This essay was originally posted in Bernat Font's Substack newsletter, Berni's dharma, on January 2, 2025. It is reposted on the SBN website with Bernat's kind permission.
Bernat has taught with Martine and Stephen Batchelor and completed a teacher training course at Bodhi College in 2022. He holds a PhD in Buddhist Studies and founded the dharma organisation ‘Espai Sati’ in Barcelona, Spain.
**********
For a while I have been a bit dissatisfied with modern Buddhist stances on social justice and social issues in general. The way some Buddhist institutions in Europe & North America have addressed the horrific situation in Israel & Palestine kindled a reflection in me that's yet to reach a conclusion. I poured it into a piece titled Should Buddhism take sides?, which I wrote for myself and have been very hesitant to put out—and I won't, at least for the time being.
At its core lies the concern that, for the most part, current Buddhist engagement with issues such as anti-racism, equity & diversity and the like, are indistinguishable from the mainstream progressive left engagement with these things. I see that as a problem. (I’m in no way the first to say this.)
If that engagement has nothing specifically Buddhist/dharmic about it, then we're either assuming that the progressive left is already perfectly aligned with the dharma, that it is 'enlightened', or that it doesn't matter if it isn't. I disagree with all these.
To be clear, I’m not advocating for a reactionary stance. I just think we miss a valuable opportunity as Buddhists or meditators when we don’t think critically enough, from a dharmic viewpoint, about some mainstream ideas whose progressive spirit we may identify with, and instead adopt them wholesale, merely seasoning them with Buddhist language.
My good friend and colleague River Wolton once remarked how important it is to ask what Buddhism can learn from certain social movements. I agree. And I also think that these can learn from Buddhism, but I’m not sure we’re asking this question enough in the dharma world.
Things are changing, imperfect and conditioned. Past approaches to issues such as gender, sexuality and ethnicity have proved imperfect and improvable from our point of view today. We must bear in mind that our current approach is no different at all: it’s imperfect and improvable, even if it’s better than previous perspectives. A question such as 'What will people think about this in 50 years?' keeps me humble.
For example, I teach retreats for LGBTQIA+ audiences and I stand by that. But I still see it as a provisional measure and I’m open to other & future perspectives as long as they’re thoughtful, nuanced, and come from care for those in that community, not from feeling threatened by it.
Also, even being morally correct doesn't always mean not being reactive & unskilful. The way we usually take sides is reactive—again, are we 'enlightened', whatever that means? So, if Buddhism doesn't show us a different way of approaching complex social issues and taking stances on tragedies and injustices, what is it here for?
While in no way comparable to Israel & Gaza, I have the first-hand experience of the social divide that befell Catalonia in 2017 over the question of independence. It made me weary of 'taking sides' in a very embodied way.
Back in the day, Thich Nhat Hanh was firmly opposed to picking sides in the Vietnam conflict. And at last year’s teachers meeting in Switzerland, respected Israeli dharma teachers cautioned against retreat centres putting out public statements taking a stance—as many sanghas were pressuring them to do. And before you think 'Well of course...', those were teachers with decades of experience in reconciliation efforts and in supporting Palestinians.
Instead of sharing my original piece, I'd like to recommend the thoughtful article ‘Your Empathy is Killing Us’, which I was made aware of recently by meditation teacher Sumedha. I like how it describes 3 common responses to conflicts like Israel & Palestine's: 'Yes/No', 'Yes, BUT...', and the resigned impotence Adam Curtis calls 'Oh Dearism'. The author suggests an attitude of 'Yes, AND...'.
I believe Buddhist teachers, institutions and centres should definitely address these topics and even put out statements. But that is not the same as sucumbing to the social pressure to 'take sides'.
Buddhism should stand for doing things in an alternative, more skillful way. If it doesn't, we don't need it.
17 Replies to “Should Buddhism take sides?”
Thank you, Bernat, for giving us permission to post your piece. You also indicated that you wanted the piece to stimulate a conversation about the relationship between dharmic insights and other perspectives. So, here are a few of my thoughts. Others should please join in.
