Here’s a 66-min recorded video (201MB .mp4 - Tip: tap-and-hold to “Download link”, or right click to “Save Link As…“).

Topics:

  • anicca, change, anatta, not-self, existentialism, Sartre, good faith/bad faith, communication, bicultural, traditional, conservative Thai or Sri Lankan culture, vs. Western culture, cultural customs, compassion, empathy, caring, as communication styles, 2 kinds of empathy, mirroring, emotional engagement vs. emotional aloofness, dispassion, Mahayana, archetypes of monk behaviour, expectations


Pali References:

  • bhava (becoming), anicca (change)

Other References:

  • “Cable car crash kills 8 monks on way to mountain meditation in Sri Lanka”

  • Sartre’s “Being and Nothingness”, where the nuanced concepts of “Good Faith” (bonne foi), and “Bad Faith” (mauvaise foi) are found.

    My opinion: Upon looking into the philosophy of the French philosopher Sartre - he had this concept of “good faith” and “bad faith”, which is highly relevant and useful. All this Western-style, Mahayana-style emphasis about “compassionate” communication, empathetic communication, caring communication, etc. (which Theravada teaches in a rather poor and under-developed way) is even better articulated by these concepts of “good faith”/”bad faith”. I think when Westerner-style Buddhists call for more “compassionate” communication, empathetic communication, kind communication, these are all euphamistic statements which don’t really clearly explain the problem. If they could articulate their expectations and needs better, the following would explain what their actual problem is.

    When considering some Theravada Buddhist monastic, especially in a role of seniority of leadership: despite being good meditators, and teachers of meditation, and despite knowing and teaching the Dhamma accurately as it’s found in the suttas – they might none-the-less fail at Sartre’s “good faith”. They might teach and relate with what Sartre would call “bad faith”.

    They may have “bad faith” because they afford themselves agency, but not their underlings.

    They may afford themselves freedom to express themselves, but that freedom of expression isn’t extended to their underlings.

    They may not treat their underlings as though those underlings have feelings, or have their own valid perspectives - even if these underlings might be inexperienced meditators, and aren’t possessed with Brahmaviharic heavenly goodness. This is treatment would be called “bad faith” treatment by Sartre - the basic humanity and freedom of perspective, freedom to engage in their own meaning-making, wasn’t respected by these teachers.

    It’s to live and act in denial of the freedom and humanity of the underlings. It’s to fool oneself that they are humans, with human feelings; with unique, changing, developing perspectives, which fundamentally exist regardless of their loyalty to the lineage. This denial and fooling oneself about others is “bad faith”.

Subscribe:

License:

Digital Signature (minisign):