinctions."
Chris
Posted by cholte at April 24, 2007 11:00 PM"The issue is how does one apply principle (not necessarily "Buddhist" principle -- but universal principle) to modern subjects, in a language that can shed a little light on current issues and help to tranform societies?"
I once thought was the issue, but have lost interest in transforming others.
"The threshold for democracy is majority rule, but the goal is universal consensus."
I strongly disagree here. I think the threshold is protecting individual rights and the unattainable goal is unlimited self rule that requires no artificial rules. Majority rule is another form of tyranny; universal consensus is as undesirable as it is impossible. I can not think of anything more boring than everyone agreeing. I can only imagine that everyone would be wrong.
Posted by: robek at April 28, 2007 09:03 PM
I came to that conclusion by looking at the fundamentals. What are human rights? What defines the condition that they seek to secure? What does it mean to defend human rights?
I've been posting deconstructions meant to define those terms. What is liberty? It is the exercise of freedom. What defines liberty? The ability of a human being to do what he pleases within the space he/she owns and the time he/she has alloted. The power to exercise freedom is exercised power. Economic and political power are two faces of the same reality. Power exercised agreeably is just power. Power that results in disagreeable things is unjust. Human rights are about justice as well as freedom.
What defines the other rights? It is the negotiation of the liberties of the "one" among the many. What makes such negotiation possible? Agreement. We agree to define boundaries, we agree to define rules for trading, sharing, exchanging, and shifting those boundaries. Agreement is what is necessary for every human right other than single person liberty:
Equality isn't literal, it is agreement on the value of human exchange and participation in the 'system.' One wants equal protection of the law, one wants equal treatment given one's partipation, one wants, one wants. "Protection of human rights" is meaningless unless the result is agreeable to the many.
Therefore the threshold for creating laws is a group with the power to enforce them. But the goal for laws and a legal system is justice with legitimacy -- and legitimacy is gained only when laws are agreeable to everyone.
When groups exercise liberties at the expense of other groups. That isn't freedom, that is tyranny and oppression. So liberty is meaningless unless it respects both minority and majorty. The objective of liberty is universal consensus.
The Nazis talked about security freedom -- for one group and one group only -- it was meaningless talk because all it created was war and death. Fascists talk about "freedom" and "liberty" but they mean freedom and liberty for those doing the talking -- not everyone. So they create tyranny. Fascism was never meant to be a coherent ideology -- it is about seizing and taking power and imposing discipline.
Communists deny property, thus they squeeze the individuals and deny their rights to be secure in their persons or to own their own space -- thus they create oppression. They also take away power and give it to the very poltical class that their theory criticizes. Communism is an absurd ideology.
In all these cases people create the opposite of what they are talking about because the terms become abstract objects divorced or cut from the objectives and realities they are meant to transform.
Abstraction is important, but it must be tied intelligently to reality. Ends don't justify evil means because the "means" create results that include side-effects that flow from the act not the intention of the act. Evil means create disagreeable results. Disagreeable results result in people doing disagreeable things.
"Disagreeable" things include war, insurrection, terrorism, and internal fighting. When people are left out of the table they tend to demand attention. It is rather disruptive and disagreeable when they do so -- so democracy should include them up front.
The "ends" of a thing are important, the ends do justify the means. But if the means are selected wrongly they cannot possibly create the ends they purport to produce. That is why 19th century ideologies were absurd and destructive. They failed to understand human needs, and tie abstract principle to human objectives. They produced disagreeable results, and those who were threatened replied.
The ends and the means are intertwined and when ideologues of 19th century ideology tried to achieve their "effects" their effects were so divorced from any realistic kind of desireable reality that they could only create dystopia -- not utopia. And even when their ideas benefited large numbers, they couldn't get enlistment from minorities, who would turn around and fund "counter-reformations," "counter-socialists", "counter-revolutions." When they succeeded they were so unrealistic that they were betrayed from within.
So the point my dear Robin is that fighting for human rights is part of securing a world where people can broadly agree on certain things and where laws and systems are agreeable to the broadest number of people. That is why Democracy is important.
Chris
Posted by: Chris at April 29, 2007 01:04 PM"When groups exercise liberties at the expense of other groups."
That is where our thought patterns diverge.
Posted by: robek at April 29, 2007 04:10 PMOf course your "thoughts" diverge. It takes no thought to accept things without understanding what they mean.
But look at the facts man. The only time we don't have a natural need to define and divide up common property is when we have to deal with other people.
One on one tyranny is easy to deal with, go to a neutral and fair judge, and the judge will either produce an agreement fair to both of you, or will over-rule the tyranny of the one.
But when one is dealing with any party, more than two people, one is dealing with the possibility of the tyranny of groups. People will get together and agree to divide up one's property among them. What is tyranny? The use of "things" is power. Tyranny is the disagreeable exercise of power.
Property is the "things" we "own". "Ownerhsip" is our control over things (real estate property is simply a very large division of a very big thing -- earth). So our "problem" is the tyranny of groups over groups, and thus over individuals. People make agreements and then try to make them binding on third parties. All that is very agreeable to the folks making the agreements and very disagreeable to the folks dispossessed or denied access to things they need to survive.
So what is the solution? Is it to take away property? Heck no. That route just leads to even more tyranny, as the strong always find ways to make the 'taking' intended to even things out, an excuse to make things even more uneven.
No the solution is the notion of the "commons." Some things are only partly ours. They are ours contingent on the agreements made with others. Make this contractual and one can create agreement that is enforceable and fair. Time sharing was an absurd notion until people could buy, sell and trade time-shares freely. Condominiums can be the worst of both ownership and renting, but when the ownership is democratically controlled can be the best of both.
Ownership is a very real principle that enables freedom for people who otherwise would be enslaved by denial, by the establishment of "anti-commons." Ownership means liberty, and ownership of our share of systems like the Democratic System is necessary to producing a fair and just society.
Opposed to that notion is nothing -- just a lot of lies.