On Engaged Buddhism

Engaged Buddhism is a very popular and strong movement among western Buddhists. In Zen, figures like Joan Halifax, the late Robert Aitken(R.I.P.), Alan Senauke, and Bernie Glassman are/were not only leaders in their sanghas respectively, but huge proponents of the Engaged Buddhism movement. So it seems no matter where you go, what association you choose to join, the movement is ingrained into the fabric of their practice. Not only is this movement involved at the top of these Buddhist organizations, but these figures along with other popular proponents of Engaged Buddhism on the Buddhist blogosphere define what the 'Buddhist' stance is on social issues. They say what for us what is 'loving' and what displays 'wisdom' in dealing with social and political issues. I've found that the 'Buddhist,' 'loving,' and 'wise' stance is unfailingly the one taken by the far-left, and is opposed to the 'oppressive' and 'mean-spirited' views of those on the right. What I often wonder is if this movement of Engaged Buddhism, and mind you this no fringe group or minority, is beneficial or detrimental to Buddhism in the U.S. as a whole. In this entry, I would like to examine how this movement could either stunt or enhance the growth of Buddhism in the U.S. and explain my own opinions on their ideology and methods.

I don't think it would be a stretch to say the Engaged Buddhism has since the beginning of western practice in the U.S. (by that I mean when white-folk started converting) been a cornerstone to the very existence of Buddhism in the U.S. The seed of western Buddhism was deeply planted in the fertile soil of the counter-culture of the sixties. The younger generation of that time wasn't looking merely for a new place to go on sunday mornings or friday evenings, but something that resonated with their revolutionary ideals and attitudes - something that didn't confine them to another creed and a new God but liberated them to live life freely and in their own way. They found these qualities in the Buddhism being popularized among intellectuals and some priests in California. Not only did this Buddhism tout personal freedom and enlightenment, but also had within it a mechanism for universal liberation: the Bodhisattva Way. This Bodhisattva Way as it was presented justified an extension of Buddhist wisdom and practices into the realms of political, social and environmental issues that further resonated with the kind of movements towards greater awareness being born at that time. In sum the Buddhism that we have today is a direct product of the revolutionary counter-culture of the sixties and to this day embodies those values within its practice and thought. This era gave Buddhism a base with the young and open-minded generation, and that generation has since taken over in the place of their Asian masters. This base is the benefit of the Engaged movement.

Jump forward some fifty years to the present. By many of its followers, Buddhism is a spiritual extension of the their political values - using their black cushion and picket sign together to fend off the chains of systemic, structural, patriarchal oppression without and the conventions of western thought with the enlightenment of Buddha's wisdom within. 'Don't colonialize my innocent savage mind-vagina with your patriarchal phallus of metaphysical structures of right and wrong, legal and illegal!' they may say as they rally to the side of 'love' in California or Arizona - That is in satire, but perhaps it more resembles a postmodernist than an Engaged Buddhist OR is there no difference these days? I can't say that I totally disagree with some of the stances taken on the issues by the Engaged movement, but if this movement dominates from top down as it does today I fear that it will close to the door to Buddhism for others. If everyone sees the dread-locked lesbian, just back from the vegan luncheon at the local commune in her Tibetan flag shawl doing protest-lojong meditation/zazen/vipassana out front of the local target to stop gay oppression and corporate greed/interference as 'the Buddhist,' this will be incredibly problematic. The fact that I can put that together is only worse. It only helps to cement that stereotype when so much of Buddhism is tied in with left-wing political movements. And all of this leads to alienation, alienation of Buddhism from the general public as a political vessel suited solely for the liberally and intellectually oriented. This is the detriment that Engaged Buddhism can and to some extent does have on the Buddhist community in the U.S. We American Buddhists are quite divided already today, along the lines of immigrant and convert. Two very different forms of the same religion trying to reconcile their differences and become one community - can we really afford at this point to burn the bridge to the Americans who don't hold such polemical political opinions. Not to mention that the aforementioned youngsters of the sixties are now the present oldsters, ordaining the Buddhist leaders of tomorrow - can the values being instilled by these masters suite the needs of those who are looking for a religion, a Buddhist religion, and not a vehicle for social change? Honestly, I have my doubts about it. If we can open up, if we can let go of calling a certain set of political and social values 'Buddhist,' then we have a point of access for others to feel a sense of belonging in our community.

