Hello Bhante,
Politics and religion. Time to tread carefully.
Dhammanando wrote:... you seem to have overlooked the remark in my opening post: "The most political Buddhist text of all —the Mahasupina Jataka— reads almost like a manifesto of classical western conservatism (though not of what goes by the name of 'conservatism' in contemporary Britain or America)."
Despite how it may appear to you, I didn't overlook your remark. But my post was not a direct response to your remarks. Rather, I was responding in the context of this discussion to the 10 conservative "principles" espoused on the above-referenced Kirk website.
Dhammanando wrote:Most of your comments are off target.
Is that so? The OP stated, in part, "... I personally can't really see how Buddhism and conservatism would ever be compatible." In response, the Kirk principles were offered as an example of how conservatism (according to Kirk's definition of it) is comaptible with the Buddhadhamma. With regard to your remarks, you seem to imply that if the Buddha were involved in politics, he would be a conservative.
The Kirk "principles" are presented in the context of "conservativism" as it is practiced in the modern world. The Kirk Center website includes photos of Kirk with the likes of Reagan and William F. Buckley, Jr. The Kirk Center website describes its programs in the following terms:
The Russell Kirk Center wrote:They celebrate and defend the “permanent things” — all that makes human life worth living, particularly the bedrock principles that have traditionally supported and maintained the health of society’s central institutions: family, church, and school.
Frankly, I think it's absurd to argue that the Kirk approach somehow shares a close affinity with the Buddhadhamma.
We can quibble over what the term "conservative" actually means. One might say that the modern understanding of "conservative" bears no relationship at all to what the term actually means, as defined by individuals such as Kirk. In that case, Kirk's "principals" can't really be held out as exemplifying "conservativism" in a discussion about real-world politics. Alternatively, one might say that the modern understanding of "conservative" bears some relationship to what the term actually means, as defined by individuals such as Kirk. That appears to be the underlying assumption here.
Regardless, if one wishes to get an understanding of "conservativism," the 10 principles are of very little use, because they are not principles at all. Rather, they are a blend of platitudes and generalizations.
In the real world, the difference between "conservative" and "progressive" comes down to this: Members of society find themselves in the churning waters of real life. The conservative principle is, "Sink or swim." The progressive principle is, "Here, put on these water wings." Neither approach is going to calm the churning waters. Both approaches have their merits depending on the context of the situation. So which approach bears greater affinity with the Buddhadhamma? I guess that will depend on whether one is focused more on metta or more on adhitthana. In other words, it depends.
But I would be very reluctant to hold Russell Kirk out as a conservative whose political views reflect principles taught by the Buddha.
Metta
edited: to fix spelling error