Monastics protesting social injustice

[Mr Man]

You are still banging on about this

People should be willing to back up allegations they make on this board.

The irony! Regardless, its obvious at this stage that BorkenBones and I simply do not agree with you. Instead of beating this rather boring dead horse perhaps its time to move on? You do not need to always have the last word you know

If BrokenBones thinks Bhante Sujato defends law breaking let BrokenBones show it? He hasn't yet.

If BrokenBones thinks Bhante Sujato has broken the monastic code in that talk let BrokenBones show it (or you for that matter). Be specific. Is it that difficult?

BrokenBones revived this thread and I replied. Is that okay with you? You don't want to read it or participate, well don't.

[Ceisiwr]

People should be willing to back up allegations they make on this board.

The irony! Regardless, its obvious at this stage that BorkenBones and I simply do not agree with you. Instead of beating this rather boring dead horse perhaps its time to move on? You do not need to always have the last word you know

If BrokenBones thinks Bhante Sujato defends law breaking let BrokenBones show it? He hasn't yet.

If BrokenBones thinks Bhante Sujato has broken the monastic code in that talk let BrokenBones show it (or you for that matter). Be specific. Is it that difficult?

Carry on then.

[BrokenBones]

And when you said Bhante Sujato defends "law breaking", Is that defamatory?

And when you said "he must have broken numerous Vinaya rules"?

The article does seem to border on the defence of law breaking and I would use it as evidence in any accusation of defamation. And 'saying one knows when one doesn't' is a clear Vinaya issue.

Perhaps you could clearly show where, in the article, Bhante Sujato defends law breaking? Can you give a quote?

And if there are any clear vinaya issues why don't you supply somthing from the vinaya to support this claim

Are you perhaps guilty of claiming you know what in fact you do not know?

Buddhist Monastic Code I
Chapter 8.1
Pācittiya: The Lie Chapter
Tired of arguing so I'll let you read it... even if I do the legwork it will just be ignored.
As for the article... it's one long diatribe against copyright... it's not Buddhist... legality doesn't matter... arguing it's an irrelevance certainly borders on encouragement to ignore it.

Metta

[Mr Man]

Buddhist Monastic Code I
Chapter 8.1
Pācittiya: The Lie Chapter
Tired of arguing so I'll let you read it... even if I do the legwork it will just be ignored.

Okay Pacitiya 1

A deliberate lie is a statement or gesture made with the aim of misrepresenting the truth to someone else. The K/Commentary, summarizing the long “wheels” in the Vibhaṅga, states that a violation of this rule requires two factors:

1) Intention: the aim to misrepresent the truth; and

2) Effort: the effort to make another individual know whatever one wants to communicate based on that aim.

So you are making the assumption that Bhante Sujato had the intention to "misrepresent the truth". Bhante Sujato's intention is somthing you do not know - "then, not knowing, he says, ‘I know,’

A bhikkhu who misrepresents the truth unintentionally commits no offense under this rule.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/vinaya/bmc/ ... l#Pc_ChOne

BrokenBones I guess Bhante Sujato didn't break "numerous Vinaya rules" in that talk did he?

As for the article... it's one long diatribe against copyright... it's not Buddhist... legality doesn't matter... arguing it's an irrelevance certainly borders on encouragement to ignore it.

The article is a "Think Piece" about copyright. Earlier you wrote "it is a defence of theft and law breaking", which it isn't. You tone does seem to have softened somewhat though.

https://sujato.wordpress.com/2015/05/20/copy-this/

If we want to accuse monks of breaking the law or of encouraging law breaking, of breaking monastic rules etc isn't it reasonable to ask that these accusations are supported? If it is just personal opinion, so be it, but at least try and offer some support for that opinion.

[Ceisiwr]

I can’t remember if this was posted in here, but I quite liked this video on the topic:

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

I can’t remember if this was posted in here, but I quite liked this video on the topic:

Accords with the Pali Canon nicely. Thanks for sharing.

Metta,
Paul.

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings,

I can’t remember if this was posted in here, but I quite liked this video on the topic:

Accords with the Pali Canon nicely. Thanks for sharing.

Metta,
Paul.

You’re welcome.

[Mr Man]

Looks like Bhante is doing some serious kettlebell work out.

[Dan74]

Yes, the issue is whether monks should involve themselves in these matters, not the merits of particular causes. From all that I've seen, monks who involve themselves in social justice, believe their causes to be just and noble, believe the facts to be on their side and the merit of this belief is somewhat outside this topic, I think.

Whether monks should support conservative causes like our own Bhante Dhammanando who posts about such matters on FB, or Paññobhāsa Bhikkhu, who aligns himself with the far-right and consorts with neo-Nazis, or indeed the monks mentioned here, who align with liberal and progressive causes, it is basically the same issue - should they involve themselves in politics, social justice or other "worldly" issues?

The merits of the said causes is a separate matter, I think. I think it is safe to assume that the monastics in question believe that their specific affiliations to be the right ones and in line with the Dhamma. I don't doubt their sincerity. In all the aforementioned cases, there is no indication that the intention is to deceive or to cause harm, rather the opposite. So the relevant Vinaya rules don't apply. But the question may still be discussed on other grounds.

[Garrib]

Yes, the issue is whether monks should involve themselves in these matters, not the merits of particular causes. From all that I've seen, monks who involve themselves in social justice, believe their causes to be just and noble, believe the facts to be on their side and the merit of this belief is somewhat outside this topic, I think.

Whether monks should support conservative causes like our own Bhante Dhammanando who posts about such matters on FB, or Paññobhāsa Bhikkhu, who aligns himself with the far-right and consorts with neo-Nazis, or indeed the monks mentioned here, who align with liberal and progressive causes, it is basically the same issue - should they involve themselves in politics, social justice or other "worldly" issues?

The merits of the said causes is a separate matter, I think. I think it is safe to assume that the monastics in question believe that their specific affiliations to be the right ones and in line with the Dhamma. I don't doubt their sincerity. In all the aforementioned cases, there is no indication that the intention is to deceive or to cause harm, rather the opposite. So the relevant Vinaya rules don't apply. But the question may still be discussed on other grounds.

How on earth does someone sympathize/consort with neo-Nazis and imagine that to be in line with Dhamma? This is something I genuinely struggle to understand...

[Ceisiwr]

Garrib

How on earth does someone sympathize/consort with neo-Nazis and imagine that to be in line with Dhamma?

To be fair the venerable does state that he doesn’t agree with the Neo-Nazis. He doesn’t seem to sympathise with them. He merely talks to them.

[Dan74]

Yes, the issue is whether monks should involve themselves in these matters, not the merits of particular causes. From all that I've seen, monks who involve themselves in social justice, believe their causes to be just and noble, believe the facts to be on their side and the merit of this belief is somewhat outside this topic, I think.

Whether monks should support conservative causes like our own Bhante Dhammanando who posts about such matters on FB, or Paññobhāsa Bhikkhu, who aligns himself with the far-right and consorts with neo-Nazis, or indeed the monks mentioned here, who align with liberal and progressive causes, it is basically the same issue - should they involve themselves in politics, social justice or other "worldly" issues?

The merits of the said causes is a separate matter, I think. I think it is safe to assume that the monastics in question believe that their specific affiliations to be the right ones and in line with the Dhamma. I don't doubt their sincerity. In all the aforementioned cases, there is no indication that the intention is to deceive or to cause harm, rather the opposite. So the relevant Vinaya rules don't apply. But the question may still be discussed on other grounds.

How on earth does someone sympathize/consort with neo-Nazis and imagine that to be in line with Dhamma? This is something I genuinely struggle to understand...

Brian Ruhe, who briefly posted here, is a neo-Nazi. The Venerable calls him "my friend". TBH, in my brief encounter with Ruhe, I got more of a sense of a mental illness than something malignant. People can and do convince themselves of the most bizarre things. Hannah Arendt, who researched top Nazis extensively, found that they were largely very ordinary people many of whom genuinely believed that sending millions to the gas chambers was the right thing to do. Evil beliefs and (even more shockingly) evil deeds, don't always require an evil intention. Delusion, as the Buddha said, is at the root of it.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Dan,

Yes, the issue is whether monks should involve themselves in these matters, not the merits of particular causes. From all that I've seen, monks who involve themselves in social justice, believe their causes to be just and noble, believe the facts to be on their side and the merit of this belief is somewhat outside this topic, I think.

