SuttaCentral
I agree. For my own political engagement, I draw the line at breaking the five precepts, and I try to maintain equipoise (in all situations, not just politics) to mitigate clinging.
I disagree. If Hitler somehow came back and ran for office, the difference between allowing or not allowing him to gain power again would almost certainly change the course of a society. Who we allow to lead our countries matters.
I practice disengaged Buddhism by growing broccoli and tomatoes for food. I also vote for people who believe in such things.
AN10.28:4.5: ‘All sentient beings are sustained by food.’
Monks are fed by wheel-turning monarchs. We can’t all be Buddhas right here right now. Only one at a time.
One day, months from now, this may feed someone a single meal. It is broccoli:
I agree with Amod Lele. Being a true Buddhist, one should not get involved with socio-political activities, especially in this divided society.
@mickey I think “true” is a hazardous word.
It seems qualitatively different from “skillful” or “unskillful”, which can provide contrast and might be less condusive to alienation. Maybe those words are less hazardous, in conditioning one’s thoughts and speech? Perhaps because “skillful” suggests a continuum of regarding action, whereas " true" suggests a static “off/on” state…
Thank you very much for sharing your view.
Thank you for the same. 
I think it’s one way to practice for benefit for ourselves and others, a way to be the “good friends” which the Buddha so strongly recommended.
New paper from Ven. Anālayo.
The Myth of McMindfulness
Bhikkhu Anālayo
Published online: 10 December 2019Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019
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.
…
Unfortunately this article is behind a paywall. Which is too bad, because the abstract has me curious— At first Ven. Analayo says that expecting mindfulness to generate political activism is not in tune with traditional Buddhism, but then he ends by saying it could help prevent climate change. This argument seems a bit contradictory and I’m curious how Ven. Analayo resolves it.
(We can all be on the mailing list)
Ven. Analayo basically argues that we can face the consequences mindfully and resiliently.This seems to me quite reasonable, effective and practical. Indeed, I personally invest time in growing food at home throughout the year, learning to live with less of everything, preparing for a world of scarcity. I also talk about this with others who are interested in the neighborhood. I can’t change the oil companies, but I can change my reliance on them.
I think the issue is not that McMindfulness/MBSR involves teaching mindfulness without political context, but rather that it involves teaching mindfulness without any religious context. So this statement seems kind of strange:
Closer examination shows that expecting mindfulness teachers to stimulate political activism is not in keeping with relevant Buddhist antecedents.
But MBSR teachers are using mindfulness teachings with political aims. MBSR is taught to soldiers to help them cope with the stresses of deployment. What could be more political than that? (And I suspect that if such a teacher encouraged the soldiers to follow the first precept, they would quickly be out of a job.)
One example Ven. Analayo gives in his article is the Buddha’s weight loss advice for King Pasenadi, who otherwise wasn’t a particularly devoted dhamma practitioner or even an ethical person.
A number of people seem to bringing up the mindfulness for combat soldiers training. If you want to know more about this subject, I’d suggest watching this panel. Around 2:40 Jon Kabat-Zinn said that he was initially skeptical about mindfulness training for soldiers until he learned it could reduce civilian casualties. It’s worth pointing out that Jon KZ was a former anti-Vietnam war activist. I’m not endorsing (or criticizing) the mindfulness for soldiers practice, just urging people to hear all sides to make a well-informed opinion on the subject.
In my earlier reply in this topic, I posted a link to the full article (The Myth of McMindfulness). I have institutional access to SpringerLink, so I can provide legal access to articles published in Mindfulness with SharedIt.
Yes, this article was in my mailbox this morning courtesy of the Agama Research Group. I’m actually not sure why I’m getting such emails, but I have participated in some of Bhikkhu Analayo’s free online courses, so perhaps that’s the reason…
Maybe it will be available via his publication list at some point. It’s listed here: https://www.buddhistinquiry.org/resources/offerings-analayo/publications/ as “forthcoming”.
Pardon my resurrecting an old topic, but I just came across it somehow and found it quite interesting. I read Amod Lele’s paper as mentioned by @Javier, and I actually found it worth investigating thoughtfully.
I think it’s important from the outset to state that Lele’s issue isn’t with engagement (specifically defined as activism or involvement with political bodies), but rather that those promoting engagement haven’t successfully argued against the positions of those promoting disengagement.
Rather, Lele says, engaged Buddhists take it as a given that activism is better than non-activism, involvement in the political sphere better than non-involvement, and dismiss counterarguments out of hand.
But the [engaged] traditionists and the modernists share something not only with each other, but also with Dall, King, Davies and the colonial rulers of Sri Lanka. That is, they all share an endorsement (even if only implicit) of premise 1: there must be something wrong with a tradition that is not activist. To refrain from activism and political involvement would be “selfish” or “indolent,” not “useful.” We must be engaged. (Lele, p. 275)
If it is to remain an intellectually defensible project, I submit, engaged Buddhism must take the value of activism as a conclusion to be defended, not as a premise to be assumed (Lele, p. 283)
Indeed, I believe that the task of looking at both—disengagement and engagement—would be useful because there is still the quite-prevalent (and usually protestant Christian) criticism that Buddhism and Buddhist practice a waste of time, because it’s unproductive and does nothing for the welfare of others.
It would seem that these views are more consistent with Matthew Moore’s position quoted in Lele’s paper (p. 280)—though Moore’s view stated there is that there’s no best way to pick; they’re value equal.
I’m not sure if you were referring to Lele’s paper here, but this isn’t his argument. Rather, he mentions that engaged Buddhists view their way of engagement to be the best and preferable mode, and prods them to defend that claim against the claim of those encouraging disengagement.
There is no substitute for weighing the arguments on both sides and coming to a resolution—a task that is yet to be undertaken. (Lele, p. 281)
Is anyone aware if such a task has been undertaken, such a weighing? I’ll have to do some more digging.
The question for me is how do you engage with life and ‘Dhamma’? We must listen and practice true Dhamma, develop ‘yonisomanasikara’ and love of ‘Universal’ Truth. I recall a Buddha quote, paraphrasing here "one may win a thousand battles in a thousand battlefields, yet he is the noblest victor’ who conquer’s his own mind (ignorance). If we recognize wrong views operating in our politics, economics, medicine, science, religion, education and even within Institutionalized Dhamma and popular teachers/gurus we need to recognize and point out them to alleviate suffering in the world. It takes a certain maturity in wisdom, ethics and compassion to engage in human affairs and social action to point out the right way and wise action. Buddha asked his ‘noble’ disciples (perhaps stream enterer and above) to go in different directions (according to their calling to serve and their skill). He offered food to a hungry person (Alavi Sutta) before teaching Dhamma.
I haven’t read Lele’s paper, but it seems to me that whether activism/engagement is of equal Dhammic value or weight with that of disengagement, the Buddha actively praised ( as I recall) the monk that set himself in the forest and meditated perhaps less formally, from that of the formal monk who sat outside the gates of the village. In other words, the Buddha seemed to value seclusion, and it seems to me that the cultivation of jhanas is best served in seclusion and away from attachment to activism. Having said that, not all of us are going to be comfortable in seclusion, and struggle with mindfulness and access to jhanic states. Activism and engagement seems to be so appropriate, especially for Buddhists, in a greedy and violent world; someone needs to shine a Dhammic light from time to time. For myself, I am not a good meditator and a less than successful NGO activist, but as a “jack-of-all-trades and absolute master of none” in this, I find it a good way to express the Dhamma in action.
I’ve been ruminating lately on these verses from the Anguttara Nikaya, e.g., AN 5.48:
Sorrowing and lamenting
doesn’t do even a little bit of good.
When they know that you’re sad,
your enemies are encouraged.When an astute person doesn’t waver in the face of adversity,
as they’re able to assess what’s beneficial,
their enemies suffer,
seeing that their normal expression doesn’t change.Chants, recitations, fine sayings,
charity or traditions:
if by means of any such things you benefit,
then by all means keep doing them.But if you understand that ‘this good thing
can’t be had by me or by anyone else’,
you should accept it without sorrowing, thinking:
‘The karma is strong. What can I do now?’”
Those last two stanzas in particular seem pertinent. Like rituals and traditions, charity should be done if you benefit from them. But one should also accept the reality of karma and dukkha without sorrow.
