A question regarding the Kalama Sutta

Discussion
22

The Buddha observed: something was being practiced by the people of Vajji.

This practice was seen and understood to have a skillful and beneficial outcome for the people of Vajji.

As a consequence of this direct understanding i.e the communal harmony that resulted then, the Buddha could see that it would be wise to continue in that practice.

A thought experiment:

“What do you think, Vajjis, is the protection of your tree shrines skillful or unskillful?”

“Wholesome, sir.”

“Blameworthy or blameless?”

“Blameless, sir.”

“Criticized or praised by sensible people?”

“Praised by sensible people, sir.”

“When you undertake this, does it lead to welfare and happiness, or not? Or how do you see this?”

“When you undertake this, does it lead to welfare and happiness. That’s how we see it."

23

No one has suggested that utopia can be created and life can be made unproblematic by social service. I don’t know where this idea comes from. It seems to appear for reasons unknown.

Nobody has said that the Buddha tried to set up a global relief N.G.O. either. There does not seem to be any apparent relationship between these thoughts and anything I have had to say but you routinely produce them - and others as well - when a reference is made to cooperative efforts that people undertake together to produce some kind of beneficial outcome.

Then some kind of relationship is said to exist between cooperative activities between like-minded individuals working for a common cause and the futility of trying to fix the world this way.

Then, there is a suggestion that the Buddha didn’t do this or is said to have not encouraged others to behave in this way therefore, it must be pointless. Something seems to be happening here in the minds of some Buddhists that I cannot explain!

We all know you don’t fix the dukkha of existence that way but you can produce helpful outcomes that can make our lives less difficult or healthier and more fulfilling in various ways. For example, building a meditation centre through a collective coordinated effort among members of a Buddhist community.

24

The point specifically speaking is, that social service is good as long as it’s secondary to one’s practice and doesn’t take place to the detriment of it. Many are highly paid NGO executives flying around the world to meeting after meeting without much benefit to the many, except their own continued existence. My wife refused to work in another NGO after this, though hopefully things have changed for the better now. Without practice all these efforts might get taken over by their defilements though obviously this would be the minority. Kalama Sutta clearly talks of doing that which is not detrimental to oneself and others. On the positive side this means that which is good for oneself and others. Also the idea of Dana or generosity cannot be cast aside. These do help to iron out individualistic (narcissistic?) tendencies and bring in joy. Then a good way might be to make it one’s occupation (Right Livelihood). Most occupations have a code of conduct and/or is subject to laws which bring them within right Livelihood, (most of the time). So helping others, yes, but in conjunction with the other Path factors.

With metta

2 Likes
25

This is quite alien to the way I look at what is taking place when what we call ‘practice’ is in free movement, unfolding beautifully. It’s interesting your use of the word ‘binary’ that you used to describe what I was expressing in this thread. What I am picking up in the understanding you are conveying about practice is a fragmentary process.

You seem to be saying there are these forms of behaviour that a practitioner learns about and then repeats in a formulaic process - a repetitive process, a repertoire of contemplative techniques that a Buddhist repeats, repeats, repeats. Depending on the state of mind and circumstances they may choose different practices to busy themselves with and then, there is this other world that they may inhabit, where entirely different kinds of behavior and practices are carried out like, service to the community or, doing a ‘good’ job in daily life.

There are these different behaviours, one being referred to as Buddhist practice - leading to liberation - as a consequence and, there is this other stuff, a Buddhist - or a less wise but kind human being may engage in. Activities that are good-deeds but, only indirectly related to authentic Buddhist practice.

I do understand how people can live a good life, be involved in a helping profession, or just be kind and nice etc. and this will not liberate - culminate in clear knowledge and vision of the four Noble truths. This seems to be what you are getting at - is this correct?

26

Correct. As would if all of one’s effort in the dhamma was just about offering Dana and lighting lamps at the temple, as happens in some Asian settings. Morality and Dana forms a basis for samadhi or a unified mind. This in turn makes insight possible. Insight makes release possible. Without this, we are back to square one, as Dana etc are impermanent, but not without value, on its own.

With metta

1 Like
27

So you are referring to practice as distinct from good behaviour, with a ‘kind’ motivation but, with some other kind of goal or positive outcome.

This is a distinction that serves no useful purpose. I am not referring to living a good life as an end in itself.

We are Buddhists here and we already understand that the path and where it leads involves much more than this orientation to life and living. Just living a good and helpful life as an end in itself will not wake us up!

However, thinking of the path as an assemblage of contemplative practices, where a sharp line is drawn between daily life activities and Buddhist-practice, does not make sense - IMO.

The 8-fold path is holistic not fragmentary!

It is only when our practice, the way we behave in daily life and what takes place on the cushion, are part of an undivided process that practice takes off, is continuous, uninterrupted.

When our daily activities are a beautiful expression of human goodness then we can expect beautiful natural stillness to arise on the cushion. Everything comes together and nobody is doing anything. The practice has its own momentum.

That which is undertaken is constructive, helpful, beneficial, not intentionally harmful.

Buddhist practice is the discovery of a natural-process that can only move in one direction, towards clarity, selfless love and, freedom.

We learn how to get out of the way and then seeing and embodying the Dhamma takes place. It happens by itself it’s not something that we do.

The Buddha discovered the Dhamma and his teachings are pointers to enable us to make the same discovery. We don’t apply techniques in order to wake up. We see clearly and discover what it means to let go - step by step.

We engage in actions that are kind and helpful in our immediate situation and we feel naturally inclined to help in any way we can.

There is nothing that is worth having or holding onto in existence because it has been clearly seen that this way of being in the world is pointless and problematic.

There is nothing that compares to the freedom and joy of seeking nothing. Its a liberating insight that has consequences that reverberate through our life - as a whole.

Liberating insight does not mean we become indifferent to what’s going on around us. There is nothing to hold onto, attach to, but there is plenty to appreciate and take care of.

It would be nice if this was made clear from the outset instead of being introduced as an afterthought. I do seem to get negative feedback when I draw attention to this aspect of practice - for reasons unknown.

If awakening happens it does not mean that the practitioner has to crawl into a hole and have no creative, positive and, beautiful engagement in life and living. We don’t have to do this even when we are still living without liberating insight - still inquiring and making our way to freedom.

Whatever we undertake will be directed towards the wholesome and beneficial. That which is helpful not harmful! It doesn’t mean we never make mistakes or always get it right - but we do the best we can.

We don’t have to ‘believe’ that nothing wholesome or beneficial happens in the world or, human beings are incapable of engaging in worthy and, beneficial activities. That living in society is just a trap, a snare, a distraction.

We can all celebrate skillful and wholesome activities on seeing the praiseworthy results that come out of beautiful and creative endeavours. The countless acts of kindness and selfless service that good hearted people undertake for the welfare of all beings.

We may be happy to encourage and support these efforts. We may feel inspired and be happy to help and contribute in some way.

There is suffering in the world and, people are seen to behave in problematic and unskilful ways. This doesn’t mean it’s pointless to support, help in and, contribute to actions that are beneficial on any scale and, in any shape or form.

The inner and the outer are interelated areas of inquiry, practice and, realisation. Good deeds happen in the world that we are happy to contribute to and a beautiful liberated heart is experienced - inwardly.

The Buddha did not discourage wholesome and skillful behaviour on any scale and he did not teach that you should only do individual practice and nothing else.

We can easily do both, work on our inner life and work with others in society to improve our shared life together on a fragile planet.

1 Like
29

We already know that waving incense in front of a statue and lighting candles is not vitally important in the Dhamma. At least, I hope so - our tantric Buddhist mittas may disagree. None of us are that confused about practice.

30

I think Mat suggests that good behaviour is a subset of practice, a fundamental, essential aspect of the Buddhist path but by far not the most difficult or important one.

When an ordinary person speaks praise of the Realized One, they speak only of trivial, insignificant details of mere ethics.

DN1

Ethical behaviour and active constructive engagement with suffering in the world is quite frequently an unequivocally wholesome action for lay Buddhists. However, I think that if we talk about honest striving for the Awakening, active engagement is most of the time not the best course of action. A monastic person leaves the lay world and retreats in homelessness to stop talking about kings and wars, to focus primarily on the Dhamma and meditational practices. It doesn’t mean monks and nuns cannot be socially engaged, make statements about the condition of our society in an appropriate contexts, or actively fight against injustices impeding their practice. It just means that ideally they should not be too actively involved with these issues before their Awakening. Nibbana is a round peg in a square hole of the Universe, an Arahant is a anomalous being.

31

What does it mean to not be absorbed in the world? It does not mean seclusion. This does not imply that seclusion - living a secluded lifestyle is a problem. Not being in a world-oriented state of being is not dependent on where we are located or how many things we need to do, the company we keep etc. This is not to say these things are unimportant.

32

Correct. Striving for awakening should happen both in lay and with more emphasis, in monastic settings. The reality of it is not ideal currently.

No, of course not. But it shouldn’t become a hindrance to oneself.

No. One should be in the world to the degree that it doesn’t strongly give rise to defilements and is conducive to peace. Excessive stress, disturbances and whatever is too difficult to deal with would be wise to avoid. This includes things that rob us of our time- which could be spent in formal sitting meditation. Seclusion time and again is important part of it too.

With metta

33

True words, I agree with a couple of reservations:

The company we keep is an important part of our spiritual path, so I would say that secluding yourself from unwholesome things and thoughts by secluding yourself from unwholesome company is quite necessary. Otherwise, I agree :grinning:

By the way, here are a couple of ncie verses about seclusion:

With few wishes, content,
A sage should live secluded.
Socializing with neither
Householders nor the homeless.

Thag10.6

The Evil One approached the Blessed One and addressed him in verse:

3 “Do you lie down in a daze or drunk on poetry?
Don’t you have sufficient goals to meet?
Alone in a secluded lodging
Why do you sleep with a drowsy face?”

The Blessed One:

“I do not lie in a daze or drunk on poetry;
Having reached the goal, I am rid of sorrow.
Alone in a secluded lodging
I lie down full of compassion for all beings.

“Even those with a dart stuck in the breast
Piercing their heart moment by moment—
Even these here, stricken, get to sleep
So why should I not get to sleep
When my dart has been drawn out?

“I do not lie awake in dread,
Nor am I afraid to sleep.
The nights and days do not afflict me,
I see for myself no decline in the world.
Therefore I can sleep in peace,
Full of compassion for all beings.”

SN4.13

34

The Buddha did not give teachings about social service or advocacy. Buddhists should busy themselves with their own practice and not give attention to the pressing collective needs of our time. The Buddha did not provide a prescription for the treatment of the deep malaise - the unskillful practices - that are rooted in our collective life i.e. human behaviour en masse - the dominant paradigm.

The glitch in these so-called Buddhist ‘beliefs’ is, it can, and does, lead to situations where improper and profoundly destructive practices - in society at large - can be ignored and remain unchallenged. At least, by those Buddhists who ‘believe’ that collective actions of this nature that are aimed at meaningful change has no relevance.

There is a problem with insisting that putting effort into issues like: climate change, habitat loss, forms of development that are contributing to mass-extinction, energy systems that are ecocidal, the abuse and exploitation of people, the inadequate response to the needs of the desperate and destitute etc. are matters we need not concern ourselves with.

Just take a few peaceful and relaxing breaths and try to relax, be aware of whats going in your body and mind and, forget about the rest! Its such a mess in the world around us - theres nothing we can do about it - trying to fix things is a waste of time and effort. Is this what the Buddha taught?

We must mind our own knitting - as Buddhists - and ignore much of the disorder and injustice we find in the world. We should passively accept this unfortunate state of affairs because its inevitable - due to the impact of the 3 roots.

Some of us - who identify as Buddhists - seem to be saying, its pointless to even try to make the world a better place because it is permanently stuffed! I honestly do believe that views of this nature are not contained in the teachings of the Buddha.

35

It is stuffed permanently (!), and our efforts might be imperfect, but it doesn’t say do not do wholesome things. That is a kind of a doctrine of inaction (akiriya vada), which isn’t a Buddhist concept, but did exist at same time as the Buddha. There is good in the world and it’s peoples and we should be part of it. Help yourself and help others. Be aware of both sides of the story, though. It’s important to think through how I spend my limited time here in this human realm (good acts are impermanent but attainments like stream entry are permanent and should be pursued vigorously within that time). In the past the danger was devoting all the time to performing meritorious actions. Nowadays it might social engagement, full time.

Also, it’s useful to remember what applies to mendicants doesn’t apply wholesale to lay lives, specifically with regards to seclusion. Yes, it would apply if a lay person were to ordain or go on retreat, but in lay life other skilled techniques are required to navigate with adversely affecting the supporting structures of that life ie a job, family, friends etc (that is turning these encounters into opportunities, rather than obstacles). While we must reduce our busyness to enable tranquility to take hold, and develop we can utilise our interactions with other people to reduce craving, aversion and even delusion, especially the more difficult attractions and rages with seeing the drawbacks and metta etc.

