In other words: interest in Buddhism is directed primarily toward particular aspects regarded as useful “mind therapies.” Buddhism is seen as a skillful means to help calm the mind in the turbulence of daily life. This is a Buddhism understood mainly as a teaching for internalizing quiet forbearance in the face of suffering and personal losses. Fundamental Buddhist concepts such as suffering and the 1 cessation of suffering, non-attachment, no-self, impermanence, tonglen, karma, and even non-violence, are given psychological interpretations, often at odds, or only partially connected to their original doctrinal intent. One example is the common misunderstanding of the concept of karma. Karma is not Calvinist predestination, it is the concept of human responsibility extended to its ultimate essence as causes and effects. Karma teaches that we are free to choose our actions and the causes of our actions, but we must know that we are not free to avoid their consequences. The Eightfold Path teaches precisely how to ensure our karma remains within the bounds of positive outcomes. However, clearly, Buddhism is more than breathing exercises after supper, or sitting on a cushion while the kids are texting their schoolmates. To this effect let us examine the case of Ch’an Master Sheng Yen’s engaged Buddhism teachings concerning the Pure Land on earth. Sheng Yen teachings are an explicit argument in favor of a Buddhism that is engaged in the "redemption" of the world in the “here and now.” For Sheng Yen, Amitabha’s Pure Land should not be understood as referring only to a transcendent realm of the spirit, something akin to a paradise or even para-nirvana, nor is it only an individual’s cultivated mind's enlightened approach to the coming and goings of daily existence. Sheng Yen explains that Pure Land is a concrete and practical goal attainable in our current lives through actions of social responsibility and mutual solidarity. Tracing his school’s lineage Master Sheng Yen stated: “I have followed in the steps of the sages of the past to advocate the Pure Land on Earth. In addition to expressing in various ways the viability of building a Pure Land on Earth, I have also given lectures on the topic to articulate the necessity of building a Pure Land on Earth.”
The emphasis on a Pure Land on earth is a foundational principle of Sheng Yen’s engaged Buddhism, and clearly defines the unique redemptory content embedded in Buddhist practice. As Sheng Yen taught, a correct understanding of buddhadharma rejects the duality between the realm of spiritual practice and that of social engagement. Both realms, the spirit and the social, are a unified field of practice. Therefore, as he explains, in order to perfect the “spiritual environment” we must perfect the social and natural environments, and, at the same time, in order to perfect the social and natural environments we must perfect the mind. There is no dharmic distinction that allows for the separation of the human mind from the human relationships with the social, natural and living realms of existence. All sentient and insentient beings are dharma, and all are the indivisible inter-being parts of the body of the Buddha and the radiant soil in Amitabha’s Pure Land on earth. In other words: The practices of dharma is to tend to the body of the Buddha. We can ask: If all the earth is the Buddha Land, why are some people still feeling vexations and conducting themselves in unenlightened ways? The answer is that the task of the Buddhist practitioner is to be engaged with society to help it see the dharmic light that dispels the samsaric darkness blinding our ability to see the beauty of the soil on which we stand. Master Sheng Yen’s teachings of Pure Land on earth resembles older teaching of Master Dogen. Dogen Zenji said "Handle even a single leaf of green in such a way that it manifests the body of the Buddha. This in turn allows the Buddha to manifest through the leaf… The color of the mountains is Buddha's body, the sound of running water is his great speech.” We learn dharma by practicing a dharmic relationship with all beings. The environment is the dharma and the body of the buddha, therefore Buddhist practice relates 2 intrinsically to the creation of a Pure Land on earth. Since all of life on earth depends on our ability to be conscious of the consequences of our deeds and of the compassion we offer one another, it is imperative to be proactive in the protection of the physical and the spiritual environments.
