There's a stub Wikipedia article which says only,
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.
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 "events beyond human control"?
The question occurred to me when I was trying to answer the question about "what do buddhists religious texts say about the environment?"
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: "who am I to interfere?" ... or "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" etc.
If it's true that it applies only to "events beyond human control" that perhaps that means hoping that some 'higher powers' (devas or bodhisattvas) will act.
I didn't find "noninterference" 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?