Engaged Buddhism: New and Improved!(?)

By Thomas Freeman Yarnall
Religion Department
Columbia University
ty37@columbia.edu

Introduction
Overview of the Traditionists
　　The essence of Buddhism
　　Historically ancient origins
　　Disengagement as a Western misperception
Overview of the Modernists
　　Traditional Buddhism has not been socially engaged—Only latent implications
　　The modern world faces unprecedented socio-political problems
　　Modern Western socio-political theory presents unique and unprecedented solutions —It must not be “read back” into Buddhism —“Historical reconstruction” must be avoided
　　Modern Western socio-political theory can be used to activate Buddhism’s latent potential to create a new amalgam: Western/Buddhist social engagement
　　Summary of the modernists’ views
Methodological Issues
　　Orientalist emphases and isolates—Constructed dualities
　　The unavowed colonial stance: Recognition, appropriation, and distancing
　　Modern Western assumptions: New is improved; “Ours” is better than “theirs”; Actions speak louder than words
Analysis of the Modernists’ Arguments
　　Joseph Kitagawa—Buddhism and Social Shange
　　Ken Jones—The Social Face of Buddhism
　　Christopher Queen, et al.—Engaged Buddhism in Asia (1996) and the West (2000)
Conclusions
　　The Queen challenge
　　“Gimme distance”
　　Continuity or discontinuity? Ruegg on the use of “source-alien terminology”
　　Choices, choices
Notes
Select Bibliography

A note on the format of quoted material:

To assist the reader in navigating through the many quoted passages in this essay, I have frequently added underlining (and occasionally bolding) to key phrases (all italics are in the originals). After reading a given passage completely the first time, the reader may choose to focus on the emphasized text when referring back to a passage to more quickly locate a particular quote or to more readily recall the salient points of the passage.

A note on the short path through this essay:

Acknowledging that this essay is significantly longer than others submitted to this JBE conference, I make the following suggestion to the reader pressed for time. Read the Introduction, then skim or skip the two Overview sections (about one-quarter of this essay). Read the “Summary of the Modernists’ Views” at the end of the “Overview of the Modernists” section. Then read “Methodological Issues” which develops some important theoretical and methodological tools ? this can also be read quickly. Finally, focus on “Analysis of the Modernists’ Arguments” and “Conclusions” (the latter half of this essay) which contain my main observations and suggestions.

Introduction

In recent decades a movement of “engaged Buddhists” has begun to sweep the globe. This movement is comprised of a wide range of individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds. Inspired by Buddhist values, they are united by a common drive to lessen the suffering of the world, in particular by “engaging” (as opposed to renouncing) the various social, political, economic, etc. institutions, structures, and systems in society. Such engagement can take many different forms (for example, voting, lobbying, peaceful protest, civil disobedience, and so forth), but it is always aimed at actively challenging and changing those institutions, etc. that are perceived as perpetuating suffering through various forms of oppression, injustice, and the like.

The term “engaged Buddhism” appears originally to have been coined by Thich Nhat Hanh in 1963, and the expanded term, “socially engaged Buddhism,” emerged during the 1980s.(1) However, apart from the usage of these relatively new labels, scholars are divided as to when, where, and how a politically or socially “engaged” Buddhism actually first began.

One group of scholars maintains that Buddhists have never accepted a dualistic split between “spiritual” and “social” domains. To engage in the spiritual life necessarily includes (though it cannot be reduced to) social engagement. Thus, for them, since the time of Śākyamuni, the Buddhadharma has always had a more-or-less fully articulated socio-political dimension in addition to its (supposedly “other-worldly”) spiritual/soteriological dimension. Modern forms of Buddhism (“engaged Buddhism” or otherwise) are essentially contiguous with traditional forms in spite of any superficially apparent differences. Due to this emphasis upon continuity with Buddhism’s traditional past, I will refer to members of this group as traditionists.(2)