Stand Against Suffering: An Unprecedented Call to Action by Buddhist Teachers

I’m a bit of a novice when it comes to being critically informed about vinaya.

I know a couple of scholarly truisms that are bandied about, about how the vinaya, from a Western Christianity-informed perspective, seems “light” on Buddhist philosophy, doctrine, and Buddhavacana-interpretation.

There must, however, surely, be some checks-and-balance system to prevent monks from saying anything about the Dhamma.

Otherwise, what is stopping a prominent Theravada monk from converting to Lotus Buddhism and proclaiming the Buddha to be all-present, all-pervading, unending and unbeginning? Or declaring that this is mappó, as some sects do, and declaring the “original” teachings of Shakyamuni to be no longer effective? Or teaching that the Buddha was a humanoid alien on account of his marks of a great man (some people believe this!)?

There surely has to be some system of check-and-balances when dealing with monks’ own Dhamma-dispensations?

However, the Buddha spoke to lay people and kings about good and bad ways of organising households and societies. It would be strange if modern Bhikkhus did not do the same.

1 Like

Yes, not about politics or kings/presidents. For example if he spoke about helping poor persons, he spoke so in general, as a goal to be achieved, as a trait to be developed. He did not start advocating for left-wing or right-wing measures to be implemented in order to help the poor. (actually, he never spoke about helping the poor, at least not in the suttas) He did not bash a political candidate or political party. He did not start predicting the end of the world if one or another king got in power in a particular country, etc.

There is a difference between giving general advice about being a good person and bashing political parties or political candidates or doing propaganda for a political party.

Now that I have done by best to answer your question, I want to ask another in return: What is your take on those right speech rules ? What is your opinion about unsuitable subjects of conversation witch include politics, rulers and ministers, governance of the country ?

1 Like

[quote=“Maiev, post:20, topic:4826, full:true”]As for the de-politization program, I even came up with a name: “One monk at a time” :grin:
[/quote]I thought it had a more “the Vinayal Solution” ring to it, but perhaps that’s a joke too dark for a Buddhist forum :scream:

:raised_hands: Chris Arnade has been one of my heroes for years. Thank you so much for sharing this!

I really don’t think that’s what’s happening in this article, Bhante (and you can feel free to disagree with me). The diction of this article is very careful to not create an ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ paradigm, at least not within a political sense. It seems rather to be articulating that there are political values that are compassionate and those that are not – and it doesn’t really matter which party articulates those values.

I also feel very supportive of Bhikkhu Bodhi in his endeavors because he has wonderfully refrained from engaging in political debate while simultaneously advocating for those who are suffering. It seems clear that it is tremendously difficult to separate the political from advocacy work, particularly when legislation directly impacts and aggravates the suffering of the people one is fighting for.

I do not think Bhikkhu Bodhi has breached any aspect of the Vinaya. He is not engaging in political talk (or even referencing political talk) for the sake of taking sides, which it seems is what the Buddha so dissuaded against. But rather his advocacy aims to help people, to alleviate their suffering, of which he has done a remarkable job in doing.

10 Likes

He was quite explicit about the wholesome and unwholesome in lay people all the way up to kings…

“Householder, there are these five utilizations of wealth. What five?

(1) “Here, householder, with wealth acquired by energetic striving, amassed by the strength of his arms, earned by the sweat of his brow, righteous wealth righteously gained, the noble disciple makes himself happy and pleased and properly maintains himself in happiness; he makes his parents happy and pleased and properly maintains them in happiness; he makes his wife and children, his slaves, workers, and servants happy and pleased and properly maintains them in happiness. This is the first utilization of wealth.

https://suttacentral.net/en/an5.41[/quote]

“Bhikkhus, even a wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king who rules by the Dhamma, does not turn the wheel without a king above him.”

When this was said, a certain bhikkhu said to the Blessed One: “But, Bhante, who is the king above a wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king who rules by the Dhamma?”

