The mid-term elections are coming up, and they represent the most important election of our lifetime. 

Of course, that's exactly what they said about the last election... and the one before that.  But this time I think they really mean it.

Naturally, this has resulted in some division in the American Buddhist sangha.  

Some teachers believe that it's the duty of Mahayana Buddhists to encourage people to vote for candidates and support legislation that we believe will help to end suffering for all sentient beings.

Others believe that politics are important, and performing one's civic duty is important, but the Buddhist and political realms must remain separate at all times.

This debate has been going on for as long as the institutions of religion and politics have existed.  Christians talk about it, Jews talk about it, and Buddhists are no exception to the rule.  It's almost as if there's something within us that's drawn to politics the same way that mosquitoes are drawn to bug zappers.

In fact, Aristotle went so far as to say, "Man is a political animal."

Before we unpack that quote, it's helpful to have a good, working definition. Dictionary.com defines politics as, "use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control, as in business, university, etc."  

So, Aristotle was stating in no uncertain terms that men are constantly seeking power and control over other men.  It's just who we are, and we can't stop doing it anymore than a cat can stop knocking things off a table.

In the Aristotelian view every dodge ball game, every corporate meeting, and every religion (including Buddhism) is nothing more than a means to an end; a way to gain power.

That's why Greek and Roman emperors routinely declared themselves to be gods.  Religion was power, and he who controlled religion controlled the people.

But what are the implications if Americans accept this mode of thought?  What does it mean for Buddhism if we allow Buddhist practice to become synonymous with politics? 

Recently, I had a brief conversation with Soto Zen Priest Gesshin Greenwood regarding this topic.  Gesshin is the author of the popular Buddhist blog, That's So Zen, and a book called Bow First, Ask Questions Later.  She spent 5+ years in Japanese monasteries, and received Dharma transmission in 2016.

I say all this to say that Gesshin knows Buddhism, and I have a lot of respect for her opinion.

I won't recount the entire conversation, but the short version is that Gesshin agrees with Aristotle. In her mind (and the mind of many Buddhist teachers) Buddhism = People = Politics.  We went back and forth on the topic, and then she asked me the following question:

Despite what the lotus sutra wants you to believe, there never has been and never will be a Buddhism outside of human beings.  Can you point to such an instance of Buddhism that was not man-made?

This question stumped me for a long time because the answer is, "no".  I can't think of a Buddhist teaching that didn't come from a man or woman.  The Abrahamic faiths have some interesting methods for dealing with this type of question.

Judaism teaches that the commandments were given directly to Moses by God on Mt. Sinai.  Christianity teaches that Jesus was literally God made flesh.  In both cases, the end result is a religion that is special, holy, and somewhat removed from mere human contrivances.

Buddhism doesn't have that.  In fact, the whole thing hinges on the idea that Buddha was an ordinary man who conquered his suffering through ordinary means.  It's a beautiful teaching, but it certainly lends itself to a materialist worldview; a view that says Buddhism = People = Politics.  

But if we accept that at face-value, the Buddhist path doesn't make sense anymore. 

Buddha gave up an entire kingdom when he realized enlightenment!  If the teachings were just a code of conduct that he made himself, there's no logical reason why he wouldn't have taken his new found morality and returned to a life of luxury.  Instead, he became a wandering monastic.

Furthermore, if the precepts are just man-made concepts, why should we follow them?  If we take a materialist view, is there any real reason why we can't use psychedelics during meditation?  And why should we meditate when we can calm our minds with marijuana?

Meditation, the precepts, the story of Buddha's enlightenment- these things only make sense if there is something deeper at play; something that can't be put into words.  And we lose that something if we treat Buddhism as one in a long list of tools that help men gain power over other men.

Humans are political by nature.  This fact is undeniable, it's a symptom of being trapped in the illusion of a separate self.  But the purpose of practice is to help us break that illusion, not get better at it.

That's why Buddhism can't be reduced to a simple means to an end; a way to gain power for the greater good.  Rather it has always been, and must continue to be, the manifestation of something greater than ourselves; of MU, of suchness, of the Dharmakaya.

That being said, we can walk and chew gum at the same time.  We can be actively engaged politically.  We can vote, pass out flyers, and volunteer for candidates we believe in.  We can even work with activist groups that are striving to build a better world.

But the political path and the spiritual one must remain separate.  

I say this not because politics are unimportant, but because the Dharma is equally important.  I say this because there are countless people who are discussing politics, but there are a precious few who are discussing the 8-fold path.

If Buddhist centers become staging grounds for political parties.  If Buddhist teachers talk more about politics than the Dharma, and use retreats to endorse their favorite candidates.  Then what's the point?  

What does Buddhism provide that can't be found somewhere else?

Check out my YouTube Channel!

The Truth about Buddhism and Politics