Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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?

2

Comments

  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran


    Vinlyn and aMatt,

    I will never get upset or angry for calling me ignorant and simple.
    I know I am both plus a pinch of arrogance.


    I am here to learn and be challenged about my views.
    I know that they are subjective and any food for thought is very welcome.

    I didn't say you were simple. I said some of your views are simplistic. There's a huge difference.

  • edited May 2011


    Vinlyn and aMatt,

    I will never get upset or angry for calling me ignorant and simple.
    I know I am both plus a pinch of arrogance.


    I am here to learn and be challenged about my views.
    I know that they are subjective and any food for thought is very welcome.

    I didn't say you were simple. I said some of your views are simplistic. There's a huge difference.


    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??


  • This tread has put me on the little journey through the data available on Internet.

    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. "
  • RicRic
    edited May 2011
    Although it can be argued if killing an ant, a cow, fetus is moral or not I dont believe that just makes the whole lot ambiguous. I think we can all agree that there are certain aspects of morality that are pretty much universal.

    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.
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    The Buddha taught that silence can be Wrong Speech in certain situations. In the face of injustice, dishonesty, abuse and the like.
  • upekkaupekka Veteran

    silence can be Wrong Speech in certain situations. In the face of injustice, dishonesty, abuse and the like.
    can you name one situation that 'is not changing' ?

  • aMattaMatt Veteran
    Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five?

    It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will.

    AN 5.198
    If we use our inner urge to "fight oppression" we are not mindfully following right speech... we are attacking and blaming evil people. Said differently, we would be ignorantly projecting attributions onto a blank and ever changing set of circumstances because we are in pain at seeing 'injustice' or 'meanness'.

    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.

  • silence can be Wrong Speech in certain situations. In the face of injustice, dishonesty, abuse and the like.
    can you name one situation that 'is not changing' ?
    Upekka: There is no necessary connection between anicca (impermanence) & ahimsa (do no harm/prevent harm). You APPEAR to me to be reifying annica to justify not acting with loving-kindness, compassion, empathy & equanimity. Am I VIEWING your "position" accurately?
  • The Buddha taught that silence can be Wrong Speech in certain situations. In the face of injustice, dishonesty, abuse and the like.
    Often there is not much to be achieved by speaking about , and speaking back at, injustice, dishonesty, abuse and the like.

  • edited May 2011
    OP wrote:
    To me it seems to boil down to whether we can use wisdom and discernment to make a decision based on circumstance or if we should follow the rules. I guess I'm kind of biased towards pragmatism....
    Then asks five DIFFERENT questions that each DESERVE five respective answers:
    (1) Is it ethical for Buddhists to hold political positions?
    (2)
    Would being a part of a government that has a military be breaking the precept against killing?
    (3)
    Would keeping state secrets be breaking the precept against lying?
    (4)
    Is taxation taking what isn't given?
    (5)
    Do the advantages of maintaining a secure, peaceful and free society outweigh the sometimes negative means neccessary to do so?
    Then OP asks yet ANOTHER (rhetorical) Q:
    Can we as buddhists engage in society and keep to our path?
    Which I presume is a general version/summary of the 5 Qs above to which he says
    I don't think its...possible without...some level of pragmatism.
    "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

  • "Can we as Buddhists engage in society [that's taking military action] and keep our path"? This is the question I keep raising on these threads.... No one's ever responded to those questions, though. Maybe the 3rd time's a charm ;)
    Can we or SHOULD we? "Ought implies can." -Kant

  • Hi BuckyG, ought does imply we can, and we can ..... however, raising big questions, like raising any question does not mean it is one that is worth the dedication or application to answer. Ever attack, or war requires one person to say go .... is courage being willing to say " no, I will not say that " , even though I can - I suspect often it is - pragmatism in action.
  • Isn't this discussion basically about the relevance of the precepts? I think they're totally relevant. I just don't think they're something to be "applied" or "followed," but rather WORKED WITH (I learned that from my Kalyāṇa-mittatā).
  • @Tess: I :bowdown: to your grace under fire skills.
    peace
    bg
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran


    Often there is not much to be achieved by speaking about , and speaking back at, injustice, dishonesty, abuse and the like.

    I believe just the opposite is true. One should always speak out for right thought and right action. And even when nothing apparently changes, you never know what seed of thought you might have placed in someone's mind that may later come to fruition.

  • edited May 2011


    Often there is not much to be achieved by speaking about , and speaking back at, injustice, dishonesty, abuse and the like.
    The Buddha saw it differently.
    I believe just the opposite is true. One should always speak out for right thought and right action. And even when nothing apparently changes, you never know what seed of thought you might have placed in someone's mind that may later come to fruition.
    Absolutely! And speaking out can give others the strength to do so. Sometimes people can be intimidated by bully personalities, and feel they should speak up, but remain silent. If one person speaks up, others join in. This is important in letting bullies know that there are boundaries that are not to be crossed. Some people think they can speak or act with impunity. It's important to send the message that they are mistaken.

  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Compassionate warrior:

    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."

  • @Tess: I :bowdown: to your grace under fire skills.
    peace
    bg
    Thank you very much for your comment.

    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:
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited May 2011

    silence can be Wrong Speech in certain situations. In the face of injustice, dishonesty, abuse and the like.
    can you name one situation that 'is not changing' ?
    Look how long it took South Africa to change. Would've taken a LOT longer if people hadn't spoken out, and a movement of conscience internationally hadn't happened. But to answer your question, this is silly: think about it. Scenario A: someone's being ganged up on and bullied, or someone's being abusive toward a service employee, or whatever. You speak out to give reassurance to the object of the abuse, and to communicate to the abusers that they're out of line, and that society finds that type of behavior unacceptable. You dont say to yourself "Oh well, life is constant change", and walk away, leaving the poor person to the wolves. Some compassion. :shake:

    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.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    Then asks five DIFFERENT questions that each DESERVE five respective answers:
    (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.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    ...

    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.
    I think this is the very best part of your post, particularly because you used a word here that I don't think we've seen in this thread (or I missed it):

    VICTIM

    I cannot imagine a scenario where NOT helping a true VICTIM -- in one way or another -- could possibly be considered RIGHT ACTION.

  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Then asks five DIFFERENT questions that each DESERVE five respective answers:
    (1) Is it ethical for Buddhists to hold political positions?

    Yes its ok I think.

    ...
    Well, for those who would think that it's not okay, I would ask them this:

    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?


  • silence can be Wrong Speech in certain situations. In the face of injustice, dishonesty, abuse and the like.
    can you name one situation that 'is not changing' ?

    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.

    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.


  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran


    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.


    I don't agree.

    Compassion without action is worthless.

  • Then asks five DIFFERENT questions that each DESERVE five respective answers:
    (1) Is it ethical for Buddhists to hold political positions?

    Yes its ok I think.

    ...
    Well, for those who would think that it's not okay, I would ask them this:

    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?

    Faith should not be mixed up with politicks.

    Religion has been a political institution for too long.

    Outcome:

    Spilling blood.
    Intolerance.
    Brainwashing.

    Why we have allowed this?



  • edited May 2011
    Majority of politicians are ''alpha'' members of our society. To become one , you have to represent characteristic in the opposion to any pure religious faith and moral rules.
  • Majority of politicians are ''alpha'' members of our society. To become one , you have to represent characteristic in the opposion to any pure religious faith and moral rules.
    hmmm...I wonder how Jimmy Carter made it. Must've been a fluke.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    edited May 2011
    But Tess, you quoted my question but didn't answer it. How convenient.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Majority of politicians are ''alpha'' members of our society. To become one , you have to represent characteristic in the opposion to any pure religious faith and moral rules.
    hmmm...I wonder how Jimmy Carter made it. Must've been a fluke.
    You spelled it wrong. Jimmy was a flunk, not a fluke! :D
  • I don’t know much about Carter. However, I know that to be elected to be a president in USA did not give him a good chance to have ‘clean hands’
  • But Tess, you quoted my question but didn't answer it. How convenient.
    OOps sorry. I will go back and see where did I go wrong.

  • edited May 2011
    Carter was an unusual case. A "born-again Christian". He was elected because the country was fed up with the corruption of the Nixon administration.(Nixon was impeached.) The voters thought that electing someone of "pure religious faith and moral rules" would be a refreshing and needed change. And he was a Democrat, Nixon was Republican. His writing about his presidency, and also his humanitarian work after his presidency (covered in 2-3 books) is fascinating. It was Carter who reoriented American foreign policy from a sort of "pragmatism" (supporting dictators to counteract the Soviet "threat" and to keep the oil flowing) to Human Rights. A whole new standard for foreign policy. (He didn't observe that standard consistently himself.) People thought he was crazy, they couldn't understand what Human Rights had to do with foreign policy (seriously). Also, he was President during the Arab oil embargo, and supported alternative energy development, putting solar panels on the White House roof.

    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.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    From my perspective, Carter's presidency shows what happens with you rule as many on this website suggest.
  • edited May 2011


    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.


    I don't agree.

    Compassion without action is worthless.

    I agree with you. ''Compassion without action is worthless.''

    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?


