The other issue I have with “Engaged Buddhism,” to reflect Dosho’s comment, is the extent to which I observe people regularly using Buddhism to justify their rage. Secondly, the link between Engaged Buddhism and Secular Buddhism is concerning because, “If one is attached to this life, one is not a Dharma person.” Of course, there are far more suffering sentient beings in the bardo then there are here inhabiting this globe. Not one word is expressed about them, or pretas, etc.
Ācārya Malcolm Smith, I appreciate your work! As far as I can tell, Engaged Buddhism (which is often Enraged "Buddhism") is about fixing the Desire Realm - rather than freedom from or within such. This amounts to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. An essential part of dharma analysis is about the nature of suffering in the Desire Realm and therefore the importance of awakening - not to meet the perceived needs (physical, psychological, social, or political) of beings swirling in the Desire Realm - because that's hopeless. Without doing that piece of the work, Engaged Buddhists then seem to extract various Buddhadharma methods from their context and use them to make social activists more effective. Nothing wrong with that (although it cuts both ways - aspects of Zen were coopted by the fascist in Japan in WWII, for example). The problem is, as identified here, with conflating progressive social views with the Buddhadharma. This miscommunicates to people what the Buddhadharma is about and hijacks it for partisan reasons.
The problem we have today is that the Dharma is framed as a technology. In my opinion this a very toxic approach to Dharma. Dharma is not a technology for optimizing our existence in the three realms, let along the desire realm.
Another issue we have in Western Dharma is that we do not recognize—especially those of us who sit on chairs and thrones, have titles and have to muster up what little wisdom we have to explain the Dharma to others—is that we are bālapṛithagjanas, ordinary human children. I wince inside when I see people make comments about taking refuge in their Dharma center compatriots, or even their so-called "transmitted teachers," lamas, roshis, tulkus and so on. They are not our proper refuge. I am not claiming we need to idolize Asian sages, since most of them, in this day and age, prove over and over again they too are bālapṛithagjanas. We can see our teachers as representing truly awakened beings, but as ordinary human children, we do not have the capacity to know whether lama so and so, Tulku x, Roshi y, Zen Master Z, and so on are really awakened people. And too often, people follow these teachers and then learn to their horror that Lama So and So hates Muslims, Roshi y will chases anything in a skirt, etc.
At best we are allied over one principle, our aspiration as Mahāyānīs to attain awakening so we can eventually be truly beneficial to others. RIght now, we try, but our power is pretty limited. In the Śikṣasamuccaya, the Buddha is cited as stating that bodhisattvas have an obligation to preserve themselves so they can benefit others. We must work for our own benefit, then, and only then, can we really benefit others. But these days, especially the Engaged crew, put the horse before the cart and try to run before they have learned to walk.
Thank you, Ācārya Malcolm Smith. You're raising crucial concerns, and I appreciate the depth of your perspective.
You're absolutely right that framing Dharma as a technology for optimization is toxic.
I want to add some important context about MBSR's origins:
Jon Kabat-Zinn created MBSR specifically to ease the suffering of people with chronic pain and stress—patients the medical system had given up on. It was designed to work within healthcare, a sector governed by the Hippocratic oath: "first, do no harm." In that context, with trained clinicians screening participants and operating under medical ethics, the adaptation made sense.
The real problems began when this version of mindfulness—already decontextualized from its wisdom and ethical roots—was adopted by business, military, and other sectors as a *technology to optimize efficiency and productivity*.
That's where your concern becomes devastatingly accurate: when mindfulness becomes a tool to help soldiers kill more effectively, or employees produce more without questioning harmful systems, we've completely perverted the Dharma.
This is my critique of "McMindfulness": not that MBSR itself is the problem, but that secular mindfulness without sila (ethics) and panna (wisdom) becomes a technique that can be weaponized for any purpose—including ones that increase suffering rather than end it.
Your point about recognizing ourselves as bālapṛthagjanas is essential. I maintain my own practice, attend yearly retreats, study with teachers in the lineage, and am clear that I'm teaching skills I'm still learning myself. The work is never done.
And you're right that we cannot know who is truly awakened. Which is why I focus on what we *can* assess: a teacher's transparency about their lineage, their ongoing practice, their ethical framework, and whether they're teaching liberation from suffering or optimization for worldly success.
Hello- thank you for this post and for laying out your position so clearly. I’m very new to formal Buddhist study, so I appreciate your patience as I try to think through this carefully. My parents come from an Indian background where Buddhist ideas were culturally present, but I’d describe myself as still exploring Buddhism rather than firmly situated within it. I also want to be upfront that I am very politically engaged and firmly on the left.
I agree with much of your historical critique. Ashoka, Sri Lankan Buddhist nationalism, Imperial Japan, and Myanmar all show how Buddhism has been mobilized to justify violence and genocide. That history is real and devastating. Where I’m struggling is with the conclusion that this means Buddhism should not engage politics at all, rather than that Buddhism has repeatedly been used wrongly within political contexts.
You (and others here) rightly point out that Engaged Buddhism often treats the Dharma as a toolkit, skips the hard work of awakening, and mistakes relative relief for liberation. I agree this is a serious danger. I also agree that Buddhist practices can be instrumentalized for any political project, as Zen was in WWII Japan, which is itself an indictment of instrumentalization, not of ethical engagement per se.
What I’m confused by is how a practicing Buddhist can recognize those historical misuses as wrong without implicitly relying on Buddhist moral reasoning to do so. If Buddhism truly has nothing to say about politics or collective harm, on what basis do we condemn genocidal “Buddhist” regimes as distortions rather than neutral outcomes? That judgment already seems value-laden.
I’m also not convinced that politics can be meaningfully separated from values. In the U.S., supporting ICE, apartheid, or genocidal state violence is not morally neutral- it expresses concrete commitments about whose lives matter. Religion, including Buddhism, inevitably shapes how people understand suffering, harm, compassion, and responsibility. So when I oppose genocide in Palestine and reject ethno-nationalist state of Israel, I don’t see myself as “hijacking” Dharma so much as acting in line with moral insights I’ve learned through it even while recognizing that political action is not liberation. I fully accept that political engagement will not free us from samsāra, and that no amount of social reform eliminates suffering. But I struggle with the implication that prioritizing awakening necessarily means withdrawing from attempts to reduce extreme harm. That risks collapsing liberation into something purely individual. I understand that you’re not advocating selfishness or indifference, but I’m not persuaded that renunciation requires such a strict boundary between ethical concern and political action. So my question is less “should Buddhism become a political ideology?” (I agree it shouldn’t) and more: how do Buddhist values meaningfully guide action in a world structured by violence and power without that guidance being labeled corruption or partisanship? And why is maintaining inclusivity within Buddhism more important than drawing moral lines around genocide and mass suffering?
