Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social politics?

Discuss the application of the Dharma to situations of social, political, environmental and economic suffering and injustice.
User avatar
kirtu
Former staff member
Posts: 6997
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit

Post by kirtu »

Malcolm wrote:Quite the contrary, the Lotus Sutra's ekayāna teachings are very influential in Tibetan Buddhism, forming the basis for example of Sonam Tsemo's observation that there is in reality only one vehicle.
Malcolm wrote:
rory wrote: I know you don't read or comment on the Lotus Sutra either.....
There are commentaries on the Saddharmapundarika Sutra in Tibetan.
Then they need to be published.

Kirt
“Where do atomic bombs come from?”
Zen Master Seung Sahn said, “That’s simple. Atomic bombs come from the mind that likes this and doesn’t like that.”

"Even if you practice only for an hour a day with faith and inspiration, good qualities will steadily increase. Regular practice makes it easy to transform your mind. From seeing only relative truth, you will eventually reach a profound certainty in the meaning of absolute truth."
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche.

"Only you can make your mind beautiful."
HH Chetsang Rinpoche
zsc
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 6:03 am

Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit

Post by zsc »

Punya wrote:Not any of the teachers I'm familiar with. For example:

Now, even if we become aware of the fact that, "yes I acknowledge that most of the time in most situations I act for selfish reasons and I behave in this way but I cannot do anything about it." Behaving like this comes naturally and it is very difficult to resist and desist from the tendency. This practice of sending and taking aids us in being able to counteract that tendency.
P70

If one who is this kind of fear [of Tonglen] then one has to, of course, realise that in Buddhism each of us have our own individual karmic history and what we experience is the direct result of our previous karma. Basically we cannot share each other's karma.
P75

The Benevolent Mind: A Manual in Mind Training
~Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche

TKR is talking here about tonglen but the principles equally apply to rejoicing in other people's merit. But perhaps we are talking at cross purposes.
Either that author is representing Tonglen practice incorrectly, or those quotes are out of context, because you are implying an understanding that disagrees with the stated goal of Tonglen practice elsewhere. For example:
The tonglen practice is a method for connecting with suffering —ours and that which is all around us— everywhere we go. It is a method for overcoming fear of suffering and for dissolving the tightness of our heart. Primarily it is a method for awakening the compassion that is inherent in all of us, no matter how cruel or cold we might seem
to be.
...

People often say that this practice goes against the grain of how we usually hold ourselves together. Truthfully, this practice does go against the grain of wanting things on our own terms, of wanting it to work out for ourselves no matter what happens to the others. The practice dissolves the armor of self-protection we've tried so hard to create around ourselves. In Buddhist language one would say that it dissolves the fixation and clinging of ego.

Tonglen reverses the usual logic of avoiding suffering and seeking pleasure and, in the process, we become liberated from a very ancient prison of selfishness. We begin to feel love both for ourselves and others and also we begin to take care of ourselves and others. It awakens our compassion and it also introduces us to a far larger view of reality. It introduces us to the unlimited spaciousness that Buddhists call shunyata. By doing the practice, we begin to connect with the open dimension of our being. At first we experience this as things not being such a big deal or so solid as they seemed before.

...

Rather than beating yourself up, use your own stuckness as a stepping stone to understanding what people are up against all over the world.
From http://www.shambhala.org/teachers/pema/tonglen1.php

This is basically the basis for the motivation to engage the mechanisms of suffering in many different ways, including suffering brought on due to sociopolitical systems. This is just making a meditation practice of what I have been expressing this whole time.

Edited to add As I continue to read about it, the less I see how this practice refutes my point about karma, which affirms the teachings of interdependence (from dependent co-origination) and nonduality, and therefore does not agree that karma is something that we "own" in any kind of independent way.

Malcolm -
Malcolm wrote:From a Buddhist perspective, taking a one life-time view is not conventional reality at all.
Honestly, it seems at this point it seems like there can be no pleasing you. No matter what language I use, no usage adheres well enough to the teachings of the superior Malcolmyana vehicle, so the actual issues I am trying to discuss cannot be discussed coherently, because even terms like "conventional reality" don't actually mean "conventional reality". This is not meant to be a personal attack, but just an admission that I cannot get around your rhetorical tricks. I willingly take on this defeat :rolleye:
yolo (but not really).
╮ (. ❛ ᴗ ❛.) ╭
성불하세요.
zsc
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 6:03 am

Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit

Post by zsc »

rory wrote:Punya; I looked here, granted Wikipedia isn't the best source but...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_B ... n_of_merit

it looks like it exists in TB and Theravada too.
with gassho
Rory
My source that was edited by Ven. Nanadassana was Theravadin, actually. Also, at my Theravadin sangha, we do what my fellow Mahayanists would call "lovingkindness" practice, chanting in Pali phrases like "May all living beings be free from ill treatment", "May all living beings be free from trouble", etc. We certainly aren't doing it just for our health.
yolo (but not really).
╮ (. ❛ ᴗ ❛.) ╭
성불하세요.
Adi
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit

Post by Adi »

zsc wrote:...

