Advice to Sigala Part 3: Enemies and Friends

This is the third installment (see Part 2) in a series of posts on DN 31: Sigalovada Sutta, The Buddha's Advice to Sigala the householder. Previously covered were the six ways of squandering wealth.

Next the Buddha talks about the four enemies disguised as friends and the four good-hearted friends. No doubt some of these descriptions will remind you of people you've met or people you currently know.

15. "Young man, be aware of these four enemies disguised as friends: the taker, the talker, the flatterer, and the reckless companion.

16. "The taker can be identified by four things: by only taking, asking for a lot while giving little, performing duty out of fear, and offering service in order to gain something.

17. "The talker can be identified by four things: by reminding of past generosity, promising future generosity, mouthing empty words of kindness, and protesting personal misfortune when called on to help.

18. "The flatterer can be identified by four things: by supporting both bad and good behavior indiscriminately, praising you to your face, and putting you down behind your back.

19. "The reckless companion can be identified by four things: by accompanying you in drinking, roaming around at night, partying, and gambling."

That is what the Buddha said.

I'm not sure how much really needs to be said here. Everything is pretty self-explanatory. I guess things haven't changed much in 2,500 years as these kinds of people are still around!

The followup verse makes a good short summary:

20. Summing up in verse, the sublime teacher said:

"The friend who is all take,
The friend of empty words,
The friend full of flattery,
And the reckless friend;

These four are not friends, but enemies;
The wise understand this
And keep them at a distance
As they would a dangerous path."

So that's the negative side of things, and here's the positive side:

21. "Young man, be aware of these four good-hearted friends: the helper, the friend who endures in good times and bad, the mentor, and the compassionate friend.

22. "The helper can be identified by four things: by protecting you when you are vulnerable, and likewise your wealth, being a refuge when you are afraid, and in various tasks providing double what is requested.

23. "The enduring friend can be identified by four things: by telling you secrets, guarding your own secrets closely, not abandoning you in misfortune, and even dying for you.

24. "The mentor can be identified by four things: by restraining you from wrongdoing, guiding you towards good actions, telling you what you ought to know, and showing you the path to heaven.

25. "The compassionate friend can be identified by four things: by not rejoicing in your misfortune, delighting in your good fortune, preventing others from speaking ill of you, and encouraging others who praise your good qualities."

That is what the Buddha said.

The meaning seems pretty obvious here as well. These are obviously people to be valued. Hopefully some of these people are still around after 2,500 years though honestly it doesn't seem like it a lot of the time.

The followup verses are:

26. Summing up in verse, the sublime teacher said:

"The friend who is a helper,
The friend through thick and thin,
The friend who gives good counsel,
And the compassionate friend;

These four are friends indeed,
The wise understand this
And attend on them carefully,
Like a mother her own child.

Clearly these people are not simply to be valued but to be treated the way a mother would treat her own child. People can't really get any more valuable than that.

This is not the end of this section of verse, however. This section actually continues on:

The wise endowed with virtue
Shine forth like a burning fire,
Gathering wealth as bees do honey
And heaping it up like an ant hill.
Once wealth is accumulated,
Family and household life may follow.

Here we find something that will confuse most modern western Buddhists. Why is the Buddha encouraging this householder to accumulate wealth? Isn't that greedy? Aren't laypeople supposed to strive for poverty because craving is caused by wealth?

The answer is right there: "Once wealth is accumulated, Family and household life may follow." Wealth is needed for people to take care of their responsibilities. People who can take care of themselves, instead of expecting other people or the government to take care of their needs for them, are the ones capable of being true friends. The ones who dont't take care of themselves, due to lazynness and irresponsibility, tend to be the friends disguised as enemies talked about at the beginning of the sutta.

To address the issue of craving, one should look at the sequence of dependent co-arising. According to SN 12.2 (for example): "From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving." So sorry, but wealth isn't in there. Wealth does not cause craving. "Attending improperly" to contact with senses brought on by wealth, which leads to feeling, causes craving, but the wealth by itself does not.

The Buddha does say in other places that excessively wealthy people who are also virtuous are rare, which is why generosity is important. Someone with a talent for producing wealth is extremely valuable if they are also very generous, as Anathapindika was. Sadly I don't know of many western Anathapindikas these days.

To further back my assertion that taking care of your affairs is critical for being a good friend and finding good friends, here is the final verse in this section:

By dividing wealth into four parts,
True friendships are bound;
One part should be enjoyed;
Two parts invested in business;
And the fourth set aside
Against future misfortunes."

This is clearly saying that if you are responsible and taking care of yourself, rather than some excessively needy and constantly irresponsible person, then you're going to be able to be a good friend to others and you're likely to attract good friends as well. Irresponsible people don't save any money for hard times and don't pay their bills or work to invest in their livelihood whether that be a business or career, and these people are more likely to be poor friends.

Really, if you are the least bit successful and devoted to non-greed then you shouldn't have much trouble saving a significant amount of your earnings for hard times rather than expecting others or the government to bail you out when you run into trouble. If you're not the least bit successful then you should try to get successful.

It's also important to note that the "One part should be enjoyed" doesn't actually mean "all enjoyed by you alone" but also shared with your friends, employees, and "ascetics and Brahmans." This is stated in Narada Thera's translation in the note "This portion includes what is spent on good works: gifts to monks, charity, etc." So good friends not only take care of themselves, but share their good fortune with their friends, employees, and those deserving of charity regardless of whether they're Buddhist or not.

Another note about giving: Pretty much everywhere I have ever read the Buddha talk about giving, he never says "only give to me or my monks," he always talks about giving to "ascetics and Brahmans." If we think of monks as ascetics, and "Brahmans" as the more typical god-and-heaven-oriented religions, this means that there is no problem giving money to Christian organizations (for example). There's no requirement that you do so, but if you think a Christian organization is deserving then there's absolutely nothing wrong with donating to them and you are not discouraged from doing so in the least.

Next in the sutta the Buddha finally gets to the symbolism of what Sigala was doing when he first encountered the Buddha, worshiping the six directions. This will be the subject of the next post.

7 Knowledges of an Ideal Person

I often read Bhikkhu Samahita's What Buddha Said google group where he posts various sutta readings on a daily basis. Today he posted something from the Anguttara Nikaya which I found interesting: the 7 Knowledges of an Ideal Person. (I can't seem to find the exact sutta online anywhere else, but he lists it as AN IV 113.)

The sutta describes both the ideal monk and ideal layperson. Below I've quoted only the parts pertaining to laypeople:

Which 7 Knowledges makes a Person Ideal?

1: Knower of the Dhamma, Principles, and Causes (Dhammaññūtā):
...
The ideal lay person knows the underlying principles of everyday life, & what is reasonable to do. He knows and understands the duties & responsibilities of his own & other posts & occupations.

2: Knower of the Goals, Objectives, and Meanings (Atthaññūtā):
...
The ideal lay person knows the aim of his duty, position, or occupation & the real purpose of life.

3: Knower of Oneself (Mattaññūtā):
...
The ideal lay person knows his exact status, condition, strength, knowledge, ability, & morality. He then acts accordingly and does what is needed to improve and reach greater maturity.

4: Knower of Moderation (Attaññūtā):
...
The ideal lay person knows moderation in consumption, spending, speech, work, rest, & recreation.

5: Knower of Right Occasion (Kalaññūtā):
...
The ideal lay person knows the proper & punctual occasion for any dealing with other people.

6: Knower of Groups (Parisaññūtā):
...
The ideal lay person knows individual differences, temperaments, abilities, & virtues of other people. He knows this community have these rules & regulations; culture & tradition; they have these needs.

7: Knower of Persons (Puggalaññūtā):
...
The ideal lay person knows whether particular other people should be associated with, what can be learned from them, & how they should be related to, employed, praised, criticized, advised, & taught.

I seem to be kind of bad at some of these. I guess I'm not the ideal layperson just yet.

Here is a widget that will give you a preview of Bhikkhu Samahita's blog (really a Google Group but it's sort of structured like a blog and has an RSS feed.)

Get this widget!

Footsteps of the Buddha in Google Earth

[Note: Footsteps of the Buddha now has it's own web page! This blog entry contains old information. Please check out the new web page here!]

Today is Visakha Puja (Vesak), otherwise known as Buddha Day or the day of the Buddha's birth, enlightenment, and passing away. Actually, the day is either today (May 19th, 2008) or tomorrow depending on who's lunar calendar reckoning you're using.

A couple of days ago I started working on a tour of the Buddha's life in Google Earth and, even though I wouldn't consider it to be 100% complete yet, I thought I'd release it today to commemorate the occasion.

So I present to you Footsteps of the Buddha for Google Earth. Google Earth is free and can be downloaded here. Please let me know if any of the locations are wrong or if there's a more correct chronological order.

[EDIT: Please visit the new web site here.]

If you stop the playback and click on the location, a description will appear which, for many places, begins with a sutta excerpt of something that the Buddha said in that location or about his life in that location. Descriptions also contain links to sources of material included in the descriptions.

Again, please let me know if you have any suggestions, places to add, or corrections of any sort. All help with this will be greatly appreciated. You can either leave comments in this post or send email to the address listed in the description in Google Earth (which is also visible in the photo above.)

Have a Happy, Compassionate, Sympathetic, and most importantly Equanimous Visakha.

Scholarly comments on religion and the cyclone

New Mandala pointed out this article from the San Francisco Chronicle. One part mentioned:

The Buddhism practiced by the generals running the country is not mainstream Theravada Buddhism, but involves a high degree of mysticism and superstition that harkens back to pre-Buddhist animist traditions, according to Priscilla Clapp, who served as the top U.S. diplomat in Burma from 1999 to 2002.

"They pretend they're traditional Theravada Buddhists, but they really aren't," she said. "They indoctrinate their officers especially and also the rank and file soldiers politically. ... So they can justify really outrageous actions on the basis of Buddhism, including attacks on monks and letting people starve. It has everything to do with keeping them in power."

This is just beyond belief. I have to wonder what kind of nonsense they are telling their soldiers.

I should take this opportunity to mention that this blog is about the impact of Buddhism on politics and trying to figure out what the implications of certain Buddhist beliefs are. I also hope to try to free Buddhism from use as a political tool. I believe people of any political belief should be free to learn about and practice Buddhism, and that nobody should ever be excluded just because they don't meet what some people think of as the proper "Buddhist" political faction. People who's political beliefs don't agree with Dhamma I would hope would change once they learn something, but obviously this can't be guaranteed and it's up to them to decide what does and doesn't agree.

We have some people in the west who I think hold their political beliefs to be higher than Dhamma and only believe in Buddhism because they think it helps them further their political beliefs or agenda. They'll happily discard Dhamma or Buddhism if it turns out to not support their beliefs because their political faction or party or whatever is higher than Dhamma or Buddhism to them. So:

1. Buddhism is not for people to use as a political tool.


2. If something regarding Dhamma contradicts your political beliefs, I'd seriously hope you'd look at changing your political beliefs rather than ignoring Dhamma.

No doubt some people at some point are going to accuse me of trying to use Buddhism as a political tool, but that's nonsense. I am attempting to explore political implications and not push some pre-existing external agenda that I just happen to think Buddhism might be useful for pushing. Still, as I express opinions on interpretations of things in Buddhism my political beliefs can't be avoided, but my goal is to do what's best, not push some preconceived notion of what's best. Unlike some people I will happily discard any political position I have if it turns out to be harmful.

Anyway, regarding superstitious practices, especially performed by monks, the Tipitaka (DN 2 in the Great Section on Virtue) can't be more disapproving:

"Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such lowly arts as: reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens and signs; interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets]; interpreting dreams; reading marks on the body [e.g., phrenology]; reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice; offering fire oblations, oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains, ghee, and oil; offering oblations from the mouth; offering blood-sacrifices; making predictions based on the fingertips; geomancy; laying demons in a cemetery; placing spells on spirits; reciting house-protection charms; snake charming, poison-lore, scorpion-lore, rat-lore, bird-lore, crow-lore; fortune-telling based on visions; giving protective charms; interpreting the calls of birds and animals — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from lowly arts such as these.

On the positive side:

Many Burmese citizens are going around government authorities and beginning to organize themselves to respond to the disaster, Clapp said. Grassroots Burmese groups are working with monks and with the handful of international aid agencies on the ground to improvise solutions such as fashioning replacements for lost rain barrels to collect the monsoon rains for drinking water.

"It's that kind of activity that will eventually overcome the grip the military has on the country: learning how to work together to organize and make things happen," Clapp said.

I hope some real monks can also train those solders and try to undo some of the brainwashing performed by the junta. It might be one of the more important things they could do.

Conditions of a Nation's Welfare

How might a nation act in order to see to its welfare? The section on Conditions of a Nation's Welfare in DN 16: The Maha-parinibbana Sutta seems relevant. (As usual, even though I don't usually state it explicitly, I am extremely grateful to John Bullet and Access to Insight for making this available online.)

At that time the Venerable Ananda was standing behind the Blessed One, fanning him, and the Blessed One addressed the Venerable Ananda thus: "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis have frequent gatherings, and are their meetings well attended?"

