This is an AI-generated transcript from auto-generated subtitles for the video Buddhist Ethics, Virtue, and Politics - Gil Fronsdal. It likely contains inaccuracies.
The following talk was given by Gil Fronsdal at the Insight Meditation Center in Redwood City, California. Please visit the website www.audiodharma.org for more information.
Good morning, everyone. I have a couple of announcements. First, I want to say I’m so delighted when we do these potlucks and teas here on Sunday, and people stay, and the sense of community that comes. You’re all welcome to stay. The fact that there’s not a lot of food is incidental to what we’re doing. The real thing is just coming together. Most of you can probably find a little bit more food later in the day if you don’t get enough at this meal. So please stay, don’t be shy.
Also, many of you know we’ve been doing this fundraising for Save the Children. It was meant to go for about a week, but we kept the donate button up. We’ve now raised $95,000. It doesn’t show that on the Save the Children site yet, but it will. That’s pretty impressive. I guess it’s not officially over, but money keeps being donated, so who knows, maybe we’ll get to $100,000. It’s very inspiring to me, just in general, but also at these times, that a community of people can come together in this kind of way and collectively make such a big impact. It’s almost a statement of what a community, what a society can do at a time when we have a society that’s showing what it can take away, what it can stop doing.
Save the Children is one of those wonderful organizations that had a contract with the United States Agency for International Development. They were counting on money that was promised, and then suddenly it was taken away. All these people who were employed by them, all this food that they were bringing in, medicine—it’s a tragic thing to have happen the way it happened. But to have people step up as communities… I mean, we’re making only a small difference, but I think it’s a beautiful thing, and I’m inspired by it. I want to thank all of you who participated. If you still want to make a donation, maybe we can get up to $100,000. It’s still on IMC’s website; there’s a red banner on top.
This last week, I’ve been thinking more than I usually do about what to teach because of national and world affairs. I would like to make a case that one of the very strong contributions that Buddhism has to our society and our world, now and in general, is its emphasis on ethics and virtue. Ethics and virtue may not be a super popular topic, but the way it comes into Buddhism is that it’s also an expression, a manifestation of what happens to people when they do Buddhist practice. If you do mindfulness well, what comes is a heightened sensitivity to yourself and the world. That heightened sensitivity will almost inevitably lead to what can be called an ethical sensitivity, a heightened ethical sensitivity. We start feeling intimately in ourselves what harms us, how we violate ourselves—to use dramatic language—how we harm ourselves, shut ourselves down, and alienate ourselves from ourselves when we do things that are intentionally harmful to others.
There’s also a heightened ethical sensitivity to how harm affects other people—our own way of harming people, but also how they’re harmed by others in our society. The Buddha clearly championed the idea that when we see harm being done to others, we should speak up, that we shouldn’t be passive about that. So with this ethical sensitivity, we become increasingly sensitive to how people are being harmed by unethical, harmful behavior. And we do something really good for ourselves if we know how, from this place of ethical sensitivity, to speak up.
The question is, what does that speaking up look like? How is it different than being angry? How is it different than responding from hate? What happens when we come from this deeper ethical sensitivity that Dharma practice inspires? What does that look like? In classic Buddhist language, it looks like virtue. It’s virtuous, it’s ethical. Or even more classically, the language in Buddhism would be that it’s beautiful. One of the words for ethics is beauty; it’s beautiful behavior. Another word is wholesome. In English, “wholesome” popularly has connotations of “healthy,” so it’s a healthy response. But I like the etymology of the word, which is that it’s wholesome as part of the whole. Unwholesome is that which is not part of the whole. There’s unwholesome behavior, not beautiful behavior, that’s unethical, where we actually make ourselves fragmented. We’re responding from only part of who we are, because we can’t really be involved in causing harm to others without losing touch with our whole, with our deeper sensitivity.
