toward a worldwide culture of love

I enjoyed this recent article from bell hooks, which connects Buddhism, love, and social engagement. I think that what she's talking about is what led me to become politically and socially engaged in the first place. I think in many cases, developing compassion, empathy, and love will naturally inspire one to address the suffering of others when possible, and that many of the ways love is expressed coincides with what we'd label ‘leftist’ political and social movements precisely because such movements are often motivated by love and a desire to protect and uplift others. They're less focused on 'me' and more on 'us' in the sense of all of our lives and predicaments being interconnected.

Love compels us to move away from things like greed, selfishness, and competition and towards generosity, compassion, and cooperation. That's at least why I was drawn towards social engagement and more to left-leaning politics, because that's where love and compassion directed me. A mind suffused with love, for example, will see someone struggling with injury or illness within a system that makes it difficult for them to afford and access care and be inspired to help, whether through charity or through supporting a more accessible and universal healthcare system.

That doesn't mean I think that only people who are political active or on the left end of the political spectrum are capable of love, only that I see why she connects love to the end of domination, and how that tends towards movements and ideas that we associate with the label 'leftist' today. Alternatives to capitalism. Universal healthcare. Addressing climate change. Gender equality. Black Lives Matter. Etc. Because much of that domination is rooted in fear and anger and greed. Systems and institutions and cultures have been built to protect what we have from others and to maintain positions of privilege for certain segments of the population, and love compels us to confront and end those things because of the suffering they engender—from sexism and racism to imperialism and militarism and the profit motive.

Love is also a key component of most spiritual traditions, and it suffuses their soteriology. And I'd even go so far as to say that, after studying and practicing in multiple spiritual traditions myself, a truly spiritual person who follows the underlying message of their respective faiths will necessarily be empathetic, inclusive, and ultimately, intersectional in their politics, but more importantly in their actions, as a result of the presence and development of love regardless of what their politics are. I think this can be seen from the lives and works of people of faith like bell hooks, Giro Seno'o, Dorothy Day, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Thomas Merton, Oscar Romero, Malcolm X, Thich Nhat Hanh, Gustavo Gutierrez, MLK Jr., Rachel Held Evans, and countless others. As Franciscan friar and author Richard Rohr puts it:

"If we are going to have truly prophetic people who go beyond the categories of liberal and conservative, we have to teach them some way to integrate their needed activism with a truly contemplative mind and heart. I’m convinced that once you learn how to look out at life from the contemplative eyes of the True Self, your politics and economics are going to change on their own. I don’t need to teach you what your politics should or shouldn’t be. Once you see things contemplatively, you’ll begin to seek the bias from the bottom instead of the top, you’ll be free to embrace your shadow, and you can live at peace with those who are different. From a contemplative stance, you’ll know what action is yours to do—and what is not yours to do—almost naturally."

Love moves us to act against suffering and injustice, because love motivates up to try and heal rather than harm. Love moves us to swim against the current of what she terms "dominator thinking and practice," which "relies for its maintenance on the constant production of a feeling of lack, of the need to grasp"; and that conversely, "Giving love offers us a way to end this suffering—loving ourselves, extending that love to everything beyond the self, we experience wholeness" and through that "we are healed." And that love can be expressed in many ways, not just in the realm of the political. It can be expressed in any number of daily personal interactions and small acts of kindness and generosity.

should monks, and Buddhists in general, protest social injustice or engage in politics?

A question was raised on a Buddhist forum I once frequented more regularly that I've been thinking a lot about myself recent, whether monks, and Buddhists in general, should protest social injustice or engage in politics.

This question, and the question of Buddhism and politics in general, is one of the reasons I've backed a bit away from Buddhist communities over the years. More often that not, they tend to want to remain outside of politics and keep things as PC and nonpolitical as possible, partially because much of the Dhamma is focused on internal dynamics and purification, partially because they don't want to ruffle any feathers, and partially because they think political engagement in samsara is ultimately pointless. In addition, the Buddha himself does seem to discourage monks from speaking about these things, which makes many completely distance themselves from confronting social evils, not speaking up for the oppressed, etc. My own practice, however, has lead me in the opposite direction, giving me compassion for the suffering of others and the feeling of a moral duty to address injustice when and where I can.

That said, the following is a bit of a jumbled mess, but what follows is my general approach to morality and the way I see conventional morality, Buddhist morality, and the scientific study of morality intersecting, all of which suggesting to me from a rational and pragmatic POV the existence of (or at least the need for) a shared moral responsibility—one that we're not forced to abide by, but one that would certainly be beneficial to acknowledge and attempt to live by. It ultimately ends in a form of the safe bet argument in response to those who eschew the world as something inherently bad or insubstantial, and morality as the crutch of the deluded and weak-minded masses, because I can't persuasively argue against either possibility.

From a personal POV: I don't know if morality is objective. If it is, the basis could be called God, Dhamma, or the laws of nature. Whatever one wishes to call this foundation, objectivity in this sense basically means that morality extends from something larger than us, a force or process that shapes our moral framework and how it functions, and all of these things fit that description. I'm not well-versed enough in the subject to say for certain, but I'd argue that it's objective in the sense of evolving from nature and operating within the framework of psychological laws, but not necessarily emanating from a supranormal source. In one YouTube video, for example, Dr. Andy Thomas discusses what he believes to be the biological basis for morality and its origins in the "evolved architecture" of our minds.