Metta and karuna are not only emotional contents or moral commitments, they are first and foremost deeds of engagement with one another and with all beings. We ask: how does engaged Pure Land Buddhism become a daily living practice? As we can see, each term used in the Metta Sutta recitations has a corresponding deed of implementation. The right understanding of metta is to actualize awakening as deeds of engagement with the world. This understanding is built into the fundamental dharmic goal of enlightenment, and this is consistent with the basic teachings of Pure Land, as for Buddhism reaching understanding is not only an intellectual exercise, but it is to become awakened and to manifest this awakening as deeds 3 of compassion. In other words: dharma is a whole-being enlightenment consciousness. This whole-being understanding is the same practice as the biblical concept of “da’at.” In the biblical book of genesis it is told that Adam “knew” Eve and then they conceived their first child. Da’at is a teaching of knowing through loving, as opposed to the partial knowing that results from intellectual inquiry alone. The teaching of wrong understanding in the Eightfold Path, is not only a reference to intellectual failures, but essentially, it is a reference to the wrong manner of practicing buddhadharma in the realm of the social. In the west, in contrast to Buddhism, social engagement is mostly reduced to a sociological discipline rather than a whole-being awakening. This is one essential distinction between cultures that emphasize linear reasoning and cultures of enlightenment: Enlightenment does not deny reason, it only incorporates it into a holistic view of human nature. Metta is one of the four abodes of Brahma. In Mahayana Buddhism, the Buddha describes the meditative states of the “Brahma-viharas'' as quintessential characteristics of the Buddha-dhatu (Buddha-nature or Buddha-Principle.) Metta therefore is a pre-requirement to enlightenment, not an optional posterior attainment. In other words, metta precedes enlightenment and is a condition sine-quanon for its attainment, and to some extent it is the entirety of the practice. Metta is reaching enlightenment through the engagement in dharmic relationships with one another and all beings.
The teaching of karuna is indivisible from the teaching of metta. Karuna typically translates in English as “compassion,” a concept used in the spiritual paths of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. However, rather than the sense of emotional sorrow or empathy associated with the Latin root of the word compassion, the word Karuna comes from the Sanskrit kara, which means “to-do” or “to make,” indicating an action-based form of compassion, that is, engaged practice. In contrast, the Latin term “to care” derives from the word “cuore” which means “heart,” therefore compassion is seen mostly as an inner feeling or a content of the heart. In Buddhist terms this type of compassion would only be a partial practice, as compassion in the heart needs to be made manifest in compassion in deeds. In other words, karuna is compassion in actual deeds. In the Buddha’s Pure Land, the personal self is not the locus of enlightenment or salvation, but the Buddha Land as a whole. In other words, the personal self is not the locus of enlightenment or salvation, but the Buddha Land as a whole. We are saved in the Pure Land of the Buddha, where metta and karuna are the guiding practices. Metta is living with primordial intention, that is to say, metta is the conscious awareness of I-Thou relationships, but metta is an intention that can only be manifested existentially. Metta becomes relational mindfulness once the deeply felt emotions of compassion lead to karuna, that is, to deeds we do. In this sense, awakening is not only a personal perception but a collective deed, and it is the responsibility of all to work toward the salvation of all. This mirrors the Judaic concept that the messiah does not save individuals, but the community as a whole. In the Jewish Bible, The prophet Moses took the entire community of Hebrew slaves out of Egyptian bondage before he could bring to the people the divinely inscribed tablets of the law. Based on Buber’s definitions we make the distinction between I-Thou as relationships and I-It as interactions. A genuine relationship is based on mutuality, while an interaction is only a transactional approach to the other. There is no dualism in I-Thou, and there is no attachment in the 4 between of I-Thou, there is only the relationship, but there is dualism and attachment in the interactions of I-It. This Buberian discourse on relationships could also be translated as the essential distinction between a dharmic engagement with one another and all beings, and a samsaric approach toward the world, the former encapsulated in Engaged and Pure Land Buddhism and the later in the unenlightened world of material consumerism. We can say that Buber’s Dialogical philosophy differs from other forms of existentialism in that for Buber the relationship between I and Thou precedes existence, and only then existence precedes essence. I-Thou is the primordial human relationship, and all other forms of living in the world are either approximations to primordiality or alienations from it. Similarly, we can argue that Zen Buddhism is a primordial spirituality that antecedes any religious or institutional structure, and we can likewise argue that metta and karuna are practices that precede attainment of awakening. We don’t awaken to metta and karuna, but metta and karuna awakens us.
