These are notes from the intro to a discussion session at the Manchester Buddhist Convention on 10th October 2015.
Is dukkha structural?
Is dukkha
structural? Or more precisely, can the causes of dukkha be found in our social,
political and economic structures?
In
explaining the Four Noble Truths, the Buddha does not individualise dukkha. To
quote Bhikkhu Santikaro:
In the Buddha's
original formulation of these truths, he neither spoke of "my dukkha"
nor of "your dukkha." He spoke simply of dukkha. "There is
dukkha." It is important that we remember this fact and do not overly
personalize the four noble truths such that they become merely a matter of
"my dukkha" and getting rid of "my dukkha." Many Buddhists
have fallen into this trap, which is a primary reason why many of them are not
concerned with the incredible dukkha that surrounds them in the world. This
observation helps explain why many so-called Buddhists simply retreat into
themselves without participating responsibly in collective efforts to solve the
dukkha of society.[1]
Question one: Do Buddhists tend to
over-individualise dukkha?
If we habitually think of dukkha as “my dukkha” or “your dukkha”, we
will also habitually think of the Second Noble Truth in similarly
individualised ways. We will then look for causes on a purely individual level.
I have come across this tendency many times, both in Buddhist circles,
in the field of secular mindfulness and in non-Buddhist thinking. I will look
at one overt example from my own tradition, Triratna.
Dharmachari Subhuti is an experienced and revered member of the
Triratna Buddhist Order. Along with our founder Sangharakshita, he is author of
a collection of texts known as the Seven Papers – texts which are meant to help
define what it is to be a Member of the Triratna Order. Suffice it to say,
these texts are very important to the Triratna Buddhist Order and presumably
reflect ideas that run deep through our movement.
One of the texts is called The
Dharma Revolution and the New Society. It covers what is apparently
Sangharakshita’s vision for revolution, for creating a society structured in
accordance with the dharma. Here is a paragraph about how we as Buddhists can
help society’s disadvantaged. To me, this paragraph sums up the attitude that underpins
what is at times a contradictory argument. Says Subhuti:
Those who are poor, marginalized, excluded,
or subject to prejudice need to hear the Dharma's most basic message: they are
human beings, equal to all others in the most important sense of being morally
responsible. Their dignity and their strength is to be found in accepting
responsibility for their own lives and acting in accordance with ethical
principles to be found within Karmic conditionality. Understanding this, they
will gain the power and the courage to help themselves – not passively waiting
for others to help them, but lifting themselves up and making for themselves a
better life through skilful, responsible action.[2]
By claiming that people are marginalised because they are failing to
take moral responsibility, Subhuti is implying that the underprivileged are at
least partly to blame for their own situation because of their faulty attitude.
But there are plenty of people who are in poverty, who take responsibility for
their own lives and yet still struggle. Poverty is not a matter of poor moral
choices, it’s not caused by having the wrong attitude. It is a material,
structurally-created condition – Subhuti fails to acknowledge this.
In a neo-liberal capitalist economy, corporate-backed governments like
our own function to create an “attractive investment climate” for big business.
They do so by cutting social security, eroding workers’ rights and privatising
public services[3]. The
cost of living rises sharply but wages stagnate. With the safety net of social
security gone, poverty is rife and big business can employ cheap labour from a
wide pool of desperate people. In this way, poverty is an essential component
of how neo-liberal economic works. The dominant economic structure of our world
functions to make a select few wealthy by throwing masses in to poverty.
Given this, it seems confusing for Subhuti to suggest that those in
poverty simply need to “accept… responsibility for their own lives.” When
multi-national corporations and governments, backed by vast and powerful
militaries, are conspiring to cast people in to poverty, is it really fair to
say that the poor should simply “accept… responsibility for their own lives”
without any mention of structural causes? Would Subhuti apply the same logic to
some of the darker moments in humanity’s history?
In the whole text, issues of economics are barely touched upon and the
word ‘capitalism’ does not appear once.[4]
It seems that the ‘dharma revolution’ is a revolution of people’s personal
attitudes, not of the structure of our society as a whole. In my experience,
this reflects a great deal of Buddhist discourse around social problems.
