In Buddhism, you can’t separate meditation from the day to day living. Five precepts, Brahma Vihara , are an integral part of Noble Eightfold Path( Dana,Sila,Samadhi) .
3 Likes
From above:
“If the Buddha was greatly interested in the long-term preservation, progress and ideal organization of society, he would have had more to say about marriage, households, children, economic organization, trade, war, diplomacy and statecraft. But his comments on these aspects of the world are spare, to say the least. His conversations with kings are mainly concerned with the spiritual well-being of those kings. His conversations with householders are mainly concerned with guiding those (generally older) householders toward living an ascetic, quasi-monastic life, and recommending that others refrain from certain very bad livelihoods.”
There may not be a large collection of the Buddha’s teachings dedicated to the subjects you pointed to - in the quote above - but they do exist. I think I read about the Buddha’s teachings on these themes in the book: “What the Buddha Taught.” (see below)
I don’t agree that the Buddha had no interest in the long term preservation, progress and ideal organisation of society. His conversations with royalty about governance were tactful and wise but necessarily restrained. This may well have been out of social concern. He had a large following in the community, he had the conviction that their presence was a social good. The royalty of that time were powerful and potentially dangerous people if, the Buddha had alienated these folk it could have had dire implications for his community. He new how the leaders thought - he had been a member of their community.
The Buddha was not just concerned with guiding householders (mainly older) towards a quasimonastic life. The Buddha gave guidance to householders on how to live as a householder. Take a look at the book I cited - its free online!
The Buddha engaged in a direct intervention between to armies about to engage in a battle. Where was the ‘turning away from the world’ philosophy in that act of bravery and compassion. I simply don’t agree with your views about the Buddha’s teachings when it comes to social engagement.
As to your comment: there is no need to preserve the Earth specifically and, we can practice anywhere. I believe this is an uncompassionate and irresponsible attitude. To talk about the lives of sentient beings on Earth so ‘casually’ is very sad - there is a need to preserve the Earth specifically! We should do everything we can to preserve the welfare of the myriad beings on Earth in our own self interest and in the interests of those who are yet to be born! If you are casually indifferent to your life and practice here on Earth - you can practice anywhere, any old planet will do then, good luck with that!
We are all capable of mistaking indifference for non-attachment. The Buddha did not teach indifference, a casual disregard for the welfare of others or, an other-worldly transcendence.
Nibbana is not an immanent or transcendental reality - it is not near or far far away, subtle or gross, visible or invisible - in some other place that makes this Earth of little consequence.
1 Like
I was being ironic. But the relative insignificance of any particular particular planet or group of beings seems to be a consequence of a view of the universe in which we all always wander on somewhere so long as we are not enlightened. The Earth is just one more impermanent pattern in the incomprehensible vastness of worlds and times, according to that picture.
Because things are impermanent does not make them unimportant. Ajahn Chah taught: because the cup is already cracked, this is why we need to take care of it! The same applies to this blue-green planet we call home - if I have to be reborn I would like to have the possibility of a viable planet Earth. Neptune is not a place I would find conducive to practice. It might be OK if I was a bit further down the track! Mass extinction and ecological devastation on a planetary scale is not just ironic! 
2 Likes
It hard to see why mass extinction is an especially important event if the members of the extinct species are all reborn elsewhere according to their kamma. They are just exchanging one form for another.
Of course, the fact that these creatures age, sicken and die is painful for them and any dear ones they have, and a reason for compassion. But that is true whether or not their species is also dying out.
Two things: 1) there is no being that moves from one life to another - the Buddha taught rebirth not reincarnation and, 2) if you do not see how human-induced mass extinction and various other human-induced calamities, that are bringing us perilously close to midnight are ‘especially important’ - on compassionate and rational grounds? Then, I guess this discussion is about to fizzle!
The species are dying out as a consequence of human greed, hatred and ignorance - human folly. It is true that species die out anyway - impermanence is the way it is in nature. You need to be able to ethically distinguish between the negative consequences of ‘our’ behaviour as a species and natural occurrences in the life cycle of the planet.
There is a difference between ‘natural events’ that happen without the input of human stupidity and destructive events that are orchestrated by ignorant humans. The first scenario requires patient endurance and the second requires compassionate and rational action to right the wrong! As Buddhists, we acknowledge, forgive and, learn - we don’t just say: shit happens and, walk away from our collective responsibilities to the planet and its sentient inhabitants. You need to go back to the drawing board!
1 Like
An extract from the book: ‘What the Buddha Taught’ by (Walpola Rahula)
Instruction for life
- Take into account that great love and great achievements involve great risk. 2. When you lose, don’t lose the lesson.
- Follow the three R’s: Respect for self; Respect for others; and Responsibility for all your actions.
- Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck.
- Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
- Don’t let a little dispute injure a great friendship.
- When you realize you’ve made a mistake, take immediate steps to correct it. 8. Spend some time alone every day.
- Open your arms to change, but don’t let go of your values.
- Remember that silence is sometimes the best answer.
- Live a good, honorable life. Then when you get older and think back, you’ll be able to enjoy it a second time.
- A loving atmosphere in your home is the foundation for your life.
- In disagreements with loved ones, deal only with the current situation. Don’t bring up the past.
- Share your knowledge. It’s a way to achieve immortality.
- Be gentle with the earth.
- Once a year, go someplace you’ve never been before.
- Remember that the best relationship is one in which your love for each other exceeds your need for each other.
- Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it.
- Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon.
There are some who believe that Buddhism is so lofty and sublime a system that it cannot be practised by ordinary men and women in this workaday world of ours, and that one has to retire from it to a monastery, or to some quiet place, if one desires to be a true Buddhist.
This is a sad misconception, due evidently to a lack of understanding of the teaching of the Buddha. People run to such hasty and wrong conclusions as a result of their hearing, or reading casually, something about Buddhism written by someone, who, as he has not understood the subject in all its aspects, gives only a partial and lopsided view of it. The Buddha’s teaching is meant not only for monks in monasteries, but also for ordinary men and women living at home with their families. The Noble Eightfold Path, which is the Buddhist way of life, is meant for all, without distinction of any kind.
The vast majority of people in the world cannot turn monk, or retire into caves or forests. However noble and pure Buddhism may be, it would be useless to the masses of mankind if they could not follow it in their daily life in the world of today. But if you understand the spirit of Buddhism correctly (and not only its letter), you can surely follow and practise it while living the life of an ordinary man.
There may be some who find it easier and more convenient to accept Buddhism, if they do live in a remote place, cut off from the society of others. Others may find that that kind of retirement dulls and depresses their whole being both physically and mentally, and that it may not therefore be conduicive to the development of their spiritual and intellectual life.
True renunciation does not mean running away physically from the world. Sariputta, the chief disciple of the Buddha, said that one man might live in a forest devoting himself to ascetic practices but might be full of impure thoughts and ‘defilements’ ; another might live in a village or a town, practising no ascetic discipline, but his mind might be pure, and free from ‘defilements’. Of these two, said Sariputta, the one who lives a pure life in the village or town is definitely far superior to, and greater than, the one who lives in the forest.
The common belief that to follow the Buddha’s teaching one has to retire from life is a misconception. It is really an unconscious defence against practising it. There are numerous references in Buddhist literature to men and women living ordinary, normal family lives who successfully practised what the Buddha taught, and realized Nirvana. Vacchagotta the Wanderer, (whom we met earlier in the chapter on Anatta), once asked the Buddha straightforwardly whether there were laymen and women leading the family life, who followed his teaching successfully and attained to high spiritual states. The Buddha categorically stated that there were not one or two, not a hundred or two hundred or five hundred, but many more laymen and women leading the family life who followed his teaching successfully and attained to high spiritual states.
It may be agreeable for certain people to live a retired life in a quiet place away from noise and disturbance. But it is certainly more praiseworthy and courageous to practise Buddhism living among your fellow beings, helping them and being of service to them. It may perhaps be useful in some cases for a man to live in retirement for a time in order to improve his mind and character, as preliminary moral, spiritual and intellectual training, to be strong enough to come out later and help others. But if a man lives all his life in solitude, thinking only of his own happiness and ‘salvation’, without caring for his fellows, this surely is not in keeping with the Buddha’s teaching which is based on love, compassion, and service to others.
One might now ask: If a man can follow Buddhism while living the life of an ordinary layman, why was the Sangha, the Order of monks, established by the Buddha? The Order provides opportunity for those who are willing to devote their lives not only to their own spiritual and intellectual development, but also to the service of others. An ordinary layman with a family cannot be expected to devote his whole life to the service of others, whereas a monk, who has no family responsibilities or any other worldly ties, is in a position to devote his whole life ‘for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many’ according to the Buddha’s advice. That is how in the course of history, the Buddhist monastery became not only a spiritual centre, but also a centre of learning and culture.
The Sigala-sutta (No.31 of the Digha-nikaya) shows with what great respect the layman’s life, his family and social relations are regarded by the Buddha. A young man named Sigala used to worship the six cardinal points of the heavens - east, south, west, north, nadir and zenith - in obeying and observing the last advice given him by his dying father. The Buddha told the young man that in the ‘noble discipline’ (ariyassa vinaye) of his teaching the six directions were different. According to his ‘noble discipline’ the six directions were: east: parents; south; teachers; west: wife and children; north: friends, relatives and neighbours; nadir: servants, workers and employees; zenith: religious men.
‘One should worship these six directions’ said the Buddha. Here the word ‘worship’ (namasseyya) is very significant, for one worships something sacred, something worthy of honour and respect. These six family and social groups mentioned above are treated in Buddhism as sacred, worthy of respect and worship. But how is one to ‘worship’ them? The Buddha says that one could ‘worship’ them only by performing one’s duties towards them. These duties are explained in his discourse to Sigala.
First: Parents are sacred to their children. The Buddha says: ‘Parents are called Brahma’(Brahmati matapitaro). The term Brahma denotes the highest and most sacred conception in Indian thought, and in it the Buddha includes parents. So in good Buddhist families at the present time children literally ‘worship’ their parents every day, morning and evening. They have to perform certain duties towards their parents according to the ‘noble discipline’: they should look after their parents in their old age; should do whatever they have to do on their behalf; should maintain the honour of the family and continue the family tradition; should protect the wealth earned by their parents; and perform their funeral rites after their death. Parents, in their turn, have certain responsibilities towards their children: they should keep their children away from evil courses : should engage them in good and profitable activities; should give them a good education ; should marry them into good families ; and should hand over the property to them in due course.
Second: The relation between teacher and pupil : a pupil should respect and be obedient to his teacher : should attend to his needs if any ; should study earnestly. And the teacher, in his turn, should train and shape his pupil properly ; should teach him well ; should introduce him to his friends ; and should try to procure him security or employment when his education is over.
Third: The relation between husband and wife : love between husband and wife is considered almost religious or sacred. It is called sadara-Brahmacariya ‘sacred family life’. Here, too, the significance of the term Brahma should be noted : the highest respect is given to this relationship. Wives and husbands should be faithful, respectful and devoted to each other, and they have certain duties towards each other : the husband should always honour his wife and never be wanting in respect to her ; he should love her and be faithful to her ; should secure her position and comfort ; and should please her by presenting her with clothing and jewellery. (The fact that the Buddha did not forget to mention even such a thing as the gifts a husband should make to his wife shows how understanding and sympathetic were his humane feelings towards ordinary human emotions.) The wife, in her turn, should supervise and look after household affairs ; should entertain guests, visitors, friends, relatives and employees ; should love and be faithful to her husband ; should protect his earnings ; should be clever and energetic in all activities.
Fourth: The relation between friends, relatives and neighbours : they should be hospitable and charitable to one another ; should speak pleasantly and agreeably ; should work for each other’s welfare ; should be on equal terms with one another ; should not quarrel among themselves ; should help each other in need ; and should not forsake each other in need ; and should not forsake each other in difficulty.
Fifth: The relation between master and servant : the master or the employer has several obligations towards his servant or his employee : work should be assigned according to ability and capacity ; adequate wages should be paid ; medical needs should be provided ; occasional donations or bonuses should be granted. The servant or employee, in his turn, should be diligent and not lazy ; honest and obedient and not cheat his master ; he should be earnest in his work.
Sixth: The relation between the religious (lit. recluses and brahmanas) and the laity : lay people should look after the material needs of the religious with love and respect ; the religious with a loving heart should impart knowledge and learning to the laity, and lead them along the good path away from evil.
We see then that the lay life, with its family and social relations, is included in the ‘noble discipline’, and is within the framework of the Buddhist way of life, as the Buddha envisaged it. So in the Samyutta-nikaya, one of the oldest Pali texts, Sakka, the king of the gods (devas), declares that he worships not only the monks who live a virtuous holy life, but also ‘lay disciples (upasaka) who perform meritorious deeds, who are virtuous, and maintain their families righteously’.
If one desires to become a Buddhist, there is no initiation ceremony (or baptism) which one has to undergo. (But to become a bhikkhu, a member of the Order of the Sangha, one has to undergo a long process of disciplinary training and education.) If one understands the Buddha’s teaching, and if one is convinced that his teaching is the right Path and of one tries to follow it, then one is a Buddhist. But according to the unbroken age-old tradition in Buddhist countries, one is considered a Buddhist if one takes the Buddha, the Dhamma(the Teaching), and the Sanga(The Order of Monks)-generally called ‘the Triple-Gem’- as one’s refuges, and undertakes to observe the Five Precepts(Panca-sila)-the minimum moral obligations of a lay Buddhist - (1) not to destroy life, (2) not to steal, (3) not to commit adultery, (4) not to tell lies, (5) not to take intoxicating drinks - reciting the formulas given in the ancient texts. On religious occasions Buddhists incongregation usually recite these formulas, following the lead of a Buddhist monk.