In a similar emphasis on the primacy of deeds, Martin Buber explained that there is nothing that can be said in words about God, no theologies or philosophies can explain or define God, but nonetheless we can embrace him in the embrace of a being. The relationship, beside and apart words or texts, is the primordial spirituality and no other discursive accrual is required. This is similar to the story of the Buddha in Vulture Peak: Just as Mahākāśyapa, who surely had many things he could have said to the Buddha, he found no other way to express his awakened understanding but to hold in his hand a little lotus flower. Therefore, the argument that Zen is the primordial system of awakening from which all other systems and practices of enlightenment emerge, is based on the sense that Buddha Shakyamuni awoke to the understanding that the practices of meditation and deeds of metta and karuna are one and the same, and as such they constitute the entirety of his dharma teachings. As a consequence the Buddha proceeded to establish a sangha, that is, a community based on dharmic relationships, and went out to help spread the dharma to all sentient beings. Likewise, the Dialogical I-Thou ‘sangha’ is the primordial existential reality from which all conceptions of ethics and human relationships emerge. It is in this sense that I’ve argued that Zen preceded Buddhism, not as a strict historic- chronological fact, but as an insight of the teaching itself. The Buddha’s post-awakening sangha and Buber’s Dialogical philosophy represent the enactment in society of the mind of metta and karuna outside and besides religious institutionalism. In Buberian dialogue, the standing in relationship of I-Thou with the neighbor and with all beings is one and the same as the attainment of God, not just a means to the end, and I suggest that in engaged Buddhism, nirvana is one and the same with the practice of the Buddhadharma in the here and now. One does not practice the Buddhadharma in order to attain nirvana, but nirvana is itself the practice of the dharma. Buber draws his dialogical philosophy from biblical and other Judaic sources that define the attainment of God as the summum bonum of religion, as nirvana is for Buddhism. In the biblical book of Deuteronomy (15:8) it is written: “You shall surely open your hand to the poor, and shall surely lend him sufficient for his need/lack, according as he needs/ lacks”. The Talmud explains the phrase: “According to that which is lacking for the poor person, you are commanded to give him... if it is appropriate to give him bread, they give him bread; if dough, they give him dough, if to feed him, they feed him. if he is not married and wants to take a wife, they enable him to marry; they 5 rent a house for him, and provide a bed and furnishings…” While the Bible does not specifically itemize the reasons for the fiery demise of Sodom, the biblical prophet Ezekiel found it necessary to explain the motives behind God’s decision to destroy the city: “Behold this was the sin of Sodom. She and her daughters had pride, excess bread, and peaceful serenity, but she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy.” The Hebrew Bible, the Torah, contains the very specific and social radical teachings of twenty one prophets. The Hebrew prophets admonished the people to implement in the here and now of this earth the precepts of the kingdom of God. In the kingdom of God, there is only room for social justice for the poor and the oppressed, peace between nations, freedom of slaves and generally, a socially conscious society.
In other words, as in the teachings of Christian Liberation Theology that places the face of Christ in the face of the neighbor who is oppressed and in need, we can say that the body of the Buddha is in our engagement to end the suffering of the earth and all its beings. Otherwise, the world is “destroyed.” In addition to metta and karuna, to fully understand the teachings of social engaged Buddhism we must reflect on the central Buddhist concept of dukkha. One common understanding refers to dukkha as an inner emotional or psychological state of despair. From this it follows that if dukkha is an inner condition, the only logical path to its cessation is to follow the practice of a thorough inner discipline. However, the Buddhist teaching for the cessation of suffering consists in following the Eightfold Path described in the Four Noble Truths. The Eightfold Path includes a teaching of right action and a teaching of right livelihood. This clearly reflects the Buddha’s insight that inner salvation also requires the implementation of dharmic practices in the "outer" life where we engage in relationships within society. Therefore, a more adequate understanding of dukkha, is to argue that dukkha is not just an inner sense of despair, it is also a manner of behavior in society as a whole. The Buddhist masters that conceived of social engagement as a manifestation of buddhadharma, expanded the concept of dukkha to include also the practical, concrete and quotidian reality of existential despair. In other words, dukkha emerges not only as a result of the unawakened exposure to the reality of impermanence, but also as a result of outer social conditions such as poverty, oppression, war, ecological degradation and social injustice. Impermanence cannot be changed, only our inner reactions to it, but social conditions are changeable, therefore engaged Buddhism argues that the cessation of dukkha also requires the application and implementation of buddhadharma in the realms of social and public affairs. In this vein, the Mahayana concept of the Bodhisattva is one of the central tenets of the engaged Pure Land Buddhism. Master Sheng Yen said: “Bodhisattva’s Actions… How does one attain buddhahood? The bodhi-mind comes first. What is bodhi-mind? First is to benefit others.” In other words, the relationship precedes the attainment. It is in error to understand the Bodhisattva practice of helping all beings to be free as the postponing of personal entrance to Nirvana, for to help all other sentient beings attain liberation is itself the entering into the Pure Land. Buddhist liberation is not something that occurs in a different realm of existence, it is here and now.
Liberation Theology argues that the presence of Christ is to be found not only in the sacraments of the church, but mainly in the lives of the afflicted and the oppressed. Therefore the path to God is precisely in the social actions we engage in to alleviate the suffering of the least of us. Pope Francis, while not explicitly an adherent of Liberation Theology, speaks of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as a “culture of encounter,” in other words, a sacrament of creating a Pure Land on earth. Jesus’s sermon on the mount is equally a Jewish witness to the reality of life on earth and a teaching of Pure Land. 7 The sermon's emphasis on peace, humility, love and compassion were not said to be practices to be deferred to a future time of divine redemption. The original vision of the Jesus that spoke on the mount was that living our quotidian lives on this earth in the light of those same ethical precepts he had proclaimed is itself the kingdom of God. In the same vein, Sheng Yen explained in his “Four Steps to Magical Powers,” that seeing into Buddha-Nature is a critical step along the way, but it is just a step. If the steps do not lead to the creation of a Pure Land on earth, then we undertook a wrong understanding of what Buddha-Nature is. Martin Buber advocated the creation of a society based on the principles of "Religious Socialism.” Buber's religion was not an institutional or theological system but a practice of relationships with one another and the world. Buber said that Socialism without religion is like a body without a soul, and religion without Socialism is like a soul without a body. In other words, neither option is imbued with life. The teachings of Sheng Yen and engaged Buddhism manifest a similar understanding that a Buddhism without justice, compassion and environmental respect cannot be said to be a correct expression of the buddhadharma. Of course, Buber's Socialism has no connection to the political socialisms of the 20th century. What we see from these teachings is that the practices of engaged Buddhism are to lead a conscious dharmic life on earth and not to focus our spiritual attention toward a world-to-come in the realm of the transcendent. After all it is obvious that right action and right livelihood are not ancillary corollaries, but integral parts of the Buddha's eightfold path. Recognizing the importance of work as a central human task, and being therefore a fundamental locus for our practices of liberation, the Buddha designated a number of work activities as straightforward wrong livelihoods. Despite the fact that Buddhism regards all of life to be dharma, nonetheless, from a dharmic perspective, not all work is conducive to liberation, nor can it be regarded as a genuine manifestation of buddhadharma. As the Buddha instructed, some types of work are incompatible with liberation, and others clearly act as hindrances. Examining the teaching of right livelihood, it seems clear that the practices the Buddha encouraged for the actualization of inner and outer liberation require the creation of a society structured along the lines of “Dharmic Socialism.” In some Buddhist texts, a person that hoards wealth is likened to a bird called the “mayhaka,” which normally lives in the fig tree. While birds normally fly from tree to tree to find their food, the mayhaka stays in one place yelling “mayham,” “this is mine.” The Buddhadharma teaches that greed, being the fuel of Capitalism, ought to be cleansed away from the mind. From “having” (attachment) to “being" (Buddha-Nature) there is a narrow bridge with precarious floors, and the Buddha taught the proper way to walk over that perilous path.
