The Buddha, Morality, Social Obligations and the Path

The Watercooler
61

Wrong thread ?

62

Ah ok, I have not really studied them looking to confirm that particular assumption so I’ll have to take you at your word on that, seeing as you may have studied the matter at least in brief - or otherwise I am sure you wouldn’t have made that statement if there was no evidence to support it.

It is immaterial to the practice however, after all many monks do not achieve Arahantship despite having the perfect conditions for practicing to that level. The gradual training makes one a better person, so if liberation is not achieved in this life then perhaps the next, but it is better to practice seriously rather than simply say ‘I’m a lay follower and cannot achieve Arahantship so I might as well not bother’.

That is wrong view, the path of defeatism, mired in the hindrances. One needs confidence not only in the efficacy of the Buddha and the path but also in ones ability to achieve the goal. And there is no reason why lay followers cannot achieve arahantship if their lives are sufficiently secluded. After all if that was the case there would be no such thing as a paccekabuddha.

2 Likes
63

That is probably the crux. I personally agree that nowadays some laypeople may have an even more undisturbed life of little obligations than many monastics have. It is possible to sustain oneself with very little work, no family and no burdening possessions. The question if one has the determination to stay away from social obligations is the same for monastics and laypeople. But also how one can choose the social life as a vehicle for development - e.g. as already pointed out by others through metta, right speech, observing dukkha, seeing the mind in action etc. This is possible for most people only in regular social situations.

For the question of lay arahantship you might find these two papers interesting:
Samuels (1999): Views of Householders and Lay Disciples in the Sutta Pitaka
Piya Tan (2004): Laymen Saints

2 Likes
64

It’s one thing to attend to the necessary politics of a monastery, lay or monastic sangha or temple – another to go out looking to engage in more political processes. That may clarify the intended focus of this OP?

Politics, in it’s broad sense – as what happens when there are different ideas about how to manage anything – occurs nearly everywhere. There are hints in suttas about the political process used to establish and review monastic rules or even where monks were to sleep and dwell for instance.

Surely the monks from time to time had different ideas about how to maintain and use the meeting hall spoken of in AN 10.69 . So I say there must have been politics at this monastery.

Often, the word “politics” is used to describe the occasions when the political process is not harmonious and unnecessarily contentious. But this misidentifies all the occasions when the political process is harmonious.

With this broader appreciation of politics we see that there are politics in everyday affairs even at home, within monasteries and temples and inside every organization or body of people.

It’s one thing to attend to the necessary politics of a monastery, lay or monastic sangha or temple – another to go out looking to engage in more political processes.

…

The principles of right speech are explicitly directed at political processes.

There is the case where a certain person engages in false speech . When he has been called to a town meeting, a group meeting, a gathering of his relatives, his guild, or of the royalty [i.e., a royal court proceeding], if he is asked as a witness,
‘Come & tell, good man, what you know’:
If he doesn’t know, he says, ‘I know.’
If he does know, he says, ‘I don’t know.’
If he hasn’t seen, he says, ‘I have seen.’ If he has seen, he says, ‘I haven’t seen.’ Thus he consciously tells lies for his own sake, for the sake of another, or for the sake of a certain reward. He engages in divisive speech.

What he has heard there he tells here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus breaking apart those who are united and stirring up strife between those who have broken apart, he loves factionalism, delights in factionalism, enjoys factionalism, speaks things that create factionalism.
He engages in abusive speech. He speaks words that are harsh, cutting, bitter to others, abusive of others, provoking anger and destroying concentration. He engages in idle chatter.
He speaks out of season, speaks what isn’t factual, what isn’t in accordance with the goal, the Dhamma, & the Vinaya, words that are not worth treasuring. This is how one is made impure in four ways by verbal action.
an 10.176

This passage:
“When he has been called to a … group meeting … ‘Come & tell, good man, what you know’:” suggests a practice for a actively transpartisan dharma engaged in any politics. Seek out the more mature practitioners and ask them to contribute perspective that adds to the ideological diversity.

I know of a mostly Asian temple where the monastics made a decision to build a structure without fully seeking out the advise of the building contractors in the sangha. This in a culture that has a higher degree of deference to monastics. The project got shut down by the local government for safety violations.

In the US most Buddhist bodies have a distinct political/ideological leaning. That is, they lack diversity. One who can speak with some equanimity, who is well informed and can speak from a perspective that is less well represented is an asset to the sangha as a body and to it’s individual members.

