Q&A: Should Buddhists Vote? by Venerable Thubten Chodron©
When the Buddha established the sangha, the
monastic community, each person ordained ten years or more was
considered sufficiently informed about monastic lifestyle and
precepts and was thus accorded a voice when the assembly met to
decide important matters. Extending this by analogy to present
circumstances, Buddhists who are informed citizens should vote. By
sharing our knowledge, voting is one way to contribute to the
welfare of society.
A common misunderstanding exists that the Buddha
wanted his followers to leave society. This is incorrect. Where can
we ever live where we are entirely disconnected from other living
beings? In a monastery, in a Dharma center, in a family, we are
always in relationship to those immediately around us as well as to
the broader society and to all sentient beings. Even in a remote
hermitage, we still live in relationship with each and every living
being. Our challenge is to make this relationship a healthy one,
physically, verbally, and mentally. With a pure motivation, voting
and being politically active can be ways of sharing our vision, and
values with others, in an attempt to stop harm and create happiness
in society.
The challenges of being an informed voter and a
wise citizen are many. For example, how do we keep abreast of
current issues without being swept away by the media blitz? How can
we learn enough to make wise choices without becoming involved in
trivial affairs or allowing attachment and anger arise towards
candidates and their views? This involves discipline on our part. We
need to have a wise relationship with the media, knowing how much we
can handle, discerning media excesses, and halting our infatuation,
distraction, and addiction to TV, radio, newspapers, and the
internet. We only develop this balance by examining our own minds,
and by trial and error in our daily lives.
Another challenge is forming wise views without
clinging to them as part of our ego identity. "I am a Democrat," "I
support affirmative action." We can all too easily solidify these
labels into identities that we then feel compelled to defend. How
can we have views and yet make sure our minds are tolerant of others
who hold opposing ones? Sometimes it seems to me that some Western
Buddhists expect all other Western Buddhists to have similar
political views. A woman in our center had to remind us during a
discussion on compassion and politics, that she was a Buddhist and a
Republican.
We must also be mindful not to make the
opposition party and its candidates into solid figures that we then
disapprove of, ridicule, fear, and even hate. One person once said
to me, "I have compassion for almost everyone, but don't know how to
have compassion for Republicans." If, in the name of caring about
the welfare of all sentient beings, we condemn those who hold
different views, we have adopted their mental state: we help our
friends (those who agree with our opinions) and are hostile to our
enemies (those who have different views). Much meditation is
necessary to separate people from their views, knowing that although
someone's views may seem harmful, those people still have the Buddha
potential. Repeatedly re-forming our attitudes is required to
develop equanimity towards all.
How do we use Buddhist values to inform our
political decisions? Or do we first decide what we believe and then
select a quotation from the Buddha to validate our opinion? For
example, one person could say, "The Buddha believed that people
should make their own decisions and be responsible for them.
Therefore, as a Buddhist, I am pro-choice." Another person could
say, "The Buddha said killing is a destructive action. Therefore, as
a Buddhist, I oppose abortion." In other hot social and political
issues, similar things occur.
Yet another challenge lies in choosing
compassionate methods to accomplish our political and social goals.
For example, do we boycott Chinese goods and oppose China having MFN
status because we want freedom for Tibet? Many people do, yet His
Holiness the Dalai Lama opposes such action because it will harm the
average Chinese who is not responsible for the government policy on
Tibet. As a supporter of freedom for Tibet, do we ban together with
Jesse Helms who also opposes China, although some of his other
political views may be repugnant to us?
By now, we have found ourselves deep in
questions. Each of us must spend quiet time in reflection, looking
at our own mind and coming to our own conclusions. While the cushion
leads us to compassionate action in the world, these actions lead us
back to the cushion. They are interdependent. |