Also, there has been a leftward shift in the party preferences Asian-Americans over recent decades:
I just bought BBās new compilation āThe Buddhaās Teachings on Social and Communal Harmony: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canonā and the last section is titled: āEstablishing an Equitable Societyā, which sounded like Communism to me.
I think it would be more accurately worded as: āEstablishing a Harmoniousā¦ Inter-Dependent ā¦ Ethicalā¦ Justā¦ Humane Societyā but certainly not āEquitableā.
I have found the word āEquitableā used in relation to virtues & enlightenment rather than in relation to society.
And this is the best bestowal of equity: if a stream-winner becomes equal to a stream-winner; a once-returner equal to a once-returner; a non-returner equal to a non-returner; and an arahant equal to an arahant. AN 9.5
In my view this is not the issue. I think the point has been made clearly on this thread that the issue is the blaming of & focus on Trump as the cause of the collective past unwholesome actions, which essentially gives the impression of āslanderā.
The Buddha may have spoken to laypeople & kings but I would imagine the Buddha did not pick & choose to support one unwholesome king over another unwholesome king or support the interests of one group of laypeople over another group of laypeople.
Trump ran an election campaign primarily on at least four dhammic platforms.
-
Creating work for impoverished citizens. Tick = Dhamma
-
Keeping out & repatriating illegal immigrants. Tick = Dhamma since illegality is adhammic.
-
Not supporting abortion. Tick = Dhamma.
-
Stopping the unprecedented wars, in Syria, including cooling off with Russia. Tick = Dhamma
If you are not aware of what is going on with Russia, here are the Obama-Clinton neo-cons caught on video in the Ukraine in January 2017, doing exactly what they previously did in Libya & Syria (even though they are Republicans):
That Trump has not & will probably not come good on these promises is another matter. For example, Trump appears to be escalating the war in Syria. Just as the Syrians were freeing themselves from external terror, the Western media has started another campaign against another alleged gas attack, which Trump is supporting. But the noise against Trump started when he was elected.
Clinton ran on non-Dhamma platform, namely, protecting the liberties of identitarian minority groups; did not campaign on economic impoverishment of the USA; and continuing international wars. Note: My opinion is Buddhism endorses its path & way of life; if minority groups wish to practise Buddhism, Buddhism welcomes this; but Buddhism obviously does not endorse every action performed by every member of a minority group.
I think most orthodox Buddhists place little trust in worldly politicians yet the surge of American Buddhist voices against the unproven Trump gives the strong impression of being political & self-serving rather than altruistic.
1 Like
We seem to be very quick at judging the actions of these āworldlyā monks who are apparently unable to turn their backs on the world. Renunciation, in the picture that is evoked by a 2500-year old discipline is not exactly an easy task, IMHO. The key thing, as I see it, is the line from the standard descriptions of the first dhyana: rapture and pleasure born of seclusion. When most of the strings that attach the mind to wordly activities and subjects have been untangled and removed, a keen sense of relief and joy would arise, I think - that finally, at last, the mind is sufficiently withdrawn from the noise of the world. But, this is easier said than doneā¦
I can see how this would generate discussion.
There is a longer version here: About Statement of Values - Spirit Rock - An Insight Meditation Center
āAs long as a society holds regular and frequent assemblies, meeting in harmony and mutual respect, can they be expected to prosper and not decline. As long as a society follows the long held traditions of wisdom, and honors its elders, can they be expected to prosper and not decline. As long as a society protects the vulnerable among them, can they be expected to prosper and not decline. As long as a society cares for the shrines and sacred places of the natural world, can they be expected to prosper and not decline.ā āMahaparinirvana Sutta (a text of Buddhaās last teachings)
I find these āfree translationsā a little baffling. There are other suttas that could be invoked to get across a similar message without mangling that suttaā¦
1 Like
Isnāt this liberal translation sort of contradictory since if there are āvulnerableā people isnāt society already in a state of decline?
The sutta also (actually) states:
āWhat have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis neither enact new decrees nor abolish existing ones, but proceed in accordance with their ancient constitutions?ā
āI have heard, Lord, that they do.ā
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.
This appears to be the primary issue. It is the USA adhering to their Constitution & Rule of Law? For example, it has been claimed many of the US international wars are a breach of the Constitution & many of the free-trade-agreements under Obama & co allow corporations to circumvent domestic US law.
The sutta also states:
āWhat have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis refrain from abducting women and maidens of good families and from detaining them?ā
āI have heard, Lord, that they refrain from doing so.ā
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.
