Abstract
This article takes stock of and comparatively analyzes the scope and motivations of civic activities of Buddhists and Buddhist organizations in Italy and Switzerland. Based on the analytical perspective of civic engagement, we suggest discerning civic activities on a continuum from nonengagement to activist engagement, distinguishing the four types of nonengagement, intermediary, shaper, and activist. Further, the article differentiates four social motivations and four Buddhist motivations for civic engagement. The scope of civic engagement appears to be much larger in Italy than in Switzerland. The article formulates six hypothetical explanations for the difference, arguing that national and cultural specifics, differences in the legal system regarding the governance of religions, and the composition of the Buddhist populations are crucial in understanding the dissimilar scope of Buddhist civic engagement in the two countries.
The civic engagement of Buddhists and Buddhist groups is a phenomenon of the twentieth century (Queen 2000a, 1; King 2018, 483) and the object of this study. It notably contrasts with the inception and early development of the Buddhist order of monks and nuns (saṅgha) with its ascetic, world-withdrawn character. According to the suttas (Pāli, scriptures) of the Pāli canon, the Buddha and the saṅgha did not actively interfere in the social world, and as wandering ascetics retracted from worldly affairs (Gombrich 1991, 30, 81; Harvey 1990, 217). While the suttas report of the Buddha meeting kings, brahmins (Brahmanical priests), and householders and advising them with his practical teachings, the Buddha did not take an interest in the political and social affairs of society. Buddhologist Heinz Bechert thus held that the “original aim [of the Buddha’s teaching] was not to shape life in the world but to teach liberation, release from the world” (Bechert 1984, 7, emphasis in original). In this regard, in his comparative studies on the economic ethics of the world’s major religions, sociologist Max Weber coined the ideal type of “other-worldly asceticism” represented by the early wandering Buddhist monks and nuns. According to Weber, early Buddhism was a “specific unpolitical and anti-political profession-religion” (1972, 218), a depiction largely considered correct by leading scholars in Buddhist studies (see Schluchter 1984).
During the succeeding centuries of the spread of Buddhist teachings, practices, and order to numerous Asian countries and kingdoms, however, the saṅgha established close relations with the royal rulers and governing classes. Monks adopted new social roles and served as—among other things—political advisers to and chronologists of kings and emperors, feudal lords of land and villages, and ceremonial specialists with ritual services for laymen and the royal court (e.g., Michael 1982; Carrithers 1984, 134–142). The saṅgha and Buddhist religion thus developed to significantly shape life in the world and to strongly influence social and political affairs. Generally, and with few exceptions, throughout their history the evolved, different Buddhist orders and traditions affirmed the sociopolitical status quo, and profited well from royal patronage and ritually legitimized rulers and kings (Harris 1999).
The social engagement of Buddhism is certainly not an exclusive feature of its spreading in Western countries. As Christopher S. Queen and Sallie B. King state in their seminal contribution on Buddhist liberation movements in Asia, “[to] most people in the West, the term ‘Buddhism’ means a religion of introspective withdrawal. Yet the reality of contemporary Asian Buddhism is often something very different. ‘Buddhism’ in contemporary Asia means energetic engagement with social and political issues and crises at least as much [as] it means monastic or meditative withdrawal” (Queen and King 1996a, ix).
Within the spectrum of world-withdrawn Buddhist order and sociopolitically involved Buddhist monks and traditions, we consider the contemporary, internal, diverse movement of engaged Buddhism as a specific expression of Buddhist persons and groups civically acting in the world and society. King proposes to define engaged Buddhism as “those forms of Buddhism that intentionally and non-violently engage with the social, political, economic, and environmental issues of society and the world on [the] basis of and as an expression of Buddhist beliefs, values, concepts, world views, and practices” (2018, 479). Likewise, Queen specifies that socially engaged Buddhism is constituted by those ways “in which Buddhist teachings and practices are interpreted and applied to mobilize peaceful, collective responses to society-wide challenges” (2018, 502). The term “engaged Buddhism” was first coined by the Vietnamese monk Thich Nhat Hanh in the 1960s to refer to Buddhist actions in the specific context of the repressive Diem regime and the ensuing Vietnamese war (King 1996). Queen and King transferred the term to the academic sphere and comparatively portrayed so-called Buddhist liberation movements and their forms of Buddhist-inspired social and political engagement in Asia (Queen and King 1996b; King 2018) and the West (Queen 2000c; Queen 2018). Taking up this perspective, we aim to take stock of, comparatively analyze, and typologically systematize the scope of civic engagement and societal involvement of Buddhists and Buddhist organizations in Italy and Switzerland. In this regard, civic engagement is meant to encompass individual or collective actions, implemented in public arenas in concert with other people or organizations, with the purpose of contributing to the shaping of the lives of individuals and communities (see below).
The choice of the two countries was based on their diverse socio-religious backgrounds, their dissimilar internal structures (Swiss cantons and Italian regions have different features and powers), the peculiar relationships Buddhist organizations have with the central state, and the ways in which religious minorities are or are not publicly funded.
This article poses the research question: To what extent and why do Buddhists and Buddhist organizations in Italy and Switzerland engage in civic actions? To answer the question, the next section will delineate the analytical perspective on civic engagement, followed by an outline of the methodological approach and a description of the sample. An introduction to the country-specific profiles of Buddhism and the state–religion relations precedes the threefold presentation of results: a typology of civic engagement, followed by the enumeration of important motivations for civic engagement, and concluding with a discussion of the scope of civic engagement and the reasons for the country-related differences. As our study argues, the range of civic engagement appears to differ markedly between Italy and Switzerland and requires explanation. We suggest that national and cultural specifics and also the differences in the legal systems regarding the governance of religions as well as the composition of the Buddhist populations are crucial in explaining the dissimilar scope of Buddhist civic engagement in the two countries.
1 Analytical Perspective: Civic Engagement
We conceive civic engagement of Buddhist persons and Buddhist organizations in Italy and Switzerland as activities within the broad strand of engaged Buddhism. As mentioned, the coinage of the very term is credited to the Vietnamese Buddhist monk, activist, and poet Thich Nhat Hanh (1926–2022) in the 1960s, and the founding of the Tiep Hien Order or Order of Interbeing in 1966 in Vietnam (King 1996; Hunt-Perry and Fine 2000, 38–40). During the 1970s and the 1980s, against the backdrop of the Vietnam War and nuclear armanents, the idea and approaches of engaged Buddhism increasingly gained momentum among Buddhist leaders in North America, Western Europe, and countries in Asia. New institutional forms were founded, such as the Buddhist Peace Fellowship (1978), the International Network of Engaged Buddhism (1989) with subsequent national branches, and the Zen Peacemaker Order (1996) created by Bernard Tetsugen Glassman Rōshi (1939–2018), as well as the Japanese Nipponzan Myōhōji Order, founded earlier in 1945. For Europe, Sandra Bell (2000) and Franz-Johannes Litsch (2000) surveyed the scope and activities of engaged Buddhism in Great Britain and German-speaking countries, which has been updated by Paul Fuller and coauthors in an overview of Buddhist institutions and activities in France, Finland, Sweden, Portugal, Poland, Spain, Great Britain, Germany and Italy (Fuller, forthcoming).
Engaged Buddhism comprehends itself as a global, social movement with loosely connected Buddhist organizations, networks, and initiatives, forming a “new paradigm of Buddhist liberation,” as Queen states (2000a, 2). As King holds, “engaged Buddhism is a contemporary form of Buddhism that engages actively yet non-violently with the social, economic, political, and ecological problems of society” (2009, 1). Recently, Paul Fuller challenged the idea of nonviolence, arguing for the inclusion of violent ethnocentric and nationalist Buddhist movements in the definition of engaged Buddhism. His point of view departs from Queen and King’s assertion that “Buddhist movements are always nonviolent” (Queen and King 1996a, x). Fuller calls this idea into question by proposing a broader definition of engaged Buddhism (Fuller 2021, 6), and his monograph raised a lively debate with contributions in the Journal of Buddhist Ethics (Brown 2023; King 2023; Queen 2023).
