I don’t think the Buddha said anywhere that he ‘loved the world dearly’. He equated existence with dung.
1 Like
I am referring to places like forests. I can remember a verse/verses somewhere about jhanas and forest-dwelling. The Buddha said these kinds of experiences are pleasant and harmless.
He also had loving kindness for the wild creatures in the forests. By ‘love dearly’ I mean loving kindness for all the beings in the natural world.
I don’t think they were into clear-felling old growth forests at the time of the Buddha. They were probably a lot more respectful and gentle in the wild.
The Buddha also appreciated the tree-shrines as places of meditation and teaching. He taught that looking after these natural sanctuaries was a worthwhile thing to do.
Is it not the case, that in the monastic discipline there is a precept that protects trees etc. A monastic does not chop down or uproot trees or plants of any kind.
We undertake the rule of training to avoid harming and killing sentient beings.
When human beings clear-fell a natural forest, overfish a marine habitat, damage or destroy any living ecosystem they bring fear, harm and, death to many creatures. Our current way of relating to the natural world is causing mass-extinction. Clearly, we have lost our way - big time.
3 Likes
Capitalism is the natural state of things. Free market has existed ever since people were hunger-gatherers. There have been attempts to works against natural state of things in the 19th century (through imposing a communist system) yet that proved catastrofic, with no communist country ever passing the 2000$ gdp per capita mark. Even in a communist system, there still exists capitalism. People trade goods between themselves, especially food since normally you will have starvation problems in a communist country.
Capitalism is simply the natural state of things. Only things that can be done are improving different aspects such as level of corruption, perfect level of taxation, etc. Any attempts to work against the natural order of things have so far proven catastrophic.
If capitalism is a system where all economic production is carried out by private individuals and firms using privately owned capital, private financing and either their own labor or contracted wage labor, then capitalism has never existed. There has always been some degree of socialization and centralized command in civilized societies since the introduction of agriculture. It’s hard to say, though, because the further back one goes in time, the harder it is to draw a sharp distinction corresponding to our modern one between “private” and “public”. The kings that were emerging in the Buddha’s time could be looked at as very autocratic “public” sectors, or as “private” sector landowners-monopolists who just happen to have achieved ownership of everything in a given territory through conquest.
But yes, private commerce and production always exist, even where authorities have tried to suppress them, and for most practical everyday economic purposes these are the most efficient mechanism to rely on. Planning and top-down public control are usually only effective at larger scales, and for the production and distribution of certain kinds of goods.
It’s interesting, you said: “private commerce and production … the most efficient mechanism to rely on.” I would like to question that - is that OK? I have personally seen instances of enormous productivity being generated by cooperative activity that was not connected with private commerce. Cooperative and voluntary initiatives where no private interest walked away any better off - materially - from the enterprise than any other contributor.
Another thing I would like to question is the use of the word ‘honesty’ i.e. whether our way of making money involves honest labour or the alternative of taking that which is not freely given. There are 2 problems with this simplistic logic - IMO.
One is, an action - a form of livelihood - may not be illegal i.e. it is sanctioned by the law of the land.
A government and the law may say of an individual: you are not stealing so, according to us, you are making an honest living - please continue!
They may even assist this law abiding citizen - who is not stealing - to continue his money making activity.
As Buddhists we have other things to consider other than, is the work I am doing ‘honest’ i.e. not deceptively taking what is not freely given.
We are also required to give special attention to the impact on other human beings - and other sentient beings in the natural world, as well as, pets and other sentient life forms - when it comes to the work we do.
It is not just about honesty it is also about rightness - right livelihood.
With regard to the precept that helps us to avoid stealing - taking what is not freely given. With regard to people’s possessions, this is about personal property rights.
Animals in the wild are not recognised as having a right to the land they occupy or the resources they use in their complex natural interrelationships.
Somebody, observing the Buddhist precept of not stealing could still take the resources required for the survival of an an entire natural ecosystem and still not be stealing - taking what is not freely given. You could take all the timber out of a virgin forest and not kill a single sentient being - intentionally. The precept applies to human/human interactions.
