Is Buddhism changing, and is that a corruption?
Recently I was asked:
Do you think that Tibetan Buddhism (and Buddhism) have been corrupted by Western influences? It seems like most Westerners interpret, or want to interpret, Buddhism as a religion with a much more social-activist and political bent. This is probably partly because most Westerners are pretty ignorant of Buddhism. However, as Westerner who has studied Buddhism in an academic setting but it bothers me more when even those within the tradition (like the Dalai Llama) also espouse such views, which seems to contradict the Buddhist understanding of the causal world as essentially meaningless and arbitrary. One could argue that such social action is justified by the emphasis on compassionate action in Buddhism, but that would be misinterpretation because compassion within Buddhism has meant not improving a personal economic or social position, but leading others to enlightenment.
My answer, for what it is worth, was:
I have to disagree with you, largely at least. Bringing greater social and political awareness into our lives as Buddhists seems to me a good thing. Yes, some lamas are moving in the same direction too, but I would add “I’m pleased to say”. The lama who was first important to me mocks the tulkus sitting on their high thrones (he was and is one of those, by the way) chanting about compassion but not doing anything about the disabled beggar at the gate. And as you may well realize, the “disabled beggar at the gate” is no mere metaphor in this context.
I think I know what you mean when you say “causal world as essentially meaningless and arbitrary”, but I don’t think you can use this to say that the suffering of others is not important. According to the Bodhisattva teachings, it is precisely *because* we take the suffering of others seriously that we take the long path to enlightenment seriously.
And to be blunt, I don’t think it’s true at all to say that “compassion within Buddhism has meant not improving a personal economic or social position”. That would not be *enough* for Buddhist compassion, but it would be the first step.
The first of the six liberating virtues is generosity. The first aspects of generosity is the giving of material aid – food, shelter, medicine, clothing and so on. It goes on through giving freedom from fear, which in the modern world has a strongly political aspect, and means that the Bodhisattva must do what she can to oppose, for instance, oppressive or warmongering regimes. And thirdly it includes the giving of dharma, for which the provision of education is a prerequisite.
The liberating virtues are said to have a definite order, even though they are mutually involved with one another, so it is very easy to argue that without a commitment to social and political ideals we have not properly taken the first steps on the Bodhisattva path.
Buddhism is a part of human culture, and is not static – of course, it cannot be. Some things deteriorate over time, some things improve, and my view is that the increased visibility of social and political activism in Buddhism is a positive development.
Compassion in Buddhism means wanting to do whatever we can to alleviate the suffering of others. It is that simple.
What do you think?
I agree with you, Alex. On the one hand it’s a mistake to trivialize the suffering of any sentient beings and not recognize one’s responsibility to try to relieve it. On the other it’s a mistake to believe that samsara can be truly fixed and therefore devote the majority of one’s energy to such an unending and futile task.