"I have heard, Lord, that this is so."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis assemble and disperse peacefully and attend to their affairs in concord?"

"I have heard, Lord, that they do."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis neither enact new decrees nor abolish existing ones, but proceed in accordance with their ancient constitutions?"

"I have heard, Lord, that they do."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis show respect, honor, esteem, and veneration towards their elders and think it worthwhile to listen to them?"

"I have heard, Lord, that they do."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis refrain from abducting women and maidens of good families and from detaining them?"

"I have heard, Lord, that they refrain from doing so."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis show respect, honor, esteem, and veneration towards their shrines, both those within the city and those outside it, and do not deprive them of the due offerings as given and made to them formerly?"

"I have heard, Lord, that they do venerate their shrines, and that they do not deprive them of their offerings."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so, and those who have already come might live there in peace?"

"I have heard, Lord, that they do."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline."

5. And the Blessed One addressed the brahman Vassakara in these words: "Once, brahman, I dwelt at Vesali, at the Sarandada shrine, and there it was that I taught the Vajjis these seven conditions leading to (a nation's) welfare. So long, brahman, as these endure among the Vajjis, and the Vajjis are known for it, their growth is to be expected, not their decline."

It is very important for westerners, who are extremely accustomed to "shoulds" in their religions, to note that the Buddha here is not saying that the Vajjis should do anything in particular, but that as long as these conditions hold true "the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline."

It's also important to note that there is significant missing information here. For example, "do the Vajjis neither enact new decrees nor abolish existing ones, but proceed in accordance with their ancient constitutions?" To this the Buddha says that, if they refrain from enacting or abolishing new decrees, it will lead to their growth and not their decline. Since we can't tell from that what their "ancient constitutions" were (from this anyway), we can't say exactly why they would lead to growth, only that the Buddha seemed to feel that their ancient constitutions were appropriate at the time.

Speaking of prescription, not everyone thinks that growth is good. Some people seem to think that the growth of a society is actually bad, and the Buddha doesn't actually say here whether the Vajjis should grow or decline, only what sorts of things will lead to their growth.

What's also interesting here is the context of the sutta. The discourse quoted above was stated directly after the brahman Vassakara paid a visit to the Buddha and stated:

"Venerable Gotama, Ajatasattu, the king of Magadha, pays homage at the feet of the Venerable Gotama and wishes him good health, strength, ease, vigour, and comfort. He desires to wage war against the Vajjis, and he has spoken in this fashion: 'These Vajjis, powerful and glorious as they are, I shall annihilate them, I shall make them perish, I shall utterly destroy them.'"

After hearing what the Buddha had to say, the brahman said:

Thereupon the brahman Vassakara spoke thus to the Blessed One: "If the Vajjis, Venerable Gotama, were endowed with only one or another of these conditions leading to welfare, their growth would have to be expected, not their decline. What then of all the seven? No harm, indeed, can be done to the Vajjis in battle by Magadha's king, Ajatasattu, except through treachery or discord. Well, then, Venerable Gotama, we will take our leave, for we have much to perform, much work to do."

To this the Buddha stated flatly:

"Do as now seems fit to you, brahman." And the brahman Vassakara, the chief minister of Magadha, approving of the Blessed One's words and delighted by them, rose from his seat and departed.

I think there's actually quite a bit of commentary on this which I don't have access to. Steven Collins had some stuff to say about it but I've already returned his book to the library. If nothing else, it seems apparent that the Buddha is still not prescribing any shoulds for brahman Vassakara, or anyone else.

Madness & Vexation

AN 4.77: The Acintita Sutta states:

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."

I quoted the whole thing, but really what I'm concerned with here is fact that kamma (karma) is in the list.

I think I finally understand the importance of this. Originally I thought that some degree of "academic" speculation would be pretty harmless assuming that I personally didn't take it seriously, but I didn't really consider the "madness and vexation" which it might cause to other people and thus to me, even if I tried to make it clear that I was stating a scenario then trying to evaluate whether it was true, possible, or false.

The law of kamma is actually a seriously touchy political issue in Buddhism. A lot of the time it gets intentionally misrepresented at worst and misunderstood at best, and this happens even in Buddhist countries.

And related to developing the skillfulness to avoid problems, this from MN 61 is extremely important:

"Whenever you want to do a verbal action, you should reflect on it: 'This verbal action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful verbal action, 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 verbal action with painful consequences, painful results, then any verbal action 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 verbal action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any verbal action of that sort is fit for you to do.

"While you are doing a verbal action, you should reflect on it: 'This verbal action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not... you may continue with it.

"Having done a verbal action, you should reflect on it: 'This verbal action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful verbal action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it... you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction... it was a skillful verbal action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful mental qualities.

Temiya Jâtaka Vatthu, or Mûgapakkha "The dumb cripple" Jâtaka

[EDIT: Be warned that this does not appear to be the canonical version of this story.]

I found the the full text of one (apparently non-canonical) historical version of Jâtaka 541: the Temiya Jâtaka also known as Mûgapakkha ("The dumb cripple") Jâtaka. The translation is from 1893, so hopefully the language isn't too inaccurate. My thanks to Christopher M. Weimer who scanned the printed text and edited it.

Information on this version:

The Burmese version here translated was written in the year A.D. 1787, during the reign of Bo-Dawe, or Badun-min, the grandson of Aloung-pharâ, when he was engaged in building the huge unfinished pagoda at Mingun (vide Phayre's Hist. p. 218). It was printed in Rangoon, at the Hanthâwati Press, in A.D. 1888.

If you read the last post you'll know this was the main Jataka tale mentioned which highlights, among other things, the difficulties in being a ruler.

THIS Jâtaka stands No. 541 in the Ceylon list under the title of Mûgapakkha or "The dumb cripple." The Burmese, however, prefer to call it by the name of the Prince, he is the hero of the story. It is the first of the ten greater Jâtaka, and, unlike the Bhûridatta, contains little or no folk-lore, but illustrates the value of asceticism.

One of the main parts referred to previously:

About one month after this, [his naming day] the nurses, after washing and dressing the prince, carried him to the King, who took him in his arms and sat under the palace portico. Just then four thieves who had been arrested were brought before the King, and he, in order to terrify evil-doers, said: "As for you, thorns of the country, you villains, one of you shall receive a thousand stripes with rods covered with shark's teeth; one shall be sent to prison in irons; the third shall be done to death by gashing with spears; and the fourth shall be impaled."

The little prince, on hearing this order given in a terrible voice, thought thus: "This manner of deciding cases is not right. I have evidently not freed myself from the fringe of my third existence. If through enjoying my father's royal estate I again fall into Hell by doing some bad act, the burden will be too heavy for me."

On the third day after the passing of this decision Prince Temiya was put to sleep under the shade of a white umbrella, and after a little woke up. Turning his eyes upwards he gazed at it and saw that it was a royal umbrella. Thereupon remembering that he had been obliged to undergo the pains of Hell through having been King, he was filled with dread, and, with the sound of the terrible decision still ringing in his ears, fearing that he would have to become king, he thought thus: "How is it that I have been born in the house of this cruel thief-slaughterer?" Then, by means of his accumulated knowledge of former existences, having looked back and cleared away the haze, he saw that he had come from Tâvatimsâ, and again, considering as to what existences he had passed through, he saw that he had been boiled in Hell, and remembered that it was for bad actions done when he was once King of Bârâ.nasi; fearing that he should constantly be born again amongst men, on account of those deeds which he would be obliged to perform when king, he thought, "I see that I am not free from the five dangers. On account of having enjoyed the pleasures of royalty for twenty years, I had to undergo that number multiplied by 4000, even 80,000 years in misery, and since in the unpeaceful state of kingship one has to put down robbers with a harsh and cruel hand, how can one be pure? How can one cleanse one's self from impurity? Born in this powerful thief-killer's house, which I have lighted upon, even I, at the tender age of hardly thirty days, have seen enough to crush my very heart's flesh, and have heard my father utter words not fit to be heard. If through a desire to inherit my father's estate I again become king, I shall a second time fall into the whirlpool and revolve like a stick of firewood."

Prince Temiya being thus troubled by his meditations whilst lying half comatose under the umbrella, the fairy who guarded it, with the affection of one who had been a mother in long past ages, seeing the Bodhisat in this pitiable condition took the form of his mother and said: "My little darling, by what thoughts are you disturbed? Do not be troubled by thinking about dreadful things; your mother is watching, and will not every wish be fulfined? Darling, if you p. 366 really desire to escape from this pomp and vanity do not disclose your abilities, but simulate feebleness. Though you are not weak, appear to be so; though not deaf, feign deafness; and though your mouth is perfect, pretend to be dumb. Keep up these appearances with determination."

Anyway, I don't have anything to say about this at the moment but mostly posted this just to let people know that the full text is available. It took me a bit to find it.

There is a forum thread here which is useful for locating other Jataka stories.

The Perfect Moral Commonwealth?

As I mentioned a while back, I managed to borrow a copy of Nirvana and Other Buddhist Felicities: Utopias of the Pali Imaginaire by Steven Collins. Unfortunately I've largely gotten busy/distracted with other things and haven't spent as much time reading as I had intended, and now I need to return it to the library.

I'm going to try to get something out of it before returning it, then let it sit in the library a while and check it out again in a few weeks perhaps to read for real this time. Hopefully I haven't deprived some needy student of the book in my negligence.

The part of the book I'm most interested in is Part 2: Paradise in Heaven and on Earth, in particular, Chapter 6: The perfect moral commonwealth? Kingship and it's discontents.

First off, the author is most concerned with what he calls the "Pali imaginaire" which is "a mental universe created by and within Pali texts." So he is, if I understand all this right, more concerned with the historical understanding and interpretation of the texts rather than the issue of "did the Buddha actually really say such-and-such."

The point when I got interested in this book was reading Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of SN 4.20: Rajja Sutta, where he recommends Collins' book for it's overview of this issue of whether it's possible to "rule righteously" or not. (His book was also recommended to me here.)

In fact, the very first substantial thing I posted was "Is it possible to exercise rulership... righteously?" which was about this Rajja Sutta. So now I'm basically coming back to the blog's very first post and investigating it further.

Collins starts out by mentioning that scholars have different points of view on how political the Buddha was; some say the Buddha was apolitical, others say he was a social and political theorist.

Probably the most important thing he mentions is that the texts seem to suggest two "modes" of Dhamma interpretation which he simply calls Mode 1 and Mode 2. (I am sort of quoting some of his words here but I hesitate to use quotes in all places because I'm paraphrasing some places and at least not checking for exactness in others.)

• Mode 1 is an "ethics of reciprocity" which I think of as being moral cause-and-effect (kamma) as implemented by humans. The assessment of violence is context-dependent and negotiable in this mode. Buddhist advice to kings in Mode 1 tells them not to pass judgment in haste or anger, but appropriate such that the punishment fits the crime. Following such advice means to be a "Good King" as he says. Justice is institutionalized Mode 1. Some phrases that typify this mode are "one good turns deserves another", "an eye for an eye...", "it's only fair", "if you do harm expect people to harm you back."


• Mode 2 is an ethic of absolute values in which the assessment of violence is context-independent and non-negotiable. Punishment, as a species of violence, is itself a crime. The only advice to kings in Mode 2 is "don't be one!" Renounce the world and leave everything to the law of kamma. Many stories recommend just this, others envisage the utopia of a nonviolent king. The universe ruthlessly enforces kamma and there can't be a good king because kings necessarily must do wrong according to mode 2 to administer justice.

Google books link to page talking about Mode 1 and Mode2. (Please tell me whether or not this link works for you since I'm unsure if it will.)

Much of what I can remember reading in the first four Nikayas of the Sutta Pitaka seem to assume Mode 2 for the most part. It's worth noting that the author cites the Saratthapakasini (commentary) claiming Mode 1 for the Rajja Sutta and thus it comes to the conclusion that it is in fact possible to rule righteously, though the Mode 2 analysis would appear to generally suggest otherwise.

The author first recounts the Muggapakha Jataka as evidence of how kings are fundamentally evil, regardless of how just they are, in the absolute Mode 2 sense.

In the Muggapakha (Dumb Criple) Jataka, also called the Temiya Jataka, the Buddha to-be is reborn as Temiya, son of a king. At a young age he noticed that his father rules justly, but even in accordance with justice he carries out punishments for criminals.

"Alas because he is a king my father is doing terrible things which will take him to hell." So Temiya, seeing the danger in being a king, essentially pretends to be mentally and physically disabled so that he won't become a king and wont't go to hell, as he had seen happen in his previous lives after he had lived as a king.

Eventually his act is found out and he is tempted by his father to become king using many promises of the usual wealth and sensual pleasures, but he refuses in order to pursue the life of an ascetic. "Criminals aspire to wealth, king" he says, which is interesting because the Buddha doesn't state this in suttas to householders such as the Sigalovada Sutta. (I'm not sure whether to think this is an outright contradiction or if things like the Sigalovada are supposed to have some sort of "Mode 1" interpretation.)

Anyway, in the strictest "Mode 2" sense being a king necessarily involves evil actions and is to be avoided.

