Thoughts?
2 Likes
Didnât read it, but thereâs plenty of Mahayana Buddhist organisations who does much engagement.
Even in Theravada, thereâs just the few who become hermits, many of the rest do help to spread the Dhamma, even if the Theravada world in general donât take an active stance in promoting veganism, etc.
Perhaps the author didnât regard western branches of Tzu Chi, Fo Guang shan as western Buddhism?
It would be good to read it. The primary locus for his ire is mcmindfulness and escapist Buddhism. He doesnât mention, say, FGS or Plum village specifically, but he does mention Asian engaged buddhism, specifically their focus on instruction on Sila. He speaks very positively of it.
I agree with that point, at least, and it was one of the primary reason I posted it.
I actually attend local FGS temple myself, as many of my local western âbuddhistâ centers are stuffed with starbucks buddhists who donât even know what Sila is, instead only looking for MBSR meditations in between yoga sessions
1 Like
I would wonder if there is any choice of significance at all, before insight into dependent origination.
Suppose an eagle flying about, a truck of enthusiastics drives on a long winding road, with firm believe to arrive at a better place. The eagle may wonder where they are going, that road is long and with an obvious dead end.
I do think once one understands the nature of our experience, we finally have the luxury to choose how to devote our energy and time. Before that, to make mind a singleton upon practicing in seclusion as much as possible, is the only choice that possibly lands us a better destiny.
The world is not very complicated - there is mind and there is a body. There is a suffering being in front of you, you go helping. Otherwise, keep mind composed and do be ready to help.
2 Likes
One can go join in the Mahayana societies to look at the charitable work they do. Just on Tzu Chi, they promote Veganism, recycling, sending doctors to disaster areas (using their own money), volunteer in free clinics, etc.
Compassion is a quality which can be cultivated, and can be developed to many degrees. Karen Armstrongâs Twelve steps to a compassionate life is a wonderful resource.
Of course, meditation is important too for wisdom.
For Tzu Chi, the entrance into Buddhism for them is charity, compassionate action. For McMindfulness, the entrance into Buddhism for them is meditation. Itâs good to have balance, to learn all one can from all sides. Which is what I did as a lay person, running around to so many buddhist societies and temples and events, consisting of categories of: meditation, youth, social work/charity, academic, and even work as a staff inside a Mahayana temple (job).
2 Likes
Hello @MattStL and all.
I hope what I say below isnât too political for this forum.
There isnât much about early Buddhism that directly supports large-scale engagement with the wrongs of the world. Early Buddhism is very much about withdrawal from the world for monks and nuns and small-scale ethics for all. Had early Buddhism promoted the modern idea of Engaged Buddhism, it would have been brutally suppressed and we wouldnât be having this discussion. To me this means that the ethical view of the early texts and that of Engaged Buddhism are very much orthogonal, leaving us free to implement Engaged Buddhism as it should be implemented as long as we donât violate the basic small-small ethical principles in the process.
That said, we should be wary of suggestions that we should wait until we are fully enlightened before we engage the world. If we are to change the world we the unenlightened must start now.
David.
5 Likes
An angry rant full of sweeping, prejudicial generalizations of millions of Western Buddhists. I agree with the authorâs complaint that Western Buddhism has had a tendency to ignore or downplay ethics in establishing a Dharma practice; itâs a serious flaw, though I think itâs become better in the last 20 years or so. Perhaps the criticisms of Buddhist institutions have some validity. But I find that institutions, whether religious or secular, are often ethically compromised. Even so, these political attacks on Dharma practice as âsocially bankruptâ are kind of ridiculous and unfair. With all due respect to engaged Buddhists, I donât believe that the Buddha was a political philosopher or social activist. I do appreciate engaged Buddhism and donât consider what they do as incompatible with the Buddhaâs teachings, however. The Buddha was a spiritual doctor, not a political revolutionary. If Western Dharma followers arenât politically engaged enough, that doesnât mean that theyâre bad Buddhists but perhaps lazy citizens of democratic polities. The author has kind of created a strawman primarily in order to set it on fire.
