Monastics protesting social injustice

[Chanh Dao]

I am pretty new to this forum, having been reading some of it here and there and stumbled upon this thread. It is very interesting, the differing opinions. Can someone help me understand the participants here, it seems there are several monks on this thread? They are monastics who have left the world behind and are monks full time, is that so? Which ones are they and where do they live, in the USA or other countries? If they are monks, wouldnt they be more experts or have more expertise than the rest of us?

Retro, you seem to really like Donald Trump. I am curious, do you live in the USA? If not, why do you respect and talk about him so much, am curious?
I know politics is a hotly debatable subject and i understand both sides, am able to see from different perspectives. It would be interesting to keep following this thread and others, especially where Monks are participating. I respect them greatly and want to learn more. I hope they keep sharing on here.

Monastics are not inherently more knowledgeable than lay people.

Living a monastic life has the intention of offering an experiential understanding of the Dhamma in action and daily practice as the total focus of ones activities however there will always be preferences for one flavor or another.

In our views and opinions we all have a certain tendency that we align with or persue. So you are seeing that play out here.


As a monastic I'm certainly not inherently more of an expert on anything in regards to understanding of the dhamma versus a lay person.
However my only clothes are robes and what I eat and recieve is offered to me.
In that way the Dhamma is a full time job and while there may be personal time, I am always on call.

I can never claim to not be a monastic and be held accountable to the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha.

That in this case is the unique role of a monk.

Actually it's very important to be mindful of the fact that human experience is tantamount to the a jewel with as many facets as there are atoms in the universe.

So we can understand that people have different perspectives, opinions, and beliefs.

We don't need to know the details of every atom in the universe to treat them with compassion and consideration.

Sometimes it's better to walk away, sometimes it's better to walk forward into that which ails or confuses us.

Regardless we would do well to be gentle, considerate, mindful, and heedful with our words, actions, and thoughts.

Monks are humans, Trump supporters are humans, Black lives Matter.

Let's all do our best to be kind and compassionate to one another regardless of circumstances.

[sentinel]

Mr Man



Yes, that is what we are discussing. Using examples of when theft has been legal is part of that discussion, unless you take the view that whatever is legal is moral. I don’t think that’s a Theravadin view.

No I don’t hold the view that whatever is legal is moral.

Do you then agree that something can be theft even if the state rules that it is not?

Agree . Eg. The state says selling of guns and casino biz are legal but according to dhamma this is adhammic .
Eg . My relative passed away and i inherited a portion of her property which she inherited from her mother and kept for over 50 years , but due to changing of goverment they implement new rules (wealth tax) on property gains after 5 years where previously tax was exempted if the property were kept exceeding 5 years . The reason tax was exempted is because that property is regarded as savings and inheritance , for the Beneficiary part we are not doing businesses but it has to be Forced sell to distribute to many beneficiaries involves .
Imagine if the "Inheritance" was in money form , it is Absolutely Nonsense Rubbish to tax on the "Inherited money" which was Already taxed by the goverment previously !!!

Do i felt and think being Robbed ,
Absolutely Yes !!!
What can i do ? Absolutely nothing !!!
Is this Fair ? Absolutely Not !!!
Why do people fight for justice ?
Simply injustice was and is happening everywhere ! Unfortunately , justice do not prevails !

Another Eg . Let say i had the property in money form and keep it in the banks as fixed deposits , it is Absurd to tax the interest because it is not a business but savings . And the interest gains is very very little compare to the inflations everynow and then .

If people are ignorant and stupid enough to think every type of laws exists is 100% correct and alright and therefore follows like obedient sheep without reflections then they are bound to hit the rocks sooner or later . You are Doomed !!!

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

Killer of Mr Floyd appears in court on charges of second-degree murder and manslaughter.

Derek Chauvin knelt on Mr Floyd's neck for almost nine minutes.

The second-degree murder charge is one of unintentional murder, which is a contradiction in itself, but the law does not always align with Dhamma/Vinaya.

A second situation that constitutes second-degree murder is where the perpetrator intends only to cause serious bodily harm but knows that death could result from the act.

