s. TanigucM HumanRights and the Buddha's Teachings: A Soteriological Perspective

Shoyo Taniguchi, Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, CA

INTRODUcnON

uman rights violations, such as IiIcial dis­ sJaJement on human rights in lIIe fann of Universal H crimination in SouLb Africa,l3dical transgres­ Declaration of Human Rights strongly aff1ll1\ed sion of religious and political freedom by Lbe human dignity, freedom, equality, justice, equity, Chinese govenunent in Tibet, forced labor in mutual respect, and the responsibility to eslablish various partS of Lbe world, subjugation of women universal peace and welfare for all human beings. by men in even the most civilized Western coun­ The concept of "human rights" is not easy tries, child abuse in homes and schools, and many to define. Even the above internationally sanc­ olher unjust activities are laking place in Lbe world. tioned official document of human rights does not Numerous people suffer desperately from injus­ clearly define the concept. Just as the idea of tice, prejudice and discrimination in Lbe political, "freedom," a major character of human rights, economic, religious, sexual, social, cullural and cannot be easily defined, so is the idea of "human ideological arena. Violent infringements ofhuman rights" difficult to elucidate. The first reason for rights have come to light in every sphere of human this is rooted in the disparate defmitions of "free­ existence. WiLb greater awareness of and concern dom" in Lbe various ideologies pertaining to for these violations, serious attention is now being human welfare. The freedom of speech, for ex­ focused on Lbe meaning of human rights from Lbe ample, is treated differently in the American Bill sociological as well as from Lbeological perspec­ ofRights !han in Lbe Soviet Constitution.' It is not tives. easy to arrive at a universal agreement that is free of polilical and ideological differences regarding THE DEFINITION OF IIUMAN RIGJITS this concept. Secondly, the term "human rights" can be The expression "human rights" in the West given an extensive range of meanings. The Univer­ is a relatively recent development, its earliest sal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims not usage being traced back only to Lbe last decades of only the traditional political and civil rights and Lbe 18Lb century.' The Virginia Bill of Rights of freedoms but also economic, social and cultural 1776 and Lbe French Declaration of /he Rights of rights. After the Universal Declaration ofHuman Man of 1789 are pioneer statements in its modem Rights, a number of other declarations regarding understanding; theyaCr1ll1\ freedom and the equal­ human rights, such as, the Declaration of the ity of each individual as the most basic rights of Rights of the Child (1959). the United Nations human beings. After World War II, a keen and Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of urgent concern for the fundamental rights of indi­ Racial Discrimination (1963), even the Declara­ viduals was raised to a universal level for the first tions on Legal Principles Governing /he Activities time in history. Thus, in 1948, a world-wide ofSlJJresin the Exploration and Use ofOuter Space

The PM;i/ic World 74 Now _ . No. 6; 1990 S. T"";,.chi

(1963), werefonnulated.' The difficulty is further exist. In my estimation, the Buddha, indeed, compounded due to the theological and religious promulgated human rights - not only the rights perspectives that are brought to bearon the subjecL of humans but also of all sentient beings. In this paper, however, adopting some ideas used in the UnivclSlll Declaration ofHum/lllRigblS HUMAN RIGHTS AND BUDDHISM and the Preamble to the Covenant of Political and Civil RigblS, I derme the tenn "human rights" as Let us take the recent example of Bhimrao "the basic foWldation of freedom, justice and Ramji Ambedkar, "the man who almost single­ peace in human relationship, which recognizes the handedly earned respect for millions of the socially dignity, equality, and inalienability of every oppressed groups,"' who were deprived of their human individual, without discrimination of any basic human rights. Ambedkar, an ''Untouchable," kind, for the pwpose of human welfare and happi­ rejected by Hindus, became Law Minister and ness." chief an;hitect of the Indillll Constitution. He The concept of "rights" in the West can be became a Buddhist in 1956, after rmding that characterized as powell! or privileges to which neither Hinduism, Sikhism, nor Christianity individuals have a just claim such that they can fought for human rights and that they all accepted demand that, in order to retain their inherent social injustice and the caste system.' He turned to dignity as a human person, their rights should not Buddhism where he found his philosophy of be infringed or suspended.' This kind of approach justice in three words: liberty, equality and frater­ to human rights is characterized as "adversarial."' nity. He found his social philosophy and spirit of Underlying the Western approach to claiming and human rights neither in political science nor in the demanding human rights is a strong belief that French Revolution, but in the 25-a:nlury-old every human being must not be denied powell! and teachings of the Buddha.'o Through his neo-Bud­ privileges of rights that would uphold the dhist movement, it is estimated that 4,000,000 individual's inherent human dignity. In contrast, people embraced Buddhism 11 simply because they the East Asiatic approach to human rights, such as found that Buddhism promotes non-discrimina­ that of China, Korea and Japan, is characterized as tim. "consensual" (in the sense of "consensus" build­ Human rights, as previously defined, char­ ing), which evaluates more wholeness, non-con­ acterizes the basic teaching expounded by the frontational consultation and groujKlriented Buddha. Through Buddhist practice, one develops unity, rather than demanding individualistic pow­ three major areas of life: sila or moral virtues, ers or privileges." Political scientists attribute the samldhi or concentration/meditation, and paIIII6 or origin of this "consensual" approach in the East insighl/wisdom; these constitute ''The Three Asiatic countries to Confucianism.' Learnings." These three are always organically My view is that the Buddhist approach to linked up with each other. Without moral restraint, the issue of human rights is apparently different the mind will never be able to concentrate and be from the Western orConfucian way, that is, neither calm enough for insight/wisdom to arise. Without uadvelS8riaJ." nor merely "consensual." This paper the concentrated calmness in the body and mind, is a small B1tempt to discuss Ihe issue of human which is embodied by clearer insight/wisdom, one rights from a Buddhist perspective utilizing the cannot have good conduct or make proper deci­ teaching of the Buddha contained in the Pali sions moment by moment in one's daily activity.11 canonical texts. Though in Buddhist literature, To practice sila one is required to recognize and there is no technical tenn as such, the concept and observe justice, freedom, equality, mutual respect teachings of human rights by the Buddha clearly and human dignity in one's human relationship.

