We do need to give careful reflection to practices like nonviolent-resistance which may involve civil disobedience - noncooperation and getting in the way when terribly destructive practices are undertaken. It is an area of inquiry and practice that many Buddhists have been engaged in for a long time. Its not necessary to reinvent the wheel - just take an interest and do some research.
As people who have benefitted from the Buddha’s teachings we look to them, and make use of them, in everything we do in life. We would not wish to behave in a way that the wise would later reprove.
We all know of the occasion where the Buddha stood between two armies about to attack each other. Was this an unskilful undertaking criticized by sensible people? Or, was he acting selflessly to try and prevent terrible harm - unnecessary bloodshed? I wonder if it was permitted in those days for members of other castes or, homeless mendicant wanderer’s, to interfere directly in the affairs of kings and their warriors?
This compassionate act of the Buddha that involved ‘getting in the way’ in order to prevent harm, is an example of nonviolent-resistance, for the welfare of human beings.
It also looks a lot like an act of civil-disobedience? Unless, it was considered OK in those days for respected teacher’s to impose their presence and obstruct warfare?
Was it an accepted practice, that they could interfere in the affairs of kings without being asked?
If I am greedy and cannot control my greediness, how can I expect others that they should not be greedy? How can I show others how to control their greediness?
If I am full of anger and cannot control my anger, how can I expect others that they should not be angry?
If I am full of delusion, how can I expect others that they should not be so?
However, if I can control/eliminate my greediness then I can expect/influence some others who may be able to do so. I can guide them how to end that greediness. Those people, in turn can guide/influence others to do the same, and so on…
Same for anger and delusion. Therefore, to help others, I will need to help myself first. Once I can control myself then I can help/influence others to control themselves.
1 Like
It would seem to be the case that when the Buddha took this course of action, walking in between two armies and, then standing still, speaking the truth to power, to dangerous and armed men then, he wasn’t behaving in the same way as he praised Kassapa for doing - living in seclusion in the forest.
It would seem that the Buddha understood that his role involved a more socially-engaged response in society.
It looks as if different roles may involve different degrees of social-engagement? I wonder if this also applies to us?
We all know what defilements are through seeing how they have find expression in our own life - in our expressions of body, speech and mind. We also have experience of doing good things in our lives that have been of benefit, that were not greedy, not hateful, not self-serving etc.
It appears as if we can do useful, skilful and praiseworthy things that benefit others in important ways, including Dhamma-dana. Helping to deepen each others understanding of the Dhamma and, to realise the benefits that arise from this. In fact, we can learn the Dhamma from the sound of rain, from a barking dog, from a crying baby etc. Help comes in many ways if we are sensitive and receptive.
If you are not free of greed, hatred and, delusion and, you believe someone who is not free of the 3 roots cannot possibly help anyone else to understand things clearly then, why are you offering advice that someone may mistake for appropriate guidance? If someone were to put into practice what you have recommended and, you informed them that you were still afflicted by the 3 roots, they would have to ignore what you believed to be true. Is this not the case?
This example of nonviolent-resistance undertaken by the Buddha, that was praiseworthy, brave, compassionate and, not criticized by sensible people, is not just something that was taught by the Buddha. You pointed to the teachings, the spoken and recorded guidance of the Buddha, that helps us to understand what we should, and should not, do.
This is an instance of ‘direct-action’ carried out by the Master! Not just words, but an expression of body, speech and mind.
This means, at least on this occasion, by standing in harms way and saying what he did, that the Buddha ‘was’ a social activist.
What other conclusion could we come to? By standing between the armies and instructing them to act in a way that was harmless, the Buddha was doing what many social activists do ie. getting in the way of people doing harmful things. We can benefit people in this way and, many other sentient beings, in a forest or, the whales who are hunted and killed etc. By getting in the way and telling the truth!
Activists also try to communicate the reasons why bloodshed should be avoided - the whale activists explain why the killing is unskilful, violent and unkind etc.
Greenpeace activists sometimes try to get in between Whalers and the intelligent and sensitive sentient beings they seek to kill for no justifiable purpose. These activists are doing something that is written in the metta-sutta ie. cherishing living beings, trying to protect living beings, protecting with their lives!
Its dangerous to get inbetween, they risk personal injury and death through trying to prevent unnecessary slaughter. Unlike the Buddha who may have known that the soldiers would not try to kill him. The nonviolent Greenpeace activists don’t know if they may lose their lives to save the whales. They don’t want to die but it can happen if you try to save the lives of whales.
Not just words that we have read or chanted that are written in a Sutta - that we find inspiring and uplifting - but actual deeds. Compassionate and nonviolent expressions of body, speech and, mind.
I cannot help someone to do what I don’t know how to do. I cannot help someone to understand what I do not understand.
If I am drowning now and do not know what to do, how can I help other drowning people around me to go to the safety place?
Therefore, I will need to work on myself first. If I want to help others to be free from greediness, I will need to see if I am greedy or not? I need to know what is greediness? Why am I greedy? Do I see the danger of greediness? Do I see the drawback of greediness? Do I see the advantages of non-greediness? Do I have any way to end this greediness?
Once I think I want to be free from greediness, I will need to test what I think I understood. This must be from my own actual experiences, not from intellectual thinking or other’s sayings.
Once I can repeatedly successfully do so, then I know that I can be free from greediness and now I can help others to do what I successfully did. Otherwise, if I failed to do so or if I do not see the need to be free from greediness then what can I offer to others?
Are you free from ignorance, are you free from greed, are you free from hatred?
It seems like you are unable to understand what I have tried to say. I said that if I am greedy then I cannot expect others not to be greedy. This is commonsense. I do not say that I am free from greed now and I am expecting others to be so.
If I am expecting others not to kill whales, then I first should not do so. If I am killing whales now then how can I go out and tell others that they should not do so?
If I want to teach others how to read Pali then I first need to know how to read Pali, then I can help them. Therefore, I will need to work on myself first.
However, you can do whatever you want. I do not expect anything from you.
We are all friends in the Dhamma who help each other in different ways.
When we have Dhamma-mittas I would hope that our time together would help us to grow in our practice i.e help us to be less ignorant, greedy and, hateful.
To make it a little clearer, I hope we can provide opportunities for each other, through our Dhamma friendship to be wiser, more generous and, kind to ourselves and others.
You, as my Dhamma-friend will not be able to wake me up and vice versa. That is something that happens within our own hearts and minds.
Even the Buddha, with his great compassion and wisdom can still, through his teaching, only point the way to non-ignorance, non-greed and, non hatred.
We have to liberate ourselves, this seems to be your main point? However, good-friends that are awakened or, still on the path to awakening, are a great blessing in our lives.
Everyone and everything can help us to see - discover true freedom.
If we are overcome by defilements even the Buddha will not be able to teach us how to come out of our greed, ill-will and, stupidity. Conversely, if we are not overcome by defilements we can learn/discover the way to freedom just by being alive and paying careful attention to everything in every waking moment.
It is the ‘quality of awareness’ that facilitates insight, it has less to do with the company and circumstances we encounter - inwardly and outwardly - and more to do with our response. Deep realisation is not affected by outward circumstances.
Sustained reaction-free attention is that which facilitates insight. No one can really teach us this, but good teachings can help us to see clearly.
Our awakening is supported by various path-factors. There are the 8 factors of the path! Many supportive causes and conditions in our lives help us - in different ways - to wake up.
While we are still in the process of inquiry and learning the quality of attention fluctuates - it’s unstable. When practice is unfolding in a beautiful way, our mindfulness is more stable, the ability to see with greater clarity is sustained.
Best wishes on your journey of discovery towards liberating insight, profound generosity and, unconditional love.
All of this is only a way of sharing the Dhamma as, in reality, nobody is doing anything at all.
All conditioned things are not-self - its all empty phenomena rolling on - action and ‘reaction’ (empty causes and empty effects).
It all begins to unravel - move towards complete stillness and emptiness - when there is the discovery of a ‘kind’ and clear response that is sustained.
It is sustained when we undertake skillful and beneficial service that is not criticized by sensible people and, its sustained in our stillness - meditative equipoise and clarity - when we sit on the cushion and let go completely.
‘Ajahn Brahm’ told me about the emptiness of emptiness!
“There is nothing!” - Ajahn Chah
May you be well and happy my dear Dhamma-mitta!
‘Ajahn Brahm’ explained how, in science, if a single piece of evidence is uncovered that demonstrates that a theory is false, the theory must be rejected! No matter how highly regarded the scientific theory is it must be rejected - if disproved by a single finding. To my mind we have established that in this single instance, between the two armies about to fight, the Buddha was behaving like a social-activist ergo the Buddha was a social activist ergo social activism is found in the EBT’s. If any Buddhist continues to insist that it is not found in the EBT’s then they are clinging to a redundant theory - plain and simple! 
What sutta are you referring to about the two armies? I couldn’t find a link or reference in this thread.
I searched the internet and could only find this fragment from a ‘Sri Lankan’ newspaper article (see below), I think ‘Ajahn Brahm’ is the author? I will also post the ‘internet address’ that includes the whole article (see below).
"Re-ordering priorities
The Lord Buddha famously averted a war by convincing two armies, about to fight a war over water rights, that blood was more valuable than water. So what is more important, taking revenge or being at peace? What is more valuable, proving that you are right, or reconciling? What takes priority, your own ego or the wellbeing of others?"
It’s not from a sutta, but is from the Dhammapada commentaries. (DhpA III, 254)
Thanks for that - it seems to be good enough for ‘Ajahn Brahm’ to take it seriously as an authentic episode in the life of the Buddha.
Can you post the story here for us to read if you can find a link?
The Buddha undertakes this intervention to try and prevent needless killing. How wonderful, courageous and praiseworthy! What an inspiring and beautiful act of great compassion, to talk ‘directly’ to opposing forces on a battlefield and counsel ‘peace’ and encourage them to resolve their dispute through cooperation. I can’t think of another case in history were anyone was so committed to the welfare of others and, the power of truth, that they would stand between two armies. The warriors heard what he had to say and lost the will to fight.