keep liberalism out of buddhism

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: keep liberalism out of buddhism

Post by DooDoot » Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:13 am

mikenz66 wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:59 am
"Cultural Marxist SJW" is just an identy created in the imagination of the reactionary right, in any case... :thinking:
Not really. As a mere example, if a say a certain woman may have spinal pains due to having large breasts, I may get accused by a cultural Marxist of 'misogyny' (despite my merely stating a fact). When SN 37.3 says there are five types of suffering particular to women, is SN 37.3 misogynist here?

Personally, I was challenging the view of the OP that women are forced by society into submissive roles (since I think both men & women can enslave themselves in submissive roles due to natural internal defilements). However, this view of the OP is certainly classic Cultural Marxism, i.e., the belief women are oppressed. This is what Marxism is; the doctrine of oppression & revolution against the perceived oppression.

Therefore, maybe I was wrong is saying the OP was not misogynist. Upon re-evaluation, the OP sounds misogynist because the OP believes women are oppressed but wants women to accept their oppression. I apologise MikeNZ66. I was wrong. :tongue:
Last edited by DooDoot on Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:25 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15851
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: keep liberalism out of buddhism

Post by mikenz66 » Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:23 am

Well, of course, people sometimes say dumb stuff. And of course there are gender differences. But in my experience this SJW labelling only comes up as a dismissive concept used in reactionary-right rhetoric...

Your milage may vary...

In any case I don't thing political rhetoric from any angle is a useful measure of the Dhamma.

:heart:
Mike

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: keep liberalism out of buddhism

Post by DooDoot » Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:28 am

mikenz66 wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:23 am
But in my experience this SJW labelling only comes up as a dismissive concept used in reactionary-right rhetoric...
I disagree. As soon as someone jumps out, with little rationale or discussion, accusing another of 'misogyny', 'racism' , 'antisemitism', 'Nazism', etc, that is generally the Cultural Marxist approach. For example, you were the only poster here to respond in that manner. The other posters who disagreed with the OP sought to engage in a discussion with the OP about the OP's views. Personally, the last thing I would accuse the poster of was 'misogyny' because I viewed the poster as sincere yet wrong. However, upon reflection, I can see how the post might look genuinely 'misogynist' although that was not my first impression.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15851
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: keep liberalism out of buddhism

Post by mikenz66 » Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:33 am

I didn't accuse the poster of mysogyny, I said it was a mysogynistic argument. Please pay attention.

You are, of coruse, welcome to argue with my conclusion (or about whether, in fact, I chose my words carefully enough) since I may have been mistaken, but trotting out rhetoric and stories about being abused in other contexts is not actually an argument.

:heart:
Mike

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: keep liberalism out of buddhism

Post by DooDoot » Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:42 am

Sure. But I rarely react in those ways because I generally view phenomena in terms of causes & conditions. I view women as generally 'needy', like feminist groupies that might cling to a certain monk. Thus women, due to their own needs, can become submissive. I also view men as generally needy, who might cling to women they believe they need. Thus men, due to their own needs, can become submissive. I view things about women that annoy men. I view things about men that annoy women. I'm not so much into labels like 'misogyny'. The ordinary world is interconnected, as the Buddha taught. Ordinary men need women; ordinary women need men. Thus, each must submit to each other in a wholesome way & recognise each other's needs.

Upeksha
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:23 am

Re: keep liberalism out of buddhism

Post by Upeksha » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:14 am

Just out of interest, when people here say 'keep liberalism out Buddhism,' what do they mean by 'liberalism?'

i.e. in America this term signifies a kind of progressive politics. But in political philosophy it signifies a tradition of thinking which has its roots in figures such as John Locke, Immanuel Kant and JS Mill + contemporary thinkers such as John Rawls and Isaiah Berlin.

There are many different strands of political liberalism, some of which are contradictory, but all tend to privilege two key principles: 1. private property rights. 2. maximum freedom for the individual from the state.

Is this what people here want 'out' of Buddhism? Or are they using the term loosely to signify something like 'progressive views I don't like.'

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 19580
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: keep liberalism out of buddhism

Post by retrofuturist » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:16 am

Greetings Upeksha,
Upeksha wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:14 am
Just out of interest, when people here say 'keep liberalism out Buddhism,' what do they mean by 'liberalism?'
I'm guessing they're really referring to the post-modern form of 'progressivism'.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

Upeksha
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:23 am

Re: keep liberalism out of buddhism

Post by Upeksha » Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:23 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:16 am
Greetings Upeksha,
Upeksha wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:14 am
Just out of interest, when people here say 'keep liberalism out Buddhism,' what do they mean by 'liberalism?'
I'm guessing they're really referring to the post-modern form of 'progressivism'.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Okay, well if the thread is to take shape in a meaningful way, it is best to get clear about all of this.

Post-modern thinkers tend to be highly critical of liberalism.

What is called 'cultural marxism' is not post-modern at all - this has its roots in 20th century German thinkers (Adorno, Marcuse, Fromm) influenced by Freud, Hegel and Marx.

I think people are pretty confused about all of this.

User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 665
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: keep liberalism out of buddhism

Post by dylanj » Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:45 am

mikenz66 wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:17 am
dylanj wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:35 pm
I asked for sutta suuport for a particular idea. Not tired rhetoric about sjws, which has no relevance to the question.

I'm waiting....
i already posted soma sutta which unequivocally teaches against any form of identity politics
Sorry, I don't understand how that sutta has anything to do with the Alt-right rhetoric of "Identity Politics", "SJWs", and other such labelling. Why bring in these non-Buddhist concepts into the conversation?
these aren't alt-right concepts. i used to be a communist. leftists use them too & they refer accurately to a specific phenomenon. anyway if they were it wouldn't invalidate them.

the sutta is clearly relevant, Mara is discriminating against Soma for being a woman & she more or less responds with a simple "I'm not a woman". That's not very feminist is it?
mikenz66 wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:17 am
Clearly the Path is about trancending identity. However, what you seem to be advocating here is what some Mahayana teachers (apologies for mentioning the Enemy) would call "emptiness sickness" - ignoring worldly conditions, and the necessary work needed to overcome them, in a futile attempt to jump directly to awakening.
where does the buddha say we need to fight politically against worldly conditions
hint: he does not, anywhere at all. & there's much i'm sure that'd suggest otherwise e.g. the 10fold wrong speech
mikenz66 wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:17 am
The Path, after all, involves right speech, action, livelihood.
yes & those all manifest as forms of abstinence, nothing proactive that would serve a political function.
mikenz66 wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:17 am
I thought you might bring up passages such as:
Even if low-down bandits were to sever you limb from limb, anyone who had a malevolent thought on that account would not be following my instructions. If that happens, you should train like this: ‘Our minds will remain unaffected. We will blurt out no bad words. We will remain full of compassion, with a heart of love and no secret hate. We will meditate spreading a heart of love to that person. And with them as a basis, we will meditate spreading a heart full of love to everyone in the world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.’ That’s how you should train.
https://suttacentral.net/mn21/en/sujato#sc23
great yes i will co-opt this & use it in favor of my argument.

mikenz66 wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:17 am
I would have two things to say about that:
1. That is a very advanced practice, though one that I've heard Tibetan monks talk about in relation to their attitude towards the Chinese invasion.
2. The Buddha did not forbid even monks from defending themselves physically, or admonishing others. However, as that, and other, Suttas indicate, one should not speak or act out of malice.

:heart:
Mike
it being advanced is 1) debatable & 2) no excuse whatsoever for transgressing it. to suggest otherwise is regrettable.

self-defense & admonishment are different & these are valid forms of acting against misogyngy & racism etc. on an interpersonal 1-on-1 level, when the opportunity arises & one has the chance to actually do something.

trying to solve these problems systemically on the other hand is foolish & a waste of one's efforts. it's like trying to remove all the suffering in the world without removing one's own.


:anjali:
susukhaṁ vata nibbānaṁ,
sammā­sambud­dha­desitaṁ;
asokaṁ virajaṁ khemaṁ,
yattha dukkhaṁ nirujjhatī


Oh! extinction is so very blissful,
As taught by the One Rightly Self-Awakened:
Sorrowless, stainless, secure;
Where suffering all ceases


etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭi nissaggo taṇhakkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṁ

This is peaceful, this is excellent, that is: the stilling of all preparations, the relinquishment of all attachments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, extinction.

User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 665
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: keep liberalism out of buddhism

Post by dylanj » Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:46 am

Upeksha wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:14 am
Just out of interest, when people here say 'keep liberalism out Buddhism,' what do they mean by 'liberalism?'

i.e. in America this term signifies a kind of progressive politics. But in political philosophy it signifies a tradition of thinking which has its roots in figures such as John Locke, Immanuel Kant and JS Mill + contemporary thinkers such as John Rawls and Isaiah Berlin.

There are many different strands of political liberalism, some of which are contradictory, but all tend to privilege two key principles: 1. private property rights. 2. maximum freedom for the individual from the state.

Is this what people here want 'out' of Buddhism? Or are they using the term loosely to signify something like 'progressive views I don't like.'
i mean identity politics & social justice - modern american liberalism. not classical economic liberalism altho i can complain about that too if u'd like :)
susukhaṁ vata nibbānaṁ,
sammā­sambud­dha­desitaṁ;
asokaṁ virajaṁ khemaṁ,
yattha dukkhaṁ nirujjhatī


Oh! extinction is so very blissful,
As taught by the One Rightly Self-Awakened:
Sorrowless, stainless, secure;
Where suffering all ceases


etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭi nissaggo taṇhakkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṁ

This is peaceful, this is excellent, that is: the stilling of all preparations, the relinquishment of all attachments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, extinction.

Upeksha
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:23 am

Re: keep liberalism out of buddhism

Post by Upeksha » Sat Mar 17, 2018 8:16 am

dylanj wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:46 am
Upeksha wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:14 am
Just out of interest, when people here say 'keep liberalism out Buddhism,' what do they mean by 'liberalism?'

i.e. in America this term signifies a kind of progressive politics. But in political philosophy it signifies a tradition of thinking which has its roots in figures such as John Locke, Immanuel Kant and JS Mill + contemporary thinkers such as John Rawls and Isaiah Berlin.

There are many different strands of political liberalism, some of which are contradictory, but all tend to privilege two key principles: 1. private property rights. 2. maximum freedom for the individual from the state.

Is this what people here want 'out' of Buddhism? Or are they using the term loosely to signify something like 'progressive views I don't like.'
i mean identity politics & social justice - modern american liberalism. not classical economic liberalism altho i can complain about that too if u'd like :)
I am sympathetic to the view that identity politics and Buddhadhamma are contradictory. But this cuts both ways - i.e. left and right. Often people on the right wager deep critiques of identity politics whilst failing to realise that they are deeply invested in particular forms of identity politics.

As for social justice - well, this is a more vexing question. I think it depends upon which specific issue, and what kinds of moral-poitical arguments are made in support of them. Which ones are you rallying against? And why? And how much of your reasoning is shaped by Buddhism?

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15851
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: keep liberalism out of buddhism

Post by mikenz66 » Sat Mar 17, 2018 8:31 am

dylanj wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:45 am
..
self-defense & admonishment are different & these are valid forms of acting against misogyngy & racism etc. on an interpersonal 1-on-1 level, when the opportunity arises & one has the chance to actually do something.

trying to solve these problems systemically on the other hand is foolish & a waste of one's efforts. it's like trying to remove all the suffering in the world without removing one's own.
Thank you for presenting some thoughtful opinions.

One question I would ask is where you think "interpersonal" stops and "systematic" begins. I have a responsibility to deal with such issues at an organisational level, and I see that as part of my "right speech, action, livelihood". And I have seen some gratifying changes over the past few decades, in my country, and my organisation.

:heart:
Mike

User avatar
binocular
Posts: 5362
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: keep liberalism out of buddhism

Post by binocular » Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:00 pm

dylanj wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 9:57 pm
binocular wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 9:50 pm
dylanj wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 9:46 pm
my view here is: dhamma practice is the best way to deal with the suffering of oppression, & it's impossibly to fully remove oppression in all forms from the world

that's it.
Since nobody [edit: in this discussion] disagrees with this stance of yours, it's not clear what the problem is.
yes it's not clear to me either. i think my wording pissed people off & triggered their social justice defense-mechanisms so they freaked out & assumed things I didn't say
You did not state your stance (underlined) this way in the beginning.
In your OP, you said:
dylanj wrote:
Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:00 am
the suffering of women would be more alleviated by them accepting that society forces them into a submissive role by & large as opposed to trying to change the whole darn world
Which I questioned, and asked you
binocular wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:59 am
It's not clear how my suffering as a woman would be alleviated if I would "accept that society forces me into a submissive role".
Can you explain?
Which you didn't explain, but just stated
dylanj wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 7:06 pm
well given that you don't already accept it, of course; in such a case accepting it would relieve you of the pain of feeling oppressed
Since you're not an oracle, and I don't believe in divination, I expect some explanations, with canonical support.