  • edited May 2011
    From my perspective, Carter's presidency shows what happens with you rule as many on this website suggest.
    I'm sorry, V, I don't understand this comment. Could you explain, please? (Is there a typo here?) Anyway, I was just providing a thumbnail sketch of Carter for tess. Not passing any kind of judgment, other than to say he was "different". I think we can agree on that, no? (muffled laugh)

  • Buddhist monks have sat in meditation and full of compassion for hundreds of years.
    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.
  • edited May 2011
    Buddhist monks have sat in meditation and full of compassion for hundreds of years.
    Look at the human history during those years. Full of injustice, crimes against the humanity and intolerance.
    Yes, indeed! I'm not sure how they missed out on the principle of compassion meaning action. To say nothing of the horrific abuses perpetrated by Buddhist theocracy. (Not to take the thread off-topic....) Maybe this is where Western Buddhism sets a positive example or introduces a new standard--there's more interest in putting Buddhist values into action. Although I hear that some of the Thai Buddhist traditions run orphanages and other projects for the destitute.

  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    From my perspective, Carter's presidency shows what happens with you rule as many on this website suggest.
    I'm sorry, V, I don't understand this comment. Could you explain, please? (Is there a typo here?) Anyway, I was just providing a thumbnail sketch of Carter for tess. Not passing any kind of judgment, other than to say he was "different". I think we can agree on that, no? (muffled laugh)

    Most Americans believe that the Carter presidency was a failure, and I personally believe he was the worst Democrat president we have had since sometimes before FDR. So, I am passing judgment.

    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.

  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    alphas are also worthy of buddha's message tess.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    Theres a distinction between action, aspiration, and ultimate bohhicitta. Compassion is action bodhicitta. Or at least it could be.
  • You're right, V, everyone says he's the best ex-president we've ever had. Maybe being so religious, he just wasn't good at playing politics. Not "alpha" enough. ...or something. But he was right about the US needing to develop alternative energy sources (imagine where we'd be today, if that initiative had taken off. Reagan killed it). And about the economy--his second pres. campaign was about the desperate straights the economy was in at the time (remember "stagflation"?), and Reagan just laughed it off. But we digress...
  • alphas are also worthy of buddha's message tess.

    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.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    alphas are also worthy of buddha's message tess.

    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.
    I think that the key is that people should speak their mind, but be mindful in doing so.

  • zidanguszidangus Veteran
    edited May 2011
    I think what makes Buddhism so popular in the west, is that for a lay Buddhist it is believed to be extremely liberal and a lot of it, open to interpretation (which I am sure we have all found when reading different threads on this forum, which can make it confusing at times.)

    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.

  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited May 2011
    I agree with you. ''Compassion without action is worthless.''

    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?
    You're absolutely right, tess. This is why I said that if one of us manages the courage to speak up, others present often chime in, once someone has made the first move. I think most of us here would agree with this. And FYI, I had a thread months ago on anger as a motivator for speaking out or fighting injustice. The results were very interesting. I do believe that moral indignation or moral outrage can be motivating forces for positive change. Members generally defined anger as different from moral outrage. Anger was viewed as something that takes over the nervous system and causes loss of control, either verbal or physical, a negative thing.

    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.
    However, ultimately it all boils down to how much dedication and conviction a person has in following these.
    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.

  • I have to go but just quick comment about:



    ‘’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.
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    I don't think compassion leads to pushing things to the subconscious. Not if you act on your compassion. I would agree, though, that sometimes an exclusive focus on compassion can lead one to overlook other factors in a given situation.
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    Thats a wrong understanding of compassion. Compassion involves seeing things clearly. Anger involves delusion or exageration of how negative a thing is. Compassion is not poly annism.
  • upekkaupekka Veteran

    silence can be Wrong Speech in certain situations. In the face of injustice, dishonesty, abuse and the like.
    can you name one situation that 'is not changing' ?
    Look how long it took South Africa to change. Would've taken a LOT longer if people hadn't spoken out, and a movement of conscience internationally hadn't happened. But to answer your question, this is silly: think about it. Scenario A: someone's being ganged up on and bullied, or someone's being abusive toward a service employee, or whatever. You speak out to give reassurance to the object of the abuse, and to communicate to the abusers that they're out of line, and that society finds that type of behavior unacceptable. You dont say to yourself "Oh well, life is constant change", and walk away, leaving the poor person to the wolves. Some compassion. :shake:

    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.
    above has been changing already and no doubt it will be changing further and further


    :)
  • edited May 2011
    above has been changing already and no doubt it will be changing further and further
    :)
    So? Isn't Buddhism about being in the moment? That's when we choose whether to speak out when an incident occurs. Why would the Buddha discuss "no speech" as Wrong Speech if he believed we should simply write deliberately harmful actions off as situations that are subject to change, and allow abuse to continue? Compassion needs to be factored in and balanced with other teachings. Otherwise nonsense is the result.

Sign In or Register to comment.