Buddhism and Politics
SE25Wall
London Explorer
I often find the calls in Buddhism to "calm/silence/watch the mind" troubling. Does this circumvent the political? How can we act and engage with political action/thought if we are constantly training ourselves to silence the mind, to come to a stage of "non-thought"? All the time we are mere observers to our own suffering/minds, is that time that could be spent changing the very nature of our environments to end suffering for more and more people, and not just focus on ending suffering for ourselves, with the hope that everyone else will become Buddhist too? Can a full fledged buddhist also be a full fledged Marxist, say? With our constant shutting down of our own mind, as a means of practice, is this not the perfect method of accepting this neo-liberal capitalist world we live in?
Lets take an example - say you're a factory worker working in awful conditions, with an exploitative landlord who charges you the absolute maximum for a damp and dangerous accommodation, that the government has no respect for your rights - well if all that suffering that entails is soothed and ceased by "your practice", then who then is ever going to change those external conditions? Is the buddhist way simply to shrug one's shoulders and think "everythign would be okay if everyone become buddhist"?
If you look at history - in terms of social progress, i.e. the lessening of suffering, caused not by "equanimity" and "mindful wisdom", but by people engaging directly with their suffering, running into it, and angrily overhauling the structures that cause it?
Or, in summery, is Buddhist practice anti-intellectual, if intellectual means using the means of consciousness to restructure the world? Are there moral implications for constantly striving for "non thought" or "pure mind"?
Comments
The same way Thich Nhat Hanh has done. "Silence the mind" does not mean no thoughts or no actions. It means appropriate thoughts and appropriate actions.
Engage at the moment engagement is appropriate.
Disengage at the moment disengagement is appropriate.
...And when I enmesh myself in politics, I enmesh myself in politics. After that, I go back to fetching water and chopping wood.
I think its a delicate balance. Buddhism is a personal practice, the second noble truth does point out the cause of suffering is in our own minds rather than out in the world. To me it seems the more one focuses on the external conditions the more power is given to negative emotions.
Political action does change the world and improve external conditions for people. IMO though even if we were able to implement an ideal system, if it were populated by people filled with anger, craving and delusion it would quickly degenerate. And on the other side the more the world is filled with people who have an inner world of wisdom and compassion then the external systems can't help but be changed for the better, I'm optimistic about the current mindfulness movement in this regard. If I were to take my view here and apply it to one of your paragraphs:
I would say something like changing all the external conditions to be more ideal is only soothing our outer world, so that we would never address our mental suffering.
I think maybe for a Buddhist concerned about mental well being, raising awareness about certain suffering conditions and directly trying to alleviate them might be more appropriate than engaging in outrage or disgust and fighting the system.
I recently came across this talk on politics in Buddhism and found it pretty helpful.
or as he explains early on why politics doesn't matter so much.
Silencing the mind does not mean "non-thought". It means observing the constant ever-changing flow of thoughts without being swept away, hooked, by them.
You still observe, you still have responses, but they do not control you.
However, ALL actions that are done for the good of others and that cause no harm are actions worth taking.
One can take worthy action without having to be swept up in your own disruptive internal environment. We take action because it IS the right thing to do, and we try to do it in the right way.
For one, the point of the practice isn't just to come to a stage of no-thought. It's like, in the words of the Dhammapada, "the non-doing of any evil, the performance of what's skillful, the cleansing of one's own mind" (Dhp 183). Included in that is the cultivation of things like right speech and right action combined with things like compassion, empathy, and loving-kindness. All of this together will help to motivate one to be more aware of the suffering around them and to engage it when possible with an eye towards limiting its impact. As Thich Nhat Hanh so beautifully puts it in his forward to No Beginning, No End:
I definitely think the practice can inspire social engagement. It did in me, at least. Rather than shut my mind down, it opened it to the suffering of others and how my actions can affect the world, not just myself.
If I'm any indication, yes.
Great responses, thank you.
I have been reading a lot of this blog and has made me question a hell of a lot, which, i think in the long run will be a good thing. have a look...
https://speculativenonbuddhism.com/
it's basically a marxist "reevaluation" of buddhism, without, but only just, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
there's quite a lot about thich nhat hanhs for example - https://speculativenonbuddhism.com/2012/10/12/thich-nhat-hanhs-imaginary-soul/
Are we shutting our mind down or transforming the nature of our Being? Not being bewitched by the outer and inner demon monkeys or ...
No.
There are political buddhist ideologies for example feudal lamaism in Tibet, state buddhism in Sri Lanka, military zenism ... yuk!
There is a path of inner transformation in genuine spirituality that determines the nature of our expression. That is Sila in Dharma.
I take refuge in Trump, Marx, Buddha
I take refuge in capitalism, collectivism Sangha
I take refuge in anarchy, ideologues, Dharma
i thought when the dahli lama said he was a marxist, it was an incredibly cool thing to say (despite what i may think about marxism). I.e. not, "oh i just be mindful when politics comes up as its all just a "view" and a "human concept" and i maintain instead "nonduality" and "pure mind" and don't engage."
nope, he said, "marxism is the system for me - it's the fairest out there." i just thought that was a pretty cool thing to say. it showed the kind of breadth of mind that attracts me rather than the cross-legged "enlightened" semi-silent state of many western practicioners/;populisers.
Please give a source and origin of this comment. Have you got a video, or transcripted interview we could have?
HH Comrade Dalai:
https://www.newsweek.com/i-am-marxist-says-dalai-lama-299598
I remember coming across this video a while back where HHDL expresses his thoughts on the subject. He makes the distinction between what he views as Marxism and Leninism and after being challenged at 7:00 promotes a mixed system.
Thank you @lobster, but I'm perfectly sure that members can speak for themselves... the article is dated 4 years ago....
How often is it apropriate to engage in political thought? The majority of the time one is cooking, working, walking, sleeping... politicking is a small minority. It seems reasonable to spend most of the time in no-thought.
How many instances are there in history of people successfully overhauling structures that cause suffering? I can’t recall many, or even any... the French Revolution was a bloody affair, and arguably caused as much suffering as it solved.
Hmm the African Slave Trade...
The slave trade is still a very serious issue. it's not confined to black slaves, but to men, women and children from all over the world too. A woman in a town about 25 miles away from where I live was recently prosecuted for keeping a Lithuanian teenager as a domestic slave for over 3 years.... It's sadly still a disgusting issue, even though the numbers are lower. the slave trade is sadly alive and kicking... people are being trafficked every day.....
Yes sadly it is still an issue but is now 'illegal' in most countries, thanks to those who had the courage to stand up and be counted at a time when things like humans keeping other human being in bondage was 'legal' and common practice...however in some less developed countries, authorities may still turn a blind eye ...
Times and circumstances may have change but some people's attitudes (AKA extremely warped sense of entitlement) don't...
People trafficking is big business and sadly no matter how liberal and egalitarian the country's policies might be, they are still not free from this type of contamination...
women having the right to vote, child labor, the welfare state, free education for all, the list is endless...
This was passed on to me today. Might be of interest to those politically inclined ...
Seriously? Regime change in South Africa. Indian Independence. The Civil Rights movement in the US. C'mon, Kerome, you know this stuff! You should be able to ace this quiz with flying colors.
I think the question isn't so much, "how many instances are there in history of people overhauling structures causing suffering". The issue is, that humanity is so adept at replacing one form of suffering with another.
. And sometimes, in overhauling a structure here or there, one discovers a systemic disease at the root of the structures, that's much harder to cure, than toppling a mere structure.
SE25Wall. Thanks for your interest in our blog. But just to be clear, we are not united in a Marxist orientation. I am not a Marxist, for example. (I am farther left than that!) But we are united in pointing out the collusion between current Western Buddhism (including its crypto-buddhist forms like Mindfulness) and neoliberal capitalism. We are also pretty sure about the particularly dangerous strain of anti-intellectualism infected x-buddhist communities.
OP, Buddhism is often misinterpreted. I've heard this even from people who have lived in Buddhist communities in Asia, and have observed young monks and nuns spout simplistic formulas that completely misconstrue fundamental teachings.
The Buddha taught, that practicing "right speech" sometimes involves speaking out against injustice, whether it be against a false guru who is leading people astray or taking advantage of them, or against a corrupt king or government official, or what have you. The Dalai Lama reiterates this, when he says he had to publicly denounce the corrupt regent, a womanizer monk, who was courting the Chinese as a way to regain power. To remain silent in the face of wrong-doing, the Buddha said, is "wrong speech".
Furthermore, if we take to heart the teachings on compassion, then empathy for others being abused or taken advantage of should naturally overcome our reticence to take a stand. I think, that if we let compassion be our guide, the way becomes clear. (Assuming we're not motivated by ego, and the desire to be a rescuer or hero, that is.
)
We don't train in order to silence the mind 24/7. The technique is for our meditation practice, not for facing the complexities of everyday life. It's not intended to be like an infant's pacifier. It's to help us develop single-pointedness of focus on whatever tasks we're carrying out, rather than let our minds wander aimlessly, distracting us, as I understand it. Situations may arise in which applying our laser-like attention to wrongdoing, so we can bring about a solution or galvanize others, is called for.
That's ok, too. That's also Buddhist practice, IMO.
One of the Buddha's discourses on right and wrong speech:
"Potaliya, four kinds of people exist and can be found in the world. What kinds?
1) Some blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time, but do not praise those who should be praised, according to the truth, at the proper time.
2) Some praise those who should be praised, according to the truth, at the proper time, but do not blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time.
3) Some do not blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time, and do not praise those who should be praised, according to the truth, at the proper time.
4) Some blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time, and praise those who should be praised, according to the truth, at the proper time.
Potaliya, of all those four kinds of people, whichever blames those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time, and praises those who should be praised, according to the truth, at the proper time, this kind of person is the most beautiful and refined of these four kinds of people."
