Thank you so much for doing this, Helen. I'm part of the Triratna organisation that hosted your discussion with Maitreyabandhu. It's taken me a while to gain an understanding of your viewpoint; I made the mistake initially of expecting you to assert particular opinions on issues, whereas I now see that you're standing up for people's right to live, believe and act as they choose, provided they don't hurt others. And that you support evidence-based science where it's needed, along with the need for expertise where it matters too - I particularly liked your analogy about religious belief being fine as long as its not used as a qualification to fly an aeroplane!
It has saddened and troubled me that quite a lot of Critical Social Justice’s worst beliefs have flowed into Triratna without sufficient scrutiny. I'm thinking particularly of what I refer to as the hierarchy of oppression, where the expressed needs of the most oppressed outweigh those of other groups, and the individual is lost from view, along with universal values.
I particularly appreciated your emphasis on 3 perspectives of society; the individual, the “identity” group and the universal.
This fits neatly into a part of Triratna training, which encourages people to consider their relationship as an individual with the group as any kind of collective. We ask, am I a conformist or an individualist? Do I conform out of fear? Do I stand apart out of a self-view that I'm a rebel? The aim is to become independent of these modes, out of a belief that doing so brings a sense of freedom. And the universal approach asks us to develop a robust sense of what all people have in common, such as the wish to be free of suffering.
Standing apart from popular discourse and saying what you're convinced needs to be said in the face of abusive naysayers, as you do, is an admirable example of this.
The freedom that a clear conscience brings is a great boon in life, as I think you know.
Yes, I think worldviews with a particular focus on compassion and (genuine) diversity and inclusion can be particularly vulnerable to mistaking CSJ for much more compatible with that than it is and a way to explore it. Below are Jonathan Rauch's knowledge principles. I am currently thinking about how people who go with the humanitarian principle are prone to letting the radical egalitarian one in with the best of intentions. Do you think this has any explanatory power for why some in Triritria might have been more open to it than they should have been?
“• The Fundamentalist Principle: Those who know the truth should decide who is right.
• The Simple Egalitarian Principle: All sincere persons’ beliefs have equal claims to respect.
• The Radical Egalitarian Principle: Like the simple egalitarian principle, but the beliefs of persons in historically oppressed classes or groups get special consideration.
• The Humanitarian Principle: Any of the above, but with the condition that the first priority be to cause no hurt.
• The Liberal Principle: Checking of each by each through public criticism is the only legitimate way to decide who is right.”
— Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought by Jonathan Rauch
"The freedom that a clear conscience brings is a great boon in life, as I think you know."
Indeed! I am supported psychologically by knowing myself to be trying to be ethically consistent. Of course, we all fail at times to live up to our own principles. And, while I have the respect of people whose thinking I respect, I cannot feel too lonely and they can also be relied on to have my back and tell me if I am sliding.
I very much hope that those of you who see the problem with CSJ will bring those who do not to see it!
Thank you Helen, for this conversation! I am sitting with my sister, taking notes to help fortify our understanding of the differences between liberal social justice and critical social justice. I just love the questions Maitreyabandhu asks you! And the shared chuckles are just plain good for the soul. So grateful for all the clarity.
This is so interesting to see, and it's like two worlds colliding for me. When I noticed a couple of years ago that the London Buddhist Centre has sessions that are exclusively for PoC it did give me slightly uncomfortable pause for thought. How interesting to see that this conversation has now happened.
There does seem to be considerable difference of opinion among members of the London Buddhist Centre. We must hope that their shared Buddhist values help them to navigate it. I liked Maitreyabandhu very much.
Thank you so much for doing this, Helen. I'm part of the Triratna organisation that hosted your discussion with Maitreyabandhu. It's taken me a while to gain an understanding of your viewpoint; I made the mistake initially of expecting you to assert particular opinions on issues, whereas I now see that you're standing up for people's right to live, believe and act as they choose, provided they don't hurt others. And that you support evidence-based science where it's needed, along with the need for expertise where it matters too - I particularly liked your analogy about religious belief being fine as long as its not used as a qualification to fly an aeroplane!
It has saddened and troubled me that quite a lot of Critical Social Justice’s worst beliefs have flowed into Triratna without sufficient scrutiny. I'm thinking particularly of what I refer to as the hierarchy of oppression, where the expressed needs of the most oppressed outweigh those of other groups, and the individual is lost from view, along with universal values.
I particularly appreciated your emphasis on 3 perspectives of society; the individual, the “identity” group and the universal.
This fits neatly into a part of Triratna training, which encourages people to consider their relationship as an individual with the group as any kind of collective. We ask, am I a conformist or an individualist? Do I conform out of fear? Do I stand apart out of a self-view that I'm a rebel? The aim is to become independent of these modes, out of a belief that doing so brings a sense of freedom. And the universal approach asks us to develop a robust sense of what all people have in common, such as the wish to be free of suffering.
Standing apart from popular discourse and saying what you're convinced needs to be said in the face of abusive naysayers, as you do, is an admirable example of this.
The freedom that a clear conscience brings is a great boon in life, as I think you know.
Thank you
Thank you, AJay!
Yes, I think worldviews with a particular focus on compassion and (genuine) diversity and inclusion can be particularly vulnerable to mistaking CSJ for much more compatible with that than it is and a way to explore it. Below are Jonathan Rauch's knowledge principles. I am currently thinking about how people who go with the humanitarian principle are prone to letting the radical egalitarian one in with the best of intentions. Do you think this has any explanatory power for why some in Triritria might have been more open to it than they should have been?
“• The Fundamentalist Principle: Those who know the truth should decide who is right.
• The Simple Egalitarian Principle: All sincere persons’ beliefs have equal claims to respect.
• The Radical Egalitarian Principle: Like the simple egalitarian principle, but the beliefs of persons in historically oppressed classes or groups get special consideration.
• The Humanitarian Principle: Any of the above, but with the condition that the first priority be to cause no hurt.
• The Liberal Principle: Checking of each by each through public criticism is the only legitimate way to decide who is right.”
— Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought by Jonathan Rauch
"The freedom that a clear conscience brings is a great boon in life, as I think you know."
Indeed! I am supported psychologically by knowing myself to be trying to be ethically consistent. Of course, we all fail at times to live up to our own principles. And, while I have the respect of people whose thinking I respect, I cannot feel too lonely and they can also be relied on to have my back and tell me if I am sliding.
I very much hope that those of you who see the problem with CSJ will bring those who do not to see it!
Thank you Helen, for this conversation! I am sitting with my sister, taking notes to help fortify our understanding of the differences between liberal social justice and critical social justice. I just love the questions Maitreyabandhu asks you! And the shared chuckles are just plain good for the soul. So grateful for all the clarity.
You're always so encouraging, Antonia! :)
This is so interesting to see, and it's like two worlds colliding for me. When I noticed a couple of years ago that the London Buddhist Centre has sessions that are exclusively for PoC it did give me slightly uncomfortable pause for thought. How interesting to see that this conversation has now happened.
There does seem to be considerable difference of opinion among members of the London Buddhist Centre. We must hope that their shared Buddhist values help them to navigate it. I liked Maitreyabandhu very much.