The author points out that there is a certain range in which the five precepts are observed by different people depending on their position as laypeople or monks. For example, laypeople typically focus on avoiding grossly harmful actions such as killing, while monks are much stricter, avoiding talk of killing or even aggressive thoughts. Laypeople avoid harmful sex or false speech whereas monks avoid sex altogether, talk of sex, thoughts of sex, harsh speech, idle speech (speech not connected with Nibbana), etc.

So really there's a sort of range here. For the most part only monks try to have absolutely perfect virtue, laypeople try to have good virtue to varying degrees (typically constrained by social responsibilities), and kings, like other laypeople, tend to have worse virtue which is further constrained by greater and heavier social responsibilities such as punishment of criminals.

One might say that rulers "should" just not administer justice and let kamma take it's course, but as we can imagine this would lead to anarchy and chaos as long as the prerequisites for crime are present in society. "Natural" vs. "human induced" results of actions could take lifetimes to occur, too late to punish/condition/train people in and structure society in the here-and-now.

The only way to avoid having to punish people, as a king/ruler, is to somehow have the amazing wisdom (discernment) to address the root causes of crimes such that no crime ever happens and thus nobody ever needs to be punished! Somehow this does not seem likely to happen any time soon given current social conditions. Essentially anyone who could address the root causes of immorality in such an amazing utopian manner would be the fabled wheel-turning monarch.

Still though, I'm not sure if I agree with the author's assessment that this Mode 2 utopia is possible according to the Wheel-Turning Monarch legend, since the Buddha does describe the Wheel-Turning Monarch as having many sons who are "conquerers of the invading army" which suggests that he's likely to have to cause someone to be killed at some point. But who knows, maybe this legendary Buddha-like king could always find a way to discourage any possible aggressor without violence, no matter how bloodthirsty.

So I think I'll stop there. The main thing I take from this is that there are different "standards" if you will for sila (virtue) depending on one's situation. Without being an ascetic (monk) in an ideal situation (such as alone in the forest) it's impossible to have perfect sila without some sort of social responsibility or something interfering with it. As a layperson, the more responsibilities you have the more difficult situations you are placed in, and as you become a more a more powerful layperson (such a a local, regional, national, etc, ruler) sila becomes harder and harder to maintain.

To conclude this post I just want to say that so far this book is very interesting, and it has introduced me to some of the Jataka tales that I had not really looked into until now.

Is the Cyclone in Burma Due to Bad Kamma?

Recently I've been wondering about whether people were going to partially attribute the inconvenient timing of the recent cyclone in Burma to bad kamma (the Pali word for the more common Sanskrit word karma) on behalf of the regime there. The first mention that I've seen so far has been in this article entitled Analysis: Little chance for May 10 Burma referendum in the Bankok Post:

Than Shwe chose the May 10 date because it was "an auspicious date" and because it has allowed little time for opponents to organise campaigns against the referendum, said Win Min.

Now Than Shwe will need to decide whether the stars have spoken against his divine plan.

"Many people are saying this (cyclone) is a bad omen for the regime, and punishment for their crackdown on Buddhist monks last September," said Win Min.

Some things that are important to note here:

• "And what is the result of kamma? The result of kamma is of three sorts, I tell you: that which arises right here & now, that which arises later [in this lifetime], and that which arises following that. This is called the result of kamma." -AN 6.63


• "There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four? [The third one:] "The [precise working out of the] results of kamma..." -AN 4.77


• On the causes of things: "Bile, phlegm, wind, a combination, Season, uneven, harsh treatment, and through the result of kamma as the eighth." -SN 36.21

So as we can see here, it's impossible to really say for sure. The precise working out of kamma is like speculation on the origin of the universe in that it's one of the four imponderables. Additionally, not everything that happens happens because of kamma. I can't seem to find the sutta (please post a comment if you know it) but the results of kamma can also occur due to things that one did millions of years ago in a previous life, for example, which is probably why kamma is so imponderable.

So, it's not really possible to say for sure if the cyclone is the result of bad kamma of the current ruler(s) in Burma, and not everything that happens is due to kamma. Also, I believe that it's possible for a large event like this to be due to kamma for some people and not others. For example, even if Than Shwe's experience of this cyclone is the result of his bad kamma, it does not mean that the innocent victims of the cyclone were experiencing the result of their bad kamma. (I can't find the scriptural reference for this, but essentially results of kamma are a matter of experiencing phenomena and not necessarily shared by everyone in an event. There is no group kamma. If anyone can provide references please help me out here.)

Regardless though, I'm sure many people will continue to speculate that this is a result of negative kamma on behalf of the regime and that this will play a role in politics.

Things in Burma were already bad enough for the people there before this natural disaster. I hope the people of Burma will somehow find some happiness and freedom from dukkha during this difficult time, and I am glad that they do have what little happiness they may somehow still be experiencing in spite of the difficulties.

As for the regime there, "All beings are owners of their kamma, heirs to their kamma." So even if this cyclone wasn't it, they're going to be experiencing the results of their negative actions someday.

Excuses Don't Eliminate Consequences

Two suttas were recently added to accesstoinsight.org. One of them is MN 97: Dhanañjani Sutta, instruction from Sariputta to Dhanañjani the brahman.

It starts off with Sariputta asking another monk about a friend of his in the area from which the monk has just come:

"At the Tandulapala Gate is a brahman named Dhanañjani.1 I trust that he is strong & free from illness?"

"Dhanañjani the brahman is also strong & free from illness."

"And I trust that Dhanañjani the brahman is heedful?"

"From where would our Dhanañjani the brahman get any heedfulness, friend? Relying on the king, he plunders brahmans & householders. Relying on the brahmans & householders, he plunders the king. His wife — a woman of faith, fetched from a family with faith — has died. He has fetched another wife — a woman of no faith — from a family with no faith."

"What a bad thing to hear, my friend — when we hear that Dhanañjani the brahman is heedless. Perhaps sooner or later we might meet with Dhanañjani the brahman. Perhaps there might be some conversation."

So later Sariputta does meet with Dhanañjani and among other things he mentions:

"What do you think Dhanañjani? There is the case where a certain person, for the sake of his wife & children ... his slaves & workers ... his friends & companions ... his kinsmen & relatives ... his guests ... his departed ancestors ... the devatas ... the king, does what is unrighteous, does what is discordant. Then, because of his unrighteous, discordant behavior, hell-wardens drag him off to hell. Would he gain anything by saying, 'I did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for the sake of the king. Don't [throw] me into hell, hell-wardens!' Or would the king gain anything for him by saying, 'He did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for our sake. Don't [throw] him into hell, hell-wardens!'?"

"No, master Sariputta. Even right while he was wailing, they'd cast him into hell."