SE25Wall. Thanks for your interest in our blog. But just to be clear, we are not united in a Marxist orientation. I am not a Marxist, for example. (I am farther left than that!) But we are united in pointing out the collusion between current Western Buddhism (including its crypto-buddhist forms like Mindfulness) and neoliberal capitalism. We are also pretty sure about the particularly dangerous strain of anti-intellectualism infected x-buddhist communities.
Politics from my empirical perspective is one of the most toxic worldly matters. With every engagement the number of chains may again increase and passions are easily fostered as well. I will again engage in politics when buddhahood is attained.
I try to keep politics out of my belief system.
Good decision. However better to have no belief system at all.
Have a belief system by all means. Just don't cling to it, unskilfully.....
Perfect. Take the middle way.
Clearly there are better and worse ways to organize societies. Engaging in politics seems so fraught with attachment to outcomes, anger when those outcomes aren't achieved and selfing in identifying with an ideology (and thus othering rather than humanizing political opponents).
I agree with the sentiment, personally I think for us flawed and limited Buddhists, who ideally have a mind directed first at relieving the internal suffering of beings politics is best kept at arms length.
I've also long tried to make the distinction between politics and policy.
I can't get past the notion that politics is just how we treat each other.
In that vein, the only way to avoid politics is to be a recluse.
We are all in this world together, like it or not. We have to learn how to go about living with such diverse and legion perspectives.
That's politics.
The human psyche is tuned to politic in face to face terms. So I agree with you in the arena of how we relate to each other on a personal level.
I think your definition is too simple though, the term politics is generally used to refer to the systems we use to govern our societies. Human interactions have a tendency to turn nasty when we scale them up and depersonalize them. Our baser tribal instincts gain greater control of us.
You do you, I'll do me. Cool?
Tee Hee @Kundo
I want someone to tell me what to do, so I can ignore it ...
Vote Pirate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party
I agree with you in that engaging in any kind of mental dominance games is a kind of politics, and spiritually unhealthy. I disagree with you in that we have a choice not to engage with systems of governance, and be a recluse within the society.
Friend, we are sharing experience. Words often are deceptive.
Yay George Carlin! Putting my sentiments into not-so-politically-correct-diplomatic words, entirely!! Haven't voted in years, and certainly don't intend to start any time soon!!
You get my vote @federica
Never trust yourself, politicians, wer-lobsters or the dis-enlightened.
Buddha Revolution Continues . . .
Iz plan . . .
The way we produce distribute goods and provide services is political. The creation and maintenance of infrastructure is political. The laws we have to help govern social life is political. The way we approach justice is political. The way we decide these things is political. Politics affects all of us, whether we engage in it or not. The question is, why should we turn our backs on that and let others make all of these decisions for us? Or to put it another way, is it moral to forsake our political duties in order to focus on ourselves?
I don't turn my back on politics.
I turn my back on politicians.
Subtle, but different all the same.
There is a lot of 'we'. Please accept that I am not part of that 'we'. I am not even 'I'.
Where are 'political duties' located? Not knowing.
Please accept that "we" all don't have OCD when it comes to Buddhist terminology. You will happily find a "few" who are just as pedantic though...
Yes friend, words are. So is how one believes they are put forth.......
On the other hand, some might say that simplest is usually best. The only difference between familial order and societal governance is scale. What you're alluding to seems to me to be growing pains and even a generalization these days.
I see more and more people willing to cooperate now more than ever and granted that brings fear to the forefront, however cooperation is the natural tendancy before preferences I would imagine.
I still can't see politics as anything other than how we get along with each other.
The Golden Rule?
Politics.
I find all too often people hear the word politics and immediately picture an authority figure but it's just us.
Geez, I never said that. I said politics is how we treat each other. It can certainly be spiritually unhealthy as well as physically unhealthy but it can also encourage healthy growth and provide education and such.
Without politics, we would have no schools.
I don't think I implied we don't have a choice. I said the only way to avoid other people and their rights (for lack of a better word (actually there are probably a few... ramblings, habits, preferences, small talk)) is to be a recluse.
Carlin is great. He liked to focus on the dark because it's funnier but he seemed to love people much to his own chagrin.
If you live in society, then you are most definitely a part of that 'we.' And the very fact that you're using the internet to discuss your ideas with other people confirms this. Beyond that, I highly doubt that you're completely self-sufficient, that you don't engage other people in the context of work or in public, that you don't utilize public utilities and infrastructure, etc. Clever appeals to anatta don't negate that you're a social creature living in a social environment that requires social engagement, nor does it absolve you of the political implications and responsibilities which stem from that locally, nationally, etc.
There are some good ones.
How things are I am not living in society. And even if it appears I would be using the internet that isn't so.
I can accept everything. Can you accept my words?
Moderator Note:
Not if they shit-stir, no.
You seem to be ruffling a few tail-feathers, which is pretty close.
Sorry, I am not a native speaker. Could you say in easy words what's the message?
What does 'Moderator Note' mean in that context?
I am not joking I am speaking honestly