Get what you want or get what you need?

I would say that "become involved in the political arena" can mean one of two things:
a) to be strongly involved in politics, to make a profession out of it (which also means to make a living from it), e.g. to run for a parliamentary seat.
b) to start a grassroots organization, to raise funds, organize unions, strikes, etc. – this second type of activities can be more sporadic, but they also imply a position of power and leadership.

In the long run other things may follow: doubletalk (what the French call “parler la langue de bois”), to compromise, to believe sometimes the ends justify the means; the initial ideologically-oriented project becoming a mere pursuit of personal power.
By the way, the answer to the question “should Bodhisattvas become involved…” was, at least accordingly to the author, affirmative:

—“Should Bodhisattvas become involved in the political arena as a method of helping everyone attain the requisites of a spiritual life? My answer to this question is, "Yes."
[Tenzi Norbu, “Bodhisattvas and Political Engagement”, online]

What makes me feel uneasy about this verdict it is not so much what the Bodhisattva may or may not do, but that he/she should be exhorted to do so. Tenzin Norbu also says, referring to “the requisites of a spiritual life”, i.e. the most basic human needs:

—“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly affirms that everyone has a right to adequate food, clothing, shelter and medical care. A Bodhisattva must be committed to defending these rights, BECAUSE the truth that everyone should be loved equally is the basis of these rights.”

Well that’s a good justification but, once again, a bit “ideological”: why should the Declaration needed to be “approved” by the Bodhisattva, before he/she could act accordingly?
(In 2000, a group of Muslim nations also decided to wrote an alternative “Cairo Declaration on Human Rights”, which says everyone has a "right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Sharia”).
Tenzin Norbu certainly means well, and perhaps I was wrong from the beginning, since I’ve been commenting on something that was not in Amy’s original post. Anyway, let me just add that the author also seems to draw a line of separation between “us” (the Bodhisattvas) and them:

“Let’s, those of us who understand these spiritual truths, not waste this precious opportunity. When we enter into the political discussion to teach them [i.e. the politicians], we are not dirtying our hands in a messy, mundane world that we should abandon, we are staying true to our mission of leading everyone to the true and lasting happiness found at the end of the spiritual path.”

Je est un autre. It has been said we need the “Other” to define ourselves, in psychology (at least according to some authors) that’s how the self comes into being. But I don’t think this makes much sense in Mahayana Buddhism, it should be exactly the opposite (or maybe that’s Theravada Buddhism, I really don’t know –and this post is already too long).

To teach is a political act (an educator is never neutral). But in our daily life, all decisions we make –the place where we have breakfast for instance – are somehow political.

Zoon Politikon (“political animal”) is an expression used by Aristotle. We are intrinsically political because humans do not live alone but in a polis, an organization of some sort: a family, a couple, a State, a tribe of nomadic hunter-gatherers.

I agree with the first paragraph. At least it doesn’t seem to me to be something polemical about it. Although “our spiritual goal” seems rather vague to me. Not mentioning the fact that “spiritual goal” may become just another form of illusion, of attachment, of gains-and-losses way of thinking (well… anyway, what do I know?)

The second and third paragraphs are more “doctrinarian” in substance. For instance, I not sure what a Bodhisattva is (I mean, I know what the dictionary says he/she is, but I’m not sure I did grab the whole idea). Is a Bodhisattva a kind of “missionary”? This is a loaded [negative] word – in most countries missionary/mission associate with colonialism, destruction of native cultures, so one. One immediately shrinks just to the thought of it.

So this question –“Should Bodhisattvas become involved in the political arena” — seemed to me a rather unfortunate way to put things, but perhaps it made sense when read in its original context. Because I’m rather ignorant of Zen thinking, I immediately tried to find out who Tenzin Norbu was, and did find the quoted text in the internet. I’ve found several other texts by him, actually, and to say the truth this one seemed to me the less “inspired” of them – but, once again, I know next to nothing about Zen Buddhism.

The issue of the relation between religion (or spirituality) and politics is such an old one… I guess it isn’t easy to discuss it in the West – or, at least in a so-called catholic country such as mine – too many horrible things have been done in the past, so much abuses, so many hard words that have been said, that now is difficult to forget. And to pardon.

Suspicion against spirituality and religion is strong. A few days ago I saw an interview on TV with the Portuguese priest-poet [padre-poeta] José Tolentino de Mendonça. Innumerous published books (poetry, theatre, theological essays), several literary awards, he even has his own Wikipedia entry (strangely enough in Portuguese and is Russian). The relation between Christianity and culture is one of his main concerns – not only is he the national responsible for the Pastoral of Culture, but he was also nominated adviser [consultor] of the Pontifical Cultural Council, in Vatican.

José Tolentino de Mendonça was also responsible for the arrangement of a meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and Portuguese artists and poets (some of them atheists, apparently), at the time of the Pope’s visit to Portugal in 2010. He seems such an open-minded, tolerant person. A truly spiritual being (and I’m not being ironic).

Then, the next I’ve read this:
“The Christian Institute [UK evangelic conservative group], reacting to a questionable poll that appears to show the number of British people identifying as lesbian, gay or bisexual in the UK may be much lower than previously thought, has bemoaned that the UK should consider changing its marriage laws to incorporate same-sex couples when they are such a minority. Reports The Daily Mail:
“The Christian Institute think-tank said the ONS numbers meant the [UK] Prime Minister was revolutionising the marriage laws for the sake of new rights for a very small group. Spokesman Mike Judge said: “It is staggering that such a monumental change is being carried out on behalf of a tiny proportion of society.”
“Hilariously poor though the argument is, it is also incredibly telling. The very idea that because a population is smaller than previously thought, the majority has permission to disregard minority rights (…)”

I was relief these people were Evangelic Christians and not Catholics (and –yes, this time I reckon I may sound a bit ironic). I wonder on the possibility they might have been Buddhists.

Bodhisattvas will do and be what is necessary to be at every moment, replying to whatever is asked for: waking up, taking a shower, having breakfast, taking garbage out, going to church in the morning, not understanding all that is said (another language) but continue to make effort to be present, listening to church choir, feeding friends cat, saying hello and good morning to people on the street, going to market to buy vegetables, cleaning the house, taking the small neigbours monkey to a walk, replying to emails, commenting on blogs, preparing lunch and so on…

spiritual life is just ordinary life. nothing special, nothing different. no need to be a certain and specific way.