READINGS
Ken Jones:
Buddhism is essentially pragmatic. Buddhism is, in one sense, something that one does. It is a guide to the transformation of individual experience. In the traditional Buddhist teaching, [people] set out with a karmic inheritance of established volitions, derived from their early life, from earlier lives, and certainly from their social environment, a part of their karmic inheritance. Nevertheless, the starting point is the individual experiencing of life, here and now.
Our train of argument began with the anxiety, the profound sense of unease felt by [people] in their naked experience of life in the world when not masked by busyness, objectives, diversions, and other confirmations and distractions. Buddhism teaches that all suffering, whether it be anxiety, or more explicitly karmic, brought-upon-ourselves suffering, or "external" suffering, accidental and inevitable through war, disease, old age, and so onCarise ultimately from the deluded belief in a substantial and enduring self. In that case, what need has the individual Buddhist for concern for other individuals, let alone for social action, since the prime task is to work on oneself in order to dissolve this delusion? Can one only then help others?
The answer to these questions is both yes and no. This does not mean halfway between yes and no. It means yes and no. It means that the answer to these fundamental questions of Buddhist social action cannot ultimately be logical and rational. For the Buddhist Middle Way is not the middle between two extremes, but the Middle Way which transcends the two extremes in a "higher" unity.[1]
Walpola Rahula:
It may be agreeable for certain people to live a retired life in a quiet place away from noise and disturbance. But it is certainly more praiseworthy and courageous to practice Buddhism living among your fellow beings, helping them and being of service to them. It may perhaps be useful in some cases for a person to live in retirement for a time in order to improve his or her mind and character, as a preliminary moral, spiritual and intellectual training, to be strong enough to come out later and help others. But if someone lives an entire life in solitude, thinking only of their own happiness and salvation, without caring for their fellow beings, this surely is not in keeping with the Buddha's teaching which is based on love, compassion and service to others.
Those who think that Buddhism is interested only in lofty ideals, high moral and philosophical thought, and that it ignores the social and economic welfare of people, are wrong. The Buddha was interested in the happiness of the people. To him happiness was not possible without leading a pure life based on moral and spiritual principles. But he knew that leading such a life was hard in unfavorable material and social conditions.[2]
The Friday before last, Philomena and I went out to see Cider House Rules. The movie was the best pro-choice statement I've seen and I recommend you go see it. We saw an early showing that permitted us to consider doing something else before we'd have to get home to relieve the baby sitter. On occasion we stop for a glass of wine or beer to talk about the movie. Philomena recommended we stop at Starbucks in the Stuyvesant Plaza. I don't drink coffee so coffee houses don't interest me much. Philomena doesn't like bars because they are loud and often smoky. We discussed our options and I agreed to try Starbucks.
The atmosphere was very pleasant and warm on that cold evening. Philomena ordered a coffee drink and I ordered a large herb tea. We found a table in the corner and settled in. There was a fellow playing guitar and he had his amplifier turned up a little too loud. The other patrons sipping on their hot drinks looked like the kind of folks you'd find in a Unitarian Universalist congregation. I felt at home and glad Philomena had suggested this coffee shop as a place to sit and talk.
I find we need to be out of the house to sit and talk. Philomena and I have our routines we enjoy at home that are hard to break. Philomena enjoys sitting in front of the television set and reading novels. I enjoy sitting in front of the computer cruising the World Wide Web. Since these activities happen at separate ends of our apartment, it is easy for us to disconnect. Without these distractions, when we sit together in a restaurant, bar or coffee shop, we talk. We both appreciate this conversational time together as one of the foundations of the strength of our marriage.
Philomena asked me about my sermon that was coming up titled, "Responsible Consumption." Had I been thinking about the subject as it applies to my life. Indeed I had, I told her, and was thinking about it right now.
Being a former engineer, I'm interested in manufacturing and packaging techniques. The tea I was given was served with a cute little strip of thinly corrugated cardboard around the cup. Back in the bad old days, coffee and tea were served in Styrofoam cups. The problem with Styrofoam is that it doesn't decompose for hundreds of years, thus becoming a solid waste pollutant. Styrofoam cups discarded at sea continue to float for an extended length of time endangering sea life that may try to eat them.
Starbucks, being a socially responsible company headquartered in Ecotopia, the capital city of which is either Portland or Seattle, switched from Styrofoam to paper cups as many other vendors have done. The problem though with paper cups is that they get very hot. So Starbucks had come up with this clever cup holder. Printed on the cup holder proudly was just what percent, 35% if I remember correctly, composition came from recycled, post-consumer waste. Also, printed on the cup holder was the injunction for use with a single cup only. As I took the lid off my tea, I noticed I'd been given two cups.
