[Buddha-l] Buddhism and dana, church and charity

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 10:55 -0800, Franz Metcalf wrote:

> 2) Buddhism, as a minority religion in the West, cannot be expected to 
> foster temples and meditation centers focusing on social action the way 
> Christian churches can.

I think there has been some misunderstanding of what it was that I was
originally observing. I was making the simple observation that I have
never heard a sermon (or "dharma talk" if you insist on sounding
Buddhist rather than Christian) on the theme of the importance of
helping the poor, despite the fact that this is a pretty important theme
in a number of Buddhist sutras. I was not suggesting that Buddhist
temples themselves get involved in social work or even raising money for
charitable projects. Rather, I was just wondering why I have never heard
a dharma talk encouraging affluent North American practitioners to be
mindful of the effects of poverty and to be mindful of the various ways
their lifestyles may be contributing to poverty.

I think a HUGE deficiency in the way I have seen Dharma approached in
North America is most manifest in the idea that many North American
Buddhists seem to have about what Buddhist practice is. For many,
practice means meditation. Period. If someone claims to be a Buddhist
and admits that he has not been near a meditation cushion for five years
but that he tries to be constantly aware of observing precepts and being
as helpful as possible to others and raising his kids well and
reflecting on right livleihood, the almost automatic response is "So you
don't practice?" But if someone meditates two hours a day and works at a
slaughterhouse or helps assemble nuclear bombs, then he is seen as a
practitioner. Western Buddhists seem to forget that meditation is a
MEANS to achieve good practice, rather than a goal to be achieved
through good practice. If one can achieve a good Buddhist practice
without meditation, then meditation is, well, not necessary. Eh?

> While I personally believe social action should be central to the
> Buddhist path, others may disagree and focus their energies on
> propagating the dharma more narrowly.

I believe Buddhist texts have a technical term for the kind of people
you are describing. Fools. Your kindness has often impressed me, Franz,
but I do not see much wisdom in indulging fools in their folly.


> Christian churches do not have this excuse their denial of social
> responsibility is a repudiation of Jesus.

Buddhist organizations also do not have an excuse, since their denial of
social responsibility is a repudiation of Gotama (or Gautama if you
prefer his Sanskrit monicker). There is remarkably little difference
between good Christian practice and good Buddhist practice, except in
the words one choose to mutter when one hits one's thumb with a hammer.
(If you blurt out "Gautama Buddha" then you're a Buddhist.) 

>  (In this matter I refer those interested to the work of Jim 
> Wallis, editor of Sojourners and recent author of _God's Politics_.)

Wallis is an absolute gem. He is beginning to gather quite a vocal and
effective following among born-again Christians (despite the fact that
George W. Bush no longer invites him to the Casa Blanca, ever since
Wallis opined that the invasion of Iraq and the refusal to sign the
Kyoto Accord were clear violations of Christian principles). I would
like to see him gather a following among Buddhists as well.

There is an article on the page A14 of today's NY Times about the
dramatic increase in evangelical and born-again Christians expressing
dismay at the Bush administration's mismanagement of the environment.
This, I think is a good sign. I hope some born-again Buddhists will
consider weighing in as well, not only as individuals but collectively.
Not to do so would be to miss quite a lot of what Buddhist practice is
traditionally all about.

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico