Clear Knowing

The following is from SN 45.1:

Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities, followed by lack of conscience & lack of concern. In an unknowledgeable person, immersed in ignorance, wrong view arises. In one of wrong view, wrong resolve arises. In one of wrong resolve, wrong speech... In one of wrong speech, wrong action... In one of wrong action, wrong livelihood... In one of wrong livelihood, wrong effort... In one of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness... In one of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration arises.

Clear knowing is the leader in the attainment of skillful qualities, followed by conscience & concern. In a knowledgeable person, immersed in clear knowing, right view arises. In one of right view, right resolve arises. In one of right resolve, right speech... In one of right speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration arises.

This has been a favorite of mine for quite a while.

These days it seems like all you hear about is compassion, compassion. That's great, but simple concern just isn't good enough, especially when it comes to problems of government. Clearly knowing what's going on is more important than just being concerned.

Now, in the above sutta you may notice that clear knowing is the opposite of ignorance. When the Buddha is talking about ignorance, he's talking about ignorance of the Four Noble Truths, not just some public policy issue. But, as the Buddha does in many suttas, we can plug other things into the framework of the Four Noble Truths to good effect.

1. There is the issue.


2. There is the cause of the issue.


3. There is the cessation of the issue.


4. There is the path leading to the cessation of the issue.

You can pretty much plug whatever issue you want into this, but "the issue" should be some specific problem and not some general category like "the environment" or whatever, otherwise the framework doesn't make sense.

Just as in investigation of the Four Noble Truths, you have to be willing to acknowledge things as they actually are and not as you want them to be. All too often people tend to blame the same hated person, group, etc., for all of their problems. "Blame the opposition" seems to be standard practice in politics, but it keeps people from properly investigating the real nature of things. The idea seems to be to always look at the opposition's faults while ignoring your own. Well:

Whatever an enemy might do
to an enemy,
or a foe to a foe,
the ill-directed mind
can do to you
even worse.
- Dhp 42

The other thing to remember is that when it comes to complex things like social and economic problems, there are usually multiple causes and multiple possible solutions. So don't lose sight of that fact.

Envy and Anger

Envy is one of the things, among others, that politicians like to play on. For this reason it's yet another thing that is particularly good to abandon. I found the following (from MN 135) interesting and relevant:

11. "Here, student, some woman or man is envious; he envies, begrudges and harbors envy about others' gains, honor, veneration, respect, salutations and offerings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he is insignificant wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to insignificance, that is to say, to be envious, to envy, begrudge, and harbor envy about others' gain, honor, veneration, respect, salutations and offerings.

12. "But here some woman or man is not envious, he does not envy, begrudge or harbor envy about others' gain, honor, veneration, respect, salutations and offerings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination... If instead he comes to the human state, he is influential wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to influence, that is to say, not to be envious, not to envy, begrudge or harbor envy about others' gain, honor, veneration, respect, salutations and offerings.

Anger is another big one. From the same sutta:

9. "Here, student, some woman or man is angry, much given to rage; even when little is said, he is furious, angry, ill-disposed, resentful, he shows ill-temper, hate and surliness. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he is ugly wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to ugliness, that is to say, to be furious, angry, ill-disposed, resentful, and to show ill-temper, hate and surliness.

10. "But here some woman or man is not angry or much given to rage; even when much is said, he is not furious, angry, ill-disposed, resentful, nor does he show ill-temper, hate or surliness. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination... If instead he comes to the human state, he is beautiful wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to beauty, that is to say, not to be angry or given to much rage; even when much is said, not to be furious, angry, ill-disposed or resentful, or to show ill-temper, hate or surliness.

How often do you hear stuff like "you have a right to be angry!"

The Buddha didn't talk about "rights" the way we do today; instead he talked about cause and effect. Sure, you have a "right" in most societies to be envious, angry, or however you want to feel, but that doesn't make it good.

Anything positive that might come out of anger can also come out of calm, rational, unclouded thinking. Perhaps anger can motivate people, but if your judgment is clouded, who knows if the motivation is good and skillful.