“It is the Dhamma, bhikkhu,” the Blessed One said. “Here, bhikkhu, a wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king who rules by the Dhamma, relying just on the Dhamma, honoring, respecting, and venerating the Dhamma, taking the Dhamma as his standard, banner, and authority, provides righteous protection, shelter, and guard for the people in his court. Again, a wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king who rules by the Dhamma, relying just on the Dhamma, honoring, respecting, and venerating the Dhamma, taking the Dhamma as his standard, banner, and authority, provides righteous protection, shelter, and guard for his khattiya vassals, his army, brahmins and householders, the people of town and countryside, ascetics and brahmins, and the animals and birds. Having provided such righteous protection, shelter, and guard for all these beings, that wheel-turning monarch, a righteous king who rules by the Dhamma, turns the wheel solely through the Dhamma, a wheel that cannot be turned back by any hostile human being.
https://suttacentral.net/en/an3.14/1-3

‘Thereupon the Brahman who was chaplain said to the king: “The king’s country, Sire, is harassed and harried. There are dacoits abroad who pillage the villages and townships, and who make the roads unsafe. Were the king, so long as that is so, to levy a fresh tax, verily his majesty would be acting wrongly. But perchance his majesty might think: ‘I’ll soon put a stop to these scoundrels’ game by degradation and banishment, and fines and bonds and death!’ But their licence cannot be satisfactorily put a stop to so. The remnant left unpunished would still go on harassing the realm. Now there is one method to adopt to put a thorough end to this disorder. Whosoever there be in the king’s realm who devote themselves to keeping cattle and the farm, to them let his majesty the king give food and seed-corn. Whosoever there be in the king’s realm who devote themselves to trade, to them let his majesty the king give capital. Whosoever there be in the king’s realm who devote themselves to government service, to them let his majesty the king give wages and food. Then those men, following each his own business, will no longer harass the realm; the king’s revenue will go up; the country will be quiet and at peace; and the populace, pleased one with another and happy, dancing their children in their arms, will dwell with open doors.”
https://suttacentral.net/en/dn5/14

I do realise that people have different opinions. Perhaps you would like to point out how in tune with the Dhamma certain modern politicians are, and how their policies relate to such sutta passages.

1 Like

With the accent on the “wonderfully refrained”

It was with feelings of shock and dismay that early this morning I woke up to learn that Donald Trump had been elected president of the United States.
Buddhist Channel | Opinion


I do realise that people have different opinions. Perhaps you would like to point out how in tune with the Dhamma certain modern politicians are, and how their policies relate to such sutta passages.

If we google “monks politics” most results are about american leftist monks. But if we google “political monks” all news that appear are about political monks from asian countries. Only if we go to page 20 do we find anything about non-buddhist monks. Many monks are members of the parliament in asian countries. There are cases of monks getting killed in violet battles with the police at demonstrations. If we click on those articles, we see that they justify their engagement with politics to the point of violent battles in the same way as western monks. They say Buddhism is about well being and politics is also about well being, that they are not taking sides just fighting for what is good, etc.

For example let’s take a look at how these monks justify themselves in this article:

http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/monks-walk-tightrope-between-peace-and-politics

I don’t think this is what Buddha had in mind about being a monk. I think he had an idea of monks behaving more like Christian monks. When was the last time you saw something like that happening with christian monks ? Such things don’t happen even with christian priest, let alone christian monks. When was the last time you saw christian monks writing political articles ?

Do you have any actual concrete thoughts you’d like to express about how the Dhamma should inform politics, or are you just going to keep reiterating your particular political agenda?

Do you have any actual concrete thoughts you’d like to express about how the Dhamma should inform politics, or are you just going to keep reiterating your particular political agenda?

I think the dhamma, be it the dhamma of Buddha, Jesus or Mohamed, should stay away from politics and deal only with people at the individual level. Religious figures should just encourage people to cultivate good traits at the individual level and let these lay people figure out what to vote for themselves.

The reason leftist religious figures have a harder time understanding this “individual level” part is because the left is generally focused on the state, asking the state to do this and that to benefit the people. It rarely focuses on the individual level of improving the person. And in the case of monks, this translates into making the state implement this and that buddhist idea, encouraging the state to cultivate this or that good trait in people instead of dealing with them at the individual level. They take this emphasis on the state instead of the individual with them after becoming monastics.

The fact that this phenomenon is so rare in christian priest and unheard of in christian monastics shows that attachment to politics can be overcome. And maybe this emphasis on the individual is the factor responsible for conservatives donating on average 30% more to charity than liberals.

The Buddhist path, like it or not, is about the individual. Dwell with yourself as an island, with yourself as a refugee. The state can not enlighten you, it can not force you to be compassionate.

Bhante
I don’t think you are under any obligation to add your name.