So, how would the Buddha react to the underprivileged in modern society?
There are several Suttas of the Pali canon in which the Buddha responds to
social unrest. One such discourse is the Kutadanta Sutta in the Digha Nikaya.
In this text, the Buddha tells the story of a wealthy king. There is disorder
in the king’s realm, so he seeks advice from his Chaplain – later revealed to
be the Buddha in a past existence. The Chaplain advises the king thus:
The Buddha-to-be doesn’t suggest, like Subhuti, that the suffering in
the kingdom is caused by people not taking responsibility for their own morality.
He doesn’t argue that those suffering “need to hear the Dharma’s most basic
message.” And he doesn’t offer a therapeutic mindfulness course. The
Buddha-to-be instead prescribes an economic solution, a redistribution of
wealth. He recognises that the existing economic order is at the root of the
disorder and suggests to the king how to restructure the economy so as to
ensure his subjects prosper. In other words, the Buddha-to-be has recognised
that the suffering of the realm has its roots in an unjust economic structure.
Question two: how would the
Buddha respond to the those marginalised and impoverished by modern-day
capitalism?
Question 3: do poverty and marginalisation
provide barriers to practising the dharma?
The problem with the over-individualistic position is not simply that
it fails to address structural causes of suffering. Over-individualising the
causes of dukkha can in fact support
unjust political and economic systems.
Remember Subhuti’s words:
Understanding this [the law of Karma], they
[the marginalised] will gain the power and the courage to help themselves
– not passively waiting for others to help them, but lifting themselves up and
making for themselves a better life.
The claim that ‘the poor just need to help themselves’ is a common rhetorical
device used by politicians and the corporate media to place the blame on to
those that experience poverty, whilst distracting from the harmful and reckless
behaviour of governments and corporations. This has been particularly prevalent
in the UK since 2010, when the government has been slashing benefits and public
services whilst employing the rhetoric of “strivers vs. skivers.”
I’ve worked in a food bank, I’ve given food parcels to people who work
a 40 hour week and still can’t afford to feed their family. The idea that
people are poor simply because they don’t try hard enough is a complete
nonsense. Wages have stagnated whilst the cost of living has soared. Poverty is
a consequence of our broken economy, not the laziness of individuals. And by
suggesting the poor need to “help themselves – not passively wait for others to
help them” Subhuti is reproducing the government’s manufactured delusion. We
need to fight the system, not individuals.
The economist Charles Eisenstein claims that by engaging with suffering
on an individual level – that is, by performing acts of charity rather than
challenging the system itself – we support the structures that cause the
suffering we claim to be attempting to alleviate. He identifies four ways in
which this functions:
1)
we ameliorate some of the worst effects of
capitalism, making capitalism more palatable
2) we
divert altruistic energy to relatively innocuous goals rather than addressing
the systemic foundations of injustice
3) acts
of charity appease our own conscience and so make our own complicity with the
system more palatable
4)
we may generate a co-dependent relationship with
the needy in which the charitable enterprise depends for its survival on the
very conditions it ostensibly seeks to address[6]
Question 4: can focussing on
suffering on an individual level, without challenging structural suffering,
actually support unjust and harmful structures?
[1]
Santikaro Bhikkhu, The Four Noble Truths
of Dhammic Socialism, http://www.inebnetwork.org/thinksangha/tsangha/skbdsbook.html
[2]
Subhuti, Dharmachari, Dharma Revolution
and the New Society: http://subhuti.info/sites/subhuti.info/files/pdf/DharmaRevolution.pdf
[3] http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376
[4]
This is particularly astonishing considering the paper is based on a talk given
originally in October 2010, still very much in the wake of the global financial
crisis of 2008.
[5]
DN5, The Kutadanta Sutta, translted
by Prof. T.W Rhys Davids - http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh120-p.html
[6]
Eisensteins’ own view is far more nuanced than I have described here. He demonstrated
how this view can be inverted to provide a similar challenge to acts which tackle
suffering on a purely systemic level. The answer, of course, is a synthesis of
the two – we must both help those who are suffering and challenge the suffering
caused by unjust systems. http://charleseisenstein.net/a-neat-inversion/
No comments:
Post a Comment