The Buddha, Morality, Social Obligations and the Path

The Watercooler
91

First of all I wouldn’t lecture monastics what to do, let Bhikkhu Bodhi be engaged as he likes, or anyone else for that matter. It’s a different matter to call it Buddhism though, as @DKervick mentioned. You seem to want to create Buddhism in your image - that is fine again, we had the topic of reform Buddhism in other places and I’m all for it - but it’s just not original Buddhism.

When for example Bh Analayo et al. legitimizes the Bhikkuni ordination he does it with showing that certain features of the EBT were corrupted - not by bringing entirely new ideas into the picture. So when you avoid to legitimize your view by the ETB you move towards a Bhikkhu-Bodhi-Buddhism, or Laurence-Buddhism. It’s just not Buddha-Buddhism (EBT).

Returning to the suttas, they actually do speak about the destruction of the whole planet, and surprise, the Buddha is not particularly moved by it:

Now there comes a time when the water element is disturbed and then the external earth element vanishes. When even this external earth element, great as it is, is seen to be impermanent, subject to destruction, disappearance, and change, what of this body, which is clung to by craving and lasts but a while? There can be no considering that as ‘I’ or ‘mine’ or ‘I am’ (MN 28)

Now both the internal earth element and the external earth element are simply earth element. And that should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, one becomes disenchanted with the earth element and makes the mind dispassionate towards the earth element. (MN 62, MN 140)

That is the view that is so harsh for lay people (and apparently some monastics) to accept: anicca-nibidda-nirodha.

6 Likes
92

As you know from your studies of the teachings practitioners can have path-moments in all sorts of situations - doing walking meditation for instance. Just what is it that I have said that contradicts what is written in the teachings? I am not saying we don’t need to practice - seriously - nothing of the sort!

93

I have not told anyone what to do? Why are you saying that I have said things that I have not said? People can do whatever they like - no problem! Do you want to tell ‘Bhikku Bodhi’ that he is not practicing Buddhism? Do you want to tell him what he can do and not do - in your opinion - and call himself a Buddhist?

We all know the Earth will be destroyed one day. Science tells us it will be as a consequence of the sun exploding and expanding - engulfing the Earth in flames! I am not particularly worried about that distant event that is unavoidable. That is the working-out of a natural process. We may be living somewhere else in deep space - as a species - at that time. There have been mass extinctions on Earth in the past again, nothing to do with human folly. I am not all that worried about the end of the universe either which appears to be ‘on the books’.

We are talking about the end of a viable life support system on the Earth in the ‘not to distant’ future, not as a consequence of natural events but as a consequence of human greed, hatred and, ignorance. A situation that can be avoided if we deal with the problem while we still have a chance. Do you ‘see’ the difference between what the Buddha was talking about with regard to natural events and what we are talking about here?

Its good news if the Buddha did foresee the natural ending of the earth-element - the great Earth - we live on. That would mean we had managed to resolve this current crisis but, the problem solving activity is yet to be completed.

Regarding ‘anicca-nibidda-nirodha’ that does not involve ‘indifference’ to the welfare of countless sentient beings.

The world that ends as a consequence of insight into anicca-nibbida-nirodha is the world of the ‘five groups of existence’. In this fathom-long body is the world and its cessation.

The world that we live and breathe in still exists and needs to be treated with loving kindness, compassion and, appropriate care after the Arahant passes away.

1 Like
95

This topic was automatically opened after 14 hours.

96

This is a matter of basic scholarly integrity and honesty. It’s fine, normal and perhaps beneficial to all to advocate for a skillful means or a “deeper” interpretation. But the scholar will also acknowledge other interpretations including what the EBT’s or other texts do and do not explicitly tell us. In this way the scholar is an “honest broker” of their knowledge of the field.

I’m saying that we expect from honest teachers that they speak first as what is called a honest broker. It’s not uncommon for teachers to say that they are now going to present the beliefs of their lineage or of a particular school of thought – that is the acknowledgement of an honest broker.

