Dear Brian,
I cannot speak for John Pettit and have not reached him for comment, but I can and will address your eulogy to 'Western Freedom'.
First, I would draw your attention to the community led by Chögyal Namkha'i Norbu Rinpoche's Tsawa'i Lama - Changchub Dorje Rinpoche. That was pretty much a socialist commune according to Namkha'i Norbu Rinpoche. Apparently when the Chinese got there - there was nothing they could find to alter, and it was somewhat of an embarrassment to them. There were many such gö kar chang lo groupings in Tibet - especially in the East: in Kham, Golok, and Amdo. In Golok, people were intensely self-determining, and the family clans lived in a state of freedom that would be envied in many parts of the Western world.
I would also point out that democracy does not really exist and never has existed. The Greeks based their democracy on slavery in the silver mines, and our democracy is little more than the totalitarianism of industry and large pressure groups. Voting is an illusion - because for whomever you vote, the result is that the government is elected. Freedom schmeedom. In Britain they are free to have their guns taken away - but not free to avoid being subject to tobacco fumes. Go figure.
Arch Stanton
Some of Mr. Page's points are well-taken. For example, he says "I have not found a single ideal of citizenship - as a unique institution - in Buddhism". I admit, I haven't either. Then again, there is no word for "citizen" in Buddhism. The idea of "citizenry" or "citizenship" is a Greek invention, like the city-state, which in turn was a by-product of Greece's largely insular geography. For the ancient Greeks "no man was an island", but a "citizenry", if that word may be used as a collective singular noun, was defined by its insularity - and so perhaps, to a degree, by its highly individual citizens as well. But that is all beside the point. In ancient India there were city-states of a sort as well - and there was no "ideal citizen", at least not in the Buddha's time. Based on the literary and other historical evidence, the literate classes were more concerned with truth and spiritual freedom than with society per se - that is what one might conclude, based on the textual evidence primarily. As far as the Upanishads and other pre-Buddhist Vedic sources indicate, humans were defined primarily by their relation to the gods and the Cosmos - kings and kingdoms were of little concern, except insofar as they could explore those fundamental relationships in a dramatic context in human metaphors (as in the Mahabharata).
Is that a problem for us? It might be, especially in the current time where we find ourselves faced with a burgeoning mass of unpleasant and underreported facts that suggest that we are not so much "citizens" in a "democracy" as much as we (meaning educated, literate Anglo-saxon males in our case) are beneficiaries of a covert fascist oligarchy that helped us to create the personal illusion of freedom through success, knowledge and so forth. Like the ancient Greeks, our wealth is primarly based on our exploitation - and occasional genocide - of people whose skin is darker than our own. Gotta hand it to those Greeks - they sure knew how to subjugate inferior peoples, slaughter and rape them they by the hundreds of thousands like eating chocolate-covered ants, and then deify the murderers and rapists so convincingly that Western historians tend believe those myths just as readily as other people today believe the myths of Thomas Jefferson, JFK or Dubya, to name but a few obvious examples.
My points regarding teachers, authority, individualism etc. in my earlier essay on this site were simply meant to drive home the point that Buddhism - and spirituality generally, to whatever extent it is authentic spirituality - are not intrinsically concerned with social definitions to which "Man" (or Women, or humans) might lend him/her/themselves. If anything, Buddhism in its early forms was inimical to such definitions. In the Sigaalavada-sutta the Buddha instructs a young man to worship the ten directions and his parents - while throwing in other values such as the four measureless thoughts , to make the ten directions "Buddhist" and not simply socio-cultural reference points for good behavior (which was the emphasis of the young Sigaala's mode of worship). The Buddha never says, "don't be a good citizen or a good son - that's not important to us Buddhists". Instead he says "Fine, you are good son - and now you can be good in your thoughts to all living beings". Based on this and other examples scattered throughout the Sutras, it's not hard to see that for Buddha (and hence ostensibly for Buddhists) being a good citizen means simply, being Good, something that Plato would probably agree with. One implies the other.
