Chapter 15 individual is king

Jean-François – Until now, mainly I have asked questions about Buddhism in the name of the West.Do you Buddhists sometimes think about what the results of our western human sciences can bring to your spiritual sciences in terms of their composition and development status in the past century or two?Or do you think that your spiritual sciences, whose foundations were abandoned 2,500 years ago, have nothing to learn from these so-called humanities? Mathieu - The attitude of Buddhism is to be completely open to everyone's thoughts and desires.A Buddhist always needs to learn something to enrich his experience.So it is not a rejection of the Western approach to thinking about the various spiritual sciences.But it should not be forgotten that, on the whole, the West has gradually become indifferent to contemplative science because it has concentrated its energy on the so-called natural sciences such as physics and biology.Oddly enough, even psychology, as its name suggests, is supposed to be a "science of the mind."It also avoids what it considers non-objective introspection, and strives to transform mental events into measurable phenomena.Psychology knows nothing of the method of mindfulness, either in principle or in practice.With Buddhism, on the contrary, it is evident that the only way to know the mind is to look at it directly, in a way that is first analytical and then contemplative or contemplative, and by contemplation one understands it to be far from a dazed relaxation of the mind— This is the brooding picture that many Westerners paint themselves.Buddhism calls contemplation a gradual discovery, over many years of practice, of the nature of the mind and the way in which mental events manifest in the mind.To a Buddhist, the approach of Western psychology appears fragmentary and somewhat superficial in the etymological sense of the word psychology, since it only touches the surface of the mind.

①Psychologie (psychology) is composed of the Greek words Psyche (meaning spirit, mind) and logos (meaning discussion, inference), so in terms of etymology, it means "spiritual knowledge". Jean-François – On the contrary, I think the Buddhist attitude is unequivocal when it comes to sciences exactes. Mathieu – In fact, when a mathematical or physical law is clearly demonstrated and leaves no doubt, for example, the Buddhist attitude is to accept all valid knowledge and discard all that proves to be imprecise .But what you call "exact science" is primarily concerned with measurable phenomena and the realm of mathematics.The discoveries made in this field neither affirm nor deny the principles of spiritual life.So Buddhism doesn't find it in the slightest difficult to change its perception of the natural world, for example in astronomy, because really, being round or flat doesn't change much the basic mechanisms of happiness and suffering.

Jean-François - This is what one would call an argument against authority in Western philosophy. Mathieu – There is an ancient Buddhist cosmology, written by the disciples of the Buddha, that reflects the picture of the world that people in India in the sixth and fifth centuries BC painted for themselves.A gigantic mountain—le Mont merou—formed the axis of the universe, around which the sun and moon revolved, and the continents stretched out.This cosmology belongs to what people call "relative truth" or "conventional truth", a kind of truth at the time. Jean-François - Buddhists seem to have a more serious attitude towards the physical sciences, life sciences, biology, astrophysics, the theory of evolution than the Catholic Church and Christianity in general until recent years for open.The church, which had originally adopted as part of its dogma a certain interpretation of the universe and of the creation of living things, had been opened up bit by bit by science, and the church regarded science as its enemy.Even in the nineteenth century one saw a hostile reaction to the theory of evolution among Christians.The Church finally adapted, but very belatedly, because in the fifties and sixties a priest tried to reconcile the theory of the evolution of species with Christian dogma, I mean the Reverend Taiyal de Chardin (R- P. Teilhard de Chardin, ① he was long ranked by the Catholic Church as a dangerous person, because he adopted this theory as the starting point of his theological research.Buddhism has a decidedly less dogmatic attitude.

① Chinese name De Rijin.Born in 1881 and died in 1955.French theologian, philosopher, paleontologist, Jesuit.In 1922, he was appointed as a professor at the Catholic College, and since then he has participated in many scientific expeditions in the Far East, including the excavation of skull fossils of Peking Man.His main works include "Human Phenomenon", "The Emergence of Man", "Sacred Environment", "The Future of Man" and so on.It is believed that evolution embodies the gradual spiritualization of matter, man is the key to this spiritualization process, and God is both the beginning and the end.While re-attributing to Christ a cosmic attribute, it does not deny divine providence and supernaturality.Its theory exhibits some attitudes bordering on pantheism.In 1962, the Catholic Church called on those in charge of religious education to "resist the dangers to the soul, especially to the souls of young people, of the writings of Taillard de Chardin and his disciples."

