美中全球议题对话项目

In this paper, I will bring Buddhism into conversation with the contemporary discourse of cosmopolitanism, contending that there are elements of cosmopolitan sensibilities in Buddhism despite that the traditional Buddhist teaching is meant to be soteriological rather than political. In considering the current debate on the concept of hospitality beyond existing national boundaries, I will explore the Buddhist argument of interconnectedness, compassion, and hospitality. I will show how Buddhism deals with the relationship between universal humanity and cultural or religious particularity and ask if cosmopolitan hospitality based on the Buddhist teaching is an apt vehicle that can open up the ethical or political space necessary to negotiate between the universal and the particular in the age of global mobility and interaction.

The concept of cosmopolitanism has been widely explored in recent decades. The philosophical underpinnings of cosmopolitanism can be traced back to Immanuel Kant, whose cosmopolitan ideal concerns humanity in general, with its emphasis on a universalistic orientation toward fulfilment of human capacities characterized by an emphasis on rational moral agency and moral duty. The human being, according to Kant, is part of “the world of necessity” on the one hand and “the world of freedom” on the other. This necessity vs. freedom dichotomy had a significant impact on the later Marxist/Communist imagination of the cosmopolitan project exemplified by the “new world citizens” of proletarians. Meanwhile, the communist conception of cosmopolitanism seems to be identified with another term, namely “internationalism.” In this regard, Kant associates his cosmopolitan ideal with “bourgeois republicanism” whereas Marx’s internationalist dream attempts to transfer cosmopolitanism to the revolutionary/proletarian class. Nonetheless, both cosmopolitanism and internationalism share the belief in universal principles, and a universal moral realm in particular. Despite the division of humanity into separate historically constituted communities with different belief systems, it remains possible to identify oneself with, and have a moral concern for, humanity. 

However, cosmopolitanism characterized by the Kantian ideal of the extension of the moral and political horizons of people has been criticized for its Eurocentricity, exclusivity, and idealistic tendencies, as well as for ignoring controversies and clashes in the process of globalization today with its lofty ideal of global governance based on the notions of shared ethical commitments, political visions, and economic agendas. The victory of Western liberalism over the Soviet (Communist) system in the last century has led many optimists to believe that the gates to democracy as the dominant form of global government had opened the Western liberal ideal. Yet today, quite a number of people ask if the hope for global cosmopolitanism is unrealistic when global discourse is characterized by the self-interest of states/hyper-nationalism, the anarchical nature of international relations, and the lack of morality in relations beyond national boundaries. Therefore, instead of global cosmopolitanism, a principled cosmopolitanism influenced by the forces of nationalism or ethnocentrism becomes a popular theme.     

Turning to Buddhism, at first glance, it would appear that the idea of Buddhist cosmopolitanism sounds odd because Buddhism is often seen as a religion primarily centered on a soteriological concern rather than achieving a specific sociopolitical order by acting globally. However, Buddhists would accept the claim that all human beings ultimately belong to a single community based on a shared morality. Recently, several scholars such as Andrew Linklater, Eilis Ward, and Pradeep K. Giri argue that the commonality of “an emancipatory intent” is found in both Buddhism and current discourse on cosmopolitanism, so there are “basic considerations of humanity” in both Buddhism and cosmopolitanism. For Linklater, common humanity is taken as the basis of harmonious unity that is crucial for the argument of cosmopolitan ethics.

Although Buddhism accentuates the notion of suffering as a general shared human condition known to all sentient beings, it recognizes at the same time that each actual instance of suffering is different and unique. In this regard, the universal claim made by Buddhism about human suffering is situated rather than abstract. Therefore, when someone says, “I am suffering,” and someone else responds by saying that “I know it,” it does not mean he or she knows exactly the nature of the actual instance but has some idea through an analogical way of thinking. Compassion, in this regard, is similar to the idea of empathy (feel into) or sympathy (feel for), a kind of moral sentiment that enables one to feel for/into others and thus show love and care to distant others. In this sense, compassion is not merely a state of emotional identification, but an objective understanding that the sufferings felt by others are in fact one’s own. However, it remains a question if a sympathetic/compassionate feeling is sufficient for establishing the cosmopolitan ethics of global care and solidarity. 

In recent decades, the term “social responsibility” as “collective karma” has been widely used in Buddhist studies with the emergence of Socially Engaged Buddhism (SEB), which was influenced by Humanistic Buddhism人間佛教, represented by Chinese Buddhist masters Taixu 太虛and Yin Shun 印順, and was brought to the West by the Vietnamese Buddhist master Thich Nhat Hahn. SEB intends to bring together the traditional principles of Buddhist practice and Western political action. It recapitulates four key aspects: (1) an emphasis on the mundane world through integrating Buddhist practices into everyday life; (2) a rationalization of the religious life by downplaying theistic devotionalism, supernaturalism, and ritualism; (3) a cultivation of mental awareness and moral development through virtuous living; and (4) a highlight on karmic collectivity and global justice. Nevertheless, rather than obliterating the particularities of cultural and religious identities, SEB insists that global solidarity also relies on them. In spite of religious particularity, the idea of responsive action towards the suffering of others is rooted in the Buddhist ethics of empathy and a genuine concern for the well-being of others, regardless of differences among people. 