ASIDE: There are posts that, in my estimation, closely resemble one or more of the examples of false speech described in AN 10.176.
How to constructively respond to such speech has been the OP of other threads.

1 Like
65

“Transpartisan” – A Working Definition
Partisan: adopting as one’s own a single political party’s point of view on virtually all public policy issues and aggressively defending it
Bipartisan: oriented towards finding consensus or agreement between two major political parties (e.g., in the USA, the Democratic and Republican Parties) with little or no interest in other perspectives

Transpartisan: valuing inclusive solutions that transcend and include all political party positions and promote cross-spectrum collaboration for the benefit of all.
http://mediatorsfoundation.org/resources/transpartisan-definition/

This description speaks to me strongly of core dharma principles:

  • transcend and include all positions
  • promote cross-spectrum collaboration

IMO the life of Tatagata Buddha that emerges from the EBTs was transpartisan in orientation. If there is, or can be, a dharma of engaged Buddhism in my view it almost by necessity needs to be transpartisan.

…

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.

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

My experience of seeking out a multi-perspective understanding of the political scene (something I’ve been working on for decades) is that it encourages the brahmaviharas. In particular consideration of the other and equanimity.

For instance, much like how the mature masculine and feminine complement and complete each other I’ve come to believe with some passion that the various political parties help “keep each other honest”. The political right makes the political left better and visa-versa.

66

Probably. But we can see that in this case the Buddha thought it should be used only for dhamma talk.

I think the idea of monastics living in large, settled monastic communities, with an abbot or other such figures engaged in complicated managerial activities or construction plans, is a later development in Buddhism. In the Buddha’s time monks were expected to be wanderers, staying in settled communities only temporarily during the rains, in modest facilities provided by lay supporters. These facilities seem to have grown somewhat less modest over time.

There doesn’t seem to be any institution in the Buddha’s time corresponding to the modern western “dhamma center.” Not are there temples, pujas or ritualized offerings, which seem to be aspects of Indian institutional religious life that were later absorbed into Buddhism.

The Buddha’s comments on meeting peacefully in assemblies and speaking truthfully there are general points about wholesome moral comportment in worldly lay life. He never offers any advice about what these lay people should actually decide in those assemblies. Buddhism never gave to the world a body of political philosophy, although it did eventually develop a lot of metaphysics, and theories about the mind and language.

1 Like
67

I don’t know if it was mentioned already, but sometimes we find an extended list of items of wrong speech for monastics:

talk of kings, robbers, ministers, armies, dangers, battles, food, drink, clothing, beds, garlands, perfumes, relatives, vehicles, villages, towns, cities, countries, women, heroes, streets, wells, the dead, trivialities, the origin of the world, the origin of the sea, whether things are so or are not so (DN 1, DN 2, DN 9, DN 25, MN 76, MN 77, MN 78, MN 79, MN 122, SN 56.10, AN 10.69, AN 10.70)

Okay, we don’t have climate change as a topic here, but my interpretation would be that ‘ministers’, ‘dangers’, ‘countries’ would include what for us is politics in a narrow sense. Social change or environmental activism etc. simply doesn’t facilitate an insight into the workings of the mind and its liberation.

6 Likes
68

Worse when the activism models a lack of insight into the working of the mind and is an example of illusion rather than liberation.

I’m thinking of Buddhist positions on various topics that in my opinion:

  • Do not accurately reflect science, public data or government statistics.
  • Speak of probabilistic estimates as facts (words such as “will” instead of “may” )
  • Pretend to a certainty when there is disagreement and a clearly expressed degree of uncertainty among informed experts.
  • Employs vague, emotionally laden terms typical of demagogues, political campaigners, agitators and those seeking plausible deniability. A form of verbal pornography or verbal intoxication in other words.
  • Seem to follow or support the belief among campaigners that it’s OK to exaggerate and/or mislead for a good cause.

These are “bone head” mistakes for serious students, scholars or those seeking to be honest brokers of reliable information. A more diverse panel of advisers would have detected those mistakes quickly. In many cases a more impartial and intellectually honest statement would still be “compelling”. It seems to me that those who want to be Buddhist thought leaders have more to lose by such inattention.

Because Buddhist engaged action done wisely and skillfully does require a degree of attention, time and care this tends to support the notion that on pragmatic grounds alone, followers of the path ought to a) be encouraged to focus on their traditional practice and b) be cautioned about the price in time and effort of engaged action that is worthy of the dharma as a priceless jewel. It may be wiser in many cases for Buddhist to take on their political causes as lay citizens rather than Buddhists per say.