Whether monks should support conservative causes like our own Bhante Dhammanando who posts about such matters on FB, or Paññobhāsa Bhikkhu, who aligns himself with the far-right and consorts with neo-Nazis, or indeed the monks mentioned here, who align with liberal and progressive causes, it is basically the same issue - should they involve themselves in politics, social justice or other "worldly" issues?

The merits of the said causes is a separate matter, I think.

They are two separate points, but both relevant. Why? Because it's important to be judicious when determining what is praiseworthy and blameworthy...

“Endowed with four things, monks, one arises in hell as surely as if taken and put there. What four? Without having properly investigated and examined one speaks in praise of the blameworthy, without having properly investigated (ananuvicca)  and examined (pariyogahetvā) one speaks in dispraise of the praiseworthy, without having properly investigated and examined one shows satisfaction (pasādaṃ) in a matter that does not inspire confidence, without having properly investigated and examined one shows dissatisfaction (appasādaṃ) in a matter that inspires confidence. Endowed with these four things, monks, one arises in hell as surely as if taken and put there.

“Endowed with four things, monks, one arises in heaven as surely as if taken and put there. What four? Having properly investigated and examined one speaks in dispraise of the blameworthy, having properly investigated and examined one speaks in praise of the praiseworthy, having properly investigated and examined one shows dissatisfaction in a matter that does not inspire confidence, having properly investigated and examined one shows satisfaction in a matter that inspires confidence. Endowed with these four things, monks, one arises in heaven as surely as if taken and put there."

Yet, even if one is satisfied that they have "properly investigated" at a certain point in time... they need to keep being across something indefinitely, if they are going to maintain that position of praise and blame indefinitely.

Just see a world with all its gods
Fancying a self where none exists
Entering into name and form
It builds the fancy - 'Ah! This is the truth'!

In whatever way one fancies of a thing
Thereby itself it turns otherwise
And that itself is the falsity in it
Falsifying by nature - the puny thing

But nibbana unfalsifying as it is
Noble Ones knew as the truth
And they by their understanding of the truth
Are hungerless and fully appeased.

Throughout the duration of this topic alone, we've seen the "public facts" on certain things change: Black Lives Matter, studies on the efficacy or otherwise of hydroxychloroquine, the circumstances surrounding the George Floyd incident etc. Some of these things literally change daily.

In contrast, since the Dhamma is timeless, such continual investigation and re-investigation is not required... nor the time commitment to doing and redoing it. Hence, why I think monastics with a penchant for "protesting social justice" should focus more on the Dhamma than worldly affairs, and hence my earlier question (now removed due to complaints about the presentation of evidence, pertinent to the application of the Avaṇṇāraha Sutta) about whether Ajahn Amaro still endorses Black Lives Matter, even now.

Metta,
Paul.

[Dan74]

Right.

When monastics, like Ajahn Amaro, who is very busy, say they support Black Lives Matter, I don't think we can assume that they are across all the public facts and details. Rather what they support, is the most public expression of that group, which is that it's high time that Black Americans were treated equally and with the same respect accorded to their white peers.

It doesn't seem realistic to me to interpret such support as meaning more than that. If there are indications of underhanded tactics by BLM, other aims than the ones they've been very public about or even some dishonesty and corruption, we can't interpret Ajahn Amaro's support as being in favour of that. Though we can of course argue that monastics should do the necessary scrutiny to be careful whom they endorse as you do above. I strongly suspect that the suttas you quoted refer to Dhammic matters - views and practices directly pertaining to the Dhamma and not worldly matters.

Expecting the monastics to do the careful investigation of the facts in these complex matters is expecting even more activist involvement from them. The way I take it is that they interpret the most public and uncontroversial facts and voice the view most in line with the Dhamma to the best of their ability.

[Mr Man]

When monastics, like Ajahn Amaro, who is very busy, say they support Black Lives Matter, I don't think we can assume that they are across all the public facts and details. Rather what they support, is the most public expression of that group, which is that it's high time that Black Americans were treated equally and with the same respect accorded to their white peers.

Yes

As far as I know Ajahn Amaro never expressed support for a group/organisation called "Black Lives Matter". To say that he did is, in my opinion dishonest.

Even if he did though, so be it,

I think it would be of benefit for those quoting sutta to follow the advice rather than trying yo use the advice to push one's own agenda and to attack others.