One may notice that the word compassion seems to dwell on the “negative” aspect of human existence in the sense of sharing the suffering and pains of others or a willingness to bear the pain of others. This kind of compassion is sometimes translated as “pity,” “mercy,” or sympathy” in English. But compassion also refers to “sympathetic joy” (muditā; le 樂), that is, sharing the happiness of others. In this case, compassion is not merely a feeling of mercy or sympathy but a form of “active sympathy” in that it requires one to do something with a helping hand. Yet the act of helping should not be the act of being condescending to someone being helped. For Buddhists, compassion for others is not a feeling of superiority; genuine compassion is about empowering others, helping them unlock strength and courage from within their lives in order to overcome their problems. In addition, Buddhism also speaks of equanimity (upekṣā; se 捨) to balance the compassionate feeling to avoid “compassionate fatigue” or burnout.

Equanimity refers to a spiritual virtue that enables one to attain a balanced and evenness of mind. For Buddhists, therefore, the practice of virtues of compassion and equanimity require training and cultivation despite the feeling of sympathy shared by our common humanity. 

Clearly, the ethics of compassion is intrinsically associated with the ontological idea of interconnectedness of all things. As we read in the early Buddhist text Anguttara Nikaya, “He who has understanding and great wisdom does not think of harming himself or another, nor of harming both alike. He rather thinks of his own welfare, of that of others, of that of both, and of the welfare of the whole world. In that way one shows understanding and great wisdom.” In Chinese Huayan Buddhism (華嚴宗), “Indra’s jewel net” is a much-loved metaphor in the Flower Garland Sutra (Avataṃsaka-sūtra; 《華嚴經》) to illustrate the interpenetration, intercausality, and interbeing of all things. In cosmopolitanism, the idea of interconnectedness of all things is both descriptive and evaluative, indicating a system of relationality and causal effectiveness. 

The concept of hospitality is an old concept in the Western tradition. In fact, it is a ubiquitous theme of continental philosophy. For Kant, the definition of a guest is clearly defined: He/she must be a citizen of another country and he/she must behave in a peaceful manner. Meanwhile, Kant limits the meaning of hospitality to a guest’ right to visit, not to stay. Upon these conditions, Kant contends that the condition of hospitality is the condition of perpetual peace. Noticeably, the concept of hospitality given by Kant is different from the account of contemporary French thinkers such as Emmanuel Lévinas and Jacques Derrida. For Lévinas, the ethical-political implications of hospitality (hospitalité) are closely associated with human vulnerability to suffering, and as such he addresses hospitality towards strangers (etrangér) in an opposite direction of Kant by calling for a return to the sources of humanity, that is, to what happens when people meet face to face. According to Lévinas, hospitality operates in the two related realms: the ethical and the political. In the ethical realm, the moral self is obligated to welcome the stranger into the private space of the home; in the political realm, the self is required to welcome the stranger into the public space of the homeland. The word “ethics” then becomes a question about the “wholly other” that challenges the self-qua-being, thus separating itself from the traditional ontological framework of being in the West, that is, sameness or totality.

I have explored the possibility of a meaningful dialogue between Buddhism and the contemporary discourse on cosmopolitanism. It is my contention that Buddhism entails a cosmopolitan ethic. Yet different from the Kantian notion of universalism based on rational moral agency, Buddhism emphasizes the universal experience of human suffering and the need for moral cultivation of compassion since Buddhism does not presuppose an autonomous agent freely willing to act. I agree that the contemporary philosophical framework we are using to study Buddhism should not preclude an attempt to explore its thought and its possible connection to contemporary analogous issues within its own cultural context and form, but at the same time, a creative method is needed as well for the sake of meaningful reconstruction. To a certain extent, Buddhism requires hybridization, or genuinely new ways of engaging with the world in order to deal with the problems we face today. Only in this way are we able to show how Buddhism can offer a different set of conceptual tools to facilitate effective dialogues or generate insightful inquiries for the current debate on cosmopolitanism and provide proper measurements to deal with the global problems such as the immigration crisis and various forms of military risks. 

This essay is an excerpt of a longer paper, written as part of the author's participation in the Georgetown University Initiative for U.S.-China Dialogue on Global Issues' U.S.-China Research Group on Cosmopolitanism, that will be published in a forthcoming special issue of the Journal of Confucian Philosophy and Culture.

Ellen Zhang is a professor in and head of the Department of Religion and Philosophy and director of the Centre for Applied Ethics at Hong Kong Baptist University.