Ahimsa and Non-Agression (Part 1)

Thanks to Jacob for setting up a group blog based on two movements that have profoundly shaped my life and thinking. I’m much newer to libertarian thought than to Buddhism and I really haven’t had the opportunity to think through the connections and points of tension. So, I’m looking forward to thinking through these things in a group setting.

(NB: I’m using the “Buddhism” in a broad sense to refer to what I take to be widely shared Buddhist values, insights, and concerns. Buddhism is, of course, internally extremely diverse, so take generalizations with a few grains of salt.)

When thinking about the connections between Buddhism and libertarianism, the first thing that comes up for me is the shared commitment to refraining from harm to others. In the Buddhist tradition, this commitment is expressed through the practice and cultivation of the virtue of ahimsa—literally “non-injury” or “non-harm.” Ahimsa really has its roots in Jainism, but was taken up in different ways by both the Buddhist and the Hindu traditions. In Jainism the full practice of ahimsa is taken to entail absolute pacifism and a strong commitment not to harm any living thing (including insects, etc.). However, the strength and scope of ahimsa are not as great in Buddhism or Hinduism (and that is not a criticism—I think the Jain position is philosophically untenable).

In Buddhism, the practice of ahimsa entails an attempt to avoid or minimize harming others (often including non-human sentient beings) or oneself through body, speech, or mind. Thus ahimsa is definitely both a self-regarding and an other-regarding virtue. In the Yoga tradition, ahimsa is considered to first virtue, that without which no spiritual progress can be made. Of course, in all the Indian traditions (and Buddhism outside India) virtue is taken to be a matter of degree, rather than an all-or-nothing quality.

So, in Buddhism one of the absolutely central ethical teachings is to refrain, insofar as possible, from harming others. And clearly this includes using coercion or the threat of coercion against non-harmful others. And further, since in Buddhism ends and means must be consistent, it is not morally acceptable (generally speaking) to harm others in the promotion of otherwise good ends. Indeed, in some ways we can see Buddhism as being centrally about the cultivation of wisdom (prajna) and compassion (karuna). Yet, the point is not simply to promote those values—that is, to make sure, by any means necessary, that the world contains to greatest amount of both wisdom and compassion—but rather to exemplify and cultivate wisdom and compassion in one’s own life. Thus even if using harm against peaceful others would have good consequences, it would still be immoral from a Buddhist perspective because the harmful action would exemplify himsa (injury) rather than a-himsa (non-injury).

Furthermore, when it comes to Tantric traditions (such as Tibetan Buddhism and Japanese Shingon) there is a strong emphasis on a plurality of paths to enlightenment. One is to work with one's own particular dispositions, history, temperament, etc. (basically, one's karma) in order develop a particular practice. And since ultimately one's liberation is one's own responsibility--another person can't enlighten you any more than he or she can be creative for you--ahimsa is taken to entail a broader tolerance toward a diversity of spiritual paths.

What I think most “socially engaged” Buddhists fail to see is that government action always entails the use or threat of force against one’s fellow human beings and is therefore himsa, not ahimsa. The state, then, is that institution that claims a monopoly on the “legitimate” use of himsa within a given territory. As practitioners of ahimsa, then, Buddhists should be extremely skeptical of the state.