Engaged Buddhism

Add a Comment

Comment by Richard Modiano on May 25, 2009 at 8:12pm

Thank you for raising the issue of violence, and thanks to Kenny for getting this discussion started.

Personally, I'm committed to non-violence, and I'd like to clarify what non-violence is and why it arose.

What to do when some people are hurting and others who have power don’t care? How do we make narrow, busy, and self-righteous people understand that other people exist?

It was exactly for this problem that Gandhi and his followers in the United States A.J. Muste and Martin Luther King Jr. devised and experimented the strategy of active massive non-violent confrontation, both non-violent resistance and aggressive non-violence. In my opinion, this is the only strategy that addresses all aspects of the situation. It challenges unconcern; it attacks institutions and confronts people as well. It personalizes the conflict so that habitual and mechanical responses are not easy. It diminishes strangeness. It opens possibilities for the narrow to grow and come across, instead of shutting them out. It interrupts the downward spiral of the oppressed into despair, fanaticism and brutality. Most important, it is the only realistic strategy, because it leads to rather than prevents the achievement of a future community among all the combatants. We will have to live together in some community or other. How? In what community? We really do not know, but non-violent conflict is the way to discover and invent it.

Non-violence is aggressive. Since the injustices in society are mainly in the institutional system even though the personal agents might be innocent or even quite sympathetic, it is necessary to prevent the unjust institutions from grinding on as usual. It is necessary not to shun conflict but to seek it out. So Gandhi, Muste and King were continually inventing campaigns to foment apparent disorder when things apparently had been orderly.

Naturally, aggressive massive non-violence is not safe. (Gandhi lost thousands, and hundreds perished in the civil rights struggle.) If only mathematically, when there is a big crowd some will be hurt - sometimes because of one's own hotheads, more usually because the police panic and try to enforce impossible restrictions in the name of upholding Law and Order. On the other hand, actions of this kind are far less likely to lead to a massacre. In the present climate of cold violence armed with a lethal technology, this is a major concern.

I do not think that non-violence is incompatible with fringe violence or flare-ups of violence, so long as its own course is steadily political, appealing to justice, self-interest, and commonweal, and if the political object of the campaign speaks for itself. Gandhi, of course was a purist about avoiding violence, though he said that it was better to be violent against injustice than to do nothing; Muste and King were willing to co-operate with violent groups if they did not try to take over. Psychologically, indeed, it is probably an advantage for a non-violent movement to have a group in the wings committed to violent self-defense, since this quiets down the more rabid opposition and makes a calmer zone for real political and economic confrontation. (Sometimes it doesn't work out so smoothly.)

Non-violence does not necessarily prejudge the issue between "co-optation" and "people’s power." Separatism is ruled out, however, since the point of confrontation is to come to mutual recognition and commonweal. It is not necessary to "love" one's enemies, but there must be a belief that common humanity is more basic than racial or ideological difference; and this belief must be bona fide or non-violence becomes a mere tactic and has no energy. Certainly King's followers took his universalist Christian rhetoric at face value. (So did I.) As I have said, it is the only realistic position; it is the tendency of history. We will come to community or perish.

Comment by Maiku on May 25, 2009 at 7:56pm

Hi, Kenny and Richard,... In our work, it would appear that there can be as many tactics as there are situations. In some cases, to meet force with force would be fruitless as it would polarize sides. On the other hand, sometimes direct force is the only way to stop and evil act. Thankfully, the majority of times, we can use the "Aikido" method as you suggested and rarely need to use the more devestating "Kickboxing" method... yet, my experience has taught me that sometimes it must be that way. There is a quote by a modern martial artist, whose name slips me at the moment.. it goes something like this: "Violence is seldom the answer, but when it is, it is the only answer." I agree with this and I do not say this in any way to spark heated debate in this chat community.... I have no wish for that. Rather, it is simply my opinion, based on my work with some very dangerous people. Again, thankfully, this is rare and most of our everyday encounters with conflict and chaos can be dealt with using more gentle methods.

Comment by Kenny Lewis on May 25, 2009 at 6:04pm

Hi Richard, I do appreciate your willingness to discuss thank you. I agree with your comment, maybe I am pointing to emphasis " When we resist the oppressor' our focus, or attention is going to the oppressor,? Ther fore we are 'giving' power to them ( freely I might add.)

However, when we say 'free the oppressed' our focus or attention goes to the oppressed, where it should be. ( maybe this is a whole thread in itself - smile) really I'm saying as in Aikido "blending with the motion of the attacker and redirecting the force of the attack rather than opposing it head-on" if you get what I mean - I must say though I am not martial arts expert :-)

Comment by Richard Modiano on May 25, 2009 at 5:36pm

Kenny, I don't how we can free ourselves without resisting our oppressors. Our oppressors already take power and energy from us will nilly, and it seems to me that our best response is to resist in some way, from war tax resistance and witnessing to various kinds of civil disobedience not to mention day to day organizing.

Comment by Kenny Lewis on May 25, 2009 at 12:37pm

Did you mean to type 'free the oppresed' as opossed' to 'resist oppression' - doesn't resisting oppresion give power and energy to the oppressor?

Comment by Maiku on April 20, 2009 at 2:07am

Yes, Zhenlian, I agree with what you are saying. I guess I was not clear about your previous post.

You are quite right and I agree, that no Buddhist should be corrupt. In fact, no one who is acting as such can rightly call themselves a Buddhist.

Comment by Zhenlian on April 20, 2009 at 1:29am

Dear Maiku, there are many kind of politicians, a politician working for the welfare of people is a good politician, a politician using his power and influence to further his personal interests is a bad politician, and what is worse such bad politicians often commit crimes in the name of Democracy and other generally applaused values, the ex-president of Taiwan, who is now in prison for corruptions often claimed that he was for Democracy and for noble purposes, he is like a wolf in a sheep's skin. When a monk engaged in political turmoils, we have first to see his aims and purposes before we can judge, anyway no monk should seek attainment of any noble purposes by arsoning, killing, burning and lying. There is a case like this, a further stole from his office because he needs money to support his son 's studies, his purpose is noble but his actions are criminal, in the end he was sentenced to prison and his son had to stop his studies, because besides imprisonment the family had to pay a heavy indemnity. When a monk participates in political activities, he cannot resort to whatever means at hand , much less violence. because the essence of Buddhism is compassion, the fact that you kill one life to assess your own glorification or to attain your purpose is a proof that you have no heart, not to say compassion. A person with no heart is less than a beast, how can he be called a Buddhist disciple?

Comment by Maiku on April 19, 2009 at 12:43pm

Dear Zhenlian, I must respectfully disagree regarding your take on Buddhists in politics. Buddhists, Christians, Daoists and other religious groups must engage in politics. This is not some egotistical crave for power, but rather, it is an act of compassion. When people of any religion, who are practicing, because of a genuine quest for truth, engage in poliitics, it is because they see the need for caring leadership. To see an need and know that you had the ability to fill that need and yet not get involved would be an act of evil by negation.
For too long Buddhists have sat around gazing at their navels which does nothing to further their own enlightenment nor that of others. True enlightenment comes from experiences in the market place wherein we interact withothers. Too many Buddhist monks and nuns "think" they are developing spiritually, when in fact, they are ignorant of their own spiritual state. There is a Judeo/Christian saying: It is easy to be an angel until you get your feathers ruffled.

Comment by Zhenlian on April 19, 2009 at 2:42am

In my opinion, there is only active buddhism, there is no dead or inactive buddhism. When Buddha forsakes his family to look for another form of life, he is actively engaging in his mission. When a monk says his prayers he is actively engaging in the salvation of himself and the world. So how can we say that Buddhism is anything but active and engaging. Of course,there are always degrees of engagement, for example recently some Buddhist followers have try to engage in the area of education and social aids etc.
I do not agree that Buddhist disciples engaging in political turmoils are active Buddhism. They are rather distortions and abuses of Buddhism, because the crave for power is the greatest vile practices in all religions.

Comment by Dr. Arbind on September 13, 2008 at 2:18pm

Engaged Buddhism = Active Buddhism

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last