You're right, I think but it's all (still) a balancing act: where do we separate "immediate" issues from "broader" issues - for instance caring for family and (since you guys know me mostly in that role) climate change vigilantism?SDC wrote: I'm comfortable with this idea of a shifting balance and do experience it to a certain degree in my own practice.
I guess what I find to be most problematic is when we avoid participating in issues present in our immediate and daily environment in favor of somewhat less immediate, ongoing social/political/environmental issue. If immediate issues are brushed aside while we are able to find time to dedicate to a broader issue I must cry foul. In another topic I commented on how I think it is easier to commit to broad issues yet completely ignore comparable suffering that is going on in our immediate environment, perhaps even in our own household, or even within our own mind. I think we assume a significantly less amount of risk to our overall mental stability with broad issues, then we do with immediate issues. This is even more true when we start talking about people who are practicing the teachings of the Buddha. Dealing with immediate issues demands constant attention - sacrifice, patience, politeness and/or generosity that all must be considered on the spot. It is unpredictable and there is no time to control or plan. For the most part, involvement in broad issues can be controlled - you choose your level of involvement and, FOR THE MOST PART, there is less risk of that participation rebounding negatively into your daily life.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: if we are addressing broad issues with a greater ferocity and enthusiasm then we do immediate issues that balance is askew and that, to me, is an example of sacrificing progress towards nibbana. However if the immediate issues are treated with a similar or greater regard then I see no issue with committing to something broader - in fact it makes sense.
Thoughts?
For myself, I use the precepts as training rules and guidelines; I do my best to look after myself, my family and my students; I cultivate my garden; and I act as best I can outside that immediate zone to make the world a (very slightly!) better place.
What I have chosen not to do is address ongoing community-level suffering - homeless people, etc - and that is a conscious decision taken in the light of what I know about the hazards of climate change and what I know of the suffering in third-world countries as compared to my own city. I am lucky enough to live in a pretty nice part of one of the luckiest, wealthiest societies ever and if I have a bit of money to spare it goes towards people who need it far more than the people around me - I will lend to struggling Cambodian farmers through Kiva or give to crisis relief through MSF or Red Cross.
As for climate change, I do (as you suggest) choose my level of involvement and do what I can in the time left over from everything else. In practice that means lots of odd minutes and half-hours at the computer, participating in discussions like those on DW, maintaining a blog, editing a monthly newsletter for an environmental organisation, etc. In spite of how I must appear here, a lot of people who know me fairly well in real life don't even know my opinion on whether global warming is real or not.
Kim