Although the title of Bernat’s article is “Should Buddhism Take Sides?”, it’s clear that Bernat is not proposing that Buddhists should avoid engaging in controversial issues and he is certainly not rejecting progressive views. He is concerned that some Buddhists take positions on controversial issues solely on the basis of progressive political perspectives that are unrelated to Buddhism.
I think that’s a valid concern, but it would have been helpful if Bernat had provided some specific examples of the problem he is highlighting.
More importantly, Bernat’s short piece does not address two issues which are crucial to how we envisage and practice a socially engaged Buddhism in our contemporary society. First, we need to clarify what kind of Buddhism we are referring to — traditional, modernistic, secular, etc. And second, what is the relationship between Buddhist perspectives and non-Buddhist perspectives?
Regarding the second issue, there are several ways of viewing this relationship:
1) Buddhist perspectives provide the crucial framework for taking a position and non-Buddhist perspectives are useful, at most, as a supplement.
2) Certain Buddhist insights and practices are crucial but so too are non-Buddhist perspectives.
3) Social engagement should be based on modern political perspectives such as socialism or feminism, which highlight social justice, equality, and democracy. Buddhism provides certain useful insights and practices which reinforce these modern perspectives.
My own approach has been based on #2. I don’t see Buddhism as the fundamental ground for my positions on controversial political issues, yet I think that certain secular Buddhist insights and practices are crucial in this regard. I believe that, when a secular form of Buddhism and a radical political perspective based primarily on a non-dogmatic, humanistic Marxism are brought together in a dialogue, this conversation enriches Buddhist practice and political activism.
Of course, others take a different approach, and that’s fine. But if we want to have a fruitful discussion on how and when Buddhists should take sides, then it’s important that we are clear about our approach to these two crucial issues.
“Should Buddhism take sides?”
I try to be ‘In the world,’ not ‘Of the world’ so it’s a no for me. I’m with Thay on this one.
There is one aspect I certainly agree with: traditional Buddhist ethics are closely tied to the logic of karma, which makes them less relevant to us . I also agree that the ethics of modern Buddhism in the West are seemingly tied to a progressive political perspective.
For better or worse, this latter connection makes this new ethical vision quite useful for analyzing the vast majority of current social and political conflicts. For instance, with this ethical framework, we can effectively examine climate change, social or gender inequalities, and world hunger. Without a doubt, the vast majority of modern Buddhists agree on condemning the Rohingya genocide carried out in 2017 by the armed forces of Myanmar.
However, some may find themselves surprised by modern Buddhism’s inability to ethically confront the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In many cases, attitudes towards this conflict are empty of substance (with generic proclamations for peace) or simply avoid the most controversial points.
Why is this the case? If traditional Buddhism is anchored in karma, modern Buddhism is anchored in a Western worldview—particularly an Anglo-Saxon one. It’s as simple as that. What does an Anglo-Saxon worldview mean? Essentially, it is a mercantilist, individualistic vision flavored with a sense of cultural superiority.
We know that the three countries where most modernist Buddhists reside are the USA, the UK, and Australia—three countries that are, to varying degrees, involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Many people who, from a modern Buddhist perspective, unreservedly criticize the Rohingya genocide will hesitate to call what is happening in Gaza a genocide (despite having a greater number of victims, by the way). Furthermore, they will feel offended if one of their leaders openly states that it is, in fact, a genocide. Many Americans, for example, would even see this as an attack on their own country. Are they complicit in supporting a genocide with their taxes?
Within the mercantilist logic of Anglo-Saxon modern Buddhism, these offended individuals would stop being clients of the courses and retreats offered by various groups, leaders, and gurus of modern Buddhism. Moreover, leaders who dare to criticize Israel will be subject to typical accusations of antisemitism or of supporting jihadist terrorism. Therefore, there is no gain in criticizing the policies of Israel and the US in the Middle East and plenty of danger in losing influence or being subject to harsh criticism.
