Say Tiny

[Metacrock]

I am putting this on this board because its' about social issues. It could also go on the adventure of faith board. Bu whatever.

the basis of liberation theology for Christians is "God is on the side of the poor." This is an extention of the idea of a loving God who cares for those who can't defend themselves.


what if anything is the basis of liberation theology for a Buddhist? Or is there one? I mean, there were monks who did political action against the governemtns of Z'dem and Key in Vietnam. but isn't that desire?

I am not trying to be sarcastic. I want to know how they think about it?

this is not one of those cheesy apologetic arguments like "Buddhists can't deal with the reality of moral decisions" or anything stupid like that.

[tinythinker]

the basis of liberation theology for Christians is "God is on the side of the poor." This is an extention of the idea of a loving God who cares for those who can't defend themselves.

what if anything is the basis of liberation theology for a Buddhist? Or is there one?

As an example from a well-known Buddhist social activist and peacemaker, Thich Nhat Hanh once said he didn't think Jesus would take sides, even against the powerful. This comes from a view that we all co-create the world in which we live, and because of dependent co-arising, what affects one eventually affects everyone. In this view, the best way to help the poor or disenfranchised isn't simply to make it "us versus them" against the rich and the elite. If you look at cases where the poor led a revolt to overturn those who had oppressed them, it led to continuing resentment and instability, because each side that is overthrown or driven out will want to get even. A true and lasting solution, from this perspective, requires cooperation and reconciliation from all parties involved in the problem, which won't come about if the hostility of divisiveness persists. That is why, for example, the current Dalai Lama continues to pray for the Chinese and their leaders and to make proposals for the future of Tibet that take their concerns into consideration rather than only the grievances of his own people. This is similar to Gandhi's approach with the British in India, even though the circumstances with the Chinese in Tibet are not the same.

That is not the same as saying that these or other Buddhist leaders and peace activitists do not identify with the poor and outcase or that they do not seek to demonstrate solidarity with them. Instead, it means that they also identify with and extend their compassion to the dictators, the juntas, etc. To go back to a Christian example, someone once asked Theresa of Calcutta (a.k.a. "Mother Theresa") how she was able to spend so much time among people in such dire circumstances. She said that she had realized a long time ago that she had a Hitler inside of herself. It was because she was able to be honest about the part of her that identified with the worst in humanity that she was able to find the humility and patience necessary to sustain her compassion as she identified with the disenfranchised.

I wrote a bit about these ideas a couple months ago, so for further clarification of what I am trying to say, feel free to read the following humble offerings from my blog:

Fighting the Good Fight

Not taking sides: embracing the oppressor and the oppressed

The poor, the sick, the criminal, and the outcast

I mean, there were monks who did political action against the governemtns of Z'dem and Key in Vietnam.

Yes, and let's not forget the current situation with the monks in Burma.

but isn't that desire?

The desire in Buddhism that is dangerous comes from attachment to incorrect views, not simply from wanting something.

[Metacrock]

good point about desire. It's easy to fall into legalistic thinking, ala western upbringing. I admire those Buddhists.

Mother T was miserable. No on ever said giving up your life for other would make you Mary Poppins. For those who were putting her down as a phony a few months ago, she never claimed Jesus made her Mary Poppins.

i wrote a blog on that called Someone Miserable for God.

[tinythinker]

i wrote a blog on that called Someone Miserable for God.

I recall you write something about how people were using Mother Theresa's problems as an excuse to say she was a hypocrite. It's sad that the art of understanding is so limited.

Speaking of understanding, I happened to run across something I mentioned yesterday regarding Buddhism and Liberation Theology, so I thought I would share it. It is a section from a book chapter...

UNDERSTANDING BRINGS LIBERATION

In Latin America, liberation theologians speak of God's preference, or "option", for the poor, the oppressed, and the marginalized. But I do not think God wants us to take sides, even with the poor. The rich also suffer, and in many cases more than the poor! They may be rich materially, but many are poor spiritually, and they suffer a lot. I have known rich and famous people who have ended up committing suicide. I am certain that those with the highest understanding will be able to see the suffering in the poor and the rich.

God embraces both rich and poor, and He wants them to understand each other, to share with each other their suffering and their happiness, and to work together for peace and social justice. We do not need to take sides. When we take sides, we misunderstand the will of God. I know it will be possible for some people to use these words to prolong social injustice, but that is an abuse of what I am saying. We have to find the real causes for social injustice, and when we do, we will not condemn a certain type of people. We will ask, Why has the situation of these people remained like that? All of us have the power of love and understanding. They are our best weapons. Any dualistic response, any response motivated by anger, will only make the situation worse.

When we practice looking deeply, we have the insight into what to do and what not to do for the situation to change. Everything depends on our way of looking. The existence of suffering is the First Noble Truth taught by the Buddha, and the causes of suffering are the second. When we look deeply at the First Truth, we discover the second. After seeing the Second Truth, we see the next truth, which is the way of liberation. Everything depends on our understanding of the whole situation. Once we understand, our life style will change accordingly and our actions will never help the oppressors strengthen their stand. Looking deeply does not mean being inactive. We become very active with our understanding. Nonviolence does not mean non-action. Nonviolence means we act with love and compassion.

-from Living Buddha, Living Christ by Thich Nhat Hanh, pp.79-81

[Metacrock]

that's good. I would be glad to liberate a rich guy from his possessions. I know, it's a dirty thankless job to have all that wealth but I'm willing to give it a try. Anything to help people obtain bliss right?

[runamokmonk]

Thich Nhat Hanh once said he didn't think Jesus would take sides, even against the powerful.

But I think the whole thing of Jesus saying, "my kingdom is not of this world", is directly putting His kingdom in opposition with worldly kingdoms. Worldy kingdoms being authoritarian and lording over others, His kingdom being upside down and flat in comparison.

There's a whole lot of conflict in the N.T. by Jesus. I mean, he goes out of his way to create conflict and to show that his kingdom is not of "this world". "Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar" John 19. And he didn't need to heal anyone on the sabbath or talk to women about important things. I think his whole ministry was an offence to the powerful yet he loved them too and some of them he even helped.

The whole crucifiction thing was a way for the powerful to show that they had precise control over death (read Ernest Becker, escape from evil) and I also see the ressurection-among other things-as a rebellion against the prinicipalities and powers control of death, and so life.

I agree that God loves everyone. And that God is Love. But I think, what is love if not suffering with those who suffer, especially at the hands of the powerful, those who are considered "winners" and favored by "God" ~

"To speak here of a God who could not suffer would make God a demon" Jurgen Moltmann

Personally, I have a real problem with this world and suffering and God. I used to think God must be something cold and crazy. But I have to say, it is the suffering God that draws me in.

I don't really have any gripe against the above. So I don't want to come across as arguing against Tiny. I agree that Jesus said to Love your enemies and in his crucifiction he asked his Father to forgive them for they do not "know" what they do. But he didn't say we wouldn't have enemies.

It's just that i do believe that God takes sides with liberty and love for he is Love and if he isn't well, he has to be, or he isn't anything at all.

[tinythinker]

Yet the liberty and love expressed in the Gospels aren't restricted to any one group. That's the tough part. I don't dispute that Christ's message created conflict, but it was not because he was pitting one group against another but rather because he was challenging everyone to question their assumptions about their identity and what it mean to really get in touch with the Kingdom of Heaven/perceive the Divine. It isn't that the rich and powerful are any less deserving of freedom from their false views and limitations, but rather that they are less likely to give them up because the perceive themselves as benefitting from such "worldly" structures (hence the comment about the camel and the eye of the needle - Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:24-25, Luke 18:24-25). The same lesson was offered in the parable of the rich man preparing a banquet as told in Luke chapter 14. As at the time and place those you dined with indicated what class/status you identified with, he naturally invited others of equal status. But they all made lame excuses why they couldn't make it...

Jesus replied: "A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, 'Come, for everything is now ready.' But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, 'I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.' Another said, 'I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I'm on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.' Still another said, 'I just got married, so I can't come.' "

"The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, 'Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.'

" 'Sir,' the servant said, 'what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.'

"Then the master told his servant, 'Go out to the roads and country lanes and compel them to come in, so that my house will be full. I tell you, not one of those who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.' "

In other words, the man had his servants grab anyone and everyone they could find, including the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame. And let's not forget that when he has his servants go out one last time, the people they were dragging in from the lanes would have included folks like tax collectors, foreigners, prostitutes, etc. It isn't that the rich and powerful were not invited, they simply found excuses not to go.

