Archive for September, 2010

Since the Zen Peacemakers held the Western Socially Engaged Buddhism Symposium in August there have been many posts out there on Buddhist blogs, many railing against the idea of “Engaged” Buddhism.  This caught my attention and inspired me to jump on the bandwagon and write my own post – mostly in an attempt to clarify what I think about the issue, as my own thoughts about it are mixed.

When I first heard the term “Engaged Buddhism,”  I thought it was a reaction to the misconception that some people seem to have that non-attachment means detachment or disengagement.  In his 2003 article, “Why I Ditched Buddhism,” John Horgan states:

But what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation. Buddha’s first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism (like Catholicism) still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality. It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual. From this perspective, the very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual: It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped ¹.

Ideas like the above are, unfortunately, common.  Non-attachment sounds a lot like detachment, though one is being able to let go and accept change; the other is being like an emotionless Vulcan.

The term, “Engaged Buddhism,” was originally coined by Thich Nhat Hanh during the 1960s in response to the suffering caused by the war in Vietnam.  As he put it in a Shambhala Sun article, “When bombs begin to fall on people, you cannot stay in the meditation hall all the time ² .”  It was a term that acknowledged that Dharma practice meant taking action to reduce the suffering in the world; in fact the dukkha, “in here,” and the dukkha, “out there,” are the same.

According to the Buddhist Peace Fellowship website:

Socially engaged Buddhism is a dharma practice that flows from the understanding of the complete yet complicated interdependence of all life. It is the practice of the bodhisattva vow to save all beings. It is to know that the liberations of ourselves and the liberation of others are inseparable. It is to transform ourselves as we transform all our relationships and our larger society. It is work at times from the inside out and at times from the outside in, depending on the needs and conditions. It is to see the world through the eye of the Dharma and to respond emphatically and actively with compassion.
—-Donald Rothberg and Hozan Alan Senauke
Turning Wheel/Summer-Fall – 2008 ³

Since Thich Nhat Hanh formed the Order of Interbeing,  a host of other Engaged Buddhist organizations formed; among these are the Buddhist Peace Fellowship, founded in 1978 by Nelson Foster and Ann and Robert Aitken, Zen Peacemakers founded in 1980 by Bernie Glassman, and The International Network of Engaged Buddhists, founded in 1989.

The above quote about socially engaged Buddhism above sounds a lot like…regular Buddhism?  What is the difference between Engaged Buddhism and just regular Buddhism?  According to Thich Nhat Hanh, there is no difference: “Engaged Buddhism is just Buddhism.”  There is no Buddhism that is NOT engaged.  And this is where some of the criticism of Engaged Buddhism as a movement starts.  There seems to be a fear that Engaged Buddhism, as a movement, will attempt to circumscribe the opinions that we, as Buddhists, should have about political matters,to and the way in which we should be engaged with the world.  That there will be a delineation between “regular,” and “engaged” Buddhists (something like, “You aren’t engaged in this Approved Engaged Buddhist® social cause, so you are not an “Engaged” Buddhist and therefore your practice sucks.”).

John at Point of Contact states:

So overall, I think that the “Engaged” Buddhism movement is similar to SGI or any other religious group that starts mixing spirituality/religion with politics in an organizational context.  It is a dangerous recipe that leads to groupthink.  I can’t think of one thing more dangerous or detrimental to practice than groupthink ⁴.

At a small sangha I attended, someone told me about a man who was new to the sangha, and wanted to criticize the group for not being socially active enough, for working just for themselves, instead of involving themselves with society.  There were several problems with this (other than someone just criticizing a group he just stepped into).  Several members did work privately, on their own, for causes that moved them.  No need to do it as a Buddhist or as a sangha .  The other problem is that we cannot see another’s experience, and we cannot always see how someone else is being engaged through their practice.  It is not up to us to judge another person’s practice – and there can be a tendency to do just this when it comes to social issues.

In Zen, we practice present-moment awareness, and there seems to be the notion that if we can practice this awareness, we will simply know what will be the most appropriate, helpful action when situations present themselves to us (I don’t say, “problems,” because many situations we turn into problems with our thoughts).  When we see somebody come in front of us who is suffering, we will be moved to be Bodhisattvas and help to alleviate their suffering, to the best of our ability.  But the world is much different now than it was before the age of the radio, the television, the Internet. We are confronted with suffering not in our immediate vicinity.  We are confronted with suffering  — the actual suffering of suffering variety of dukkha, not just the commonplace garden variety of low grade, “I can’t have what I want,” kind of dukkha that us middle class westerners seem prone to.  It can be very frustrating to see all this suffering in front of us, and feel impotent to do much about it.  To address this, involvement in organizations can be empowering – it takes more than individuals acting alone to confront such issues.

But does an organization acting under the “banner” of Buddhism promote an increased appreciation and awareness of Buddhism in the general community, or does it, as Bernie Glassman says he was accused of doing ⁵, “stain the dharma”?

Again, John at Point of Contact states, about this:

The answer to his question, however, is simple: Don’t practice social engagement as a Buddhist.  Don’t practice charity as a Buddhist. Don’t show compassion as a Buddhist. These are the things that every personal practice should contain without con[s]training them with religious identity.  When you chose to show charity, compassion or social engagement as a part of your personal practice you can do so without waving a religious banner.  Do it for the benefit for others.  Period.  End of sentence.  No strings attached.  No politics or banners.  Slogans or comments.  No conversions or evangelizing ⁶.

Overall, I’d agree with this.  Compassionate action should be an outgrowth of practice.  It would be strange to do something for someone else on my own and then say, I’m helping you because I’m Buddhist, rather than just because I was moved to do it out of need, compassion, concern.  It would be like saying, well, “it’s the Christian thing to do.”  Compassion is non-denominational.  No one religion has the patent on compassion or social justice.  In the past, I’ve found myself having negative reactions to social projects through, for instance, our Girl Scouts group.  We were to collect boxes to fill with items to send to an impoverished company through a charitable organization.  Of course, in these boxes were…evangelical pamphlets.  The giving was a good idea, but I had difficulty participating in this because of my reaction toward the attempt to evangelize and convert.  I don’t think I would have had the same reaction if there had been a small card in there simply stating that it was through a particular religious organization.  Is there anything wrong with an organization with a Buddhist perspective tackling social issues if there is no attempt to convert or evangelize?  I used to attend a Unitarian Universalist church.  Our Social Action Committee would do social projects, yes, in the name of the church, but with no attempt to convert ⁷, and I never had issue with it.  In Buddhism there is no political agenda, but I think one’s beliefs/insights necessarily inform their political opinions – whether or not we stick a religious label on what we do.

However, not all Buddhists believe exactly the same things, and not all can agree on what is the best way to reduce suffering, as Kyle at the Reformed Buddhist points out on his blog, exaggerating his opinions to make a point, suggesting that the death penalty will help to alleviate the suffering of the loved ones of victims, and that a strong military is needed to use force to oust dictators who cause suffering to their people ⁸.  But does having an organization under the auspices of “Buddhism” imply that all the people in that organization believe the same way?  That all Buddhists believe the same way?  That there is a certain set of attitudes/opinions/politics that are necessarily Buddhist?  Or is there room within a socially active Buddhist organization to act, publicly, as Buddhists while encompassing different viewpoints within the organization and without implying that all Buddhists are necessarily of the same political ideologies?

There seems to be a risk of valuing overt social activism over the myriad small, compassionate actions, and peacemaking efforts we do every day, responding to what is really right here, right now, and right in front of us.  Brad Warner talks about this in Hardcore Zen :

Some of my best friends are people who’ve made it their business to solve all the world’s ills – and God love ‘em for it.  Most people think this kind of behavior is the most intensely moral thing anyone could engage in.  My friends certainly do.

For years and years I labored under the impression that people like this were really, “doing something” while I was just sitting around staring at walls or contemplating my navel lint…But is what they do really what it means to be moral?  When you decide that helping feed homeless transgender crack addicts to the baby whales—or whatever—is somehow more worthy than helping your mom clean the dead squirrel out of the gutter, that’s when you get in trouble.  It’s that all too often our image of “worthy” causes completely obscures the stuff right under our noses – and that’s the stuff that needs our attention, right here and right now. ⁹

Does seeing interconnectedness necessarily manifest itself as involvement in political causes?  Each small, compassionate action we take that comes from a place of seeing interconnectedness, the lack of separation between self and other, between in and out, is Engaged Buddhism.  There’s a risk of glamorizing those who we see publicly performing “good works,” and those who go about their simple, mundane tasks in a engaged, but quieter way (this reminds me of the passage in the Bible where Jesus criticizes those who pray publicly vs privately).  We all have our talents and our own ways that we can act in the world to accomplish the reduction of suffering – of ourselves and others (we’re important, too!).  The world needs all of these; not our judgments about which form of engagement with the world is “better.”

This was kind of a rambling post, but, in summary, I think there is a place for engaged Buddhist organizations as long as they avoid claiming to represent all Buddhists and as long as they don’t claim to have a monopoly on engaged practice.

In addendum:

Maria at The Jizo Chronicles lists Ten Guiding Principles for Socially Engaged Buddhism by Diana Winston and Donald Rothberg.  She concludes that yes, there is a difference between socially engaged Buddhism and, “someone with liberal politics who slaps a Buddhist sticker on to their beliefs and then heads out to a protest?”  Another resource on her blog:  the Mandala of Socially Engaged Buddhism