And like Plato's Socrates, Buddha and Buddhists have been cognizant of the value of teachers and and could muster a hearty dialogue with persons from all walks. The dialogue between teacher and student in Vajrayana is not the mental slavery you imagine - at least, not for smart people who follow a real teacher. It is every bit a dialogue though there should be a symbolic dimension and an intuitive basis for the whole process, in addition to any explicit dialogue. Like any dialogue, it follows some implicit rules which depend on the context. A callow youth, an accomplished philosopher, and a snooty Sophist could all carry on a lengthy dialogue with Socrates - but in each case, the rules are somewhat different. The reason is because Socrates is just who he is - a teacher -- and a callow youth could barely make his way in a conversation unless Socrates let him find his voice first - whereas a Sophist will be hounded for his sophistry, and a philosopher will be rewarded with an inspired exchange among colleagues.
There is no explicit parallel to the Platonic model of teaching (and the various types of love implied there) in the "Vajrayana" relationship of teacher and student - precisely because, there is no template. If you're a mass murderer like Milarepa or Angulimala, you might have to wear yourself out first, before Marpa or Shakyamuni will be able to teach you effectively; if you're sincere simpleton he might simply tell you what to do - like sweep the floor until you get enlightened; and if you're a scholar, he might tell you that your ideas are bullshit, until you drop your shit. That's what happened to me - but it was my own choice. I sought out situations where that would happen, because I could hardly stand to live with myself, I'd become so uptight and insecure with the supposed "knowledge" I'd gained. If I'd stayed on as a Gelukpa where I started, I would have enjoyed all kinds of status as a "scholar", but I chose not to because (in spite of myself) I always thought "scholars" -- teacher's pets -- were pompous and not as bright as people tend to believe. So I chose to be with teachers who verbally abused, humiliated and mind-f**cked the pompous-ass scholar tendencies right out of my system. If I'd chosen instead to develop my "individuality" as a scholar and "expert" in my area of study, I would have missed those precious opportunities.
Ironically, because of all those ordeals (sometimes lurid and outrageous, involving too much liquor and sex to mention here), now I am free to relax and just be a normal, sedate, boring reclusive scholar and family man. This is the true value of a teacher - learning how to be yourself, or rather, UNLEARNING the habits of trying to be what we imagine we should be, or what we imagine someone else expects of us, and so on. It may sound like pop psychology, but whatever, it applies in Vajrayana like anywhere else.
The whole point is, learn to stand on your own two feet and look out for others - your fellow human beings and sentient beings - just like a good soldier. If you survive the process of soldiering, eventually you become a hero, and you get a promotion, and nobody ever has to tell you what to do anymore. In a "democracy", people are free to delude themselves and promote each other for any reason whatsoever - for being mediocre and fearful like everyone else. This is the miraculous, common-denominator of democracy that has given us CNN, Fox, the BBC and other supposedly "free" expressions in the media, the most effective propaganda machine ever created, precisely because the mediocre masses with their practically unlimited consumerist freedoms of choice have chosen to believe whatever makes the least demands on their intellects and most greatly promotes the falsehoods of their egos. This is why Buddhism cannot be democratic - if our worlds (that is, our weltanshaaungs) are ruled by the worldviews of the common denominator, we become mediocre at best, and piss-poor at worst. Buddhism definitely does not aim at "piss-poor" or "mediocre", anymore than a football coach would let his players vote on how hard they want to play or how often they need to listen to the coach. What kind of sport would football be, if football teams were democratic city-states? I think I know the answer to that. It would be God-awful boring.
Personally I have been promoted to ignominy and ultimately, to virtual anonymity - and that feels like some kind of success. I could never have seen this as success if it weren't for a having some extremely kick-ass gurus in my life. I didn't vote for this - I prayed for it, I prayed long and hard until I had just about given up, and then everything I ever wanted came true. And my goodness, did it hurt like hell. Could this have happened even if I weren't a prime beneficiary of this democratic, affluent society? Of course -- it's happened many times before. Did it happen because of democracy? No, it didn't. Do lotuses spring up from mud and blossom because the pond is on democratic soil? No -- they had lotuses in ancient India too, but no democracy. It just goes to show you that democracy really has nothing whatsoever to do with lotuses, even if some people insist that an American lotus must also be, ipso facto, a "democratic" lotus and a "free" lotus.
So Brian, if you don't want to follow any gurus or experience Buddhism the way Milarepa or Longchenpa (a severely ostracized prodigy) or the Buddha did, then don't. Nobody's going to hold it against you.
