Sri Lanka's War Monk in Parliament

I don't even know where to start with this one. Check out this article on the Buddhist Channel site about Athurliye Rathana, Sri Lanka's "Parliament Monk."

Rathana is a celebrated figure in this predominantly Buddhist nation, where monks are cherished for their spiritual guidance. But he is known for more than just his religious leadership. Dubbed the Parliament Monk and the War Monk by the Sri Lankan press, he is a legislator who has pushed for the use of military force to end this island nation's 25-year civil war, which has left 70,000 dead and displaced nearly a half-million people at its height.

I've said it before, but I suppose it bears repeating. According to the Tipitaka, monks are not really supposed to be involved in politics. The relevant sections are in DN 2:

"Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these — talking about kings, robbers, ministers of state; armies, alarms, and battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past and future], the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things exist or not — he abstains from talking about lowly topics such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.
...
"Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, are addicted to running messages and errands for people such as these — kings, ministers of state, noble warriors, priests, householders, or youths [who say], 'Go here, go there, take this there, fetch that here' — he abstains from running messages and errands for people such as these. This, too, is part of his virtue.

Also see Buddhist Monastic Code II, Chapter 10. As stated in a previous post, it also appears impossible to maintain a monk's standard of virtue as a ruler.

I can sympathize with people in Sri Lanka wanting to get the civil war over with, but it's distasteful enough for a "king" or regular politician to be pushing for military action to "finish off" a conflict. Assuming this is even necessary, pushing for violence to end a conflict seems to me like a layperson's duty, not the duty of a monk. People are going to find enough reasons to kill each other without religious leaders encouraging it in any way shape or form. If I were a monk I'd either be discouraging violence or remaining silent.

Anyway, I have to wonder if this means that Sri Lanka is going to go the way of Tibet with monks running the government like this.

Is Peace Possible?

I recently found the following post by Dhamma81 to pretty much reflect my views on Buddhism and Politics, so figured I'd give it some attention.

Personally I've grown weary of political leaders, engaged Buddhists, economic systems and ideas that try to change the outer world into a better place. In my opinion trying to make the world a better place is a noble ideal but nothing more then that. It doesn't mean that we ought to shirk our responsibility for acting in accordance with the principles of morality in our day to day life but I think it's a waste to try to make the outside world a better place.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a waste, but some people out there do seem focused on external things to the detriment of themselves. My philosophy is, do what I can when the opportunity arises but don't get obsessed with how everything is the fault of a certain politician, or buy into the delusion that if we just elect so-in-so then everything will be great.

I think it's also important to see the good and bad in everything. In other words, try to see the Tibet situation, for example, as it actually is. Is one side really all good and the other side really all bad? This is pretty much never the case. Often in many of these conflicts the more you look at it, the more it looks like two bad guys fighting rather than a good guy fighting a bad guy.

"Buddhism and Politics" by Ven. Dhammananda

An excellent essay that I came across a while back is Buddhism and Politics by Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera. The essay starts out:

The Buddha came from a warrior caste and was naturally brought into association with kings, princes and ministers. Despite His origin and association, He never resorted to the influence of political power to introduce His teaching, nor allowed His Teaching to be misused for gaining political power. But today, many politicians try to drag the Buddha's name into politics by introducing Him as a communist, capitalist, or even an imperialist. They have forgotten that the new political philosophy as we know it really developed in the West long after the Buddha's time. Those who try to make use of the good name of the Buddha for their own personal advantage must remember that the Buddha was the Supremely Enlightened One who had gone beyond all worldly concerns.

I have to say that I agree with almost everything he says. Other significant quotes:

When religion is used to pander to political whims, it has to forego its high moral ideals and become debased by worldly political demands.
...
No political system, no matter how ideal it may appear to be, can bring about peace and happiness as long as the people in the system are dominated by greed, hatred and delusion.

Overall this essay does a good job of denouncing the idea of using Buddhism to gain political power or support some specific political philosophy. I hope that anyone who is thinking about Buddhism and Politics will give it a read.

Armies of the Enlightened?

From an interesting article in Newsweek:

In recent years, massive groups of fervent believers have taken to the streets of Asia with angry political demands. They've railed against government corruption, condemned the onslaught of Western values and decried the erosion of traditional morals. Having built an extensive network of grass-roots aid groups, their numbers are exploding. Some have even picked up arms to defend their beliefs. Sound familiar? It should—only the faithful in question aren't Islamic fundamentalists or conservative Christians. They're Buddhists: members of what used to be Asia's quietest religion, one usually associated with pacifism and contemplation.

