SuttaCentral
A discussion arose on another thread whether dhamma can be applied to treat societal problems either directly or indirectly. Opening a new thread to continue discussion:
Continuing the discussion from Early Buddhism: An Article by Bhikkhu Anālayo:
Can/should dhamma be applied to treat societal problems in a direct way? If so, how? If not, why not?
To play devil’s advocate and because I thought it humorous, the first thing I thought of when I saw the above and the 4NT presented in this way and applied to this question:
- To be a nation-state (granfalloon?) (sakkaya) = suffering
- Nation-states (granfalloons?) are dependently arisen
- Cessation of granfalloons = cessation of suffering
- There is a way leading to the cessation of granfalloons
As perhaps spoken by John Lennon or Kurt Vonnegut?? You may sayyyy I’m a dreamer… 
Of course, nation-states are useful tools, but realizing they are granfalloons is probably a useful thing that could alleviate suffering in a not entirely dissimilar or non-analogous way to the cessation of a person.
If you wish to examine a granfalloon, just remove the skin of a toy balloon. — Bokonon
Absolutely. Dozens and dozens of suttas make it clear that virtue and harmonious relationships contribute to a more peaceful society.
But the issue I’ve been arguing is that it is problematic to prioritize that worldly usage over that of the eightfold path and freedom from suffering. Nothing wrong with making the world better in parallel with the eightfold path, but too often people assume that it goes without saying that either or is just as beneficial. That is incredibly misleading. The fact of the matter is, there are plenty of things that one can do to make society more peaceful that do not align with the precepts, and in the other direction, enforcement of the precepts top to bottom may not contribute to peace if all citizens do not value those behaviors. In the end, dedication to the world using Dhamma principles does not necessarily lead to any development at all and can amount to the maintenance of some very unwholesome mind states. Desire and passion for peace and goodwill is energy spent not developing dispassion, and someone who is does not have the right view is in no position to know whether or not they’ve struck a balance that is beneficial whatsoever. So, it makes sense to give priority to one’s own development, but be sure not to neglect what they can do for others along the way.
Again, prior to the gain of a major distinction, it is impossible to know precisely what is beneficial, so if the priority is with the correction of worldly circumstances, a person is at tremendous risk for not making a breakthrough. And that’s fine if they are willing to take the risk, but being honest about it is very important.
“Master Gotama, King Ajātasattu Vedehiputta of Magadha pays homage to the Blessed One with his head at your feet. He inquires whether you are fit and healthy, agile and strong, and feeling at ease. Master Gotama, King Ajātasattu wishes to wage war against the Vajjis. He says thus: ‘As powerful and mighty as these Vajjis are, I will annihilate them, destroy them, bring calamity and disaster upon them.’”
Now on that occasion the Venerable Ānanda was standing behind the Blessed One fanning him. The Blessed One then addressed the Venerable Ānanda:
(1) “Ānanda, have you heard whether the Vajjis are assembling often and holding frequent assemblies?”
“I have heard, Bhante, that they do so.”
“Ānanda, as long as the Vajjis assemble often and hold frequent assemblies, only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.(2) “Have you heard, Ānanda, whether the Vajjis are assembling in harmony, adjourning their meetings in harmony, and conducting the affairs of the Vajjis in harmony?”
“I have heard, Bhante, that they do so.”
“Ānanda, as long as the Vajjis assemble in harmony, [19] adjourn in harmony, and conduct the affairs of the Vajjis in harmony, only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.(3) “Have you heard, Ānanda, whether the Vajjis do not decree anything that has not been decreed and do not abolish anything that has already been decreed, but undertake and follow the ancient Vajji principles as they have been decreed?”
“I have heard, Bhante, that they do so.”
“Ānanda, as long as the Vajjis do not decree anything that has not been decreed or abolish anything that has already been decreed but undertake and follow the ancient Vajji principles as they have been decreed, only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.(4) “Have you heard, Ānanda, whether the Vajjis honor, respect, esteem, and venerate the Vajji elders and think they should be heeded?”
“I have heard, Bhante, that they do so.”
“Ānanda, as long as the Vajjis honor, respect, esteem, and venerate the Vajji elders and think they should be heeded, only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.(5) “Have you heard, Ānanda, whether the Vajjis do not abduct women and girls from their families and force them to live with them?”
“I have heard, Bhante, that they don’t.”
