Is Engaged Buddhism Failing the Buddha’s Teachings?
Many Westerners admire Buddhism for its perceived social activism, but a deeper look at its core texts reveals a different, more introspective mission.
Peaceful monks marching for justice, the Dalai Lama championing human rights, and Thich Nhat Hanh’s eco-friendly Zen have created a modern image of Buddhism as a progressive political force. This “Engaged Buddhism” aligns the Dharma with social justice and environmentalism, making it highly attractive to Western audiences seeking spiritual validation for their activism. However, philosopher Ian James Kidd argues that this popular image relies on “strategic vagary”—a selective reading of the suttas that distorts the Buddha’s actual teachings.
The traditional view, prevalent in the 19th century, saw Buddhism as passive and life-denying. Today’s activist interpretation corrects that, but perhaps swings too far. Kidd suggests that the earliest discourses do not support grand-scale social reform. Instead, the Buddha’s concept of karuna (compassion) is intimate and immediate—helping a sick friend or an injured animal—rather than structural. Similarly, dukkha (suffering) isn’t just the product of corrupt systems; it is an intrinsic feature of existence itself. Therefore, the Buddha’s solution—Right View and the Eightfold Path—is a personal, moral transformation, not a political one.
True fidelity to the Buddha’s teachings requires facing uncomfortable truths. The Dharma asks us to overcome suffering by transforming our own minds, not by revolutionizing the world. While activism has its own moral value, dressing it in the robes of ancient Buddhism may do a disservice to both traditions. A clearer understanding of the Dharma demands we distinguish between the path to personal liberation and the pursuit of social justice.
No Comments