SuttaCentral
The thing that is bemusing to me is the hyperbole:
Hopes will be dashed. Undoubtedly, lives will be lost. International conflict will intensify and environmental destruction will worsen.
All of which has been pretty much the norm since the time of hunter-gatherers. It’s the sudden and uproarious heralding of the Apocalypse that makes the whole ‘resistance’ puzzling. As an aside, in my country, the above quote would be the definition of ‘governance’.
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 totally agree with this. If monks want to ignore Buddha advice, ignore the Vinaya and get involved into politics… Then at least they should do it properly. There is not a single fact presented in the article, only truisms and virtue signaling. There is no example given of a bad measure, no facts presented, no better policy presented, nothing. Just truisms, virtue signaling and bashing the republicans. Any self-help guru is capable of writing such an article and enumerate a bunch of truisms. If you ask on a freelancer website for somebody to write such an article, it would cost maybe 10$ for somebody to write it.
There are many leftist journalist capable to pointing what policy they have a problem with, what policy they think would be better, WHY they think another policy would be better, etc. If buddhist monks decide to get involved in politics for one party or another, then at least they should do it properly. Writing a long article saying nothing other than truisms, virtue signaling and bashing the republicans is not the proper way to involve into politics even for a journalist, let alone for a monk.
In my opinion, the best attitude to have towards politics is that of christian monastics. If we google “monks politics” or “political monks” all results that appear for dozens of pages are only with buddhist monks. If christian monks would be doing this, liberals would explode.
B.Bodhi actually had an opportunity in his life to do something very compassionate for the poor but for some reason he totally missed it. He translated the Nikayas for free but failed to sign an agreement with wisdom corporation to make them available for free in digital format.
This is how buddhism ended up being the only religion in the world where the most important book, the “bible” of buddhism costs 200$ in digital format that costs zero dollars to produce. It is a shame that with so many ultra-virtuous, compassionate, leftist and not to mention caring-for-the-poor type of monks, we ended up being the only religion in the world with copyrights on the dhamma. It is a paradox even bigger than the statistic about republicans donating 30% more money to charity than liberals.
Has B.Bodhi ever at least commented on this problem ? Has any one of those compassionate monks on that list ever commented on this ? I don’t think so. Maybe a little more focus on what we as a person can do instead of what the president can do for us would have saved buddhism from the embarrassment of having a kindle edition of Sutta Pitaka cost 200$ after a caring-for-the-poor monk translated it for free in the first place. Now we need to have Sujato do a lifetime work all over again to have it available for free because those copyrights will last for 70 years. And I haven’t even got into the problem of a day at a meditation center costing more than a day at a 5 start hotel. Retreats cost so much that centers now offer scholarships. Buddhism is known to be the most expensive religion in the west. (google it) Many people complain about not having enough money for such an expensive religion.
When are we going to see an article from lionsroar about that ? 
I agree completely with Mr Warner. This methodology of engagement in American Buddhism appears to not be of Buddhist origins; the same as litigious name-calling is not of Buddhist origins.
Similarly, in my reading, the EBTs show no inherent focus on ‘minority groups’. Instead, they focus on kamma. The focus on minority groups again is not of Buddhist origin but from a different social-cultural background.
To which rules in the Vinaya are you referring to?
It is notable, however, that Bhikkhu Bodhi has allowed some of his translations to be available on Sutta Central. While this by no means makes his work fully accessible, it is a start.
This is not true, Ven. Bodhi is the founder of the Buddhist Global Relief, and while we can think some of the political agenda presented by the organization may be not quite correct or appropriate, I thankfully acknowledge that it does help people in need and their cause is a worthy one and its activities makes my opinion of Ven. Bodhi even higher than it was 
This is a very good question. I suspect that Ven. Bodhi had to sign the contract with the publishing house long before the digital publishing was a thing, and that he unfortunately had and is having few options in the matter - but don’t quote me on that. I understand that the paper edition of Majjhima Nikaya can be rather expensive, but I share your astonishment as to why its electronic edition is priced so exhorbitantly high. However, due to the very specific nature of the Buddhist publications and high price for publishing of hardcover editions in the West, non-charity funded editions of the Buddhist scripture will remain expensive ofr the foreseeable future. So, I own a hardcover copy of the Majjhima Nikaya in German, translated by Ven. Mettiko, and it cost me around 50 Euros. I agree the price is way too high but I think that Ven Mettiko and all other Buddhist people involved with the publication of the book did everything to keep it as low as possible.
I have nothing but highest praise for Ven. Bodhi as a translator, Dhamma teacher, monk, and human being. His translations, articles, and Dhamma talks introduced me into the Pali tradition and still remain a source of constant inspiration. If I think his opinion or stance on something is wrong, be it politics or a rendering of a Pali phrase, it doesn’t affect my reverence towards him.
The recipe is their already, it is called the Sutta Central. A lay Buddhist could contribute to solving the problem by studying Pali and helping out with translation and other stuff. I did try to do something about it, but it turned out that my skills were too lacking and my free time too small to make any sensible contribution. However, the situation around the copyright issues is really a huge pain, and we could possibly search for a better solution, yoiu are definitely right.
I’m also a bit puzzled by the comments on this thread comparing left-wing to right-wing politics and the relative merits of each.
That argument would be valid if we were dealing with a straightforward left vs. right paradigm. But we’re not. Trump and his administration represent an ideology wholly separate from “liberal” or “conservative,” despite party tendencies and how supporters identify themselves. This was evident early in the campaign when even dyed-in-the-cloth Republican conservatives were speaking out against Trump. Trump himself hasn’t really changed his tune since then, but the former critics HAVE become tacit supporters, if grudgingly so, since if nothing else the Republicans seem to be good at rallying the troops.
I think this cadre of Buddhist leaders isn’t speaking out against CONSERVATIVE VALUES as much as they’re speaking out against the bald-faced dishonesty, immorality, offensiveness and divisiveness of this administration - again, those characteristics are neither left nor right, liberal nor conservative, but they are decidedly human and extremely unskillful. I imagine if Trump were proposing some of these same policies but doing so in a more GW Bush or Ronald Reagan fashion, people wouldn’t be so up in arms. But if he were, I honestly don’t think he would have won the election. His bombast and complete disregard for propriety - again something that people of all political persuasions must admit is true - are mostly what got him elected, at the hands of voters who were completely frustrated and voted from anger and disillusion as opposed to educated analysis of his proposed policies.
This current anti-Trump backlash is not about left or right - it’s about decent and indecent. And that’s why I see people mobilizing on an unprecedented scale. GW Bush had similar proposals, but I didn’t see anywhere near the level of opposition to him that we’re seeing with Trump - again, the difference being each candidate’s relative sense of common courtesy and pragmatism. Trump is off the rails, off the charts, and seemingly unapologetically so, regardless of the observer’s political convictions.
Respectfully, you seem to be pushing the same political position.
As a Buddhist, I have often spoken out out against the bald-faced dishonesty, immorality, offensiveness and divisiveness of the previous (Obama) administration and of the previous (Bush) administration and of the previous (Clinton) administration.
Its really all the same. Like Obama before him, Trump lied & offered some hope, which has now evaporated as he changes his previous policy positions, just as Obama did. Hillary offered no hope since she was a proven & known war maker & corporatist. So what are the Buddhists getting so parochial over?
As I have posted previously, the American public all have their respective issues or wants and this Buddhist group appear to be pushing for their personal/group wants & ignoring the wants of the majority of Americans.
In short, the left-liberals lost the election & they seem to be unable to democratically & graciously accept this. Members of a certain social-cultural background did not get their way & when they don’t get their way they characteristically become very vocal. This is not of Buddhist origins.