Thank you for your patience with my questions. I’m still new to Buddhist studies and trying to learn whether Buddhism is a path I want to begin walking more intentionally, so your response would mean a great deal to me. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Good questions. As for this, “If Buddhism truly has nothing to say about politics or collective harm…”
Dharma does have something to say about harm (and that includes politics): the commitment connected with going for refuge to the Dharma is avihimsa, not harming sentient beings. And in Mahāyāna, to prevent harm, where we are able.
“That risks collapsing liberation into something purely individual.”
What do you mean by “liberation”?
What I mean by “liberation” (mokṣa) is becoming free of the three or five poisonous afflictions that cause us to create negative actions which result in suffering. The Buddha very clearly said:
Misdeeds cannot be cleansed with water,
suffering cannot be removed with the hand,
I cannot hand you liberation,
but I can show you a path.
So for me, this means that the liberation the buddhas taught is strictly individual liberation (pratimokṣa). For beginners, this means following any of the four fundamental vows we can, along with avoiding intoxicants. Later, when we become more skilled, the vows are less important. Intention becomes more important, at least in Mahāyāna.
We can walk the Buddhist path alongside others (mundane Sangha), but if they are not practicing the Dharma in order to free themselves from the three afflictions, liberated in a Buddhist sense, they will never be liberated. If they are not Dharma practitioners, it goes without saying that they will never know the fruit of liberation. This is not discrimination. If you do not study maths, you will never know how they work. Buddhism is the same. It is not mystical in the slightest.
In short, If one is not free of the three afflictions, one cannot be considered liberated at all. This is the difference between being an ordinary human child and an awakened adult. Me, I am still just a kid.
Mahāyāna liberation is likewise individual. There is no such a thing as collective liberation in the Dharma at all, where all sentient beings attain awakening at the same time. We may aspire for such an event, but this kind of aspiration (praṇidhana), while extremely meritorious, is recognized to be an impossibility.
“how do Buddhist values meaningfully guide action in a world structured by violence and power without that guidance being labeled corruption or partisanship?”
In a world where there is violence and partisanship we simply need to ask ourselves, “Are the intentions behind my actions a) harmful, that is, motivated, by malice, greed, or ignorance (the usual case in partisanship), or even anger or desire; and b) do I have sufficient knowledge and wisdom to ensure that my actions will have the intended beneficial effect. That’s it.
This is not a hard ethical question. This requires zero theory, critical or otherwise.
Let’s put this into a thought experiment: You are attending a rally. You go because you wish to raise your voice to support the end to the oppression of the Palestinians.
It becomes fractious and some Zionists begin to fight with some anti-Zionists. You see that the anti-Zionists are really harming one of the Zionists. You also see some Zionists are really harming one of the Anti-Zionists. Who do you protect? Who do you choose to protect in this situation, knowing that your commitment to Dharma is to a) avoid harming others and b) prevent harm to others if you can.
I am not going to give you my answer. If I did, it would not be a thought experiment.
In a different situation, you wish to support anyone who is suffering from oppression, hunger, poverty, etc., and wish to prevent harm to people. You join Core International, or go to work for the World Kitchen, etc. In this case, it is very likely you will never need to confront the situation above, you will harm no one, and work to protect even more people than you would by going to a rally (though we still need rallies!).
So my answer to your question, ‘“how do Buddhist values meaningfully guide action in a world structured by violence and power” is very simple:. It is the same answer that it has been all along—practice ahimsa, nonharming; karuṇa, compassion; and prajñā, wisdom—and you will be meaningfully guided in all that you do by the Dharma——no theory needed, no politics needed. Just Dharma.
I think you are misrepresenting Engaged Buddhism with the examples you gave. Engaged Buddhism (in its original context of the Vietnam War) was an enlightened decision to choose Buddhism over (literaly) warring political factions. It was a a call to (socially) practice Buddhism, instead of being dragged into poltical conflict.
TNH was a nationalist and his vision of Buddhism was expressly political, in his youth. We have many of his writings from the 50’s and 60’s to confirm this. His engaged Buddhism had to do, initially, with resisting French Colonialism. He rejected the violence of the communists and pursued nonviolence. Laudable, but still politics. When he was young, before his exile from Vietnam in 1966, he wished to unify, that is, create a national form of Buddhism in Vietnam, which would be the only Buddhism in Vietnam, in toto. This would be like the Tibetan Gvt. shutting all schools but the Gelugpas. Confronted with international diversity and resistance to such nationalist ideas, I am sure he dropped this aspiration, born out of the anti-colonial Buddhist reform movement that swept Southeast Asia in the 30’s and 40’s.
TNH was a nationalist? He undoubtably would have been anti-colonialist, and this would have been sparked by the French (Catholic) camapign against Buddhism (the burning of the One Pillar Pagoda in Hanoi being a key example), but a nationalist??? You know he was exiled by both North and South Vietnam for not taking sides in the war, right? He wanted to unify Buddhism in Vietnam, because there was always conflict between the (largely) Theravadin community in the South and the (largely) Mahayana community in the North of Vietnam. Currently Buddhism in Vietnam is unified under the communist government. Every temple I have visited has a room set aside (with a bust of Ho Chih Minh) for CP meetings. I think that having finished with misrepresenting Engaged Buddhism, you are now misrpresenting TNH. Anyway, if TNH was a nationalist, then why did he choose exile in France? You are not making any sense.
"This article examines Thích Nhất Hạnh’s work as editor in chief of the first national Vietnamese Buddhist magazine, Phật Giáo Việt Nam (1956–1959). It contextualizes him as both a product and a torchbearer of the Vietnamese Buddhist revival movement that began around the time of his birth and argues that, in contrast to the globalist image he cultivated after his exile, Thích Nhất Hạnh was once the most outspoken Buddhist nationalist in Vietnam. His unique contribution to Vietnamese Buddhism in the 1950s was his relentless advocacy for a national organization that could facilitate Buddhist nation-building efforts and help bring peace and democracy to Vietnam."
Unfortunately it is behind a paywall. But I read it and it is very clear. The article makes is very clear he wanted it unify all Buddhism under one national Buddhism that was the same everywhere, based on his own writings.
This man has no idea what he is talking about when he starts talking about Tibetan economics. And don't get me started on the ethnic cleansing of the Lotsampas by the Bhutanese gvt.
The article writer makes a great attempt to prove that TNH was a nationalist. They seem to prove that during the early-to-mid 50's, TNH was a nationalist. WAS a nationalist. TNH clearly changed his position over time. That aside: the major error that the article writer, and you in your stead, make is a failure to recognise and distinguish the role nationalism plays in anti-colonial struggle, as opposed to imperialism. Nationalism, in an anti-colonial context, is about establishing (a real) sense of equality between the colonised and their oporessors (that is why TNH combined his initial nationalism, with humanism). You can go talk to colonised people, or read some history, to verify this. "The Wretched of the Earth" would be a good place to start, maybe in combination with watching an uncensored version of the movie "The Battle for Algiers" (which is an awesome film in it's own right). Nationalism, in an imperialist context, is used to establish (a false) sense of superiority of one group over another. Now, as an Anarchist, I am not keen on either type, but colour blindness in our analysis does not help. It also comes across as kind of creepy that in a word full of actual turdsicles, you, as a white American, are gunning after TNH. Remember how I said that all social interaction is political?
