From March 23 to 28, founders, members and friends of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship (USA) met on the big island of Hawaii to hold the second Think Sangha meeting. It had been four years since the group last met in Hakone, Japan; therefore, one of the core purposes of the meeting was to renew personal ties among members. As the sharing of personal experiences developed, the meeting became an inquiry into the methods of personal Buddhist practice and spiritual activism. This agenda somewhat overtook the previously stated agenda of the meeting - to explore the problems of globalization, civil society as a response to those problems, and the specific Buddhist contribution to this growing global civil society movement. Yet, we discovered that this more personal agenda provided essential grounding for addressing the issues of globalization.

Every single participant has been personally and/or institutionally struggling with the challenges of living in a world which seems to have accelerated ten-fold in the last five years. From a socially engaged Buddhist standpoint, globalization has created a crisis in both personal practice and in the institutions of social engagement. Therefore, the group did not discuss globalization from the standpoint of big issues like localization, the World Bank/IMF, monoculture, etc. It discussed them from more personal standpoints like the time violence of e-mail and new technologies and the search for comrades in the Dhamma who share the same concerns for social problems. What emerged in the end was a deep investigation of what it means to practice the Buddha-Dhamma in the age of globalization. What this report hopes to offer are areas of investigation and methods which the group is developing for this new kind of Buddhist practice - one that is trying to balance the development of personal insight and wisdom with the work of benefiting all beings.

The group included ten core participants, supported by two meeting staff who were only able to participate partially. Our host was Robert Aitken Roshi, founder of the Diamond Sangha in Hawaii and co-founder of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship (BPF), along with two of his assistants, David Sawyer and Lindsey Trout, who served as staff. Other BPF participants included Alan Senauke (Director), Diana Winston (Program Director) and Donald Rothberg, former board member. BPF branches were also represented by Sarah Laeng Gilliat from BPF New Mexico and Siddhartha from BPF Bangalore in India. Old friends from the International Network of Engaged Buddhists (INEB) included Santikaro Bhikkhu, Phra Phaisan Visalo, David Loy and Jonathan Watts.

As each of the participants have been in their own way trying to give birth to or further develop socially engaged Buddhist communities, there was a very rich base of experiences from which to draw problems, insights and questions. For example, Santikaro Bhikkhu is attempting to create a center in the Midwest of the US for ordained monks and nuns to practice a meaningful form of celibate, renunciate Buddhism in the 21st century - one that is embedded in tradition but is also radically new in being in tune with modern society. Diana Winston has been working with young Buddhists in the San Francisco Bay area to develop socially engaged Buddhist communities through BPF's BASE program. Sarah Laeng Gilliat in New Mexico has been offering a film, lecture, and workshop series on Spiritual Economics - Buddhism, Nonviolence, and Economic Localization - to educate for action. In India, Siddhartha has created an ashram to develop a new vision based on ecological, social and political perspectives.

At the same time, the participants hold a deep commitment to intellectual inquiry - both in Buddhism and in other fields. For example, Dr. David Loy, a teacher in the Sambo-Kyodan Zen lineage, will be publishing a book later this year offering a Buddhist deconstruction of Western cultural history. Donald Rothberg was the chair of faculty at the Saybrook Institute of Integrated Studies as well as editor of a collection of essays on transpersonal psychology called Ken Wilber In Dialogue.

The final common thread of the group is the commitment to Buddhist practice. Aitken Roshi was obviously a focal point of that concern at the meeting as were his former students David Loy and Alan Senauke, now a resident teacher at the Berkeley Zen Center. Further, Phra Phaisan is the abbot of a forest monastery in northern Thailand in the tradition of meditation masters Luang Phor Thien and Luang Phor Khamkhien.

These three stands woven together - activist, intellectual, practitioner - form the core of our Think Sangha. Our five days together were an inquiry into what that could possibly mean. Perhaps this eclectic mixture seems to have little meaning for other Buddhists, yet we feel it encapsulates three key archetypes of a Buddhist practitioner: the endeavor towards learning and developing wisdom, the vow to act in the world compassionately, and the goal of Buddhist practice to realize the end of suffering both individually and collectively.

From the perspective of these three strands of intellectual, activist, and practitioner, we can organize the concerns that came out of the first two days of discussion. These concerns were formed as questions which guided further discussions during the meeting.

