Excerpts from “Buddhist Peacework: Creating Cultures of Peace”

Buddhist Peacework: Creating Cultures of Peace was published in November 1999 by Wisdom Publications in association with the Boston Research Center (see page 1 article). We are devoting this issue's Special Feature section to excerpts from Peacework that introduce the spirit of the book and point to connections between Buddhist theory and trends in social activism.

First, the foreword by Joan Halifax, anthropologist and head teacher at the Upaya Zen Center in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The BRC asked Roshi Halifax to contribute a brief comment for the back cover of Buddhist Peacework. After reading the entire manuscript on a Saturday night, she wrote, as a “Sunday morning prayer,'” a moving commentary which became the book's foreword.

Following that is an excerpt from the concluding chapter by editor David W. Chappell. professor and graduate chair of the Department of Religion at the University of Hawaii. Dr. Chappell is a scholar of Chinese Buddhism and a pioneer in the pursuit of Buddhist-Christian dialogue. He discusses here how Buddhist philosophy translates into human connectedness and the protection of human rights.

Foreword to Buddhist Peacework

by Roshi Joan Halifax

Many people have observed that where there is the deep shadow of suffering in the life of the world, then there is also penetrating light. Such are the lives, communities, and work of the compassionate people in this important and wise book. This book explores the lives and actions, insights and guidelines of some of the world's most beloved Buddhist practitioners, teachers, and social activists who are currently working to end suffering in the life of the world. These friends from different cultures and schools of Buddhism are all actively engaged in the singular activity of peacemaking. They express their work of compassion in profoundly diverse, wise, and brave ways. And they have used the philosophy, practice, ethics, community building, and beauty of Buddhism to help with this endless work of compassion in action.

Buddhism has since its inception inspired its practitioners to discover the most radical form of inclusivity. This is the realization that all beings in all realms, no matter how miserable, violent, depraved and deluded, have a mind ground that is not only free of suffering and delusion but also not separate from the mind ground of any other being. Our individual suffering also unites us in a community of suffering as well. We may be a suffering buddha, a wounded buddha, a deluded buddha, but our basic nature, our basic mind ground is free from any defilements and not separate from others. Our wounds are commonly shared as well.

It is not necessarily so easy to realize this. Most of us have not allowed ourselves to look deeper than our personality and culture to see and touch who we really are. Yet, Buddhists and contemplatives of many traditions are encouraged to go within in order to discover not only the so-called oneness of all things but also the peace that surpasses understanding, knowing, ideas, and conceptions, the peace that is basic to all beings when they have come home to a deep and abiding state of nonalienation.

This peace, however, is not complacent. Out of this wise peace arises compassionate, nondual action. If we see that we are not separate from others, then we not only share their enlightenment, we also share their suffering. The right hand then naturally takes care of the left hand, with no expectation of thanks or credit. In peacemaking, there is no self, no other; no peacemaker, no victim; no outcome, no gaining idea. Just making and being peace.

Our authors feel that peacemaking is about realizing and living nonalienation from all beings and living this realization as the Bodhisattva does, riding on the waves of change. Making peace is based in the experience of radical intimacy with the world. It is about the most basic realization that enlightenment is not an individual experience, rather it is the liberation of intimacy in our relatedness with all beings. Enlightenment then is ultimately social, and Buddhism, Buddhists, and buddhas serve and awaken with and through relationships that are based in the functional experience of a deeply shared life, a life that is about nonharming and doing good, and a life grounded in kindness, compassion, wisdom, and skillful means.

Thus we as humans, as spiritual beings, beings who love and feel compassion, cannot hide from the truth of the pervasiveness of the particular suffering and alienation in the world in which we live today. We cannot turn our backs on the tendency to turn the world and its beings into objects which we call “other.” We are called more than ever to realize the obvious, that we are not, nor were we ever, living in a world of isolation. We are completely and inescapably interconnected and interdependent.

