Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Through the Eyes of Auschwitz and the Killing Fields: Mutual Learning between Engaged Buddhism and Liberation Theology

Through the Eyes of Auschwitz and the Killing Fields: Mutual Learning between Engaged Buddhism... Sallie B. King James Madison University, Emerita For some years, I have been pondering the differences between Engaged Buddhist and Liberation Christian engagement with social and political issues. A key point in my thinking has been a contrast: liberation theology strongly insists upon social and political justice, whereas Engaged Buddhists in general have little or nothing to say about justice--that is, they do not use justice language.1 I have long wondered whether this constituted a fundamental difference between the two forms of social engagement. Most of the content of the concern for justice is present in Engaged Buddhism as well as in liberation theology: Engaged Buddhism has extensive concern with the poor, as is clear in the Sarvodaya Shramadana movement of Sri Lanka, which is at base a self-help development movement among the rural poor of Sri Lanka, and in the Tzu Chi movement of Taiwan, which began as a movement to bring health care to the poor. The Dalai Lama voices strong concern about poverty; for example, hearing that the number of billionaires in the United States was growing, he said, "This I consider to be completely immoral. . . . While millions do not even have http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Buddhist-Christian Studies University of Hawai'I Press

Through the Eyes of Auschwitz and the Killing Fields: Mutual Learning between Engaged Buddhism and Liberation Theology

Buddhist-Christian Studies , Volume 36 – Oct 10, 2016

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-hawai-i-press/through-the-eyes-of-auschwitz-and-the-killing-fields-mutual-learning-y0JMRP6uoO
Publisher
University of Hawai'I Press
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 The University of Hawai'i Press.
ISSN
1527-9472
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Sallie B. King James Madison University, Emerita For some years, I have been pondering the differences between Engaged Buddhist and Liberation Christian engagement with social and political issues. A key point in my thinking has been a contrast: liberation theology strongly insists upon social and political justice, whereas Engaged Buddhists in general have little or nothing to say about justice--that is, they do not use justice language.1 I have long wondered whether this constituted a fundamental difference between the two forms of social engagement. Most of the content of the concern for justice is present in Engaged Buddhism as well as in liberation theology: Engaged Buddhism has extensive concern with the poor, as is clear in the Sarvodaya Shramadana movement of Sri Lanka, which is at base a self-help development movement among the rural poor of Sri Lanka, and in the Tzu Chi movement of Taiwan, which began as a movement to bring health care to the poor. The Dalai Lama voices strong concern about poverty; for example, hearing that the number of billionaires in the United States was growing, he said, "This I consider to be completely immoral. . . . While millions do not even have

Journal

Buddhist-Christian StudiesUniversity of Hawai'I Press

Published: Oct 10, 2016

There are no references for this article.