I know this sounds like an exaggeration but it happens all the time and is not slowing down. It is happening right now and the situation is going to get worse!
Early Buddhist teachings don’t seem to clearly articulate or discourage the notion of ‘stealing from the future’ in the sense of taking what we can get now and not fully factoring in the longer term repercussions - when it comes to the livelihood of future generations and, a viable natural environment in the world that is around the corner and, closing in on us - in a very dangerous way.
This is why we need to go beyond Buddhist prescriptions and look more broadly at what we are facing collectively as one sentient species among many?
I think that “extreme capitalism” as you use it here makes much less sense than speaking of a society that values wealth (or power) over goodness. All good societies, regardless of economic system, have to value a degree of freedom and rights for all it’s citizens. Dharma is more important here than economic system.
I argue that the history and experience of capitalism is that more capitalistic societies are as likely to value goodness as other types of societies. When combined with political stability, democracy, freedom and human rights such societies tend to be more good.
Free, competitive markets and universal property rights tends to a) encourage a degree of universal wealth accumulation and b) makes holding on to extreme levels of wealth in a few hands difficult over long periods of time (especially intergenerationally).
1 Like
We can all busy ourselves being honest and upstanding citizens meeting the standards of right livelihood as articulated in the early strata of the teachings and still be contributing to the problems we face as a species.
For example, we could work for a multi-national corporation that is clearing roads through the Amazon jungle to create access for oil companies. These roads also provide access to others who go into the jungle at the edge of these roads and ‘slash and burn’ them to set up small farms. Within a very short period this short-term exercise in ecological destruction creates a useless wasteland were pristine forest once stood. The cleared plot is abandoned and the process is repeated further into the jungle. The forest does not regenerate as it was before!
A Buddhist could be earning an honest living in a form of employment like this - contributing to a process like this through their employment - observing the five precepts and somehow, not question what they are doing and what they are contributing to.
A truly progressive form of Buddhism would remedy this ethical dilemma in Buddhist practice. It would not only end sexual discrimination permanently - as a cornerstone of practice. It would also refine the practice of the precepts - IMO. Not stealing would also include not stealing from future generations or from other life-forms who also have a right to live free from human greed and theft of their means of subsistence. To this end, a more nuanced inquiry into the nature of right livelihood would be essential. To bring it into line with the challenges we face in a modern working environment.
Instead of limiting the list to arms-dealers and butchers we might want to think about the ethical implications of working for corporations that are focused on their bottom-line and do whatever they can to undermine proper environmental protections and who fail to protect the rights of their work-force to organise and engage in collective negotiations with their employers to avoid being exploited, used and/or abused.
We might want to question the legal-rights - the international trade agreements - that serve the interests of multinational corporations. Agreements that enable them to make enormous profits and take most of it out of the country where the wealth was created. Agreements that help them in tax avoidance and lowering health and safety standards when it comes to the products they produce and market.
Somehow, considerations like this are thought to be thoroughly un-Buddhist and some are arguing that they are contrary to the teachings of the Buddha. Who was supportive of the mercantile class and therefore, would have been blind to the destructive outcomes of late capitalism.
I realise I do not really understand your answer (last Tuesday I was getting prepared for three lectures I had to deliver yesterday - whereas I would have much preferred to be meditating all day - so I wasn’t in a very good mood 
and didn’t read your post properly).
In my post I was writing of people who have worked enough and saved enough so that they can support themselves for the rest of their life. I read in a separate thread about a lady keeping the 8 precepts, living frugally at home, and supporting herself with rental property. There did not seem to be any critique of that. Woud that be something reprehensible in your opinion? (since her tenant is putting in his own labour to pay her the rent).
More generally, would you claim that people should not have the right to retire one day (my post was about retirement)? Would every retiree fall under the category of ‘someone being supported by other people’s labour’ and thus be in a reprehensible position? It seems to me that with public pensions, retirees are supported by money pooled together and invested in shares and bonds primarily, exactly like in the case of Bogleheads DIY investments.
Finally, please correct me if I am wrong, but I remember reading in a thread (I think the one on Facebook) that you are not working at the moment, so that you would appear to fall at present in the category you describe. Would that be the case and if so can you explain how you personally deal with being supported from other people’s labour?
Thanks
2 Likes
Do we honestly believe that if ‘Gotama the Buddha’ or, if another Buddha appeared on the scene, they would be completely incapable of understanding the dangers we now face when it comes to multinational corporations and their desire for infinite growth and control? Is anyone suggesting a neo-Buddha would see the horrible devastation being inflicted on the natural world through greed and exploitation, powerful technology, unsustainable industry and patterns of consumption, endlessly growing pollution of the air, land and, water and, not respond to this situation? Respond, by providing teachings that would help to preserve the richness and diversity of the natural world, prevent humanity from destroying itself and, thereby, enable the Dhamma to last long on Earth - for the benefit of those born and, yet to be born?
Unfortunately, we are without such a Buddha to guide us and help us to use our intelligence and our strong-arms to work towards necessary change so, what should we do? Should we transform Buddhism or leave it in a state that is incapable of meeting the needs that we have as individual practitioners and that is unable to provide us with appropriate guidance and directives that will ensure a safe environment for our children and, our children’s children?
The resounding conclusion on this site has been we should not look at what is missing in Buddhism and, what needs to be jettisoned, because daaaahhhhhh!
Interesting questions. I have two thoughts on that:
- the desire for ‘infinite growth and control’ that you mention, and which of course is very bad and a huge problem, would not appear to be limited to capitalist corporations (particularly control(!), since technocrats’ aim is precisely to control everything in a socialist system). I quite like Heidegger’s description of ‘Gestell’ as the way modern man has reduced the world to something to be measured, controlled, and endlessly exploited - he always maintained that in this capitalism and socialism were exactly the same (though of course I certainly don’t agree with his own catastrophic political choices in 1933!)
- Concerning your question on the role of Buddhism in this, a great meditation teacher I admire has said that he did not want to join in the calls to improve the planet (I can’t remember exacty what problem it was they were making a petition for) and did not sign a petition that had been signed by other buddhists including the Dalai Lama. He said he didn’t sign it on purpose, to make the statement that the aim of Buddhism is to achieve Nibbana and disappear, not to endlessly try to fix things and improve the planet, becase these attempts are futile and you never succeed (and they are never ending).
In this context I believe, like I wrote the other day, that capitalism is the worst system, except for all others - and that it’s probably futile to try to fix it. On the other hand the outer freedom it gives to individuals can be harnessed in a positive way by those who make use of it to devote maximal time to practice.
2 Likes
Yes, the old standard answers are not going to work we have to think laterally. First of all, we have to understand and acknowledge the problem. There are to many voices on this site that don’t seem to want to talk about the ‘small’ technical glitches when it comes to business as usual. Business as usual is not an option - blind-fredy could see this!
We need to think outside the box on so many levels and we need start doing this yesterday!
The quest for meaning thread had a video in it that looked at the problem in a a way the departs from the main-stream non-solutions which amount to business as usual. We have to be the change we wish to see in the world. This is why we should think locally and transform the Buddhism we practice ‘here’. So we can become a beacon of hope when it comes to meaningful change?
Yes perhaps you might be interested in groups like Soka Gakkai who are very involved in creating peace and changing the world. I have some friends practicing that Buddhism and they are great people.
On the other hand my understanding - from e.g. the meditation teacher I mentioned - is that in Buddhism as practiced according to the EBT the aim is not really to fix the world - not even to try - because all this is futile. Mara once tempted the Buddha saying that if he had remained a prince he could have helped so many people and improved the world - but the Buddha saw this as a delusion. At least that’s my understanding of the question at this stage…
With metta
You might be joining the conversation a bit late in the day? Every Buddhist group has a responsibility to fix the problems in its own backyard. People who have a commitment to the Dhamma as found in the early strata of the teachings do not have to convert to some other existing school to address the issues we have been discussing here. All that needs to happen is for us to be honest and clear-sighted Buddhists and acknowledge where the problems exist in our belief system and do something about it. We have ample encouragement from the Buddha to engage in critical inquiry into his teachings and to try and understand them in a way that benefits us and those who are yet to arrive on the scene. We need to try and get a clear picture of why the more extraneous aspects of the teachings - dealing with social conventions etc. - that were prevalent 2600 years ago may need to be adjusted to meet the serious challenges we now face. I have done my best to look into all of this in the contributions I have made on this site and I am satisfied that we can improve on the given. In ways that will enhance our practice and make us a force for good in a situation where we cannot afford to sit on our hands. We are morally obliged to interrogate the teachings and find a way of bringing them into practice that will help help help a humanity in this unprecedented crisis. There is to much to lose to practice indifference.
I don’t accept the story you have been told about the Buddha’s teachings i.e. “Buddhism as practiced according to the EBT the aim is not really to fix the world - not even to try - because all this is futile … the Buddha saying that if he had remained a prince he could have helped so many people and improved the world - but the Buddha saw this as a delusion.”
This is not about trying to fix the world its just about trying to save it! Help can come on many levels in our lives . We need to be helped to live a life free from worldly entanglement and delusions but, we also need to wake up to what is happening around us and, not just ignore that as that would be morally reprehensable and negligent in the extreme. If the situation was not that serious there may be some justification in forgetting about it and focusing more exclusively on our own self-interest. In the early teachings, this means insight into the four noble truths, the 3 characteristics etc. When, and if, the situation is normalised, we can then afford to ignore issues that are not of central importance in the teachings. We really need to get our priorities in order! If we are concerned about preserving conducive conditions for Buddhist practice in the future. A world that some of us believe we will be reborn into (heirs of our kamma). Its best if we take a ‘reality check’. Look at what is going on beyond the window of your kuthir or fence line. If we do not pay attention to it, it will invade our space and, then we might be left asking: why did we not respond to this challenge when we had the chance?
We can all practice together - meditate - and be good hearted people while we learn to network with others and create a viable future together. There is no contradiction - or clash of interest - when it comes to our individual practice, our practice within the four-fold assembly and, our wider responsibilities in the world at large - none - its a no-brainer!
Thank you for your feedback - I appreciate your taking the time to explain this.
I respect your not accepting this. I do accept it because I owe the meditation teacher who said this (assuming I have not misunderstood him) any (imperfect) understanding I may have acquired of Buddhism and meditation.
Thanks again. With metta.
We could think of it like house cleaning. In a monastery there is often some time that is allocated for chores and general maintenance. Then, people go off and do their own practice or, practice together.
We can think of the living Earth as a house or a monastery. We clean up the mess, do the chores, fix up the problems and then we have a supportive space or situation for practice.
The chores, the maintenance, the problem solving is part of the practice. It’s in the teachings we just need to open our eyes and look with a heart full of love and wisdom. 
yes I do agree that it would be great if everyone in the world could have the same attitude and aims as people living in a Monastery 
Make the world your monastery!
Laurence what if the reason people don’t suddenly change for the better, is because they are full of defilements? …and talking is never going to change that.
With metta
2 Likes
As you know Mat, you are not a container so how can you be full of anything. There is only this moment and the next. Look after one moment at a time. If you want to make it even harder to be a better human being then problematise your existence. Instead, we can make each breath an offering to the 3 jewels - to all suffering beings - us included. O:-)
Great way of putting it Mat.
And this ties in with the thoughts I have expressed above: of course if socialism as a political system came from compassion and from the heart it would be a great thing!! But history and personal experience has taught me that, in practice, this is far form being the case… Hence my description above of capitalism as probably the lesser evil.
When I was younger (I am beginning to sound like an old codger now 
) I used to like the philosophy of Schopenhauer, who probably more than any other philosopher wrote eulogistically of eastern religions and the arts and thought the highest ideal was that of the saint (or arahant). But I was puzzled by his political stance. Now I think I understand it more and more…