There are no external rites or ceremonies which a Buddhist has to perform. Buddhism is a way of life, and what is essential is following the Noble Eightfold Path. Of course there are in all Buddhist countries simple and beautiful ceremonies on religious occasions. There are shrines with statues of the Buddha, stupas or dagabas and Bo-trees in monasteries where Buddhists worship, offer flowers, light lamps and burn incense. This should not be likened to prayer in theistic religions; it is only a way of paying homage to the memory of the Master who showed the way. These traditional observances, though inessential, have their value in satisfying the religious emotions and needs of those who are less advanced intellectually and spiritually, and helping them gradually along the Path.
Those who think that Buddhism is interested only on lofty ideals, high moral and philosophical thought, and that it ignores the social and economic welfare of people, are wrong. The Buddha was interested in the happiness of men. To him happiness was not possible without leading a pure life based on moral and spiritual principles. But he knew that leading such a life was hard in unfavorable material and social conditions.
Buddhism does not consider material welfare as an end in itself ; it is only a means to an end - a higher and nobler end. But it is a means which is indispensable, indispensable in achieving a higher purpose for man’s happiness. So Buddhism recognizes the need of certain minimum material condition favorable to spiritual success - even that of a monk engaged in meditation in some solitary place.
The Buddha did not take life out of the context of its social and economic background ; he looked at it as a whole, in all its social, economic and political aspects. His teachings on ethical, spiritual and philosophical problems are fairly well known. But little is known, particularly in the West, about his teaching on social, economic and political matters. Yet there are numerous discourses dealing with these scattered throughout the ancient Buddhist texts. Let us take only a few examples.
The Cakkavattisihanada-sutta of the Digha-nikaya (No.26) clearly states that poverty (daliddiya) is the cause of immorality and crimes such as theft, falsehood, violence, hatred, cruelty, etc. Kings in ancient times, like government today, tried to suppress the cause of immorality and crime through punishment. The Kutadanta-sutta of the same Nikaya explains how futile this is. It says that this method can never be successful. Instead the Buddha suggests that, in order to eradicate crime, the economic condition of the people should be improved: grain and other facilities for agriculture should be provided for farmers and cultivators ; capital should be provided for traders and those engaged in business; adequate wages should be paid to those who are employed. When people are thus provided for with opportunities for earning a sufficient income, they will be contented, will have no fear or anxiety, and consequently the country will be peaceful and free from crime.
Because of this, the Buddha told lay people how important it is to improve their economic condition. This does not mean that he approved of hoarding wealth with desire and attachment, which is against his fundamental teaching, nor did he approve of each and every way of earning one’s livelihood. There are certain trades like the production and sale of armaments, which he condemns as evil means of livelihood, as we saw earlier.
A man named Dighajanu once visited the Buddha and said : ‘Venerable Sir, we are ordinary lay men, leading the family life with wife and children. Would the Blessed One teach us some doctrines which will be conducive to our happiness in this world and hereafter.’ The Buddha tells him that there are four things which are conducive to a man’s happiness in this world : First : he should be skilled, efficient, earnest, and energetic in whatever profession he is engaged, and he should know it well (utthanasampada) ; second : he should protect his income, which he has thus earned righteously, with the sweat of his brow (arakkha-sampada); (This refers to protecting wealth from thieves, etc. All these ideas should be considered against the background of the period.) third: he should have good friends (kalyana-mitta) who are faithful, learned, virtuous, liberal and intelligent, who will help him along the right path away from evil; fourth: he should spend reasonably, in proportion to his income, neither too much nor too little, i.e., should not hoard wealth avariciously, nor should he be extravagant - in other words he should live within his means (samajivikata).
Then the Buddha expounds the four virtues conducive to a layman’s happiness hereafter : (1) Saddha : he should have faith and confidence in moral, spiritual and intellectual values ; (2) Sila : he should abstain from destroying and harming life, from stealing and cheating, from adultery, from falsehood, and from intoxicating drinks ; (3) Caga : he should practise charity, generosity, without attachment and craving for his wealth ; (4) Panna ; he should develop wisdom which leads to the complete destruction of suffering, to the realization of Nirvana.
Sometimes the Buddha even went into details about saving money and spending it, as, for instance, when he told the young man Sigala that he should spend one fourth of his income on his daily expenses, invest half in his business and put aside one of fourth for any emergency.
Once the Buddha told Anathapindika, the great banker, one of his most devoted lay disciples who founded for him the celebrated Jetavana monastery at Savatthi, that a layman, who leads an ordinary family life, has four kinds of happiness. The first happiness is to enjoy economic security or sufficient wealth acquired by just and righteous means (atthi-sukha) ; the second is spending that wealth liberally on himself, his family, his friends and relatives, and on meritorious deeds (bhogasukha); the third to be free from debts (anana-sukha) ; the fourth happiness is to live a faultless, and a pure life without committing evil in thought, word or deed (anavajja-sukha). It must be noted here that three of these kinds are economic, and that the Buddha finally reminded the banker that economic and material happiness is ‘not worth one sixteenth part’ of the spiritual happiness arising out of a faultless and good life.
From the few examples given above, one could see that the Buddha considered economic welfare as requisite for human happiness, but that he did not recognize progress as real and true if it was only material, devoid of a spiritual and moral foundation. While encouraging material progress, Buddhism always lays great stress on the development of the moral and spiritual character for a happy, peaceful and contented society.
The Buddha was just as clear on politics, on war and peace. It is too well known to be repeated here that Buddhism advocates and preaches nonviolence and peace as its universal message, and does not approve of any kind of violence or destruction of life. According to Buddhism there is nothing that can be called a ‘just war’ - which is only a false term coined and put into circulation to justify and excuse hatred, cruelty, violence and massacre. Who decides what is just or unjust? The mighty and the victorious are ‘just’, and the weak and the defeated are ‘unjust’. Our war is always ‘just’, and your war is always ‘unjust’. Buddhism does not accept this position.
The Buddha not only taught non-violence and peace, but he even went to the field of battle itself and intervened personally, and prevented war, as in the case of the dispute between the Sakyas and the Koliyas, who were prepared to fight over the question of the waters of the Rohini. And his words once prevented King Ajatasattu from attacking the kingdom of the Vajjis.
