buddhism critique praxis

7/17/2019 Buddhism Critique Praxis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/buddhism-critique-praxis 1/9

BUDDHISM, RADICAL CRITIQUE AND REVOLUTIONARY PRAXIS

John Clark

[Presented at a panel on “Buddhism, Radical Critique and Revolutionary Praxis” at the Let

!orum, John Jay Colle"e o Criminal Justice, #e$ %ork City, &ay '(, )*(+

-hat does it mean to entitle our presentation “Buddhism, Radical Critique and RevolutionaryPraxis”. /ne possi0le ans$er is that it implies that $e $ant kno$ ho$ Buddhism mi"ht help

those o us $ho are present today en"a"e in the processes o radical critique and revolutionary

transormation1 2 this is our "oal, $e need to pose at least three other questions3 !irst, $hat does

“Buddhism” or perhaps more pertinently, “Buddha,” mean. 4econd, $hat does “radical critique”mean.” 5nd inally, $hat does “revolution” mean. / course, there6s also the question o $hat

“mean” means1 2n the present context, it means that $e need to consider the senses in $hich all

three o these terms, taken to"ether, can 0e practically si"niicant to us, here and no$1

BUDDHA

7he term “Buddha” reers, traditionally, to one o the “7hree Je$els” that are considered the core

o Buddhist theory and practice1 7hese are “Buddha,” “8harma,” and “4an"ha”9the a$akened

mind, the teachin"s :truth, nature; and the compassionate community1

2 “Buddha” reers to the “a$akened mind,” $e must ask, o0viously, $hat it is to $hich it

0ecomes a$akened1 7he paradi"matic narrative o the lie o 4hakyamuni Buddha tells us that

a$akenin" 0e"ins $ith a traumatic reco"nition o the Real1 7his is the messa"e o the story o“7he !our 4i"ns1” 5ccordin" to the le"end, the youn" Prince <autama lived $ithin a Palace o

8elusion, a $orld o ideolo"ical antasy in $hich the =in", his !ather :7he Patriarch, the Bi"/ther; shielded him rom all kno$led"e o the evils o human existence, and $as thus his protection rom the Real1 7his myth depicts our ordinary civili>ed state o delusion, in $hich the

Real does not re"ister1 5s lon" as $e live in the ideolo"ical $orld o everydayness, $e live a lie

o denial and disavo$al1

2n the story, <autama inally looks 0eyond the conines o the Palace o 8elusion and encounters

a sick person, an old person, a dead person, and an ascetic1 7his means that he takes the risk o

encounterin" the traumatic orce o realties such as sickness, a"ein", death, and the real possi0ility o an alternative mode o existence1 ?is conrontation $ith death is crucial since it

means that he that he reco"ni>es that he has not 0een truly alive@ he has 0een amon" the Andead1

5nd his conrontation $ith the ascetic is crucial since it means that he reco"ni>es a radicalchan"e in his mode o 0ein" as a real existential possi0ility1 7his shock o reco"nition is the

0e"innin" o his lon" stru""le or ull a$akenin"1

7he story continues, and ater six years o $anderin" and seekin", <autama inally ends up in

Bodh <aya, $here, mytholo"ically, he sits under the Bodhi tree and experiences the ully

a$akened mind1 ?e no$ assumes the name 4hakyamuni Buddha, 4a"e o the 4hakya Clan $ith

the 5$akened &ind1 5ccordin" to the story, ater havin" urther adventures, he touches the earth



to testiy to the experience o a$akenin"1 7his act, one o the most em0lematic ima"es in the

entire Buddhist tradition, sym0oli>es that a$akenin" is rooted in experience o the Real3 a0ove

all, the Real o the arth@ the Real o the natural $orld1

7his theme is echoed much later in the Buddhist tradition in the story o the !lo$er 4ermon, in

$hich a lar"e multitude assem0les in order to hear some $ords o $isdom rom the Buddha12nstead, he shocks them :actually all 0ut one; 0y merely holdin" up a lo$er 0eore them and

smilin"1 /ne o the core messa"es o this story is the primacy o the Real, $hich cannot 0e

replaced 0y our mental constructs, illusions, or antasies, includin" the antasy that $e cansomeho$ a0sor0 enli"htenment or li0eration rom some $ise teacher or leader1

7o "et 0ack to the earlier story, 4hakyamuni Buddha6s a$akenin" is immediately ollo$ed 0y a

trip to the ?oly City o aransi1 /n the outskirts o the city, at the 8eer Park o 4arnath, he irstteaches the !our #o0le 7ruths, in $hich the dominant values o civili>ation and o the e"oic sel

ounded in these values are demolished, and the i"htold Path, in $hich the practice o personal

and social transormation is descri0ed1 5s $e $ill see, this sequence means in eect that ater

“Buddhahood,” the a$akenin" o the mind, comes radical critique and revolutionary praxis1

5ll this, $hen examined in detail, relates very much to the vie$ o these topics that 2 recentlydeveloped in a 0ook called The Impossible Community1 7here 2 ar"ue that li0eratory social

transormation requires a radical 0reak in 0oth theory and practice $ith the dominant social

institutional structure, the dominant social ideolo"y, the dominant social ima"inary, and thedominant social ethos, and that, urther, the crucial step to$ard achievin" this "oal is the creation

o communities o solidarity and li0eration1 2 see Buddhism as oerin" the most valua0le

lessons a0out ho$ such radical critique and transormative, revolutionary practice mi"ht 0e

carried out1

RADICAL CRITIQUE

Buddhist radical critique mi"ht 0e descri0ed in one sense as the movement rom the ruthless

critique o all thin"s existin" to the ruthlessly compassionate critique o all thin"s existin"1 /ne

can "et a "ood idea o the radical nature o this critique rom three sources that 2 $ould like tomention 0riely1 7he irst is the ?eart 4utra, $hich is sometimes identiied as the 0estDkno$n

scripture in the history o Buddhism1 2t reads in part

“1 1 1 1 orm does not dier rom emptiness@ emptiness does not dier rom orm1 1 1 1 7hereorein emptiness3 no orm, no eelin"s, no perceptions, no ormations, no consciousness [note3 this is

a denial o the ive a""re"ates or undamental constituents o all thin"s@ no eyes, no ears, no

nose, no ton"ue, no 0ody, no mind [note3 this is a denial o the 0asic sources o kno$led"e @ nocolor, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no o0Eect o mind [note3 this is a denial o that

$hich is kno$n 1 1 11 no suerin", no ori"ination, no stoppin", no path, 1 1 1 no attainment $ith

nothin" to attain [note3 this is a denial o the !our #o0le 7ruths, the -ay, and its "oal1”

2n short, the ?eart 4utra ne"ates all the undamental principles o Buddhism1 -e could in act

call it the 5narchy 4utra, since its 0asic messa"e is the ne"ation o every principle or arche1 2t

$arns that there are no ideas, 0elies, propositions or supposed o0Eects o kno$led"e that can 0e



taken do"matically, ideolo"ically, or as a0stract universals havin" any reality 0eyond the limits

o experience1 7he undamental and antiDoundationalist Buddhist teachin" o sunyata, that all

thin"s are empty o inherent existence, is a radical critique o all su0stantialism and essentialismand thus means death to all ideolo"y1

&oreover, the 8harma, the 7eachin", the “La$,” the -ay o 7ruth itsel, is descri0ed as a“%ana,” 0y $hich is meant a vehicle1 2t is depicted particularly as a rat or 0oat that is used to

take one to the “arther shore,” or “other side o the river1” 2t turns out that this arther shore is a

destination that is a nonDdestination1 /ne reaches it 0y merely continuin" on the $ay, 0ut no$$ith an a$akened mind, havin" accepted o the experience o the traumatic Real1 /n such

Eourney, only a ool $ould carry a heavy rat alon"1 5s Fen states it3

“Beore nli"htenment, chop $ood, carry $ater1 5ter enli"htenment, chop $ood, carry $ater1”

-ould you try choppin" $ood $ith a canoe on your 0ack. 2n act, $e do it all the time1

5 second nota0le text that relates to radical critique is the most amous passa"e rom LinEi, theounder o the Rin>ai tradition o Ch6an or Fen Buddhism1 LinEi says3

“!ollo$ers o the -ay, i you $ant to understand the 8harma, do not 0e ooled 0y others1

