Charles R. Strain
\nDePaul University<\/p>\n
The question that forms the title of this essay may well evoke an instant response: \u201cOf course, why not?\u201d This answer assumes a vague and quite elastic understanding of praxis. Latin American Liberation theologians saw praxis, to the contrary, as arising from a dialectic of critical reflection and practice. Following the example of Liberation Theology, this paper argues the thesis that the pieces of the puzzle of an adequate critical reflection on Buddhist<\/em> praxis exist but they have yet to be put together into a Buddhist theory of political transformation akin to any number of Liberation Theologies. The following definition of praxis serves as a heuristic device to examine engaged Buddhist theoretical contributions to a Buddhist praxis: Praxis is action that is: (1) symbolically constituted; (2) historically situated; (3) critically mediated by a social theory; and (4) strategically and politically directed.<\/em> After examining each of these components in turn, the article concludes by asking what might be the \u201cvehicle\u201d of a distinctively Buddhist praxis. <\/p>\n Read article<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" ISSN 1076-9005 Volume 25, 2018 Is a Buddhist Praxis Possible? Charles R. Strain DePaul University The question that forms the title of this essay may well evoke an instant response: \u201cOf course, why not?\u201d This answer assumes a vague and quite elastic understanding of praxis. Latin American Liberation theologians saw praxis, to the contrary, as … Continue reading Is a Buddhist Praxis Possible?<\/span>