Buddhism’s Quietist Roots: Why Activism Isn’t the Dharma’s Goal
Is the Buddha’s path about social change or personal liberation?
Far too often, modern admirers of the Buddha frame him as a progressive activist—a champion for equality, climate action, and radical social reform. According to philosopher Ian James Kidd, this projection is a historical mismatch. The Buddha’s teachings prioritize spiritual liberation, not worldly revolution.
The concept of Karuna is often cited as a mandate for activism, but Kidd argues it refers to modest, personal acts of care rather than large-scale structural change. While the Buddha critiqued the caste system, his objection was karmic—intentions, not social status, determine karma—not a fight against systemic injustice. The Dukkha (suffering) he addressed is viewed as a cosmic truth to be transcended, not an inequality to be dismantled through political means.
The text reveals a distinct hierarchy within the Dharma. The monastic life of the Sangha is deemed the “noble quest,” while the lives of laypeople and non-Buddhists are often described as clouded by “wrong views.” A striking example is the monk Saṅgāmaji, praised by the Buddha for refusing to acknowledge his crying wife and child, as familial attachment hinders the path to enlightenment.
While figures like B.R. Ambedkar later aligned Buddhism with social reform, historical texts suggest the Buddha’s vision was anti-egalitarian and hierarchical. By projecting our modern values onto the past, we risk distorting the core message: the Dharma is a path of detachment and personal discipline, designed to liberate the mind from the burning world, not to change it.
No Comments