In the days of the Buddha, as today, there were rulers who governed their countries unjustly. People were oppressed and exploited, tortured and persecuted, excessive taxes were imposed and cruel punishments were inflicted. The Buddha was deeply moved by these inhumanities. The Dhammapadatthakatha records that he, therefore, directed his attention to the problem of good government. His views should be appreciated against the social, economic and political background of his time. He had shown how a whole country could become corrupt, degenerate and unhappy when the heads of its government, that is the king, the ministers and administerative officers become corrupt and unjust. For a country to be happy it must have a just government. How this form of just government could be realized is explained by the Buddha in his teaching of the ‘Ten Duties of the King’(dasa-raja- khamma), as given in the Jataka text.
Of course the term ‘king’(Raja) of old should be replaced today by the term’ Government’. ‘The Ten Duties of the King’, therefore, apply today to all those who constitute the government, such as the head of the state, ministers, political leaders, legislative and administrative officers, etc.
The first of the ‘Ten Duties of the King’ is liberality, generosity, charity (dana). The ruler should not have craving and attachment to wealth and property, but should give it away for the welfare of the people.
Second: A high moral character (sila).
He should never destroy life, cheat, steal and exploit others, commit adultery, utter falsehood, and take intoxicating drinks. That is, he must at least observe the Five Precepts of the layman.
Third: Sacrificing everything for the good of the people (pariccaga), he must be prepared to give up all personal comfort, mane and fame, and even his life, in the interest of the people.
Fourth: Honesty and integrity (ajjava).
He must be free from fear or favour in the discharge of his duties, must be sincere in his intentions, and must not deceive the public.
Fifth: Kindness and gentleness (maddava). He must possess a genial temperament.
Sixth: Austerity in habits (tapa).
He must lead a simple life, and should not indulge in a life of luxury. He must have self-control.
Seventh: Freedom from hatred, ill-will, enmity (akkodha). He should bear no grudge against anybody.
Eighth: Non-violence (avihimsa), which means not only that he should harm nobody, but also that he should try to promote peace by avoiding and preventing war, and everything which involves violence and destruction of life.
Ninth: Patience, forbearance, tolerance, understanding (khanti).
He must be able to bear hardships, difficulties and insults without losing his temper.
Tenth: Non-opposition, non-obstruction (avirodha), that is to say that he should not oppose the will of the people, should not obstruct any measures that are conducive to the welfare of the people. In other words he should rule in harmony with his people.
If a country is ruled by men endowed with such qualities, it is needless to say that that country must be happy. But this was not a Utopia, for there were kings in the past like Asoka of India who had established kingdoms based on these ideas.
The world today lives in constant fear, suspicion, and tension. Science has produced weapons which are capable of unimaginable destruction. Brandishing these new instruments of death, great powers threaten and challenge one another, boasting shamelessly that one could cause more destruction and misery in the world than the other. They have gone along this path of madness to such a point that, now, if they take one more step forward in that direction, the result will be nothing but mutual annihilation along with the total destruction of humanity. Human beings in fear of the situation they have themselves created, want to find a way out, and seek some kind of solution. But there is none except that held out by the Buddha - his message of non-violence and peace, of love and compassion, of tolerance and understanding, of truth and wisdom, of respect and regard for all life, of freedom from selfishness, hatred and violence.
The Buddha says : ‘Never by hatred is hatred appeased, but it is appeased by kindness. This is an eternal truth.’ ‘One should win anger through kindness, wickedness through goodness, selfishness through charity, and falsehood through truthfulness.’ There can be no peace or happiness for man as long as he desires and thirsts after conquering and subjugating his neighbour. As the Buddha says : ‘The victor breeds hatred, and the defeated lies down in misery. He who renounces both victory and defeat is happy and peaceful.’ The only conquest that brings peace and happiness is self-conquest. ‘One may conquer millions in battle, but he who conquers himself, only one, is the greatest of conquerors.‘
You will say this is all very beautiful, noble and sublime, but impractical. Is it practical to hate one another? To kill one another? To live in eternal fear and suspicion like wild animals in a jungle? Is this more practical and comfortable? Was hatred ever appeased by hatred? Was evil ever won over by evil? But there are examples, at least in individual cases, where hatred is appeased by love and kindness, and evil won over by goodness. You will say that this may be true, practicable in individual cases, but that it never works in national and international affairs. People are hypnotized, psychologically puzzled, blinded and deceived by the political and propaganda usage of such terms as ’ national’, ’ international’, or ‘state’. What is a nation but a vast conglomeration of individuals? A nation or a state does not act, it is the individual who acts. What the individual thinks and does is what the nation of the state thinks and does. What is applicable to the individual in applicable to the nation or the state. If hatred can be appeased by love and kindness on the individual scale, surely it can be realized on the national and international scale too. Even in the case of a single person, to meet hatred with kindness one must have tremendous courage, boldness, faith and confidence in moral force. May it not be even more so with regard to international affairs? If by the expression ‘not practical’ you mean ‘not easy’, you are right. Definitely it is not easy. Yet it should be tried. You may say it is risky trying it. Surely it cannot be more risky than trying a nuclear war.
It is consolation and inspiration to think today that at least there was one great ruler, well known in history, who had the courage, the confidence and the vision to apply this teaching of non-violence, peace and love to the administration of a vast empire, in both internal and external affairs - Asoka, the great Buddhist emperor of India (3rd century B.C.)- ‘the Beloved of the gods’ as he was called. At first he followed the example of his father (Bindusara) and grandfather (Chandragupta), and wished to complete the conquest of the Indian peninsula. He invaded and conquered Kalinga, and annexed it. Many hundreds of thousands were killed, wounded, tortured and taken prisoner in this war. But later, when he became a Buddhist, he was completely changed and transformed by the Buddha’s teaching. In one of his famous Edicts, inscribed on rock, (Rock Edict _,as it is now called), the original of which one may read even today, referring to the conquest of Kalinga, the Emperor publicly expressed his ‘repentance’, and said how ‘extremely painful’ it was for him to think of that carnage.
He publicly declared that he would never draw his sword again for any conquest, but that he ‘wishes all living beings non-violence, self considered the chief conquest by the Beloved of the gods(i.e., Asoka), namely the conquest by piety (dhammavijaya).’ Not only did he renounce war himself, he expressed his desire that 'my sons and grandsons will not think of a new conquest as worth achieving… let them think of that conquest only which is the conquest by piety. That is good for this world and the world beyond. This is the only example in the history of mankind of a victorious conquerer at the zenith of his power, still possessing the strength to continue his territorial conquests, yet renouncing war and violence and turning to peace and non-violence.
Here is a lesson for the world today. The ruler of an empire publicly turned his back on war and violence and embraced the message of peace and non-violence. There is no historical evidence to show that any neighbouring king took advantage of Asoka’s piety to attack him militarily, or that there was any revolt or rebellion within his empire during his lifetime. On the contrary there was peace throughout the land, and even countries outside his empire seem to have accepted his benign leadership.
