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.
3 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.