In various studies, Buddhists and Buddhist scholar-practitioners commonly cite—as motives and rationales for engaged Buddhist activities—principles such as the Buddhist teachings of reciprocal interconnectedness/dependent origination (Pāli paṭiccasamuppāda), karma, causality, karuṇā (compassion), mettā/maitri (loving-kindness), dāna (giving or generosity), bodhicitta (the thought of enlightenment), the Five Precepts, and selflessness and nonviolence (Jones 1989; Queen and King 1996b; King 2009; Fuller 2021). In contrast to such a Buddhist-inspired understanding and as observers informed by the discipline of the study of religions, taking a position of methodological agnosticism, we prefer to speak of civic engagement or civically engaged activities carried out by Buddhists and Buddhist organizations. Defining civic engagement represents indeed an intricate vexata quaestio as scholars provide numerous alternatives on the basis of their research fields and approaches. In the light of this, Cynthia Gibson highlights that “there is a lack of consensus on what constitutes civic engagement” (2001, 17). In this regard, Richard P. Adler and Judy Goggin (2005) list different definitions provided by authors focusing on several aspects of civic engagement. Furthermore, they propose defining civic engagement as “the ways in which citizens participate in the life of a community in order to improve conditions for others or to help shape the community’s future” (2005, 236). Looking at the different possible definitions, Elisa Diller suggests extending the meaning of civic engagement to include an “experiencing [of] a sense of connection, interrelatedness, and, naturally, commitment toward the greater community (all life forms)” (Diller 2001, 22, quoted in Adler and Goggin 2005, 240). This peculiar characterization resonates with rationales some practitioners provided about the importance of silent meditation as a form of engagement, albeit seemingly devoid of any tangible effect on society. Nevertheless, we decided to focus on the societal dimension of engagement, as expressed by the term “civic,” which derives from the Latin word civis and refers to collective dimensions, and public and political arenas (see Adler and Goggin 2005, 238). The word “civic,” in combination with the term “engagement,” refers to activities of a collective nature in the public, in relation to the local area, city, nation, and in modernity—even the entire globalized world. Bearing in mind this crucial point, we define civic engagement as consisting of individual or collective actions, implemented in public arenas in concert with other persons or organizations, with the purpose of contributing to the shaping of the lives of individuals and communities. Examples of civic engagement with an impact on society are helping to set up humanitarian corridors to receive asylum seekers from war-torn countries or organizing a national campaign in favor of nuclear disarmament.
Adler and Goggin (2005, 240) differentiate civic engagement on a continuum spanning from informal individual action (such as helping a neighbor) to formal collective action (such as sustained intensive service), distinguishing between community activities and political activities. Below, we suggest adopting the idea of a continuum, and in the analysis, we strive to typologically conceptualize Buddhist civic engagement on a spectrum spanning between the poles of nonengagement and activist engagement.
2 Method
We gathered data to scrutinize the scope of engaged activities of Buddhist persons and organizations by way of qualitative guideline-based interviews with narrative parts (Luhrmann 2022, 345–364). We deductively constructed the interview guidelines on the basis of the aim and purpose of the third-party funded research project “Engaging for the Common Good,”1 and inductively complemented the guidelines on the basis of the first interviews done. In addition, we completed an analysis of the websites of numerous Buddhist organizations in order to gain insight regarding the potential civic engagement of the groups and centers.
In Italy, based on the state of research (Falà 2016; Introvigne and Zoccatelli 2024) and our own observations (Bielli, forthcoming), we conducted thirty-eight guideline-based interviews in 2021 and 2022 and numerous website analyses of Buddhist organizations. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the interviews were not done as in-person interviews in Buddhist centers but by means of Zoom video exchange. For this study we primarily make use of the detailed analysis of twelve interviews and written memos. Interviewees were not randomly recruited; the nondenominational umbrella organization Italian Buddhist Union (IBU) and the Italian Buddhist Institute Sōka Gakkai (IBISG) acted as gatekeepers in the process of finding interviewees. In fact, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it was not possible to attend public events at relevant Buddhist venues, which commonly are valuable occasions to meet potential interviewees and informants. Therefore, it was necessary to contact the Buddhist organizations directly. In the case of the IBISG, the names were provided by the organization’s managers and cannot be considered representative of all the sensibilities present in the organization with regard to its social activities. Even in the case of the IBU, although the contacts were not provided directly by the organization’s top management, we must bear in mind that the centers that were willing to participate in the research (which was only a fraction of all the Italian centers) necessarily selected the names given for the interviews. Thus, we can reasonably assume that they did not indicate the less socially active responsible parties or members. The organizations and centers provided us primarily with names of leaders, and thus we carried out only a few interviews with ordinary members. As a result, the sample may have an over-representation of the more active approach to social engagement. However, a careful look reveals characteristic elements in each interview, pointing to a diversification of viewpoints, which enables further research in the future. Potential categories emerging in the analysis of the first interviews prompted us to conduct further interviews in order to theoretically saturate the emerging categories on the basis of grounded theory tenets. The interviewees (recruited also via contacting the IBU und the IBISG) were both leaders and ordinary members, laymen, laywomen, monks, and nuns affiliated to diverse Buddhist traditions. In the vast majority of cases they were convert Buddhists.
In Switzerland, proceeding from a detailed study of Buddhist teachers, groups, centers, and monasteries (see below, Baumann 2022), we conducted seven guideline-based interviews with narrative parts, three telephone or email interviews, and twenty-six website analyses of Buddhist organizations. The interviews were done as face-to-face meetings at the Buddhist centers in late 2022 and early 2023. We selected the Buddhist center leaders for interviews on the basis of the self-description of the Buddhist organizations on their websites and on the longtime background knowledge of one of the coauthors (Baumann 1998; 2012; 2022; forthcoming). The interviews were intended to obtain first-hand knowledge of the range of civic activities of Buddhists and Buddhist organizations, and to inquire about the motives and rationales for carrying these out. In addition, the interviews proved valuable in reviewing to what extent the range of social and civic actions listed on the Buddhist center’s website matched with the activities that were actually carried out. The broad website analysis was intended to provide information useful for selecting organizations for interviews. While the number of interviews—face-to-face, telephone, and email—is limited, we accomplished a theoretical saturation insofar as the interviews did not lead to additional categories of the typology presented below.
With regard to ethical aspects of the study, interviewees were informed of the larger aim of the interview within this comparative study. To the extent possible, we anonymized the identities of the interviewees, whose statements were quoted, though informed observers of the national Buddhist fields may infer the identity of a speaker, particularly in the case of known Buddhist leaders. We numbered the anonymized interviews in chronological order in which they were conducted (each country has its own sequence); thus, Interview 7 (I 7) relates to the seventh interview completed. The Italian participants received an information sheet with explanations concerning the research methodology, anonymity and privacy issues, and signed an informed consent form to take part in the research. They were informed of their right to withdraw from the research at any time and to have free access to the research documentation.
Both authors are scholars in the study of religions, employing a social-scientific methodology of studying contemporary Buddhism in Europe. Both have visited numerous Buddhist groups and assemblies and maintain various contacts with Buddhist leaders and common members. While the article’s first author considers himself an agnostic and non-Buddhist, the second author grew up in a family environment characterized by both a Christian Catholic heritage and a Buddhist background.
3 National Contexts: Profiles of Buddhism and State–Religion Relations
In Italy and Switzerland, as in other Western European countries, interest in Buddhist teachings and practices has steadily increased since the 1970s. The reception of Japanese Zen meditation was soon followed by the establishment of numerous Tibetan Buddhist centers and monasteries and then by the founding of groups and centers favoring vipassanā meditation, Korean Zen, pan-Buddhist approaches, and others. Also, both countries saw the arrival of refugees and immigrants from Asian majority Buddhist countries and the establishment of saṅghas from Thailand, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Tibet. Now, in the early twenty-first century, a plurality of schools and traditions characterizes the presence of Buddhism in the two countries (Falà 2016; Baumann 2022).
Regarding the size of the Buddhist population in Italy, Introvigne and Zoccatelli (2024) estimate the overall number of Buddhists in the country to be approximately 358,000 as of 2023, making up 0.6 percent of the Italian population of about fifty-nine million inhabitants in 2023. This number comprises an estimated 140,000 Buddhists with foreign citizenship and 218,000 Italian Buddhists. This last figure is composed of around 100,000 people from the area conceptually represented by the IBU, belonging to the Vajrayāna, Zen, Theravāda, Nichiren, Chan, Interbuddhist, Seon, and Tendai traditions, 96,700 members of the IBISG, and 21,300 practitioners belonging to other traditions (Introvigne and Zoccatelli 2024). With regard to Buddhist foreign citizens, the ISTAT report (2015) on religious affiliation and practice among foreign citizens states that these predominantly come from China (63.8 percent) and Sri Lanka (18.8 percent).
