In Defense of Buddhism

This is partially an answer to Bonald. I do appreciate how from a Western, especially Christian angle Buddhism sounds dangerously similar to the kind of Enlightenment, liberal-modernist ideas that led to the decadence of the modern age. Yet I think the similarity is superficial and one should not simply judge by analogy. The basic problem is that the whole historical setup is so incredibly different in the West and Asia that you almost cannot really compare and relate ideas so directly.

The important thing is that in Asia religion, philosophy and politics has never been so intertwined as in the West.

Politics in Asia, like in Europe before the Reformation, was just about playing the Game of Thrones. Various powerful guys contended for more power.  But it was not supposed to have any effect on the structure or rules of society. Things like the caste system weren’t a political question the same way in Europe, 1250 or 1477 politics wasn’t about whether the privileges of nobility are okay, but whether you support the Guelph or Ghibelline factions, or where you stand in the French version of Game of Thrones. None of the factions were liberal or conservative or anything remotely like that. They were just after power. And Asia rolled like that, too. The whole idea of politics as a way of restructuring society or changing the basic rules to live by is just as un-Asian as it is un-European in the older sense. Reform simply wasn’t an conceivable term.

And Buddhists shouldn’t be seen as political or religious reformers. They should be seen as a monastic sect, or a special group of philosophers who also try to live their philosophy, like the Stoics, as a fairly small  and elite group living apart  from society and NOT trying to affect society as such.

You see, Buddhism had almost the opposite of let’s-convert-everybody drive of Christianity. When the Buddha reached the Awakened state, his first decision was that he is not going to teach it at all because nobody is going to understand it anyway. And it took some begging to change his mind. So he decided to teach a few, not all, to teach those who have “only a little dust in their eyes”.

Compare that attitude to that of every proselytizing religion, or every political philosopher. They try to change everybody’s life. Therefore, they are responsible for coming up with ideas that work for everybody.

If a man, with much reluctance, decides to teach only a few, is he responsible if his ideas would not work out for the multitudes?

At least that was the original idea. By the time Emperor Ashoka turned Buddhist, things changed. Buddhism had a weird way of developing into “one of the five world religions” even though it was never the goal, as the original goal was to have an elite “Jedi Academy” only, for the guys with only a little dust in their eyes. How exactly that happened is long and complicated, suffice to say that Ashoka was a conqueror type and when he converted to Buddhism he started to perform “conquests by the Dharma”. In Tibet a king found Buddhism handy. Long story short, it was more about rulers using Buddhism than Buddhism trying to influence rulers.

Nevertheless, two things should be understood here. Politics and religion are largely things that are supposed to affect everybody. When you try to reform these, you try to change everybody’s life. But when you have a small group of Stoics or Buddhists or similar elite philosophers go living in a separate commune, they are not trying to do that, not at all. They see themselves as an elite, but not in the sense of leaders, but as people apart from the rest and not having much to do with each other. The idea that a spiritual elite should play the role of religious or political leaders is Gnostic and very un-Buddhist in the origin, because it is a democratic idea (see below).

The important point is that when a small group of elite community comes up with ideas like on the ultimate level there is no good or evil, no duality, only Oneness,  they aren’t trying to tell kings to stop hanging murderers. That jump from a philosophy developed for an elite monastic group to a rule that affects the common folk is huge and pretty insane.

Probably the difference lies in democracy. Even a tiny amount of democratic spirit – the very notion that politics isn’t just the kings business but some philosophers could have a say as well – hopelessly ties politics, religion and philosophy into one murky ball. And unfortunately that has always been the way of the West, to some extent. Remember Plato in Syracuse. Remember how even for Socrates, you don’t really see a clear separation between philosophy (a way of living) and politics, because, well, Athenian Democracy. Aristotle was a good guy, “our guy”, but it is still weird why a philosopher had to worry about politics at all. Probably the answer is that because they had democracy and similar shared-authority models, oligarchy, aristocracy.  Also it wasn’t, unfortunately, obvious to them anymore that every polis has a king and politics is his job, period. Even “our guys” are products of the democratic spirit. Cicero had to deal with politics, because they had a republic. Under a king or emperor, he could have felt no need to.

My point is that, unfortunately, the WHOLE history of Europe seems to be defined by a certain amount of democratic spirit. That the really defining moments of European history were NOT simply about that kind of ancient, easy, natural setup that every community has a king, politics is his job, and by the way, politics is not much more about defending his throne and warring with other kings, so basically just the Game of Thrones. In such a normal setup, there is basically no politics beyond that game, so everything else tends to run on inherited customs, which evolve towards natural law anyway (or towards defeat and extinction, Gnon is harsh) and thus in the modern sense there is no politics at all. But unfortunately Europe’s defining moments never had this kind of simple kingship and always had politics, from Socrates to Cicero, from Luther to Cromwell, to the modern world, because this democratic spirit made a lot of folks feel entitled to try to have a say and affect politics, including philosophers.

Asia stuck closer to the natural kingship. So there is this bunch of elite philosophers sitting in a secluded monastic community saying there is no duality, no good and evil, only Oneness. And the king still finds murderers are evil and executes them. And the guys in saffron robes don’t oppose it. They don’t have any relationship to each other. They are not trying to tell the king how to do his job anymore than they are not trying to tell shoemaker how to do his job. And of course not believing in good and evil does not mean they are going to go out and murder someone. They are an elite bunch, not idiots, they are able to use such ideas only in their proper places, not beyond.

Of course, in a society where a philosopher can conceivably have an affect on politics, it is extremely dangerous if he believes in things like there is no objective good and evil. That’s a social nuke. But the problem is with having a say itself.

The proper way to see Buddhists is as Franciscan monks or perhaps an extreme modern subculture like goths. They are trying to do their own thing, they are not trying to change everybody’s life and thus it is not their responsibility to not come up with ideas that could be politically super-destructive.

In the past I used to be interested in finding out if even such a thing as a Buddhist political philosophy exists. I could not find much. Occasionally the Buddha dined with kings and said largely the same things as he would to shoemakers. Um, try to be a nice, generous guy. And meditate, it’s good for you. He was not trying to tell them how to make shoes or run government.

Finally I managed to find with something that is at least remotely similar to social and political views, but they are very minor. Occasionally the Buddha was actually trying to give advice to rich householders how to run their household and business.

And what you get is basically a standard normal common-sense conservative ethos. I recommend the Sigalovada Sutta here, it even has something like a handy infographics. Or maybe we can just read the sutra, it is not that long, I especially like these parts:

“In five ways should a wife (…) be respected by a husband: by honoring, not disrespecting, being faithful, sharing authority, and by giving gifts. And, the wife so respected reciprocates with compassion in five ways: by being well-organized, being kindly disposed to the in-laws and household workers, being faithful, looking after the household goods, and being skillful and diligent in all duties.”

“In five ways should workers and servants as the lower direction be respected by an employer: by allocating work according to aptitude, providing wages and food, looking after the sick, sharing special treats, and giving reasonable time off work. And, workers and servants so respected reciprocate with compassion in five ways: being willing to start early and finish late when necessary, taking only what is given, doing work well, and promoting a good reputation.”

Again. This is not a Buddhist political philosophy. There is no such thing. But it is the closest the Buddha got to saying something not about his secluded, elite monastic community, but about normal everyday people.

Do the citations strike you as something fundamentally sane? Then try to not judge Buddhism by the “mystical” stuff. That was meant for a secluded monastic community of elite philosophers conducting experiments in living apart from society and did not try to affect the life of normal people, i.e. politics.

(Reminds me of a certain Saint Francis of Assissi, by the way… just because he is a saint, a Christian householder is still not going to try to live the way he did, nor use his teachings as the basis of his political philosophy. Could his ideas form the basis of a destructive political philosophy? Perhaps. His attitude to business wasn’t exactly capitalistic. But people are sane enough to not consider him a political philosopher.)