1 Like
69

For comparison …
Many Christian religious organizations, of diverse theological traditions, are actively engaged in promoting stewardship for the environment. Yet a recent analysis of 20 years of survey results from Gallup public opinion polls of self-identified U.S. Christians shows that environmentalism is not increasing, and there are signs it is actually in decline.

  • The likelihood that a Christian survey respondent expressed a great deal of concern about climate change dropped by about a third between 1990 and 2015. The pattern generally holds across Catholic, Protestant and other Christian denominations and does not vary depending on levels of religiosity.

The author was quoted as saying:

“This relationship between religion and the environment is significant because of the increasing importance of climate change. There may come a time when religious leaders and faith-based organizations generate more interest in protecting the environment and more willingness to demand action, but we haven’t seen it yet.”

There has been high-profile calls for action such as:

  • The encyclical letter on the environment by Pope Francis in 2015
  • The formation of the Evangelical Environmental Network by evangelical Protestant groups.

The Greening of Christianity? A Study of Environmental Attitudes Over Time

Abstract
Many scholars have recently argued that there has been a “greening of Christianity.” … Largely missing from this debate is strong evidence at the individual level that Christians have in fact adopted deeper environmental concerns over time. This study provides such evidence through an examination of longitudinal data from Gallup’s annual surveys on the environment. The analysis reveals little evidence that Christians have expressed more environmental concern over time. In fact, across many measures, Christians tend to show less concern about the environment. This pattern holds across Catholic, Protestant, and other Christian denominations and for differing levels of religiosity. These findings support a conclusion that there has not been a discernible “greening of Christianity” among the American public.
– https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3092262

1 Like
70

The global ecological crisis is not politics in a narrow sense - it is far more than politics in a broad sense, as well. Is breathing a political issue?

We share this planet with countless sentient and non-sentient beings, We are concerned for the welfare of all sentient beings on the Earth and beyond - assuming there is a beyond! How is it possible to reduce discussion about such a state of affairs to ‘merely’ meaningless ‘prattle’ about ‘ministers, dangers, countries’?

The many species on this planet that would be driven to extinction and, the myriad sentient beings - that form a portion of those species - that would be killed by catastrophic climate change is one thing. It is another thing to engage in useless talk about ministers and countries. That would be ‘understandably’ useless, and a distraction from intensive training and practice.

When it comes to dangers, there are different kinds. Some dangers we can do something about so there might be a really good reason to talk about them and find ways to get things moving towards there solution. Other forms of danger-talk might be done just to stimulate conversation, like its an exciting topic! Is it possible that the danger-talk being advised against in the teachings you refer to, might be about seeking stimulation and distraction by talking about things that are dangerous?

It seems that the teaching is aimed at idle chatter! Avoiding discussion about things that have no direct relevance to practice in order to avoid practice? However, when it comes to important forms of problem-solving and how to get people to see the need and, participate more fully, I am not at all convinced that this is the import or purpose of the teaching.

Regarding your comment about global ecospheric meltdown having no relevance to the workings of the mind and its liberation, it doesn’t facilitate any insight into the mind - our minds - that is a very interesting point of view. I thought that everything we think, say and, do is a place where we can develop insight into the workings of our mind, in order to deepen in our understanding and insight. I thought that everything is teaching us if we pay attention to what is going on? There is more than one way to develop understanding and insight. We can have insights while washing dishes and ironing clothes and holding babies and taking a shower.

What is most astonishing - to me - with regard to this issue and, the issue about ending sexual discrimination - permanently in our practice communities - is there is so little interest in the question that interests me the most (as a Buddhist). The question being: what is a decent and sensible course of action? This is a consideration that I thought would be ‘front and centre’ when thinking about matters of profound ethical significance. Instead, the first thing we need to consider is whether the rules of training allow for it! Whether the outline of practice as ‘it is written’ in the holy-books allows for it! Is this what Buddhism is about?

71

Thankyou for the links. I will have a look at them soon - there is so much interesting information available on this site I am kind of binging on reading discussion threads and the suttas and other links referred to in them, so I have about two months worth of reading material to go through now - and that’s just what I have stumbled across so far! :smiley:

1 Like
72

I see what you are saying, I doubt I could do that though. I find it all too easy to lose mindfulness when I engage the verbal mind and start thinking in terms of words so until I become far more skilled social seclusion is really what I need and to be fair, is what I actually have at the moment. Most socialisation for me these days is via the interwebs due to living in a town where I don’t really know anyone and being responsible for looking after a dying parent. Otherwise, I’d be off to ordain to gain the peace and quiet I need.