Like the Buddha 2500 years ago, Buddhists today work for the liberation of all beings from the illusion of separation. When there is an “other,” there is an Auschwitz, a Kosovo, a caste of people we will not touch, a ravaged and raped woman, a clear-cut forest, an abused and abandoned child, a young boy with fear and hate in his eyes and a gun in his hand, a man behind bars medicated or numbed out of his mind and heart, a rundown village of old women whose men have all died in war.

The basic vows that we take as Buddhists remind us that there is no “other.” The most basic practices that all of the schools of Buddhism engaged in point to the fact that there is no “other.” The fundamental teachings of the Buddha tell us that there is no “other.” Yet we live in a world peopled by those who are subject to the deepest forms of alienation from their own natural wisdom, a world where whole communities see “others” who should be done away with, liquidated, eliminated.

Today, more than any other time in human history, we are living in a kind of intimacy that can destroy or liberate. Our weapons can find their targets within minutes, our diseases can spread like a wildfire in a dry forest, and our delusions can contaminate the minds of millions instantaneously through the media.

At the same time, in the same instant, we can reach through to endless communities and individuals with acts of compassion and sanity, making peace by strengthening values and behaviors based in compassion and wisdom. We can nurture cultures of peace by transforming our own lives through kindness, compassion, and wisdom. We can work actively for economic justice, racial equality, protection of the environment, protection of human rights and the rights of all beings, wise and humane education, the voluntary control of the growth of the world's population, freedom from weapons, domination, exploitation and colonialism of all forms, and deep and true dialogue with respect for and appreciation of differences and plurality.

We have a responsibility today to work directly with our own suffering and the suffering in our communities, the world, and the environment. We all live under each otherÍs skin, and it is now more than ever functionally intolerable to turn away from injustice, corruption, violence, hatred, greed, and delusion.

The contributors to this volume, and many more individuals and groups around the world, are peacemakers whose lives and work are based in the realization that we are not separate from each other and that we must and can live sane, beneficial, and meaningful lives. Peace, however, is a process not a goal. It unfolds in the very details of our daily lives as well as in the broad brush strokes of the big picture. This marvelous and inspiring book is like the strong timber found in old bridge spans. May each of us, like the friends in this book, be a strong and joyful bridge that helps numberless beings and communities find their way to peace.

From the Conclusion by David W. Chappell

Dialogue as the Practice of Social Mindfulness

Dialogue takes Buddhist mindfulness practices into the social sphere. It is a way to become aware of the different social factors involved in our shared world to develop a more inclusive understanding and to create new choices for action.

Buddhist mindfulness has two dimensions: calming and focusing one's mind (samatha) and seeing the interdependent and transitory nature of all things (vipassana). Samatha temporarily mutes external factors so that people can see the role of their mental and emotional habits in shaping their perception and creates a psychic space where people can experiment with alternative ways of viewing and reacting to the world. For the Buddhist, these alternative ways of thinking must involve vipassana, namely, recognizing the interdependency and impermanence of each external object and inner personal experience. Seeing our interconnectedness and impermanence naturally leads to a sense of our common ground that leads in turn to empathy and compassion.

The Buddha's meditation methods consisted of recognizing a plurality of forces that shape our expectations, our habits, and our decisions. He challenged his culture's emphasis on a permanent, controlling ego (atman) that should be in charge. Rather, he demonstrated how our inner self was constructed through many factors in the learning processes that work together to construct a moment of consciousness. He showed how these processes inevitably lead to conflict and misery when a single factor becomes dominant, but that conflict can be dissolved through noticing the different elements shaping our consciousness and recognizing that attachment to only one way of perceiving inevitably leads to misery.

The good news is that by developing this inner transparency and inner dialogue about our perceptions, we discover that there are choices about how to construct our awareness, and that there are peaceful and non-peaceful ways to perceive and respond to our world. Mindfulness training is a method to defuse our ego, our hurts, and our attachments, and a way to find sympathy and compassion with others, and an arena for discovering creative new options.

