Are some Buddhists more equal than others?

[Thrasymachus]

@Huseng:

I have to agree his justification of capital punishment which you elaborated on subsequently is totally inexcusable.

Rank and class do not matter only in ideals which exists in books and in men's heads. In real life it exists in all societies, in all institutions, bureaucracies, religious sects. Infact I think the Western world has much more nuanced and hierarchal class structure than just about any other society, though we don't have the formal trappings of say feudalism. Just because class is determined on the lower level by schooling and the higher level by birth, being born rich or stupid luck and fortuitous circumstances(Gates, Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, etc.) does not mean it doesn't exist. And it will exist in any bureaucracy be it religious or otherwise. It is commendable to strive for the ideal, but ideals are just mental constructs of purity that cannot be translated into an impure world full of defiled people.

In the West the techniques of social control are still there, "free speech" or not. Infact it is only because the Western elites are so confident about their relatively new(historically) non-coercive means of social domination that "free speech" was granted in the first place. When you have every kid sent proudly by their parents to learn state and ruling class propaganda in school and "compete for their equality"(Ivan Illich) economically, you need less force.

OCCUPY: Infiltration of Political Movements is the Norm, Not the Exception in the United States.

...

Infiltration is the Norm, not the Exception, of U.S. Political Movements

...

How many agents or infiltrators can we expect to see inside a movement? One of the most notorious “police riots” was the 1968 Democratic Party Convention. Independent journalist Yasha Levine writes: “During the 1968 protests of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, which drew about 10,000 protesters and was brutally crushed by the police, 1 out of 6 protesters was a federal undercover agent. That’s right, 1/6th of the total protesting population was made up of spooks drawn from various federal agencies. That’s roughly 1,600 people! The stat came from an Army document obtained by CBS News in 1978, a full decade after the protest took place. According to CBS, the infiltrators were not passive observers, monitoring and relaying information to central command, but were involved in violent confrontations with the police.” [Emphasis in original.]

Peter Camejo, who ran for Governor of California in 2003 as a Green and as Ralph Nader’s vice president in 2004, often told the story about his 1976 presidential campaign. Camejo able to get the FBI in court after finding their offices broken into and suing them over COINTELPRO activities. The judge asked the Special Agent in Charge how many FBI agents worked in Camejo’s presidential campaign; the answer was 66 agents. Camejo estimated he had a campaign staff of about 400 across the country. Once again that would be an infiltration rate of 1 out of 6 people. Camejo discovered that among the agents was his campaign co-chair. He also discovered eavesdropping equipment in his campaign office and documents showing the FBI had followed him since he was a student activist at 18 years old.

...

For those interested in more, Kevin Zeese did a podcast interview on this subject here.

When you imply someone who is "highly regarded by millions of people" should advocate to avoid the military draft, you don't think it will meet a backlash? And do you think Taiwan which confronts a hostile anti-dharma, inhuman, lunatic CCP is the place to pretend an ideal pacifist world can exist and to advocate untranslatable ideals? Do you think the People's Army will not rape, loot, pillage and murder those who have a certain idealism? Maybe I don't agree with his particular justification on this, but if I lived in Taiwan, I would not feel safe if most of the society was pacifistic draft dodgers. China has a real history of military aggression to annex or punish its neighbors and they openly claim Taiwan is a renegade province that will be brought back into an even more despotic fold.

[gregkavarnos]

So, this assumes the whole justice system is made up of bodhisattvas who without any malice or anger execute criminals...

Are malice and greed the only motivating factors for being a PAID executioner? I reckon greed would be a huge one and ignorance/wrong view (it is correct to execute criminals) would be another one. No matter which angle you look at it the executioner is f*****d with the karma they are accrueing!

And wht a surpries that Ven Hsing Yun uses the only reference of the "positive" use of violence reported as being taught by Gautama Buddha (and a jataka "fairy tale" at that), gee, I didn't see that coming!

Tens of thousands of references to harmlessness, refraining from killing, refraining from carrying weapons, self sacrifice, etc... and all the dim wits focus on the one simple minded tale about the boat captain and the bandit (which, given its incongruence with the nature of the rest of the Canon, may well be an outside addition). BORING!

[LastLegend]

Ok. We are not equal on a relatively level in terms of status, positions, powers, intelligence, capacities, etc. I don't see why that should not reflect in Buddhist community also. After enlightenment, a Zen monk still chops wood. Whether Buddhists observe what Buddha taught is another topic of discussion. Yes, there are Buddhists who don't honestly pursue liberation but something else. Then they are those who truly pursue liberation. We live in a conventional society, things we do must also reflect that. Moderate rules and regulations are good to prevent chaos.

As for freedom of speech. Singapore does not have freedom of speech really. There are occasions where the government had to step in to stop false preaching. If by freedom of speech, people can say anything they want and that is not limited to spreading propaganda, lies, and confusion. This is very bad for the mental and spiritual well being of the people.

[Lazy_eye]

As I said earlier, I oppose capital punishment and disagree with Ven. Hsing Yun's views on the issue. The question put forward in this thread, however, is whether his views disqualify him as a dharma teacher. That claim, to me, seems unjustified.

To answer the question we need to investigate whether his argument has any precedent in the Buddhist canon.

Hsing Yun's view is that the kammic weight of killing is determined by the intention motivating the act. Therefore, if the act was primarily motivated by compassion and wisdom, it would carry a lighter karmic burden than one motivated by anger or hatred. In short, there are degrees of unwholesomeness when it comes to the act of killing.

Further, Hsing Yun also proposes that under some circumstances (if the executioner's intentions are "as pure as Shakyamuni Buddha's"), the karma generated might actually be positive.

Now, looking at Chapter 22 of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, we see similar arguments put forth.

1. There are degrees of unwholesomeness with regard to killing.

O good man! The Buddha and Bodhisattva see three categories of killing, which are those of the grades 1) low, 2) medium, and 3) high. Low applies to the class of insects and
all kinds of animals, except for the transformation body of the Bodhisattva who may present himself as such. O good man! The Bodhisattva-mahasattva, through his vows and in certain circumstances, gets born as an animal. This is killing beings of the lowest class. By reason of harming life of the lowest grade, one gains life in the realms of hell, animals or hungry ghosts and suffers from the downmost “duhkha” [pain, mental or physical]. Why so? Because these animals have done somewhat of good. Hence, one who harms them receives full karmic returns for his actions. This is killing of the lowest grade. The medium grade of killing concerns killing [beings] from the category of humans up to the class of anagamins. This is middle-grade killing. As a result, one gets born in the realms of hell, animals or hungry ghosts and fully recieves the karmic consequences befitting the middle grade of suffering. This is medium-grade killing. Top-rank killing relates to killing one’s father or mother, an arhat, pratyekabudda, or a Bodhisattva of the last established state. This is top-rank killing. In consequence of this, one falls into the greatest Avichi Hell [the most terrible of all the hells] and endures the karmic consequences befitting the highest level of suffering. This is top-grade killing.

2. Under some circumstances killing accrues no negative karma.

A person who kills an icchantika does not suffer from the karmic returns due to the killings of the three kinds named above. O good man! All those Brahmins are of the class of the icchantika. For example, such actions as digging the ground, mowing the grass, felling trees, cutting up corpses, ill-speaking, and lashing do not call forth karmic returns. Killing an icchantika comes within the same category. No karmic results ensue.

So it's ok to execute blasphemers against the Mahayana but not a serial killer or child murderer? That would be an absurd position to take.

Finally, there is the Jataka story referred to above, which provides an example of an apparently beneficial act of killing. While one may dismiss it as a simple 'fairy tale', the Jataka tales played a highly significant role in the emergence of Mahayana, as Guang Xing has shown (in "The Concept of the Buddha"). So perhaps we should not be so quick to underestimate the story's importance.

The Dalai Lama is on record as saying "wrathful forceful action" may be justified if motivated by compassion. Should he have his dharma credentials taken away as well?

