In an article in the latest issue of Tricycle, titled ‘Freedom Over Justice’, Thanissaro Bhikkhu argues that the goal of attaining a just world was not a focus of the Buddha’s teachings; and thus followers of the Buddha should not prioritize the pursuit of justice in their practice.
According to Thanissaro, the Buddha was primarily concerned with the end of suffering. To free ourselves of suffering, we need to cultivate certain skills and virtues – primarily through meditation – which allow us to remain equanimous and contented no matter the conditions that we experience. If the process of gaining this kind of ‘internal freedom’ conflicts with social justice as we normally define it, then we must always give preference to the former. The end of suffering must come before justice.
Thanissaro asserts this claim on two grounds. On the one hand, he identifies certain suttas in which the Buddha discusses karma and rebirth. According to Thanissaro, in these suttas, ‘for karma to work in a way that allows us to pursue a path to end of suffering, it can’t work in such a way which guarantees absolute justice.’ The process of ending the negative effects of karma and thus the ceaseless rounds of suffering will sometimes conflict with the achievement of justice. In these cases, we must always choose to end suffering.
One example of how the end of suffering is prioritized over justice is the well-known sutta involving Angulimala, who brutally killed many people but then underwent a profound conversion and became a monk after an encounter with the Buddha. Angulimala engaged in a path to end suffering; this shows that even the evilest person has the potential to change direction and follow the righteous path of the dharma. Angulimala overcame the effects of his past karma. Yet, Angulimala’s victims never received justice in any sense of the term.
Thanissaro’s other argument is that it is impossible to establish an objective standard for justice or what he call calls some ‘absolute’ theory of justice. There will always be disputes over what justice is and how this value should be applied in any particular case. And even if the conditions for a just society could be temporarily established, conflicts will inevitably occur because of the greed, hatred, and delusion which poison the minds of human beings. ‘For a just society to be possible, it’s essential that people first train their hearts and minds.’ The cultivation of mindfulness and compassion always come first, then social justice.
There are three problems with Thanissaro’s perspective.
First, as a secular Buddhist, I don’t find arguments based on traditional notions of karma and rebirth found in the Pali Canon to be persuasive. Such arguments require one to believe in supernatural processes and cosmological realms that are inconsistent with our current understandings of the world and human development.
More importantly, I disagree with the notion that the ending (more appropriately, the reduction) of suffering is both more important than and must always proceed the attainment of social justice. I would argue, along with other socially engaged Buddhists, that reducing suffering and the achievement of social justice are equally necessary and complementary processes.
Unjust social structures and institutions cause harm in a variety of significant ways; they are socially-based sources of suffering. But social injustice – whether it’s in the form of economic exploitation, discrimination, or organized violence - makes it more difficult for individuals to cultivate the virtues and skills needed to reduce suffering and flourish in this life. At the same time, we can’t achieve social justice unless mindfulness and compassion are an integral part of movements for social change.
That is why David Loy calls for integrating the Buddhist focus on alleviating individual suffering through meditation, ethics and wisdom with movements to create the kind of just society which reduces the suffering caused by social institutions. He argues that we need both the ‘psycho-spiritual freedom’ which enables us to reduce individual suffering and the creation of social conditions which limit harms caused by exploitative and oppressive institutions. I totally agree.
Finally, Thanissaro believes that because we can’t reach agreement on an ‘absolute’ theory of justice due to the inevitable disputes about what justice means and how it applies in particular cases. I grant that, like other important ethical and political values, the meaning and role of social justice will always be contested and debated as we face various challenges in our contemporary life. In that sense, we will never have an absolute theory of social justice, one that is universally true and timeless.
But that’s not an argument for making social justice subordinate to the individual’s pursuit of a life with less suffering and more flourishing. Instead, what we need to do is to develop a theory of social justice which is both appropriate to the challenges of our time and which recognizes the need for the individual and ‘internal’ changes that support a just society.
5 Replies to “No Justice, No Peace (or Human Flourishing)”
Thanks Mike. This is such an important topic for Buddhists in our time. Thanissaro Bhikkhu is very orthodox in his views but even if you are not I think there are good reasons to say that social justice should not be considered on par with the elimination of suffering. Oppression by social structures, institutions or norms is certainly one source of suffering but there are many others as well, so eliminating suffering has much broader scope. So even if all social injustice is eliminated, suffering remains until the heart can be trained in the Buddhist sense. On the other hand, training the heart in this way reduces the impact of social oppressions even if injustice continues to exist. Finally, if training the heart itself becomes a central social norm then wouldn’t social injustice be eliminated naturally as a byproduct? For this reason, I believe the most effective form of action for addressing social injustice is to lead society to value and promote this kind of individual training.
I totally agree with you Mike – we need to work on the inside of ourselves and the outside community and Justice is a key factor in that.
Thanks for this very informative essay, Mike! Your arguments on behalf of the equal importance of striving to attain personal equilibrium in our private practice and working to promote social justice in our collective practice are thoughtful, thorough, and compelling. It seems that Thanissaro has fallen into the trap of “either/or” thinking with regard to the alleged primacy of the personal over the social, whereas you espouse the much more compassionate “both/and” approach to these two equally essential modes of our practice.
Thank you Mike. I agree with your perspective, and the comments made by the latter two individuals.
In this situation, I am reminded of the Buddha’s basic teachings on mindfulness –which are upheld to be the middle way between extremes, and to be the path forward to the end of all suffering. And while arguing this point or that is tempting –I feel it is more important to study and to apply the teachings –and to engage the practice that embodies them.
And we must be aware of context –that Theravada practice –Thanissaro’s tradition –emphasizes personal practice for the sake of liberation (period). The Mahayana practice of alleviating suffering for all beings came approximately 500 years (?) after the original teachings of Gotama. This is not either /or situation –but rather represents an historic evolution of the teachings and practice –and an unfolding development in our understanding of them.
So back to the basics : In basic mindfulness training, according to the four foundations of mindfulness, we are asked to be mindful both internally and externally –that is, to be mindful of what is going on inside us –and what is happening all around us.
According to Thanissaro’s practical meditation teaching on mindfulness –and, yes, I have sat with this good teacher on occasion –we are not only to be simply mindful of whatever is arising –that is, not only to apply “directed thought” –but also to consider the positive /negative /neutral nature of whatever is arising –that is, to apply “evaluation” –and then to create an appropriate response.
Ven. Thich Nhat Hahn practiced a balance of Theravadin and Mahayana traditions. As a young mendicant in Viet Nam, you will recall, he had to consider the value of sitting in meditation in his monastic community’s temple, while all around them bombs were being dropped on small villages, and old men, women and children were being killed –while able-bodied men were forced against their will into combat.
Nhat Hahn’s ethical training informed his meditation practice. His conclusion was that in order to be fully responsible to his mendicant vows, he and the other mendicants should be active in alleviating the suffering around them. The result was he created a new order of young students, lay and ordained, who both meditated and worked in the villages helping to heal the injured and to rebuild the damaged –and some were martyred for their work. They continued anyway.
Most religious traditions emphasize that it is more noble to lay down your life for another, than it is to save yourself in protective isolation. Without being extra religious about it, Nhat Hahn’s students developed a heart of sacrificial service for the sake of the suffering of others, and began to alleviate that suffering –one village at a time. Their practice was to meet the face of suffering in another person, and to respond with compassion. This was their practice. They didn’t wait for some absolute theory on social justice, they just put the basic teachings into practice.
I have a lot of respect for Thanissaro. He has done so much to make accessible translations of the Pali canon available worldwide. I also respect his mendicant vows to a conservative Theravadin community that stabilize and deepen his teachings. I also am aware that he represents traditional Theravadin viewpoints, and as such I have also observed that some practitioners in this tradition can so emphasize detachment, that personal feelings of heart empathy can become under-developed or denied.
Or, perhaps, Thanissaro is simply and straight-forwardly being faithful to and representing the traditional Theravada way of personal practice in order to achieve freedom. We all have a place on the path. But let us not deny the reality of suffering all around us. Especially as that suffering intensifies and escalates. We are not separate –not from any one thing or any one person.
And so, the middle way has a pretty deep ditch on either side of that same path. For any of us honest enough to confess our experience, it takes a lot of sincere intention and depth of practice to remain steady on the middle way. The above discussion –about the importance of personal meditation practice and collective responsibility for social justice –is very important. And in facing these issues, our personal practice must be deeply and firmly established in ethical teachings and the needs of the world around us. I am reminded here of the street practice of Bernard Glassman-Roshi.
However, just arguing about dichotomy or rhetoric or theory –these are futile exercises in clinging to viewpoints. Especially so, if we are just bantering our opinions –another tendency Gotama warned against. Clearly, we need to dig more deeply into the teachings and the practice –also, most importantly, to peer more deeply into the fundamental intention over and beneath –and infusing –all the teachings and the practice –in order to arrive at a decent response to any thorny collective issue.
What we need is to see deeply, to evaluate based on ethical standards and precepts, and to act wisely and effectively –all the while seeking no harm. Or do I misunderstand the basic teachings ?
Finally, I recall a sutta from the Pali canon, where Gotama comes upon a monk from within his order –who is all alone in his cell –terribly sickened nearly to death from dysentery –and lying in his own foulness and excrement. Gotama and his attendant cared for the man –cleansed his body and his cell –found a new robe and fresh bedding –then went and scolded the other monks for failing to care for him themselves.
I recall that his teaching to them on the importance of responding to another’s suffering went something like this :
“If you fail to care for your brother monk when he is sick, who will care for you if you were to fall into sickness?”
Gotama taught skillful and aware responsiveness based on ethical precepts, and the desire to do no harm –and even more, to end all suffering –especially in others’ lives.