In Buddhism, this idea of being wholesome is a central movement of Buddhism: to live in a wholesome way, to act from the whole, from the beauty that we have. Ethical sensitivity is also sensitivity from our beauty. I don’t know how many of you relate to the idea that there’s something beautiful inside of you, but that’s the direction that Buddhist practice is going—to discover that there is beauty, there’s inner beauty. There’s a kind of beauty that we practice in, we live in, we are inspired by, we come from. What does it mean to respond to, resist, stand opposed to, or speak up for injustice in the world in a way that’s beautiful? Most people don’t put those two together, because somehow when there’s injustice, it demands righteous action, it demands fury, it demands that we get into the world of conflict. And conflict must mean aggression, assertiveness, being upset, being demanding—a lot of behavior which is not beautiful. So what does it mean to be beautiful, not in a way that avoids, but steps up?
This emphasis on virtue, on beauty, on ethics, is a very important one to consider in the current climate of things. For all my lifetime until last month, I thought America was based on the rule of law. And now we have a president who says he’s above the law. Or not that he’s above the law, really, but that he decides the law. If he decides that’s the law… I mean, that’s a phenomenal new thing that I never would have imagined would have come out of presidents in this country. It basically means that one person is above the law. The rule of law means that everyone is responsible to the law.
But political scientists who have studied the idea of the rule of law have pointed out that it has a flaw. The flaw is that it’s too easy to have loopholes, too easy to have gray zones in which people manage to get by breaking the law or not adhering to the ethics of the law. In a society where there’s capitalism and huge corporations with lots of money, it’s too easy to shape the laws in your favor. So a rule of law by itself is not enough. Some people say that you need something else, and what you need is virtue.
That idea goes back to ancient India, it goes back to the Greeks. In ancient India, they recognized this issue. Before Buddhism, there was the idea that the law was the Dharma.1 Sometimes the word Dharma in certain Indian texts, when translated into English, is translated as “the law.” Even kings had to adhere to that law, the Dharma law. One of those laws in ancient India for a king was that if a person doesn’t follow this particular law, they forfeit their right to be king. And that was to protect everyone. Their job is to be protectors, and if they don’t do that, if they’re the ones who harm, then they forfeit their authority. That’s considered an ancient law that even monarchs had to adhere to.
In Buddhism also, as I talked about two weeks ago, the Buddha presented an ancient myth that if a king doesn’t follow the Dharma, doesn’t care for the poor, then society unravels. The way it comes back together is when people start living ethically. So when the monarch is unethical, society falls apart, but when the people are ethical, they can come back together again. That means that we all have a role. And it’s a happy role.
I think too often in English-speaking countries, I get the sense that the idea of ethics is a bit of a burden. It’s a little bit like, “Oh, no.” Certainly, when I grew up, I actually thought ethics was kind of like a four-letter word. There were a lot of ideas that there was a lot of ethical hypocrisy in our society, and people who were really ethical were somehow hypocrites, or they were superficial, or they were just kind of Pollyannaish. It wasn’t really real. So there was a whole generation of the counterculture that I was part of that was looking for something more authentic, looking for another way of living. There was a kind of rejection of ethics, at least for me, without being unethical—mostly because I had a lack of imagination.
So it wasn’t that I was doing anything unethical, but what was a surprise to me, and a great source of joy, was to discover through Buddhist practice how wonderful it is to have this ethical sensitivity, this ethical sensibility from the inside out. I had no idea that there was a reference inside of beauty. The only word I could use to describe it to myself, which was also a taboo word for many years, was the word “purity.” Purity also represented all kinds of things that were problematic, like the Puritans and things like that. But then, lo and behold, to discover that there was something that felt really pure inside—that was the best word for it. Sometimes I still try to slip around using that word by calling it “clean.” It feels really clean and cleansed, rather than purified.
But to discover this place inside, and that there’s a love for this sensibility, for this way of being—it is almost love. You don’t want to violate it. I remember when I first discovered this on retreat in Thailand. I could see that if I had certain thoughts that were maybe a little bit unethical, I could feel that it immediately was violating this thing inside, or kind of diminishing it or harming it. So the idea was to keep coming back to that, trusting and living in it. It’s always a navigation, a negotiation, always discovering how this works in different circumstances.
