Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sex
Buddhism is extraordinarily anti-sexual. Rejection
of sex is the first and most important aspect of its
central principle, renunciation. Buddhism
recommends complete celibacy for lay people as
well as monastics. Actual Buddhist practice is
completely incompatible with any sexual activity,
and even with the slightest twinge of desire.3
For lay people who insist on having sex anyway,
Buddhism has long lists of rules prohibiting most
sexual acts. If you follow the rules, you’ll probably
be reborn as a pig, but at least you’ll avoid hell.
Details depend on the tradition, but commonly
verboten are solo and partner masturbation, oral and
anal sex, sex between men, sex during daytime, and
sex with a woman who is pregnant or nursing.
Abortion is murder, and sends you straight to hell.
On the other hand, polygamy is taken for granted,
and married men having sex with prostitutes is
explicitly OK according to some (not all) major
traditions.4 Overall, and in other respects too,
Buddhist morality is patriarchal, sexist, and cis-
sexist.5
José Cabezón’s “Rethinking Buddhism and Sex”
was one of my inspirations for writing this blog
series about Buddhist ethics. He notes that these
facts come as an unwelcome surprise to many
Western Buddhists. A typical first reaction is denial:
“That isn’t what Buddhism says—it wouldn’t be
compassionate—Buddhist ethics says that all sexual
acts are fine between adults in a loving relationship.”
When confronted with authoritative texts, they may
switch to “That is a later overlay from a conservative
culture, not the radical true original Buddhism”; then
eventually “well, I guess Buddha got that minor
point wrong, so we’ve fixed it.” This reflects a total
failure to understand the essential role of
renunciation in Buddhist practice.
I have often asked myself why my co-religionists are
so willing, and indeed keen, to adopt the minute
meditation instructions of the classical masters, and
so quick to slough off the advice of these same
masters when it comes to matters of sex.
Be that as it may, I have come to see a fundamental
disconnect between what the classical Buddhist
tradition has to say about sexuality and what
Western Buddhists believe about the subject. I
realized that much of the background and many of
the ideas I was taking for granted were either
unknown to my audience or were summarily
rejected as “un-Buddhist.”
Cabezón argues that we should
1. know, understand, and reflect on what Buddhism
actually says about sex
2. analyze it using Western ethical principles of
rationality, justice, and equality—all concepts
which are unknown in traditional Buddhist
morality
3. reject Buddhist sexual morality on that basis.
Gender equality
Peter Harvey’s Introduction to Buddhist Ethics
devotes an entire chapter, 56 pages long, to “Sexual
Equality.” This simply does not exist in Buddhism.
Harvey really, really wants it to exist, but in the end
he doesn’t say it does, because it doesn’t. Most of
the chapter shows instead that women are inferior
according to virtually all Buddhist texts and cultural
traditions. On the positive side, he points out that:
1. Women were better off under Buddhism than
some other religions [true, but that does not
make them equal to men]
2. Women could become nuns, so they were not
excluded from religious practice [but nuns are
explicitly inferior to monks, according to vinaya
and in cultural practice]
3. Some scriptures say the best female Buddhists
are better than some male Buddhists [not a
statement of equality of the sexes]
4. Various women attained enlightenment,
according to scriptures [but in each case this is
described as peculiar, and in most cases as
incomplete]
5. It’s partly the fault of other, patriarchal religions
being mixed in [irrelevant because the
“original, pure” Buddhism did not teach
equality]
The best case for gender equality in Buddhism may
be in some “mother lineage” tantras, which say that
women have greater potential for certain religious
practices. As far as we know, this never translated
into social equality. However, women were closer to
equality in Tibet than perhaps any other pre-modern
civilization, and this may have been due to tantric
influence.
Human rights
Buddhist societies had codes of laws in which
particular categories of people had particular rights.
However, there was no idea of human rights—ones
all humans have, simply for being human.
Human rights is a Western concept that was
unknown in Asia until modern times, and to make
this relevant to Buddhism it appears that some
intellectual bridgework needs to be put into place.
However, it is far from clear how this is to be done.
(Keown, p. 222.)
In other words, can we invent some theory of human
rights that connects with Buddhism in some way?
Western theories of human rights claim to ground
them in “human dignity” (although no one has a
coherent explanation of what that means). However,
as Keown notes (p. 223), “the very words ‘human
dignity’ sound as alien in a Buddhist context as talk
of rights.”
A popular contemporary “Buddhist ethics” approach
is to try to ground human rights in compassion.
Keown analyzes this at some length, pointing out
that this fails for the same reasons compassion fails
as a basis for any ethics. (I’ve explained some of
those earlier, and will go into further detail in later
posts.)
Keown suggests that it may be possible to argue that
a notion of human dignity appears in embryonic
form in the tathagatagarbha doctrine, which might be
brought to term as an infant Buddhist justification
for justice, rights, and equality. He admits that this is
handwavey. I find it unlikely, and in any case I think
the tathagatagarbha theory is itself incoherent and
absurd.
