[fruttomma]

Hi Compassion Giver,

No problem - its fine for you to continue with this particular thread.

However I'm not too keen on anyone suggesting that there's something wrong with this site because its not focused on political and social activism .

Its also a good idea to try to understand and begin to develop compassion in ourselves, rather than look outwards and criticise western Buddhists as generally being somehow inadequate in their practice.

with kind wishes

Aloka

[Lolita Palmer]

If I feel that Buddhism is inadequate, lacking social dimension of compassion, I will work with Christians and may become a Christian myself.

Yes. Such an urge can be common. However, as I mentioned, I think the real issue is Buddhism not having any significant institutional foundations to support a strong social dimension in the West. At least for myself, the compassion I share socially must come from within me. As I mentioned, if I seek to do any social work of any significance, I generally have to do it with a Christian group.

Also, the receivers of charity are also not familiar with Buddhism, but are familiar with Christian groups. Thus there is a dual obstacle.

All the best. I will exit now and hopefully you receive more replies to this valuable topic.

[mygalinasoo]

I don't live in the USA, Compassion Giver, but I found some links in the USA and elsewhere which you might find useful on the Network of Engaged Buddhists website.


http://www.engagedbuddhists.org.uk/?page_id=422

[GenryDont]

This discussion is a bit perplexing to me.

Being socially engaged is something that individuals do. Individuals start organizations to help others and then find like minded people to work with them for that goal. Churches, Sanghas, Jewish Temples etc. can help start and work with these organizations but they are not the church/sangha/temple.

What I'm trying to say is that para-church organizations are not the church. Local Christian Churches focus on their congregations and on worship services. As part of that focus they reach out to their communities to try to reach the "un-churched".

Christianity has been around in the west for a very long time and has had the time to build infrastructures that are socially engaged. In the first few centuries after Christ the church was struggling to survive in a hostile environment and did not have any of the programs it has now. If you read the New Testament you will see that the Apostles had to write to various churches to get them to support their own people with charity. The New Testament is not like a Sutra where someone is teaching, the books are letters to churches to straighten out problems and correct doctrinal issues.

Most local Sanghas are not affluent at all. Money to support the Sangha is very tight. Not a lot of room for the local group to reach out to the community with charity as an organization. I'm not sure about this but are there many Sanghas in the US that have over 100 members?

A very small church in the US has 100 families or 300 - 400 members. Many churches have 5000 - 10,000 people in attendance every week. Also, the Church teaches tithing. Everyone should give 10% of their income to the church.

Buddhism in the west is poor even though we live in an affluent society. Other than a few celebrities, Buddhism does not attract the very rich like the large Christian churches do. Buddhism has been in the US for only a little over a century, and that is being generous. We need to give Buddhism a chance to "become" in the west. Give the western Sangha time to grow up and I believe it will exceed what the Christian Church has done. Most likely we will not see it in our life time.

[FreeOEMcheapestPHOTOSHOP]

CompassionGiver, there are many organizations here in the US that aren't really associated with churches.
St. Vincent and the Red Cross are a couple that come to mind as the bigger ones. Both of these organizations work to help people and will accept any help they can get, whether it is funding or physical help.

I also agree with Element on the point that the interaction is a personal choice, not a religious based one.
If you want to help people there are many ways to do so through these organizations or like said before working with a church group. That doesn't mean you have to change your beliefs to do so. That would be your choice. I can ralate to the posts here saying do what you can to do your best to help others.

I read a post on another forum where it was asked if you project your Buddhist beliefs upon people you meet/know.
Many of the answers there were quite good, one that stuck out was how ones actions were "out of the ordinary" to most. As in brushing away a mosquito instead of killing it. When asked why did you do that, he replied I see no use in pointless killing.
This brought the way of our understanding the Teachings out in a way that showed kindness and compassion.

Do what you are comfortable doing and you never know you may find more Buddhists involved in the same activity you are also doing than you'd think. One thing I've noticed about Buddhism is we don't try to convert people to our way of thinking/living.
We live our lives following The Nobel 8 Fold Path, the best we can, and others will see this and possibly become interested.

I hope you find the answer you seek my friend.

With Metta

[lrtoinbert]

I've always resented the statement that buddhism is not "socially engaged". I'll admit, my main interest is in tibetan buddhism from which I have understood that the highest form of compassion is the transmission of the buddha dharma (not in an evangelist way). If you stepped back and looked at things from that perspective it would make alot more sense for a portion of the populace to spend years in solitude to cultivate qualities that can be passed onto others.

When physicists do extensive research on the inner workings of the material universe few ever say "should physicists be more socially engaged, like them biologists?" By the way don't read too much into that biologist bit, I added it for some light comedy

[Qdkczrdi]

When physicists do extensive research on the inner workings of the material universe few ever say "should physicists be more socially engaged, like them biologists?"

That's a good point, nobody would expect physicists and biologists to be socially engaged just because they are physicists and biologists, their research generates benefits for society and that is enough.

By the same token should we expect religions to be socially engaged? isn't their teaching and support on how to live a better life enough of a benefit to society?

Social engagement is the job of governments, NGO's, and aid etc organistations setup for the purpose. I think the reason we think it's also the job of religion is that some Christian denominations put emphasis on social engagement, this leads us to expect all religion to do the same.

[disappointment2]

There was social injustice and conflict in the time of the Buddha. However the Buddha did something different to the people living in the society of his time. He chose to go forth as a renunciant and to meditate - and then after his enlightenment to teach both ordained and lay people how they could follow the same path .

