user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
I believe it would be wise.
Any Utopia sucks! Because it faills. And a political system that fails is worst than totalitarism. Avtually, any political system that fails, no matter how generous and good, becomes tatalitarism. BTW: I haven't write anything about natioalism because I was unable to log in for a week. And then I had alot of work to do. But I will.
Perhaps, but it might be dependent upon where the rest of the world is, in terms of enlightenment.
Buddha's interpretation on how to stop the cycle of violence and hatred is logical. To stop violence and hatred: stop hating, stop being violent.
So it is not true to say that it is not practical because it is very straight forward and logical. Perhaps, it is better to say that it would not be easy.
Buddha provided his ten duties of the leaders and government:
1)The first duty of the government/leader is to be liberal, generous, and charitable. The ruler must not have craving and attachment to wealth and property, but should give it away for the well-being of the people.
2) The government/leader should never destroy life, cheat, steal and exploit others, commit adultery, utter falsehood, or take intoxicating drinks.
3)The government/leader must be prepared to sacrifice for the good of the people. Be willing to give up personal comfort, name and fame in the interest of the people.
4) The government/leader must maintain honesty and integrity. Should be free from fear or favour in the discharge of his duties, must be sincere in intentions, and must not deceive the public.
5) The government/leader should be kind and gentle and should have a genial temperament.
6) The leader/s should live a simple life, and should not indulge in a life of luxury. Should have self-control.
7) The government and leaders should be free from hatred, ill-will and enmity. He should bear no grudge.
8) Non-violence, which means not only should the government and leaders not harm anyone, but also that peace must be promoted by avoiding and preventing war and the destruction of life.
9) The government/leaders should have patience, forbearance, tolerance, understanding. Must be able to bear hardships, difficulties, insults without loosing one's temper.
10) Non-opposition, non-obstruction, that is to say that the government should not oppose the will of the people, should not obstruct measures that are conducive to the welfare of the people. The governing should therefore rule in harmony with the people.
NOTE: The ten duties are NOT to be enforced on the ruler. Instead the ruler should recognise the wisdom of it and adopt it of his own free will.
Cathexis- I don't understand what you mean? One should not adopt wisdom until everyone else adopts wisdom? If everyone followed that way of thinking, then noone would end up using wisdom.
If we realized that all manifestations of the world are merely manifestations of what lies within each of us - and set about healing the collective disease on an individual level (the dis-ease of conceit and of Ego) there would be no longer be any use for politics.
Change begins with the individual.
The only way to harmony would be through embracing points 1-10, but when true harmony is achieved, there will be no need for earthly leadership.
No. It would only work if everyone followed the same principles (obviously not the case) or if your government and people were prepared to commit national suicide to prove a point. Tibet tried this, didn't work. Nonviolence and compassion vs uncaring aggression, agression wins every time. Think about ghandi and his followers, how many were killed to achieve their goals (no imagine if each of those were an entire nation)? Besides which his strategy only worked because the british, although rather brutal at times, were in general a good people who didn't like to see massacres and who had some respect for the law. Against some group like the nazis ghandi and his buddies would have simply been massacred.
"his strategy only worked because the british, although rather brutal at times, were in general a good people who didn't like to see massacres and who had some respect for the law." - herzog.
C'mon now herzog, let's not be disingenuous. The (Bloody) British Empire was responsible for literally MILLIONS of deaths and practiced systematic genocide on practically every time- zone of the planet. I'm British (Scottish), but what the hell, the truth is the truth. The history of the British Empire was (and is) bathed in the blood of innocents. What they did in India during the Raj was abominable. What they did to the Native Americans was almost beyond belief. And I'm not even touching what they did to the Aboriginal natives of Australia.... Peacable nation? I'm sorry, but you're in Neverland if you somehow think that the British were somehow erstwhile Good Guys.
Forgive the outburst, but I've studied 'Britannia' and her bloody exploits around the globe.