It is Buddhist practise to have metta for all beings & to learn to listen. The majority of American people need something & it is the role of Buddhists to listen to that cry of need.
The basics of human life is economic. Since the liberal Democrats lead the destruction of American economic prosperity, the Democrats reap what they sowed. The situation is so bad that the traditional Democrat viewpoint is probably finished forever. These ideals about government funded charity are in decline & will remain in decline because America is close to economic bankruptcy.
I am not an expert on the Vinaya so I’m not sure if there are hard rules against it. But I know that Buddha advised against wrong speech, against talk about politics, kings and ministers, countries etc. I suspect it is part of the vinaya as a minor rule.
It is notable, however, that Bhikkhu Bodhi has allowed some of his translations to be available on Sutta Central. While this by no means makes his work fully accessible, it is a start.
I am not too informed about this. When he did this, did he also make any comments about why he can’t make them all available ? Did he ever comment on his relationship with the wisdom corporation and the future status of the copyright problem ? I’ve never seen any article about the problem but maybe B.Sujato managed to get some insider info from him.
This is not true, Ven. Bodhi is the founder of the Buddhist Global Relief, and while we can think some of the political agenda presented by the organization may be not quite correct or appropriate, I thankfully acknowledge that it does help people in need and their cause is a worthy one and its activities makes my opinion of Ven. Bodhi even higher than it was
With all my respect for his good intentions, I don’t even know another organization that is smaller than that. I checked the wikipedia article and so far 160.000, 10.000 and 12.000$. A small church can rise more money than that. Some of the activities the organization is involved in are controversial. Donating money for food and cloths to poor african countries is known to be a bad activity because it further impoverishes the area by destroying local businesses. But I do agree with the 10.000 and 12.000$ emergency donations for tsunami victims.
I am not criticizing charitable work, charity should always be praised. I am just suggesting that charity also has to be done with wisdom.
These five are a person of integrity’s gifts. Which five? A person of integrity gives a gift with a sense of conviction. A person of integrity gives a gift attentively. A person of integrity gives a gift in season. A person of integrity gives a gift with an empathetic heart. A person of integrity gives a gift without adversely affecting himself or others.
AN 5.148
This is a very good question. I suspect that Ven. Bodhi had to sign the contract with the publishing house long before the digital publishing was a thing, and that he unfortunately had and is having few options in the matter - but don’t quote me on that. I understand that the paper edition of Majjhima Nikaya can be rather expensive, but I share your astonishment as to why its electronic edition is priced so exhorbitantly high.
Has he ever made a comment on that ? Is there any article discussing that by B.Bodhi or other monks who have better insider information ? I have no doubt B.Bodhi is against this himself. He did a decades long difficult and highly qualified work for free, our of compassion for making the dhamma available. I just don’t understand how could he not be more wise when signing that contract or why has he not put any pressure on wisdom corporation to make the kindle version available. Has he ever had an article remotely suggesting something is wrong and trying to put pressure on them somehow ? If he did, I doubt they could refuse to make it available after the highly respected monk who translated them for free asked for that to happen, especially since wisdom corporation, like many american corporations, also claims to be a non-profit organization.
In most countries you are not allowed to sell things if you are a non-profit organization. You are only allowed to give things away for free and get funded by donations. But in US, you can sell just like any other corporation while also evading tax with the non-profit status. Many publishers, especially those dealing in religion have non-profit status. It is very easy for a publisher to juggle with their expenses reports in such a hard to verify field, to claim printing costs or money payed to writers was more than in reality. This is why, in my opinion, non-profit status should be given only to organizations not selling anything for money, like in most other countries. In US, publishers can be so arrogant as to sell 200$ kindle versions of Sutta Pitaka while also claiming non-profit status, not even caring about the fact that it’s obvious to everyone that they are anything but non-profit. They have the law behind them so it’s nothing people can do. They can laugh in your face.