Whatever its origins, most people following so-called “engaged Buddhism” (in America at least) are absolutely blending politics and buddhadharma. It is expressly about being more politically engaged.
I have no problem with political engagement, just don’t call it “Buddhism.” Politics is a strictly secular affair. One of the important principles of the US constitution is the Establishment Clause, which forbids the state from involvement with religious choice, and laws that forbid churches, nonprofits, and so on, from backing political candidates (but they are not banned from supporting issues).
I do not understand how one can leave Buddhism out of one's politics, if Buddhism is the foundation of one's ethics and world "view".
Here in Europe we have so many Christian Democratic Parties. The President of the USA swears his oath on the Bible. USA is totally controlled by a political sect, APAC and Israel, the Hindus rule India... etc. etc.... why should Buddhism... which is the "best" ethical system (in my humble opinion), leave itself out of politics? The Dalai Lama has been a politician all his life. The previous King of Bhutan formulated the policy of Gross National Happiness explicitly based of Buddhism. BR. Ambedkar inspired hundreds of thousands of Dalits to convert to Buddhism, as a reaction to caste oppresion. And the Dalai Lama went and received teachings from Buddhadasa, and was very impressed by Maos ideas when he met him and was willing to reform Tibet based on socialist ideas, before the Chinese takeover. He states this clearly in his autobiography.
HH Dalai Lama himself identified the merging of Dharma with politics as the main reason Tibet collapsed. He completely accepts the need to keep religion separate from politics. I also now have pointed out several times that one’s Buddhist values of nonviolence and compassion can inform one’s political choices without the need to formalize these values into another Buddhist brand. “Engaged “Buddhism” is now just another marketing term. There are many people in the world (billions) whom one will lose immediately at the word “socialism.” So it is best not to,link this word with “Buddhism.” There is also trend amongst the “Engaged” set to criticize liberalism, which is foolish, because the reason Buddhism is even successful in the west to the extent that it is,,is due to the values of tolerance, freedom speech, free press, and so on, permitted in liberal, capitalist societies. If you have not read Milanovic’s Capitalism Alone, you should, not because he is advocating capitalism, but because there is no other economic system in the world, anywhere, anymore, and he explains why, without defending this state of affairs. He is also one of the leading experts on trade liberalization and global,inequality.
Buddhism is a social/cultural construct, as such it cannot avoid being political. Engaged Buddhism looks at utilising Mahayana Bodhisattva teachings as part of that social engagement. I fail to see how this is a problem. Actually, it closes the door on the far-right manipulation of Buddhism that we have seen across Buddhist nations. For example: The first Bodhisattva Paramita is generosity. So if I set up a Buddhist foundation that feeds, clothes, accommodates and educates the poor, how is this contradictory to Dharma?
Did I ever imply anywhere that feeding hungry people was a bad idea or contradictory to the Dharma? Of course not.
But generally speaking, the traditional take on this is that this is a state responsibility, not a Sangha responsibility. But if there is a wealthy Buddhist group, say Tsadra or Khyentse foundation, and support social initiatives, and so on, this is fine. But minute they cross the line into more than issue advocacy in most modern countries, this becomes a legal problem. As I outline elsewhere, Engaged Buddhism has all the earmarks of a political ideology. Whose Engaged Buddhism is the correct one?
I don’t think anyone here is saying that helping people is contradictory to Dharma. I don’t think it’s honest to suggest helping people is the extent of social engagement for Engaged Buddhism, either.
That’s not exactly correct. What you cannot do is open up sidewalk soup kitchens in some places without food sanitation training and so on, and interestingly, these laws cross the gamut between progressive cities like Seattle and conservative ones like Dallas. Most of these laws are regularly struck down over freedom of speech.
Thank you for your views. They resonate with me probably because I have been brought up in similar traditional Buddhist thinking to yourself. Interesting to dialogue with Adriana di Fazio on Substack whose whole blog is devoted to engaged Buddhism, and she is now giving a year-long course on it, directly linking Dharma and politics.
The political life of Buddhists is of course influenced by our commitment to the Dharma, with its commitment to nonviolence and tolerance. My issue, as you see, is with the mixture of the fruit juice of the Dharma with spirits of political activism. Like any mixed drink, it tastes good at first, and makes the booze easier to drink, but after a while, the booze takes over, and one winds up intoxicated. That’s what I observe—these days I see so many Buddhist people here absolutely intoxicated on political rage. It’s sad.
Thank you for sharing some of this history that I wasn't aware of. You raise a critically important point. When Buddhism has been institutionalized as political ideology—used to justify power or nationalism—it has indeed led to oppression and violence. Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Japan during WWII are devastating examples.
And I want to distinguish between two very different things:
*Using Dharma to justify political power* (what you're rightly warning against) vs. *using contemplative practice to see clearly and make skillful choices in civic life*.
I'm a certified MBSR teacher who studies the Satipatthana Sutta. I served on my local town council not to impose Buddhist ideology, but to bring more collaborative, stakeholder-centered decision-making.
When we faced competing needs, my practice and Thich Nhat Hanh's teachings helped me:
- Disrupt default either-or thinking
- See interconnectedness clearly
- Hold complexity without reactivity
- Consider long-term consequences
I wasn't legislating Dharma. I was using mindfulness to be less reactive and more capable of both-and thinking rather than tribal us-vs-them mentality.
The Dharma should never be weaponized as political ideology. But contemplative practice that helps individuals see clearly, act ethically, and recognize interconnectedness? That's desperately needed in politics—not as doctrine, but as skillful means for wiser decision-making.
I thought it was interesting that even though the Buddha taught kingss and rulers about wise leadership, he prohibited his monks to discuss politics. Perhaps their role was to just hold space and teach the skills to make wise, ethical choices?
I allow that many people have found Thich Nhat Hahn's teachings invaluable in their lives. He was an admirable man.
Having said that, the conditions under which he formulated Engaged Buddhism are not the conditions we live in now. We do not live in a country with a 1000+ year history of Buddhism, trying to move past European colonialism.
I have no objection to people using Dharma to help them live better lives, just as i have no objection to people using Yoga, Christianity, Islam, and so on to live better lives.
What I am objecting to principally is the politicization of Buddhism in the west that will only lead to its corruption. It is my convicfion that Engaged Buddhism as it exists now is a politicization of Buddhism in the West. It will end in tears, that's what I predict. But people like belonging to movements, so it will continue.