User avatar
binocular
Posts: 5362
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: keep liberalism out of buddhism

Post by binocular » Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:51 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 8:31 am
One question I would ask is where you think "interpersonal" stops and "systematic" begins.
I think people tend to refer to notions of "society" (or "system") when they have some use for doing so. This use can be of two kinds: 1. to abolish or deny personal responsibility ("It's society's / the system's fault /responsibility, not mine"), and 2. to get personal gain ("Society / the system says that this is so, therefore, you should obey what I say and be like I want you to be, because it's not really I who wants that from you, but society / the system").

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 11587
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: keep liberalism out of buddhism

Post by DNS » Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:56 pm

Fighting oppression or what the alt-right would call the SJWs can be found somewhat in Buddhism; known as engaged Buddhism. Some of the points they make to justify their actions include the Buddha's teachings on generosity and compassion. There is a jataka tale or Commentary passage of the Buddha going to the battlefield to stop a war. So there can be some doctrinal support for their position.

The other side, opposing actions to change the system point out the passive teachings of the Buddha and the generally non-political teachings of the Buddha where focus is supposed to be on your own mind and your own path.

I take a middle-way position. :tongue: One should certainly focus on one's own path, but there is nothing wrong with trying to improve conditions for yourself and others and there is a Sutta where the Buddha states the best practice is focusing on your own welfare and those of others. There may not be any requirement to do so, but I believe if a person wants to, he/she can try to change the system all the while still focusing on the internal Buddhist practice too.

And if practicing the Buddhist path is one's goal there may be some obstacles preventing that which require some changes in external conditions, for example, one who is denied basic health care, schooling, access to Dhamma books and instruction, or even basic necessities due to living in a war-torn zone, discrimination, etc.

User avatar
Wizard in the Forest
Posts: 556
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:16 am
Location: House in Forest of Illusions

Re: keep liberalism out of buddhism

Post by Wizard in the Forest » Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:55 am

Egad, I never thought I'd feel almost compelled to step in on what appears to be a discussion I'm not meant to be a part of, but as a person who actually is Hispanic, American, and a woman; let me drop my two cents here.

I am aware of how the world is.

That doesn't mean I should simply surrender my well-being to the vicissitudes of life. The Bhikkhunis often spoke of in utterances and verse of how their gender did not matter when it came to enlightenment, which is what Mara attempted to instill. Mara being a master of delusion.

Gender does not matter in practice.

Now to the real issue here.

It is loathsome to suggest that anyone should just endure the status quo of any existing system simply for being hard to change, and having the notion that any person is "too rooted in suffering" to act for the betterment of their social situation.

It is an enemy of practice to suspend compassion for anyone or to subject another to a demeaning system. Any attempt to justify this and invoke the support of these systems in favor of inaction is often motivated by laziness and apathy rather than patience, because the fact is these systems don't apply to you. You're not advocating patience or forbearance.

You're advocating for the problem.

Your support of these systems and advocacy for them is an active attempt to enforce it on others.

Ideally everyone should be engaged in their own happiness and transcend that of what is in their own mind, because as was stated before, the best kind of engagement is to alleviate one's own suffering along with others. That would mean actually engaging in the community and attempt to eliminate the suffering of everyone by taking a wider all-encompassing view.

The Buddha's ideals were for his time revolutionary, and he spat in the face of the identity politics of the day, but it's because he erased all attempts to enforce identity on others. Men and women became Arahants in his dispensation. There was no concern for caste or race.

And let's face it: it seems to me that you're more concerned with enforcing identity than the 'liberals' because what you want is for women and others to accept their lot when you have no stake in it. Observe your behavior, thoughts, and emotions and weigh in your mind if the reason you are trying to tell others how to be has more to do with your attempt to control others or if it is motivated by good will.
"One is not born a woman, but becomes one."- Simone de Beauvoir

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15851
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: keep liberalism out of buddhism

Post by mikenz66 » Sun Mar 18, 2018 1:07 am

Hi Wizard in the Forest,
Wizard in the Forest wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:55 am
Egad, I never thought I'd feel almost compelled to step in on what appears to be a discussion I'm not meant to be a part of, but as a person who actually is Hispanic, American, and a woman; let me drop my two cents here.
...
I'm pleased you dropped in your two cents. Thank you!

:heart:
Mike

User avatar
binocular
Posts: 5362
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: keep liberalism out of buddhism

Post by binocular » Sun Mar 18, 2018 11:38 am

Wizard in the Forest wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:55 am
/.../
You're advocating for the problem.

