Reading and Discussion Questions Keown, "Questions of King Milinda", and Harris

If you are pressed for time, omit the Milinda readings.  They do provide in translation, however, excerpts from a primary text.

Keown - Buddhism:  A Very Short Introduction, pp.1-56 and 97-109.   If you already have a good understanding of Buddhism you can probably skip this with the exception of nos. 1, 7, and 8.

1.  Keown begins in chapter one by addressing the question of whether Buddhism is a religion, philosophy, etc.  He adopts Ninian Smart's view of religion as constituted by seven dimensions (a sort of family resemblance/Wittgensteinian approach).  What do you see as one key strength and one key weakness of this approach for understanding/appreciating Buddhism?   Or, to ask the question in another way, what does this approach do for Keown and for what purposes?

2.  Make a list of the key events in the traditional life of Buddha. (Chapter 2)

3.  What is karma? (Chapter 3)  How does Buddhist cosmology differ from Jewish and Christian cosmology?   Is mainstream Buddhism anthropocentric?  Why or why not?  (And, how are you defining anthropocentric?)

4.  What are the four noble truths? (Chapter 4) What constitutes the noble eight-fold path? (pp. 54-56)   What do you suppose Sideris might say about the Buddhist focus on suffering?

5.  Briefly describe the Buddhist concept of  "no-self" and the five factors or skhandas. (pp. 47-48)

6.  Briefly describe the concept of  origination in dependence (also sometimes called dependent origination).  Keown discusses this on 51-52.

7.  How would you compare Buddhist ethics as outlined by Keown  to utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics in the West?  Do you think ahimsa would be useful in developing a Buddhist environmental ethic?  Remember Bentley and Ehrenfeld's continuum with Judaism and Jainism at opposite ends of a continuum.  Where would Buddhism fit if we grant them their premises?

8.  Brainstorming:  How might some of the key concepts of Buddhism (note, we are not getting into the specific differences between Theravada, Mahayana, Zen, Tantric, etc. at this point) address issues such as the character of human nature, relations between humans and nature, etc.  Could they be useful in addressing any of the vexed questions that keep coming up in environmental philosophy such as anthropocentrism/ecocentrism, intrinsic value and instrumental value,  holistic and individualistic, suffering and harmony, etc.?  If we ignore for the moment Lynn White's view that Buddhism wouldn't work in a Western context, could it help with the environmental crisis with which White was concerned?  Why or why not?  If so, how?

Excerpts from "Questions of King Milinda"at http://www.miami.edu/phi/bio/Buddha/Milinda.htm as follows: Introduction, Why Nagasena went to Bactria, The Five Cardinal Virtues, There is No-Self (from Book II. Chapter One), No Continuous Personal Identity (from Book II. Chapter 2.), Nirvana and Cessation (from Book III. Chapter 4) and The Nature of Nirvana).

1. What is at issue in each passage or what problem(s) does it address?

2. Outline Nagasena’s argument. What key similes or metaphors does he use?

3. What are the key strengths and weaknesses of the argument?

4. Brainstorm the relationship of the issue or problem to an understanding of religion, nature, and/or environmental concerns.

Harris, Ian. "Buddhism and Ecology. Chapter 5." From: Contemporary Buddhist Ethics. Ed: Damien Keown. Publ: Curzon. Richmond. 2000. p. 113-135

NOTE:  I selected this article because it covers a lot of the early traditions.  However, Harris is known as something of a critic of eco-Buddhism and you should keep this in mind as you read his article.

1.  Harris notes that there is not an explicit environmental ethic in early Buddhism (as with most of the materials from any religion that predate the twentieth century).  He takes a "two-pronged approach" (114) :  looking at authoritative texts "to discover how far implicit ideas and notions can be worked up into an explicit ethic" and an "anthropological" approach that looks at "the forms of Buddhism observed amongst the rural peasantry and forest-dwelling monks".  (114)  He says his purpose in the article is "an appraisal of the evidence for and against Buddhism as an ecologically aware tradition." (115)  What are the assumptions and implications of the general approach he takes?  

2.  What are three key pieces of "positive" evidence that he offers?   What are three key pieces of negative evidence he offers?  How is he defining "positive" and "negative"?  How does he seem to define what is "authentic"?   Does he privilege any particular Buddhist traditions or periods of Buddhist history?   Would you read any of the "evidence" he offers differently than he does?

3.  What specific criticisms does Harris have of Joanna Macy on 124-125 (one of Macy's pieces "The Ecological Self: Postmodern Ground for Right Action,"is on e-reserve for the course.  Her position has many similarities with Arne Naess and deep ecology.  She argues for an extended self and self-realization.)

4.  How does he see the traditions' approaches to consumption? To animals?  To plants?  To wilderness?

5.  What is Harris's evaluation of East Asian Buddhism especially Hua-yen in terms of usefulness for an environmental ethic?  Of Zen Buddhism?

6.  After reading  the whole article and Harris' conclusions on pp. 131-132, how would you characterize his position?    What are  important objections that might be made either to his position as a whole or to specific assessments he offers?