As I outlined to Saara, in order to employ Buddhist values to inform our lives when we live in a world filled with violence and so on, we simply need to follow the principles of nonharming,. compassion, and wisdom. If we live according to these three principles, then we do not need theories or politics. When we make political decisions we will ask, who can i vote for that will cause the least harm to sentient beings? For example. What is the most compassionate and wisest choice I can make in this instance? And because we are not all-knowing, we are often disappointed in our political choices. We do not have to create a political Buddhism to abide by these principles. TNH created 14 precepts. We don't need any of those at all. We only need three principles—nonharming, compassion, and wisdom. That's it.
We are all interconnected, and that means when we have a problem with someone or tension with someone, now we are in a dualistic relation with that person. That relationship is out of balance. And we must do something and not remain passive. The problem here is that it is almost impossible to condition others, no matter how much we try. My observation about Engaged Buddhism is that there are a lot of attempts to condition others, mostly other Buddhists. There is no need to give examples, you know them already.
As for contemplative skills, that is a long conversation we should have another time
Ahhh! I now understand what you mean and agree. You're talking about politicization of Buddhism that is harmful. I would add that the way Thay practiced engaged Buddhism is very different from what I'm witnessing on substack. The basic principles of interbeing, compassion, and wisdom are missing. Can we even call it engaged Buddhism if the core tenets are missing?
I agree entirely with the thrust of what you say here, but to me the term "Engaged Buddhism" isn't attempting to shape the dharma into something it isn't. It's a phrase to affirm that it's OK to be active in the secular world. Standing passively between an ICE agent and an immigrant isn't an unskillful act.
To be quite frank, I am not that impressed by Buddhadasa or Buddhist {insert political flavor here}. I find his reading of Sutras to very selective, and I especially think he misrepresents rebirth.
Here is a live quote from HH Dalai Lama on his vision for the politics of a free Tibet. Democratic Socialism just like we have it here in Denmark where I am from. Our healthcare is 100% free and so is university even with a free grant. Seems more aligned with the Buddhist spirit of generousity and equality.
As an American, I will always be opposed to instituting religious principles as a matter of civil law.
And these days, HHDL is a free marketeer:
"It is through this process of listening and observing that I have come to put my faith in the free-market system. Although it has great potential for abuses as well, the fact that it allows for freedom and diversity of thought and religion has convinced me that it is the one we should be working from. Of course, I still believe we should strive for an adequate standard of living for all rather than the “survival of the fittest” position that the free market often follows."
Muyzenberg, Laurens Van Den. The Leader's Way: The Art of Making the Right Decisions in Our Careers, Our Companies, and the World at Large (pp. 219-220). (Function). Kindle Edition.
So, he supports free markets with strong social supports. HHDL is basically supporting capitalism.
It seems you, as most Americans, are conflating socialism with communism.
HHDL clearly states that he envisions democracy with a socialist economy, again voted in by the people, “social democracy as in some Northern European countries”. We here in Denmark don’t have reserves of natural wealth. Yet we are seventh richest country capita in the world and we have free market that is regulated for the benefit of many not just the few. As most Americans would have chosen if they had let Bernie run for office in 2016.
Nope, not at all. But Denmark has a market economy, so it is not, strictly speaking, socialist. Thus is termed by some “a coordinated market economy,” unlike the US, England, etc. which are ‘liberal’ market economies. In any case, I would not consider Denmark a socialist country. It has socialized medicine, education, and so on, but its wealth exists in the context of the broader prosperity of the EU common market. “Social democracy” is a more apt description than “Democratic socialism.’ I was a Berniecrat btw. I started the first Bernie for Prez Facebook group way back. I am not opposed to socialized medicine, etc. I lean more in the direction of libertarian municipalsm these days, after Bookchin.
Yes, Denmark is a Social Democracy. Which obviously implies a form of socialism. Which is the "middle path" between socialism and capitalism which has turned out to be the most healthy and best for all system, in my humble opinion as a dane who has lived in the USA, and dealt with the medical system, and across the world.
I think we are splitting the word "socialism". The old communist eastern block countries with planned economies and totalitarian systemes (and China) were not socialist. They were communist. Big difference.
This is why HHDL helped create the SEE Learning framework, which I’m introducing to students in my school. It’s really an incredible system, and I hope that by introducing secular ethics, compassion and self-and-other awareness to people at a young age these problems will be less and less frequent…
It is explicitly stated to not package it as Dharma or any religion (unless taught in a religious institution, where it can be adapted), and there is no mention of Dharma in the entire curriculum. However there are really interesting attention-building trainings based on Sutra style meditation, as well as nervous system regulation techniques. It’s a joy. I spoke to Tulku Dakpa about it and he knows and supports the system.
The other issue I have with “Engaged Buddhism,” to reflect Dosho’s comment, is the extent to which I observe people regularly using Buddhism to justify their rage. Secondly, the link between Engaged Buddhism and Secular Buddhism is concerning because, “If one is attached to this life, one is not a Dharma person.” Of course, there are far more suffering sentient beings in the bardo then there are here inhabiting this globe. Not one word is expressed about them, or pretas, etc.
Ācārya Malcolm Smith, I appreciate your work! As far as I can tell, Engaged Buddhism (which is often Enraged "Buddhism") is about fixing the Desire Realm - rather than freedom from or within such. This amounts to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. An essential part of dharma analysis is about the nature of suffering in the Desire Realm and therefore the importance of awakening - not to meet the perceived needs (physical, psychological, social, or political) of beings swirling in the Desire Realm - because that's hopeless. Without doing that piece of the work, Engaged Buddhists then seem to extract various Buddhadharma methods from their context and use them to make social activists more effective. Nothing wrong with that (although it cuts both ways - aspects of Zen were coopted by the fascist in Japan in WWII, for example). The problem is, as identified here, with conflating progressive social views with the Buddhadharma. This miscommunicates to people what the Buddhadharma is about and hijacks it for partisan reasons.
Thank you, Dosho. Implicit in your statements, is the way MBSR has been used to make soldiers better at killing people. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12162711/
The problem we have today is that the Dharma is framed as a technology. In my opinion this a very toxic approach to Dharma. Dharma is not a technology for optimizing our existence in the three realms, let along the desire realm.
Another issue we have in Western Dharma is that we do not recognize—especially those of us who sit on chairs and thrones, have titles and have to muster up what little wisdom we have to explain the Dharma to others—is that we are bālapṛithagjanas, ordinary human children. I wince inside when I see people make comments about taking refuge in their Dharma center compatriots, or even their so-called "transmitted teachers," lamas, roshis, tulkus and so on. They are not our proper refuge. I am not claiming we need to idolize Asian sages, since most of them, in this day and age, prove over and over again they too are bālapṛithagjanas. We can see our teachers as representing truly awakened beings, but as ordinary human children, we do not have the capacity to know whether lama so and so, Tulku x, Roshi y, Zen Master Z, and so on are really awakened people. And too often, people follow these teachers and then learn to their horror that Lama So and So hates Muslims, Roshi y will chases anything in a skirt, etc.
