Here’s a 56-min recorded video (120MB .mp4 - Tip: tap-and-hold to “Download link”, or right click to “Save Link As…“).

Topics:

  • East vs. West, leadership styles, cultural values, the Age of Enlightenment, cultural assumptions of Westerners, “tight culture”, “loose culture”, the culture as seen in the Early Buddhist Texts striking a nice balance between the two


Past Dhamma Talk References:

Sutta References:

  • MN 108 - With Gopaka Moggallāna. A definitive example where the Buddha appointed no pope-like figure, once he was gone:

    “Is there, Master Ānanda, any single bhikkhu who was appointed by Master Gotama thus: ‘He will be your refuge when I am gone,’ and whom you now have recourse to?”

    “There is no single bhikkhu, brahmin, who was appointed by the Blessed One who knows and sees, accomplished and fully enlightened, thus: ‘He will be your refuge when I am gone,’ and whom we now have recourse to.”

    “But is there, Master Ānanda, any single bhikkhu who has been chosen by the Sangha and appointed by a number of elder bhikkhus thus: ‘He will be our refuge after the Blessed One has gone,’ and whom you now have recourse to?”

    “There is no single bhikkhu, brahmin, who has been chosen by the Sangha and appointed by a number of elder bhikkhus thus: ‘He will be our refuge after the Blessed One has gone,’ and whom we now have recourse to.”

    “But if you have no refuge, Master Ānanda, what is the cause for your concord?”

    “We are not without a refuge, brahmin. We have a refuge; we have the Dhamma as our refuge.”

  • Humility examples:

    • AN 2.39 The Buddha says that it is for the detriment of the world for well-behaved monks to not speak up while the ill-behaved bhikkhus are in the majority.

      … when evil bhikkhus are strong, well-behaved bhikkhus are weak. At that time the well-behaved bhikkhus sit silently in the midst of the Saṅgha271 or they resort to272 the outlying provinces. This is for the harm of many people, for the unhappiness of many people, for the ruin, harm, and suffering of many people, of devas and human beings.

    • Twice the Buddha exemplifies humility:

      • MN 26

        … the Blessed One went to the brahmin Rammaka’s hermitage. Now on that occasion a number of bhikkhus were sitting together in the hermitage discussing the Dhamma. The Blessed One stood outside the door waiting for their discussion to end. When he knew that it was over, he coughed and knocked, and the bhikkhus opened the door for him. The Blessed One entered, sat down on a seat made ready, and addressed the bhikkhus thus: “Bhikkhus, for what discussion are you sitting together here now? And what was your discussion that was interrupted?

      • SN 8.7

        Now on that occasion—the Uposatha day of the fifteenth—the Blessed One was sitting in the open surrounded by the Bhikkhu Saṅgha in order to hold the Pavāraṇā.513 Then, having surveyed the silent Bhikkhu Saṅgha, the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus thus: “Come now, <411> bhikkhus, let me invite you: Is there any deed of mine, either bodily or verbal, which you would censure?”

    • AN 2.62 everyone should be open to being corrected and correcting others.

      “Bhikkhus, I will teach you about co-residency among the bad and about co-residency among the good. Listen and attend closely. I will speak.”

      “Yes, Bhante,” those bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:

      “And how is there co-residency among the bad, and how do the bad live together? Here, it occurs to an elder bhikkhu: ‘An elder [bhikkhu]—or one of middle standing or a junior [bhikkhu]—should not correct me.295 I should not correct an elder [bhikkhu], or one of middle standing or a junior [bhikkhu]. If an elder [bhikkhu] corrects me, he might do so without sympathy, not sympathetically. I would then say “No!” to him and would trouble him,296 and even seeing [my offense] I would not make amends for it. If [a bhikkhu] of middle standing corrects me … If a junior [bhikkhu] corrects me, he might do so without sympathy, not sympathetically. I would then say “No!” to him and would trouble him, and even seeing [my offense] I would not make amends for it.’

      “It occurs, too, to [a bhikkhu] of middle standing … to a junior [bhikkhu]: ‘An elder [bhikkhu]—or one of middle standing or a junior [bhikkhu]—should not correct me. I should not correct an elder [bhikkhu] … [79] … and even seeing [my offense] I would not make amends for it.’ It is in this way that there is co-residency among the bad, and it is in this way that the bad live together.

      “And how, bhikkhus, is there co-residency among the good, and how do the good live together? Here, it occurs to an elder bhikkhu: ‘An elder [bhikkhu]—and one of middle standing and a junior [bhikkhu]—should correct me. I should correct an elder [bhikkhu], one of middle standing, and a junior [bhikkhu]. If an elder [bhikkhu] corrects me, he might do so sympathetically, not without sympathy. I would then say “Good!” to him and would not trouble him, and seeing [my offense] I would make amends for it. If [a bhikkhu] of middle standing speaks to me … If a junior [bhikkhu] corrects me, he might do so sympathetically, not without sympathy, I would then say “Good!” to him and would not trouble him, and seeing [my offense] I would make amends for it.’

      “It occurs, too, to [a bhikkhu] of middle standing … to a junior [bhikkhu]: ‘An elder [bhikkhu]—and one of middle standing and a junior [bhikkhu]—should correct me. I should correct an elder [bhikkhu] … and seeing [my offense] I would make amends for it.’ It is in this way that there is co-residency among the good, and it is in this way that the good live together.”

    • AN 1.114-139 - Negligence
    • AN 1.140-149 - ‘Not the Teaching’
    • AN 1.150-169 - Non-Offense
    • AN 1.320-332
    • N 2.47-49 - Assemblies
    • AN 2.100-117
    • AN 3.28 - Speech like Dung

  • “Speaking Up” examples:

    • AN 3.67 - “Topics of Discussion”

      You can know whether or not a person is competent to hold a discussion by seeing how they take part in a discussion. When a person is asked a question, if it needs to be answered with a generalization and they don’t answer it generally; or if it needs analysis and they answer without analyzing it; or if it needs a counter-question and they answer without a counter-question; or if it should be set aside and they don’t set it aside, then that person is not competent to hold a discussion. When a person is asked a question, if it needs to be answered with a generalization and they answer it generally; or if it needs analysis and they answer after analyzing it; or if it needs a counter-question and they answer with a counter-question; or if it should be set aside and they set it aside, then that person is competent to hold a discussion.

      You can know whether or not a person is competent to hold a discussion by seeing how they take part in a discussion. When a person is asked a question, if they’re not consistent about what their position is and what it isn’t; about what they propose; about speaking from what they know; and about the appropriate procedure, then that person is not competent to hold a discussion. When a person is asked a question, if they are consistent about what their position is and what it isn’t; about what they propose; about speaking from what they know; and about the appropriate procedure, then that person is competent to hold a discussion.

      You can know whether or not a person is competent to hold a discussion by seeing how they take part in a discussion. When a person is asked a question, if they dodge the issue; distract the discussion with irrelevant points; or display annoyance, hate, and bitterness, then that person is not competent to hold a discussion. When a person is asked a question, if they don’t dodge the issue; distract the discussion with irrelevant points; or display annoyance, hate, and bitterness, then that person is competent to hold a discussion.

      You can know whether or not a person is competent to hold a discussion by seeing how they take part in a discussion. When a person is asked a question, if they intimidate, crush, mock, or seize on trivial mistakes, then that person is not competent to hold a discussion. When a person is asked a question, if they don’t intimidate, crush, mock, or seize on trivial mistakes, then that person is competent to hold a discussion.

    • AN 4.83 - Where Criticism Takes You

      Mendicants, someone with four qualities is cast down to hell. What four? Without examining or scrutinizing, they praise those deserving of criticism, and they criticize those deserving of praise. They arouse faith in things that are dubious, and they don’t arouse faith in things that are inspiring. Someone with these four qualities is cast down to hell.

      Someone with four qualities is raised up to heaven. What four? After examining and scrutinizing, they criticize those deserving of criticism, and they praise those deserving of praise. They don’t arouse faith in things that are dubious, and they do arouse faith in things that are inspiring. Someone with these four qualities is raised up to heaven.

Other References:

Subscribe:

License:

Digital Signing and Checksum (of the .mp4 video file above):