When suggesting a social-political solution one may speak as an advocate for a position and suggest in what ways that position can be seen as consistent with dharma. Skillfulness and skillful means (in later traditions) means that we will bring our best judgement to situations. But the hearer should have no doubt that they are hearing advocacy rather than the teaching of an honest broker.

That some Buddhist engage in political activities is neither new nor problematic; they are after all citizens. A problem exists when Buddhist’s implicitly or explicitly equate dharma (meaning variously dharma, Buddha-dharma arguments or EBT passages) with political arguments, and in the process reinforce a simplistic and misleading view of how dharma supports policy. The challenge is to separate carefully which of your inferences stem solely from the dharma and which from your views as a citizen.
(paraphrased from Four ways to take the policy plunge by Andrew A Rosenberg of the Union of Concerned Scientists, book review in the science journal “Nature” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232788181_Four_ways_to_take_the_policy_plunge )

It’s one thing to say “the temple roof should be repaired in thus and so manner”. One might say it should be repaired in this manner because this is the best practice of the roofing trade. Or that I have studied history and this is the traditional way of doing it. Or that it’s how the roof was originally installed. But I doubt a experienced and wise Buddhist would say “this is the best way because the Buddha or the dharma says so”.

The worst situation is when advocacy is presented as if it were the teaching of an honest broker. This is know as stealth advocacy.

The trap of stealth advocacy is easy to fall into … and one of the best warning systems is to invite the input from persons with a diversity of perspectives. In many cases the advise of one with equanimity and a long conscious practice and dedication to being an honest broker can be sufficient.

In the US legal system lawyers have to walk a line between being advocates for clients and being an “officer of the court”.
American Bar Association – Model Rules of Professional Conduct

Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal
Advocate
Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

In the US this rule falls hard on public prosecutors who don’t make a full and fair disclosure of evidence. It sometimes implicates defense lawyers too.

(d) In an ex parte proceeding [this usually means in legal motions] , a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.
– https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_3_candor_toward_the_tribunal.html

If, in a civil society when can expect this much from lawyers …
A honest broker/ teacher with ’ intellectual integrity’ is concerned that the student/hearer comes away with more ability to make a more informed decision. Honest brokers present choices and the reasons for making them, advocates want to limit and constrict your choices to align with the position advocated.

REFERENCES:
A book that has been influential in my thinking is THE HONEST BROKER: MAKING SENSE OF SCIENCE IN POLICY AND POLITICS by Roger Pielke, Jr.
Cambridge University Press

1 Like
97

It’s important to be honest - an honest broker. So, are you seeing dishonesty being practiced in this thread - somewhere? Dishonesty is the intentional practice of deception - correct?

Its possible to misunderstand something and express it but that’s not deception - that is error. I don’t believe any of the Mitra’s on this thread have intended to decieve - including me and you!

Regarding the suggestion that has been repeated ‘ad nauseam’ that, the climate change issue is just ‘political’ and, therefore an inappropriate interest for monastics etc., I don’t accept that ‘belief’.

Concerned citizens are free to express an opinion when they feel the need with regard to the state of the environment and its implications for the welfare of sentient beings. That is what happens in liberal democracies - it’s standard practice. As far as I know, that is all Bhikku Bodhi has done?

I believe he is a spokesperson for a Buddhist umbrella group in America.

If you would like to :star2:-t a heterodox bi-partisan Buddhist umbrella group you may have an opportunity to share your views at the U.N. - as long as you’re group consists of more than one individual (or 3).

If you have an alternative view from Bhikku Bodhi - on the same issue - you are entitled to speak freely. As to whether your views have a political impact is something else again. You may be ignored!