With metta

36

Well of course, its obvious but, its possible to redefine ‘wholesome things’ and actions and, then falsely claim they are unwholesome and blameworthy.

The ‘American Indians’ - before the European invasion of their traditional homelands - lived in a sustainable relationship with the ‘American Buffalo’. They did not have a devastating impact on them, driving them to the point of extinction.

It is unfortunate when any sentient being is killed and butchered but another ‘tribe or community’ arrived on the scene and then killed every buffalo they could, not due to the need for food and protection from the elements. This terrible and needless killing of the bison was clearly improper and reprehensible.

The killing of any sentient being is unfortunate - if its avoidable. Driving an entire species to the brinck of extinction through mass-killing for entertainment or, profit or, to demonstrate your strength and power, is disgusting.

To destroy a fragile and complex ecosystem that is the home of myriad sentient beings, when this is avoidable, is not beneficial or praiseworthy.

To ‘up the anti’ and stuff-up the Planet, to compromise the integrity of the entire ecosphere, when it could be averted through a skilful and praiseworthy response is, to ‘hit the jackpot’ when it comes to human stupidity and destructive potential.

Finally, to ‘sit on your hands’ and do next to nothing to help to change this dire situation or, to remain silent and just let it happen, because it is more edifying to sit down and breathe mindfully and think loving thoughts, is not good enough - IMO.

This is not to say, mindfulness and practicing loving-kindness is not beneficial and of great value and importance.

The mass-killing of the ‘Bison’ was construed by the new-arrivals as blameless and wholesome, skilful and appropriate.

The mass-killers of the buffalo might say in defence of the carnage: "the problem here, has nothing to do with unskilful behaviour, it has nothing to do with a needless and improper practice. That ‘point of view’ is a ‘political’ perspective that favours the interests of the Indians who rely on the seasonal migration of bison for their survival needs.

The ‘natives’ have nothing to complain about, we have created this ‘Reservation’ for them to live on, out of kindness, so they cannot interfere with our recreational activities. Everybody needs some ‘downtime’ don’t they?"

The mass-killers may say: "the Indians kill and eat the occasional buffalo to feed their tribe, whereas, we have different motives and agendas - we are not like those primitives!

We kill as many wild animals as we can for pleasure. Its a form of entertainment among strong-men in our society!" Or, they may excuse their violence, their destructive and unsustainable undertakings in some other way. Claiming that the mass-killing was/is: skilful, praiseworthy, commended by sensible people. “We try to uphold the traditions of our forefathers - our ancestors. Its just how we do things around here - like it or lump it!”

Surprisingly, something as pressing as the need for sustainable change in the modern world, is seen by some - including Buddhists - as nothing more than a political point of view. It has nothing to do with basic human sensitivity, emotional intelligence and, responsible behaviour.

There is a problem here ‘if’ the teachings do not provide us with an adequate understanding of, and response to, situations that are vitally important and necessary for our collective wellbeing or, do they?

Could it be, that some of us, simply don’t understand the wider implications - the social and environmental implications of that which is praiseworthy, that should be undertaken. The collective and cooperative actions that need to happen - and quickly - that are wholesome, skilful and, blameless?

37

You might be interested in Ven. Analayo’s excellent book “Compassion and Emptiness in Early Buddhist Meditation”, where he goes into the early Buddhist texts idea of ‘what compassion is’.

It’s interesting to see suttas such as SN16.5 (excerpt):

[Ven. Kassapa:] I see a happy life for myself in the present. And I have compassion for future generations, thinking: ‘Hopefully those who come after might follow my example.’ For they may think: ‘It seems that the awakened disciples of the Buddha for a long time lived in the wilderness, ate only alms-food, wore rag robes, and owned just three robes; and they praised these things. They were of few wishes, content, secluded, aloof, and energetic; and they praised these things.’ They’ll practice accordingly, which will be for their lasting welfare and happiness.

Seeing these two benefits I have long practiced these things.”

[The Buddha:] “Good, good, Kassapa! You’re acting for the welfare and happiness of the people, for the benefit, welfare, and happiness of gods and humans. So Kassapa, wear worn-out hempen rag robes, walk for alms, and stay in the wilderness.”

Personally, I think dealing with climate change and enacting good social policies are common sense things that we should do. Climate change is probably the biggest existential threat to human life on earth – it is a collective dereliction of duty to not do anything about it.

Still, the ideal of compassionate behavior in the early texts is basically (as far as I can tell) living apart from society (in the wilderness), being of few wishes, secluded, aloof, etc.

So I think instead of reading the EBTs (early Buddhist texts) as promoting a form of advocacy, it makes more sense to ask ‘how can I make my advocacy more in line with the EBTs?’

Here are some principles based on my own understanding of the EBTs, that make sense to me:

  • Whatever advocacy, it should come from a skillful intention (e.g. kindness, compassion)
  • It should lead to the welfare of oneself and others (as many other beings as possible) in the short and long term
  • One should personally practice (the ideals of) what one advocates; one should live what one advocates
    ¨¨

I remember you had a previous thread discussing a progressive Buddhism, but maybe a better question would be how to make progressivism more Buddhist (or for the conservative, how to make conservatism more Buddhist).

Anyway, these are just some reflections you may do with as you wish :slight_smile:

2 Likes
38

It is fairly commonplace in discussions like this for me to receive an either/or response, as if, it involved an unavoidable choice between alternatives. It is not always clear as to why this happens?

These issues can be inquired into without imagining that it means that we should always be preoccupied with social justice issues or, working for beneficial change through countless praiseworthy undertakings - we are spoiled for choice!

I have not suggested that we all need to be eco-warriors or there is a general prescription for what we should all be doing with our lives.

I have no problem with the fact that people live in seclusion etc. People can do whatever they wish to do - within reasonable limits.

To live a simple life, not having children, living frugally, remaining calm and clear with a kind heart is wonderful and beneficial. It reduces the ecological-footprint of such a practitioner to the bare minimum.

These humble and beautiful people need to eat etc. As they don’t collect forest fruits and edible tubers and cover their bodies with fallen tree bark etc. there is an interaction that takes place between these homeless-ones and, the people who provide them with their requisites.

These requisites come from somewhere? They are produced somehow? They are distributed unevenly within society? Some people do not have enough of them to survive - they are desperately hungry and have no proper shelter, no medicines or access to treatment, they may not have decent or adequate clothes to wear to protect them from the elements.

Desperately poor people can damage the environment by scavenging everything they can find in order to survive.

The natural world is in the process of being ‘trashed’ through producing and consuming the basic requisites and, also the limitless array of completely unnecessary consumer products and possessions in circulation.

We are drowning in the waste and pollution that results from these unsustainable ways of being in the world. Welcome to the modern world on the brinck of ecocide!

Maybe, just maybe, we need to give attention to these kinds of issues as Buddhists, if we can find the time and, feel it is appropriate and skilful, wise, kind, compassionate and praiseworthy. Not criticised by sensible people?

39

I am suggesting to think about it in another way. Instead of ‘because we are Buddhists, we should do X’, I am proposing ‘We should do X, but how to do it in the most Buddhist way?’

For example, fighting social inequality motivated by a hatred towards the rich elites isn’t in line with Buddhist principles, because ill-will is unskillful and creates bad karma.

Fighting social inequality motivated by compassion for the hardships of the disenfranchised could be said to be more in line with Buddhist principles, because compassion is skillful and creates good karma.

If you consider right speech, this also puts limitation on the possible methods of advocacy (e.g. only talking points that promote harmony would be OK). You can’t villify someone as the enemey (whether that be the poor, the foreign or the 1 percent).

What would activism that is in line with the Buddha’s teaching actually look like? Edit: And to what extent is it possible?

I think this could be an interesting topic to investigate.

5 Likes
40

It is a vitally important topic to investigate if we are concerned about the welfare of countless beings - those born and, to be born!

These human-induced development related issues are already having a dangerous and destructive impact requiring urgent attention. This includes our attention as compassionate and wise beings - IMO. The danger and damage is going to get worse before it gets better and, it will not get better by not paying attention to the problem and not doing everything we can to solve it. This seems fairly obvious?

I don’t believe these issues are essentially political but, political action is part of the solution (not all). I refuse to reduce climate change, global mass extinction, short term survival prospects on a fragile planet to a political football - that would be completely futile.

