Monastics protesting social injustice

[retrofuturist]

Greetings again bhante,

If I see black people being murdered by cops on trumped up charges, or elderly, white social justice campaigners being shoved over and left lying in his own blood, I see only injustice and violation of all that is humane and decent. Justice should be blind to skin colour and political bias, but it is not.

Yet here you are, brazenly inserting race into something that isn't necessarily race related. This was addressed by DooDoot previously.

(Unless you have mind-reading attainments that you have not disclosed...) You are prejudiciously assuming that what happened occurred because of race, with no evidence for that other than your prejudices, lit. pre-judgements, based on race.

Did you ask the policeman if he did what he did because of race, or because George was resisting arrest? You appear to have pre-judiciously made up your mind due to attachment to Cultural Marxist views.

By doing so, you have been drawn away from the Buddha's teachings on justice by the left and made yourself judge and jury in the process. If you can't see what's wrong with that, I don't know what I can do but to keep redirecting you towards the boundlessness and non-discriminatory nature of the Blessed One's Dhamma.

Thank you for sharing your other Dhamma anecdotes but these appear to have nothing to do with race, and therefore do not substantiate your Cultural Marxist accusations that the policeman was acting as he did due to race.

Thank you for demonstrating to us the prejudicial divisive folly of Cultural Marxism. Since you at least recognise blind justice as a good ideal, maybe strive towards promoting it through your words and deeds. Your prejudicial approach to the situation makes me thankful you are not a judge, because your blindfold is well and truly off.

Let us rejoice in the Blessed One's words...

Not by passing arbitrary judgments does a man become just;
a wise man is he who investigates both right and wrong.
He who does not judge others arbitrarily, but passes judgment impartially according to the truth,
that sagacious man is a guardian of law and is called just.

Metta,
Paul.

[Chanh Dao]

It is simply (as I said) "interesting", since on one hand you advance "social justice" issues (in contrast to Dhammic justice issues, or blind justice issues) through your focus on race and race relations (i.e. the Cultural Marxist claptrap that others are somehow accountable for our bad life choices) yet on the other hand, you recognise the Dhamma teachings on morality, whereby we are the heir to our own deeds.

Thus, interesting... since the two models of moral responsibility and accountability appear at odds. One, based on personal agency, is traceable back to the Blessed One's discourses, the other not.

Perhaps you are conflicted about social justice issues and Dhammic justice issues. I am not. If I see black people being murdered by cops on trumped up charges, or elderly, white social justice campaigners being shoved over and left lying in his own blood, I see only injustice and violation of all that is humane and decent. Justice should be blind to skin colour and political bias, but it is not.

When I read about the Buddha physically intervening three times to prevent his own relatives being murdered by King Pasendi's heir, King Viṭaṭūbha, I see a monk resisting injustice rooted in racial prejudice. I don't see him ignoring the problem, thinking: “What is it to me, the Sakyans insulted Prince Viṭaṭūbha, so they must get what they deserve.” Only after three attempts, did he stand back and let kamma take its inevitable course.

When I read about the Buddha comparing the behaviour of brahmins, and showing it to be worse than dogs, I see a monk unafraid to blame hypocrites who claim superiority over other castes, which they treat as defiled and inferior, just as the Sakyans mistreated the son of a slave-woman.

It sure beats me that Mahānāma the Sakyan was only to happy to have sex with Viṭatūbha's mother, but unwilling to eat together with his own son.

The Buddha allowed monks not to visit families that fail to show due respect. This was a rebuke to King Pasenadi for his negligence in not serving the monks that he had invited for alms.

@retro I wanted to highlight here that this also applies to individuals claiming superiority over other individuals and than treating them as defiled or inferior.

This could because of the views they express it could be because of their own ignorance.

You are not above anyone else because of confidence that a belief of yours is going along with the teaching of Buddha.

No one deserves to go to hell because of this or that. Karma is a much more subtle teaching than that.

So I encourage you regardless of your perceptions of your own authority and superiority in terms of the Dhamma this bears no credence to seeing yourself as the arbiter of judgment for others.