The above appears to be about āfamily valuesā and honoring women as mothers & leaders of families rather than as sex objects or corporate consumers.
The sutta also states:.
āWhat have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so, and those who have already come might live there in peace?ā
āI have heard, Lord, that they do.ā
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.
The appears to refer to upholding a religious society. It seems the USA is far from this.
Thus, my points here are merely protecting the vulnerable is not expected to make a society prosper and not decline; just as one factor of the noble eightfold path is not expected to bring about enlightenment. In other words, it is not a sole issue to run a political campaign on, particularly when you have a vested interest in providing paid services to vulnerable people. A political vision, as in the EBTs, ideally should be far more broad & extensive.
It seems Trump (rhetorically) campaigned on such a broader vision & thus, per dhamma-law, was expected to conjure up a win. SN 22.95 states:
Now suppose that a magician or magicianās apprentice were to display a magic trick at a major intersection, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him ā seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it ā it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a magic trick? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any consciousness that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him ā seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it ā it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in consciousness?
Maybe you can rely on DN 26 rather than AN 3.14:
āHere, 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.
AN 3.14
Puna caparaį¹, bhikkhu, rÄjÄ cakkavattÄ« dhammiko dhammarÄjÄ dhammaį¹yeva nissÄya dhammaį¹ sakkaronto dhammaį¹ garuį¹ karonto dhammaį¹ apacÄyamÄno dhammaddhajo dhammaketu dhammÄĀdhiĀpaĀteyyo dhammikaį¹ ĀrakĀkhÄĀvaraį¹aĀguttiį¹ saį¹vidahati khattiyesu, anuyantesu, balakÄyasmiį¹, brÄhmaĀį¹aĀgahaĀpatiĀkesu, negamaĀjÄnaĀpadesu, samaį¹abĀrÄhmaĀį¹esu, migapakkhÄ«su. Sa kho so bhikkhu rÄjÄ cakkavattÄ« dhammiko dhammarÄjÄ dhammaį¹yeva nissÄya dhammaį¹ sakkaronto dhammaį¹ garuį¹ karonto dhammaį¹ apacÄyamÄno dhammaddhajo dhammaketu dhammÄĀdhiĀpaĀteyyo dhammikaį¹ ĀrakĀkhÄĀvaraį¹aĀguttiį¹ saį¹vidahitvÄ antojanasmiį¹, dhammikaį¹ ĀrakĀkhÄĀvaraį¹aĀguttiį¹ saį¹vidahitvÄ khattiyesu ā¦ pe ā¦ anuyantesu, balakÄyasmiį¹, brÄhmaĀį¹aĀgahaĀpatiĀkesu, negamaĀjÄnaĀpadesu, samaį¹abĀrÄhmaĀį¹esu, migapakkhÄ«su, dhammeneva cakkaį¹ vatteti. Taį¹ hoti cakkaį¹ appaį¹ivattiyaį¹ kenaci manussabhÅ«tena paccatthikena pÄį¹inÄ.
But what, sire, is this Ariyan duty of a Wheel-turning Monarch?
This, dear son, that thou, leaning on the Norm [the Law of truth and righteousness] honouring, respecting and revering it, doing homage to it, hallowing it, being thyself a Norm-banner, a Norm-signal, having the Norm as thy master, shouldst provide the right watch, ward, and protection for thine own folk, for the army, for the nobles, for vassals, for brahmins, and householders, for town and country dwellers, for the religious world, and for beasts and birds. Throughout thy kingdom let no wrongdoing prevail. And whosoever in thy kingdom is poor, to him let wealth be given.
DN 26
Katamaį¹ pana taį¹, deva, ariyaį¹ cakkaĀvattiĀvattanāti? āTena hi tvaį¹, tÄta, dhammaį¹yeva nissÄyanissÄya: by means of; by oneās support; near by. (ind.) dhammaį¹ sakkaronto dhammaį¹ garuį¹ karonto dhammaį¹ mÄnento dhammaį¹ pÅ«jento dhammaį¹ apacÄyamÄno dhammaddhajo dhammaketu dhammÄĀdhiĀpaĀteyyo dhammikaį¹ ĀrakĀkhÄĀvaraį¹aĀguttiį¹ saį¹vidahassu antojanasmiį¹ balakÄyasmiį¹ khattiyesu anuyantesu brÄhmaĀį¹aĀgahaĀpatiĀkesu negamaĀjÄnaĀpadesu samaį¹abĀrÄhmaĀį¹esu migapakkhÄ«su. MÄ ca te, tÄta, vijite adhammakÄro pavattittha. Ye ca te, tÄta, vijite adhanÄ assu, tesaƱca dhanaĀmanupĀpadeyyÄsi.