-hether you turn in$ard or out$ard, $hatever you encounter, kill itG 2 you meet a Buddha, kill

the Buddha@ i you meet a Patriarch, kill the Patriarch@ i you meet an enli"htened 0ein", kill theenli"htened 0ein"@ i you meet your parents, kill your parents@ i you meet your relatives, kill

your relatives1 /nly then $ill you ind emancipation, and 0y not clin"in" to anythin", you $ill

0e ree $herever you "o1”

[#ote3 =ill me, please1 7his is precisely $hy $e have a discussion period scheduled1

LinEi6s reno$ned rant is another attack on sick attachments and a0stract idealist vie$s o reality12n act, it is not unusual or Fen masters to attack mastery, master discourses, and master

si"niiers1 Fen texts are tireless in heapin" a0use on those $ho $ould su0stitute some concept or

antasy o “a Buddha” or the 5$akened &ind that is the true Buddha #ature1 !or “Buddha” onemi"ht su0stitute “Party,” “an"uard,” “&ovement,” “Leader,” etc1 2 must admit that one could

even su0stitute “Community,” or “5inity <roup1” 8elusion has no limits1 7he "reat o0stacle to

communism is communism, 7he "reat o0stacle to democracy is democracy1 5nd to mention the

most notorious o all such travesties, the "reatest o0stacle to reedom is reedom1

5 third nota0le point o reerence or Buddhist radical critique is the ne"ative dialectic o

#a"arEuna and the &adhyamaka Prasan"hika school o Buddhist philosophy1 #a"arEuna6stetralemma :5, notD5, 0oth 5 and notD5, neither 5 nor notD5; challen"es us to overcome all

naHvely and do"matically dualistic thinkin"1 7hus, $hen $e are tempted to airm some

proposition as true, $e $ill consider the $ays in $hich it is true, alse, 0oth true and alse, andneither true nor alse1 -hen $e are tempted to airm the proposition that x is y, $e $ill consider

the $ays in $hich x is not y, x 0oth is and is not y, and x neither is nor is not y1 7he inal, dou0leD

ne"ation step o the tetralemma requires us to question our cate"orical scheme itsel1



7he result $ill 0e that in each case $e $ill rerain rom conusin" conventional truth, $hich is an

o0vious necessity or its pra"matic value, $ith ultimate truth, $hich reco"ni>es the dependent

:or interdependent; ori"ination and the emptiness or nonDsu0stantiality o all thin"s1 5consideration o the meanin" o the term “&adhyamaka” or “&iddle -ay” helps one understand

the orce o this critique1 Buddhism $as irst called the &iddle -ay as an expression o the path

that 4hakyamuni Buddha took 0et$een the one extreme o destructive selDindul"ence and theother extreme o de0ilitatin" selDdenial1 ?o$ever, in the philosophical sense o #a"arEuna6s

school, it means the &iddle -ay 0et$een 8o"matism :alias “ternalism”; and #ihilism1

8o"matism is the error o seekin" a0solute truth 0y imposin" ri"id, static, or reiyin" cate"orieson a dynamic and nonDo0Eectiia0le reality1 #ihilism is the opposite error o allin" into a

relativistic or solipsistic collapse o meanin" in $hich one loses aith in the $orld, in that reality

itsel1

7hese aspects o Buddhist radical critique may seem a0stract :as they must until translated into

concrete dia"nosis and practice;, 0ut its core is expressed in somethin" quite experiential3 the

analysis o suerin" and cravin" presented 0y the !our #o0le 7ruths1 7hese state that there is

suerin", a cause o suerin", a cure or suerin", and a $ay to eect this cure1 7hou"h itsrevolutionary implications are seldom dra$n out, this analysis is an implicit critique o the

civili>ed e"o and o the entire history o civili>ation and its proEect o domination1 5ccordin" tothe Buddhist analysis o anatman or no sel, and trishna or cravin", this history has rom the

outset 0een the story o an insu0stantial su0Eect on an impossi0le quest or an unattaina0le

o0Eect1 5s lon" as $e remain trapped in this proEect $e are perpetually haunted 0y t$ounans$era0le questions3 “-ho am 2.” and “-hat do 2 $ant.”

7his means, in psychoanalytic terms, that as lon" as $e live in $orld history :$hat in &arxian

terms is called “preDhistory”;, $e are pla"ued 0y o0session and hysteria1 7his is precisely $hatBuddhism pointed out )I** years a"o3 $e are a civili>ation o o0sessive hysterics and hysterical

o0sessives1 7he proEect o the e"o is to "ive su0stance to its o$n inherent insu0stantiality1 2t is,

ironically, a "host that is haunted 0y its o$n intrinsic lack1 7he proEect o the e"o is to ind ano0Eect that $ill ill up an ontolo"ical void, 0ut its expedition is necessarily doomed rom the

start1 2t is trapped in the /ntic Circle1

7his e"o, since the 0e"innin" o civili>ation, has 0een the primary ima"inary o0Eect or the

su0Eect, so that even the most seemin"ly privile"ed o0Eects o desire "ain their po$er only as

proEections o that e"o1 #evertheless, the e"o has al$ays appeared as a o0Eect that deies every

proEect o deinition and every attempt at o0Eectiication1 7hus, the pro0lem o civili>ation and o domination is not merely o0Eectiication, 0ut the project o o0Eectiication, the proEect o

necessary ailure that drives on the quest or domination1

2n other $ords, under civili>ation, “there is suerin"” and this suerin" is inherent to the kind o

e"o that it "enerates and $hich in turn re"enerates it1 ?istory is indeed a ni"htmare, a terriyin"

and suicidal undamental antasy, rom $hich $e are tryin", i only unconsciously, andneurotically, to a$ake1 7he pro0lem, as Buddhism has al$ays pointed out, is that $e are tryin" to

“a$ake” 0y not a$akenin"1 7his strate"y o the Andead Eust doesn6t $ork1 %ou don6t actually "et

0rains 0y eatin" 0rains1



5s ?e"el sho$s, in part despite himsel, the e"oic proEect o selDreco"nition has 0een

undamental to civili>ation, and its ori"ins are rooted in turn in its material 0asis, the historical

processes o conquest and domination1 7hou"h his primary model or the dialectic o Lordshipand Bonda"e is !eudal, he traces the roots o the phenomenon 0ack to the 0e"innin" o conquest

in the ancient $orld3 the oundation o the imperial state and the system o patriarchal and class

domination1 7he history o domination is ounded on the social proEect o su0Eection, and on thedialectically identical spiritual proEect o su0Eectiication1 7he latter reveals its impossi0ility

almost immediately, at least on some level, $hile the ormer has required the entire tra"edy o

-orld ?istory to do so1 7o say that these proEects have spanned the history o civili>ation is notto underestimate the achievements o capitalism1 Capitalism has succeeded in perectin" these

$orldDhistorical processes, and late capitalism, the society o consumption, the society o the

spectacle, has only perected that perection1

7hese proEects o domination are the processes that are questioned in the Buddhist analysis o

anatman or no sel, the denial o separate or e"oic selhood1 -hat is the Buddhist nonDsel. 2t is

the sel that is not a sel1 2t is the empty, indeterminate su0Eect openin" itsel, or its nonDsel, to a

determinate, or endlessly selDdeterminin" ininity o 0ein"1 2n other $ords, the Buddhist emptysu0Eect presupposes the idea o the transcendence : Aufhebung ; o the e"o1 7his is $hat 8o"en

meant $hen he said that

“the Buddha $ay is to study the sel 1 1 1 to study the sel is to or"et the sel, and to ind

reali>ation in the 7en 7housand 7hin"s1”

5s part o this critique, Buddhism, the quest or a$akened mind, proposes a revolution in values1

5$akened mind, $hich is mind open to the 0ein" and value o other 0ein"s, requires the a0solute

reEection o an a0stract, o0Eectiied $orld 0ased on exchan"e value, and the ull reco"nition othe real, livin" $orld o intrinsic value1 ?o$ever, the clich that exchan"e value must 0e

replaced 0y use value is at 0est a partial truth and to remain ixated on this level o analysis is

uncritical and counterDrevolutionary1 2n act, it6s even counterDevolutionary1 Ase value is a ormo instrumental value that necessarily implies the question3 “use or $hat end.” 7he a$akened

mind reco"ni>es the ontolo"ical and axiolo"ical primacy o the $orld o intrinsic value1

