Blogisattvas, Bristol, and more...

Last week was another interesting one in my life (for me at least).

HEALTH/STRESS: It began Sunday with wrenching stomach pains and other things a bit on the gross side in Gozo, where I was vacationing. It could have been 'too much sun' from our day out Saturday, or food poisoning as my GP (doctor for y'all in the US) here diagnosed on Thursday. It could also have been just another turn in that Adrenal Fatigue thing I may have. With this I seem to have nearly all of the listed symptoms.

~

PHD UPDATE: Once back in London I had a meeting with my advisors - a brainstorming session that would hopefully set me on track for the summer to work on my own from the states. It was fantastic. I came away wishing I could somehow smuggle Professors Keown and Caygill in my back pocket back to the states (just pop them out once a week for more brainstorming and pep-talks) :) I'll have to post more on the details, but we came away with a further plan/outline for my thesis, something like:

1. Methodology
2. Literature Review
3. Ethics as a Path
   
1. Buddhism (from greed, anger, delusion toward freedom from these)
   
2. Kant (from drives, desires and inclinations toward freedom/autonomy)
   
4. Case studies: perhaps death and dying, perhaps sex with animals (ha! apparently a bit of an issue for both early Buddhists and Kant - should make for juicy discussion)

I can't wait to be rested enough and have the time to really dig in!

~

TRAVELS: Now I'm very happily in Bristol, where I did my Buddhist Studies MA. I'm staying with my good friend SJ, who was a housemate of mine back then. I've had the pleasure to meet up with old coursemate Mary and her boyfriend Alex yesterday and today I've just met up with Ken Robinson, a fascinating retired gentleman who has made a home for himself in the Buddhist Studies department here in Bristol. Tomorrow I'll hopefully see my old advisor, Paul Williams, and meet several of the new students before catching a bus back to London.

~

BLOGISATTVAS: In much more lighthearted good news, I have won a pair of Blogisattva Awards this year. I won a couple in 2006, the inaugural year for them, and was nominated for a few last year. So it was quite a lovely surprise to come up as a winner again this year. I should note that I was on this year's selection committee (but abstained in all cases from voting for myself - of course). The above link will give you the full list of winners - I highly recommend them all! My own awards came in the form of:

• Best New Blog, 2007: Progressive Buddhism, a group blog with contributions by Ordinary Extraordinary [Justin Farquar], WH [William Harrison], Nacho Cordova, Buddhist_philosopher [Justin Whitaker], odin [Paul Jahshan], Tom [Tom Armstrong], and Joe in 2007.
• Best Achievement Blogging on Matters Philosophical or Psychological [blog, blogger]: American Buddhist [the combination of American Buddhist Perspective (1/1-9/23/07) & American Buddhist in England (9/23-12/31/07)]; Justin Whitaker
• Best Opinion or Political Blog Post ["post"; blog; blogger]: "Politics: toward a Buddhist immigration policy"; American Buddhist in England; Justin Whitaker

~

I'm most surprised by the Political Post award, as it is typically a subject I avoid (half jokingly I'd say I don't talk politics unless I have either lots of energy or lots of alcohol in me). But I do keep up on the news and did see something recently that made me smile. It was when Hilary Clinton said during a debate something to the effect of, "whatever happens next, I am proud to be here on stage with Barack Obama." Now, while everyone and his sister seems to have their own (often cynical) spin on this, I found it to be very beautiful, like a moment of genuine humanity in the otherwise very cruel and ego-driven game of politics. Of course soon enough they were back at it, but that is the nature of samsara, isn't it?

I, for one, will do what I can to see Obama in office next January. But first - the countdown on the right is telling me I have 3 days, 3 hours, and 3 minutes before I touch down in DC - a far more important milestone in my little life for the time being.

Reflecting on Aristotle, (1 of 4)

I've just read the chapter on Aristotle in "Ethics in the History of Western Philosophy" and found his thought to be incredibly close to that of Buddhism. A major part of my thesis, it seems, will be in showing some of the key differences and why Kant may provide coverage of those differences. I also found Aristotle to be incredibly close to Kant...