To talk of maintaining peace through the balance of power, or through the threat of nuclear deterrents, is foolish. The might of armaments can only produce fear, and not peace. It is impossible that there can be genuine and lasting peace through fear. Through fear can come only hatred, ill-will and hostility, suppressed perhaps for the time being only, but ready to erupt and become violent at any moment. True and genuine peace can prevail only in an atmosphere of metta, amity, free from fear, suspicion and danger.
Buddhism aims at creating a society where the ruinous struggle for power is renounced ; where calm and peace prevail away from conquest and defeat ; where the persecution of the innocent is vehemently denounced ; where one who conquers oneself is more respected than those who conquer millions by military and economic warfare ; where hatred is conquered by kindness, and evil by goodness ; where enmity, jealousy, ill-will and greed to not infect men’s minds ; where compassion is the driving force of action ; where all, including the least of living things, are treated with fairness, consideration and love ; where life in peace and harmony, in a world of material contentment, is directed towards the highest and noblest aim, the realization of the Ultimate Truth, Nirvana.
The Wheel-Turning Monarch, obviously.
3 Likes
signs of the times
I’ve posted the whole article rather than just a link as the background on the linked article is rather distracting.
http://www.purifymind.com/PerfectSociety.htm
The Buddhist Idea of a Perfect Society
- Ajahn Sumedho
We can imagine a perfect society and have a model of it to use as a guideline, as something to aim for. But we shouldn’t expect society ever to be perfect and to be continuously the way we would like it to be, because part of the perfection lies in the fact that everything changes; nothing can remain the same. Just as a rose reaches its perfect fullness, perfect form, perfect fragrance and then changes; so societies reach peaks and then they degenerate. This is the natural movement of all conditioned phenomena. Any sensory condition follows that pattern.
To contemplate the arising and ceasing of conditions allows us to understand them; we are not just caught in the arising and ceasing of the world - or of the human body - like a helpless creature that has no way of knowing anything beyond it. We actually have the power and ability to transcend the world, society, the body, the self. All that is most dear and precious, all that we are most frightened of, all that we can possibly conceive of or believe in, we can transcend. What do I mean by transcendence? To “transcend the world” sounds like you are somehow getting out of the whole thing by going somewhere else. To many people it would mean that you had left the world behind; that you were no longer interested in or concerned about it in any way; that you lived on a totally different plane.
First of all we need to contemplate what we mean by the world. Of course with our materialist mind conditioned through education and geography courses, we tend to see the world as a kind of map or globe. We think the world is the planet earth, and to transcend the planet earth we have to get off it somehow, and maybe go up to the moon. But when Buddhists talk about the world, we talk about the mind because that’s what we live in. Even the concept of the planet is a concept of the mind. Opinions we have about the world, about ourselves, about other beings, about other planets, are in fact the conditions that arise and cease in the mind. We say, “We’ll go and study the world,” meaning that we’ll go to every country on the planet. That’s not it. You don’t have to go anywhere to actually transcend the world or to see through the world so that you can transcend it. You open your mind; you begin to notice the way things actually are, that all that arises ceases.
Here in Britain just on a day like this, we are affected by the stunning beauty of nature: the undulating hills and the green colour, the extraordinary abundance and delicacy of flowers and their beautiful shapes, colours and patterns. So here on this planet, in this one small country, we can actually perceive form and colour taken to perfection. Try to imagine forms and colours more perfect than those of flowers. The precedent for perfection is really what we have already been able to perceive in form and colour; we judge by what we’ve already seen. And yet beauty changes; it’s not static. The seasons change and all the leaves fall off the trees, all the flowers disappear. Everything becomes bleak, almost monotone in winter when there is hardly any noticeable contrast, except in the shades of dark and lightness. Then if we compare winter with spring, we might say that spring is more beautiful; we might prefer vibrant colours and beautiful flowers.
However we can also begin to recognise the subtle beauty of winter. The colourlessness, and silence of winter can be as much appreciated as the energy of spring. This appreciation comes from not having opinions about things being perfect in a static way, the rose being a perfect rose in spring, summer, autumn and winter. For that you need a plastic rose, one that can be perfect all year round. But even the best, most perfectly made artificial rose is never as satisfying as even a less beautiful natural rose. Why? Because we know that it’s artificial. It’s pretending to be something it’s not, while the real flower isn’t pretending to be anything. It’s just what it is. It’s beauty is pure beauty without any pretence. It’s not trying to say it’s the most beautiful rose, either. Nor is it trying to hold on to its beauty. It’s willing to let it go.
So in this way we can be open to the perfection of nature and of the sensory world. Our view of perfection is no longer a fixed idea that things have to be only one way to be perfect; that when they change in a way we may not want them to, then that’s the end of what we hold dear and of what to us is perfection.Now contemplate an ideal for a perfect society. The Buddhists could say that a perfect society would be one of fully enlightened human beings - a society of arahants who have no selfish inclinations and understand everything as it is - a society of individuals who are no longer attached to the world of ignorance but have transcended the world. Transcendence means we no longer cling to the world. It doesn’t mean floating up in the sky and floating away from it. It means we live for a lifetime within this human form among all the sensory conditions but are no longer deluded by them. It means we use our ability to reflect and contemplate on our existence to the point where we see it clearly as it is. That is what we call transcending the world. So one who is transcending the world can still act and live in the world but in a very clear and pure way because the world is no longer a delusion. We are not expecting the world to be anything other than what it is. And the world is the mind itself, this mind.
Arahant is the Pali term for one who has no more delusions at all about the nature of the world. That is the term we use for a perfected human being, one who has wisely reflected and transcended the world, but who still lives in the world and works in the world for the welfare of other beings. If you have seen through the sense of self, broken through, let go of selfish interest in the world, then what else is there to do? Certainly you don’t live your life for any false sense of self anymore, if that has been transcended. So one lives the life of a human being for the welfare of others and of the society. Arahants in a society would thus be a great blessing. When one has totally abandoned self-interest, one no longer thinks in terms of getting rewards for one’s actions, not even gratitude, praise or any kind of remuneration. The perfect society would then be the society of enlightened ones.
We can look at our minds to see how this relates to us as individual beings. We can look at the state of the society, or the world in general - the United States, the Soviet Union, the Third World - and we can see that it is in a terrible state of confusion. Human societies, in general, are all somehow out of harmony with the Dhamma, with nature. We are so involved with our own personal views, our own attachments, our endless demands on the society and our environment, that we are taking the planet to destruction. This is the first time in human history that we have the capacity to destroy nearly all living beings on the planet. We have been so selfish and have so lost our sense of responsibility for the planet, that we are quite willing to corrupt and pollute the very home of humanity. We even think that if we blow it up in the future or if it becomes so polluted we can’t live on it anymore, that with modern technology we can escape to another planet and live there!
Rather than seeing the planet in the selfish, childish way that we do when we take it for granted and misuse it, we should begin to look at it as a place we must respect and learn to take care of. Human beings are capable of doing this. As selfish and as corrupt as we can be, we can also be noble. We can take on the responsibilities of caring for other human beings as well as caring for the animal kingdom and for the whole planet.
This is where I hope modern consciousness is taking us. At this time we can see a hopeful trend in what is called, expansion of consciousness. More and more people are awakening to this potential for transcending the world so that they are able to operate freely and wisely within the sensory realm, no longer for personal gain but for the welfare of other beings.
There are listed in the Pali Canon, the scriptures of Theravada Buddhism, what are called the rajadhammas, the virtues and duties of a wise ruler. The first one is the virtue of dana, which means generosity, giving. In almost all Buddhist lists of virtues, dana is always the first one. Isn’t that significant? Why do they always list dana first? In a Buddhist sense, any kind of ruler - a universal monarch, a prime minister, a president, a chairman - needs to have this sense of generosity because this is what opens the heart of a human being. Just reflect on the act of giving without selfish demand in return, without expecting a reward. When we give something we like or want, to somebody else, that opens the heart and that always engenders a sense of nobility. Humanity is at its best when it gives what it loves, what it values, to others.
The next one is sila, or high moral conduct. A ruler should be impeccable in morality, a human being you can fully trust. Whether you agree with a ruler’s actions or political positions isn’t terribly important; it’s the moral integrity of the ruler that is most important, because you can’t trust somebody who is immoral. But people can easily feel suspicious about someone who has not committed themselves fully to refrain from cruelty, from killing, from taking things that have not been given, from sexual misconduct, from false speech and from addictive drugs and drinks. These standards of restraint are the basic moral precepts, the sila, that you are expected to keep if you consider yourself a Buddhist.
The third virtue is pariccaga, or self-sacrifice. This means giving up personal happiness, safety and comfort for the welfare of the nation. Self-sacrifice is something we need to consider. Are we willing to sacrifice personal comfort, privilege, convenience, for the welfare of our families? In the past fifty years or so, self-sacrifice has almost come to be regarded with contempt, or put down as being foolish or naive. It seems that the tendency is to think of yourself first. What has this government done for you? What can you get out of it? Whenever I’ve thought in those ways I’ve always felt I could not respect myself at all. But any time that I sacrificed myself for something, I’ve always felt that doing so was the right thing to do. Giving up personal interest, personal convenience and comfort for the welfare of others - that is always something that I look back on now with no regret.
The fourth one is ajjava, which is honesty and integrity. This means more than not telling lies to others, but being honest with yourself. You can’t be deluded by all the desires and fears that go on in your own mind in order to have this sense of personal honesty, where you are not blaming or condemning others or looking at the world in the wrong way.
The fifth is maddava, which means kindness or gentleness. Living in Britain I’ve noticed that there is a tremendous desire for kindness and gentleness, and an idealism that holds to that. In daily life, however, one finds a kind of harshness towards oneself or towards others; a tendency to make a harsh judgments; to react with anger; to regard kindness as a bit soppy and wet. Gentleness is considered weak. So we’ve emphasised the practice of metta here in Britain more than in Thailand. Metta is loving-kindness. It’s kindness and gentleness towards oneself and towards others. When we hold to high standards and ideals, we often lack kindness. We are always looking at how things should be, and we become frustrated with life as it is. We become angry and cruel. To be kind and gentle seems wishy-washy and weak, and yet it is a virtue that a universal monarch should have in order to be truly considered a universal monarch.
The sixth is tapa which means austerity or self-control; giving up what you don’t really need.
The seventh one is akkodha, which is non-anger, non-impulsiveness, calmness. This is difficult: remaining calm in the midst of confusion and chaos, when things are frustrating, instead of acting just on impulse, saying something in anger, acting in anger. Akkodha is non-anger.
The eighth is avihimsa, or non-violence, non-oppression; not using violent means against enemies or against anyone; not being oppressive or forcing your will unmercifully on other people. Even high-mindedness can be oppressive, can’t it? If you live with people who have very high standards and high ideals, they can push you down all the time with their ideas. It’s a kind of violence, even though they might believe in non-violence and think they are not acting with violence. You can say, “I believe in avihimsa” but still be very oppressive about it. That’s why we often tend to see it as hypocrisy. When we talk about morality now, some people get very tense, because they remember morality as being oppressive, like in Victorian times when people were intimidated and frightened by moral judgments. But that is not avihimsa. Avihimsa is non-oppression.After avihimsa is khanti, which is patience, forbearance, tolerance. To be non-oppressive and non-violent, not to follow anger, one needs to be patient. We need to bear with what is irritating, frustrating, unwanted, unloved, unbeautiful. We need to forbear rather than react violently to it, oppress it, annihilate it.
The last one is avirodhana, non-deviation from righteousness, or conformity to the law, the Dhamma. Non-deviation from righteousness sounds oppressive, doesn’t it? When we become righteous we can often become very oppressive. I’ve seen it in myself. When I get full of righteous indignation I come at people like one of those Old Testament gods: “Thou shall not!” I can be pretty frightening to people when I’m righteous. Avirodhana isn’t that kind of patriarchal, oppressive righteousness. It is knowing what is right, what is appropriate to time and place. Here in Britain, we believe that thinking rationally and being reasonable is right. Everything that follows from that, we think is right, and everything that is irrational or unreasonable, we think is wrong. We don’t trust it. But when we attach to reason, then we often lack patience, because we are not open to the movement and flow of emotion. The spaciousness of life is completely overlooked. We are so attached to time, efficiency, the quickness of thought, the perfection of rational thinking, that we view temporal conditions as reality, and we no longer notice spaciousness. So the emotional nature, the feeling, the intuitive, the psychic, all are dismissed, neglected, and annihilated.
Avirodhana, or conformity to the Dhamma, entails a steadiness in one’s life to conform to the way things are. The only reason we don’t conform to it is that we don’t know it. Human beings are capable of believing in anything at all, so we tend to go every-which-way and follow any old thing. But once you discover the Dhamma, then your only inclination is to conform to the law of the way things are.
So these are the rajadhammas, the Dhammas of a universal ruler. Now let’s apply this list. We might think: “Well that’s what the Prime Minister should be doing, and the President of the United States, definitely. Maybe we should send them the list of the rajadhammas, and leave it up to them to do it.” But what is it within ourselves that we might consider the universal ruler? What would be the universal ruler in our own lives, internally? This is the way of reflection. You are taking these lists and applying them to the practical experience of being a human being, not looking at them as a way of judging the present rulers of the world. We could get into a lot of interesting criticisms, couldn’t we, if we decided to see how much dana, sila or pariccaga the Presidents have and judge them according to this list. But that would be of no value, would it? We could figure out what they should do, but we wouldn’t have the vaguest idea of what we should do. How our lives should move. How we should change. Yet the more we move towards developing the universal ruler within, then the more chance there is of actually getting one of these proper universal rulers.
