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.
Buddhism in Society
Hello Friends,
I've posted this question on other forums before, but I wasn't satisfied with the response.
Why is it that you see Christian, Muslim, Catholic etc. charities that exist to help the homeless or other socially excluded groups and not buddhist or zen charities?
Before this angered me - when I was new to buddhism. I thought buddhism so beautiful and sort of logical that I just wanted everyone to benefit from it.
Now I understand that buddhists can practice while contributing to the work of all sorts of organisations - without needing to form a 'buddhist' organisation. This provides a practicing buddhist with a freedom of choice, although they would never be able to operate in an organisation with buddhist principles (surely more fulfilling to his spirituality) but as a buddhist individual contributing to a non-buddhist organisation.
So there are pluses and minuses.
But what is the reason no buddhist organisation like say, the Red Cross, exists? Is it because a buddhist organisation might 'promote' buddhism (that at it's extreme could be said to convert), therefore going against the buddhist tendancy to be discrete and show loving kindness by example?
Or are there other reasons?
One of the reasons I'd like to know is because if buddhism was more visible in the community more people would learn about buddhism and not think of it as an intellectual or hippyish discipline. I don't care what people think of me practicing, I just want more to benefit - and that sort of image would put a lot off.
I've posted this question on other forums before, but I wasn't satisfied with the response.
Why is it that you see Christian, Muslim, Catholic etc. charities that exist to help the homeless or other socially excluded groups and not buddhist or zen charities?
Before this angered me - when I was new to buddhism. I thought buddhism so beautiful and sort of logical that I just wanted everyone to benefit from it.
Now I understand that buddhists can practice while contributing to the work of all sorts of organisations - without needing to form a 'buddhist' organisation. This provides a practicing buddhist with a freedom of choice, although they would never be able to operate in an organisation with buddhist principles (surely more fulfilling to his spirituality) but as a buddhist individual contributing to a non-buddhist organisation.
So there are pluses and minuses.
But what is the reason no buddhist organisation like say, the Red Cross, exists? Is it because a buddhist organisation might 'promote' buddhism (that at it's extreme could be said to convert), therefore going against the buddhist tendancy to be discrete and show loving kindness by example?
Or are there other reasons?
One of the reasons I'd like to know is because if buddhism was more visible in the community more people would learn about buddhism and not think of it as an intellectual or hippyish discipline. I don't care what people think of me practicing, I just want more to benefit - and that sort of image would put a lot off.
0
Comments
May I refer you to Thich Nhat Hanh's "Engaged Buddhism"? This was one of the 'doors' into Buddhism for me, coming as I did from a more interventionist compassionate action that appeared to exist in Buddhist practice.
The first specifically Buddhist social action that I encountered was the 'Shanti' movement on the West Coast of the USA, providing hospice and buddying for people with AIDS when the general attitude was horror and withdrawal.
Joanna Macy's ecological approach also challenged the traditional image of withdrawn and distant Buddhism.
For me, as for many Western practitioners, social and ecological engagement is integral to our walking the Noble Eightfold Path. Palzang will alos tell you of the good work done by his community.
The fact is that there has not yet been enough time for big charitable organisations like the Red Cross or Oxfam or the Howard League to arise from the Buddhist West. History would suggest that such international action groups only become realities following a 'laicisation', where the ordained no longer dominate all aspects of the spiritual/secular interface. We can see this happening in Buddhism just as it has in Christianity and Judaism.
There is also something of an internal tension, as there is in Christianity, between relief of personal stress ('salvation' or 'enlightenement') and commitment to relief of stress among our fellow sentient beings here and now. There is a real danger that, coming to understand the underlying reality of the Dharma Seals, practitioners will simply throw up their hands and say: "Everything is conditioned, subject to stress, impermanent and with no abiding 'self', so just grin and bear it." As I read the teaching, however, this is to ignore what TNH calls "interbeing" and our duty (if I may use such an out-moded word) arising from it.
You might like to have a look at this charity.
http://www.rokpa.org/
This is the UK branch
http://www.rokpauk.org/
Kind wishes,
Dazzle
Palzang
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzEaBvoj7bs&feature=PlayList&p=6ADA497A129AA4CD&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=29
Namaste
I hadn't thought of the time aspect. I suppose I think with a relatively young head and to me buddhism has always been here... Actually I realise what a marginal following it has and the current trend for buddha images, 'zen' popular psychology and philosophy masks the fact that only a very small percentage in Europe (to name one area) consider themselves to be actually practicing buddhists.
I will look at the resources and see if it stimulates more questions or thoughts in me !
Thanks again.
Thank you.
The film also looks beautiful. If I can buy it online now it'll make for very enjoyable - I'm sure, moving - watching tomorrow.
My impression is there is a possible contradiction in superficial impressions. For example, in a Buddhist country such as Thailand, historically there was no need for charities because people looked after eachother communally because they lived a Buddhist life and because their nation was quite abundant in terms of physical requisites.
However, today in many Buddhist countries, charities are arising due to growing 'Western' or 'materialistic' influences. For example, Cambodia. There are Buddhist charities working in Cambodia however the need for charity in that country arose due to the problems influenced by the Vietnam War.
In the West, Christian charities can be a kind of 'self-fulfilling prophecy'. Whilst I am not blaming Christianity as opposed to European culture, the history of war, conflict and colonialism in the West is strongly connected to the Christian churches. Thus certain elements in the churches have promoted war and other elements in churches have tried to make peace.
Recently, in Australia, few of the churches opposed the Iraq War. In fact, during what debate there was, the head of the Catholic Church brought up the notion of a 'just war', in a manner favouring the war. In Australia, Christian parties hold the balance of power in the parliament. Few Christian organisations officially opposed the war yet the Christian charities are prepared to do work in Iraq.
To conclude, my impression is in the West, Buddhist organisations are currently generally too small to create major charities. However, many are doing as much as they can by working with Christian charities. For example, in Sydney Australia, there is a group called The Association of Engaged Buddhists, who work with some Christian charities, performing prison & hospice work and exclusively providing food in a Christian soup kitchen on certain days.
Yes, so a question of 'he who knocks something down must (be seen to) assist in building it back up'
Another point I had not thought of and pretty valid, in my opinion.