The Buddha, Morality, Social Obligations and the Path

The Watercooler
41

My OP was directed to everyone who reads posts on this website, and it offered an interpretation of the Buddha’s approach to life and the purpose of the path he developed and taught. What I said about “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” is that the path is supposed to be a refuge for them, as well as for monastics. I take it that it does no need arguing that the Buddha, dhamma and sangha are supposed to be refuges.

If people disagree with my interpretation, I would invite them to say specifically which parts of it the disagree with, and to cite the passages that support their alternative reading.

Which monastery were you talking about?

But indeed you should not be surprised to hear of monks avoiding discussion of politics and other worldly affair, since the Buddha makes it clear in several places that the monk should refrain from such talk, and either speak of the dhamma, or not speak at all. Here is one such place:

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi at Jeta’s Grove, Anathapindika’s monastery. Now at that time a large number of monks, after the meal, on returning from their alms round, had gathered at the meeting hall and were engaged in many kinds of bestial topics of conversation: conversation about kings, robbers, & ministers of state; armies, alarms, & battles; food & drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, & scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women & heroes; the gossip of the street & the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity, the creation of the world & of the sea; talk of whether things exist or not.

Then the Blessed One, emerging from his seclusion in the late afternoon, went to the meeting hall and, on arrival, sat down on a seat made ready. As he was sitting there, he addressed the monks: “For what topic of conversation are you gathered together here? In the midst of what topic of conversation have you been interrupted?”

“Just now, lord, after the meal, on returning from our alms round, we gathered at the meeting hall and got engaged in many kinds of bestial topics of conversation: conversation about kings, robbers, & ministers of state; armies, alarms, & battles; food & drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, & scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women & heroes; the gossip of the street & the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity, the creation of the world & of the sea; talk of whether things exist or not.”

"It isn’t right, monks, that sons of good families, on having gone forth out of faith from home to the homeless life, should get engaged in such topics of conversation, i.e., conversation about kings, robbers, & ministers of state… talk of whether things exist or not.

“There are these ten topics of [proper] conversation. Which ten? Talk on modesty, on contentment, on seclusion, on non-entanglement, on arousing persistence, on virtue, on concentration, on discernment, on release, and on the knowledge & vision of release. These are the ten topics of conversation. If you were to engage repeatedly in these ten topics of conversation, you would outshine even the sun & moon, so mighty, so powerful — to say nothing of the wanderers of other sects.”

AN 10.69
Kathavatthu Sutta

2 Likes
42

You are welcome to your own opinions, as presented here.
I am free to disagree, as is everybody else. This is just a statement of fact - and requires no fixing. I’m leaving this thread now.

While it has certainly not been pleasant, I will try to use the experience to inform wiser practice.

Metta to all

4 Likes
43

Best wishes for your ongoing journey of discovery :slight_smile:

44

I have enjoyed reading your comment that I have quoted in part above. There is just one small comment I would like to make about the idea that it is only the monastics who practice and it’s the lay community’s responsibility to fix or deal with all the problems of the outside world, although it may be that you didn’t quite mean your comment to come across that way either. (And I know plenty of lay Buddhists and monastics do see it very much that way, that the lay community provides food and gain merit while the monastics practice).

So I just wanted to say that is not the take I have of the system the Buddha set up at all, after all it is not a requirement of practice to become ordained. Nice if you can and much more helpful to the practice but not everyone is in a situation where they can walk away from all their worldly responsibilities. There were lay arahants in the Buddha’s time and probably have been since then too, I believe that the guidelines the Buddha gave in the sutta’s apply as much to lay practitioners as they do monastics. I have found through my own personal practice that things like obeying the precepts and wrong speech, arguments and the like do affect ones ability to practice the dhamma and attain peace. The fault finding, critical thinking mind caught up in cogitating about the injustices of the world finds little peace.

My understanding is that the Buddha was pretty much saying that to get involved in worldly activities - in modern terms, political and social justice causes and campaigns, particularly those that evoke strong emotions will inhibit your progress on the path, that it leads to the development of personality view and strengthens the sense of self. Making the fetters stronger is not part of the path.

I have read somewhere that if you wish to be serious about developing your skills as a meditator and developing the path, then you should only get as involved in any worldly activity as you can be without losing your sense of equilibrium. If you find yourself getting worked up over a particular cause or activity then you should cease involvement. After all, there is no end to worldly issues, there will always be new and ongoing problems. At the end of the day you can only really do something about your own personal situation, you can not force others to subscribe to your views and behave the way you would wish. Even the Buddhist society set up by the Buddha and the various kingdoms of Northern India all fell into decline after the Buddha attained parinibbana, so you could spend your whole life making the world a better place only for everything you have done to fall into ruin after your passing on.

I guess you have to decide what is worth investing your time on - the problems of the outside world or practice of the path, even as a lay practitioner. Or perhaps it’s more of a case of do what you can but not to the point where it affects the practice in a detrimental fashion.

For me, that means not getting involved, my sense of ego is already strong enough without my making it stronger by subscribing to views and seeing myself as aligned a particular way politically or seeing myself as a protesting activist doing something about unnecessary cruelty in the industrialised meat industry or the like. I can really only look to change myself if I really want effective and meaningful change to occur.

3 Likes
45

Hi Dan,
I really appreciate your post and think it raises lots of great points. Thank you.

Where you talk about morality I think we need to differentiate between morality as in sīla and other social engagement. The arahant has perfect sīla, but how they engage socially is another thing.

This makes me think of the young monk who apparently became an arahant under Ajahn Chah. Ajahn Chah’s advice was that now was his time to practice metta and service.

Ayya Santacittā talks about how the Dhamma informs her engagement in social activism in this video and how the root causes of dukkha need to be understood for change to occur. https://youtu.be/ik0bM-LZZ1M

There seems to be times to engage and times to disengage and deepen our understanding. Going in thinking we can fix things without a strong grounding in the brahmaviharas seems like a recipe for exhaustion.

5 Likes
46

I’m afraid lay arahants were not an EBT thing at all. I haven’t given it a deep search myself, but if anything we might squeeze one or two ‘maybe-s’ out of the suttas.

When we keep the socio-economic context in mind, back then most people were rural farmers, and farming is hard work, a lot of worries, and not much mental space for serious practice. The upcoming city states were governed by khattiyas and brahmins, were engaged in constant warfare, had intellectual specializations, and probably the best opportunities to be exposed to teachings and to practice. I simply don’t see the chance for the overall majority to practice intensely (as the suttas want us to) if you were not an ascetic, or rich.

What were the ‘social obligations’ back then? Mostly to the family, the clan and the inherited rites. And when did the idea of ‘social obligations’ come up in the West? It’s a product of civic participation, re-distribution of wealth to citizens and ‘democracy’. State religion is certainly never interested in letting people investigate morality or social responsibility. It is prescriptive in Christianity as it is in Buddhism.

In my opinion when monastics get involved in social politics it would backfire in one way or another. If you’re familiar with Indian gurus, you might have heard stories of how eventually their ashrams became snake pits of jealousy and competition. Monastics, whether they like it or not, become representatives of Buddhism. I personally find it weird when they represent themselves and their social views at some point.

3 Likes
47

One of the points of dissonance is the way we define worldly as distinct from practical problem solving. Do you make a distinction between these 2?

Firstly, the ‘present’ and increasing climate related chaos and destruction - that we all know about - is addressed through practical measures that need to be adopted in our individual lifestyles and collective behaviour. This has nothing to do - at all - with worldliness as described in your EBT quote.

Secondly, it has already been pointed out, political entities from the left and right - across the globe - have policy initiatives that address human-induced climate change. Therefore, it is not ‘fundamentally’ a political issue. It is ‘reduced’ to this by some vested interests for political purposes.

There are some who oppose doing practically anything to save the planet! It serves their agenda to confuse and divide people and, get them to believe that the climate issue is a left-wing conspiracy to destroy business as usual. Some of these people own influential media-companies that spread false propaganda to serve their misguided interests.

The study of the climate and the environment and what is happening to the biosphere is conducted by climate scientists, ecologists etc. They are the ones who are telling us we have a humungous problem.

In the EBT extract you cited above, was one of the ill-advised subjects for reflection ‘science’? Was there a cautionary note about discussion and practical action to ensure our long term survival as a species? If not, why are you insisting that climate and survival issues are about political rangling and, worldly misguided subject matter?

My argument is, matters of grave consequence are being defined as worldly - not by the EBT’s but by latter-day Buddhists. This then serves to distort the meaning of the teachings. That cannot be good?

There is a real and obvious difference between ‘materialism’ that manifests in the form of unsustainable production and ‘mindless’ consumerism and, concern for the environment.

Somehow, these diametrically opposite forms of behaviour are both being defined as ‘worldliness’.

To be a materialist is to have a misunderstanding of the value of worldly desires, pursuits and goals.

There is a big difference between idle chatter and headless activities and protecting and conserving the environment or, any expressions of body, speech and, mind that leads to our collective well-being.

You have asked for an EBT based argument that refutes your position? Well, you got it!

I am looking at the same teaching that you have cited and have found ‘nothing’ to support your conclusion. Your conclusion is therefore, unfounded - correct?

I offer this for your reflection!

48

I’d go a step further and say it sounds like a recipe, born of ignorance and arrogance, likely to make things worse.

2 Likes
49

So, how would you measure that?

50

I’d notice that the original problem remains and the only thing that has changed is that more animosity has been introduced into the world = worse, in my book.

2 Likes
51

It’s an interesting question Aminah and, one that is important in activism. I know of Dhamma teachers who address this issue in their teachings.

There is the phenomena of ‘burnout’ where those involved in activism begin to suffer due to their inner state. They are to angry or frustrated etc. and they can no longer continue as activists.

People can ‘learn’ how to maintain their equanimity and not get angry or deeply distressed when they are in difficult situations.

I heard of one retreat where there were activists who spent some time preparing for a demonstration they were planning. A ship was due to arrive in a port loaded with rare exotic timber that was being harvested unsustainably from old-growth forests in Asia.

One possibility - that had happened before - was for anti-logging activists to lie-down in order to obstruct the unloading of this timber. When this happened the activists - including women - were walked-on by people who were arresting them. This affected there equanimity and there loving kindness. So, in order to prepare for this and maintain the practice of the brahma-viharas they enacted this unpleasant situation.

Mahatma Gandhi also encouraged his followers to maintain loving kindness and not be violent when they were being beaten or killed.

52

I resisted the Smartphone thing as long as I could. But I eventually got dragged into it, because so many of you believed that they were unquestionably essential, such that it is now taken for granted across the board, and now you basically cannot survive without one.

This attitude drags Monastics in wether they like it or not. Maybe not some of the junior monastics, but eventually there is no escape. Which Senior monks can you list who have no smartphone or tablet, ever (nor have an attendant wielding one on their behalf)?

The same thing will also happen with social media. As it becomes more and more “default”, again, monastics will get eventually dragged in wether they like it or not. This will be a disaster for Buddhism, because guess how many arahants there will be in the future.

53

Yes. In going forth, the monk in the early texts “leaves the world” and its activities. There will still be practical problems, like fixing a robe, and staying dry, and keeping one’s razor sharp and getting enough to eat, but those problems are supposed to be radically reduced from the one’s facing the worldling.

[quote=“laurence, post:47, topic:8109”]
Secondly, it has already been pointed out, political entities from the left and right - across the globe - have policy initiatives that address human-induced climate change. Therefore, it is not ‘fundamentally’ a political issue. It is ‘reduced’ to this by some vested interests for political purposes.
[/quote]’

It is impossible to engage in any kind of climate change activism, and make real change happen, without doing a lot of political heavy-lifting. For example, if you are in China, you can have a powerful impact on CO2 emissions in China if you are a government official with an important role in infrastructure development and the regulation of coal use, for example. Some Chinese officials are in fact having that kind of impact. But to do so, one needs to spend a lifetime and career working oneself into the proper position in the government. Similar comments apply to the officials who negotiated the Paris accords, or to the scientists who spent years researching, and then convincing those officials to do something. Ordinary citizens can also possibly have a significant impact, if they devote their lives to acquiring scientific information, and to building activist networks, political action groups, lobbying efforts, etc.

I don’t believe you have cited a single text to support your (apparent) position that monks should get involved in climate change activism, or that the Buddha himself would have gotten involved in such activism if he lived in our time.

54

Good, finally we are getting somewhere! Simplicity is commendable not just for monastics but for everyone.

Like ‘Gandhi’ said: “There is enough for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed.”

So, we keep things simple and when there are practical necessities we respond. If we can get our head around the idea that saving the Planet - is a practical necessity (as it is) if we care to stay breathing and make the most of our precious human life and, help others to preserve theirs then, what?

At times when conditions are relatively normal our needs are few - correct? Sometimes, things can get more complex so we need to adapt. Depending on the situation, practical considerations vary!

When everything returns to normal we may be able to relax and revert to another way of being in the world. Having taken some important lessons on board.

If we have come to believe that there are fixed patterns of behaviour that are sacrosanct - always good and appropriate - when something else is required then, that would be unfortunate. In a nutshell, that is the nature of the problem. In terms of climate change and with regard to our different points of view.

55

From what I gather there are already monastics involved in climate change activism. Bhikku Bodhi is not alone! None of these monastics are any worse off for their commitment and may feel happy to participate.

Clean air is a biological need - an ecological need. These kinds of basic needs existed long before politics was invented. We can do without politicians but not without air!

People may get involved for political reasons or they may just love the Earth and want to see it cared for and not destroyed. This is why I don’t think it’s accurate to just think about it from a political perspective.

Politics is an important part of the solution but so is engineering, technology, private enterprise, grass-roots initiatives etc.

I have seen monks working on fire-breaks to protect themselves, their dwellings and Dhamma-hall from bush-fires. They work on their water supply etc. Climate action can be seen in the same light. Protection against wild-fires, securing water supplies, prevention of flooding and, so on!

The EBT teaching I am reflecting on is the same teaching you cited as support for your beliefs.

I don’t find anything in that teaching that convinces me that concern for the environment and the effort to solve the most important issue of our time is a course of action best avoided - by anyone!

Whether we are monastics or lay people it seems like a perfectly sensible and decent thing to contribute to but, I guess that must be irrelevant somehow?

56

Im nearly ready to give up. We seem to be having completely different conversations. For some reason you think you need to convince me about the reality and importance of global climate issues. But my post was about the Buddha and the Buddhist path.

If you return to the original post you will see that I stated my main point in the first sentence: The need to keep separate the question of how we should respond to the moral, social and political issues of our time, and how the Buddha would respond. This is an issue you seem unwilling to address in anything but the most offhanded way - and mostly not at all.

3 Likes
57

Yes, it is a mystery to me why you don’t seem to understand what I am trying to convey. It does seem pointless but we did try. All the best, Laurence

58

@Laurence you seem to think that the poor people on this forum are somehow the problem, and that going at them will yield the solution. The problem is not here- you should target your activism in the docks like the people in the example you cited- no point pitching a tent outside the man who bought a stool made from that wood, after 4 transactions further down. Frankly he promises not to buy anymore rare wood stools and feels sorry for his previous ignorance, but you’ve got the loudspeakers out, and disturbing his dinner and you’re not even the guy he got his deforestation information from.

I hope this makes sense, because I don’t want your to waste your time. I don’t think you can make people into activists by talking really haaard at them. As a tip you might want to go to where other activists are to be found- and see if you can motivate them. You’re not helping by throwing about ‘bald’,‘naval gazing’ about, as its coming across cross, bitter and insulting.

I think this thing is beginning to affect your mental wellbeing and you might want to take it into consideration as well before fighting for something futile.

with metta

5 Likes
59

Thanks for that Mat may you be well and happy. :slightly_smiling_face:

60

Here’s the docks:
https://www.buddhistdoor.net/news/female-monastics-in-thailand-barred-from-paying-respects-to-late-king

with metta

1 Like