Some notes (those in black are roughly exegesis, in red are my thoughts/interpretations):

First, while in Plato we find a "radical and sound alternative" to Athenian democracy (the same democracy that exhausted itself in a 30 year war with Sparta and executed its greatest thinker, Socrates), in Aristotle we instead find a detached and conservative ethics. Aristotle's work is less a critique of his society and more an attempt to raise up and clarify its highest attributes. Aristotle's three works on ethics: the Eudemian Ethics, Nicomachean Ethics, and the Magna Moralia are all closely related to politics rather than strictly individual ethics.

Happiness, or flourishing (eudemonia) for Aristotle is to be accomplished by building a rich inner life as opposed to the (perhaps later Stoic) ideal of simplifying one's needs and expectations. Aristotle asserts that man is by nature a social/political creature, and that one cannot flourish in isolation.

To distinguish which goods lead to happiness and which do not, Aristotle asks what is the particular nature of humanity, apart from all other creatures. The oft cited analogy is that of asking what is the nature of a knife apart from other kitchen utensils: it cuts. A good (or virtuous, Aristotle uses the same term, areté) knife cuts well. Humanity's special nature, that which sets us apart from other creatures is our employment of reason, our ability to act either rationally or irrationally.

'Ok,' you might think, 'it is our best nature to act rationally, so we ought to do that, right?' Well, strictly speaking, no. This is a case of the philosophical problem known by the fancy term: the naturalistic fallacy, aka. the is/ought problem. The problem is the reasoning that just because something is that it therefore should be that way. A simple example to illustrate this is to say, 'ethnic cleansing and perhaps soon genocide are again happening in Africa. We can say this 'is' a fact but certainly we would not say it 'ought to be' that way.' Some things that are, are wrong.

Aristotle gets around this by positing the virtues as the principles by which to judge whether something is good or bad. Reason is on the is side (of the is/ought divide). So reason itself cannot be employed to determine the rightness or wrongness of an action: you could have a very reasonable war criminal and a fairly irrational (but otherwise harmless) store clerk. What is needed as an logically external standard, and that is the virtues. They are external because they flow not from human nature per se, but from the practical nature of society and thus may vary from one society to the next.

~

In the next post I hope to finish the exegesis on Aristotle, covering his discussion on the relationship between moral and intellectual virtues as well as his determination of what makes an act right.

Third, I will point out some of the continuity and difference in Kant's though. And finally I hope to finish with a comparison of some of these ideas in Aristotle to Buddhist ethics.

Politics: toward a Buddhist immigration policy

What would a Buddhist immigration policy look like for the US (or UK)? Obviously such notions as generosity (dana) and nonviolence (ahimsa) should come to mind. Or perhaps Shantideva's simile of the hand and the foot: urging us to reach out and help others as we are all interconnected. People may also like to stretch analogies regarding the Buddha as one who broke down barriers such as caste and gender, teaching openly to all and proclaiming the same spiritual potential in all beings.

It seems that little will be found in the early Buddhist sources to condone exclusionary practices of any kind. If anything, it may be the strategy of the anti-immigration Buddhist to say that the Buddha was a bit naive in regards to these issues, and that immigration represents a special case in which it really would be better for everyone (thus an act of compassion) if big walls and even bigger prisons were erected in wait for those 'huddled masses'.

Recently, Kelly sent me a thought-provoking article by Amy Chua, a Yale Law professor, discussing the topic. It contains five recommendations (you'll have to read the article for details):

1 Overhaul admission priorities.
2 Make English the official national language.
3 Immigrants must embrace the nation's civic virtues.
4 Enforce the law.
5 Make the United States an equal-opportunity immigration magnet.

These are interesting suggestions and deserve some thought:

1. Focusing more on skilled workers and reducing family connections sounds good, but I wonder if this wouldn't actually dissuade many skilled workers from coming here in the first place. Americans are famous for geographic mobility: families don't stick together in the US. This is not the case most places. A brilliant computer scientist in India may choose to languish there in a sub-par job rather than travel half-way around the world with little or no chance of bringing his (extended) family with him.
   