The renowned Physicist ‘Stephen Hawking’ believes this issue has become so serious that we need to make evacuation plans ‘sooner rather than later’. N.A.S.A. - the space agency - after making its assessment of the climate change issue would like to accelerate its Mars-Program to establish a colony there ASAP - as there seems to be good reason to believe (according to their assessment) that an ecospheric meltdown is a very real possibility in the near future.

You may take issue with intellectual light-weights like Pr. Hawking or N.A.S.A. (with their satellite technology and billion dollar budgets) - that is perfectly in order. It might be the subject for another thread (if you care to enlighten)?

Whether our views and opinions are acted on in the sphere of political manouverings is one thing and, our opinions - informed or otherwise - is something else again. There is a difference between policy development and policy implementation.

There are academics that are focused on sustainable development policy and others are involved in science and technology. There are collaborative efforts that incorporate sustainable development policy, technological innovation and science.

The professionals involved in this collaboration are not politicians. Politicians are free to take their professional advice and utilise their specialised skills and abilities if they feel the need.

What are these professionals doing with their time? They make a full assessment of the nature of an issue - a challenge - that requires a careful and considered response. I am calling this ‘practical problem solving’.

Practical problems may require all sorts of solutions. For instance, cheap, efficient, environment- friendly technology and energy solutions for the developing world. How to assist poorer countries in meeting their needs - sustainably. How developed countries can meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets and move towards sustainable development etc.

A range of policy responses are usually developed for consideration. We can think of this as 'Plan A., Plan B. etc. Many policy challenges require various complimentary approaches to the same set of recognised needs and requirements.

We know that politicians often ignore Earth-friendly policies as they do not serve their perceived political interests. They can be rewarded for there service to powerful interests (like the fossil-fuel industry) that is resistant to sustainable change that does not involve their Earth-toxic products.

As Buddhists, we know that awakened beings see the teachings clearly and the rest of us do the best we can.

I do not believe the perspectives I have expressed in this thread - about Buddhism - are at odds with the teachings in the EBT’s. They simply involve thinking about the meaning and implications of the teachings from a variety of perspectives.

I am not a ‘literalist’ or a fundamentalist Buddhist. It’s not just the literal meaning of words and teachings but also the context in which they are found that needs to be understood?

I believe there is room for a diversity of views with regard to what the Buddha tried to convey as best he could for our benefit. Therefore, I also believe in heterodoxy. This does not mean that all views should be seen as equally valid, sound and, reasonable.

There are some politicians in the U.S.A. senate who would give short-shrift to ‘Bhikku Bodhi’s’ heart-felt convictions because he is a Buddhist and, therefore, beyond the saving grace of their all-loving God. Others (like the President of the U.S.A.) would see the Venerable’s analyses as ‘bad for America’ for reasons we are all sadly aware of?

We may imbibe different interpretations from - or through - the Sangha’s we associate with? For instance, different Sangha-groups have different views with regard to sexism and human rights.

In Myanmar - and elsewhere - there are Sangha-groups that have their own ‘views’ about religious tolerance. They are views that many western Sangha’s disagree with - for obvious reasons. Some western ‘theravada’ sangha-groups have made their views known. Is this dabbling in politics or just a sane and healthy response to a crisis situation?

The Buddha also criticized other forms of teaching and practice in his society. He found fault with the lifestyles that were an integral part of the culture and political dynamics of his day and age. This was/is as it should be - IMO.

98

Well said. Any surmise on how the Buddha would respond would only be an opinion on our part and therefore loaded with personal baggage. Your statement does point to something a bit more serious however. Something you point out a bit later in your post, “are still guided in our thinking by the intellectually totalitarian ambitions of some of the religions” and other societal structures.

…but when one looks at Buddha’s path as he described it to be; “The Eightfold Noble Path.” One can easily construe it to be “an all-purpose guide to all of the moral and political conundrums of our lives.” Or am I missing your meaning here?

" or that they have any general recipe for the best way of tending to our households, or our businesses, or caring for our bodies or even our planets." Again I would argue to the contrary. The Eightfold Noble Path can be seen as not a " general recipe for the best way of tending…" but a very specific “recipe.” Wouldn’t you agree?

LOL. I think I remember this fiasco. Never had so many said so much about their lack of teaching credentials and so little about their level of understanding. But then much of “western” academia seems to be riddled with the same malady theses day. (or so one reads.)

Sutra of Ultimate Extinction speaks of this is some detail. It seems to be in our genes to abdicate our personal responsibility and let someone or something do the heavy-lifting. :smile_cat:

Why? Maybe because it is easier to look for the answer “outside” rather than “inside.” (Your question, i assumed was rhetorical but i just had to add my 2 cents worth. :smile_cat:)

“Behold, O monks, this is my last advice to you. All component things in the world are changeable. They are not lasting. Work hard to gain your own salvation.”

For me, the beauty of the Buddha is “You’ve got to do this on your own. Nobody can do it for you.” Easy to say not easy to do. But then there’s really no other game in town, is there? :smile_cat:

Shakyamuni already being a Bodhisattva had only one direction to go… But then we also have only one direction to go.

Is it a “refuge” or a way of life? Is it “occasionally” or all the time? Is it an “on” or “off” thing based on my personal whim for the day? Or am i misunderstanding your meaning?

Make the “inside” the “outside” and the “outside” the “inside”, no?

Do you honestly think this “monastic sangha” exists? …or could exist? …in this “reality?”

As someone once said. “One should be in this world but not of it.” or something like that. IMO, we are not in this “world” to abandon it. We are in this “world” to deal with it. What reason would there be to be in this world if my sole purpose was to abandon it? How would that neutralize , dissolve the mental formations (defined as: element of dependent origination)? Or am i missing your meaning?

Would we recognize the Buddha if we saw one while we are busy deciding if we " sit close to when we choose."

Thanks for your post. I enjoyed responding to it. :smile_cat:

2 Likes
99

Well said - sadhu sadhu sadhu!

100

I don’t thinks so. The path is a path to the end of suffering. The Buddha never said “You are morally required to reach the end of suffering.” I think the message is closer to, “If you want to reach the end of suffering, this is the way.” The precepts are training rules of personal discipline for those who choose to follow the path. They purify the mind by promoting inner peace and harmlessness, and the diminution of lust and passion

No, there is very, very little in the Buddha’s teaching about how to run a business or a household, or about how to organize a society or solve complex social, governmental or environmental problems. What he offers are mainly recommendations to refrain from certain harmful activities. But refraining from those activities does not entail much in the way of a positive agenda.

If one truly commits to the path to live it intensely as a way of life, one must retreat from most worldly affairs. Very few people actually do that. They orient themselves toward nibbana part of the time, and toward the world and its roiling passions the rest of the time. Only some people choose to go forth into the order, and of those who go forth into the order, only a few of them continue to go forth within the order, away from the worldly winds which continue to buffet them.

To me, this is the biggest difference between the Buddha’s teachings - the earliest teachings - and later Mahayana developments. In the Buddha’s view, the entire worldly realm of hunting , gathering, planting and manufacturing, of villages and kingdoms, of kings, chiefs, governments and armies, of getting and keeping, of marrying and reproducing, of sensory pleasure and entertainment, and of birth, life and death, is all Mara’s realm. The goal is to emancipate oneself from that realm entirely. The later ideas that “there is no difference between nibbana and samsara” or that we are in some sense already enlightened, or that nibbana is just a way of living compassionately in samsara, are not to be found.

5 Likes
101

I have met some monks who appear to follow that life. They are quiet and retiring. They don’t write a bunch of books, join email lists and organizations, or get involved in a lot of extra activities. They interact courteously with the laity when they receive dana, but also minimally. They spend a lot of time in their kutis. They frequently keep silent. Some leave the monastery altogether and wander the roads with a begging bowl and eyes downcast. It is very inspiring.

4 Likes
102

have you ever lived in a monastery?

what is a “kuti/s?”

103

Are you at all familiar with the Eightfold Noble Path from the standpoint of practice?

104

Your point is that unless " to go forth into the order" which, i assume you mean a monastic life there is no hope for lay people to break out of Samsara?

“f one truly commits to the path to live it intensely as a way of life, one must retreat from most worldly affairs. Very few people actually do that. They orient themselves toward nibbana part of the time, and toward the world and its roiling passions the rest of the time.”

How do you know this to be true?

105

I’d appreciate a source reference for this statement if you would be so kind.

106

A Kuti is a hut. It is where monks live.

In Theravada Buddhism, people who are dedicated lay practitioners are sometimes called upasaka or upasikas. This means “ones who sit close by”, more specifically, ones who sit close by the sangha of monastics. So, Dkervick’s words are geared towards monastics and those who endeavor to be close by monastics in their practice of the 8 fold path. So his words about not getting embroiled in attachments to, or disputes regarding worldly affairs are from this perspective.

This is being misunderstood, I believe, as a rejection of the world.

1 Like
107

I haven’t lived at one, but I stayed at one for three days once. I visit one fairly often.

108

This is from Nagarjuna’s mūlamadhyamakakārikāḥ:

na saṃsārasya nirvāṇāt kiṃcid asti viśeṣaṇam
na nirvāṇasya saṃsārāt kiṃcid asti viśeṣaṇam

Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from Nirvana. Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from Samsara.

nirvāṇasya ca yā koṭiḥ koṭiḥ saṃsaraṇasya ca
na tayor antaraṃ kiṃcit susūkṣmam api vidyate

Whatever is the end of Nirvana, that is the end of Samsara. There is not even a very subtle slight distinction between the two.

https://www2.hf.uio.no/polyglotta/index.php?page=fulltext&vid=27&view=fulltext

109

Probably not - at least according to the picture presented in the suttas. There are no clear cases in the suttas of lay arahants.

In at least one place, the Buddha says one cannot make an end of suffering without giving up the lay bonds.

http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima2/071-tevijja-vacchagotta-e1.html

Richard Gombrich’s opinion:

Did the Buddha think it possible for a lay person to attain Enlightenment? Probably not. He measured spiritual progress in four stages. In the first, called “stream entry”, one was guaranteed that one would have at most seven more lives and would never be reborn in a station lower than human. (At first, most people who accepted his view of kamma were held to have attained this.) At the second stage, the “once-returner” faced only one more life on earth. The “non-returners” would not be reborn in this world but in a high heaven, from which their attainment of nibbāna was guaranteed. Enlightenment was the fourth and final stage.

When asked about the spiritual attainments of his followers, the Buddha said that many hundreds of lay followers, both male and female, had become “non-returners.” They had given up sexual activity. He did not explicitly say that no lay follower attained nirvana in this life, but that is the implication. Elsewhere there is a short list of names of lay disciples, all male, who are said to have reached nibbāna, but it is a mere list and so placed that it could well be a late addition to the Canon. The tradition that the Buddha’s father attained Enlightenment as a layman is post-canonical. A post-canonical Pali text says that lay life is not livable for an Enlightened person, so if a layman becomes Enlightened he (or she) will either enter the Sangha or die within the day. On the other hand, there are plenty of canonical cases of laymen and laywomen who are said to have made spiritual progress.

Theravada Buddhism
pp. 75-6

But, you know, no harm in trying! Meditation is good for you.

1 Like
110

Well, the kinds of terms used for the goal include non-clinging to the world, non-entanglement with the world, release from the world, detachment from the world, dropping the bait of the world, cutting the fetters to the world, destroying the influxes from the world, and relinquishing acquisitions and all sense of anything that is mine in the world. The Buddha did re-engage with people following his attainment of nibbana, but it was all for the purpose of leading others toward the same path of release from the world that he had found.

1 Like