He concludes (p. 225):
Leading Buddhists, meanwhile, continue to use
human rights language on a daily basis, although I
think many would find it a challenge to provide a
convincing justification in terms of Buddhist
doctrine.
Slavery
The most fundamental human right is to not be
enslaved.6
• Slavery is explicitly approved in many Buddhist
scriptures.
• “There is almost no indication in any premodern
Buddhist source, scriptural or documentary, of
opposition to, or reluctance to participate in,
institutions of slavery.”7
• According to scripture, the Buddha himself
(after enlightenment) accepted slaves as gifts to
the sangha, and he did not free them.
• Slavery was normal in most or all Buddhist
cultures, throughout pre-modern history.
• In most or all Buddhist cultures, monasteries
routinely owned slaves.
• In some Buddhist cultures, individual monks
routinely owned slaves.8
• In some Buddhist cultures, most so-called
“monks” were actually slaves themselves.
Really, that’s all you need to know. If you want
more, there are good short summaries in the
Encyclopedia of Buddhism; the articles “Buddhism”
and “Asian/Buddhist monastic slavery” in the
Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery; and
Michael Jerryson’s “Buddhism and Antislavery.”
There is a longer discussion in the chapter “The
Monastic Ownership of Servants or Slaves” in
Gregory Schopen’s Buddhist Monks and Business
Matters. Beyond that, you can find details with
Google.
Not surprisingly, many modern Buddhists want to
deny the facts. When that fails, they want to find
excuses. This prevarication deserves contempt.
Discussion of slavery in Buddhism is made
complicated by arguments about definitions. Various
words in the languages of Buddhism correspond to
“slave,” but are also sometimes translated “servant”
or “serf.” The precise legal status of these people
varied, is often unclear from the texts, and was
usually not exactly the same as that of any category
in Europe. There is also no clear modern legal
definition of slavery. There are gray areas, and it is
surprisingly difficult to draw a line between slavery
and employment. The term is also contested because
some people want to expand “slavery” to include
other things they don’t like (e.g. voluntary
prostitution, or even most employment, as “wage
slavery“). Some other people want to exclude from
the definition things they do themselves (e.g. forcing
people into unpaid labor, but without de jure sale
rights for the de facto slave-owner).
Each of the contested Buddhist categories involves
lifetime involuntary labor, for the economic benefit
of, and under the command of, another person. This
would be illegal in all modern countries. “Servant”
implies voluntary employment for a limited term, so
I believe “slave” is the correct translation.
There are passages in the Pali Canon in which the
Buddha forbids individual monks from accepting
gifts of slaves or other livestock. In discussions of
right livelihood, the Buddha forbids the buying and
selling of slaves among other livestock. These are
cited by people who want to believe that Buddhism
prohibits slavery.
There are, however, also scriptural passages in
which the Buddha says monasteries (as institutions)
must accept gifts of slaves (among other livestock).9
And, there are no prohibitions on laypeople owning
slaves, only on trading them. (Giving them as gifts is
explicitly OK, too.) And finally, any limit on trade in
humans that treats them identically with cattle is
hardly a stirring endorsement of human dignity.
Slavery in Tibet has received special attention due to
a propaganda war between the Chinese government
(and its Western sympathizers) and the Tibetan
government-in-exile (and its Western sympathizers).
Most Tibetans were slaves according to any
reasonable definition. Chinese government
propaganda uses that to try to legitimize their
invasion of Tibet as a “liberation.”10 From the other
side, we behold the bizarre spectacle of liberal
American Buddhist intellectuals defending Tibetan
slavery:
• They weren’t really slaves, because their legal
status wasn’t exactly the same as black slaves in
America; most of them had some rights.
• If they didn’t like being slaves, they surely could
have just run away, so either they weren’t really
slaves, or else they liked it, so it was OK.
• It wouldn’t have been in the slave owners’
economic interest to mistreat their slaves,
therefore they didn’t, so slavery was OK.
• Some Tibetan slaves were much better off than
others, almost as rich as free people, which
proves it wasn’t slavery.
• Slavery in other countries was worse, so
Buddhism is a highly ethical religion.
• They were all happy and singing as they worked
the fields because they had Buddhism.
In Tibet, the majority were serfs, which means
agricultural slaves.11 The argument that they were
“not really slaves” is that they could not be sold
individually, but only along with a plot of land.
(Apparently that’s much more moral.)
In addition, there were many non-resellable house-
slaves,12 and some freely-sellable slaves. Most so-
called “monks” were also slaves who did no
religious practice, but were forced into unpaid
agricultural, menial, and manufacturing work for the
benefit of the owners of the monastery. (Lay people
could own monasteries and run them for personal
profit.)
War
Early Buddhist texts condemn all violence.
However, nearly everyone nowadays would agree
that it is right to use violence to stop a political
extremist in the act of shooting dozens of children in
a school. It would be ethically wrong to stand
around saying “violence is bad, so unfortunately we
can’t do anything.” Mahayana Buddhism came to
recognize this principle. (I wrote about this in detail
in “Buddhists who kill.”)
By extension, most people now agree that fighting a
defensive war to protect civilians from slaughter is
ethically justifiable; and may consider it ethically
necessary. (The Rwanda and Bosnia massacres
changed many minds about this.) Some Buddhist
texts agree.
In practice, Buddhist authorities have
enthusiastically supported many wars, including
purely aggressive land-grabs, throughout history.
They have used specifically Buddhist moral
arguments to justify these. Large monasteries
maintained standing armies, and sometimes went to
war with each other, secular powers, or foreigners.
Monks have routinely exerted political pressure on
secular authorities to go to war.13 This continues to
the present. Notable recent examples include support
by Buddhist religious leaders for twentieth-century
Japanese aggression against China and America, the
near-genocidal Sri Lankan war against its Hindu
minority, and the current violent, escalating Burmese
repression of its Muslim minority.
It is easy to say that Buddhist arguments in favor of
offensive wars twist the Dharma; and that is
probably true. However, Keown points out, the
problem is that there is no coherent explanation in
Buddhism for which sorts of wars are moral and
which are immoral. Western ethics developed “just
war theory,” which explains what sorts of wars are
OK, and why. Nothing like that exists in Buddhism.
14
Related
"Buddhist ethics" is a fraud
“Buddhist ethics” is neither Buddhist nor ethics.
“Buddhist ethics” is a fraud: a fabrication created to
deceive, passed off as something valuable that it is
not, for the benefit of its creators and promoters.
“Buddhist ethics” is actually a collection of self-
aggrandizing strategies for gaining social status
within the left…
In "Consensus Buddhism"
How Asian Buddhism imported Western ethics
Modern "Buddhist ethics" is indistinguishable from
current secular ethics and has nothing to do with
traditional Buddhist morality. So, where did it come
from, and why? The short answer is that Buddhist
modernizers simply replaced traditional Buddhist
morality with whatever was the most prestigious
Western ethical system at the time.…
In "Consensus Buddhism"
Traditional Buddhism has no ethical system
On this page and the next, I will argue that
traditional Buddhism has no ethical value for liberal,
educated Westerners. There is no "ancient wisdom
of the Buddha" to draw on when constructing a
modern Buddhist ethics. That is why modern
"Buddhist ethics" has nothing in common with the
tradition.…
In "Consensus Buddhism"
3. nannus says:
September 27, 2015 at 3:52 am
5. Pobop says:
September 28, 2015 at 3:49 am
6. fripsidelover9110 says:
September 30, 2015 at 6:24 am
“commonly verboten are solo and partner
masturbation, oral and anal sex, sex between
men, sex during daytime, and sex with a woman
who is pregnant or nursing. Abortion is murder,
and sends you straight to hell. On the other hand,
polygamy is taken for granted, and”
commonly? Are you talking about precepts for
Buddhist monks? probably not since you say
“polygamy is taken for granted.” (unless you are
mixing up the two – precepts for monks and for
lay Buddhist)
Assuming that you are talking about traditional
Asian Buddhism and its precepts for lay
Buddhists, your claim is dubious. I’m
reasonably well versed with South Korean
Buddhist tradition and Buddhism in general
(because I’m a South Korean, and often read
Buddhist literature including modern scholarly
ones), but as far as I know, traditional Korean
Buddhism has not been concerned about specific
code of sex for lay Buddhists. Buddhist monks
may say from time to time “keeping precepts
matters, so no sexual misconduct please- usually
understood as No Extramarital Sex”, but that’s
nearly all. Neither monks nor lay Buddhists talk
about masturbation, oral, anal sex, sex between
men, sex during daytime and sex with a woman
who is pregnant.
Furthermore, many of east Asian Buddhist
countries (Taiwan, China, Vietnam, Japan)
would not be so different from Korea, when it
comes to traditional Buddhist code of Sex for
lay Buddhists.
I’m very curious where you got the idea that
traditional Asian Buddhism ‘commonly’ have
been concerned about details of sexual conduct
of lay Buddhists.
“married men having sex with prostitutes is
explicitly OK according to some (not all) major
traditions”
Which major traditions do you mean?
22. A says:
December 16, 2015 at 5:14 pm
A few points;
Emphasizing compassion doesn’t seem to me
like an absence of an ethical system, it seems
like a specific kind of ethics, what (I think) is
called virtue ethics. Virtue ethics might not be
very good for designing systems which are fair
or have good outcomes (like say, non slave
owning societies), but that’s not really the point.
There is an important respect in which both
Buddhism and Jainism were ethical revolutions
in their time, which was the rejection of animal
sacrifice, a strong critique of the prevailing
Brahmin religion. As far as I can tell, early
Buddhism in India advocated animal welfare
and vegetarianism which is an area in which
modern, western societies are remarkably
deficient, although there are ethicists trying to
rectify this within the Christian and
enlightenment traditions.
Also, though not true for all Buddhisms, there
were concepts of ‘just war’ and dharmic
kingship. A good place to start might be Iain
Sinclair’s “War Magic and ‘Just War’ in Tantric
Buddhism”.
If you said that Buddhism’s ethics are nasty,
irrational, and hard to swallow for someone
versed in the modern enlightenment tradition,
and that using Buddhist ethics to prop up feel
good, secular progressivism is an ahistorical
fantasy, I agree. But keep in mind that the
Bible’s endorsement of slavery didn’t prevent
many fervent Protestants from working actively
and in some cases being martyred to attain its
abolition.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.
061.than.html deals with morality and http://
www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.
008.nypo.html deals with effacement – there is
not much need to say more than that – morality,
is just the first part, the simplest part, of the
Buddhist path:
“7. It is, bhikkhus, only to trifling and
insignificant matters, to the minor details of
mere moral virtue, that a worldling would refer
when speaking in praise of the Tathāgata. And
what are those trifling and insignificant matters,
those minor details of mere moral virtue, to
which he would refer?
‘Having abandoned the destruction of life, the
recluse Gotama abstains from the destruction of
life. He has laid aside the rod and the sword, and
dwells conscientious, full of kindness,
compassionate for the welfare of all living
beings.’ It is in this way, bhikkhus, that the
worldling would speak when speaking in praise
of the Tathāgata…..” (http://
www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.
01.0.bodh.html)
Why is morality and ethics ‘trifling’? Because
for the most part, the Golden rule will see you
through, as in the first link. In truth, a
combination of the information imperfect
Platinum rule ‘do not do unto others that, which
you think/feel/believe they would not want to be
done unto them.. worst case, ask’, as standard
practice and the information perfect Golden rule
(self referential) as a lowest limit for action, will
do just fine.
Morality, within Buddhist, is well defined. The
Buddha considered the moral nexus to lie at the
point of intention (http://
www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/
sacca4/samma-sankappo/index.html). To be
within ‘right intention’, one cannot act with ill
will or an intention of causing harm, either
through thought, speech or action. Kamma,
within Buddhism, is solely the accrual of
intentional thoughts, speech and actions – if
your intentional actions have generally been
negative towards yourself or others, then you
have ‘bad Kamma’. It’s coming back to you is
not a cosmic thing – not an external entity to
punish you, but dependent on your behavior –
based on the fact you yourself initiated the
process through wrong intention (kill someone
intentionally, and you will likely have someone
dislike you).
Bikkhu Vibhanga rule 3: ‘If a monk
intentionally kills a human being or seeks an
instrument of death for him or praises death or
incites someone to die, saying, “Good man,
what’s the point of this wretched and difficult
life? Death is better for you than life!”—
thinking and intending thus, if he praises death
in various ways or incites someone to die— he
too is expelled and not in communion.’ https://
suttacentral.net/en/pi-tv-bu-vb-pj3 .. I have
never seen a clearer rule than this.
That Buddhists pick up weapons and kill, sure..
human rights have been used as excuses for
interventions around the world too, killing
millions (my conspiracy theory is that in a post
colonial world, the powers need a tool to have
control of the world, and human rights sadly fits
the bill).
That Buddhist societies these days can be just as
sexist as the West is more of a sign of the
underlying conditions between the sexes – 3000
years (Helen of Troy was a landowner, that may
have been the time of the end of substantial
female power in the West) of male dominance
does not die out in a day, especially when men
can still hold physical strength over women.
Look at Hyenas – the females are larger, so they
are aggressive and violent, while the males are
subservient. For a rational mind, there is no
reason to embrace such evolutionary hierarchy
as anything objectively important. But again –
5000 years of cultural history doesn’t change in
a night. Even 70 years of communism for a
fraction of the world’s population meant Yeltzin
had to give the presidency to Putin in ’99 for
fear of a communist rebirth.
The rules for men and women in the vinaya are
different, but then men don’t have boobs, nor do
they menstruate. That is a shallow way to make
a point, but I’m only saying that aspects of
experience for men and women can be different.
in 400BC, when the Buddha set up the first
female monastic order, the world was different.
Take rape: 7% of men are rapists now (100k
females and 10k males in UK every year are
estimated to be raped)..15-30% say they would
rape if they knew they would not get caught.
Imagine a world where the dead are abandoned
at the side of a road, not even buried and a
population density of near 0 and no CCTV. Now
place into that situation a bhikkhuni who has
renounced the world (and all violence). Simply
put, you can’t make rules for the rapist (can’t
stop him at the time of event, won’t find him
later). You must make rules for the potential
victim, by engineering a way for them to avoid
such situations. Only going for alms during
daylight hours is good, not getting too close to
the opposite sex is good. https://suttacentral.net/
en/pi-tv-bi-vb-ss5 for a random rule. Notice the
backstory and reasoning. Establishing that the
bhikkhuni rule-sets were ‘unfair’ to them
relative to the men’s does not take into account
the huge gap in time that separates our society
from theirs. It does not take into account that
theirs was the first order, and societies don’t deal
with such massive change well, even now. All
the rules have a backstory and reasoning for
them too (as in the link to rule 3), so a more
subtle analysis would be requested.
The 8 Garudhammas are unfair as we look at
them now, that much I agree with. But again,
horses for courses, and 500BC is not 2017..
Now! So are the rules outdated to some degree?
