'Can the concept of"selflessness" become the basic of a Buddhist theory of social justice'?

Question

without endangering Buddhism’s primary focus on individual salvation?

Answer 1

I believe that the concept of selflessness can be used to link the apparently conflicting goals of social justice and individual enlightenment. But to show how, we will have to take a step back and discuss the Buddhist ideas of suffering, the cure of suffering, and the bodhisattva ideal; only then will it become clear how social justice and the search for individual enlightenment can actually serve to reinforce one another.


In Buddhism, the process of spiritual growth is often compared to the healing of sickness. The First Noble Truth states that “life is suffering,” but in Buddhism’s view, suffering can be cured if the proper remedy is applied. Suffering stems from our subconscious desires, which are often referred to as “thirst,” thus indicating their blind and vehement driving force. Because of the blind nature of desire in general, this “thirst,” which causes the root sickness of human suffering, is often equated with ignorance. All other diseases are merely symptoms of this fundamental ignorance. The main symptom is the attachment to external objects and to something inside oneself, one’s so-called self.


Based on this diagnosis, the Buddha suggested the availability of a remedy. He believed that enlightenment, or happiness as opposed to suffering, is inherent in the individual, which means that happiness may be achieved by curing the root sickness within ourselves.
Buddhism’s emphasis on self-healing—the search for enlightenment—is the primary reason why it did not develop a mature social philosophy. And yet, though the Buddha never intended to create a political ideology, he certainly never ignored other people. Having taught his disciples and helped them become enlightened, he then urged them to preach to others: “Walk, monks, on tour for the blessing of many people, for the happiness of many people out of compassion for the world, for the welfare, the blessing, the happiness of devas and human beings. Let not two of you go by the same way.”


Early Buddhists understood this passage to mean that the Buddha asked his disciples to work for others, but it was also interpreted as meaning that in order to help others one must first become enlightened and therefore healed—a point made explicitly in a Buddhist dictum: “[O]ne who is sick cannot cure others.” As a result, Buddhists, occupied with the work of self-healing, became relatively passive in the social arena.


Yet, as stated earlier, it would be a gross oversimplification to claim that Buddhism is oblivious to the interpersonal dimension of human experience. The original belief that one who is sick cannot cure others came to be radically transformed by the bodhisattva ideal, which appeared in the later phase of Buddhism known as Mahāyāna Buddhism. This new religious figure, the bodhisattva, embodied the new socio-religious atmosphere at the time when Mahāyāna Buddhism began to appear in India.

Answer 2

Metta in Buddhism is a state of mind. Its object is the lovable being. It is the state of wishing to promote the welfare of the lovable being. In the Buddhist teachings, the doctrine of anatta – or non-self – occupies a position of prime importance. As such it may seem to be conflicting. This is because there are two types of truths, conventional (sammutti) and ultimate (paramattha).

Conventional truths are conceptual, and true only at the conventional level. When seen in an ultimate point of view (i.e. a mind freed from ideas, concepts) they do not exist. They are like shadows cast by realities. Therefore the "person" exists only conventionally. Ultimately, "he" can be experienced as mental and material processes. If you see things in this way you are looking at things as they really are, which is actually insight (vipassana). To develop this direct vision into reality is to practise insight meditation – vipassana bhavana.

At such a time, we cannot be having metta as the nature of the objects differs. Moreover, when we return to conventional realities or switch back to conceptual objects then we may have the metta again. That is why, comparatively, vipassana is more profound and superior. It frees one utterly from all sufferings of samsara (cycle of birth and death).

Metta, however, must not be underestimated, although it has its limitations. Most of us will need a lot of time before we have completed the work of insight cultivation. And even after that metta will still play a great role. Even Buddhas are not always without conceptual objects. Concepts occur together with the mental formations and processes.

In the discourse to Subha, the Buddha answers questions posed to him as to the reasons for long life and so forth. From the answers, we find that the kammic results that lead to long life, good health, beauty, following, wealth, noble birth can be attributed to acts connected with loving kindness, compassion and sympathetic joy.

Therefore the Four Sublime Abodes (Brahmavihara: i.e. loving-kindness, compassion, altrustic joy and equanimity) act as a soothing balm to those still within the cycle of birth and death.

Besides these, we also see metta as an effective means:

1. to overcome anger – as it is the opposite of these violent and destructive mental states,

2. to build up the required concentration base for the development of insight, because with metta, our mind concentrates rapidly,

3. for a healthy relationship with every living being – so important for a happy family, society and the world.

From this we can see that Metta Bhavana is something that should be practised to some degree by everyone. Without it one not only tends to fail in social and personal relationships but is also at a great disadvantage when involved in spiritual practice.

http://www.buddhanet.net/metta01.htm

Answer 3

Let me run down to the local Stop and Shop and ask that question.