Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi
the world, namely, the liberation of people from oppressive social and political conditions, which is to be pursued and realized through socially transformative action. To some degree, engaged Buddhism shares certain attitudes with Mahayana Buddhism, which depicts the advanced Bodhisattva as choosing to aid beings within the world of pain and suffering rather than to step out of samsara and realize nirvana. Nevertheless, there still seems to me a significant difference between classical Mahayana Buddhism and contemporary engaged Buddhism. Classical Mahayana sees the Bodhisattva as intent on leading others from ignorance to enlightenment, from samsara to nirvana, a mission that prioritizes transcendence. The aim may be facilitated and prepared for by “mundane” deeds motivated by compassion, such as generosity or helpful actions, but these good deeds are expedients; they are “skillful means” to lead others to the Dharma. The goal is still transcendent realization, and social engagement is a means to “cross over” to others, to lead them to this goal. Engaged Buddhism, in contrast, sees the path of compassion, of active commitment to the wellbeing of others in the secular sphere of human life, as an intrinsic good, not as a stepping-stone towards some higher good. Actions for the sake of peace, human rights, economic justice, and an end to discrimination are taken as worthy ends in themselves, not merely because they make it easier for others to practice the Dharma or because such advocacy attracts others to Buddhism. Even when social action does not particularly aim to lead others to the Dharma, it can still fit comfortably into the program of socially engaged Buddhism. Despite lines of continuity with the past history of Buddhism, it therefore seems to me that socially engaged Buddhism also involves to some degree a reorientation of priorities. By making social transformation not merely an aspiration of Dharma practice but an overriding concern, certain socially engaged Buddhists seem to be introducing a new dimension to the Dharma never entertained before, at least not on such a scale. Their innovations may well mark a commendable step forward in the ethical evolution of Buddhism. They certainly correspond with contemporary suppositions that altruistic action should be adopted on the ground that it benefits others, and not because it contributes to the fulfillment of one’s own ends, however laudable they might be. However, between classical Buddhism and certain expressions of socially engaged Buddhism a tension remains, a contest of ideals and attitudes. I can best characterize this tension with a series of questions, which are especially pertinent to myself as a Buddhist monk:
20
RELIGION EAST & WEST