Of course! Modern Buddhism doesn’t do
Anapanasati much, nor is it an ermetic,
‘wandering forest monk’ practice, as was in
those days. The Buddha did allow for changes to
minor rules before his parinibbana, but sadly no
one agrees on what they are! (interestingly, a
problem faced by Sunni Islam to some degree,
as ijtihad is out of fashion!)
Sex is simply seen as a villagers act for those
that have renounced the householder’s life. For
the ascetic, it fits in with the whole philosophy
of distancing oneself from attachment, aversion
and ignorance. For the layperson, sex is not
banned, only ‘sexual misconduct’ is. The
discrepancy is reasonable: a renunciate’s aim
(from the Dhamma) is nibbana, the cessation of
mental fermentations, and sex makes the mind
run fast. The layperson’s aim from the Dhamma
is a good life in the here and now (and a good
life on rebirth, one of the heavens or whatnot).
There being different goals between the ascetic
and the layperson, the path can have some
differences.
“Or he might say: ‘Whereas some recluses and
brahmins, while living on the food offered by
the faithful, engage in frivolous chatter, such as:
talk about kings, thieves, and ministers of state;
talk about armies, dangers and wars; talk about
food, drink, garments, and lodgings; talk about
garlands and scents; talk about relatives,
vehicles, villages, towns, cities, and countries;
talk about women and talk about heroes; street
talk and talk by the well; talk about those
departed in days gone by; rambling chit-chat;
speculations about the world and about the sea;
talk about gain and loss — the recluse Gotama
abstains from such frivolous chatter.”
‘I only teach suffering and the end of suffering’,
as the Buddha says. Castes, slaves etc are of no
concern to the path.
Once a person decides to be a bhikkhu or
bhikkhuni, their social status is no longer of any
concern. The path is an individual path, because
there is an acknowledgment that one always has
the power to change themselves, but rarely the
power to change others.. ‘trying to control the
world, I see you won’t succeed’ for a Lao Tzu
take on it!
It is an error to look at the message and the
people following the message and Essentially
link the two – there is a correlation, but it is
never 100% (at least not within our stochastic
experience). To say ‘Buddhist kill therefore the
Buddhist morality is flawed’ is cool, but to say
‘Buddhist kill therefore the Buddha’s morality is
flawed’ is not inherently accurate. The west for
the last 70 (300?) years has had a wonderful
hypothetical morality, as defined within
philosophical writings and later the first
generation human rights (and some second
generation too). But look at us – we continue to
rape Africa for $$, bomb anyone with oil, to
‘spread democracy’, and bomb everyone else
who we generally don’t like. We sanction whole
populations (cut off the free market to them),
and expect them to like us (South Korea’s policy
at the moment is ‘sanctions and discussions’ –
you what?!? reminds me of an even stronger
than strong interpretation of 4:34 within the
Quran – ‘I beat you and you will talk to me’).
Now you say ‘not in my name’, and sure, it is
not (representative democracy guarantees a right
to shout, but not to be heard or listened to). But
the Buddha would have said the same thing –
‘not in the name of the Dhamma, not in the
name of the Buddha, not in the name of the
Sangha’.
Anyways, as your title says – ‘Buddhist’
morality is medieval. But the Dhamma as
expounded by the Buddha – not his followers –
is not. In fact, it is only in 1996 that Rovelli did
the same for our modern western thought with
the anatta that relational QM brings about
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Relational_quantum_mechanics), as the Buddha
did for thought 2500 years ago. I this sense, the
modern world is only just arriving at the three
marks of existence and the First Noble Truth.
3. jayarava says:
September 28, 2015 at 5:20 am
Hi David,
As usual a couple of comments. Buddhism was
popular in Europe in the 1890s as well
(alongside interest in the Upaniṣads). Edwin
Arnold’s poem The Light of Aisa was a best
seller.
You say “Traditional Buddhist morality goes no
further than stage 3, which aims only at
communal harmony, not justice.” I’m not sure I
agree with this. Buddhists certainly had a
conception of a “just world” and the idea goes
back a long way in India. Karma is the
instrument of creating a just world, and like
other religious systems relies on an afterlife to
enact justice. And Buddhists clearly sought to
retain and maintain karma & rebirth as they
tinkered with doctrines over the centuries. For
example in trying to fix the disconnect between
karma and pratītyasamutpāda, the Buddhists
tinkered with pratītyasamutpāda and largely left
karma alone. I attribute this to a commitment to
the myth of a just world.
Is it delaying justice until the afterlife that makes
you argue that traditional Buddhism did not aim
at justice? Or does the theory of karma not
qualify for some other reason?
It might be worth mentioning that TW and CAF
Rhys Davids founded the PTS and were the first
and second presidents. In fact German scholars
had begun working in/on Pāḷi a little earlier I
think. TW had worked as a judge in Ceylon and
the local lawyers kept bringing up precedents
from monastic law. Getting access to these legal
precedents is what motivated him to learn Pāḷi.
And of course as a classically educated
Englishman he was well placed to do so.