The principle underlying Hsing Yun's viewpoint is clarified later on in the text which Huseng linked to: "Anything is possible so long as it is done out of compassion and wisdom". In other words, intention is the determinant. If there really is no such thing as a pure-minded or compassionate executioner, then it follows that capital punishment should be abolished.

[gregkavarnos]

Dear LE,

Has it ever occured to you that the changes made to later Canonical texts (like the Mahayana MahaParinirvana Sutra) made have been added because they were politically expedient?

Like, for example, it was politically expedient for an Imperial decree to exempt the Shaolin monks from vegetarian diets so that the Chinese Buddhist emperors of the time would have fit and strong fighting forces?

Like never occured to you?

[Lazy_eye]

Dear LE,

Has it ever occured to you that the changes made to later Canonical texts (like the Mahayana MahaParinirvana Sutra) made have been added because they were politically expedient?

Sure, that seems entirely possible. But a dharma teacher is not necessarily engaged in the business of critically examining Mahayana texts. The Mahaparanirvana is an influential scripture and until very recently most Mahayana believers would have taken for granted that every word in it was spoken by Buddha.

[Ogyen]

It reminds me of when I found myself unable to attend the sangha closest to me, I was told in not so many words that my circumstances were a factor of merit. Not so much that I am a bad person and don't have enough merit to be there, but that it helps turn the mind towards virtue to start practices that increase the possibilities of being closer to dharma. Dharma teachers may simply have accumulated more merit to get to that place in that they ARE teaching dharma - clearly via cause and effect - they have cultivated that merit through their past actions. I (like many lay people) simply have not because I've not habituated myself, or perhaps applied myself with quite the same fervor to work through my obscurations, I have not dedicated as much time or effort, etc etc... Does this mean that I have no chance for respect from those who have attained more, or that I'm 'worth less' as a person - I don't think most teachers would think this way (I might be completely mistaken). If anything I might elicit a bit more compassion for my ignorance, the way a child might be seen by a parent..?

'scuse my stupidity but are you saying that they told you that you coudn't attend the centre because you hadn't accumulated enough merit? Or was it that you wanted to attend some sort of "closed" practice/teaching session and you couldn't take part in that?

Did they use one of these to measure how much merit you had?

BUDDHO-METER.jpg

I think they were saying that the circumstances that were preventing me from attending the sangha meetings were a matter of merit. That if I worked on turning my mind/life towards the dharma, these things might become easier for me to accomplish because it's like whittling away the obstacles. Some clearings require great effort. At no point did they tell me that I could not attend based on a lack of merit. lol.. I still have not been all that successful... I'm just a lowly buddhist who gets no 'spect. I guess whats-his-face with the pdf there had a point...

dude, I love that pic. I'm so taking it.

[gregkavarnos]

I think they were saying that the circumstances that were preventing me from attending the sangha meetings were a matter of merit. That if I worked on turning my mind/life towards the dharma, these things might become easier for me to accomplish because it's like whittling away the obstacles. Some clearings require great effort. At no point did they tell me that I could not attend based on a lack of merit. lol.. I still have not been all that successful... I'm just a lowly buddhist who gets no 'spect. I guess whats-his-face with the pdf there had a point...

Okay, excuse my stupidity, now I understand. Did they give you practices for accumulateing merit? Mandala offerings? Water bowl offerings? Teachings on generosity? Did they give you practices for overcoming obstacles? Praise to the 21 Tara? Some type of protector practice? Like were you told to do a certain quantity of accumulations of specific practices?

dude, I love that pic. I'm so taking it.

Feel free to take the picture, I slapped it together specifically in response to your post.

[Blue Garuda]

It reminds me of when I found myself unable to attend the sangha closest to me, I was told in not so many words that my circumstances were a factor of merit. Not so much that I am a bad person and don't have enough merit to be there, but that it helps turn the mind towards virtue to start practices that increase the possibilities of being closer to dharma. Dharma teachers may simply have accumulated more merit to get to that place in that they ARE teaching dharma - clearly via cause and effect - they have cultivated that merit through their past actions. I (like many lay people) simply have not because I've not habituated myself, or perhaps applied myself with quite the same fervor to work through my obscurations, I have not dedicated as much time or effort, etc etc... Does this mean that I have no chance for respect from those who have attained more, or that I'm 'worth less' as a person - I don't think most teachers would think this way (I might be completely mistaken). If anything I might elicit a bit more compassion for my ignorance, the way a child might be seen by a parent..?

'scuse my stupidity but are you saying that they told you that you coudn't attend the centre because you hadn't accumulated enough merit? Or was it that you wanted to attend some sort of "closed" practice/teaching session and you couldn't take part in that?

Did they use one of these to measure how much merit you had?

BUDDHO-METER.jpg

I think they were saying that the circumstances that were preventing me from attending the sangha meetings were a matter of merit. That if I worked on turning my mind/life towards the dharma, these things might become easier for me to accomplish because it's like whittling away the obstacles. Some clearings require great effort. At no point did they tell me that I could not attend based on a lack of merit. lol.. I still have not been all that successful... I'm just a lowly buddhist who gets no 'spect. I guess whats-his-face with the pdf there had a point...

dude, I love that pic. I'm so taking it.

Cherishing others is a very important practice.

Sometimes people's enthusiasm overcomes their common-sense and they believe that attending teachings at the local centre is more important than actually practising compassion and giving love. Mothers are accumulating great merit in cherishing their children, and I think your local centre understands this.

For the other obstacles, as we discussed elsewhere, maybe ask Lama Dawa about receiving the empowerment of Vajrapani, Hayagriva and Garuda and taking it up as a practice. He often recommends it.

[Aemilius]

There is no need to talk about the rise of nations and countries if it were simply a matter of warfare. We could say as well that those who waged war were criminals with heightened greed for power and little care for others beyond themselves and their clan, family and friends. The ruling class is a minority living on others, with the idea that they protect the people from other such parasites. We can also say that a king comes in exchange for smaller thugs, thus "peace" is achieved on a larger territory. But it's simply not true that there are nations born from such power struggles. The actual people, the majority, stays at the same place, while rulers and dynasties change. A king unifies people, gradually spreading a single culture and language within the conquered territory. Such events are not necessary at all. People can continue living without others pretending to be their protectors. Why? Because it's not the protectors feeding and housing them but the other way around.

Buddhism could spread fine throughout India, Central and South Asia, and the Far East without any single ruler forcing it on others. Other large religions have different history as we all know. If there is anything good to be learnt from the history of Europe is that it's a lot better to stop fighting each other and start to cooperate without forcing your values on others. That's the idea of the Union. It is a new turn after all the Julius Caesars, Napoleons and Hitlers. It is also a reason why death penalty is banned in the whole EU.

It is not like that, understanding of history is important, it is valuable for understanding the Dharma. Besides Hegel I value Peter Kroptkin very highly. He is the author of Mutual Aid; A Factor of Evolution, written in the last part of 1800's. It is exactly about what it says in the title.
When reading Hegel I get the impression that he is an incarnation of some very important buddhist monk. He speaks in a christian state in early 1800's (and late 1700's), but still we come across in his introduction to Lectures on the Philosophy of History a sentence where he says that soul as such doesn't exist, it is merely a name given to a collection of mental functions! And a few other such things. The works of Hegel or about Hegel have been published in 23 000 publications in 54 languages. Which is quite a feat.
I don't think we would have Buddhism or Sangha and Dharma without the arising of Ashokan empire, without the arising of chinese, japanese or korean and other dynasties, where Dharma was practiced, was supported and allowed to exist and flourish. It is not correct to say that the Three jewels have existed without the state, or outside the state, or without larger human corporations. Even an anarchist like Peter Kropotkin does not say such things!
It certainly seems that nations are born from and they go through huge power struggles. Anything else is just daydreaming not in contact with reality.

[gregkavarnos]

I don't think we would have Buddhism or Sangha and Dharma without the arising of Ashokan empire, without the arising of chinese, japanese or korean and other dynasties, where Dharma was practiced, was supported and allowed to exist and flourish. It is not correct to say that the Three jewels have existed without the state, or outside the state, or without larger human corporations. Even an anarchist like Peter Kropotkin does not say such things!
It certainly seems that nations are born from and they go through huge power struggles. Anything else is just daydreaming not in contact with reality.

On the one hand you say that you respect Kropotkin and his theory of mutual aid, then you say how you agree with Hegel who believed in the divine nature of the Bavarian state and its monarchy and then you say that Buddhism could not have developed without a strong and agressive state to back it. Kropotkins Anarchist theory of mutual aid is COMPLETELY incompatible with a Hegelian Christian monarchy (or Ashokan Buddhist Imperialism - kill first, be compassionate later). You would need to be on some serious drugs to somehow successfully reconcile those two!

[Astus]

It is not like that, understanding of history is important, it is valuable for understanding the Dharma.

History is not an easy concept. You propose "history" as the exploits of different ruler classes, and not as the history of all humans. Of course, it would be a lot more complicated to consider the day to day lives of peasants, artisans, scholars, monks and everyone else. In China there were several monasteries established and supported by the local people, and separately there were special state sponsored monasteries. The proportion of local and state monasteries changed throughout the history of Chinese Buddhism based on the strength of the central government and its willingness to take control of religious life. It is very much an exaggeration to say that Buddhism could flourish only with strong state support. In fact, those who were dependent on the dynasty could also fall with them. Buddhism in the West spread so far since the 19th century without state support and exists without it quite well.

[gregkavarnos]

Buddhism in the West spread so far since the 19th century without state support and exists without it quite well.

Good point!

[Ogyen]

I think they were saying that the circumstances that were preventing me from attending the sangha meetings were a matter of merit. That if I worked on turning my mind/life towards the dharma, these things might become easier for me to accomplish because it's like whittling away the obstacles. Some clearings require great effort. At no point did they tell me that I could not attend based on a lack of merit. lol.. I still have not been all that successful... I'm just a lowly buddhist who gets no 'spect. I guess whats-his-face with the pdf there had a point...

Okay, excuse my stupidity, now I understand. Did they give you practices for accumulateing merit? Mandala offerings? Water bowl offerings? Teachings on generosity? Did they give you practices for overcoming obstacles? Praise to the 21 Tara? Some type of protector practice? Like were you told to do a certain quantity of accumulations of specific practices?

i got nuffin' ... I've been stumbling around in da dark. ideas? My merit is still in the

Cherishing others is a very important practice.

Sometimes people's enthusiasm overcomes their common-sense and they believe that attending teachings at the local centre is more important than actually practising compassion and giving love. Mothers are accumulating great merit in cherishing their children, and I think your local centre understands this.

For the other obstacles, as we discussed elsewhere, maybe ask Lama Dawa about receiving the empowerment of Vajrapani, Hayagriva and Garuda and taking it up as a practice. He often recommends it.

motherhood is a trial in patience and selflessness. Every day. At this rate, I should be a buddha by next summer.

Do you need to have Bodhisattva vows and Ngondro for those empowerments?

sorry about

[Aemilius]

It is not like that, understanding of history is important, it is valuable for understanding the Dharma.

History is not an easy concept. You propose "history" as the exploits of different ruler classes, and not as the history of all humans. Of course, it would be a lot more complicated to consider the day to day lives of peasants, artisans, scholars, monks and everyone else. In China there were several monasteries established and supported by the local people, and separately there were special state sponsored monasteries. The proportion of local and state monasteries changed throughout the history of Chinese Buddhism based on the strength of the central government and its willingness to take control of religious life. It is very much an exaggeration to say that Buddhism could flourish only with strong state support. In fact, those who were dependent on the dynasty could also fall with them. Buddhism in the West spread so far since the 19th century without state support and exists without it quite well.