Useful data on IBU-affiliated centers is provided by a report summarizing the results of research carried out on the IBU and edited by Giuseppe Giordan, Stefania Palmisano, and PierLuigi Zoccatelli (2023). According to this report, Vajrayāna centers constitute the notable majority (thirty-seven out of sixty-four centers), with Zen (fifteen) and Theravāda groups (six) following. The largest number of members is in the Vajrayāna centers (9,727), followed by Theravāda (6,215) and Zen (838). Most centers affiliated to the IBU are in the north (forty), with smaller numbers in the center (eighteen) and only a few in the south (six). The number of members, when considered regionally, is highest in the center (12,237), the north is in second place (4,623), and the lowest is the south (181) (Giordan, Palmisano, and Zoccatelli 2023, 77–80).
With regard to the relevance of the number of IBISG members, Sōka Gakkai success in Italy may be connected to: (1) an intense impulse on the part of Buddhist members to spread and share Buddhist teachings, (2) the secular nature of the organization, with lay members who are immersed in Italian society and therefore have more social contacts than monks and nuns, (3) the fact that its activities are less traditional and more suited to a lay audience, (4) the fact that Sōka Gakkai practice may appear to new practitioners as simpler and more straightforward when compared to more traditional Buddhist practices, and (5) a conscious effort to simplify, popularize, and democratize Buddhism in order to make its practice accessible to everyone.
For Switzerland, the number of Buddhists aged fifteen years and older was estimated to be 36,800 in 2022 (Bundesamt für Statistik 2024). When also considering children aged one to fourteen, a figure of 45,000 to 50,000 Buddhists seems realistic (0.5 percent of the Swiss population of almost nine million people). This number consists of an estimated 18,000 Thai Buddhists (the vast majority Thai women), some 8,000 ethnic Tibetan Buddhists, and roughly 7,000 Buddhists of Vietnamese origin. Approximately 3,000 Buddhists are of Cambodian descent, and a few thousand people of Chinese and Japanese descent most likely also participate in Buddhist rituals. “Converts” or “alpine Buddhists,” as the president of the nondenominational Swiss Buddhist Union has called them (I 4.1, 32:34), can be estimated to be around 6,000 to 10,000 persons. About half of the absolute numbers of Buddhists in Switzerland adhere to Theravāda traditions (from Thailand, Cambodia, and Sri Lanka as well as practitioners of vipassanā meditation), and an estimated quarter each to Mahāyāna and Tibetan Buddhism. However, a stock-taking of the almost 160 Buddhist groups, centers, and monasteries in 2020/21 shows that 45 percent of Buddhist organizations are affiliated to one of the Tibetan Buddhist schools, some 40 percent to Mahāyāna traditions, and only 13 percent to Theravāda Buddhism (Baumann 2022; forthcoming). This seeming discrepancy can be explained by the “diasporic” or “immigrant” Buddhists. They have established only a few monastic institutions, such as the grand, purpose-built Thai monastery Wat Srinagarindravararam in northwest Switzerland, while “convert” Buddhists have founded numerous groups and centers in converted flats and houses in conurbations. With regard to Tibetan Buddhism, dynamic international convert organizations such as Diamond Way Buddhism and New Kadampa Tradition have established numerous local groups and centers, while ethnic Tibetan Buddhists primarily gather at the Monastic Institute Rikon in the Zürich canton. This monastery is known for its interfaith and educational activities.
In Italy the two most important Buddhist organizations, the umbrella organization IBU and the IBISG, signed two specific agreements (intese) with the Italian state. The Italian parliament officially approved these agreements in 2012 and 2016 respectively, on the basis of Article 8 of the Italian constitution. Under the 8 × 1000 (i.e., otto per mille, eight per thousand) regulation, each Italian taxpayer, when annually submitting his/her tax declaration, can choose to devolve 0.8 percent of annual income tax either to the state, the Catholic Church, or to another religious organization recognized by the state with this specific agreement. Based on these agreements the two Buddhist organizations receive considerable public funds, which they employ to implement social activities, among other things. Among the numerous social activities promoted, Buddhist organizations have used funds to support civil protection during the pandemic, to fund projects for the inclusion of refugees, and to finance traveling exhibitions to raise awareness of the need for a ban on nuclear weapons.
The 8 × 1000 funds are usually allocated four years after collection; therefore, the 2020 public funds were allocated in 2024. In 2020, approximately 166,800 Italian citizens designated their 0.8 percent for the IBU, while about 77,600 chose the IBISG. As a result, in 2024 the IBU received around € 14 million and the IBISG almost € 6.5 million. These figures constitute a substantial increase compared to previous years. Overall, in 2024 the total amount of 8 × 1000 funds was about € 1.33 billion, with the two most relevant recipients being the Catholic Church (almost € 1 billion) and the state (almost € 340 million) (Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze 2024).
It is clear that the 8 × 1000 regulation represents an important funding opportunity for recognized religious organizations. However, a lively debate has been under way for years, with some criticizing certain aspects of the legislation. The undeniable advantages granted to recognized religious organizations have prompted accusations of discrimination of nonrecognized organizations (e.g., Alicino 2013, 31). Additionally, Alicino has brought attention to the issue of nonexpressed choices, with taxpayers choosing or not choosing to whom their 8 × 1000 taxes should be assigned (7, 25–27). Since 8 × 1000 funds deriving from nonexpressed choices are allocated in proportion to the expressed ones, religious organizations also receive funds that have not been expressly allocated to them by taxpayers. As an example, in 2020 expressed choices accounted for only about 41 percent and the nonexpressed about 59 percent of the taxpayers’ selections. Essentially, the majority of Italian taxpayers chose not to choose (Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze 2024).
In contrast to Italy, in Switzerland regulations pertaining to state–religion relations are located on the cantonal and not on the federal level. In the vast majority of cantons, only the Roman Catholic Church, the Reformed Evangelical Churches, the Christian Catholic Church, and, occasionally, the Jewish Congregation are publicly recognized and receive state funding (Pahud de Mortanges 2015). The nondenominational umbrella organization Swiss Buddhist Union (SBU) is not recognized and thus depends on the funds allocated by its approximately forty member organizations. The scope of organizational professionalization of the SBU is low, with only a few board members engaged and with a low public presence. To the detriment of the SBU, Buddhist activities and engagement are primarily decentralized within favored centers and branches. The Swiss characteristic of emphasis on the local and skepticism toward the federal is thus mirrored well among Buddhists and Buddhist organizations.
4 Results: Typology, Motivation, and Scope of Civic Engagement
We first present the results by systematizing the range of civic engagement among Buddhists and Buddhist organizations along a fourfold typology, followed by a brief discussion. Second, we summarize motivations for civic engagement as told to us by the interviewees. Third, we compare the scope of civic engagement, which indicates a markedly higher degree of activity in Italy than in Switzerland. We then suggest a sixfold explanation of the differences, highlighting sociocultural characteristics, specifics of the national governance of the diversity of religions, and differences in the composition of Buddhists in the two countries.
4.1 Typology of Civic Engagement
As outlined above, we make use of Adler and Goggin’s approach of differentiating civic engagement on a continuum spanning between the poles of nonengagement to activist engagement. The pole of nonengagement is not considered as a form of civic engagement. As we will demonstrate, the analysis of the interviews with Buddhist leaders and members has led us to discern characteristic self-understandings and activities of Buddhist leaders and organizations, which we cluster in four different types: (1) the nonengaged, (2) the intermediary, (3) the shaper, and (4) the activist. Figure 1 illustrates the continuum of types of civic engagement on a spectrum.
Figure 1
Continuum of civic engagement of Buddhists and Buddhist organizations
Citation: Journal of Religion in Europe 18, 4 (2025) ; 10.1163/18748929-bja10130
The type of nonengagement became obvious as we approached a Tibetan Buddhist convert center in Switzerland, requesting an interview on the range of its civic engagement. The organization’s communication officer, speaking for more than ten centers and local groups in Switzerland, responded: “Unfortunately, it is not possible for us to give information here, as we are neither socially nor civically engaged, but create an opportunity for interested people to meditate and work with their minds.”2 According to the communication officer, the core of the organization’s offer is instructions in Buddhist meditation rather than activities of civic engagement. Likewise, a member of a Korean Buddhist center in Switzerland (lay, male, in his late 60s) stressed in the interview that the group is not socially or civically engaged. Rather, the participants place their emphasis on applying Buddhist meditative practices in everyday life and activity (I 4.1, 10:55–11:36, 16:16–28;3 similar I 7, 8:46–52). With regard to Italy, we did not receive answers similar to the email communication described above from the contacted centers in Switzerland. However, it is possible that, at least in some cases, the absence of response from some very isolated centers or monasteries can be considered as a sign of an almost total absence of social commitment. Overall, nonengaged Buddhists and Buddhist organizations do not intend to civically engage, and instead emphasize the option to individually progress in Buddhist practices and understanding.
In contrast to the stance of nonengagement, we discern the type of intermediary with Buddhist leaders and members, who by their teaching and instruction indirectly influence other people. The Buddhist person does not directly engage civically outside the Buddhist center, but rather sees his or her role in conveying an attitude with specific values and tools for reflection. For example, a long-term Swiss Zen and vipassanā teacher (authorized teacher, male, early 70s) explained to us that he considers his instructions in meditation and Buddhist values to be a form of indirect civic engagement: As a kind of intermediary, he would give his students tools for reflection. He would aim to pass on an attitude, which his students could apply in their daily life of social and educative work with the aim of improving conditions for other people (I 1, 17:45–18:17; similar I 5, 41:19–52). Likewise, in Italy, a forty-seven-year-old lay woman who has been practicing in a Tibetan Buddhist center since 2011 includes meditation courses in her list of social activities provided by the center. She explained that these courses “are always free or for a donation so that we can welcome as many people as possible” (I 7, 17:23–38). Here, too, an indirect commitment emerges aimed at fostering an inner transformation that can then reverberate in society. Overall, the type of intermediary considers him- or herself as someone who, by the teachings and instructions offered, influences other people who then in turn engage for an improvement of social conditions.
As a third type of civic engagement, we clustered activities that take place in the public arena and strive to not only indirectly, but also directly influence the attitudes and social norms of people, both Buddhists and non-Buddhists. We labeled this type the shaper, as they aim to influence people. In this regard, both in Italy and Switzerland (and other countries), the national branches of Sōka Gakkai International (SGI), with its numerous centers and many local groups, were active in organizing public events and exhibitions with the aim of mediating specific Buddhist values and a Buddhist understanding. As the Swiss interviewee (lay, female, mid 60s) explained, during the 1990s and 2000s, based on the Buddhist concepts of interconnectedness, compassion, and bodhisattva virtue, the Geneva chapter of the SGI organized exhibitions on war and peace, and on the atomic threat and the need to ban atomic weapons (I 3, 23:27–24:00, 33:20–54; see also Ikeda 2010, 32). Overall, by advocating the approach of shaping attitudes, norms, and the understanding of people by raising awareness through education and learning, the SGI has been acting as an educator to spread its idea of Buddhist Humanism (Seager 2006, 142; Ikeda 2010).
Finally, our fourth type of activist engagement relates to Buddhists and Buddhist organizations that are striving not only to influence other people’s attitudes, but to be actively involved in public arenas. The aim is to make a difference by bringing about a social change, in Buddhist terms, reducing suffering (dukkha). In this regard, for several years now, a Swiss Zen priest (male, mid 70s) has been publicly active in the area of animal protection and animal welfare. He established an animal sanctuary and openly propagates a vegan way of life. In his Buddhist understanding of compassion, such a civic engagement would contribute to reducing suffering and nurturing happiness (I 2, 1:00–2:08, 5:08–35).
Also alongside the activist pole, the local Swiss and Italian groups of the international Zen Peacemaker Order (Glassman 1998; Queen 2000b) engage in civic activities including social action, peace-making practices, organizing “Bearing Witness Retreats” at Auschwitz, and much more. In this regard, relying on the meditational experience of interconnectedness, the local chapters financially support various cultural, educational and social projects of other agencies on the one hand, and on the other hand, participate in “Bearing Witness Retreats.” In these retreats, taking place in areas of poverty or at former concentration camps, participants are exposed to the pain and suffering of other people, and using this as a learning experience, they aim to raise awareness of the suffering (Queen 2000b, 105).
In addition, an Italian Zen center leader (monk, early 60s) mentioned the Meetings Project (Progetto Incontri) that has been ongoing for about fifteen years. Thus, the activist project was started well before the 2012 agreement between the IBU and the state. The project arose from the need to offer practical help to refugees in Italy, and at the same time, to promote a change of mindset in Italian society with regard to the acceptance of cultural and religious diversity. It aims to promote interreligious dialogue, education, and acceptance of religious difference in middle and secondary schools. The interviewee pointed out that the activity “consists precisely in going physically, to the extent possible, into schools, meeting a class, bringing testimony of one’s own faith, trying, if possible, to establish a contact, and answering questions, to help the boys and girls understand … the real essence of a religious tradition” (I 8.2, 6:20–47).
Finally, in 2011 the IBISG set up the Senzatomica campaign against nuclear weapons, as a campaign leader explained (lay, male, mid 40s, I 1, 25:19–28). It started with a specific “members training” (I 1, 25:59–26:02) within the IBISG. The primary objective was to raise public awareness through various means, such as exhibitions, conferences, and flash-mobs, intended to contribute to the approval of an international legal arrangement banning nuclear weapons. These activities might appear as “shapers.” However, we notice a more “activist” attitude when the IBISG promotes the Italy Think Again (Italia ripensaci) campaign, addressed to the Italian government to find ways to adhere to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, adopted in 2017 and entered into force in 2021 (Comitato Senzatomica, n.d.). It is relevant to note that the same Buddhist organization can adopt different strategies in its social engagement on the basis of the country in which it is acting. Furthermore, in the same country it can implement socially engaged activities placed in both the “shaper” and “activist” areas to work on different levels.
The aim of the typology is to systematize and differentiate the spectrum of civic engagement among Buddhists and Buddhist organizations. A typology carries an unavoidable subjective bias, due to an author’s selection and interpretation of data (Biezais 1981, 14). Despite this caveat, the typology strives to inductively create exclusive types based on selected characteristics of the freshly gathered empirical data and to represent in sum the range of manifestations of civic engagement. With regard to exclusive types, it may remain debatable to what extent the types of “intermediary” and “shaper” are sufficiently distinct. We strove to highlight the distinctness along the criteria of indirect versus direct influence and private/semi-public locality (the Buddhist center) versus the public arena (e.g., exhibition hall). As such, a nominal definition of the types appears necessary. Also, it may be argued that the typology can be based on other criteria and objectives. For example, the spectrum of civic engagement could chart the continuum of the locality of or the social level addressed by civic engagement, that is, whether engagement is primarily an inward (developing inner peace) or outward (social action) activity. It could also chart whether it is directed foremost toward the micro level (the individual) or the macro level (society at large). These considerations will be revisited while presenting the range of motivations for civic engagement as told by the interviewees.
4.2 Motivations for Civic Engagement
While the typology charts the spectrum of civic engagement, it does not address the reasons and motivations underpinning the different forms of engagement. We suggest discerning four social motivations and four motivations inspired by Buddhist ideas and concepts:
-
Inner change/outer change: The above-quoted Italian IBISG leader clarified the connection between individual inner change and social outer change by relaying in his own words a sentence by Ikeda Daisaku: “The human revolution of a single individual will contribute to changing the destiny of a nation and eventually of all humanity” (I 1, 15:07–17; see Ikeda, n.d.). An Italian Zen practitioner (lay, female, mid 40s) underscored the importance of silent meditation as a “very individual, intimate moment” (I 12, 8:04–14), during which “one truly gets in touch with oneself and faces oneself” (8:14–23). She added that “Dōgen says to know yourself in order to forget yourself” (8:28–44). All this led her to recognize that she is very different from the way she perceives herself and at the same time “absolutely the same as everyone else” (8:44–9:01). This inspired her to do things for others, starting with saṅgha activities, considered to be a form of civic engagement. Along a similar line, the above-mentioned long-term Swiss Zen and vipassanā teacher considered his meditation instructions as a form of civic engagement, as the participants would benefit from it to better handle the challenges of social life (I 1, 6:26–46).