I really wish people would try to keep Buddhism out of politics, but it looks like that won't happen any more than it does with anything else.

"Is violence justified in Theravada Buddhism?" by Mahinda Deegalle

I recently happened across the paper entitled Is violence justified in Theravada Buddhism? by Dr Mahinda Deegalle, Senior Lecturer: Study of Religions at Bath Spa University. In this paper he seeks to answer a number of questions regarding violence including "Is there anything within Theravada scriptures or practice advocating violence?" (He mentions that his main purpose is to explore these questions "in relation to Buddhism in Sri Lanka.")

He first brings up a good question: What exactly is meant by violence? As I've noted in previous blog entries, some people in the west have had a bit of a tendency to trivialize the definition of violence by declaring practically anything they don't like as "violence." Mahinda writes:

The first question is, what do we mean by violence? How should we define it? What are its boundaries? In particular, what does it mean in English? Is it something very vague? In modern usage "violence" is used very broadly to include a wide range of negative human actions harmful to other living beings, living organisms, ecosystems and environment. While physical assault can be taken as its primary meaning, it also includes minor violations such as verbal abuse. In texts, violence can be understood primarily as physical assault and killing.

So it's pretty clear here that we're talking about assault and killing, and not overuse of non-renewable resources or some other broad or trivial definition convenient to certain western writers intent on hyperbole.

So what do the texts actually say?

Though Pali canonical texts do not contain explicit evidence to support violence or remarks to justify violence, a certain genre of post-canonical literature, for example, one of the Pali Chronicles, the Mahavamsa of Mahanama, composed in Sri Lanka in the 5th century, unfortunately contains a narrative which disturbs the pacifist image of Theravada Buddhism. Though the intention of this particular monastic author is open to debate, this isolated reference is problematic when placed within the early Buddhist Pali canonical corpus of texts. This narrative gives the impression that, in certain circumstances when the ultimate end is noble, the use of a certain degree of violence will not harm the Buddha's doctrine of non-violence and the path of pacifism.

So to get right to the point, the part of the Mahavimsa that's most problematic is this:

The Mahavamsa states (25:104) that the arahants (i.e. the "worthy of reverence", people who have reached the stage before nirvana) in Piyangudipa, knowing Dutthagamani's remorse, sent a group of eight holy monks to comfort him; when Dutthagamani confessed that he had slaughtered millions, what they said to him to eliminate his remorse is highly problematic:

"From this deed arises no hindrance in thy way to heaven. Only one and a half human beings have been slain here by thee, O lord of men. The one had come unto the (three) refuges, the other had taken on himself the five precepts. Unbelievers and men of evil life were the rest, not more to be esteemed than beasts. But as for thee, thou wilt bring glory to the doctrine of the Buddha in manifold ways; therefore cast away care from thy heart, O ruler of men!" Thus exhorted by them the great king took comfort. (Mahavamsa 25:109-112)

This is a rather shocking thing to have in any remotely "Buddhist" document. Even killing animals is considered to be killing in Buddhism, so it seems rather odd that this passage would, in addition to trying to liken people to animals, suggest that killing these animal-like people would somehow be without consequence.

This is also the first I've ever really heard of any Buddhist calling anyone an "unbeliever." In my view, people in Buddhism often believe some of it and don't believe some of it. People of other religions often have some degree of Right View even if they still believe many things that are Wrong View. So this idea of people either being "believers" or "unbelievers" is kind of bizarre to me.

Needless to say, I won't be looking to the Mahavimsa for any sort of inspiration or understanding of Dhamma.

Dr. Deegalle goes on to point out many examples of anti-violent messages in the Tipitaka. Finally he concludes with:

Through a close examination of three textual resources, we can see that a Buddhist cannot justify violence under any circumstance. Examining a pervasive myth used for violence, we perceive that the position of the Pali Chronicles, the Mahavamsa, is rather contradictory to the fundamental Buddhist teachings of the Pali Canon."

The only thing I really disagree with him on is that Buddhism is somehow about being able to or not being able to "justify" things. The idea of justification is more of a legal or social term in my mind. Dhamma talks about cause-and-effect. Whether you can think of some way to "justify" your violence, it's going to have some negative consequence that is highly unbeneficial to you. There's no way around it.