The PllCi/ic World 75 New Seriu, No. 6, 1990 s. Taniguchi

Since such recognition is required as the basis of the issue of human rights by Buddhists them­ human rights, it may be correct to state that sJIa, as selves." One of the common characteristics of one of the Three Learnings of the Buddha's such writings by some contemporary Buddhists is teachings is directed toward the right practice of their adoption of the Buddhist theory of wiman, human rights; thus, it can be said that those who or IInon-self," "no-self, n orUnot-selC." Masao Abe, recognize and observe human rights are those who for example, slateS as follows: recogni7.e and practice the Dhanna. Despite the fact that Buddhism and the idea ... although we have self-identity in a relative of human rights are inseparable, some Westerners sense, we do not have it in the absolute sense. seem to believe that Buddhists are not willing to I am I in the relative sense, but I am not I in acknowledge human rights issue as being essential the absolute sense .... Once we awaken to our to Buddhism. For example, the arguments by own no-selfhood, we also awaken to the no­ MasaoAbe13 and Kenneth Inada14 ledRobertTraer selfhood of everything and everyone in the to conclude that "[m]any Buddhists arereluctant to universe. In other words, we awaken to the identify the Dharma with human rights."" Al­ fact tha~ just like ourselves, nothing in the though the Dharma cannot be totally identified universe has any fixed, substantial selfhood, with human rights, for it encompasses far greater even while maintaining relative selfhood." areas of life than just human rights, the issue of human rights occupies an important and undeni­ Abe's conclusion is simple but probably too pro­ able dimension of Dhanna. It is unfortunate that found for this world of relativity, which declares "I Buddhists are labeled as reluctant to engage seri­ am not I, and you are not you; thereby, I am you, ously in the discussion of human rights. and you are me."" The other view of the Buddhist attitude The Buddhist theory of aniitman is a theory towards the issue is stated by Perry Ottenberg: which denies the existence of any permanent substantial entity either mental or physical in the Buddhism places little emphasis on the indi­ absolute sense of reality. It is based on the theory vidual, self, or social activism. A 2,500 year of the five aggregates, which analyzes the so­ history reinforces the acceptance of a rigid called individual being as composed of a psycho­ social structure. Self-contemplation after ex­ physical unit. The Buddhist expression of the five baonlinary training can lead to a feeling of aggregates is analogous to the scientific expres­ banscendence and cosmic union, which can sion of H,O for "water." For scientists, there is no avoid human rights issues. Buddhism can be "water" as such, but only H,O. Likewise, when the seen as emphasizing ritualistic withdrawal Buddha says that living beings are composed of the from social reality to the self. This slate of live aggregates, what he denies is a permanent and contemplation is similar to many altered slateS unchanging entity from the theoretical point of of consciousness, all of which share massive view but not the absence of an individual person­ passivity and diminished concern for the ality in an empirical sense in the conventional use complexity of human-rights issues. 16 of the language. The theory does not negate personality or individuality of self in the conven­ It is apparent that Ottenberg is not referring tional sense. On the conbary, the Buddha affirmed to the Buddha's original teaching when he uses the importance of individual autonomy.'" "Buddhism" here. Part of the reason for this kind Since human rights is primarily an issue for of critique of the Buddhist approach to human human relations in a relative world, the Buddhist rights seems to be due to some recent writings on concept of aniItman or "non-selF' in the absolute

The P.ci/i.c World 76 New Series. No. 6; 1990 s. Taniguchi

sense is not directly applicable. As a guide in the The Buddha prohibited the practice of ani­ daily lives of its followers, Buddhism is a highly mal sacrifice, opposing the prevailing non-Bud­ practical and empirical teaching. In this paper, dhist ritual ceremony in northeast India. Animals therefore, instead of referring 10 the Buddha's are not to be treated as inferior 10 human beings, doctrine of absolute reality, I will focus on the and humans have no rights over them because of ethical and practical teachings of the Buddha a supposed slallls of superiority. In India, Sri which can be applied 10 the social life of the Lanka, and China, Buddhists established the fIrSt relative world, yet from a so-teriological perspec­ bospitals for the medical treatment not only of tive. human beings but of animals as well.Dln Bud­ dhism, the issue of human rights is but One fraction RIGHTS AFF1RMEO IN BUOOmSM of the wbole issue of rights since it aims for the emancipation of all sentient beings, not only of A. Affirmation of Rights of All Life Forms human beings. As the Dalai Lama declares, Bud­ dhism leaches that "we all have an equal right 10 The Western concept of rights concerns be happy." >4 only humans, while the Buddhist idea of rights is confined not only 10 the sphere of humans but is B. Affirmation of Rights of Humans opened 10 all life forms. Buddhists believe that all living beings on this earth have an equal right to ~uring the time of the Buddha, in India, existence and welfare. there was an entrenched caste system that classi­ It is said that the frrst action performed by fied human beings into hierachical social struc­ the Buddha aflee a week of medilation in the bliss lures. But the Buddha and his disciples "ignored of Enlightenment was 10 gaze at the Bodhi tree caste and racial discrimination both within the with motionless eyes for one week.21 TheBuddha Sangha and in their relationships with the laity and thus expressed his thankfulness and respect 10 the openly preached and practiced the doctrine of the tree that gave him shelter during his struggle for equality of man."" The Buddhist Sangha, as one Buddhahood. In this action of the Buddha, we of the oldest inlemational societies in history'" as witness a lesson in acknowledging the importance well as a community which aimed for universal of ecological eare for the natural environment not good embracing the whole of humankind,'" did not simply as a physical object but as part of the same grant any special privileges or immunities to a living world of which humans are also a parL favored class. The Buddha's teaching of human IniereSl in ecological concerns has been on equality, which advocated the abolishment of the the increase; however, the Western approach to caste system, was a revolutionary concept in this ecology seems 10 differ from the Buddhist. The historical period. Western approach values the importance of ecol­ From the teachings of the Buddha, ogy for the purpose of human survival as a species, Jayatilleke summarizes the following seven argu­ or for the purpose of global health as an investment ments by the Buddha which support the idea of required for access to future resources." From a human equality: (I) Biological ~ument: Bio­ Buddhist viewpoint, this kind of approach may be logically speaking, only humanity is a single regarded as anthropocenlric. The Buddhist ap­ species called homo sapiens, unlike any other proach is to share the right to exist with all life animals and plants.:III As modem scientists regard forms as joint members of the universe, not as the concept of race only as "a classification de­ hierarchically dominating beings inlent upon vice," the Buddha regarded the apparent divisions conquering the universe. among human beings as nO! being due 10 biological

The Pacific World 77 Now &nos, No. 6; 1990 S. Taniguchi

factolll of absolute categories, but due to "conven­ tion for the development of human potential and tional classifications" (samaJ/lld).29 In this way, the dignity. Buddha asserts that human beings are all biologi­ cally equal. (2) Anthropological Algument An­ C. Affumation of Rights of Women thropologically, all humans are equal, for class, caste or slave systems are mere historical products Historically, women have been marked for of divisions of labor and occupational distinctions discrimination in virtually all societies. The WOlllt and have no intrinsic relation to anthropological kind of human qualities are attributed to women. distinctions. (3) Sociological Algument: Class In some traditions, they have been regarded as the structure is not universal but only exists in a source of all the sins of the world These prejudices sociological sphere, for some states may have four and discriminations have peIpetuated Ihe practice classes and Othelll may have two, such as "the of denigrating women and seeing them as mere lords" and ''the serfs." And the class structure itself objects of possession. is not rigid since .. the lords sometimes became the The issue of women's rights as a subject of serfs and the serfs lords."'" It always undergoes discussion is a very recent development in the change and is not absolute or permanenL There­ history of humankind. Down through the ages in fore,all humans are sociologically equal. (4) Legal various cultures, women had little or no rights as Algument Legally, all humans can be equally individuals. The Code of Manu, a prominent law punished for an infringement of the criminal law book in Vedic literature, states: "No act is to be with the same type and degree of punishment." done according to her own will by a young girl, a Therefore, legally all humans should be equal. (5) young woman, or even by an old woman, though Moral Algument Morally, all humans are equally in their own houses. In her childhood a girl should liable under causal law in an ethical realm. There­ be under the will of her father; in her youth, of her fore, all human beings are totally equal in the moral husband; her husband being dead, of her sons; a dimension." (6) Ethical Algument Ethically, we woman should never enjoy her own will ...... Chi­ are all capable of doing good or evil." No one is nese e1hical codes also revealed a similar kind of always completely good or evil. All human beings attitude toward women. 36 The society was male­ ethically fall somewhere in the same general oriented and there was a strong belief \hat only a range, only to minimally differing degrees. (7) male child could succeed in the continuance of the Religious Algument And lastly, religiously and family line; thus,lhequality ofamarried woman's spiritually, all are capable of attaining salvation or life depended upon whether she could produce a spiritual development despite individual differ­ son or nOL" If she had no child, or if she had failed ences of capacity and regardless of their social to produce a son, she could be supel!leded by a status, race, or color. 34 second or Ihird wife, or even be chased out of the In this way, human equality is strongly house. emphasized by the Buddha not only in political, In Hinduism, after losing one's husband, social or legal realms but in all possible dimen­ "the widow ... was considered not only unfortu­ sions. We also find human nature to be the same, nate but also inauspicious ..... Women had two though individuals may appear different in Iheir options: to perfonn self-immolation on the funeral capabilities and potentialities. Given equal oppor­ pyre of one's husband or to pass into widowhood." tunities and freedom, each individual can develop Widows could not remarry. Since all dealh was his,lher basic human potentiality, since Ihe im­ regarded as resulting in pollution for the membelll plementation of human rights serves as a founda- of the dead peIllOn's family, "[if] there is a widow,

The Pacific World 78 New Scri... No. 6; 1990 s. Taniguchi

this death pollution is focused On her and is Hinduism, marriage is not regarded as a sacrament [considered to be) removed from the human world or sacred event but as a secular, or private civil by her immolation ..... Maniage was considered a affair, though it has its social sanctity."A1though boly sacrament. A young girl who did not marry the union of two individuals is meaningful, a was despised by society and held as an object of marriage can be dissolved by mulWll agreemenl." their criticism.·' The wife was probibited from Both husband and wife have coparcenary rights of owning her own property." In the field ofreJigious common property. The wife is not required to practices, spirilWllity of women was also denied. change her maiden name after her marriage. "The Unlike the /pg Veda period of ancient India, husband and wife exercised co-equal outlook: in all women in the Brahmanic period were deprived of affairs. Women are able to bold property in kind or their religious rights and spiritual life. Sudras in money, independently of their male relatives."" (lowest of the folD' Hindu castes, mainly farmers Remarriage of women is accepted." In widow­ and laboring people) and women were prohibited hood, she suffered no moral degradation as a COII­ from reading the Vedas. It was believed that a sequence of her husband's death. There was no woman was capable of reaching heaven not change in the social status of a widow. She through her own merits but only through unques­ inherited her husband's property and managed it tioning obedience to her husband." She could not "She was considered as a rational human being even worship God by herself. with a right to maintain her recognized position in In Judaism, the position of women has been the social structure and was even branded by no also low. It is only in this century that "the essential stigma .... claim that women are equal to men in spiritual and Notonly in the domestic or social reaIm, but intelleclWll potential has become an accepted also in the religious and spirilWll realm, women axiom.- Under Jewish law, "women ... do not were not treated as being basically inferior or form a congregation, even when ten of them come subservient to men. 'The Buddha afftrmed that together,"" for women are viewed as private per­ intellecblally and spiritually a woman had the sons. Like Hindu women, Jewish women are same potentiality as a man and was capable of exempt from worship," and "Women, slaves, and attaining FnIightenment 58 In the Buddhist text, the minors are exempt from reciting the Shema [verses Buddha says as follows: from the Old Testament] and from putting on phylacteries ... ,''47 A woman cannot divorce her And it be woman, be it man for whom such husband," thus cannotremany. 'The widow wbose chariot doth want, by thaI same can enter husband died childless and was survived by a Nirvana's shall they come. 57 brother is bound to the brother... The position of women in Buddhistdoctrine The Buddha established the Order of monks as is remarkably different from the above. The well as nuns." Thus, the women were not left out Buddha's teaching of human rights based on the of any sphere of religious activity. ''To allow total equality of human beings naturally supported women to spend Ihe homeless life required a great women's rights based on equality of men and many precautions and protections,"" but the B ud­ women. 'The Buddha had neither discrimination dha thought that they could be overcome and thus against women nor bias toward women. gave his consent for Ihe establishment of nunner­ The Buddha opposed practices centered on ies. The Buddhist communion consisted of monks, the male offspring;'" consequently, Buddhist nuns, laymen and laywomen. ''The highest spiri­ women did not feel forced to produce male chil­ IWII states were wilhin the reach of both men and dren. In Buddhism, unlike in Ouistianity or in women and the latter needed no masculine assis-

