Real Life with Ryuei

Is Buddhism and Humanism Compatible?

In recent years, several East Asian Buddhist teachers in Japan and Taiwan and perhaps elsewhere have touted what they call "Buddhist Humanism" but I have expressed some reservations about this. Is Buddhism really compatible with Western Humanism as it has come down to us from Renaissance times? What, in fact, is Humanism in the first place other than the buggaboo of fundamentalist Christians? Somebody finally asked me what I meant when I said I had reservations, and so I realized I would have to actually figure out exactly what I mean. So here is a preliminary attempt:

First of all I googled the following question: "What is Humanism" and got this:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:Humanism

Next I looked over some of the definitions and I would like to comment on a few of them:

Here is a good basic definition I think:

"A Renaissance philosohical and educational movement emphasizing the importance and dignity of the human existence and seeking knowlege and understanding of all matters pertaining to earthly, secular life. Central aspects of Humanism include its interest in the educational philosohies of classical antiquity, the development of human virtues and potentials, and the reform of culture for the betterment of human life and the human condition. Humanism originated in Italy in the 14th century in the work and ideas of figures like Dante Alighieri, Francesco Petrarca (Petrarch), and Giovanni Boccaccio."

So how does Buddhism compare with that? Here are four comments on that definition:

1. While Buddhism does teach the dignity of human existence - to stress the importance of it over and above other states, or to seek "earthly, secular" knoweldge and understanding for its own sake is problematic.

Hinayana Buddhism does teach that the human world of the six worlds is the only one in which buddhahood can be attained. But that is the only standard by which it is "better" than say the heavenly world.

In Mahayana Buddhism, even this advantage is put into question by the attainment of buddhahood by the Dragon King's Daughter - a representative of a non-human being.

In general I would have to agree that the human world or a human rebirth represents a rational mode of life wherein one is not overwhelmed by suffering or lulled into complasence by too easy a life. So it is a good balanced position - but in Buddhism humanity is not valued more than other forms of life - it is not anthropcentric so to speak. And it is the capacity to attain Buddhahood that makes human life meaningful, but from the point of view of the mutual possession of the ten worlds, human life is not necessarily the only state wherein this can be accomplished.

As for "seeking knowlege and understanding of all matters pertaining to earthly, secular life", Buddhism would view this as of value only insfor as it leads to non-clinging, and the liberation of all sentient beings and not for its own sake. The Buddha himself refuted the worldly philosophers of his own time and they were referred to as "uutside the way" or "heterodox" in some translations of the sutras and gosho.

2. Humanism is then associated with "the educational philosohies of classical antiquity" by which Greek and Roman education, literature, and philosophy is meant. Now Buddhism can certainly engage in dialogue with those who are interested in this, and there may be many interesting points of comparison, but Buddhism diverges very significantly from classical European thought. In any case, Buddhism as a whole, is more about engaging the present situation and truly seeing the causes and conditions of our actual life lived now, rather than engaging in a historical, philosophical, artistic, or literary recreation.

3. Humanism is about the "development of human virtues and potentials" and here Buddhism and Humanism do have common ground, though I wonder if "human virtues and potentials" take in the six perfections of the bodhisattva, or the four bodhisattva vows, or the aspiration to attain buddhahood for the sake of all sentient beings. Buddhist virtues tend to have a very broad scope and imply a degree of selfless compassion that goes beyond secular or rational virtues. And again, while Humanism is restricted to the virtues and potentials found solely within the world of humanity, Buddhism has an eye towards all ten worlds and their mutual possession.

4. Humanism also calls for "the reform of culture for the betterment of human life and the human condition" and here again Buddhism and Humanism seem to overlap. But again I think that Buddhism is only interested in bettering human culture and the human condition so as to make it easier to attain awakening, and not because the human state itself should be glorified or clung to. In fact, Buddhism hopes to achieve the betterment of all life and of the condition of all samsaric beings, and not just human life and the human condition - and it does so through liberation from and not glorification of any given state.

Here is another interesting definition:

"Humanism is, more generally, a system of thought that focuses on human beings; their needs, capacities, values, interests, welfare, and worth. More specifically, Humanism was a Renaissance cultural and intellectual movement that emphasized secularism, drawing upon the culture of ancient Greece and Rome."

My comment on this is that Buddhism is not a system of thought that focuses only on human beings. Buddhism looks to the needs, capacities, values, interests, welfare, and worth of all sentient beings. While Buddhism does recognize that killing a human is worse than killing an animal, it's focus does include the welfare of even animals, and other forms of non-human life.

" 'Man is the measure of all things,' proclaimed Protagoras, the Greek philosopher who lived in the fifth century BC. The term humanism has had numerous connotations over the centuries, some positive, some negative. As a movement, in general, the term is usually connected to the Renaissance era (1350-1600), when certain intellectuals began to absorb the literary genius of Greece and Rome, whose writings had been preserved for the most part in Constantinople. Prior to the conquest of Constantinople by the Muslims in 1453, many Byzantine (Greek) scholars fled to Italy and brought with them the ancient texts of Greek philosophy."

"Man (sic) as the measure of all things" is sheer anthropocentrism, whereas Buddhism does not see humanity as even the highest of the six worlds, let alone the ten. Buddhism is, rather, Dharmacentrism if anything. And let us not forget that when the Buddha was asked what he was - a human, or a god, or a spirit - he denied all those terms and simply said that he was an "awakened one" (a Buddha). So for Buddhism, the Dharma as realized and taught by the Buddha is the measure of all things, and while a human being, the Buddha is neverthless awake in a way that most people are not.

"A philosophical movement during the Renaissance that stressed life on Earth, and the quality of being human. Rejected living only for the afterlife of Christianity."

Buddhism would agree that one should not live only for the afterlife, but at the same time the Buddha affirmed that there were heavenly states, and rebirth, and that the causes we make now will not be lost but will become the effects which shape our body, mind, and environment in the future, even in a future rebirth. So Buddhism, unlike Humanism, takes in a greater perspective and context and not just this life. Nichiren actually critiqued Confucianism for not seeing beyond the present life in the beginning of the Kaimoku Sho (Opening of the Eyes) and I think he would view Humanism in the same way.

"The object of much critique, humanism is a description of a position which believes human identity is the result of the individual s human essence, rather than the influence of social or cultural factors. Humanism is thus an idealist, even essentialist, philosophy, rather than realist or materialist."

This is the first I had ever heard of this angle on Humanism. If it is an accurate assesment of the mainstream of Humanist tradition then this is very much at odds with Buddhism, which is a process and not an essentialist view of life. Buddhism critiques the whole idea of "essences" and points out that any phenomena we can point to our think of is a result of changing causes and conditions with no underlying substance or essence, though there is a consistency of causes and effects over time, but even these are not indefinately perpetuated.

"A doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; esp. a philosophy that usu. rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason."

Here is another problem. While some forms of Buddhism (like Zen) do seem to reject supernaturalism, and while all forms of Buddhism do stress the dignity, worth, and capacity for self-realization, it is not true that Buddhism seeks to do it through reason alone. Certainly reason is an important part, and Nichiren points to it as one of the three proofs. Reason or analysis is also important in the provisional approach of Abhidharma psychology and analysis of phenomena. However, even the Abhidharmists knew that only direct realization through meditation and other forms of mental cultivation (apart from the purely rational) would be needed to awaken to the truth. Mahayana as a tradition is especially critical of relying solely on reason and analysis, which is why is sutras emphasize the paradoxical and experiential. It is the overreliance on reason and its perhaps naive overestimation of humanity's reasonableness and inability to recognize the value of self-transcendence that limits Humanism in a way that I believe Buddhism is not limited.

All in all, I think there are some ways in which Buddhism is compatible with certain Humanistic ideas and attitudes, but in the end Buddhism goes far beyond Humanism in the same way that Nichiren pointed out that Buddhism goes beyond Confucianism. Humanism is just too anthropocentric, too essentialist, too one-sidedly rational, and too secular (in the sense of emphasizing worldly values and culture).

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

Posted by Ryuei at September 26, 2005 10:59 AM