7his is $hat is implied in the Buddhist airmation that all sentient 0ein"s have a Buddha nature

and in the Boddhisattva vo$ to save all sentient 0ein"s1 2n a sense, the most important question

that $e can ask o any person and o any community is the question o $hat they hold sacred,

$hat they hold to have intrinsic value1 7he $orlds o 0oth exchan"e value and o use value as$e have kno$n them historically are 0ased on the ultimate sacredness o the voracious, allD

consumin" e"o1 7he Buddha $orld, the $orld o a$akened mind, discovers a $orld o ull o

$ild, selD"eneratin" value :thou"h the selD"eneration is systemic and “interdependentlyarisin",” and takes place on a level that "oes 0eyond $hat $e ordinarily think o as selves;1 7his

$orld is the $orld o sacred places, and o the sacred arth1 5s ?akuin states in his amous

“4on" o &ediation”3

“this very "round on $hich you stand is the Pure Lotus Land1 7his very 0ody is the Body o the

Buddha1”



?akuin is thinkin" here a0out $hat $e call “the arth and its inha0itants1” ?e challen"es us to

think a0out our $ay o 0ein" and actin" in such a $orld1 ?o$ do $e care or sacred "round.

?o$ do $e care or the 0ody o the Buddha. -e mi"ht ask urther3 ?o$ do $e respond to those$ho trample on sacred "round. ?o$ do $e respond to those $ho trample on the 0ody o the

Buddha. 7hese same ideas have 0een said in many dierent $ays1 7he 8harma only states or

the civili>ed mind $hat /ur 5ncestors kne$ 0eore the 0e"innin" o time1

Paradoxically, it is also $hat $e all al$ays continue to kno$ and to tell ourselves constantly,

thou"h $e usually have limited a$areness o doin" so1 5s Buddhism reco"ni>es, there is a po$erul critical and transormative po$er o the personal and communal unconscious that has

radically transormative po$er i 0rou"ht to the surace1 Buddhism is certainly not alone in

airmin" this, and it has 0een explored extensively 0y 0oth radical psychoanalysis and 0y

surrealism1 But Buddhism, and especially Fen, carries urther in many $ays this inquiry into thedialectical truth o the 0ody, the dialectical truth o the communal 0ody, and the dialectical truth

o the 0ody o the earth1

7here is a reco"nition that the expressions o the unconscious are not only “the discourse o theother” 0ut the discourse o the $hole :the $hole that is never $hole;1 7his means also that they

are the discourse 0et$een the parts o that $hole that have 0een cut o rom one another1 7his is$hat is expressed in Fen koan practice and in the nonDempty empty mind o meditation1 5s this

practice teaches us, $e need to allo$ ourselves to tell ourselves the truth every day, even every

moment1 2 $e do not do this, $e $ill either remain entirely o0livious to $hat $e kno$, or $e$ill certainly or"et it quite quickly1

7o return to $hat Buddhism takes as “#o0le 7ruth,” the “desire” that it sees at the root o

suerin" is o0viously not simple desire, such as mere indeterminate hun"er or mereindeterminate ood :$hich in any case never appears in any such simple orm;1 Rather it is

“cravin",” that is, compulsive and e"oDselDre"ardin" desire that is deeply rooted in the social

ima"inary1 Cravin" is aimed at satisyin" an insatia0le e"o throu"h a undamentally unattaina0leo0Eect :$hat Lacan calls the objet petit a;1 2ronically, despite the e"ocentrism o the society and

culture o domination, the e"o despite all its strivin" does not itsel do1 Rather, 2t, the /ther,

does, $hile 2t6s activity is misperceived as the selDactivity o the e"o1 “Je est” indeed “unautre1” Buddhist li0eration means deliverance rom this selDairmin" and ultimately selD

deeatin" strivin", this tra"ic charade1

7he ultimate attainment o li0eration, the annihilation :or, more precisely, the dialecticaltranscendence; o this domineerin" e"o is called “nirvana1” #irvana is a state in $hich reality no

lon"er appears in its e"oic, reiied, instrumentali>ed state1 Put another $ay, nirvana means "oin"

