Buddhism and Human Rights

Dr. Mattia is sitting to the left in a blue shirt. I am next to the very tall Russian underneath the "and". 

Yesterday I attended a seminar at Mahachula University on the topic of Buddhism and Human Rights. This is a subject of paramount importance to all Buddhists as we march further into this new age of modernity. Whether or not people agree with universal rights and Buddhism being compatible or not, this is a topic that needs to be discussed seriously. Many of my western readers who have not had an intimate relationship with orthodox Buddhism may find that former statement uncomfortable- Whether or not people agree with universal right and Buddhism being compatible or not. This is a crucial element of the conversation, human rights and Buddhism may not be consistent. Just brushing this possible dispute aside as nonsense is folly, a great folly; we need to examine this issue and we need to be prepared to intellectualize the relationship between the two. For me personally, this topic is very close to my heart. I teach Buddhism and Human Rights at my university, and I was surprised at how difficult it was to convey the real meaning of what rights is in relation to Buddhism. It also opened my eyes to how strongly the modern world attaches itself to this recent concept of universal equality, a concept that we did not begin to understand, if not outright create, until only a couple hundred years ago. It is as if many refuse to see that some cultures may not only be averse to the idea, but work much better under a different matrix of entitlement. 

Human rights in itself can be a difficult concept to explain, it is really quite abstract. Almost always, one points to the 30-point declaration by the United Nations to explain what they are exactly. This is a definition from the UN:

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.

This vague definition is then given 30 articles, found here: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Some main points from the United Nations United Declaration of Human Rights are as follows:

• All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
• No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
• Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
•  Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

Most everyone raised in Europe or a country with European roots, e.g. America or Australia, would be comfortable with this notion of rights. However, there is real contention when it is brought into the spectrum of Buddhism. Why is that? Some say that the UN Declaration of Human Rights is based in Christian thought. Some say it is too Eurocentric. Others will argue that the concept itself is flawed. These issues can not be ignored, and while some schools of Buddhism have embraced this notion of modern rights, such as Engaged Buddhism, others are less willing to bend to this modern ideal of universal equality.

There are many explanations for this, but first I would caution readers to understand that just because a culture may not recognize, or even understand, human rights, it does not necessarily mean they are abnormal or deficient in any way.

The Buddha does not appear to address anything like human rights directly in his teachings. He talks about duty, morality and uprightness of character in great detail, but seemingly not rights. This is an important distinction one should understand, duty is not human rights, and while some claim that they have a correlation, that correlation is debatable. Morality of action is not the same as rights. One having an ethical code to not kill is not a right, this is a moral duty. Another concept that seems to be confusing is that of equality. Equality does not mean similarity or sameness. Everyone having the quality of Anicca, or impermanence, is not equality in the sense of human rights, nor is everyone being infused with suffering, this is not what equality is referring to. Equality means that the entitlement to comfort and prosperity is equal amongst all humans, not that all humans share ontological qualities of existence. Again, I was surprised at how difficult it was to convey this exact meaning, which tells me just how much I have to learn on the subject.

Many scholars have addressed this perception that a distinct teaching on rights appears to be absent from the discourses of the Buddha.

Kenneth Inada states that:

Each individual is responsible for the actualization of an "extensive concern" for everything that lies in his or her path of experience. So, we may say that the sum total of the "extensive concerns" can be referred to as a mutually constituted existential realm, and it thereby becomes a fact that there will be mutual respect of fellow beings. It is on this basis that we can speak of the rights of individuals. These rights are actually extensions of human qualities such as security, liberty, and life.

This does not actually solve the problem for me, as it seems to still be focused on concern and duty. It appears to be saying that our respect for each other is the basis for human rights. This does not seem to follow what the UN says about universal rights being innate to all humans.

H.R. Perera states that: 

It is from the point of view of its goal that Buddhism evaluates all action. Hence, Buddhist thought is in accord with this and other Articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the extent to which they facilitate the advancement of human beings towards the Buddhist goal.

This approach seems to also take duty as the main basis for human rights. If the duty and morality of Buddhism is the basis for human rights, how does one come to that conclusion? What are exactly these rights that duty gives us?

Damian Keown seems to have the best answer for this:

The apparent differences between the moral teachings of Buddhism and human rights charters is one of form rather than substance. Human rights can be extrapolated from Buddhist moral teachings in the manner described above using the logic of moral relationships to illumine what is due under Dharma. A direct translation of the first four precepts yields a right to life, a right not to have one's property stolen, a right to fidelity in marriage, and a right not to be lied to. Many other human rights, such as the rights to liberty and security can either be deduced from or are extant within the general corpus of Buddhist moral teachings. A right not to be held in slavery, for example, is implicit in the canonical prohibition on trade in living beings. These rights are the extrapolation of what is due under Dharma; they have not been "imported" into Buddhism but were implicitly present.

All above quotes are from: Are there Human Rights in Buddhism- Damian Keown
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/humanrights.html


This is a wonderful argument in favor of Buddhism and human rights, which appears to solve the problem between duty and entitlement. If I, as a Buddhist, have the duty to not steal, then others have the right to property. If I, as a Buddhist, have the duty to not kill, then others have the right to life.

One problem I have with this argument though, is that it is inferring a modern concept into an ancient context, one that may not have been implied, or even understood, at the time of the Buddha. 

I heard a wonderful response to this at the Buddhism and Human Rights Seminar yesterday,

Dr. Mattia Salvini, a presenter at the seminar, spoke about the possibility of Buddhism having something better than human rights. Buddhism can focus on lessening the suffering of each individual when addressing concerns, not a human rights agenda.

I really appreciate this approach, because it is more human-centric on an individual level. Not basing the worth of a human on some foggy, absolute construct that grants humans universal rights from some objective force, but on the human itself. I think this fits in with the teachings of the Buddha much better than the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A perspective of the individual from the basis of the individual, not the individual filtered through a colander that bunches humanity into one homogenous entity.  

I would actually like to take that individual focus a step further and apply a sense of deontology to it, and instead of focusing on suffering, Buddhism would focus on the individual as an END, and never a MEANS. Something more centered around the will and awareness of the individual, and not that individuals suffering; a concentration on what the individual IS as a whole not what the individual FEELS. Just to be clear, this idea of mine is in its infancy and will require much more thought and research, but I feel that this approach  will be a definitive part of future work from me.

It is amazing what we can learn from each other. I owe Dr. Mattia a great debt for expressing a complex view of such a convoluted concept in such a clear and apprehendable way.