-
Changing individuals, changing society: With regard to the goals of the Senzatomica campaign, the IBISG leader stressed that “the main objective was to generate public awareness … in order to reach a critical mass to influence governments, the United Nations … to negotiate what was then called the Convention for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons” (I 1, 26:16–52). He also held that the main peculiarity of the exhibition lies in its subtitle, that is, “Transforming the Human Spirit for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons” (28:10–14). Interestingly, he clarified: “It is a path that leads one to reflect … on the action that the individual can take … so it is a path of empowerment” (28:19–32). In the same vein, the above-mentioned Italian leader of a Zen center affiliated to the IBU explained that his activities in schools were very helpful for recognizing “mutual knowledge” and for “creating a society that is as, shall we say, welcoming as possible, and, aware of differences” (I 8.2, 3:31–51). Both interviewees based their motivations for civic engagement on the aim of shaping the attitudes and values of individuals, in order to reach specific goals. Similar reasons, though not as goal-oriented, were also voiced by some of our Swiss interviewees (I 1, 11:13–12:12; I 4.2, 16:00–22; I 5, 41:19–52).
-
Explaining/clarifying Buddhism to others: The Zen leader mentioned another reason for Buddhist civic engagement. Although the Buddhist presence in Italy is growing, “there is still a lot to be done and explained” (I 8.2, 01:58–02:26). He added that “for the majority of Italians, Buddhism is still something that has a … magical, mystical flavor, a bit like that, mysterious” (2:16–35) and “most Italians think that we Buddhists only care about ourselves … and that we live a kind of … looking only at ourselves” (2:35–50). For these reasons, he concluded that “[it] is important to contribute as Buddhists” (2:50). Thus, in this case, civic engagement is assumed to be helpful in changing specific perceptions about Buddhism in Italian society. On similar lines, the leader (lay, female, late 60s) of a Chan center in Switzerland told us that they organized programs for children, which attracted both Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike, and could thus inform the participants about mindfulness and Buddhist ideas (I 5, 22:50–23:43).
-
Indirect dissemination of Buddhist values: An IBISG leader (lay, male, 60) stated that with the new exhibition concerning climate change and environmental issues, they wish to “bring a Buddhist view that is not Manichaean, that is, the bad guys and the good guys on one side” (I 2, 11:53–12:06). He emphasized the importance of “creating opportunities so that Buddhist humanism can be transferred into people’s hearts,” without the need to convert anyone, but simply “sharing these values of respect for life, for the diversity of people” (23:40–24:04). Likewise, a nun from a Fo Guang Shan center in Switzerland reported of events that took place and meetings that were held to inform attendees about Buddhism and the four principles of Humanist Buddhism as defined by Hsing Yun, the founder of Fo Guang Shan (I 6, 19:54–20:00).
The above-stated motivations do not exclusively refer to Buddhist concepts and ideas for civic engagement. However, our interviewees also mentioned various Buddhist concepts for their civic engagement. In the following, we refer to four such concepts.
-
Reducing suffering (Pāli dukkha): The above-mentioned activist Swiss Zen priest, promoting animal welfare and a vegan diet, explained his engagement as the reduction of suffering (I 2, 5:42, 21:35). A less animal- and protein-based, and more plant-based diet would be beneficial for today’s animal farming and the entire planet (5:51–6:16). One of the leaders of a Swiss SGI center also mentioned the motivation being to reduce suffering and to promote happiness (I 3, 44:51–45:00). Interestingly, the purpose of reducing suffering was not mentioned among the first twelve Italian interviewees.
-
Compassion (Skt. karuṇā): As one of the four “divine abodes” (brahmavihāra), compassion has been mentioned by interviewees as a rationale for various kinds of civic engagement (Swiss I 2, 21:29).
-
Interconnectedness: Buddhist leaders and members referred to the insight that a person only realizes true happiness by understanding the relational connection with the environment and other people. The leader of a Swiss SGI center told us: “I can’t be happy just for myself in my snail shell, but that it’s only possible if you build a positive relationship with the environment and with nature and with other people” (I 3, 11:17–41). The Swiss leader of a Chan center also referred to the idea of connectedness and “seeing things as they really are” (I 5, 37:59–38:03). Likewise, speakers at the topical day of the SBU “Buddhism in Society” repeatedly emphasized the importance of interconnectedness for a mindful interacting of the individual with nature and society.4 In Italy, an IBISG leader (lay, female, 60s) highlighted the “interconnection of all phenomena” (I 3, 1:26:35–41). She pointed out that “everyone’s life is connected to the lives of others and therefore the actions, the behavior of each individual person has a global impact and also affects themselves. So the nonduality between us and others is compelling” (1:26:41–27:05). Furthermore, a Tibetan center leader (lay, male, 60s) expressed interdependence as follows: “individual phenomena, including people, of course, don’t have a stable, let’s say grounded, intrinsic existence in themselves, independent of causes, so they’re dependent on interaction with the environment in general” (I 10, 14:55–15:10). He also stressed that a human being alone “doesn’t go half a meter without something someone else has done” (15:18–33).
-
Bodhisattva: Closely related to the idea of interconnectedness is the concept of the state of a bodhisattva. “This is a state in which one really transcends out of the small ego to the universal, the greater self,” as the leader of a Swiss SGI center explained regarding one of her motivations for civic engagement (I 3, 12:15–27). In Italy, an IBISG leader (lay, male, 60s) emphasized: “the teaching says that we are actually bodhisattvas of the earth, so by pursuing that kind of profound life that is manifested by chanting daimoku [recitation of the title of the Lotus sutra] and doing shakubuku [compassionately sharing Buddhist teachings], one’s own happiness becomes the happiness of others” (I 2, 7:48–8:06). Moreover, a Zen center leader (monk, 60s) underlined the importance of the bodhisattva figure in the Mahāyāna context. According to him the bodhisattva is a person who “renounces his/her own enlightenment and vows, before enlightening, to save all living beings” (I 8.2, 21:54–22:08).
4.3 Scope of Civic Engagement
With regard to the scope of civic engagement, for Switzerland the various interviews and the website analysis of numerous Buddhist groups and centers point to a rather low degree of civic engagement. Only a very few groups publicly engage with civic activities. Why is this so? Repeatedly, we received the response that in Switzerland the social welfare system is very well organized and functioning (I 1, 58:57–58:09; I 2, 34:13–30). One leader (lay, female, late 60s) of a socially engaged, international Buddhist organization with numerous relief programs worldwide told us: “I almost have a bad conscience that here [in Switzerland] we do almost nothing because we … live in a welfare state” (I 5, 10:13–23). The beneficial social context thus leads to a low scope of civic activities among Buddhist groups. Alongside this, the typical Swiss insistence on focusing on one’s own canton and local identity (I 1, 1:01:16–02:15; I 4.2, 14:18–38) translates to a very low rate of exchange and cooperation among Buddhist groups in Switzerland. We may speak of a specifically framed Swiss Buddhism, characterized by insistence on one’s own particular lineage and teacher, a low interest in cooperation with other Buddhist groups, and a small scope of Buddhist civic engagement (I 4.2, 17:11–49; Baumann, forthcoming).
In Italy, according to our interviews and website analyses, the situation is different, and it appears that compared to Switzerland, many more Buddhist organizations are civically engaged. But why is this? In the following section, we strive to formulate some hypothetical explanations. First, the socioeconomic situation with regard to the welfare system and economic coverage of families in Italy is less developed than in Switzerland. To provide two indicators, while the expenditure on social protection benefits was similar in both countries in 2022 (Italy: 28.9 percent of GDP; Switzerland: 26.6 percent of GDP), the employment rate was only 66.3 percent in Italy compared to 83 percent in Switzerland in 2023 (Eurostat 2024; 2025). Thus, although a generous welfare system exists in Italy, it appears to be much less efficient and effective than the Swiss one. In the eyes of many of the interviewees, the shortcomings of the Italian socioeconomic system call for greater social engagement. This difference in social protection benefits could hypothetically justify the readiness for greater social commitment among Italian Buddhist organizations.
Second, if we look at other possible yardsticks of comparison, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), high voter turnout is a measure of citizens’ participation in the political process: “In the most recent elections for which data are available, voter turnout in Italy was 73 percent of those registered. This figure is higher than the OECD average of 69 percent” (OECD 2020). However, in the last general election held in September 2022, Italian turnout had a dramatic collapse from 72.94 percent to 63.91 percent (Ministero dell’Interno 2022). These data must also be read by looking at the turnout map, which clearly shows that the highest turnout rates are in the regions of central and northern Italy (Cataldi 2022). If we consider that the majority of Buddhist centers, both IBISG and IBU, are located in the center-north, we understand well that they are in regions where political participation is strongest. The intensity of social engagement of Buddhist organizations could be related to this. With regard to Switzerland, the OECD states that “in the most recent elections for which data are available, voter turnout in Switzerland was 45 percent of those registered. This figure is one of the lowest rates in the OECD, where average turnout is 69 percent. This, however, does not take into account Switzerland’s highly participatory form of direct democracy” (OECD 2020). In light of this data, the greater social commitment of Italian Buddhist organizations could be linked to their rootedness in Italian regions characterized by greater political commitment and higher volunteering rates. In fact, data from the first survey on volunteering provided by ISTAT (2013) tell us that in Italy the number of volunteers is estimated at 6.63 million (total volunteer rate 12.6 percent), and volunteer work is more widespread in the northern part of the country. The northeast has the highest total volunteering rate (16 percent), while the south is characterized by significantly lower levels of participation (8.6 percent, ISTAT 2013). In Switzerland, volunteer social engagement has a stronghold in rural areas (Lamprecht, Fischer, and Stamm 2020, 47) while Buddhist groups commonly cluster in the cities and conurbations.
Third, the huge amount of public funds from the 8 × 1000 regulation has an impact that is far from being homogeneous. In 2023 the IBU allocated in excess of € 6 million to more than two hundred humanitarian projects. This included civic engagement activities such as BEE Woman (Palermo), a training course consisting of theory classes and practical activities, dedicated to migrant female victims of trafficking and female victims of violence. This project was started on a tract of land on the outskirts of Palermo, which was confiscated from the Mafia. This initiative consists of the setting up of a natural beekeeping activity, which offers the women the opportunity to learn a trade and achieve economic autonomy and social reintegration. Another example was Friendly Horse (Cavallo amico) (Verbania), a project dedicated to children with disabilities, who learn how to take care of horses, groom them, become familiar with them, and ultimately ride them (IBU 2024). In addition, in 2020, and continuing over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the IBU allocated € 3 million to the Civil Protection Department and the financing of an emergency fund for third sector organizations supporting vulnerable people (IBU 2020). The IBISG received 8 × 1000 funds for the first time in 2020, totaling more than € 4 million. In March 2020 the National Council of the Institute resolved to allocate the entire amount to deal with the COVID-19 emergency in Italy and the serious social and economic repercussions linked to it. Both organizations acted directly by means of their local centers and indirectly by means of public appeals to civil society organizations and volunteering associations, often non-Buddhist.
It is worth noting that before the approval of the agreements (intese) there was not a lack of civic engagement, on the contrary. As mentioned above, the IBISG launched the Senzatomica campaign in 2011, and it also cooperated with the Community of Sant’Egidio in the early 2000s to collect signatures in order to outlaw the death penalty. Additionally, several IBU local centers had implemented specific social activities prior to the receipt of public funds. These activities include initiatives such as the Meetings Project (Progetto Incontri) to promote interreligious dialogue, education, and acceptance of religious difference in middle and secondary schools, the participation of one center’s members in ceremonies at the Fosse Ardeatine massacre memorial in Rome, and support for earthquake victims in foreign countries and in Italy.
In the case of the IBU centers, thus far the interviews reveal the high relevance of the 8 × 1000 funds, both to maintain the centers as well as to organize civic engagement activities. These activities seem to have increased due to these funds, although only in specific regions and to differing degrees. If we look at local centers of the IBU, we notice that not all of them have increased civic engagement activities in view of the receipt of the 8 × 1000 funds. For example, the aforementioned lay practitioner of a Tibetan center pointed out that they have requested 8 × 1000 funds from the IBU for specific projects that were not socially engaged. She mentioned the construction of a stūpa containing the ashes of their late resident master and the renovation of the center (I 7, 38:23–40:37). However, in answering a question regarding future activities, she expressed the desire to increase activities in schools, prisons, and hospitals. These three settings are often mentioned in IBU discourses (I 7, 42:53–46:11). She also talked about an upward trend of such projects in recent years, but believes that with the 8 × 1000 funds it will be possible to advance and stabilize them (46:01–45). The previously mentioned Zen monk clarified that “there is an important exchange” between the IBU and Italian society, since the IBU employs the funds “not only with regard to worship needs or dhamma spreading” but also to “return something” to Italian citizenry (I 8.2, 01:17–29). He also noted that there are different types of projects funded with the 8 × 1000 resources, such as support for religious activities, spreading the dhamma, as well as social and humanitarian activities (51:47–52:12). Interestingly, he clarified that his center took advantage of 8 × 1000 funded projects in order to support travels to Japan for the purpose of monastic education, to spread the dhamma through conferences, invitations of teachers to Italy, and the publication and dissemination of dhamma texts (52:12–45). However, they did not take advantage—at least at the time of the interview—of 8 × 1000 funds to arrange civic activities. The reason is that “they’re projects requiring a very complex organization that our center doesn’t yet have, they’re projects that are made by much more structured centers than ours, with much more finances too” (52:52–53:07). The aforementioned Zen lay nun emphasized that the entry into the IBU represented a watershed, a turning point. Before her center became part of the IBU, they had to do everything by themselves with no options for cultural or social projects. She stated: “You couldn’t do them before, or you wouldn’t have paid the rent.” Given the now greater economic stability thanks to the receipt of 8 × 1000 funds, the center can also devote itself to social and creative projects (I 6, 43:01–44:10).
Fourth, the much higher absolute number of Buddhist practitioners in Italy as compared to the figure in Switzerland most likely also explains the discrepancy. The vast majority of Italian Buddhist practitioners are Italian citizens, well integrated in society, many of them with a rich network of professional and useful connections. While the latter certainly is also true for Swiss practitioners, the number of “alpine Buddhists” (I 4.1, 32:34) is comparatively small when one considers that an estimated 70 to 80 percent of the Buddhists in Switzerland are from Asian countries. In this regard, it is noteworthy—as the survey of volunteers in Switzerland reveals—that in comparison to Swiss people, foreigners are less socially engaged (Lamprecht, Fischer, and Stamm 2020, 49), which reduces the scope of civic engagement. Furthermore, while the Thai, Tibetan, Vietnamese, and other Asian monasteries primarily engage in civic aspects with relief and educational programs in the country of origin, the “alpine Buddhists” place emphasis on their own group: “Each one has one’s own grouplet and own teacher, and the closer they are, the more they must distinguish themselves from each other,” as the president of the SBU expressed (I 4.1, 33:00–06). Cooperation and exchange are low, and joint public and civic activities are rare.
Fifth, cooperation between Buddhist organizations of different schools and traditions seems to be much more appreciated by Buddhist leaders and members in Italy than it is in Switzerland. A leader (a lay nun in her 30s, waiting for complete ordination) of a Zen center recalled that participation in common activities of the IBU would generate a sense of inter-Buddhist belonging. According to her, feeling part of something is more valuable than the economic aspect (I 6, 43:01–44:42). Likewise, a member of a Zen center (lay, male, mid 50s) emphasized that the connections of his center with the IBU and the interconnections between different Zen and non-Zen centers within the IBU have intensified (I 9, 42:54–43:33). In addition, he mentioned events where it was possible to listen to different teachings of masters from diverse Buddhist schools and traditions within the IBU. He appreciated “this sharing of different teachings with different saṅgha[s]” (I 9, 43:50–57). By organizing joint events and activities (for example, the Vesak), the IBU is enabling dialogue between different saṅghas and, to a certain extent, perhaps paving the way to a sort of unified saṅgha. We might hypothesize a gradual transition in the future from multiple saṅghas to a single saṅgha in the IBU. This might favor a gradual loss of internal diversity within the IBU, leading to a process of internal homogenization. The need for an umbrella organization that could gather the many Italian Buddhist centers for the purpose of being recognized by the state will have an impact on the appearance of Buddhism in Italy in the future.
Sixth and finally, is it possible to account for differences of civic engagement between different Buddhist traditions? While scholarly accounts of engaged Buddhism provide examples from the traditions and schools of Theravāda, Mahāyāna, and Tibetan Buddhism, as well as nondenominational organizations (Queen and King 1996b; Queen 2000c; 2018; King 2018; Fuller 2021), in our study, primarily leaders and members of Mahāyāna-inspired organizations, such as from Zen centers and Sōka Gakkai groups, reported about their civic activities. The high membership number within the Italian IBISG might also explain the considerable amount of civic engagement of Buddhists in Italy. Rationales for civic activities are grounded in the Mahāyāna concepts of nonduality/interconnectedness and the bodhisattva ideal (see above). Website analyses also show that various Tibetan Buddhist organizations, both “convert” and “immigrant,” support charities that benefit Tibetan schools and monasteries in India, Nepal, and Tibet. Thus far, our study suggests a larger scope of civic engagement among Mahāyāna-inspired organizations (including Tibetan Buddhist organizations) than among Theravāda and vipassanā organizations.
5 Conclusion
As the introduction states, following the initial world-withdrawal, throughout the centuries, the different Buddhist saṅghas have established close relations with the royal rulers and governing classes. Currently, in Italy we are observing a process of institutionalization of a composite Buddhist saṅgha, consisting of two different and complex organizations, the IBU and the IBISG. The agreement with the state represents a fundamental juncture: On the one hand, it is the culmination of a process of recognition of Buddhism and its religious and social activities, and on the other, it is a starting point as it assigns new rights and duties to the recognized organizations. The agreements enable a greatly enlarged societal visibility and access to considerable public funds, and also involve greater responsibilities in the public arena. These processes of institutionalization of Buddhist organizations and their social activities will have an impact externally on the perception that Italian society as a whole has of these organizations. Even within the Buddhist organizations, lively debates take place on the relationship Buddhism should have with the state. Issues debated relate to the benefits or disadvantages of public funding, and to the opportunities and risks associated with the ongoing institutionalization, and the very nature of civic engagement in its myriad facets.
The comparison of the civic engagement of Buddhist organizations in Italy and Switzerland points to apparent similarities, which the typology aims to systematize, and the listing of important motivations. However, the scope of civic engagement differs between the two neighboring countries. A main reason appears to be the high standard and efficiency of the Swiss social welfare system in contrast to the Italian one. The lack of such a well-functioning social security system appears to have created a need for the Italian Buddhist organizations to support the Italian system and to civically engage, whereas Swiss Buddhist groups and centers tend to focus more on disseminating Buddhist teachings and meditation practices. The recognition of the IBU and IBISG by the Italian state has led to the stabilization and the professionalization of the centers’ processes, enlarging the scope of civic engagement and intensifying internal cooperation and joint activities. In contrast, in Switzerland rather a reluctance for inter-Buddhist cooperation is apparent, due to the insistence on one’s particular Buddhist school and skepticism toward federal representation. Overall, in both Italy and Switzerland, Buddhist organizations appear to have taken on traits of cultural mimesis in adapting to national characteristics and cultural habits. In this regard, they do not differ from previous experiences of Buddhists and Buddhist saṅghas in Asian countries in culturally adapting to the local contexts.
In Italy, the enlarged scope of civic engagement appears to be related to the location and composition of Buddhist organizations (made up mostly of “convert” citizens), coupled with the scope of higher political commitment and a higher volunteering rate in the central and northern regions. In contrast, in Switzerland immigrant people and their descendants make up the large majority of Buddhists. Also, a stronghold of volunteer civic engagement can be found in rural areas, whereas the majority of Swiss Buddhist organizations are located in conurbations. Also, cooperation among Buddhist groups and traditions is much more favored in Italy than in Switzerland. Due to this, the umbrella organization IBU has gained an increased social and political legitimacy, a legitimacy confirmed by the state agreement and the receipt of considerable public funds.
The new, strong, financial support seems to consolidate and reinforce the existing civic commitment of Buddhist organizations. It has facilitated new initiatives by centers and organizations that have hitherto struggled financially. The massive flow of tax money has engendered a willingness to implement civic activities, coupled in various instances with the intention to act responsibly with regard to society and its citizens. This has, in turn, reinforced the social legitimacy of the Buddhist organizations.
However, the impact of public funds on Buddhist civic engagement is not uniform. It differs according to the features of centers, organizations, leaderships, and the contexts in which they operate. Buddhist social engagement appears multidimensional in nature and arises from the interplay of numerous driving factors: (1) the funds guaranteed by the state as a result of the agreements undoubtedly play a relevant role, but we should not underestimate the importance of other aspects. Mention needs to be made of (2) the original aptitude and willingness of a center to implement civic actions; (3) specific, inspiring principles and values that are at the heart of the organization or at the core of its leaders’ or masters’ teachings; (4) particularly active personalities with valuable connections and professional networks, and the (5) presence of an administrative structure suited to harnessing the new flows of public funds. Future research will reveal how and to what extent Italian and Swiss societies are shaped by these activities, how they interact with Buddhist organizations and practitioners in the public arena, as well as how Italian and Swiss institutions and citizenry perceive and react to Buddhist civic engagement.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for insightful pointers, as well as the participants of the research colloquium in the study of religions at the University of Lucerne for the critical discussion of the draft of the article. Furthermore, we are profoundly grateful to the research participants.
The research project and this work were supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation from October 2020 to January 2025, funding number 10001F_197197 / 1.
Email communication, 14 December 2022. Here and in the following, responses in German and Italian were translated into English by the co-authors.
Interview 4.1 denotes part one of interview 4, as an interruption occurred and part two is the continuation following the interruption.
Held on 19 March 2023.
References
Adler, Richard P. and Judy Goggin. 2005. “What do we mean by ‘Civic Engagement’?” Journal of Transformative Education 3:3, 236–253.
Alicino, Francesco. 2013. “Un referendum sull’otto per mille? Riflessioni sulle fonti,” Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale 33.
Baumann, Martin. 1998. “Geschichte und Gegenwart des Buddhismus in der Schweiz,” Zeitschrift für Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 82:4, 255–280.
Baumann, Martin. 2012. “Buddhism in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland,” in Asanga Tilakaratne (ed.), 2600 Years of Sambuddhatva: Global Journey of Awakening, Colombo: The Ministry of Buddhasasana and Religious Affairs, 443–452.
Baumann, Martin. 2022. “Buddhismus in der Schweiz,” in Michael Klöcker and Udo Tworuschka (eds.), Handbuch der Religionen, Kirchen und andere Glaubensgemeinschaften in Deutschland und im deutschsprachigen Raum, 74, Supplement, Hohenwarsleben: Westarp Science Fachverlag, 1–59.
Baumann, Martin. Forthcoming. “Buddhism in Switzerland,” in Martin Baumann, Jørn Borup, and Knut A. Jacobsen (eds.), Handbook of Buddhism in Europe, Leiden: Brill.
Bechert, Heinz. 1984. ‘Foreword,’ in Heinz Bechert and Richard Gombrich (eds.), The World of Buddhism, London: Thames and Hudson, 7–8.
Bell, Sandra. 2000. “A Survey of Engaged Buddhism in Britain,” in Christopher S. Queen (ed.), Engaged Buddhism in the West, Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 397–422.
Biezais, Haralds. 1981. “Die typologische Methode in der religionshistorischen Forschung,” Temenos 17, 5–26.
Bielli, Tiziano. Forthcoming. “Buddhism in Italy,” in Martin Baumann, Jørn Borup, and Knut A. Jacobsen (eds.), Handbook of Buddhism in Europe, Leiden: Brill.
Brown, Donna-Lynn. 2023. “Beyond Queen and King: Democratizing ‘Engaged Buddhism,’” Journal of Buddhist Ethics 30, 7–58.
Bundesamt für Statistik (Federal Office of Statistics). 2024. “Religionszugehörigkeit, 2020–2022 kumuliert: Ständige Wohnbevölkerung ab 15 Jahren, Table su-d-40.02.01.08.30–2022 from 18.03.2024,” https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/bevoelkerung/sprachen-religionen/religionen.assetdetail.31068967.html.
Carrithers, Michael B. 1984. “‘They will be Lords upon the Island’: Buddhism in Sri Lanka,” in Heinz Bechert and Richard Gombrich (eds.), The World of Buddhism, London: Thames and Hudson, 133–146.
Cataldi, Matteo. 2022. “La mappa dell’affluenza per comune.” September 26. Centro Italiano Studi Elettorali (CISE). https://cise.luiss.it/cise/2022/09/26/le-mappe-dellaffluenza-per-comune/.
Comitato Senzatomica. N.d. “La campagna ‘Italia, ripensaci.’” https://senzatomica.it/la-campagna-italia-ripensaci/
Diller, Elisa. 2001. Citizens in Service: The Challenge of Delivering Civic Engagement Training to National Service Programs, Washington, DC: Corporation for National and Community Service.
Eurostat. 2024. “Social Protection Statistics: Social Benefits.” November. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Social_protection_statistics_-_social_benefits
Eurostat. 2025. “Employment: Annual Statistics.” April. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Employment_-_annual_statistics#Female_employment_rate_increases_over_time.
Falà, Maria A. 2016. Un altrove possibile: Viaggio tra vissuti e immaginari del Dharma in Italia, Naples: Guida editori.
Fuller, Paul. 2021. An Introduction to Engaged Buddhism, London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Fuller, Paul. Forthcoming. “Engaged Buddhism in Europe,” in Martin Baumann, Jørn Borup, and Knut A. Jacobsen (eds.), Handbook of Buddhism in Europe, Leiden: Brill.
Gibson, Cynthia. 2001. From Inspiration to Participation: A Review of Perspectives on Youth Civic Engagement, New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Glassman, Bernhard. 1998. Bearing Witness: A Zen Master’s Lessons in Making Peace, New York: Bell Tower.
Giordan, Giuseppe, Stefania Palmisano, and PierLuigi Zoccatelli. 2023. “Il Buddhismo in Italia Una ricerca sull’Unione Buddhista Italiana: Rapporto finale.” November. https://www.associazionerime.org/media/attachments/2024/03/20/il-buddhismo-in-italia-una-ricerca-sullunione-buddhista-italiana.-rapporto-finale-novembre-2023.pdf.
Gombrich, Richard. 1991. Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo, London: Routledge.
Harvey, Peter. 1990. An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harris, Ian. (ed.). 1999. Buddhism and Politics in Twentieth-Century Asia. London: Pinter.
Hunt-Perry, Patricia, and Lynn Fine. 2000. “All Buddhism is Engaged: Thich Nhat Hanh and the Order of Interbeing,” in Christopher S. Queen (ed.), Engaged Buddhism in the West, Boston: Wisdom Publications, 35–66.
Ikeda, Daisaku. N.d. “Human Revolution.” https://www.daisakuikeda.org/sub/quotations/theme/human-revolution.html.
Ikeda, Daisaku. 2010. A New Humanismus: The University Addresses of Daisaku Ikeda, London: I.B. Tauris.
Introvigne, Massimo, and PierLuigi Zoccatelli. 2024. “Introduzione al Buddhismo,” in Massimo Introvigne and PierLuigi Zoccatelli (eds.), Le Religioni in Italia: 2024 Edition (online), Turin: CESNUR. https://cesnur.com/il-buddhismo-in-italia/introduzione-al-buddhismo/.
IBU. 2020. “Coronavirus: dall’Unione Buddhista Italiana 3 milioni per l’emergenza e il dopo. 1.5 milioni alla Protezione Civile E 1.5 al Terzo Settore,” Press Release, 16 March. https://unionebuddhistaitaliana.it/comunicati-stampa/coronavirus-dallunione-buddhista-italiana-3-milioni-per-lemergenza-e-il-dopo-1-5-milioni-alla-protezione-civile-e-1-5-al-terzo-settore/
IBU. 2024. Attenzione alla sostenibilità ambientale e ai diritti nei progetti umanitari che l’Unione Buddhista Italiana sostiene grazie ai fondi 8xmille: Pubblicato l’Impact Report che valuta l’impatto socio-ambientale,” Press Release, 15 April. https://unionebuddhistaitaliana.it/comunicati-stampa/impact-report-2023/
Istat. 2013. “Attività gratuite a beneficio di altri.” https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/129115.
ISTAT. 2015. “Appartenenza e pratica religiosa tra i cittadini stranieri (report 2011–2012).” https://www.istat.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Religione-tra-gli-stranieri.pdf.
Jones, Ken. 1989. The Social Face of Buddhism: An Approach to Political and Social Activism, London: Wisdom Publications.
King, Sallie B. 1996. “Thich Nhat Hanh and the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam: Nondualism in Action,” in Christopher S. Queen and Sallie B. King (eds.), Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist Liberation Movements in Asia, Albany: State University of New York Press, 321–363.
King, Sallie B. 2009. Socially Engaged Buddhism, Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
King, Sallie B. 2018. “The Ethics of Engaged Buddhism in Asia,” in Daniel Cozort and James Mark Shields (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Buddhist Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 479–500.
King, Sallie B. 2023. “Are Ethnocentric/Nationalist Buddhists Engaged Buddhists? Certainly Not,” Journal of Buddhist Ethics 30, 83–92.
Lamprecht, Markus, Adrian Fischer, and Hanspeter Stamm. (eds.). 2020. Freiwilligen-Monitor Schweiz 2020, Zürich: Seismo. https://www.benevol.ch/fileadmin/images/global/benevol_Schweiz/Div_PDF/Freiwilligen-Monitor_Schweiz_2020.pdf.
Litsch, Franz-Johannes. 2000. “Engaged Buddhism in German-Speaking Europe,” in Christopher S. Queen (ed.), Engaged Buddhism in the West, Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 423–445.
Luhrmann, Tanya M. 2022. “Interview Methods,” in Steven Engler and Michael Stausberg (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in the Study of Religion, New York: Routledge, 345–364.
Michael, Franz. 1982. Rule by Incarnation: Tibetan Buddhism and its Role in Society and State, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze. 2024. “Analisi statistiche—Otto per mille—Serie storiche.” https://www1.finanze.gov.it/finanze3/stat_8xMilleSerie/index.php?req_block_column=1&req_classe=01.
Ministero dell’Interno. 2022. “Eligendo. Archivio.” https://elezionistorico.interno.gov.it/index.php?tpel=C&dtel=25/09/2022&es0=S&tpa=I&lev0=0&levsut0=0&ms=S&tpe=A.
OECD. 2020. ‘Better Life Index: Civic Engagement’, accessed 2 September 2023, https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/civic-engagement/.
Pahud de Mortanges, René. 2015. Staatliche Anerkennung von Religionsgemeinschaften: Zukunfts- oder Auslaufmodell? Zürich: Schulthess.
Queen, Christopher S. 2000a. “Introduction: A New Buddhism,” in Christopher S. Queen (ed.), Engaged Buddhism in the West, Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1–31.
Queen, Christopher S. 2000b. “Glassman Roshi and the Peacemaker Order: Three Encounters,” in Christopher S. Queen (ed.), Engaged Buddhism in the West, Boston: Wisdom Publications, 95–127.
Queen, Christopher S. (ed.). 2000c. Engaged Buddhism in the West, Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Queen, Christopher S. 2018. “The Ethics of Engaged Buddhism in the West,” in Daniel Cozort and James Mark Shields (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Buddhist Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 501–528.
Queen, Christopher. 2023. “Engaged Buddhism at Sixty-Five: Nuancing The Consensus,” Journal of Buddhist Ethics 20, 69–81.
Queen, Christopher S., and Sallie B. King. 1996a. “Preface,” in Christopher S. Queen and Sallie B. King (eds.), Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist Liberation Movements in Asia, Albany: State University of New York Press, ix–xii.
Queen, Christopher S., and Sallie B. King (eds.). 1996b. Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist Liberation Movements in Asia, Albany: State University of New York Press.
Schluchter, Wolfgang. 1984. Max Webers Studie über Hinduismus und Buddhismus, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Seager, Richard H. 2006. Encountering the Dharma: Daisaku Ikeda, Soka Gakkai, and the Globalisation of Buddhist Humanism, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Weber, Max. 1972. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie, Vol. II, 5th ed., Tübingen: Mohr.