Malcolm -
Malcolm wrote:From a Buddhist perspective, taking a one life-time view is not conventional reality at all.
Honestly, it seems at this point it seems like there can be no pleasing you. No matter what language I use, no usage adheres well enough to the teachings of the superior Malcolmyana vehicle, so the actual issues I am trying to discuss cannot be discussed coherently, because even terms like "conventional reality" don't actually mean "conventional reality". This is not meant to be a personal attack, but just an admission that I cannot get around your rhetorical tricks. I willingly take on this defeat :rolleye:
zsc, I think you have been using the phrase conventional reality and linking concepts to it in a way that is indeed, from "a Buddhist perspective, taking a one life-time view" that "is not conventional reality at all" from that perspective. There is no rhetorical trick in this as it is quite literal. I'm obviously no scholar, but as far as I know all Buddhist schools teach as a very basic fact and concept that we have all been each other's mother, father, sister, brother, enemy, friend, companion, lover and so on an inconceivable number of times over inconceivable numbers of lifetimes. To propose solutions to a problem of one life-time without taking this into account is not to deal in conventional reality from a Buddhist perspective but rather to be caught up in the appearances of a single life-time. So to the topic of this thread, what is the use of engaging in social politics as a Buddhist if you don't bring this basic Buddhist perspective?

Anyway, that's what I see. I may be totally off-base, off the range, or just off. (Certainly wouldn't be my first time!)

Adi
User avatar
rory
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 8:08 am
Location: SouthEast USA

Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit

Post by rory »

Adi; I wish people would quote from the sutras or at least whatever master they are reading from. Otherwise it just sounds like a bunch of people sitting around the cracker barrel having opinions.Not very helpful at all.

Here is a link to a Tricycle article by Prof. Jan Nattier and and the Lotus Sutra:

"
But the Lotus Sutra challenged a basic assumption about the nature of the Buddhist path shared by both the proponents of the nirvana of the arhat and the advocates of the newer option to “go for the gold” of Buddhahood. For both groups saw Buddhist practice as a path—that is, as a prolonged process of step-by-step self-cultivation....

Although Tibetan Buddhism has largely jettisoned arhatship as a valid goal, it has maintained a strong commitment to the notion of spiritual cultivation. To hear the Buddha proclaim that every practitioner is destined for Buddhahood—even those who, like the legendary betrayer of the dharma, Devadatta, are guilty of heinous crimes—would seem to subvert the very foundation of the long and demanding practice of the bodhisattva path.

The sutra offers a model of spiritual life that is very different from those based on the metaphor of a path, challenging those who would measure their attainment in retreats practiced or insights accumulated or virtues exhibited. For those who would posit a one-to-one relationship between the effort one puts forth and the outcome one achieves, it speaks of the transformative power of faith in the awakened mind itself. It suggests that, through faith in its message, one makes the Buddha’s intention, rather than one’s own, the pivot of practice
."
http://www.tricycle.com/special-section ... -awakening

The rest of East Asian non-Tibetan Mahayana relies on the Lotus Sutra: it undergirds Ch'an/Zen, Pure Land and Lotus Sutra/Nichiren Schools which talk of buddhahood in this lifetime. So the situation we are physically in right now is deeply important for practice as anyone can become a Buddha in this very life.
Namu Kanzeon Bosatsu
Chih-I:
The Tai-ching states "the women in the realms of Mara, Sakra and Brahma all neither abandoned ( their old) bodies nor received (new) bodies. They all received buddhahood with their current bodies (genshin)" Thus these verses state that the dharma nature is like a great ocean. No right or wrong is preached (within it) Ordinary people and sages are equal, without superiority or inferiority
Paul, Groner "The Lotus Sutra in Japanese Culture"eds. Tanabe p. 58
https://www.tendai-usa.org/
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17090
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

rory wrote:JD:
Again, seems a notion pretty common to many Mahayana schools.
Actually not, the one, ten thousand worlds in one thought moment, I discussed from Zhiyi is very unique with his ramifications. As Ven. Indrajala pointed out in this thread.
http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 6&start=20

There is a kind of philosophical sloppiness that I see in these forums. What is your philosophical school? Do you belong to Yogacara, somtimes Yogacara is called Mind-Only but this is incorrect.http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/articles/intro-uni.htm Someone from the Avatamsaka school would assert that everything is mind....
Avatamsaka, Lotus as they have very differing ways of seeing such things. Even among the Lotus schools you will find some that believe in inherent Enlightenment (hongaku and others that do not. I do not.

So I and others assert despite conventional reality due to ichinen sanzen we can with effort become Buddhas in this very life. We are not already buddhas.
gassho
Rory

My school sees Prasangika Madhayamaka as definitive from what I understand, but (to the best of my knowledge) plenty of Tibetan teachers seem to not chuck out all the other schools, but often teach them as a series of "levels", I know this is the basic presentation that has come from my teacher when he has talked about it, and is a common theme from all kinds of teachers. Anyway, even Yogacara wouldn't accept that you can take stuff from your own Alaya Vijnana and jam it into someone elses. I don't know how big Avatamsaka sutra is in my shcool, but I believe i've been told that The Aspirations of Samantabadra is fairly important, and often recited as loved ones are dying, etc.

So, i'm not sure what you see as philosophical sloppiness, but nothing you are describing so far is sounding particularly unique to me, maybe I need to read up, or maybe you need to explain what you think i'm missing exactly.

zsc:

I have never once seen a teacher (modern or historical) say that Tonglen literally could allow one to practice taking someone else's bad Karma, and I feel that (unless i'm misunderstanding you) this is a real misunderstanding of the practice on your part, i'm open to correction, and i'm no expert on Tonglen by any means, but i'm reasonably well read on the subject, and have received basic teachings on it.

In the root Lojong texts and old commentaries (not to mention modern ones of course). It's mentioned specifically in places that the visualizations, riding the breath with the exchange of self and others are skillful means to defeat self-grasping, arouse and increase Bodhicitta etc.. not literal tools that allow you to take the bad karma of others. I can dig up quotes from a number of different sources if you want..this is pretty standard stuff in TB, and so far the presentation of the "mechanics" of Lojong practice also seems pretty standard, IME. I can also directly ask my teacher, who is monastery-educated..I am 99.9% sure he will basically say something similar when I do.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17090
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

zsc wrote:
rory wrote:Punya; I looked here, granted Wikipedia isn't the best source but...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_B ... n_of_merit

it looks like it exists in TB and Theravada too.
with gassho
Rory
My source that was edited by Ven. Nanadassana was Theravadin, actually. Also, at my Theravadin sangha, we do what my fellow Mahayanists would call "lovingkindness" practice, chanting in Pali phrases like "May all living beings be free from ill treatment", "May all living beings be free from trouble", etc. We certainly aren't doing it just for our health.

No, I think you are doing it to turn around your own consciousness at a root level, which then creates the conditions for your advancement on the path, and allows you to help others eventually because your own obscurations are cleared - or however a Theravedan would phrase the same thing.

I grant you that I am more familiar with Tibetan Buddhism than anything else, but I believe you may actually be mistaken if you think that Theraveda doctrine on Karma would accept (outside of syncretic magic belief etc.) that you are actually sending out good Karma and remove the bad Karma of others directly and routinely through the practice - that is contrary to every mainstream presentation of the workings of karma that i'm aware of.

I know there are probably a couple exceptional teachings on this point, like transference of merit to loved ones etc. but I believe this is basically correct, I'm open to any sources to the contrary of course.

BTW, Rory's very wiki link pointed out what a thorny thing "transference of merit" is in Buddhist doctrine overall, because it runs counter to virtually every teaching of Karma out there..so i'm not sure what you're trying to argue against here, this is not a claim that it's an invalid practice of course..but it does back up exactly what is being said here about the standard explanation of karma.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
plwk
Posts: 2932
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:41 am

Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit

Post by plwk »

Punya; I looked here, granted Wikipedia isn't the best source but...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_B ... n_of_merit

it looks like it exists in TB and Theravada too.
with gassho
Rory
My source that was edited by Ven. Nanadassana was Theravadin, actually. Also, at my Theravadin sangha, we do what my fellow Mahayanists would call "lovingkindness" practice, chanting in Pali phrases like "May all living beings be free from ill treatment", "May all living beings be free from trouble", etc. We certainly aren't doing it just for our health.
For your kind perusal here (pay particular attention to Ben's posting from the scholar Bhikkhu, Ajahn Dhammanando and Cooran's.

Others: 1 2

Samples from Astus, our ex Admin and scholar and his exchanges with others: 1 2 3

On the OP's topic, here's something on the topic... 1 2 (Page 165, Points 5,6 & 5.7)

phpBB [video]
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit

Post by Malcolm »

zsc wrote:
This is basically the basis for the motivation to engage the mechanisms of suffering in many different ways, including suffering brought on due to sociopolitical systems. This is just making a meditation practice of what I have been expressing this whole time.
Tonglen is simply a practice for developing the courage to be a bodhisattva, nothing more.

Edited to add As I continue to read about it, the less I see how this practice refutes my point about karma, which affirms the teachings of interdependence (from dependent co-origination) and nonduality, and therefore does not agree that karma is something that we "own" in any kind of independent way.
It is impossible to take on the Karma of another, just as it is impossible to take on the sufferings of others. The practice of Tonglen exists to strengthen one's resolve to assist others. For example, when we imagine we are taking the sufferings of all sentient beings, this is does not cause us to experience all the sufferings of all sentient beings in fact. When we imagine we are taking on the sufferings of starving children, our bodies do not become emaciated and so on. When we imagine that we are sending all of our happiness and positive roots of virtue to sentient beings, such as starving children, they are not immediately rained upon with food and drink. Since the Buddha was not able to remove the sufferings of all sentient beings, how much less able to do so are we? Nevertheless, like the Buddha, we aspire to do so, because in that aspiration lies the seed to accomplishing the ultimate result, Buddhahood.

Honestly, it seems at this point it seems like there can be no pleasing you.
It would please me if you were able to elaborate a theory of social justice based on truly grasping Buddhist principles.
No matter what language I use, no usage adheres well enough to the teachings of the superior Malcolmyana vehicle, so the actual issues I am trying to discuss cannot be discussed coherently, because even terms like "conventional reality" don't actually mean "conventional reality". This is not meant to be a personal attack, but just an admission that I cannot get around your rhetorical tricks.
I an not using rhetorical tricks. I am merely pointing out that the view you present is based on a one-lifetime model. I would also like to point out again that you are misusing the notion of interdependence. You are mistaking karana-hetu (the fact that all things are causes of all other things apart from themselves) with pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination, which fundamentally describes how sentient beings are caught in samsara and how they can interrupt that process) and the principles of karmavipaka (which describe the effects of morally determined actions).

When one confuses these three principles— cause and condition, dependent origination and karmavipaka — then one will be very confused about rebirth, karma, status in the world, etc.

When it comes to conventional reality, there is a statement by Shantideva, "the ultimate of the lower system is the conventional of the higher". Conventional truths are not written in stone. They change, they change depending on what one's understanding is. For example, the conventional truth of a ruler is that he is the most powerful person, but from the conventional truth viewpoint of a persona following Madhyamaka teaching, rulers are the greatest fools of all with the least power.

From the worldly point of view of the equal rights amendment and so on, we need to enable parity and opportunity for all US citizens, and beyond. I not only accept this, but I support it -- which is why you will have noted on other threads I consider gay marriage to be a civil rights issue and I think that people who don't agree with me have a fundamental lack of understanding of what civil rights means (which is why I think poc who do not support gay marriage have a huge blind spot). I am a deep ecologist, and feel that we have a fundamental obligation to respect all life. While my Buddhist practice informs these perspectives, I do not confuse them with my Buddhist practice. I know quite well that people who are suffering oppression in this life (for example Tibetans in Tibet) are experiencing the ripening of their own karma. Do I support measures to lessen it where possible? Of course. In other words, while it is true that I regard things like having a hot poker shoved in my eye as a result of karma, I also support the idea that the poker ought to be removed as soon as possible, and the inserting of pokers in eyes should be prevented at all costs. But when it does happen, I am not blind to the fact that all sensations in samsara, be they pleasant or painful, are fundamentally a result of karma.

A Buddhist social consciousness must be able to accommodate both perspective simultaneously: on the one hand observing that things like attack dogs and water canons being used on non-violent protestors is fundamentally wrong, and understanding also that the people who are being attacked are also experiencing the ripening of their own karma, while the attackers are creating negative karma for themselves too, which will ripen as suffering later. The Buddhist approach to social justice issues therefore should be equanimous concern and effective engagement, rather than passionate involvement and karmically questionable actions.

M
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17090
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Buddhist approach to social justice issues therefore should be equanimous concern and effective engagement, rather than passionate involvement and karmically questionable actions.
This makes a lot of sense to me, I believe I feel the same way.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
tellyontellyon
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 11:38 pm

Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit

Post by tellyontellyon »

I will only make two broad statements:

1:: 'Politics' isn't necessarily the sham that we usually think of when we think of politics and politicians.:

Politics is in theory a process by which a community decides how they are going to do things, how they will live together. It is a very broad aspect of our lives that happens in every community, including religious communities. When we think of what politics should be, I think it is better to think in those broad terms.
Politics as a bunch of careerist men lying and cheating each other, and us, in order to gain power and wealth is something much narrower, but something most people will recognize in whatever country you happen to live in.


2:: When we think of a 'good' rebirth, I don't think that has much to do with money. The best rebirth would be being born with a mind capable of and the oppourtunity to learn about and practice Dharma and actually encountering a teacher. When I look at most of the Billionairs of the world.... I really don't think they have had as good a rebirth as many. Most Buddhists around the world don't seem to be billionairs, or come anywhere close.