For the Buddha, when he emphasized the importance of the ethical life, there was a wonderful little teaching he called the teaching of all the Buddhas. It’s a four-line verse:
Don’t do what is barren, Don’t do what is deadening, Engage in what is wholesome, Purify the mind. This is the teaching of the Buddhas.
The first line is sometimes translated as “don’t do evil.” There’s a question of what this ancient Indian word means, but I like the words “barren” or “deadening.” What I like about that is “evil” doesn’t necessarily point back to the effect that those behaviors have or where they come from. But “barren” or “deadening” indicates where they come from and the effect they have on us. To do really harmful things in the world with an evil intent comes from a barren place inside, from a place that’s not really full and wholesome and alive, from that beauty. And the effect it has is kind of deadening on people. Something dies inside as a result.
So that’s considered Buddhism in a nutshell: don’t do what’s barren, do what is wholesome, purify the mind or the heart. And that’s it. Now you can go home. [Laughter]
One of the classic descriptions of what is wholesome, when there’s a list of things that are wholesome, begins with not killing, not harming. Now I want to read from the opening of what some people call the Buddhist Bible because it’s the Dhammapada.2 There’s no real “first” text like the Bible has “In the beginning…” Buddhism doesn’t have a text that is the beginning of the canon, but the closest thing may be these verses here:
All actions are preceded by mind, led by mind, made by mind. Speak or act with a corrupted mind, and suffering follows as the wagon wheel follows the hoof of the ox.
All action is preceded by mind, led by mind, made by mind. Speak or act with a peaceful mind, and happiness follows like a never-departing shadow.
So where you act from makes a huge difference. Then it goes on:
“They abused me, they attacked me, they defeated me, they robbed me.” For those carrying on like this, hatred does not end.
“They abused me, they attacked me, they defeated me, they robbed me.” For those not carrying on like this, hatred ends.
Hatred never ends through hatred. By non-hate alone does it end. This is an ancient truth.
This is Martin Luther King Jr.:
A basic fact that characterizes nonviolent resistance is that it does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponents, but to win over their friendship and understanding.
Isn’t that remarkable? I would say that’s beautiful. What a beautiful thing. That’s very different than wanting to kill them or get rid of them. So that’s an example of virtue under the rule of law, ethics under the rule of law, the Dharma under the rule of law. And here, the Dharma of love, of care, of respect for people.
Love is not a weak, passive love. It is love in action, love seeking to preserve and create community.
So, generative love, love that creates community and unity. This was a huge part of the Buddhist teaching also: when we speak, we should speak in ways that unite people, not in ways that divide people. So how do we do that with people that we disagree with? How do we do this with people who are even harming us?
I want to read another piece from Martin Luther King. Hold on, you have your seatbelts on? He’s quoting Mahatma Gandhi:
Rivers of blood may have to flow before we gain our freedom, but it must be our blood.
Isn’t that quite something? This is the recognition from these great proponents of non-violent resistance that this is not for the cowardly, it’s not for the weak. This was for the strong. This had to be done with great courage, great beauty, great dedication to some deeper value of ethics, of virtue, of love, of community, of unity. I mean, there are plenty of people who are willing to die for their country if they have a gun in their hand. People go to war for that purpose. But how many people are willing to die without a gun in their hand? I think what they’re saying is that’s required too, to make a difference.
If you read something like the Dhammapada, you find there’s a kind of a beat, a rhythm that goes through it that is emphasizing nonviolence and peace.
Better than a thousand meaningless statements is one meaningful word which, having been heard, brings peace. Better than a thousand meaningless verses is one meaningful line of a verse which, having been heard, brings peace.
Everyone trembles at violence; all fear death. Seeing others as being like yourself, do not kill or cause others to kill.
All tremble at violence; life is dear for all. Seeing others as being like yourself, do not kill or cause others to kill.
This is one of the primary rationales that Buddha gives for nonviolence: just like you don’t want to die, you want to live, so others do too. To empathize with or understand this deep wish, this deep movement of people’s inner life, and respect it. See people as oneself.