So though I'd say that a Buddhist could think of a way to "justify" violence, the "justification" couldn't be from Dhamma, and this person must experience the consequences of their act of violence according to the Dhamma. As Major General Ananda Weerasekera says:

However it should be stressed that a soldier like all others is subject to the law of Kamma and will not escape the Kammic fruits of "taking the Life" of a sentient being (panatipatha) even though he may have had the overall noble intention of protecting his country and his people.

So though I disagree with Dr. Deegalle's framing of things in terms of "justification," I completely agree that there's nothing in Dhamma that says that people will somehow avoid facing the negative consequences for acts of violence in certain situations.

How To Win a Large Following

Something perhaps modern politicians should listen to is contained in AN 8.24 about Hatthaka of Alavi who enjoyed a following of 500 lay followers:

"Lord, I have won over this large following through the four grounds for the bonds of fellowship taught by the Blessed One. When I know that, 'This person is to be won over by giving,' then I win him/her over by giving. When I know that, 'This person is to be won over by kind words,' then I win him/her over by kind words. When I know that, 'This person is to be won over by beneficial help,' then I win him/her over by beneficial help. When I know that, 'This person is to be won over by consistency,' then I win him/her over by consistency. Awed by the wealth of my family, they regard me as worth listening to, which would not be the case if I were poor."

"It's good, Hatthaka, it's very good that this is the means by which you have won over a large following. All those in the past who have won over a large following have done so by means of these four same grounds for the bonds of fellowship. All those in the future who will win over a large following will do so by means of these four same grounds for the bonds of fellowship. All those at present who are winning over a large following do so by means of these four same grounds for the bonds of fellowship."

Apparently "beneficial help" means beneficial words or advice. "Giving" means material aid or aid through one's actions. "Kind words" probably just means stuff like complementing people on their accomplishments and such.

As for consistency, well, that's probably what most modern politicians have the most trouble with. Ajahn Geoffrey says "The Commentary defines consistency as sharing the same hardships and pleasures: eating together, sleeping together, observing the same precepts, not claiming any special privileges. Other traditional texts define consistency more in terms of reliability: acting the same way behind the other person's back as one would to his/her face."

I think, especially when it comes to consistency, modern politicians should pay attention. They should probably also try to think about giving in terms of doing what is beneficial for people rather than simply bribing them to buy votes.

Lastly, note that Hatthaka seems to consider his wealth worthwhile for getting people to take him seriously, perhaps because they see it as evidence of competence, though the Buddha doesn't consider it among the bonds of fellowship.

The Word of the Buddha or the Disputations of his Disciples?

Interesting looking paper from the president of the Pali Text Society:

Los Angeles, CA (USA) -- The Pali Nikayas contain a number of different schemes of the Buddhist path. These schemes are characteristically set out in the Nikayas by way of variations on stock formulas presented in a variety of narrative frames.

It has been argued by scholars that these different schemes represent competing voices within early Buddhist texts, and some scholars even argue that it is possible to identify the authentic voice of the Buddha among these voices.

Such an approach assumes that the Nikayas are best considered as the end result of a somewhat haphazard and unsystematic process of compilation and redaction that reveals instances of incoherence and inconsistency which can then be used as a basis for distinguishing between early and late in the different path schemes.

Rupert Gethin argues that such an approach has overlooked the extent to which the Nikayas are a systematically redacted whole: the product of a particular process of compilation and editing which the compilers and editors deliberately employed in order to present a particular vision of the Buddhist path.

Analysing the schemes and formulas both numerically and contextually, Gethin attempts to articulate what the vision was by establishing what the compilers of the Nikayas wished to highlight and emphasize in their presentation of the Buddhist path.

Rupert Gethin will be presenting this paper at the University of Bristol on Friday, March 14, 2008, 3:00 PM - 4:30 PM at 243 Royce Hall.

I'm going to try to obtain his book, The Foundations of Buddhism.

"Buddhist Economics" by E. F. Schumacher

I finally got around to reading the 1966 essay entitled Buddhist Economics, mainly because I've heard people mention it a few times. Unfortunately I'm not impressed.

The biggest problem here is that I have no idea where he draws some of his ideas about Buddhism from. For example:

The teaching of the Buddha, on the other hand, enjoins a reverent and non-violent attitude not only to all sentient beings but also, with great emphasis, to trees. Every follower of the Buddha ought to plant a tree every few years and look after it until it is safely established, and the Buddhist economist can demonstrate without difficulty that the universal observation of this rule would result in a high rate of genuine economic development independent of any foreign aid. Much of the economic decay of southeast Asia (as of many other parts of the world) is undoubtedly due to a heedless and shameful neglect of trees.