In daily life we can move toward these virtues. These lists are not to be used as judgments against ourselves to say, “Oh I’m not generous enough; my morality isn’t good enough; I’m too selfish to think of sacrificing myself,” going on down the whole list like that. But you look at this list in order to aspire to move upward more and more in daily life experiences. To be able to do that we need to begin to know ourselves as we are, rather than making judgments about ourselves as we think we are. By understanding yourself, you will understand everyone else, and then you will understand the society.
So a perfect society can only happen when there are perfect human beings. And what is a perfect individual human being? It is one who is not deluded, who has transcended the appearance of the sensory realm. For such a person, these virtues naturally manifest in relation to all other beings. When there is no attachment to a selfish position or selfish view, then generosity becomes a natural way of relating. One wants to share. One realises just what one needs and is willing to share the extra. The tendency towards hoarding up for oneself diminishes.
In the world today we see this terrible discrepancy between the affluent Western world and the poverty-stricken Third World. We live at a very high standard of living while most of the people in the world live at a very low standard. Many are not even able to get enough to eat. We can contemplate this as not being right. We can condemn the Western world, or we can justify our affluence or feel sorry for the Third World.But what can we actually do about it? Perhaps we know that we haven’t enough influence with the governments and leaders of the affluent West, because they won’t listen to us. Maybe we can’t really change much on that level. But we can change the way we relate to the world, can’t we? We can learn to practice meditation and learn to live in a way whereby we become less and less selfish, so that what we do have, we are willing to share with others. Then we find the joy of sharing as the reward but not an expected reward. We can contemplate sila - our responsibility for action and speech. What are we doing now to live in a way that is not harmful to other creatures? We can refrain from violent actions and speech, from exploitation, from all that causes division, confusion, anguish and despair in the lives of other beings. We try to avoid actions or using speech that causes suffering in the minds of others. We can practice - with our family, with the people we work with, with the society we have to live in - how to live in a way that is non-violent, that is moral, that takes on the responsibility for what we say and do.
Self-sacrifice is not a kind of soppy martyrdom where I’m sacrificing myself for this no-good lot, pretending to be a martyr. Self-sacrifice doesn’t come from self-involvement, but from no longer regarding oneself as more important than anyone else. You have to know yourself before you can do that. The idea of sacrificing yourself without knowing yourself only makes you one of those sentimental martyrs. Self-sacrifice comes from mental clarity, not from sentimentality.
Ajjava: honesty, integrity. Maddava: kindness, gentleness. We can put forth attentiveness to life in a way which is gentle and kind. The reason we lack kindness is not that we don’t want to be kind; it’s that we are too impatient to be kind. To be kind you have to be patient with life. To be gentle with it means you have to give in a lot. You can’t just bend things and force things to fit your ideas just for convenience, just for efficiency. Kindness means that in the ordinary things of daily life you are learning to be more gentle and open, especially with things that you don’t like or don’t want. It’s easy to be open to the things we like. It’s easy to be kind to little children when they are being sweet and lovable. But being kind to that which is annoying, irritating, frustrating, takes considerable attention, doesn’t it? We have to put forth the effort not to react with aversion. And that’s very good for us, to work with the irritations of daily life in little ways, to just try to be gentle and kind in situations where we tend to become cruel, harsh and judgmental.
Tapa: self-control, non-indulgence, austerity. Austerity is a frightening word for the modern age. It’s as if you have to give up everything, so that is a bit daunting. But just practising tapa, questioning yourself: how much do you really need? How much is an indulgence? Not passing judgment and saying, “Oh I’m an indulgent so and so,” but just beginning to note what is the right amount between what is necessary and what is indulgence. This takes attentiveness also. You have to be honest and notice the difference between indulging and just taking what is necessary, what you need.
Akkodha: non-anger, non-impulsiveness. It takes determination to pay attention and not just to follow anger, to react to impulse, to react to life. Avihimsa: non-violence, non-oppression. Khanti: patience, forbearance. And avirodhana: non-deviation from righteousness. The more we are aware of these virtues, the more they can manifest in our lives. Trying to be virtuous from ideas alone can be a disaster. You just end up criticising yourself. It’s like comparing all the stages of the rose with a rose at its best. You take a rose at its peak with perfect fragrance and appearance, and compare the decayed rose with that. “I don’t like this, I don’t like that, this is how everything should be.” But when we see that the sensory world is a process, that it’s change, that it’s flux, then we begin to appreciate it in all its change. We no longer demand that life fit some static ideal and then judge everything according to those fixed views we have about it.
Apply all this to the society, as well as to yourself, even though you know that society will never be perfect, just as a rose can never maintain itself at its peak. We have to always realise that it will reach its peak and then change. The more we free ourselves from delusion, self-interest and ignorance, the more we can be part of and appreciate the flow and change of life, just as we can appreciate the cycle of a rose instead of just grasping at the peak of its beauty.
So now we can contemplate society here in Britain. What stage is it in? We can’t say it’s at its peak, can we? We can say, “It’s no good, it’s not like it used to be, it shouldn’t be like this,” and go on endlessly, getting depressed, upset, hating it because it’s not at it’s peak. But where is it? As we open ourselves to its change, to the law, the Dhamma, then we can flow with it in a way that will give it strength to be a healthy society rather than a sick, weak, unloved one. If you don’t take care of a rose properly, it can’t survive. And if it does, it is just weakened and no longer capable of producing a beautiful flower. How can we help society to grow or to change? How can we appreciate the whole of it rather than hanging on to fixed views and opinions, to this terrible ignorance of just looking at how everything should be?
In Buddhism there is no particular attempt to describe how the perfect society should operate, as a monarchy or a democracy, as socialist or communist. At the time the Pali Canon was written, I don’t suppose they had too many choices. Monarchy tended to be the way, though there were also natural democracies. But even a monarchy in those days was not an oppressive system where the king had divine right to do anything he wanted at the expense of everyone else. We are conditioned to think that monarchs are degenerates who are all corrupt, that a monarchy is just for the privileged few and everyone else has to pay for it and suffer. But actually the theory of monarchy always stemmed from righteousness; it wasn’t intended to be an oppressive system, though in many cases it became that, just as communism and democracy can become oppressive systems.
Western democracy, with all its so-called freedom, tends to bring us towards degeneration. Parents now worry about their children endlessly. They have lost all ability to direct their children in skillful ways because children now have the freedom to do anything they want to. We no longer have the right to guide or direct anyone towards what is right and good and beautiful. We just say, “You are free to do what you want.” And communism with all its high-minded idealism tends to oppress. It seems to take all these lovely ideas of sharing, equal distribution, equality, and just shove them down your throat. That is certainly not the goal for a Buddhist society.