Whoever uses violence to harm the nonviolent and innocent quickly goes to one of ten conditions: intense pain and great loss, bodily injury or insanity, serious illness or vicious slander, oppression from rulers or the loss of relatives, houses consumed by fire, and wealth destroyed.
Well, we see plenty of examples that that doesn’t happen fast enough.
Here’s this word “evil” that I translate now as “barren” or “deadening”:
Evil is done by oneself alone; by oneself is one defiled. Evil is avoided by oneself; by oneself alone is one purified. Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another.
Don’t give up your own welfare for the sake of others’ welfare, however great. Clearly know your own welfare and be intent on the highest good.
Some people are really disturbed by this verse because you’re supposed to be altruistic; your welfare shouldn’t count, you should sacrifice yourself for the welfare of others. This is not what the Buddha taught. He taught that this deep place of ethical sensitivity, which is the beautiful place, is our welfare, the highest welfare we can discover inside of ourselves. And from that, we can act. Don’t sacrifice that. If you act, don’t sacrifice it. If you’re the one who’s standing in front of the tanks in Tiananmen Square, you might be asked to do that.
Conquer anger with non-anger. Conquer wickedness with goodness. Conquer stinginess with giving, and a liar with truth.
So it’s not “go to court.” This is calling upon this Dharma, this virtue, this inner law of who we are.
It’s easy to see the faults of others, but hard to see one’s own. One sifts out the faults of others like chaff, but conceals one’s own as a cheat conceals a bad throw of a dice.
One is not just who judges a case hastily. One doesn’t fire people justly if you fire them hastily. A wise person considers both what is and isn’t right. Guiding others without force, impartially and in accord with the Dharma, one is called a guardian of the Dharma, intelligent and just.
Here, the Dharma doesn’t mean Buddhist teachings. Here, the Dharma means the law, the truth, this underlying virtue that is built into a deep ethical sensitivity. Sometimes the word Dharma can be translated as justice.
Not by harming living beings is one a noble one. By being harmless to all living beings, one is called a noble one.
Having given up violence towards beings both timid and strong, whoever neither kills nor causes others to kill, I call a Brahman.3
So there’s an emphasis on nonviolence, but that doesn’t mean that there’s not nonviolent resistance. I think that would be the way that Buddhists respond. But the theme of this talk is not that per se, but rather to say that underneath the rule of law, there has to be virtue. There has to be an understanding of ethics. And whether society as a whole can learn that in time, we don’t know. But that’s the specialty of what we want to convey to the world and bring to the world.
One of the ways to do it is by how we live and our actions. One of the ways we’re going to live it—and this has always been true for me, ever since I was young—is to be ready for what comes. That was one of the reasons I came to Buddhism. I’ve been ready for times where I’ve seen violence around me, I’ve seen people physically fighting each other in the streets and in communities. My instinct, coming out of this practice, was to approach, to see what I could do to stop it. Sometimes it’s not clear I was successful.
I remember the first time I did this was in the middle of an intersection in San Francisco. This woman was being attacked by big men; she was trying to get away from them. So I stood between her and them. But they were bigger than me, big and strong. They took a step towards me, so I took a step back. They took another step towards me, and I took another step back. I didn’t know what to do. Then this person came off the sidewalk into the intersection and said to these two big guys, “Hey, if I was in the situation of this woman, I hope you would come and help me.” That immediately calmed the whole situation down. Just saying that statement. Wasn’t that something? That person figured out what to say. Maybe my role was just to slow things down long enough so he could show up.
Near my house, there were people getting ready to fight, two people in a group outside of a house. I approached, but I carefully stood behind a car in the street. I didn’t want to get too close; I didn’t know what was going to happen. And I said, “I’m a minister, can I help?” Technically, I’m a minister, legally I’m a minister, so sometimes I use that card. And everything calmed down.