The PodIic World 79 New s.ne.. No. 6, 1990 S. Taniguchi

tance or priestly intermediary to achieve them."" monks (misbehaved monks were excluded), for Both monastery and nunnery had equally aulDno­ example, represents the Buddha's practical ap­ mous slams as an organization.·' The Buddha proach towards the existing strong and rigid social described the defects and vices of women as well Sb'\lcture of discrimination against women plus his as men equally.61 The Buddha chose some pre­ compassionate concern, so that nuns would not eminent disciples and followers from thousands of create unnecessary and meaningless conflicts in them; they IDlalled 42 monks, 13 nuns, 10 male and society simply by not standing low to monks. 10 female lay-followers respectively." One of the When we consider the historical situation where early canonical texts called TheriglftM (psalms of the Code of MJmu dominated the entire society, the Sisters) is full of stories of women whoaaained this kind of social manner which was assigned to the highest stage of spiritual cultivation. They nuns must have been regarded as a minor and were women from various classes, ranging from superficial thing related only to the institutional mem hers of royal families to slaves. They were organization, when compared 10 the Buddha's mothers, wives, widoWS, daughters, courtesans, radical affmnation of the equality of spirituality merchants or farmers. and intellect between men and women, an essential The status of women in contemporary In­ necessity for the final goal of Buddhism, Nibblfna, dian society was extremely low and degraded, here and now." Passages in early Buddhist texts being subjugated to men. On the other hand, the that display gender bias have 10 be understood Buddha affmned the highly advanced teaching of within "blatantly male-dominated cultural and total equality of women and men. In the tension social context" rather than 100 "exhaustively."70 between these two views, many rules forouns were It is easily imaginable that there were necessary for their protection. These rules shel­ monks who were not comforlable wi!h the tered them from possible danger or harm from Buddha's decision of accepting women inlo the coDlemporary society and allowed them to prac­ Order, especially among those who were previ­ tice the Dharma freely. The ultimate purpose of the ously of high castes and never allowed women any Vinaya, or rules for monks and nuns, should be status of their own. Indeed, after the dea!h of the understood in the context of slJa, whose ultimate Buddha, Ananda was blamed at the flrSl Council value is protection from suffering." For those who for being the chief cause for the establishment of live within a broader fence of protection, "there is the nunnery. Nuns were sometimes ill-treated by more space," and they "live out in the open, in the the monks, and they had 10 render various services air.''"' Also, since nuns as women had the potential 10 the monks, such as, washing and dyeing robes for pregnancy, the Buddha assigned more rules to and cleaning up the hall. But the Buddha was nuns than to monks ... Because of these rules, nuns careful and concerned about the well being of the were doubly protected. 67 nuns and set rules to protect them, forbidding the Gurudhammas, or Eight Imporlant Rules, monks of such abusive practices. For example, 10 were laid down for nuns with the acceptance of prevent the monks' laking advantage of the nuns, women into the Order. Although by their appear­ the Buddha decided that things offered 10 both ance they are often interpreted as degrading nuns Orders should be divided equally between the and forcing them to submissive roles in the Order, Orders even if the monks acwally outnumbered the a careful swdy shows that the total value of nuns. Thus, many rules were laid down 10 check Gurudhammas lies in the concern for the well !he negative auitudes displayed by the monks. As being and protection of the nuns." Gurudhamma long as the Buddha was alive, the nuns were well I, the lower standing of nuns to well-behaved protected.7l

The PflCific World 80 New SerieI, No. 6; 1990 S. Twll"cJU

Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity have a to one's own self possessed by all ordinary living history of inequality, such as admitting caste or beings. Because of this auachment to one's own slave systems as well as animal sacrifices into their self, all ordinary beings seek freedom from fear, theological doctrines. n In contrast, the Buddha pain, hurt, harm, and suffering. The Buddha states taught, afl'umed, observed, and put into practice thai as basic ordinary human nature, each individ­ the equal rights of men and women, of all human ual loves oneself the most beings and even of all life forms. On this stand­ point, it may be concluded that among the world's The whole wide world major religious teachings, Buddhism is the only we traverse with our thought, teaching which affums equal rights of all those And nothing fmd to man three sphere of existence. more dear than self. Since aye so dear the self to others is, BUDDHIST RATIONALE OF HUMAN Let the self-lover harm no other man." RIGIITS The above quotation includes the three In the Western discussion of the issue, there steps of awareness: (1) "I" is the dearest to the self; is a belief thai each individual inherenlly possesses (2) for you, you are the dearest; (3) therefore, 1 do human rights. Leroy S. Rouner says, "If it is not not harm you. The first step is to have awareness entirely clear what these rights are, or which of of myself thai "I love myself best of all." Then this them is fundamental, it is nevertheless widely awareness becomes the second step for the recog­ believed that we do indeed have them."" This nition of this feeling in others as well. And fmally belief reminds me of the Kantian antinomy for the both awareness leads to the undeniahle conclusion concept of freedom. In his Groundwork of /he of "I do not harm you." Putting it into the context Me/a.physic of Morals, Kant does not rationalize of human rights, it can be restated: "I have the right why an individual has freedom. He simply be­ to be peaceful, happy, and unharmed; and so does lieves that human beings have freedom. A theistic the other person. Therefore, I cannot violate the religion, such as Christianity, may auribute its other's right to be peaceful, happy and unharmed." rationale to religious belief and conviction. How, The Buddhist way is supported by one's awareness then, does Buddhism rationalize human rights and embodied with insight/wisdom, or paiIfIa. and the rights of all life forms? This issue is closely compassion, or Jauuna. What is important is thai related to Buddhist anthropology or theory of the sense of self-love exists as common nature in personality. all living beings. If each individual requires human rights for The Buddha also remarks as follows: protection from the common human need of free­ dom from fear, pain, harm, suffering, unhappiness, Let him not destroy life nor cause others to hurt or other forms of problems, then the Buddhist destroy life, and, also, not approve of others' ethical principle and the basic rationale for human killing. Let him refrain from oppressing all rights seem to converge. In Buddhist ethics, living beings in the world, whether strong or mental, physical, or verbal actions thai are harmful weak." either to oneself, to others, or to both are always discouraged. 74 Why? Because harmful action In Buddhism, human rights is but one part of the always brings pain, suffering, hurt and sorrow, whole. The message in the famous story of the which each individual wants to avoid. The Buddha court trial brought by prince Siddhartha and was aware of the reality of the slrOng auachment Devadsl1a over the possession of a wounded swan,

