The UK is experiencing political turmoil in the wake of the EU referendum and, judging by my Facebook feed, many British Buddhists are following events closely. Here are some reflections on how we can do so most effectively.
Engaging as Buddhists
When Buddhists engage with politics, I suggest that we think first of our Buddhism and only secondly of the issues. Political debate is compelling, but it’s often tribal and reactive, more concerned with winning than with truth and likely to prompt unskillful reactions such as indignation, animosity and obsessiveness. If, as Buddhists, we hold that states of mind are primary, it follows that checking the states that motivate us should be an essential element of our political engagement.
Whatever merit a particular leader may have, group tendencies are always in play. So I think we must be wary of taking our beliefs from what we hear political leaders saying or from party affiliation. We’re also led by our political identity – the thought ‘I’m a progressive (or, indeed, a conservative) sort of person’. That’s seductive because we naturally associate being that such a person with being right and virtuous.
For me, this self-critical dimension is what makes political engagement a Dharma practice. Because politics lures us into a reactive stance, it also reveals our inclination to succumb. The Dharma offers an independent standpoint from which we can question our allegiances and ask, realistically how much politics can really do for the world. In my experience, if I respond to a political event in the manner of mainstream opinion, I’m probably not seeing it from the perspective of the Dharma.
Acting from the Dharma
Next, I suggest we should realistic about what we can best contribute. This means prioritising our efforts – choosing between Dharma teaching, humanitarian work, political activism and so on. For those of us who do wish to be politically engaged, we have an opportunity to make a distinctive contribution by connecting our activity to the Dharma. Few of us are experts on the subjects of political debate, but we are Dharma practitioners.
An important influence on my personal experience in this area over the last 10 years has been contributing to Thought for the Day on BBC radio, where I’m asked to comment on the news but told that I can’t make points that are politically or religiously partisan. What remains is considering how we discuss things and the emotions and views that are involved, or else considering current events as an illustration of the nature of life as the Dharma illuminates it. These are short talks, but this experience has led me to consider where more thoroughly Buddhist responses to political affairs might start. For me this means a clear understanding of the forces that are in play, a sense of what I care about as a Buddhist, and a sense of the alternatives the Dharma can offer.
My engagement in the mindfulness movement and advocating this to the UK Parliament and Welsh Assembly has led me to explore how this can translate into the language of politics, framing questions that are not in the mainstream political lexicon. What would a more mindful and compassionate health service and criminal justice system look like? What role can the cultivation of awareness play in the education system? How can Buddhism contribute to an understanding of human wellbeing that isn’t tied to economic prosperity? How can mindfulness help policy makers keep sight of individual welfare and environmental sustainability? What does government mean if we understand that dukkha is intrinsic to the world, not a problem that can ever be fixed?
There’s no single Buddhist Political Stance
Although I think we should endeavour to bring the Dharma to politics, I have come to the conclusion that (notwithstanding the most books on Engaged Buddhism), in most areas no single political stance can definitively represent Buddhism. The Dharma has much to say about the nature of existence, the dynamics of mental states and the views that shape our perceptions. However, between that core perspective and political issues come many layers of interpretation, and in practice different Buddhists make those interpretations in different ways. We should debate these, but we must anticipate continuing differences. That’s why it’s important for Buddhist institutions to be politically non-partisan. I’m happy to see Buddhist centres encouraging social and especially environmental ethics, but even when the great majority of us feel strongly about an issue – climate change is the clearest example – I think we need to take care that this ethical activism doesn’t become collective affiliation.
Many in the Triratna Buddhist Community , like most other Buddhists in the West, coalesce around a leftwing/progressive consensus. As it happens, my own views are on the progressive left, but I well recall that in the 1980s and ‘90s many members of the Order followed Sangharakshita’s critique of the leftwing views and assumptions that he termed ‘pseudo-liberalism’, ‘pseudo-egalitarianism’ and ‘political correctness’. Sangharakshita’s political stance is by no means simplistic or partisan, but it is certainly far from any liberal consensus. I often disagree with him, but exposure to his ideas has taught me to mistrust doctrinaire and programmatic solutions, especially when they’re cloaked in a mantle of virtue.
As Buddhists we need to navigate these disagreements. Naturally, I think my ideas about politics are the right ones, and my ideas about how the Dharma can illuminate the political realm are correct. Don’t we all? Perhaps that’s understandable, but it isn’t wise.
