Studies in Buddhist ethics 2 – the 1970s

Last updated on: March 25, 2012 at 2:20 am by Justin Whitaker

Studies in Buddhist ethics 2 – the 1970s 2012-03-25T02:20:19-06:00 Justin Whitaker

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Sunset in Oxford, August 2011

In my last post I opened with the importance of orientation in our studies of Buddhist ethics. What we ‘bring’ to the study – even if it is simply in the wording of our questions – can often shape our research and understanding of the religion. Being conscious of this fact is an essential first step in avoiding the too-often egregious bias of Western scholarship on all things “oriental.”

I mentioned two foundations that serve the philosopher/ethicist in understanding Buddhist ethics, vis. anthropology and philology.

Only with these two foundations largely in place has the sub-discipline of Buddhist ethics been able to emerge in a meaningful way. And this emergence is a very recent event in Western academic history. So recent, in fact, that it is difficult to pinpoint even the decade of its origins. In this talk I shall survey some of the history of studies in Buddhist ethics. While that history extends well over 100 years, the massive expansion of work in Buddhist ethics in just the last 35 years will dominate my discussion this evening. I shall conclude by discussing some contemporary work and debates in Buddhist ethics and suggest where the field will hopefully go in the coming years.

1970s

In 1979 Frank Reynolds published ‘Buddhist Ethics: A Bibliographical Essay’ in the Religious Studies Review. His review begins, ‘Unfortunately, modern scholars have devoted relatively little attention to the study of Buddhist ethics. The works on the topic are neither extensive nor, for the most part, impressive’ (p.40). Remarking on Reynolds’ bibliographic essay, Charles Prebish notes that, ‘It is … revealing that over one hundred years of publications on Buddhist ethics could be condensed into eight journal pages despite Reynolds’ exhaustive and comprehensive search’ (1996, p.297). However, an early expansion of thought on Buddhist ethics did occur just as Reynolds’ article was going to press.

These early works coincided with the publication of two influential books on Comparative Religious Ethics. The first, simply titled Comparative Religious Ethics (1978) by David Little and Sumner B. Twiss, proposed a tripartite system for classifying religious ethics. This system, they proposed, could serve as a ‘descriptive universal’ (pp. 119 and 225), applicable to all religious systems in the service of understanding and comparing their distinctive features. The system, in brief, created a hierarchy, beginning at the most basic level of an agent’s situational application of basic norms. The second level of analysis comes at the validation of those norms; which for Little and Twiss would either be in the form of natural laws or duties (deontological) or ultimate goals (teleological). Finally, they suggested a category of vindication, looking at metaethical concepts and discussions, or the reasons given for accepting or rejecting certain validations. This tripartite theory is just one of many that have been proposed for better understanding religious, and specifically Buddhist, ethics.

In 1978, the year that Little and Twiss’ book came out, a panel on Theravādin Buddhist ethics was convened at the annual American Academy of Religion meeting. The next year, papers from that panel were published in a special ‘Focus on Theravāda Buddhist Ethics’ in the Journal of Religious Ethics. Four papers were given, each suggesting unique conceptual frameworks in order to account for the variety of ethical statements being examined. Harvey Aronson began the series by critiquing the kammic-nibbanic framework proposed by Winston King and adopted by Melford Spiro and instead suggested that we view Buddhist ethics through the categories of lokiya and lokuttara, or worldly and supramundane, activity. Frank Reynolds likewise criticized previous categories, this time going back to the sociologists Max Weber (1946) and Louis Dumont (1970), and suggested a four-fold analysis, again borrowing categories from within Buddhism. These are the path-winning monk, the ordinary monk, the bodhisattva king, and the ordinary Buddhist layperson, which he believed ‘provide a comprehensive yet differentiated overview of the norms which have informed and structured the component elements of traditional Theravāda societies’ (1979, p.20). Joanna Macy and Donald Swearer, the other two authors featured, also dove into the work of discussing and devising conceptual frameworks. In their introduction to the papers, journal editors James Childress and Frank Reynolds suggested that:

The debate is not whether the conceptual frameworks can and should be used, but their degree of precision and specification, their source, and their illuminative power. [And they warn that:] Hardened conceptual tools may break as much as they dig out, and inappropriate tools may damage the terrain. (Childress and Reynolds 1979, p.4)

Thus the 1970s promised to give way to work dealing with Buddhist ethics from a variety of conceptual frameworks. All that would be needed was greater philosophical acuity, coupled with ever more data from anthropologists, historians, and philologists. Or so it seemed.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

March 22, 2012

Studies in Buddhist Ethics

Next Post

March 26, 2012 Studies in Buddhist ethics 3 - the 1990s

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Academia Activism American Buddhism Art Book review Buddhism Buddhism Today Buddhist Ethics Burma/Myanmar China Christianity Commodification Environment Gender Happiness Health Humor India Interfaith Islam Japanese Buddhism Kant Media / News Meditation mindfulness Photography Poetry Politics quicktakes Running Teaching Technology Thailand Theism/Atheism Theravada Tibet Tibetan Buddhism Travels Uncategorized Unitarian Universalism video Western Philosophy Zen

Select a Month June 2021 January 2021 November 2020 August 2020 July 2020 March 2020 January 2020 October 2019 August 2019 June 2019 May 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 November 2004 September 2004 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz