[Buddha-l] Victimized Vegans?

[Joy Vriens]

Hi Dan,

>> Yes, and I would go even further and say that now we understand how 
>markets function we can no longer condone markets ;-). 

>I realize you are only partially joking, but unfortunately the 
>alternative(s) proved not to work at all. More to the heart of things -- 
>Buddhism has only flourished in tight symbiosis and dependence on mercantile 
>and capitalist systems. Monasteries practiced full-fledged feudalism in 
>China, Korea, etc., with virtual slaves/serfs working their land for them. 
>Monastic wealth and monastic success are inseparable. To think otherwise is 
>sheer fantasy. Buddhism left India with merchants, and followed the trade 
>routes. It banked on karmic capital -- karmic tabulations are modeled on 
>mercantile accounting. One can even receive forgivable loans (called 
>transference of merit) like a third world nation. It has also frequently put 
>Buddhists in the position of kissing the ass of the wealthy and powerful. 
>Many of the vinaya rules were explicitly designed to do just that (including 
>the specific anti-meat rules). And while we enjoy the charming stories of 
>Zen masters standing up to samurai to earn their respect, the historical 
>reality is that they were in bed in with the samurai every chance they could 
>get (but only to try to keep up with the Jodo and Shingon groups, who were 
>even more efficient at currying favor). When the money went elsewhere, 
>Buddhists converted (e.g. in parts of Central Asia) in droves without a 
>glance backward. Buddhism has always followed Deep-throat's dictum: Follow 
>the money. 

Or the Buddhist synonym of money "merit". No point in teaching those without merit and those that are taught automatically have the necessary merit. Without "merit", would Buddhism have ever come to the West? Would the swans have visited the lake? If we may believe the Pali canon, the Buddha maintained close contacts with the ruling and merchant classes right from the start, unlike e.g. a school like the Cynics, that attacked possessions and power and that in spite of this attitude and perhaps even thanks to it managed to flourish under the Roman empire, especially amongst the modest classes and slaves. One may compare the levels of success and the longevity of both approaches and conclude that Buddhism thanks to its mercantile contacts and Follow-the-money approach was more susscessful, but how much "Buddhism" did Buddhism lose in this process? And in what measure did cynicism help to prepare the hearts and minds of the Roman citizens for later successes of e.g. Christianit!
 y? 
 
>So perhaps instead of condemning "markets" in toto, a more intelligent 
>option would be to improve the way markets function -- regulate monopolies, 
>balance distributions, encourage unions or other ways of empowering workers' 
>bargaining ability, etc. 

But the way to improve the way markets functions, passes through the awareness that markets are not satisfactory and that one may have to fight for the improvements, because I don't think a single social improvement was the fruit of a spontaneous burts of generosity or charity of those who were in position of granting them. 
 
>In today's world to do otherwise would be like spitting into the wind. 

Nothing wrong with spitting in the wind or preaching in the desert or "barking" as the Cynics called it, if it's all one can do. Buddhists would probably call it "awakening" ;-) If the awareness isn't there (or not anymore for the coming times), then it needs to be stimulated again. We don't need to be too conciliatory... So let's condemn and see what we can get from that ;-) 
 
Joy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20070513/f3ac9e03/attachment.htm