I have too. But many of the ordinary things we want in life are hard to organize that way. Pizza, for example. A person sees that there is an area without an pizza shops, but where people probably love pizza, so they acquire the space and equipment they need to make pizza, and employ some laborers to help make it, and then go into business selling. They probably will not do this if they don’t see the possibility of making a living from running the pizza shop.
The role of profit can be reduced somewhat if the shop is collectively owned by its laborers. But that is still a form of private ownership, and the workers still need to be able to collectively profit from the shop in order to be able to make a living from it. And it is still probably the case that this kind of thing is best organized by the shop owners themselves, rather than a central government pizza bureau, since taste in pizza varies, and local people are more likely to understand how to fit productive activity to local tastes. Yet, we could imagine various levels of public private partnership even here.
Other enterprises, like an electrical grid, where the public is best served by having only a single, well-managed grid in a single area, rather than a profuse jungle of wires, are probably best managed by a centralized provider without competitors. And if there are no competitors, there is less reason to prefer for-profit private owners to a not-for-profit public model.
Maybe. But in the meantime these monopolists can do enormous damage. The private concentration of extreme wealth can also do political damage. The wealthy possess a lot of what everyone values and needs - otherwise we wouldn’t call what they possess “wealth”. Because of that, they have a lot of power over others, including politicians and administrators of the public good, and power often breeds more power and has a corrupting influence on the greedy and hostile minds of ordinary people.
The vast majority of people aren’t arahants. Their greedy and destructive tendencies are easily aroused, and frequently spiral into mass destructiveness on the things around them. So it is wise for people in societies to exert some paternalistic control over their own behavior and impulses. These harmful tendencies are not self-regulating in any meaningful sense, as the human history of enslavement, cruelty, social failure, wars and other slaughters attests.
No, I will not, other than to say I am able to support myself at present from what I have saved out of earlier labor. Other than that, my private life is none of your business.
I think he would probably respond to the horrors of the present world in the same way he responded to the horrors in his own world: by walking away from it, becoming a beggar, and encouraging others to follow him. For those in the world, he would remind them that their own greedy, oppositional and exploitative way of living in the world affected their own present and future happiness in manifold ways.
If you react in a negative way because you have been preprimed by your personal history to get the heeby jeebies when you hear the word ‘socialism’ then forget about socialism. We are Buddhists so we don’t need to concern ourselves with this kind of nonsense.
Think of it as something like good housekeeping. Or, let’s imagine we have a workshop, an office or, a studio and we need to keep things in order to help us to perform our activities.
We are not talking about ending the suffering of samsaric existence we are talking about viable life support systems on a fragile planet.
Fortunately, there is no conflict of interest. We can do both and in fact they are like two peas in the same pod! If you want to do anapanasati it might be helpful to have good clean air to breathe. If you want to go on retreat it might be nice to have water to drink. If you want to get to the monastery in the forest it might be nice to have a forest that has not burned down to blackened stumps etc.
Try to find a different way to think about the same issue that does not trigger an unhelpful reaction.
Those of us with socialist conditioning face the same challenge. We need to look at the problem and its causes in a direct way and not miss the forest for trees. Making money through a business enterprise can be unproblematic as long as it involves authentic environmental ethics and social ethics. There is a lot more of this coming on line.
At the same time there are many grass roots initiatives that are very inspiring and helpful. Forget about capitalist and socialist. Let’s talk about how we can all work together and co-operate on a broad-front of sustainable development.
A neo-Buddha would see that horrible devastations once inflicted on human kind from disease, poor sanitation, malnutrition, lack of scientific understanding and even diminished levels of war (which decreases among democracies who in turn are generally democratic capitalistic) have been greatly ameliorated by the same processes. Their injunctions would likely be similar to Gotama – spread the wealth around a bit, be sure that everyone benefits.
A neo-Buddha would likely comment on the lack of a balanced perspective (middle way) in comments such as @laurences. That @laurence and others through their own greed tend to exploit the situation – to point out that rhetoric such as “endlessly growing pollution” is counter factual and exploitative. They wouldn’t assume that to “preserve the richness and diversity of the natural world” is as important as to “prevent humanity from destroying itself”.