So again, we have another sutta that underscores the fact that consequences can't be avoided just because we can think of some justification or the other. We always need to be looking for a blameless way to meet our responsibilities. The ends don't justify the means.

At the end of the sutta, when Dhanañjani is dying, he comes to practice brahma-vihara at the instruction of Sariputta, and ends up being reborn in a brahma realm. So as in the story of Angulimala, we also see from this that one can overcome negative kamma through skillful means, but simply trying to argue that one's actions were justified won't work.

After all, who would you be arguing with? Trying to argue with kamma is like trying to argue with physics.

Mark Blum: Environmentalism, Buddhism & Transcendentalism

One of the things that really bothers me, and that I feel motivated to write about, is people trying to hijack Buddhism for their own purposes. So recently my attention was grabbed when I came across a talk by Mark Blum Associate Professor of Japanese Studies at the East Asian Studies department of SUNY Albany. Description:

"Environmentalism, Buddhism and Transcendentalism;" on April 3rd, 2008 as part of the Buddhist Studies Seminar at Columbia University. He explores how views of ecology among modern Eco-Buddhists might be grounded more in the philosophies of Transcendentalists such as Emerson and Thoreau than in Buddhist traditions.

The talk is 1 hour and 15 minutes long. I listened to the whole thing and attempted to take some notes. Some notable quotes and points from my notes are recounted below.

Blum: "In the process of two years of research, we discovered that there was no notion of 'nature' in Indian Buddhism."

Blum also says: "...what I discovered in trying to read through a lot of ecological Buddhist writings in the west, based in Buddhist thought...at least the American version of this...shares more with Transcendentalist thinkers like Emerson and Thoreau than it does with anything Buddhist."

The religious form of ecology, known as deep ecology or "ecological activism as spiritual path", originated in Europe. The term was coined by Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss in 1973.

One example that professor Blum gives of this becoming intermixed with Buddhism is "ecology monks" in Thailand ordaining trees.

What does it mean to ordain trees? Blum states, "The baptizing of trees by by monks in Thailand in the 20th century could have only happened because of the 20th century... because of the spread of the rhetoric of Transcendentalism from America to Thailand."

He mentions that bringing attention to ecological problems is good, but ordaining trees is just inconceivable within Buddhism. (In fact he can't help but snicker at the idea which is apparent in the audio.)

In Thailand, for exmaple, even though spirits who live in trees are revered, if something happens to a spirit's tree then the spirit simply moves to another tree. Even in this case, sacredness is not in tree but in the spirit itself.

Blum mentions parts of DN 27: The Agganna Sutta about how man affects environment and environment effects man. The interaction is moral, not about mutual dependence of man and nature. The main theme is that of attachment, the goal being to remove attachment to nature, not attach sacredness to it and embrace it or identify with it as some Eco-Buddhists have advocated.

Buddhist cosmology is hierarchical; animals are inferior to humans. Trees aren't sentient and don't even rate as part of a "realm". Animals are presumed to be unhappy and morally flawed; a more ideal world would have fewer animals in it. The Eco-Buddhist concept of humans and animals being part of the same realm (humans simply being more clever animals) is at odds with Buddhist tradition.

Blum relates the idea of the sacredness of nature in East Asian Buddhist writings to Taoist escapism and the animism popular in medieval Japan.

The second half of the talk focuses on American Transcendentalism and the idea of self in nature, the divine in nature, and transcending the self by getting back to "savage" nature, etc. Clearly these ideas are not Buddhist.

Henry David Thoreau advocated the idea of "self-transcendence in nature", transcendence of "who one is" by losing his consciousness of self "in nature." Thoreau held reverence for the wild and salvage, and faith in the salvation of self-discipline.

Thoreau: "It would imply the regeneration of mankind if they were to become elevated enough to truely worship sticks and stones." (Source) Not a very Buddhist idea.

Blum mentions that Thoreau and Emmerson were influenced by Asian philosophy, including Buddhism, which is perhaps why some transcendentalist philosophy does have some things in common with Buddhism, but it is not equivalent to Buddhism. Overall though, Transcendentalism comes from Unitarianism which was a Christian reaction against Puritanism.

Blum further mentions that there is nothing in Buddhism about agency in nature; earth is not a deity. This idea seems to have more to do with Unitarian or Transcendentalist ideas such as the presence of the divine in nature; nature IS God. (Similarly some have stated ideas such as nature IS Buddha but I can't remember at which point this came up in the talk.)

He at one point makes a comment about how National Socialism (Nazi Party) was very ecologically friendly and had many green policies, which he associated with rejection of Christian policies and beliefs. (A recent book that talks about this is Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg.) He doesn't really get into it but I think the lesson here is that it's important not to reject or embrace things for negative reasons (hatred of Christianity for example) as it often leads one to embrace other forms of hatred.

My Comments

Overall, though I do a poor job of taking notes and editing them, he makes a good case that religious environmentalism doesn't really have much to do with Buddhism.

The main legitimate ties I see with Buddhism and environmentalism are that of compassion and refraining from harmful behavior. Nature is not sacred, animals are not noble, but that doesn't mean that it's ok to harm them and that one should not seek to protect them from environmental hazards.

So I think that the main point is that any Buddhist environmental focus should be on non-harm and compassion rather than some sense of "sacredness" in nature, or out of some reaction to Christian ideas about nature belonging to humans. Ultimately what matters is reducing the suffering of beings and this can be done to some extent by protecting the environment, but it's not Buddhist to take action out of some abstract sense of "sacredness" of nature. Any action must be directed at reducing the suffering of humans and other beings, and working for their welfare.

Of course, in order do this it is important that one is doing it for the right reasons and not out of hatred as the Nazis possibly did. Hatred will lead to more hatred, and actions out of hatred, even if they seem good at first, may not continue to remain good if the real goal is to harm those you hate.

This is why the elimination of hatred through personal practice is so important, and unfortunately this is probably neglected by most people, especially those overly focused on the behavior of others.

Advice to Sigala Part 2: The Six Ways of Squandering Wealth

This is the second installment (see Part 1) in a series of posts on DN 31: Sigalovada Sutta, The Buddha's Advice to Sigala the householder. Previously covered were the four impure actions and the four causes of harmful deeds.

Next the Buddha talks about the six ways of squandering wealth and this is where he starts to get more explicit about bad behavior. The sutta continues:

"And what six ways of squandering wealth are to be avoided? Young man, heedlessness caused by intoxication, roaming the streets at inappropriate times, habitual partying, compulsive gambling, bad companionship, and laziness are the six ways of squandering wealth.

Now you may notice that these things aren't really problems only for squandering wealth, as the Buddha is about to elaborate on. Again I suspect here that the Buddha is trying to frame things in a manner that will get Sigala to pay attention. After all, householders at that time were more like business owners than employees and their primary concern and occupation was the operation of their business.

So the Buddha here has mentioned six things, each of which he elaborates on starting with intoxication:

"These are the six dangers inherent in heedlessness caused by intoxication: loss of immediate wealth, increased quarreling, susceptibility to illness, disrepute, indecent exposure, and weakened insight.

You may remember from last time that consuming intoxicants was not mentioned as one of the four impure actions, whereas it is the last of the five precepts. This suggests to me that consuming intoxicants in and of itself is not necessarily an impure action, but it's the resulting state that's impure.

Also note that the Buddha here is talking about the state of intoxication and not simply "consuming intoxicants." This makes it clear that it's the state of being intoxicated that's the real problem. After all, if beer didn't get you drunk then drinking it wouldn't be any worse than drinking water or milk. This also suggests that having a single beer or glass of wine with a meal, something which is highly unlikely to cause intoxication, isn't such a big deal, though one might argue that any alcohol consumption at all is going to have some subtle effect. (I rarely drink any alcohol because even one drink causes me to feel a bit down or off, even if it doesn't get me drunk or anything.)

Also worth noting is that "intoxication" might be caused by more than just consuming intoxicants.

Furthermore, the Buddha was probably more interested in addressing gross errors here rather than nitpicking. The subtle effects of small amount of alcohol might be lost on Sigala, causing him to think that an outright prohibition on alcohol or other intoxicant consumption might be a bit dogmatic or superstitious. The Buddha does mention "weakened insight" which is somewhat subtle.

Here we also see that the Buddha gets beyond simply talking about wealth, and into the other practical problems of drunkenness such as the tendency to quarrel, health problems, and otherwise making an idiot of yourself. So clearly this is not just about wealth, but is simply being framed in householder terms. A householder's wealth is wealth, while a monk's wealth is wisdom and discernment, but Sigala is not a monk and not yet a lay follower of the Buddha.

After this, some of the things that the Buddha start to get a little less obvious as problems to some people, especially to those in modern societies:

"These are the six dangers inherent in roaming the streets at inappropriate times: oneself, one's family, and one's property are all left unguarded and unprotected; one is suspected of crimes; then rumors spread; and one is subjected to many miseries.

I wish I knew more about what kinds of things might cause one to want to "roam the streets at inappropriate times" at that time and in that culture, but my guess is that it could range from innocent activities like looking for friends to say "hi" to and socialize with to looking for prostitutes. In any case, people with a wife and kids in any society generally don't have time for this while still taking care of their familial responsibilities, and people are likely to expect the worst when someone with a family is out at the bar or goofing off at late hours all the time.

"These are the six dangers inherent in habitual partying: You constantly seek, 'Where's the dancing? Where's the singing? Where's the music? Where are the stories? Where's the applause? Where's the drumming?'

It's important to note that the translators in this case used "habitual partying" whereas Ven. Nerada uses the probably more literal "frequenting theatrical shows." I'm going to assume that the translators of the first version did their research and that what was meant here is something more like "partying" rather than simply going to to movies or something.

Because so many people now have television, radio, and audio players, this may not seem like such a big deal anymore. After all, people can just walk around with their MP3 players and not have to worry about "Where's the singing?" because the singing is with them all the time; they don't need to seek out a live band all the time to hear music. Still, being overly obsessed with entertainment means that you're not doing more constructive things (like perhaps reading this sutta), and it can become an addiction as well as a distraction. At least these days the cost isn't as high as it used to be, for those in wealthier societies anyways.

So, while watching TV or listening to music isn't so bad especially with the convenience of such things in modern society, excessive "partying" would probably tend to lead one into excessive addition to entertainment, if not drugs and alcohol.

"These are the six dangers inherent in compulsive gambling: winning breeds resentment; the loser mourns lost property; savings are lost; one's word carries no weight in a public forum; friends and colleagues display their contempt; and one is not sought after for marriage, since a gambler cannot adequately support a family.

I'm not sure how much needs to be said here. Gambling is another form of entertainment for people, but it's a bad one. It's more addictive than music and TV, and it generally requires losing more wealth. It is also what is known as a zero-sum game, meaning that if you win someone else has to lose. So even if you're good at poker and win more than you lose, you're not creating any wealth, only taking it from other people.

In contrast, if you're a craftsman who makes things, then you're taking something worth less (like a raw material) and making it into something that is worth more to people than the sum of the inputs, like a finished craft. People will pay you for your craft, you will make money, and they will get something useful as well. Generally everyone will be happy with this, whereas in gambling someone will lose whether it's you or your opponent, and nothing useful will be produced except perhaps a very expensive sense of "entertainment."

Many other religions recognize this and denounce gambling as well, so this is not particularly controversial, dogmatic, or specific to Buddhism.

"These are the six dangers inherent in bad companionship: any rogue, drunkard, addict, cheat, swindler, or thug becomes a friend and colleague.

I think the key point here is that the more you hang out with thieves or other rowdy, dishonest, harmful people, the more you will become sucked-in to their activities. This will of course lead you to into impure actions and harmful deeds.

Note that the term used here is "companionship" which means don't hang out with these kinds of people all the time. It doesn't mean never speak to them at all or be overtly hostile all the time. Another terms might be "fellowship" which suggests that you shouldn't make such people your family.

"These are the six dangers inherent in laziness: saying, 'It's too cold,' one does not work; saying, 'It's too hot,' one does not work; saying, 'It's too late,' one does not work; saying, 'It's too early,' one does not work; saying, 'I'm too hungry,' one does not work; saying, 'I'm too full,' one does not work. With an abundance of excuses for not working, new wealth does not accrue and existing wealth goes to waste."

Some people out there would like to think that Buddhism is about slacking off. After all, the world is imperfect and wealth isn't the ultimate answer to siffering, so why do anything? Why make money at all? But the fact is that people are supposed to be taking care of their responsibilities whether they are laypeople or monks. As previously noted, a householder at the time was typically responsible for a business which various employees would be depending on for their livelihood. To neglect this business would make it difficult for the less fortunate employees to continue to eat. Wealth may not be the ultimate answer but people aren't going to find the ultimate answer if they can't eat, and are in a state of deprivation. Wealth is especially important for those who have others' depending on them to pay their salaries.

The Buddha also lectured monks about laziness extensively. One major sutta on this is AN 8.80: Kusita-Arambhavatthu Sutta, The Grounds for Laziness & the Arousal of Energy. An example:

"There is the case where a monk has some work to do. The thought occurs to him: 'I will have to do this work. But when I have done this work, my body will be tired. Why don't I lie down?' So he lies down. He doesn't make an effort for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the first grounds for laziness.

Some people think monks don't really do anything, probably because meditation doesn't look like work to most people, but they have duties such as the practice, studying, and teaching. Buddhism is not about being a lazy slacker, because Nibbana will not come if you just wait long enough and pontificate on how great it is to be lazy.

This part of the sutta finishes with another section of verse:

That is what the Buddha said.

Summing up in verse, the sublime teacher said:

"Some are drinking buddies,
Some say, 'Dear friend! Dear friend!'.
But whoever in hardship stands close by,
That one truly is a friend.

Sleeping late, adultery,
Hostility, meaninglessness,
Harmful friends, utter stinginess:
These six things destroy a person.

Bad friends, bad companions,
Bad practices — spending time in evil ways,
By these, one brings oneself to ruin,
In this world and the next.

Seduction, gambling, drinking, singing, dancing,
Sleeping by day, wandering all around untimely,
Harmful friends, utter stinginess:
These things destroy a person.

They play with dice; they drink spirits;
They consort with lovers dear to others.
Associating with low-life and not the esteemed,
They come to ruin like the waning moon.

Whoever is a drunkard, broke, and destitute,
Dragged by thirst from bar to bar,
Sinking into debt like a stone in water
Into bewilderment quickly plunges.

When sleeping late becomes a habit
And night is seen as time to rise,
For one perpetually intoxicated,
A home life cannot be maintained.

'Too cold! Too hot!
Too late!': they say.
Having wasted work time this way,
The young miss out on opportunities.

For one regarding cold and hot
As not more than blades of grass,
Doing whatever should be done,
Happiness will not be a stranger."

Again, one thing to point out here is that the Buddha is not talking about how you need to become fabulously wealthy, but for one who is lazy and constantly makes excuses, "a home life cannot be maintained."

Next in the sutta, the Buddha talks about the nature of true friends and those who are just pretending to be, and this will be the subject of the next post.

Advice to Sigala Part 1: On Impure Actions, Harmful Deeds

Well, enough talking about world events and wondering why monks are doing this-and-that with regard to politics. Time to talk about suttas again.

One of the most important ones for laypeople, perhaps, is DN 31: the Sigalovada Sutta (Narada Thera | Kelly/Sawyer/Yareham) also known as the Layperson's Code of Discipline. Note there is more than one translation on Access to Insight, and it doesn't include the Maurice Walshe translation from The Long Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Digha Nikaya.

So which translation do I use? Well, I'm too lazy to type from a book so I'll use one of the ones that I have in electronic form. The John Kelly, Sue Sawyer, and Victoria Yareham translation seems to be a bit more colloquial (using terms like "drinking buddies") while Ven. Nerada's translation is a bit more literal (using terms like "bottle friend"). I'll use the former with reference to the later.

For those who aren't familiar with it, this is a sutta about Sigala the householder, who encounters the Buddha during his morning ritual of "worshiping the six directions" in the literal sense. The Buddha recognizes that the young householder is taking things too literally and doesn't see the significance of the six directions.

At that time a young householder named Sigalaka arose early and set out from Rajagaha with freshly washed clothes and hair. With palms together held up in reverence, he was paying respect towards the six directions: that is east, south, west, north, lower and upper.
...
[The Buddha said:] "But, young man, that is not how the six directions should be worshipped according to the discipline of the noble ones."

The Buddha starts out talking about protecting oneself in the general sense through basic virtue:

"Young man, by abandoning the four impure actions, a noble disciple refrains from harmful deeds rooted in four causes and avoids the six ways of squandering wealth. So, these fourteen harmful things are removed. The noble disciple, now with the six directions protected, has entered upon a path for conquering both worlds, firmly grounded in this world and the next. At the dissolution of the body after death, a good rebirth occurs in a heavenly world.

"What four impure actions are abandoned? The harming of living beings is an impure action, taking what is not given is an impure action, sexual misconduct is an impure action, and false speech is an impure action. These four are abandoned."

At this point he is not addressing the directions specifically but in the more general sense of protecting all directions from oneself and oneself from all directions. Note that the Buddha is speaking of rebirth in a heavenly world and protection in this world; he isn't talking about Nibbana. I should try to find some commentary to confirm, but it sounds like he is speaking to someone who hasn't gone for refuge and may not know anything of Buddha-Dhamma. Therefore we can probably conclude that this is the sort of advice that the Buddha would give to anyone regardless of their stated religion.

Note also that he has covered the first four of the Five Precepts. Why? Because these are the ones that "really matter"; the fifth precept (to abstain from intoxicants) is mostly there because intoxication tends to cause one to break the other four. It's quite possible that intoxicants would be just fine if they didn't cause heedlessness, but really the causes of heedlessness aren't limited to chemical intoxicants. In fact, the Buddha doesn't mention this yet because he's about to elaborate on the whole subject of heedlessness-causing things in a big way later in the sutta. He may also not mention it in brief here because, without additional explanation, urging him to avoid intoxicants might seem arbitrary and dogmatic to Sigala at this point.

So, this covers the four impure actions. These four actions tend to be condemned by Buddhists and non-Buddhist alike.

"What are the four causes of harmful deeds? Going astray through desire, hatred, delusion, or fear, the noble disciple does harmful deeds. But, young man, not going astray through desire, hatred, delusion, or fear, the noble disciple does not perform harmful deeds."

That is what the Buddha said.

Summing up in verse, the sublime teacher said:

"Desire, hatred, delusion, or fear:
Whoever transgresses the Dhamma by these,
Has a reputation that comes to ruin,
Like the moon in the waning fortnight.

Desire, hatred, delusion, or fear:
Whoever transgresses not the Dhamma by these,
Has a reputation that comes to fullness,
Like the moon in the waxing fortnight."

Now the Buddha is getting a bit deeper, talking not only about the more obviously harmful actions but harmful deeds in general and what causes them. Why he would describe these in terms of "reputation" I'm unsure, but perhaps it's because this would have more obvious meaning for Sigala, who might not believe in a doctrine of kamma.

For negative actions that one might "get away with" in the legal sense, because perhaps the actions are bad but not actually illegal, reputation and the political consequences of being a harmful individual are probably the most obvious natural consequence. And again, we might imagine here that the Buddha could be talking to a Christian or someone to whom the idea of kamma might not mean anything, whereas "bad reputation" would.

So at this point the Buddha has covered basic core virtue for anyone, and the six directions only in general. Next in the sutta the Buddha describes specific activities to be avoided (and thus some things with more specific political implications) and that will be the topic of my next post.

"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.

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.

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.

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.