The last time I did something like this, believe it or not, there were people playing frisbee golf who were having some huge conflict. They were also big, muscular guys, and they started actually hitting each other and falling on the ground, beating each other up. Again, they were much bigger and stronger than me. Who am I to do anything? I didn’t know what to do, but I started walking towards them. Before I could get to them, I don’t think anybody noticed, their friends pulled them apart. That was nice. I’m glad, because I don’t know what I would have done.
But these are all examples of doing something, responding, being ready. Are you ready? And whose blood is going to flow? Are you ready to have it be your blood? What does that mean? What kind of courage is needed? What kind of healthy, appropriate understanding would allow for that to happen?
I’m still very deeply touched by the civil rights leader John Lewis, for what he did. The thing that most touches me is a story. Leading up to it, he did his walk across the bridge in Alabama, marching for civil rights. The police were waiting on the other side. They kept walking, and then they were beaten up with batons. He was damaged and hurt, I think he ended up with a concussion. He ended up being a congressman for many years. He was beaten up repeatedly, not just that time. Before that, he would do these protests in bus stations, and these Ku Klux Klan people would come and beat him up pretty badly. And 40 years after one of these beatings, the man who beat him up came to his office in Congress with his son to apologize. Forty years. That’s impressive. We don’t see the good results right away sometimes, but he touched someone very deeply.
So how are we going to touch? What are we going to do? I don’t know what we should do. It’s complicated, all these different points of view that go on in our society. But I’m wondering if there are nonpartisan things. Nonpartisan seems to be more like bringing community together. Nonpartisan seems more like something that is coming from love or care. Supposedly, there’s a nonpartisan thing that’s going to happen on Friday, on February 28th. There’s been an economic boycott of the major corporations: don’t buy. And that’s very interesting because it’s not exactly political, but it’s actually addressing one of the forces in society that are kind of part of the law and not part of the law. The major corporations are the ones who can find their ways around it, or can buy politicians and do all kinds of things. Corporations are not really run on virtue; they’re run on making money, which leads to very different decisions. So, to make an impression on them that people have power too, that they’re accountable to the people who provide them the money, so that they maybe think twice about what they’re doing and be more careful. That’s supposed to be a nonpartisan thing. Is that Buddhistic? Is that a way that Buddhists can speak up or do something and act in a way that comes from this deeper place of beauty and ethical sensibility, and not to cause harm, not to create division, but to actually bring people together? You’ll have to decide. I shouldn’t answer that question for you.
Those are my thoughts today. But the core one, saying it for the third time, is that underneath it all, one of the specialties of Buddhism is to really point to the tremendous importance of ethics, of virtuous beauty, of beautiful virtue that can come from cultivating a deep ethical sensitivity. It doesn’t have to come from a moral requirement, a “should” that comes from the outside. It can emerge deeply from inside. And for each person, maybe it’ll emerge in different ways. Maybe there’s a plurality of how people live from this deep inner sensitivity. But the one thing they all have in common is they’re not going to kill, not going to cause harm that way. And that’s the fundamental Buddhist ethical principle: don’t kill, don’t harm.
So those are my thoughts. We have a few minutes before the potluck. As I like to do these days, I’d like for you to say hello to each other. Maybe you want to say a word or two about this talk if it touched you in some kind of way or made you reflective of something. So if you’re willing to stay for a few minutes, maybe turn to two or three people around you and say hello and share a few words. But look around, make sure no one’s left alone, because we want to bring people together, not create separation. I’ll ring a bell in a few minutes, and then we can have the potluck. Thank you.
Dharma: A core concept in Indian religions. In this context, it refers to a universal law of righteousness, truth, and moral order that governs the cosmos and human conduct. It can also refer to the specific teachings of the Buddha. ↩
Dhammapada: One of the best-known texts from the Pali Canon. It is a collection of 423 verses attributed to the Buddha, organized by theme, offering ethical and spiritual guidance. ↩
Brahman: In the pre-Buddhist context of Hinduism, a Brahman is a member of the priestly caste. The Buddha often redefined this term, as he does here, to mean a person who is spiritually accomplished and of noble character, regardless of their birth or social status. ↩