Social Action, Part Two

With palms together,


Good Morning Everyone,



Social Action, Part Two



What would Buddha do? Who knows? Who cares? To have such an idea is to consider an ideal, a dream, and wish to impose it on the dharma in front of our eyes. Every situation presents itself as it is and requires our direct and immediate action, even if that action is simply to consider.



How would a buddha address racism? Religious intolerance? Social and economic inequity? War? This is a slightly different question, as we are not talking about a historical person, but rather ourselves when our eyes are open. Still, it takes us in the wrong direction as it asks us to guess by imagining two thoughts: ourselves as awake, and that we are awake in some scenario we might encounter. Next, we might ask is there any such thing as religious intolerance, war, social injustice, in the first place? Or are these, as well, just ideas?



Our common sense says, “of course there is such a thing, I have seen it!” You might say, “Roshi just used a pejorative phrase referring to fundamentalist thinkers as ‘Fundies’!” You might be right. On the other hand, what is under the question? What is the thing itself? The thing before the thought? Which is the issue, the injustice or the label or are they equally so?



This is what this bodhisattva did: On his matter of “Fundies” I decided to ask my friend Garland. We happened to be together at a gathering yesterday. Garland is a man who walks around the City of Las Cruces dragging a large cross on his shoulder. He comes to Torah study with his New Testament. Last year, an accomplished pianist, he gave out CDs of Christmas music to congregation at Temple Beth El. Garland’s response is always based in direct, literal translation of the Bible. He is as close to fundamentalist as I know. So, I asked him about the phrase and the “Left Behind” series I referenced in an earlier post.



He considered these for a moment or two. He agreed that the phrase “Fundie” could be pejorative, but he said it was a matter of perception. He himself rejects the idea that he is a fundamentalist, except that he refers always to his spiritual source when walking in the world. He also told me he thought the books were based on the book of revelation and that he avoided them as they presented a vision of God he was not inclined to agree with, namely a judging, wrathful God. He thought he books were scary, as well, and would not recommend them. Unfortunately, at that point I needed to leave to assist a friend.



What to do? Ask. Healthy living and honest communication requires a bit of a willingness to set aside the baggage of what we think we know and act in the moment from our heart. Garland and I are on opposing sides regarding the Iraq war, opposing sides regarding abortion, opposing sides regarding prayer in schools, etc. But we are on the same side regarding the core issue: living with heart as directly as possible. His source is his text and how he frames his understanding of it; mine is my practice and the lessons I derive from it.



We get into trouble when we begin saying true Buddhists act this way or that. A true Buddhist is first, not a Buddhist, and second, acts without preconceived shoulds. He calls a spade a spade, knowing it is not a spade, and works to get to know spadeness seeing it as both spadeness and not-spadeness at the same time, while not ignoring either. Yet, he can do nothing if he is afraid of the encounter or worries about what others might say.



I have two missions in my life as a bodhisattva. First is to brandish the sword of Manjushri to kill the Buddha in me in order to be a buddha in life, and the second is to offer my experience of that sword to others.



Be well.