A few entries ago, maybe two or three, I wrote about Buddhism and its relevence to social/political movements. Obviously I think there is a relationship; I wrote a whole essay about it on my website. So what was my point?
My disagreement is with three notions, that Buddhism is essentially: (i) not a religion, (ii) not metaphysical, and (iii) is a movement for social change. Well, the first and second notions are false to anyone with religious knowledge. But the third point is more subtle.
It's not that Buddhism can't inspire social change; it's that they their ultimate objectives are different. I guess this matters, on the practical level, in terms of emphasis and the time spent on certain activities. Even within Buddhism there has been debates - how much time should we focus on developing compassion for others, versus meditating to attain wisdom (realizing the ultimate unreality of our individual self)? How do we integrate the two? How do act towards others and their suffering if we understand that the self is an illusion anyways? Simply, how do we act in the world that reflects Buddhism's particular insights?
Not easy questions, to be sure, and they're still being debated today. The social movements that I have in mind, generally, do not share a singular religious quest, though many different religious people, principly inspired by their own traditions, are involved in these causes (including Buddhism). One does not need to be Buddhist, for example, to recognize the inherent danger of a world full of nuclear weapons. Nor does one have to be Christian, Pagan, Jew, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, or from any other religion or non-religion. It's something that should be obvious to the majority of the world population.
Despite the loftier debates within Buddhism, one thing that is clear to me are certain moral imperatives shared by all sects, and broadly by other religions. For the lay-person this is known as the "Five Precepts," (Pancasila in Pali) which are the minimum standard of ethics. If you cannot actively intervene in stopping any of the negative events in the world, at least don't partipate in them and cause more damage. Non-harm, basically.
I wrote towards the end of the blog entry that meditation, as a practical instrument of social change, is effective in as much as it changes one's outlook, and thus influences that person's behavior. I further stated that moral codes have the same function. In light of psychological research Lawrence Kolhberg and his findings on the developmental stages of moral reasoning, which I still think is still sound, even with feminist reworking, I must revise those statements.
I think moral codes are important, but work on a different level of consciousness. There is a reason spiritual paths start with behavioral restraint. In Kholberg's stages I and II, respectively, these are the preconventional and conventional levels. First, one does the "right thing" because of egoic reasons (avoiding punishment and gaining a reward). Then, one is motivated by an understanding that rules are necessary for the functioning and well-being of society.
Meditation is supposed to eventually bring one to a postconventional level of understanding. Insight occurs after there is already some psychological/behavioral stability. This is why psychotherapy, for the most part, is not the same as Buddhism, because the former helps one maintain a healthy ego, while the latter pushes one beyond the ego altogether. Another way of putting it is that psychotherapy allows one to be get better at an inferior mode of existance, and Buddhism allows one to get normalized at a superior mode of existence.
Once one is sufficiently healthy, bound by certain norms and mores, one can then look deeper into morality. To go beyond the conventional requires an attitude change. Laws are not always good, even when voted on democratically. They are often arbitrary, sometimes counter-productive, and can even be "immoral." To look at things relativistically means, for one, understanding the gulf b/w the written law and the spirit of the law. This is not amoralism, which is an orientation that always accomodates selfish needs, but an adherence to universal principles; universal because the principles of the good of all trumps the status quo. Ideals like non-harm should apply to all people, regardless of the society, and ultimately to all sentient beings.
Are spiritual paths even necessary? Why not just work on a just social order first, and then navel-gaze when conditions are more favorable? After all, if we get more paid vacations, guaranteed pensions, and clean and safe neighborhoods for all, then we'll have sufficient quality free time to develop ourselves inwardly without the intrusions of outer chaos. My position is that inner and outer work are both valid and necessary. Just how much is a judgment call that each must make on their own.