In my experience, ordinary working class people are more generous and realistic than the very richest people, so they seem to have better personal qualities too, IMO.
I don't want to idealise working class people, but I would trust them collectively with power more than I trust the super-rich billionairs.

According to Oxfam, the 85 richest individuals in the world have as much wealth between them as the poorest 50% of the rest of the world... (something like 3 or 4 billion people.)

How many of the worlds poor starve to death or die from lack of water or health care? I say wealth distribution must be part of the aims of a compassionate society and Buddhists should support that.

:twothumbsup:
"Be melting snow. Wash yourself of yourself."
- Rumi
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit

Post by Malcolm »

tellyontellyon wrote: I say wealth distribution must be part of the aims of a compassionate society and Buddhists should support that.
The problem with wealth redistribution is that it is not feasible. There is no way to ensure fair and equitable distribution because central planning and democracy cannot coexist:

It is the price of democracy that the possibilities of conscious control are restricted to the fields where true agreement exists and that in some fields things must be left to chance. But in a society which for its functioning depends on central planning this control cannot be made dependent on a majority’s being able to agree; it will often be necessary that the will of a small minority be imposed upon the people, because this minority will be the largest group able to agree among themselves on the question at issue. Democratic government has worked successfully where, and so long as, the functions of government were, by a widely accepted creed, restricted to fields where agreement among a majority could be achieved by free discussion; and it is the great merit of the liberal creed that it reduced the range of subjects on which agreement was necessary to one on which it was likely to exist in a society of free men. It is now often said that democracy will not tolerate “capitalism.” If “capitalism” means here a competitive system based on free disposal over private property, it is far more important to realize that only within this system is democracy possible. When it becomes dominated by a collectivist creed, democracy will inevitably destroy itself.

Hayek, F. A. (2010-10-22). The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2) (pp. 109-110). University of Chicago Press - A. Kindle Edition.
zsc
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 6:03 am

Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit

Post by zsc »

Adi wrote:
zsc wrote:...

Malcolm -
Malcolm wrote:From a Buddhist perspective, taking a one life-time view is not conventional reality at all.
Honestly, it seems at this point it seems like there can be no pleasing you. No matter what language I use, no usage adheres well enough to the teachings of the superior Malcolmyana vehicle, so the actual issues I am trying to discuss cannot be discussed coherently, because even terms like "conventional reality" don't actually mean "conventional reality". This is not meant to be a personal attack, but just an admission that I cannot get around your rhetorical tricks. I willingly take on this defeat :rolleye:
zsc, I think you have been using the phrase conventional reality and linking concepts to it in a way that is indeed, from "a Buddhist perspective, taking a one life-time view" that "is not conventional reality at all" from that perspective. There is no rhetorical trick in this as it is quite literal. I'm obviously no scholar, but as far as I know all Buddhist schools teach as a very basic fact and concept that we have all been each other's mother, father, sister, brother, enemy, friend, companion, lover and so on an inconceivable number of times over inconceivable numbers of lifetimes. To propose solutions to a problem of one life-time without taking this into account is not to deal in conventional reality from a Buddhist perspective but rather to be caught up in the appearances of a single life-time. So to the topic of this thread, what is the use of engaging in social politics as a Buddhist if you don't bring this basic Buddhist perspective?

Anyway, that's what I see. I may be totally off-base, off the range, or just off. (Certainly wouldn't be my first time!)

Adi
This is exactly what I meant. Malcolm reframed my point (effectively I guess) to imply that I was not in fact taking all of this into consideration in my understandings, for whatever reason. This is not the only way he has done so. This is further shown when he implies I am advocating "karmically questionable" actions (whatever those may be); he has now put some kind of imaginary sinister undertone to my points as well. This is just more rhetorical smoke and mirrors.

For purposes of social concerns, what about helping people to have access to resources that would make their lives less stressful is not about the reality of people still being trapped in the birth-and-death cycle' seeing as how this would mean that less "conventional worldy" obstacles would hinder one's dharmic practice and study? The alternative that seems to be being proposed--considering everyone's suffering as the fruit of their karma from past life only, so nothing should be done about their suffering, meanwhile just staying self-contained and keeping our noses to the grindstone of our own practice--is the action that seems to blatantly ignore the well-being of sentient beings, their present and future births as humans (or even animals), and interdependence of all sentient beings through dependent co-origination.
Johnny Dangerous wrote:zsc:

I have never once seen a teacher (modern or historical) say that Tonglen literally could allow one to practice taking someone else's bad Karma, and I feel that (unless i'm misunderstanding you) this is a real misunderstanding of the practice on your part, i'm open to correction, and i'm no expert on Tonglen by any means, but i'm reasonably well read on the subject, and have received basic teachings on it.
I wasn't being literal just like I know Punya wasn't being literal. That's my question about the quote, actually. It's a little disjointed so I wonder how literal the author was being.