What is he talking about? I have yet to read or hear about trees being sentient beings. Chopping down a tree isn't prohibited except for monks, but monks aren't supposed to cut any plant.

There is a tradition of planting Bodhi trees and tree groves, as the Buddha was enlightened under a tree. The Tipitaka mentions trees many times, and monks would usually live in forests and groves. Trees are good, but everyone knows that. Still, it seems like he's going off into lala land, almost suggesting that brahma-vihara is especially practiced toward trees. Also, I'm a bit unclear on how economic problems in Asia, even in 1966, were mostly related to trees, and he doesn't cite any sources.

Non-renewable goods must be used only if they are indispensable, and then only with the greatest care and the most meticulous concern for conservation. To use them heedlessly or extravagantly is an act of violence, and while complete non-violence may not be attainable on this earth, there is nonetheless an ineluctable duty on man to aim at the ideal of non-violence in all he does.

Waste is bad, but it's a bit extreme to call it "violence." The main thing that's frustrating me with this essay is that he doesn't cite any references to any Buddhist writing at all, canonical or otherwise. All of his citations are to modern western writings, and he seems to be just making some stuff up regarding Buddhism.

So overall, reading this was a total waste of time. It contains nothing but fluffy commentary on sustainability and non-materialistic quality of life being in conflict with productivity, which is not necessarily the case, along with attempts to support this with a few vague and suspect references to Buddhism.

I think the whole essay could be summed up as: Buddhism says do good things and be non-materialistic. I say do good things and be non-materialistic. Therefore, what I say is "Buddhist."

Furthermore, a bunch of his claims are suspect. While I agree that relying on non-renewable resources is generally bad, I have a hard time buying that using non-renewable resources is "violence" of some sort, especially when the non-renewable resources aren't even alive. Other than some traditions involving trees, I don't know how Buddhism especially preaches non-violence toward trees.

Overall this essay looks like an attempt to co-opt Buddhism in order to push his own ideas, and he didn't even do a good job tying them to Buddhism.

Is it OK to Associate With Non-Buddhists?

In the orthodox traditions of several religions, associating with non-believers is either discouraged or forbidden. People clearly have a certain tendency to associate more closely with members of their own "group" and find ways to justify it using scripture or philosophy. A number of religions make this easy.

The question is, is it possible to come up with some sort of justification like this using Buddhist doctrine? Could the most orthodox Buddhists come up with something?

In the US where I live, only 0.7% of the population identifies themselves as Buddhist, and the US tends to be a rather culturally heterogeneous environment anyway, so not surprisingly you don't really see Buddhists in the US refusing to associate with non-Buddhists; for the most part they can't refuse even if they wanted to. But in some countries where more than half of the population is Buddhist, it would be quite possible to only associate with other Buddhists most of the time.

But is there anything that would actually tend to encourage or justify this kind of behavior in the Tipitaka?

The first thing that comes to mind are these famous verses from the Dhammapada, 328-330:

If you gain a mature companion —
a fellow traveler, right-living, enlightened —
overcoming all dangers
go with him, gratified,
mindful.

If you don't gain a mature companion —
a fellow traveler, right-living, enlightened —
go alone
like a king renouncing his kingdom,
like the elephant in the Matanga wilds,
his herd.

Going alone is better,
there's no companionship with a fool.
Go alone,
doing no evil, at peace,
like the elephant in the Matanga wilds.

There are a number of places where "companionship with fools" is discouraged. One might try to interpret "fool" to mean anyone who isn't Buddhist, but the definition of "fool" is mentioned in several places and is not defined in terms of how one identifies oneself:

"Monks, these two are fools. Which two? The one who doesn't see his transgression as a transgression, and the one who doesn't rightfully pardon another who has confessed his transgression. These two are fools." -AN 2.21

"A person endowed with three things is to be recognized as a fool. Which three? Bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, mental misconduct. A person endowed with these three things is to be recognized as a fool." -AN 3.2

"And how is a monk skilled in characteristics? There is the case where a monk discerns, as it actually is, that a fool is characterized by his actions, a wise person is characterized by his actions. This is how a monk is skilled in characteristics." -MN 33

"It is through living together that a person's virtue may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.

"It is through dealing with a person that his purity may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.

"It is through adversity that a person's endurance may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.

"It is through discussion that a person's discernment may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning." Ud 6.2

And, to provide a quick summary for a layperson's code of virtue:

"What are the four vices in conduct that he has eradicated? The destruction of life, householder, is a vice and so are stealing, sexual misconduct, and lying. These are the four vices that he has eradicated." -DN 31

Not to mention "indulging in intoxicants" due to their tendency to cause misconduct. And of course there are many other places where these things are defined similarly; I've just picked the few that are easiest to find online.

So, while Buddhism discourages "associating with fools," many (hopefully most) non-Buddhists would not be considered fools by the Buddhist definition. People are defined by their actions, not by how they identify themselves.

Buddhist Fundamentalism in Sri Lanka

This isn't particularly new, but since the civil war is still going on in Sri Lanka it's still relevant. In A Review of Buddhist Fundamentalism and Minority Identities in Sri Lanka a quote from the book is given:

In their reading of Buddhism, Sinhala-Buddhist fundamentalists identify Buddhist Sinhalas as the people who have been charged by the Buddha himself to maintain and protect Buddhism. In addition, they identify the island of Sri Lanka as dhammadipa, the island (dipa) of the dhamma, the Buddhist teachings. The identity between the Sinhala people and the dhamma, based on a reading of the fifth century Sri Lankan "mythohistory," the Mahavamsa, has contributed to the notion that Sri Lanka, destined to be the island of the dhamma, should be dominated by Buddhists (p. 2).

It's important to note here that the Mahavamsa is not part of the Pali Canon and is not considered a canonical text. In any case, this shows that people can turn any religion toward a sort of "right wing" ideology based on identity if they try hard enough.

So far, from my reading though, it seems like it's hard to do this using the Pali Canon itself.

The reviewer does point out that the author concludes that since the 1980s the struggles in Sri Lanka have more to do with ethnic identity rather than religious identity indicated by a disassociation between Sinhala and Tamil Catholics.

Thai Buddhist and Muslim Relations

Apparently five senior Thai Buddhist monks arrived in Egypt on Sunday for an official visit with the Sunni Muslims’ highest spiritual leader:

Both sides were expected to exchange religious teachings which could help reduce misunderstanding and mistrust between Thai Buddhists and Thai Muslims in Thailand’s deep south, which has led to renewed violence and the deaths of around 3,000 people over the past four years.

Last year, Sheikh Tantawi visited Thailand and visited the acting Thai Buddhist monks leader.

I've never heard anything about the Muslims in Thailand having any special recognition for any spiritual leaders in Egypt, but hopefully the talks will be useful somehow.

Noble Lie: Not So Noble

Since I'm writing a blog, it occurred to me that perhaps I should do some reading and thinking about Right Speech (or in this case Right Writing I suppose). So, that's what I've been doing.

In the introduction to Ajahn Geoffrey's translation of MN 58: Abhaya Sutta he mentions something interesting.

In this discourse, the Buddha shows the factors that go into deciding what is and is not worth saying. The main factors are three: whether or not a statement is true, whether or not it is beneficial, and whether or not it is pleasing to others. The Buddha himself would state only those things that are true and beneficial, and would have a sense of time for when pleasing and unpleasing things should be said. Notice that the possibility that a statement might be untrue yet beneficial is not even entertained.

This would suggest to me that the idea of a "noble lie," referring to the general idea that "the ends justify the means" with regard to lying, that lying in order to manipulate people into doing what you "just know" is the right thing, is generally not approved of in Buddhism.

An example of this as it applies to politics would be doing something like falsifying a study or using junk science to try to convince people that your political position is correct. The main problem with this idea is that, if you can't use real facts and honest science to support your position, how do you know it's right?

Obviously there are some situations where lying is going to be the lesser moral compromise. For example, lets say that you're hiding Jews in Nazi Germany and the SS comes knocking on your door. They ask if there are any Jews in your house, and you tell them no. Lying is bad, but sending the people you're hiding to their death would be worse.

One might argue that similar situations exist in politics. After all, political situations often seem to require moral compromise. Still, it would seem to me that this is something to be strongly avoided. Not only is it Wrong Speech, but it can generally be discovered and exposed, leading to loss of reputation and damage to one's cause.

Faults

I was going to post something a little less serious today, but what the heck. I managed to stumble across this from the Dhammapada and found it particularly applicable to politics:

Regard him as one who points out treasure,
   the wise one who seeing your faults rebukes you.
Stay with this sort of sage.
For the one who stays with a sage of this sort,
   things get better,
   not worse.

Let him admonish, instruct,
   deflect you away from poor manners.
To the good, he's endearing;
to the bad, he's not.

- Dhp 76-77

I think that this is perhaps the biggest problem with most people particularly with regard to politics. Few people truly want to seriously look at the weaknesses in their political positions or anything else. Few people really try to listen to "the other side." Most of the time people look at only the facts supporting their position and pretend that anything else doesn't exist.

Sometimes, on certain issues, I ask people: "What sort of evidence, what sort of proof, would you need to change your mind?" If you can't identify some sort of factual information that would alter your position on an issue, then it's a really strong sign that you're not being rational. If you're not being rational then you're probably also not willing to look at faults.

People really should welcome alternate opinions, because getting information from someone who doesn't share your biases, or perhaps has opposite biases, can reveal facts which you may have overlooked or may not hear about if you only associate with those who share your opinion.

Then again, there are also people who have an opposing position on something who have no facts to support their position. They believe something just because someone else told them to, and they can't really teach you anything about why. These people are just annoying. That's why the word wise in "the wise one who seeing your faults rebukes you" is rather important.

Courses of Action

AN 4.115 highlights something that seems to be a major problem in politics:

"As for the course of action that is unpleasant to do but that, when done, leads to what is profitable, it is in light of this course of action that one may be known — in terms of manly stamina, manly persistence, manly effort — as a fool or a wise person. For a fool doesn't reflect, 'Even though this course of action is unpleasant to do, still when it is done it leads to what is profitable.' So he doesn't do it, and thus the non-doing of that course of action leads to what is unprofitable for him. But a wise person reflects, 'Even though this course of action is unpleasant to do, still when it is done it leads to what is profitable.' So he does it, and thus the doing of that course of action leads to what is profitable for him.

In a democracy this type of course of action seems particularly difficult to accomplish unless a majority of citizens are willing to put up with the unpleasantness. Politicians are generally unwilling to even suggest such a course of action, even if it's the correct one, the best one. Most people just want things given to them with no sacrifice. People become spoiled, decadent.

It is mostly on this point that democracies either succeed or fail.

0.7% of Americans are Buddhist

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life just recently released a report on their latest U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. Not surprisingly, the number of the respondents who identified themselves as Buddhist was pretty small, only 0.7%.

Here's a summary (in %):

Christian 78.4 (includes Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses)
Other Religions 4.7
   Jewish 1.7
   Buddhist 0.7
   Muslim 0.6
   Hindu 0.4
   Other World Religions <0.3
   Other Faiths 1.2
Unaffiliated 16.1
Don’t know/Refused 0.8

But what is more interesting is that most Buddhists in the US are not immigrants who were born into Buddhism:

In sharp contrast to Islam and Hinduism, Buddhism in the U.S. is primarily made up of native-born adherents, whites and converts. Only one-in-three American Buddhists describe their race as Asian, while nearly three-in-four Buddhists say they are converts to Buddhism.

The report showed that 75% of American Buddhists also have at least some college education or better.

Also interesting is that "Mainline Protestants, Mormons, Buddhists and Orthodox Christians also tend to have higher income levels, with pluralities of each of these groups making more than $50,000 per year."

Overall the sample size for the survey wasn't large enough to get an accurate count of adherents to individual Buddhist sects. Numbers for the categories counted, Theravada/Vipassana, Mahayana (Zen), Vajrayana (Tibetan), "Other Buddhist groups," were all < 0.3% with "Buddhist, not further specified" listed at 0.3%.

The full report is also available for those wishing to check out the minute details.

Turning Over the Alms Bowl

I have to admit that I haven't been keeping up with the situation in Burma very well, but reading the latest news on the issue has reminded me of it again. When the monks in Burma started marching last year with their alms bowls turned upside down, I knew that this was the "turning over of the bowls" that I had heard about.

