Background on Engaged Buddhism
Before I put up excerpts of my paper, here’s a brief background on Engaged Buddhism, taken from Christopher Queen’s Engaged Buddhism in the West. Historically, Queen argues that Engaged Buddhism can be considered a fourth "yana" (alongside Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana), termed "Navayana." This term comes from Dr. Ambedkar, who spoke for the millions of Untouchables who converted to Buddhism, declaring that they were not joining any of the yanas, but merely "following the Buddha."
Of course, this is not an innocent statement, but a loaded claim. Any "neo-" movement must grapple with what continuity they have with earlier movements and their original founder(s), as well as what is "new."
Already, Buddhism has a robust group of ethical practices:
Discipline – moral precepts for laity and monks
Virtue – constructive practice of loving-kindness, generosity, etc.
Altruism – “nursing the sick, leading the blind, helping the downtrodden, feeding those who are hungry…”
What else is needed? A (loaded) question from Queen:
“…one may wonder, in light of the widespread conditions of human misery in our world today, whether rule-based morality, mental cultivation, individualized good works, and generalized vows to save all beings will be enough to prevent the spread of political tyranny, economic injustice, and environmental degradation in the era to come…” (16)
Thus, Engaged Buddhism is thought to interact with more systemic evils, rather than merely individual suffering. The question is whether this ethic of engagement is Buddhist or Western. Scholars and practitioners are divided on the answer, although it seems they lean towards seeing Western influence. For example:
Robert Aitken Roshi believes Buddhist social movements develop under the influence of Christianity and Western ideas and Helen Tworkov (editor of Tricycle) calls it “Protestant Buddhism.” In contrast, Robert Thurman (Columbia U) argues that Buddhism has always been socially engaged, and the Buddha’s monastic order was a “Radical social intervention”, an intentional step since his power to reform as a ruler was limited. Finally, what is probably most typical of practitioners, Thich Nhat Hanh thinks “buddhism" (with a little b) does not require an answer to the question, since activism and practice can be side by side.
Where Engaged Buddhists generally agree are on the following major concepts:
- The human person has inalienable value (regardless of achievement or standing in community)
- Experience is social/collective in nature, shaped by cultural/political institutions
- Collective action is required to address the systemic causes of suffering and promote social advancement in the world
- Awareness: all forms of engaged Buddhism are interested in mindfulness, meditation, etc.
- Identification: self/world are interconnected, leading to empathy for all beings
- Action: something must be done in the face of suffering
There is, however, a continuum of practices and aims: from those focused primarily upon mindfulness meditation and the individual to those (such as so-called "ecosattvas" or environmental activists) focused on social structures and political actions.
Queen’s book is a collection of descriptive essays on everything from peace activism to feminist Buddhists to Buddhism in South Africa, Australia and Europe. In the mail to me now is a collection of essays in The Engaged Buddhist Reader, one of which is of particular interest: Robert Thurman’s discussion of Nāgārjuna and social activism.
I’d be interested in the thoughts of those Buddhist scholars and practitioners who read my blog. Where do you consider Engaged Buddhism standing in the broader history of the traditions? Are its ethical concerns Western, Buddhist, or some new result of their interaction? Would you consider yourself to be an "Engaged Buddhist", or are you not particularly interested in the discussion?