What I principally mean is that history consists in the development of organisations, forms of human cooperation. They exist for every possible cause and reason. Not only to protect the individuals, which is a very narrow understanding.
As Peter Kropotkin well explains even the whole evolution is dependent on the formation of organisations. This means that there are forms of organising even in the animal kingdom, which has made their existence possible in the harsh world.
In India there has been the organisation of wanderers, Shramanas, to which Siddhartha Gautama belonged when he started on his career. Later on he founded his own organisations, four of them: the Catuhparisat, those of Bhikshus, Bhikshunis, Upasakas, and Upasikas.
The peasants and villages etc had their rules and laws, they were organisations because of sheer necessity. Etc..( feudalism and the rest of it).
States, and treaties between states, existed even in ancient times. There were the castes and trade quilds, roads and villages, towns and markets, these form the frame work in which buddhist organisations lived and functioned, or in which they perished.
The roads and rest houses have to be built by some one, without them there would not have been pilgrims or wanderers in the ancient world. In this way they all depend on the existence of states, their traditional laws and customs.

[gregkavarnos]

Nonsense. There were and are countless ethnic and social groups that have survived for tens of thousands of years without recourse to formal hierarchies and state structures. And where did you get the crazy idea that Kropotkin considered a monarchical state as an example of mutual aid? That's just ridiculous!

[Infinite]

Nonsense. There were and are countless ethnic and social groups that have survived for tens of thousands of years without recourse to formal hierarchies and state structures. And where did you get the crazy idea that Kropotkin considered a monarchical state as an example of mutual aid? That's just ridiculous!

Indeed, there are still African Tribes that survive on such ideals to this very day while resisting modernization. Westerners I find typically get very Ethnocentric in regards to hierarchy and structure due to the fact that the majority of historians were usually appointed by Royal Courts. Doesn't look very good to question the system when it is the system providing your daily bread. Livy is probably the best example of this as he was rather critical and rightly so of the Roman Monarchy and Republic and even some past Caesars but when it came closer and closer to his contemporary age the more exaggerated and outright bullshit he would write about the greatness of Roman Society. I always found it amusing that social problems magically disappeared the closer it got to his days.

[alpha]

motherhood is a trial in patience and selflessness. Every day. At this rate, I should be a buddha by next summer.

you might find some answers to your circumstances by watching some of Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche's webcasts.

here is a list with the future webcasts http://www.dzogchencommunity.org/dzogchen/choegyal-namkhai-norbu/webcast-teachings.html

hope this helps

[gregkavarnos]

i got nuffin' ... I've been stumbling around in da dark. ideas? My merit is still in the

Okay, I am confused again. You went to this group (who exactly were they) and described your situation, they diagnosed "lack of merit" and you went home? Isn't that like going to a hospital, showing the doctor your pustulant wound, them saying it's due to this and that and not bothering to clean and dress the wound and prescribe some antibiotics (and maybe a tetanus shot)?

I've got some ideas (the practices I outlined in my previous post to you), but I'm not a lama. Shouldn't the lama at the centre have done something for you? Or maybe your merit is so low that they took one look at you and diagnosed your condition as terminal.

[Aemilius]

Nonsense. There were and are countless ethnic and social groups that have survived for tens of thousands of years without recourse to formal hierarchies and state structures. And where did you get the crazy idea that Kropotkin considered a monarchical state as an example of mutual aid? That's just ridiculous!

Please read Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid A Factor of Evolution. I never said that monarchism is mutual aid, nor has Kropotkin maintained that.
A buddhist view on the subject is told in the Aggañña sutta, where Buddha describes the beginnings of human society.
You can go back hundred thousand years years or one million years of human evolution, it doesn't change the situation.
There are social structures and hierarchies also in the animal world. Some of these are well studied, like the society of wolves as an example, and many others.
What Kropotkin well describes are the organisations of villages, of clans, of guilds, of medieval cities and so on... These are all basic forms of organising.
There is an evolution of organisational structures in the human realm. This is an undeniable fact.
Maybe you think that when hierarchy is accepted by everyone it is not "formal" and "not strict" ?