Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Riddle Me This... Social Activism
conradcook
Veteran
As I understand it, Buddhists mainly position themselves outside of any kind of political activism, on the basis that it is involvement, and hence attachment, and conflicts with the goal of developing equinimity.
Moreover, as I understand it, the thinking is that suffering is essential to the human condition anyway, in its unenlightened forms, so social activism won't accomplish anything.
I'm speaking generally here, which is always a problem. But, why don't Buddhists try to do anything about those forms of suffering which are not essential to the human condition? It seems to me that people *do* often generate their own suffering out of attachment. I'm not sure I'd normally classify hunger there, though.
Not, at least, for a normal person.
Or this: Most Buddhist moral philosophy I've seen is anti-abortion, on the grounds that it is taking a human life, and this is wrong. Does this not imply condemnation of abortion as a social practice, and, what is the same, support of an anti-abortion movement?
Surely there's such a thing as wrong involvement in a social cause, that is, when it reflects or encourages attachment. But is there not such a thing as right involvement in one?
(Someone asked me about the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement today, which has me thinking of the broader issue.)
Conrad.
Moreover, as I understand it, the thinking is that suffering is essential to the human condition anyway, in its unenlightened forms, so social activism won't accomplish anything.
I'm speaking generally here, which is always a problem. But, why don't Buddhists try to do anything about those forms of suffering which are not essential to the human condition? It seems to me that people *do* often generate their own suffering out of attachment. I'm not sure I'd normally classify hunger there, though.
Not, at least, for a normal person.
Or this: Most Buddhist moral philosophy I've seen is anti-abortion, on the grounds that it is taking a human life, and this is wrong. Does this not imply condemnation of abortion as a social practice, and, what is the same, support of an anti-abortion movement?
Surely there's such a thing as wrong involvement in a social cause, that is, when it reflects or encourages attachment. But is there not such a thing as right involvement in one?
(Someone asked me about the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement today, which has me thinking of the broader issue.)
Conrad.
0
Comments
Yes, there is a tendency sometimes for Buddhists to wall themselves off from a wider world. To look within is to take time from looking without. Hence, for some critics, "belly-button gazers."
My take that those who attempt to find peace without are likely to be stymied. They rely too much on others and not enough on their true heritage. To reflect within takes quite a lot of energy and determination, but it takes an energy that I would say is required for anyone who actually wants to do what is commonly called "some good."
In brief, looking within leads naturally to looking without. But trying to skip over the looking within part -- trying to play the imagined altruist -- is a fool's errand, assuming peace of mind is part of the equation. Bit by bit, determined effort after determined effort, as things within clarify, things without do the same. And it's more than just some intellectual or emotional fluff.
With your feet planted on the ground, you are free to go anywhere.
As far as abortion I think it depends on the motivation. If you are thinking of not bringing a baby into a suffering situation that is good. But it would have been better to prevent the baby. I am neither pro/anti abortion, rather I am pro birth control.
Its not that holding a sign in protest is unskillful, but if we meditate, then the words on the sign have the chance to become more compassionate, more resonant. Buddhists who stare at their belly buttons wont do so forever... they most likely just see themselves unprepared to meet social injustice with equanimity. At least from those whom I have spoken. Little moves like being mindful of their buttons is a way to affect lasting change for all of humankind, and is often misunderstood as apathy.
Sometimes I wonder what jobs people have, that allow for such characteristic, reliable replies.
Interesting thoughts!
Conrad.
(Incidentally, if anyone's interested in reading about an unexpected experience I had at Occupy Detroit, I wrote about it here. I honestly don't think the Buddha would fault the occupiers for what they're doing.)
Buddhists do try to do something about those forms of suffering that aren't essential to the human condition. I don't know where you get the idea that they don't, and that social activism is somehow un-Buddhist. Monks teach the Dharma motivated by a wish to end suffering for people. We here on this forum help people with advice on how to address their problems, whether with therapy or recommending Buddhist practices. What is this business of classifying suffering as "essential to the human condition", and "non-essential" (meaning: optional?) to the human condition? All suffering is in the mind.
Peter Harvey, in a book called "Introduction to Buddhist Ethics" describes abortion from the standpoint of Buddhist ethics, and in relation to the different cultures in which Buddhism is practiced. There's a point about the age of the fetus. Apprently, at the early stages when it's still a zygote, it's not considered sentient, or something. I don't have the book, I can't quote. But I recommend you give it a read. Things aren't as simplistic as you think.
Yes, there's wrong involvement in a cause. See "skillfulness", above.
Sorry you find us so predictable. Maybe we're just not your crowd. :-/
A favorite line of mine is: "Just because you are indispensable to the universe does not mean the universe needs your help."
"Bhikkhus, these three persons appearing in the world appear for the welfare of many people, for the happiness of many people, out of compassion for the world, for the good, welfare, and happiness of devas and humans. What three?
"Here, bhikkhus, a Tathagata appears in the world, an Arahant, a Fully Enlightened One, possessing perfect knowledge and conduct, a sublime one, a world-knower, an unsurpassed leader of persons to be tamed, a teacher of devas and humans, an enlightened one, a Lord. He teaches Dhamma that is good at the outset, good in the middle, and good at the end, with its correct meaning and wording, and he proclaims the holy life in its fulfillment and complete purity. This, bhikkhus, is the first person appearing in the world who appears for the welfare of many people, for the happiness of many people, out of compassion for the world, for the good, welfare, and happiness of devas and humans.
"Next, bhikkhus, there is a disciple of that teacher, an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and is completely released through final knowledge. He teaches Dhamma... and he proclaims the holy life in its fulfillment and complete purity. This, bhikkhus, is the second person appearing in the world... for the good, welfare, and happiness of devas and humans.
"And next, bhikkhus, there is a disciple of that teacher, a learner who is following the path, who has learned much and is of virtuous conduct. He teaches Dhamma... and he proclaims the holy life in its fulfillment and complete purity. This, bhikkhus, is the third person appearing in the world... for the good, welfare, and happiness of devas and humans.
"These, bhikkhus, are the three persons appearing in the world who appear for the welfare of many people, for the happiness of many people, out of compassion for the world, for the good, welfare, and happiness of devas and humans."
The teacher, the great sage,
Is the first in the world;
Following him is the disciple
Whose composure is perfected;
And then the learner training on the path,
One who has learned much and is virtuous.
These three are chief amongst devas and humans:
Illuminators, preaching Dhamma,
Opening the door to the Deathless,
They free many people from bondage.
Those who follow the path
Well taught by the unsurpassed
Caravan-leader, who are diligent
In the Sublime One's dispensation,
Make an end of suffering
Within this very life itself
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.3.072-090x.irel.html
*smile*
Having said that though, all of us are locked up in that dungeon as well and don't have much ability to escape so in that case it could probably be a good idea to help ease the burden of our fellow prisoners.
Also, Buddhism has never existed within a democracy before, the traditions evolved in societies without our modern political freedoms. So in the past social activism would have been fairly pointless.
??