What did the Buddha say about compromise or being a purist?

Question

In an election scenario, a Buddhist may face a dilemma when deciding whether to vote for leader X, who aligns with their values in most areas but contradicts them in one specific aspect. Conversely, the opposition leader Y is perceived by the Buddhist as being misaligned with Buddhist teachings across all areas. Given that these are effectively the only two choices for leadership, would it always be wise for the Buddhist to abstain from voting for leader X due to this one inconsistency, or does such a purist stance represent a loss of wisdom? What is the inconsistency? Being a moderate in the abortion issue but I wonder how this would work with other issues as the inconsistency.

Answer 1

I guess the "one specific aspect" might be "whether abortion is legally available".

I suppose you're right be concerned about that -- given that even encouraging someone else to take life, or praising the advantages of it, is (we're told) a most-grave offense.

Maybe the answer (to the OP) depends on part on whether you require the State (the lay government) to be coercive (in an "everything that's not permitted is forbidden" sense), perhaps a.k.a. "authoritarian".

The reverse of that might be "liberal".

Perhaps IMO the Buddha himself was not authoritarian in that way -- he told people what behaviours promote or harm people's welfare -- but he didn't require people, didn't force them, to behave that way.

Except perhaps in the Vinaya, imposing a strict code-of-conduct on the sangha, backed by the threat of expulsion. I don't see that as authoritarian either, given that association with the sangha, i.e. becoming and remaining ordained, is a voluntary decision made by an adult.

---

And apart from the authoritarian/liberal axis, another consideration might be, "What would be beneficial?" Someone could argue that it's the purpose of a government to be beneficial, and that one which doesn't legislate everything shouldn't be approved or isn't worth voting for -- but again I'm not certain that's the Buddha's attitude, e.g. he taught (albeit teaching only perfect dhamma) even where that leads to only a little benefit.

I'm aware of an expression in French, "le mieux est l’ennemi du bien", which means that you can spoil a good thing by trying to make it better (and implies you should prefer the good/existing thing). That's not the same as "the lesser of two evils" -- in that it sounds to me like "aligns with their values in most areas" implies it's "good" and not just "less evil".

Answer 2

It is pointless using Buddhist principles to assess any modern Western political leader. They are all too distant from Buddhism. The present time is an opportunity to train in giving up attachment to the world.

Answer 3

Firstly, official actions and decisions made intentionally by an elected official is his karma alone. It's not the karma of his voters. The voters did not intend those actions and decisions directly.

If there is no wound in his hand he can carry poison with his hand, poison does not enter without a wound, there is no bad result for the one who does no wrong.
Dhp 124

Secondly, your task as a voter is simply to vote for the candidate, who in your opinion, is able to best fulfill the duties laid out below, in the text quoted from DN 26.

“‘But sir, what are the noble duties of a universal king?’

“‘Well then, my dear son, relying only on good qualities—honouring, respecting, and venerating good qualities, having good qualities as your flag, banner, and authority—provide righteous protection and security for your people in the mansion, provide righteous protection and security for your armies, provide righteous protection and security for your officers all over the earth, provide righteous protection and security for priests, provide righteous protection and security for all the people, provide righteous protection and security for recluses and provide righteous protection and security for animals and birds. Do not let injustice spread in the kingdom. Give money to the poor in the kingdom.
DN 26

Thirdly, you can only choose to vote for one of the candidates that are standing for election. None of them may be Buddhists. None of them may be observing the five precepts. It's not your job to put up a Dhamma-follower candidate for elections. So don't take your role as a voter too seriously.

Answer 4

I think in Buddhism the general goal is always how to achieve long lasting well-being and happiness. If this is not achievable then the next best alternative would have to suffice while we continue to search for better solutions. Underlying this is a pragmatic and realistic approach.

Admittedly, this looks quite dubious as it would mean compromising when it comes to ideals, values and principles. Shouldn’t purists avoid all evils? Shouldn’t Buddhists just walk away from all evils such as choosing not to vote? Or can putting up with a smaller evil in order to avoid a greater evil be an acceptable option to Buddhists?

I don’t have a definite answer as I believe most practising Buddhists are idealistic to an extent but the degree may differ. There are 3 points though I would like to highlight.

First is honesty. Whether this quality is in myself and the candidates. Honesty is the quality that allows a Buddhist to connect cause to effect. It helps a Buddhist (or anybody) to self-acknowledge, self-learn and self-correct on their mistakes after reflecting on the results. I find a good liar needs to believe in their own lies in order to deceive others. This gradually reduces their sensitivity to reality and causation. It doesn’t matter what their agenda is, they tend to end up associating the effects or outcomes with the wrong causes. The result is that they never learn from their mistakes. They are wasting their time and that of the people around them. Thus, I will look for this quality in any of the candidates.

Second is intention. In accordance with karma, good intentions lead to good results while bad intentions lead to bad ones. I have seen my fair share of leaders who implemented policies for various reasons but never primarily for the people or with the people’s interests as the first priority. The results (usually years and decades later) as far as I have observed are never good for the people. Our intentions mean every step taken inch closer to the final objective even when reality forces us to take a detour, we will eventually reach the destination. So, if we have leaders who sincerely and truthfully intended for the happiness of the people, the end results shouldn’t be too far off.

Third is that the search continues. As Buddhists, the search for better alternatives never stops. With honesty and integrity, we know when we come across better options and when there are none. But even with a better option, we would still look for a better solution simply because everything is constantly evolving and we are never fully in control. With this in mind, we know that life would only get better if we don’t stop the search for better options. So, whatever your decision is, don’t stop searching for a better solution.

Appendix

---

Just some thoughts after hearing some politicians debated on abortion. My late mother had two abortions in her younger days. She had the misfortune of hooking up with an irresponsible scum and having to single-handedly raise two children. I could not imagine how an uneducated and lowly-paid cleaner could possibly work with a big belly, bring her pregnancies to term, feed herself and her two existing children in the process. It must have been a no-brainer for her to go for the abortions given her dire financial situation. Sometimes, there are no options and that is the way life is.

There are many reasons why women go for abortions. It is complicated and I don’t think complex situations have a one-size-fit all solution. Sometimes, I wonder if the state could step in and offer financial and emotional support for women who wanted to go for an abortion. Give them an option to bring the pregnancy to term with all expenses covered by the state. Then offer to put the newborn up for proper adoption. Of course, the women must also make a promise not to have any more unwanted pregnancies especially for independent and free-thinking adults. Either be on contraceptives or else opt for tubal ligation (fully paid by the state of course). In the case of juveniles, the state must intervene to ensure there are proper custodian supervision to prevent similar happenings. In criminal cases, the likelihood of a repeat of an unwanted pregnancy should be very low once detected and justice enforced.

Would the above suggestions be even more controversial? Would there be legal, ethical, religious and societal complications? I am sure there would be controversies and dilemmas. But we could always opt for the easy way out. Let the women continue to have their abortions. Then let the anti-abortionists continue to make their condemnations. This would be the easiest way out for everyone, just talk and more talk.

Alternatively, we can leave no stone unturn and explore every viable option to derive humane solutions that would yet not place too much financial burden on society. This would require a lot more investigation, discussion, effort, resources and time from everyone. But I believe this would be an approach that the Buddha would approve of. Lastly, women should not have to die or live in fear of laws that are supposedly pro-life.

Answer 5

The Buddha’s teachings do not directly advocate for either being a purist or compromising in a rigid sense, but rather emphasize the "Middle Way" (Majjhima Patipada). This Middle Way avoids the extremes of both indulgence in sensual pleasures and self-mortification, leading to balanced, wise living that fosters spiritual growth.

Here’s how the Buddha’s view can be understood in the context of purity and compromise:

1. The Middle Way (Majjhima Patipada): The Buddha’s core teaching encourages avoiding extremes. One extreme is indulgence in sense pleasures (which could be seen as "compromise" to worldly desires), while the other is harsh asceticism or fanaticism (which may be interpreted as a form of "purism"). The Buddha discovered that both of these approaches were ineffective in achieving enlightenment. The Middle Way is a balanced approach, neither excessively rigid nor overly lax, but instead focused on mindful, deliberate living.

Sutta Reference: In the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (SN 56.11), the Buddha speaks of the Middle Way as the path that avoids both extremes and leads to insight, wisdom, and enlightenment. 2. Skillful Means (Upaya Kausalya): In Buddhist philosophy, the concept of skillful means allows for a flexible approach to spiritual practice. This teaching suggests that one should adjust their actions and methods according to what is most beneficial for oneself and others. Rather than rigidly adhering to an ideal of purity, one is encouraged to act wisely and compassionately in the moment, which may involve compromise in the short term to achieve a greater long-term goal.

Sutta Reference: The Lotus Sutra discusses skillful means, highlighting how the Buddha tailored his teachings to suit the different needs and capacities of individuals. 3. Purity in Intention (Right Intention): While the Buddha stressed purity in thought, speech, and action through the Noble Eightfold Path, this purity is not about strict moral absolutism. Instead, it focuses on having right intention (samma sankappa), which includes qualities like non-harming, compassion, and renunciation. The focus is on the purity of intention behind actions, rather than an uncompromising stance on external behavior.

4. The Precepts and Flexibility: The Five Precepts (basic ethical guidelines in Buddhism) provide a moral foundation, but the Buddha understood that strict adherence without wisdom and context could lead to more harm than good. The teachings often emphasize balancing discipline with compassion and discernment, especially when dealing with life's complexities.

The Buddha advocated neither rigid purism nor unprincipled compromise. Instead, he emphasized a balanced path—the Middle Way—which allows for flexibility and adaptation without abandoning core ethical principles. This approach encourages purity of intention and mindfulness while recognizing the practical realities of living a wise and compassionate life.