We can get an inkling that this is relevant to our discussion because right after this Jesus is quoted as talking about the difficulty of following him and of having to be willing to let go of our preconceptions and risk the beliefs and constructed self-image of ourselves that we have become used to and even attached to (to make sure he gets the point across he shocks the audience with pronouncements such as "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" in verse 26). From my understanding, Jesus isn't really asking people to hate themselves or their families, but rather to break free from their preconceived views, even those of themselves and those closest to them. Leave that old view of reality behind. Learn to see instead with the perspective of Christ, i.e., as a human fully in touch with his relationship to/as an aspect of the Divine. It was considered anathema to disagree with or risk the disfavor of your family, but Jesus is saying, Yes you have to be willing to make a choice that your family does not approve of. "So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple" (verse 33).

This same story of renunciation, taking it back to the Buddhist angle, is found in many places in Buddhist cannon, but nowhere more notably than the story of Siddhartha Gautama himself, who left his life of luxury as a prince, cut off his hair (very symbolic), and put on the robes of a wandering seeker. Neither the Buddha nor Christ, from what I can tell, are asking us to all become homeless street people in dirty robes, estranged from our friends and family and begging for alms, but rather to recognize what attachments are reinforcing the delusions that are keeping us from seeing our true nature (i.e. what misguided views are keeping us feeling separated from God).

[Metacrock]

good point. politics and religion were much more closely intertwined back then. Christ for the Jews (Messiah) had a religious connotation. Findings at Qumran show that Jewish groups had a view of Messiah much more closely related to the Christian view than previously thought by modern scholars.

Yet the concept of Messiah was bound up with political liberation for Israel form the Romans. In fact the concept began as a liberation from exile under the Persians. The Original notion probably started with Zerubabel who was the grandson of the last king of Judah, who led the people back from exile, still under the rule of the Persians, but allowed to set up a vasal state. He was probalby going to be crowned king, and was the prototype of the Messiah, liberator. but he died before he could be crowned.

[tinythinker]

good point. politics and religion were much more closely intertwined back then.

Yes, that would appear to be accurate. I don't have a link that discusses it in any great depth, but I once heard someone talking about how many of the statements Jesus makes are sensible in terms of Jewish and Roman law - that is, it was a form on nonviolent resistant a la Gandhi which shamed the oppressor. Here is an adequate summary from Wikipedia:

A figurative interpretation relies on historical and other factors. At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, they argue, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality. By handing over one's cloak in addition to one's tunic, the debtor has essentially given the shirt off their back, a situation directly forbidden by Jewish Law as stated in Deuteronomy 24: 10-13:

When you make your neighbor a loan of any sort, you shall not enter his house to take his pledge. You shall remain outside, and the man to whom you make the loan shall bring the pledge out to you. If he is a poor man, you shall not sleep with his pledge. When the sun goes down you shall surely return the pledge to him, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you; and it will be righteousness for you before the LORD your God.

By giving the lender the cloak as well the debtor was reduced to nakedness. Public nudity was viewed as bringing shame on the viewer, not the naked, as evidenced in Genesis 9: 20-27:

Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness.

The succeeding verse from the Sermon on the Mount can similarly be seen as a method for making the oppressor break the law. The commonly invoked Roman law of Angaria allowed the Roman authorities to demand that inhabitants of occupied territories carry messages and equipment the distance of one mile post, but prohibited forcing an individual to go further than a single mile, at the risk of suffering disciplinary actions. In this example, the nonviolent interpretation sees Jesus as placing criticism on an unjust and hated Roman law as well as clarifying the teaching to extend beyond Jewish law. As a side effect this may also afforded the early followers a longer time to missionary to the soldier and or cause the soldier not to seek followers of Jesus to carry his equipment in the future so as not to be bothered with their proselitizing.

[runamokmonk]

I think the above are ideas I read from Walter Wink. I think it was called the powers that be, I don't remember though. Of course I am sure there are others who could've come to similar ideas without him.

But this is sort of what I meant about taking sides, I guess. He is clearly denouncing the system and it appears to me that Jesus was showing a different way of liberation rather than the old "oppressing the oppressors" schtick. Although, I did read your reply to me which made me think.