At best we are allied over one principle, our aspiration as Mahāyānīs to attain awakening so we can eventually be truly beneficial to others. RIght now, we try, but our power is pretty limited. In the Śikṣasamuccaya, the Buddha is cited as stating that bodhisattvas have an obligation to preserve themselves so they can benefit others. We must work for our own benefit, then, and only then, can we really benefit others. But these days, especially the Engaged crew, put the horse before the cart and try to run before they have learned to walk.
Anyway, thanks for your comment!
Thank you, Ācārya Malcolm Smith. You're raising crucial concerns, and I appreciate the depth of your perspective.
You're absolutely right that framing Dharma as a technology for optimization is toxic.
I want to add some important context about MBSR's origins:
Jon Kabat-Zinn created MBSR specifically to ease the suffering of people with chronic pain and stress—patients the medical system had given up on. It was designed to work within healthcare, a sector governed by the Hippocratic oath: "first, do no harm." In that context, with trained clinicians screening participants and operating under medical ethics, the adaptation made sense.
The real problems began when this version of mindfulness—already decontextualized from its wisdom and ethical roots—was adopted by business, military, and other sectors as a *technology to optimize efficiency and productivity*.
That's where your concern becomes devastatingly accurate: when mindfulness becomes a tool to help soldiers kill more effectively, or employees produce more without questioning harmful systems, we've completely perverted the Dharma.
This is my critique of "McMindfulness": not that MBSR itself is the problem, but that secular mindfulness without sila (ethics) and panna (wisdom) becomes a technique that can be weaponized for any purpose—including ones that increase suffering rather than end it.
Your point about recognizing ourselves as bālapṛthagjanas is essential. I maintain my own practice, attend yearly retreats, study with teachers in the lineage, and am clear that I'm teaching skills I'm still learning myself. The work is never done.
And you're right that we cannot know who is truly awakened. Which is why I focus on what we *can* assess: a teacher's transparency about their lineage, their ongoing practice, their ethical framework, and whether they're teaching liberation from suffering or optimization for worldly success.
Thank you for this important challenge.
Hi Shalini, I am sure you have read Ron Purser’s book. Thanks for your input.
Acarya, kindly define MBSR ? 🙏
Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction, originated by Jon Kabat-Zin.
Hello- thank you for this post and for laying out your position so clearly. I’m very new to formal Buddhist study, so I appreciate your patience as I try to think through this carefully. My parents come from an Indian background where Buddhist ideas were culturally present, but I’d describe myself as still exploring Buddhism rather than firmly situated within it. I also want to be upfront that I am very politically engaged and firmly on the left.
I agree with much of your historical critique. Ashoka, Sri Lankan Buddhist nationalism, Imperial Japan, and Myanmar all show how Buddhism has been mobilized to justify violence and genocide. That history is real and devastating. Where I’m struggling is with the conclusion that this means Buddhism should not engage politics at all, rather than that Buddhism has repeatedly been used wrongly within political contexts.
You (and others here) rightly point out that Engaged Buddhism often treats the Dharma as a toolkit, skips the hard work of awakening, and mistakes relative relief for liberation. I agree this is a serious danger. I also agree that Buddhist practices can be instrumentalized for any political project, as Zen was in WWII Japan, which is itself an indictment of instrumentalization, not of ethical engagement per se.
What I’m confused by is how a practicing Buddhist can recognize those historical misuses as wrong without implicitly relying on Buddhist moral reasoning to do so. If Buddhism truly has nothing to say about politics or collective harm, on what basis do we condemn genocidal “Buddhist” regimes as distortions rather than neutral outcomes? That judgment already seems value-laden.
I’m also not convinced that politics can be meaningfully separated from values. In the U.S., supporting ICE, apartheid, or genocidal state violence is not morally neutral- it expresses concrete commitments about whose lives matter. Religion, including Buddhism, inevitably shapes how people understand suffering, harm, compassion, and responsibility. So when I oppose genocide in Palestine and reject ethno-nationalist state of Israel, I don’t see myself as “hijacking” Dharma so much as acting in line with moral insights I’ve learned through it even while recognizing that political action is not liberation. I fully accept that political engagement will not free us from samsāra, and that no amount of social reform eliminates suffering. But I struggle with the implication that prioritizing awakening necessarily means withdrawing from attempts to reduce extreme harm. That risks collapsing liberation into something purely individual. I understand that you’re not advocating selfishness or indifference, but I’m not persuaded that renunciation requires such a strict boundary between ethical concern and political action. So my question is less “should Buddhism become a political ideology?” (I agree it shouldn’t) and more: how do Buddhist values meaningfully guide action in a world structured by violence and power without that guidance being labeled corruption or partisanship? And why is maintaining inclusivity within Buddhism more important than drawing moral lines around genocide and mass suffering?
Thank you for your patience with my questions. I’m still new to Buddhist studies and trying to learn whether Buddhism is a path I want to begin walking more intentionally, so your response would mean a great deal to me. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Good questions. As for this, “If Buddhism truly has nothing to say about politics or collective harm…”
Dharma does have something to say about harm (and that includes politics): the commitment connected with going for refuge to the Dharma is avihimsa, not harming sentient beings. And in Mahāyāna, to prevent harm, where we are able.
“That risks collapsing liberation into something purely individual.”
What do you mean by “liberation”?
What I mean by “liberation” (mokṣa) is becoming free of the three or five poisonous afflictions that cause us to create negative actions which result in suffering. The Buddha very clearly said:
Misdeeds cannot be cleansed with water,
suffering cannot be removed with the hand,
I cannot hand you liberation,
but I can show you a path.
So for me, this means that the liberation the buddhas taught is strictly individual liberation (pratimokṣa). For beginners, this means following any of the four fundamental vows we can, along with avoiding intoxicants. Later, when we become more skilled, the vows are less important. Intention becomes more important, at least in Mahāyāna.
We can walk the Buddhist path alongside others (mundane Sangha), but if they are not practicing the Dharma in order to free themselves from the three afflictions, liberated in a Buddhist sense, they will never be liberated. If they are not Dharma practitioners, it goes without saying that they will never know the fruit of liberation. This is not discrimination. If you do not study maths, you will never know how they work. Buddhism is the same. It is not mystical in the slightest.
In short, If one is not free of the three afflictions, one cannot be considered liberated at all. This is the difference between being an ordinary human child and an awakened adult. Me, I am still just a kid.
Mahāyāna liberation is likewise individual. There is no such a thing as collective liberation in the Dharma at all, where all sentient beings attain awakening at the same time. We may aspire for such an event, but this kind of aspiration (praṇidhana), while extremely meritorious, is recognized to be an impossibility.
“how do Buddhist values meaningfully guide action in a world structured by violence and power without that guidance being labeled corruption or partisanship?”
In a world where there is violence and partisanship we simply need to ask ourselves, “Are the intentions behind my actions a) harmful, that is, motivated, by malice, greed, or ignorance (the usual case in partisanship), or even anger or desire; and b) do I have sufficient knowledge and wisdom to ensure that my actions will have the intended beneficial effect. That’s it.