Skillful Intentions, Not Just "Good" Intentions

Lately I've been reading Wings to Awakening, an excellent and 100% free anthology of suttas from the Tipitaka, along with insightful commentary from Ajahn Geoffrey. If you don't have a copy of this, I recommend calling up Dhamma Dana Publications (1+ 978-355-2347) right away and asking them to send you one for free. If you'd like to save a tree, you can also read the book online, though I wouldn't feel too guilty about ordering a printed copy as I'm sure the tree's sacrifice has gone to good use here.

Anyway, I find the following paragraph from Part I.A of the book to be exceedingly insightful and applicable with regard to politics, even though I think the Ajahn is talking specifically about personal practice.

First, it is important to note that the definition of skillful states of mind as free of greed, aversion, and delusion, provides a convenient rule of thumb for distinguishing between intentions that are merely good and those that are actually skillful. Sometimes good intentions are colored by ignorance, as when one tries to help another person without knowing the true source of that person's problem. This would qualify as a good but not a skillful intention. As we have noticed, the processes of causality are sensitive and complex. Thus there is no getting by on well-meaning intentions alone. One must monitor one's actions continually to make sure that they are, in fact, appropriate to the present situation, and are not based on ignorance. Delusion, even well-meaning delusion, is a source for unskillful acts. For this reason, one needs to be constantly observant of one's actions and their effects [§6] so that one's good intentions can truly become skillful, and one's actions can actually do justice to the specific conditions in the here and now produced by the process of this/that conditionality.

The key here is that good is not the same as skillful. The road to hell really can be paved with good intentions, especially with regard to politics. As the Ajahn says, ignorance and delusion are the key things that keep good intentions from being skillful.

In our personal lives, developing skillfulness is much easier than it is when it comes to national politics. We can tend to directly observe what's going on in our lives, but we can't do that at the national level. Instead we rely on other people, also affected by greed, hatred, and delusion, to tell us what's going on in our country.

Imagine that you were totally blind, deaf, etc, and could not observe the results of your actions. Lets say that you are somehow fortunate enough have the ability to communicate with another person who can observe the effects of your actions. Well, your friend is also afflicted by greed, hatred, and delusion and he may not even be trying to abandon these defilements. Imagine what his interpretation of the results of your actions might be like. Rather than be able to observe anything yourself, you'll have to take an action, then have this other defiled individual tell you what happened. After that, your own greed, hatred, and delusion come in further clouding any understanding of what's going on.

This is essentially what's happening in political situations. We rely on things like newspaper reporters to tell us what's going on in the world and what the consequences of our actions are. Often these people, even the good ones, have greedy, hateful, and deluded motives. They hate the other political party; they're greedy for good ratings. They may be deluded into thinking they really know what's going on even with little research. Who really knows what's going on with them? Even they don't know the full extent of it.

I'm going to try to avoid commenting on specific issues in this blog, but I'm going to pick an example here because it seems necessary to highlight what I'm talking about. I'm not picking this one because I think it's necessarily the most important issue but because it's one that I think most people aren't quite so emotionally attached to and don't see as "theirs" to the same degree as other issues.

People support the idea of ethanol production in the US with good intentions. It seems like a good alternative to oil and can be better for the environment, according to some, but it's starting to look like pushing ethanol may have many bad effects as well, such as raising food prices. Rising food prices may affect starvation and malnutrition in countries outside the US. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, it would take the entire corn crop of the US, 40% of the world's corn supply, just to replace 15% of the motor vehicle fuel in the US with ethanol.

I'm not going to come to any hard conclusions here on this issue. After all, there may be other ways to produce ethanol that don't have this problem; I've only scratched the surface of the issue. The important thing to realize is that you can't just pick whatever feels good, start to see that position as "yours," then expect that to be skillful. A really skillful decision on something like this requires extensive research, and a refusal to cling to a certain position just because you see it as "mine." Furthermore, you need to try and be as free as possible from greed, hatred, and delusion while considering such an issue. You don't want to take one side out of hatred of the ones who oppose it, for example.

Since I like to quote suttas and encourage their reading, here is part of the sutta (MN 61) referred to in the commentary quoted above:

§ 6. The Buddha: What do you think, Rahula: What is a mirror for?

Rahula: For reflection, sir.

The Buddha: In the same way, Rahula, bodily acts, verbal acts, & mental acts are to be done with repeated reflection.

Whenever you want to perform a bodily act, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily act I want to perform — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily act, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily act with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily act of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful bodily act with happy consequences, happy results, then any bodily act of that sort is fit for you to do.

(Similarly with verbal acts & mental acts.)

So in the same way, try to keep your actions with regard to politics skillful, not just good.

Dalai Lama Speaking in Ann Arbor

I just thought I'd spread the word that on Sunday, April 20, 2008 - 2:00pm to 3:30pm the Dalai Lama will be speaking in Ann Arbor, MI, USA at Crisler Arena:

As part of 2008 Earth Day activities, His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama will deliver a special Peter M. Wege Lecture on Sustainability at 2 PM, Sunday, April 20, 2008. This is sponsored by the University of Michigan Office of the President and by the Center for Sustainable Systems in the School of Natural Resources and Environment. The Nobel Peace Prize winner and Buddhist leader last visited Ann Arbor in 1994, when about 9,000 people attended a Thursday night lecture at Crisler Arena.

The Wege Lecture is free and open to the public, though tickets are required. Beginning March 4, 2008 tickets to the Wege Lecture will be available to University of Michigan students, faculty and staff who bring their UM ID to the Michigan Union Ticket Office (MUTO). The general public can obtain tickets there or by calling the 734-763-TKTS starting March 5, 2008. There is a limit of two tickets per person.

Probably not surprising since I'm a Theravada Buddhist, but the Dalai Lama isn't my spiritual idol as he is for some. In fact, I tend to think he's more of a politician than a spiritual leader.

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.

The Dalai Lama is probably better off, and freer to spread his message less subject to criticism as part of a government in exile rather than one that's actually running a real country. Not that I think the invasion of Tibet was necessarily a wonderful thing, but it's always good to look on the positive side.

Regardless of my disagreement with the idea of monks in politics, I think the Dalai Lama is a nice guy and generally goes a good job as the foremost advocate for Buddhism in the world. I won't pass up an opportunity to hear him speak.

"Is it possible to exercise rulership... righteously?"

The Raja Sutta (SN 4.20) is interesting, because therein the Buddha asks a question yet doesn't seem to provide the direct answer.

Now, I haven't read the entire Pali Canon, but I have read much of the Sutta Pitaka, and this seems to be a rather rare occurrence.

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Kosalans in a wilderness hut in a Himalayan district. Then, as he was alone in seclusion, this train of thought arose in his awareness: "Is it possible to exercise rulership without killing or causing others to kill, without confiscating or causing others to confiscate, without sorrowing or causing others sorrow — righteously?"

So, is it possible to rule without killing or confiscating, not even causing others to sorrow? Buddhism mostly avoids political directives or implications, which makes this an interesting question.

Just off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure that the answer is generally "no." Governments basically exist to physically defend people from harm, and it somehow seems inevitable that at some point this will involve killing. Certainly a government could refrain from military conquest, but it seems unlikely that a country could defend itself from an invasion without the intent to kill.

In Getting the Message, Ajahn Geoff (Thanissaro Bhikkhu) mentions:

"If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill."
...
"In no recorded instance did [the Buddha] approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone."

I trust Ajahn Geoff's scholarship on this issue. It can never be skillful to kill, but it is implied that self-defense might be permissible if there's no intention to kill involved. Sadly, it's hard for me to realistically imagine any sort of military situation, even a defensive one, without the intent to kill. Perhaps you might have an army (as a wheel-turning monarch is known to have) for the sake of deterrence, but ultimately I don't know that it could be employed without the intention to kill. Avoiding intentional killing here would have to depend on deterring attack and maintaining peaceful relations with other nations. Since the later is not always possible due to one's inability to control others, the former is likely critical. And if you find yourself unsure whether a larger army is a better deterrent or just encourages conflict, the suttas won't help you there.

Additionally you have the case where the police in your country may need to deal with someone on a murderous rampage, and it may be difficult or impossible to do so without killing. The police might use non-lethal weapons, but these are often not feasible. Therefore, here again it seems like the only way to deal with this righteously is to prevent such situations from happening in the first place. This is perhaps impossible on a national level. Simply ignoring the rampaging murderer is not likely to work either, as the citizens will certainly demand a government that deals with such situations somehow.

Regarding confiscation, it could be argued that any taxation is a form of confiscation. One might try to resolve this issue by requiring all citizens to formally agree to contribute their tax money, or face imprisonment. You might also argue that tax laws constitute an implicit agreement on the part of all citizens to pay their taxes. Overall this strikes me as a civil issue, not something that Buddhism addresses. Ultimately the main thing I see suggested here is that property can't be taken without some form of agreement, but it is not clear whether someone might be imprisoned until they agree, or whether the person has some right to participation in government (such as via a democratic process). In any case, it seems possible to meet this requirement somehow. Of course, however that is done might be said to cause sorrow. Overall the situation isn't looking very hopeful for our righteous rule.

Continuing with the sutta:

Then Mara, the Evil One, knowing with his awareness the train of thought in the Blessed One's awareness, went to him and on arrival said to him: "Exercise rulership, Blessed One! Exercise rulership, O One Well-gone! — without killing or causing others to kill, without confiscating or causing others to confiscate, without sorrowing or causing others sorrow — righteously!"

At this point we should be getting suspicious, because Mara says this idea makes sense.

"But what do you see in me, Evil One, that you say to me, 'Exercise rulership, Blessed One! Exercise rulership, O One Well-gone! — without killing or causing others to kill, without confiscating or causing others to confiscate, without sorrowing or causing others sorrow — righteously!'?"

"Lord, the Blessed One has developed the four bases of power, pursued them, handed them the reins and taken them as a basis, given them a grounding, steadied them, consolidated them, and undertaken them well. If he wanted to, he could resolve on the Himalayas, king of mountains, as gold, and it would become a mountain of gold."

Of course. All we need is a mountain of gold, then everyone will be happy. Nobody will have hatred or desire to kill, and it won't be necessary to confiscate or collect taxes. Greed will be eliminated. After all, we have a mountain of gold, right? Furthermore, how could there be any sorrow like this?

So, will a mountain of gold make this righteous rule possible?

[The Buddha:]

The entirety
of a mountain of gold,
of solid bullion:
even twice that
wouldn't suffice
for one person.
Knowing this,
live evenly,
in tune with the contemplative life.

When you see stress,
and from where it comes,
how can you incline
to sensual pleasures?
Knowing acquisition
to be a bond in the world,
train for
its subduing.

Then Mara the Evil One — sad & dejected at realizing, "The Blessed One knows me; the One Well-gone knows me" — vanished right there.

The rest of this sutta seems clear to me. Mara is trying to suggest that a mountain of gold would allow one to rule without killing, without taking, and without sorrow. The Buddha wisely points out that even twice a mountain per person wouldn't eliminate the greed, hatred, and delusion needed to rule in such a righteous manner. True liberation lies not in power, wealth, or politics, but in individually understanding the Four Noble Truths.

Though the Buddha may still have been able to resolve these political problems better than I, we are exceedingly fortunate that he decided to become a Buddha and not a king.

Buddhism Is Not Political

The name of this blog is basically an oxymoron. Buddhism is not political. It doesn't tell you how to run your society any more than the field of physics does. Certainly it has political implications; there's no real avoiding that. It does not prescribe specific legal and political solutions, however. It does not endorse a particular political party. It does not talk about left wing and right wing.

This blog will attempt to focus on a few main issues:

1. What political implications does Buddhism have?


2. The personal dangers of politics from a Dhamma perspective.


3. Why you should focus on yourself rather than seek power over others.

I will attempt to talk in plain terms without resorting to slogans and political buzzwords. I will attempt to support a Dhamma point of view and not some political activist point of view.

You may not like what I have to say, but that's the nature of politics.