A Thai Buddhism A conversation with Sulak Sivaraksa

·期刊原文

A Thai perspective on socially engaged Buddhism

A conversation with Sulak Sivaraksa

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sulak Sivaraksa of Bangkok, Thailand (or Siam, as he prefers to call his
country), is probably that country's most prominent social critic and
activist and a major contemporary exponent of socially engaged Buddhism.
Now sixty years old, he has for the last thirty years combined provocative
and innovative intellectual work with continual grass-roots organizing. He
has founded rural development projects as well as many nongovemmental
organizations dedicated to exploring alternative models of sustainable,
traditionally rooted, and ethically and spiritually based development.

Periodically, Sulak (as he is known to his friends) has been persecuted;
mostly dictatorships have ruled Thailand since 1932. In 1976, Sulak was
forced into exile for two years. In 1984, he was arrested by the government
for Ie-majestic (defamation of the monarchy), but after an international
campaign on his behalf, he was released. In September 1991, he was again
charged with lese-majeste and also with declamation of the army commander
and Sulak went immediately into exile. In December 1992 he returned to face
trial. It, March 1993, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. In June
1993, his trial, slated to last several months, began.

Sulak's main works include Siamese Resurgence (1985), Religion and
Development (1986), A Socially Engaged Buddhism (1988,), Siam in Crisis
(1990), and Seeds of Peace (1992a).

This conversation took place between Sulak Sivaraksa and Donald Rothberg at
Berkeley, California, in July 1992.

WORK AND MAIN INFLUENCES

Rothberg: How did your own work in Siam develop? Sivaraksa: I started very
small. In 1961, I returned to my country, having been in England eight or
nine years, and then in 1962, I started working with the University Press
in Bangkok. I started a journal called the Social Science Review in 1963
and got many people to write for it. Now my country was under a
dictatorship since 1947, which had become much more severe since 1957; most
social studies available were nothing but government propaganda dominated
by American capitalism and militarism. Overnight, this journal became the
central intellectual journal. Young people were attracted to it, although I
had originally intended it for my peers and for those educated abroad. I
started meetings for young people, using a temple in Wat Bovornives [a
monastery in Bangkok, also housing a Buddhist university].[1] We explored
alternative ways of thinking, and these young people began to become
political; many of them were successful in changing the government in 1973.
I also started a bookshop, which also became a meeting place. Everywhere I
went, I started publications, printing presses, magazines, and books. I
gave lectures, and I made many more friends, as well as more enemies. This
is how I work.

I started in my own country with Buddhists, then worked with Christians,
Muslims, and agnostics. Later, I expanded to my neighboring
countries--Southeast Asia, South Asia, Japan, and America. My work has
developed by interconnections on the basis of friendship.

I organized the Komol Keemthong Foundation in 1971 in order to promote the
idealism of the youth; it was named after one of the young people working
with me that I admired very much, who was killed by the Communists. Of
course, this notion of promoting youthful idealism is too abstract; we
actually use a number of concrete ideas taken from many places--from Thich
Nhat Hanh, Ivan Illich, Paulo Freire, Dr. Ariyaratne of Sri Lanka. We still
often work with this foundation. I also founded the
Sathirakoses-Nagapradipa Foundation, named after two of my teachers, which
works on environmental issues, on questions of conservation and natural
resources, and also attempts to help artists and poets. At the Wongsanit
Ashram outside Bangkok, connected .with this foundation, young people and
artists can come for retreats, for periods of reflection and learning, as
well as for meditation.

I have also founded ecumenical organizations, like the TICD [the Thai
Inter-Religious Commission for Development], in which we work with
Christians and Muslims on questions of alternative development, and the
CGRS [Coordinating Group on Religion and Society]. I'm good at starting
organizations; this is my strength. I like to give ideas to people; I find
committed people, and soon I often have little to do with the organization!

Rothberg: What have been the main influences on your own connection of
Buddhism with social action?

Sivaraksa: I have been very much personally influenced by Thich Nhat Hanh.
He has suffered more than have most monks and has been involved more for
social justice. In Vietnam in the 1950s and 1960s, he was very exposed to
young people, and his society was in turmoil, in crisis. He was really in a
difficult position, between the devil and the deep blue sea--the Communists
on the one hand, the CIA on the other hand. In such a situation, he has
been very honest--as an activist, as a contemplative monk (not unlike
Thomas Merton), as a poet (again like Merton), and as a clear writer. Most
important to me have been his teachings on "interbeing" (Nhat Hanh 1987a),
and poems like "Please Call Me. By My True Names" (Nhat Hanh 1987b, 63-64).
Of course, his work really rests on the traditional Buddhist teaching of
paticca samuppada ["dependent origination," the inter-relatedness of all
phenomena] brought into a very contemporary setting.

I have also been very influenced by Gandhi and by the Quakers. Gandhi
experienced and responded to the dreadful suffering connected with the
British occupation of the subcontinent. His radical approach was to be with
the poor and to use nonviolent approaches, to use spiritual strength.
Later, I came across the Quakers. I was especially interested in the
radical Quakers and the idea of a religious society of friends. The Quakers
regard friendship as central, just as did the Buddha. I was also very
attracted by the Quaker notions of the sacredness of a human being and
nonviolence. I found the Quakers more articulate than Buddhists on the need
to question and resist the powers of the state, to question the status quo;
Buddhists have been coexisting with the state for too long.

The new Western Buddhists and groups like the Buddhist Peace Fellowship
really have been good for me. Particularly helpful have been people who
have had a radical (and sometimes Marxist) background before they become
Buddhists, who come to Buddhism with critical social awareness. For me, the
Marxist systemic analysis of society, of the seeds of oppression, is very
useful, provided it is placed in a nonviolent context. Perhaps radicals
(including Marxists) can learn from Buddhists to be more humble, more
mindful, to have some spirituality.

Johan Galtung,[2] a European who became a Buddhist, was the first one to
lead me into serious thinking that Buddhists must take on the system rather
than focus on individuals. Schumacher (1973) helped us in particular to
think about the development of economic systems not based on greed and
consumerism. Here, radicals and Marxists can also learn from us; we hate
the dreadful system, not the people. In Christian language, we hate sin,
not the sinners.

A BUDDHIST APPROACH TO SOCIAL ACTION IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

Rothberg: In your essay on "Buddhism and Contemporary International Trends"
(Sivaraksa 1992b), you wrote that traditional Buddhist approaches and
categories have not yet been adequately translated into modern terms. What
do you think has to be done to make Buddhism relevant for modern social
problems?

Sivaraksa: In making Buddhism more relevant for the contemporary world, it
is important not to compromise on the essentials, such as the ethical
precepts (sila). However, these ethical precepts need to be rethought in
order to make sense of life in contemporary societies. Buddhists
traditionally have lived in rather simple societies, largely agrarian, as
is still often the case in Southeast and South Asia. In such societies,
ethical issues may also be simple. One can say, "I am a good person. I
don't kill. I don't steal. I don't commit adultery. I don't lie." But, when
the society becomes much more complex, these simple interpretation of
ethical norms don't work so well.

For example, to follow the first Buddhist ethical precept, to refrain from
killing living beings, is not so simple now; social reality in the modern
world has become much more complex and interconnected. We have to ask
questions like these: Do we allow our tax, money to go for armaments? Do we
keep ourselves separate from the political realm and not challenge the
government? Should we breed animals for consumption?

Our understanding of the second preception to refrain from taking what is
not ours, must also be extended. We may not literally steal in our
face-to-face interactions, but do we allow the rich countries to exploit
the poor countries through the workings of the international banking
system and the international economic order? Do we allow industrial
societies to exploit agrarian societies? The First World to exploit the
Third World? The rich to exploit the poor generally?

We can ask similar questions on the basis of the third precept, to refrain
from improper sexual behavior. We need to think not just about adultery and
hurting others, but also to think more broadly about other sexual and
gender issues, about male domination and the exploitation of women. For
instance, we use women for advertising in ways that promote sexism, lust,
and greed.

In fact, to participate in the system of consumerism is already to violate
the first, second, and third precepts. Following the fourth precept, to
refrain from improper speech, is also very difficult. Think of all the
advertising and all the political propaganda, all the lies and
exaggerations in the media and in education. We have to challenge all this
even when it is legal. Buddhists in Asia often have liked to coexist side
by side with the state and legal system. I think we have to reexamine
ourselves.

Buddhist social ethics traditionally have been entirely personal. We have
not looked at the system that is violent, that is oppressive, that in fact,
involves theft.

The Buddhist notion of enlightenment and understanding [or wisdom, Pali:
panna] also needs to be extended so that enlightenment is not always
internal enlightenment; here also Buddhism has been weak. Panna must
involve a real understanding of yourself and of society. If your society is
unjust, exploitative, and violent, how do you respond? With all the
paramitas [or "perfections"] of a Bodhisattva, one dedicated to the
liberation of all beings: humbly, seriously, without much attachment, with
awareness, with vigor, with patience, with a great vow to change things.[4]
But Buddhists have too often been "goody-goodies" and not really responded
to all the suffering in society.

We also need a different understanding of suffering and the causes of
suffering (the first two "Noble Truths" taught by the Buddha). Suffering at
the time of the Buddha was certainly often dreadful, but it was simpler to
understand; the interrelatedness of all phenomena that is a main teaching
of the Buddha was simpler then and is much more complex now. We Buddhists
need help from the social scientists: from sociologists, psychologists,
anthropologists, etcetera. We should be very open and translate the
findings of these disciplines into Buddhist understandings. Of course, one
must have the right view of things and use these sciences to help against
greed, hatred, and delusion; otherwise, all these methodologies and
sciences could lead one astray. But without the work of these disciplines,
we may become deluded and think that Buddhist practice can solve
everything. It doesn't, Without transforming the Buddhist sense of wisdom
to bring in understanding of and response to social reality, Buddhism will
not be so relevant and might only appeal to the middle class. If we are not
careful, it will become a kind of escapism.

Rothberg: Sometimes when I read Buddhist texts or talk to Buddhists, even
many socially and politically concerned Buddhists, they often seem to
suggest that the basic problem is internal greed, hatred, and delusion, as
if working on the individual is most fundamental. According to this way of
thinking, whatever problems there are with societies or systems are just an
expression of what is "inner." There is little sense of a more
"dialectical" relationship of individual and system, of how greed, hatred,
and delusion are formed by systems, while the systems are then supported
further by greed, hatred, and delusion. Of course, there is much
traditional Buddhist emphasis on sangha [community] and ethics, but the
assumption commonly is that changing the inner leads to outer change. How
might we develop a vision of socially engaged Buddhism as integrating inner
and outer work more fully so that the one informs the other?

Sivaraksa: Ambedkar, the leader of the untouchables in India. who became a
Buddhist at the end of his life, challenged the Buddha in a wonderful
way.[5] He said that it was not enough to speak of the cause of suffering
as being greed, hatred, and delusion; that is only to speak of more
"internal" causes. The social structure is also a cause of suffering; as an
untouchable, he could see that yew clearly.

The Buddha's intention was certainly to change individuals; the ultimate
aim was liberation. However, he intended to help liberate not only
individuals but the whole society, His method was to create the sangha, the
community, as a kind of alternative society within the larger society that
would influence the larger society indirectly.

But we should also remember thin the larger society at that time was not
all that wicked. The system wasn't too rigid. One changed individual could
make a big impact. A rich man, a kind of banker at the Buddha's time,
Supata, who became Anathapindika, became the supporter of all the poor in
the region. In our time, you can get one good banker and nothing
particularly changes. Now you have to change the whole system of banking!
We must be very demanding in transforming ourselves, but I think we would
be deluded unless we also have a clear understanding of how to change the
oppressive society.

The Bodhisattva vow to save all sentient beings is aver)., special
challenge to all Buddhists. Without that vow, we may become very selfish.
We may not be able to change the world right now, but we can begin by
encountering, understanding, and sharing the suffering of others, and
wishing to help. Of course, we must do this with equanimity and detachment.
This is compassion, karuna, our basic attitude guiding both our more
internal and our more external work. There must be a balance of the
internal and external; to stress one at the expense of the other is for me
a betrayal ofP>Rothberg: When I visited earlier this year the monastery of
Pah Ban That (in northeast Thailand) founded by Ajahn Maha Boowa, I had
several conversations with Bhikkhu Pannvaddho, an English monk who is
probably the senior Western monk in Thailand. He questioned whether it was
real]y, possible for persons socially engaged to live fully the spiritual
life, no matter hob' helpful they might be. For him, to live this life is
to work for liberation by uprooting the "defilements" that block one's
basic love and understanding. Flowever, this requires living in a highly
supportive environment, like that of a war [monastery]. The life of social
engagement will very likely not have the spiritual depth that is possible
for a monk in such an environment as a monastery.

This is a major concern for many people in the West. Our intention is to
work socially in a way that brings much spiritual depth, as well as social
depth, rather than somehow act superficially in both dimensions.

Sivaraksa: Of course, it is a great danger that those who are socially
engaged lack spiritual depth, inner calm, and peace; some activist Buddhist
monks (for instance, in Sri Lanka and Burma) have sometimes even become
violent* But what Pannavaddho said is applicable only to a small minority
of monks, those who are convinced that their prime duty is to get rid of
defilements. It is unrealistic to expect that all monks should have these
intentions. Even at the time of the Buddha, many monks did not. Monks
should act somewhere between the minimum (following the basic ethical
precepts) and the maximum (practicing for liberation); most are in between.
Beyond following the minimal ethical precepts, the monk should make some
contribution. In the Theravadin Buddhist tradition, there is the custom of
having town monks, who help and lead the people in various ways, for
instance, in education and medicine; this is the traditional expression of
socially engaged spirituality.

Without the spiritual dimension, however, those working socially will burn
out. We must have joy, peace, and rest for ourselves, in our families,
among our neighbors. If we are to connect ethical norms and social justice,
we must have time for spiritual development, time to meditate, time to
integrate head and heart, and then time for renewal and retreat several
weeks a year, sometimes with teachers who help us and question us. This is
why centers of renewal like Buddhadasa's Suan Mokkh, the "Garden of
Liberation" [in south Thailanda], Thich Nhat Hanh's Plum Village [near
Bordeaux, France], or the center I myself started, the ecumenical Wongsanit
Ashram, are so important.

Without this kind of inquiry and practice, those trying to transform
society will be more likely to be greedy, wanting to be big shots, or full
of hate, wanting power, or deluded, wanting an impossibly ideal society or
being a naive do-gooder. Meditation and critical self-awareness help one to
see these questionable motivations or at least to ask oneself: "Am I doing
that out of greed or hatred?" even if there is no clear answer.

But meditation alone is not sufficient--because people suffer so much. One
must also act; one must do what one can.

The basic understandings of the three founding patrons of the International
Network of Engaged Buddhists [INEB, founded by Sulak], the Dalai Lama of
Tibet, Thich Nhat Hanh of Vietnam, and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu of Siam, are all
very relevant.[6] Each of them, representing one of the three main Buddhist
traditions (Vajrayana, Mahayana, and Theravada), meditates regularly and is
very concerned about developing "dhammic" societies, societies based on
wisdom and compassion. Each of them has faced suffering very directly and
responded very fully, in ways from which we can learn.

The Dalai Lama has been exiled for over thirty years from his native Tibet.
He uses meditation and compassion, teaching us to love the Chinese
government and Chinese individuals who have often committed atrocities
against the Tibetans, killing, destroying temples, and so on. His teaching
is very relevant for my young bhikkhus [monks] in Sri Lanka, in the middle
of a civil war; how car, they learn to love the Tamils? I have not been
successful yet. But many of these monks are now starting to meditate and
joining in traditional monastic practices, like collecting alms.

Thich Nhat Hanh has also been a great help. In Thailand, for example, he
helped the Vietnamese refugees, who have often been very badly treated by
Thais in their refugee camps; some of the refugees have been raped by That
pirates. Thich Nhat Hanh worked with them, teaching them not to hate Thais.
He has also helped the refugees when they've settled in America and in
Australia, helped them especially with their wounds from the war. For Trier
Nhat Hanh, to help others is to help oneself. Those of us who have been to
Plum Village, the spiritual community in France that Trier Nhat Hanh
started, can see how meditation and social awareness both flourish there.

Buddhadasa may not have been persecuted as much as the other two leaders,
but he has been often attacked. He has been called a Communist by some;
some Sri Lankan monks called him a goat and a propagandist for the
Christians. A well-known Buddhist scholar criticized him as a non-Buddhist
and called him, a senior monk (now eighty-seven) all kinds of names,
largely because he was open to approaches from outside the Buddhist
tradition. Buddhadasa is very much based in Buddhist tradition, of course;
he is very strict in following the Theravadin ethical precepts. At the same
time, he has embraced Vajrayana and Mahayana Buddhism as valid paths. His
Holiness the Dalai Lama went to visit him. He has also admired the work of
Thich Nhat Hanh.

THE IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNITY

Rothberg: A life integrating social engagement and spiritual work in the
West is quite hard for many reasons, especially because there are not so
many support structures. At the Buddhist Peace Fellowship summer institute
in July 1992, you spoke about community as an important form of nonviolent
resistance, as a support for questioning consumerism and the structures of
domination and oppression.

Sivaraksa: It is important that daily life be lived in community. The
present daily life in industrialized societies, so much based on
separation, individualism, and consumption, is not conducive to socially
engaged spirituality. The Buddhist tradition, on the other hand, emphasizes
the centrality of community life based on simplicity. There is the old
tradition that monks should not have more than three robes, only one bowl,
one thread, one needle, and one pair of sandals. We are also taught not to
be attached or give great significance to money even if we lay people need
money for survival). The more we ate self-reliant, growing our own food,
and so on, the less money becomes important. Whatever we grow we are
willing to share with others. That is why I think that you need to live
close to nature and be with people. In our traditional society, it has
always been like this. Whatever you cook, you share with others. It would
be good for this approach to come back. I think that this is possible, if
people think seriously and question consumerism, promoting nonagreed,
nonhatred, and nondelusion, educating people about alternatives to
materialism and about how to make capitalism more sane.

In our society, especially in the countryside, we still have extended
families in most of the country, except in Bangkok, which is just like any
Western city. We still respect our parents and grandparents and have
feelings for the poor, the blind, and the mentally retarded; we don't feel
ashamed if we have mentally retarded people in the family. We have to
reinforce what is positive in the traditional approach (in areas like
agriculture, medicine, food, and dress); otherwise, modern trends will wipe
everything away.

Rothberg: In the United States, Buddhism is often interpreted very
individualistically. Gary Snyder (Ingram, Gates, and Nisker 1988, 5) once
said that sangha is the least developed of the "Three Jewels" of Buddhism
[the "Three Jewels" are the Buddha, or the example of the liberated person;
the dhamma, or basic teachings about liberation; and the sangha).

Sivaraksa: When my teacher, Ajahn Buddhadasa, reached the age of
eighty-four, the end of the seventh cycle of his life according to our
custom, I produced the book Radical Conservatism (Sivaraksa, Hutanuvatra,
Chaemduang, Sobhanasiri, and Kholer 1990). I think that the title is
important. As a Buddhist, if one is not radical and does not work to
eliminate suffering, one may end up only taking a little bit of Buddhism
for one's individual ego. But Buddhism is not often radical; it coexists
too easily with capitalism and consumerism. If Buddhism is not radical here
in the United States, it will one day simply become a kind of Americanism
and not make much of a contribution, just as Buddhism is often a mere
decoration in Japan.

Many intentions to create community in this country have failed, largely
because individualism has become so strong and because communities have not
been firmly based on ethical guidelines. I think of Locke, and your
Declaration of Independence, that would make possible "life, liberty and
the pursuit of (what they call) happiness." Too often, of course, the
pursuit of happiness is really the pursuit of property, The traditional
member of the Buddhist sangha has no property whatsoever. All members are
equal economically and socially. Lay people can look at the sangha as a
model and try to have less property, not be so attached to what they do
have, and work for greater economic and political equality.