Your support of these systems and advocacy for them is an active attempt to enforce it on others.
/.../
And let's face it: it seems to me that you're more concerned with enforcing identity than the 'liberals' because what you want is for women and others to accept their lot when you have no stake in it. Observe your behavior, thoughts, and emotions and weigh in your mind if the reason you are trying to tell others how to be has more to do with your attempt to control others or if it is motivated by good will.
He said earlier in this thread:
dylanj wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 7:50 pm
how in the world is it misogynist or racist to suggest that people accept their misfortunes? i'm not saying the unfortunate circumstances faced by women or racial minorities are in any way good, they are not, it sucks & I am sympathetic to them...I'm saying that the solution is not a movement of social resistance that aims to change the whole world but instead an internal realignment of perspective.

If we want to play the social justice game we can - I am homosexual, I think the same thing applies to homophobia. Am I homophobic?
So this seems to imply a stance like, "If I, a homosexual, can accept my (unfortunate) lot in life, so can and should others, in this case women and minorities." Or, more generally, "If I can accept my (unfortunate) lot in life, so can and should others."

I think this is a stance that can often enough be found in people. It also seems a stance that someone who reads a lot of suttas would develop or in whom such a stance would strengthen from reading the suttas.

E.g.
Thoroughly understanding the Dhamma
and freed from longing through insight,
the wise one rid of all desire
is calm as a pool unstirred by wind.

Itivuttaka 3.92
Translated into crude worldy terms: 'Be okay with your lot in life.'

User avatar
Wizard in the Forest
Posts: 556
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:16 am
Location: House in Forest of Illusions

Re: keep liberalism out of buddhism

Post by Wizard in the Forest » Sun Mar 18, 2018 12:43 pm

And I'm saying that 'Equanimity is not Apathy'. They're enemies of each other. Another view that is well known by someone who is deep in suttas. If you forget the altruistic mindset of kindness and compassion then this is apathy.
Equanimity involves non-interference with the natural flow of subjective sensation. Apathy implies indifference to the controllable outcome of objective events. Thus, although seemingly similar, equanimity and apathy are actually opposites. Equanimity frees up internal energy for responding to external situations. By definition, equanimity involves radical permission to feel and as such is the opposite of suppression. As far as external expression of feeling is concerned, internal equanimity gives one the freedom to externally express or not, depending on what is appropriate to the situation.


--Shinzen Young, from "What is Equanimity"

to make that clearer.
"One is not born a woman, but becomes one."- Simone de Beauvoir

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 11587
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: keep liberalism out of buddhism

Post by DNS » Sun Mar 18, 2018 3:58 pm

binocular wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2018 11:38 am
I think this is a stance that can often enough be found in people. It also seems a stance that someone who reads a lot of suttas would develop or in whom such a stance would strengthen from reading the suttas.

E.g.
Thoroughly understanding the Dhamma
and freed from longing through insight,
the wise one rid of all desire
is calm as a pool unstirred by wind.

Itivuttaka 3.92
Translated into crude worldy terms: 'Be okay with your lot in life.'
To me that seems to say through insight one rids oneself of desires . . . . "as a pool unstirred by wind."

It doesn't seem to address the SJW fighting oppression issue. As I said, I think it depends on which passage you look for. A better passage perhaps is this one for accepting your lot in life:
3. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
Dhammapada 3
And then for the compassion side, taking some action:
Now at that time a certain monk was suffering from dysentery and lay where he had fallen in his own excrement. The Buddha and Ananda were visiting the lodgings and they came to where the sick monk lay and the Buddha asked him, ‘Monk, what is wrong with you.’ ‘I have dysentery, Blessed One.’ ‘Is there no one to look after you?’
‘No, Blessed One.’
‘Then why is it that the other monks do not look after you?’
‘It is because I am of no use to them, Blessed One.’
Then the Buddha said to Ananda, ‘Go and fetch water so we can wash this monk.’ So Ananda brought water and the Buddha poured it out while Ananda washed the monk all over. Then taking the monk by the head and feet the Buddha and Ananda together carried him and laid him on a bed. Later, the Buddha called the monks together and asked them, ‘Why monks, did you not look after that sick monk?’
‘Because he was of no use to us, Blessed One’
‘Monks, you have no mother or father to look after you. If you do not look after each other who will? He who would nurse me, let him nurse the sick’ (Yo bhikkhave mam upatthaheyya so gilamam upatthaheyya, Vin. I. 301).

Mahavagga 8.26.1-8

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests