Introduction
Buddhism is a known religion in the
world; that is many people know of it, many are its followers and it has
reached almost anywhere in the world. It is one of the products of ancient
times that have endured over a long period of history. Much older than
Christianity and even Islam to which are the two most popular religions. It is
even in its proud history that it has the least bloodshed happenings that
occurred because of its name compared to the two.
Usually we picture Buddhism as monks
in congregations meditating in isolated places. Hermits or people that is more
likely to be detached from the world. Even in its teachings of the “no-self”
and the end of suffering is to the removal of the self and to the clinging in
this world has brought Buddhism into the question, how do they act towards the
world? Knowing that they live a life of simplicity and that they disregard any
material progress or abundance; still it poses the question that is the world
only for abandonment. Is the world only an object that must be left unclinged
unto to gain one’s own liberation? Although there is Mahayana Buddhism that
does not only look onto one’s self liberation but also of the others, but even
so, they gave primacy to the world beyond even in their charitable deeds. They
cultivate their ethics and mind but in order to transcend somewhere. Buddhism
also has to answer the question that do you treat the world as an end in itself
or as a means for self liberation? But then again, the word “world” sometimes
is all too confusing whether what could it mean. To find then the meaning of
“world” in Buddhist thought, means to find there also how will they treat the
world in correspondence? What is their world and do they just aim for something
beyond or do they treat it because it needs the help it can get rather than
making it a ticket to Nirvana or Pure Land? And in so doing to those Buddhists
who also desire to bring peace down to earth not only to themselves in a realm
of transcendence may could have looked the world in a way that they respond to
it as one that is the object of one’s responsibility. There then is this Engaged
Buddhism, to which it is Mahayanist in leanings but believes of proactive and
the same compassion that what Buddhism taught all throughout.
Though Buddhism aims to the no-self,
but since there is this indubitable an inevitably world before one’s end, how
then one sees it that he acts to it not just that it will be a means to
liberation but treating the world as if it is my responsibility to bring peace
to it. Making oneself then attached to it by taking responsibility in reforming
it or help in its development.
My World
It
is in this fathom-long carcass . . .
that, I declare, lies the world.[1]
In the heading, my world, it already
entails the idea of a self and then a self-world relationship. As “my” is used,
it is inevitable that there is a substance owning the world, and that is the
self; what then is a self? A self is an established concept in the first noble
truth, that when we say life is suffering then it must point out to the being
concerned with suffering and that is a self and then follows why that being
suffers. That being is the self, to which suffering is open to it. The self
then is composed of the 5 Skhandas (aggregates), in which these aggregates also
points out why the self is not immune to suffering. First is BODY that is the
vessel or the container of the other aggregates. Second is FEELING, that is the
tendency to be moved by any object which the body comes into contact with.
Third is PERCEPTION that is where the body meets the objects or where the
senses meet with the sense objects. Fourth is VOLITION or WILL, that is where
man is desiring or longing for the
object wherein the consequence of which is that man is pushed towards the
object craved or willed. And lastly is CONSCIOUSNESS, which is the base of all
sense activity and mental activity.
This concept of the self composed of
the 5 aggregates makes clear that a self has to relate with something because
self carries with it an aggregate called “perception”. “Self and world is
equivalent to ‘I’. This would make sense if self and world meant self and my
world, i.e. ‘I and my world of experience’.”[2] The world that is experienced or that is
perceived then comprises part of the self, because there is even “in the
Buddha’s days. . . a clear conceptual link between the ideas of self and world”.[3]
Buddhists has the word “Loki” in
which it means a being’s experienced world. It means that a being exists and
what the being experiences is a part of his being. That is the world is
undeniably linked with a being that is of a self. But then again the Buddha
only adhered the world that is physical as illusory. That this world is not
actually what people should live in. This world is the
“world-as-sensed-and-thought-about, which exists as a constructed experience
within a sentient organism”.[4]
Sense and thought belongs to the six senses category wherein the first 5 senses
are seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching and the other one is mental
formations that are then that the self has to relate with an object, or a world
since the self inevitably contacts with it.
