This is an interesting point, especially when taken together with Gabriel L’s post, about those actions being founded on kindness. However, and with regards to the wording of being “at the expense of liberation” - it may be that most people don’t have a choice between full liberation and earning merits by living a wholesome life. But ALL people can progress along the path to liberation by basing their actions on kindness 
5 Likes
Gillians reminder was simply about forum etiquette
3 Likes
Well its not that liberation would be prevented forever… but it would be delayed then and one can not know when one is going to get a human birth again with Dhamma available, thats the important thing…
Speaking of universal benevolence / metta if one pursues that as meditation practice that alone can be a device for accomplishing jhanas and liberation, if done correctly 
Relevant sutta: SuttaCentral The Great Forty
Right action is twofold, I say.
There is right action that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment.
And there is right action that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path.
3 Likes
Yeah, it’s very interesting. I mean, I’m rather disengaged myself, but I am highly supportive of those who choose to engage more.
I recently listened to Robert Purser talk about McMindfulness. This idea that “all the blame for suffering is on the shoulders of the individual” is deeply conservative and even antisocial. It’s certainly made it convenient and easy for people in positions of power to continue to exploit and harm others while absolving themselves of guilt. “Mindfulness” champions could (can) be found on the boards of Enron, Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, etc before and during their most egregious ethical violations.
In his book, he brings up the extreme example of the US Military using “mindfulness” training for its soldiers to make them more efficient and remorseless killing machines (just as, of course, the Zen priests did for the Japanese soldiers during their own imperialist phase).
I am reminded that there are external factors for stream entry in addition to internal ones: association with good friends, physical safety… If someone is actively being abused (by a partner, relative, boss, government…) “mindfully being with their feelings” is extemely bad advise The correct answer is to get them out of there!
Of course, I’m a coward. My Pāli name literally means “Delighting in Safety” 
So, true to my name, I’m not standing in front of tanks anytime soon if I can help it!
I see my role more as creating khema (sanctuary): on the material level, by maintaining the monastery (a physical sanctuary) and, on the spiritual level, by working on my own defilements, so that I may become more worthy of the trust that many people place in my robes.
It’s not as flashy as chaining myself to things, but I’d like to think that building a spiritual community like this does count as a form of “engagement” It’s certainly a positive thing for the world! And, if we forget that spiritual friendship is the essence of the holy life, and make Buddhism solely an individualistic commodity, we risk neutering the very liberative potential of the religion which even “disengaged Buddhists” seek.
So, I guess that makes me a “Traditionalist”, huh? Well… what did you expect from the monk?
23 Likes
I don’t see how engaging in politics breaks any precepts or reinforces any fetters. Politics is a means to set the course of a society. By not engaging, bad leaders can gain power, and life can be made terrible for a lot of people. I’m not going to only care for my own practice while everyone around me suffers.
5 Likes
While not wishing to distract from Dr. Lele’s recent article in the Journal of Buddhist Ethics, I’d like to briefly address the term “McMindfulness”. The term was introduced in a Huffington Post article titled “Beyond McMindfulness” by Professors Ron Purser and David Loy. The former’s recent publication of McMindfulness—also the subject of the podcast episode linked by Ven Khemarato—might lead to a further popularization of the term, (It should be noted, however, that Google Trends shows the phrase has so far only caught on in the US state of California.)
A forthcoming article by Professor Anālayo in Mindfulness critically examines if Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) and similar mindfulness programs deserve the designation “McMindfulness”. Below I have cited the abstract in full with a link which provides access to the article. Anyways, that’s my $.02 
Abstract
This article examines to what extent the teaching of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) can accurately be referred to by the term “McMindfulness.” The application of this term appears to rest on the expectation that teachers of MBSR and similar mindfulness programs, in order to be true to their Buddhist heritage, should inculcate political awareness in their patients, motivating them to resist the neoliberal capitalist system. Moreover, another assumption seems to be that present-moment awareness, viewed as another departure from ancient Indian Buddhism, prevents critical thinking and thereby supports obedient submission to exploitative conditions. Closer examination shows that expecting mindfulness teachers to stimulate political activism is not in keeping with relevant Buddhist antecedents. The relevant sources even testify to the employment of mindfulness for mere health benefits already in ancient India. Besides, the same textual sources show that mindfulness of the present moment is not a later innovation. The belief that such mindful presence disables critical thinking appears to mistake the goal of the cultivation of mindfulness for the mere absence of thoughts. At least as far as MBSR and related programs in healthcare are concerned, the term “McMindfulness” is not justified and its recent indiscriminate application to any contemporary mindfulness practice appears to have turned it into a myth. Rather than being merely a tool to ensure subservience to the neoliberal capitalist system, in view of the impending climate catastrophe, mindfulness can offer an important resource to face the ravages caused by unbridled exploitation of the environment.
Use this link to access the article: The Myth of McMindfulness
11 Likes
Some would say that as a lay person in a democratic society it is somewhat of a responsibility to participate somehow in the process. However, if one chooses to not participate I don’t think that is wrong either. It is a privilege to be somewhat “free” in the loose sense of the word.
The problem we see in politics, at least in my own opinion, is the clinging to views in ways that create suffering for oneself and for others. It is important to believe in something, but to think “things must be this way or we can’t go on” is a wrong view in my opinion. Maybe I am wrong. But as we all know, dukkha occurs, so certain things will happen no matter what, it is just the nature of the world.
5 Likes
Here is a link to the whole of Lele’s article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337367324_Disengaged_Buddhism.
4 Likes
The fact that, for example, artists tend to pursue careers in art over computer science isn’t a case against computer science. Buddhas likely choose the path of the spiritual leader because that’s what they’re better suited for, or it’s what they feel a calling to do after witnessing old age, sickness, and death.
This is an overreach of what the Buddha’s teachings address. It’s like suggesting that surgeons are somehow a distraction because suffering is entirely mind-wrought. Buddhism, surgery, and politics address three distinct issues: Buddhism addresses spiritual health, surgery addresses physical health, and politics addresses social health.
What is even the point of Lele’s paper? If some Buddhists can maintain a practice while engaging in politics, why would anyone wish to discourage that?
6 Likes
I’ve always appreciated Bhikkhu Bodhi’s comment on social engagement. If I recall at all correctly, he once stated that one has to act consistent with their attitudes and aptitudes. Some people may be inclined to seek solitude, and others to gravitate toward engagement. I think the idea was to maintain the Path of practice, but also assess what level of engagement or disengagement works best for the individual. Both approaches are skillful.
What makes his statement compelling for me, is that he walks the walk. He is a monastic and scholar of the highest level, and might have only found a satisfying path in his practice and scholarly work, which we all agree has been prolific and profound. Yet, he gets up off the cushion every day to develop Buddhist Global Relief, one of the world’s leading global food security, climate science, and child education nonprofits. He’s one modern living example of the perfection of original Buddhist practice with very positive engagement with the most significant problems in the world.
We have these perfection of practice examples as well, with Vens. Brahm, Brahmali, Sujato, Analayo, Vimala, Akāliko, et al. We are fortunate to have these examples today, and this gives each of us leave to decide for ourselves what level of engagement, per Bhikkhu Bodhi’s admonition, works best for each of us.
11 Likes
I guess the best synthesis achievable here is the Mahayana Bodhisattava ideal?
I was born Hindu, raised liberal, went to a Jesuit school, have one adult daughter who decided to be Catholic and another who decided to remain Spiritual/ uncommitted and currently live and work in a Muslim country.
From my perspective, most Eastern religions tend to believe that life is circular in nature… what goes around comes around, today’s Greater Good is tomorrow’s Absolute Evil, actions and outcomes are morally fuzzy and its better to either get off the merry go round (Buddhism) or else do your duty and enjoy the ride (Hinduism- every flavor of thought/ behavior from total immersion in sensuality to radical asceticism) since there is really no way out of Suffering while in Samsara.
On the other hand, most Western religions have a linear approach to life, with ideas of Absolute Good / Evil that remain unchanging/ unvarying. Since they don’t believe in rebirth, they tend to believe in the efficacy of human action … but they are actually looking at the effects of that action over just a single lifetime at best, which might not be enough to experience the full ramifications of a particular action. Even within this paradigm, to deal with the possibility of ‘the ends justify the means’ kind of over the top immoral action (Why not just kill all unbelievers?), they need the concept of at least 1 more next life in Heaven/ Hell to keep the seeker grounded.
IMHO, the problem with working on relieving the suffering of others vis a vis my own is that its easy to know what will liberate myself/ reduce my suffering (while not causing others to suffer) … but to know what will liberate others is difficult - and may not be to their immediate liking or might even be harmful to other sentient beings whom we haven’t considered.
It is probably better to let others decide for themselves what is best for them, and assist them if they request our help and then only to the extent they have requested.
6 Likes
Hi faujidoc1,
It’s interesting that these conversations come back to “liberating oneself vs liberating others”. I don’t actually see that dichotomy. Helping others can be useful as part of developing the path (generosity, right action, etc). I don’t see helping as the same as trying to liberate.
8 Likes
Gautama had a choice between becoming the Buddha and a cakravartin. It’s an interesting dilemma but not one I, as an everyday lay practititioner, need to wrestle with. The issue for most of us today is whether to engage not from the top-down but from the bottom-up. Lele doesn’t help me much on this:
The aim of this article is not to critique what engaged Buddhists do (that would be a very different article), but how they think and write, especially about the Buddhist past. I am critiquing the scholarship and advocacy, rather than the practice, of engaged Buddhism.
This article is in sympathy with James Deitrick’s claim that, to date at least, American “socially engaged Buddhist social ethics is derived less from Buddhist sources than from the American religious culture in which it has grown".
(PDF) Disengaged Buddhism. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337367324_Disengaged_Buddhism [accessed Dec 29 2019].
When I consider what sort of actions I might participate in, I see that I have further choices; political engagement and social engagement are different, and social engagement can be activist or altruistic. This lands me in the domain of sila.
It is conceptually crucial to distinguish social and political engagement, in this sense of activism, from other different phenomena which are sometimes confused with with it. First, as Queen (14-17) rightly notes, engagement is not at all the same thing as altruism, kindness, or compassion.
(PDF) Disengaged Buddhism. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337367324_Disengaged_Buddhism [accessed Dec 29 2019].
Lele offers no advice about we might think about whether or how to engage, but it is a really useful read in terms of helping us understand the historical tradition.
If it is to remain an intellectually defensible project, I submit, en- gaged Buddhism must take the value of activism as a conclusion to be defended, not as a premise to be assumed. Engaged Buddhists must recognize the ways in which the likes of Aśvaghoṣa and Śāntideva oppose politics and social activism, and explain why they reject these thinkers’ positions. It should no longer be considered acceptable either to pretend disengaged Buddhist views did not exist or to dismiss them as a “failure” or “undeveloped.” Rather, we must respect them and take them on as partners in dialogue.
(PDF) Disengaged Buddhism. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337367324_Disengaged_Buddhism [accessed Dec 29 2019].
Helpful. Thank you. These are two deeply conditioned but contradictory views of how things are, and it is very hard for individuals to shake off such conditioning.
Re
&
You both appear to be advocating altruistic social engagement rather than activist social/political engagement.
I like a comment made offline by @Gralock: “… I like David Loy’s advice to do everything you can but try to be mindful as possible that you act out of compassion rather than anger and importantly develop enough equanimity to not be attached to the outcome. Suspect Analayo would say much the same.”
(More from @Gralock on David Loy’s book here.)
6 Likes
Here are my two cents
I think one issue here is the word “disengaged”, because it makes one think that what is being argued for is complete isolation. But the Buddha did “engage” with people in the sense that he taught them Dhamma, so in this sense even the classic position being spelled out by Lele is engaged in this particular sense. Perhaps “apolitical” would be a better term to use.
Likewise, the position being defended here seems to be mainly a monastic perspective. It makes sense for monastics to be more apolitical because their main job should be to preserve and teach Dhamma, and getting involved in politics (even discussing politics!) might make some people less amenable to listening to the Dhamma (since politics is so polarizing) and gets in the way of pursuit of awakening (since it is seen as pointless speech and can lead to view clinging, disputes etc). However for laypersons, the “engaged Buddhist” perspective might make more sense and this is not incompatible with the classic Buddhist view of lay disciples.
It seems to me then that both “engaged” and apolitical teachings are useful for different people who are practicing at different levels of renunciation. But there is a hierarchy here, in that the higher perspective seems to be the “apolitical” one (just like the higher calling is seen as the monastic life). This is not to devalue the lay/engaged way of life however.
Also, as has been mentioned, politics in the ancient world was much more cutthroat and today’s laypersons do not engage in politics in the same way as people in the ancient world did (voting is a far cry from being a local chieftain of the Sakya clan). So this needs to be taken into account when discussing “engagement”.
8 Likes
You don’t see many marginalized groups arguing against reconciling spirituality and politics. It’s often men, or people of a country’s ethnic majority, presenting these passive-aggressive critiques. The rest of us can’t afford the luxury of disengagement.
This anti-social strain that occasionally appears in Theravada circles has, perhaps, been my biggest issue with this tradition, or this Westernized version of it. A religion, in my view, should inspire personal and social growth, not drive people away from everything, and call that progress.
In essence, defending human rights, raising awareness about the environment for the sake of all life, and so on is teaching Dhamma. Lay followers and monastics alike—for the benefit of both themselves and others—should feel free to lend their voice to these discussions.
These four people are found in the world. What four? One who practices to benefit neither themselves nor others; one who practices to benefit others, but not themselves; one who practices to benefit themselves, but not others; and one who practices to benefit both themselves and others. (…) The person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.
— AN 4.95
7 Likes
I think some people would disagree, but I understand completely what you are saying.
Nowadays, many people—que pop psychologist “Dharma Teachers”—who claim they teach the Dhamma through their exposition of modern psychological findings, etc. In my opinion, that is not the Dhamma, and it is not Dhamma practice. Albeit they are helpful and the techniques may be helpful as well, it is just not what the Buddha taught, and not Dhamma practice in my opinion.
The same applies to saving the ocean. Is it a great thing to do? Sure. Is it Dhamma practice? Don’t quite think so.
But as with everything I post, I could be off base completely.
2 Likes
For me, and likely others, social action is metta in action.
3 Likes
Perhaps this is the differentiation the paper is trying to touch on? I will admit, I don’t have much interest in reading it.
2 Likes
SuttaCentral This sutta really explains a lot about this topic…
There are six kinds of lay happiness and six kinds of renunciate happiness. There are six kinds of lay sadness and six kinds of renunciate sadness. There are six kinds of lay equanimity and six kinds of renunciate equanimity.
The goal of renunciation is really the jhanas and full liberation.
Therein, by relying and depending on the six kinds of renunciate happiness, give up and go beyond the six kinds of lay happiness.
Therein, by relying on the six kinds of renunciate sadness, give up the six kinds of lay sadness.
Therein, by relying on the six kinds of renunciate equanimity, give up the six kinds of lay equanimity.
1 Like
Nice.
This is where, I think, ‘social action’ needs a definition. There’s a continuum from small scale charity works through to violent political insurrection on behalf of the repressed. I suspect that X number of Buddhists would draw the line in X number of places along this continuum.
7 Likes