This is not a hard ethical question. This requires zero theory, critical or otherwise.
Let’s put this into a thought experiment: You are attending a rally. You go because you wish to raise your voice to support the end to the oppression of the Palestinians.
It becomes fractious and some Zionists begin to fight with some anti-Zionists. You see that the anti-Zionists are really harming one of the Zionists. You also see some Zionists are really harming one of the Anti-Zionists. Who do you protect? Who do you choose to protect in this situation, knowing that your commitment to Dharma is to a) avoid harming others and b) prevent harm to others if you can.
I am not going to give you my answer. If I did, it would not be a thought experiment.
In a different situation, you wish to support anyone who is suffering from oppression, hunger, poverty, etc., and wish to prevent harm to people. You join Core International, or go to work for the World Kitchen, etc. In this case, it is very likely you will never need to confront the situation above, you will harm no one, and work to protect even more people than you would by going to a rally (though we still need rallies!).
So my answer to your question, ‘“how do Buddhist values meaningfully guide action in a world structured by violence and power” is very simple:. It is the same answer that it has been all along—practice ahimsa, nonharming; karuṇa, compassion; and prajñā, wisdom—and you will be meaningfully guided in all that you do by the Dharma——no theory needed, no politics needed. Just Dharma.
I think you are misrepresenting Engaged Buddhism with the examples you gave. Engaged Buddhism (in its original context of the Vietnam War) was an enlightened decision to choose Buddhism over (literaly) warring political factions. It was a a call to (socially) practice Buddhism, instead of being dragged into poltical conflict.
TNH was a nationalist and his vision of Buddhism was expressly political, in his youth. We have many of his writings from the 50’s and 60’s to confirm this. His engaged Buddhism had to do, initially, with resisting French Colonialism. He rejected the violence of the communists and pursued nonviolence. Laudable, but still politics. When he was young, before his exile from Vietnam in 1966, he wished to unify, that is, create a national form of Buddhism in Vietnam, which would be the only Buddhism in Vietnam, in toto. This would be like the Tibetan Gvt. shutting all schools but the Gelugpas. Confronted with international diversity and resistance to such nationalist ideas, I am sure he dropped this aspiration, born out of the anti-colonial Buddhist reform movement that swept Southeast Asia in the 30’s and 40’s.
TNH was a nationalist? He undoubtably would have been anti-colonialist, and this would have been sparked by the French (Catholic) camapign against Buddhism (the burning of the One Pillar Pagoda in Hanoi being a key example), but a nationalist??? You know he was exiled by both North and South Vietnam for not taking sides in the war, right? He wanted to unify Buddhism in Vietnam, because there was always conflict between the (largely) Theravadin community in the South and the (largely) Mahayana community in the North of Vietnam. Currently Buddhism in Vietnam is unified under the communist government. Every temple I have visited has a room set aside (with a bust of Ho Chih Minh) for CP meetings. I think that having finished with misrepresenting Engaged Buddhism, you are now misrpresenting TNH. Anyway, if TNH was a nationalist, then why did he choose exile in France? You are not making any sense.
In Thich Nh.it Hc;tnh's own words, he used his position as editor of PGVN
"to raise awareness about humanist and nationalist Buddhism."52 Indeed,
during the years PGVN was in circulation, he was the single most outspoken
proponent of a centralized, national Buddhist organization in Vietnam.
Believing national Buddhism would pave the way to peace and democracy,
he used his position as editor in chief to publish extensively on why
Buddhism was the right ideological foundation for Vietnam
On Buddhism, Democracy, and Nationalism
Thich Nh.it Hc;tnh's writing for PGVN shows he was a fervent nationalist
who engaged with questions of modern nation building through the lens of
Buddhism. He proclaimed that "the most concrete and perfect form of
societal organization is the nation." 54 Like others across the decolonizing
world, Thich Nh.it Hc;tnh believed national independence was a necessary
step toward modernization, development, and prosperity.55 In PGVN, he
upheld Buddhism as a religion uniquely suited for democratic nations in
general and the Vietnamese nation in particular.
And:
Like other Vietnamese nationalists, Thich Nhit H~nh felt the need to
address the historical and cultural entanglement of Vietnam and China.
Specifically, he sought to differentiate Vietnamese Buddhism from Chinese
Buddhism by showing that the former had its own distinct history and
doctrine. Ht PSPDFKit l these unique aspects of Vietnamese Buddhism in
a series called "Toward National Buddhism," published in PGVN from
March to June 1957, starting with reexamining the historical patriarchs who
had brought Buddhism to Vietnam. Many Vietnamese temples in the twentieth
century maintained an altar for Bodhidharma, the monk credited with
bringing Zen Buddhism to China in the sixth century CE. Thich Nhit H~nh
proposed that instead of honoring Bodhidharma, Vietnamese should recognize
a different Buddhist ancestor, Vinitaruci [Ty-Ni Da-Lu'.u-Chi].75 This
was a new idea that had not been proposed by earlier Vietnamese Buddhist
reformers. While Bodhidharma went to China from India and propagated
Buddhism there, Thich Nhfrt H~nh explained, Vinitaruci continued south
through China to bring Buddhism to Vietnam. Rather than worshiping the
Chinese Buddhist patriarchs, he wrote, "We must worship the ancestors of
Vietnamese Buddhism to maintain a sense of our 1,500 years of history."76
https://online.ucpress.edu/jvs/article-abstract/19/1/9/200078/Toward-National-Buddhism-Thich-Nh-t-H-nh-on?redirectedFrom=fulltext
"This article examines Thích Nhất Hạnh’s work as editor in chief of the first national Vietnamese Buddhist magazine, Phật Giáo Việt Nam (1956–1959). It contextualizes him as both a product and a torchbearer of the Vietnamese Buddhist revival movement that began around the time of his birth and argues that, in contrast to the globalist image he cultivated after his exile, Thích Nhất Hạnh was once the most outspoken Buddhist nationalist in Vietnam. His unique contribution to Vietnamese Buddhism in the 1950s was his relentless advocacy for a national organization that could facilitate Buddhist nation-building efforts and help bring peace and democracy to Vietnam."
Unfortunately it is behind a paywall. But I read it and it is very clear. The article makes is very clear he wanted it unify all Buddhism under one national Buddhism that was the same everywhere, based on his own writings.
I have found a free version. I will read it and come back to this discussion.
Great send to me.
BTW, I am not talking about TNH. I am talking about. But I am talking about articles like this one:
https://www.inebnetwork.org/buddhist-economic/
This man has no idea what he is talking about when he starts talking about Tibetan economics. And don't get me started on the ethnic cleansing of the Lotsampas by the Bhutanese gvt.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/21/us-deports-bhutanese-refugee-stateless-limbo
https://usvietnam.uoregon.edu/en/toward-national-buddhism-thich-nhat-hanh-on-buddhist-nationalism-and-modernity-in-the-journal-phat-giao-viet-nam-1956-1959-part-1/ https://usvietnam.uoregon.edu/en/toward-national-buddhism-thich-nhat-hanh-on-buddhist-nationalism-and-modernity-in-the-journal-phat-giao-viet-nam-1956-1959-part-2/
TNH was a nationalist. A very strident one.
