I guess it comes down to what one sees as the source of one's tasks.
Does one think that one is basically the source of one's tasks oneself. That one's tasks don't come about or don't appear unless one wills them into existence.
Or does on think that tasks exist sort of "out there", "surrounding a person," much like water surrounds a person who is in it.
I know this might sound strange. It's the result of my thinking a lot about goals and priorities and where work and tasks come from.
I tend to think that tasks already exist, that there is always something to do, that I don't have to invent tasks when writing my to-do list. But that I just look around, think a bit about what needs to be done, and then I prioritize and decide which of those things I will do. IOW, I don't create my context out of nothing.
In one sense, I believe one sort of "swims in karma" - karma as context - the things I have to deal with, the tasks I have to do (or choose from) are already there, I don't have to invent them from scratch. The context is already there, whatever it may be.
Which is why questions like these -
I am also curious to know about how things are from the other side: monks that are actively involved with worldly challenges and confrontations. From environmental movements to politics or human rights. Are their minds developed to a level where they are not distressed at all while being at the fire front? But... if their minds are so developed in the path, why do they keep entangled with samsaric matters? Although it may be out of compassion, in some cases they are causing distress to their followers.
don't occur to me.
I don't think those monks (or anyone else for that matter) were first in a secluded, strictly non-worldly setting, peaceful and content in their secluded lives, and then one day, entirely of their own volition, they decided to get into politics etc..
I wouldn't describe it that way.
Instead, I'd sooner think that politics and other worldly issues are the context that is already there, and then one tries to make the best of it.
So it's not a question of either "getting involved" or "staying out", but a question of how to get involved, for one is already involved by default. (And that one can on principle get involved in such a way that leads to the end of involvement.)