Anywho, Punya seemed to be applying an (ambiguous to me, not being able to read the whole passage) understanding of Tonglen practice to my point by framing it in a way that affirmed your theory of karma is up to an individual to "own" with the author's quote about how no one can share another's karma. Punya tried to refute my posting from a Theravadin source that confirms that in Buddhist thought, it is actually not controversial to hold the view that we can, in fact, affect each other's karma, as demonstrated through merit-making. In fact, merit-making activities are thought to be meritorious because they help to remove the karmic obstacles of ourselves or others. This includes not only chanting, but funding the construction or helping to build monasteries, schools, clinics, etc. All serve to mitigate or remove karmic obstacles of living beings, sometimes resulting from social and political problems.

I should have fleshed this out more, but the point I was trying to make was that I think the extrapolation Punya made from that one passage about Tonglen was inappropriate considering even in Tonglen practice, you are encouraged to let go of dualism that sees other sentient beings as the "other" and their suffering as completely unrelated to you. In light of the non-duality of Mahayana, I find solid distinctions of "my karma", " your karma", etc meaningless, and therefore I do not see how the suffering that is produced by this karma is self-contained to just the people experiencing it.

About being "owners of our karma", I think a good, if imperfect, analogy is that we "own" our karma in a way one would "own" a home. One has the deed, is responsible for the property taxes, it's upkeep, etc. However, this "ownership" isn't separate from the state: evading your taxes or violating ordinances will result in "your" property being seized. In a less extreme example, housing associations can censure you in some way for failing to abide by that association's regulations for residential appearance and maintenance. You also aren't free to use your home as a headquarters for illegal activity, or even as a homebase for some small business ventures. So you live in and are responsible for "your" home, but that doesn't make your home your own little sovereign state. Likewise, your karma is "yours" but that doesn't imply some kind of separation between you and the "other".
Johnny Dangerous wrote:No, I think you are doing it to turn around your own consciousness at a root level, which then creates the conditions for your advancement on the path, and allows you to help others eventually because your own obscurations are cleared - or however a Theravedan would phrase the same thing.
What you say is true. I can say this without making a false dichotomy between this and the fact that it is understood to also help to remove the karmic obstacles of others. I do not ascribe to the rational pragmatic strain of modern Theravada, though, but I don't doubt you have read other Theravadins who say that this is all that is to our lovingkindness chanting. Things are different "on the ground".
Johhny Dangerous wrote:I grant you that I am more familiar with Tibetan Buddhism than anything else, but I believe you may actually be mistaken if you think that Theraveda doctrine on Karma would accept (outside of syncretic magic belief etc.) that you are actually sending out good Karma and remove the bad Karma of others directly and routinely through the practice - that is contrary to every mainstream presentation of the workings of karma that i'm aware of.
By referring to traditional practice as "syncretic magic belief" with usually negative connotations being attached to that concept, you're pretty much setting it up to render any explanation I give to be "superstition", but yes, transference/dedication of merit is traditionally understood to help remove the karmic obstacles of others. Like I touched on before, looking at things from a non-dualistic, interdependent viewpoint, I do not see how your proposition of self-containment is appropriate in thinking about how to mitigate suffering from a Buddhist perspective.
Johnny Dangerous wrote:BTW, Rory's very wiki link pointed out what a thorny thing "transference of merit" is in Buddhist doctrine overall, because it runs counter to virtually every teaching of Karma out there..so i'm not sure what you're trying to argue against here, this is not a claim that it's an invalid practice of course..but it does back up exactly what is being said here about the standard explanation of karma.
No, the article did not say that "transference of merit" was counter to every teaching of karma out there (in "early Buddhism"). It was "out there" itself. The controversy the article discussed is how there was a discrepancy between the claims of historians about whether this practice was a Mahayana addition or not. As with everything else in Theravada vs. Mahayana comparisons, we are now acknowledging that there is some overlap of doctrinal development and praxis between the two schools. The same section notes how there is evidence that the practice was established in Theravadin countries in early centuries (we can obviously observe it's alive and well in Theravadin praxis now). As Buddhist scholarship drifts further from the initial somewhat linear understanding of Buddhist history that goes Theravada ----> Mahayana -----> Vajrayana, people are seeing that thinking of Theravada, especially as how it exists today, as this "ancient" school that fossilized Buddhist teaching before Mahayanists went crazy with it, may just be an oversimplification. In other words, it's looking more like Theravada <----> Mahayana <----->Vajrayana, depending on the region.

