Hi Guys,
If I correctly understand the points David Loy was making this week, I believe he means that we need to combine modern, Western and Judeo-Christian concerns with social reform and charity with Buddhist emphasis on awakening and transcending the small self. One or the other may not be enough. Reforming social systems or institutions alone is not enough unless we get past the greed, anger and ignorance of the self. On the other hand, historically, Buddhism was very conservative with regard to social reform, having little choice given the politics of the rulers in the autocratic countries where it found itself in Asia. The monks had a tendency to lock themselves in their monasteries, writing off the suffering of the world as just the results of Karma.
Something like that.
He also seems to say (if I understand correctly) that Judeo-Christian-Muslim societies have been two black vs. white on "good vs. evil" "right vs. wrong" "friend vs. foe" and the like. Both Bush and Osama are trying to destroy the "evil society" and enemy which is the other. On the other hand, this same belief in "the good" inspired many social reformers in Biblical times and after. He also points to Greek influence on western beliefs that social systems are not fixed in nature and can be changed, leading to the concept of democracy.
Despite the general belief that our modern societies should not be unjust and oppressive, there remain so many problems of gross inequality, discrimination, poverty and oppression even in Western nations. Thus, he write, “Unless social reconstruction is accompanied by personal reconstruction, democracy merely empowers the ego-self. Insofar as I am still motivated by greed, ill will, and delusion, my freedom is likely to make things worse. So long as the illusion of a discrete self, separate from others, prevails, democracy simply provides different types of opportunities for individuals to take advantage of other individuals.” The result is that "democracy simply provides different types of opportunities for individuals to take advantage of other individuals."
I am not sure that I agree with him that the Precepts are just "training wheels" or that "someone who has awakened to the true nature of the world (including the true nature of oneself) no longer needs to follow an external moral code because he or she naturally wants to behave in a way that does not violate the spirit of the precepts." I am not sure that things are so simple. As I might say, I would probably try to drive safely and not endanger others when operating my car, but the fact that there are stop signs, white lines in the road and police with tickets sure helps that and keeps things moving smoothly. Loy points to the several "enlightened" Zen, Buddhist and other clergy who nonetheless engaged in some harmful behavior but, strangely, leaps right over the topic).
I do not know if Buddha and Dogen and the like would have been "social revolutionaries" if they had the chance. Some folks point out that monasteries are shaped like communes in which all have a place to sleep, food, labor as they can and are (theoretically) equal in opportunity. On the other hand, the outside society supports the monastery through agriculture and capitalism that raises donations to pay for the monastery. Buddha and Dogen had to deal with emperors and samurai would would not tolerate social dissent, so Buddhist institutions tended to be politically quiet or conservative, and supportive of the rulers. Perhaps now, in our modern age, is the first time in its history that Buddhism can truly be a vehicle for social change.
Anyway, what are your impressions on all this?
By the way, I think we are on track to finish this short book next time.
Gassho, J
SatToday
PS - Hoping to get David Loy here to lead a Zazenkai netcast at Treeleaf in the coming few weeks. I am talking with him now.
If I correctly understand the points David Loy was making this week, I believe he means that we need to combine modern, Western and Judeo-Christian concerns with social reform and charity with Buddhist emphasis on awakening and transcending the small self. One or the other may not be enough. Reforming social systems or institutions alone is not enough unless we get past the greed, anger and ignorance of the self. On the other hand, historically, Buddhism was very conservative with regard to social reform, having little choice given the politics of the rulers in the autocratic countries where it found itself in Asia. The monks had a tendency to lock themselves in their monasteries, writing off the suffering of the world as just the results of Karma.
Something like that.
He also seems to say (if I understand correctly) that Judeo-Christian-Muslim societies have been two black vs. white on "good vs. evil" "right vs. wrong" "friend vs. foe" and the like. Both Bush and Osama are trying to destroy the "evil society" and enemy which is the other. On the other hand, this same belief in "the good" inspired many social reformers in Biblical times and after. He also points to Greek influence on western beliefs that social systems are not fixed in nature and can be changed, leading to the concept of democracy.
Despite the general belief that our modern societies should not be unjust and oppressive, there remain so many problems of gross inequality, discrimination, poverty and oppression even in Western nations. Thus, he write, “Unless social reconstruction is accompanied by personal reconstruction, democracy merely empowers the ego-self. Insofar as I am still motivated by greed, ill will, and delusion, my freedom is likely to make things worse. So long as the illusion of a discrete self, separate from others, prevails, democracy simply provides different types of opportunities for individuals to take advantage of other individuals.” The result is that "democracy simply provides different types of opportunities for individuals to take advantage of other individuals."
I am not sure that I agree with him that the Precepts are just "training wheels" or that "someone who has awakened to the true nature of the world (including the true nature of oneself) no longer needs to follow an external moral code because he or she naturally wants to behave in a way that does not violate the spirit of the precepts." I am not sure that things are so simple. As I might say, I would probably try to drive safely and not endanger others when operating my car, but the fact that there are stop signs, white lines in the road and police with tickets sure helps that and keeps things moving smoothly. Loy points to the several "enlightened" Zen, Buddhist and other clergy who nonetheless engaged in some harmful behavior but, strangely, leaps right over the topic).
I do not know if Buddha and Dogen and the like would have been "social revolutionaries" if they had the chance. Some folks point out that monasteries are shaped like communes in which all have a place to sleep, food, labor as they can and are (theoretically) equal in opportunity. On the other hand, the outside society supports the monastery through agriculture and capitalism that raises donations to pay for the monastery. Buddha and Dogen had to deal with emperors and samurai would would not tolerate social dissent, so Buddhist institutions tended to be politically quiet or conservative, and supportive of the rulers. Perhaps now, in our modern age, is the first time in its history that Buddhism can truly be a vehicle for social change.
Anyway, what are your impressions on all this?
By the way, I think we are on track to finish this short book next time.
Gassho, J
SatToday
PS - Hoping to get David Loy here to lead a Zazenkai netcast at Treeleaf in the coming few weeks. I am talking with him now.
for positive poetry 優婆塞 台 婆
Comment