Welcome home! Please contact
lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site.
New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days.
Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Does Buddhism allow for pragmatism?
Comments
Sorry, again my Ego was speaking.
However, for me being simple and holding simplistic views is the same.
This is why I search here. I’m looking for some answers to advance from being simple.
What next?
Who knows??
I have tried to find a justification to my emotions and its common ground with the Buddhism.
Those are Q from Buddha.
''However many holy words you read, however many you speak, what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?
I do not believe in a fate that falls on men however they act; but I do believe in a fate that falls on them unless they act. "
Just one example, I think the overwhelming majority would agree that it is immoral to kill a human being just for fun. It wasnt always like this but I think its safe to say we have evolved to a point where its pretty much a part of universal morality.
and I agree that being quiet can sometimes make you just as guilty as the perpetrator.
Rather, right speech is when our words are spoken with an intent of good-will for all involved... for the oppressed and the oppressors, who are both in samsara.
I am not saying to refrain from speaking, but that speaking isn't necessarily the best choice... and especially not when we are caught in our own delusion and hatred.
(1) Is it ethical for Buddhists to hold political positions?
(2) (3) (4) (5) Then OP asks yet ANOTHER (rhetorical) Q: Which I presume is a general version/summary of the 5 Qs above to which he says "The pragmatic method is primarily a method of settling metaphysical disputes that otherwise might be interminable.... The pragmatic method [tries] to interpret each notion by tracing its respective practical consequences. What difference would it practically make to any one if this notion rather than that notion were true? If no practical difference whatever can be traced, the the alternatives mean practically the same thing, and all dispute is idle. Whenever a dispute is serious, we ought to be able to show some practical difference that must follow from one side or the other's being right" (William James, "What Pragmatism Means").
Have you done this here?
b@eze
bg
peace
bg
Thanks for you support.
I am reminded of a very famous quote from Martin Niemoller:
"First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me."
Sometimes, I wonder if those answers are just not a manifestation of sophisticated ‘passive aggressiveness’.
In many ways they just put a pressure on your attacker;
I hope, I am slowly developing humbleness and compassion but who knows. :scratch:
Scenario B: a teacher is exploiting students for sex. Some students are traumatized. Everyone knows what's going on, nobody's saying anything, pretending everything's fine, or worse, their teacher is the Buddha incarnate. (We had a thread on this.) So more students are joining, and falling prey. But nobody says anything. What's changing about this situation? Nothing. The teacher is having his (or her) jollies, and is getting away with it because everyone around him is complicit in allowing it to continue.
Vinlyn: we had a couple of threads on bullying and the appropriate response to it, back last winter. And here's my fave quote from Lama Albert Einstein: "The world is becoming a more dangerous place, not because of those who commit evil, but because of those who do nothing to stop it."
I'm noticing that some members are equating speaking out with anger. Speaking out doesn't have to be motivated by anger. Speaking out is a compassionate act, motivated by empathy for the victims. If we were in the victim's shoes, whatever the situation, wouldn't we want someone to stand up for us? This is fundamental to Buddhism.
(1) Is it ethical for Buddhists to hold political positions?
Yes its ok I think.
(2) Would being a part of a government that has a military be breaking the precept against killing?
No unless the monk was a soldier and killed someone. You choose to be a soldier. If you don't want to live in a world where you have to kill then you don't have to. Its always a choice.
(3) Would keeping state secrets be breaking the precept against lying?
No. Not divulging isn't the same as lying.
(4) Is taxation taking what isn't given?
No. The value of money is created by society and it can be taken away to make that society function. You have to look at the intent of the precepts. If tax dollars do good things such as provide education then they are good. Anyone can choose to migrate away from your nation that you have established.
(5) Do the advantages of maintaining a secure, peaceful and free society outweigh the sometimes negative means neccessary to do so?
The advantages aren't created by the negative means. The advantages are dependently co-arisen from a variety of factors and the negative means never create a positive thing although it seems that way. For example I steel to feed my family. It seems their health is created by stealing. But that is an illusion. Their health is created by my loving kindness. Which caused me to steal. The stealing caused nothing other than negative karma.
Still sometimes outweigh based on your judgement of loving kindness. Nonetheless even then you may owe a karmic debt. A bodhisattva can break the precepts for the greater good. They are very cautious to do that because a bodhisattva is not a buddha and thus cannot predict all consequences.
Can we as buddhists engage in society and keep to our path?
Yes we have to. Ignorance as defined by my teachings I have received is shying away from reality. At the same time the primary focus is escaping from samsara and bringing all beings. Read up on Shambala a concept of Trungpa Rinpoche for example of what is needed for a Utopian Buddhist society.
VICTIM
I cannot imagine a scenario where NOT helping a true VICTIM -- in one way or another -- could possibly be considered RIGHT ACTION.
Are they saying that if they lived in a country that is essentially Buddhist (such as Thailand, where 95% of the people profess to be Buddhist), do they think that that nation should have no government? Or do they think, again as an example in Thailand, that the Thais who make up 95% of the population should allow themselves to be ruled by the 5% of the citizens who are Muslim?
Very profound observation.
Two opposite emotions: anger and compassion.
Anger produces – motivation and action. Yes it has to be controlled annoyance but still rage.
Compassion produces sympathy and consideration ONLY.
I can’t feel compassionate without feeling angry for the circumstances which have created suffering.
Compassion without action is worthless.
Religion has been a political institution for too long.
Outcome:
Spilling blood.
Intolerance.
Brainwashing.
Why we have allowed this?
Iran proved his undoing. When the Shah was dying of cancer and was in desperate need of qualified medical care, no country would accept him. Carter, out of compassion, finally relented. This began the Iran hostage crisis, where Americans were taken hostage for months by militant Iranians, in protest of the US admitting the Shah to a hospital. That was the beginning of the end of the Carter Presidency.
However, look at our society. The shame is that majority of sensitive, compassionate people gave under the pressure of bullies. They will go to mediate, pray at the church or suffer silently in their living room.
It is understandable. The forceful members of the society have shut them up.
This is why , I think we should shout out and give the courrage for them to speak.
Speaking in the Buddhist way: Not all of us had a Karma to be extravert, daring and fearless enough to stand up to establishment.
Should we not use this power to encourage others?
Look at the human history during those years. Full of injustice, crimes against the humanity and intolerance.
Gandhi used the principle of non violence. It worked, nevertheless - look at the Pakistan and India in the 21 century.
When you visit the Carter Library in Atlanta, the only notable achievement that's truly highlighted are the Camp David Accords. And while they were amazing, I'm not sure they accomplished much toward long-term or broad peace in the Middle East.
I will say, he's the best EX-president we've had.
BTW...I'm a Democrat.
Exactly, this is why betas, gammas and even zetas should be encouraged to speak their mind.
Maybe just maybe this will change the way ‘’alphas’ are getting into power and hold to it.
But every Buddhist school that I know of, does have precepts for lay Buddhists as well as monks, and it does have a noble eight fold path, which are there to guide Buddhists onto the right path in life. However, ultimately it all boils down to how much dedication and conviction a person has in following these.
But now I think that we have a choice. We can choose to focus on the outrage when we see abuse or injustice. Or we can shift our focus to feeling compassion for the victim, and the pain they are feeling. This is probably more constructive, and ultimately, healthier for ourselves. (Compassion doesn't trigger stress hormones. Any kind of outrage does.) Just something to think about. My own thinking in this regard is evolving. You said it!
I think it's too bad that Buddhism is often misinterpreted or misperceived as a passive creed. Or maybe that's a correct perception, but I think it's a misapplication of Buddhist principles. Buddhist dualism works as follows:
active --- passive
compassion-- wisdom
male --- female
action -- meditation
So compassion is seen as an active force. I don't know why it hasn't manifested as active in practice, except to say that going forth and teaching the dharma is viewed by the monastic society as the active, compassionate component. But this doesn't account for the thousands of monks in monasteries who don't teach, and function as servants and general workforce for the senior and advanced monks (speaking of Mahayana tradition. I don't know how the Theravada monasteries work.) In any case, in the West, compassion is being put into action in diverse ways, which I think is a very positive development.
‘’We can choose to focus on the outrage when we see abuse or injustice. Or we can shift our focus to feeling compassion for the victim, and the pain they are feeling. This is probably more constructive, and ultimately, healthier for ourselves. (Compassion doesn't trigger stress hormones. Any kind of outrage does.) Just something to think about. My own thinking in this regard is evolving.’’
Yes compassion doesn't trigger stress hormones but very often leads to pushing things to your subconscious. We all know what the consequences of it are.
Stress has many beneficial effects. Avoiding it at all cost leads to the mental pathology and suffering.
Good night and Namasti.