PS: Even if wisdom corporation and other publishers that have non-profit status but produce and sell things for money would be 100% fair, it would still be wrong for them to be non-profit. That would only destroy the competition in the field by producing and selling at dumping value compared to others. What’s next ? A non-profit factory ? A non-profit economy as a whole ? However we spin it: if things are fair, that is interfering with the free market and being unjust to other competitors. If they are not fair (witch 99% are not), then it’s just another case of american wild west capitalism such as private jails. Non-profit status should be given like in any other normal country only to organizations that give things for free and are funded by donations, not by their own production and selling of products.
In a normal free market field, things would go like this: You have 4 for-profit publishing companies. B.Bodhi could negociate with any one of these 4 for-profit companies and chose the one that agrees to sell the book at a price that just covers printing expenses (witch wisdom polication officially does not and invokes the need to make money in order to write other books). The company would be more than welcomed to do this because that would provide great publicity to the company while also losing no money since B.Bodhi is doing the work for free and the company is covering it’s printing cost anyway. And the kindle version would be of course free. The company would just be printing a book for free, lose or win zero money and gain a lot of publicity. Witch would be important in a competitive environment, since the company is operating in a competitive environment to begin with.
Indeed, it is advised against in the suttas, but I do not believe talking about politics is a rule in the Vinaya (even a very minor one).
I’m not sure. I feel like I’ve read about this somewhere, but I feel like Bhikkhu Bodhi’s licensing arrangement with Wisdom/SC is something Bhante @sujato would know about.
And respectfully, with your response - particularly the final paragraph, you are blatantly pushing your own political views, and viewing my attempt to be non-partisan through the lens of your biases.
As I tried to say - and may have failed - the opposition is not so much to Trump’s policies for me as it is to his apparent lack of humanity and decency, something that is well-documented, largely by the man himself, and is not something that can be downplayed or ignored regardless of one’s political beliefs. I thought Obama was an amazing President, if not for his policies, at least for his wisdom and humanity and leadership, qualities that Clinton also possessed and even GWB possessed. This President is unlike any other, just as a human and an elected leader, and that AGAIN is neither a left or right issue.
Couple that with his policies which are opposed by the majority of Americans (since Trump did not get the popular vote), and you have a figure that is inspiring a lot of outrage.
True, the right was outraged over Obama and railed against him frequently, but they were railing against a decent human who took their criticisms in stride and responded to them eloquently and logically. AGAIN, this is something that you cannot argue with whether you are on the right or the left, it’s observable fact.
Then consider that most of the right’s outrage was over things that did not exist (Benghazi, death panels, etc.), it’s hard to make the case that liberals are now responding to Trump from exactly the same position.
But I completely agree with this:
“It is Buddhist practise to have metta for all beings & to learn to listen. The majority of American people need something & it is the role of Buddhists to listen to that cry of need.”
Thank you for your discussion however I am not being biased. I personally believe in government as a means of social redistribution of income. I worked in this area for 11 years. However, the current situation cannot continue because the USA is bankrupt due to its trade & financial policies introduced by the Bill Clinton regime.
The probable solution is bringing back industry & employment via the old system of: (i) tariffs/protectionism; (ii) higher taxation; etc. Trump promised to bring back industry & employment to the USA through reducing tax, which is the wrong method, yet his promise is what is needed.
These Buddhists are making a call for the maintenance of charity, which is unaffordable. The Buddha exhorted that people work with initiative. Charity is a last resort thing.
The current US system is broken. It is the whole system that must be fixed, including ending the Oligarchy of the 1%. This is very difficult to do.
These lefty Buddhists are fattening lambs for slaughter by propagating a charitable world can be created. They are not teaching self-reliance as the Buddha taught. They appear to be professional social-workers, whose life revolves around charity, including govt charity. This is not intrinsically Buddhist, even though Buddhism teaches charity. Buddhism teaches to give charity rather than to receive charity & these Buddhists appear to be campaigning for receiving charity.
