Important Notice:
I have stopped publishing articles here and moved to a new site Clarke Scott's website
Clarke Scott is a fully ordained Buddhist monk trained in the Tibetan tradition. A student of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, Clarke has received personal instructions—direct one-to-one instructions—on Madhyamaka philosophy and meditation from His Holiness. Recently Clarke moved to Tasmania to pursue a Ph.D in Buddhist philosophy from the University of Tasmania.
Why Socially Engaged Buddhist?
By Loden Jinpa – November 8, 2009 · Buddhism
Below is a stream-of-consciousness thought and I mean no disrespect to Socially Engaged Buddhists.
Today, I heard someone call themselves a socially engaged Buddhist. Isn’t all Buddhist theory socially engaged? As many have already had a lot to say along this line of argumentation, I will desist hereto.
Instead, I want to discuss the follow this line of argument: If you are calling yourself a socially engaged Buddhist, you do so, because you are motivated by the wish to help others, regardless of who they are and you want to do so directly, as you see this as a good thing to do. By no means would you ever intentionally harm others, no matter of gender, race or political leaning. You are fundamentally motivated by the wish to dissolve all prejudice and bias, after all, you are engaged with people in a social manner, right?
However, by framing your brand of Buddhism as “socially engaged”, it follows there are forms of Buddhism that are not so engaged. By doing so, you are in effect marking your brand of Buddhism off from those traditions that you deem as not so engaged, and therefore, even if only implicitly, are you not belittling those other traditions?
If you are socially engaged, should you not, in fact, call yourself something like, oh, I don’t know…actually, I have no alternative. Yet, I think my point is clear. Does it have merit? Probably not, but, it seemed worth pointing out, what to me seems to be a logically error implicit in the naming of this style of Buddhism.
Update: It is sheer coincidence that this post went up after Danny Fisher’ post on the virtues of Engaged Buddhism.
Comments
3 Responses to “Why Socially Engaged Buddhist?”
Got something to say?
From a theoretical perspective I agree with your point. Ultimately one cannot separate the “social” from the “personal” from anything else.
But in numerous settings that dichotomy is in evidence. Many people take up Buddhism with the idea of self-improvement without any sort of social context implied and certainly not one that would reach towards even a mildly “activist” stance. Engagement tends to mean an active outreaching. Many people take up a Buddhist-like practice purely for personal gain, such as their own happiness or relief from anxiety. This would be a not-so-engaged version I suppose.
Use of this adjective does create a distinction. I would consider the context in which it is used and the person’s intention in it’s use as well. Personally I wouldn’t use it except in an extremely limited context and then it would only be used to describe some kind of activist activity usually of a political nature. But that’s my own definition of it.
And sometimes (though certainly not always) those who use the label “socially-engaged” also do so for personal gain such as validation by others of their “Buddhist-like” behavior.
Spiritual materialism is what Chogyam Trungpa called it and it is in abundant evidence in American popular-culture (commercial) Buddhism.
“It is sheer coincidence that this post went up after Danny Fisher’ post on the virtues of Engaged Buddhism.”
Jinx! You know what they say about great minds… XD
Interestingly, Thich Nhat Hanh has said before that “all Buddhism is engaged.”
I like NellaLou’s point about “active outreaching,” though.
From my experience in dabbling with spirituality: any spiritual principle that is practiced out of context will not work.
I do understand why you need to address this and make it clear.
There can be a propensity to want to add to a teaching: to make it more or better. As time goes on it is possible to alter or water down a teaching so adding descriptions to the name could be considered a first step to changing a teaching.
In the end as long as I am true to the teachings as taught by the master there should be growth.
However it is proven throughout history( and my own experience) any time a principle is altered or watered down it does not bear fruit.
For example: Electricity can work to provide light, heat, power etc and that is a good thing.
But electricity does not care if it provides light or fries me. It works only along one principle. If I changed the way I use electricity I might get burned. So it is with any true teaching, if it is a spiritual law it works, if it is not it won’t work.
If we watch long enough any new movement that is alters a teaching eventually disappears. I am not saying this will happen but I understand your concern.