[derty]

Seeing the immensity of the world’s anguish has raised in my mind questions about the future prospects for Buddhism in the West. I’ve been struck by how seldom the theme of global suffering—the palpable suffering of real human beings—is thematically explored in the Buddhist journals and teachings with which I am acquainted. BB seems to be living in his own world. Buddhists in general are very well aware of global suffering & examining the real causes.

It seems to me that we Western Buddhists tend to dwell in a cognitive space that defines the first noble truth largely against the background of our middle-class lifestyles: as the gnawing of discontent; the ennui of over-satiation; the pain of unfulfilling relationships; or, with a bow to Buddhist theory, as bondage to the round of rebirths. Very ironical statement from a monk, who is basically a "beggar", supported by the middle-class, i.e., by those who work, and who is a chief dogmatist of the superstition of the bondage of round of rebirths. BB has spent much of his life translating Buddha's words then, composing his own idiosyncratic footnotes which try to explain most teachings as pertaining to his cherished & loved superstition about the round of rebirths.

Too often, I feel, our focus on these aspects of dukkha has made us oblivious to the vast, catastrophic suffering that daily overwhelms three-fourths of the world’s population. Non-sense.

An exception to this tendency may be found with the Engaged Buddhist movement. I believe this is a face of Buddhism that has great promise, but from my superficial readings in this area I am struck by two things. First, while some Engaged Buddhists seek fresh perspectives from the dharma, for many Buddhism simply provides spiritual practices to use while simultaneously espousing socio-political causes not much different from those of the mainstream Left. what is exactly wrong with socio-political causes not much different from those of the mainstream Left? did not Buddha teach social & government responsibility in a similar manner to the principles of the Left?

Second, Engaged Buddhism still remains tangential to the hard core of Western interest in Buddhism, which is the dharma as a path to inner peace and self-realization. Yes. Buddha taught inner peace & realisation were the priority. Inner peace prevents many of the actual causes of the disadvantaged peoples, i.e., support of materialism & the corporate & political structures that main the world's status quo.

If Buddhism in the West becomes solely a means to pursue personal spiritual growth, I am apprehensive that it may evolve in a one-sided way and thus fulfill only half its potential. Attracting the affluent and the educated, it will provide a congenial home for the intellectual and cultural elite, but it will risk turning the quest for enlightenment into an private journey that, in the face of the immense suffering which daily hounds countless human lives, can present only a resigned quietism. Sounds very similar to BB's own life, that of a university educated scholar who became immersed in superstition & translated scriptures to make merit for his own salvation.

By way of contrast, take Christian Aid and World Vision. Yes. I personally sponsor three children thru World Vision. I actually work for a living, in a middle-class way, so I can actually provide financial support to World Vision. And what is BB doing, apart from talking about it?

These are not missionary movements aimed at proselytizing but relief organizations that provide relief and development aid while also tackling the causes of poverty and injustice. I doubt they are tackling the causes of poverty & injustice, which are political, which often have their roots in the divisions & power vacuums left behind by Western colonialism, which a perpetuated by the Western political & industrial military elites, which support political division in many nations, support puppet governments in many nation and which sell weapons to keep these nations in perpetual civil war & poverty. BB assertion here is close to absurd.

Similarly, the American Jewish World Service doesn’t aspire to convert people to Judaism but to express Judaism’s commitment to social justice by alleviating “poverty, hunger, and disease among the people of the developing world regardless of race, religion, or nationality.” Why doesn’t Buddhism have anything like that? Charity is a cure rather than prevention. A ounce of prevention is worth an pound of cure. Historically, Buddhist societies have not had the sociopolitical issues of the Christian world, as mentioned in my first post on this thread. Worse, to fall back on the American Jewish example, of a sub-culture that are probably the world's most economically elite, is rather non-sequitur.

I have criticized BB often on this forum and must continue to do so. When is he ever going to comprehend the message of the Buddhas, which empowers the individual to find inner peace, inner contentment & right action, so the causes of social injustice are not perpetuated.