In Dhamma/Vinaya, not intending to cause death, but only GBH, would fall under Pācittiya 74, i.e. it would not be intentional killing, although the intention to cause severe pain or injury was present.

In Dhamma/Vinaya, intentional killing of a human being is breaking the first precept, and an offence of defeat for a bhikkhu.

For example, under the Pārājika rule forbidding murder, all five factors have to be present for a full offence: The object has to be a human being, the bhikkhu has to perceive him/her as a living being, he has to have murderous intent, he has to make an effort for the person to die, and the person has to die.

Intention and perception. The Vibhaṅga defines intentionally as “having made the decision knowingly, consciously, and purposefully.” According to the Commentary, having made the decision refers to the moment when one “crushes” one’s indecisiveness by taking an act. Knowingly means being aware that, “This is a living being.” Consciously means being aware that one’s action is depriving the living being of life. Purposefully means that one’s purpose is murderous. Whether one is motivated by compassion, hatred, or indifference is irrelevant as far as the offence is concerned.

Only time will tell if the jury convicts Derek Chauvin of second-degree murder and/or manslaughter, but Dhamma/Vinaya will "convict" him of intentional killing of a human being. Kneeling on someone's neck for nine minutes requires the repeated crushing of any possible indecisiveness. The non-intervention by the other officers for such a long time, makes them culpable of the same act of intentional killing of a human being due to the third factor of "condoning or permitting" the action to take place, when they were perfectly capable of acting to restrain Derek Chauvin. They have been charged with "Aiding and abetting murder."

[retrofuturist]

Greetings bhante,

Thank you for the Dhamma posting.

Dhamma/Vinaya will "convict" him of intentional killing of a human being. Kneeling on someone's neck for nine minutes requires the repeated crushing of any possible indecisiveness

.
Is there a difference here if his intent was:

- Just to restrain
- To restrain and harm
- Negligently restrain with no concern for his welfare
- Active intent to kill

Depending on the officer's training and general knowledge of biology and such, it would appear possible that his actions fall somewhere along that spectrum.

The non-intervention by the other officers for such a long time, makes them culpable of the same act of intentional killing

Is there something that could be shown from the suttas to substantiate this perspective? Can non-action be classified as action in Vinaya &/or the doctrine of Kamma?

And again, I wonder how much knowledge did they have of what was happening? I've seen limited footage but imagine they were mostly "outward facing" at the time, preventing observers from intruding on the situation. This is in no way to entertain excuses for anyone's behaviour, only to be aware that the true intention would only really be known to the individual.

due to the third factor of "condoning or permitting"

Can you please advise if this factor is derived from Sutta, Vinaya &/or commentary?

Thank you.

As I see it, much of it depends on how much of what happened was attributable to intent to harm, how much harm was due to negligence, and how much of the cause of death was attributable to the officer's actions vs the victim's pre-existing health conditions. Many factors, relevant both to the kammic as well as judicial processes...

Metta,
Paul.

[sentinel]

1 Just to restrain
2 To restrain and harm
3 Negligently restrain with no concern for his welfare
4 Active intent to kill

From the video one could see the officer kneeling on his neck purposely can be described as close to being 2 and 3 .
I would say the officer appear hated the guy by looking at his face expression and into his eyes but i am not a psychic reader .
The guy was already subdued and not in the position to be able to do any harm imo .
To restrain only handcuff is quite sufficient with few other officers around to assist .
The other officers are guilty of the charge of negligence and should reasonably being charge as accompliced .
Death is a Huge Matter !

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

due to the third factor of "condoning or permitting"

Can you please advise if this factor is derived from Sutta, Vinaya &/or commentary?

From Sutta.

Pāṇātipātī Suttaṃ

264. “Catūhi, bhikkhave, dhammehi samannāgato yathābhataṃ nikkhitto evaṃ niraye. Katamehi catūhi? Attanā ca pāṇātipātī hoti, parañca pāṇātipāte samādapeti, pāṇātipāte ca samanuñño hoti, pāṇātipātassa ca vaṇṇaṃ bhāsati — imehi kho, bhikkhave, catūhi dhammehi samannāgato yathābhataṃ nikkhitto evaṃ niraye.