   I agree with Chua that more attention to job-skills should be made, but I think it goes too far to say 'the immigration system should reward ability and be keyed to the country's labor needs -- skilled or unskilled, technological or agricultural.' Focusing too much on these people as 'skilled or unskilled' etc. risks losing sight of their humanity.
   
   
2. Adopting an official language seems absurd to me. English is already de facto our country's language, but ever since its inception our nation has been a host to countless other non-native languages (and of course a whole host of Native American ones!). The Buddha, in sending out his students to teach others, told them to teach in the language common to each area. This is in direct opposition to the Brahmans, who taught and preserved their scriptures only in Sanskrit. Thus a Buddhist policy would:
1. Inspire, not legislate, others to learn English. This once-great language seems to be producing more trashy pop-music than classical literature today. Learning English as a second language is hard; I'd rather we focus on incentives (carrots) than punishments (the stick).
2. Learn more languages ourselves! Sure, English will stand as the most common language, but as the ACLU argues, it doesn't make sense to limit the use of other languages. I think the great French Philosopher Merleau-Ponty was right in suggesting that the language must be correct to express the life of the speaker. Languages change with history, some simply die out as speakers adopt a more dominant or useful language. I say: bring on the Spanish, bring on the Chinese (Mandarin)! Let them shape a stronger English, or replace it.
   
   
3. Chua states that 'It's up to each immigrant community to fight off an enclave mentality and give back to their new country.' I fully agree. But I think the job isn't just for them. Americans need to make a habit of reaching out to people outside the mainstream. We, too, should go into the enclave as much as they should come out! Not to mention the Americans who are rapidly building enclaves of their own (gated communities) to keep new immigrants out.
   
   
4. It's hard to argue against enforcing the law. My only thought is that we should be looking also at what compels many people to risk their lives and freedom crossing into the US illegally. Could it be that our own economic policies perpetuate injustice and poverty in their countries? Could our political and military actions be undercutting democratic movements and propping up unpopular dictators? Jeez, I don't know. But if any of that does happen to be the case, we should work hard to reverse it, ensuring better lives to people in those countries. If their lives are better in their home country, then I'm sure they'll be more patient with the legalities of proper immigration.
   
   
5. Finally, Chua suggests equal-opportunity immigration, stating that 'The starkly disproportionate ratio of Latinos -- reflecting geographical fortuity and a large measure of law-breaking -- is inconsistent with this principle.' I'm all for equal opportunity, but I think 'geographical fortuity' should be given more credit. Practically speaking, I think it just makes more sense that we have disproportionate numbers of Latinos. All things considered, if I were, say, an English-speaking political exile from Burma in search of new opportunity, I'd probably want to go to India or Australia. There would have to be some special reason for me to want to go all the way to America. Likewise a Romanian student would feel more geographically compelled to study in England over the US. Just as in point one where I'd say that 'family matters,' here also I would say that 'geography matters.'
   
   That is not to say that we shouldn't reach out to our brothers and sisters in Burma and elsewhere. But perhaps we can stretch Shantideva's simile a bit and say that there are many thorns in the body, and unless one in the foot is particularly bad, it just makes more sense to pull out those that are nearest. In practical terms if we can reduce more suffering in Honduras than Burma simply because it is nearer, we should.
   

As with most things in politics, the immigration debate sparks many emotions and far more complex than a few paragraphs can give justice to. One of my favorite statements on the topic came from a cartoon on a professor's door near mine back at UM. It featured a couple Native Americans overlooking the building of a colonists' fort. One says to the other, "they ignore our customs and refuse to learn the language. I say we kick 'em out."

Right...

To me one of the greatest American values has been the value of opportunity for everyone here. The opportunity to make something of their lives, to create new community, and to pass that forward to the next generation. Perhaps, contra Buddhism, that value has been translated into commercialism and greed. But it could also be translated into deeper opportunities for service, for realizing our interconnectedness, for overcoming ignorance.

It is a fact that some amount of material sustenance is necessary for spiritual development. It is also taught by the Buddha that too many material possessions will hamper that development. Americans today suffer not from too little material wealth (and hence real fear of immigrants taking it away), but instead from too much. It is much of the rest of the world that has too little. It seems obvious that the Buddhist immigration policy would look to eliminate this imbalance.