This is a way that people can be free from greed, hatred, and delusion and live together in a harmonious society. In the long term, if practised correctly, its probably more effective than going on demonstrations.

As I've mentioned before, the Buddhists I know are doing their best to follow the teachings and quietly doing whatever they can for others in various ways and trying to lead responsible lives in the society they live in.

I don't think we need to be told what we should or shouldn't be doing in society as a collective religious group.

[Elelaytet]

Many thanks to all.

Although compassion is a common goal for all Buddhists, compassion in the form of humanitarian relief is not. It does not have to be a Buddhist goal as a religion. It is a personal choice. If we want to be socially engaged, we can work with an organization that is Christian, Engaged-Buddhist, or non-religious.

If we save a child's life, and if that child grows up to be a serial killer (or someone who causes great harm to others), what good did we do for that child and the society?

[hellenmoranov]

Kind of throwing a curve in the idea of compassion there my friend.
We as Buddhists should have compassion for all living beings. We can only do what we think is right. Helping to keep a person from being hungry, or otherwise suffering is not wrong action. We also can not control the situations that other beings live in, well for the most part.
What if instead of that child going the route you suggested, that child touched by the compassion shown to them, becomes one to help others.
We never know how our right actions can affect the outlook of a person on the world they live in.

With Metta

[kKFB1BxX]

Kind of throwing a curve in the idea of compassion there my friend.
We as Buddhists should have compassion for all living beings. We can only do what we think is right.

It sure was a curveball. Thank you for catching it.

[gennnniiikk]

Buddhism in the West is small; those attracted to Buddhism in the West often do not have great financial means, given they are not materialistic, unlike many Christians; therefore Buddhism generally does not have the institutional & financial clout to perform large scale high profile charity work

For Buddhists who want to perform charity work under a Buddhism flag, I really encourage you to look at Tzu Chi Foundation. I would say they are as large and effective as any Christians charitable organization at this point. Even thought they are trying to be non-denominational, their core is Buddha's teaching.

[TZtrDuso]

Although compassion is a common goal for all Buddhists, compassion in the form of humanitarian relief is not.

Buddha taught there are three kinds of gift:

(1) material gifts & helpful acts

(2) the gift of safety/non-violence/non-fear

(3) the gift of Dhamma giving equality

Humanitarian relief is part of the first kind of gift. For example, when the Dalai Lama visited Australia once, he donated $250,000 to World Vision. Or when there was the major SE Asian tsunami a few years ago, Lama Zopa recommended to give donations to Oxfam.

Buddha taught (somewhere), if you had your last meal & the opportunity to share it, it is best to share it.

[Terinalo]

Sounds like a political question to me. Socially engaged? You can't help being unless you are depressed or in solitude.

If you are talking charity then that's a different subject. Then again if you checked the rules of charities you would find they are mainly money making scams abusing the good nature of volunteers.

I would simply say forget fancy political wording and ask how much selfless giving and sacrifice there is around. No religion can claim more than another for it is people who live or don't live in such a way. To me religions are not very religious when it comes to organizations and selflessness and sacrifice and help.

I can look around and wonder what the churches around here actually do. Not much. This applies to the temples, the synagogues, et al. All closed off from universal love and compassion and just self serving entities.

Peace.G.

[OccabsLam]

Many thanks to all.

Although compassion is a common goal for all Buddhists, compassion in the form of humanitarian relief is not.

In a way, rise of Humanistic Buddhism addressed this perception.

Please do educate yourself. Do some research. You will be amazed at what Buddhists are doing in term of humanitarian relief. Western Buddhists are a minority in the world of Buddhists, there are a whole lot of Buddhists out there doing what they can for people in need.

If we save a child's life, and if that child grows up to be a serial killer (or someone who causes great harm to others), what good did we do for that child and the society?

Are Buddhists (we) suppose to be fortune tellers? Please be mindful, this line of thought will ultimately lead to discrimination based on nothing but you perception.

[mypharmalife]

. Socially engaged? You can't help being unless you are depressed or in solitude.

Definately. - I often just walk down the street and become socially engaged with others who are very troubled in some way and need someone who will listen to them.

Dukkha can manifest in many ways.

[johnsonjunior]

There are also a lot of prison outreach programs here in the US.

Just my thought on this subject, I do agree with some posts about many "charities" being selfish. But there are just as many that do their best to end suffering to the extent that they can. Even if it is just temporary.

And really why is it so important to be part of a "group". As Aloka said above there are chances everyday to have a positive effect on someones life. You never know what a simple smile or just a few minutes of talking to a person in a non topical discussion can do.
I've found that many elderly people have no one to talk to and just a simple "how are you today" with a few minutes of niceties brightens their day.


With Metta

[AK47rulz]

Isn't Thich nhat hanh a forerunner of Engaged Buddhism? I'm a big fan of his teachings reading a book of his at the moment.


Hey! it's my 1 year anniversary in BB I'm very glad to have found this site and to learn from others here.

Metta.

[Eviftilia]

In a way, rise of Humanistic Buddhism addressed this perception. Please do educate yourself. Do some research. You will be amazed at what Buddhists are doing in term of humanitarian relief.

I know. I was simply trying to summarize all the previous posts. It was not my personal opinion. Maybe you did'd read all the posts, but I apologize for for the confusion.

Are Buddhists (we) suppose to be fortune tellers? Please be mindful, this line of thought will ultimately lead to discrimination based on nothing but you perception.

No, we are not fortune tellers. It was just a question. Sorry if it was a wrong question to ask.

[erepsysoulptnw]

No, we are not fortune tellers. It was just a question. Sorry if it was a wrong question to ask.

I apologize if I seem harsh.