Master Sheng Yen taught a humanistic Buddhist dharma that naturally and seamlessly becomes applied to life in society. In the 17th century, Zen Master Hakuin used to inveigh against what he called the “do nothing Zen” practitioners. Those were practitioners who believed that after attaining enlightenment they have reached the ultimate goal of buddhadharma. Hakuin, in contrast, asked for a post-enlightenment training to send enlightened people to help create an enlightened society. An enlightenment that does not manifest as a practice of justice in a compassionate society is not a true enlightenment, it is another delusion of Mara. We can see Hakuin's teachings as a clear advocacy of engaged Buddhism. In the 20th century, Zen Master Suzuki Roshi said it well: strictly 8 speaking there are no enlightened persons, there is only enlightened activity. In other words, deeds are the mark of awakening, for unless we act in society we cannot be said to be truly enlightened. Similarly, we find in the Theravada tradition the teachings of Buddhadasa Bikkhu who spoke of “Dhammic Socialism” as the realization of buddhadharma. Buddhadasa Bikkhu spoke of the necessity to transform society in the model of a dharmic Socialist system. For Bikkhu, Socialism was not only a better social and economic system, but the only societal organizing principle in which dharma could be implemented and actualized. Since all of nature is dharma, we learn dharma from nature, and when Bikkhu expanded on Buddhism's observation about the negativity of hoarding, he learned dharmic socialism from the example of nature and her beings. Bikkhu wrote: “Look at the birds: We will see that they eat only as much food as their stomachs can hold. They cannot take more than that, they don’t have granaries. Look down at the ants and insects: that is all they can do. Look at the trees: Trees imbibe only as much nourishment and water as the trunk can hold, and cannot take in any more than that. Therefore a system in which people cannot encroach on each other’s rights or plunder their possessions is in accordance with nature and occurs naturally. The freedom to hoard was tightly controlled by nature in the form of natural Socialism.” This dharmic natural Socialism is the actualization of the liberated mind within the context of life in society. In Tibetan Buddhism, the Dalai Lama speaks of being “half Buddhist and half Marxist.” The Dalai Lama explicitly expanded on the need for Dharmic Socialism. Continuing with his exposition of Marxism, HH stated: “I am humanitarian Marxist, I am Buddhist Marxist, I am not nationalistic Marxist, I am also a socialist. Marxist economic theory is for all, it propagates for equal distribution and Marxism and Buddhism are working in a similar line. I am totally against the totalitarian system and using force... of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while Capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes, that is, the majority, as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair.” The Dalai Lama speaks about the application of true dharma deeds to everyday relationships in society. It is essential to emphasize that the Dalai Lama’s own understanding of Marxism, as was Buber’s understanding of Socialism, does not correspond to the Leninist theories of a totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat as the values and practices of Buddhism cannot be imposed from the outside. The Dalai Lama’s views are essentially the same as Martin Buber’s “Religious Libertarian Socialism.” In his “Paths in Utopia,” Buber spoke of two different and opposing kinds of Socialism: “Jerusalem or Moscow,” that is, a socialism of the spirit or a dictatorship of the state. Paraphrasing Buber, we can say that The Dalai Lama’s Socialism speaks of two different and opposing kinds of Marxism: Lhasa or Beijing. Many Buddhist practitioners have been actively engaged in the spreading of a Buddhist Socialist message, some in the past and many in our present days. One of the exponents of Buddhist Socialism in Japan during the second world war was Girō Senoo, a Nichiren Buddhist who resigned from the sect and created the Youth League for Revitalizing Buddhism. Senoo was a pacifist who argued that “The Capitalist 9 system generates suffering, and thus, it violates the spirit of Buddhism.” Senoo’s Socialism was closer to that espoused by the Dalai Lama’s as it rejected orthodox Marxism in favor of a “Pure Land of Buddhism” founded on “Humanistic Socialism.” One of the principles of the Youth League read: “We recognize that the present Capitalist economic system is in contradiction with the spirit of Buddhism and inhibits the social welfare of the general public. We resolve to reform this system in order to implement a more natural society.” By natural society Senoo meant a community organized on the basis of the “The teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha and in accordance with the principle of brotherly love.” In 1904, Japanese Pure Land Priest Takagi Kenmyo wrote an essay called “My Socialism.” Kenmyo’s argument was that in the land of bliss, that is the Buddhism’s Pure Land, the community lives in accordance with principles and practices of humanist Socialism. In Kenmyo’s view “Namu Amidah Butsu” is a mantra asking for an egalitarian, Socialist and Pacifist society. Kenmyo was imprisoned and assassinated by the Fascist regime of Japan for his principled opposition to the imperialist war with Russia. The dharmic society advocated by these masters is what Buber referred to as the Dialogical project, that is, the creation of an I-Thou society that curbs and reverses the economic, social and political interactions that are both a manifestation of “Itness,” as well as their end result. The Buddhist practices of meditation and mindfulness will naturally make themselves manifest in a form of society in which the values of Capitalism and unrestrained materialism will be largely discarded and replaced with the spiritual values of the buddhadharma.
Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh’s teachings of “Interbeing” are an expression of engaged Pure Land Buddhism. Thay teach that we must awaken to the realization that humans and all beings live in a world of “inter-being.” Interbeing is a socially extended insight based on the fundamental Buddhist teaching of “dependent co-arising.” Thay said: “We are here to dispel the illusion of separateness.” Inter-being teaches that we cannot separate ourselves from society and expect to thereby attain enlightenment. Dharma Holder Master Gun Jun well said: “Retreating from the world will not liberate you. Happiness is not found in a secluded forest hut or an isolated cave. Enlightenment comes when you connect to the world. Only when you truly connect with everyone and everything else do you become enlightened. Only by going deeply and fully into the world do you attain liberation.” In the following statement, Master Sheng Yen explains the concept of Pure Land with clarity and specificity: "Buddhists have two great missions: one is to glorify the Buddha land, and the other is to bring sentient beings to spiritual maturity… The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra, teaches that by helping others achieve enlightenment, you achieve it yourself. Where do we find people that we can help? We can find them in this world, and in every world in the ten directions, but mostly right in our immediate surroundings, our families, friends, colleagues, and especially, our adversaries, whom we should regard as bodhisattvas... The precepts are the vows you take to lead a peaceful life through regulating your behavior of body, speech, and mind. In the passive sense, upholding the precepts means vowing not to commit any wrongful act. In the active sense, it means vowing to engage in as many acts as possible that benefit yourself as well as others; it means taking responsibility. The purpose of practicing meditation is to create inner peace by calming the mind and stabilizing your emotions. If you practice meditation well you are less likely to become angry or agitated in your everyday life. By meditation, we do not mean just sitting in concentrated 10 states, we also mean bringing mindfulness to all your activities. Through meditation your emotions and behavior will become more stable, and conflicts with others will lessen. Through this and other practices we can eventually establish peace in the lives of individuals and societies." As Martin Buber explained, we become an "I" through a “Thou,” or in other words, "by helping others achieve enlightenment, you achieve it yourself.” It is the right understanding of the concepts of metta, karuna and dukkha that underlie the essential practices of Buddhism in general, and Pure Land in particular. Clearly, it is in this regard that I deem Buddhism to be of immense importance for the reconstruction of spirituality within all religious traditions of the east and the west. I interpret Martin Buber's philosophy as advancing the fundamental argument that God is not in the relationship between I and Thou, but is the relationship itself. Given this, the spiritual practice consists entirely in the implementation in society of social programs based on peace and brotherhood. God, in this Dialogical sense, is the Pure Land of Amitabha Buddha. The encounter between Buddhist teachings and practices, and engaged Buddhism in particular, with the Judaic Dialogical philosophy of Martin Buber and other similar strands of Humanistic Existentialism, will engender a most fruitful understanding of the urgent needs and vital prospects of a society founded on the values of buddhadharma. Buber insisted on the fact that spirituality and social justice intertwine as one and the same practice, as there can be no genuine spiritual life outside of the I-Thou relationship. Interbeing is the intrinsic dharmic relationships between all that lives, which in Buberian terms corresponds to the concept of the between of I and Thou. Hanh did not speak of no-being or intra-being, but of a being grounded in the relationship with one another and all beings. In Buber’s words “At the beginning it was the relationship.” Engaged Buddhism, by integrating as one and the same spiritual practices with a commitment to social justice, individuals and communities can work toward the creation of a more just, compassionate, and equitable society, a society devoid of systemic injustices. Buber’s philosophy can be represented by the realization that we should not seek God above nor below, not in the spirit or the flesh, for God is not an entity anywhere. God is The Between of I and Thou, and that between is the actualization of the pure land of the Buddha on earth, a society built on freedom, social justice and radical love. In summary, there is a deep and fecund connection between engaged Buddhism and Dialogical philosophy. The body of the Buddha is another term for the between of I and Thou. The between of I and Thou is the Buddha’s Pure Land on earth. The emphasis is not on the I or on the Thou, on the self or the no-self, but in their between, a between which is only possible when we engage in the dharma deeds of I and Thou. By saying Thou to neighbor and to all beings, that is by practicing dharma deeds of meta and karuna, we create a realm of the between of mind and body, of spirit and matter, and that between is the body of the Buddha. The body of the Buddha is the between of I and Thou, and in order to tend to it, to allow it to freely emerge and bear fruit, we must embrace the responsibility and the risks of embracing the ten thousand things. 11
© Hune Margulies, Ph.D. 2023
No comments:
Post a Comment