Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Hi folks, are there statements in sangha vinaya which say that monks should not be politically involved in lay life matters?

Thanks

Hi Cassandra

They shouldn't even be talking about it:


"Just now, lord, after the meal, on returning from our alms round, we gathered at the meeting hall and got engaged in many kinds of bestial topics of conversation: conversation about kings, robbers, & ministers of state; armies, alarms, & battles; food & drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, & scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women & heroes; the gossip of the street & the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity, the creation of the world & of the sea; talk of whether things exist or not."

"It isn't right, monks, that sons of good families, on having gone forth out of faith from home to the homeless life, should get engaged in such topics of conversation, i.e., conversation about kings, robbers, & ministers of state... talk of whether things exist or not.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

With metta

rowyourboat wrote:Hi Cassandra

They shouldn't even be talking about it:


"Just now, lord, after the meal, on returning from our alms round, we gathered at the meeting hall and got engaged in many kinds of bestial topics of conversation: conversation about kings, robbers, & ministers of state; armies, alarms, & battles; food & drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, & scents; relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women & heroes; the gossip of the street & the well; tales of the dead; tales of diversity, the creation of the world & of the sea; talk of whether things exist or not."

"It isn't right, monks, that sons of good families, on having gone forth out of faith from home to the homeless life, should get engaged in such topics of conversation, i.e., conversation about kings, robbers, & ministers of state... talk of whether things exist or not.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

With metta

I think idle gossip about politics is quite different from speaking out against wrong-doings..
Would this be considered political action?
http://www.irrawaddy.org/archives/29133

pilgrim wrote: I think idle gossip about politics is quite different from speaking out against wrong-doings..
Would this be considered political action?
http://www.irrawaddy.org/archives/29133

Exactly my question. Is it proper (or restricted by vinaya) for a monk to be involved with matters of the lay life such as taking part in demonstrations, chanting slogans etc. even if it is for the right cause. Won't such activities obstruct a monk from their spiritual path or solitude?

On the other hand, should being a monk mean that a person is completely removed from the rest of the world and selfishly pursue his own emancipation. More like a "to hell with the others, environmental pollution, starving kids or world peace; I have better things to do with my time" kind of attitude.

This question has frequently bothered me. What do you think is the approach recommended by the Buddha?

monks are among the last and strongest forces for rights and liberties in a lot of countries.

Cassandra wrote:

pilgrim wrote: I think idle gossip about politics is quite different from speaking out against wrong-doings..
Would this be considered political action?
http://www.irrawaddy.org/archives/29133

Exactly my question. Is it proper (or restricted by vinaya) for a monk to be involved with matters of the lay life such as taking part in demonstrations, chanting slogans etc. even if it is for the right cause. Won't such activities obstruct a monk from their spiritual path or solitude?

On the other hand, should being a monk mean that a person is completely removed from the rest of the world and selfishly pursue his own emancipation. More like a "to hell with the others, environmental pollution, starving kids or world peace; I have better things to do with my time" kind of attitude.

This question has frequently bothered me. What do you think is the approach recommended by the Buddha?;

Personally I think this a matter of individual conscience. As for what Buddha taught: there is a sutta in which Buddha describes exactly what he thought in this regard.

resource: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .olen.html

The salient teaching:

[The Buddha addressed the monks:]
Once upon a time, monks, a bamboo acrobat,
setting himself upon his bamboo pole,
addressed his assistant Medakathalika:
"Come you, my dear Medakathalika,
and climbing up the bamboo pole,
stand upon my shoulders."
"Okay, master" the assistant Medakathalika
replied to the bamboo acrobat;
and climbing up the bamboo pole
she stood on the master's shoulders.

So then the bamboo acrobat said this to his assistant Medakathalika:
"You look after me, my dear Medakathalika, and I'll look after you.
Thus with us looking after one another, guarding one another,
we'll show off our craft, receive some payment,
and safely climb down the bamboo pole."

This being said, the assistant Medakathalika said this to the bamboo acrobat:
"That will not do at all, master!
You look after yourself, master, and I will look after myself.
Thus with each of us looking after ourselves, guarding ourselves,
we'll show off our craft, receive some payment,
and safely climb down from the bamboo pole.
That's the right way to do it!"

[The Buddha said:]
Just like the assistant Medakathalika said to her master:
"I will look after myself,"
so should you, monks, practice the establishment of mindfulness.
You should (also) practice the establishment of mindfulness (by saying)
"I will look after others."

Looking after oneself, one looks after others.
Looking after others, one looks after oneself.

And how does one look after others by looking after oneself?
By practicing (mindfulness), by developing (it), by doing (it) a lot.
And how does one look after oneself by looking after others?
By patience, by non-harming, by loving kindness, by caring (for others).
(Thus) looking after oneself, one looks after others;
and looking after others, one looks after oneself.

