The sacred mundane in Engaged Buddhism

The sacred mundane in Engaged Buddhism

by Sean Hillman
Religion Department
University of Toronto
April 2008

[based on "Engaged Buddhist Ethics" by James E. Deitrick]

The dialogue between Buddhist and the theistic traditions remains ongoing and fruitful. There are indeed many areas of mutual beneficial influence between them all, such as in the practice of monasticism which is shared by both Christianity and Buddhism, and in the great debate over how much energy spiritual practitioners should direct inwardly, in personal mental and emotional development, and outwardly, in relation to the basic, practical concerns of everyday life and in serving others. Deitrick's essay on "Engaged Buddhist Ethics" compares Buddhism to the liberation theology generally found in Christianity, and highlights the innovation of engaged Buddhist social ethics as being more concerned with immediate external problems, such as war and hunger, a focus which he refers to as being both "this-worldly" and the pursuit of a "mundane awakening." Although it can be useful to see what aspects of Buddhist soteriology match those found in Christianity, and helpful to explore what is unique in socially engaged Buddhism, in the process the author here may have created new and foreign distinctions in Buddhist thought and practice that are counterproductive: that between "this-worldly" and "other-worldly," and "mundane" and "sacred." This is not in keeping with the Buddhist approach of eliminating illusory dualism.

The term "mundane awakening" is used to describe the activities of the engaged Buddhist when addressing systemic problems in our world. The term is, to be frank, ridiculous. It might loosely be referred to as an oxymoron. Since awakening is a synonym for the highest attainment of Buddhahood, the most holy of accomplishments as it completely fulfils the aims of oneself and others, it cannot be said ever to be mundane, or in opposition to sacred. Although "mundane" is generally used to mean base or gross, the usage of "mundane" in this article seems rather to refer to external and practical matters. These are activities that might not generally be seen as spiritual, but that does not negate the possibility that they can be transformed into such. One can destroy the distinction between "mundane" and "sacred" with the following line of reasoning: every possible mundane activity is sanctified when infused with a sacred, or pure, motivation such as bodhicitta (Skt: “awakening mind”; the wish to become enlightened for the benefit of all beings). When analysed more closely, using the Tibetan Buddhist debate method of possibilities, the words that make up the term "mundane awakening" have 4 possibilities in relation to each other : there are activities which are both mundane and assist in awakening (caring for the sick), there are examples which are neither mundane nor awakening (non-existents such as a sky-flower), there are awakening activities which are not mundane (entering samadhi), and there are mundane activities which are not conducive to awakening (drinking alcohol). In keeping with his dualistic approach, the author also proposes engaged Buddhist practice as "focusing on the mundane causes of worldly suffering" rather than "the kind of suffering traditionally understood by Buddhists to arise from egoistic attachments." Such statements show a great lack in understanding of the teachings of the Buddha in relation to karma in particular, and cause and effect in general. For brevity, causes are simply divided into root, instrumental and direct. The root cause of our dwelling in cyclic existence is ignorance, the instrumental causes of having a human life are our parents copulating, and the direct causes of having a human life are the previous moment of mind and the previous moment of form. In terms of the type of suffering at issue here, practical concerns such as the unequal distribution of water, the fact that the engaged Buddhist goes after the direct and instrumental causes does not mean that they are ignoring the root cause or the need to address it! The engaged Buddhist will address the instrumental cause of water shortage by lobbying the governmental body who is in charge of water. They will address the direct cause by bringing water to the people or giving them a means to filter their local polluted water sources. They will address the root cause by instructing on the nature of reality, or at the very least teach the people who are lacking water about the workings of karma, that depriving others of resources results in being deprived oneself, and give them the methods to purify such past negative deeds to prevent future droughts.

To be fair, it is often useful to denote between opposites, and is commonly done in Buddhism with good effect. Actions are divided into virtuous and non-virtuous, beneficial and not beneficial, powerful and weak. We can also see the Buddhist use of dualistic demarcation when all beings are slotted as “sacred”, by way of possessing a Buddha-nature, and their behaviour which is not conducive to awakening is very appropriately labelled “mundane.” Let us look at a current social issue to illustrate this. The similarity between engaged Buddhist soteriology and Christian liberation theology is shown by the author to be the stress on “liberation from all forms of human oppression: social, economic, political, racial, sexual, environmental, religious.” When meeting with North American gay and lesbian Buddhists, His Holiness the Dalai Lama was asked what Buddhism has to say about homosexuality. No doubt they were anxious. Most religions reject homosexuality outright, and yet here before them was the Buddha of Compassion in human form. What would he say? His response was amazingly skilful, and used the technique of demarcation brilliantly. His Holiness unabashedly stated that, textually, the category of sexual misconduct includes a sub-section of “wrong orifice” which is any sexual activity that is not penile-vaginal. These activities the Buddha recommends against for people who hold the vow to abstain from sexual misconduct. They are not naturally negative actions, but rather are recommended abstinences. For a vow-holder, to engage in them would be non-virtuous because of the commitment to refrain. A gay monk is not engaging in ANY sexual activity, and yet still identifies as gay not by behaviour but by orientation. Their personal identity, in part, is one of being a gay person and their object of desire is not the opposite gender. Here, His Holiness very clearly and analytically demarks such behaviour, specifically for vow holders, as mundane or not conducive to awakening. Next, His Holiness states that nobody should be treated any differently because of their sexual orientation. Because all beings are sacred, and by the law of the land all humans are entitled to every human right, homosexuals are to be treated equally.