Scholars have often noted the Buddhist claim to freedom and equality. While this ideal has been problematized through historical studies of the lived Buddhist tradition, our panel seeks to recover and explore some of the diverse historical and trans-denominational resonances and divergences on the philosophical question of bondage and freedom. We are interested in how different traditions either internal or adjacent to Buddhism have theorized the question of freedom. What are the conditions – political, social, ontological, or otherwise - for freedom? How is freedom construed not just as a philosophical idea but as a practice of self-fashioning? How have philosophers attempted to think freedom and bondage as non-dual? These papers explore how concepts such as karma (action), karuṇā (care), and xing/svabhāva (nature) are negotiated and can be used constructively to build accounts of freedom and/or/as liberation that challenge Western accounts rooted in the liberal imagination of the individual.
This study recovers a care (karuṇā)-based philosophy for building an isonomic, complex society preserved in Pāli texts. The Greek term isonomia (lit. equality), in Karatani Kōjin’s sense of no-rule, means a categorical rejection of ruler-ruled hierarchy. I extend this use of isonomia to include spiritual cultivations that relinquish habitual bondages of ruler-ruled mentality such as domination and submission. To better appreciate this kind of care-based philosophy of isonomia, I point out that it is necessary to adopt a processual paradigm, relinquish the unwarranted assumption that ancient political thought necessarily serves a ruler or a ruling class, and sidestep the Western sociopolitical imagination of governance (lit., to steer, to direct). The study further argues that, by reconceiving governance in the processual terms of establishing care-based, recurrent patterns of actions and interactions (paticca-samuppada), an isonomic complex society promises equal support for life and liberation.
The Jain philosophers Kundakunda (second half of the first millennium) and Amṛtacandra (eleventh century) assert that an individual becomes an agent and experiencer of a cognitive or embodied state through temporary identification with that state. This paper explores how such identification, while entangling the soul in the cycle of rebirth, creates a relationship of product and producer (bhāva-bhāvaka) between karma, as the action, and the soul, as the agent. This framework imbues the soul with agency over its karmic states, which Kundakunda illustrates using the example of sexual desire: although attraction is part of karma, this does not imply a situation in which one karma desires another karma (kammaṃ ceva hi kammaṃ ahilasai). While karma is responsible for sexual desire, the individual retains control over their urges. By focusing on the tension between karma and agency, this paper examines how Kundakunda and Amṛtacandra explore the relationship between bondage and freedom.
This paper revisits the Buddhist-anarchist encounter during late Qing China through an examination of the writings of the revolutionary philologist Zhang Taiyan. Through close readings of Zhang’s writings, in which Zhang stages the dialectical analysis of the concept of ‘nature’ (xing; svabhāva) through dialogue with the voice of an interlocuter, this paper examines not only what Zhang says, but how he argues it. I claim that for Zhang, the practice of Buddhist logic aimed not at the establishment of formally valid truth claims but instead, towards the ethical self-fashioning of an anarchist subject. The question of the ethical, at the heart of philosophical problem of nature is resolved not through an account of the good but in the very practice of dialogically analyzing “nature.” Yogācāra then, functioned not a repository of philosophical concepts but as a soteriological logic intended towards the liberation of self and others.