Should Buddhism take sides?

Let's start the year thinking

For a while I have been a bit dissatisfied with modern Buddhist stances on social justice and social issues in general. The way some Buddhist institutions in Europe & North America have addressed the horrific situation in Israel & Palestine kindled a reflection in me that's yet to reach a conclusion. I poured it into a piece titled Should Buddhism take sides?, which I wrote for myself and have been very hesitant to put out—and I won't, at least for the time being.

At its core lies the concern that, for the most part, current Buddhist engagement with issues such as anti-racism, equity & diversity and the like, are indistinguishable from the mainstream progressive left engagement with these things. I see that as a problem. (I’m in no way the first to say this.)

If that engagement has nothing specifically Buddhist/dharmic about it, then we're either assuming that the progressive left is already perfectly aligned with the dharma, that it is 'enlightened', or that it doesn't matter if it isn't. I disagree with all these.

To be clear, I’m not advocating for a reactionary stance. I just think we miss a valuable opportunity as Buddhists or meditators when we don’t think critically enough, from a dharmic viewpoint, about some mainstream ideas whose progressive spirit we may identify with, and instead adopt them wholesale, merely seasoning them with Buddhist language.

My good friend and colleague River Wolton once remarked how important it is to ask what Buddhism can learn from certain social movements. I agree. And I also think that these can learn from Buddhism, but I’m not sure we’re asking this question enough in the dharma world.

Things are changing, imperfect and conditioned. Past approaches to issues such as gender, sexuality and ethnicity have proved imperfect and improvable from our point of view today. We must bear in mind that our current approach is no different at all: it’s imperfect and improvable, even if it’s better than previous perspectives. A question such as 'What will people think about this in 50 years?' keeps me humble.

For example, I teach retreats for LGBTQIA+ audiences and I stand by that. But I still see it as a provisional measure and I’m open to other & future perspectives as long as they’re thoughtful, nuanced, and come from care for those in that community, not from feeling threatened by it.

Also, even being morally correct doesn't always mean not being reactive & unskilful. The way we usually take sides is reactive—again, are we 'enlightened', whatever that means? So, if Buddhism doesn't show us a different way of approaching complex social issues and taking stances on tragedies and injustices, what is it here for?

While in no way comparable to Israel & Gaza, I have the first-hand experience of the social divide that befell Catalonia in 2017 over the question of independence. It made me weary of 'taking sides' in a very embodied way.

Back in the day, Thich Nhat Hanh was firmly opposed to picking sides in the Vietnam conflict. And at last year’s teachers meeting in Switzerland, respected Israeli dharma teachers cautioned against retreat centres putting out public statements taking a stance—as many sanghas were pressuring them to do. And before you think 'Well of course...', those were teachers with decades of experience in reconciliation efforts and in supporting Palestinians.

Instead of sharing my original piece, I'd like to recommend the thoughtful article ‘Your Empathy is Killing Us’, which I was made aware of recently by meditation teacher Sumedha. I like how it describes 3 common responses to conflicts like Israel & Palestine's: 'Yes/No', 'Yes, BUT...', and the resigned impotence Adam Curtis calls 'Oh Dearism'. The author suggests an attitude of 'Yes, AND...'.

I believe Buddhist teachers, institutions and centres should definitely address these topics and even put out statements. But that is not the same as sucumbing to the social pressure to 'take sides'.

Buddhism should stand for doing things in an alternative, more skilful way. If it doesn't, we don't need it.

---

On my posting frequency: 60% of respondents want me to write whenever I feel like it, with ‘monthly’ coming second in the ranking. However, only 21% of subscribers voted—you still can if you want to, the poll is open. Since it’s hard to interpret those results, I’ve decided I’ll do whatever I want but try to stay as close as possible to a frequency of every 1 or 2 months.

By the way, my paper Is joy (pīti) a feeling (vedanā)? Perspectives from early Buddhism is now published.

May you have a good beginning of 2025! Or, according to Thailand, 2568! I’m in the future, babes…