Buddhism and liberty

It might seem curious that someone is both Buddhist and libertarian. But the two, for me, are complementary. Both place full responsibility for one's life on oneself. Intellectually, that's relatively easy to accept. To manifest that in life requires unending effort. Not "endless painful austerities" or EPAs (thanks to fellow SGI Nichiren Buddhist Greg Martin for that one), but continuous effort.

Nichiren Buddhism is based on the teachings of Nichiren Daishonin, who lived in Japan in the 13th century during the era of the Kamakura shogunate. "Daishonin" is an honorific title meaning "great sage," while Nichiren, "Sun Lotus" in Japanese, was the name he gave himself after declaring his teachings, based on the Lotus Sutra with the daily practice of chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, in 1253 at the age 0f 33. Unlike many great religious figures, Nichiren survived several attempts on his life and two exiles. In modern times, Nichiren's teachings were given new life by Japanese educators Tsunesaburo Makiguchi and Josei Toda who began the lay association now known as SGI - Soka Gakkai International - in 1930. Toda's close disciple Daisaku Ikeda is president of SGI.

Anyone interested in more information can visit the SGI-USA website at www.sgi-usa.org

Libertarianism, on the other hand, is chiefly concerned with governance of society - what is the proper size and role of government and how to limit its power since politicians, thoughout history, tend to accumulate as much power as possible to the detriment of individual freedom. Buddhism does not support or oppose any particular political or economic system -- Nichiren lived and taught, for example, in a rigidly feudal environment, and was persecuted for speaking out against various injustices as one might expect -- but Buddhism does teach that governance should be based on respect for the dignity and value of human life.

Logically, enlightened governance could emanate from an enlightened monarch -- the great Buddhist King Ashoka of ancient India is an example. That has happened only rarely within history, so infrequently in fact that the British historian H. G. Wells cited Ashoka as the one decent ruler he could find in all of human history, although I would argue there have been others here and there. (It's interesting that Wells, a socialist, could find only one great ruler to admire, and that ruler was not very socialist: Ashoka funded his vast public works and social welfare programs mostly from income from his own farms. Taxes were extremely low during his reign, and commerce took place in a free market environment.)

Enlightened governance can also emanate from a democratic government, with some strong provisos, among them that the "demos" in question is very well educated and highly engaged in public affairs. This appears to have happened only when the democracies in question are small, the number of voting citizens relatively few, and the culture militates for active engagement. In larger democracies where any absolute restraints have been effectively removed, majorities can and have become conduits for tyranny.

The best path to enlightened governance begins with a culture that recognizes the rights, sovereignty and dignity of the individual and whose basic laws - whose constitution - contains absolute restraints on government power. These boundaries are intended to prevent the governors, and majorities of voters, from taking away the rights of individuals. If the boundaries are breached, and not repaired, governance degenerates into institutionalized group warfare - what Buddhists would term the "worlds of anger and animality" -- and what we might call a "Darwinian nightmare of competing special interest groups" as cartoonist Gary Trudeau put it many years ago.

Both Buddhists and libertarians insist on freedom of religion and conscience as fundamental rights and that the role of religion in society is an individual one, to be determined by each individual for himself or herself, free from any coercion by authority or by others.

Libertarians think that government can only create the conditions whereby individuals can prosper and help each other, voluntarily. Buddhists believe that only an individual can change his or her own life at the fundamental level, and that this change, or "human revolution," ripples out among all the other individuals he or she deals with in life.

Those two ideas seem, to me, complementary. And it seems like a very good time to bring this wisdom to bear in the United States as we struggle to find our way out of a kind of existential wilderness now dominated by distortions, delusions and thoughtlessness.