You sound American. I am not an American. These people referred to above have made wars against many nations leading to the deaths of millions of people, as well as millions of refugees.
For me, I thought Obama was the worst president ever; the most dishonest & sociopathic president i have ever seen because he was a mere puppet or actor (rather than a career criminal like some other presidents). To me, he lied & cared not for the millions of deaths he was presiding over.
He got the vote, based on the US system. He got the vote of the less affluent & the needy.
[quote=“JMGinPDX, post:73, topic:4826”]
Then consider that most of the right’s outrage was over things that did not exist (Benghazi, death panels, etc.),[/quote]
Benghazi definitely existed. It appeared to be a staged event that result in an entire nation being destroyed. I can only suggest to take a greater interest in what is going on outside of the USA.
Regards
How are the 6 wars of Obama good but the 1 war of Bush bad ?
About the war and regime-change in Lybia, Hillary assumed total responsibility and tried collecting all the publicity for herself, tried to say it was 100% her merit when things looked good. After the regime change fragmented the country into 5 smaller regions, some of them ruled by ISIS or other terrorist groups, Obama apologized and said it was the biggest regret of his presidency. If we are critical of what Bush did in Iraq, then we should also be critical of Lybia, Yemen, Syria etc. Or do their lives worth less than lives of Iraqi people? Are they racially inferior to the iraqis ? Even if they are, Obama still killed a lot of iraqis too.
This is exactly the thing that I find so disappointing about the article. Opposition to Trump is regarded as a matter of decency or indecency, so if I support some of Trump’s policies or even dare to think some of his policies are good as ideas but very poorly implemented, then I am what, indecent? Talking in terms of decency closes the discussion at its very start: if it is implied that the opposing party is indecent, this opposing party has no alternative but turn around and walk away. I personally would be more than happy not to carry out the discussion in terms of right and left-wing as well, since I have a very poor personal opinion of Trump and I like some left-wing ideas and policies like affordable healthcare, but I just find much merit in right-wing policies, which apparently makes me indecent. The problem is that perpetuating the discussion in terms of right and left, decent or indecent, dychotomizing the community - and this is done by both sides, don’t get me wrong - shuts down any possibility of progress.
I have a high personal opinion of Obama and I think he is a wise man, and I am not competent to judge his success in the US, but humanity, really? How many countries did the US bomb during his presidency? Did he close Guantanamo as he promised? And how about all the drone strikes and NSA going rogue without Obama doing as much as moving a finger? Surely, Trump is far from being humane, but come on, let’s be realistic, Clinton and Obama are hardly bodhisattas. Besides, judging the politicians not by their policies but by their personal qualities is not a very advisable thing to do: Winston Churchill, for example, was far from being a perfect human. The President of the United States can be as bad a person in his personal life as he wishes, unless it has an effect on his policies or goes against the law, and then we should discuss policies instead of his character, otherwise we risk to make an even greater ad hominem circus out of the politics. Some of the right-wing protests against Obama were fairly ridiculous, so now what, should everyone follow suit? Both opposing parties should start using facts instead of emotions, and this includes even the ‘decent’ side of the conflict. Just stop calling us evil, guys.
The merits of Mr. Warner’s post are, I think, obscured by its peevish melodrama, broad-brush accusations and unwarranted sense of personal persecution.
Right at the outset, he accuses he authors of vile motives. He says:
It’s 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.
So, on his account, the authors of the Lion’s Roar piece “specifically designed” it to make people who disagree with them look bad. But isn’t it more straightforward to think, rather than pursuing such a nefarious an hurtful agenda, they specifically designed it to express their own concerns, commitments and moral attitudes?
He also says:
It’s 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.
This is mean and reckless language suggesting the authors’ motives are not even sincere, but are merely hypocritical and self-aggrandizing. How does Mr. Warner know what is in their hearts? There is no reason to assume the authors aren’t morally sincere.