But even if morality isn't objective in that sense and is inherently relative, I treat it as such, much like Kant with his "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Furthermore, a morality arising out of consciousness of oneself, consciousness of others, and wholesome mental states such as empathy and compassion seems the most rational and humane, in my opinion, and leads to a demonstrably safer, more stable, more cohesive, and more flourishing society. One could debate whether or not morality has some objective basis, but it doesn't really matter if it does from my POV as long as it has efficacy. And I've come to the conclusion that the larger, more complex, and interconnected our world becomes, the more expansive and inclusive our morality must also become.

From a scientific POV: Science is looking at morality and striving to uncover and articulate a scientific (one could say naturalistic or even objective) moral framework. Andy Thomas is one, as I've already mentioned above, with his views on the biological origins of morality. Sam Harris is another such example, who lays out some of his ideas in his book, The Moral Landscape. In it, he argues that things which are "morally good" are so because they pertain to increases in the "well-being of conscious creatures," which is comparable to my views on morality and moral responsibility. And as a social species, an argument can be made that that morality naturally extends outside of us/beyond our conventional selves.

From a Buddhist POV: The Buddha seems to offer kamma as a type of natural law, primarily psychological/existential in nature, which mirrors much of what Dr. Thomas proposes in the aforementioned video. This may be unique to our own evolutionary psychology, or it may be something common to all sentient beings to various degrees that intrinsically stems from the manifestation of consciousness itself. Whatever the case, the Buddha makes a strong case for the efficacy of actions and the results of such actions being coloured by the intentions underlying them, which goes far beyond mere worldly agreement (e.g., AN 6.63, MN 60, MN 61, MN 76, MN 136, DN 2, etc.). He also advises that certain actions are better more moral/skillful and in line with the Dhamma than others and lead to our long-term welfare and happiness, actions that have wholesome intentions and that also take the happiness and suffering of others into consideration. Moreover, the Buddha himself offers a form of the golden rule in SN 3.8 — expressing that one who loves themselves should harm no other — and seemingly points towards the social nature of morality and hints at a shared connection and, one could argue, responsibility in DN 16 in reference to the Vajjians and the ways they conduct themselves as a society.

For me, this makes logical and intuitive sense in the context of the precepts, ten wholesome actions, four brahmaviharas, selflessness, and conditionality. Our actions have consequences, which reverberate out into the world. The ways we act matter. The decisions we make matter. And the intentions underlying those actions and decisions matter. Generally speaking, the more wholesome and in harmony our actions and decisions are, the more we can be expected to grow and prosper. Not just as individuals, but as a society as a whole.

I tend to look at it this way from a personal and Buddhist POV: We begin with bare conscious awareness, which leads to awareness of ourselves. "I think, therefore I am." This awareness is immature, incomplete, and imbued with some level of ignorance, however, and primarily concerned with our own survival and happiness. Then, through observation and reflection, we become aware of other living being who also desire happiness and freedom from suffering, physically as well as mentally. This is a more mature state of awareness, but one still clouded by ignorance. And through the practice of continued reflection, we hopefully, ultimately, become aware of the illusion between self and other, so that there's no longer any rigidly defined distinction between 'us' and 'them,' between our long-term welfare and happiness and the long-term welfare and happiness of others. From this state of awareness, we see that interconnectedness binds us all together, especially within the context of our socially-created world, which is why I see a moral responsibility for others underlying Buddhist morality as much as conventional social morality. This kind of morality and the world itself may never reach a state of perfection; but that's no reason not to make an effort, out of empathy and compassion, and wisdom, to make the world better and infuse all aspects of life with the spirit of Dhamma.

Another way I look at it dialectically: We want to be happy and not suffer, and we see that same desire in others, therefore we should not do anything to cause harm and suffering to others (thesis/passive morality/observing the precepts to refrain from x). We want to flourish, and we see that same desire in others, therefore we should seek to do what will lead to the flourishing of all (antithesis/active morality/our wholesome actions in the world). The less selfish we become and the more we break down the barriers between self and other, our shared responsibility for one another shines through, so that we eventually reach a point where we 'love our neighbour as our self' and more naturally do what we call good, right, moral, and for the long-term welfare and happiness of all (synthesis/collective moral responsibility/societal growth and prosperity).

And here, I'll just stop to note that I realize people are different, possessing variegated inclinations, desires, motives, and degrees of engagement. I'm only speaking in general terms and principles. I don't expect a monk in a mountain hermitage, for example, to have the same level of engagement or social responsibility as the average lay-person. Their moral responsibility towards others may be more in the form of being a positive example and teaching, but there's still a level of responsibility there. That's one of the reasons I think the Buddha connected the monastic community to the lay-community via alms.