The article writer makes a great attempt to prove that TNH was a nationalist. They seem to prove that during the early-to-mid 50's, TNH was a nationalist. WAS a nationalist. TNH clearly changed his position over time. That aside: the major error that the article writer, and you in your stead, make is a failure to recognise and distinguish the role nationalism plays in anti-colonial struggle, as opposed to imperialism. Nationalism, in an anti-colonial context, is about establishing (a real) sense of equality between the colonised and their oporessors (that is why TNH combined his initial nationalism, with humanism). You can go talk to colonised people, or read some history, to verify this. "The Wretched of the Earth" would be a good place to start, maybe in combination with watching an uncensored version of the movie "The Battle for Algiers" (which is an awesome film in it's own right). Nationalism, in an imperialist context, is used to establish (a false) sense of superiority of one group over another. Now, as an Anarchist, I am not keen on either type, but colour blindness in our analysis does not help. It also comes across as kind of creepy that in a word full of actual turdsicles, you, as a white American, are gunning after TNH. Remember how I said that all social interaction is political?
Hi Greg, I am not going after THN. I am pointing out that the “engaged” part of Engaged Buddhism is unnecessary.
Whatever its origins, most people following so-called “engaged Buddhism” (in America at least) are absolutely blending politics and buddhadharma. It is expressly about being more politically engaged.
I have no problem with political engagement, just don’t call it “Buddhism.” Politics is a strictly secular affair. One of the important principles of the US constitution is the Establishment Clause, which forbids the state from involvement with religious choice, and laws that forbid churches, nonprofits, and so on, from backing political candidates (but they are not banned from supporting issues).
I do not understand how one can leave Buddhism out of one's politics, if Buddhism is the foundation of one's ethics and world "view".
Here in Europe we have so many Christian Democratic Parties. The President of the USA swears his oath on the Bible. USA is totally controlled by a political sect, APAC and Israel, the Hindus rule India... etc. etc.... why should Buddhism... which is the "best" ethical system (in my humble opinion), leave itself out of politics? The Dalai Lama has been a politician all his life. The previous King of Bhutan formulated the policy of Gross National Happiness explicitly based of Buddhism. BR. Ambedkar inspired hundreds of thousands of Dalits to convert to Buddhism, as a reaction to caste oppresion. And the Dalai Lama went and received teachings from Buddhadasa, and was very impressed by Maos ideas when he met him and was willing to reform Tibet based on socialist ideas, before the Chinese takeover. He states this clearly in his autobiography.
HH Dalai Lama himself identified the merging of Dharma with politics as the main reason Tibet collapsed. He completely accepts the need to keep religion separate from politics. I also now have pointed out several times that one’s Buddhist values of nonviolence and compassion can inform one’s political choices without the need to formalize these values into another Buddhist brand. “Engaged “Buddhism” is now just another marketing term. There are many people in the world (billions) whom one will lose immediately at the word “socialism.” So it is best not to,link this word with “Buddhism.” There is also trend amongst the “Engaged” set to criticize liberalism, which is foolish, because the reason Buddhism is even successful in the west to the extent that it is,,is due to the values of tolerance, freedom speech, free press, and so on, permitted in liberal, capitalist societies. If you have not read Milanovic’s Capitalism Alone, you should, not because he is advocating capitalism, but because there is no other economic system in the world, anywhere, anymore, and he explains why, without defending this state of affairs. He is also one of the leading experts on trade liberalization and global,inequality.
I suppose I should have specified at the end of my comment “as a Buddhist.”
It’s still a thing, we just need a new Supreme Court to strengthen it.
Buddhism is a social/cultural construct, as such it cannot avoid being political. Engaged Buddhism looks at utilising Mahayana Bodhisattva teachings as part of that social engagement. I fail to see how this is a problem. Actually, it closes the door on the far-right manipulation of Buddhism that we have seen across Buddhist nations. For example: The first Bodhisattva Paramita is generosity. So if I set up a Buddhist foundation that feeds, clothes, accommodates and educates the poor, how is this contradictory to Dharma?
Did I ever imply anywhere that feeding hungry people was a bad idea or contradictory to the Dharma? Of course not.
But generally speaking, the traditional take on this is that this is a state responsibility, not a Sangha responsibility. But if there is a wealthy Buddhist group, say Tsadra or Khyentse foundation, and support social initiatives, and so on, this is fine. But minute they cross the line into more than issue advocacy in most modern countries, this becomes a legal problem. As I outline elsewhere, Engaged Buddhism has all the earmarks of a political ideology. Whose Engaged Buddhism is the correct one?
"Whose Engaged Buddhism is the correct one?" That's an easy one! The one that aligns closest with the Dharma.
Therefor, we don’t it. We just need the Dharma.
According to that logic, we don't need any type of Buddhism.
I don’t think anyone here is saying that helping people is contradictory to Dharma. I don’t think it’s honest to suggest helping people is the extent of social engagement for Engaged Buddhism, either.
All social engagement is political. For example: feeding the homeless is illegal in over 26 major U$ cities right now.
“All social engagement is political” suffers from the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
What??? How?
That’s not exactly correct. What you cannot do is open up sidewalk soup kitchens in some places without food sanitation training and so on, and interestingly, these laws cross the gamut between progressive cities like Seattle and conservative ones like Dallas. Most of these laws are regularly struck down over freedom of speech.
Word.
Thank you for your views. They resonate with me probably because I have been brought up in similar traditional Buddhist thinking to yourself. Interesting to dialogue with Adriana di Fazio on Substack whose whole blog is devoted to engaged Buddhism, and she is now giving a year-long course on it, directly linking Dharma and politics.
The political life of Buddhists is of course influenced by our commitment to the Dharma, with its commitment to nonviolence and tolerance. My issue, as you see, is with the mixture of the fruit juice of the Dharma with spirits of political activism. Like any mixed drink, it tastes good at first, and makes the booze easier to drink, but after a while, the booze takes over, and one winds up intoxicated. That’s what I observe—these days I see so many Buddhist people here absolutely intoxicated on political rage. It’s sad.
Thank you for sharing some of this history that I wasn't aware of. You raise a critically important point. When Buddhism has been institutionalized as political ideology—used to justify power or nationalism—it has indeed led to oppression and violence. Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Japan during WWII are devastating examples.
And I want to distinguish between two very different things:
*Using Dharma to justify political power* (what you're rightly warning against) vs. *using contemplative practice to see clearly and make skillful choices in civic life*.
I'm a certified MBSR teacher who studies the Satipatthana Sutta. I served on my local town council not to impose Buddhist ideology, but to bring more collaborative, stakeholder-centered decision-making.
