I don’t know about you, but I don’t look to the Buddha for complete moral answers to all of life’s questions. The precepts are training rules, not a moral law code.
1 Like
May I take a moment here to re-iterate Aminah’s comment. Her request was for either the resumption of discussion of the OP, or the splitting off into a separate thread for the change in topic. Moving the thread to Discussion was appropriate for the OP, but that does not change the need to either get back on topic or to split the thread.
Thank you!
4 Likes
Actually my post wasn’t really aimed at the ethics of it.
My intended point was that it wasn’t inconceivable that a kindly Buddhist might own slaves. The possession of deeply-engrained mettā as a character trait doesn’t inoculate a person against the possibility of intellectual or moral error. It guarantees that a person’s actions towards another will tend to proceed from benevolent motives, but it doesn’t guarantee that they will do the other person any good. It’s quite possible to be mettāful and stupid. It’s quite possible to be mettāful and morally shortsighted.
5 Likes
Is it possible for an awakened being, an Aryan, to have no loving kindness - in your opinion? You have said there can be metta without clear understanding. But can there be true understanding and wisdom without metta? The ethics - true ethical conduct - must require a clear-seeing of what needs to be done in order to minimise harm. If we see clearly our ability to be truly kind and act appropriately increases. Do you think someone like this would seek ownership of another human being?
I think the situation is complex. For example if you ask someone who has essentially been part of the family for decades to suddenly leave, you are making them intensionally homeless. They might not have a range of skills, support network etc. Buddhism doesn’t encourage the kind of morality that comes from commandment type directions. We are encouraged to consider our and the other’s wellbeing and make the best decision we can, perhaps with consultation with others as well, under that particular situation. Moral decisions are a complicated business. I partly don’t want to have pet dog for similar reasons. I will need to do many things to it that I’m not comfortable doing, but I won’t ask others to do the same as the weight of balance might be different (guide dog) for others. This decision will differ from person to person.
With metta
3 Likes
Where was this said or, suggested by anyone?
I have never been in a situation where I owned another human being and in order for them to leave the house or flat I was staying in - or my family - I had to disown them first.
This was the question I asked:
As the Bhante’s comment was about the owning of people we could make the question clearer. If we - or anyone had a clear understanding of what they were doing and were truly mettāful - would we/they seek to own other people, people that could be used in some way, like a house-servant or a farm worker?
The EBT’s don’t seem to give any indication that acquiring and owning people in order to use them to serve your personal interests would be an inappropriate way to behave.
They do not seem to provide advise that lay Buddhists should not do this - they should not buy and own people.
The EBT’s do tell us about happy slaves and kind slave owners etc. If we read about happy slaves and kind slave owners in the EBT’s it would suggest that this practice may be acceptable - not a hindrance to our Buddhist practice - then or now?
I think it might be insightful to reflect on the collective conditioning in that culture that may have been responsible for this belief about owning people. It was so ingrained and accepted as a normal part of their lives in that society that nobody gave it much thought - including the Buddha? At least, when it came to the ethics of lay Buddhist practice?
Might this be relevant when reflecting on some of the issues we now face in the modern world and, our response to them? Might this be relevant to our life as caring Buddhists and our way of practice in the here and now?
This is why I don’t think it’s a good idea to hide the fact that the world we learn about in the EBT’s was clearly a place where slavery was practiced. It should be made clear through accurate translation of the EBT’s that the servants were owned i.e. they were slaves?
I apologize if I wandered off topic in the discussion. What I was trying to draw attention to was what I have expressed in this comment.
In an earlier comment it was said: ‘people behave in unrestrained and unskilful ways everywhere. Its not the case that religion has much of an impact in society on people behaving harmfully.’
So, is it a coincidence that in societies whose dominant religion strongly prohibits prostitution, that prostitution is not clearly evident eg. you don’t find lines of women - and girls - standing on the street waiting for customers?
In other societies we find prostitution carefully regulated, in countries that have political representatives and law-makers who have constituencies that have traditional religious values (that discourage prostitution). In countries like these it can be difficult to get safe-guards in the industry approved. As many folk would prefer it to remain illegal.
The meanings and messages contained in teachings, including the EBT’s, has an impact on the world around us. Therefore, we need to be careful to not soften or dilute those meanings in any way - IMO. 
If you’re interested in the situation of dāsas in ancient India a good place to look is Kautilya’s Arthaśastra. It’s slightly later than the EBT and probably not covering the same area, but not too bad. Also we have to keep in mind that it was part descriptive (laws as they were applied) and part prescriptive (how laws should be applied).
Important aspects are (that’s Kautilya not Buddhism):
- dāsas are not aryan, i.e. not brahmin, khattiya, vessa or sudda.
- āhitaka (a term not found in Pali afaik) is in the Arthaśastra the proper bond-laborer that pays debts by being owned for a limited time. Aryans could be that too. Maybe the EBT don’t distinguish between dāsa and āhitaka
- karmakara seems to have been casual labour engaged for a specific task
- It’s not very clear if there was a general term for non-slave non-aryans, but mleccha was one of them (Pali milakkha or milakkhu)
- In general also dāsas had their rights and were protected by specific laws mentioned
4 Likes
That’s better than no legal protections and hopefully, there were protections with regard to the dasa’s mentioned the EBT’s. Something we do know is that they were owned people and this did not seem to be a major cause for concern - not good enough - IMO.
Best not to candy-coat this practice for sensitive modern minds, in case it upsets people when they read about it in the EBT’s. That did appear to be the reason given for the use of a term that many readers may not understand or, find as confronting.
Just tell people the truth and let them ask questions - it could make them wiser and kinder people (IMO). At least, they will be accurately informed, these were owned people! Some of them had been captured and may have been divided up with the rest of the booty - carried off by so-called warriors.
We need to show some respect when it comes to the lives of people who were treated this way.
Its not just about their immediate living conditions. For instance, Bhante Dhammanando’ said that some of these people may have been captured in raids, others were bought - sold to the highest bidder!
To smile and feel OK about the good treatment of these owned-people in their daily lives without reflecting on how people can find themselves in this kind of situation in the first place really makes me sad. Then, to be told I am an ‘agitator on a soap-box’ because I draw my Mitta’s attention to these kinds of issues is also kind of sad.
I don’t mean feeling sad about myself as I don’t feel I have done anything wrong by opening my heart and mind.
I don’t feel sad about questioning the teachings. I have always had the impression that we are encouraged to do so. My Ajahn certainly does it and draws a lot of heat as a consequence.
We need to wake-up and not believe that things like slavery are ‘mighty fine’ if the slave was not beaten on a regular basis etc. Things were not mighty fine in the good-ole days and they certainly are not that way now in a world on the brink of ecocide. What will it take for us to see?
1 Like