There are vested-interests who want us to believe ‘its just politics’. Its a strategy that is employed to ‘divide public opinion’. It is undertaken to subvert, slow or prevent meaningful change. Change that is not criticized by sensible people.

There are vested-interests in society that try to downplay human-induced climate change and the ecological-crisis that is with us and increasing in momentum. The media can, and does, play a role in spreading misinformation. This is no-secret, the alternative-facts industry is alive and well!

When we talk about the terrible situation we face as if it was a political argument between the ‘haves and the have-nots’ we are already in a futile situation of division and conflict going nowhere fast.

The wealthy need a viable life-support system as much as everyone else. There are conservative parties in the world that are keenly aware of the grave situation we face and do what they can to implement policies that can help to mitigate the problem.

The issues we face are not ‘essentially’ political. Its an environmental, cultural, social and, economic crisis. A crisis that involves human behaviour in an increasingly ‘globalised’ and interdependent world. A world that is fragile and in need of appropriate care.

We need solutions that are grounded in sustainable development. We need to be reasonably informed about what this is and, how it differs from what we are doing on the planet right now - the dominant paradigm is not sustainable.

We need to move away from the destructive developmental trajectory we are now on and, adopt any skilful means - on every scale - from the grass-roots of society up through the levels of governance, government and private sector partnerships, technological innovation, anything and everything we can mobilise to bring about meaningful change.

There are 'global’vested-interest groups, multinational corporations and, smaller companies, who make their profits in the fossil-fuel industry. This industry is very powerful and it takes measures to prevent necessary change. There is a lot of money to be made in destructive industries that are trashing the Planet. Our global heavy reliance on fossil-fuels means that we are still filling the atmosphere with planet-warming greenhouse gases. This means we are still heading in an unskilful direction. We have to fix that problem - its unavoidable.

We cannot just say, oh, sorry if it seems impolite, but, you know you should stop what your doing and find another way to do business? This ain’t gonna work! There are dangerous industries in largely private hands. These private interests are not inclined to listen care-fully to inconvenient facts that may reduce their profits. This reluctance has been demonstrated in many ways.

We cannot simply walk away from a situation as it might upset the apple-cart, when it comes to dangerous behaviour that has to stop or, we can kiss goodbye to a viable life support system. This is what the science is telling us - urgent change is required! To simply ignore the problem when ‘we have all contributed’ to it would be dereliction of duty? Are Buddhists meant to help in trashing the environment and, then doing nothing to help clean it up?

“I haven’t got time to clean up after sharing a meal with other Buddhists. I have more important things to do with my time!”

I will visit the Vihara or, the retreat centre and, leave garbage all over the place, leave everything in a mess and let someone else clean it up - I gotta go meditate!"

I don’t think violence should be used to improve our prospects but, that does not mean that we should always be completely passive and allow deeply unskilful practices to continue indefinitely - that would be ecocidal.

At times, we need to get in the way, when destructive and unskilful things are happening, that can lead to untold suffering that is not praiseworthy or beneficial. We sometimes need to work to prevent unskilful practices - in many different ways - that are criticised by sensible people.

It does not mean we are physically violent but we do not have cooperate with unskillful behaviour that is profoundly destructive and harmful.

41

“Just as mother protects with her life, her only child, so, with a boundless heart one should cherish all living beings.” - Metta Sutta

Sometimes, situations can be so unskilful and dangerous, that we have to protect with our life - this does not mean we have to act violently or, generate ill-will.

We just find ourselves in a situation where we cannot co-operate or do nothing at all. There are plenty of examples that we can find where people have refused to co-operate with oppressors, exploiters, violent and/or selfish and ignorant people for a praiseworthy cause.

Their courage and compassion has sometimes helped persecuted minorities or, helped to preserve pristine wilderness from unnecessary destruction or, changed the course of history. Positive change can happen in many ways, however we can help to bring it about and, there are so many ways, it is best if we try.

The only thing necessary for the destruction of a viable life-support system on this planet, for many species including our own, is for good people to do nothing.

42

Well, I don’t think all ways of helping are acceptable from a Dhamma perspective.

It seems to me that the ways in which one can bring about change is more limited if one wants to do it in a way that is in line with the Buddha’s teachings.

I propose that someone who is a Buddhist and wants to do activism, should start by asking the question ‘how can I do this activism in a way that is in line with the Buddha’s teaching?’

Do you agree?