I’ve seen many such artfully worded articles and letters in my years being involved in politics, it’s not about what is directly said, but what is said between the lines.

regardless, my main issue with this letter was not the politics, as I said lionsroar is heavily political even before trump, nor did I ever mention bhikkhu bodhi, as he is just one of many involved in the letter, but with them pretending it’s not about politics plus manipulating and taking out of context a sutta quote to their own means, that kind of stuff goes down a dangerous path.

3 Likes

[quote]
“As long as a society protects the wives and daughters and vulnerable among them, they can they be expected to prosper and not decline.”
[/quote]I really wish people would cite scripture when they quote it.

This quote is all over the Internet with not one citation.

If it is “authentic” at all, it must be from the Mahāyānamahāparinirvāṇasūtra (which tests the limits of what “authentic” can mean particularly on this forum), as the closest thing I could find to it was what @Bhikkhu_Jayasara also found:[quote] ‘The Vajjians do not coerce and force their women and girls to dwell with them against their will.’” “For as long, Ānanda, as the Vajjians will not coerce and force their women and girls to dwell with them against their will, surely growth, Ānanda, is to be expected for the Vajjians not decline.[/quote]Its vaguely similar to the quote in the article but very far from it at the same time.

I’m currently scouring the Mahāyānamahāparinirvāṇasūtra to see if it is there, but it is so long I doubt I’ll find it. Its digitization is in a very sorry state and it is not easily searchable in English.


I accidentally made this post a responce to @DKervick, but it is supposed to be just a general post. How do I change this?

DN 16 quoted in this topic is one of the suttas in witch Buddha explains how a society functions and how it can flourish. If the people of a society have good traits as individuals, then that society will flourish. Let’s think of some examples of this: If there is violence in a society, if people are violent at the individual level, then eventually they will end up in civil wars or with high crime rates. If there is greed in a society then people will become corrupt and poor because of this corruption, they will all become poorer as a whole.

There is no possibility to force a supposedly enlightened legislation on people and make everybody enlightened through that legislation. For example democracy has been implemented in a lot of countries but it works very different depending on the country. This state that the left expects to solve all problems - IS MADE OUT OF PEOPLE. If the politicians at the individual level are greedy or violent or hearthless, if the judges at the individual level are corrupt, lazy, etc. That state is not going to work too good. Europe for example has no natural resources and until recent history was the poorest and most violent place on earth. But through development of wisdom, it managed to rise to where it is now. When wisdom that has been constantly developed for 2-3 centuries matured, it managed to create this modern world that we have now. And it managed to pull all the other faculties to a higher level. Buddha said the most important of the 5 faculties is wisdom.

People are products of their environment. There are some suttas about this too. The associates of a person matter a lot. If a person is put in a bad school full of violent, greedy and lazy people - he will become like them too. If a person is put is a great school with peaceful, hard working, generous people - the person will start to resemble them over time. Or for example the people in a country can be non-corrupt, smart, etc. and will vote that kind of politicians. On the other hand, people from another country can be greedy, stupid, easily brought with a small pension rise or a bucket of food products 2 days before the election or can easily fall for propaganda. Then they will have bad politicians to govern them. There is that great saying: “People always have the politicians they deserve”.

Like it or not, there is no magical solution or some divine legislation pushed on people to fix their problems. Idealist will hate to hear this but: there is no possibility for a single person to do some miraculous thing and fix the lack of faculties in other people by his own superhuman powers. What we can do is focus on our own development and in that way we are helping the people around us. We can be one of the good people from the class or from our neighbourhood or from our workplace. As Buddha said, " By protecting others, one protects oneself. By protecting oneself, one protects others."

There is a tendency in people, especially young ones, to not accept they are just 1 out of 7 billion humans, who do not accept that they can’t “have an impact” as big as they want to have. One day we need to accept that we can only help a small amount of people around us, not change the world by ourselves. And there is not much to change in the first place in countries like western ones where all that needed to be done was mostly done by people before us already. There is no revolution to do in the best place to live on earth.

As for those who are very famous like B.Bodhi, they can have a much bigger impact than normal people. But the way they can help people is through the mundane, non-spectacular, boring method of teaching about dhamma and arousing faith, energy, wisdom etc. in his readers. That is the way Buddha advised us to help people: by arousing the faculties in them. Trying to make people vote for this political party to impose this particular economic legislation that a philosophy graduate like B.Bodhi understand little about is not the way to go.