The community must also be based on ethical precepts. Of course, ethics is
not just about not killing or stealing or abusing another sexually; it is
also about respecting others, sharing our resources, seeing how we can
contribute, living harmoniously, and so on. If we can develop Buddhist
communities that rest on simple living, are close to nature, and that
encourage serious thinking that challenges consumerism and the status quo,
that would be an important contribution.

FIRST WORLD AND THIRD WORLD: WORKING AND LEARNING TOGETHER

Rothberg: At the present time, there is much more interaction of "First
World" and "Third World" socially engaged Buddhists. How can we best work
with each other? What car, we learn from each other?

Sivaraksa: Again, the essential point is that each person must develop
critical self-awareness, humility, seeds of peace, and then dialogue is
possible, listening is possible, good friends are possible. Once we work
together, particularly in relation to suffering, then the gaps between rich
and poor, First World and Third World, North and South, are gone; we become
partners and friends. Alone you can't do very much, but with your friends,
you can do a great deal. If you want to gain exposure to the South, then
you need people from the South to help you. If I want to go to Sri Lanka or
Burma, then I need friends from those countries to help me, so that I can
learn from them, and they can learn from me. I need to respect them, be
genuine and sincere, and be at their level, not wear a big cap.

The conditions in the United States for socially engaged spirituality are
difficult. Consumerism, greed, loneliness, manipulation of political power,
and hatred have become so strong. Worst of all, the people are so deluded,
most of the time unknowingly. Working with us in Asia may be helpful,
working for half a year, or a year, helping the Tibetans, or the Ladakhi,
or the Thai, or the Burmese. But this shouldn't be escapism. You might work
in Asia and see that the source of suffering there is perhaps in the First
World. When you come back here, after you have lived with them in community
and close to nature, you may have more motivation to live like this in your
own country.

It can also be helpful to be exposed to a society where it is clearer that
there is delusion, where power is clearer. In my society, for example, you
can see that the generals kill people openly. In this country, the generals
never kill your people. They're much more clever, and the people stay
deluded; the wars are all supposed to be just, great for the American flag,
for the open society, the liberal West, and so on.

OPPRESSION, RECONCILIATION, AND THE MIDDLE PATH

Rothberg: Although engaged Buddhists may identify systems of domination and
oppression, they often question the tendency among many leftists to
polarize oppressors and oppressed; Buddhists more often emphasize
reconciliation. How do we identify systems of oppression, as well as those
concrete persons who are in many ways responsible for oppression, without
forming a rigid distinction between "good" people and "bad" people?

Sivaraksa: This is the most difficult question. This is where you need
serious spiritual practice. It is easy to condemn the oppressors, but
actually when you condemn others, you also condemn yourself. Right now in
my country, this difficult problem is very central [following the
demonstrations and killings of hundreds in the streets in Bangkok in May
1992]. Of course, it is very easy to pass judgment and believe in right on
one side and wrong on the other. But here you have to have a deeper
understanding that is often difficult to explain, of karma and
interdependence over vast periods of time and space. We must cultivate this
deeper understanding, thinking also about the nature of social systems,
rather than just focusing on the persons.

If you get attached to right and wrong. you become so tiresome and full of
haired. and ultimately you may have to kill; in Christian terms, you become
God. We must develop more mercy and compassion. Here, the West can learn
from the Buddhists. Our ability to forgive is our strength. But, of course,
you have to practice; you have to go deeper and radicalize yourself, going
beyond thinking about "an eye for an eye."

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank Joyce Rybandt and Veronica Froelich for their aid in
transcribing this conversation and Wim Aspeslagh for his helpful comments
on the manuscript.

