Is there a Buddhist 'noninterference' concept? There's a stub Wikipedia article which says only,

Noninterference (Buddhism)
Noninterference is a Buddhist concept and practice which relates to the idea that all things are impermanent, with a resignation to events beyond human control.[citation needed]

Is there such a concept in Buddhism? If so does this concept have other names?
Is it true that this Buddhist concept applies only to &quot;events beyond human control&quot;?
The question occurred to me when I was trying to answer the question about &quot;what do buddhists religious texts say about the environment?&quot;
I tried to look it up because I got the feeling (rightly or wrongly) that maybe Buddhists would agree it's better not to be greedy, but that even so they may not go out and campaign or lobby against greed, or argue in favour of preserving the environment, or indeed argue about anything else.
My guesses (my attempts to answer this question myself) were:

I suppose that 'right speech' might be an argument for non-interference: don't say something unless you think it will be welcome.

Maybe non-attachment too would tend towards non-interference: perhaps I cannot try to promote some political view, unless I am attached to it. Maybe the Buddhist practice is that if the world doesn't seem to be as I'd want it to be then I should change my own view and not try to change the world.

Maybe non-self might tend towards non-interference: &quot;who am I to interfere?&quot; ... or &quot;why am I doing this, there are only two motives for doing something, i.e. greed and aversion, and both/either of these motives are wrong&quot; etc.

If it's true that it applies only to &quot;events beyond human control&quot; that perhaps that means hoping that some 'higher powers' (devas or bodhisattvas) will act.


I didn't find &quot;noninterference&quot; at all in a search of accesstoinsight.org
Google suggests it might be a concept in Chinese Buddhism (so, Taoist-derived, perhaps?).

I'm sorry if this question feels like I'm trying to make you write a Wikipedia article. The reason I'm asking is that I did have a feeling that non-interference might be an established practice.
Conversely can you give some examples of when this 'noninterference concept' would be wrong?
I think you already answer your own question by mentioning impermanence. Why act upon something that will slip away between your fingers anyway, without anyone having the slightest control. Phenomena both mental and physical are uncontrollable and ungovernable. Interfering with them will not bring anything good out of it. Interfering with phenomena will bring suffering in the end. When i use the word interfere here i mean after the 7th link in Dependent Origination where craving, attachment and becomming happens. That will only lead to suffering.

Instead non-interference is what one should practice meaning observing phenomena arising and passing away. The practice of insight meditation is your answer. As you mention yourself one should work on oneself and develop oneself instead of trying to change the world. Interfering with e.g. politics, environmental protection etc. will only treat symptoms since the root cause are Greed. Only that can be reduced by working on ourselves trying to develop the mind.

Let me try to give another example. One is sitting in insight meditation and observing phenomena. One is not mindful for a moment and the mind gets sucked into the maelstroem of e.g. a mental formation. Then when mindfulness returns one will see that suffering is gained through interfering with phenomena. When seeing that over and over the mind naturally begins to let go and just observe phenomena without interfering, engaging them.

I dont know if this answers your question. I think the term non-interference might not directly be found in the texts under that name but its a derivative from the practice of insight meditation or a result of the impermanent nature of phenomena. 

By the way i think its good that you mentioned the doctrine of Anatta. Everything just becomes problematic when an I, Me of Self is added to the equation. This have also been discussed recently. Take a look at this question here. You might be able to take the same perspective here that when adding an experiencing, permanent entity or Self to the equation then suddently you have "someone" that interferes.

Lanka