Actually regardless of your view or experience in the dhamma you are not superior to any black man, woman, child, Deva, hungry ghosts, or demon.

You are just you.

If you are a follower of Buddha I encourage you to maintain a sense of gentleness and consideration for others especially when it comes to social justice and violence against people of color.

Just because you have an understanding of social justice as some kind of inferior Marxist idealogy that doesn't take away from what it means.

Social Justice. Holding ourselves and eachother accountable. According to the ideals of non-violence and compassion.

I can tell you surely that looking down on someone going through difficulty with the mind of

"that is their karma, may it burn them thoroughly, may I not lend a hand because it is for them to suffer and take responsibility for their lives.if they are hungry may they work or starve, regardless of abilities or the social context."

Is entirely outside of the Buddhist framework.

So be mindful if any hint of this flavor or approach comes up in your own mind as you can be vitally sure that it is not appropriate or in line with the teachings of the noble ones.


Reducing suffering in ourselves and in the world.

May you do it.

The Buddha implores you.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Chanh Dao,

@retro I wanted to highlight here that this also applies to individuals claiming superiority over other individuals and than treating them as defiled or inferior.

This is irrelevant, because this has never been claimed. In fact, I have spoken out against mana (see post with the Candace Owens tweet). Mana is wrong, because it is rooted in precisely what you are obsessed by - identity-view. Perhaps you should read what is said rather than create your own perverted perceptions?

You are not above anyone else because of confidence that a belief of yours is going along with the teaching of Buddha.

Again, I have done no such thing. Please point to where I have said I am better than anyone else. It doesn't exist. You made it up. It is yet another unsubstantiated accusation - another perverted perception.

No one deserves to go to hell because of this or that. Karma is a much more subtle teaching than that.

It's about what is true, according to the Dhamma... not what one feels one deserves. Please be advised that kamma does not care about your feelings.

So I encourage you regardless of your perceptions of your own authority and superiority in terms of the Dhamma this bears no credence to seeing yourself as the arbiter of judgment for others.

Throughout this topic, I have talked about conformity to the Dhamma of the Buddha, not conformity to what I think. I am sorry you have been unable to comprehend this, but I cannot account for your lack of comprehension of what is clearly said.

If you are a follower of Buddha I encourage you to maintain a sense of gentleness and consideration for others especially when it comes to social justice and violence against people of color.

If you ever find me speaking in favour of "violence against people of color", let me know. Otherwise, you're just tilting at windmills and making unjustified aspersions in the process. It's very unbecoming of monks to falsely accuse lay people of things, but I see you take your lead from your hero monk who does just that.

[more irrelevant aspersions]

In this tradition, when you apologize for something (e.g. misrepresentation, as you did earlier), you make amends and endeavour to refrain from reoffending. You, on the other hand, reoffend every time you open your mouth.

The Buddha implores you.

Again, you would actually have to know what the Buddha taught to know if that was true.

Chanh Dao - I reached out to you and made a genuine effort to meet you half way, and bridge the communication divide, but you are so stuck in your leftist ways of false aspersions and lack of knowledge of the Tipitaka, that our exchange serves no further purpose.

Despite your penchant for transferring blame, to do so is ultimately your choice. Who and what you choose to revile and slander will be your deeds and your inheritance, regardless of your feelings and views about justice.

All the best in your life and may you find the Dhamma.



Kind regards.

Metta,
Paul.

[Ceisiwr]

All taxes forcibly take property from individuals. Capital gains tax, and inheritance tax in the UK could both be described as taxes on wealth, but they are not immoral. The government has a right to tax in a way that is fair to all.

The wealthy who can afford accountants can avoid taxes legally, and do so any many ways that are perhaps unethical, but it is not theft. The government should attempt to close such loopholes and take more tax from those who can afford to pay, to help lift others out of poverty by paying for their health care, education, housing, and other basic needs.