NOTES

1. Explanatory phrases within brackets have been added by the interviewer.

2. Johan Galtung is currently a political scientist and peace researcher at
the University of Hawaii.

3. The five basic ethical precepts in Theravada Buddhism include guidelines
to refrain from killing, stealing, "false" speech, improper sexuality, and
intoxicants that cloud the mind. Sec Saddhatissa (1987).

4. Traditionally, there are six paramitas: giving or generosity
(Pali:dana), ethical integrity (sila), patience (khanti). vigor (virya),
meditation (somadhi), and wisdom (parina).

5. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (1891-1956), after a careful survey of the world
religions, came to the conclusion that Buddhism was best suited to meet
the ethical, social, and spiritual needs of both the untouchables in
particular and the contemporary world generally. He converted publically
shortly before his death, and since then perhaps twenty million former
untouchables in India have followed in converting to Buddhism. For a short
account of Ambedkar's life, see Queen (1993).

6. For representative works of these authors, see Dalai Lama (1984, 1990),
Nhat Hanh (1987b, 1992), and Swearer (1989). Buddhadasa (1906-) may be the
least known of these three figures in the West, but he is probably the
best-known monk in Thailand of the twentieth century. He is the founder of
an innovative as well as highly traditional community of forest monasteries
and is known for his questioning of religious orthodoxy, his deep interest
both in meditation and in social change, and his prolific writings.

REFERENCES

Dalai Lama. 1984. Kindness, clarity, and insight. Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion
Press*

-----. 1990. A policy of kindness. Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Press.

Ingram, C., B. Gates, and W. Nisker. 1988. Chun on Turtle Island: A
conversation with Gary Snyder. Inquiring Mind 4 (Winter): I, 4.-5, 25.
Available from Inquiring Mind, P*O. Box 9999, Berkeley, Calif. 94709.

Nhat Hanh, T. 1987a. Interbeing: Commentaries on the Tiep Hien precepts*
Berkeley: Parallax Press*

-----. 1987b. Being peace* Berkeley: Parallax Press.

-----. 1992. Touching peace:* Practicing the art of mindful living.
Berkeley: Parallax Press*

Queen. C. 1993. The great conversion: Dr. Ambedkar and the Buddhist revival
in India. Tricycle: The Buddhist Review 2 (Spring): 62-67.

Sadhatissa, H. 1987. Buddhist ethics: The path to nirvana. London: Wisdom
Publications.

Schumacher, E. 1973. Small is beautiful: A study of economics as if people
mattered* London: Blond and Briggs.

Sivaraksa, S. 1985. Siamese resurgence: A Thai Buddhist voice on Asia and a
world change. Bangkok: Asian Cultural Forum on Development.

-----. 1986. Religion and development. 3rd ed. Bangkok: Thai
Inter-Religious Commission for Development*

-----. 1988. A socially engaged Buddhism: By a controversial Siamese.
Bangkok: Thai Inter-Religious Commission for Development*

-----. 1990. Siam in crisis. 2nd ed. Bangkok: Thai Intel-Religious
Commission for Development.

-----. 1992a. Seeds of peace. A Buddhist vision for renewing society.
Berkeley: Parallax Press*

-----. 1992b. Buddhism and contemporary international trends. In K. Kraft,
ed., Inner peace, world peace: Essays on Buddhism and nonviolence. Albany,
N.Y.: S.U.N.Y. Press*

Sivaraksa, S., P. Hutanuvatra, N. Chaemduang, S. Sobhanasiri, and N. Khoer,
eds. 1990. Radical conservatism: Buddhism in the contemporary world:
Articles in honour of Bhikkitu Buddhadasa's 84th birthday anniversary.
Bangkok: Thai Inter-Religious Commission for Development.

Swearer, D., ed. 1989. Me and mine: Selected essays of Bhikkhu Buddhadasa.
Albany, N.Y.: S.U.N.Y. Press.

By Donald Rothberg

Donald Rothberg is on the faculty of the Saybrook Institute in San
Francisco and has written on socially engaged Buddhism. critical social
theory, transpersonal Psychology, and epistemology and mysticism. He has
served on the board of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship, where he has helped
to develop an Ongoing summer institute on engaged Buddhism. (C) 1993 by D.
Rothberg