I think monks and other experts on the Buddha’s teaching can continue to remind people of the dangers of greed.
4 Likes
Nuns/Monks can do what they like if they are respected elders who maintain their monastic code of discipline. Do you really feel you should be telling monastics what they are permitted to do or, what it is advisable that they should do, or not do, according to you?
It is standard practice for monastics to warn about the dangers of greed, hatred and, ignorance. If a monastic can clearly see how the 3 poisons are bringing us into very dangerous territory and is happy to point out what they ‘see’ they are as entitled as any free-citizen to do as much!
You seem to be insisting on imposing your point of view on broad-minded and well educated monks - like ‘Bhikku Bodhi’ - who see no conflict of interest between their practice as monastics and their action on climate change.
It is most unfortunate that clear and coherent voices like ‘Bhikku Bodhi’s’ that are so relevant to the needs of our day and age, may be treated with suspicion because they have something meaningful to say about climate change etc.
You mentioned something about the negative impact of religion still felt in the modern world - in your opening reflection. I would encourage you to reflect on the different ways that religion has a negative influence. We don’t want to dumb-down inquiry and discussion in Buddhist circles by suppressing wise reflection that extends our understanding instead of narrowing it.
You also said in your opening piece something about the Buddhist-saint may not have insight into ways and means for helping us with X, Y and, Z! That may be so in some instances but not in others? So, should we ignore the ones that can educate us in a variety of important ways?
When we come out of a dark room into broad daylight it might take a little time for our eyes to adjust?
@Dkervick, responses to your OP have branched out in various directions – to the point that it’s getting hard to follow. A split into a couple of different topics would be in order.
But going back I am appreciating a thread of thought from these excepts from your OP:
So when it comes to an issue such as climate change I say the idea of “a Buddhist response” is a bit sloppy. There are Buddhist responses, plural. To be more explicit, it might be better to say that there are various responses by Buddhists.
And as to “what would the Buddha do?”. The answer might be a big disappoint to all activists, myself included. Socially-politically engaged Buddhists take warning.
1 Like
If a socially engaged Buddhist response involves a denial of the dangers of climate change and a ‘business as usual’ multinational corporate take-over of anything they can make a ‘buck’ on - with an insatiable drive for more even if it costs the Earth then, we may wonder just what it is they are engaged in - it can’t be helpful.
Hello basho
I don’t follow the philosophy that words have whatever meaning we want to put to them. So, to me, it’s not simply a matter of how I read something.
I am not in charge of it, it is an offering out of concern for the wellbeing of others, on a website I understand is dedicated to investigating the Buddha’s teaching as recorded in the early texts, you can accept or reject it as you wish. I doubt anyone would deny the Buddha taught there was such as thing as the ‘I am conceit’.
best wishes
ha ha ha, why not apply a bit of intuition and guess what has happened here (give the benefit of the doubt)?
thanks for your strange way of pointing out the typo/scano
Did the Buddha refer to people in a ‘convential’ way as well as giving teachings on ‘personality belief’, conceit etc. I think you will find the sentence that drew your attention makes good sense conventionally. That was all that was intended!
Should we think of our conventional everyday lives in terms of success and failure? If we are not mindful our so-called successes could give rise to conciet - a sense of self-importance? We need to be careful - IMO.
Being nobody going nowhere has little to do with success and failure or other worldly preoccupations.
I wish you all success in your highest aspirations but if you fail it makes no difference to me as the door of my heart is unconditionally open to you, me and, all sentient beings. This is my teachers heart-felt advice.
Good, bad, how do we know? 
Hi again Basho
Thanks for this question.
I’m sorry, but I don’t think I can explain it to you, so that you can understand, if you haven’t already from what I have said above.
In other places I have read things like, the world is suffering, but I don’t know if that would help you.
To know his definition, imo, is to have Right View. I point you to the sutta I quoted above again, for your reflection.
Best wishes
Hi Laurence
I don’t believe the Buddha taught or spoke ‘conventional’ truth, unlike the Four Noble Truths. The doctrine of conventional/ultimate seems to be promoted by commentarial material. So my answer would be, ‘no he didn’t refer to people in a conventional way, but just spoke about ‘people’ when he meant that.’
Again no, as I don’t accept the Buddha taught about ‘conventional truth’ as generally accepted. It seems to be based on advice about using local language for solid objects (a bowl is given as an example), rather than insisting on one word to be used by everyone, which, for me, is very practical. SuttaCentral
Once again, it seems you use ‘worldly (preoccupations)’ in a way I think is incompatible with the Buddha-Dhamma.
‘Being’ for me is a concern of people who have not realised Right View, including ‘being nobody…’
With wrong view, we think of ourselves (and others) as a success or failure as a person. Avoiding this one could just look at kamma/ action/ behaviour, e.g. walking a path and see if it is successful, or not and that would seem to be necessary to make progress. To me, the latter has noting to do with the ‘I am conceit’. Thinking it does, is wrong view, to me.
We change,
‘I do this better than you/he/myself (in the past)’
to
‘so I am a better person than you/he/myself (in the past).’
When in face, imo, it is only our knowledge and/or skill that has improved. In short, we blow this out of proportion.
When we take our action and make it mean a statement about us as a person, that is, the ‘I am conceit’ in action. We identify with our actions.
best wishes
From above: “With wrong view, we think of ourselves (and others) as a success or failure as a person.”
This was the meaning of what was said - nothing more nothing less.
nice, but that is not what I understood from your words
That can happen sometimes - all good. It’s good to hear from you again!
1 Like
no worries. if you can’t explain it, it only means that you don’t understand it. to assume the understanding level of someone else without any knowledge of that other person is an example of the conceit level that you thrust on someone else’s words in your first post. lol
“more examples of ‘the conceit “I am”’”
Nice to hear from you again too.
Of course it can happen sometimes. I don’t appreciate being told the obvious. It is patronising to me.
For me, the path of wisdom (comprehending cause and effect) development would involve asking, 'did the message get through because…
- The person is in too much suffering to understand?
- I am in too much suffering to express myself clearly?
otherwise, it seems to be simply falling onto the philosophy of blaming words.
best wishes
2 Likes