“Bhikkhus, do not engage in the various kinds of pointless talk, that is, talk about kings, thieves, and ministers of state; talk about armies, dangers, and wars; talk about food, drink, garments, and beds; talk about garlands and scents; talk about relations, vehicles, villages, towns, cities, and countries; talk about women and talk about heroes; street talk and talk by the well; talk about those departed in days gone by; rambling chitchat; speculation about the world and about the sea; talk about becoming this or that. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, this talk is unbeneficial, irrelevant to the fundamentals of the holy life, and does not lead to revulsion, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna.
“When you talk, bhikkhus, you should talk about: ‘This is suffering’; you should talk about: ‘This is the origin of suffering’; you should talk about: ‘This is the cessation of suffering’; you should talk about: ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. ’ For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, this talk is beneficial, relevant to the fundamentals of the holy life, and leads to revulsion, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna.
“Therefore, bhikkhus, an exertion should be made to understand: ‘This is suffering.’… An exertion should be made to understand: ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’”
This being a forum on EBTs and Early Buddhist doctrine, I’d say that anybody can say whatever they want, but it won’t necessarily lead to developing the path.
The Buddha himself gave a set of guidelines to decide what should be said, to be in accordance with the Dhamma: Is it true? Is it beneficial (as in, leading to dispassion and cessation)? If neither, then it’s best left unsaid. If both but it would hurt someone’s feelings, then it’s best to find the right time (and way) to say it.
Additionally, I’d urge you to re-consider if free speech is indeed being suppressed in the USA. As a Latin American, writing from a country where journalists are routinely killed for reporting on politicians and criminals, I can confidently say that people refusing to listen to other viewpoints is categorically not a suppression of free speech. Is it harmful? Potentially. Does it lead to more polarization? Yes. But people don’t exploit the political machine in real life to take away gendered bathrooms, or the right to refuse wearing a mask.
there is no inherent form to follow that would suggest the right thing to say by the right people what exists are conditions, causes and effects. We can move toward the skillful action without presupposing any inherent morality. existence is amoral we determine morality for ourselves. its faster to just ask what is skillful and good (by our own approximation) rather than determine what ought always be the case.
Sadhu! One reason I am glad for Dhamma. We can measure any idea or policy against the wisdom and ethics foundations of Dhamma, and come to some level of equilibrium as to what might be a sane and reasoned approach to an issue. Not that the Dhamma is political, but that on issues such as healthcare, gun control, education, et al, in my view the Dhamma gives us some fairly strong foundations by which to guide views on these these issues.
Something for you to read. I have a hard copy. Since it’s about the only one of its kind, if you find it valuable, you might consider a hard copy for your shelf.
At the risk of being banned, I can say unequivocally that the STATED goals of “leftism” align with Buddhism much more than right wing politics. I don’t see how this can be anything other than a controversial thread so I’ll remain polite but I don’t think mincing words would be of service to anybody here.
Leftism wants everybody to benefit from advances in healthcare. In agriculture. In construction technology, e.g. housing and infrastructure.
Do DEMOCRAT politicians in the US want that? No. They want the bare minimum to keep people working and enriching the ruling class without complaint. One of the greatest accomplishments from right wing thinkers is equating liberals with leftists. Liberals want something like the modern world but with a few more safety nets. Leftists want a complete restructuring of the world into something MUCH more aligned with the way the Buddha viewed things. Leftists would absolutely love the idea of “loving kindness.” Millionaire liberals would love to use it as propaganda but they would limit its actual effectiveness given the chance. Right wingers need an enemy and almost always choose one based on an easy target who’s either not directly causing society its major problems or is completely innocent. That’s the sort of thinking and strategizing reserved for their high level actors so it’s not an attack on the “normal” people that ascribe to right wing beliefs.
I get that this may seem like divisiveness, but the world has become increasingly divided. Trying to thread the needle only serves to empower the people doing the dividing and propagating even more suffering.
If you are a Buddhist, you cannot be against healthcare for everybody, or housing for everybody, or food for everybody. I don’t know of any mainstream political party in any developed country that has such “extreme” values. The Buddha was not a social revolutionary, but he absolutely would not have respected this “both sides are bad so I’ll just wash my hands of it” laziness that centrists have adopted.
Again, I am not attacking anybody. But if you think the Buddha was even capable of any sort of “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” mentality to suffering people, I truly cannot comprehend how you ended up even valuing Buddhism in the first place.
I think the most important thing we as Buddhists should realize is that society cannot be perfect. Even if it was great for a while, impermanence applies to everything. Social revolution and perfection shouldn’t necessarily be our #1 goal because the Buddha never said anything about that being the path to Nibbana. I’d love to live in a society with zero suffering with everybody cooperating in peace. Even more than that, I’d love Nibbana. I think the nature of our predicament makes perfecting society an unwise goal, but abandoning improving it seems to me to be clearly antithetical to the noble eightfold path for laypeople.
Blockquote
Leftism wants everybody to benefit from advances in healthcare. In agriculture. In construction technology, e.g. housing and infrastructure.
I think many people would like these things to happen, however many people feel some of those things are not feasible.
This lead to ask another question: how would the Buddha view taking things that aren’t given?
Would the Buddha condone taking things from others without their permission?
Yes Bhante i was hinting at that. Although i worded as such because i wanted to ask if the Buddha would condone physical violence (i guess by the king) to be used to collect those taxes on people who wished not to pay. If not, how would the Buddha expect the king to enforce the taxation?
I think the problem is that good sincere people can differ wildly on what moderation means. They can also value things differently and see greater utility spending their money elsewhere. Other issues involve concerns over unconsidered consequences especially the way the tax burden is distributed and structured leading to undesirable consequences like employers eliminating full time positions in favor of part time to avoid payroll taxes.
This seems to me a rather loaded question, which expresses a particularity political viewpoint. If it were me, I would tend to load it in the other direction:
“Should people who do not wish to cooperate with, or contribute to, a society expect to have any say in how it is run, or receive any benefit or protection from it? Or should they just go and live somewhere else?”
Of course, in modern times, there is not generally an option to “go somewhere else”. And there are few, if any, kings who have such powers, so a bit more nuance is required to apply the Dhamma…
