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.

Monks on the Frontline - Burma

Here's an interesting video from Journeyman Pictures.

NOTE: Looks like the producers have disabled embedding so you can't watch the video inline, and my player scripting links don't work, but you can still watch the video at YouTube and skip to the appropriate time marks manually.

There are a few interesting points that you can jump to here using these links (which probably will not work in an RSS reader):

[1:06] - "The best way to remove this evil government is to use force", states Rambo monk.

[3:23] - I fail to see how advocating that the monks stay out of politics is "towing the government line" or having a pro-government stance as the narrator states. The narrator fails to substantiate this claim. "I'm not interested in these protests because it's none of our business", states Abbot U Arthipha. "Monks should keep away from politics". I don't think the narrator understands this position and additionally there seem to be some translation errors in the subtitles. If Ven. U Arthipha is pro-government then it is unsubstantiated by this interview as he doesn't say a single thing in support of the government.

[8:17] - More information about the "Rambo Monk" and some interview questions. The story he mentions about taming the dragon king is recounted here. (I can't seem to find the scriptural source for this story, so please let me know if you know what this is from.) It is worth noting that the dragon king isn't killed but only subdued.

Rewind and watch from the beginning or view the video at YouTube.

Overall I'm disappointed with this video. The producers seem to have no criticism for monks involved in violence, but seem to have plenty of implied criticism for monks who try to stay out of the situation by calling them "pro government." Since when was refusing to participate in a fight considered joining in on one side of the fight? If those monks are pro government then it is unsubstantiated in the video.

Anyway, the situation in Burma is pretty horrible. It's hard for me to criticize anyone who lives there who feels the need to do something to improve it. I think different people are coming to different conclusions about what that something is though and what their role should be.

A transcript of this video is available.

Buddhist Economics: Invest "Like a Monk"?

Anathapindika, the richest merchant in Savatthi at the time, pays homage to the Buddha. Being wealthy and successful is not evil if one's actions are blameless.

Well, I think the title sounds a bit misleading since monks don't invest in the material sense, but the article Invest Like a Buddhist Monk looks pretty good. I think what he means is, invest your money the way a monk invests in the Four Noble Truths, by seeing things as they really are.

Note that I linked to the article at The Buddhist Channel just to show that I'm not the only one who thinks it looks valid from the Buddhist perspective, but the article actually originates from a non-Buddhist investment site called GuruFocus.com.

The author (Jonathan Herson) manages to draw more valid parallels with Buddhism than E. F. Schumaker if you ask me. (E. F. Schumaker claims to be talking about Buddhism but fails to quote a single Buddhist text or writer.) Quoting from the article:

I noticed that a lot of the characteristics that showed up in successful investors also showed up in Buddhist philosophy. By looking through the lens of Buddhism on stock investing, I was not only able to dramatically improve my investment results, but my life as well.

Isn't that interesting. Perhaps he was reading the Buddha's advice to Sigala among other things. Anyway, quoting from the article again:

Buddhism

• Rationality: Thinking clearly


• Empiricism: The Buddha found his way through his own direct experience


• Pragmatism: “Strictly speaking in Buddhism scriptural authority cannot outweigh an understanding based on reason and experience” – Dalai Lama


• Skepticism
  
  
  
  • The Buddha told his followers not to just believe him
  
  
  • They should test out his beliefs and see if they actually work
  
  

Successful Investing

• Rationality
  
  
  • “Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful” - Warren Buffett
  
  
  • Do not let your emotions get control of you-invest with reason and logic
  
  
• Empirical
  
  
  • Peter Lynch unlearning the theories he learned at Wharton, and relearning how to invest though his own direct experience
  
  
  • Most of the great investors (Buffett, Lynch, Soros) have borrowed their ideas from others, but before accepting them they tested them out. They learned how to invest mainly through their own direct experience
  
  
• Pragmatism: “Ben's Mr. Market allegory may seem out-of-date in today's investment world, in which most professionals and academicians talk of efficient markets, dynamic hedging and betas. Their interest in such matters is understandable, since techniques shrouded in mystery clearly have value to the purveyor of investment advice. After all, what witch doctor has ever achieved fame and fortune by simply advising 'Take two aspirins?” – Warren Buffett


• Skepticism: “Ships will sail around the world but the Flat Earth Society will flourish” – Warren Buffett

As you can see both Buddhism and successful investing have much in common.

My latticework really started to come together after I read the Kalama Sutra (a sermon given by the Buddha to his followers). After reading it, it seemed like I was reading a Berkshire Hathaway Annual Report!!! Whether he knows it or not, Mr. Buffett’s philosophy is very similar to that of a Buddhist monk (the bold wording comes from the Kalama Sutra):

Don't believe in anything simply because you heard.
“You have to think for yourself. It always amazes me how high- IQ people mindlessly imitate. I never get good ideas talking to other people.” – Warren Buffett

Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
“After all, if you are in the shipping business, it’s helpful to have all your potential competitors be taught that the earth is flat,” comments Buffett about the current state of college financial training.

Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumored by many.
“ A public opinion poll is no substitute for thought” – Buffett

Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
“If EMT were true I would be a bum on the street” – Buffett

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
“Forecasts usually tell us more of the forecaster than of the forecast.” –Buffett

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all then accept it and live up to it.
“ When proper temperament joins up with the proper intellectual framework, then you get rational behavior.” – Buffett

About the only thing objectionable that I see here is the comment about "be greedy when others are fearful." I hope what he really meant was "look for opportunity where/when others are fearful." The author seems to like Warren Buffett who is not exactly my hero or anything, but he is looked to as an authority on investing and thus seems like a valid expert to cite.

I think that the greatest most important thing that people miss about Buddhism is the real meaning of pañña which is often translated as "wisdom." The problem with this is that it seems that everyone thinks that they're wise, and that whatever fluffy, fuzzy, nice-sounding things they already believe are what pañña is referring to. The Dalai Lama loves to talk about "wisdom", but is that really a good translation?

Thanissaro Bhikkhu translates pañña as discernment. Access to Insight's glossary defines it as "Discernment; insight; wisdom; intelligence; common sense; ingenuity." I think that's an infinitely better definition that "wisdom."

If I understand the term pañña properly then I think it also refers to "seeing things as they really are." Now the most important things to see as they really are for Buddhists are the Four Noble Truths, but as a Buddhist I try to see absolutely everything as it really is, even if it's something comparatively trivial like economics or politics.