Individually and collectively, the members of this group are interested in developing “engaged Buddhist social theory.” Jones offers a definition:

an explication of social, economic, and political processes and their ecological implications, derived from a Buddhist diagnosis of the existential human condition.(17)

For example, engaged Buddhist social theory (even in outline form) holds that the traditional “three poisons”—greed, anger, and ignorance—do not apply only to individuals; these behavior patterns must also be analyzed and combatted as large-scale social and economic forces.

Of course, the same person can represent different stances at different times, depending on the intended audience or other conditions. Jeffrey Hopkins published two books in 1999: the personal reflections noted above and Emptiness in the Mind-Only School of Buddhism, a learned treatise of more than 500 pages. Robert Thurman's translations of sutras and other classic texts are replete with annotation and other scholarly apparatus; his most recent book, Inner Revolution, has just two footnotes. Joanna Macy's Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory is published by an academic press; her Coming Back to Life: Practices to Reconnect Our Lives, Our World is published by an alternative press specializing in social change.

Robert Aitken, commenting on the shift from Asian Buddhist monasticism to lay practice in the West, has said, “The monastery walls are down.”(18) In some respects, Aitken's remark also pertains to Buddhist studies in the academy. Fresh voices are entering the discussion, cherished suppositions are being called into question, and brand-new subfields are proliferating. How will engaged Buddhist studies affect mainstream Buddhist studies? At this point such speculation may be premature. But if the question can be taken seriously, the landscape has already changed.

Issues to Explore

In recent years, Buddhists in Asia and the West have tackled a daunting array of issues. As this book demonstrates, the roster of concerns currently includes war resistance, liberation movements, human rights, the environment, education, commerce, race, prison systems, ethnicity, and gender. Any issue of engaged Buddhism is also, by definition, a concordant subject for engaged Buddhist studies.

Opposition to War as a Characteristic Issue

Consider, as an example, resistance to war. The primacy of this theme is evident in the first four chapters, grouped under the heading Engaged Buddhism as Peacemaking. The first Buddhist precept, “Do not kill,” seems to lead directly to pacifism, and many engaged Buddhists indeed regard themselves as pacifists. Prominent Buddhist leaders have become exemplars of nonviolence. The Dalai Lama refuses to fight with the Chinese. Thich Nhat Hanh unambiguously declares, “I am determined not to kill, not to let others kill, and not to condone any act of killing in the world, in my thinking, and in my way of life.” The influential Japanese monk Nichidatsu Fujii (1885–1985) made absolute pacifism the touchstone of his thinking and acting. Claude Thomas, Vietnam veteran and a Peacemaker priest since 1995, says, “I'm convinced that we do not need to fight. It is an insane proposition that because we are human beings it is natural for us to fight and kill. Through mindfulness there are ways to resolve conflicts without violence.”(19) Members of the Order of Interbeing accordingly seek to end war “without taking sides.”

The Kosovo crisis in the spring of 1999 posed painful questions for all concerned. The NATO decision to bomb Serbia was intended to halt well-documented genocidal acts that had culminated in thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of refugees. Yet this “humanitarian intervention” itself caused additional civilian casualties and dramatically increased the flood of refugees. Western Buddhists, in common with other concerned citizens of NATO countries, felt compelled to seek answers to the crisis. Alan Senauke spoke for many when he said, “I wonder right at this moment how to respond to American bombs in Serbia and Kosovo when I really have no practical alternative in mind.”(20) Paula Green, whose grassroots reconciliation work in the former Yugoslavia gave her first-hand knowledge of the region, held firmly to a pacifist position. She wrote:

Our current crisis represents American and NATO faith in military might, an unimaginative and misplaced method of responding to conflict. There have been warnings for years that Kosovo would explode…. Violence and revenge in the Balkans have never achieved peace. In fact we should question the premise of using violence to achieve peace anywhere. We failed to make alliances with the sizable, well-organized movement for nonviolent social change in Kosovo.(21)