The Buddha taught that by taking time out from reacting to events and by using the disciplines of morality, mindfulness, and wisdom, his followers could discover that peace depends not so much on what happened to them, but on what attitude, understanding, and reaction they give to these events. The discovery that inner peace depends on our choices about our interpretation and attitude toward external events constituted a major turning point in human history and continues to constitute a major turning point in individual lives.

Just as mindfulness training requires stopping normal activities (samatha) to see the factors that make up our awareness (vipassana), so developing compassion requires taking time out to become aware of beings other than oneself. To be effective rather than indulgent, compassion needs to be facilitated, nurtured, and guided by “regular and frequent” dialogue.

Today in business management, the old command model of top-down management has been replaced by an emphasis on teamwork and nurturing horizontal relationships. When a group has a controlling person, inevitably conflict will arise. In the political sphere, dictatorships in the twentieth century have killed more people than all the killing in previous human history. Peace requires checks and balances, participation in decision-making, and the recognition of diversity. Inner peace requires seeing the pluralism within, and social peace requires recognizing and collaborating with the pluralism without.

The mindfulness practices of Buddhism remain the major form of peacework and shape everything else. One reason that the Dalai Lama received the Nobel Peace Prize was his unusual reaction to the Chinese brutalization of his people. Instead of anger and violence, the Dalai Lama found common ground with the Chinese. He emphasized that the Chinese are just like him, they want to get rid of suffering and to find happiness. His capacity to find alternative ways of understanding and responding to the hurts of the world have convinced him that all people can develop a heart of compassion.

Dialogue is mindfulness training at the social level. It is not a discussion about external issues, but a sharing of personal experiences that opens awareness to the range of human factors involved in social decisions. In that way, dialogue requires an exploration of one's motivations and the motivations of others.

Robert Aitken says that “enlightenment is an accident, but meditation helps one to be accident prone.” Similarly, compassion is a gift, but dialogue is an invitation for gift exchange.

Human Rights and Buddhist Social Morality

Dialogue is not enough. Dialogue requires mutual respect, equality, and willing partners. So long as governments or corporations control the media, communication technology will not bring peace, parity, and freedom. Modern technology in this century has facilitated the brutality of dictators as well as the compassion of peacemakers. Dialogue is a practice that needs a suitable context. Note, for example, that Jiang Zemin has refused to meet with the Dalai Lama. Aung San Suu Kyi is still under police restrictions. Willing dialogue partners are not there.

Buddhist morality is not enough. The Buddhist precepts apply to individual purity and the Mahayana bodhisattva precepts offer only general encouragement for universal compassion, caring for the sick, and treating all people, including enemies, as family relatives. However, the special problems of organized society, of structural violence, of social oppression and environmental degradation, are not adequately addressed.ii In his acceptance speech for the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize, the Dalai Lama said:

Peace, in the sense of the absence of war, is of little value to someone who is dying of hunger or cold. It will not remove the pain of torture inflicted on a prisoner of conscience. It does not comfort those who have lost their loved ones in floods caused by senseless deforestation in a neighboring country. Peace can only last where human rights are respected, where the people are fed, and where individuals and nations are free...

Responsibility does not only lie with the leaders of our countries or with those who have been appointed or elected to do a particular job. It lies with each of us individually... What is important is that we each make a sincere effort to take seriously our responsibility for each other and for the natural environment.iii

The Dalai Lama is very aware of the complex problems of our globe and urges each person to develop a sense of universal responsibility. Daisaku Ikeda similarly encourages and tries to prepare members of Soka Gakkai to be world citizens. But both the Dalai Lama and Daisaku Ikeda do much more. They offer concrete proposals and guidelines for governments to adopt. And they both appeal to and support the United Nations and the Declaration of Human Rights.

