opencopy.org

Background

It’s fascinating that so many people think of Buddhism as a religion that is ‘other worldly’ — that is a religion that doesn’t much pay attention to events in the world. Its equally puzzling that it is so often described as a ‘selfish’ religion in the sense that the Buddhist meditator seeks the harmony and peace of his or her own mind, without reference to others. These are fairly common stereotypes, but they bear little resemblance to the spirit of Buddhism as a living religion.

Few westerners would ever thing of describing Christianity in this way, and yet there is probably as much, if not more, reason to stereotype Christianity as another worldly religion. In the first place, its focus in clearly on the world to come — the heavenly kingdom is quite distinct from the world that we live in and the focal point of Christian believers. An important theme in Christianity is personal salvation and an obsession with one’s own spiritual development, in an often hostile world where Satan and his forces provide a constant threat of temptation.

The connection between Christianity and social and political change, at least on the face of it, would appear to be just as complex and problematic as the Buddhist involvement in the world of every life and social organization. Any yet we have no problem recognizing the powerful role that Christianity plays in human interaction and politics. We might occasionally think that Christians are misguided — say in the case of those religious fundamentalists who might oppose things that we believe in — but we accept that their motivations are genuine and that their actions are influenced by their beliefs.

So, let’s begin by saying that, while Buddhists may sometimes disagree about the details, they are equally likely to want to view their religion as a guide to their social behavior and to their political action. And they are likely to be at least as committed to an ‘earthly’ social and political vision as their Christian brothers and sisters, because they:

1. do not believe in God or heaven as an alternative to ‘human’ life
2. are committed to living entirely ‘in the present’ or the ‘here and now’
3. feel a connection to all living things
4. have a cyclical, rather than millenarian view, of life

Meditational Practice

There’s usually a grain of truth in every stereotype. I’d like to take a moment to describe why it is that ZEN BUDDHISTS have a bad rap as unconcerned spectators in the things of human life. Zen is focussed particularly on meditation. The goal of that meditation to escape from suffering that characterizes all life by connecting with emptiness or the void and understanding that all forms — and especially the most problematic for us, the self — are ultimately illusory. The eventual ideal is to melt into nirvana and to completely leave the cycle of birth, death and determination. One major traditional school of Buddhism — Hinayana –pushes this theme so far as to suggest that the only sensible form of activity is to enter a monastery, to meditate, and to seek enlightenment through personal effort.

Hanayana Buddhism is not Zen Buddhism, however. Zen has a similar emphasis on meditational absorption, but it places this meditation within a much broader framework. Zen is an offshoot of Mahayana Buddhism. Mahayana doesn’t concentrate on individual liberation, but seeks enlightenment for the sake of all other beings. In other words, a Zen Buddhist doesn’t place its highest emphasis on monasticism but upon service to other beings. This emphasis clearly has ramifications for social practice.

Why does a Zen Buddhist meditate? A Zen Buddhist meditates to eliminate cravings and to attain enlightenment. But a Zen Buddhist falls short of seeking entry into final nirvana until such a time as all beings are liberated. A Zen Buddhist seeks decrease the emphasis on self and to help all others to attain enlightenment. The ideal for a Zen Buddhist is to become a bodhisattva — someone who helps others, someone who takes on their suffering and transfers his or her own merit to help them.

When a Buddhist meditates within this framework, his or her way of looking at the world is changed utterly. An increased understanding of the nature of suffering leads to greater compassion for others and a desire to help them in whatever way one can. And because meditation is something quite different from a monastic exercise, one practices meditation or the focus on the present moment in all aspects of ones daily life. The compassion one feels isn’t abstract, isn’t produced merely under ideal conditions of peace and quiet, but is exercised constantly. And the form that it takes is service to others.

In fact, compassion has to be exercised constantly if selfishness is to be overcome. It has to be exercised constantly if it is to develop the strength that the Dalai Lama talks about and that we all know is needed in practice. If compassion is not deeply rooted, it will be crushed by the ‘nay sayers’ out there, some of whom are just confused but others who are really hostile and toxic beings who will try to harm you rather than repay your kindness. Buddhists like Christians realize how important it is that compassion is rooted in religious principle and practiced as part of the religious life.

There are two impulses towards a social vision for Zen Buddhists. One is the natural impulse that comes from compassion. The other is the imperative to decrease ones attention to oneself by extending it towards others. Both the impulse and the imperative have implications for social and political practice.