2 Likes
IMO,
Engaging with the world is a public, political decision.
What someone chooses to practice and/or believe is a private, religious/spiritual decision.
Mixing the two is a recipe for trouble, as has been proven umpteen times in the past.
There is within Buddhism itself the path of the lay person and the path of the monastic, in addition to the different flavors of Theravada/Mahayana/Tibetan Buddhism. By conflating it all together, the author does everyone a disservice.
Surely it should be blindingly obvious that every religion has different paths within it. Does Christianity not have meditating Gregorian contemplatives, Social service Jesuits as well as engaged Methodists?
1 Like
I see nothing wrong with engaged Buddhism, and in fact think itâs a good idea. Bhikkhu Bodhi started an organization to do more social work. My only gripe is the impact these groups can have on monastics. Work and service always seems to end up replacing meditation as the primary form of practice. So monastics in these engaged Buddhist groups are often times run ragged working 14 hours a day 7 days a week. I think the bodhisattva ideal is partially responsible for this, too. Anyway, this seems especially true in the Taiwanese engaged Buddhist groups.
2 Likes
I mean, whether we like it or not, monastics and lay Buddhist have always been politically and economically active and use Buddhism to base their action on (for better or worse). There are only a handful of examples in the suttas where the Buddha offers direct political and economic advice, but the advice is still there. Historically the monastics would continue to advise rulers wherever Buddhism was a cultural driving force.
Itâs pretty standard in the Buddhist traditional cultures for monasteries to offer basic education. Ajahn Chah and Mae Chee Kaew were both educated in this way in Thailand. Iâm sure plenty of other examples can be offered in other countries. If anyone has taught children theyâll understand that is certainly distracting, and so monastics teaching can be just as busy and engaged doing traditional Buddhist roles in their communities as they are helping to run NGOs now. Not to mention they also took on community development roles, especially in China where they built bridges and offered famine relief. This is without considering the role that Buddhist rulers played in taking advice from monastics in their policies. The most extensive irrigation projects in Sri Lanka apparently came from a ruler who maintained constant communication with monastics.
If you want to argue whether this engagement is good or bad, thatâs another issue. Iâm not convinced that there was ever a socially disengaged Buddhism historically. They were always in contact with their communities offering services of some kind beyond dhamma talks (meditation retreats for lay people are a twentieth century phenomena). Iâm more convinced that the history of a purely transcendental Buddhism is an Orientalist myth. Orientalists were convinced that Asia was an unchanging land of mystical wisdom and when they found the text was vague or practices didnât match 2400 year old texts they believed the Buddhist corrupted the philosophy with superstition. We know that isnât how the real world works, so Iâd rather not believe in some original âpureâ Buddhism that some white guys created while isolated in their Victorian studies. I take it as a messy and socially engaged religion that historical records traditional Buddhist cultures describe themselves as.
So what if Western monastics want Western Buddhists to be more engaged, and Western Buddhists want to be more socially engaged? Thatâs just what people do and have been doing as Buddhists. As long as their basic ideas of Buddhist are solid and they arenât causing harm in the name of Buddhism then I see no real reason to complain.
2 Likes
Here is a wonderful podcast by Domyo Burk, a Mahayanist teacher, I believe she refers faithfully to the EBTâs in this talk: Looking to Buddhism to support values and beliefs we already hold - part I
1 Like
I agree with you . I remember reading a story in the Mahavamsa about supposed 8 arhats absolving king Dutthagamani of crimes since the king killed non buddhists ( which is a topic in on itself) . Also the establishment of the Dhammayuttika Nikaya by King Mongkut of Thailand and how it has played a role politically in ensuring support for the monarchy by the lay people etc. In one way or another Buddhists are not living in a vacuum and whether we want to engage or not , we live in an interconnected universe where our actions affect someone . I applaud the monks who engage with helping out people and am fine with those who decide not to.
2 Likes