Is there a solution to this? It seems highly unlikely. My personal perspective is not so much about taking sides in the conflict, but rather about honestly confronting the truth—what the vast majority of humanitarian organizations and international courts are stating, what any honest person can see on their television: after many years of Israeli apartheid, what Israel is now carrying out with the absolute support of the US is a genocide in every sense of the word.
But who commits genocide? I’m afraid they must be correctly called genocidal perpetrators. And those who support them must be called accomplices to genocide.
Here, I must highlight the bravery of Brian Victoria, who has no problem calling things by their name:
https://www.buddhistdoor.net/features/on-the-prospect-of-buddhist-complicity-in-genocide/
Starting from the truth, with honesty, we can begin to discuss whether or not one should take sides in the face of this monumental disaster.
I think you have touched on a very crucial point, Jesus. The faux hand-wringing by many of the so called (western buddhist) teachers in response to (in the words of the Ven. Bhikku Bodhi) “the gravest moral crisis of our time”, has been a shameful spectacle.
That refusing to speak out against the atrocities being committed against innocent people by a state (armed and supported by western countries, with their own histories of extermination of indigenous people) would mean taking sides is about as cowardly as it gets.
The mealy mouthed response of many of the Western Buddhist teachers to Israeli atrocities is all the more stark given the most strident non-Palestinian criticism of Israel has come from religious and secular Jews and Jewish organisations like B’Tselem, Breaking the Silence, JVP, and others.
One does not have to be seen to be “taking sides” (and, pray, why should one *not* take the side of the weak and defenceless?) in raising ones voice against the deliberate killing, maiming, and starvation of innocent women, children and men and the wilful destruction of their homes, infrastructure, water, food, educational and health systems and the targeting of humanitarian workers, teachers and medical professionals. If the writer and others like him were asked what they thought of Nazi’s exterminating Jews, Romani peoples, and homosexuals amongst others by the Nazi’s, would their response be that as Buddhists, they cant take sides? How about condemning the extermination of indigenous peoples of the Americas, Australia, Congo or Namibia by Western powers? Would condemning the Myanmar ruling Junta and enablers of ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya (like Aung San Suu Kyi, the much beloved of Western elite) also entail taking sides? I think it is disingenuous to say that Thich Nath Hanh was not taking sides. Of course he was taking sides. He took the side of the Vietnamese people, under attack by the American war machine, when he asked for war against his people to end.
The support for and the response to the long standing and continuing Israeli attacks on defenceless Palestinians has not only brought into the open the hollowness of Western countries (and their elites’) regard for rule of law and human rights but also exposed many of those who claim to follow the path of the Buddha for their complicity (through silence or “bothsideism”) in the crimes against Palestinian people.
Thank the Lord for teachers like Bhikku Bodhi for their courage and the clarity of their thought. https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/gaza-moral-crisis-of-our-time
Thanks, Arif. Some of what I could say I’ve already put in my response to Dave. Not taking sides (I repeat, in the *usual way* we do it) does not mean not having a position. Nor does it mean to be silent in the face of atrocities. I may write a continuation to my post, which anyway was broader and not focused on Israel-Palestine. I like Bhikkhu Bodhi’s article very much, for many reasons. One is how he points out the complicity of governments and the pressure on the US to help bring the complete cease-fire in the region. It’s necessary.
Stands that refuse to take a side in the usual can be an easy way out, which I wouldn’t endorse, or a recognition that the dharma is even more radical, in which case I’d be interested. I’m horrified about what’s happening to the Palestinian people, AND when I’ve spoke with Israeli acquaintances & dharma practitioners, hearing of the fear so many of them live with, the loss of some of their loved ones, and the unwillingness of others to even address them and hear their voice, I was equally horrified. If, on reading this just now, there has been an inner reaction of refusal—however subtle and however it finds justification—this is what I’m pointing to with my reflections. There’s no hint of condoning the Israeli government’s atrocities.
Whatever the secular Buddhist or dharmic response to pain we see around us, refraining from taking positions is contributing to the pain. If others’ positions are similar, why would that reflect on secular Buddhism? If a person is hungry, why not feed him? Would we say, “Gee, that’s too much like such and such food organization”?
Thanks, Dave. I don’t refrain from taking positions; if anything, I am taking one, precisely. If someone’s hungry we feed them (I’m not discouraging that!), if the Israeli government bombs Gaza we criticise it and oppose it, if Hamas attacks Israel we criticise it and oppose it. But often when we ‘choose’ the side of Palestine we become unable to condemn the latter, for example, without adding a “but…!” (Needless to say, this applies to taking Israel’s side as well.) We may start to engage in calculations of who’s more evil and start to justify or overlook acts of harm just because the other side has done worse. That I have a problem with, and I think it’s what a secular dharma should address that is not addressed elsewhere in quite the same way: the pitfalls of identifying with one side and clinging to views and opinions.
Thank you for your essay. The question is, in dealing with any conflict, what is to be the most appropriate response? It will always depend on the situation, of course, but our response should always be grounded in wisdom and compassion: To try to alleviate suffering as best as we can, through whichever skilful means we have. “Taking sides” can become dogmatic and ideological (if not fanatical), something Thich Nhat Hanh warned against; when asked if he was for North Vietnam or for South Vietnam, he replied he was for the middle. From this position, he accomplished an incredible and very significant amount of peace work. In every conflict, there is pain and suffering on all sides. “How can we best respond” is the question. Thank you.
Absolutely. That is exactly the point. Thich Nhat Hanh is a great example that to not “take sides” in the common sense of the expression does not at all mean to do nothing, or to remain uninvolved or un-discerning. It’s not the same as having no stance or position.
For an American inspiration of compassion for all sides, we can look to Walt Whitman’s work during the Civil War: “He spent 3 years visiting wounded and dying soldiers in the hospitals around Washington D.C. He brought gifts to the soldiers, wrote letters for those who were illiterate or too weak to write, sat with them as they died, and offered comfort to all who needed it, both Union and Confederate, black and white. Of his war time experience, Whitman wrote that ‘In my ministerings, I comprehended all whoever came in my way, northern or southern, and slighted none. It arous’d and brought out undream’d-of depths of emotions’. More than any other American poet, Whitman approached the ideal of the Bodhisattva.”
Excerpted from “Poetry of Impermanence, Mindfulness and Joy” edited by John Brehm.
In my opinion, organizations and practitioners, (those cultivating Buddhist principles and ethical practices as a path to wisdom and human flourishing), are obliged to weigh in on morally challenging world events. Speaking up is most urgent during periods of extreme oppression and violence such as genocide, especially when we (Americans) are financing the carnage. What is the point of nurturing Buddhist values and discipline if not to promote ethical conduct and reduce suffering in the greater world? Condemning state sponsored terrorism in no way demands minimizing the violent crimes of less powerful terrorists. Whatever the justification, failure to express outrage at the situation in Palestine (and our own complicity) lays bare the insincerity of the often recited “May all sentient beings be free from suffering and the causes of suffering”. Unless that means may all dying, sick, injured, and starving Palestinians not add the suffering of aversion to their agonizing experiences.
As for this essay, I am a bit confused. It seems that the spiritual values of Buddhists who are socially engaged is being conflated with the ethical principles of social movements these Buddhists are aligned with. “At its core lies the concern that, for the most part, current Buddhist engagement with issues such as anti-racism, equity & diversity and the like, are indistinguishable from the mainstream “progressive left” engagement with these things.” “These things” being engaged are social and economic manifestations of “greed, hatred, and delusion” the eradication of which is the precise objective of Gotama’s teachings.
That some positions and policies promoted by the “progressive left” are informed by values that coincide with some Buddhist ethical teachings or that Buddhists might cite their spiritual convictions in advocating a “progressive” position doesn’t mean that Buddhism and “progressive” ideas are synonymous. But Bernat seems to insist they are or, for Buddhists, should be (?) “If that engagement has nothing specifically Buddhist/dharmic about it, then we’re either assuming that the progressive left is already perfectly aligned with the dharma, that it is ‘enlightened’, or that it doesn’t matter if it isn’t. I disagree with all these.”
The non equivalence of Buddhist principles and “progressive” positions is then suggested as the basis for remedying for this supposedly pervasive problem within the Buddhist community saying “… we miss a valuable opportunity as Buddhists or meditators when we don’t think critically enough, from a dharmic viewpoint, about some mainstream ideas whose progressive spirit we may identify with, and instead adopt them wholesale, merely seasoning them with Buddhist language.” Is such intellectual laziness really widespread? I’m not seeing it in my sangha or in fellow Palestinian rights advocates.
———————————————————————————————
* I apologize for putting “progressive” and “left” in quotation marks. They indicate that I don’t really understand meaning of the rerms, as they are used in this essay.
Thanks, Susan. I very much agree with your first paragraph. Unfortunately, I have seen attitudes that minimize “the violent crimes of less powerful terrorists” and jar with statements like ‘May all beings be free from suffering’. I have seen/heard people unable to acknowledge those crimes without adding a “but” which they don’t add when acknowledging the more powerful state violence. Maybe I’m being very picky… I have also heard of dharma people refusing to even speak to Israeli dharma teachers & practitioners and hear their voices. This saddens me.
It’s possible my perception of this is exaggerated—hopefully the problem is smaller than I think! It probably is, in terms of Palestinian rights advocates; but in terms of diversity I do see this intellectual laziness to be quite widespread. I’m glad you haven’t encountered it and I’d be thrilled to see/read about approaches that bring in an inquisitive eye from Buddhist philosophy into those issues in a nuanced way. If you know of any, I’d be grateful 🙂
It’s difficult to ignore the collective responsibility of Israeli society in the situation of the Palestinians for decades—the systematic confiscation of land, the violation of basic human rights, and the dehumanization of Palestinians. This is not just a matter of a ruling elite; there is massive support within Israeli society for apartheid and ethnic cleansing. This is a reality, regardless of how we may feel about it. Every survey conducted shows the same results time and again.
It is therefore legitimate to ask about individuals involved in teaching Buddhism in Israel—why have we not heard them raise their voices against the genocide? Being Buddhists does not exempt them from this collective responsibility, even more so when we know of an Israeli Zen teacher advising Israeli soldiers on how to carry out their “work” with greater serenity.
Yes, there is a collective responsibility to some extent, although imposing certain moral obligations to people just for having been born somewhere can be delicate. Plus, I don’t know the percentage of Israelis against the genocide but numbers are not the point, rather to acknowledge there is dissent inside the country, as we have seen with demonstrations, and therefore to avoid absolutising tendencies. It’s also legitimate to ask dharma teachers there about their views, precisely! We should then listen attentively and assuming the best intentions. If we listen suspiciously, looking to disagree, to interpret things as bad intent and cheap justifications, as we often do when we identify with one side and listen to the other (if we listen at all), then I believe it’s a waste of time, an exercise in reactivity. That is to me part of the practice. I know of Israeli teachers deeply concerned with the situation, some have been working for peace there (they have done more to help than most people having opinions on the internet, I believe this is worth mentioning), some have left Israel, etc. Why we don’t hear their voices is a very good question, and I would be VERY cautious to assume the reason is just on the side of their fault: maybe they haven’t spoken up the way we want them to and we don’t know the reason unless we try to find out sincerely, maybe they have and we’ve not been listening / algorithms have not shown it to us.
This is a rich topic for our practice, which is not a self-serving attitude but rather can have a positive effect on the world, in addition to our minds. Another way to put my point since the beginning is that to simply side with this or that and develop strong opinions and reinforce them and be outraged and make sure we’re on the right side of history in terms of our opinion does, in itself, little to improve either the world or our minds. Approaching complex situations with a different mindset that resists black-and-white thinking is more skilful. I may be wrong.
Bernat, of course, there is dissent in Israel, but it is obvious that the positions advocating for a humane and decent approach to the “Palestinian question” are in the minority. In fact, these people are essentially involuntary accomplices. Through their professional activities and tax contributions, they are part of a segregationist and criminal state.
If you support a minimal respect for human rights and reject genocides, it is legitimate to have some suspicion or prejudice towards those who are voluntarily or involuntarily part of this complex and criminal system that the State of Israel has become.
We may personally oppose reactive attitudes, but on a global level, we know that this is precisely the problem. There is no significant reaction from Western countries and societies to the genocide we are witnessing in Gaza. Is there any limit to the atrocities that the West is willing to allow Israel to commit? I don’t know, but I am completely certain that we will not see any major response from the West. Why not? Basically, because all of this is about economic and power balances. The real power of the West is tied to Israel through these balances, and nothing that happens on the ground is going to change that (even if Trump and his henchmen carry out their ethnic cleansing plans and turn Gaza into a tourist resort filled with casinos).
As Brian Victoria recently warned, Gaza has become the canary in the coal mine—a dramatic signal of what is to come. It signifies a true moral collapse of the West, a warning that the impending barbarity will be unstoppable and much worse. That is why reacting to genocidal barbarism becomes an ineffective cry of moral dignity. Because the alternative—accepting genocide, apartheid, and segregation as something normal—is fundamentally worse. It would mean accepting that Nazism has won.
Hi Jesus. Thanks for the debate, but this will be my last reply. I’m not sure we’re still discussing what I tried to convey in my OP, but that’s fine. To me all this is about making an actual difference, small as it may be as an individual, and I believe this is easier to do when I don’t concern myself with the mentality of sides and who’s right/wrong, better/worse ”overall”, even though thoughts like that do happen in my mind.
It seems to me that the tendency to simplify the ’other’, to ignore nuance, to essentialize, to assign ’evil’ unto the falsely homogenized group, does not bring much benefit. It makes me feel very right; but it doesn’t help me understand people, learn about the human mind in general (which I can then apply to myself), decrease the possibility of bias or distortion in my current view & mental tendencies, engage with a situation in a creative and effective way that improves things with less collateral damage, and even soften, persuade and change minds.
To hold all Israeli citizens to a very high standard about being ’involuntarily part of’ horrible things, when I don’t apply this standard even-handedly to all citizens of all societies regarding all issues, is to me a good example of the pitfalls of the side-taking mentality. Does it increase or decrease empathy? (Increase = widen.)
Here’s a different example. I’m horrified about the law Trump just passed banning “men from women’s sports”. I oppose it & really feel for everyone that’ll be negatively affected by it. I don’t need to add this to a list of evilness I secretly keep about Trump and his voters, and I think doing so would have negative outcomes. Instead of saying they’re fascists & intentionally lying and deceiving the public to put forth their evil agenda, I see that they truly believe they’re doing good and are protecting women, but they’re misguided, reacting out of fear, using data that confirms that fear. They see a snake where there’s only a rope. I pity them and wish they weren’t suffering.
If/when I meet someone who voted for Trump, or someone who has concerns for women’s safety (in sports, prisons, jobs), or a woman who feels her experience is being erased, whether I approach this in terms of “sides” and mathematical summaries about who’s good and bad, or in terms of particular acts and points, can make a tremendous difference. In dependence on what my goal is and what outcome I want, I choose the approach. And this is the view (temporary, as always) that I reached and consciously adopted, after reflection and personal experience, as most consistent with my values as a dharma practitioner.
In general, I agree with your view of not taking sides. In the vast majority of cases, it is the most appropriate stance to take. However, I believe this perspective should have its limits. I have no interest in debating anything with those who support genocide, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing. I don’t care if the genocidal and their accomplices are offended. This is a red line that I believe we must uphold. It is not a matter of showing or supporting violence.; it is a matter of dignity and principles. Otherwise, things like what we witness daily become normalized: the normalization of the criminal extermination of thousands of civilians without consequence, the acceptance of genocidal impunity.
“We Buddhists should not be afraid of our anger. We should not suppress or deny it. We should experience it, know it fully. We might then know how to use and transform it. We might know what it has to do with love.” (Linda Hess)