-
14. The Clarity in the Anger
- University of California Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
The Clarity in the Anger When dualistic worldviews prevail, Buddhist political thinking and acting become very difficult, if not impossible. Fundamentally, Buddhism discourages “us and them” analyses as much as it discourages evaluating complex situations as “black and white” dichotomies. Buddhism claims that all beings are equal in the sense that they share the same basic nature, whether they are friends or enemies. Sharing the same basic nature is more important than status as friend or enemy, which is impermanent in any case. Though duality and the difference between friends and enemies, between those who are right and those who are wrong, can feel very real, Buddhist analytical meditation always shows that such feelings, though temporarily real, are ultimately illusory . Acting upon them leads to grief, regret, and suffering. By contrast, politics, at least as frequently practiced, easily divides the world, the country, the neighborhood, or the dharma center into those who are right and those who are wrong. Common political practice also encourages passionate belief that one’s own cause is just and good, and that following the views of the other side would bring disaster. Decisive choice is required, we are told. Therefore, many involved in politics who try to befriend those on both sides of a conflict experience the same fate as that of Thich Nhat Hahn in Viet Nam. Both sides regard them as disloyal enemies. “If you are not for us, then you are against us,” a common current political slogan, is the epitome of dualistic thinking. Such dualism is antithetical to Buddhist ways of viewing reality. 235 chapter 14 Gross_Ch14 10/17/08 16:29 Page 235 As a result, many Western Buddhists are deeply suspicious of “causes,” of being involved too much in politics, or of having seemingly political issues, such as justice and peace, be discussed at dharma centers . (The engaged Buddhist movement is a notable exception, but its overall impact on Western Buddhism is somewhat limited.) Asian and historical forms of Buddhism are often perceived as deeply apolitical and without significant social involvement by many Westerners, both scholars and practitioners. This perception may not be accurate, but that question cannot be discussed in this context. The widespread Buddhist suspicion of “causes” has always been a difficult issue for me. I was a feminist before I became a Buddhist and have never been convinced that Buddhists’ reluctance to take its feminist critics seriously is appropriate. While I have learned much about the perils and pitfalls of involvement in a cause such as feminism through my Buddhist practice, I also have learned that continuing involvement in a cause can teach one much about the dharma. What I have learned and how I learned it is the subject of this chapter. Early in my life as a Buddhist practitioner, I was repeatedly told that concern with feminism and gender issues was not in accord with Buddhist dharma. I was told that involvement in a political cause inevitably involves attachment, while Buddhism and enlightenment are about detachment. I wasn’t the only practitioner to receive this advice, and it is a long-held position in dharma debates. On many occasions, I have heard newer meditation students ask about their feelings of frustration and anger concerning environmental destruction, social injustice , racism, sexism, or impending war. Usually their concerns were dismissed with the slogan, “Just sit more,” said in a way to imply that if their practice were better, they would not care about such things. Sometimes they were told that because enlightenment is the only ultimate solution to people’s woes, formal practice was the only useful response to political issues and social problems, which is one traditional Buddhist position. But Buddhism, despite its deep loyalty to nonduality, also emphasizes ethics as the basis of the spiritual path and a prerequisite for the successful pursuit of meditation and wisdom. Do not ethics, by their very nature, involve the duality of discriminating right from wrong, the duality of knowing what to cultivate and what to avoid? Does not politics involve a similar duality? Political issues minimally call for discriminating between better and worse alternatives and occasionally require discriminating right from wrong in a more absolute sense. Because both 236 The Clarity in the Anger Gross_Ch14 10/17/08 16:29 Page 236 [3.230.147.225] Project MUSE (2024-03-29 11:59 GMT) politics and ethics involve discriminating between better and worse, it would be difficult not to see a connection between ethics and politics. So...