In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Along the tree-lined banks of French Creek in northwestern Pennsylvania there lives an old woman in the small town of Meadville. The old woman lives in a cardboard box that she found in the rear of a local appliance store. This box serves as her home throughout the year; there she sleeps, eats, finds shelter from the natural elements, and spends much of her time. There are some in this community of hard-working people who think that she is a little crazy. Other people have been concerned enough to ask a local social service agency to check into her situation . Social workers have visited the old woman, who has been locally dubbed “Granny,” to inquire whether or not she needs help and to discern if she is mentally competent to take care of herself. Old Granny always insists that she is fine and does not need any assistance. Some social workers who have examined her have questioned whether she is mentally competent. Some citizens think that her cardboard box is an aesthetic blight in a normally scenic area, and they insist that she be removed, which the local political authorities are reluctant to do, because they think that her forcible removal will only lead to negative publicity for being uncaring and unsympathetic. This scene could, of course, be taking place in India or any other country. What is the responsibility of society to a person like Granny, who is not harming anyone except perhaps herself by refusing aid. What is the responsibility of individuals passing by the creek in their automobiles on their way to work or some other destination? Should Granny be forced to submit to a psychological test to determine her level of mental competency? Should she be forcibly removed and placed into a shelter for the homeless for her own welfare? These are not questions with simple answers, because political and ethical issues are never easily solved, as if they were simple issues of black and white, right and wrong, ethical and unethical. There are some earlier Western interpreters of Buddhism who would argue that the religion would not be concerned with the plight of Granny, because Buddhists are supposedly unconcerned about moral and ethical issues: the religion’s 68 4 Ethical and Political Implications of Buddhist Narratives orientation is toward world renunciation and its goal is something that sounds nihilistic. In short, they would argue, Buddhism lacks an ethical perspective and thus would simply ignore an indigent person. But to assume that Buddhism is devoid of an ethical perspective is short-sighted and simply mistaken. The previous chapter called attention to the Noble Eightfold Path and the fact that it calls for a certain pattern of moral and ethical behavior in the way one conducts interactions with others, speaks, earns a livelihood, and thinks. Regardless of the path and goal of the religion, Buddhism embodies a consistent and powerful ethical position. The Buddha draws a distinction between rules of discipline (vinaya) and virtues (sila). Because the rules of discipline are the correct course of action, they ought to be performed. The proper rules of conduct are distinct from ordinary modes of behavior because they are not characterized by the passion and hatred typical of normal modes of action.1 In contrast, the virtues represent the foundation of the moral life.2 Once a person is established in virtue, he or she can proceed to develop thought (citta) and wisdom (pañña). As significant as virtues are, they are insufficient by themselves, because Buddhism does not advocate being virtuous as the goal of life. Although virtue can serve as an impetus to liberation from the cycle of suffering, there is no virtue that is ultimate or absolutely essential from the Buddhist perspective.3 With this distinction in mind, how might a Buddhist respond to the plight of Granny and her living conditions? At the bare minimum, a Buddhist would show compassion (karuna) toward Granny by having sympathy for her suffering. The Buddhist would not draw a distinction between Granny’s suffering and his or her own. However, the Buddhist would not become emotionally identified with her suffering, because this could lead to mere sentimentality. To become emotionally identified with her would be like a person without any ability to swim jumping into a lake to save a drowning child, which would result in a double drowning. It is necessary for a compassionate person to be cool-headed and emotionally selfcontrolled , a...

Share