not so long ago an article appeared in The Guardian regarding the 2000 foetuses found in a Bangkok Temple. the article told of how the discovery had prompted a push toward political reform regarding Thailand's abortion laws which was subsequently being hindered by prominent figures in the Thai Sangha who held considerable political (and public) sway.
my initial response upon reading the article was i couldn't help but feel in this instant a dogmatic and rigid adherence to orthodoxy was blindsiding the chance for compassionate expression of orthopraxy. discussing the matter with Kyoshin however, he quite rightly pointed out the situation is in all liklihood more complex than such a response would imply. the influence religion holds over politics, the deep cultural imprint of abortion as taboo held by many throughout the various stratas of society and many other issues all play their part. and certainly, it is all too easy for me to offer a skewered analysis bearing little real understanding of the situation as of course i am an outsider to such cultural perspectives and values.
it does nonetheless throw up certain murky questions for me. i'm strongly against forms of theocracy but neither do i believe one's religion should remain cut off or seperated from one's politics. how much influence should one bear upon the other then? i guess ultimately it's when either threatens to inhibit an individual's freedom that i feel uncomfortable - eg. yes, i believe the taking of a life is wrong and that abortion falls under this category but neither do i believe in forcing adherence to such a belief. and what if by denying the means to legal, safe abortion more than just the one life is being put at risk?
the reality of it is that prohibition's quite clearly not acting as an effective deterrent and in many cases, placing more lives at risk than need be. wouldn't education be a worthier, more compassionate attempt (perhaps though, this is naive of me)?
i don't want to accuse senior figures of the Thai Sangha of somehow lacking compassion, which, given the extreme liklihood that their levels of attainment are way, way vaster than mine would be grossly arrogant, disrespectful and just plain wrong of me to say. at the same time though, i can't get alongside their stance on this issue.
the other question then i guess, concerns when orthodoxy clashes with orthopraxy. the fact that abortion is considered by many to be such a taboo is due to the direct influence that Buddhism holds for the majority of Thai society. and it is the perfectly valid and correct stance in terms of orthodoxy.
.....and yet. how do we move forward when what is written and accepted as the authentic stance on a given matter threatens to clash with what we feel as being right, and even maybe hinder cultivation of compassion? it's a valid and important question imo but one offering no easy answers.
namu amida butsu
It is a difficult question. I share your views and concerns and can't help feeling that, where the Dharma has become the State Religion, precepts have given rise to civil laws when they should have remained as training rules.
ReplyDeleteagreed, i always feel uneasy at the idea of the two mixing in such an explicit way. it's a complicated matter for me though because a Buddhism wholly divorced from politics makes me uneasy too. it should be concerned and engaged with the problems in society... i guess the problem is when it dictates its teachings as laws that all must comply with, rather than allowing the individual choose freely.
ReplyDeleteeven the wrong choices people shouldn't be cut off from.
Exactly, but then, one could argue that this should apply only insofar as it doesn't involve hurting others. Which takes us back to square 1 with the abortion issue.
ReplyDeleteHmmmmmmm..... my head doth hurt.
"i don't want to accuse senior figures of the Thai Sangha of somehow lacking compassion, which, given the extreme liklihood that their levels of attainment are way, way vaster than mine would be grossly arrogant, disrespectful and just plain wrong of me to say. at the same time though, i can't get alongside their stance on this issue."
ReplyDeleteThanks for a thought-provoking post Jon.
I find your statement above fascinating on two counts (1) in terms of the meaning of compassion, and (2) your outlook on attainments and their relatedness to ethics.
As our Dharma sister Gekko pointed out on our retreat in May most if not all sides on political, ideological or religious spectrum claim to be sincerely motivated by compassion. However what matters is whether compassion is actually manifested. If those to whom a certain policy or behaviour is directed feel no compassion then whatever the intentions of the actors the point is moot. From that point of view you might be right not to question the Thai sangha's compassionate intention but to question whether they are actually manifesting com-passion ('feeling with') is perfectly valid, important and constructive.
As to the question of attainments there are two issues. One is what these attainments are and whether they have any impact on the ethical realm. Buddhist history offers plenty of examples of people with supposedly high attainments behaving in ways that are questionable from a broadly normative ethical standard. If we say that attainment doesn't necessarily feed through to ethics then that has all kinds of consequences (maybe a topic for another post), and if we say that those without attainments can't understand the 'higher ethics' of those with them then we are left with blind faith and a paternalistic system.
As your post implies I think we need to have a holistic attitude to social ethics. If we stubbornly enshrine ethical positions in law without any regard for the realities of the way people actually behave then we can end up causing or failing to prevent suffering.
As for the abortion in Thailand case everything that I have read suggests that a majority who get abortions actually take the religious prohibition against abortion very seriously and see it as a spiritually negative act ('bap') but this does not in itself over-ride the reasons that led them to take such a decision. This should give us much pause for thought.
some interesting points. i agree it's very important to consider that many of these women seeking an abortion are not apart from society in viewing it as a taboo. and i think this highlights the need for post-care as much as it does preventative measures of deterrent.
ReplyDeleteas regards ethics and attainment, those are some big questions to explore. it's not so much that i'm advocating a paternalistic system, and certainly the Buddha encouraged a discerning mind inclusive of teachers....more that in our discerning we should always maintain a respectful and humble attitude.