You mention that Mahāyāna Buddhism takes
feudalism for granted. I think you could go
further than this and argue that it endorses
feudalism. Indeed this was a major factor in the
introduction of Buddhism in Japan in ca. 552
CE, from the Korean aristocracy directly to the
Japanese Aristocracy (who were partly Korean).
Certain texts, notably the Saddharmapuṇḍarikā
and Suvarṇabhāsottama, endorse and promise to
protect kings who have the text recited or
copied. It reinforced the existing authority
provided by Confucius for Imperialism – the
emperor was obliged to bestow order and culture
on the poor, stupid barbarians. In East Asia the
monasteries were key players in feudalism, and
of course in Tibetan the monks became the
feudal lords.
4. Seth Zuiho Segall says:
September 28, 2015 at 5:27 am
Done!
you could go further than this and argue that it
endorses feudalism.
9. jayarava says:
September 29, 2015 at 1:36 am
Thanks, Amod!
I have to admit that I really enjoy comments like
richard baranov’s, and have even encouraged
them a couple times (because I’m a bad person).
However, most readers probably find them less
entertaining than I do, so I restrain myself, and
sometimes delete them if they become
persistent.
33. D.C. Wijeratna says:
May 20, 2016 at 7:47 am
Hi David,
Hope this finds you well. Its been ages since we
talked. At any rate, I’m nearly finished with the
first draft of my book and I wanted to ask if I
could get a little information from you as I cover
your work in it. My question is:
(i) Do you have any data on traffic to the site–
amount and where from. Are there any posts that
stood out particularly in terms of traffic? Any
general patterns to add context?
Cheers,
Ann
Dr. Ann Gleig Assistant Professor of Religious
Studies Editor for Religious Studies Review
University of Central Florida (PSY 226) 4000
Central Florida Blvd Orlando, Fl 32816-1352
Related
The Crumbling Buddhist Consensus: Overview
This page is an outline of my series on the
"crumbling mainstream Western Buddhist
consensus." Introduction Several pages introduce the
theme of the series. I wrote these in a rush, as I
explain in a preface, and they are not as worked-out
as later posts. I began with a summary,…
In "Consensus Buddhism"
"Buddhist ethics" is a fraud
“Buddhist ethics” is neither Buddhist nor ethics.
“Buddhist ethics” is a fraud: a fabrication created to
deceive, passed off as something valuable that it is
not, for the benefit of its creators and promoters.
“Buddhist ethics” is actually a collection of self-
aggrandizing strategies for gaining social status
within the left…
In "Consensus Buddhism"
What would “modern Buddhist tantra” even
mean?
“Modern Buddhist tantra” unites the two threads of
this blog: modern Buddhism, and Buddhist tantra.
But what would that even mean? And is it even
possible? “Modern Buddhism” may be: Science-
compatible: atheist, rational, empirical, free of
spooks and supernatural superstitions Secular: not
religious or dogmatic; teaching practices, not beliefs
Culturally…
In "Reinventing Buddhist Tantra"
5. roughgarden says:
October 5, 2015 at 11:31 am
8. roughgarden says:
October 5, 2015 at 12:31 pm
2. antheahawdon says:
October 2, 2015 at 3:53 am
4. roughgarden says:
October 2, 2015 at 7:10 am
5. roughgarden says:
October 2, 2015 at 7:13 am
9. semnyisun says:
October 2, 2015 at 2:39 pm
Hi michau,
mindful eating
“Ethics” is advertising
AnistonSmartWater
Absence-of-Judgement-Dalai-
Lama-511x315
Please share:
RedditFacebookTwitterGoogle
Related
"Buddhist ethics" is a fraud
In "Consensus Buddhism"
The mindfulness crisis and the end of
Consensus Buddhism
The mindfulness crisis and the end of
Consensus Buddhism
In "Consensus Buddhism"
FTFY Buddhist ethics
FTFY Buddhist ethics
In "Consensus Buddhism"
Author: David Chapman
Dublin —
Interesting, thanks!
mtraven —
Maybe that’s a good thing. You
will find people getting into Buddhism
for other reasons than being daring
and sexy and hip — maybe better
ones.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
2012/11/10/most-and-least-buddhist-
cities-in-america_n_2098813.html
I think consumption/signalling is a
lot about the person you want to be.
You become a Buddhist not just to
signal you are agreeable, but to try
and become more agreeable, so that
signalling of being agreeable has better
validity (as Miller argues, personality
signals can get busted pretty quickly).
“Conspicuous blandness—the
absence of distinctive taste—is typical
of the middle middle class. If you know
you cannot pass a test of independent
opinion, it’s the next-best strategy. If
you admit no atypical passions, no one
can needle you about them, so you can
simulate emotional stability. Also, in a
situation where you aren’t sure even
what the consensus opinion is,
expressing none at all is safest.”
I’ve never seen this stated
succinctly, if at all, yet I see this
behaviour regularly.
Alf says:
November 10, 2015 at 11:13 am
There is a widespread
misunderstanding that Buddhism is
inherently leftist, or particularly
compatible with leftist views. Jeff
Wilson and Brad Warner have
explained why this is mistaken, so I
don’t need to go into that here.