0eyond the sym0olic order, the order o domination, the order o havin" and accumulatin", andreturnin" to the $ild anarchic order, the order o 0ein" and lourishin"1 -e are delivered to the

$orld1

“#irvana is samsara” :the $orld o incessant chan"e and appearance;1

7he Buddhist critique o insatia0le cravin" is not equivalent to the 4toic inEunction to “0e

satisied $ith $hat you can have1” Rather, it is a reco"nition that satisaction can never result



rom a quest or possession and havin"1 2t promises reedom rom the ruitless quest or

domination and rom the suerin" that results rom it and a reconciliation $ith the $ildness o

the $orld3

“Just as the sea has one taste, $hich is salt, the 8harma has one taste, $hich is reedom1”

Buddhist radical critique relates o0viously to the &arxist critique o capitalism, exploitation, and

the etishism o commodities, 0ut it is closer in its overall implications to the lar"er anarchist

critique o civili>ation and all orms o domination1 7he history o domination is lon"er than thehistory o capitalism and lon"er even than the history o class stru""le as usually conceptuali>ed,

thou"h it encompasses all o that history1 2t is essential to understand the $ays that economic

domination takes a more central place in the dominant economist society and the $ays in $hich

it pervades even the deepest levels o su0Eectivity1 But there is dialectic o domination 0e"innin"$ith the ori"in o patriarchy, the state, and economic class society, and the e"o is a product o

this history o domination1 7he idea o havin" “po$er over” and o “accumulatin" po$er” is

rooted in patriarchal domination, statist conquest, and the accumulation o private property, in

addition to other orms o domination1

5 "iven phenomenon contains $ithin itsel the entire history o that phenomenon, thou"h itincorporates that history in very complex $ays1 5ll orms o domination are deeply conditioned

0y one another and their mutual conditionin" is relected in the complex and everDtransmutin"

structure o the e"o1 ?o$ it is relected is a lon" story1 ?o$ever, a crucial part o the story isthat the Buddhist analysis o the e"o, suerin", cravin", and li0eration takes on much more

critical orce in today6s economistic society as commodity etishism develops and as

consumptionist institutions, the consumptionist ideolo"y, the consumptionist ima"inary, and a

consumptionist ethos all take hold in an unprecedented manner1

REVOLUTION

5s the precedin" discussion should have implied, radical critique is an inte"ral part o the

process o revolution a"ainst the system o domination1 ?o$ever, the quest or the a$akened

mind has more speciic implications concernin" the processes o personal and socialtransormation1 Buddhism has a very radical idea o practice, thou"h in a sense it is merely the

most o0vious concept ima"ina0le3 “verythin" is practice1”

verythin" is practice1 2t exists at all times and in all places, includin" $hat are conventionallythou"ht o as 0oth “internal” and “external” times and places1 Joshu :Fhao Fhou;, the "reat

Chinese Ch6an :Fen; master and inspiration or Rin>ai Fen, $as once asked, “-here is the

practice hall.” ?e replied3

“verythin" every$here is the practice hall1 7here is no other place,”

5 e$ days a"o as 2 $as thinkin" a0out these issues 2 happened to see a quote that someone sent

out that helped me ocus on $hat is most central to this issue1



“7he Buddha6s attendant, 5nanda, once asked a0out the importance o havin" $holesome

companions1 5nanda asked the Buddha $hether havin" no0le riends and companions $asn6t

hal o the holy lie1 7he Buddha replied3

“8o not say so, 5nanda1 #o0le riends and companions are the $hole o the holy lie1”

2tKs very helpul to relect on this crucial, i initially perplexin", quote1 Buddhism emphasi>es theimportance o the 7hree Je$els o Buddha, 8harma, and 4an"ha, 0ut this passa"e seems to say

that the last o these, the compassionate community, is everythin"1 ?o$ever this makes perect

sense, i $e approach the matter dialectically1 7he $hole, $e then reali>e, is in each o the parts,