According to the article Burma: A monk's reflection, "Overturning the bowl" is called patta-nikkujjana-kamma in Pali. This is described in the Vinaya Pitaka of the Tipitaka as follows:

"The bowl may be overturned for a lay follower endowed with (any of) eight qualities: He/she strives for the monks' material loss, strives for the monks' detriment, strives for the monks' non-residence, insults and reviles monks, causes monks to split from monks, speaks in dispraise of the Buddha, speaks in dispraise of the Dhamma, speaks in dispraise of the Sangha. I allow that the bowl be overturned for a lay follower endowed with (any of) these eight qualities." (Cv. V.20.3)

So, as previously stated, monks typically try to stay out of politics because "running errands for kings and ministers of state" is considered Wrong Livelihood for monks. Unfortunately, monks can still get drawn into politics just from the simple act of accepting alms! From the same article:

The military rulers have committed many acts of violence against the general population, especially ethnic minorities, and now they turned their weapons also against the monks. At the same time they appeal to the "religious duties" of the Sangha: they should focus exclusively on the study and practice of the scriptural teachings (divorced from real life) and perform the required rituals (to legitimize the regime), not get involved in any activities that challenge the status quo.

So just accepting food and requisites from members of the government is seen as a sort of endorsement. At some point even this form of passive endorsement becomes intolerable for the monks, and they invoke patta-nikkujjana-kamma.

It's not entirely clear to me what's going to happen in Burma at this point. It seems that they're dealing with a typical stubborn military dictatorship of ruthless thugs. The Buddhist Channel web site has a page for those wishing to help.

A Constitution for Living by P. A. Payutto

Recently someone brought to my attention a book called A Constitution for Living, written by a Thai monk named P. A. Payutto and translated into English by Bruce Evans. I haven't read it yet, but it looks great as it summarizes a lot of stuff from the Tipitaka.

From the introduction:

Many people today look on life in all sectors as a struggle between conflicting interests—the "bosses" against the "workers," the "government" against the "people," the "rich" against the "poor," and even the "women" against the "men," or the "children" against the "parents." When the aim of life is seen as material wealth or power, society becomes a struggle between conflicting personal interests, and we are in need of an ethic to protect those interests. It is a "negative ethic": society is based on selfish interests—"the right of each and every person to pursue happiness"—and an ethic, such as "human rights," is needed to keep everybody from cutting each other's throats in the process.

The Buddhist teachings are a "positive ethic": well-being, rather than power or riches, is the aim; society is seen as a medium through which all people have equal opportunity to maximize self-development and well-being, and ethics are used to facilitate those ends.

So this sounds like it should be a good book for getting out of the negative political mindset, and for researching the political implications of the Tipitaka. I'm sure that I'll be drawing on this book for inspiration quite frequently.

Buddhist Military Sangha

An interesting blog just came to my attention via the E-Sangha Forums.

Buddhist Military Sangha is a blog describing itself as "an online resource for Buddhists associated with the United States Armed Forces."

Welcome to the Buddhist Military Sangha! This is a nonpolitical and nonsectarian forum for Buddhists serving in the US Armed Forces. Our Mission Statement:

• Provide a welcoming and positive forum for Buddhists currently serving or who have served in the military to communicate with and support one another.


• Recognize and promote honorable military service as in accord with the Eightfold Path's Right Livelihood.


• Correct misconceptions about Buddhists serving in the military.


• Help Buddhists unfamiliar with the military understand the jobs of their relatives and friends who are serving or who have served, and who love and respect the military profession.


• Help Buddhist Sanghas learn how to support and understand Buddhist military members, veterans, and their families.


• Represent the importance of religious pluralism and diversity in today's military population, and by extension in American society.


• Provide information about Buddhist Military Chaplaincy in US Armed Forces.

Now I'm sure some of the pacifist extremists out there won't approve, but I personally believe that armies are required by society, and somebody has to staff them. Even the wheel-turning monarch described in the Pali Canon has an army. Ideally armies never actually kill anyone, but history has shown that they at least need to be present in order to deter invasion.

I'd much rather have an army staffed with people who feel that hatred is bad and that killing is wrong than one staffed with people who delight in hatefully killing and torturing others. If someone has to kill, at the very least it should be a rational decision with the view that killing is bad and not be done out of hatred with the view that killing is perfectly fine. So I'm personally happy to see Buddhists who are willing to make the sacrifice of serving in the armed forces.

An interesting essay on the subject of Buddhism and warriors is Buddhism & The Soldier by Major General Ananda Weerasekera. It should be reiterated, as is done in his essay in bold type:

However it should be stressed that a soldier like all others is subject to the law of Kamma and will not escape the Kammic fruits of "taking the Life"of a sentient being (panatipatha) even though he may have had the overall noble intention of protecting his country and his people.

