What Buddhism can teach us in this moment of deep division

Democracy depends on using words wisely. With the right words, citizens can work together, even when they disagree, and resolve conflicts peacefully.

Today, politicians routinely describe their opponents as “enemies”, belittling them as “malicious,” “samples,” “demonic“And”waste.” By giving the impression that people “on the other side” are irredeemable monsters, such talk undermines the potential for social cooperation – because what is the point of trying to understand and work with someone who is “evil”?

More fundamentally, this “us versus them” rhetoric of “enmity” – as I call it – undermines the chances of peaceful coexistence between people who see the world differently.

I am one professor of rhetoric who studies the power of words to build – and destroy the world we share. I am also a longtime scholar, teacher, and practitioner of mindfulness. My research draws on the wisdom of mindfulness and other spiritual practices to reimagine how we teach the basic habits of democratic citizenship.

A lesson from Buddhism seems particularly applicable in this moment of hostility: Treat those you disagree with as mistakes rather than bad ones.

Everyone has a ‘Buddha nature’

There is a deep optimism at the core of most Buddhist traditions, rooted in the fundamental belief that everyone is blessed with the ability to practice mindfulness.

Mindfulness is one of them the eight steps along the noble path that the Buddha described to achieve enlightenment. Practicing mindfulness is to shift from a reactive to a more deliberate and thoughtful approachway of life.

Practicing mindfulness makes it possible for a person to observe that they are having an experience – a desire, a happy thought, a doubt, a fearful emotion – and not immediately react to that experience. There is also no need to pile story after story on top of the emotion in a way that amplifies the longing, joy, doubt, or fear until it overwhelms them.

By watching thoughts and emotions come and go without immediately reacting to them, it becomes possible to make choices about how we want to respond – and to decide more consciously how we want to live our lives.

Mindfulness is the way to restore our inner freedom as human beings.

The Vietnamese Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh said that everyone has a “Buddha nature.” Anyone can become a Buddha by paying close attention to their habitual responses to experiences, and choosing to cultivate habits of compassion, understanding, and peace-lovingness – just as the Buddha did.

The story of Angulimala

To illustrate this point, Nhat Hanh shared the story of Angulimalaa notorious murderer who lived during the time of the Buddha.

When the Buddha enters the city of Shravasti one morning, he finds the streets empty, the doors locked and the windows closed. Angulimala is in town! Although the residents beg him to hide, the Buddha continues his walk without fear.

Angulimala sees him and shouts for him to stop, but the Buddha does not stop. “I told you to stop, monk. Why don’t you stop?” Angulimala demands, to which the Buddha replies, “I stopped a long time ago. It is you who have not stopped.”

This confuses Angulimala. He asks for an explanation. The Buddha replies, “Angulimala, I have long since stopped committing acts that cause suffering to other living beings. I have learned to protect life, the lives of all beings, not just humans. Angulimala, all living things want to live. Everyone is afraid of death. We must cultivate a heart of compassion and protect the lives of all beings.”

Angulimala is struck by the way the Buddha speaks to him: not as a monster, but with patience and a sincere desire to understand. The Buddha emphasizes that Angulimala too can change, if he is committed to developing his capacity for mindfulness – and he offers Angulimala a model for how and why to change.

The two men continue their dialogue and soon Angulimala reveals his deepest fear. He wants to change his behavior because he is deeply unhappy. However, he fears that society will never forgive him for what he has done, and this fear prevents him from quitting long enough to attempt reforms.

So the Buddha promises that his community will protect him if he commits to living mindfully, without violence, and in harmony with others—and if he agrees to make amends to the families and communities he has wronged through acts of compassion . Angulimala does. Ultimately he is given a new name: Ahimsaka, the ‘Nonviolent’.

This similarity reflects a worldview shared by many Buddhist traditions: No one is truly “evil,” in the sense of an irredeemable monster, because anyone can learn to practice mindfulness.

Sometimes people commit acts that deserve to be considered “evil.” This is not because they are demons; it is because they act out of greed and ignorance and give in to fear. Greed can be overcome; ignorance can be alleviated; fear can be tamed. There is always a way out of the darkness.

Wrong, not malicious

Think about the consequences of calling fellow citizens “evil,” “monsters,” or “demons”: if the person you disagree with is “evil,” there seems to be no point in talking to him or her, and it doesn’t seem necessary to do so. understand them.

Some may think that bad people can only be defeated, by force if necessary. Calling someone evil damages the social fabricbecause it undermines cooperation and promotes distrust between people who must learn to live, work and thrive together.

In June 2024, I attended a two-week retreat on “Engaged Buddhism” with Nhat Hanh. Plum village monastery in France. There I heard a very different vocabulary: people on the other side of a disagreement were not “bad”, they were “mistaken”, “misinformed”, “careless”, “uneducated”, “unconscious” or “unaware”.

Making this small rhetorical change is not easy, especially in times of fear and uncertainty.

However, it makes a big practical difference. If someone is mistaken, it makes sense to talk to them, try to understand them, and then, if the situation is right, convince them to see things differently.

This article is republished from The conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.