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.
I agree. But do you see nazi aggression as evil and american aggression as good? I might have read something into your posts that wasn't there. Or confused someone else's sentiments with yours.
Aggression goes against the principles of good, wherever it is coming from.
Defense against aggression (including pre-emptive action) is supportive of the principles of good.
if we simply go back as far as what recently happened in Libya, how many innocent Libyans died while other countries went the diplomatic route for weeks on end?
That is the caution. And it is happening again in Syria, where no other countries are rushing into fight, and tens of thousands are suffering and dying. I guess I miss the compassion in that.
We ought to do everything we can to avoid war... everything... we can... to avoid....
Perhaps you can highlight all the things that are done to avoid war? Then perhaps consider the causes of war and tell me where the incentive is to avoid what is a very very lucrative industry (is it second legitimate after power?).
How exactly does joining a military force do anything to avoid?
The shortcut you've taken is wholeheartedly believing everything that is spoon fed to you - how many examples do you need before you begin to comprehend that what is fed to you on the news may only be one (very distorted) side of a very complex issue.
Look at something mundane in front of you - like say, the difference between the perception of a field (such as say medicine) to what actually goes on in that field - so in medicine it seems pretty simple - the sector is there to heal - however when you begin to drill down into what happens on the ground, you begin to see that it's not about healing at all - it is about the economics of healing... the latter doesnt mean that healing is even on the agenda - considering the industry as a whole, one begins to wonder whether the field is aiming to rectify the issues that require healing at all or whether it is simply feeding off it...
How many innocent Libyans were killed after the action? funny that - not too much on the news about that... or how an action costing £300M netted contracts worth £300bn for the UK alone... or on the actual standard of living of Libyans prior to the action or the numbers showing who was and was not pro-ghadafi or the incredible gold reserves and the way Libya refused to take part in the world monetary system, how it borrowed from its own federal bank and was touting for the African Dinar to be based on African gold reserves... funny also that the countries that took action have serious business interests in Libya.
No other countries running to the fight in Syria... that made me laugh - are we going there to find the fictitious weapons of mass destruction or the hidden training bases of the ever elusive Alquaida - have you listened to the debate on why Russia and China blocked the UN resolutions? or what is happening on the ground there?
Aggression goes against the principles of good, wherever it is coming from.
Defense against aggression (including pre-emptive action) is supportive of the principles of good.
You also seem to view the war in Iraq as an act of American aggression which is false.
Useful that we have a self-elected world police force to tell us all what 'good' is...
Also useful that the same 'good' appears to coincide with economic outcomes.
Great that we have nuclear weapons to reinforce that too- you know, just in case evil people dont understand good - then we can wipe them out and start from scratch with just good people.
Well done humans - there's no other way - it's an eternal symptom of the human condition - to think otherwise is 'unpragmatic', ' unrealistic', 'false' - unless perhaps you wake up one day and youre the buddha... and so is everyone else... until then carry on - it will sort itself out eventually...
Now... does anyone know how I can clean my karma as I think I stepped on an ant last week and it's keeping me awake....
if we simply go back as far as what recently happened in Libya, how many innocent Libyans died while other countries went the diplomatic route for weeks on end?
That is the caution. And it is happening again in Syria, where no other countries are rushing into fight, and tens of thousands are suffering and dying. I guess I miss the compassion in that.
We ought to do everything we can to avoid war... everything... we can... to avoid....
Perhaps you can highlight all the things that are done to avoid war? Then perhaps consider the causes of war and tell me where the incentive is to avoid what is a very very lucrative industry (is it second legitimate after power?).
How exactly does joining a military force do anything to avoid?
The shortcut you've taken is wholeheartedly believing everything that is spoon fed to you - how many examples do you need before you begin to comprehend that what is fed to you on the news may only be one (very distorted) side of a very complex issue.
Look at something mundane in front of you - like say, the difference between the perception of a field (such as say medicine) to what actually goes on in that field - so in medicine it seems pretty simple - the sector is there to heal - however when you begin to drill down into what happens on the ground, you begin to see that it's not about healing at all - it is about the economics of healing... the latter doesnt mean that healing is even on the agenda - considering the industry as a whole, one begins to wonder whether the field is aiming to rectify the issues that require healing at all or whether it is simply feeding off it...