Intellectual: Theoretical Questions

This area expresses the general theoretical concerns of the group. The most common and general one is "What are the basic principles of Buddhism which inform the practice of socially engaged Buddhism?" A certain amount of work in this area has been done by people such as Thich Nhat Hanh, the Dalai Lama, Sulak Sivaraksa, Joanna Macy and others. They have done much to identify core Buddhist principles and practices which call the individual Buddhist practitioner to social conscience and practice. However, this work is still not integrated as a mature theology of engagement, like Liberation Theology in the Christian tradition. Therefore, it remains an ongoing central concern of the group to deepen this work. Further impetus is provided by, first, the decaying state of most traditional Buddhist structures today and the desperate need for reform of the Buddha Sangha in almost every Buddhist culture. A healthy Buddhism for the 21st century must provide models of ordained and lay practice which are in tune with modern concerns and lifestyles. Second, the larger global crisis of social vision begs for progressive elements in traditional religions and cultures to step forward to help create a new vision for humanity in the 21st century. What possible response can Buddhism offer to the failures of Marxism and socialism and the destructiveness of globalizing capitalism?

This brings us to a second area of intellectual inquiry which is "How does Buddhism intersect with other intellectual traditions, specifically western ones?" For example, Buddhism has a strong ethical element in its practice, but it is unclear on matters justice, specifically economic and racial. For Buddhism to be relevant for the 21st century, it must be able to take clear positions on the increasing unequal distribution of incomes in the world and the problems of racial injustice which challenge humanity in all parts of the world. In developing these perspectives, Buddhism must be able to learn from other intellectual and spiritual traditions while remaining clear about its own core principles. For example, what can Buddhism learn from western concepts of democracy and human rights? Yet, how does it differ in significant ways from these modern, western conceptions? Further, what can it contribute to our understanding of those western concepts?

By confronting these questions, Buddhists will be able to take important steps to bridging the apparent divide between their world transcending spiritual practice and the imperative to work for the worldly benefit of beings. This apparent divide forms a third area for intellectual inquiry. Compassionate action in the world is a well established Buddhist ethic. However, when one looks at the way Buddhism is taught in most temples and practice centers in both Asia and the West, there is little instruction on how to bring the work that is done on the meditation cushion out into the world of daily life. The standpoint of socially engaged Buddhism is that society is not a mere collection of individuals. Rather, its structures take on a new dynamic of complexity and form. Therefore, acting for the benefit of others in this era of globalization cannot be fully realized by simply employing the individual ethical exhortations of the tradition, like being materially generous. The bodhisattva vow means also confronting the structures of greed, ill will and delusion that imprison whole societies and communities in the wheel of suffering. This last area of investigation may then be then formed as "What are the connections between the Buddhist practices of personal liberation and the Buddhist imperative to work for other beings in suffering through social action?"

Activist: Social Applications

By becoming clearer on the foundations of a socially engaged Buddhist practice, Buddhists can become clearer on how to confront particular issues of concern. Without such a clear foundation, it is easy for Buddhists to take on perspectives made by other groups, agree with them, and then give them a Buddhist gloss. The problem with this is that Buddhists do not use the distinctive aspects of their tradition that might bring out different perspectives or new challenges to contemporary thinking on issues. For example, concerning globalization, progressive Buddhists made find much agreement in the all encompassing arguments for localism. However, a key principle of Buddhism is the "Middle Way," the avoiding of extremes and dualities. A more Buddhist, and much more controversial and difficult stance, might then be to avoid looking at globalization as a completely negative thing; rather, to see it as a cluster of interacting processes which require responses in tune with time, place and occasion. This is one area of investigation concerning activism: "What unique contributions can Buddhists make to specific social issues, like globalization?"

A second area of investigation on activism concerns "How do you get people who live in environments of privilege, yet are moved by Buddhist ideas of compassionate action, to get involved in activities even though this might endanger their privilege?" As our group consisted of mostly North Americans, this was a fundamental problem concerning activism. As most western Buddhists are well educated and come from at least middle class backgrounds, the challenge of socially engaged Buddhists in the West has been to push western Buddhists beyond their ideals of compassionate action into the actual work of compassionate action. Renunciation and relinquishment are ideals that are not generally part of western "Industrial Growth Society". As "Industrial Growth Society" has spread to other parts of the world like Japan, relinquishing privilege has also become a issue in some traditional Buddhist societies. So again, we are challenged to use Buddhist thought and practice to challenge cultural values and practices, rather than allowing it to be co-opted by these values.