Zig: britain gave up india because the british were sick of what was going on there. Yes, it was largely due to economic loss, but this could have been prevented by treating the indians the same way the jews were treated by the nazis. There's a reason passificism didn't do much to stop stalin, or hitler, or mao, or any other tyrannt in history. But it has been effective against the US, britain, and other civilized western nations.
This wouldn't work. Neither does Socialism.
Republican_RightWing and herzog will say it is not practical. But is their alternative practical? Is it practical to hate one another? To kill one another? To live in eternal fear and suspicion like wild animals in a jungle? Is this more practical and comfortable?
There are many, many examples in the individual cases in which hatred and fear are defeated by love and kindness. But some people will claim that it may practical in individual cases but not on the national and international levels. People are blinded and deceived by political propoganda with regars to terms such as 'nation' and 'state'. What is a nation?: A vast conglomeration of individuals. A nation does not act or think- it is the individuals that think and act. What is applicable to the individual is also applicable to the nation-state. If by 'not practical' you mean not easy, then you are right, it defnitely would not be easy. Yet it should be tried. You may say it would be risky. But surely it cannot be more risky than nuclear/chemical/biological war.
The world today lives in constant fear and suspicion. Science has produced weapons which are capable of unimaginable destruction. Flaunting these wepaons of suffering and death, great powers threaten and challenge one another, and boast shamelessly that they could cause more destruction and misery in the world than the others. It has come to the point that one more step forward in this violent direction will be mutual annhilation.
Human beings yearning to escape from the problems that they have created seek a solution. But there is none other than that of non-violence and peace, of love and compassion, of truth and wisdom, of tolerance and understanding, freedom from hated and violence.
Buddha says that: "Never by hatred is hatred appeased, but it is through kindness. This is an eternal Truth. One should win anger through kindness, wickedness through goodness, selfishness through charity, and falsehood through truthfulness. The 'victor' breeds hatred, and the 'defeated' lies down in misery. He who renounces both victory and defeat is happy and peaceful. One may conquer millions in battle, but he who conquers himself, only one, is the greates of conqueres" (Buddha)
herzog said- "Zig: britain gave up india because the british were sick of what was going on there." - Exactly. They felt compassion because of the non-violent resistance. You call Britain 'civilised'. I don't understand this term. Britain has been responsible for genocide in Australia and many other places. So what makes them civilised?
herzog says "Think about ghandi and his followers, how many were killed to achieve their goals" - but they, just like a violent soldier were willing to die for their cause. So let me ask you, how many soldiers have been killed in attempt to acheive their cause? And all those civillians that got in the way- how many of them were killed?
herzog says: "Besides which his strategy only worked because the british, although rather brutal at times, were in general a good people who didn't like to see massacres." - well herzog is right to an extent- the British are good people. But my argument is that all people are naturally good and dislike massacres- not only the British. I'm sure herzog's counter-argument will be that of the evidence of the Nazis and Japanese whom didn't hesitate in the massacre of people. But this is only because they were blinded and hypnotised by FALSE ideals of nationalism.
Herzog mentions Tibet and how their sovereignty was lost. I now ask herzog what should the Tibetans be doing instead? Using violence? Chechnyan style terroristic separatism? Nonsense, THAT would defnitely not be practical. AND I can name an instance in history in which it did work. Asoka- the emperor of India (3rd century B.C.) At first he followed the example of those before him: using violence and terror out of desire to conquer the Indian peninsular. Many were killed, wounded, tortured. But later, he converted to Buddhism and he was changed completely. The emperor publicly expressed his 'repentance' and shame. He renounced war altogether and granted freedom of religion to all religious groups in his empire. An example in history in which a victorious conquerer at the zenith of power, still possessing the strength to continue territorial conquests, renounced war and violence and turning to peace, non-violence and universal compassion. There is no historical evidence to show any neighbouring king took advantage of Asoka's kindness to attack him militarily, nor was there any revolt or rebellion from within. On the contrary there was peace throughout the land, and even people outside his empire seemed to have accepted his benign leadership.
Tell you what euro; You come up with an instance from history when pacifism has prevented invasion, liberated a people, spread freedom, prevented a people from being enslaved/murdered, and I'll match it with one where war prevented all those things. And we'll go back and forth until one person runs out of examples.
I'll start: the holocaust would never have ended without a war. Match it with a genocide ended by buddhist ideals.
Buddhism is horrible itself. Applied to international politics would make things even worse. France hasn't learned after all these years that pacifism only worsen things . They bribed Viking invaders with Normandy to stop attacks but what did it do? It encouraged them to sack Paris. Let's use pacisfism when China invades Taiwan and Japan then turns it's eye on the west. Buddhism is unrealistic and simply wouldn't work.
Republican_RightWing- France is not pacifist. Did you what they did in Algeria. What they are doing now in the Ivory coast?
"Buddhism is horrible itself." - I want you to elaborate on that.
And herzog I cannot think of a situation in which pacifism was even tried successfully or unsuccessfully in international politics. Very sneaky of you to challenge me in such a way when we both know that through out history pacifism has hardly even been attempted. And RRW pacifism is not the only doctrine of Buddhism. You say Buddhism is horrible- in what way? Telling people how to be happy?
Euro: think maybe there's a reason it's never been tried, at least not with any success?
herzog- it hasn't had success or failure because it hasn't been used at all. It hasn't been used because it is the more difficult path which would lead to long-term peace. Whereas the path of violence is very very easy to walk, yet the path of violence can only create temporary peace. 'Peace' brought about by force is always temporary.
Yes but it would also presume to be active in its disolution. A person , any person including political may have some sort of insight or perspective on what it is that is actually going on or have a life-changing experience that would radically alter their "ethics". This could make them influential or marginalised or perhaps just change their life course but doing what is "right" cant be just dependent on waiting for everyone else.
Their are many ways to understand world events and what is upon us but the Critical Mass principle is a simple one to invoke
One of the most common ways that a person *converts* to Buddhism is to beat the piss outa them. Sorry , just had to get that in lol
"Mafia is a process,not a thing.Mafia is a form of clan-cooperation to witch it's individual members pledge lifelong loyalty....Frienship,connections,family ties,trust,loyalty,obedience-this was the glue that held us together."-Joe Bonanno
"When I think of the American Indian I think of their courage,strength,pride,their respect and loyalty toward their brothers.I honor the reverence they share for tradition and life.These traits are hungered for in a society that is unfortunately plagued by those whose only values are selfcentered and directed at others' expense... " -John Gotti
Buddhism is not a doctrine or system of ethics nor an attempt to stop the rain or intervene in a local footie match
Here are two accounts relating to a much greater Reality/reference and understanding tho
A fire raced through a neighbourhood (in California I think) leveling every single house in that area.There was one house in the middle of it that was entirely untouched.Nothing,the fire had gone around it.It was described by the News Cast as "miraculous" .The Home Owner revealed that it was "blessed by a buddist Priest "one year earlier.
A village in South America living on what is regarded as an Earth Meridian Grid point (dragon lines ala acupuncture) came together as refugees from civil war in the area and known now as producing "genius" children and living in an enlightened way was the only village either not massacred by the army or ever affected by a stray bomb as all the others nor ransacked.The Leader of the ransacking armies who had no knowledge of its significance was asked why it was he never attacked that village like all the others.He said he had no idea.It would have been his intention , just didnt seemed to work out that way.
*ala dragonlines. Wtf is ala. Must be french .....
Euro: it has been tried, just not with success. Look at tibet, look at any neutral nation throughout history. They've all been overrun at one point or another, unless protected by obscurity or aa more powerful ally. The only nation that has made neutrality work at all has been the swiss, and that's only because they're armed to the teeth, hardly a buddhist nation. No, the reason it hasn't been tried more is that it won't work, the reason it won't work is that it's based on idealism, not reality.
There are many realities, herzog. The old reality of armed conflict will be replaced by a new power when humanity sees the truth behind all wars.
There wont be any planet left soon anyway...
"Schauberger also busied himself with the revitalization of earth. In this research, he was inspired among other things by unorthodox old farmers, who still farmed in their own, very unique way. A lovely example of this can be found in his account of a visit he paid to an old farmer, who used some very eccentric methods of agriculture and was looked upon strangely by his neighbors. His harvests were nevertheless the richest of the whole region. Schauberger visited the farmer one evening, and found him in the barn. The man was stirring rhythmically with a wooden stick in a big BAK with water, all the while singing tunes and throwing some earth in the water. Singing upwards, he stirred against the clock, singing downwards, he stirred clock wards. This ‘VirginHymne’, as the farmer called this mixture, he scattered over his land. It functioned as a thin layer of ‘skin’ that lies as a violet colored filter on the earth. It enabled the earth to ‘breathe’ just right. From passed traditions, this method of making the earth breathe was called ‘clay-singing’. Schauberger concluded that the stirring of the clay in the water creates a neutral ‘voltage’. Thrown out over the land, after the water has evaporated, a very fine crystal-like layer remains, ensuring just the right temperature of the earth beneath it of, also here, 4 degrees. The farmer also told him that he harvests by hand, with scythes. He had discovered that hand-made scythes functioned much better than machine-made ones. According to Schauberger, one of the reasons for this is, that when a scythe is cast on a wooden background, mechanical tension is built up, that is spread across the land during harvest. (10)
Around 1930 king Boris of Bulgaria asked Schauberger to find out why in recent times, the harvests of his country had gone down so drastically. During his journey Schauberger noticed that Turkish farmers had harvests that were clearly better than those of the other farmers. He discovered that they were the only ones still working with wooden ploughs....." etc etc
There can be no stop to war. Dictators and terrorists will always exist. War is inevitable. War can be stop by taking action before things getreally bad.
Sure zig, let's all throw away our guns and sing kumbyya. One question though: who's going to be the first to disarm?
I'm with Zig. Change has to start at the most fundamental level of self. The whole point of Buddhism is that it can take many, many lifetimes to achieve this. When China invaded Tibet, the ultimately killed 1 million Tibetans and destroyed over 6,000 of their temples. Tibet did not resist per se, because for them, they realized that it would have been virtually futile and because each individual realized that the physical life they lived is sort of like the vessle that carries their true self--their spirit.
I don't know if I necessarily agree with this, but it correlates with what Christ told us to do in that we should turn the other cheek and forgive and pray for our enemies. Maybe not everyone would throw thier guns away Herzog. But who ever does first is most likely taking the biggest leap of faith of the lives. I hope someone/some country takes that leap soon.
There was this guy I read about once 10 years ago Dannion Brinkley who decribed his life story after having had a Near-death experience via lightning thru the telephone. It was a great read especially as he was at that time an influential military psychopath (in his own description) who described in good detail why humans become as they do (obvious : school etc). His transformation was absolute , his message very clear. Worth reading.
Big, what happened to him? I mean, what did he experience?
Of course veterans and families of victims are the most vocal activists and proponents as well
Buddhism also has the advantage of believing that no matter how many times they get killed they'll always come back, and that if they die nobely (in the pursuit of peace) they'll come back as something better. I don't believe this, which is why I'm not really so keen on dying to prove a philosophical point.
This is ture Herzog, but in Christianity (which you've pointed out you're not a Christian), the belief is that when your physical life ends, your soul can live forever, so there is no death, just eternal life. Not sure what the belief is for people of the Muslim or Jewish faiths?
oh yeh, check out my last posts here too if you wish 68734 Awesome stuff
Tat Wale Baba on amazingabilities .com is worth checking out.
