While the Buddha had little to say about politics or social change, engaged Buddhists see ending physical suffering as the path to Nibbana.

In 1963, the Vietnamese Zen Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh coined the term “engaged Buddhism”. He did so in order to describe a phenomenon in Buddhism in which one is not simply advised to withdraw from the world in solitary meditation but to combat social and political injustice. Engaged Buddhism is a politically active form of Buddhism.





Some have argued that a Buddhist monk should have no involvement in politics and that Buddhism has no political message. Proponents of engaged Buddhism disagree with this, arguing that to be a Buddhist is to be socially and politically involved. The Buddha had very little to say about politics and society, and the question remains as to whether engaged Buddhism is a modern phenomenon or if it can be found in traditional Buddhist teachings.

Historically, Buddhism addresses the problem of “suffering” (dukkha). In the past the origins of suffering are described twofold: “craving”, characterised as greed, hatred and delusion; and “ignorance”, characterised as lack of knowledge of the way things really are.

There is nothing wrong with the world but with the way we perceive it. The problem, therefore, is with the mind and its propensity for attachment and craving. We perceive the world with greed, hatred and delusion. Social structures are, in a way, part of the problem: They enforce craving and ignorance.

Engaged Buddhism analyses social structures and adopts the view that suffering may originate from them. It identifies certain political, economic and social institutions as manifestations of greed, hatred and delusion. The Buddhist is compelled to strive for social liberation through engaging with these external causes of suffering.

Any Buddhist attempt at social and political engagement is faced with a number of problems. At the root of this problem is that in tackling the causes of suffering in social and political structures one is involving oneself in suffering. In so doing one is potentially becoming entangled in those impermanent phenomena that will change and decay without any necessity for the Buddhist to intervene. On these grounds some would therefore argue that Buddhism has no political and social message.

Enshrined in the Myanmar constitution is the premise that a Buddhist monk cannot vote in elections. But the question remains as to whether a monk should be involved in politics at all. In the Pali Canon, a virtuous monk is described as “an incomparable field of merit for the world” (anuttaram punnakkhettam lokassa). By making offerings to the monk, primarily during his daily alms round, one accrues much benefit in this life and the next. The instruction that the monk gives to lay followers would normally be considered religious teaching focusing on the overcoming of suffering. The monk would not usually be expected to give political instruction. I am not suggesting that a monk should not act politically but highlighting some of the issues involved in monastic political activity.

Indeed, one of the dilemmas faced by the proponent of engaged Buddhism is the seeming reluctance of the Buddha to make pronouncements about social change. However, it goes deeper than this. There is not only reluctance within Buddhism to be engaged in politics, but a very real philosophical necessity to remain distant from strategies of social change and distinct from political involvement.





In traditional forms of Buddhism this dilemma finds part of its articulation with two related ideas. These are the relationship between two aspects of experience: the “mundane” (lokiya/loki) ordinary world and the “supramundane” (lokuttara) spiritual world. Politics is usually assumed to be part of the mundane world while religion is part of the supramundane world.

The mundane world is the realm of ordinary experience rooted in craving and attachment, of which politics is part. Involvement in this world is not usually directly related to the Buddhist goal of the complete overcoming of suffering. Opposed to this is the supramundane spiritual and religious world, in which a Buddhist strives to overcome suffering and escape from the cycle of rebirths. For the politically motivated engaged Buddhist the disjuncture between these two opposing ideas is rectified and the Buddhist strives for political and religious liberation.

In fact, the two are not seen as distinct in engaged Buddhism. The mundane and supramundane are united and the goal of liberation is often seen as achievable in this life. Awakening, or Nibbana, is no longer a distant aspiration but something achievable in this life. There is a focus on the here and now, and traditional Buddhist cosmological ideas are collapsed with the lessening of a focus on the endless rounds of rebirths. Importantly, the layperson and the monastic are equal in their religious aspirations and their position in the Buddhist community and they can both achieve awakening.

Those who make use of Buddhist teachings in a social and political way should be aware of the complexity and potential philosophical precipices as they strive to use Buddhist ideas to change the world. Buddhist texts often stress the idea that to adhere to the conviction that “only this is true, anything else is wrong” – as one might do with a political doctrine or ideology – leads to dispute, quarrels, trouble and vexation, which the Buddhist path aims to eradicate. In attempting to move the focus from the adaptation and exploration of the mind to the adaptation of the world, the engaged Buddhist should be mindful of the focus of Buddhist thinking in certain key areas. In joining political and religious ideas, Buddhism is often on unfamiliar ground.

For the engaged Buddhist, suffering is not only psychological, to be overcome by such techniques as meditation, but finds its causes in a wide variety of factors. Political struggle, among other things, can then be used as a technique to overcome suffering. Indeed, the same point could be made for a nationalistic sentiment being embraced by a Buddhist society. Political, national and religious endeavour can be legitimated in engaged Buddhism. In this way we might better understand political and nationalist Buddhist movements in modern Asia that do not resemble our romantic notions of Buddhism.

Paul Fuller has taught religious studies at universities in Southeast Asia, Australia and the United Kingdom. His research interests include early Indian Buddhist philosophy, the Buddhist ideas of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and ethnocentric Buddhism in Myanmar and Sri Lanka.