Practice: Personal Integrity & Transformation

These challenges tie in with a final set of investigations concerning personal practice. Such "practice" does not simply encompass what Buddhists might regard as their actual spiritual practice, i.e. meditation, study, chanting, etc. Rather this practice extends into daily life activities through the way we bring the perspectives we gain on the meditation cushion or from Dhamma study into our daily lives and into our world. Therefore, in confronting social issues, and globalization specifically, "How can regular folks and social activists learn how to better set priorities for their life and work?" One of the common experiences of those affected by globalization and internet technology is the increasing squeeze for time - there's more and more to do and less and less time to do it. So questions arise: "How many different social issues can I be concerned with?"; "How can I maintain a genuine practice and still be engaged?"; "How can I better balance my personal, familial and friend, and professional agendas?" And on a larger scale, "What are the priorities of engagement for socially engaged Buddhism?"; "What areas of concern must we address now?" Answers to these questions can only be worked out person by person and community by community, rather than finding a definitive answer for all. They come from the foundation of practice, personally and within sangha. This is how our practice forms the root of our socially engaged Buddhist inquiry and activism.

The second area of investigation concerning practice branches off from this basic one of setting priorities: While working these priorities and agendas out, how do we take into account the vagaries of our individual personalities? Buddhists sometimes get caught in the stereotype of the emotionally cool, stoic Buddha-like figure. Trying to copy this as a personality, or as a non-personality, Buddhists often cut themselves off from the unique creative aspects of their own personalities. Therefore, while in search of this elusive ideal of the perfection of Not-self (anatta), "What role does our "concocted self" play in the unfolding of our practice and social engagement?"; "What is the relationship between Buddhism and creativity?"; "How do we work with anger in social activism?" These are issues that many modern Buddhists are trying to understand more deeply by trying to integrate Buddhist practice with modern psychotherapy.

Trying to understand how Buddhism and modern psychotherapy can be integrated brings us full circle back to the area of intellectual investigation "How does Buddhism intersect with other intellectual traditions, specifically western ones?". In this way, we can see these three strands - inquiry, activism, practice - do not develop in a linear chain or exist as separate activities. Rather, it is more skillful to envision them following the Buddhist principle of Dependent Origination (paticca samuppada), interpermeating each other and interacting freely. Thus, intellectual inquiry, social activism, and spiritual practice provide an interpermeating set of modalities for a socially engaged Buddhism.

After developing these areas of investigation, the group spent the following days trying to answer them. However, what didn't occur to us consciously but evolved rather naturally was the need to first develop methods for answering these questions. Partially in response to the question: "What unique contributions can Buddhists make to specific social issues, like globalization?", we needed to first develop our specific Buddhist standpoints for looking at issues. Without such standpoints, it was easy, as we found, to fall into analyzing issues like globalization from other common standpoints. Therefore, in the spirit of inquiry contained in the above areas of investigation, we left behind attempts to arrive at definitive Buddhist answers to globalization and rather focused on Buddhist methods by which individuals and communities can confront social issues like globalization and come to their own answers.

AREA 1 - Bridging Dualities & Reshaping Buddhism

This first area addresses the areas of intellectual inquiry, like "What are the connections between the Buddhist practices of personal liberation and the Buddhist imperative to work for other beings in suffering through social action?" and "How does Buddhism intersect with other intellectual traditions, specifically western ones?"

The first question brings up the traditional Buddhist tension between personal practice and working selflessly for others. This tension is expressed in the basic Theravada-Mahayana stereotypes in which the former is seen to focus on individual liberation and the latter on the liberation of all beings through bodhisattvic action. Related to this tension is the tension between Buddhism as a set of teachings, principles, and concepts and Buddhism as a way of realization. On the one hand, Buddhism has a vast number of suttas and texts that lay out all sorts of systems of understanding and inquiry. Some consider that scholarly endeavor is an essential part of the Buddhist way, to delve deeply into all these different streams of thought. On the other hand, Buddhism has a strong tradition of direct, personal experience and realization of truth. Some schools like Zen and Pure Land have denigrated scholarly learning in favor of personal insight. Indeed, the Buddha taught the famous metaphor of the teachings being a raft that is discarded upon reaching the other shore of Nirvana.

While trying to develop injunctions towards social action from personalized Buddhist practices, socially engaged Buddhists are confronted with questions like: "What basis of authority can I use in developing a socially engaged Buddhist perspective? Must everything be drawn from the suttas? Can I claim some sort of personal insight as a practicing Buddhist?" In keeping with that fundamental principle of the Middle Way, the answer should be a creative interplay of both. Specific suttas and specific teachings and the power of our insight and resolve to quench suffering must work together to complement each other in areas where one is insufficient by itself.

The key issue is not so much what we use, but how we use it. Both methods are about shifting perspective. Both a shocking sutta passage and a sudden burst of inspiration while seated in practice or doing chores bring in new ways of seeing, knocking out habitual ways of the self. From this basis, we come to a fuller understanding of how to draw on these resources. Buddhist texts and principles need to be used as guides. We need to be careful not to co-opt them to mask personal agendas and neuroses, but to use them as methods of inquiry, rather than as definitive judgments on all matters. At the same time, Buddhism as a way of realization empowers us to act without scholarly knowledge, to use what is liberative and what works, whether it exists in Buddhist texts or not. Yet it also must be balanced and not be used in the service of unfounded personal agendas. In this way, these two methods of Buddhism as a specific teaching and Buddhism as a way of realization represent the two complimentary energies of wisdom and compassion. In Buddhism, these do not exist as problematic dualities but rather as creative tensions that check and balance one another.

This brings us to the second question of "How does Buddhism intersect with other intellectual traditions, specifically western ones?" and more precisely "How do we adapt and update Buddhism to contemporary living?" The most important thing to realize is that consciously or unconsciously we cannot avoid adapting Buddhism to our present situations. As beings occupying our own time and place, it is unavoidable that we will bring our own perspectives, insights and neuroses to what we view as Buddhism. The challenge then is to do this as consciously as possible. This allows others to better understand what we are doing and to offer advice or criticisms that might be helpful. To attempt to mask what we are doing not only confuses others but also prevents us from better distinguishing between what is healthy and what is neurotic.

In the group, we came up with three polarities for adapting and updating Buddhism. These act as polarities in that they serve as checks and balances for each other.

In general, by keeping to the principles of Not-self and Middle Way, Buddhists need not absolutize anything. Thus, all these methods should be used together creatively in a kind of "triangulation" method. After using a number of different methodologies, we bring the results together and compare them. If there are any great discrepancies, then that tells us that somewhere we have gone wrong and we need to reapply ourselves to the task. (For more see Diana Winston's Justify Your Love: Finding Authority for Socially Engaged Buddhism : Ways of Relating Buddhist Tradition and Practice with Social Theory)

AREA 2 - Sparking Inquiry & Activism

This second area addresses the questions on activism, such as "How do you get people who live in environments of privilege, yet are moved by Buddhist ideas of compassionate action, to get involved in activities even though this might endanger their privilege?" and more generally "How do you energize both Buddhists and non-Buddhists to compassionate social action?" This question relates closely with the understanding of Buddhism as a way of realization rather as a set of definitive statements on reality. In developing social engaged perspectives and critiques, the tendency must be away from preaching and drawing definitive conclusions on any issue (as mentioned earlier in relation to globalization). Rather, the Buddhist way of understanding is for each student to come some realization on their own accord. To be told what is the nature of existence is very different from experiencing it. Therefore, the teacher creates an environment in which the student can best come to her/his own deep personal experience of this nature, rather then telling her/him what it might or should be like. In this way, a Buddhist approach to an issue like globalization is to offer the different perspectives and to ask the challenging questions that empower people to arrive at their own conclusions. These perspectives and questions can present the powerful and simple archetypes of Buddhism that spark inquiry and activism. This activism is like unconscious action in that it is not something we "should" do or that we force ourselves to do since it is "the right thing". Rather, it is something we naturally feel compelled to do when we dissolve the borders between self and other, between personal liberation and social liberation. In this way, the socially engaged Buddhist needs to create frameworks and structures that engender inquiry, inspiration and, in turn, activism.

From this perspective, we arrive at the Buddhist container that serves as that structure for inquiry and action - sangha. From our participation in sangha as a purely spiritual grouping, we learn that it provides a foundation for investigation and for checking the results of one's investigation with comrades (kalyanamitra) and mentors. For socially engaged Buddhists, the challenge is to extend this model to sanghas based on the inspiration towards compassionate action concerning pressing social issues. As containers for local action and mutual aid, they would help foster the kind of natural engagement mentioned above.

This particular synthesis between personal practice and social activism helps us answer a question from the last area of investigation: "What are the priorities of engagement for socially engaged Buddhism?" In line with the focus on creating methods for engagement rather than definitive statements on certain issues, a priority of socially engaged Buddhism would be building a network of small sanghas around social engagement. This would be different from trying to create a central organization with an official set of socially engaged Buddhist views from which other satellite groups would form. It would more resemble the way Buddhism has already spread throughout the world. Such SEB sanghas would be infused with a common critical awareness made available through various writings and teachers. However, institutionally, they would evolve out of this awareness in line with local conditions. In this way, they would develop their own unique solutions to issues like globalization. As a final reflection, the role of our Think Sangha might be to provide some of these frameworks for inquiry, action, and practice from which other socially engaged Buddhist sanghas may form.

