SCRIPTURAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN TRADITIONAL AND ENGAGED BUDDHISM Jack Carman B.A., California State University, Fresno 1974 THESIS Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in LIBERAL ARTS at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO SPRING 2010 © 2010 Jack Carman ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii SCRIPTURAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN TRADITIONAL AND ENGAGED BUDDHISM A Thesis by Jack Carman Approved by: __________________________________, Committee Chair Joel Dubois, Ph.D. __________________________________, Second Reader Jeffrey Brodd, Ph.D. ____________________________ Date iii Student: Jack Carman I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis. __________________________, Department Chair ___________________ Jeffrey Brodd, Ph.D. Date Liberal Arts Master’s Program iv Abstract of SCRIPTURAL CONTINUITY BETWEEN TRADITIONAL AND ENGAGED BUDDHISM by Jack Carman Engaged Buddhism is a modern reformist movement. It stirs debate concerning the scriptural and philosophical origins of Buddhist social activism. Some scholars argue there is continuity between traditional Buddhism and a rationale for social activism in engaged Buddhism. Other scholars argue that while the origins of social activism may be latent in the traditional scriptures, this latency cannot be activated until Asian Buddhism interacts with Western sociopolitical theory. In this thesis I present an overview of Buddhist fundamentals that are common to both traditional and engaged Buddhism, and I conduct a critical overview of three seminal Buddhist texts – The Dhammapada, The Edicts of Asoka, and Nagarjuna’s Precious Garland. I provide critical reviews of contemporary Buddhist scholars representing both the traditional and modernist schools. I also provide overviews of exemplary Buddhist social leaders whose teachings do not sacrifice tradition and do not rely on the Western world for validation. I conclude that there is evidence for scriptural and philosophical continuity between traditional and engaged Buddhism. When scholars and activists insist that engaged Buddhism is a product of the twentieth and twenty-first century however, they deny the roots of a social theory in the Buddha’s original teachings. _______________________, Committee Chair Joel Dubois, Ph.D. _______________________ Date v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis is dedicated to the memory of Swami Shraddhananda (1907-1996) With special thanks to: Dr. Joel Dubois and Dr. Jeffrey Brodd for their guidance and expertise, Shelley Carman for her love, patience, and understanding, and to Arin Holecek and Adam Carman for being my children and my best friends. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1-7 2. Theravada and Mahayana ................................................................................. 7-11 3. Scriptural Origins of Buddhist Fundamentals................................................. 11-19 4. Buddhist Ethics ............................................................................................... 19-22 5. The Dhammapada ........................................................................................... 22-27 6. The Edicts of Asoka ........................................................................................ 28-31 7. Nagarjuna’s Precious Garland ........................................................................ 31-39 8. Thomas Yarnall ............................................................................................... 40-48 9. Kenneth Kraft.................................................................................................. 48-53 10. Ken Jones ........................................................................................................ 54-57 11. Christopher Queen .......................................................................................... 57-65 12. A. T. Ariyaratne .............................................................................................. 65-68 13. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu ...................................................................................... 68-73 14. Sulak Sivaraksa ............................................................................................... 73-77 15. Thich Nhat Hanh and the Dalai Lama ............................................................ 77-85 16. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 85-87 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................. 88-94 vii viii ix x 1 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Thich Nhat Hanh: “Buddhism is already engaged. If it is not, it is not Buddhism.” Walpola Rahula: “Buddhism is based on service to others”…political and social engagement is the “heritage of the bhikkhu” and the essence of Buddhism. Robert Thurman: “The primary Buddhist position on social action is one of total activism, an unswerving commitment to complete self-transformation and complete world-transformation.” Stated in simplest terms, engaged Buddhism means the application of Buddhist teachings to contemporary social problems. Engaged Buddhism is a modern reformist movement. A practitioner is socially engaged “in a nonviolent way, motivated by concern for the welfare of others, and as an expression of one’s own practice of the Buddhist Way” (King Being 5). In this description Sallie B. King invokes the spirit of the Bodhi- sattva vow: May I attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings. According to Ken Jones engaged Buddhism is “an explication of social, economic, and political processes and their ecological implications, derived from a Buddhist diagnosis of the ex- istential human condition” (Kraft New). Jones emphasizes the social theory underlying engaged Buddhism. According to engaged Buddhists the “three poisons” of greed, anger and ignorance apply both to the individual and to “large-scale social and economic forces” (Kraft New); their remediation is therefore the collective concern of society. As the subject of numerous treatises, anthologies, lectures and symposiums, engaged Budd- hism plays a vital role in the twenty-first century dialogue concerning universal human- 2 ism and human rights. Ken Jones writes that the original 1989 edition of his book, The Social Face of Buddhism, “was an argument for a socially engaged Buddhism that at that time was little developed and not widely accepted…Since then engaged Buddhism has come more fully of age” (The New xv). Sallie B. King suggests that while engaged Buddhists share “key concepts, teach- ings, and practices drawn from tradition” (Being 12), engaged Buddhism itself “has no central origin, creed, or institutional headquarters, but developed separately in each Buddhist country with sufficient political freedom, in response to the social, economic, and/or political issues and crises facing that people” (12). Christopher S. Queen agrees the origins of social activism in engaged Buddhism are not well articulated: “some argue that social service has appeared in the Buddhist record since the time of the Buddha and King Asoka, before the common era, and increasingly since the rise of the bodhisattva ethic of Mahayana Buddhism in the centuries that followed” (“Engaged Buddhism” 249). Other scholars argue that Buddhist activism is a product of the late twentieth and early twenty-first century and “reflects the globalization and hybridization of Asian, European, and American values” (249). Still other scholars question whether Buddhist activism is Buddhist at all. Helen Tworkov, current Executive Director of the Buddhist magazine Tricycle: The Buddhist Review asks, “What makes engaged Buddhism Buddhist?” ( Kraft New). Tworkov writes, “…what is called ‘Buddhist ethics’ offers nothing new to a pre- dominantly Christian society…Social action, as distinct from radical political action, is sanctioned—even, shall we say, favored--by the Protestant ethic that continues to domi- nate this [American] culture…. Is it possible to have anything but Protestant Buddhism?” 3 (Kraft New). David Loy raises similar questions from a Buddhist perspective in the essay “What’s Buddhist about Socially Engaged Buddhism?” Kenneth Kraft writes in the essay Prospects of a Socially Engaged Buddhism that Thich Nhat Hanh first uses the term engaged Buddhism in his 1963 book by that title (18). Years later as quoted in Ken Jones’ The New Social Face of Buddhism, Thich Nhat Hanh says, “‘Buddhism means to be awake—mindful of what is happening in one’s body, feelings, mind and in the world. If you are awake you cannot do otherwise than act compassionately to help relieve suffering you see around you. So Buddhism must be en- gaged in the world. If it is not engaged it is not Buddhism’” (179). While Nhat Hanh’s use of the term appears to be the first, Christopher Queen notes additional early refer- ences to “socially engaged Buddhism” by Sulak Sivaraksa in 1988 and identifies the pre- valence of the term within such groups as the Buddhist Peace Fellowship founded in 1978, and the International Network of Engaged Buddhists founded in 1989 (Queen and King Engaged 34). Further, as early as 1958 Dr. A.T. Ariyaratne, founder of the Sri Lan- kan Sarvodaya Shramadana movement, drew out the “social implications of traditional teachings,