I think there's a big difference between speaking out against wrong actions, on a general level, as well as pointing out wrong doing on an individual or community level and getting involved with political affairs, which are not the Bhikkhu's concern, especially when this involves inciting violence or religious/racial prejudice.
However, it's hard to condemn those speaking out against injustices going on in thier own counties, especially if they are a spokesperson for a large community of even a whole country. I don't know much about the affairs in Burma, if anything, and I am not a monk. But I think the line gets crossed when violence is incited or monks express political opinions that go above and beyond right/wrong action with regard to the Dhamma. The Buddha, after all, offered advice to kings. What use is that if monks won't speak out against unjust rulers, ect.? Maybe it is the Buddha's job to admonish kings and so on, but I don't think it is that wrong for monks to call out political leaders on unjust actions especially when there is something very wrong going on. Unless there is something specific in the vinaya?

Edit: meant this to go on the thread about monastic violence in Burma, but it can go here as well, it fits.
Edit2: replied to my own post instead of editing. Can the mods delete the first post?

I think Sanga can involve with politics with equanimity (Upekka) and not taking sides. Which promote benefit for all.
I remember a story from Buddha that he stop a war between two parties.

I think the line gets crossed when violence is incited or monks express political opinions that go above and beyond right/wrong action with regard to the Dhamma.

you might do some reading about the saffron revolution and where burma has come (albeit slowly) since then. the monks can't just be totally slaughtered, so they were the only one's that could really do anything (and they did).

convivium wrote:

I think the line gets crossed when violence is incited or monks express political opinions that go above and beyond right/wrong action with regard to the Dhamma.

you might do some reading about the saffron revolution and where burma has come (albeit slowly) since then. the monks can't just be totally slaughtered, so they were the only one's that could really do anything (and they did).

Thats great, if they spoke out against injustice. It's not wrong according to the vinaya I don't think, as long as they are still monks first and foremost. Its very much an individual thing IMO, about what each monk is willing/able to do in each situation. I don't think you can make hard and fast rules because true compassion is responding to the needs of others in the moment. But I still think it is fundamentally wrong for a bhikkhu to use his power for politics. For example, in my opinion a group of monks coming together to enlicit political change would be overstepping the boundaries. But an individual or group speaking out against this or that action of the government, army ect. would not be. It's all in the intention. But I guess it is no worse than other vinaya violations that I hear are rampant, and at least they are doing something good.
All of this is in my own opinion, perhaps someone with better knowledge of the vinaya might be able to draw clearer lines.

But I still think it is fundamentally wrong for a bhikkhu to use his power for politics. For example, in my opinion a group of monks coming together to enlicit political change would be overstepping the boundaries. But an individual or group speaking out against this or that action of the government, army ect. would not be. It's all in the intention. But I guess it is no worse than other vinaya violations that I hear are rampant, and at least they are doing something good.
All of this is in my own opinion, perhaps someone with better knowledge of the vinaya might be able to draw clearer lines.

politics are wrong view.
wrong view conditions suffering.
the goal of the buddhist path is to eliminate suffering.
monks are buddhist practitioners.
therefore, while monks cannot engage in politics (tied to wrong view), they can engage in resisting politics (and so resist wrong view).
q.e.d.

convivium wrote: politics are wrong view.
wrong view conditions suffering.
the goal of the buddhist path is to eliminate suffering.
monks are buddhist practitioners.
therefore, while monks cannot engage in politics (tied to wrong view), they can engage in resisting politics (and so resist wrong view).
q.e.d.

I agree. I don't think speaking out against mass injustice is necessarily "politics" though. Take the example of a monk in Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia ect. Wouldn't they have a duty to make it known what is right and wrong?

BTW I am not relating my comments at all to the situation in Burma of which I know practically nothing. I can't comment on the justice/injustice of something that I don't know anything about.

Okay so speaking out against injustice is fine. But what exactly is injustice? Isn't "justice" a highly personalized view? I don't think most political activities in society are black and white so that the side a person has to take is clear. When you are on this side, it may seem like you are on the right side while for the person on the side, his circumstances might seem like he is doing justice.

For example, Bin Laden bombed the US. In turn USA had to carry out some mass killings in other countries in the process of controlling terrorism. One man's hero might be another man's villain.

Isn't "justice" a highly personalized view?

we can commonly agree on what is just and unjust on the grounds of whether or not basic needs or primary goods are being met or fairly distributed.

Monks can speak about right and wrong in line with the dhamma. Osama and the U.S. government committed unskillful deeds from the perspective of the dhamma. Any killing, any stealing, and any lying is unskillful. Hence, monks should stay out of politics because governments will almost certainly always be engaged in killing and stealing and lying. However, monks can remind people, be they presidents, kings, popes, or peasants about what is skillful and what is unskillful, about what when undertaken leads to longterm harm and suffering and what when undertaken leads to longterm welfare and happiness. The fact is that a samana has seen (on some level presumably) that this world is not worth clinging to and so they leave the world (of everyday life) and work to abandon their craving and clinging.