Since this is true, Buddhists should realize that soldiers are putting their kamma on the line, not just their lives. Essentially they're putting not only their current life on the line but future lives as well. This is worthy of respect, in my opinion, especially when those soldiers realize this.

I am a Marxist monk: Dalai Lama

I suppose this is not really new, but the Dalai Lama says he's a Marxist. He says this is because "Marxism is more ethical, unlike capitalism," according to the express news service in India.

Apparently the Dalai Lama doesn't understand Buddhism's 2nd precept which is:

I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.

There's really no way around the fact that Marxism, in whatever form, expressly requires that property be taken from someone. I'm a little confused as to how this is more ethical than "capitalism" which essentially says that people have a right to own personal property and not have it stolen from them.

I'd also like to know how the fact that the Dalai Lama charges for his lectures fits in with the whole Marxist thing. I don't see other Buddhist monks doing this. I especially don't see the "right wing" Buddhist monks charging people money.

In any case, I fail to see anything inherently unethical about capitalism. You can have both greedy and generous people in all kinds of political and economic systems. I personally don't see how forcing people to give up their property is generous. Taking property from unwilling persons is inherently unethical regardless of why it's being done, just as killing is always unskillful.

Real generosity comes from a willingness to give away your own property, not take property from others and give it to those who you think are more deserving.

Furthermore, Marxist economic theory totally ignores the very Buddhist concept of developing skillfulness. In economic terms, skillfulness makes one more efficient and able to produce things of greater value. In fact, we see that in reality wealth is not simply "distributed" as some sort of fixed zero-sum resource, but actually produced by people depending on their skill. So what is more Buddhist here, something that acknowledges the role of and encourages the development of skill or something which doesn't?

The Dalai Lama has, unfortunately, bought into the Marxist lie of capitalism being inherently greedy and Marxism somehow being "fair" and generous. This is necessary to make the leap into the idea that "Buddhism supports Marxism because Marxism is non-greedy" or something. This claim about Marxism is not supported by Dhamma though, and as previously stated, Marxism even violates the second of the fundamental Buddhist precepts.

Really the ideal Buddhist state would probably be "capitalist" in the sense that people would own and trade their own property freely, but it would be populated with people who are simply generous enough to fund all public institutions voluntarily, without having to be taxed through threat of force.

This level of idealism in society will probably never come about though. For this reason it seems reasonable to fall back on the Buddhist concept of moderation and the philosophy of the middle path. In this sense, I'd say that Buddhism supports something more like a mixed economy in which some property is public and some is private. As for what degree of government intervention is required, it depends on what is most beneficial for people. This is why we have people who study economics; good intentions alone are not sufficient. We must develop skillfulness in how we govern, and ensure that programs designed to help people don't turn out to cause more harm than good as they have in every single communist country.

The Buddha, though practice of extremes such as self mortification, realized that extremes don't work. Evidence shows us that the same is true of political and economic extremes as well. It's very sad that the Dalai Lama hasn't come to this realization yet.

Free Tickets Gone! (Dalai Lama in Ann Arbor)

Looks like the Dalai Lama is really popular in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

I unfortunately don't have an University ID and a friend of mine who does, but didn't get in line a 5 AM, didn't manage to get tickets. I received the following in an email from Helaine Hunscher, Program Coordinator:

I was just informed by the Michigan Union Ticket Office that all of the free tickets to the 2 PM April 20 Sustainability Lecture by His Holiness the Dalai Lama have been given away in just three hours!

The only options to see his Wege Lecture on Sustainability are:

1) Volunteer as an usher all day Sunday (you would be required to work the Sunday morning Teaching Session hosted by Jewel Heart plus the Sunday afternoon Sustainability Lecture hosted by U-M) We will need 100 volunteers for each of the two days. Please visit: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/dlvolunteering/home

2) Watch a live web-cast of the Lecture. Instructions to join the web-cast will be posted, when arranged, at: http://css.snre.umich.edu/facts/dalailama.html

3) Because the Lecture tickets are free, there may be “no-shows” and we don’t want any empty seats at Crisler. Tickets all stated that seats would be held only until 1:45 PM, at which point, ushers will release any open seat to the general public, regardless of having a ticket or not.

There are some other non-free talks by the Dalai Lama the same day and the day before the free talk. Tickets are probably still available for those, but I'm personally going to pass.