I’m not arguing that all tax is wrong Bhante, or that all tax is theft. The Buddha allowed for rulers to tax people to pay for armies, I guess what we would call some welfare, state officials etc. However, the Buddha did also say that the rulers should tax fairly. A wealth tax, which would include inheritance tax, specifically targets individuals with a view to take away their wealth because they are perceived as having too much. It is theft, justified by a consequentialist “ends justify the means” morality which is the moral thinking of all leftists. We can see it with the abortion discourse from left wing Buddhists, where those who correctly oppose abortion refrain from wanting it illegal because “women will just get abortions anyways in back alleys”. The consequence has determined the moral judgment and action. Centrists like I and those on the centre right tend to be more deontological in outlook especially when it comes to human rights. So, for us with abortion it’s morally wrong and so should be illegal as it breaks a moral rule regardless of the consequences. The same with unfair taxes and stealing from the rich to give to the poor. To a leftist this is justified by the ends, to someone like me it isn’t. To a leftist human rights can be infringed if the outcome is good and so justifies it. To a classical liberal they can never be infringed.

Leftist morality is consequentialist. The Blessed One did not teach consequentialism.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Leftist morality is consequentialist. The Blessed One did not teach consequentialism.

Indeed. And to think "the end justifies the means" is to assume one's own wisdom and intended interventions are greater than the Buddha, who did not teach that "the end justifies the means".

Metta,
Paul.

[Ceisiwr]

Here is a "Joint Statement of Solidarity with the black communities in the USA and the UK"

As faith leaders and activists from all over the UK, we write in solidarity with the black communities in the USA and the UK.

We have been horrified by the killing of George Floyd in the USA, and the brutality against the black communities there. Whilst these events have taken place thousands of miles away, we cannot ignore them, and must remain vigilant with regards to the situation in the UK.

We believe that voices from the black communities should be at the fore now, but as many of our own communities are comprised of people from different races and ethnicities, we wanted to make a statement of support. We stand alongside the black communities of the UK, of all faiths and none. Whilst Britain is overall a tolerant country, we recognise the history of systemic racism and prejudice many have faced, and reject the pernicious ideology of white supremacy.

As in the USA, COVID-19 has shone a spotlight on longstanding racial inequalities in this country. The report published by Public Health England this week shows that people from black and Asian ethnic groups are up to twice as likely to die from COVID-19 than those from white British backgrounds. This is deeply troubling, and there is concern that the crisis will have further disproportionate impacts on the BAME community in other ways.

We stand shoulder to shoulder with the black population of the UK, and the USA, in affirming that Black Lives Matter. Support for social change from different faith communities has been a source of strength in the past. The civil rights movement in the USA in the 1960s was backed by many faith communities. Rev Martin Luther King was president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and received support from different Churches. Furthermore, one of King’s most vociferous allies was Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, who famously said after marching with him at Selma in 1965: “I felt my legs were praying.”

As well as expressing solidarity with the black population of the UK and USA, we recommit to standing up to racism and prejudice within our own communities, and wider British society.

Signed by:

Maurice Ostro OBE, Chair, Faiths United
Ajahn Amaro, Abbot, Amaravati Buddhist Monastery
Qari Asim, Chair, Mosques & Imams National Advisory Board
Nemu Chandaria OBE, President, ONEJain
Zaki Cooper, Trustee, Council of Christians and Jews
Malcolm Deboo, President, Zoroastrian Trust Funds of Europe
Mustafa Field OBE, Director, Faiths Forum for London
Rajnish Kashyap, General Secretary, Hindu Council UK
Farhad Mawani, Ismailli Community
Rev Dr Heather Morris, Methodist Church in Ireland
Rev Canon Lusa Nsenga-Ngoy, Leicester Cathedral
Bhaven Pathak, Director, Yog Foundation
Jeevun Rohilla, Faiths United Youth Network
Krish Raval OBE, Director, Faith in Leadership
Syra Sanghera, Co-Chair, Faiths United Youth Network
Venerable Bogoda Seelawimala, Head of the London Buddhist Vihara
Mandip Singh, Director, Gurdwara Aid
Daniel Singleton, National Executive Director, Faith Action
Iain Stewart, Executive Director, Edinburgh Inter-Faith Association
Shahien Taj OBE, Executive Director, Henna Foundation
Dr Mark Owen, Director, Centre of Religion, Reconciliation and Peace, University of Winchester
Padideh Sabeti, Director, Office of Public Affairs of the UK Bahá’í Community