The P.cffic World 81 New Scriu. No. ~ 1990 s. Tanijuc:hi

which was shot by Devadatta and discovered and the purpose of human welfare and happiness. taken care of by Siddhartha, is thai life belongs to Since the Buddhist ethical teaching is also directed someone who cares for it best Every living being toward the same aim, the Buddhist approach to the has a right to protect not only oneself but also the attainment of human welfare and happiness can be other. In other words, one can become involved in a tool to address the issue of human rights. another's life by protecting the other's life; how­ Buddhism being a non-theistic religion, it ever, one cannot interfere in another's life by has no concept of a divine will or divine authority kiOing or harming it If one does not have this thai punishes or rewards. The destiny of a human reverence towards others, it could mean thai one being is not cOnlrolled by a creator but by one's acknowledges thai others have the right to retaliate mental, verilal, and physical actions in accordance with harm. The implication here is that one, with the law of cansality. That is, happiness and indeed, does not have the right to harm others. welfare as well as unhappiness and misery are The Buddhist Five Precepts77 are also ra­ nothing but a result generated from pertinent tionalized in the same manner and all of them causes and conditions. nalUrally uphold the concept of human rights at its As is clear from the non-theistic nalilre of basis. The Buddha states as follows: the teaching, Buddhist ethics is prescribed not as divine commandment, but in the form of self­ A state that is not pleasant or delightful to me, awareness, self-motivation and self·dfor! in their it must be so to him too. Then how could I interrelationship with causal law. The principle of inflict thai upon him? As a result of such causality is utilized to explain the principle of reflection, he himself abstains from taking the righteousness and justice. The principle of right­ life of creatures and he encourages others SO eousness and justice is called Dharma in Bud­ to abstain, and speaks in praise of so abstain­ dhio;m. ing." The ethical realm based upon the Buddhist theory of cause and effect can be explained as The fundamental principle of the precepts is: "I follows: Any action done with "wholesome" don' t want to be banned. I have a right not to be (kusala, meaning skilful, or morally good) motive harmed. So does the other person." The second ... a motive free from anger, ignorance, and greed precept," for example, will be understood as fol­ .• • and with the proper means, is harmless to lows: since it is not pleasant or delightful to me that oneself, to others, or to both. This action necessar­ he/she takes what is not given to him/her, it must ily brings a "good" result, which is happiness. On be so to him/her, also. Then how could I inflict thai the other hand, any action done with "unwhole­ upon him/her? Buddhist precepts are for the pur­ SQIIIe" (akusala which means "unskilful") motive pose of protecting the rights of oneself as weO as ... a motive rooted in anger, ignorance, and greed others. The Buddhist moral justification for human ... and with improper means, is harmful to oneself, rights is based on empathy for others rooted in to others, or to both. This action necessarily brings one's acute awareness of one's own wishes and a ''bad" result, unhappiness and pain. fears. As is clear from the above, in Buddhism, anger, ignorance, and greed are regarded as always HUMAN RIGHTS, BUDDHIST ETHICS, harmful to oneself, to others or to both and result AND DHARMA: WHAT DOES SELF-CARE in unhappiness and pain; thus, they are called the MEAN IN BUDDHISM? three roots of evil. According to Buddhist psy­ chology, anger, hatred, greed, and ignorance are Human rights are affirmed and observed for regarded as the causes of unwholesome action

1hc Pcc:iIic World 82 N .... Seriu, No. 6, 1m s. Tanisud"

which is hannfulto oneself and never justifiable or whole. For example, the law does not enjoin righteous. The one who really cares for oneself is suicide, and what it does not enjoin it forbids. the one who tries to be free from anger, ignorance Moreover, when a RJaR voluntarily - that is and greed. The Buddha's reaching is direcled to the to say in full knowledge of the person affecled path of how to gradually eliminate "self-love" as and the instrument used - banns another, not allachment and how to cultivate and develop the in retaliation, in violation of the law, he acts mind of "self-aue" that is free from unwholesome unjustly. Now when a person kills himself in action. In Buddhism, "caring for oneself" as the a fit of anger, he acts voluntarily in violation solid foundation for human welfare and happiness of right reason; and that the law does not connotes a much wider and broader realm of permit. Consequently, he acts unjustly. But ethical teaching than "care for oneself' in the lOWard whom? Surely toward the state, not ordinary sense; for when I care for myself, I am toward himself. For he suffers voluntarily, but free from anger, greed and ignorance. When I am no one voluntarily accepts unjust treatmenL 11 free from anger, greed, and ignorance, it means that at the same time I care for others as well. Aristotle's above argument can be recon­ Although in the WestemIChristian tradition, anger structed by dividing it into two parts: (1) suicide is is regarded as justifiable when it is raised for the unjust to the state, and (2) suicide is not unjust to right reason,'" in Buddhism, such is not the case, oneself, for no one voluntarily accepts unjust for anger is always bannful and is so firstly to trealrnent oneself. Since human beings are social beings, it is The Western concept ofjustice is discussed obvious that the impact upon society made by a primarily in terms of its relationship to others. II In suicide is quite deleterious. Although Aristotle Buddhism,justice and righteousness as Obanna is does not remark on this point specifically, it is clear always in relation either to oneself, to others, or to that the "pollution of the city caused by suicide was both. Without righteousness and justice to oneself, probably regarded as the chief part of the injury there can be neither righteousness nor justice to inflicted by his act "OJ Therefore, suicide is unjust others. The Buddhist rationalization of hURJaR to the state. The tautology of "what the law does rights necessarily requires righteousness and jus­ not enjoin it forbids" can be correctly understood tice 10 oneself as its basis. by reading "law" as "custom and fashion," but not In the next section, I will auempt to explore a narrow and positive law. Since common law the ancial difference between the Western and the forbids suicide, it is a violation of the law. There­ Buddhist approaches to justice and righteousness fore, the state exacts a penalty. in relation to the concept of "self-<:are." Suicide Arislotle continues to say that suicide is not will be the tool for this argumenl unjust to oneself. The syllogysm used here is: (A) No voluntary action is unjust to oneself. (B) IS SUICIDE A PART OF HUMAN RIGHTS? Suicide is a voluntary action, (C) Therefore, sui­ cide is not unjust to oneself. The question is, According to Aristotle, suicide is unjust to however, whether, in truth, the two premises (A) the state but not unjust to oneself. In the last and (B) he uses are valid. First of all, Buddhism chapter of Book V of Nichomachean Ethics, he sees the clear difference between logical validity states: and reality (facts). The Buddha explains how logic is not a fuUy satisfactory method of knowledge in One class of just acts is that which is ordained finding the truth. Logical validity is dependent by the law in confonnity with virtue as a solely on the premises one chooses. If the premises

The hdJic World 83 New Serit4. No. 6, 1990 S. Taniguchi do not carry solid credit in reality, then the others. In this regard, there is an emphasis on conclusion itself may lose its value. physicalism, as opposed to the Buddhist txadition, Firstly, is a voluntary action not unjust to which emphasizes mental action as the most oneself in all cases? We do not have to depend on important criterion of the ethical realm. "Physical the knowledge of modem human psychology to action" in this context is rejected by the Buddha as recognize the fact that a person who is confused "wrong view" or miccM-di/fhi!' can always harm and hurt oneself physically as Suicide,from a Buddhist point of view, may well as mentally with awareness of one's actions. be regarded basically as an unjust and wrong The problematic nature of "voluntariness" is radi­ action. The action of raking life, whether the life be cally important when one discusses ethical mean­ one's own or another's, is usually rooted in anger, ing of action. Though Aristotle regards that volun­ hatred, fear, attachment, ignorance, confusion, tariness itself justify an action, in Buddhism, prejudice, jealousy, or dogmatism. For anyone voluntariness does not necessarily justify an action who loves oneselfbest, such an action of taking life simply because the action is voluntary. The Bud­ cannot be carried out without having an "unwhole­ dha repeatedly taught that one of the three roots of some" motive - anger, ignorance, and greed. The unwholesome actions is ignorance or ignoring action is harmful to oneself, to others, or to both, facts (with awareness). In this context, voluntari­ and thus it necessarily results in unhappiness. ness with ignorance is unjust. Then, the fll"St If we put Aristotle's notion of suicide in the premise, "No voluntary action is unjust to one­ context of human rights, his logic would probably self," can be wrong. conclude in one of three ways, (1) each person has Secondly, is suicide a voluntary action? As a right to commit suicide, (2) he cannot answer the we discuss later, in most people commiting sui­ question of whether suicide is part of human rights cide, confusion and delusion are SO profound that or not, and (3) suicide has nothing to do with it is questionable if they really want to kill them­ human rights. But from a Buddhist point of view, selves voluntarily or nOL If so, their actions may to commit suicide may be regarded as a violation not be categorized as "voluntary." Then, the sec­ of human rights. If one cares for oneself, one is free ond premise may also lose its validity. from anger, ignorance and greed. In this regard, the Aristotle regards ethics as being directed Buddhist approach to human rights is not merely towards human happiness." If so, the same one legal or social, but a profoundly ethical issue. action cannot be unjust to the one and just to In GroundworkoftheMetaphysicsofMor­ another. Suicide is an ethical issue of justice to als, Kant attempts to establish the fundamental and others as well as to oneself. Aristotle's contradic­ universal moral principle that can be adopted by tion seems a necessary result from his approach to anyone at any place. Kant tries to see if"self-Iove" justice, which is discussed only in terms of can serve as "a universal law of nature," a but he others."Naturally some critical questions may be finds a dilemma, for in the case of suicide, "self­ raised. Isn't oneself part of the state? If one is part love" leads to self-destruction. "Self-love" and of the state, isn't suicide also unjust to oneself? "self-destruction" are selfo(:ontradictory and self­ Cannot justice function in a wholesome way both inconsistert. towards oneself and the state? What Buddhism could suggest to the Kan­ Aristotle divides action into two types: that tian dilemma is to clarify the meaning of "self­ which affects one or more than one person, and that love." From a Buddhist view, "self-love" and which affects the community." The Westemcon­ "self-care" (melfA) are regarded as two different cept of action is basically physical behavior as an things. Caring for oneself, as already mentioned, expression of physical energy directed towards necessarily requires freedom from anger, greed

