Engaged Buddhism - Action Vs Seclusion?

[suriyopama]

Nobody can change the world.

Hi, Jabali,
I have got to say you are wrong. Everybody changes the world, with every action they take...

Kim, I read jabali's statement as "Nobody can change Samsara." I didn't think it was a statement about the absence of causal relationships in our lives, but rather as a statement concerning the nature of the condition in which all humans find themselves living.

SamBodhi, I was just going to write the same thing

[chownah]

Nobody can change the world.

Hi, Jabali,
I have got to say you are wrong. Everybody changes the world, with every action they take...

Kim, I read jabali's statement as "Nobody can change Samsara." I didn't think it was a statement about the absence of causal relationships in our lives, but rather as a statement concerning the nature of the condition in which all humans find themselves living.

I took his statement to mean that individuals can not make much of an impact on any of the big issues of the day........and I think s/he is wrong about that. I think that quite a few people have made really major impacts on how large issues have resolved or not resolved as the case may be. To make the unqualified statement that nobody can change the world in a thread which is at least partly dealing with the issue as to whether to be socially involved or not should be seen as supporting non-involvement until the intended meaning can be clarified. If the statement might have the effect of dissuading people from being socially engaged then it should be challenged in that it is wrong when taken in that way.....that is to say within the realm of social engagement there have been many people who have changed the world in very important ways both for the better and for the worse. Please do understand that I am not arguing for or against engagement here....I am just wanting to point out that to argue for non-engagement by claiming that nobody can change the world is a false argument because every one does change the world and sometimes in very big ways.

If we are to consider the meaning as you suggest can you talk a bit about "the nature of the condition in which all humans find themselves living" and how it relates to the topic of this thread?
chownah

[Mr Man]

Action vs seclusion is a false dichotomy.

[Mkoll]

I took his statement to mean that individuals can not make much of an impact on any of the big issues of the day........and I think s/he is wrong about that. I think that quite a few people have made really major impacts on how large issues have resolved or not resolved as the case may be.

Indeed.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, concerned citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has.

-Margaret Mead

[jabalí]

From the point of view of the Buddha-Dhamma, we can only achieve the cessation of the world, not its change.

Actions must be oriented towards this purpose. These actions also help others to their welfare, and to their path to the cessation of the world.

Apologies if I make grammatical errors.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

I do a good deal of beta testing for various software. To do my job well I have to find faults and point them out. If they are not fixed, I let the developers know that they're not fixed yet. If they cannot find the fault, I try to explain it better.

However, if they don't agree with me that it's a bug, or don't know how to fix it, or haven't got time to fix it, that's not my problem. I did my duty — let them do theirs.

I am sure you heard the story about the Acrobat and his assistant, but it bears repeating:

An acrobat and his apprentice earned a living by performing tricks on top of a bamboo pole. One day, while performing their usual routine the assistant said to the acrobat, “You look after me, and I will look after you. That way, we will both come down safely from this pole.”

The acrobat replied, “No. You look after yourself, and I will look after myself. That way we will both come down safely from this pole.”

I enjoy trying to improve things. It's satisfying to know that some software I use every day works better because of my efforts. I also understand its limitations much better, and don't expect it to be perfect. Others who use it, often get upset and angry, and often don't accept my advice to calm down, and be polite when reporting problems. That's beyond my control, but if I get angry and upset, that teaches me about my own attachment, which is the cause of my own suffering.

[SamBodhi]

If we are to consider the meaning as you suggest can you talk a bit about "the nature of the condition in which all humans find themselves living" and how it relates to the topic of this thread?
chownah

I don't think that we should really consider the meaning I suggested. I only wanted to offer a different way of reading the statement mentioned.

[suriyopama]

Action vs seclusion is a false dichotomy.

That’s your theory, but the mind and the world are not aseptic laboratories where you can put solid labels, laws, and limits to everything.

That contrast was true on my mind when I wrote the title of the topic.

If I am walking with the firm resolution that I will sit to meditate on the cushion as soon as I arrive home, and I suddenly feel a bowel movement, I will have a “Meditation Vs Defecation” dichotomy, no matter if you call it “false”. At that instant, my mind would contrast the two things as being opposed, entirely different, and with no additional options. Perhaps a moment later I could figure out a third option like meditating while sitting at the WC, and then the dichotomy would vanish. Or maybe not, and then I would feel the urge to discuss that topic at the Lounge section of Dhamma Wheel, or even write a book about the choices in life. Who knows!

[binocular]

but the mind and the world are not aseptic laboratories where you can put solid labels, laws, and limits to everything.

... which is also why "action" and "seclusion" are not as neatly (or sharply) separated as they are sometimes thought of.

[suriyopama]

I do a good deal of beta testing for various software. To do my job well I have to find faults and point them out. If they are not fixed, I let the developers know that they're not fixed yet. If they cannot find the fault, I try to explain it better.

However, if they don't agree with me that it's a bug, or don't know how to fix it, or haven't got time to fix it, that's not my problem. I did my duty — let them do theirs.

I am sure you heard the story about the Acrobat and his assistant, but it bears repeating:

An acrobat and his apprentice earned a living by performing tricks on top of a bamboo pole. One day, while performing their usual routine the assistant said to the acrobat, “You look after me, and I will look after you. That way, we will both come down safely from this pole.”

The acrobat replied, “No. You look after yourself, and I will look after myself. That way we will both come down safely from this pole.”

I enjoy trying to improve things. It's satisfying to know that some software I use every day works better because of my efforts. I also understand its limitations much better, and don't expect it to be perfect. Others who use it, often get upset and angry, and often don't accept my advice to calm down, and be polite when reporting problems. That's beyond my control, but if I get angry and upset, that teaches me about my own attachment, which is the cause of my own suffering.

If that were the software that controls the landing systems of the new Airbus A380, and the developer still doesn't want to acknowledge the bugs that you report (e.g. for time or cost restraints) would your attitude be the same?

[binocular]

If that were the software that controls the landing systems of the new Airbus A380, and the developer still doesn't want to acknowledge the bugs that you report (e.g. for time or cost restraints) would your attitude be the same?

Do you find that when there is more at stake (such as when it comes to the systems that control airplanes), the appropriate response is to allow oneself to be overwhelmed with worry?

[suriyopama]

If that were the software that controls the landing systems of the new Airbus A380, and the developer still doesn't want to acknowledge the bugs that you report (e.g. for time or cost restraints) would your attitude be the same?

Do you find that when there is more at stake (such as when it comes to the systems that control airplanes), the appropriate response is to allow oneself to be overwhelmed with worry?

I am not saying if it is appropriate or not, but I can tell that I would not be able to sleep until they fix it, or they fire me from the company. (I've been in similar circumstances, but not in Avionics).

I go back again to AN 2.98 - Bala Sutta:

"Monks, these two are fools. Which two? The one who takes up a burden that hasn't fallen to him, and the one who doesn't take up a burden that has. These two are fools."

I imagine that, depending on our kamma, some of us are presented with innocuous burdens, and others are presented with more threatening burdens.

My need to open this thread comes from my doubts about how to disentangle oneself from all that responsibilities and burdens without being neglectful.

[Mkoll]

suriyopama,

You've provided a lot of personal details here which is honest and helpful. In the end though our words on the internet forum can only be of so much help to your situation because only you are the one with boots on the ground. I'm guessing you've tried talking to those closer to you or in the know who sympathize and can give more specific advice. But if not, that's an idea. And if you have, maybe try again with a different approach.

[binocular]

I imagine that, depending on our kamma, some of us are presented with innocuous burdens, and others are presented with more threatening burdens.

Yes ...

My need to open this thread comes from my doubts about how to disentangle oneself from all that responsibilities and burdens without being neglectful.

Good point.

I think your situation may be quite rare - someone with both great worldly responsibilities that involve the lives of many people, and an interest in Buddhism.
So there are probably few role-models whom one could consult.

[suriyopama]

My need to open this thread comes from my doubts about how to disentangle oneself from all that responsibilities and burdens without being neglectful.

Good point.

I think your situation may be quite rare - someone with both great worldly responsibilities that involve the lives of many people, and an interest in Buddhism.
So there are probably few role-models whom one could consult.

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.