As I said earlier, the Lion’s Roar pace is very vague. One cannot even deduce from it which of the current administration’s policies the signatories deplore. And despite their call for Buddhists to “be on the front lines” of resistance to these unnamed policies, they seem to allow that, for some people, being on the front lines might just mean meditating a lot, and trying to send metta or merit.
Nevertheless, despite this vagueness and obscurity, Mr. Warner is quite sure that what they really mean is something he ought to be offended about! 
Later, referring to the authors’ call to “explore and expose our own privilege and areas of ignorance, and address racism, misogyny, class prejudice, and more in our communities,” Warner respond, "The writers say, “We must explore and expose our own privilege and areas of ignorance, and address racism, misogyny, class prejudice, and more in our communities.” “Who could argue with that and not sound like Joseph Goebbels?” and adds,
But there are those words again. “Privilege” means “White Privilege” and if you question that doctrine in any way, you do so only because you are white and seek to keep your unearned privilege.
Well, first of all, I imagine one could take issue with the initial statement in thoughtful ways that don’t make one sound like Joseph Goebbels. But if not, so what? Does Warner himself disagree with the statement? It doesn’t seem so. So why is he so defensive about the authors’ effrontery in making a moral recommendation that he himself doesn’t disagree with?
And the ensuing claim that the only type of privilege the authors are invoking is white privilege is without foundation.
Then there is this embarrassing outpouring:
Further along we read that, “People of all faiths are needed on the front lines now, resisting policies that will cause harm and offering a new and positive vision for our country.”
On the surface, who could argue with that and not sound like the worst bigot on Earth? And yet I’ll take that risk. Because the writers are talking about a very specific sort of political action. They’ve built plausible deniability into the piece — that’s the beauty of writing by committee, you can finesse these things to an amazing degree. Yet the real message shines clearly through the layers of obfuscation. If you’re not out there in your pink pussy-hat locking arms and blocking traffic on the 405 freeway during the next protest against whatever we decide needs protesting, you are a racist, a xenophobe, a climate change denier, possibly even a Nazi.
Why, again, does Warner feel compelled to “take issue” with an assertion he, himself does not seem to disagree with? Ah, it’s because he sees beyond the authors’ plausible deniability and knows what these sneaky authors’ really mean. They want him to go out on the street and lock arm with people wearing pink pussy hats! And if he doesn’t, they’ll call him a racist Nazi or something!
His post then wraps up on on a note of heroic self-pity:
As one who is deeply disturbed by this article, I know it would be safer to remain silent. Why not just let it go? It’s only a piece of writing in a magazine, after all. I’ll surely get tons of lovingly phrased hatred sent to me after I hit that little “publish” 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 can’t just watch while something I love is cheapened into empty sloganeering.
I apologize to everyone for that. But take heart! Nobody pays much attention to me anyhow. This little article will soon be buried and forgotten and you’ll be free to carry on as if nobody said anything at all.
I think you wrote a very good post and pointed out the biggest problems with Warner’s article. However, while I think his claims are way exaggerated, the general direction of his thoughts seem to be more or less correct. Of course they may not have meant white privilege only, think about the male privilege, Christian privilege and whatnot - all ideas and concept that I find deeply flawed and urealistic in the modern Western world. As for other possible privileges, do you think the authors meant something like ‘Muslim privilege’ or ‘black privilege’? I don’t. And while the co-signers don’t necessarily call Warner or myself a Nazi, it is hard to deny there is a definite sub-text of moral condemnation that can be found in the article, ‘indecency’ claims. If only I could feel it, that would be anecdotal evidence, but I am far from being the only one. So, either there was this rhetorically obfuscated intention, or the article is rather poorly written, which doesn’t serve it well in any case.
I will try to end my input here but, for me, the type of litigious thinking in the quote above is not Buddhist but ‘identitarianism’ from arguably another social-cultural background. The above type of thinking & language is inherently political.
