How does one practice living in presence while still making strong efforts for political change?

lufool

I asked myself this question while reading news about the occupy wallstreet protests. Would an enlightened person partake in these protests? They have a tendency to become agressive, regardless of whether or not the protesters or authorities are the cause. Is this agression nescessary for change? Or should one simply step back and let the whole mess transpire from a heightened perspective?

Simonthepilgrim

There are, of course, some, Buddhists and others, who take the view that samsara or the "fallen world" will inevitably go to hell in a handbasket and that it is therefore unproductive, unskillful even, to aim at change for the better. Believing that they inhabit some sort of moral high ground, they criticise any attempts to improve the world.

Personally, I think that they are wrong. Indeed, if you consider the great sweep of history, it is possible, as Steven Pinker convincingly argues, to see improvement: reductions in violence, slavery, disease, etc. Most of these advances have come about without violence but it must be admitted that some revolutions are not achieved without bloodshed. The history of the United States is a case in point. Bloody revolution followed by civil war, race riots, Stonewall, etc., were all required to get even to the present point - unsatisfactory as it remains.

It is my own point of view that we cannot follow the Noble Eightfold Path and remain uninvolved in the pain of the world. This does not mean that we shed the blood of others, but, as the Mahatma showed, it may involve shedding our own.

genkaku

Just do what you do completely, without a backward glance or an expectation of the future.

taiyaki

To stand as peace is the greatest statement.
For all wholesome actions come from a clear point of view.
When there is the dominance of duality, just the presence of peace alone can pacify the mob.

it is very easy to destroy as anyone can do so.

how hard is it to create?

compassionate_warrior

Suffering is in the present, so on behalf of the suffering masses, one works for political change.

ThailandTom

you yourself will not make a political change, fact. The buddha avoided politics, fact. But you, you can do what you like, it is up to you to decide what you wish to do with this life.

lufool

There are, of course, some, Buddhists and others, who take the view that samsara or the "fallen world" will inevitably go to hell in a handbasket and that it is therefore unproductive, unskillful even, to aim at change for the better. Believing that they inhabit some sort of moral high ground, they criticise any attempts to improve the world.

I find this mindset to be quite foolish and even destructive. It is as fatalastic view of a doomed world that leads to negligence and irresponsibility. I'd say it's our duty to aim for positive change in the world, my only question is how to approach it. Not to mention that it's very bleak. Why even teach buddhism or help others achieve spiritaulity if one believes that the world will inevitably destroy itself? I'm sure that most buddhsit do not take this stance, and those who seem to be missing the point of compassion. I like to look on the bright side of human potential, I think we can make this world a heaven some day. at least I hope.

lufool

As Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The moral arch of the universe is long but it bends toward justice."

I wonder what these folks would say about Ghandi.

Telly03

I don't see anything wrong with letting your voice and opinions be heard, as long as your intentions are to help others... I don't see anything wrong with holding a sign with others against corporate greed and political corruption... But as soon as I found myself associated with hate groups and elements with unlawful and/or violent intentions, I would have to excuse myself and find another means to be helpful.

Oh, but the OP asked if it would be wrong for an enlightened individual.... I can't answer that yet

aMatt

I feel an enlightened person would not really protest, in terms of opposing anything besides the suffering of the collective. For instance, they might hold a sign, but it would not be in opposition to the rich folks who create poverty, but would hold a sign to help both sides of the imbalance find sanity. The rich suffer from greed, the poor from malnourishment. Both suffer from the common imbalance, so a clear mind would never generate a sense of opposition to a person or group. Rather, they would skillfully and simply work to help transient conditions of the imbalance come into balance for the good of both sides of the issue.

The sadness I see in many activists is that they harness their pain from viewing imbalance (unskillful social conditions) into agression, then project static meaning onto people... and that projection prevents them from being compassionate. So they end up being the archetype of the second arrow, suffering at the suffering.

seeker242

I asked myself this question while reading news about the occupy wallstreet protests. Would an enlightened person partake in these protests?

Thich Nhat Hanh is a perfect example. Zen Master slash peace activist. If you really want to know how a wise person protests properly, read about him

Dakini

It is my own point of view that we cannot follow the Noble Eightfold Path and remain uninvolved in the pain of the world. This does not mean that we shed the blood of others, but, as the Mahatma showed, it may involve shedding our own.

I agree with this. Compassion moves us to work toward the end of suffering for others. aMatt has an interesting concept. THat would make an interesting strategy, if you could build a project or organization around it. A new model for solving problems and resolving differences.

Your first project: the US Congress, on the budget and health care.

Jeffrey

I might recommend Thich Nhat Hans book, Peace with Every Step. As we take the dharma to our own minds and remain peaceful.... to that extent we can bring a peaceful approach to social movements. We can prevent entrenched thinking which prevents compassion to both sides. Remember the monk who was captured by the Chinese. He said in his captivity the thing that he feared the most was losing compassion for his captors.

etherea

We all live in a world of injustice and in my opinion peaceful demonstration against what is wrong is justified!

person

At the heart of injustice are the emotions of craving, anger, and ignorance. Practicing to better oneself and helping others to better themselves gets to the heart of the problem. As long as these negative emotions dominate people's hearts even the best policies and systems can be corrupted.

Things are always changing, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. IMO lasting positive change doesn't happen on its own though, that takes an intention to make it so. If we get involved I think its important to do our best to remain impartial and seek to improve the situation for the most people in the long run.

I agree that TNH makes a good example for how to be politically active as a Buddhist.

sofa

I agree with the comment above.

"If you want to change the world, change yourself". If you want to get rid of greed, anger and delusion, meditation will be a more efficient means to reach your goal. If you, out of compassion, want to help others get rid of these defilements, teaching them to meditate will also be more efficient then protesting.

Society consists of people. As long as there are defilements, there will be suffering, even if you change "the economic structures"...

I can't see why an enlightened being would go and protest. The Buddha urged his followers not to talk on worldly matters like politics, so why would they get involved with it? He urged his followers to live in solitude, not to get involved in the world.

On the other hand, it is impossible for us “ordinary beings” to know what an enlightened being might (not) do. Maybe he/she can have their reasons to intervene. For example there is a case where the Buddha intervened when he saw that an innocent man would be sentenced to death.

Yet the main goal for such an intervention would, I think, always be to bring people closer to the Dhamma. A Buddhist meditator would not try to change the world by changing the material circumstances (for example, donating food or money to alleviate hunger or poverty). He/she would try to help people to change their minds, so that they can get rid of their defilements. Because even if you give someone some money or food, you haven't done away with the cause of stress; namely the desire for these things, the desire for becoming (and the delusion that underlies it).

sofa

Oh and to answer the title of the topic, how to stay in the present moment:

In brief, always be mindful of what is going on in body and mind at that moment. Mindfulness means something like "to remember, to remind yourself".

When for instance you are walking in a protest, simply remind yourself that you're walking; when you're shouting some protest phrase, know you are shouting; when you're holding up a banner, remind yourself that you're stretching out your arms; when you feel angry, remind yourself that this is anger; when you are thinking about what is making you angry, then know you're thinking etc.

By focusing on the reality of the experience, you will learn about it. This is done by practicing insight meditation...

Cinorjer

If the West puts any particular stamp on Buddhism over the years, it might be the injection of social activism into what it means to practice the 8-Fold path. I really don't know if this is a "good thing" or not. It is perhaps unavoidable, because the people in the West who embrace Buddhism are the outsiders who have a history of fighting against the status quo.

To be honest with ourselves, traditional Buddhism contains a huge helping of, "The world is as it is, and wanting it to be something else is Dukkha. Seek salvation by withdrawing and cultivating your own enlightenment, not by fighting a war that can't be won."

But there is right, and there is wrong and we should do what's right. Or should we? Right and wrong are dualistic thinking, and the sutras say that only leads to more suffering. Confusing! So what's a socially aware Buddhist to do? It's no wonder Buddhists tend to retreat and spend their days in meditation behind walls.

It takes passion to march arm in arm against tear gas and truncheons and even bullets. Buddhists don't tend to be big on passion. I see police kicking protestors, and it just makes me sad for both the cop and the protestor. They both need help. And I look at the rich people desperately hanging onto their privilege, the homeless who only want life to not suck so much, and I feel compassion for both.

I lost my ability to get angry somewhere in my practice. I lost the will to blame someone for what's happening. Maybe that's the price Buddhism demands. Don't look to this old Buddhist for answers. I just don't know.

Zero

Would an enlightened person partake in these protests?
They have a tendency to become agressive, regardless of whether or not the protesters or authorities are the cause.
Is this agression nescessary for change?
Or should one simply step back and let the whole mess transpire from a heightened perspective?

There is no heightened perspective.

They become aggressive - you dont have to - no matter what.

Often, aggression manifests as a reaction to change - in the human context, it seems we are all too willing to be aggressive, whatever the stimulus.

Stand up for what you believe in - if we are all quiet then noone would know what the other is thinking.

Peace is achieved when all issues in humanity are reconciled in balance - until that day, a measure of 'rolling your sleeves' up is probably necessary... you will know what you have to do and how far you are prepared to go to facilitate that.