"there is a growing trend amongst Buddhist leftist literati who insist that we integrate this or that political conviction with the Dharma." - It's like the same kind of Western habit that drove Christians to kill each other during the reformation. Proselytization doesn't seem to end well.
I might point out that Luther was not proselytizing. He was a translator who took advantage of the social media of his day. What he posted was a freedom to information act. In German for Germans. It was about the state of corruption in the church and its use of Latin. And it was the physical mechanism of the printing press that allowed its distribution. Not wanderers with begging bowls.
And as you point out, and as these things tend to do, it all went sideways from there. It was not in the classic definition proselytizing.
Right on. Additionally, I would say that politicizing dharma teachings send the message that people who don't agree with the politics presented are not welcome. Turning new people—anyone— away from the Triple Gems is not right. This, however, comes up for me a lot in terms of how I express myself as an individual in public, i.e. on social media. My gurus, past and present, all Tibetan, do not use social media personally. But, for various reasons, I do. And I do feel I need to use my words to protect human beings from harm. I cannot be silent in the face of rising fascism. This doesn't come from a political doctrine that I adhere to, but from my practice of basic Buddhist ethics and awareness of karma, such as expressed in the Karmavibangha. I don't really see it as political, but others may.
Buddhism recognises two truths: relative and ultimate. Politics belongs to the realm of relative TRUTH. Concurrently, we talk about the freedoms and advantages and of a precious human birth (you posted recently about this). These include being able to follow the teachings (ie not being restricted access to the teachings), being free to believe, being free to travel to attend teachings, not being enslaved, etc. They also include having the necessary conditions to practice Dharma: material (not horribly impoverished), intellectually (being able to study, ie being educated/literate), etc. These are all VERY political considerations and are generally found only under specific social-economic-political regimes. So, although I generally agree with what you are saying, at the same time I think that Buddhism cannot be divorced from politics. Is it possible to be a National Socialist and practice Dharma? At a theoretical level, yes, if you only practice for your own well-being. But as a Mahayana practitioner?
These considerations may indeed be political, but our fortune to have such conditions is a function of karma, correct? If those are our main concern, then liberal democracy is arguably the best system for Dharma practitioners to live under in this day and age, despite its deficits in many areas. I think it is impossible to be a Mahāyāna practitioner who supports an openly genocidal regime, like Israel, Russia, and so on. I allow that our commitments to the Dharma informs our political choices, but I do not think that Buddhism and politics should be combined. Why? I think Buddhism loses in the bargain.
Maybe a (socially) liberal form of democratic socialism? Liberal democracy tends to skew nastily when combined with capitalism. I think when Buddhism and politics inform each other, that it is a dialectical process, which (if applied intelligently) allows both to come out better. Don't forget that Buddhism is a relative phenomenon anyway, unlike Dharma. ;-)
In the article I use "buddhist" to refer to people, and once to reefer to teachings. Then there is the use of the term "Dharma." There are all kind of Buddhists and Buddhism, but there is only one Dharma. Even with this distinction, I still would not Buddhism and politics to be mixed. It has not worked out well in the countries where they are mixed.
Buddhism is a religious/philosophical phenomenon. As such, being a social/cultural expression, it is political whether one likes it or not, wherever and whenever it appears. You cannot separate Buddhism from politics, but you can attempt to give it a political hue which is in line with the actual teachings. Using it to justify a genocide (in Sri Lanka), a money grabbing monarchy (in Thailand), etc. is not in line with Dharma. We cannot separate Buddhism from politics, but we can try and purposefully associate it with (more) compassionate political ideologies.
Buddhists are political, of course. And I already assented to the notion that the Dharma should inform the political choices we make. But our mundane political,choices should be kept distinct from the Dharma. Why? Because politics involves the three poisons on steroids. Just look at how universally awful Dharma center politics are. Look at how politics corrupts sanghas. The history of Buddhism is full of such examples.
"there is a growing trend amongst Buddhist leftist literati who insist that we integrate this or that political conviction with the Dharma." - It's like the same kind of Western habit that drove Christians to kill each other during the reformation. Proselytization doesn't seem to end well.
I might point out that Luther was not proselytizing. He was a translator who took advantage of the social media of his day. What he posted was a freedom to information act. In German for Germans. It was about the state of corruption in the church and its use of Latin. And it was the physical mechanism of the printing press that allowed its distribution. Not wanderers with begging bowls.
And as you point out, and as these things tend to do, it all went sideways from there. It was not in the classic definition proselytizing.
Right on. Additionally, I would say that politicizing dharma teachings send the message that people who don't agree with the politics presented are not welcome. Turning new people—anyone— away from the Triple Gems is not right. This, however, comes up for me a lot in terms of how I express myself as an individual in public, i.e. on social media. My gurus, past and present, all Tibetan, do not use social media personally. But, for various reasons, I do. And I do feel I need to use my words to protect human beings from harm. I cannot be silent in the face of rising fascism. This doesn't come from a political doctrine that I adhere to, but from my practice of basic Buddhist ethics and awareness of karma, such as expressed in the Karmavibangha. I don't really see it as political, but others may.
Buddhism recognises two truths: relative and ultimate. Politics belongs to the realm of relative TRUTH. Concurrently, we talk about the freedoms and advantages and of a precious human birth (you posted recently about this). These include being able to follow the teachings (ie not being restricted access to the teachings), being free to believe, being free to travel to attend teachings, not being enslaved, etc. They also include having the necessary conditions to practice Dharma: material (not horribly impoverished), intellectually (being able to study, ie being educated/literate), etc. These are all VERY political considerations and are generally found only under specific social-economic-political regimes. So, although I generally agree with what you are saying, at the same time I think that Buddhism cannot be divorced from politics. Is it possible to be a National Socialist and practice Dharma? At a theoretical level, yes, if you only practice for your own well-being. But as a Mahayana practitioner?
These considerations may indeed be political, but our fortune to have such conditions is a function of karma, correct? If those are our main concern, then liberal democracy is arguably the best system for Dharma practitioners to live under in this day and age, despite its deficits in many areas. I think it is impossible to be a Mahāyāna practitioner who supports an openly genocidal regime, like Israel, Russia, and so on. I allow that our commitments to the Dharma informs our political choices, but I do not think that Buddhism and politics should be combined. Why? I think Buddhism loses in the bargain.
Maybe a (socially) liberal form of democratic socialism? Liberal democracy tends to skew nastily when combined with capitalism. I think when Buddhism and politics inform each other, that it is a dialectical process, which (if applied intelligently) allows both to come out better. Don't forget that Buddhism is a relative phenomenon anyway, unlike Dharma. ;-)
In the article I use "buddhist" to refer to people, and once to reefer to teachings. Then there is the use of the term "Dharma." There are all kind of Buddhists and Buddhism, but there is only one Dharma. Even with this distinction, I still would not Buddhism and politics to be mixed. It has not worked out well in the countries where they are mixed.
Buddhism is a religious/philosophical phenomenon. As such, being a social/cultural expression, it is political whether one likes it or not, wherever and whenever it appears. You cannot separate Buddhism from politics, but you can attempt to give it a political hue which is in line with the actual teachings. Using it to justify a genocide (in Sri Lanka), a money grabbing monarchy (in Thailand), etc. is not in line with Dharma. We cannot separate Buddhism from politics, but we can try and purposefully associate it with (more) compassionate political ideologies.
Buddhists are political, of course. And I already assented to the notion that the Dharma should inform the political choices we make. But our mundane political,choices should be kept distinct from the Dharma. Why? Because politics involves the three poisons on steroids. Just look at how universally awful Dharma center politics are. Look at how politics corrupts sanghas. The history of Buddhism is full of such examples.
Kathak
Lhundrup
Thukje
How that manifests in the "everyday" world will vary widely with each of us.