If we want to help people, we should rise faith (mundane faith in good and bad) in them, arouse energy in them, speak in favor of generosity with them, stress the importance of wisdom in them. This is what Buddha said we should do. A person that has people around him arouse his faculties, speak in praise of good behavior, he will develop little by little. That is how we developed too, coupled with past kamma/ good tendencies, that we had developed or were predisposed towards developing already.

Ok, but I think reading too much into intentionality can be problematic.

Sorry, Bhante, my comments about Bhikkhu Bodhi were not aimed at you, I was responding generally to other people.

I do find the sutta quote a problem. How can people trust the integrity of a statement from religious leaders if the authors are not even careful about quotes from their own scriptures? I wonder if that quote was in the actual statement that was circulated, or if it was prefixed to the statement by a Lion’s Roar editor?

The ideas in the statement seem of a piece with what in the US is sometimes called “American Consensus Buddhism”: a bit of Dalai Lama, a bit of Thich Nhat Hanh, a bit of Chogyam Trungpa, a bit of vipassana meditation, a bit of lay secular engaged Buddhism in an eclectic and ecumenical mix. These are all lovely thinkers, but the result sometimes seems like a bit of a mash-up. American Buddhists are overwhelmingly Democrats, or Democratic “leaners”, so the barely submerged partisanship is not surprising.

Nevertheless, I wish the argument came from a deeper and more solidly coherent spiritual perspective, and grappled with the manifold greeds, hatreds, delusions, violence and depravity of modern society overall. It reads, for the most part, like a restatement of recent secular liberal intersectionality discourse, with a few Buddhist t-shirt slogans and memes thrown in, and it (perhaps unintentionally) conveys the impression that everything was just hunky-dory until we were faced with the especially harsh and reactionary policies of the current administration.

I contrast a statement like this one with the kinds of encyclicals the Catholic Church produces, which are occasionally quite topical. Agree with them or not, the latter are usually deeply grounded in, and carefully argued from, centuries (even millenia) of Church social teachings. There does not appear to be any comparable body of literature within Buddhism, so these statements from Buddhist communities aimed at social activism often seem confused and ambivalent, as though the authors are struggling to make it up as they go along in between their meditation chill-out sessions.

Perhaps the authors could have reminded readers that, while they are busy protecting the vulnerable and endangered, they should also keep before them the idea that “hate is not conquered by hate; but by non-hate” (Which I think is something close to what the Buddha actually said! :slight_smile: ) But one of the signatories to that letter recently argued that there is, according to Buddhism, such a thing as “right anger.” I simply don’t believe that.

2 Likes

Friend, that’s not all it says, although it is part of what is said. It also talks about the community institutions and practices that lead to flourishing: for example, holding regular assemblies, and acting in unison on important matters.

1 Like

People will do that just like they do in any country. But if those people holding community meetings are low in wisdom, what will be the result ?

This is why Buddha focused on arousing the faculties, letting the people take care of business and develop legislation by themselves. Religion should be about this part of developing the individual, not about the legislation itself or about the state.

I’d agree with you except for one clarification, i’d say American “convert” Buddhists are overwhelmingly left leaning. the far majority of Buddhists in the country are those who have immigrated from Buddhist countries, and it has been my experience that they tend to be pretty conservative. I have seen a good amount of them who come to my monastery have republican stickers on their cars, and I’ve seen some of the very left leaning visitors go wide eyed at seeing a Romney or a Trump sticker on a car parked at the monastery. It’s an interesting dichotomy.

2 Likes

On DW forum, things are 50-50% in the politics section and we are speaking about converts. But I agree convert buddhist from US tend to be leftist.

There might also be the problem of who is more vocal. For example many people believe democrats are like 90% progressive when just a small minority are progressive and the rest are moderate. Just like republicans come off as fundamentalist christians when the majority are moderates.

This is because of the 2 party system that exists in the US. European countries have multi-party systems and radical left and radical right always have 5%. This is also because in a multi party system, the mainstream parties and mainstream medias try to fight against radical groups because they would steal % form mainstream parties. But in a 2-party system, the mainstream parties and mainstream media try to support radical groups because what else are they going to vote ?

Yes, I think that’s probably true, but the poll is a Pew study, and I think the results are based on all those who identify themselves as Buddhists, converts and non-converts alike.