Mathieu—Actually, the true Buddhist assumption of the relative truth of the phenomenal world is not a “dogma”, because the way this phenomenal world is perceived changes according to the beings and the times.Today's description of the universe is adapted to our perception of the universe in this day and age, and Buddhism accepts it as such.The point is not to reject science as a description of facts, as a description of the laws of nature.Buddhism, on the other hand, cannot accept the almost metaphysical arrogance of science that it holds the ultimate explanation of the nature of the world and the nature of phenomena in all material and immaterial aspects.Nor does Buddhism have any reason to fundamentally change its views depending on which way the winds of scientific discovery blow.Altruism is the cause of happiness, hatred causes misfortune, and this does not depend in the slightest on the spherical shape of the earth or on the "big impact".It may be admitted a priori that successive scientific theories constitute a picture which is getting closer and closer to reality, but it must also be remembered that science, in its own history, has frequently adopted ideas diametrically opposed to previous ideas, each time It is talking about a "scientific revolution" while expressing the deepest contempt for those who do not accept the ideas of the time.I'm not saying that the past must be honored, but I don't think that one should predict the future or disdain other images that describe reality.

Jean-François—Now, then, we pass over to the question of the sciences of man... You just said to me that, of these sciences, it is what we call political science, that is, The study of systems of governance. Mathieu – Since the goal of Buddhism is the elimination of all forms of suffering, it is clear that an awareness of the principles of a just society is of paramount importance.And this just society must be based on some spiritual values, not only in the sense of human rights but also in the sense of individual obligations. Jean-Francois - How to Build a Just System of Governance?In other words, the creation of a society whose system of government guarantees the legitimacy of power, that is, that power really comes from the citizens to whom it is mandated, and which at the same time guarantees the equality of all citizens, at least initially, is Equality before power and before the law?This is what people call a country ruled by law.And especially how to ensure the equality of citizens before the realities of life?It includes the realities of the economy, of education, of disease, of all the details of existence, from the conditions of living right through to the conditions of work and rest.

Mathieu - The foundations of democracy are certainly admirable: the elimination of inequalities and the conviction that the well-being of citizens is to be considered equally for all.Yet those principles which animate society must also be experienced by its members as indisputably obvious facts.A priori, some of the ideals of communism, such as the distribution of wealth, are also very laudable in their own right.Everything depends on the way people use these ideals. Jean-François – Indeed, one of the symptoms of this state of affairs that one might call the crisis of Western democracy is that, in a state of law like ours, citizens feel that they have more and more rights and Fewer obligations to the collective.There is an interesting thing about this.In 1995 a reader wrote me and said: "Did you know--in fact I completely forgot--that during the French Revolution it wasn't just the Declaration of the Rights of Man that was drawn up? In 1795 , a Declaration of Civil Duty was drawn up, and no one today thinks of commemorating its bicentenary." I wrote an article in The View to remind our readers of this birthday .I admit that my article has sunk into the most complete indifference, since the question of civic duty seems far less interesting than that of civil rights.Yet these are two surfaces of a single reality.

A popular theory in Asia is called "the relativity of human rights and democratic principles".Some Asian countries with authoritarian and not totalitarian regimes openly advocate the idea that Westerners advocate their own human rights and complete freedom of thought, expression, freedom of association, and democracy based on pluralistic elections. This nonsense makes them bored.They argue that in every civilization there is a particular concept of human rights.Thus, there is an Asian conception of human rights which has little to do with democracy and a Western conception of human rights which persuade us to keep this latter conception of human rights to ourselves!This quaint theory of the relativity of human rights has been specially developed.

This theory of the relativity of human rights according to culture was also endorsed by Jacques Chirac, President of the French Republic, who visited Egypt in April 1996, in a speech in which he developed the idea that each Each country has its own concept of human rights and uses them in its own way.It was a way of doing unexpected favors to President Mubarak by telling him that, in general, while Egypt bears little resemblance to what one would normally call a democracy, that doesn't mean it's a country when it comes to human rights. reprehensible.Chirac's manifesto however seriously raises the question of whether there really is an Asian or African conception of human rights that is different from the one that great democratic thinkers have been defending of!What is the attitude of Buddhism on this point?

Mathieu - According to Buddhism, all beings desire happiness and have the same right to a happy life.All beings desire to be free from suffering and have an equal right not to suffer.These hopes and rights certainly have a universal value.The nature and efficacy of human laws and institutions should therefore be examined to see whether they favor these fundamental rights or restrict them.The East is more inclined than the West to believe that the harmony of a society should not be jeopardized by an anarchism that exploits the concept of human rights to do anything at any time and in any way as long as it is "permitted" OK, because this attitude creates an imbalance between rights and duties, freedom to oneself and responsibility to others.In Western society, the "individu roi" (individu roi) is dominant.He could do virtually anything as long as it was within the limits of the law.

Jean-François - often even outside the bounds of the law!The rights of certain individuals and certain organizations often in fact reach a permissivite that goes beyond legality.These are rights other than rights (droits hors dudroit). Mathieu - This kind of expression is not a source of happiness and fulfillment for the individual, and it will constantly interfere with the society on which the individual depends.The responsibility of the individual is to consciously protect the harmony of society.One can do this only if the individual respects the law not because of a mandatory obligation, but according to a secular and spiritual ethic.It is then understood that, as until modern times in India and Tibet, a society governed by a tradition of a more spiritual nature places more value on the common well-being of the community than on a desperate respect for individualism .The failures and tragedies of totalitarian regimes are due to the fact that they confront individualism by ruling individuals ignorantly and brutally, and attempt to guarantee the happiness of the people by a means that clearly contradicts the facts.The problem is not to limit the freedom of the individual, but to develop a sense of responsibility.The point is to guarantee equal rights for men and women, equal rights to life, happiness and protection from basic suffering, regardless of our race, caste or gender. Jean-François - so good...Frankly, I believe that these spiritual concerns have nothing to do with the distinction between the Asian-African concept of human rights and the Western concept of human rights! Let's come back to the abuses you described a few minutes ago, which are all too well known to recur in the most democratic societies.In what way does a democratic society permit all such practices that make certain kinds of groups—“lobbies” as people say in English, and even in Anglicized French—some groups with socio-professional interests, enjoy certain Privileged groups or individuals are able to wrest special interests from the community and at the same time make these special interests appear as democratic rights. European and American societies are currently engaged in a continuing debate about "vested interests".Certain guilds have in fact reaped benefits over the years that other citizens do not enjoy.They often do this in the name of their own conditions or particular difficulties at some point in their history.So at first one could justify exceptions to these laws and these special interests, but as the years passed these special interests became excessive and constituted privileges which were defended by their beneficiaries , as if this phenomenon was in the general interest.In democracies such disruptions are constant, I would even say almost inevitable!To correct it, it is necessary periodically to level something again, to bring the counter back to zero, that is to say, to the equality of all before the law and before the use of the common wealth. The danger of seeing certain groups and individuals organizing themselves for a treatment peculiar to the general law, so that they no longer respect the general law, is an old devil of democracy!It is well described in Plato, who points out how democracy can produce tyranny due to its continual degeneration: , and when these interests harm others in the name of public interest, people reach an uncontrollable state of anarchy, which inevitably makes the desire for totalitarian government emerge.We have seen this happen in Italy in the twenties and in Spain in the thirties.A dictatorship never arises from nothing.There must be certain conditions that are conducive to its breaking out of the shell.Thus, what seems to me absurd is the danger connoted by a conception of human rights that varies from continent to continent and civilization, but in fact reflects an age-old question of democracy, an ever-regenerating reality in the healthiest democracies. question.What some will say is that a certain degree of despotism is preferable to anarchy.Instead of solving the problem, they obscure it...in their forceful way. Mathieu – Let’s take as an example an issue that fuels constant controversy, that of sexual exploitation and violence in the mass media.In the United States, when lawmakers proposed laws to control the distribution of violent or pornographic images on television or the Internet, they drew angry protests from intellectuals, who invoked liberated expression.If people insist on "human rights" without considering "human responsibility", this problem cannot be solved!Violence is so commonplace that the average American youth will see 40,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence on television before turning nineteen!Violence is tacitly presented as the best and sometimes the only way to solve problems.Violence is thus celebrated because it is separated from physical pain, because it is just images. This attitude extends to many other areas.Boxer Mike Tyson has become the highest paid athlete of all time at $75 million a year.For what reason?For punching others!It is undeniable that this general attitude increases the help to violence in reality.If people try to control this flood, some people say that he restricts the freedom of expression.If people do not control, people will be bathed in violence.The problem comes from a lack of accountability because the producers who broadcast these shows and organize these games know full well in their hearts that they are not serving humanity.But the public is interested in violence and sex, so "commercially speaking" it will do!The makers see nothing but money to be made in all of this, while legislators are paralyzed by fear of bruising "freedom of expression."The result is total ignorance of the concept of "responsibility" and the inability to express this concept in law or agreement.For responsibility should arise not from restrictive laws, but from personal maturity.And for these individuals to achieve such maturity, the spiritual principles conducive to inner transformation must still be active in a society, not be brutally absent. Jean-François - The concept of freedom of thought and expression was born in a triple context: political, philosophical-scientific and religious.In a political context, freedom of thought and expression means that in a free system, all people have the right to express a political idea, uphold it, present it to voters, form parties intended to defend it, and promote People elect those who try to bring this idea into practice, on condition that all this does not endanger the rights of other citizens.In a philosophical-scientific context, this double freedom is affirmed in opposition to religious censorship, which, for example, in ancient Christian societies condemned books to be burned at the stake for being contrary to the creeds of the church.A very similar struggle arises against those modern totalitarian systems, which also burn books and works of art, and imprison scholars because their research is opposed to the philosophical tenets upon which this or that totalitarian state is based.In a religious context, this question seems very relevant today, as clerical politics in countries such as Iran increasingly resemble a totalitarian ideology rather than a religion in the proper sense of the word, let alone Very intolerant of other beliefs, and brutal coercion and repression.All modern great democracies are founded simultaneously on freedom of political thought, scientific and philosophical inquiry, and freedom of religion; but always on condition that all these do not infringe upon the rights of others. Another very important feature is that this freedom of expression must always be relevant to its various domains.For example, freedom of expression does not include permission to incite murder.If I make a statement at the Place de la Concorde saying that Mr. and Mrs. so and so should be killed, that is no longer freedom of expression.Incitement to murder is prohibited and punished by the Penal Code.Likewise, laws were passed to prohibit any rediscussion of the reality of the holocaust and the Holocaust during the Third Reich.This rediscussion, disguised as the freedom of historical research, has nothing to do with historical research, since the facts have been confirmed by thousands of witnesses and hundreds of historians, and there is nothing to justify doubt the veracity of these facts.These so-called historical criticisms conceal an intent to harm particular groups of humans and thereby violate the express provisions of the Constitution prohibiting incitement to racial or religious hatred.So, in order to avoid abuse, there is no need to resort to the so-called Asian concept of human rights.It could be argued that violent and degrading pornography in the mass media constitutes a violation of human rights and does not fall within the scope of freedom of expression. Mathieu - However, the fear of restricting this freedom of expression makes people hesitate to pass laws decisively condemning this purely commercial exploitation of freedom of expression.It has been well documented that the makers of such movies and TV shows limit themselves to inciting violence, but by glorifying it or mundaneizing it, they are helping it at the same time.In short, this attitude ultimately leads only to a lack of altruism. Jean-François - But the sectarian prohibition of the Iranian ayatollahs is no more altruistic. ① Transliteration of the Arabic ayatollah, meaning "symbol of God", "miracle of God" and "reflection of Allah".The title of Islamic Shiite jurisprudence authority and religious leader. Mathieu – Western countries are currently choosing to let it go.Some Eastern governments, decided to put an end to these abuses in an autocratic manner.Neither solution is entirely satisfactory.The balance between rights and responsibilities was not achieved.In the absence of wisdom and altruism, in the absence of moral and spiritual principles, one cannot clearly distinguish those desirable aspects of freedom of expression from those which directly or indirectly endanger other beings. Jean-François - It is impossible to prescribe principles that foresee all special cases.Otherwise one could ban some of Shakespeare's tragedies in which there is a dead body every five minutes!On the other hand, one of the pieces of evidence that was used against psychoanalysis among orthodox people in the thirties was that it was about pornography.Why?Because Freud revealed the role of sexuality in the origin of many human behaviors, even when the behaviors are not themselves sexual.Here we are on the cusp of what I shall call the application of the law, which demands great delicacy.Unambiguous, mechanical use is impossible, and this is true of all civilizations.If civilization were simple, it would be very tiresome. Mathieu - In any case, as long as the dominant motive is the temptation of profit rather than the deepening of knowledge, and as long as the result is harmful, then it seems to me to advocate the sacrosanct principle of freedom of expression A shameless deception of intellectuals and a new superstition of intellectuals. Jean-François – Yes, but in democracies, do not forget the intervention of a rather important factor, which is the factor of public opinion, public opinion.Education of public opinion is the focus.Legislators alone can do nothing without education without public opinion.It is here, precisely, that freedom of education, freedom of exchange of opinions plays an important role.Currently, there is a movement of public opinion against violence in television and film.Not the legislators, but the audience is starting to get sick of it all. I remember, in 1975, I had a conversation with the then Minister of Culture, Michel Key.At that time, the Minister of Culture was debating whether to permit X-Films, that is, savagely pornographic "stimulant" films, to be shown in cinemas, or to stipulate that they be shown in certain cinemas at certain times... Remember when Michelle Key Asked for my opinion, I replied, "Look, in my opinion, of course there's some age limit on the audience, and on that basis, you should license them unconditionally, and here's why: These movies are so shitty. , so monotonous, so vulgar, the public would resent them." True.I'm not used to thinking that I'm inherently right, but that's how it happens.I've seen "stimulant" porn cinemas close one after another in Paris.There are almost no such cinemas anymore.Only professional pornography remained, not in public cinemas but in small shops where people went if they wanted to.So the public is much more effective than a ban. Returning to the main point, we can therefore say that Buddhism endorses the universality of democratic principles and does not recognize this distinction between Eastern and Western human rights, which seems to me deceptive. Mathieu – True, but don’t forget that it’s important to see other people’s interests as important as your own. Jean-François - I do not believe that the duty of altruism can be accepted by the letter of the Constitution.The danger here is utopia.Political science, that is to say the science of organizing human social functions in legality and justice, cannot be invented out of nothing.As I said earlier on this subject, those who try to draw up a constitution from scratch are what are called visionaries, and they are often given the rather evocative connotation that they create an illusion for themselves, but And with good intentions.But that's not the case at all!Utopian visionaries are inventors of totalitarian systems!If we study the great utopian visions of Plato, Thomas More in the sixteenth century, Campanella's "Cité du Soleil" in the seventeenth century, or Charles Fourier in the nineteenth century, all the way down to them Those who are the most terrible, because these people have been able to implement their system, we will find that utopian visionaries are all authors of totalitarian constitutions.Why?Starting from an abstract idea of ​​what human beings should do, they enforce their decrees with merciless means.This is not true political science.Utopian visionaries are people who endanger the public. True political science rests solely on the observation of human social functioning.People take lessons from this observation.After observing the facts, and seeing in the facts what works well and what doesn't, the observations form rights.Real economists do this too.This means that political science - which cannot be separated from economic science, because human society should live a happy life - must first be based on some positive sciences, such as sociology, economics, and history.It is from the practical application of these sciences that one can free oneself cautiously, but never a priori, of certain guiding principles. Mathieu – But on what principles are these humanities or political sciences based? Jean-François - I'm going to say right away that if it was all up to me, I would never call them "science" because I don't think they are in the strict sense of the word "science" science.Why?For the humanities always face two dangers.The first danger is what I will call the "philosophical danger" or "ideological danger," the ambition to create a general system that will explain once and for all all the functions of human society.Many modern sociologists and anthropologists have succumbed to this temptation.They inherited the mentality of the ancient philosophers who wanted to produce a theoretical system that could explain reality once and for all.That is, they depose all the theories of their predecessors, and also declare all the theories of their successors useless.This totalitarian desire of sociology still exists in the works of some great contemporary writers.Many sociologists of the so-called "structuralist" school seem to me to fall into this eccentricity, as do sociologists of the Marxist school.This is actually the second danger, the danger of ideology.The humanities are woven through with ideologies, often even blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.So it is clear that none of these disciplines should be considered science in the express sense of the word.There are always some tests, they may be strict or not.Everything depends on the rigor of the presenter, the writer, on his skills, on his ability to work, on his creativity in research, and above all on his honesty: he should not be subordinated to the loyalty of a school or a group. Mathieu - But one cannot take the same liberty with which history is taken for granted. Jean-François - of course not.Many scientific principles have been developed, affirmed, and revealed along with the advancement of modern history.But there is no historical science per se.There are some historians who display scientific rigor and others who show little.And I should say that in the books of the recognized historians, that is, of the university faculty, I have often come across distortions, and even tendentious errors, which are so obvious. , I can only assume that they are conscious.I say this introductory statement in order to completely accustom you to the way I think Buddhism should approach the "science" of the humanities and history in the West.Yet there is a vast body of research and reflection and fallacies and errors here, all of which inevitably serve as a pedestal for political thought.Do Buddhists show curiosity about political thought?Are they leaning toward Western historiography? Mathieu - When the question is about knowledge construction, about an "ignorant" who wants to answer everything without basing himself on a deep understanding of the principles that govern the happiness and misery of man and society The dangers of philosophy and ideology are clear when theHistory is the observation, as rigorously as possible, of the evolution of human development.At most it can describe events, point out trends, and analyze causes, but it does not formulate principles of life.It is true that the vast majority of Buddhists are ignorant of the details of Western history and sociology, but some of them have an interest in the difference between the basis and orientation of Western civilization and that of a civilization imbued with spiritual values. Pretty clear understanding.