*with small alterations 25-2-2008

Is America an open society?

This question stems from conversations with my fiancée as well as friends here in London and could also be phrased:

Is the US or the UK a more open society?

(with regards to ideology and/or immigration)

- feel free to toss other countries into the equasion.

Post your thoughts in the comment area if you would (please).

Some random thoughts/questions on this:

• Cassius Clay became Mohammad Ali (in what some call more of a political move than a religious one) in 1964 after joining the Nation of Islam - what would Americans think if someone of his fame did this today ?
• The great physicist David Bohm was forced out of Princeton when it surfaced that he was a sympathiser of Communism (he later got a job in Bristol, England)
• London, Madrid, and the US have all been targeted by Islamic Terrorists in the last 1o years - why? But let us not foget those in India recently as well. Are there more cases of calculated domestic Islamic terrorism?
• Is America "a nation of immigrants" as JFK proclaimed in 1958 or a "Christian Nation" as John McCain and the Republican Party of Texas (amongst others) seem to believe. Can these two notions coexist? (my own sense is that 'Christian' is exclusionary - while 'immigrant' is inclusive - even Native Americans immigrated at one point).

Buddhism, propaganda, anti-propaganda propaganda and so on

It seems like I've been discussing propaganda and the media a lot lately. A lot of it started when I watched Dove's new ad, Onslaught (posted on my friend Patia's blog). The ad made me feel sick to my stomach by first showing an innocent little red-haired girl (of course a spitting image of my future daughter) and then a flurry of advertising images aimed at women. It just gets worse after that with dieting images and then (worse!) plastic surgery... The commercial ends with our little girl and the words:

Talk to your daughter before
the beauty industry does.

"Wow.... Bravo," I thought, "way to go Dove for spending your hard-earned advertising budget on something positive." Now I'm not naïve. I know that this kind of advertising might just make it more likely that I will choose to by Dove next time I'm at the store (fact check: yep, I am a long-time Dove purchaser, but I think more because it's cheaper than other name-brands). But I figure that if their ads are actually a force for good, I'd much rather support them anyhow.

~

Then I read a post on The Situationist called, "Hey Dove! Talk to YOUR Parent." Apparently Dove is a subsidiary of a larger company, Unilever, which also makes Lynx body spray. And it just so happens that Lynx advertising is about as awful as it gets (you can see the ads in the Situationist post - picture hundreds of girls in tiny bikinis running at a guy with the words:

Spray more
Get more

displayed on the screen.

So... In effect Unilever is warning us against the evils of the beauty industry with its right hand and exploiting women and sexuality as a whole with its left. Pretty sinister, huh? Exploit sexuality, make money. Exploit the fact that a lot of us are fed up with the exploitation of sexuality, make more money. Next we'll see another Unilever company warning us against commercials altogether (at last!). And making more money (booo!).

I also discussed this a bit with, Lenart, one of my new flatmates. I said, "can't we just create commercials that teach us to see through all this corporate crap, to see that we're being brainwashed with images of beauty, masculinity, prosperity, and so on." He told me they tried that with young people [in Slovenia I think, where he's from]. But one problem: they underestimate the power of these industries. Even when people know that they're being brainwashed by it all, they are still affected.

~~~

So, on the one hand I'm being told that I'm too fat, too old, too poor (and all this would be solved if I just purchased X or Y-services) and that my fiancée is also somehow failing in every way that she isn't a wafer-thin twenty-two year-old rich model (really, they tell me this, I'm not making it up). That's one thing. I think I can even handle all of that. I love myself and my fiancée and I've read enough philosophy to know that youth, beauty, and/or wealth do not bring happiness.

But then this:



It's not that I'm opposed to the armed forces per se, but the glamorization of them really disturbs me.

Even more bizzare was this (from my new abode of England):



It mixes battle scenes, running with an injured person, and running across a tropical beach with (you guessed it) skinny, bikini-clad women. To give it credit though, at least it focuses more on what looks like the humanitarian aspects of the armed forces while the US ad just kind of pounds in the notion of Strength (which in itself isn't a bad thing).

~

Now for the 'anti-propaganda' propaganda. I couldn't find the original that this spoofs - I'd love a nice side-by-side comparison - but I'm sure you know the gist of it.



And, oddly equally stomach-wrenching (shouldn't it be more) as the Dove ad:



And this poignant rap:



The question: who to trust in the midst of all this? Nobody?

Yep. Nobody. As I meditate on one of the central themes in Buddhism, ignorance (Skt. avidya, Pali avijja), I see that both sides are filled with misconstruals of the truth (i.e. lies). And I, as a third ignorant party, have my own dilusions about the matters.

Considering the Dove ads, the biggest mistake would be to think that we see here 'both sides' of the industry or the beauty debate. Far from it. We're getting two corporate angles, two methods of selling stuff. As my friend Lenart pointed out to me, "at the end of the day, you're still getting the same message, that you have to buy things, or there is something wrong with you."

With the military/anti-military ads it is slightly different in that you're getting two radically different messages. But both distort the facts, both play with our emotions with graphics (and the music in that first one, sheesh). But in the end we could say they're both selling something, an ideology. And the ideology of militarism is one that will get more than a few bucks out of your pocket - it can get chunks of your life, perhaps all of it. And anti-militarism seeks no less (though I doubt they can recruit many, like Cindy Sheehan, that will put their life on hold for the cause).

So where does the Buddhist stand in the midst of all of this? A bit bewildered? Yes, quite likely. I don't recall if it was Lenart of me that suggested that we need a Buddhist advertising company - producing comercials that just tell us to be happy with who we are, to love those around us, to find contentment in a simple life, practice generosity, and so on.

Ahhh... but wait. (I think I blogged about just one such music video not to long ago)... Perhaps it's not quite perfect, but it's a start:

Based on the teachings of Mipham Rinpoche ("Mipham the Great", 1846-1912). It takes a minute to get into, but watch it (at least listen) to the very end - it's worth it.

may you be happy

may you be happy

may you be happy.

I'm sure this won't end our worries about beauty and war today, tomorrow, or in the near future. But it does seem to be the Buddhist answer. To quote from Bikkhu Bodhi on the power and importance of simply following the precept to abstain from harm:

The Buddha says that one who abstains from the destruction of life gives immeasurable safety and security to countless living beings. How the simple observance of a single precept leads to such a result is not immediately obvious but calls for some thought. Now by myself I can never give immeasurable safety and security to other beings by any program of positive action. Even if I were to go on protest against all the slaughterhouses in the world, or to march against war continuously without stopping, by such action I could never stop the slaughter of animals or ensure that war would come to an end. But when I adopt for myself the precept to abstain from the destruction of life, then by reason of the precept I do not intentionally destroy the life of any living being. Thus any other being can feel safe and secure in my presence; all beings are ensured that they will never meet harm from me. Of course even then I can never ensure that other living beings will be absolutely immune from harm and suffering, but this is beyond anyone's power. All that lies within my power and the sphere of my responsibility are the attitudes and actions that emanate from myself towards others. And as long as these are circumscribed by the training rule to abstain from taking life, no living being need feel threatened in my presence, or fear that harm and suffering will come from me.

Dalai Lama is awarded the U.S. Congressional Gold Medal

"May I become at all times, both now and forever
A protector for those without protection
A guide for those who have lost their way
A ship for those with oceans to cross
A bridge for those with rivers to cross
A sanctuary for those in danger
A lamp for those without light
A place of refuge for those who lack shelter
And a servant to all in need."

Buddhism and War

As the issue of Burma seems to slip away, many are still asking, 'what can I do?' From across the Buddhist world there are many suggestions, ranging from surgical strikes (Tom from Zen Unbound) to continued pacifism and khanti or patient endurance (Gary from Forest Wisdom, commenting on my last post here).

Tom also recently brought to my attention a couple articles attempting to address the issue of War in early Buddhist thought. The first, by Professor P. D. Premasiri (University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka) argues that Buddhism has no place for a so-called 'just' war:

...the Theravada canonical scriptures considered to be the primary source of the Buddhist system of moral values ... contain absolutely no instance in which violence is advocated as a means of achieving it [peace]. This is in clear contrast to Hindu scriptures like the Bhagavadgita that contain a concept of a righteous war [dharma yuddha].

Furthermore:

The doctrine of the Buddha is such that one who lives in accordance with it succeeds in living in the world without coming into conflict with anyone [na kenaci loke viggayha titthati].

And thus,

Conflict is explained ... as a consequence of an unenlightened response to one's sensory environment.... The selfish pursuit of sense pleasures [kama] is considered as the root cause of conflict. Where there is sympathetic concern, compassion, sharing, charitableness and generosity conflict can be minimized. The latter attitudes, however, are not instinctive. They need to be cultivated through proper reflection and insightful understanding.

And perhaps most importantly:

The point made by the Buddha in this connection is that people are psychologically incapable of forming opinions about what is right and wrong, just and unjust, righteous and unrighteous while being immersed in their defiled psychological condition. They may express strong convictions about what is just and right, but when objectively examined they turn out to be mere rationalizations of their pre-conceived notions, desires, cravings, likes and dislikes.

~

On the other hand Damien Keown (Goldsmiths, University of London) who in his article argues that Dr. Premasiri and early Buddhism both fall into 'psychological reductionism' when dealing with war and other moral issues. This is unfortunate, he argues, because it fails (perhaps) to evaluate the situation on the proper level:

Does not politics usually enter into the picture, not to mention, law, religion, history, as explanations as to why wars occur? To reduce all this to psychology is surely an oversimplification.

He argues that if we speak of the 'use of force' instead of 'violence' then suddenly Buddhism is more ambivalent.

...for example: to restrain an emotionally disturbed person who seeks to harm himself; to subdue rowdy passengers who threaten the safety of an aeroplane; to control violent thugs who terrorise innocent citizens... And if the use of force is justifiable in these circumstances, then why not on the larger scale of a military campaign?

And that, while not explicitly accepted, there are indications of a 'just war' theory in early Buddhism.

But it seems to me that Buddhism does indeed make a distinction between just and unjust wars. For instance, the just war in Buddhism is the war that would be fought by the Cakkavatti. Although as far as I am aware he is never actually depicted as waging war in the texts, he certainly has an army and presumably is prepared to use it when necessary (if not, why is it there?).

...The recent UN intervention in Bosnia may provide an example of the kind of situation where military force may be necessary as a last resort for humanitarian reasons. Situations of this kind seem to demonstrate that the use of force need not always be tainted by greed, hatred and delusion.

Thus he concludes:

i) to analyze war primarily in terms of psychology is to overlook its essential moral dimension; this is the result of the standard Buddhist strategy of psychologizing ethics; ii) the use of force can be justified in certain circumstances; iii) Buddhism accepts the concept of a 'just war' iv) there is nothing intrinsically immoral about a just war and v) participating in one need not be motivated by greed, hatred or delusion.

~

It does not seem to me that these papers are truly in conflict with one another, but rather they address the same issue from differing perspectives within Buddhism. Dr. Premasiri's point is that within Buddhism, the most important work we can do each day, each moment, is the work of removing our own defilements. Until then we are likely to cause more harm than good with all of our wars.

But, Dr. Keown's point is equally valid, that Buddhism does allow for force to be used to stop or avert suffering. The common ground between the two is in the waging of purely defensive wars. Premasiri suggests this, stating that "Buddhism does not envisage a society in which the necessity for engaging in war never arises. Perhaps the implication is that even a righteous Cakkavatti who will not engage in wars of imperialist aggression, would need to fight in self-defence."