Please don't confuse me for Glenn Beck, I'm not an opponent of social justice, in most cases I find myself for it. I simply disagree with the direction that the social justice movement within, and comprising most of, the Buddhist community is taking. One aspect I strongly dislike about the Engaged movement is meditation, zazen/shikantaza specifically, as a means of protest. It bothers me to no end when someone uses shikantaza as a method of protest because I believe it seriously misses the point of shikantaza. Kodo Sawaki is quoted as saying

'What's zazen good for? Absolutely nothing! This 'good for nothing' has got to sink into your flesh and bones until you actually practice what is truly good for nothing. Until then, your zazen is just good for nothing.'

This to me embodies the heart of zazen. Dogen often admonished his students to practice Buddha-dharma for the sake of Buddha-dharma itself, saying:

“A practitioner should not practice buddha-dharma for his own sake, to gain fame and profit, to attain good results, or to pursue miraculous power. Practice only for the sake of the buddha-dharma.”

For Dogen, Zazen as was not a means to any end, but the end all in itself. It is an activity aimed at nothing, and serves no purpose in attaining anything. I think that if we practice shikantaza in protest, it betrays the anti-instrumental spirit Dogen imbued to it. Along those same lines, if we use meditation or any sort of Buddhist activity as a means of protest, are we not clinging to this side or that side? Trying to express and identify the 'Buddhist' view on every little issue in opposition to the 'other,' or put frankly, the Republican view? Does this use of practice distort the intent of the founder? It seems that way to me.

In terms of continuing the Buddhist community in the future, I think that the current trend to politicize Buddhism and bring social justice to center focus is a greater threat to the survival of Buddhism in this country. More of a threat than the Asian terms and religious structures (ooooooooooh! scary!).

[Edit]
I also don't want to be seen as advocating some sort of quietism. What I prefer is a more local form of engaged Buddhism. I want Buddhists to engage not in trying to deal with large abstractions of our population such as 'the poor,' 'the oppressed,' or 'the minority,' but in helping people in their area. Doing food drives, charities, community events with other faiths, begging and preaching the dharma are good ways of engaging in one's community, I believe. Preaching is something Buddhists aren't very comfortable with in the west and something unnecessary in the east, yet I think its a good way for one to engage with their community.

I know that 'heartland' America won't ever catch on to Buddhism, and that's not what I am worried about. They have their down-home religion and that is all fine and dandy. I think the Shin Buddhist writer John Paraskevopoulos (link in the comments section, Thank you Jon!) puts what I see as the problem of engaged Buddhism in very succinct terms,

"We also have to be careful that we do not advocate the practice of compassion with a view to some kind of selective socio-political agenda or, more critically, with the aim of setting some kind of benchmark for determining authentic shinjin."

"An 'engaged' form of Buddhism, while well-intentioned, harbours the very real possibility of causing a certain measure of spiritual harm to those who find themselves unable to conform to the 'engaged' agenda; which is precisely what it is. An agenda that has nothing immutable about it and which only reflects the preoccupations, viewpoints and biases of its age. Indeed, one wonders how recognizable (or relevant) the current form of engaged Buddhism will be in one or two hundred year's time. If anything, such a contrast may very well serve to demonstrate the fleeting nature of our current concerns. One really has to ask whether Shinran had any sense of social engagement of the kind envisaged by its modern exponents. What Shinran is engaged with is Amida Buddha and his Dharma, not with transient values which have no bearing on his final goal of emancipation. To be sure, he was acutely aware of the many injustices of his time as well as the deep-seated moral and spiritual hypocrisy of his contemporaries but he never sought to have his faith act as a kind of catalyst for social transformation. Quite the contrary, he pointed to the many evils of his time in order to encourage people to turn their minds from worldly matters and focus on the nembutsu path."

Dogen and Shinran share this in common. They both focused on their respective practices, and encouraged people to turn away from the matters of the world. Yet while we feel in this day that we simply cannot turn away in the same way they did, we should endeavor to keep Buddhism aloof from socio-political agendas.