Actually all the existing structures would be workable if you had the right understanding. In Britain, there is nothing really wrong with the political structure, the government. These agencies are quite all right in themselves, but what is missing is the enlightened human being, the human being who sees clearly. Modern politics tends to come from desire for power, for personal acclaim. Morality doesn’t play a terribly important part in the choices of leaders or politicians. It’s how clever you might be in manipulating others. What do we look for in leadership now? Ask yourselves, “What do we expect in leadership for our country?”
Modern attitudes might be such that we think, “Venerable Sumedho is just talking a bunch of optimistic ideals that have no relevance to anything practical in daily life,” but that’s a pessimistic view. All I am trying to do is present a way of looking that would be of great benefit towards the understanding of life on the individual plane and for the perfection of a society.
2 Likes
You need to calm down, and think about what I am arguing, not what you are imagining I’m arguing.
You need to take this up with the other folks here, then. Not me.
You said: ‘the species are all reborn elsewhere’ - it is just the wording that is suggestive of reincarnation. Reincarnation is the doctrine that a soul ‘passes over’ from one birth to the next- some being that is here is reborn somewhere else. With rebirth - according to the Buddha - no being is reborn somewhere else - as you know.
Regarding everything else you had to say I hope you have had your thinking cap on in this process? There is nothing cryptic about what I have had to say - it is just common sense Dhamma.
The general outline of what I have been sharing has nothing to do with an ideal society or utopian thinking. As Buddhists we know we live in an imperfect world - that is not hard to recognise. What seems to be challenging for some is the notion that we should try to improve society - change it for the better.
It is no secret that the Earth is in trouble - it is in trouble because of human folly. As contributors to this dangerous situation we are morally obliged to be part of the solution - in any way we can.
It is surprising how any Buddhist could simply say - it does not matter because everything is impermanent so ‘why bother’ or, its not especially important because species ‘come and go’ or, something that is equally vacuous?
Something has gone terribly wrong in our Dhamma inquiry if we have that degree of complacency and indifference when faced with such an incredibly dangerous situation. A situation that is already giving rise to many environmental threats and perils that are endangering our collective well-being.
The situation is not going to improve if we ignore it and as it can be remedied through wise, compassionate and skilful efforts we need to lend a hand? Blind Freddy could see this - it would be irresponsible to remain indifferent in the situation we find ourselves in!
If our house had been set on fire by a pyromaniac and we were to say - as Buddhists - forget about the fire, don’t bother to put it out, everything is impermanent, the world is imperfect, whats the point, then, what would we make of that situation? Would we say, that Buddhist had a clear understanding of the Buddha’s teachings, he did nothing in a crisis situation, just like the Buddha advised?
The Earth is on fire, temperatures are rising, they will continue to rise for some time even if we changed our energy systems to ‘renewables’ immediately. If we address the situation quickly we may be able to avoid burning the place to the ground. As Buddhists do we say - let it burn - its all impermanent?
If it would be mindless to stand by and let your house burn to the ground without trying to save it - or, try to save your children or your pet in a burning room - then how could it make sense to let the whole world ‘get cooked’ without trying to do something about it?
Since I am among the people here who have expressed the most skepticism about rebirth, then, as I said, you need to take up your argument with others.
I have not said that rebirth happens - I have only pointed out that the Buddha taught rebirth not reincarnation. Your response seems to suggest I was arguing that rebirth happens - I do not have past-life memories so rebirth is just a hypothetical notion for me. It does not seem to be so for some Dhamma practitioners who have done a great deal of practice - they have been on the path a lot longer than I have.
No I didn’t suggest that.
goodoh
Dear All
Thank you for taking interest in this topic and for so many different points of view. I am myself in between the idea of Buddha’s teaching as encouraging social system changes and as only encouraging your own practice/development (which brings improvement for myself and people around me therefore for society). I am leaning to the latter.
Maybe it should be like in monastic order; there is time for seclusion and withdrawal from society for your own practice and there is time for engagement. The problem I have is how much of engagement is right. If I want to be an expert on economics for example , I would have to spend years on learning and then discuss it from Dhamma point of view. Better way, I think, is to bring economists to Dhamma teachings (and politicians, scientists, all professionals in their field) through my own example, by being happy, kind and peaceful in my field of work or in home.
As for best social system I would agree with the ideas of four-fold Sangha (monastics and lay people).
Another futuristic idea would be to have world without borders, speaking one language, with one wise global governing body. As a first basis of law would be Sila and Brahmaviharas (ethics) and happiness of people (all beings). All planet resources would be shared equally with care of sustainability and the Nature would be looked after.
Regarding existing systems, I support socialism with corrections (Dhammic socialism). I lived in Poland 1967-2002 and experienced socialism, change period , and wild capitalism. I am saying this from my subjective point of view of course. My experience of living in socialism was renunciation but not poverty, more freedom from desires and not freedom of desires. As everybody has only a little it was important who you are and not what you have.
I am sorry for all who died or suffered horribly due to communist regimes or tyrants. But capitalism killed people also:
or should we say: that’s people who killed people.
I would not discredit socialism only because it did not work yet. For me it is much closer to the Buddha’s teachings then capitalism.
3 Likes
It’s chilling that the historical source you went to in the penultimate paragraph is arguably a holocaust denier. At minimum this persons version of history is highly contested.
[Since 2006, the Holodomor has been recognized by Ukraine[13] and 15 other countries as a genocide of the Ukrainian people carried out by the Soviet government.[14]]
Holodomor (Ukranian famine 1932)- wikipedia
Two observations I think are vital and key to a wise and compassionate discussion if the question of capitalism or socialism are on the table.
First there is no such thing as a purely socialist society today or arguable ever. They all are some hybrid of socialism (or communism) and capitalism.
For instance. It’s said that a significant percentage of food production in the USSR came from small plots that individuals were allowed to keep. Also the black market (a illegal free market system) was an important part of the economy. So a either-or distinction is rarely realistic. It’s a hybrid - a middle way if you will.
Second, a wisely regulated capitalism with a strong safety net and a active civil society is arguably very close to those lay societies that the Buddha approved of and/or imagined.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but within the monastic sanga a monks robe and bowl were effectively considered his or hers.
Dear Feynman,
I am sorry for that.
I don’t know this person and I don’t know his views on other topics. This link (including comments) supposed to show only a general outline how we could count victims of capitalism. If I say that it caused dead of millions, would you agree?
My view on Holocaust is deeply ingrained by remembering seeing the tattooed number on my grandfather’s hand (Dachau). Does it mean that I shouldn’t agree with anything this person is saying? I don’t think so.
Agreed. I am looking mainly from the point of encouraging greed or encouraging renunciation. Also about just wealth distribution:
Also it is just wrong for me allowing to buy and profit from planet’s resources like fresh water or forests.
I agree. But he didn’t know socialist society because it didn’t exist. If it did, I presume, he would give exactly the same teachings to lay people.
I don’t think the monastics feel themselves the owners of requisites , more like temporary users. The requisites are more like Sangha property?
Much metta
Jarek