Engaged Buddhism: Personal Responsibility vs Proselytising

There is the temptation, in adopting a personal ethical framework for farming, that we feel impelled to promote its validity more generally. The compulsion might be motivated by good intention, an underlying sense of insecurity, or an egoist vindication of our choice.

It would be particularly easy in adopting a farming approach that attempts to eradicate human imposed suffering on animals to dive headfirst into the acrimonious political milieu surrounding animal rights that exists in most western countries.

Indeed, the relative merits of personally versus socially engaged practice is the subject of current and quite vigorous debate in the broader Buddhist community. While one side of the debate focuses on personal behaviour and enlightenment, there are many Buddhists who feel a responsibility to apply the insights of their practice in influencing social, political, environmental and economic injustice.

For example, Thich Nhat Hanh’s reinterpretation of the five precepts for lay life could be viewed as a call to act in the face of suffering wherever it may occur, not just in our personal sphere.

In our case, farming represents our major interaction with the broader community. It is not a private practice. These views have been published for anyone to read. Nor do we remain silent on our values when questioned. In that sense we are highly engaged, particularly in our local sphere.

However, as individuals and farmers, we steer clear of instructing others on the ‘shoulds’ of life. We provide an unambiguous example of our interpretation of Buddhism’s implications for farming. We make our interpretation freely available for all to see. But we avoid actively ‘convincing’ others of the ‘truth’ of what we do. The judgement of others is beyond our control, as are most things in our lives. There are cycles of suffering in trying to control the uncontrollable.

We also suspect that proselytising as a misinterpretation of engaged Buddhism. Instead, engaged Buddhism asks us to respond skilfully to the suffering we see in the world where we can – in other words to enact our ethical underpinning. It is in our actions that we hope to provide not only a concrete response to suffering that results from injustice but an example that inspires others to examine more closely our motivations.

Engaged Buddhism does not ask us to actively solicit conversion to our point of view. Rather it opens a door to a different view on life, a door through which people may choose to pass.

We leave it to others to notice or seek out our example if and when it is relevant and to make their own judgement on its value. They will either find the ‘truth’ in our practice and respond, or our concerns and considerations will seem irrelevant.