Endowed with four states, monks, one arises in hell as if taken and dragged there.
1) One kills living beings oneself
2) One urges another to kill living beings (samādapeti).
3) One approves of the killing of living beings (PTS Dict. samanuñña approving)
4) One speaks in praise of killing living beings (vaṇṇaṃ bhāsati).

A police officer is trained in restraint. Derek Chauvin was not a novice. He had 18 complaints filed against him over 19 years, and was disciplined twice. He had his knee on Mr Floyd's neck for 8mins 46sec; 2mins53sec of this after Mr Floyd was non-responsive. Even if one knows nothing about his past record, it is obvious from the video and the length of the restraint contrary to the regulations, that he was not merely being negligent of his duty of care to the prisoner.

Please don't start blaming the victim for "pre-existing health conditions." Anyone with half a brain can understand that if someone says "I cannot breathe" sixteen times, because a thug is resting his knee on his neck, and some other thug is compressing his chest, then they need to stop doing whatever it is they are doing that is killing the man they are arresting.

Police officers have a duty of care to those they are arresting. They are not just a passerby who can rightly say: “I failed to intervene to prevent George's death because I was scared of getting maced by the cops.”

It is too time-consuming for me to explain what should be obvious to you, so I will have to kill you according to the Dhamma method. Please save your breath for when you might really need it. I have other work to do.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings bhante,

Please don't start blaming the victim for "pre-existing health conditions." Anyone with half a brain can understand that if...

I won't and I didn't, sir.

Just like you weren't "blaming" certain certain races for "pre-existing health conditions" when you were explaining how some people are more prone to more severe impacts when contracting COVID19.

It is too time-consuming for me to explain what should be obvious to you

Really, sir? In AN 4.77 the Buddha explained that "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." Yet, you claim it is obvious? I do not understand on what basis you make your declaration, as they were perfectly valid questions to ask about kamma in terms of how intent and outcome are weighed, in combination.

so I will have to kill you according to the Dhamma method. Please save your breath for when you might really need it. I have other work to do.

A mere no, silence, or delayed response would have sufficed, sir. I actually thought it may have been advantageous for harmony and concord for actual Dhamma to be discussed, and that it may even have been an opportunity to "cover over with grass" past folly, and move beyond your earlier displays of prejudice and unsubstantiated allegations, but apparently you favour a more cantankerous approach to matters of disagreement. So be it, sir. It is not for me to perform your deeds.

All the best. May you be peaceful and at ease.



Metta,
Paul.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

Sorry, evidently I don't have the necessary paramis to understand your expositions.

Perhaps a more secular explanation and refutation of Cultural Marxism might help you to bridge the gap in understanding how the "woke" ideology pushed by renegades in robes can be so dangerous and give rise to discrimination, disruption and societal discord in itself?



What Douglas Murray says about professions "without natural predators" in this sub-10 minute video could just as easily apply to bhikkhus.

The monastic life is designed so as to remove "natural predators" and the need for other worldly deeds to be done, so as to enable monks to "practice rightly" in accordance with the Dhamma and Vinaya. It is most certainly not to give them a free reign to partake in animal talk and spout divisive Cultural Marxism, unchallenged. Divisive destruction of society and the family is never something to be revered and applauded, and this much at least should be obvious to you through your readings on the Dhamma.



Metta,
Paul.

[bazzaman]

Greetings Mike,

]
Thanks for the link. I had never heard of Douglas Murray before. Seems like an interesting dude.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings DooDoot,

In addition, Thailand is not actually "patriarchal". Traditionally, Thailand has a strong "matriarchal" culture. In short, American Phra Bhikkhuni Lee's comments were both cultural & morally inappropriate. Since I think I know Thai Culture quite well and since I witnessed the ideas of American Phra Bhikkhuni Lee on the internet prior to her adventures in Thailand, I always sensed her Thailand adventure would not go well for her & her SJW-American hubris (which Thai people despise).

I have a question regarding what you said above, since you appear to know Thai Culture quite well.

Is part of the reason that "SJW-American hubris" (or Cultural Marxism: as per the video above, to Mike) is not well-regarded in Thailand attributable to the traditional emphasis on kamma in the Buddha's teaching?