A neo-Buddha might point to how moderns cling to their preferred narratives and privilege them as an example of the 3 poisons in action. In other words they might say “@laurenceyou tend to exploit my teaching for your own ends”.
To speak satirically: I’m sure that a neo-Buddha would agree with me!
(Is there some teaching in the EBT’s about not “wrapping yourself in the robes of the Buddha”? )
Yes. But I wish to re-emphasize that I believe there is a wiser context here that is important:
Human history I believe also attests to these harmful tendencies as common to all economic systems.
Speaking generally and not necessarily to @DKervick’s posts: To point only to capitalism in this regard is misleading and I regard it as ego-centric and ethno-centric and a somewhat harmful tendency in itself.
Yes that’s funny Dan! A centralised planned economy with trains full of frozen pizzas being transported across the country and delivered to polit-burea pizza outlets by smiling socialists in white aprons. There are decentralized cooperative voluntary initiatives popping up all over the place. Keep an eye out there might be one coming to your town soon. A place where you can get a pizza or go an help make a few while singing Italian love songs. If you want you can -t your own!
Thanks Feynman your always good for a laugh! Good luck with the old climate change denial thing and all the other helpful stuff you have clarified for us.
Well, as I think your quote acknowledges, questions about what freedoms and rights should be acknowledged and protected are questions about matters of degree. There are no absolutes here, and making judgments about the proper balance is an exercise in practical wisdom drawing on a mature understanding of the complexities of human nature and social life.
Yes, but some systems have done a better job than others in producing circumstances that alleviate suffering and promote well-being. All of them have imposed some restraints on personal liberty, in both the economic sphere and other spheres, and enforced certain duties to the larger community. Many mixtures have been experimented with, and the experiments will continue.
thank you for your kind answer. What you say is precisely what the Bogleheads aim to do (with whom you seemed to have an issue), and what I had written about Tuesday (i.e. supporting oneself with the fruit of earlier labor); though my post had sparked your criticism. In any case the question is not really who’s right or who’s wrong, but whether our exchanges are fruitful and contribute to this forum. I believe they probably aren’t and so I don’t think it’s worthwhile to take them further.
If you chose to reply to this or any other of my messages I don’t think I will reply any longer.
I wish you all the very best.
I think that view makes no sense at all! It makes good sense that a Buddha would teach that way 2600 years ago in a time when humans had not decimated the environment and lived lives using simple and ‘soft’ technologies - in most situations. There was no problem of any real consequence on the horizon when it came to human/nature interaction. Why would anyone - including a Buddha - need to draw attention to the problem of deforestation - for instance - when there were vast swathes of pristine wilderness everywhere with tiny little pockets of humanity nestled in forest clearings joined by bush tracks and walking paths? If the Buddha had been kidnapped by aliens who had mastered time travel and, dropped in the same area he lived in - today - he may have been quietly surprised at what he encountered. If the aliens then beamed him up and dropped him home (2600 years ago) he might have had a few more things to reflect on that were inconceivable in the iron Age. We can still have the teachings of the four Noble truths without an iron Age perspective on human social, cultural and, economic behaviour.
thank you @laurence you taught me a new word It’s not really that, it’s more sadness and disappointment, also because I have known a number of politicians. Anyway I completely agree that it would really be great if it can work out as you suggest!
If you look around at least where I live there are plenty of signs that this is entering into our collective awareness. Both grass roots change in the form of community gardens that also serve as places for the organisation of many positive environmental and social projects. Farmers markets that also provide small business opportunities etc. If you hear of one - or you have one near by go an check it out. You might be surprised in a pleasant way! There are some interesting businesses started by budding young entrepreneurs who want to benefit communities in the developing world while they make a few bucks for their good effort. Different countries and regions are progressing at different rates of change when it comes to sustainable development policies and outcomes.
I guess we just have very different understandings about what kind of person the Buddha was and what his primary concerns were.