Towards a Buddhist Social and Political Vision

Non-Violence

The social and political thrust of Buddhism is best summed up in the words of the Dalai Lama. He said: “We should realize that the purpose of taking birth in this world is to help others. If we cannot do that, at least we should not harm other living beings.” The fundamental axiom of Buddhist society and politics, therefore, is non violence. Human beings have a historical tendency to be violent towards one another in both speech and action. Good Buddhists try not to hurt one another in any way. Buddhists’ first priority in the social sphere is to avoid gossip and stereotype and to seek to diffuse anger. Buddhists’ first priority in political sphere is to seek vehicles for preventing conflict between nations.

I am sometimes surprised at the way in which non-Buddhists fail to realize the pervasiveness and power of the principle of non-violence. In the social realm, it has enormous significance that one individual simply stops gossiping or speaking ill of others. It helps to create a sense of community where non had existed before. Best of all, its a kind of behavior pattern that, while it may be difficult at times, is certainly within our attainment and it opens us up to others and prompts us to more positive patterns. The political ramifications are if anything more dramatic. Buddhism enjoins us to be activists for peace and to follow in the footsteps of those preachers on non-violent protest against injustice like Ghandi and Martin Luther King.

Charity

Compassion as impulse and imperative implies active charity. There is no better way to develop ones feelings towards others while decreasing them towards oneself than to practice and to encourage charity. This is a Christian as well as a Buddhist axiom but, whereas Christ asked his followers to ‘love thy neighbors as thy self’, Buddhists go even farther by saying ‘love your neighbors and forget about yourself’. For Buddhists, charity in the form of comforting and helping others is one of the most important ways of combating the cravings that keep us attached to the world of forms and exercising our compassion. Buddhists are convinced that charity that simply comes from impulse is too weak to help society or to form one’s spiritual character. Thus, the Dalai Lama enjoins us to “cultivate a deep-felt sense of responsibility to work for their benefit and shoulder the task of relieving sentient beings of suffering and providing them with happiness. Throughout your daily life and activities, wherever the occasion arises, you should immediately seize that opportunity to train in this mediation. Only then can you begin to hope for progress in the realization.”

Charity cannot merely be something personal. It is crucial to the attainment of enlightenment that we understand the interconnectedness of all beings. We cannot separate ourselves from the good or evil that others do. Therefore, we must try to create and support organizations and governments that have a deep sense of responsibility for other’s welfare. We need to constantly remind governments of their duty towards weaker members of society. And we need to need to cultivate their altruism. Buddhism calls upon us not to distinguish between ourselves and others. That clearly means that we must do all that we can to cultivate the charity of the representatives of the collective — political parties and governments.

There is one thing that must be said about the exercise of charity if it is to have a truly Buddhist character. It needs to be done for the right reasons. It should not be tied to abstractions like the eradication of poverty. Nor should it be connected to feelings of pity that denies the fundamental equality of the other person and our intimate connection with them. It should not be done with an attitude of discrimination, even though it is clear that we should pay particular attention to the sufferings of the very poor and helpless. To pit one group against another, or to favor one constituency more than others, goes against the very essence of Buddhism; it is socially divisive ; and it is politically unjust.

Social Justice

I come now to a more delicate and specifically political area of concern, that of social justice. When we enter the realm of social justice, we are in the domain of both law and the economy and these are human contrivances that are subject to many inconveniences and differing interpretations. More important, perhaps, than talking about specific social and political relations is talking about the Buddhist principles that should inform them.

Societies need to affirm the essential equality of all their members: When the Buddha developed his ideas in India, they flew in the face of case and hierarchy; his were ideas of progress and emancipation not a rigid status quo.