1 ) To nail down the quotation issue. As becomes obvious in comparing the whole quotation (from the Spirit Rock manifesto of Dec 2016, cited by mikenz66 2017-04-05 04:38:38 UTC #47) with a more accurate (SC) translation of DN 16, the Spirit Rock paraphrase:
āā¦As long as a society protects the vulnerable among them, can they be expected to prosper and not declineā¦ā
corresponds to, is an interpretation of DN 16 (comes at the same position in the text) :
ā¦āFor as long, Änanda, as the Vajjians will not coerce and force their women and girls to dwell with them against their will, surely growth, Änanda, is to be expected for the Vajjians not declineā¦"
The paraphrase is not exactly a spurious false quotation, but rather a seriously flawed translation, as it:
a) generalizes āwomen and girlsā to āthe vulnerableā;
b) generalizes āthe Vajjiansā to āsocietyā;
c) uses the positive verb āprotectsā where the Buddha text puts it in negative form āwill notā, as typical of many of his dictums, e.g. Right Speech as not
deceptive, not harsh, etc., i.e. emphasis on restraint, not a call to activism.
That is to say, the paraphrase is extracted and framed more in general social-activist terms, where in the context of DN16, the Buddha is addressing a specific political situation to exemplify āseven qualitiesā of āwelfareā, which he then goes on to parallel and develop in further dhamma themes ā 7 qualities in the bhavana of bhikkus, 7 Factors of Enlightenment, 7 Perceptions,ā¦ The sutta focuses not on social ethics but on reviewing, summarizing his teachings for the last time.
2) The issue raises (at least) two problems:
2A) It places āBuddhistsā in general in the cross-hairs of the radical right.
Bhikkhu_Jayasara 2017-04-04 21:42:03 UTC #31:
ā.ā¦pretending itās 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 pathā¦ā
As Bhikkhu_Jayasara elsewhere mentions, the (more āsilentā) majority of Buddhists in the USA are found in Far- and East-Asian ethnic populations. Being obvious immigrants, though mostly probably beyond first-generation, they could, by virtue of such public stances, become overt targets of the xenophobic sentiments in the current political climate.
2B) Closer to home, the SC forum is becoming more deeply infected with political papanca., a feeding ground for the ranting trolls. In this thread are examples clearly recognizable, in terms of personages (across shifting avatars) as well venting of their favorite topics ā perhaps less obvious to those not familiar with their performance in other forums.
3) The political āstand against sufferingā movement reflects more broadly a mahayana tendency in Western (at least American) āconvertā Buddhism. Yes, Bhikkhu Bodhi leads the charge, arguably more from his social-cultural background than from dhamma authority, IMO, and Ven. Analayo lends his name too (remember one of his mentors was B. Bodhi), but the rest of the list aligns more with what Thanissaro Bhikkhu aptly argues as āBuddhist Romanticismā, which, if Buddhist at all, resembles mahayana ideals more than hard-core Theravada.
3 Likes
There Poį¹į¹hapÄda was sitting with his crowd of wanderers, all shouting and making a great commotion, indulging in various kinds of unedifying conversation (lit: animal talks - tiracchÄna-katha), such as about kings, robbers, ministers, armies, dangers, wars, food, drink, clothes, beds, garlands, perfumes, relatives, carriages, villages, towns and cities, countries, women, heroes, street- and well-gossip, talk of the departed, desultory chat, speculations about land and sea, talk of being and non-being.
DN9
2 Likes
involvement in worldly affairs is a good excuse for not practising the Dhamma in earnest or a replacement activity when practice of Dhamma is forsaken, a time filler, after all one needs to have some field of application of energy and efforts freed up by lack of Dhamma practice
i agree with @Maievās remark about Christian monastics, as much as Vinaya seems to be strict, my impression is that itās strict mainly in secondary and trivial in my view matters which have little to do with facilitating and fostering the practice of the Dhamma
I can wholeheartedly agree with this. Itās not that certain rights and protections are unimportant. Itās that the articulation of them is flimsy and unproductive. What did they actually do when they were in power for the vulnerable? Not much. This is not to mention that the entirety of the progressive agenda at all levels is currently at risk, and ALL of the progress made in many respects is under serious threat. Shame on our leaders for letting that happen.
Itās far to easy to blame āour leadersā or āgovernmentā or ācorporationsāā¦ when people should be looking at themselves. This is the core of the problem, people donāt realize WE are āour leaders/government/corporationā. People need to look in the mirror if they want to āfight for changeā, but well, thats HARD, so lets just make the world into good vs evil and attack others. This is a common HUMAN trait, done by people on both the left and the right, which are two sides of the same coin.
2 Likes
We are not our leaders, but your point is taken. We are responsible for our liberation, and potentially for others as well. I agree that now the best course of action is individual responsibility. But still, shame on our leadership on all sides.
a response to this article has been put up:
http://hardcorezen.info/stand-against-suffering/5320
Itās an example of a type of article you see a lot these days. Itās one of those pieces specifically designed such that if you take any issue with it you will look like a racist supporter of gender- and sexual orientation-based violence, a xenophobe, and a champion of economic injustice, war, and environmental degradation. Itās one of those articles where the writers paint themselves as courageous, compassionate, and deeply concerned about those less fortunate than themselves and allow us to bask in the reflected glow of their smug moral superiority.
It is a call to action and a call to arms. The enemy is the mass media-identified forces of evil, namely Donald Trump and anyone who voted for him and, by extension, anyone who dares to question the wisdom of the elite leaders of the political Left.
Although the article claims to be non-partisan itās peppered with buzzwords that let any reader know exactly what political party its writers think their readers should align themselves with. Itās also overwritten in the nauseating style of a polemic aimed at appealing to emotion over evidence, sensitivities over specifics, feeling over fact.
couldnāt of said it any better myselfā¦Iām glad some Buddhist teachers have a dissenting view on this.
As one who is deeply disturbed by this article, I know it would be safer to remain silent. Why not just let it go? Itās only a piece of writing in a magazine, after all. Iāll surely get tons of lovingly phrased hatred sent to me after I hit that little āpublishā button. Do I really want that?
But I would not feel right remaining silent. Buddhism means a lot to me. I feel like it could mean a lot to the entire world. To see Buddhists turned into just another subset of the virtue signaling hordes makes me too sad to sit idly on the sidelines. I canāt just watch while something I love is cheapened into empty sloganeering.
Buddhism being co-opted by politics is never a good thing, whether its BBS, 969, or this, and I know itās just my own idealism regarding the practice and Iām causing my own suffering over it, which is why I try to avoid these types of posts, unfortunately I come on to learn about a buddhist topic and see thisā¦ ah the practice of restraint is needed 
3 Likes
I have no problem with this article -it is not my fight but then for the people signed up in the article, it is.
The issue of morality gets higher priority than whether the monks should get involved in politics or not, in my view.
The Buddha said if the land is in famine, war etc it is not possible to practice (sutta?) and maybe they feel it is heading towards a chaotic state.
I also donāt care whether it is Theravada or Mahayana- morality doesnāt have a particular vehicle.
Bikkhu Bodhi does care about the Buddhists having a voice in world matters, and that seems positive verses all the other voices currently competing for attention.
with metta
Mat
6 Likes
It seems to me that Mr. Warner is taking that piece much too personally, and for some reason feels personally victimized and persecuted by it. Why get so bent out of shape over the article?
If there are specific statements or arguments in the article he disagrees with, he might just calmly state the basis of his disagreement. Otherwise he can pass it over it in silence.
The second paragraph in the post, filled with mean-spirited attribution of insidious and hypocritical motives to the authors, was almost enough to make me stop reading. But I did read all the way through. There are a couple of good points embedded in all of the kvetching, self-dramatization and self-pity.
2 Likes
Thirteen leading Buddhist teachers, joined by more than 100 additional signatories, call on Buddhists and all people of faith to take a stand against policies of the new administration that will create suffering for the most vulnerable in society.
he is a well known Buddhist teacher, how is this article NOT about him? This is a call to crusade against the forces of evil, what happens if you decide you donāt need to ātake a standā? I think he points out what quite aptly in his article.
2 Likes
Well, sure, I guess if some person is a Buddhist, then anytime some other Buddhists make a statement of the form āBuddhists should do Xā, then that statement is about that individual person as well. But there are people out there making such statements all the time.
Yes if some people try to encourage others to join a crusade of some kind, and you decline to join their crusade, then the crusaders might not like you, might think less of you, might criticize you, etc. Big deal. Thatās life.
I kind of agree with you with one reservation: monks should get involved in politics if their involvement is wholesome for themselves and others. Since the politics is such a can of worms and the social and political issues are so complicated, my opinion is that restraint is extremely advisable in these matters: not being an expert in a particular field, you may unwittingly bring about negative consequences.