The critics of the practice (not really seeing it as invalid but as a deviation) oversimplify the Theravadin position when they are quoted as to writing: transfer of merit "breaks the strict causality of the Hinayānic law of karman (P. kamma) according to which everybody wanting better rebirth can reach it solely by his own efforts". I think western Buddhism should put the old trope of the "self-centered" Theravadin arhat to bed; saying "solely by his own efforts" in the English language comes with a lot of assumptions that actually contradict Buddhism, and that limit us when it comes to talking about what that actually means. To us, I think that phrase implies that a man or woman reaches arhatship in isolation from the lives and working of other beings, but observing the realities of Theravadin life shows how that is not the case. The interdependence of the community of the sangha is so apparent, it doesn't even need to be said. Of course we all rely on Buddho (who is not understood as being "separate"), but also caring for the monks and the monastery (and it's grounds) is seen as meritorious, in part because it directly aids the monks in achieving arhatship, as well as enables them to be able to teach us the dharma (which is itself a boon). The abbot of my sangha speaks about practictioners training their mind themselves, but context reveals that neither he, nor anyone else, takes an exhortation to personal practice to the extreme of assuming we all practice our paths as our own little "islands" of self.

Also, I don't think I have to point out in a Mahayana forum that it is possible to not consider Theravada as the "gold standard" to compare all other vehicles and sects to.

As far as what I am "arguing against", it may be the idea that we exist as inherently separate entities in our own isolated worlds, since that seems to be the philosophical assumption of a lot of critics of "Engaged Buddhism".

plwk - I skimmed the posts and articles, and I am enjoying my reading so far. And about the video, I am basically operating on that same definition of "politics" which is "the affairs of the people", so I really don't see as difference between charity work and politics. In that sense, I do agree with comments like that of tellyontellyon. A lot of professional charity workers will be the first ones to acknowledge that charity work is very "political" and it doesn't all run on altruism. It's like having a long-lasting marriage: love is definitely not enough :lol:
yolo (but not really).
╮ (. ❛ ᴗ ❛.) ╭
성불하세요.
Simon E.
Posts: 7652
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit

Post by Simon E. »

d.r.t.l.
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17090
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

By referring to traditional practice as "syncretic magic belief" with usually negative connotations being attached to that concept, you're pretty much setting it up to render any explanation I give to be "superstition", but yes, transference/dedication of merit is traditionally understood to help remove the karmic obstacles of others. Like I touched on before, looking at things from a non-dualistic, interdependent viewpoint, I do not see how your proposition of self-containment is appropriate in thinking about how to mitigate suffering from a Buddhist perspective.
Then you reject the standard presentation of Karma, from virtually all Buddhist schools that I know. Do you know what an Alaya Vijnana is? Non dualism does not mean that your Karma bleeds into other people's Alaya-Vijana (granted the concept is different in different schools)..or that you can alter directly another mindstream or it's "seeds".There is no support fom any traditional source that i'm aware of for what you are saying- outside a few practices thatseem top contradict doctrine - as mentioned in the wiki. You can't take away someone else's bad Karma..this is consistent from the Pali Canon on up. The difference in Mahayana is the notions of being able to "lessen" the effects of karmic fruits, the concept of Alaya Vijnana or storehouse etc.- absent from Theravedan notion of Karma to the best of my knowledge.


What I meant by "syncretic belief" (I am a Vajrayana guy btw, so all kinds of what I practice could be viewed as "superstition" , it's not a value judgement on my part, I believe in ghosts lol) is beliefs which come from the prevailing culture, and seem to go against actual Buddhist doctrine, of which there seem to be many, in plenty of traditions.
No, the article did not say that "transference of merit" was counter to every teaching of karma out there (in "early Buddhism").
The wiki page specifically noted (and this is not new info to anyone) that the concept of transference of merit seems to contradict the notion of Karma as taught by most Buddhist schools. Your own actions can't ripen int he mindstream of someone else, i'm fairly confident that the vast majority of Buddhist teachers would say this, if you have information somewhere to contrary - show me. otherwise, you are basically making up your own philosophy of karma.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
zsc
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 6:03 am

Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit

Post by zsc »

Johnny Dangerous wrote:The wiki page specifically noted (and this is not new info to anyone) that the concept of transference of merit seems to contradict the notion of Karma as taught by most Buddhist schools. Your own actions can't ripen int he mindstream of someone else, i'm fairly confident that the vast majority of Buddhist teachers would say this, if you have information somewhere to contrary - show me. otherwise, you are basically making up your own philosophy of karma.
Really? It contradicts "most Buddhist schools"? Even those Buddhist schools that teach it?