In essence, our moral responsibility towards others flows naturally from the basic building blocks of morality, be they Buddhist or humanistic. While this logic may not hold for solitary, independent beings (although I think it still would), we are a decidedly social species and grow and flourish when we work together and share each other's burdens. And as the Buddha's conversation in DN 16 illustrates, this isn't limited to just the morality and actions of the individual, but also includes what we'd call the political, the collective organization and social engagement of people in a society and our individual responsibilities within that context. We don't live in isolation. We all depend on others, even monks and nuns, and the shape of society has a great deal of influence on who we are and the quality of our lives (e.g., the forms of and access to education and healthcare, societal infrastructures, socioeconomic systems, etc.). And our voice in that shaping of society is the realm of the political. Of course, this may only be true in appearance to those who see conventional reality as deceptive and illusory, and from the transcendental point of view may not be inherently real or true with a capital 'T'. But even if that's the case, what kind morality would they offer to those immersed (or perhaps trapped) in this 'deceptive conventional reality'? A purely selfish and individualistic one? I'd hope not.

In closing, whether the world is real or not (you know, the whole emptiness/glob of foam thing that some use to justify indifference to the world), or whether morality is objective or not, I think we should treat them as such out of a morality responsibility to other sentient beings. Because if the world is real and morality objective, then it will be for the benefit and welfare of the many. And if they're not, nobody is hurt and at least it'll still give the appearance of providing a greater level of benefit and happiness to those trapped within this proverbial magic show. Compassion demands as much, I think. And this is eminently important in our day and age, with the advent of industrial production and nuclear weapons, not to mention the powerful forms of oppression and violence we enable with our support or lack thereof. Our collective impact on the environment alone affects every living creature on earth. To ignore this responsibility is the height of folly and selfishness, in my opinion, which is why I argue so strongly that, as social creature living in a social environment, our social nature requires social engagement if we are to steer society in the right direction.

And coming back to the question of monastic engagement, I think this includes monks and nuns to some extent. While their duty is primarily to work towards liberation and to help teach/guide/inspire others, that doesn't mean they can't and shouldn't speak out against grave evils and take political stands when their involvement may help to reduce so much suffering, especially if it's fellow Buddhists committing the grave evils (e.g., the persecution of Rohingya in Burma/Myanmar). Of course society can't be 'fixed' and I'm not saying that Buddhists' political engagement can make the world a utopia, but it can help to relieve some suffering and help make the world a more conducive place to practice the Dhamma. Too much suffering makes our lives a hell realm, and how can someone in hell practice the Dhamma? (And I think the Dhamma is reflected in many religions and philosophies, just in different terms, but that's another discussion.) And having monastics willing to speak up and stand up against a societal evil can be a powerful message. Having monks and nuns in a protest, or even sitting in meditation at the site of unrest and injustice, can be a powerful seed of good.

I would never suggest that anyone be forced to be political or socially engaged. If one wants to renounce to world so completely, is indifferent to the sufferings of others, or feels helpless to make any meaningful change and so decides to do nothing, that is their choice. And the practice of the Dhamma does not in any way require one to be worldly, political, or socially engaged. But I would argue that the possibility of engagement should be open for those who feel morally compelled to do or say something, because that in and of itself can sometimes be the practice of Dhamma in the form of right speech, right action, etc. Even the Buddha was willing to advise kings in the interest of reducing suffering, and he allowed his monks the right to overturn their bowls a form of protest/punishment.

So, in the end, yes, I think both monastics and Buddhists in general have a duty and a right as human beings to protest social injustice if they are compelled to do so in their practice of the Dhamma. The practice itself is summarized by these words from the Dhammapada: "the non-doing of any evil, the performance of what's skillful, the cleansing of one's own mind" (Dhp 183). Included in that is the cultivation of things like right speech and right action combined with things like compassion, empathy, and loving-kindness. And in my experience, all of this together has the potential to help motivate one to be more aware of the suffering around them and to engage it when possible with an eye towards limiting its impact, and that engagement can be in line with the Dhamma and Vinaya. As Thich Nhat Hanh so beautifully puts it in his forward to No Beginning, No End:

It has been said that the twenty-first century is going to be a century of spirituality. If it is not a century of spirituality, there will be very difficult times ahead for all of us and for the generations to come. If we are not able to stop and look more deeply at the suffering in ourselves, how will we be able to address the suffering in the world around us? In order for us to transform our own suffering, we must do something radical.

The first radical thing we can do to transform the suffering in ourselves is to practice stopping (shamatha). We stop in order to return to ourselves, to become calm. When we are calm, we have a better chance to see our suffering more clearly. The second radical act is to look deeply inside ourselves and see our suffering, be with our suffering, in order to understand and transform it. This is also true for the suffering in the world. We as entire nations need to stop and look deeply at the suffering in the world in order to see it more clearly without prejudice and understand how to transform it.

The practice of mindfulness in these troubled times is more important than ever. If we as individuals do not take the time to practice mindfulness, not only will it be difficult to transform the suffering in our own lives, but it will be difficult to transform the suffering in the world. It is vital to ourselves, our children, and the Earth that we have a practice that helps us to be mindful, that lets us come back to ourselves and dwell in the present moment in order to transform suffering in ourselves and others around us.</ blockquote>