When we faced competing needs, my practice and Thich Nhat Hanh's teachings helped me:
- Disrupt default either-or thinking
- See interconnectedness clearly
- Hold complexity without reactivity
- Consider long-term consequences
I wasn't legislating Dharma. I was using mindfulness to be less reactive and more capable of both-and thinking rather than tribal us-vs-them mentality.
The Dharma should never be weaponized as political ideology. But contemplative practice that helps individuals see clearly, act ethically, and recognize interconnectedness? That's desperately needed in politics—not as doctrine, but as skillful means for wiser decision-making.
I thought it was interesting that even though the Buddha taught kingss and rulers about wise leadership, he prohibited his monks to discuss politics. Perhaps their role was to just hold space and teach the skills to make wise, ethical choices?
Hi Shalini
I allow that many people have found Thich Nhat Hahn's teachings invaluable in their lives. He was an admirable man.
Having said that, the conditions under which he formulated Engaged Buddhism are not the conditions we live in now. We do not live in a country with a 1000+ year history of Buddhism, trying to move past European colonialism.
I have no objection to people using Dharma to help them live better lives, just as i have no objection to people using Yoga, Christianity, Islam, and so on to live better lives.
What I am objecting to principally is the politicization of Buddhism in the west that will only lead to its corruption. It is my convicfion that Engaged Buddhism as it exists now is a politicization of Buddhism in the West. It will end in tears, that's what I predict. But people like belonging to movements, so it will continue.
As I outlined to Saara, in order to employ Buddhist values to inform our lives when we live in a world filled with violence and so on, we simply need to follow the principles of nonharming,. compassion, and wisdom. If we live according to these three principles, then we do not need theories or politics. When we make political decisions we will ask, who can i vote for that will cause the least harm to sentient beings? For example. What is the most compassionate and wisest choice I can make in this instance? And because we are not all-knowing, we are often disappointed in our political choices. We do not have to create a political Buddhism to abide by these principles. TNH created 14 precepts. We don't need any of those at all. We only need three principles—nonharming, compassion, and wisdom. That's it.
We are all interconnected, and that means when we have a problem with someone or tension with someone, now we are in a dualistic relation with that person. That relationship is out of balance. And we must do something and not remain passive. The problem here is that it is almost impossible to condition others, no matter how much we try. My observation about Engaged Buddhism is that there are a lot of attempts to condition others, mostly other Buddhists. There is no need to give examples, you know them already.
As for contemplative skills, that is a long conversation we should have another time
Ahhh! I now understand what you mean and agree. You're talking about politicization of Buddhism that is harmful. I would add that the way Thay practiced engaged Buddhism is very different from what I'm witnessing on substack. The basic principles of interbeing, compassion, and wisdom are missing. Can we even call it engaged Buddhism if the core tenets are missing?
I agree entirely with the thrust of what you say here, but to me the term "Engaged Buddhism" isn't attempting to shape the dharma into something it isn't. It's a phrase to affirm that it's OK to be active in the secular world. Standing passively between an ICE agent and an immigrant isn't an unskillful act.
I beg to differ. Wrote a long comment that disappeared due to substack cookie policy :(
I will rewrite it. In the meantime Check out the Dhammic Socialism of Buddhadasa... and HH Dalai Lama:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_socialism
Buddhadasa's manifest on Dhammic Socialism: https://www.suanmokkh.org/books/83
I nice reading of the book:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jux0PFEjkoc&list=PLaa0WsyAWrohQRU2-Yw3q8v_Ycsqj6vfs&index=1
To be quite frank, I am not that impressed by Buddhadasa or Buddhist {insert political flavor here}. I find his reading of Sutras to very selective, and I especially think he misrepresents rebirth.
Here is a live quote from HH Dalai Lama on his vision for the politics of a free Tibet. Democratic Socialism just like we have it here in Denmark where I am from. Our healthcare is 100% free and so is university even with a free grant. Seems more aligned with the Buddhist spirit of generousity and equality.
https://youtu.be/DhvlnC-oKEw?si=SOhECf0ZMbaSK3Z8
As an American, I will always be opposed to instituting religious principles as a matter of civil law.
And these days, HHDL is a free marketeer:
"It is through this process of listening and observing that I have come to put my faith in the free-market system. Although it has great potential for abuses as well, the fact that it allows for freedom and diversity of thought and religion has convinced me that it is the one we should be working from. Of course, I still believe we should strive for an adequate standard of living for all rather than the “survival of the fittest” position that the free market often follows."
Muyzenberg, Laurens Van Den. The Leader's Way: The Art of Making the Right Decisions in Our Careers, Our Companies, and the World at Large (pp. 219-220). (Function). Kindle Edition.
So, he supports free markets with strong social supports. HHDL is basically supporting capitalism.
It seems you, as most Americans, are conflating socialism with communism.
HHDL clearly states that he envisions democracy with a socialist economy, again voted in by the people, “social democracy as in some Northern European countries”. We here in Denmark don’t have reserves of natural wealth. Yet we are seventh richest country capita in the world and we have free market that is regulated for the benefit of many not just the few. As most Americans would have chosen if they had let Bernie run for office in 2016.
Please do not use ChatGPT to reply. I will always delete such replies without comment. Thanks.
Understandably.
Nope, not at all. But Denmark has a market economy, so it is not, strictly speaking, socialist. Thus is termed by some “a coordinated market economy,” unlike the US, England, etc. which are ‘liberal’ market economies. In any case, I would not consider Denmark a socialist country. It has socialized medicine, education, and so on, but its wealth exists in the context of the broader prosperity of the EU common market. “Social democracy” is a more apt description than “Democratic socialism.’ I was a Berniecrat btw. I started the first Bernie for Prez Facebook group way back. I am not opposed to socialized medicine, etc. I lean more in the direction of libertarian municipalsm these days, after Bookchin.
Yes, Denmark is a Social Democracy. Which obviously implies a form of socialism. Which is the "middle path" between socialism and capitalism which has turned out to be the most healthy and best for all system, in my humble opinion as a dane who has lived in the USA, and dealt with the medical system, and across the world.
I think we are splitting the word "socialism". The old communist eastern block countries with planned economies and totalitarian systemes (and China) were not socialist. They were communist. Big difference.
This is why HHDL helped create the SEE Learning framework, which I’m introducing to students in my school. It’s really an incredible system, and I hope that by introducing secular ethics, compassion and self-and-other awareness to people at a young age these problems will be less and less frequent…
Please provide a link. Thanks!
https://101.seelearning.emory.edu/ here you go :)
Yup, this is all great. It is not packaged as Dharma.
It is explicitly stated to not package it as Dharma or any religion (unless taught in a religious institution, where it can be adapted), and there is no mention of Dharma in the entire curriculum. However there are really interesting attention-building trainings based on Sutra style meditation, as well as nervous system regulation techniques. It’s a joy. I spoke to Tulku Dakpa about it and he knows and supports the system.
None really.