“Ānanda, as long as the Vajjis do not abduct women and girls from their families and force them to live with them, only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.(6) “Have you heard, Ānanda, whether the Vajjis honor, respect, esteem, and venerate their traditional shrines, both those within [the city] and those outside, and do not neglect the righteous oblations as given and done to them in the past?”
“I have heard, Bhante, that they do so.”
“Ānanda, as long as the Vajjis [20] honor, respect, esteem, and venerate their traditional shrines, both those within [the city] and those outside, and do not neglect the righteous oblations as given and done to them in the past, only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.(7) “Have you heard, Ānanda, whether the Vajjis provide righteous protection, shelter, and guard for arahants, [with the intention]: ‘How can those arahants who have not yet come here come to our realm, and how can those arahants who have already come dwell at ease here?’”
“I have heard, Bhante, that they do so.”
“Ānanda, as long as the Vajjis provide righteous protection, shelter, and guard for arahants, [with the intention]: ‘How can those arahants who have not yet come here come to our realm, and how can those arahants who have already come dwell at ease here?’ only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.”Then the Blessed One addressed the brahmin Vassakāra, the chief minister of Magadha: “On one occasion, brahmin, I was dwelling at Vesālī at the Sārandada Shrine. There I taught the Vajjis these seven principles of non-decline. As long as these seven principles of non-decline continue among the Vajjis, and the Vajjis are seen [established] in them, only growth is to be expected for them, not decline.”
When this was said, the brahmin Vassakāra said this to the Blessed One: “If, Master Gotama, the Vajjis were to observe even one among these principles of non-decline, only growth would be expected for them, not decline. What can be said if they observe all seven? King Ajātasattu Vedehiputta of Magadha, Master Gotama, cannot take the Vajjis by war, except [21] through treachery or internal dissension. And now, Master Gotama, we must be going. We are busy and have much to do.”
AN 7.22
It is a very easy question!
Is a society a better or worse place to live, with more stress, disputes and suffering, if people have less or more of greed, hatred and delusions?
Of course.
Ven. Bodhi has made an entire anthology on this subject. (Wisdom Publications)
This question indeed is very easy to a answer. But there is another question: how do you propose to start reducing the amount of greed, hatred and delusion in society, if not by starting to reduce these states in your own experience?
Because as far as delusion goes, anyone who is not willing to start such reduction from himself is rather delusional.
Men can be divided into the many altruists, busy correcting everyone else, and the few egoists, busy tidying themselves up.
Gomez Davila
The welfare of oneself should not be neglected for the welfare of others, however great; recognizing the welfare of oneself, one should be devoted to one’s own welfare. (Dhammapada 166)
How are we to choose between these two ways of being selfish? The answer is: ‘choose the way of being selfish that leads to the ending of being selfish; which is the Buddha’s way, not Schweitzer’s’. There are many earnest Buddhists in Ceylon who are scandalized by the Buddha’s words quoted above; but naturally enough they will not admit such a thing, even to themselves; either they skip that verse when they read the Dhammapada or else they add a footnote explaining that the Buddha really meant something quite different. Here is the actual note made by a very well known Ceylon Thera: ‘One must not misunderstand this verse to mean that one should not selflessly work the for weal of others. Selfless service is highly commended by the Buddha’. But this itself is a complete misunderstanding of the Buddha’s Teaching. Time and again the Buddha points out that it is only those who have successfully devoted themselves to their own welfare and made sure of it (by reaching sotāpatti) that are in a position to help others—one himself sinking in a quicksand cannot help others to get out, and if he wishes to help them he must first get himself out (and if he does get himself out, he may come to see that the task of helping others to get out is not so easy as he formerly might have supposed).
Nanavira Thera
“If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself, and make a change.” – Michael Jackson
and are an essential part of one’s Dhamma development…
I understand the point about priorities, but anyone who develops on the Path increases their compassion and kindness.
Not the arahant, Ven. Pilindavaccha of Ud 3.6. Well, he was compassionate according to the Buddha, but not monks he was speaking to. Begs the question: what is kindness and compassion? Words and actions that simply put a person at ease, or accurate and effective words that lead the mind towards dispassion? Nowadays, the criteria for kindness and compassion is most certainly the former. But if the Buddha acknowledges that Ven. Pilindavaccha was not speaking out of hate, how does that help an ordinary member of society? It probably doesn’t.
People who are not interested or aware of the Dhamma each have their own definition of kindness and compassion based on their preferences, and those may lead to greed, hate and delusion. Prime example: “Live your best life”. Is that kind to say to a friend who is unhappy in a relationship? For someone without any lofty spiritual goals, it may mean to go to a club and cheat on their spouse. What if I’m trying to be nice to my daughter who wants to quit one of her commitments because it is too hard, and I tell her she should and it puts her mind at ease. Is it compassionate because I told her what she wanted to hear?
A practitioner is certain to be more kind and compassionate, but it not always going to translate as such for an average person in society who just wants to be happy and at ease.
Good afternoon, I believe that in a practical way, using Dharma to treat social problems is completely possible and viable. In my opinion, the biggest problem is making people today accept knowledge that, for non-Buddhist people, is seen as evil. I’ll give you an example that I went through a few days ago, I have a patient who belongs to a certain denomination, she needed to calm down, increase her attention, because her outbursts had already made her lose her job. The seed of anger that she has inside her has not yet been looked at, removed. I went through some simple breathing and meditation exercises. In the next moment I was cursed several times because according to her I was teaching a demonic doctrine, Buddhism, because Buddhists meditate and do breathing exercises. As I was already expecting such a reaction, I looked to what she knew about how to calm down. Apart from a comma here and there, the information was the same, both in the Buddhist materials and in her materials. Buddhist knowledge can transform the world, but are people ready to accept being free instead of living under the chains of their doctrines and their own minds?
Of course. But my reading is that simply ignoring interactions with others does not appear to be the way to progress. About about half of the 8-fold path is about interactions, and interactions are a key part of the gradual training. The monastic life as set up by the Buddha quite deliberately involves interactions with other monastics and with lay people on alms round.
In lay life, our interactions are an important place to examine our attachments, clinging, ill will, and so on. I don’t expect to “fix” the world, but part of my practice is to practice non-harming. To reduce my ill will and increase my compassion.
I never said anything about ignoring interactions. I’m not sure where that came from.
Your reference to half of the eightfold path wouldn’t by chance be same as SN 45.2? Let’s keep in mind how that sutta ends:
By the following method too, Ānanda, it may be understood how the entire holy life is good friendship, good companionship, good comradeship: by relying upon me as a good friend, Ānanda, beings subject to birth are freed from birth; beings subject to aging are freed from aging; beings subject to death are freed from death; beings subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair are freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair. By this method, Ānanda, it may be understood how the entire holy life is good friendship, good companionship, good comradeship.”
If you just mean that interactions are inevitable, well of course they are, but as to what constitutes required conduct is very subjective. The precepts, for example, describe what to avoid, and what remains becomes the options for conduct. Kindness and compassion come in many forms. What is required is that we don’t do anything unwholesome by body or speech. To the extent that we seek out opportunities to contribute more than that is by no means a requirement to maintain the precepts, but that’s not to say that we do not go out of our way to contribute the most to those we do encounter.
I hope I’m being clear on that last point. There are people who we encounter routinely and those are our standard interactions in our lives - during those we should be at our best for others. Follow the precepts and be generous. That is manageable. Now…if we choose to seek out situations where others are in a specific need of our kindness and compassion, i.e. charity, donations, etc., that is very meritorious, but it is not required. That is all I’m trying to say. Again, I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that I’ve suggested we ignore interactions. That’s not why I’m saying at all.
While certain interactions are unavoidable, it is the attitude which ignores solitude blocks possibility of progress in Dhamma.
So your ideas what things are conductive to progress in Dhamma are not to be found in Suttas, they are merely your own ideas about Dhamma. The only interactions one should not avoid are with someone who is capable to increase one’s knowledge about Dhamma, and even than, after receiving instructions one should reflect on them in solitude.
This Dhamma is for one who resorts to solitude, not for one who delights in company.
“When it was said: ‘This Dhamma is for one who resorts to solitude, not for one who delights in company,’ with reference to what was this said? Here, when a bhikkhu resorts to solitude, bhikkhus, bhikkhunīs, male lay followers, female lay followers, kings, royal ministers, heads of other sects, and disciples belonging to other sects approach him. In each case, with a mind that slants, slopes, and inclines to seclusion, withdrawn, delighting in renunciation, he gives them a talk invariably concerned with dismissing them. When it was said: ‘This Dhamma is for one who resorts to solitude, not for one who delights in company,’ it is with reference to this that this was said.
AN 8.30
Enough to change your ideas on beneficial side of interactions? If not some more quotes:
Gotami, those things of which you know: ‘These things lead to … to association, not to seclusion; … of them you can quite certainly decide: ‘This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Discipline, this is not the Master’s teaching.’
But those things of which you know: ‘These things lead to … to seclusion, not to association; … of them you can quite certainly decide: ‘This is the Dhamma, this is the Discipline, this is the Master’s teaching.’ ” AN 8.53
“A bhikkhu, Ānanda, does not shine forth by delighting in company, enjoying company, devoted to delight in company, delighting in society, enjoying society, finding satisfaction in society.
“Indeed, Ānanda, that a bhikkhu delighting in company, enjoying company, devoted to delight in company, delighting in society, enjoying society, finding satisfaction in society should come to obtain the bliss of renunciation, the bliss of seclusion, the bliss of peace the bliss of enlightenment at will, without trouble and in full, that is not possible. But when a bhikkhu lives alone, apart from society, that he may be expected to obtain the bliss of renunciation, the bliss of seclusion, the bliss of peace, the bliss of enlightenment at will, without trouble and in full, that is possible. MN 122
“One not delighting in solitude could grasp the sign of the mind (cittassa nimittam)”: such a state is not to be found. “One not grasping the sign of the mind could be fulfilled in right view”: such a state is not to be found. “One not having fulfilled right view could be fulfilled in right concentration”: such a state is not to be found. “One not having fulfilled right concentration could abandon the fetters”: such a state is not to be found. “One not having abandoned the fetters could realize extinction”: such a state is not to be found.’
AN 6.68
- Having put down the rod toward all beings, not harming a single one among them, one should not desire a son, how then a companion?
One should live alone like a rhinoceros horn.(1) 36. For one who has formed bonds, there is affection; following on affection, this suffering arises.
Discerning the danger born of affection, one should live alone like a rhinoceros horn.
(2) 37. Sympathizing with friends dear to one’s heart, with mind attached, one forsakes the good.
Seeing this peril in intimacy, one should live alone like a rhinoceros horn.(3) 38. As widespread bamboo becomes entwined, just so is concern for wives and sons. But like a bamboo shoot, not getting stuck, one should live alone like a rhinoceros horn.
(4) 39. As a deer unbound in the forest goes off to graze wherever it wants, so a wise person, looking out for freedom, should live alone like a rhinoceros horn.
(5) 40. One is addressed in the midst of companions, whether resting, standing, going, or traveling.
Looking out for the freedom that is not coveted, one should live alone like a rhinoceros horn.(6) 41. There is play and delight in the midst of companions, and affection for one’s sons is vast.
Averse to separation from those who are dear, one should live alone like a rhinoceros horn.(7) 42. At home in the four directions, unrepelled, contented with anything whatsoever, enduring obstacles, fearless, one should live alone like a rhinoceros horn.
(8)43. Even some monastics are hard to please; so, too, householders living at home.
Being unconcerned about others’ sons, one should live alone like a rhinoceros horn.(9) 44. Having discarded the marks of a layman like a koviḷāra tree whose leaves are shed, having cut off a layman’s bonds, the hero should live alone like a rhinoceros horn.
(10) 45. If one should find a judicious companion, a fellow wanderer, of good behavior, resolute, having overcome all obstacles, one should live with him, satisffied and mindful.
(11) 46. But if one does not find a judicious companion, a fellow wanderer, of good behavior, resolute, like a king who has abandoned a conquered realm, one should live alone like a rhinoceros horn.
(12) 47. Surely, we praise the excellence of companionship: one should resort to companions one’s equal or better.
Not obtaining these, as one who eats blamelessly one should live alone like a rhinoceros horn.
- Having seen radiant [bracelets] of gold, skillfully fashioned by a goldsmith, clashing together in pairs on the arm, one should live alone like a rhinoceros horn.
(14) 49. Thus if I had a partner, I would incur [fond] words of address or verbal friction.
Looking out for this peril in the future, one should live alone like a rhinoceros horn.
And so on … The Suttanipāta 3 The Rhinoceros Horn (Khaggavisāṇa Sutta)
Here’s the link:
My reading of the texts is that the Path is gradual. Even a monastic is not advised to go straight to solitude:
Once they’ve gone forth, they take up the training and livelihood of the mendicants. They give up killing living creatures, renouncing the rod and the sword. They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings. The first and most important precept. It is not just the negative injunction to avoid killing, but also the positive injunction to have compassion for all creatures. If a monastic murders a human being they are immediately and permanently expelled.
They give up stealing. They take only what’s given, and expect only what’s given. They keep themselves clean by not thieving. To steal anything of substantial value is an expulsion offence.
They give up unchastity. They are celibate, set apart, avoiding the vulgar act of sex. “Chastity” is brahmacariya, literally “divine conduct”. Here it is used in the narrow sense of refraining from sex, but more commonly it has a broader sense of “spiritual life”. Buddhist monastics are forbidden from any form of sexual activity. To engage in penetrative intercourse is an expulsion offence.
They give up lying. They speak the truth and stick to the truth. They’re honest and trustworthy, and don’t trick the world with their words. This is the first of the four kinds of right speech. Just as the precept of not killing implies the positive injunction to live with compassion, the precepts on speech enjoin a positive and constructive use of speech. If a monastic falsely claims states of enlightenment or deep meditation they are expelled.
They give up divisive speech. They don’t repeat in one place what they heard in another so as to divide people against each other. Instead, they reconcile those who are divided, supporting unity, delighting in harmony, loving harmony, speaking words that promote harmony. “Harmony” (or “unanimity”, samagga) does not excuse untrue, bigoted, or otherwise harmful speech. True harmony is only achieved in the presence of the Dhamma.
They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable, and agreeable to the people.
They give up talking nonsense. Their words are timely, true, and meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. They say things at the right time which are valuable, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial.
MN27
And there are a number of suttas where mendicants tried to move to physical solitude too quickly, such as AN9.3.
True, but from this you cannot safely derive idea that socialising with others is per se benefical and conductive to progress in Dhamma.
Of course socialising as such gives opportunity to practice Dhamma, even association with fool can be used as an occasion to practice patience.
But the topic is about applying Dhamma to treat societal problems, since young bhikkhu is still immature one, who hasn’t solved his own personal problems, he should be discouraged also in his ambitions to solve societal problems.
IMO, societal problems are not to be solved by monastics … they are to be solved by laypeople.
Monastics have renounced the World, having seen it for what it truly is… an endless (sh*t)show 
. Why would they want to get involved in its affairs yet again?
It is laypeople within the world who must continue to solve its endless problems.
Monastics if asked, can and should (out of compassion) offer advice on the correct principles to be followed by laypeople so that their efforts can bear great fruit.
And what is the most basic statement of the Dhamma? It is dependent conditionality, (idapaccayata).
Correctly understanding this Dhamma, one understands the roots of conflict. Correctly applying this Dhamma, one navigates towards a possible solution.
Can/should dhamma be applied to treat societal problems in a direct way? If so, how? If not, why not?
Whilst I’m here. The extraordinary Buddha Dhamma covers a gamut of problems, which the Buddha and his immediate entourage tackled. Example, good governance; corruption in the Sangha and among the aristocracy; liberation of women; stopping the trafficking on woman and girls; social inclusion of all; safeguarding of the vulnerable; tackling race and caste head on; fake news and speech; jurisprudence; human responsibilities not human “rights” towards humankind and nature; a vision, mission and purpose for an individual to make a societal and global difference; achieving what might be the impossible; enabling healthcare for the many; working with the best of medical science; the ethical purpose of business and enterprise; social ownerships; the creation of a Sangha order with rules and regulations; readiness to change when pointed out that there may be flaws in rules; conflict resolution; sustainability; lasting welfare and happening; how to find out what is skillfull; and the path to sustainable peace. Just a few things that the Buddha and his entourage dealt with. There is more.
Might it be even more subtle and complicated than that? What if you saw your daughter’s ‘past lives’ and ‘agreed with her’ for reasons other than merely providing her ‘an out’ for difficult lessons of commitment and courage.
Perhaps the A string of her lute was tuned too tightly, ‘endurance’ counterproductive?
To jump back up into the topic…
we can be more confident that our action in the world is more beneficial to the degree we
follow precepts, remove taints, apply ‘psychic powers,’ even if that just means our action is informed by a clear understanding of 'where the person is coming from. ’