BUDDHIST’S VIEW OF THE WORLD & ENGAGED BUDDHISM

_________________________

A Term Paper

Presented to the

Undergraduate Faculty of the

College of Arts and Sciences

University of San Carlos

Cebu City, Philippines

_________________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirement for the Degree

Bachelor of Philosophy

_______________________

By

Karl Labartene Archuleta

October 2011

Introduction

Buddhism is a known religion in the world; that is many people know of it, many are its

followers and it has reached almost anywhere in the world. It is one of the products of the

ancient times that have endured over a long period of history. Much older than Christianity and

even Islam to which are the two most popular religions. It is even in its proud history that it has

the least bloodshed happenings that occurred because of its name compared to the two.

Usually we picture Buddhism as monks in congregations meditating in isolated places.

Hermits or people that is more likely to be detached from the world. Even in its teachings of the

“no-self” and the end of suffering is to the removal of the self and the clinging in this world has

brought Buddhism into the question, how do they act towards the world? Knowing that they live

a life of simplicity and that they disregard any material progress or abundance; still it poses the

question that is the world only for abandonment. Is the world only an object that must be left

unclinged unto to gain one’s own liberation? Although there is Mahayana Buddhism that does

not only look onto one’s self liberation but also of the others, but even so, they gave primacy to

the world beyond even in their charitable deeds. They cultivate their ethics and mind but in order

to transcend somewhere. Buddhism also has to answer the question that do you treat the world as

an end in itself or as a means for self liberation? But then again, the word “world” sometimes is

all too confusing whether what could it mean. To find then the meaning of “world” in Buddhist

thought, means to find there also how will they treat the world in correspondence? What is their

world and do they just aim for something beyond or do they treat it because it needs the help it

can get rather than making it a ticket to Nirvana or Pure Land? And in so doing to those

Buddhists who also desire to bring peace down to earth not only to themselves in a realm of

transcendence may could have looked the world in a way that they respond to it as one that is the

object of one’s responsibility. There then is this Engaged Buddhism, to which it is Mahayanist in

leanings but believes of proactive and the same compassion that what Buddhism taught all

throughout.

Though Buddhism aims to the no-self, but since there is this indubitable an inevitably

world before one’s end, how then one sees it that he acts to it not just that it will be a means to

liberation but treating the world as if it is my responsibility to bring peace to it. Making oneself

then attached to it by taking responsibility in reforming it or help in its development.

My World

It is in this fathom-long carcass . . . that, I declare, lies the world.1

In the heading, my world, it already entails the idea of a self and then a self-world

relationship. As “my” is used, it is inevitable that there is a substance owning the world, and that

is the self; what then is a self? A self is an established concept in the first noble truth, that when

we say life is suffering then it must point out to the being concerned with suffering and that is a

self and then follows why that being suffers. That being is the self, to which suffering is open to

it. The self then is composed of the 5 Skhandas (aggregates), in which these aggregates also

points out why the self is not immune to suffering. First is BODY that is the vessel or the

container of the other aggregates. Second is FEELING, that is the tendency to be moved by any

object which the body comes into contact with. Third is PERCEPTION that is where the body

meets the objects or where the senses meet with the sense objects. Fourth is VOLITION or

WILL, that is where man is desiring or longing for the object wherein the consequence of which

1 Peter Harvey. The Selfless Mind. Curzon Press: St. John’s Studios. 1995. P. 78.

is that man is pushed towards the object craved or willed. And lastly is CONSCIOUSNESS,

which is the base of all sense activity and mental activity.

This concept of the self composed of the 5 aggregates makes clear that a self has to relate

with something because self carries with it an aggregate called “perception”. “Self and world is

equivalent to ‘I’. This would make sense if self and world meant self and my world, i.e. ‘I and

my world of experience’.”2 The world that is experienced or that is perceived then comprises

part of the self, because there is even “in the Buddha’s days. . . a clear conceptual link between

the ideas of self and world”.3

Buddhists has the word “Loki” in which it means a being’s experienced world. It means

that a being exists and what the being experiences is a part of his being. That is the world is

undeniably linked with a being that is of a self. But then again the Buddha only adhered the

world that is physical as illusory. That this world is not actually what people should live in. This

world is the “world-as-sensed-and-thought-about, which exists as a constructed experience

within a sentient organism”.4 Sense and thought belongs to the six senses category wherein the

first 5 senses are seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching and the other one is mental

formations that are then that the self has to relate with an object, or a world since the self

inevitably contacts with it.

There is also another world which the Buddhists also coined and that is the “internal

world”, it is different from the previous that was sensed and thought of, but this internal world is

2 Ibid. p. 78.

3 Ibid. p. 78.

4 Ibid. p. 80.

a world that is “constructed by conception and cognition”.5 What makes this world different

from that which is thought of, is that this internal world is the reconstruction of the perceived

world outside. Hence it is called internal because it is only a world that can exist form the within,

or in the creative constructs of the mind of the self. But as the Buddhist prevail over the thought

of no-self, the impermanence of a self thereof also leads to an impermanence of a world,

especially to the inner world.6

Response-ability then comes as another thing to be tackled since there is always the

existing of the self. Though the self seen in a continuity of births and rebirths destroys the

permanence of it, but it is a solid fact that one, a self exists for a moment in time. Since the

Buddhist loves to view the existence of a self in a huge context of time, that then is problem

because when one is reborn, he carries the Karma from the past existence and therefore the

previous existence is responsible for the new one and the one that is reborn unknowingly,

without even the impossible semantics of the before and the after, took hold of the responsibility.

This continuity is confusing and therefore one has to devote more time into reflecting of his past

life, meditating, being ascetic therefore neglecting the current situation wherein a self is situated

in a world. The self must respond to a world accordingly therefore not to detach one’s self from

it. The response-ability must not be hindered because of one’s figurations of the past, but how to

live the present situation. The present world has to be acted upon accordingly. When the no-self

idea is focused, one begins to focus more on the transcendence rather than the current situation

5 Ibid. p. 81.

6 Though I cannot reconcile whether that there is the no-self and the consequential world as not true. But

every rebirth done makes one situated in the same changing world, but I agree with the world too as untrue when

there is no-self especially to the conception of the world as an inner world since the state of mind cannot be reborn

together with a new self. But the world is always there or is existing and it becomes untrue where the notion of the

no-self occurs. That is a contention because every new self is situated in a world; the same changing world.

one is in. Therefore the self has to matter in the sense to respond to a world now/ This then opens

a way to a more active Buddhism, that is the Mahayana with more extended arms for

compassion, to act upon the reality that one is in.

Engaged Buddhism

The Vietnamese word tiep means “continuing” – continuing the way of enlightening, of

being awake – and “being in touch” with reality – the reality of the mind, “the process of

our inner life, the wellspring of understanding and compassion,” and the reality of the

world,” the wonders of life and also the suffering.” Hien means “realizing” –

“transforming ourselves, manifesting the presence of understanding and compassion

rather than talking about the idea of understanding and compassion. Hien also means

“making it here and now” – the deep understanding that the means are the ends, that the

present moment contains the future.7

Above mentioned is the “reality of the world”, wherein it means of the world that is of

the here and now. A world wherein it may be conceived as a means to one’s liberation but must

be taken as an end in itself. That the world must be treated as the end in itself not to make it as a

stepping stone towards the enlightening of the self only, but as the world that is need of our

compassion and understanding. Engaged Buddhism is not anymore concerned with the

theoretical argumentations about compassion or understanding, or even the scholarly manner of

talking about it, it is then more on the practical manner that in turn emphasizes the doing rather

than the discourse. The statement then serves as a critique to an armchair Buddhism if there is

any that concerns itself only in academics and even to isolationist trends, since according Thich

Nhat Hanh8, that “Buddhism is already engaged Buddhism. If it is not, it is not Buddhism”.9

Recalling the basics of Buddhism, it has more to do on practice than theorizing, but the eventual

7 Christopher Queen. Engaged Buddhism in the West. Wisdom Publications: Boston. 2000. p.40.

8 Thich Nhat Hanh is a Vietnamese monk advocating Engaged Buddhism in response to the outbreaks of

Historical Events like the colonial stage of Vietnam, wars and the Communist epidemic.

case is that of isolation and the monastic way of life that is detached from the society. So Thich

Nhat Hanh encourages Buddhism that the Buddha adhered to have as many arms possible to

extend one’s compassion. That there is a world out there in need of the Dharma, that we ought

also to transmit the Dharma to them by being involved in the movement of the times. Buddhism

is already engaged because of its practice leaning ideas and where to practice such in a society.

One has to be awake that there s a world that has to be acted upon, that “socially engaged

Buddhist practice includes mindfulness practice, social service and non-partisan advocacy to

reduce and stop injustice”.10

Though Engaged Buddhism may sound like an anti-isolationist concept since we are to

move within a society rather than being monastic, but cultivating also one’s self is also a

necessary step but not to the extent of focusing only to the self.

On the international level, we need mutual trust, mutual respect, frank and friendly

discussions with sincere motivation and joint efforts to solve world problems. All these

are possible. But first we must change within ourselves.11

Undeniably change must begin in one’s self but if to deny society for one’s own

cultivation is no Buddhism after all, since Buddhism is already engaged Buddhism, and then it is

our task also to transmit our cultivations to others. “Goodness is finally the most practical, the

most realistic solution.”12 Goodness then Is what we ought to transmit to others, though one

cannot be a transmitter again if one is not cultivated accordingly, but in the sense the cultivation

9 Christopher Queen. Engaged Buddhism in the West. Wisdom Publications: Boston. 2000. P. 36.

10 Ibid. p. 36.

11 Ibid. p. 230.

12 Ibid. p. 230.

should not boil down to a Hinayanist manner, but one must be right in himself to transmit also

the right.

In the first stage, sometimes we need isolation while pursuing our inner development;

however after you have some confidence, some strength, you must remain with, contact,

and serve society in any fields – health, education, politics, or whatever. There are people

who call themselves religious-minded, trying to show this by dressing in a peculiar

manner, maintaining a peculiar way of life and isolating themselves from the rest of

society. This is wrong. A scripture of mind-purification says “transform your inner-

viewpoint, but leave your external appearance as it is”. This is important. Because the

very purpose of practicing the Great Vehicle is service to others, you should not isolate

yourselves from society. In order to serve, in order to help, you must remain in society.13

There is the mention of transforming the inner viewpoint, and that is the inner world

mentioned earlier that which on how one perceives the world. It is then undeniable that there is a

world, and that we have to serve it. But before so, self-cultivation is necessary. I have then to

rearrange the world to a viewpoint that then in turn makes me serve my world. In contrast to the

Hinayanist principle of liberating the self primarily, but as mentioned being the advocates of the

Great Vehicle, we have to extend ourselves into the society, to serve it. As the Dalai Lama says

in a Tibetan Youth Congress:

Having held this youth conference during the past few days, let us ask ourselves what is

the most essential task for the young people. The answer is: service to the people. In

order to serve the people, one must learn the difficulties and the sufferings of the people

by keeping close touch with them.14

We have to break the notion of the self being the center of our care by inculcating the

discipline of service to others. This may what the Buddhist ought to mean as “no-self” or

selfless, rather than the no-self preoccupied with transcendent motives. The no-self here must

13 Ibid. p.230.

14 Ibid. p. 223.

mean that one is selfless, if no one is has no selfish regard for the self, one reaches out in help.

This must what no-self must mean that it must be of the context of where one lives in a world,

rather than devoting the meaning of it to transcendental matters.

Conclusion

The Buddhist view of transcendence may disrupt the view of the world of the here and

now. But it has to be understood clearly that the world which one is situated is his world, that is

one has a world to act upon. The world should not be treated as a means in order one can enter

into transcendence, but treat it as an end in itself that one has the responsibility to be socially

participative. Engaged Buddhism makes known that there are passivity in being solely

isolationists, but one has to engage in society in order to be an advocate of the greater vehicle.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Books

Harvey, Peter. The Selfless Mind. Curzon Press: St. John’s Studios. 1995.

Queen, Christopher. Engaged Buddhism in the West. Wisdom Publications: Boston. 2000.