$hich mutually determine one another1 /ne cannot really have an a$akened mind or really havethe authentic teachin"s and truth $ithout havin" the compassionate community1 5s -estern

dialectic $ould say, they are identical1 / course, at the same time, as 8aoism and Fen $ould

say, one cannot have any o them, only have $ithout havin" them1

7he compassionate community practices the i"htold Path, $hich epitomi>es the Buddhist

practice o personal and social transormation1 2t $ould 0e useul to consider the revolutionaryimplications o all ei"ht elements o the path, 0ut $e mi"ht Eust note at this point that it includes

not only $isdom and spiritual disciplines, 0ut such practical precepts as Ri"ht Livelihood, $hich

means en"a"in" in a $ise and compassionate mode o production1 2t is si"niicant that the

community also practices the 4ix Paramitas, or Perections1 /ne o these Paramitas is 8ana,

$hich means "itD"ivin" or "enerosity1 7hou"h 8ana is traditionally considered to 0e part o sila

or morality, it is classed separately amon" the Paramitas to stress its undamental importance1

2 think that $e should see this emphasis as an airmation that the compassionate community is a

community o the <it1 4hakamuni Buddha, like other 5xial 4a"es, looked 0ack to the "it

economy as an inspiration or the uture li0erated society1 ?e did so Eust as Lao>i, the "reat8aoist philosopher looked 0ack to the mythical 8ynasty o the %ello$ mperor, $hen communal

ties and relations o "enerosity prevailed1 7his 8aoist tradition, $ith its protoDecoDeminist ethics

o care, passed into the herita"e o Fen1 5ccordin" to this perspective, the role o the sa"e, the

a$akened person, and ultimately, o every mem0er o the community, is to dey the patriarchal

order and to adopt a maternal model o care and responsiveness3

7o "ive 0irth and to nourish,

to "ive 0irth $ithout takin" possession,

to act $ithout o0li"ation,

to lead $ithout dominatin"

7he adoption o this model, dialectical maternalism, $ould mean the destruction o patriarchal

authoritarian culture3 a revolution in sensi0ility and a revolution in social ontolo"y1 Buddhist

ontolo"y asks us to consider ho$ 0ein"s appear to us1 8o $e experience them as resources, asinstruments, as actual or potential property, as extensions o our o$n supposed e"o, as sources o

po$er and domination. /r do $e experience them, especially in the case o the myriad orms o

lie, $ith a sense o $onder and "ratitude or the "oodness and 0eauty o 0ein" and 0ein"s, in thespirit o Lao>i, $ho said3



“?eaven and arth com0ine to drip s$eet due1 -ithout the command o men it drips evenly over

all1”

Fen Buddhism in particular, expressin" its 8aoist herita"e, encoura"es us to respect the $ay, the

unoldin" o potentiality, the strivin" or ull lourishin", o each thin" and o the multitude o 0ein"s, the 7en 7housand 7hin"s, as they $ere called traditionally1 5ll these maniestations o

0ein" are maniestations o value, ree "its to the $orld1

7he Buddhist ontolo"y and axiolo"y o the "it and o intrinsic value are dialectically identical

$ith a Buddhist economics that is an economics o the "it and o intrinsic value1 5s Fen texts

state it, $hen $e ree ourselves rom delusion $e ind a reality that is “0eyond proit and loss1”

-e ind that nothin" is “o$ed” and nothin" is “deserved1” -e ind that nothin" can 0e“possessed1” -e ind that there can 0e no “accumulation1” -e reali>e that to pursue any o these

delusions leads to ruin1 2n short, $e reco"ni>e that property is the thet o 0ein"1

4o, as Lao>i mi"ht have phrased, it “-hat is to 0e done $ithout doin" it.” !or inal thou"hts onthe meanin" o a$akened revolution, $e mi"ht contemplate the implications o the Bodhisattva

o$, $hich says, in part, that3

“sentient 0ein"s are ininite, 2 vo$ to save them all1”

2n a $orld o material a0undance in $hich over a 0illion sentient human 0ein"s live in a0solute

poverty, the practical implications o havin" an a$akened and en"a"ed mind 0ecome ever more

o0vious1

2n the midst o the sixth "reat mass extinction o lie on earth, the on"oin" holocaust o sentient

0ein"s, the practical implications o havin" an a$akened and en"a"ed mind 0ecome ever more

o0vious1

7he 4$ord o 8harma cuts throu"h delusion and cuts the $orld in one1

buddhism critique praxis

Documents