What's Zen politics?
Who does a Zen person vote for?
Whoever they want to vote for. Religion doesn’t determine political affiliation. Yes, there’s some overlap. If you’re Catholic in the US now, 48% are Republican and 47% Democrat. The same applies to Zen. A lot of folks have this idea that religion should offer a complete, consistent picture that offers clear-cut answers to everything from what policies to support, who to vote for, who to marry, and what type of food you to eat. But that’s the pipe-dreams of theologians and seekers. Reality’s messier than that.
A classic example of this at work was the nearly universal support of Japan by the monastic institutions, including Zen, during WWII. Most monks saw the soldiers who sacrificed their lives as heroes. Most disrobed to join in the war efforts. While this is an extreme case of militarism, similar stories can be found throughout Asia and Europe. During the Yellow Scarves Revolution in China (184-205AD), Taoist monks swelled the ranks of the rebels. The Knights Templar was began by monks who needed to defend themselves in hostile Muslim lands.
Looking back on history, it’s easy to think, “I’d be the good guys. I’d make all the right decisions,” but that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. First, who the good guys were changes with the values of the culture. Alexander, for example, has gone from villain to hero countless times over the centuries. The Christian efforts to convert the “savages” was largely seen as a boon until a few decades ago. Imperialism was once the natural extension of Darwinian principles, but now seen as devastating local cultures, economies, and ecosystems.
Recently in the conflict between the Rohingya and the Burmese military, Burmese monks promised nirvana to soldiers who slaughtered the state’s enemies. And on the other hand, the pacifist Thicht Nhat Hanh scorned all forms of violence and worked tirelessly for global peace.
So where will you find some perfect political system or candidate to vote for in this mess? How can you be sure you’ll be on the right side of history?
I have to think that there’s some way.
It’s a dead-end. The politics and morality business is the forever Wild West of human society. There’ll never be any definitive answers here. At best, you can eliminate grossly wrong answers, like genocide, rape, and murder for fun, but beyond that it’s tricky.
Does Zen lean politically one way or another?
No. People like to use their beliefs to justify why they shouldn’t support Trump or why the war in Ukraine is just. Modern day Buddhists love to trace their modern ethos back to traditional Buddhist ethics, but it’s a sleight of hand. Magically, most Buddhist values reflect modern day sensibilities. Inclusive to LGBT and minorities. Pro-democracy. Environmentally conscious. Anti-racist. Anti-colonial. But if you look at the old Buddhist ethos, none of this squares up.
In the ancient monastic rules, a nun of 50 years who was fully enlightened was expected to bow to a newly ordained monk full of defilements. Trans folks were barred from ordaining. The Buddha was indifferent to politics and social causes and barred his monks from engaging in politics. He focused all of his energies on training his monks. There’s even a story of a man who was furiously looking for his missing cow and passed the Buddha and his disciples. He asked them if they’d seen his cow and the omniscient Buddha, instead of telling him where it was, decided to praise his monks for not involving themselves in the world and vexing themselves with such affairs.
You can argue that these anti-LGBT or misogynistic elements were additions of later powerful leaders to take the sting out of Buddhist ethics, but it’s an ethos that was followed by-and-large for millennia in Buddhist countries. Such reads, though, lazily projects modern day beliefs onto an ancient and alien world. There might be a lot of overlap, but also many issues that modern folks would find next-to-impossible to square with their own value systems.
If you look at the Baizhang Zen Monastic Regulations, for example, dozens of pages are spent describing how to perform blessings of the royal family. These monks, the root of the Zen tradition, actively supported a despotic regime.
But what about the teaching on compassion and saving all beings? For example, immigration. If you oppose immigration, you’re denying the desperate opportunities to improve their lives so the wealthy don’t have to deal with being marginally poorer. Doesn’t that violate the principle of compassion?
Yes. You can look at it that way. But you can also look at it another way: that large, unregulated immigration risks destabilizing an already unstable system and might lead to cultural and economic collapse. I’m not saying that this is true, but you can see it this way and, thus, support a different public policy based on different values.
As another thought experiment, if someone prioritizes personal responsibility, they might see the failed economies and corrupt governments that are causing so many migrants to want to come to the US as being justified. Those people need to take responsibility for the community that they created. The counter-argument is that the US contributed to these failed states through predatory foreign policy and it’s the US that needs to now foot the bill.
Either way, we’re now back in the thicket of views. While some might argue, “surely it’s Buddhist to believe in open immigration,” not so fast. Just consider whether Buddhists 300 years ago in Burma, Japan, or Korea had this idea. Further, will Buddhists in 300 years think this way, or will the concept seem as barbaric as scalping?
And what about you?
I’m a Lao Tzu FC: “Govern big countries Like you cook little fish.”*1 Most of my teachers echoed this attitude. My teacher, Ajahn Sudhiro, gave his students a lot of freedom. He strictly followed the Buddhist monastic rules. The government even awarded him for his diligent upholding of the precepts. However, he didn’t compel others by force to do as he did. Ajahn Sudhiro gave students a big field. Some of his students, myself included, broke the precepts. None of the big ones, but we broke them. He responded not by scolding or shaming us, but rather by allowing us to learn from our mistakes.
Suzuki Roshi, one of the founders of Soto Zen in America, said something similar:
Even though you try to put people under control, it is impossible. You cannot do it. The best way to control people is to encourage them to be mischievous. Then they will be in control in a wider sense. To give your sheep or cow a large spacious meadow is the way to control him. So it is with people: first let them do what they want and watch them. This is the best policy. To ignore them is not good. That is the worst policy. The second worst is trying to control them. The best one is to watch them, just to watch them, without trying to control them.*2
That’s my attitude. Give people a lot of freedom, but also give them attention. See what they do and then see what happens.
With all of this said, though, there’s no Zen position on immigration, taxes, or systems of government. There are the Five Precepts, the principles of non-harm and oneness, but beyond that, it’s a complex mess that we have to navigate for ourselves. If we return to the four quadrants, waking-up, growing-up, cleaning-up, and showing-up, the fourth quadrant, showing-up, deals with political, social, and economic systems. This is beyond Zen’s expertise. Zen can provide basic guiding principles, but for the precise application of those, it’s best to look elsewhere for guidance.
References
- Lao-Tzu. Tao Te Ching (Hackett Classics). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1993.
- Suzuki, Shunryu. Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind: Informal Talks on Zen Meditation and Practice. Boston: Shambhala Publications, Inc., 2020.