Buddhism and Politics??

DaltheJigsaw

I was reading a sutra in the Middle-Length discourse when I came across an interesting point the Buddha made. He talked about letting go of clinging to views/individual views. As Buddhists, should we have anything to do with politics and individual views regarding politics? Should we let go of all our political views?

Dakini

hmm.... This is a good question. Politics can and does often directly relate to alleviating vs. increasing suffering. Do we vote for the candidate who wants to cut back on unemployment insurance, Medicare and Social Security and other public benefits, or for the candidate who wants to raise taxes on the wealthy and close tax loopholes for corporations in order to raise money to strengthen those programs and others that would help lift people out of poverty? Or do we not vote at all, because we're not clinging to opinions? Do we denounce corrupt politicians, or remain silent and let them have their way? Do we support a President who opts to join the war against the Nazis, or do we march for peace and for staying out of the war against a regime that is toasting thousands of people in ovens and gas chambers daily? Or do we stay out of the controversy altogether, content to pass our time in meditation, while tens of thousands of people die grisly deaths on the battlefield and in concentration camps? Which is the most appropriate path for those devoted to non-violence, non-attachment and compassion?

Dakini

Here is the question in a nutshell: can there sometimes be a conflict between compassion, on the one hand, and non-attachment to political views + dedication to nonviolence, on the other hand? For that matter, is dedication to non-violence a form of political view in a political context? haha!

zenff

What fascinates me about this list of immeasurables is that it combines feelings of being connected to people (to all sentient beings) with this detached feeling of equanimity. Somewhere in that lies the answer to this question I think. We are not supposed to be indifferent but we are also not supposed to be consumed with the problems of the world.

Like the image of the Lotus: rooted in mud, the flower remains pure. I can’t get it clearer right now; maybe someone else can?

But the way I see it; we are not supposed to be indifferent and that’s a political thing.
Good question.

The four immeasurables are:
1. Loving-kindness (Pāli: metta, Sanskrit: maitri) towards all: the hope that a person will be well; "the wish that all sentient beings, without any exception, be happy."[11]
2. Compassion (Pāli and Sanskrit: karuṇā): the hope that a person's sufferings will diminish; "the wish for all sentient beings to be free from suffering."[11]
3. Empathetic Joy (Pāli and Sanskrit: mudita): joy in the accomplishments of a person — oneself or another; sympathetic joy; "the wholesome attitude of rejoicing in the happiness and virtues of all sentient beings."[11]
4. Equanimity (Pāli: upekkhā, Sanskrit: upekṣā): learning to accept loss and gain, praise and blame, and success and failure, all with detachment, equally, for oneself and for others. Equanimity is "not to distinguish between friend, enemy or stranger, but regard every sentient being as equal. It is a clear-minded tranquil state of mind - not being overpowered by delusions, mental dullness or agitation."[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmavihara

Dakini

You're probably right, zenff; we're not supposed to be indifferent, nor are we supposed to become enmeshed in (which would lead to attachment) the problems of the world. Still, from my point of view, if harm is being done, or a harmful policy is being proposed, compassion would move us to act. Maybe it's partly about acting compassionately, then letting go of the issue once you've done your part.

Jason

Personally, I don't think that relinquishing clinging to views means that one can't have any views or opinions at all. Moreover, it should be note that views can be skillful as well as unskillful. The noble eight fold path, for example, differentiates between right view and wrong view in regard to the practice (MN 117). The kind of views the Buddha most critical of were speculative views and views of self (e.g., DN 1, MN 72, etc.)

When it comes to Buddhism and politics, Buddhism is essentially apolitical in nature, and I think they general have different aims—the former focuses on changing the material conditions of society while the latter focuses on changing the practitioner from the inside. That said, neither is necessarily mutually exclusive, in my opinion. I certainly think one can be a Buddhist and still try to change the material conditions that support society as long as they so within the framework of the precepts and the eightfold path.

I don't have a problem with people who decide to avoid politics, however. (Coincidentally, both the Buddha and Epicurus seem to agree here.) My only concern with the idea to 'renounce the world' and view concerning the world is that one often renounces the people in it as well. My political activities, on the other hand, are all about applying loving-kindness and compassion to the people around me, and in this I tend to view them as a form of right action. In my opinion, the world should be renounced, not neglected.

So, in the end, even though Buddhism is essentially apolitical in nature, and focused more on renouncing the world than engaging with it, I think that one can easily synthesis their politics beliefs with their Buddhist practice as long as they do so based upon the principle of ahimsa or harmlessness, along with a healthy dose of loving-kindness and compassion.

Dazzle

There's an article about Buddhism and Politics here:

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/229.htm

and another about Buddhism and social action here:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jones/wheel285.html

.