Now, letās assume that as a monastic person you feel you cannot remain an impartial observer and want to condemn unwholesome political practicies or social attitudes. What would be the most advisable course of action? To point out which actions or measures taken by the current administration are misguided and harmful, which population groups are most vulnerable and why Trumpās policies are threatening their well-being, how we can build bridges between the opposing camps and search for solutions to social problems satisfying the maximum number of people.
What we got in this article is mere virtue signalling - and I apologize if my words sound too harsh. No specific policies were mentioned, no specific reasons for the misguided policies were named - okay, greed, hatred, and delusion, I suppose, like the Trump voters donāt have any other real problems and are not vulnerable, or Hillary Clinton, one of the most horrible people in the Americal political class, would have been a better alternative - no ways of having a dialogue between the left and the right were suggested. Instead, and I wholeheartedly agree with Brad Warner on that point, although I think his language is not quite up to the standards of the Right Speech, it is implied that everyone who doesnāt share a specific political opinion is very likely - if not assuredly - a bad person. I mean, it is okay when monks and nuns speak out on political issues, and I appreciate their opinions and think they can lead to many good things. However, any kind of generalization, whether it is implying that their point of view is the only possible Dhammic one or whether it is suggesting that their personal opinion expresses that of the entire community, means that there is no further dialogue possible. What can I debate with these Buddhist leaders about if they indicated that any other opinion apart from their own is wrong and, well, evil? How can I have a fruitful discussion if the only thing they say is āWhat you are doing is bad but we wonāt tell you what it is that you are doingā?
Every time I read that I have to acknowledge my privilege, and I am a white male coming from a European Chrsitian nation, I count the 300 Euros per month I have to live on, I check the only pair of shoes without any holes I still have and think which of the two pairs of pants - both with holes, of course - I have to wash next, and I realize how āprivilegedā I am within the German society. Every time I hear about the most vulnerable groups in the population I realize there will be no factual discussion, like it is almost a tabu to talk about the problematic Islamic doctrines because the Musims are apparently one of the most vulnerable groups. My firm opinion is that a factual discussion backed by data is something that the politics have been lacking for far too long - and Trump hasnāt improved the situation, quite on the contrary, and my firm conviction is that if the monastics want to talk politics they should talk facts or not talk at all, the politics doesnāt need more emotionally laden wishy-washy, thank you very much. Only with facts can we determine what the current social issues are, how we can solve them and how we can find a compromise if we disagree on some points.
If there are poor people living under horrible conditions in Sri Lanka, Thailand, the United States, or Sweden, it is a fact, and raising funds is one way to solve this problem, which is why I cannot criticize the activity of Bhikkhu Bodhi, the LDS Church, Donald Trump, Pope Francis or Nazi party in that direction. If the women cannot have a bhikkhuni ordination, it is a fact and a social, spiritual and, ultimately, political issue, which is why I appreciated the discussion and factual arguments brought by Ven. Analayo, Sujato and Thanissaro so much (to be frank, I cannot say I am myself without blemish in that regard as I can become emotional when we talk about the nun ordination).
Ultimately, to sum this long and disjointed comment up, it is okay for monks and nuns to be involved in politics if they are doing it skilfully. If they think they are not up to the task or are not competent enough, they should remain silent. I think this article is definitely not really skilful for the reasons I and Brad Warnerās article have described, which is why I am taking issue with it.
2 Likes
Iām personally a bit ambivalent, although I like others am wary of any worldly actions that could easily click over into clinging and attachment territory.
My take is if these leaders are undertaking political action from a dharmic mindset and keeping their awareness intact, then so be it.
Buddhism has adapted to the prevailing cultural norms and societal standards of every country/region where it has been adopted, which is part of the reason why we even have different sects of Buddhism to begin with, doctrinal differences aside.
It just so happens that Buddhism in the West started to flourish in a time period of social and political activism, both in Europe and the USA, and due to its scriptural foundations in non-violence, compassion and equality, was naturally attractive to those same liberals who had grown disenfranchised with Judeo-Christian values as expressed by a hawkish, intolerant and oppressive society.
To say that Western liberal Buddhists (or those influenced by a Western form of liberalism as it developed in the 20th century) are discrediting the practice through their activism is as nonsensical as saying that Tibetans corrupted the teachings by superimposing Buddhism over Bon and their particular cultural norms, or that the Chinese and Japanese corrupted the teachings by merging Buddhism with particularly Chinese and Japanese cultural influences.
It is like this. I think we should all just worry about our own practice and stop expecting other Buddhists - even Bhikkhu Bodhi - to adhere to our particular biases, prejudices, and political views.
2 Likes
which also applies for all other Buddhists, including the co-signers of the article 
Sadhu, very well-said!
1 Like