A Reflection on ‘Engaged Buddhism’

Thich Nhat Hanh, I believe, was the one who first came up with the term, “engaged Buddhism.” 

It means that as Buddhists, we should also be “engaged” in the problems of society and the world and do our part to ease the suffering of others.  

Buddhist history shows us a wide range of that involvement. At one extreme, during the Vietnam War, there were Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire to bring attention to the conflict and who sought to stop the war. That is an extreme example of “engaged Buddhism.”  

On the opposite side of the spectrum, you have someone like Zen Master Dogen, who, in building his temple and monastery called “Eiheiji,” intentionally built it in the mountains away from the secular world and regular society. Dogen felt that the essence of Buddhism was to awaken to enlightenment, and ultimately, that is the one thing that we can bring to the world to ease the suffering in the world of samsara.  

Even in the history of the BCA, there have been times when people have called on the BCA to take a stand on an issue or protest various injustices that occur in this country or around the world. We see this even today.  

There are others — like Dogen — who would say that our job is not to be in marches and to protest, but to share the Dharma and the teachings. That is the one thing that we can do to bring real peace and a sense of humanity to the world.  

The person who advocates for “engaged Buddhism” would argue that and say, “It is not enough to sit on your Zen cushion or to stay in the comforts of your temple while others are suffering in the world around you. You can’t just sit there. You have to do something.”  

The counterargument would be something like, “But if you yourself have not come to the heart of the Dharma, how do you know that you aren’t just bringing more ego and more ignorance to the world through your so-called ‘engaged Buddhism?’”  

Are you beginning to see the valid arguments from both perspectives and how difficult it is to choose one over the other?  

As you might have heard, one of the teachings of Buddhism is the Middle Path and that we do not go to extremes. Shakyamuni Buddha first experienced the extreme side of luxury and wealth, but he was not happy.  He then renunciated the world and went to the other extreme of asceticism and arduous practices, nearly starving himself. From that experience, he taught the Middle Path.  

One could say that this is a valid teaching for us today in regards to the challenging issue of should one be engaged as a Buddhist in social issues and injustices — or not.  

I also think that there should be room for allowing and embracing those who choose to be engaged and those who choose not to be engaged — and to have a mutual sense of acceptance and understanding. The “engaged Buddhist” does not think, “I am a better Buddhist than those individuals. They are just sitting there sitting on their hands not doing anything about all of these things that we should be standing up for.”  

At the same time, the person who focuses on the Dharma does not think, “Who do those people think they are anyway with their peace protests?  Can they say they themselves have attained any peace in their life? Who do they think they are anyway?”

I think we should be able to have the “engaged Buddhist” and the non-engaged Buddhist in our sanghas, and that it is not a choice of either or. 

There might be some who feel, “I am going to work on this social issue because I can’t just sit and do nothing. But, I am going to continue to listen to the Dharma and make sure my being engaged is not just a manifestation of my own self-centered viewpoint.”  

We should also embrace those who think, “I will continue to focus on the Dharma, but I will try to find something that I can do to share the teachings and to help ease the suffering in the world around me.”  

As we face numerous social issues, injustices and causes, I wanted to share this reflection on the challenges of “engaged Buddhism.”