I’ll discuss:
Puritanism
Mentalism and sincerity
Universalism
Rejection of authority
Middle class values
Steal underpants
???
Profit!
Compassion
???
Save all sentient beings!
RedditFacebookTwitterGoogle
Related
"Buddhist ethics" is a fraud
In "Consensus Buddhism"
Sutra, Tantra, and the modern
worldview
sadhvi says:
October 9, 2015 at 8:53 am
sadhvi —
I don’t recall, for instance, very
many actual “working class” folks
following Trungpa. There were a
number of folks pretending to be
working class
Hi David,
The tantric teachers I mentioned
were Hindu. My experience was that
they unfortunately affirmed what I
had already experienced in Vajrayana.
The “claimed principles” are never
quite what one encounters. The whole
cultural context is important. If there’s
an idea of creating something
different, we’d better be aware of just
how much of the “original” teaching
we are referring to is culturally
conditioned and, even more
importantly, what our own culture has
conditioned us to accept as true. Even
the idea of transparency or what it
means to be open is culturally
conditioned. It takes a lot of precision
to tease these things out and it takes a
real willingness to look at our own
culturally conditioned blindspots, not
just the obvious heavy hitters like
“greed and consumption” or “the
marketing of spirituality”. I’m
thinking more of the great American
myths of individuality and power that
get played out over and over again
(and in virtually all “liberation”
movements here). It’s not abstract.
Tantra offers tools, yes, but would you
give a blowtorch to a three year old?
Seems like that might be already
happening in some parts of the
country (hey, maybe that’s what’s
causing all those wildfires). Then that
brings up the same old problem: who
decides who’s “ready” for those
“advanced teachings” or, if it’s totally
“egalitarian”, what state are folks in
who are part of your sangha. Maybe it
IS better to do it all online…less real in
some ways but safer too…smile.
David Chapman says:
October 9, 2015 at 1:00 pm
I agree.
Tsül'dzin says:
October 11, 2015 at 8:34 am
@Jamie
Re:
RiP
Rin'dzin Pamo says:
October 12, 2015 at 10:57 am
@Jamie
I was writing my comment while
you posted yours – sorry they crossed
over.
I guess that seque into Aro in the
midst of a discussion of ethics relates
back to the “no truths, only methods”
idea. In my mind, we should seek (and
teach) ethics that provide the merest of
scaffolding to empower opening and
extending into the world, to help us
meet the rawness of the world as best
we are capable. So in that sense, I
don’t care if it is bland middle-class
ethics or tantric… just as long a people
are (nobly) living slightly out of their
comfort zone, still growing up, still
awakening, still recognizing new
resistances and new embraces that
were unseen/unknowable just a year
ago…
I like how you put this.
RiP
David Chapman says:
October 12, 2015 at 12:06 pm
@Jamie:
http://www.metamodernism.com/
2015/10/21/reconstruction-
metamodern-transcendence-and-the-
return-of-myth/
David Chapman says:
October 30, 2015 at 5:18 pm
Related
"Buddhist ethics" is a fraud
“Buddhist ethics” is neither Buddhist nor ethics.
“Buddhist ethics” is a fraud: a fabrication created to
deceive, passed off as something valuable that it is
not, for the benefit of its creators and promoters.
“Buddhist ethics” is actually a collection of self-
aggrandizing strategies for gaining social status
within the left…
In "Consensus Buddhism"
Sutra, Tantra, and the modern worldview
My last post contrasted Buddhist Tantra with
“Sutrayana,” which is supposed to be a summary of
non-Tantric Buddhism. In future posts, I’ll ask how
accurately “Sutrayana” reflects actual Buddhisms
such as Theravada and Zen. Here, I compare Sutra
and Tantra from the point of view of modern secular
humanism. In…
In "Reinventing Buddhist Tantra"
Reinventing Buddhist Tantra
sadhvi —
I don’t recall, for instance, very many actual
“working class” folks following Trungpa. There
were a number of folks pretending to be working
class
4. sadhvi says:
October 9, 2015 at 11:58 am
Hi David,
The tantric teachers I mentioned were Hindu.
My experience was that they unfortunately
affirmed what I had already experienced in
Vajrayana. The “claimed principles” are never
quite what one encounters. The whole cultural
context is important. If there’s an idea of
creating something different, we’d better be
aware of just how much of the “original”
teaching we are referring to is culturally
conditioned and, even more importantly, what
our own culture has conditioned us to accept as
true. Even the idea of transparency or what it
means to be open is culturally conditioned. It
takes a lot of precision to tease these things out
and it takes a real willingness to look at our own
culturally conditioned blindspots, not just the
obvious heavy hitters like “greed and
consumption” or “the marketing of spirituality”.
I’m thinking more of the great American myths
of individuality and power that get played out
over and over again (and in virtually all
“liberation” movements here). It’s not abstract.
Tantra offers tools, yes, but would you give a
blowtorch to a three year old? Seems like that
might be already happening in some parts of the
country (hey, maybe that’s what’s causing all
those wildfires). Then that brings up the same
old problem: who decides who’s “ready” for
those “advanced teachings” or, if it’s totally
“egalitarian”, what state are folks in who are part
of your sangha. Maybe it IS better to do it all
online…less real in some ways but safer too…
smile.