73

Could not agree more. Engagement in these sorts of discussion topics while one is stilled mired in personality view only strengthens the sense of self and makes it harder to get rid of personality view, not to mention these sorts of topics can get you so worked up and agitated the mind is unable to settle down into meditation and you spend your time ruminating instead.

I tend to think that unless you have at least gotten to the stage where mindfulness is an automatic process and is unbroken and continuous from waking to sleep, then these sorts of topics of discussion, debate and activism only serve to hinder one from making progress. Perhaps for those wise ones who are well advanced upon the path, but not for me, at least.

74

It’s not prattle for me and you. But it might be for people who are supposed to be devoting all of their efforts to attaining enlightenment, or (if already enlightened) to teaching the dhamma.

3 Likes
75

Well, apparently it isn’t meaningless prattle to those dedicated to teaching the Dhamma and awakening!

76

There seems to be some confusion about the nature of meaningless prattle as well? If we are discussing how to make a bed then, it is a good idea to contain discussion to spreading, folding and, tucking etc. That does not turn other topics of importance into meaningless prattle. When Dhamma teachers are concerned with teaching meditation and the nature of awakening - as defined in our immediate forms of practice - they need to focus on that but, when they talk about some other important matter they then need to turn their attention to that subject.

That which defines a form of talking and discussion as ‘meaningless prattle’ has got to do with the ‘content’ of what is being shared and, the reasons for doing it! Trying to save the world is a pretty good reason to be ‘doing it’ - talking about this issue. It is not talk to distract ourselves from practice or to entertain ourselves like talking about kings or celebrities or, reading spy novels etc. It is coming from a completely different place!

77

Again, as I said in my comment, it is not meaningless prattle for you and me, but it might be meaningless prattle for those who have dedicated their lives to an entirely different kind of effort, an effort that can’t bear fruit if it is only attended to intermittently in between organizing rallies and meet-ups, and while doing a lot of things that stir up the mind with fear and stress.

I respect the holy life and those who renounce the world to dedicate themselves to it. I do not consider what those people are doing to be “navel gazing.” I want to protect the space of removal and seclusion that the people in that space have created for the benefit of all of us. We can attend to the vexing problems of the world for them, without loudly stomping around in the vihara trying to recruit them into our worldly campaigns and causes.

2 Likes
78

I would put it differently - there really is no conflict of interest when it comes to somebody being dedicated to their practice - standard forms of practice - and also having other kinds of ‘important’ interests that don’t involve things like ‘anapanasati’ or other valuable things we do in the 3-fold training.

Ajahn Brahm has a continuing interest in Physics. He draws on quantum-physics in his teachings. He had a little input into a quantum-gravity project through collaboration with a Physicist he knows. This does not appear to have had a detrimental impact on his Buddhist practice.

We all need to get the balance right and that varies from one person to another and, according to time, place and, circumstance. If we gain a lot of energy from our practice it can empower us to do a great deal with little difficulty. For others, they may need to spend a lot of time sleeping before they gain enough energy just to sit on a cushion a few times a day. This situation changes over time if we are making progress.

I was told that ‘Ajahn Chah’ would take a couple of minutes to enter into deep Samadhi. He then had sufficient energy to keep him going around the clock! As long as what we are doing is wholesome and worthwhile there is no contradiction between our individual practice and other forms of practice. Practice is anything that helps us to wake-up - in whatever form required - to benefit ourselves and all sentient beings.

79

I was looking for a different sutta about how going out into the world is one of 5? causes for lack of inner contentment, but was instead reminded of the Dhammika Suta Snp2.14
Thanissaro’s translation

"…Having duly obtained food, going back alone and sitting down in a secluded place, being inwardly thoughtful and not letting the mind go out to external objects, a bhikkhu should develop self-control.
.
"If he should speak with a lay-disciple, with someone else or with another bhikkhu, he should speak on the subtle Dhamma, not slandering others nor gossiping. Some set themselves up as disputants in opposition to others; those of little wisdom we do not praise; attachments bind them and they are carried away by their emotions.

I think this is what Dan is referring to

6 Likes
80

To points: 1) the nature of subtle-Dhamma and, 2) being carried away by emotions.

  1. Subtle Dhamma is that which is realised by the wise, each for themselves and, 2) who is being carried away by their emotions?

Is Bhikku Bodhi being carried away by his emotions?
Am I being carried away by my emotions?
Is anyone on this thread being carried away by their emotions?
Its worth a thought!