Of course that still leaves the strict definition of defensive open to debate, but it would certainly rule out speculative 'pre-emptive' wars such as that currently going on in Iraq. It would also rule out ideology-based wars such as that in Vietnam forty years ago. And yet it would seemingly allow for the Allied involvement in the two World Wars as well as the NATO action in Bosnia mentioned above. That is, these wars were waged in defence of a pre-existing peace.

WWII

It gets murky of course, as the real world rarely conforms to simple principles and this is perhaps why Buddhism, for the most part, says little about 'the real world' and focuses on basic rules of conduct and meditative discipline. The American involvement in the second World War, for instance, does not very easily constitute a purely defensive war. Certainly, it could be argued that our Buddhist principles demand minimal response: perhaps crippling the Japanese Navy, strikes on any German U-Boats encroaching on US vessels, and nothing more. And yet we (most of us) feel that the employment of the entire US forces was indeed just.

IRAQ

On the other hand, most of us feel that the current war in Iraq is unjust. It is unclear who exactly we might be or have been defending: threats to the US and Britain were grossly exaggerated and even Israel it seems could hardly have been harmed by the weak and demoralized Iraqi army. On the other hand it is quite clear who has suffered from the war. It is perhaps debatable whether ordinary Iraqis are better off now than they would be if there had been no war. My impression is that they are worse off. Yet there can be no doubt that 3829 US soldiers have suffered the ultimate price and over 25,000 more have been wounded. That is not even to mention the emotional scars that thousands more will carry with them forever. One must remember that while over 58,000 US soldiers died in the Vietnam War, over 70,000 later took their own lives. (a recent story on US army suicides)

It seems also that, as mentioned, the principles of Buddhism could not allow for a war such as that in Iraq. Based on Keown's discussion of 'just war' theory in Aquinas, it seems that in that tradition as well, this war is unjust: "war must be declared by a competent authority, it must be declared as a last resort only after all non-violent options have been explored, it can only be fought to address a wrong suffered (the classic example is self-defence against an armed attack), if there is a reasonable chance of success, and with the aim of re-establishing peace."

Perhaps it is as one of my good friends says, that only time can judge (in fact the Dalai Lama himself has said this back in 2005, clarifying in 2006 that history had indeed made clear, " - too many killings"). On the other hand it may be clear enough that, as Rev. Danny Fisher put it:

At some point, everyone connected to this war needs to own their accountability and respond. They have to refuse service, refuse to pay taxes, refuse to sign over funds, demonstrate, and so on. A Buddhism that would excuse us from looking at the realities and the complexities of war is unacceptable.

I agree wholeheartedly with the first and last sentences, but Buddhism demands we each come to our own conclusions about specific actions (though Danny's suggestions are noble). And this lack of decisive and authoritarian ethics is perhaps both the greatest strength and the greatest weakness in Buddhism. The judgments of each of us must take into account our own mental states; we must know ourselves before trying to solve world-political issues. But Buddhism does not advocate self-knowledge for its own sake, but rather as a stage of development necessary for the sake of compassionate activity toward all living beings. We must understand were we are, and be willing to go boldly from there:

For as long as space endures
And for as long as living beings remain,
Until then may I too abide
To dispel the misery of the world.

For as long as space endures
And for as long as living beings remain,
Until then may I too abide
To dispel the misery of the world.

Burma: Tibetans are Watching

In an interesting bit of analysis on DNA India today, Venkatesan Vembu discusses the possibility of a Burma-like uprising in Tibet in the near future.

"... if there were protests in Lhasa today, hypothesises Dondup [a pseudonymous source within Tibet], Beijing would probably be constrained by the international focus on it in the context of the Olympics next year. “Would the Chinese government hesitate in cracking down?… Would this hesitation be enough to allow a few small protests to spiral into a challenge to Chinese rule?”
[full article here on Phayul]

Protesters wave Tibetan flags at the Oct. 6 Free Burma rally in London

Similarities between Burma and Tibet are at times striking, especially regarding the hand that Beijing plays in both. But the differences may be more important. Note that the power in Tibet is essentially foreign. To this day native Tibetans are in most all cases barred from public service positions, including political and military roles, in their own country. The Burmese military, on the other hand is home-grown. And in fact, as one commentator noted, both military and monastic life draw from similar social groups meaning that soldiers and monks in Burma may well be brothers.

The Chinese power in Tibet is maintained by an iron fist, crushing uprisings first in 1959 and again in 1988. Since then many smaller protests have occurred, mostly met with apathy by the international press.