I get the impression that the Buddha's morality teachings, such as the following...

"And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions.

... have been so extensively taught over the years, that they are now part of the Thai culture, consciously or otherwise. Since Cultural Marxism almost literally inverts the above teaching (and teachings on kamma, generally), there would be a stronger instinctual basis upon which to recognise its wrongness as Wrong View.

Does this accord with your understanding? Would you explain it differently, and/or place the emphasis elsewhere?

Others with experience of Thailand and Thai Buddhism are also invited to share their thoughts.

Metta,
Paul.

[DooDoot]

Is part of the reason that "SJW-American hubris" (or Cultural Marxism: as per the video above, to Mike) is not well-regarded in Thailand attributable to the traditional emphasis on kamma in the Buddha's teaching?

Kamma is very important in traditional Asian Buddhism although often regarded in an extreme way, such as a child being abused is due to their past life kamma. This hard-core karma doctrine is found in every Buddhist society, from Sri Lanka, Thailand to Tibet.

However, my main concern with the African-American SJW Bhikkhuni was the feminist & anti-patriarchy ideology she habitually voiced, which is not appealing to Thai villagers. I sense a thing Thais disdain is Westerners lecturing them on their family & social life, etc.

Since Cultural Marxism almost literally inverts the above teaching (and teachings on kamma, generally), there would be a stronger instinctual basis upon which to recognise its wrongness as Wrong View.

I doubt Thais would become aware of the Cultural Marxist inversion of the law of kamma because this "inversion" appears to primarily exist to serves certain groups 'blameless' people who happen to dominate the USA version of Buddhism. For example, I recall a karma-reincarnation fundamentalist named Namdrol who is also a fundamentalist SJW. The hypocrisy & shamelessness appears outstanding . While it would always be publicly inappropriate in a secular & pluralistic society to mention Buddhist kamma in relation to what personally happened to George Floyd, for a real Buddhist, it remains a consideration, at least in part.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings DooDoot,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Kamma is very important in traditional Asian Buddhism although often regarded in an extreme way, such as a child being abused is due to their past life kamma.

Yes. I am of the impression that "Jataka Tales" and other stories from the commentary actually over-reach somewhat regarding kamma and turn it into a far more fatalistic doctrine, than kamma as taught by the Buddha. I understand that these tales and backstories etc. are commonly found in Dhamma sermons that are preached to the laity.

Still, this over-reach in terms of understanding the Dhamma, even if not strictly correct, would at least serve to make the inverted Cultural Marxist Wrong View appear even more alien.



Metta,
Paul.

[DooDoot]

Still, this over-reach in terms of understanding the Dhamma, even if not strictly correct, would at least serve to make the inverted Cultural Marxist Wrong View appear even more alien.

Indeed. Which is why i recall saying something like the hypocrisy and shamelessness is outstanding. Since I personally actually do not believe in reincarnation, I may be oversensitive to the impression that many of the great reincarnation proselytizers are also raving SJWs. I think the popularity of Tibetan Buddhism may contribute to this because my impression is the Tibetan leadership rarely attribute their demise to their own past karma. Instead, they simply blame the Chinese Communists. This said, there is no shortage among the Theravada Western clergy completely ignoring their own karma proselytizing.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

This said, there is no shortage among the Theravada Western clergy completely ignoring their own karma proselytizing.

Agreed. Despite assertions to contrary, some appear to be conflicted about social justice issues and Dhammic justice issues, on account of having conflated two inverted sets of views, and rendered themselves now unable to differentiate Wrong View from Right View.

Such confusion of View results in confusion of Speech, as evidenced by the confusion of the renegades in robes, seen in the earlier video.



Metta,
Paul.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Please note that any discussion of Cultural Marxism which is independent of this topic and Theravada Buddhism, is off-topic and better conducted at Dharma Wheel Engaged.

Thank you.



UPDATE: If you wish to report posts, please make sure they actually violate the Terms Of Service. See Section 4 for more details. The Buddha discussed and refuted the prevalent Wrong Views in his day (see DN1) so it is allowable to do so today.



Metta,
Paul.