Buddhism is a merit/kamma based philosophy and recognises individuals of different races, classes & sexes all can perform good & bad kamma. For example, when ignorance prevails, both men & women exploit & abuse each other.
With metta 
It is very difficult to decide for a person like us if a military intervention in a foreign country is justified or not. But what people like us can certainly decide for themselves without any insider information is if these military interventions achieved their goals or not and how brutal have they been.
Bush Iraq - did not work as planned and we already know that.
Lybia - Relatively good. There was a relatively small number of civilians killed compared to other wars but on the other hand 1/3 of the population got in poverty in what used to be one of the very few rich african countries. The country is also split in 5 parts, some of them being governed by ISIS or other extremist groups that are working on radicalizing the population they have in control.
Yemen - Did not go as planned at all. It was supposed to be a smooth operation to last only a couple of months to a year. Almost no progress has been made and the war will continue an indefinite number of years. US and especially their Saudi ally were pretty brutal in this war and carpet bombed to the stone age a country that was already very poor.
Syria - Did not go as planned at all. It was supposed to be a quick regime change that was supposed to happen in just a couple of weeks. The war is in its 5th year and is far from over. Over half a million people have died and 5 millions have been displaced. The fight between the US backed rebels and the regime lead to the creation of ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Then ISIS got to control half of Iraq and at one point was bigger than Great Britain on the map. This also provoked the european refugee crisis that led to the rise of anti-EU far right groups that now put in danger the very existence of the EU. And, as Trump pointed out in the presidential debates, this war managed to unite Russia, China and Iran against the west.
Iraq - This was a direct result of 2 Obama administration mistakes. Withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and the attempt to change the regime in Syria. The war there is as brutal in terms of deaths as the Syrian one.
Afghanistan and Pakistan - Obama committed troops in Afghanistan until 2024. But what is happening in afghanistan and pakistan are just continuations of ongoing wars, not new wars started by Obama.
While there can be many debates about weather a certain dictator deserved to be removed or not, we can all agree if a war went as planned or not. Wars waged by Obama have not went as planned at all. Hopefully US policy makers will learn something out of this long string of failed wars that happened during Obama. They had an excuse before, with the Yugoslavian war working good and the Iraq war being just 1 war. But now after so many wars clearly a change in policy or a change in way of operating should happen.
[quote=“Maiev, post:80, topic:4826”]
Syria[/quote]
The Levant (Syria) is my family ancestry & culture. I can judge good from bad. Military intervention is not justified. Simply judge the character of people in real life videos.
Thank you for showing concern & compassion for secular Syrians & all other people. 
Having made those critical comments, I should say what I think were the more important concerns Warner raised, which I think many of us had already raised previously:
One is that many great Buddhist teachers of the past seem to have refrained altogether from involvement in politics, and so contemporary Buddhist teachers should really address why that is so, and not just brush is off.
Another is, I take it, the justified concern about the danger that conventional worldly politics and value systems might get dressed up in thin spiritual robes to give them a superficial Buddhist allure, thus cheapening the teachings and bringing them into bad repute. (Again, when prominent Buddhist teachers lead off an important essay with a fake Buddha quote, that doesn’t indicate a lot of care or depth in the connection of the statement with the teachings.)
Another is the danger of falling into a partisan lack of spiritual consistency or integrity in pronouncing current events a crisis calling for special action, when those events merely exacerbate patterns of unwholesome worldly actions that are present in under most regimes and under all parties. Our world is, and apparently always has been, a scene of violence, oppression, thievery, killing, rape, greed, torture and exploitation. State leaders and other powerful people are routinely involved with these everyday evils. Buddhists should continually point out to all of them, regardless of party, are serving the armies of Mara and deviating from the pat of truth.
I just think these points could have been made by Warner in a more calm and respectful spirit of dialogue, without all the drama and loose accusations.