In 2004, more than 3,797 people were executed in 25 countries and at least 7,395 were sentenced to death according to Amnesty International. Out of 3,797 executions 3,400 were carried out in China, but sources inside the country have estimated the number to be nearly 10,000. (Amnesty International, Death sentences and executions in 2004, published in April 2005) - Friends of Tibet

The Burmese junta, on the other hand, has maintained power through the rhetoric of necessity. They advertise, and may well believe, that without such military rule, the country will dissolve into mass fighting amongst its various ethnic groups. So the 'price of democracy', many Burmese may think, is national insecurity (why do thoughts of G.W. Bush keep coming to mind?). In Burma, as in other countries to go unnamed, it seems that democracy has been abandoned in return for a belief in security.

Tibetans have little besides their lives to lose in opposing Chinese rule, and as you can see many do pay 'the ultimate price' to live by their conscience and countless others have disappeared to concentration and imposed labor camps throughout Tibet and China. The Burmese, however, pay the ideological price of a sense of security (and perhaps even ethnic/national pride) by opposing their authoritarian government. In both cases the international community has said little and done less, and who can blame them, China has become 'the elephant in the room' of international politics and economics.

But with things dying down in Burma (monks have again accepted donations from the military - re-establishing its authority) it seems that our eyes may need to return to Tibet where massive international focus will grow as next summer's Olympics near. However, it is still possible that the struggle in Burma will continue, as news of international political attention makes its way back into the country.

There is a presentation being held here at Goldsmiths today at 5pm (in two hours) so I'll post more after that.

Buddhist Ethics: Burma

A couple weeks back my (lovely and brilliant) fiancée, Kelly, asked me what I thought of the then recent demonstrations in Burma that were broken up by security forces (Sept. 5, demonstration in Pakokku). I sighed, thinking of the long, unjust, and widely ignored house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi. Burma is a nation ruled by its military essentially since its inception just after WWII. What power do a few, or even a great many, monks have there?

My response was that it would probably pass. The government would give some grounds on the monks demands, or it would escalate to a point of violence and then the monks would back down. It seems now that my prediction then, the latter one unfortunately, has come to pass. The escalation culminated in massive protests including tens of thousands of monks and perhaps 100,000 lay supporters being met with automatic gun fire and tear gas. The result, according to the French news agency AFP, quoting Shari Villarosa, is that "a semblance of normalcy has returned, but those of us who live here see the mood has changed..."

However it is unclear what will happen next. What is the proper Buddhist response?

I asked my advisor, Damien Keown, about it in passing and he too sighed. This was just after we had discussed the lacuna that exists in Buddhist politics and ethics in general, not to mention for specific situations such as this. Buddhism has generally been a religion that stays out of politics. That's not to say that Buddhists always stay out of politics, only that in terms of the body of Buddhist thought, little exists that deals with politics. Think of Tibet: even there the Dalai Lamas (and earlier Buddhist rulers) controlled their nation more with traditional Tibetan methods than with any enlightened and expounded Buddhist political philosophy.

Ashoka was perhaps the Buddhist King par excellence, but no treatise on his methodology was ever written, no rigorous handbook on the principles of proper rule ever composed. Only perhaps in the last thirty years, most notably with Vietnamese monk and activist Thich Nhat Hanh, has Buddhism found a voice for political action. Perhaps contrary to professor Keown's and my pessimism is Hannah Beech's comment that, "After all, it was Burma's monks who spearheaded acts of civil disobedience against British colonialists. Time (9/17). Yet the article immediately follows with, "Buddhist clergy were also at the forefront of mass protests in 1988, which ended when the army gunned down hundreds of peaceful protestors and declared martial law."

From a practical standpoint there are many questions: how strong is the military junta today? How unified are the Buddhist monks? How devout/willing to follow are the citizens? The same goes for the soldiers - will they attack monks? What is to make us think that now, after nearly two decades of military rule, something will change?

From a more theoretical standpoint I also wonder: does Buddhism demand social justice, or simply seek it? Can Buddhists in Burma rise up like the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers and demand justice? Does Burma as a nation have a strong enough history of social justice (as the US did in the 1960s) for such a movement to succeed?

In closing, I also am a member of the Progressive Buddhism blog and will post this over there as well, slightly modified.