I told Philomena about this and my concern that I'd been given two cups when it wasn't necessary. The server had irresponsibly disregarded the rather strong injunction printed on the cup holder. I asked Philomena whether I should go up to the server and confront him about his wastefulness. Philomena didn't like the idea saying I was being judgmental and over-reactive. Perhaps the server just made a mistake and pulled out two cups instead of one. I doubted this was the case because pouring hot beverages is what the server does all day long and would know how many cups he was using by the weight and feel of them.
"So," I asked Philomena, "should I just remain silent about this?"
"Yes." She said.
We are confronted every day with choices of whether to speak up or remain silent. We hear an off-color or offensive joke. We see someone violate accepted social habits or conventions. A bigger kid picks on a smaller one. A store clerk is rude or disrespectful. Someone litters or is wasteful in their use of material objects. The pedestrian, bicyclist or driver in front of us makes a dangerous movement. In each moment we have the choice of speaking or remaining silent. What ethic will we call on to govern our actions?
One of the sources I rely on for guidance is the ethics of socially engaged Buddhism. Thinking of Buddhism and social engagement may seem contradictory to some. The image of people chanting in front of a shrine to Buddha or a room full of Zen meditators sitting silently on their cushions staring at a blank wall is what most of us think of when we think of the practice of Buddhism. We don't usually think of Buddhists out in the streets in their robes protesting social injustice. That image is changing thankfully with places like the Peace Pagodas, teachers like Thich Nhat Hanh and actions like the Interfaith Pilgrimage of the Middle Passage hosted by Japanese monks and nuns of the Nipponzan Myohoji order. This pilgrimage retraced the journey of slavery through the Eastern and Southern United States, to the Caribbean, then to Brazil, across the ocean to West Africa and down to South Africa. The journey began at the end of May 1998. They were able to complete their odyssey, June 12, 1999. I saw them pass through Newark, Delaware in the summer of 1998.
The prejudice that Buddhism is passive comes, in part, from the history of Buddhist orders in Asia. Often, Buddhist leaders and sects have been cooperative with the rulers in power to support their agenda as the Zen monks did with the Japanese war machine. Many Cha'an Buddhist temples in China are secluded and separate from the masses. Often in the Indic Buddhist texts, the Buddha seems to be encouraging the monks to disengage with the world, retreat from it to a secluded place and practice meditation.
Buddhist philosophy is very critical of civilization and its power to delude the mind. Involvement in the marketplace, the responsibilities of raising a family, and community and social involvement can be very disturbing and distracting to the mind. The environment conducive to extended practice of meditation is rarely found in the midst of the busy lives householders lead and have led for thousands of years. Most of us are caught on the wheel of birth, life, sickness, old age and death that spins forever.
Being on the wheel isn't so bad except that the ride is at times uncomfortable and often is full of suffering as the wheel turns and grinds us into the ground under its weight. While we live in unmatched luxury compared with the uncounted generations of Homo Sapiens that extend back before the dawn of time, we still experience chronic dissatisfaction in our lives. The Buddha's insight was seeing that we participate in creating that experience of chronic dissatisfaction through our mental activity. His profound realization was that this experience of chronic dissatisfaction can come to an end. The goal of the eight fold middle path advocated by the Buddha was providing the skillful means for us to wake up and see how we participate in the creation of our own experience of misery.
Directly experiencing the self-created mental component of chronic dissatisfaction is the goal of meditation practice. When we rightfully and skillfully witness the universal human mental processes, we begin to see that we have some level of choice in how we respond to the pleasant and unpleasant stimulations that come our way or spontaneously arise in the mind. When someone steps on our toes, we have a choice of how to respond. Socking him or her in the nose is only one of the choices. Silence is another, sometimes wiser choice.
Reading the Buddhist texts and studying Buddhist ethics, there is a strong value placed on self restraint. Practitioners are urged to guard the "sense doors" to prevent reactivity. They should watch their words carefully and be controlled and calm, endeavoring to always act consciously.[3] The detached mind can better see things as they are without becoming swept up in the passion of the moment. It is the penetrating insights into the nature of existence through the careful witness of moment to moment experience that leads to Nibbana, liberation or more accurately, the cessation of chronic dissatisfaction (also known in Pali as Dukkha).