John Pettit
Hi. I would like to ask John Whitney Pettit to name one indigenously democratic Buddhist society on the planet? One Buddhist notion of citizenship? One Buddhist nation that upheld any semblance of political freedom for people before 20th century?
Even in Maghada of the 6th century BC an oligarchic system of government prevailed over more republican forms- but at least republicanism was an undercurrent if there were not open expressions of republican ideals from time to time.
Please find a single example of a Buddhist society without extreme political and social violence in it. Seems like a paradox right. I think of Burma, Vietnam, China, Japan, Korea, Northern India, Tibet and I can think of none that have maintained a peaceful non-violent form of government.
In each of these countries the ideas of a special class of person called "citizen" implying rights and responsibilities did not seem to exist before the modern period.
I hope that John understands that "freedom" and radical individualism are not the same thing in Western Society and the idea of responsibilities towards one society are just as important as what one does individually. In Old Tibet, the important monks and Lamas "owned" the serfs who worked their lands. In Burma, Lao, Thailand and Vietnam, abuses of what we in the west think of as human dignity are still common, as in China. Only Japan and South Korea are now modern peaceful democracies but look at what it took to get there.
Maybe in ideal Buddhism there is no room for "eternalist, collectivist, or totalitarian" tendencies, but in practice, I can't find any Buddhist notions that lead to anything other then divine kingship, and ultimately back to limited state totalitarianism of strong or theocratic rule. I cannot name any kings of historical Tibet who died peacefully in bed; I can't think of a single time when Thailand was not in possesion of a King before the modern period orany time when the Kings of Thailand and Burma were not at each other's throats; any time when war did not play a part in the development of Chinese history.
I have not found a single ideal of citizenship - as a unique institution - in Buddhism. Instead, I find that the concept of authoritarian obedience; degrading inferiors ingrating yourself to sueriors and holdingpeers in contempt....as Shatideva said, and as Herodotus said of the Persians. In the west the idea of voluntary obedience to certain agreed upon rules and the rule of law also seems non-existent in many manifestations of Buddhism as it is lived socially.
No dispute that ideally Buddhism does say cultivate virtue, and expresses many classical sentiments, and it is good to discuss these things, but I see obedience to a lama in the same way the Greeks must have seen obedience to the Persian kings. Hopefully you can find some examples of Buddhist nations whose political life was open to free criticism, discourse, inquiry; who developed private property and who were able to develop a clear idea of citizenship, who did not end up tanking human rights, or developing cultures with strongmen each trying to rule as chakravartin, are there any Buddhist cultures that were historically republican or democratic that I missed. Even Ashoka livedthrough a network of informersand elaborate rules....not too different from those of his Bactrian, Greek Buddhist neighbors, admittedly, but certainly not democratic by any means.
Until John can find examples, I would ask him not to dismiss or treat the western ideals of "freedom" and "individuality" so lightly. They were developed by farmers who worked their own plots of land, were able to decide their own course of actionin life, read the books they wanted to read without fear of censure or alienation, vote on rules collectively in the agora and then agree to follow the decision of the group; or debate it. I see these as landmark decisions in human history because they allowed for the tolerance of diverse opinions and thought, and offered humans something more then working for a god king or being pushed around by strongmen. Imagine what would happen if someone went into a largely Buddhist society and said, that their ideals of devotion and duty were not worthwhile. Your characture of freedom and individuality as irrelevant sting the same way.it is important to rember that liberty and virtue are manifestations,! that are exceedingly rare in human history, to me it seems the norm is legitimized authoritarianism; and when I look at Buddhist societies I havenot been able to find onewhere those idealsdid not prevail. It is easy for us to seethe dividend of what communism did to buddhist monks, it is much harder to think that Buddhist kings and nations spent about as much time attacking one another.
I would suggest that if the only world where the type of utopia Mr. Pettit suggests is inside the virtual sacred space of a Mandala, it would be good to stay there, not venture out too much into the world of real concrete action where democracy does appear to pay lasting dividends both for the individual and the society.Does that represent deep cultural bias? Or does it mean that if my Tibetan friends want to have their say it is likely that in new Tibet they will get to but will be socially ostracized for their belief in democracy, whereas in old Tibet they would have been put on the rack in a very real sense. Or, is such unenlightened skepticism just unacceptable?
Thanks.
Brian Page