Actually herzog and patch: the idea of the soul is rejected by Buddhism. They do not believe in that. There is no 'self' that reaps reward and punishment from good and bad actions. Westerners completely misunderstand Buddhism. You might be thinking: then what is it that keeps being reincarnated in Buddhism if they do not believe in the soul. The answer is that the impurites such as desire (desire for sense pleasures, desire for existance, desire for the silly notion of 'power'). These impurites are reincarnated, but there is no 'soul' or 'self' according to Buddhism. So no, Buddhists are not pacifist out of expectation of reward or fear of punishment. There is no 'soul' that receives these things. They are pacifist out of reason and logic that to stop the cycle of violence of hatred: stop being violent, stop hating. You do not fight fire with fire (that will only cause more fire). You fight fire with water.
NOTE: the desire for non-existance also results in reincarnation of that desire.
Buddhists pursuit is that of the Absolute Truth (Nirvana) through reason, logic, and proper concentration (meditation).
As for the case of Tibet, what did they loose? National pride? First of all Buddhism discards nationalism and pride, so they didn't really loose that in that respect because they never clinged to these ideas in the first place. What did they lose that is important to them? The answer is freedom of religion. I have read some articles that the Buddhist monks are not so interested in the pride of being an independent nation-state on the world map, they are more interested in freedom of religion and cultural rights (things which are real and practical to them in their everyday lives) and that they are willing to acheive these things within the framework of China. These things China is open to. But China is against an independent Tibet.
And Asoka's pacifist Buddhist Indian empire was successful.
Euro: whatever they call it buddhists believe they aren't really going to die, that some part of them will live. And that the better they live their lives the better animal they get to come back as, and when they finally do everything right they get to go to heaven. These are buddhist beliefs. Doesn't sound like they believe you've only got one life to live, or that your actions here don't reflect what happens to you next. And basing your foriegn policy on the hopes that when you are all killed you'll get a 2nd chance doesn't really make a lot of sense.
Actually herzog, you are wrong again. (have you even read in to Buddhism yet- there is a reason theologists accuse them of being 'atheistic'). What you are referring to: reincarnation of 'soul' in which it is given the chance to purify itself each life and hence climb a 'karmic ladder', and eventually be pure enough to go to heaven to be with the gods is NOT the Buddhist doctrine. THAT is Hinduism.
Buddhism declares that there is no soul to purify. There is no soul. There is no self. There is the reincarnation of desires and attachments. But these desires and attachments are looked down upon by Buddhists, they are the cause of all the suffering in this existance. So Buddhists are not interested in the continuation/reincarnation of this desire/suffering. So the thought of re-existing of these impuritis over and over is not something appealing to Buddhists at all. Instead, Buddhists seek realisation of the Absolute Truth (Nirvana). Besides Buddhist philosophy teaches that what happens after death in a lot of ways is completely irrelevant due to the fact that what is important to them is the concepts of 'here' and 'now'.
"here" and "now" not being a reference to place or time.The NDE is still just our own mind we are looking at. Being told "You are safe , there is no need to be afraid " means you are *still* not "safe" and will likely end up being very afraid . "Bravery" or "courage" basically worsens this predicament.
"Before death, you make mind.
... After death, mind makes you."
What you sow, so shall you reap"
Its you who are writing upon you own mind and clinging to its objects with your attention. Consciousness , your Original Face has no IDentification with any of it.Its like being all alone in the Bush entranced to a TV set
Conventional theists involved in politics which is just about all of em it seems should properly compare the Lankavatara Sutra and the Gospel Of John , Thomas amongst others
"The ultimate and secret teaching (or 'nighttime') Teaching of Jesus (such as he is reported have given to Nicodemus, in the third chapter of the Gospel of John) goes beyond the traditional esoteric and mystical notion that we are each indentical to an individuated immortal soul and need to identify with that soul inwardly and apart from the body in order to ascend to the nonphysical spiritual or psychic world. Jesus Taught recognition of our total born bodily (or psycho-physical) being as soul, not merely in the sense of being an immortal subtle individual, but in the eternal sense, totally inhering in and thus totally identical to the Spiritual and Transcendental Divine. He Taught that we are utterly Spiritual (or eternal, and thus, in Truth, unborn), now and forever in intimate free Communion with God, Who is Spirit, or Radiant Transcendental Being -- in (and thus as) Whom we love and move and exist."
|
|