http://faithsforum.com/joint-statement- ... june-2020/

Hopefully people don’t suddenly rush to “racism”’as being the answer as to why BAME folk are dying from COVID-19, but I think we are getting there.

I wonder if these leaders will then also come out and support BLM the organisation and its racist reparation demands too? I wonder if many monastics even know about that when they say they support the BLM organisation? I don’t think it’s something monastics should be supporting or getting mixed up with myself.

[Chanh Dao]

Oh, I'm not really accusing you of anything.
I'm encouraging you to be mindful of these tendencies and rather than react to them as a personal accusation simply consider these modes of mind and the dangers that they represent not only in oneself but also within a society.


I also hope to find the dhamma. Moment to moment.

It is not something I imagine to be able to put in my pocket and keep.
It's a part of my moment to moment daily life.

May we all find the dhamma. In this moment and the next.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

I also hope to find the dhamma.

Metta,
Paul.

[Mr Man]

All taxes forcibly take property from individuals. Capital gains tax, and inheritance tax in the UK could both be described as taxes on wealth, but they are not immoral. The government has a right to tax in a way that is fair to all.

The wealthy who can afford accountants can avoid taxes legally, and do so any many ways that are perhaps unethical, but it is not theft. The government should attempt to close such loopholes and take more tax from those who can afford to pay, to help lift others out of poverty by paying for their health care, education, housing, and other basic needs.

I’m not arguing that all tax is wrong Bhante, or that all tax is theft. The Buddha allowed for rulers to tax people to pay for armies, I guess what we would call some welfare, state officials etc. However, the Buddha did also say that the rulers should tax fairly. A wealth tax, which would include inheritance tax, specifically targets individuals with a view to take away their wealth because they are perceived as having too much. It is theft, justified by a consequentialist “ends justify the means” morality which is the moral thinking of all leftists.

If the tax is laid down by the law of the land, legally it would not be theft.

The idea that tax could be considered theft is not supported by Buddhist texts, as far as I know.

You have accused a Bhikkhu of advocating for theft and the breaking of the 2nd precept.

Perhaps you should retract you accusation.

[DooDoot]

I wasn't aware of the political context he was speaking in.

While Buddhadasa himself never endorsed Communism and actually criticized it as an extreme, he became associated with it, and was connected to the left, including to Pridi Banomyong:

"Buddhadasa Bhikkhu on Pridi Banomyong

Talk given at Suan Mokkh for the funeral of Elder Statesman Pridi Banomyong, on 11th May 1986.

n 1932 the political struggle took a new turn with the overthrow of the absolute monarchy and transition to a constitutional monarchy. The People’s Party was a direct player in the coup. Though its membership was small, the party was supported by regiments in Bangkok as well as a large faction of urban dwellers, if not provincial populations or rural peoples. The civilian left wing was led by Pridi Banomyong (1900–83), an intellectual influenced by European non-Marxist liberal and socialist ideas. A field officer and a commoner, Phraya Phahon Phonphayuhasena (1887–1947), led the military group.....

In order to offer a common framework to the union organisations in which it was active, the CPT created the Association of United Workers of Thailand. Moreover, the prestige of the party increased with the defeat of the Kuomintang in China and the party’s influence developed within the Central Labor Union (CLU), which joined the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) in 1949. Even so, during these years, the Thai left was diverse. Pridi Banomyong created the Southeast Asia League to affirm solidarity with the national liberation movements in the region. The writings of European socialists were translated into Thai. A progressive Buddhist current was developed and represented by the thinker Buddhadasa; the possible relationship between Marxism and Buddhism was discussed.....

On October 6, 1976 police, military and anti-left wing paramilitary forces assembled at the gates of Thammasat University and opened fire on protesters in a massacre. There were hundreds of deaths and thousands of arrests; the televised images of the massacre shook the entire country. Just three years after the removal of the dictator in 1973, the military took power again in October 1976, shortly after the massacre. For many, it destroyed hope for Thailand’s democratic evolution.

Still, this was not the end of the left. By the thousands, in order to avoid arrest or death, to pursue their struggle and obsessed by the desire to avenge friends massacred at Thammasat, students joined the guerilla forces, along with workers and peasants. The People’s Liberation Army of Thailand (PLAT) increased its forces dramatically. In the beginning of 1979, at its peak, it had 12,000 to 14,000 soldiers according to government estimates; according to other estimates, there were 20,000. Guerilla zones existed in more than 40 provinces and the CPT had influence in thousands of villages with a total population of more than 3 million.

The rise and fall of the Communist Party of Thailand

Some radicals traveled to Suan Mokh and many others became interested in Buddhadasa’s teachings through his extensive writing. Many radicals, when writing about Buddhism, expressed ideas similar to those of Buddhadasa. As a result, Buddhadasa’s enemies attacked him as a Communist, but Buddhadasa’s political writings during the turbulent 1970s, however, made it clear that he had no commitment to any political ideology–whether socialism or free enterprise, communism or democracy.292 His commitment was to Buddhism. He did write favorably about some aspects of both socialism and democracy, but only the aspects of those systems that he felt were in harmony with Buddhist dharma. To Buddhadasa, any political system based on dharma would be good, and any system without it would be lacking.

In support of radical thinking, Buddhadasa favored socialism over capitalism. Socialism, he felt, was a more natural system, one that had evolved from ancient times when food could not be hoarded and therefore had to be shared. “The problems of society began,” he wrote, “when it first became possible for individual acquisition.”

294 Buddhadasa was not opposed to the production and storage of a surplus, whether food or other goods, but believed that Buddhist ethics required that any surplus not go to the individuals who owned the means of production but to those in need. The focus on the good of society he saw in socialism, rather than the good of individuals, was in closer accord with Buddhist ethics. This idea of an ancient classless society ruined by greed and possessiveness is similar to Kulap’s view that it was greed that led to classes and class oppression.

“Coming to socialism we must look at the problems ofsociety and do things that will solve the problems of society,” Buddhadasa wrote. “This then is a socialism that is safer than liberalism because it seeks the benefit of society. This liberalism and free enterprise cannot do due to greed. Liberalism is an opportunity for greed because it has the objective of benefitting the individual not the society like socialism.”

295 This understanding of what Buddhadasa called “Dharmic Socialism” was not a Marxist understanding of socialism. Dharmic
Socialism meant taking the side of society in contrast to individualism. While individual religious practice and individual
responsibility were important in Buddhism, the individual self ultimately does not exist and Buddhist teachings emphasize the
collective good.296

Although generally favorable to democracy, Buddhadasa had concerns about democracy’s ability to control greed and selfishness. He wrote:
“To say that democracy is always and absolutely
good is to speak with one’s head in the sand.
Those who insist on it haven’t considered that a
democracy of selfish people is worse than a
dictatorship under an unselfish person who
rules for the sake of dharma and justice. A
democracy of selfish people means the freedom
to use their selfishness in a most frightening
and awful manner. Consequently, problems
drag on endlessly among those people who
have a democracy of selfishness. Stop saying
that democracy is absolutely good or that
dictatorship is absolutely good. Instead, stick to
the principle that both will be good if they are
based in Dharma.”


Writing in the 1970s at a time of political violence and confusion in Thailand driven by fears of communism, Buddhadasa said Communism itself was not the cause of the problem. The exploitation and oppression of greedy capitalists, he said was driving the poor towards Communist ideas and violent revolution. “We are experiencing the problem,” he said, “that these evil-minded capitalists are sucking the blood of humanity to such an extent that the poor must rise up to fight and destroy their enemy, flooding the world with blood.”
300
Although Buddhadasa credited Communism with the potential to end the exploitation of the poor by the rich, he did not see it as a solution to mankind’s problems because Communism was based on the same materialistic delusions and attachments as capitalism. The solution, he said, must involve reducing or eliminating the sense of self and the deluded attachment of that self to material and immaterial benefits.

Radical Thought, Thai Mind

[DooDoot]

If the tax is laid down by the law of the land, legally it would not be theft.

Authoritarian The above assumes "the law" made by a small group of powerful men is "legal" or "natural justice".

You have accused a Bhikkhu of advocating for theft and the breaking of the 2nd precept. Perhaps you should retract you accusation.

Perhaps the Bhikkhu should avoid sloppy speech.

[Ceisiwr]

All taxes forcibly take property from individuals. Capital gains tax, and inheritance tax in the UK could both be described as taxes on wealth, but they are not immoral. The government has a right to tax in a way that is fair to all.

The wealthy who can afford accountants can avoid taxes legally, and do so any many ways that are perhaps unethical, but it is not theft. The government should attempt to close such loopholes and take more tax from those who can afford to pay, to help lift others out of poverty by paying for their health care, education, housing, and other basic needs.

I’m not arguing that all tax is wrong Bhante, or that all tax is theft. The Buddha allowed for rulers to tax people to pay for armies, I guess what we would call some welfare, state officials etc. However, the Buddha did also say that the rulers should tax fairly. A wealth tax, which would include inheritance tax, specifically targets individuals with a view to take away their wealth because they are perceived as having too much. It is theft, justified by a consequentialist “ends justify the means” morality which is the moral thinking of all leftists.

If the tax is laid down by the law of the land, legally it would not be theft.

The idea that tax could be considered theft is not supported by Buddhist texts, as far as I know.

You have accused a Bhikkhu of advocating for theft and the breaking of the 2nd precept.

Perhaps you should retract you accusation.

Something being legal does not mean it’s not still morally classed as theft. The Nazi confiscation of Jewish property was perfectly legal in the Reich. It was still theft. Sometimes the law is not moral.

[DooDoot]

The Nazi confiscation of Jewish property was perfectly legal in the Reich.

[Mr Man]

I’m not arguing that all tax is wrong Bhante, or that all tax is theft. The Buddha allowed for rulers to tax people to pay for armies, I guess what we would call some welfare, state officials etc. However, the Buddha did also say that the rulers should tax fairly. A wealth tax, which would include inheritance tax, specifically targets individuals with a view to take away their wealth because they are perceived as having too much. It is theft, justified by a consequentialist “ends justify the means” morality which is the moral thinking of all leftists.

If the tax is laid down by the law of the land, legally it would not be theft.

The idea that tax could be considered theft is not supported by Buddhist texts, as far as I know.

You have accused a Bhikkhu of advocating for theft and the breaking of the 2nd precept.

Perhaps you should retract you accusation.

Something being legal does not mean it’s not still morally classed as theft. The Nazi confiscation of Jewish property was perfectly legal in the Reich. It was still theft. Sometimes the law is not moral.

It means in law it is theft.

The idea that tax could be considered theft is not supported by Buddhist texts, as far as I know.

You have accused a Bhikkhu of advocating for theft and the breaking of the 2nd precept.

Perhaps you should retract your accusation.

[Dhamma Chameleon]

Buddhadasa’s political writings during the turbulent 1970s, however, made it clear that he had no commitment to any political ideology–whether socialism or free enterprise, communism or democracy.292 His commitment was to Buddhism. He did write favorably about some aspects of both socialism and democracy, but only the aspects of those systems that he felt were in harmony with Buddhist dharma. To Buddhadasa, any political system based on dharma would be good, and any system without it would be lacking.

Radical Thought, Thai Mind

Thanks for the background info, I had no idea!

His ideas that you quote seem fair and reasonable to me