The PM:ific World 84 NewSeri.. , No. 6; 1990 S. Taniguchi

and ignorance; on the other hand, "self-love" does prejudice, ideological dogmatism, fear, jealousy, not In Buddhist concept, "self-love" is another and distorted views. In Buddhism, these are ca\e­ name for attachment (1a{Iha). In each individual, gorized as the three roots of evil,that is, ignorance, "self-love" exists as basic human nature. This is anger and greed. The Buddha was not simply a what the Buddha stated in the \ext, that for each reformer of the social injustice but truly a radical individual, the dearest is always oneself. .. transformer of the very roots of social injustice, "Self-love" which has roots in greed, anger which is \he human mind. or ignorance, at the extreme level can nalurally Buddhism is a teaching designed not only to result in self-destruction. Because of ignorance, fight against rights violation but also to fight one destroys one's own life, though what one against the roots of rights violation. In Buddhism, actually aucmpts to destroy is not the life itself. justice and righteousness are considered not only What a suicidal person attempts to destroy is his! in terms of human relationship, but also in regard her pain, suffering, despair, torment, affliction, or to the mind of each individual. Wilbout justice to other physical and mental pains which he/she is ex­ oneself, social justice cannot exist. The starting periencing. One wants to live if one can remove all point of the observance of rights is to be free from the pains. Resean:h on suicide proves that "many anger, greed and ignorance. In other words, to care likely suicides wish neither to die nor to kill for oneself is the very starting point of the obser­ themselves."" Because of one's delusion or igno­ vance of rights. Those who care for oneself natu­ rance of possible options other than committing rally care for others. Those who care for one's own suicide, one believes that taking one's own life is rights are those who also affirm and observe the the only solution to the problem. In this regard, rights of o!hers. From a Buddhist point of view, "self-love" and self-destruction are not self-con­ this is \he fundamental approach to rights of all ll'adictory or self-inconsistent, but these two are beings as well as humans. In this regard, since the rather similar in one sense, though Kant did not sot.eriological goal in Buddhism, nirvana, means view this as such. the total liberation and freedom from one's own From a Buddhist viewpoint, though "self­ anger, greed and ignorance," the Buddhist ap­ love" cannotserveas the universal law , "self-care" proai:h to the affirmation of human rights and can be considered as the basic foundation for rights of all beings lies not only in the social, legal, morality and ethics. In this regard also, we may or ethical realm but also in a soteriological contexL know how crucial it is to recognize the importance of "action to oneself' in the discussion of justice FOOTNOTES and righteousness. Human rights. justice or right­ eousness can be fully realized only when it is 1. From a broader historical view, the idea understood in an ethical con\ext which considers of human rights in \he sense of legal rights as the action - physical, verbal and mental - with mutual rights of the members of the society can be respect to oneself and others as the basis for action traced back to the Code of Harnmurabi, the Baby­ to others. lonian King (about2,l30 to 2088 B.C.E.) the most ancient code of law known at presenL International CONCLUSION Encyclopedia of /he Social Science, cd. David L. Sills, (N.Y., Macmillan), pp. 540. Infringement and resultant violation of 2. Ibid., pp. 540-541. The American rights are IOOIed in the activities of the human constitution prohibits abridgment of \he right of mind, such as hatred, antagonism, confusion, freedom of speech to prevent interference with

'IlIe PociJic World 85 New Scriu. No. 6, 1990 S. TMigudii

fundamental rights by the public authorities, while and the World's Religions, ed. Leroy S. Rouner the Soviet constillltion promises all available Iech­ (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, nieal facilities for the purpose of securing freedom 1988); Kenneth lnada, 'The Buddhist Perspective of speech, but does not promise freedom of speech on Human Rights," in HUITIJlII Rights in Religious itself. Traditions, ed. Arlene Swidler (N.Y., The Pilgrim 3. Ibid., p. 542. Press, 1982); Masao Abe, "Religious Tolerance 4. The WeslminswrDictioruuyofChristian and Human Rights: A Buddhist Perspective," in ElJUcs, cds. James F. Childress and John Macquar­ Religious Liberty and HUITIJlII Rights in Nations rie (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1986), and in Religious, ed. Leonrad Swidler (philadel­ p.556. phia: Ecumenical Press, Temple University, 5. James C. Hsiung, "Human Rigbts in an 1986). East Asian Perspective," in Human Rights in East 18. Masao Abe, p. 204. Asia, cd. James C. Hsiung (New York: Paragon 19. Ibid House Publishers, 1986), pp. 3- 7. 20. MahlpaIinibb5na SuI/a, II. 26. 6. Ibid, p. 25. 21. Narada Thera. The Life of the Buddha 7. Ibid. , p. 7. (Malaysia: the Malayan Press, 1969), p. 16. 8. IndiaAbroad (CA: Los Angeles), Vol. 22. Perry Ottenberg, "Psychiatric Issues on XX No. 27. April 6, 1990, p. 12. Human Rights in Religion, " Human Rights in 9. Sangharakshita, Ambedkar and Bud­ Religious Tradition, cd. Arlene Swindler (New dhism (Glasgow, Scotland: Windhorse Publica­ York: The Pilgrim Press, 1982), p. 100. tions, 1986), p. 59 and p. 68. 23. A. L. Basham, The Wonder That Was 10. Ibid., p. 76. India (N.Y.: The Macmillan Company, 1954), p 11. Ibid., pp. 162-163. 502. J. Jolly, Medicin (Strassburg: Verlag Von 12. S. Tachibana, The Ethics of Buddhism Karl J. Krubner, 1901), p. 16. Jayatilleke, Bud­ (London: The Oxford University Press, 1975), p. dhism and Peace (Kandy: The Wheel Publication), 52 p.5. 13. Masao Abe, ''Religious Tolerance and 24. His Holiness the Dalai Lama, "Hope for Human Rights: A Buddhist Perspective," in Reli­ the FUlUrC," in The Path of Compassion: Contem­ gious Liberty and Human Rights in Nations and in porary Writings on Engaged Buddhism, cds. Fred Religions, cd. Leonard S widler (Philadelphia: Eppsteiner and Dennis Maloney (Berl