The article didn't even say it contradicted "most Buddhist schools". At most, it said the teaching contradicted most western interpretations of Buddhist writing which is a completely different claim. But it does show that Buddhist thought on karma has historically not been fossilized, seeing as how the teaching had to be interpreted through different languages, and the different assumptions these languages make, which shouldn't be surprising to anyone.
yolo (but not really).
╮ (. ❛ ᴗ ❛.) ╭
성불하세요.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17090
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

zsc wrote:
Johnny Dangerous wrote:The wiki page specifically noted (and this is not new info to anyone) that the concept of transference of merit seems to contradict the notion of Karma as taught by most Buddhist schools. Your own actions can't ripen int he mindstream of someone else, i'm fairly confident that the vast majority of Buddhist teachers would say this, if you have information somewhere to contrary - show me. otherwise, you are basically making up your own philosophy of karma.
Really? It contradicts "most Buddhist schools"? Even those Buddhist schools that teach it?

The article didn't even say it contradicted "most Buddhist schools". At most, it said the teaching contradicted most western interpretations of Buddhist writing which is a completely different claim. But it does show that Buddhist thought on karma has historically not been fossilized, seeing as how the teaching had to be interpreted through different languages, and the different assumptions these languages make, which shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

Cool, go ahead and find me a writing from some respected master, scholar, or whoever that says you can influence the karma of others in the way you propose. I can find countless writings that say you cannot. Seriously, just start with the Dhammapada.

The wiki point out that even though it is a common practice in some traditions it contradicts notions of karma - that isn't controversial I don't think.
But it does show that Buddhist thought on karma has historically not been fossilized,
I'd more say in this instance it points out that either 1) people's understanding of how transference of merit works is flawed, or 2) it simply IS a practice that doesn't make sense in terms of how karma is purported to work.

The dedication of merit done at the end of practice (different thing but since you were conflating the two i'll bring it up) is not, but the definition of any Buddhist school i'm aware of meant to literally "send something" to anyone else, it is meant to dedicate the merits towards the enlightenment of oneself and others, in order to create the causes and conditions for one's own progression and enlightenment - it does not leave your mindstream and effect someone else, it creates the causes and conditions for enlightenment in your mindstream -again that is not possible by the standard explanation of karma.

I can almost predict you will throw out "but there is no real YOU" or something in response to this, in which case i'll say: whether your school says the mindstream truly exists, or only exists conventionally, in either case it is your mindstream, your karma ripens in your aggregates, and not anywhere else.

If you know of a Buddhist philosophy of karma that teaches something else, i'm all ears, I haven't heard of it, but I don't doubt someone believes somethhing like this.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:52 am

Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit

Post by daverupa »

Johnny Dangerous wrote:Cool, go ahead and find me a writing from some respected master, scholar, or whoever that says you can influence the karma of others in the way you propose.
What if I set the Ullambana Sutra down in front of you at this point?
If one thus makes offerings to these Provarana Sangha, one's present father and mother, parents of seven generations, as well as the six kinds of close relatives, will escape from the three paths of sufferings.
Makes no hay for me to say it's not Buddhavacana, but others here may have trouble.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17090
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

daverupa wrote:
Johnny Dangerous wrote:Cool, go ahead and find me a writing from some respected master, scholar, or whoever that says you can influence the karma of others in the way you propose.
What if I set the Ullambana Sutra down in front of you at this point?
If one thus makes offerings to these Provarana Sangha, one's present father and mother, parents of seven generations, as well as the six kinds of close relatives, will escape from the three paths of sufferings.
Makes no hay for me to say it's not Buddhavacana, but others here may have trouble.

Yeah, there are sutra and sutta references to the concept- especially in Mahayana..but that is the point of having definitive and provisional interpretations of scriptures..if it don't make sense in the larger picture, it don't make sense. The point is, it doesn't jive with how karma is taught. Mahayana sutra are impossible to read without that mindset IMO, being as there are so many, and they say such contradictory things if you choose to take them all as strictly definitive.

That's the reason I said master or scholar, rather than asking for a Sutta or Sutra reference. You can find anything in Sutta or Sutra if you don't bother with interpretation...my point is that it's not taught as part of the notion of karma in mainstream Buddhist schools - that i'm aware of of course, and i'm certainly open to correction, i'm not a scholar of any kind.

BTW, here' is S Dhammika site I believe, and his take on it..having been a Theraveda monk:

http://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=423

Not saying his ideas are definitive..but this explanation is the gist of what i've gotten both from teachers, and from most texts i've read that touched on this kind of subject, so i'm just going by my own understanding, admittedly.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
Seishin
Former staff member
Posts: 1915
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:53 am
Contact:

Re: Should Buddhists even care about "engaging" social polit

Post by Seishin »

I remember reading somewhere that the Ullambana Sutra was written in China as a way of increasing the existing "merit giving" practices, many of which actually benefited the monasteries. Any scholars on here have a link? :shrug: I can't find one.
Post Reply

Return to “Engaged Buddhism”