Scholars have argued that Buddhism has no doctrine of human rights and, technically, they are right. At a metaphysical level, Buddhist teaching has always rejected the concept of an unchanging, substantial self. But the Buddha warned not to take doctrines too seriously. At a practical level, human rights have been strongly affirmed by contemporary Buddhists such as the Dalai Lama, Sulak Sivaraksa, Maha Ghosananda, Daisaku Ikeda, and others. Human rights were not written in the heavens by gods, but constructed in history by mortals. They have no more, and no less, authority than the growing consensus of the human community about political limits to protect each of us, and social goals for all of us. As a metaphysical doctrine they are inadequate, but as social norms they are an invaluable and necessary tool for Buddhist peacework.

Most Buddhists in Asian countries have suffered invasion, civil war, or oppressive political regimes in recent times. The Buddhist leaders in this book make clear the classic Buddhist social teaching of the inherent dignity and spiritual equality of all people, the importance of having compassion for the suffering of others, and the necessity of including all people in the decision-making process. Human rights may not be inherent in people in a metaphysical sense, but they are strongly supported by Buddhist leaders as a negotiated social contract based on fairness and respect since everyone wants freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, health, food, self-esteem, and education.iv

Human progress has not been biological, but technological and institutional. While as consumers we are well aware of technological advances, none of our authors has mentioned the remarkable advances in legal safeguards for people in this century that have given new freedom to Buddhists to develop social programs. Although Buddhist thinkers have been critical of all absolutes, including legal ones, the practical benefits of law as social contract are an important part of peacework by stabilizing social compromise. Although the Buddhist tradition has been very good in its prohibitions, and very idealistic in its emphasis on universal responsibility, it has been rather weak in the intermediate steps of social responsibility —education, health, employment, welfare, and cultural development. This “middle path” needs much more attention by Buddhists. Fortunately, it is in this middle area where many of the new contributions of Buddhist peacework are being made, especially as seen in this book.

The 30 articles of the Declaration of Human Rights have a remarkable parallel to the threefold morality of Mahayana Buddhism: do no evil, cultivate good, and save all beings. The French jurist Karel Vasak saw the three values of the French Revolution (liberty, equality, and fraternity) as representing three levels or “generations” of human rights. The human rights articles consist of prohibitions that protect individuals from governments (2-21), those that nurture individuals in their economic, social, and cultural relationships (22-27), and those that affirm the need for a global order (28-30). This structural affinity with Mahayana ethics, as well as the importance of human rights in Buddhist liberation movements and peacework, and the global spread of human rights as a shared standard, is making the Declaration of Human Rights an essential new pillar of social ethics for contemporary Buddhists.

When the Diem regime outlawed public celebration of Wesak in Vietnam in 1963, thousands of Buddhists resisted nonviolently in public gatherings. The resulting arrests, torture, and killing of practitioners were detailed in a 45-page report on human rights violations submitted to the government by a Buddhist delegation. The appeal to human rights as a standard that is recognized worldwide has been a major advance of human civilization in the twentieth century. But it is the picture of Thich Quang Duc enveloped in flames at a Saigon intersection in 1963 that has seared itself into our collective global consciousness. Nonviolent political protest reported widely by the media has transformed our cultures. Legal protection of individuals is the first level of human rights and Buddhist morality. But the second and third levels of human rights and Buddhist morality require mutual responsibility and global awareness that involve personal and cultural transformation that are emphasized by Buddhist peacework.

i See Rudolph Rummel, Death by Government (New Brunswick: Transaction, 1994), 2.

ii See my “Searching for a Mahayana Social Ethic,” Journal of Religious Ethics 24.2 (Fall 1996), 351-376 and my forthcoming “Universal Bodhisattva Ethics,” in a volume honoring Ven. Jeon Un-deok of Korea, for an analysis of three major Mahayana precept scriptures.

iii Dalai Lama, “The Nobel Peace Prize Lecture, Oslo, Norway,” in Sidney Piburn, ed., The Dalai Lama: A Policy of Kindness (Ithaca, New York: Snow Lion, 1990), 17-18.

iv See Stig Toft Modsen, State, Society and Human Rights in South Asia (New Delhi: Manohar, 1996), for a fuller discussion of the idea of negotiated human rights that arise out of political negotiations, rather than philosophical absolutes.