I don’t think asking “What would the Buddha do?” is a very productive way of thinking about the social, economic and planetary challenges facing us. The Buddha’s teachings are not a totalitarian ideology delivering answers to all of life’s questions. The insights he developed into the causes of suffering are of immense value to us who remain in the world for thinking about the best way of addressing these challenges. But we have to do the thinking for ourselves, and are on our own.
I’m sorry for the curt response, stef, but I’ve been burned before by people taking an unwelcome interest in my private life. When I think that is happening, my radar goes off and I put a gate up.
There is a bit of confusion here about what I have tried to say to you. Your teacher is right with regard to the notion that we can end suffering through fixing things in our immediate environment or through social change. That would be delusional! However, this is not the agenda being proposed. We are just talking about things like: 1) cleaning up after yourself when you make a mess, 2) don’t waste things; 3) don’t forget to share and, be nice to others and cooperate - don’t be selfish. If we get really adventurous we could try something like: be kind to strangers! People like desperate refugees running away from bullets and bombs, murder, rape and, torture. This might mean giving up on ‘stranger danger’ as a guideline for human interaction.
My Buddha had common sense as well as liberating insight. I have no doubt that given the fact we may be about to end life as we know it, that a Buddha - any awakened being - would have something helpful to say about that, that may steer us in a sane direction.
If I follow your understanding of the teachings of fully awakened beings like the Buddha, I can imagine the following scenario.
Imagine that a Buddha was teaching their disciples at a coastal village. A warning siren is heard where the awakened-one is teaching anapanasati and equanimity with changing states of mind and body.
One of the students interupts the teachings with a polite ‘excuse me’! The awakened one asks what the student wants to say? The student explains: that siren is signalling the approach of a tsunami - we shall all be swallowed by a giant wave if we do not climb up the hill - and quickly!
The awakened being replies: just sit where you are and understand that all things are impermanent. Maintain your equanimity as this useless burden of a body is swept into the rushing waters. Life is nothing but suffering be happy as you are about to be freed from your intolerable burden of human misery - existence is pointless!
Perhaps, a wisdom-being might say: run to the hill to preserve your precious human rebirth. Tomorrow, we will resume the teaching and training after we help to clean up the mess left by the great wave and provide help to those in desperate need!
When it comes to the looming prospect of a runaway effect caused by exceeding environmental tipping points, we can liken this to the mother of all tsunami’s that nobody will be able to run away from!
‘Best we do something about it while we still can’ or, should we just practice equanimity and ignore the pending and reversible threat to our survival?
To not do what we can to avert - to avoid - a total unmitigated disaster would be completely absurd! Is Buddhism absurd or a creed for intelligent and thoughtful people who have basic logical abilities?
In a centrally planned economy, there is no pizza to begin with. There is no food to begin with, let alone pizza, except for the party-member aristocracy. That’s the biggest problem of socialism, not passing the 2000$ gdp per capita mark. Forget about children freezing to death in school, forget about not having public lighting, forget about not being allowed to wear jeans or read not-aproved books, etc. - the biggest problem here is having no food.
And you will be surprised how little anything other matters when there is no food. Try living 2-3 days without food just to get a demo of how it is. Now imagine living your whole life in a place where there are severe food shortages. That’s what happened to my parents, and it is sad some think that people should return to living like that. In eastern europe, it is easy to observe with the naked eye how the older generation is much shorter in height than the new generation, because of malnourishment caused by food shortages.
I think the Buddha would probably say, “We should go elsewhere.”
If the country’s prime minister later visited the Buddha in his forest feeling, and said something about how they were trying to build a new sea wall and a better warning system to protect the people on the coast from tsunamis, but were embroiled in many angry political battles with political opponents in trying to get the spending bill through the legislature, I think the Buddha would probably say nothing about the sea wall, but would instead say something like, “Beware the dangers of hating your enemies, oh great prime minister.”
To speak satirically: I’m sure that a neo-Buddha would agree with me!
-t your own!
It’s not really that, it’s more sadness and disappointment, also because I have known a number of politicians. Anyway I completely agree that it would really be great if it can work out as you suggest!