Societies need to protect and support their weakest members: Individuals cannot achieve enlightenment if they are constantly subject to poverty or oppression; the Buddha achieved enlightenment under the banyan tree only after he had rejected the path of the half starved aesthetic; we need to do our utmost to provide our fellow human beings with the minimum to achieve liberation

Societies need to limit greed and the effects of egoism: Buddhism is all about letting go of one’s cravings and desires; the ethical spirit of Buddhism ensures that the attachment to life is circumscribed by ideas of fairness, sharing of wealth, and protection of all living things; a Buddhist society disapproves of those who place the making of wealth above all other things

Societies must not allow the exploitation of one human being by another: A Buddhist society is one in which individuals with power or wealth are not permitted to exploit one another ; it also seeks out and condemns hidden more hidden forms of exploitation

Social and Political Practice

Buddhism is not deterministic. In social and political life, Buddhists typically seek to find a middle way — an avoidance of extremes or the choosing between opposite opinions. That is why, for example, many Buddhists can find things of value in materialistic political philosophies like Marxism, in literary theories like postmodernism, and among scientific theories like chaos. Even more surprising, they appear capable of dramatic revitalization even within highly consumerist and competitive capitalist societies like our own. In practice, of course, Buddhism has not always been so resilient. As the famous sociologist Max Weber noticed, traditional Indian Buddhism fell victim to Hinduism a religion that, at is time, was more supportive of economic change and growth. After being virtually eradicated in India, Buddhism continued to thrive in the fairly closed environments like Ceylon, Burma and Tibet. Even here, it demonstrated considerable weakness under the dominion of the British empire and the rise of Indian immigration. Buddhism needed to redefine itself in the very changed conditions of a world so very different from the one in which it was born.

Buddhism in North America is still in its infancy and it is difficult to know precisely the political and social directions that it will take. At the present time, it is so highly dependent upon the charisma of foreign masters from foreign cultures or highly dependent upon the teachings of foreign masters that it has had trouble establishing an identity of its own. The key to its development, I would argue is the development and extension of what Akizuki Ryomin calls ‘lay Buddhism’. The key to this development resides in the evolution North American sanghas. A recent book entitled Buddhism in America mentions the sangha only twice, and then in a way that shows the obstacles faced rather than the opportunity available. When asked about the development of the sangha in North America, a Issei minister was too eager to suggest that the message of Buddha remained unchanged; it only required some very minor cultural adaptations to make it more comfortable.

The social and political history of Buddhism in Ceylon, Burma, Tibet and Japan indicates otherwise. There Buddhism became a potent social and political force during the 1950s and 1960s, largely because of the ways that its ethical spirit was revitalized by national leaders and local sanghas. The founders of modern Burma, U Nu and U Ba Swe, for example, advocated a revolution on Buddhist principles. Pointing to the Buddhist principles of equality, the ravages of greed, and the non reality of possessions, they felt justified in demanding the nationalization of land. The Japanese Society for the Creation of Values, which began among a small group of lay people in 1940 numbered in the hundreds of thousands by 1960. It supported political candidates who were dedicated to improving social and political conditions in Japan. Another Lotus sect, the Reiyo-kai had 3,000,000 members in 1960. Their political philosophy revolved around social altruism and, particularly the construction of modern hospitals and homes for the aged.

The Japanese Lotus sects indicate the kind of dynamism that results from lay movements that begin small in the sanghas but begin to spread their ideals of community and social justice outwards. Despite their successes, these sects remained very faithful to Buddhist principles. The female founder of the Rissho-kosei-kai sect, for example, pointed out that:

“As long as a person is governed by his selfish ego, he cannot grow up. We are therefore not important people, and all our education counts for nothing in the eyes of Buddha. All of us are nothing.”

Only through humility and social service can individuals free themselves from their selfish ego.

My point in describing these Japanese developments — and you should know that my knowledge of these matters is very limited — is to show the extent of social and political involvement that Buddhism not merely condones but actually enjoins. The patterns in Burma, Ceylon and Japan are not necessarily the ones that will fit the culture in North America. But they show that a religion is vital and relevant.

Embarking on the North America Path

Buddhism in North America still hasn’t outgrown its leading strings. It will show that it has done so if and when it becomes a powerful cultural force. And it will perhaps demonstrate that it has become a powerful cultural force when it enters more forcefully into the social and political domain.

Until it does this, North American Buddhism remains in a problematic cultural position. It runs the risk of being a form of ‘psychic masturbation’ and a highly individualist one at that. At present contemporary North American Buddhism parallels psychology in highly capitalist societies — it is regarded as a method for exploring and repairing the self rather than dissolving it in a sense of oneness. It is my guess that most North American sanghas are still a group of disparate and constantly fluctuating individuals rather than a real community. And until the sangha itself becomes a community, how can it begin to dissolve the chains of ego and begin to create community throughout the world?

These lectures are based on Stephen Batchelor’s book ‘The Awakening of the West: The Encounter of Buddhism and Western Culture’.