Practice Like Our Hair is On Fire: A Twist on an Old Buddhist Phrase

One thing I find challenging about practicing Buddhism in a wealthy nation, surrounded by other practitioners who tend to have "enough," is the huge disconnect many have between their spiritual practice and the social environment. This is especially true of white, heterosexual North American practitioners who do not have to face issues of institutional, systemic discrimination and oppression. Beyond this, however, I continue to reflect on how, for example, Buddhist monks and nuns in Burma, or Tibet, or Vietnam to give a few examples, really don't have the easy option of making such separations. Their practice and the social realities in their nations are obviously inseparable. They might be able to complete long periods of intensive meditation and study, or they might wake up one day to gunfire, ramped up soldiers, or some natural disaster barreling down upon them. These folks do not get to "wait" until they become enlightened, or "wise," to get into the fray of social concerns. They just have to step up, and do their best awakened work.

Along these lines, there's the statement "practice like your hair is on fire." It's provocative, but what is it really about? Perhaps more importantly for us in affluent countries, who have "enough" and/or are relatively "safe," what does it really mean?

I've seen numerous articles, blog posts, and comments in recent months about the ways in which dharma practice in affluent countries is too often being reduced to stress relief, psychological health, and other individualistic focuses. Even laments over the loss of a focus on enlightenment often sound individualistic, which makes me wonder if this is a byproduct - in part - of living and practicing in relative comfort. Being comfortable with the discomfort and dysfunction that are produced daily in materially wealthy, capitalist societies. There's something about living with most, if not all of your basic needs met, that can lead to a smug certainty about what Buddha was teaching us, and how we "should" apply it.

Is the general history we have about Buddhist teachings and how it's manifested in different countries accurate? Do we in Western affluent nations also apply our own understanding of social activism to that history, and assume that most Buddhists historically were focused on individual liberation?

Vows of poverty and "home-leaving" seem to have as much to do with breaking down separation as anything else. It's more difficult to think it's all about you, and/or you and your family and friends, when you depend upon others, including total strangers, for your food, clothing, and shelter.

In other words, teachings like "practice like your hair is on fire" might be an antidote to the separations commonly attached to affluent conditions. However, I think it's more useful to pluralize it.

Practice like OUR hair is on fire. All of us. The entire planet. Because it sure as hell seems to be anyway.

Follow up: Socially Engaged Buddhism

Adam over at Fly Like a Crow has a nicely balanced post taking on some of the discussion about socially engaged Buddhism. Here are the comments I left in response:

There has been a bit too much drama about this in my opinion. I don't give a shit what people call me - the labels are irrelevant to me. I'm not a professional activist, and in fact, my active engagement with large-scale social issues ebbs and flows. Sometimes, I'm very involved, sometimes I'm resting. I don't run around announcing my status as a Buddhist when I'm lobbying at the legislature, or doing protests, or organizing programs in non-profits, but I do deliberately reflect on Buddhist teachings, and the work I do is shaped, at least in part, by what I have learned. And if people ask me, I talk about that Buddhist influence.

The way I see it, if you look at "engaged Buddhist" efforts in other nations, where everything has gone to shit, the choice to sit out is a pretty crappy one. The folks in Thich Nhat Hanh's community, during the Vietnam war, could have sat in the monasteries. But the results probably would have been miserable. Their engagement with the vast suffering around them came about partly through seeing that you can't separate the inner and outer realms, and partly because the large scale "outer world" was staring them down, demanding a response.

It's easy enough for us middle class Americans to sit around and get heated about whether or not we should be involved in these kinds of situations. But I'd be interested to see how the conversation changes when we don't have the privilege to keep all of this at arms length. What happens if there is huge social crisis here in the U.S., and we aren't able to ignore it anymore because it impacts greatly too many of us?

Among the interesting things Adam's post considers is whether diversity of political opinion might have a place in socially engaged Buddhism.

Something I’ve been digging at lately is the topic of abortion. Certainly it is a social and political issue. Does Engaged Buddhism allow for both Pro-Choice and Pro-life social activists? (I think I’ll save my personal thoughts on this for a later post.) If “economic justice” is included in Engaged Buddhism, does a Buddhist Tea-Partier that believes we shouldn’t tax the wealthy at a higher rate than the poor have the same voice as the liberal who believes we should tax people because they are wealthy? One could argue issues of economic “justice” for either side depending on one’s politics. Maybe that’s where things are getting messy for some. Maybe it’s that people are bringing their politics into Buddhism, rather than bringing their practice to their politics.

A few thoughts. First off, although I haven't done any research, I can imagine there are Buddhist organizations that would fall under the "pro-life" umbrella. For many people, myself included, the pro-life/pro-choice divide isn't as stark as it appears to be. Working with the first precept has made it even harder for me to ignore the complexities around abortion, for example, even though I'd argue that the pro-choice/pro-life divide is about much more than abortion.

It strikes me that, given the tremendous amount of suffering present in abortion debates, Buddhists who are actively involved and/or interested in the issues could provide an airing out amongst sworn enemies by calling for deep listening, and working with people on all sides to expose the complexities of an issue that currently is portrayed as pretty black and white.

One of the misconceptions I see, both within some circles claiming to "socially engaged Buddhists and from the "outside," is the suggestion that actions will lead to a particular outcome. It's exactly the opposite. If one engages issues around abortion, it should be from a place of detachment from any potential result. Otherwise, you just end up clinging to a particular side, and then adding yourself to mess that's already there.

There's a difference between acknowledging how you currently lean, and clinging to that view. I think it's important to acknowledge, whenever possible, where you currently stand on an issue, while also doing your best to be open to change. I lean pro-choice, but I've had enough discussions with, for example, women who have felt deep grief over having had an abortion, or women who were pro-choice until they got pregnant, or with men and women who lost relationships over abortions, to know that how I stand is, in part, due to not having faced these kinds of dilemmas. Being open to vastly differing opinions is something anyone can do, regardless of their religious or ethical beliefs. However, the particular ways that Buddhist teachings open us can contribute to both discussions, as well as helping to shape any actions taken in the world.

In addition to everything above, I think we also must be willing to fail together. Large scale social issues are such because they are messy and complicated. If the right conclusions were obvious, and/or they were easily solved, then we wouldn't be talking about them.

Update: I wrote the following response to Andy's "Socially Engaged" post, and I'd like to include it here because I think it applies to much of the discussion going on.

I really wish people would read more about what people who fall under the label are actually doing, and perhaps even talk with some of us in depth, before making declarations about what it is we're doing and not doing. The label is of no concern to me; but I really think a lot of this debate is coming from a place of ignorance about what people are actually doing and how they go about such actions.

Go interview people from the Buddhist Peace Fellowship. Or people working with Sulak Sivaraksa, Thich Nhat Hanh, or Joanna Macy. Or the Zen Peacemakers. Or the Tzu Chi Foundation. Or any number of other groups.

Here are two books you could read.

Queen, Chris; King, Sallie (1996). Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist Liberation Movements in Asia. New York: Albany State University Press. ISBN 0-79142-843-5.
^ Queen, Christopher (2000). Engaged Buddhism in the West. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications. ISBN 0-86171-159-9.

There are more out there, but these will give an introduction to some of what people are actually doing. It's not a homogeneous movement, and there are a lot debates even amongst people and groups who fall under the label of socially engaged Buddhism.

Hot Topics: Socially Engaged Buddhism

There's been a lot of debate lately online about socially engaged Buddhism. This on the heels of last month's Zen Peacemaker's Socially Engaged Buddhism Symposium, which was held in the U.S. state of Massachusetts.

Posts from The Reformed Buddhist and, to a lesser extent, from Point of Contact argue against the notion of socially engaged Buddhism, suggesting that Buddhist practice should not be conflated with actions involving large scale social and political issues. Both suggest that it's just fine to be actively engaged with these issues, but that Buddhism should be left out of those engagements.

In another recent post, found over at Notes in Samsara, Mumon offers that those who view Buddhist practice as a means to "change the world" are clinging to a gaining idea.

The current post over at Notes from a Burning House points to the fact that when spiritual/religious folks attempt to rock the social/economic boat, they're often marginalized, shunned, and sometimes end up murdered. (Think Martin Luther King Jr. for example.) The post then goes on to ask where the middle ground is between hard core social activists and those who shun all Buddhist inspired engagement with the social/political realms.

Finally, the latest post over at Jizo Chronicles offers Diana Winston and Donald Rothberg's Ten Guiding Principles for Socially Engaged Buddhism.

For the purposes of this discussion, I think principle number two has the most relevance:

Interbeing and Co-Responsibility:
We look at our tendencies to separate “us” and “them,” and “inner” and “outer.” We see in ourselves the same structures of greed, hatred, and delusion that we seek to change. We realize that there is ultimately no “other” to fight against, yet we also recognize that some are indeed in positions of greater responsibility for suffering and oppression.

In response to a comment John from Point of Contact made wondering how the principles were any different from "mundane/non-engaged/boring Buddhism," I said the following:

I get the sense that you and others are wanting a separation where none can really be made. If you truly live the practice, anything you do in the social/political realm, regardless of whether you label it or not, will be influenced by your practice. People seem to be fussing a lot about the labels, but I really think that’s a red herring. This is an old, old debate between those who argue Buddhism is about working to disengage from worldly concerns, and those who see Buddhism as a path that includes coming back to “the marketplace” (Ox Herding Pics) if you will. I think everyone is on a continuum between these two extremes, from solitary monks living in the mountains to lifelong social activists whose work is deliberately guided by Buddhist teachings.

As for the list, #2 and #4 explicitly point to a deliberate interaction with and engagement of systemic manifestations of suffering. The list isn’t pointing to just everyday activities like washing the dishes, being kind to co-workers and strangers, etc. It’s suggesting that there are a wide array of ways we might engage in the world springing forth from our understanding of Buddhist teachings. All of it is part of the path in my view. No one person need be “engaged” if you will in all facets of action within the world suggested by these principles, but to suggest that all social action work is outside the realm of Buddhism is, as I already said, creating a separation where none can be found.

I'm going to be honest with you all: I've had some trouble figuring out how to respond to all these discussions. I have made a few comments, but mostly I've read and watched others engage.

The thing I keep going back to is the idea that for better or worse, one's belief system will influence how one acts within the larger social/political world. An atheist or secular humanist will look at things differently from a devout Christian or Jew. Perhaps, they end up making similar decisions, but the reasoning behind, as well as the path that led up to said decisions will be different. And I think it's important to consider those differences because they help us understand how the whole of humanity is interacting together to form the world we live in at this particular time.

Beyond this, I believe there are ways to be inspired by, or driven by, one's spiritual practice that don't lead to the kinds of oppression seen in theocracies, for example, or to the kinds of self-righteousness seen in individuals who believe their path is superior in solving social problems than all others. I understand that even saying this will cause some to believe that I'm no better than folks in the "Christian Right" arguing to outlaw abortions and for a return of prayer in public schools. Perhaps this is the case. I honestly don't know.

I just can't see how it's possible to divorce one's spiritual life from how one engages the big issues in the world.