This reveals a bit how the Buddha, like other religious leaders throughout history, sought to control the behavior of his followers and decide where they should derive their joy from.
It feels like this sort of prescriptive thinker is exactly the type of person we should not listen to. Why should we think their moral compass / philosophy is better guided than our own? If a certain form of game is fun and not harming others, why not continue it?
Edited: removing “self-important” description as it was unnecessarily negative to make my point
This isn't aimed at all of his followers (monastic and lay), just at the monks. Here's the quote from Brahmajāla Sutta:
> “Or he might say: “Whereas some honourable recluses and brahmins, while living on food offered by the faithful, indulge in the following games that are a basis for negligence: [...]
In other words, if you've giving up everything you own to live as a monk and only eat because of the generosity of others, you shouldn't waste time with things that aren't useful for spiritual development. If you're a layperson, do what you want.
Based on the surrounding context of the quote, it seems like this is an elaboration of the 7th of the 8 precepts, which also prohibits other forms of entertainment. The 8 precepts are followed by monks and occasionally by lay people during periods of intense practice like retreats, but during daily life, lay people follow the 5 precepts which don't prohibit entertainment.
> If a certain form of game is fun and not harming others, why not continue it?
In Buddhist terms (as I understand them), even if something is fun, it is transient. Impermanent. Eventually you'll beat the game, or it will end, and what are you left with? A replay? A new game? It only results in craving more and more -- more games, more things.
The Buddha would, I think, argue that this sort of 'clinging' is a form of suffering. Without those things, sitting alone in a room with your eyes closed and only your own self for company, how do you feel? Do you feel comfortable with your self -- knowing who you are and your place in the universe?
I think the Buddha would argue a self-sufficient happiness, as his system teaches you to realise, is more sustainable, since it is not based in any particular 'thing' (like games), but instead in an understanding of yourself and your place in the universe.
I don’t have anything against the Buddha, but I don’t like the moralization throughout history of different things that people enjoy — e.g. games or certain types of books and visual art.
This is happening today with video games to some extent.
Yes, in numerous places in the Tipitaka, especially including the sutta I quoted in my top-level comment, Shakyamuni expounded the doctrine that Buddhism can be tested empirically in this life, contrasting Buddhism with other meditative traditions that ask you to take them on faith and promise evidence after you die.
Moralization, as you put it is a fundamental question most humans have at some point.
Is this thing/activity/etc good/bad/neutral?
Additionally, any group of people basically ask the same question with the added problem of should we allow it in our group.
Few people have a problem with individuals and society moralizing about murder.
However, as you note, throughout history there's clearly been a tendency for this moralizing to become weaponized as control mechanisms for hierarchal power. In essence, "good" becomes defined as "does nothing to upset the powerful".
Video games get modern hate for two basic reasons. 1) They're new/different 2) They encourage people to spend time in ways that don't directly support and sometimes directly challenges the current paradigm.
The biggest complaint is that they're a waste of time, but honestly I think most of the ire is that they're just not as profitable. For example, TV used to be fairly negatively seen, but as they became a key part of maintaining our consumer society (via ads), complaints for them went down. As video games become more revenue focused, it seems complaints for them are lowering.
On the reverse side, I think humans could use more moralizing. Not the pearl clutching way, but a more steadfast dedication and education in good ethical systems. Of course, the trick is determining what a good ethical system is.
To a religious leader a few hundred years back, a 'game' is something totally different from what you and I know as a game. For instance: if you're leading men, and for some reason they're getting drunk and 'gaming' (hazard/dice/whatever) between each other, then that probably might be leading to real internal strife, conflict, violence, desperation etc. It would make sense in that reality, for a leader to subscribe and to propagate teachings/philosophies/doctrines which cut off that possibility.
It's not something I 'like' much either, but it's super interesting to think about why various things were 'banned' (or encouraged!) in different historical realities. These things weren't done by stupid people for stupid reasons.
The video/computer games we have today frequently serve as literature: a source of wisdom, means of companionship, educational simulations of reality. They're a powerful form of art/influence, and we're already seeing some authoritarian states ban or prohibit them.
Video games nowadays are also really good at hacking people’s dopamine system. Trying to entice people to spend as much time and money as possible. The most important thing is self awareness. Know what a game is doing to you and decide if that is beneficial.
> Why should we think their moral compass/philosophy is better guided than our own? If a certain form of game is fun and not harming others, why not continue it?
Well, it might be better guided than our own; certainly old Shakyamuni made that claim on thousands of occasions, and a lot of people are reported to have agreed with him about it. I have found that sometimes I learn things by listening to other people, or trying things they recommend, because sometimes they know things I do not.
With respect to not harming others, Shakyamuni did spend a lot of time talking about how it's very important to not harm others (sometimes to an extreme unmatched even by the Jains), but Buddhists believe that not harming others is the beginning of virtue, not its highest expression.
(I'm no expert on Buddhism — I think I haven't even reached the first jhana, though I've had some vaguely similar experiences — but I've read enough of the Tipitaka that I'm pretty confident that I'm faithfully representing what it says in this case.)
Also Buddha: "That is why you should not get caught in the idea that this is the Dharma or that is not the Dharma. This is the hidden meaning when the Tathagata says, ‘Bhikshus, you should know that the Dharma that I teach is like a raft.’ You should let go of the Dharma, let alone what is not the Dharma.”" [1]
Depending on where you are on the path and what your practice is, it probably makes sense to avoid game playing. For others, maybe not. Buddhist teaching invites you to sit and investigate on your own.
This is a bit like saying: don't trust cardiologists. They tell you what you should and should not eat. If a certain food is tasty and not harming others, why not eat it?
Presumably you only listen to their advice if you trust that they're seeing something you're not (yet). It's not "seeking to control," it's advising.
There's an order of importance to teachings, and this one falls somewhere below letting go of attachments to rules. Buddhism teaches the importance of avoiding getting caught up with either opinions or rituals for their own sake. Any prescriptive thinking loses its usefulness when it becomes an end rather than a means of reaching liberation.
On the other hand, thinking that there's a better moral philosophy than whatever ideas we currently have is highly encouraged, unless one is a Buddha. If we have already reached the peak of morality, there's no reason to look to the teachings of others, but if we feel that we still have room for improvement, it's worth looking into the teachings of others who demonstrate wisdom.
I don't think the world Self-Important means what you think it means. While I'm not religious, these are thinkers whose works are probably the longest surviving works of thought. This is just being facetious.
Imagine you think video games are a waste of time, or that a certain food type shouldn’t be eaten because it’s unhealthy or unclean.
Those are fine opinions to hold personally, but obviously many people may disagree. The self-importance I meant is when you think your opinions are more important than those of others and try to control their behavior.
FWIW— I’ve since edited the post because I think that wording makes it seem unnecessarily negative on my part.
Some people are more perceptive or knowledgable than others. Not all opinions are equal. You can't easily dismiss the idea that one can learn from others.
I don't dispute the existence of "false teachers" or the harm done by fossilized belief systems but your argument doesn't convince me that there's not a baby being tossed out with that bathwater.
Also - many esoteric or philosophical traditions engage with exactly this problem - the tension between the need for a teacher and the fact that many insights can only be arrived at through personal experience. This dichotomy is a huge part of the millenia old debate on such matters.
To me, it's just a spiritual leader advising his followers (I would venture mostly monks) that if they want to reach enlightenment, they should not be fooling around with games. The Buddha knew ordinary people minds, so his compass was better guided - assuming that you buy into the Buddhist premise, he knew how to put an end to our suffering.
Besides, Buddhism has many many facets, the teachings vary and may seem to contradict to the untrained eye, so don't read too much into it.
It feels like this sort of prescriptive thinker is exactly the type of person we should not listen to. Why should we think their moral compass / philosophy is better guided than our own? If a certain form of game is fun and not harming others, why not continue it?
Edited: removing “self-important” description as it was unnecessarily negative to make my point