The hcifie World 86 New s.nu, No. 6; 1990 s. Toniguchi

31. Majjhima NiJc§ya, II. 88. Quoted in birth to a daughter. Seeing this, the Buddha said to Jayatillelce, The Principles ofIntemationai Law in him, "A female offspring, 0 King, may prove even BuddhistDoctrine, p. 517. better than a male." S/UflyutJa NiJc§ya, III. 2. 32. MajjhimaNiJc§ya, II. 86. Quoted in The 51. Tilokasundari Kariyawasam, ''Femi· Principles of In/emational Law in Buddhist Doc· nism in Theravada Buddhism, .. paper presented at trine, p. 517. the conference, "Buddhism and Christianity: 33. Diglu! NiJc§ya, II. 25(}'251. Quoted in Toward the Human Future," Bedceley, California. The Principles of International Law in Buddhist 8-15 August 1987, [Collected papers] p.8; The Doctrine, p. 517. Position of Women in Buddhism, p. 9. 34. Msjjhima Niklya, II. 147. Quoted in 52. Hajime Nakamura. Genshi Bukkyl1 No The Principles of Intemational Law in Buddhist SeikstsuRinri, pp. 24·27. Doctrine, p 517. 53. Ibid., p. 9. 35. The World's Great Religions, ed. 54. Tilokasundari Kariyawasam, p. 8. Edward K. Thompson (N.Y.: Time Inc.. 1963),p. 55. Ibid., p. 9. 42 56. Though to attain enlightenment is as· 36. Shiirai's Rlliki. Quoted in NyoninOjD ( swed to be possible for both men and women, in Kyoto: Hongwanji Publication, 1988), p. 7. one PIli text, we can find a passage which records 37. Atharva· Veda III, 22. Quoted in The that the Buddha is refuted to have said that an World's Great Religions, p. 44. enlightened woman cannot become a fully self· 38. Harold G. Coward, "Purity in Hindu· awakened one, a wheel·turning king, a Sakka, a ism: With Particular Reference to Pal8Jljali 's Yoga Mara and a Brahma. MajjhimaNiJc§ya, lII. 65-66. Sutras," in HinduEthics (Albany: Slate University 57. S/UflyuttaNiklya, I. 33. See also I. 129. of New Yode Press, 1989), p. 18. 1.89. 39. Ibid. 58. The Buddha's so-caJled reluctance for 40. Ibid. the establishment of a nunnery can be partly 41. K. Sri Dharnmananda, "Status of attributed to the contemporary social status of Women in Buddhism, .. in Gems of Buddhist women in India, who were entirely subjugatA:d to Wisdom (Malaysia: Buddhist Missionary Society, men. The Buddha must have been aware of the 1983), p. 312. evils of seclarianism which might likely humiliate 42. The Code of Manu, TheWorld'sGreat and harrass women if they were provided separate Religions, p. 42. accommodations. 43. L. S. Dewaraja. ThePosition ofWomen 59. Chalsumam Kabilsingh, ''The Future of in Buddhism (Kandy: The Wheel Publication, No. Bhikkhuni Sangha in Thailand, .. paper presented 280, 1981), p. 6. Gems of Buddhist Wisdom, p. at the conference, "Buddhism and Christianity: 312. Toward the Human Future," Berkeley, California. 44. Rachel Biale, Women and Jewish Law 8·15 August 1987, [Collocted papers] p. 3. (N.Y.: Schocken Books, 1984), p. 256. 60. The Position of Women in Buddhism, 45. Ibid., p. 22. p.8. 46. Ibid., p. 29. 61. Hajime Nakamura. pp. 122-127. 47. Ibid., p. 17. 62. AngutJaraNik8ya,IV. 196-197. Quoted 48. Ibid., p. 83. in Masaharu Anesaki's Buddhist Ethics and Mo­ 49. Ibid., p. 113. rality, 1912, p. 22. See also Hajime Nakamura's 50. King Pasenadi , a non·Buddhist king, Genshi Bukkyl1l1O Seikatsu Rinri, pp. 122·127. was deeply grieving that his queen Mallika gave Karma Lekshe Tsomo interprets the greater num·

The P.dRe World 87 New Seti.. , No. 6, 1990 S. Taniguchi

ber of precepts to nuns than to monks as follows: 74. MajjhimaNi1c5ya, 1. 415420. ''When the order of nuns began five years 1aIer, it 75. SaqJyuttaNi1c5ya, m. I. 8. interited the precepts that had already been laid 76. Sutta NipSta, 394. down for the order of monks. The number of 77. They are "I take upon myself the rule of precepts formulated on the basis of a nun's misbe­ lraining to refrain from, (1) harming living things, havior are only about half the numbe.- of precepts (2) taking what is not given, (3) sexual misconduct, formuIated on the basis of a monk's misbehavior.· (4) wrong speech, and (5) taking drugs or drinks SakyadilA: Daughters of the Buddha, ed. Tsomo. which tend to cloud the mind. (Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications, 1988), p. 22. 78 SlIf!IyuttaNi1c5ya, V. 353-355. 63. Allguttara Ni1c5ys, 1. 14. 79. See note 77 . 64. See the aulbor's unpublished M.A. SO. Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, If. thesis, "A Study of Biomedical Ethics from a Martin Ostwald, ( N.Y.: Macmillan Publishing Buddhist Perspective, " (The Graduale Theologi· Company, 1986), 1135b 20-30. New Testament cal Union, Berkeley, California, 1987), pp. 56-58. Mark 3.5; 10.13-15. The Westminster Dictionary 65. SuttaNipSta 406 of Christian Ethics, p. 22. 66. Z. Nagata, "Ritten No loseikan," Jour­ 81. See Nichomachcan Ethics, 1130b 1-2. nal ofIndian and Buddhist Studies, xxvn, no. 2 82. Nicomachesn Ethics, 1138a 5-13. (March 1979), pp. 707-710. 83. I. A. Slewart, Notes on theNicomach­ 67. Ibid. can Ethics ofAristotle, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 68. Cbatsumam Kabilsingh, pp. 5-7. 1892), p. 534. 69. Anguttara Ni1c5ys, I. 54-55. SlIf!Iyutta 84. NichomacheanEthics, l099b 26, 1l01b Ni1c5ya, xxxvm. IV.!. 15-17. 70. Tsomo, pp. 22-23. 85. Ibid., 1130b 1-2. 71. Ibid., p. 9. 86. Rhetoric, 1373b 25-35. 72. Cf. e.g., Hindu Ethics, p. 2, pp. 79-80. 87. MajjhimaNik5ya, 1.373 Leviticus, 14.2-32. Matthew 8.4. SL Augustine, 88. Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the The City of God, Bk. XIX. ch. 15. Thomas Metaphysics of Monds, 53-54. tr. H. J. Paton Aquinas, The Summa of Theology, Supplement (N.Y.: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), p. 89. (Posthumous Compilation, 1274). Encyclopaedia 89. See nole 75. ofRe/igion and Ethics, ed. lames Hastings under 90. Encyclopedia of Bioethics, ed. Warren entry: slavery. The Westminster Dictionary of Reich (N.Y.: Free Press, 1978), Vol. 4. p. 1619. Christian Ethics, pp. 28-33. 91. Anguttara Ni1c5ya, I. 54-55. SlIf!Iyutta 73. Human Rights and the World's Relig­ Ni1c5ya, XXXVIII. 1. ions, p. 1. Italics mine.

1lH> P.. i1ic World 88 New Serio<, No. 6; 1990