The last day of the meeting was spent on our plans for post-meeting projects and other future plans. This is where the question, "What are the priorities of engagement for socially engaged Buddhism?" was further pursued, although in the more intimate light of priorities for each participant and for the group in general. First, we wanted to make sure that any plans we made did not add to the burden of work and activities we were presently handling. The intention was to then identify existing personal needs and core intentions, and from these, create collaborative work that will assist our present activities instead of adding to them. After sharing these needs and intentions with the group, we were able to develop some common areas of concern. From these areas of concern, we developed working groups for projects that express both previous interest and future commitment.

1. Buddhist Foundations

This work in many ways represents the heart of Think Sangha, which is to delve deeply into our Buddhist traditions to find insights, values and methods for socially engaged Buddhism. The group plans to exchange writings and work towards publishing a book on the foundations of socially engaged Buddhism.

2. Technology and E-mail

This group evolved out of a need by participants to reflect on the problems and benefits of our computer and e-mail use. In responding to the violence of contemporary time compression, the group wants to develop practices that lead to a more beneficial use of e-mail. This concern extends into a larger one of technology in general and how it is used. (See Santikaro Bhikkhu's Case Study: Email, Internet, & Computer Technology) Since the meeting, this group has agreed with the editors of ReVision magazine to guest edit an issue on "Spiritual Perspectives on Modern Technology" to be published in early 2002.

3. Globalization

This group wants to follow up on the work begun at this meeting towards a Buddhist perspective on globalization. The plan is to develop a SEB position paper on globalization that provides perspectives and asks questions to stimulate inquiry and engagement on the issue by other Buddhists. The group would like to distribute this position paper among other Buddhist groups, elicit feedback, and further develop the position paper in an ongoing dialogue. Plans for other such position papers by the group at large concern technology, commodification, and education.

4. Educational Methodologies

Most of the members of the group are in one way or another involved in education, be it secular, specifically Buddhist, or even socially engaged Buddhist. In line with our discussions on a Buddhist methodology, this group wants to share more insights and actual teaching tools and materials, both on SEB principles and general education methods.

5. Publications

The group has felt encouraged by the two successful, though narrowly circulated, Think Sangha Journals that we have published. A general agreement was made to make another one or two, perhaps on globalization and technology, although the present ReVision project (see above) will likely serve as a replacement for one of these issues. The group hopes to find ways to more widely circulate such published materials. As mentioned above, the group in general has some ideas for larger book projects on the foundations of socially engaged Buddhism and on technology. There is also a general need to improve the Think Sangha homepage and create more links to it.

As in previous years, some serious discussion took place at the meeting concerning the membership and identity of the group. Due to various factors, Think Sangha has largely developed into a forum of western, English speaking Buddhists. Although there is quite a deep diversity of friends in the immediate outer circle of the group, the active members thus far have been largely white, male, and American. Reflecting on the desire for greater diversity but also for meaningful diversity, the group will continue its policy of introducing new members on the basis of personal relationship with existing members and on project work. This is not to protect any "exclusivity", but rather to maintain the sangha character of the group. As close friends who have shared many years of practice, activism, and personal relationship, we wish to maintain the group in this fashion. This is not a discouragement to other groups of socially engaged Buddhist colleagues who wish to create their own Think Sanghas. As discussed above in the creation of sangha, we see ourselves as one possible sangha of socially engaged Buddhist thinker-practitioners, not the definitive one and definitely not the only one. Finally, in line with our largely North American character, Think Sangha will begin to actively use the Buddhist Peace Fellowship name in connection with its work.

Siddhartha: "Any political position must be pro-human and pro-earth."

Karl Marx: "What starts out as a relationship between human beings turns into a mysterious dance between commodities." - on the fetishism of commodities

Aitken Roshi: "Things are in the saddle and ride mankind."

Siddhartha: "The end point of modern development is loneliness."

Aitken Roshi:
"The entry is the goal, the goal is the entry;
The vows are only realized in the practice of them."

David Loy: "If dukkha is the door to joy, then is efficiency the hinge?"

Aitken Roshi: "Buddhism is not a belief system." -> Alan Senauke: "It's a methodology."

Aitken Roshi: "Think Sangha - people who think the system stinks."