There is also another world which
the Buddhists also coined and that is the “internal world”, it is different
from the previous that was sensed and thought of, but this internal world is a
world that is “constructed by conception and cognition”.[5]
What makes this world different from that which is thought of, is that this
internal world is the reconstruction of the perceived world outside. Hence it
is called internal because it is only a world that can exist form the within,
or in the creative constructs of the mind of the self. But as the Buddhist
prevail over the thought of no-self, the impermanence of a self thereof also
leads to an impermanence of a world, especially to the inner world.[6]
Response-ability then comes as
another thing to be tackled since there is always the existing of the self.
Though the self seen in a continuity of births and rebirths destroys the
permanence of it, but it is a solid fact that one, a self exists for a moment
in time. Since the Buddhist loves to view the existence of a self in a huge context of time, that then is
problem because when one is reborn, he carries the Karma from the past
existence and therefore the previous existence is responsible for the new one
and the one that is reborn unknowingly, without even the impossible semantics
of the before and the after, took hold of the responsibility. This continuity
is confusing and therefore one has to devote more time into reflecting of his
past life, meditating, being ascetic therefore neglecting the current situation
wherein a self is situated in a world. The self must respond to a world
accordingly therefore not to detach one’s self from it. The response-ability
must not be hindered because of one’s figurations of the past, but how to live
the present situation. The present world has to be acted upon accordingly. When
the no-self idea is focused, one begins to focus more on the transcendence
rather than the current situation
one
is in. Therefore the self has to matter in the sense to respond to a world now/
This then opens a way to a more active Buddhism, that is the Mahayana with more
extended arms for compassion, to act upon the reality that one is in.
Engaged Buddhism
The
Vietnamese word tiep means
“continuing” – continuing the way of enlightening, of being awake – and “being
in touch” with reality – the reality of the mind, “the process of our inner
life, the wellspring of understanding and compassion,” and the reality of the
world,” the wonders of life and also the suffering.” Hien means “realizing” – “transforming ourselves, manifesting the
presence of understanding and compassion rather than talking about the idea of
understanding and compassion. Hien also
means “making it here and now” – the deep understanding that the means are the
ends, that the present moment contains the future.[7]
Above mentioned is the “reality of
the world”, wherein it means of the world that is of the here and now. A world wherein
it may be conceived as a means to one’s liberation but must be taken as an end
in itself. That the world must be treated as the end in itself not to make it
as a stepping stone towards the enlightening of the self only, but as the world
that is need of our compassion and understanding. Engaged Buddhism is not
anymore concerned with the theoretical argumentations about compassion or
understanding, or even the scholarly manner of talking about it, it is then
more on the practical manner that in turn emphasizes the doing rather than the
discourse. The statement then serves as a critique to an armchair Buddhism if
there is any that concerns itself only in academics and even to isolationist
trends, since according Thich Nhat Hanh[8],
that “Buddhism is already engaged Buddhism. If it is not, it is not Buddhism”.[9]
Recalling the basics of Buddhism, it has more to do on practice than
theorizing, but the eventual
case
is that of isolation and the monastic way of life that is detached from the
society. So Thich Nhat Hanh encourages
Buddhism that the Buddha adhered to have as many arms possible to extend one’s
compassion. That there is a world out there in need of the Dharma, that we
ought also to transmit the Dharma to them by being involved in the movement of the
times. Buddhism is already engaged because of its practice leaning ideas and
where to practice such in a society. One has to be awake that there s a world
that has to be acted upon, that “socially engaged Buddhist practice includes
mindfulness practice, social service and non-partisan advocacy to reduce and
stop injustice”.[10]
Though Engaged Buddhism may sound
like an anti-isolationist concept since we are to move within a society rather
than being monastic, but cultivating also one’s self is also a necessary step
but not to the extent of focusing only to the self.
On
the international level, we need mutual trust, mutual respect, frank and
friendly discussions with sincere motivation and joint efforts to solve world
problems. All these are possible. But first we must change within ourselves.[11]
Undeniably change must begin in
one’s self but if to deny society for one’s own cultivation is no Buddhism
after all, since Buddhism is already engaged Buddhism, and then it is our task
also to transmit our cultivations to others. “Goodness is finally the most
practical, the most realistic solution.”[12]
Goodness then Is what we ought to transmit to others, though one cannot be a
transmitter again if one is not cultivated accordingly, but in the sense the
cultivation should not boil down to a Hinayanist manner, but one must be right
in himself to transmit also the right.
In
the first stage, sometimes we need isolation while pursuing our inner
development; however after you have some confidence, some strength, you must
remain with, contact, and serve society in any fields – health, education,
politics, or whatever. There are people who call themselves religious-minded,
trying to show this by dressing in a peculiar manner, maintaining a peculiar
way of life and isolating themselves from the rest of society. This is wrong. A
scripture of mind-purification says “transform your inner-viewpoint, but leave
your external appearance as it is”. This is important. Because the very purpose
of practicing the Great Vehicle is service to others, you should not isolate
yourselves from society. In order to serve, in order to help, you must remain
in society.[13]
There is the mention of transforming
the inner viewpoint, and that is the inner world mentioned earlier that which
on how one perceives the world. It is then undeniable that there is a world,
and that we have to serve it. But before so, self-cultivation is necessary. I
have then to rearrange the world to a viewpoint that then in turn makes me
serve my world. In contrast to the Hinayanist principle of liberating the self
primarily, but as mentioned being the advocates of the Great Vehicle, we have
to extend ourselves into the society, to serve it. As the Dalai Lama says in a
Tibetan Youth Congress:
Having
held this youth conference during the past few days, let us ask ourselves what
is the most essential task for the young people. The answer is: service to the
people. In order to serve the people, one must learn the difficulties and the
sufferings of the people by keeping close touch with them.[14]
We have to break the notion of the
self being the center of our care by inculcating the discipline of service to
others. This may what the Buddhist ought to mean as “no-self” or selfless,
rather than the no-self preoccupied with transcendent motives. The no-self here
must mean that one is selfless, if no one is has no selfish regard for the
self, one reaches out in help. This must what no-self must mean that it must be
of the context of where one lives in a world, rather than devoting the meaning
of it to transcendental matters.
Conclusion
The Buddhist view of transcendence
may disrupt the view of the world of the here and now. But it has to be
understood clearly that the world which one is situated is his world, that is
one has a world to act upon. The world should not be treated as a means in
order one can enter into transcendence, but treat it as an end in itself that
one has the responsibility to be socially participative. Engaged Buddhism makes
known that there are passivity in being solely isolationists, but one has to
engage in society in order to be an advocate of the greater vehicle.
[1] Peter Harvey. The Selfless Mind. Curzon Press: St. John’s Studios. 1995. P. 78.
[2] Ibid. p. 78.
[3] Ibid. p. 78.
[4] Ibid. p. 80.
[5] Ibid. p. 81.
[6] Though I cannot reconcile whether that there
is the no-self and the consequential world as not true. But every rebirth done
makes one situated in the same changing world, but I agree with the world too
as untrue when there is no-self especially to the conception of the world as an
inner world since the state of mind cannot be reborn together with a new self.
But the world is always there or is existing and it becomes untrue where the
notion of the no-self occurs. That is a contention because every new self is
situated in a world; the same changing world.
[7] Christopher Queen. Engaged Buddhism in the West. Wisdom Publications: Boston. 2000.
p.40.
[8] Thich Nhat Hanh is a Vietnamese monk
advocating Engaged Buddhism in response to the outbreaks of Historical Events
like the colonial stage of Vietnam, wars and the Communist epidemic
[9] Christopher Queen. Engaged Buddhism in the West. Wisdom Publications: Boston. 2000. P.
36.
[10] Ibid. p. 36.
[11] Ibid. p. 230.
[12] Ibid. p. 230.
[13] Ibid. p.230.
[14] Ibid. p. 223.
Comments
Post a Comment