[Vulkanevsel]

I found this article in the Huffington Post:

Buddhism and Activism: How Would Sid Produce Social Change?

by Lodro Rinzler


''Many people look to Siddhartha Gautama as an example of someone who attained nirvana, a buddha. Every other week in this column we look at what it might be like if Siddhartha were on his spiritual journey today. How would he combine Buddhism and dating? How would he handle stress in the workplace? "What Would Sid Do?" is devoted to taking an honest look at what we as meditators face in the modern world.

Every other week I'll take on a new question and give some advice based on what I think Sid, a fictional Siddhartha, would do. Here Sid is not yet a buddha; he's just someone struggling to maintain an open heart on a spiritual path while facing numerous distractions along the way. Because let's face it: You and I are Sid.

This week's question comes from Sarah:
"Sometimes working toward better democracy through mainstream routes like lobbying and, uh, voting seems not only possible but exciting and empowering to me. Other times, though, I can see the appeal of splitting off from society, hopping trains, healing my friends with flower essences, and reading anti-government graphic novels late into the night with my headlamp. I exaggerate, but I am wondering -- how would Sid make social change?"

In some sense, the historical Buddha was the greatest social activist of his time. He broke away from a normative lifestyle. From there he pursued a path that took him to a point where if he were to share his wisdom with others he would be going against the cultural and political norms of the time.''


continued here:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lodro-..._b_804162.html


ANY COMMENTS?

[viiagrag]

Going through the link I agree with what here comments the author:

For me, Buddha would never embrace Marxism because (Theravada) Buddhism is about the evolution of the individual (which requires the development of personal intiative).

I agree with what Element is shearing with us. And widening his scope I can tell that Buddha would never embrace "Social Changes" because... it is about the evolution of the individual [not the society].

The practice of the Four Noble Truths are beyond social conditions and can be practiced at any social order. Social conditions can just make the practice difficult or easier but the practice do not depends on them. Or... how can meditation as a mean to teach Dhamma has been brought into a female prison system?

There is something in the suttas that make them special. They are told in a way that the image that evoke is the one where kings, households, men, women and people in general are to meet the Buddha and not otherwise, because in those there is the need for a wise advice or to have elements for reflection... never is told that the Buddha was ardent in changing people here and there giving the truth for them as is used in social activism and political discourse.

[Wrencytet]

Social Change

"Social activism", at least where I come from, is an act of agression in the sense that the activist/group seeks to force their views on others. From my readings, I doubt that the Buddha would have been a social activist.

Can any sort of lasting social change occur without a change in individuals? I think not, but I doubt that most social activist groups are concerned with gently changing individuals' perceptions/philosophy.

It isn't that I'm against social change - certainly the society Mao created left much to be desired - but I also think that the dark sides of the idea need to be brought into the open as well.

I'm sure that "Social activism" can be interpreted in a softer sense but that does not eliminate its basic meaning.

[Druspills]

"Social activism", at least where I come from, is an act of aggression in the sense that the activist/group seeks to force their views on others. From my readings, I doubt that the Buddha would have been a social activist.

I can tell about this issue. During my university years I was a devoted social activist of the left political party. What I found there? Very aggressive people with a huge anger against the others because they were told about ideal humankind; manipulative political leaders; blindness people imposing their views looking to "demolish the system"; followers looking to have social advantages in their lives and many more things like that that only adds to humankind madness... I didn't like to work through anger and aggression.

Can any sort of lasting social change occur without a change in individuals? I think not, but I doubt that most social activist groups are concerned with gently changing individuals' perceptions/philosophy.

Well not all is lost in promoting social changes so to behave as a better society. After the sad experience in social activism I joined a research group working in the field of Human Ecology developing Participatory Systems. They are softcore systems to promote the needed changes without any kind of idealism, out of anger and hate about "the others" and out of the need of corrupted political leaders and their corrupted followers. People learn how to work together with everybody and everybody is represented in the process. Leadership is situational and it is given through the process. This systems are working well in a small scale but they are getting momentum and can be integrated. Good experiences are given mostly in underdeveloped countries.

But this are Participatory Systems, not Buddhism (understood as the teachings of the historical Buddha).

[Tam04xa]

so to behave as a better society

I hope, for the sake of my children and future generations, that you are right that such a society will come to be.

[voodoosdv]

I hope, for the sake of my children and future generations, that you are right that such a society will come to be.

I hope too. Mexico is through a very sad process of social breakdown but this has given the needed contrast to see that Participatory Systems are working well. They have some features that are likely to guarantee a promising future, at least over the old approach of social change: they can not be hijacked by a leaders and followers because they do not follow that dysfunctional logic of that old "social activism" view; they do not embrace any sort of idealism because they are rooted in what people is and the resources people have at hand in the present moment; they evolve through a complex transformational learning system where the goals evolve while they fit the need of everybody; they are not easily prompt to corruption because everybody participates under equal conditions; they are not guided by a personal view and they are not imposed; the process is about to "see", to discuss and to decide in agreement. Everybody counts but that do not means that everybody is equal; differences are significant for the process. People learn that there is no need to see "the other" as the responsible of our misfortunes so there are no real enemies to fight against.