What seems to be missing from this understanding of reality is the tremendous misery that is not of our own making. The injustice of slavery and human degradation, the cruelty of human thoughtlessness and behavior, the institutional and systemic oppression of racial, ethnic and sexual minorities, the differently abled, the underprivileged and the poor, and the unfairness of fickle fate creates conditions that cause tremendous woe in our world. While the Buddha believed that no one was prevented from working toward liberation by any of these conditions, they certainly can work against the process of awakening and bind one tighter to the wheel.
One of the critically important results of Buddhist meditation practice is the realization that one's own experience of suffering is universal. The direct experience of our common human condition opens one's heart to others. The desire to help others and relieve their suffering comes from direct personal experience rather than the understanding and acceptance of intellectual social theory. The practice of meditation, rather than isolating the practitioner, cultivates this open heartedness which becomes the base for social action. It is the current experience of kinship rather than a utopian future vision that motivates the Buddhist to reach out and help.
Beyond describing the conducive conditions for practicing the middle path, the Buddha wasn't a social idealist. He didn't spend much energy describing the way the society ought to be organized. There are detailed rules of how the monks practicing together should behave as part of their spiritual community but this isn't terribly useful for building a pluralistic society. The Buddha's primary concern was helping people understand and practice the middle path to gain liberation from suffering.
We Westerners come to Buddhism with a different mind set. Our dominant Christian culture has the idea of social improvement through social evolution. Modern theology, inspired by Schleiermacher and others, charges today's Christian with helping to create the reign of heaven on earth through social improvement. Whether we are secular or religious, the idea of social progress is ingrained in our thinking, particularly here in America.
While Westerners are attracted to using meditation to find release from unhappiness, they also see its potential for social revolution that is compatible with modern thought. Johanna Macy is an example of one such Western Buddhist. She sees in Buddhism a theory of universal interconnectedness, mutual conditioning, or radical interdependence of all phenomena. One aspect of that universal interconnectedness is the relationship of all beings in terms of the modern theory of evolution. By dismantling the fiction of a separate, continuous ego-self, one is led to identification with and responsibility for the whole world, humans as well as all other beings.
One would have a hard time finding support for this Western view of Buddhism in the ancient texts yet Macy's understanding is hardly incompatible with the traditional teachings. The Buddha lived at a time when there was no threat to the ecosphere as there is today. Why would he have talked about a problem that didn't exist? This is of course the problem with all ancient scriptures. While they may have great and wonderful things to teach us, they are locked into a particular time, place, and cultural context. Jesus has a hard time giving us much direct guidance on the ethics of gene splicing. It takes modern interpreters to extend their wisdom and understanding.
We Unitarian Universalists have the privilege of drawing from the wisdom and understanding of all the religious traditions. The Buddhist insights into human psychology rival if not exceed what we inherit from Freud and Jung in Western psychology. The key to wise social action that comes from Buddhism is skills and techniques to understand where the motivation comes to act, and guidance in cultivating effective, non-harming states of mind from which to act.
So what happened at Starbucks? I asked Philomena why she thought I should keep silent and she pointed out my choice of words, "to confront" the server. My words sounded hostile and potentially harming. I was appreciative of her noticing my choice of language for if I had acted from that mind set, I might have gotten a defensive response that was counter-productive to my desire to see the server become less wasteful.
As we were getting ready to leave, I took my cups up to the server at the counter and asked him why he had given me two cups instead of one. He seemed to anticipate my question and pointed out that the water for tea is hotter than the coffee and thus needed two cups. He poured some hot water into two more cups to make his point and gave them to me to hold. I wasn't convinced. The next time I visit a Starbucks, I intend to be sure I only get one cup for my tea so I can test the effectiveness of the corrugated cardboard cup holder to see if it works with only one cup and share the results with the server. I don't know if my actions made any difference, but I feel like I discharged my felt responsibility to respond to the situation.
Each of us must make up our own minds about whether to speak or remain silent when we witness that which offends our sense of justice, fairness and stewardship of society and the planet. The teaching and techniques of Buddhism can be of aid to us in getting clear in our minds what motivates our desire to do either. Only a few people speaking up can make a differenceCand sometimes, it is better to just let the moment go. It is developing that inner clarity of our moral sense and feeling of kinship with all beings that will help us recognize the right action when the moment arises.
[1] Jones, Ken, "Buddhism and Social Action",
The Path of Compassion: Writings on Socially Engaged Buddhism, edited by
Fred Eppsteiner, 1988, pp 68-9
[2] Rahula, Walpola, "Teachings of the Buddha",
The Path of Compassion, pp103-4
[3] Tachibana, S., The Ethics of Buddhism,
Curzon Press (Barnes & Noble), 1926, p 101-2