Politics consists centrally of argument about our social priorities and their implications. If Buddhists are trying to bring awareness to politics, why is there no mention here of critical thinking and bias training? These, as I see it, involve a parallel development of awareness in the cognitive realm to the kind of work that meditation does in the aesthetic and imaginative realms. The major problems in politics are also caused by hasty judgements based on insufficient awareness of alternatives. Surely any discussion of the application Buddhist practice to politics should be giving prime place to the cultivation of these skills?
There is no left-wing/progressive consensus. At least, not where we live. And Order politics is hardly progressive or left-wing either.
Our Buddhist ethical teachings lack a political dimension. If we really believe ourselves to be the nucleus of a new society, this is always going to be a problem for us. There is no society without politics. But we don’t do politics, at least not overtly.
Politics is uncomfortable because it raises all kinds of issues about governance. Like many Buddhist organisations, our present internal system of governance is based on feudalism and patronage. It is curious how an organisation which is organised along these lines continues to attract people who are mainly left-wing.
Is it not ironic that our ethical beliefs are so tightly specified by doctrine, but when it comes to how they might apply on a societal level we just shrug and leave it up to individuals? I’d welcome some real political leadership, because as individuals we are always weak and cannot effect change in society. And other groups, whose values are very different to ours, are more than happy to fill the vacuum created by our political disengagement.
With no exceptions that I can think of, the governments of traditionally Buddhist countries are conservative and authoritarian, often in the extreme. Many are or were military dictatorships. They are economically inequitable and shockingly illiberal in their treatment of women, children, and minorities. So no help from that quarter.
Something needs to change. But that will require leadership.
Sadhu Jayaraja.
What a refreshing and beautifully written piece! It’s strange that such useful writing seems to attract so few views but this may be something to do with these comments being tucked away at the bottom of the website and thus somewhat elusive.
It’s particulaly interesting for me as somebody whose natural prejudice is towards a kind of “soft conservative” position moving among Buddhists who almost overwehelming lean towards the “progressive” Left. Whereas they will naturally privilege equality, collectivist solutions and public ownership I will much more favour positions based on individual responsibility, property rights, the rule of law, civic pride and the value of tradition and institutions of social cohesion built up over time. And yet I would heartily align myself with alll the questions Vishvapani poses in arriving as a Buddhist at “political” conclusions.
It’s not so much a question of who might be right at any one time but how much awareness we bring to our perspectives. It is tiresome to hear Buddhists make quite nasty throwaway remarks about the base motives of anyone with a “right wing” perspective. There IS a lot of groupthink and maybe part of the problem is in the education system as the fact that there might be a moral basis to conservative thought has simply not occurred to many people who instinctively take their cue from the Guardian! Thus I understand that in the state school sysytem it is virtully impossible to get a job as a teacher if you confess to conservative leanings. I remember some years ago when a Sikh woman state school teacher had the temerity to address a Conservative Party conference on the subject of educational standards. She was rapidly hounded out of her job and forced to find a job in the private sector.
I’ve noticed that Buddhists tend to re-make the historical Buddha into their own image as a kind of champion of “social justice” when I don’t see this being born out in the historiacl record at all. I think conservatism is a natural human tendency (and not dependent for its continued existence on capital C conservative organisations). So it is not surprising that most Buddhist tradtion has tended to be very conservative, and in surviving Buddhist countries a highly authoriatrian conservatism is dominant, as Jayarava notes.
However I shudder at the thought of political leadership Jayarava may be hankering after, given the tendency towards groupthink and hasty judgement remarked on in other comments. Just look at the Jeremy Corbyn phenomenon. (Though I’ll say this for JC – he is rare among politicians in that he never denigrates an opponent on the basis of demeaning their motives).
I think Robert hits the nail on the head in calling for more training in critical thinking and bias training. Jonathan Haidt’s little book The Rghteous Mind is a useful contribution here. A shame more Buddhists haven’t read it as it does at least encourage people to appreciate why other people may gravitate towards political positions different to their own – and in spite of that not be bad people!
Thanks again, Vishvapani
When Buddhists engage with politics, I suggest that we think first of our Buddhism and only secondly of the issues. Political debate is compelling, but it’s often tribal and reactive, more concerned with winning than with truth and likely to prompt unskillful reactions such as indignation, animosity and obsessiveness. If, as Buddhists, we hold that states of mind are primary, it follows that checking the states that motivate us should be an essential element of our political engagement.
Whatever merit a particular leader may have, group tendencies are always in play. So I think we must be wary of taking our beliefs from what we hear political leaders saying or from party affiliation. We’re also led by our political identity – the thought ‘I’m a progressive (or, indeed, a conservative) sort of person’. That’s seductive because we naturally associate being that such a person with being right and virtuous.
Can you explain what message or mean of this please ☺️