The Buddha, Morality, Social Obligations and the Path

I understand what you are saying but I did not get the impression that is what was implied in basho’s comment.

is it?

Yes, it its pretty silly to think that.
But that isn’t what was said.
And yes it is ridiculous to think that the word cannot be used to ref the state.
But that isn’t what was said.

What was said is that the experience of Nirvana is beyond the realm of words to express.
The Diamond Sutra, for example is full of such references as is the Shurangama Sutra.

To put it simply “the word isn’t the thing.”
or
"don’t mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself.

I hope this clears up your confusion. :smile_cat:

1 Like

“I think there is much reason to doubt it is possible. The snares of worldly passions and desires are strong. As social animals, the conditions for their arising are inherent in our nature, and are easily triggered by most of our customary social interactions.”

But you’ll never know unless you try, will you?
Try and keep trying.
It’s really the only game in town. :smile_cat:

:+1:t6: :smile_cat:

There is no reason to doubt it is possible - just fall into the beautiful. The Dhamma is beautiful in the beginning, middle and, end!
Staying in greed, hatred and, ignorance is a difficult and problematic state of affairs not letting-go!
We don’t have to have any ideas about possible/impossible - difficult or easy.
None of these ideas are worth the time of day.
It does not involve a willful exercise of wanting to become something or trying to get rid of what is present here and now.
There is a natural turning away from worldliness - the floating world of the passions, frustrations, gain and loss, success and failure etc.
With the right kind of guidance - when the time is right - we may discover what needs to be done which is not a lot - be present, kind and, harmless.
Everything settles down by itself.

This natural stilling is a revelation, a freeing and, a wonder.
Discursive thinking ceases and peace and silence is then the natural state.
Love, compassion and, wisdom are unavoidable.
We are not a failure now and never will be - we are just people doing the best we can with what we’ve got!

1 Like

:slight_smile:
Do not conflate ordination status with progress toward liberation.

There are people who cannot participate well in monastic lifestyles, who could practice a monastic lifestyle with great expenditure of effort on all parts. I believe they are generally advised to accept their hesitations to impose on sangha as limitations, and remain lay. Their practice is not eased by Sangha if persons in sangha tell them, “it’s tough luck but you are screwed this entire life… oh AND you cannot reach our mutally recognized goal.”

It is also probably not helpful to beginners to say “you are a monk. You’re slotted for success now, bro.” Sadly, this tends to be an inevitable message of a non 4 fold sangha. Sets up those poor males for horrible misunderstandings and delusions.

All that renunciation… it better be worth it, right, cuz otherwise it wouldn’t be fair…

Do you think fairness exists?

Cuz it ain’t about da badges, friends.

Do not waste energy in debate over investing energy in actual practices which are not your concern. Unless you wish to engage the void of utterly pointless struggles…

I have to add. I regret my prescriptive phrasing, but… dudes… mind your own knitting.

Do not mistake monasticism for the destination. All of the dhamma is designed to be a raft for everyone who chooses it.

5 Likes

No monasticism is not the destination. It is likely that very few monastics attain nibbana. Who knows for sure if any of them do.

But everything we know about the Buddha’s path from his own teaching and tells us that its successful completion requires seclusion from the intense passions, obligations and entanglements of worldly life. It requires “going forth” in some sense.

It is possible that a non-monastic with a simple and undemanding livelihood might be able to achieve the necessary conducive conditions by living quietly and apart from the mad social whirl. But it is difficult. The Buddha established an order with a disciplined, renunciant community life in order to create more ideal conditions for practicing the path.

All that said, meditation, reflection on the teachings and the restraint of sila are good for everyone.

4 Likes

What you say I would think is clear to every open minded reader of the suttas.
But there is a ‘on the other hand’. Simply that while we have physical bodies we have physical needs so there will be some degree of entanglement. So the question forced upon us is how to deal with that entanglement in a distinctly Buddhist fashion.

I take it one step further and ask, if one is to become somewhat more socially engaged, how might we do it in a distinctly Buddhist fashion. It seems to me that there are a couple of (to me) obvious insights which include the advise and wisdom of a diverse sangha, what I call a trans-partisan understanding (which tends to arise from a diverse sangha) and the valuing of a honest broker style of teaching. The 3 are interrelated.

In some ways I’m surprised that these ideas aren’t more widely recognized. But then again they aren’t that widely recognized and heralded in western culture. Perhaps for much the same reasons that dedicated Buddhist practice is relatively rare. The trans-partisan/honest broker style require a degree of discipline and practice. And we don’t have many ‘advanced’ practitioners of the particular art to serve as teachers and role models.

Finally the disciplines do take out some of the “fun” (read worldly stimulation) out of more typical political engagement. They require the process to slow down. They require new disciplines and practices. They require us to be prepared in ways that the dharma or surrounding society typically support. Some of this even peace or conflict studies and mediation practice only partly prepares us for; I think at least such practitioners also struggle with these disciplines and would be quick to warn others of the difficultly and long effort required to do well. These disciplines ask us to be prepared in ways that even long time, accomplished mediation and practice only partly does.

The honest broker style and the guidance of a trans-partisan understanding tend to seclude us from the more intense passions. Intense passions often come from a tight focus whereas interdependence has the calming effect of a broader, trans-partisan understanding. The honest broker is less likely to get entangled in a partisan net. In my mind these three practices or values are action-oriented precepts for actualizing the dharma – particularly the middle way, interdependence and not-self.

Many cultures recognize the value of a wise king. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that other cultures, in my case western “liberal” culture, proposed it’s own ‘precepts’ as it were. And further that those precepts in many ways resemble or parallel dharma concepts. Concepts which compliment and perhaps give shape to the Buddha’s idea of “going forth”.

1 Like

Please expand on this. :slight_smile:

Well, I think we have a reasonably clear picture based on how the Buddha solved this problem. Initially, we recall, he followed a more Jain-style path based on extreme asceticism and deprivation - effectively starving oneself to death. Ultimately, he accepted food that was offered to him. Thus began the vaunted “middle way” of Buddhism. That middle way, as we see it in the suttas, is a less extreme form of renunciant life that depends on non-renunciants who provide the basic material support needed for wandering mendicants to live and practice without starving themselves.

3 Likes

These are themes that I have been developing in this thread and elsewhere on suttacentral.
On this site Search on “trans-partisan” , “honest broker” and “heterodox academy”

The reference to “going forth” was in response to @DKervick use of the phrase.
I heard it as a reference to the simile/analogy of “the path” as a long journey.


FYI: This is the appropriate thread to contribute a social-political analysis,comments or thoughts.

1 Like
  1. The two are dissimilar, their dwelling and conduct
    far apart:
    the layman supporting a wife and the ascetic owning
    nothing.
    The layman is unrestrained in harming other beings,
    while the muni, ever restrained, protects living beings.
    (14)
  2. Just as the blue-necked peacock, flying in the sky,
    never approaches the speed of a goose,
    so the layman is no match for the bhikkhu,
    a muni meditating secluded in the woods. (15)
  • Muni Sutta Translation by Bhikkhu Bodhi

It seems that in ancient India it was thought that the best way to protect living beings and to live a spiritual life was by going forth. I imagine a quietistic bhikkhu living in the woods has a much lower impact on the planet and does much less harm to other humans than even the most eco-conscious social justice promoting householder.

It’s completely off topic - I don’t care, flag me:

Thanks for the giggle, this thread (and the others like it) have really begun to sap my spirits, this thoroughly charming phase puts a few pennies back in the bank.

4 Likes

I think the suttas more encourage the development of virtue out of compassion rather than duty or obligation. And some of the things encouraged if widely adopted would be good for all society. I really like this sutta because it not only encourages generosity to the sangha but to the poor as well:

This was said by the Lord…

“Bhikkhus, these three kinds of persons are found existing in the world. What three? One who is like a rainless cloud, one who rains locally, and one who rains everywhere.

“Now what kind of person, bhikkhus, is like a rainless cloud? Here, a certain person is not a giver to anyone; he does not give food, drink, clothing, vehicles, garlands, scents, ointments, beds, lodging, and lamps to recluses and brahmins, to the poor, destitute, and needy. This kind of person is like a rainless cloud.

“Now what, bhikkhus, is the kind of person who rains locally? Here, a certain person is a giver to some but not a giver to others. Food, drink, clothing, vehicles, garlands, scents, ointments, beds, lodging, and lamps he gives only to some recluses and brahmins, to some of the poor, destitute, and needy, but not to others. This is the kind of person who rains locally.

“Now what, bhikkhus, is the kind of person who rains everywhere? Here, a certain person gives to all. He gives food, drink, clothing, vehicles, garlands, scents, ointments, beds, lodging, and lamps to all recluses and brahmins, to the poor, destitute, and needy. This is the kind of person who rains everywhere.

“These, bhikkhus, are the three kinds of persons found existing in the world.”

Neither to recluses nor brahmins
Nor to the poor and destitute
Does he distribute his store
Of food and drink and goods;
That base person is called
“One like a rainless cloud.”

To some he does not give,
To some he offers alms;
That one wise people call
“One who rains only locally.”

A person renowned for his bounty,
Compassionate towards all beings,
Distributes alms gladly.
“Give! Give!” he says.

Like a great storm cloud
That thunders and rains down
Filling the levels and hollows,
Saturating the earth with water,
Even so is such a person.

Having righteously gathered wealth
Which he obtains by his own effort,
He fully satisfies with food and drink
Whatever beings live in need.

-Iti 75

3 Likes

I crochet is that OK :slight_smile:

knittingbuddha2

knitted%20buddha3

laughing-buddha-crochet-pattern-57b284943df78cd39ca6d7b2

7 Likes

you get no argument from me Laurence. DKervick made that remark. I think he may be happy to hear your take on it. :smile_cat:

1 Like

It seems there was an order of monks just like that, at the Buddha’s time: