Perhaps the reasons people have refrained from engaging with your arguments are not exactly what you perceive them to be.
2 Likes
It might surprise you Dan, but I do understand what was said earlier by @mpac. It had already occurred to me before it was pointed out. I do regret how - and why - this is an issue.
We share our thoughts on different themes on this site. I am happy for others to completely disagree with my input. In fact, that would be helpful!
However, it is not clear to me that anyone really does take issue with my line of inquiry - in most cases. If any one does, they can pickup a direct quote from me and point out the mistake - the issue. We can take a closer look! If there is something that is strange or vague or unreasonable then letâs take a look at it?
I donât mean taking issue with my manner of communication - that is for the moderators to assess. I am interested in the ideas we share as that is the main purpose of the exercise - correct?
It may be the case, that others find this prospect worrying. There really isnât anything to worry about. We all know we have gentle guides overseeing the discussion. Whenever it gets out of hand we soon hear about it - donât we?
This is the same critique that bodhisattvayÄna applies to ĹrÄvakayÄna. The notion of the arhat who isolates himself in cessation of perception and feeling while his peers burn in the fires of saášsÄra.
Iâm not saying its right or wrong, but I recognize this line of critique.
Maybe a topic about dharma or EBT principles for dealing with posts similar to @laurenceâs is in order.
Everyone, what previous threads can you recommend?
A challenging proposition is identifying and diagnosing the pattern of writing and expressing that arenât working for you.
There are certain writers that I usually skim or skip â itâs a matter of time, attention and what I want to invest my life into. Some writers can challenge and inform much better than others.
1 Like
That may be so but you are not communicating with a Mahayanist.
Yes skipping is always an option that I have often pointed out. If you wish to discuss this issue you can start the thread. This is not actually what this thread is about.
But you share their critiques.
I am a MahÄyÄna Buddhist, but obviously have a great interest in textual criticism and the history of these texts weâve all, regardless of vehicle, inherited from a distant past.
In MahÄyÄna Buddhism, rather than working towards personal attainment of parinirvÄáša, practitioners work for the equivalent of nirvÄáša with life substratum remaining (saupÄdisesÄ ca nibbÄnadhÄtu, Iti 44), and, due to divergent beliefs regarding the properties of nirvÄáša, from there, work towards similar achievements in sentient beings.
The Dharma is thus conceived as a social medicine rather than an individualâs prescription.
Perhaps you donât âbelieveâ in a saášbhogakÄya, but it seems to me that you are a crypto-MahÄyÄnist who has not realized it yet.
Perhaps that is bold lay psychoanalysis from someone who only knows you tangentially on the internet, but is it any different from your decision to subject DKervick to lay psychoanalysis?
1 Like
There must be something wrong about the way I communicate here, because it has repeatedly tended to provoke people to start taking a lot of interest in me as a person, rather than the things I am saying. Itâs very frustrating.
I am nobody going nowhere.
You can call me anything just donât call me late for dinner! 
Itâs OK my interest was to do with the background of your way of seeing the teachings. It was about your ideas and there genesis not about you personally. I am happy to relate to you that way as it is nice to meet new friends and find out about their stories. May you be well and happy! 
Hi guys, once again, can I remind everyone - preferably in such a way that folks actually listen take it to heart, and consequently pause before saying anything to others - that the community guidelines set out that users should take up ideas and leave the personal alone.
Please, can I encourage everyone to consider how they themselves can contribute to developing a harmonious forum environment.
7 Likes
That certainly should be a honored choice for the practitioner.
Iâd guess that virtually every sangha, temple or monastery has the equivalent of a board of directors and/or lay board of advisers, etc. In addition there are the politics and management involved in charitable activities such as food kitchens or sharing meals. But while everyone is asked to serve in some way, chopping vegetables, cleaning, gardening â but it seems to me unwise to expect that everyone will be a supervisor, manager, board member, decision maker or expert adviser.
At the same time Iâd propose there is a type of social-political engagement that avoids âhowling winds of worldly clamor, strife, ideological warfare and political busynessâ. But, much like the more spiritual, personal or psychological aspects of dharma practice so too wise social-political engagement requires much discipline and practice. In my view part of that practice includes a lot of engagement with diverse views; an active seeking of a multi-partisan or trans-partisan understanding.
There have been conscious âpeace studyâ type experiments where politically diverse groups on subjects like abortion have meet regularly. Several reported that it took about a year of intense engagement to gain a common understanding of the key words and terms used to describe the key principles in the conflict. And they recognized that that accomplishment was only the foundation to begin to seriously talk.
This discipline of social-political engagement may required an effort somewhat similar to the effort given to advance on the path of the arhat.
And the arhat may not have the specific disciplines and understanding required to be social-politically engaged at a high level. Thus such a path of engagement might be rightly seen as an advanced path and a choice.
This idea seems almost unknown among western Buddhists. So Iâm not surprized when, as you describe:
The situation of the joint letter you describe Iâm guessing is an example of a group that was not appropriately so disciplined and probably didnât enjoy the wisdom and advise of a trans-partisan council. For most western, convert Buddhists that means we should be hearing the critical voices of those in the US who have begun to call themselves âclassical liberalsâ as well as moderates, libertarians, republicans and conservatives (the political right in the US).
âŚ
In part, the dharma is a practice of active skepticism in my view. In this view non-self is seen as an active skepticism (embodied skepticism?) of the views of self that we are thrown to.
Western equivalents of this skepticism include:
- a liberal education (multi-disciplinary, multi- or all-perspective),
- mature and actively self-critical post-modernism where popular post-modernist positions are themselves subjected to a post-modernist critique;
- literary criticism and other deconstructionist critical studies where deconstructing the deconstructionists and the popular beliefs of critical studies programs gets high priority.
- https://heterodoxacademy.org/problems/
- meta-science - a critical study of the effectiveness of various forms of âscientific methodâ.
As you might tell I believe that many post-modernist and/or critical studies have are a failure by these criteria. Likewise for many engaged Buddhist movements.
The criteria of a trans-partisan understanding (a rough equivalent to the goals and methods of https://heterodoxacademy.org) seems to be not âon the radarâ of most of the engaged Buddhist movements Iâve looked at.
The trans-partisan view may become widely seen as yet another way to be partisan. Some skepticism is in order here too. I see it as well aligned with the path and life of the Buddha of the EBTâs as well as with various wisdom traditions of both east and west.
That might have been the problem, but perhaps a further problem is that many of these teachers either (i) donât know themselves a lot about what the historical Buddha said, or (ii) have a number of other agendas beyond teaching the Buddhaâs dhamma, and so are willing to misrepresent the Buddhaâs words, or invent new fake Buddhist words, if doing so furthers their agendas.
My understanding of Buddhism is heavily influenced by the Ajahn Chah tradition. As I understand it, the whole purpose of a Buddhist monastery is to provide a place where people who want to live the holy life can do so in peace, with the practical material burdens of life taken care of for them by others. Not only did the Buddha not require monks to get involved in worldly political affairs; but also he actively discouraged such involvement at every turn.
If you read the entire collected teachings of Ajahn Chah, you will see that there is nothing in them about how to reform health care, overhaul the worldâs energy systems, protect farmland, allocate Thailandâs military spending, manage the national budget, respond to floods and typhoons, punish criminals, regulate trade, organize the law courts, manage the school system, invest our wealth, or any of the other myriad concerns that people engaged in the running of a complex society are forced to contend with on a daily basis. On the other hand, besides the spiritual teachings there are some discussions of practical issues - like keeping the toilets clean and sweeping the paths, so that when lay visitors show up they are not scandalized by the lax discipline.
But, of course, those large, practical political issues and worldly crises and emergencies must be dealt with. As lay Buddhists, that stuff is our job. It is the monksâ âjobâ to practice their very demanding discipline, meditate, and cultivate peace and liberation of the heart, and to pass on what they learn to others who take up the same life, or at least draw close to it. I think it is a precious thing in this world that such people exist and are supported.
Certainly politics can be conducted both in very rancorous ways, or in relatively more civil and courteous ways. But there has never been a time in world history when political activity among human beings was not fundamentally a scene of competition, struggle, opposition, frustration, greed, jarring worldly passions and occasional violence. That is human life as we know it. For monks to live a holy life, they need to be protected from all that. Remember these are people who are tying to live a life in which one literally does not hurt a fly, and where noble silence is often encouraged. One can ask a monk for insight into why, for example, one is experiencing so much anger in dealing with oneâs various associates, loved ones and rivals in worldly life. But expecting them to make pronouncements on how to improve the sea walls or reform the banking system is expecting something from them that will disturb their practice, and which the Buddha never wanted them to do.
Those of us in the English speaking cultures - the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. - might not realize just how strong the anti-monastic bias is in our attitudes. Our societies have deep ideological foundations in the English reformation, which was dedicated to the eradication of the monasticism that preceded that reformation in Catholic England. The subsequent growth of republican institutions in our parts of the world added an additional layer of ideology according to which we are no longer subjects to lords, but citizens of a republic, under stringent obligations to participate jointly in the governance of our societies, and thus loaded up psychologically with a bunch of civic duties. We have all received that kind of training as part of our socialization process, and as a result the mere existence of people whose main focus in life is the cultivation of a secluded life apart from society, to pursue their own spiritual liberation and to teach others how to pursue that liberation, is likely to strike the modern Republican Citizen as irresponsible, selfish, or even subversive shirking.
Anyway, my message is: Ask not the Buddha and his monks to sign your climate change petition or join your political action committee; and donât put words in the Buddhaâs mouth to make propaganda for your efforts, even if they are honorable ones. Let the Buddha be the Buddha and leave the engagement to the worldlings.
6 Likes
Dan, I welcome and appreciate your originanal post. Still, for me, what Bhikkhu Bodhi has done with Buddhist Global Relief, for example, has broken the mold, and I welcome very much what he is doing to alleviate hunger and promote food security, among other things. Heâs perhaps one of the few monastics with the standing to have launched such an engaged global effort, and I hope that there will be other highly achieved monastics that do the same or similar. But at the end of the day, I agree that for many that come to the wats seeking refuge, the place of refuge should be one focused only or primarily in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. Iâm just leaving room, at least in my view, for a few notable and highly qualified exeptions, such as Bhkkhu Bodhi.
7 Likes
Yes, I agree about the good works of BGR @AnagarikaMichael. But I believe one thing Bhikkhu Bodhi has wisely done is to focus these efforts on he most basic and universal needs - food, medicine, basic education .
5 Likes
Thank you Feynman. I appreciate any reflections on how I may further my personal practice. after considerable reflection I can say that my post/s were not written in anger, but rather were the result of âexpectationâ and disappointment.
Also, rather ironically, I tend to interfere in social welfare issues involving other people. Ironic because that is what this post is about. I really have to be aware when I see a situation of apparent injustice, of wanting to do something to either protect or increase the well being of others. Here to try to make discussions more inclusiveâŚ
Having worked in the field of social justice and welfare for several decades, I know how polarising such things are, and how certain actions can get carried away. When one becomes focused on the âoutcomeâ or âthe endsâ one enters the slippery slide of justifying a range of means - processes - that one normally wouldnât engage. Hence the saying âthe ends justify the meansâ. This is a case of justifying unskillful means to get an outcome (usually) generated by good intentions.
As practising Theravada or EBT following Buddhists, my understanding is that it is âthe processâ where we should be focusing. Karma is a result of process, of actions - I am unclear as to the balance between action and intention and the exact degree each of these has on our Karma.
If I have caused pain to anyone by my posts, I sincerely apologise.
Metta
4 Likes
Are the teachings of Ajahn Chah supported by the EBTâs? That is the question I hoped you were going to address.
Also, your OP was not addressed only to monastics but rather "even for those who do not follow the path wholeheartedly and all of them time, and who do not live the holy life 24 hours a day, but only turn into it occasionally. "
Please be clear about when you are speaking the practice of monastics or lay practitioners.
Even within the monastery there was a certain level of political conversation/discussion.
I wouldnât be surprised if some monks avoided those conversations at least for some periods in their lives.
Intention is very important! If, we are moved by compassion and we can see something that requires attention, a skilful and clear headed response and, we turn away and ignore what we have seen, that would not be a good habit to cultivate. This would have itâs ongoing influence on how we relate to situations like this when they arise.
It turns out that we can âlearnâ to systematically ignore bad things that enter our field of awareness. This is a âseemingâ choice that we make all the time in our daily life - as long as we live. Our intentions are shaped by the way we have reacted or responded in the past.
We can afford to âignoreâ many things but catastrophic climate change is not one of those ethical dilemmas that can be resolved through our collective ignorance. Itâs implications are to important to ignore!
Thatâs why Bhikku Bodhi has done more than focus on feeding the poor etc. He is vitally concerned and active in the climate-change issue and can clearly see the consequence of treating this problem as if it was just some other âcalamityâ or social justice issue. It is wonderful to work to alleviate hunger and promote food security etc. However, in order to feed people you need a healthy environment that has not gone into ecospheric meltdown.
Bhikku Bodhi was born into a Jewish family and the holocaust would have been something he would have given considerable time to reflect on and understand. He would have a keen sensitivity when it comes to the human capacity to ignore terrible things that happen while they âlook onâ - without lifting a finger.
We could envision catastrophic climate change as the ultimate holocaust where every human being regardless of ethnicity is the target of the collective ignorance and indifference - turning away - of human beings.
Who would be the perpetrators of this atrocity - this crime against life itself? Answer: everyone one of us who does nothing - or next to nothing now - when we have the chance. We are all stealing from the future from those yet to be born!
We can do many âlove radiating exercisesâ but to fix this terrible problem might also require a practical approach?
Its good to meditate and its good to do what we all need to do to create a liveable future. There is no contradiction!
Are we to assume this has nothing to do with Buddhism? Itâs a peripheral concern for the spiritually confused who write âdirect actionâ letters and talk truth to power! Those poor confused Buddhist Teachers benefitting many through their wise and compassionate Dhamma service should just remain silent and busy themselves exclusively with teaching people to stay calm and feel the luuuuuvvvvvv!
Love is not a sensation it cannot be cultivated. It is not an imaginary exercise that we can radiate like central-heating by thinking about kittens. We live love we donât feel love. We feel pleasure/pain or nothing at all - correct? Love moves us or it doesnât!
We do not choose to love it is choiceless. It nourishes and sustains, it protects and heals, just like the living Dhamma.
It seems to me this is one of the key passages, and most interesting to me, in your post.
What were you thinking of in the phrase âhas broken the moldâ?
Iâm facing a lot of disappointed expectations of others the more I engage with a temple, a tradition and the wider world of Buddhists as viewed through websites, lectures (mp3s & videos), blogs etc. I believe the dharma also speaks to expectation and the inevitability of disappointment.
Even this desire to help is worthy of some mindfulness and reflection.
That is a note worthy observation. What is called âcompassionâ or social justice can become polarizing and tend to carry us away.
Seeking out a tran-partisan understanding and enjoying the advise of a diverse, multi-partisan council is a strong process for avoiding the âend justifies the meansâ trap. This is partly because different social-political perspectives have diverse views and expectations of âthe endsâ as well as different sensitivities as to means. So I am proposing a process oriented model. A poor process is likely to result in a poor result.