Buddhism, just like any other religions of the world has different facets. The different groups involved have their chosen concerns which they embrace more than anything else. The same applies to the traditional forms of Buddhism and the more socially engaged form of Buddhism. As the Dalai Lama says, Buddhists have engraved their practices in compassionate actions and it is what defines Buddhism (Heinrich 9). Engaged Buddhism on the other hand defines those compassionate actions to be consciously placed and practiced more in public. The difference between the two therefore lies on the how; compassionate and affectionate one is in terms of their actions. One feature that stands out and which creates the difference between the two, that is engaged Buddhism and the traditional Buddhism is the fact that one is more social and public than the other even though both are concerned with benefiting the society.
Engaged Buddhism draws much of its inspiration from the tradition of compassion. It goes further to question the withdrawn and quietist nature of the traditional forms. It in itself passes for a revitalized strand that is more engaged in society than traditional forms of contemporary Buddhism. It is also more dynamic and has redefined the more reserved and consumerist tendencies that are characteristic of the 21st century Buddhism. A good example can be drawn from the Mahayana Buddhism which relies more on motivation and practice that stands to benefit everybody by putting together wisdom and knowledge and through this the inner works of a person and the outward engagements stand to benefit the society and indeed this has liberated many Buddhists and a more integrated kind of compassionate Buddhism has been born (Heinrik 57).
On the same breath, aside from there being divisions on engagement, there are pacifists and non pacifist Buddhists. Traditionally Buddhists were pacifists. They are known not to take party to violent actions all thanks to the fact that their religion is engraved in acts of compassion. But the recent past has seen a change in this stance as Buddhists have started to take a different stance to some issues in life. They selectively choose to harm those they think are a threat to society and this proves the fact that they have started being non pacifists. A good example is when the Dalai Lama endorsed counter measures against Osama bin Laden.
On the other hand, compassion and emptiness is required in deity yoga, at the beginning, middle and at the end of the tantric path. More especially during sexual union, it is meant to increase wisdom and tranquility. It is also supposed to lead someone to deeper feelings of compassion. The compassion and emptiness in deity yoga is therefore supposed to transform a person into a deity which in the long rum helps transform the world into another realm of paradise.
The west has also seen its fair share of the teachings of Buddhism. Some of the notable personalities include Suzuki Roshi and D. T. Suzuki. The two had different approaches to Zen and teaching of western students. On one hand, Suzuki Roshi’s approach was not just books and tapes for the students to watch but taught the students to take Zen as a way of life and that their attitude towards life had to change. He advocated for the more engaged kind of life and practice where his students were supposed to publicly show their compassion and their faith. He also taught that for people to actualize their faith, they must fully express themselves without holding back regardless of where and when. D. T. Suzuki on the other hand based his teachings on the fact that Buddhism was a practical religion. His major concern was to portray it as a direct experience to those who practice Buddhism. His was Buddhism that was not practicable outside of the traditional context. This means that Zen was an experiential and that it is inseparable from the people’s daily lives.
Works Cited
Heinrich Dumoulin, Zen Buddhism in the 20th Century. New York: Weatherhill. 1992
Henrik, Karlsson. Towards a European Zen? Uppsala: Zenvägen. 1993