9. fripsidelover9110 says:
October 10, 2015 at 5:29 am
I agree.
@Jamie
I was writing my comment while you posted
yours – sorry they crossed over.
I guess that seque into Aro in the midst of a
discussion of ethics relates back to the “no
truths, only methods” idea. In my mind, we
should seek (and teach) ethics that provide the
merest of scaffolding to empower opening and
extending into the world, to help us meet the
rawness of the world as best we are capable. So
in that sense, I don’t care if it is bland middle-
class ethics or tantric… just as long a people are
(nobly) living slightly out of their comfort zone,
still growing up, still awakening, still
recognizing new resistances and new embraces
that were unseen/unknowable just a year ago…
I like how you put this.
RiP
@Jamie:
Speaking of the dress and Aro gTér, I am myself
an Aro practitioner and my lama (one of the
younger ones, not Ngak’chang Rinpoche),
suggested me to start to dress myself like a
biker. And so I did.
So not everybody looks like a cowboy either. :)
The suggestion I got was of course a personal
one. I am a large bear of a man, and I have an
appreciation of extreme metal music. I am also
related to Danish/Swedish Vikings – obvious if
you would see my face. Biker-like appearance
actually suits very naturally to me.
1.
2. antilogicalism says:
August 2, 2018 at 3:07 pm
Leave a Reply
Post navigation
Previous Previous post: What the Buddha
REALLY said
Next Next post: A Trackless Path: Dzogchen in
plain English
Recent posts
• Yidams: a godless approach, naturally!
• Buddhist tantra is not about techniques
• Imperfect Buddha podcast
• Two podcasts: Rebuilding the ruined city
of Buddhism
• A Trackless Path: Dzogchen in plain English
• Emptiness, form, and Dzogchen ethics
• What the Buddha REALLY said
• The edible gold indicator (III)
• Consensus Buddhism: what’s left
• Better Buddhisms: A developmental approach
• Developing ethical, social, and
cognitive competence
• “Buddhist ethics”: a Tantric critique
• The mindfulness crisis and the end of
Consensus Buddhism
• “Ethics” is advertising
• FTFY Buddhist ethics
Email Subscription
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog
and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 658 other followers
Follow me on Twitter
• RT @St_Rev: @Meaningness Hey, $120/lb for
a database is a steal. 1 day ago
• My boss—a biologist—told me to buy Oracle.
Me: What is Oracle, exactly? Boss: It’s a
database. Me: Why do we want i… twitter.com/
i/web/status/1… 1 day ago
• RT @ivankozik: @Meaningness the brown skin
of a kiwifruit up close flickr.com/photos/
1027090… 1 day ago
• Shades of gray. https://t.co/MXrL6IB7MI
1 day ago
Follow @Meaningness
Search this site:
Search for:
Recent comments
Waldo on “Buddhist ethics”…
SusanY on David Chapman
David Chapman on David
Chapman
SusanY on David Chapman
Roldan on Finding a teacher of
modern Bu…
RAFAEL ROLDAN on
Finding a teacher of modern
Bu…
James Hitchens on Finding a
teacher of modern Bu…
What do published ru… on
“Ethics” is advert…
What do rulebooks ev… on
“Ethics” is advert…
David Chapman on Pussy-
dripping goddesses with…
Topics
• #BGeeks11
• bubble
• Buddhism
• Buddhist Geeks
• Dalai Lama
• debate
• Dzogchen
• economics
• emptiness
• energy
• enlightenment
• epistemology
• eternalism
• ethics
• finance
• gold
• Hinduism
• history
• horror
• joseph goldstein
• Mahayana
• meditation
• modernism
• monism
• mysticism
• naturalism
• neuroscience
• podcast
• Protestant Buddhism
• psychology
• ritual
• Robert Kegan
• secularism
• shadow work
• Shambhala Training
• sociology
• spirituality
• supernatural
• Sutrayana
• tantra
• technology
• Theravada
• Tibet
• Vajrayana
• vampires
• Veblen
• war
• Western Buddhism
• yanas
• Zen
All posts
• February 2017 (2)
• January 2017 (1)
• May 2016 (1)
• December 2015 (1)
• November 2015 (3)
• October 2015 (7)
• September 2015 (7)
• April 2015 (1)
• September 2014 (1)
• March 2014 (1)
• February 2014 (3)
• January 2014 (6)
• December 2013 (2)
• November 2013 (5)
• October 2013 (4)
• July 2013 (2)
• March 2013 (1)
• December 2012 (1)
• September 2012 (6)
• August 2012 (4)
• July 2012 (3)
• June 2012 (6)
• May 2012 (2)
• April 2012 (5)
• January 2012 (3)
• December 2011 (6)
• October 2011 (2)
• September 2011 (1)
• August 2011 (2)
• July 2011 (7)
• June 2011 (14)
• May 2011 (3)
• April 2011 (1)