Isolated from what ?
It is not such a difficult thing to see the difference between ‘catastrophic’ forms of social and environmental change and less pressing forms of change that may produce less important consequences. A form of social change that reduces a public health-risk by providing adequate infrastructure to dispose of or, recycle faecal-matter is an example of a form of change that people can live without.
There was a time when open-sewers flowed through the streets of many European cities. I have seen an open sewer-system - impressive stonework - that is still used in ‘Srinigar/Kashmir’. These kinds of change provide significant benefits and there are many other “kinds of personal suffering [that] can be eradicated by changing our lives a bit.”
We need to be able to get our head around the possibility that there are matters of gravity we may need to address individually and, collectively (globally), that are not optional-extras. Not cosmetic changes but major reforms that have far reaching implications. If we encounter issues and problems like this on our journey as a species, we may need to acknowledge that fact and, support efforts to coordinate forms of change that are complex - but not impossible to achieve.
I believe that there might be some confusion with regard to the different kinds of challenges and difficulties we face - existential, personal and, interpersonal. I believe the EBT’s are very good in pointing out a principle which was beautifully expressed by ‘Gandhiji’:
“We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him […] A wonderful thing it is and the source of our happiness. We need not wait to see what others do.” – Mahatma Gandhi
This is a wonderful teaching but, there are different ways it can find expression through how we live. To the best of our ability we should try to live in a way that is consistent with our values and ideals. This can happen on different levels! Gandhi tried - as best he could - to live simply on a day to day basis and, this had an immediate impact on the people he lived with that - to some degree - would have had a flow-on effect into the wider community. However, this did not prevent him from having an impact on a much vaster scale through his role as a social-reformer - an activist - that served to address larger issues in the body-politic.
There are forms of positive change we can contribute to in an immediate and direct way. Simply smiling and random acts of kindness are very important and, there are ways we can participate in larger scale processes of positive social change through our participation in larger initiatives. Through giving our support in whatever way we feel we are capable of contributing. Its not an either/or situation - its a complementary process that may involve a growing awareness of serious issues we need to face together.
However, if you believe that no such issues actually exist then there would be know impetus to do anything more than look after your own affairs and provide support to your immediate circle. That’s fine - as long as what we do in our own personal interest or, extended self-interest e.g. family, friends and business associates, is not contributing to the problems we may need to face together - for the sake of present and future generations.
Does any one find these observations problematic or - in some way - non-Buddhist? Does any one believe the Buddha would have taken issue with what I have said here? Have I said something that contradicts the Buddha’s insights and liberation teachings? Might it be the case that we need to extend or expand our understanding of the world we live in - today - in order to address issues that did not exist 2600 years ago?
@SarathW1 in what sense do you mean “duty”?
It makes a lot of sense to me to say that if social changes are to made then it’s more appropriate for the lay people to do it. Is that what you were thinking?
What I want to say was that it is not the duty of the monk to make the social changes.
‘Be the change that you wish to see in the world.’>
Mahatma Gandhi
Maybe you heard of Tzu chi before , what do you think of them ? There are many people with good heart trying to make a change . But , I also noticed that many of them joined for fame and self interest . Indirectly a way to expand their network of business . Take advantage of opportunity find in their organization . Many of them whom do the dirty jobs (collecting papers , aluminium tins and plastic bottles) are the aged peoples .
Nowadays , we have a far better infrastructures and improved systems in many fields , better medical aids and others . we are technologically more advanced and sophisticated than twenty thirty years ago . That is of course good . But , do you think we are happier than before ?
1 Like
It is easy to criticise others and question their motivation. It is also true that people may do things for the wrong reasons. The doctors and nurses - and workers in social service initiatives (like the one you mentioned) have done, and continue to do, a great deal of good in very difficult situations. I have never felt that medical experts are doing the wrong thing when they provide their services to help those in desperate need. Do all of them have a pure motivation for what they do? I don’t know - probably not! Do I always have a pure motivation for what I do - no! Some of my efforts are coming from the right place and for this I am grateful.
Do I believe that I am happier for living in a place where I have all the basic requisites - and more - and my children and other loved ones have their basic needs looked after? Yes!
Its not that I believe that our good-fortune should be taken for granted or, that living in a situation where my life is not a constant struggle for survival will lead me to the ‘parama-sukham’ (highest happiness). That is not the result of leading a comfortable life but, a comfortable life - within reason - can be a supportive condition for practice.
There is little time to deepen in our practice if we are constantly threatened with insecurity - running from bullets, on the brink of starvation, unable to provide help and support to our nearest and dearest or, having to adjust to a pending climate crisis that is human-induced. While we sit around and discuss whether there is a point in doing anything that may make a positive difference.
"Self-transcendence:
In his later years, Abraham Maslow explored a further dimension of needs, while criticizing his own vision on self-actualization. The self only finds its actualization in giving itself to some higher goal outside oneself, in altruism and spirituality, which essentially is the desire to reach the infinite. “Transcendence refers to the very highest and most inclusive or holistic levels of human consciousness, behaving and relating, as ends rather than means, to oneself, to significant others, to human beings in general, to other species, to nature, and to the cosmos” (Farther Reaches of Human Nature, New York 1971, p. 269)." - Wikipedia
2 Likes
You’re preaching to the choir.
I am answering questions as best I can that you did not ask. If somebody asks me a question I feel obligated to answer - out of respect. I am not preaching to anyone just sharing in a conversation with fellow Buddhists. You don’t need to read my replies to other peoples questions if they disturb your equanimity.
It was a reply to me. 
1 Like
It was a considered choice - I wanted to draw out something I felt you were angling towards but needed to be said. By responding to you I felt it would be better received. What you had to say rang true to me and I felt it was appropriate to unpack it a bit more. No offence intended! 
1 Like
OK, I’m just pointing out, again, that just because there are certain things I refrain from discussing here doesn’t mean I have no interest in them, and doesn’t mean I don’t discuss them elsewhere. I am trying the respect the sensitivities of people who look to the Buddha, dhamma and sangha as a refuge from worldly challenges and turmoil.
You have made this clear and it is up to you what you choose to say and why - do as you see fit. At times, you ‘let the cat out of the bag’ and it generally serves a useful purpose in my IMO. There is more than one way to go about this process. My aim is not to disturb but if something is being said which seems to contradict the ‘spirit and the letter’ of the teachings then, I feel we are obliged to talk about it. Waking up is not about always feeling comfortable - there are inconvenient truths that we all need to face (sooner or later). The Dhamma is not for the faint-hearted - this is what my teachers have made perfectly clear. If you are not challenged by the Dhamma you are not hearing the teachings - something else is going on that serves no useful purpose.
We have different views about what the Buddha’s teaching was.
We are having a discussion about the teachings with others. Some of the things you share I feel are counterproductive but that does not mean you are wrong. Some of the things you say are right on the mark IMO. The irony is, the things you say reluctantly resonate the most with me and, the views you have that tend to be fairly mainstream I feel need to be unpacked care-fully. No harm done - I learn a lot from you.
“No fue mi intención.”
That is not my intention . Maybe it appear to you so .
You did seem to be questioning the motivations of some of the volunteers in the biggest social service initiative in the Buddhist world. ‘Ajahn Brahm’ paid a visit to their main temple and head-quarters. It looks to me that they are doing good work but, as you pointed out, people are people - we are all doing the best we can with what we’ve got!
See the moon , not the finger .
1 Like