How many innocent Libyans were killed after the action? funny that - not too much on the news about that... or how an action costing £300M netted contracts worth £300bn for the UK alone... or on the actual standard of living of Libyans prior to the action or the numbers showing who was and was not pro-ghadafi or the incredible gold reserves and the way Libya refused to take part in the world monetary system, how it borrowed from its own federal bank and was touting for the African Dinar to be based on African gold reserves... funny also that the countries that took action have serious business interests in Libya.
No other countries running to the fight in Syria... that made me laugh - are we going there to find the fictitious weapons of mass destruction or the hidden training bases of the ever elusive Alquaida - have you listened to the debate on why Russia and China blocked the UN resolutions? or what is happening on the ground there?
The kids are already under the supervision of the court. CPS and cops and court have been involved with the family for several years.
no, I don't know how much better life might be in Iraq now. But I don't think it's exponentially better to the point we can say "THERE! We done good and right by going to war in Iraq." @RebeccaS it might be true that we withdrew too soon, but it's what American's were calling for. Once we got Saddam we didn't believe we had a place there anymore, regardless of what shambles we left the country in after destroying so much of their infrastructure.
@RebeccaS I mostly certainly NEVER said the behavior of the kids was excusable or condoneable because of what they went through with their father. It's true people overcome bad childhoods, but most of the time they do it when someone steps in to show them the way to a better life. When you grow up never knowing what good is, it's hard to work your way towards it. Did I solve all the problems? No, and I never claimed I did or could, nor did I ever claim Buddhism would solve every problem in the world. Nor did I claim I have the answer to world peace or what to do about genocide. I do see is some people who are constantly making a point for following the precepts, making points where it is sometimes ok to kill people as long as it's for the betterment of other people (or as is the case most of the time for the US) for the protection of their own selfish interests.
@Karasti, I commend you for trying to take care of the kid. Someone should and I'm glad it's you who stepped up to the plate. You seem nice and you seem sensible and I think the kid is lucky to have you in his life. I had people take care of me in that way when I was a rough kid and I'm forever grateful to them. A decent meal now and then and some kind attention can be worth everything to a kid going through something like that.
As for war, all I'm going to say about war is that "war is hell".
I actually greatly enjoy this discussion It becomes pointless when we start to go in circles, which is where we are again now. But that is ok. I still learn a lot, and always end up going away from it with things to consider. You are all certainly my teachers!
There's no question about what the precepts mean. The precept against killing means no intentional killing, and likewise for the others. Most Buddhists follow the precepts out of an understanding for why those actions are harmful for themselves and others, rather than as a divine mandate. All lay Buddhists are encouraged to keep the five precepts both as a preventative measure against harm and as a way to keep their minds blame-free for meditative practice (if they meditate). Abstaining from unskillful acts also opens up a space where we can cultivate skillful ones.
I think you're wrong. I think most Buddhists do not follow the Precepts.
I guess it depends on ones definition of a Buddhist.
I think a Buddhist is just someone who lives in accord with or makes an effort at keeping the Buddhist precepts. One who doesn't, despite their cultural background, position, ordination, transmission, linage, claims or apparent enthusiasm.....remains a spectator of a Buddhist practice..
So according to my definition, all Buddhists work at following the precepts.
I don't know much about WWI. We can talk WWII though, I have a wealth of knowledge about that.
How about Russian soldiers being sent ahead of the tanks through minefields because the tanks were seen as far more valuable? And being shot by political officers if they refused to follow orders and advance?
Dolphins, bubbles, nice fishies and sonar... at the heart of the UK's Oceanographic Institute... furthering our understanding of the natural world and mathematics... my heart is warmed.
Professor Leighton has an important application for his research - he's had funding and probably wants some more - how will he seek to apply his wonderful discovery to the hierarchy of important challenges facing humanity?
"Developing sonar that can see sea mines in these conditions is important," says Professor Leighton.
Lovely - from furthering our understanding to ending life in one neat step - he has his eye on what is important.
So now we have anti-mine sonar... suppose we'll need antiminesonar-mines, submarines and torpedos... but we have a surplus of regular sonar, mines, submarines and torpedos... what to do? who will buy it? let's consider a random example from retail. Toothpaste... whiter than white... well whiter than the white from the last one that we told you was whiter than white... so... sell all of the last lot and then launch the newer better version... will people buy it? Of course - they loved the last lot and bought all that up and this lot is even better than that... works with toothpaste... everyone needs to brush at least once a day...
Now what are we going to do with all the mines, submarines and torpedos? shall we scrap them? decide that we have enough to balance power and keep the peace? How are those shareholder returns going? Where shall we invest these billions we're making? Who will buy new bullets? why would they want to buy more bullets, better bullets?
Consider that a rubbish Type 214 submarine built by the Germans and used by the Greek navy (hardly the pinnacle of naval achievement) cost something like $300M dollars 5 years ago - so when the US announces $300M of aid for the tsunami appeal, think of it as 1 submarine... just 1 rubbish far-from-red-october submarine...
Its a cycle - notice I havent referred to 'freedom, good/evil or aggression'...
Its also in plain sight - in public documents, company reports, shareholder reports and surveys, government briefings, debates in Hansard, public and private funding reviews, filed accounts, tax policy (statutory and extrastatutory concessions), censuses and historical records to name a few.
It seems to me that voluntarily enlisting in the military, knowing that you could be ordered to kill or take part in killing (since you would be on a warship - possibly massive killing) is setting yourself up for the possibility of a great amount of negative Kharma.
I guess it depends on ones definition of a Buddhist.
I think a Buddhist is just someone who lives in accord with or makes an effort at keeping the Buddhist precepts. One who doesn't, despite their cultural background, position, ordination, transmission, linage, claims or apparent enthusiasm.....remains a spectator of a Buddhist practice..
So according to my definition, all Buddhists work at following the precepts.
This is probably going to sound like it has "a tone" to it, but it is not intended that way, but I don't force a definition of a Buddhist on others. Some may be more serious than others, but I think that, as a general principle, self-selection defines a person.
I don't know much about WWI. We can talk WWII though, I have a wealth of knowledge about that.
How about Russian soldiers being sent ahead of the tanks through minefields because the tanks were seen as far more valuable? And being shot by political officers if they refused to follow orders and advance?
They decided to give their lives for something bigger than them (I don't mean the tanks lol) and I honour and respect that.
You also seem to view the war in Iraq as an act of American aggression which is false.
IMO the invasion of Iraq was both aggressive and foolish.
Many people are of that opinion. Many people are not. :shrug:
You also seem to view the war in Iraq as an act of American aggression which is false.
IMO the invasion of Iraq was both aggressive and foolish.
Many people are of that opinion. Many people are not. :shrug:
Yeah, let's face it, few of us on this forum really know anything significant about Iraq beside some per-conceived and biased opinions. I know several people who have been to Iraq, either in the conflict or working for companies involved in supply or rebuilding. They are all pro-Iraq war, but have their biases as well. And, ahead of that is a general attitude of most of the people on this thread that "all war is bad" or "war is usually the only real solution", which negates any meaningful opinion...in my view.
My best friend's husband is active duty Army. He has in the past 5 or 6 years been to Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq. He does not believe we belonged in all of those places. In his case, he is not infantry but he flew missions to retrieve the bodies of fallen soldiers and ensure they were returned to their families for burial. He struggles mentally every day with his parts in the wars, even though his actions did not directly cause harm and was generally rather heroic, risking his life to return the bodies of soldiers to their loved ones.
Anyhow, as far as being or not being Buddhist, at the retreat last weekend one thing that came up (and keep in mind this retreat was on the practices of a Bodhisattva, not lay practitioner although that is what all the participants were) was that, if you read about but do not fully practice to the extent of your ability and understanding, you would be an appreciator, an admirer of Buddhism but could not consider yourself a practicing Buddhist. Not saying I agree or disagree, just sharing what Lama D. Dorjee said about it while discussing the Bodhisattva practices.
I know a few vets. All of them lost their legs either in Iraq or Afghanistan. They're the bravest, most selfless people I've ever met and my love and respect for them knows no bounds.
Many of them come back mentally broken, and the support for them in that case is extremely minimal. It's very sad that the country takes and takes from them, and when they need help for all their service, we do very little for them. Almost all the killings on bases in the past couple years and domestic issues have been from vets suffering PTSD and other problems that they aren't being helped with. Last summer in a city near us a vet recently back from Iraq killed his 9 months pregnant wife, his young daughter, the family dog and himself. There were many warning signs, many people tried to get him help and it wasn't there. We expect a lot from them and in return, do not take care of many of them.
That's so awful. I thought America would have learned better after Vietnam. I think there is a lot of support for the vets here in Canada. All the guys I know run their own charities for injured vets now. I'm not sure what the government offers here, aside from the healthcare all Canadians get, but I know that a lot of the vets work tirelessly to support the soldiers coming back from war.
Many soldiers, airmen and seamen are coming around to their initial opinion of the Iraq action (if they were old enough to have one at the time)--that it was the wrong move. Pretending all military action is correct is foolish; militaries are human, and humans make mistakes. The only truly unpatriotic action is to never acknowledge mistakes, because if we can't acknowledge mistakes, we won't learn from them, and may not make the correct military decision the next time. Acknowledging mistakes has nothing to with whether or not soldiers are heroic and well-intentioned.
He said that lack of precepts meant a non-Buddhist.
So don't you think ethics are an important aspect of the Buddhist path? Are you saying it doesn't matter how we behave as Buddhists?
No, I just said declaring the 5 precepts make a non-buddhist is arbitrary. Should we say you need a minimum hours meditation? I compaired the two and implied it is egoistic to declare someone a non-buddhist.
@vinylyn, ah I misread and misquoted you. I thought you said those who do not follow the precepts are not buddhists. Thanks for clearing that up.
No problem at all. I sometimes misread people on here, myself...particularly if I am on the site in the early morning or late at night.
I very much agree with you on the other post (just above). Declaring someone to be a non-Buddhist is not only egotistical, but...well, I almost said non-Buddhist. None of us knows what's inside another person...even when they write/speak.
I guess it depends on ones definition of a Buddhist.
I think a Buddhist is just someone who lives in accord with or makes an effort at keeping the Buddhist precepts. One who doesn't, despite their cultural background, position, ordination, transmission, linage, claims or apparent enthusiasm.....remains a spectator of a Buddhist practice..
So according to my definition, all Buddhists work at following the precepts.
This is probably going to sound like it has "a tone" to it, but it is not intended that way, but I don't force a definition of a Buddhist on others. Some may be more serious than others, but I think that, as a general principle, self-selection defines a person.
I was just responding to your quote of..... "I think most Buddhists do not follow the Precepts"... where some might say that you are forcing a definition on how most Buddhists act.
This also isn't a question of seriousness. I'm saying that calling oneself a buddhist but not putting in an effort at keeping the precepts is like not being able to play the piano and calling yourself a pianist. Self selection at best, defines an intent. Listening to all the piano recitals in the world still defines you as a spectator, even when self selecting that you are a pianist when one doesn't even play the piano.
In your world one is whatever one says one is. In mine, your action determines what you are.
I don't know much about WWI. We can talk WWII though, I have a wealth of knowledge about that.
How about Russian soldiers being sent ahead of the tanks through minefields because the tanks were seen as far more valuable? And being shot by political officers if they refused to follow orders and advance?
They decided to give their lives for something bigger than them (I don't mean the tanks lol) and I honour and respect that.
I suspect they did it because they were scared not to. That's the point.
I guess it depends on ones definition of a Buddhist.
I think a Buddhist is just someone who lives in accord with or makes an effort at keeping the Buddhist precepts. One who doesn't, despite their cultural background, position, ordination, transmission, linage, claims or apparent enthusiasm.....remains a spectator of a Buddhist practice..
So according to my definition, all Buddhists work at following the precepts.
This is probably going to sound like it has "a tone" to it, but it is not intended that way, but I don't force a definition of a Buddhist on others. Some may be more serious than others, but I think that, as a general principle, self-selection defines a person.
I was just responding to your quote of..... "I think most Buddhists do not follow the Precepts"... where some might say that you are forcing a definition on how most Buddhists act.
This also isn't a question of seriousness. I'm saying that calling oneself a buddhist but not putting in an effort at keeping the precepts is like not being able to play the piano and calling yourself a pianist. Self selection at best, defines an intent. Listening to all the piano recitals in the world still defines you as a spectator, even when self selecting that you are a pianist when one doesn't even play the piano.
In your world one is whatever one says one is. In mine, your action determines what you are.
First, I don't think Buddhists -- in general -- follow the Precepts anymore or any better than Christians follow the Ten Commandments, or any other religion follows their primary teachings. Some people follow them....well, religiously...others follow them as guidelines only (as I've learned on this forum all too well).
You said, "Self selection at best, defines an intent." Hmmmm, another thing I've learned from this forum is the importance of intent. Many here say the whole structure of karma is defined by intent.
Although the words "opinion" and "judgement" are often listed as synonyms, I see the two as distinctly different. We all have opinions about each other in this forum. I have an opinion about your viewpoints and you. You have opinion about my viewpoints and me. If we didn't, there would be nothing to post about.
But I have learned to try very hard not to make judgements about other posters. Lately I've been ending a number of posts with the phrase, "But that's just me". Because I know that no matter how strong my views may be on a topic, I could be wrong.
There isn't just one definition about "what is a Buddhist". Being very knowledgeable may have little to do about whether one is "a good _________" (fill in the blank with the religion of your choice). The snake-handling Christians down in Tennessee may know scripture and verse verbatim, but some of them are also KKK'ers. While the country bumpkin in a West Virginian holler may not be able to recite/cite a single verse from the Bible, but may -- everyday of their life -- commit Christian principles as a way of living.
And the same is true about Buddhists. I have known Buddhists who are very knowledgeable about Buddhist history and can quote suttas left and right, but who in their actions are anything but understanding and compassionate.
You said, above, "In your world one is whatever one says one is. In mine, your action determines what you are." That way oversimplifies what I believe. It's more than just saying, it's doing...but not necessarily always being successful...that's where the intent factor comes in...honest intent. To me, your attitude towards it seems judgmental. While at the same time I am saying that someone "seems to act" more along the lines of my understanding of Buddhist principles. It's a fine line, and it seems to me you don't see the difference. But that's just me and my opinion...not my judgment.
@vinlyn It's all an odd situation. I don't think any of us would say that someone wasn't a Buddhist in a face to face discussion. On an internet conversation, its a little bit like watching other separate car drivers vocalizing things that they wouldn't dream of doing if walking on the sidewalk. I hope that what you discern as my judgementalism falls into that category.
I don't think I know what a Buddhist is!
In the real world... I think that if someone asked me what a Buddhist was, I'd probably just talk about what some of the Buddha's basic teachings were.. If someone claimed to be a Buddhist and was obliviously breaking precepts, I would try to find a skillful way to point that out.
Usually I view any identity that one clings to (Buddhist included) as a hindrance to the Buddha's path.
The better response from me would have been if I stated that I don't usually concern myself with a Buddhist label, just how to best walk the path to sufferings end.
He said that lack of precepts meant a non-Buddhist.
So don't you think ethics are an important aspect of the Buddhist path? Are you saying it doesn't matter how we behave as Buddhists?
No, I just said declaring the 5 precepts make a non-buddhist is arbitrary.
So if somebody claimed to be a Buddhist and ignored the precepts and behaved in selfish and harmful ways?...
Well you could say they weren't a Buddhist, but it might not be skillful. If they gave up their practice it would be horrible karma for you to disrupt their interest. At the same time perhaps they would take to heart their lack of precepts and turn around their interest.
So it depends if you want to give the carrot or the stick. What if you were selfish and felt too bad to practice? That could discourage a person.
Comments
Defense against aggression (including pre-emptive action) is supportive of the principles of good.
Also, what @Vinlyn said about Germany.
You also seem to view the war in Iraq as an act of American aggression which is false.
Perhaps you can highlight all the things that are done to avoid war? Then perhaps consider the causes of war and tell me where the incentive is to avoid what is a very very lucrative industry (is it second legitimate after power?).
How exactly does joining a military force do anything to avoid?
The shortcut you've taken is wholeheartedly believing everything that is spoon fed to you - how many examples do you need before you begin to comprehend that what is fed to you on the news may only be one (very distorted) side of a very complex issue.
Look at something mundane in front of you - like say, the difference between the perception of a field (such as say medicine) to what actually goes on in that field - so in medicine it seems pretty simple - the sector is there to heal - however when you begin to drill down into what happens on the ground, you begin to see that it's not about healing at all - it is about the economics of healing... the latter doesnt mean that healing is even on the agenda - considering the industry as a whole, one begins to wonder whether the field is aiming to rectify the issues that require healing at all or whether it is simply feeding off it...
How many innocent Libyans were killed after the action? funny that - not too much on the news about that... or how an action costing £300M netted contracts worth £300bn for the UK alone... or on the actual standard of living of Libyans prior to the action or the numbers showing who was and was not pro-ghadafi or the incredible gold reserves and the way Libya refused to take part in the world monetary system, how it borrowed from its own federal bank and was touting for the African Dinar to be based on African gold reserves... funny also that the countries that took action have serious business interests in Libya.
No other countries running to the fight in Syria... that made me laugh - are we going there to find the fictitious weapons of mass destruction or the hidden training bases of the ever elusive Alquaida - have you listened to the debate on why Russia and China blocked the UN resolutions? or what is happening on the ground there?
Jews and Nazi's??!! Seriously? Dude it's 2012...
Aggression is not aggression some times.
I give up.
Also useful that the same 'good' appears to coincide with economic outcomes.
Great that we have nuclear weapons to reinforce that too- you know, just in case evil people dont understand good - then we can wipe them out and start from scratch with just good people.
Well done humans - there's no other way - it's an eternal symptom of the human condition - to think otherwise is 'unpragmatic', ' unrealistic', 'false' - unless perhaps you wake up one day and youre the buddha... and so is everyone else... until then carry on - it will sort itself out eventually...
Now... does anyone know how I can clean my karma as I think I stepped on an ant last week and it's keeping me awake....
I didnt even know I had that rant in me... :buck:
@Gui, you seem to think aggression and defense are the same thing. You are incorrect.
@Zero you just seem really cynical and paranoid to me. I'm not equipped to handle that.
I know we wont agree - my aim is not for us to agree - just to balance the comments on here with some points that appear to be in a blind spot.
Nothing personal, @Gui, I know it might look that way because you were the last to mention me specifically, but I'm just over it
no, I don't know how much better life might be in Iraq now. But I don't think it's exponentially better to the point we can say "THERE! We done good and right by going to war in Iraq." @RebeccaS it might be true that we withdrew too soon, but it's what American's were calling for. Once we got Saddam we didn't believe we had a place there anymore, regardless of what shambles we left the country in after destroying so much of their infrastructure.
@RebeccaS I mostly certainly NEVER said the behavior of the kids was excusable or condoneable because of what they went through with their father. It's true people overcome bad childhoods, but most of the time they do it when someone steps in to show them the way to a better life. When you grow up never knowing what good is, it's hard to work your way towards it. Did I solve all the problems? No, and I never claimed I did or could, nor did I ever claim Buddhism would solve every problem in the world. Nor did I claim I have the answer to world peace or what to do about genocide. I do see is some people who are constantly making a point for following the precepts, making points where it is sometimes ok to kill people as long as it's for the betterment of other people (or as is the case most of the time for the US) for the protection of their own selfish interests.
As for war, all I'm going to say about war is that "war is hell".
I guess it depends on ones definition of a Buddhist.
I think a Buddhist is just someone who lives in accord with or makes an effort at keeping the Buddhist precepts. One who doesn't, despite their cultural background, position, ordination, transmission, linage, claims or apparent enthusiasm.....remains a spectator of a Buddhist practice..
So according to my definition, all Buddhists work at following the precepts.
A taster of how it works...
Dolphins, bubbles, nice fishies and sonar... at the heart of the UK's Oceanographic Institute... furthering our understanding of the natural world and mathematics... my heart is warmed.
Professor Leighton has an important application for his research - he's had funding and probably wants some more - how will he seek to apply his wonderful discovery to the hierarchy of important challenges facing humanity?
"Developing sonar that can see sea mines in these conditions is important," says Professor Leighton.
Lovely - from furthering our understanding to ending life in one neat step - he has his eye on what is important.
So now we have anti-mine sonar... suppose we'll need antiminesonar-mines, submarines and torpedos... but we have a surplus of regular sonar, mines, submarines and torpedos... what to do? who will buy it? let's consider a random example from retail. Toothpaste... whiter than white... well whiter than the white from the last one that we told you was whiter than white... so... sell all of the last lot and then launch the newer better version... will people buy it? Of course - they loved the last lot and bought all that up and this lot is even better than that... works with toothpaste... everyone needs to brush at least once a day...
Now what are we going to do with all the mines, submarines and torpedos? shall we scrap them? decide that we have enough to balance power and keep the peace? How are those shareholder returns going? Where shall we invest these billions we're making? Who will buy new bullets? why would they want to buy more bullets, better bullets?
Consider that a rubbish Type 214 submarine built by the Germans and used by the Greek navy (hardly the pinnacle of naval achievement) cost something like $300M dollars 5 years ago - so when the US announces $300M of aid for the tsunami appeal, think of it as 1 submarine... just 1 rubbish far-from-red-october submarine...
Its a cycle - notice I havent referred to 'freedom, good/evil or aggression'...
Its also in plain sight - in public documents, company reports, shareholder reports and surveys, government briefings, debates in Hansard, public and private funding reviews, filed accounts, tax policy (statutory and extrastatutory concessions), censuses and historical records to name a few.
Anyhow, as far as being or not being Buddhist, at the retreat last weekend one thing that came up (and keep in mind this retreat was on the practices of a Bodhisattva, not lay practitioner although that is what all the participants were) was that, if you read about but do not fully practice to the extent of your ability and understanding, you would be an appreciator, an admirer of Buddhism but could not consider yourself a practicing Buddhist. Not saying I agree or disagree, just sharing what Lama D. Dorjee said about it while discussing the Bodhisattva practices.
I very much agree with you on the other post (just above). Declaring someone to be a non-Buddhist is not only egotistical, but...well, I almost said non-Buddhist. None of us knows what's inside another person...even when they write/speak.
I was just responding to your quote of.....
"I think most Buddhists do not follow the Precepts"...
where some might say that you are forcing a definition on how most Buddhists act.
This also isn't a question of seriousness. I'm saying that calling oneself a buddhist but not putting in an effort at keeping the precepts is like not being able to play the piano and calling yourself a pianist. Self selection at best, defines an intent. Listening to all the piano recitals in the world still defines you as a spectator, even when self selecting that you are a pianist when one doesn't even play the piano.
In your world one is whatever one says one is.
In mine, your action determines what you are.
@vinlyn
I was just responding to your quote of.....
"I think most Buddhists do not follow the Precepts"...
where some might say that you are forcing a definition on how most Buddhists act.
This also isn't a question of seriousness. I'm saying that calling oneself a buddhist but not putting in an effort at keeping the precepts is like not being able to play the piano and calling yourself a pianist. Self selection at best, defines an intent. Listening to all the piano recitals in the world still defines you as a spectator, even when self selecting that you are a pianist when one doesn't even play the piano.
In your world one is whatever one says one is.
In mine, your action determines what you are.
First, I don't think Buddhists -- in general -- follow the Precepts anymore or any better than Christians follow the Ten Commandments, or any other religion follows their primary teachings. Some people follow them....well, religiously...others follow them as guidelines only (as I've learned on this forum all too well).
You said, "Self selection at best, defines an intent." Hmmmm, another thing I've learned from this forum is the importance of intent. Many here say the whole structure of karma is defined by intent.
Although the words "opinion" and "judgement" are often listed as synonyms, I see the two as distinctly different. We all have opinions about each other in this forum. I have an opinion about your viewpoints and you. You have opinion about my viewpoints and me. If we didn't, there would be nothing to post about.
But I have learned to try very hard not to make judgements about other posters. Lately I've been ending a number of posts with the phrase, "But that's just me". Because I know that no matter how strong my views may be on a topic, I could be wrong.
There isn't just one definition about "what is a Buddhist". Being very knowledgeable may have little to do about whether one is "a good _________" (fill in the blank with the religion of your choice). The snake-handling Christians down in Tennessee may know scripture and verse verbatim, but some of them are also KKK'ers. While the country bumpkin in a West Virginian holler may not be able to recite/cite a single verse from the Bible, but may -- everyday of their life -- commit Christian principles as a way of living.
And the same is true about Buddhists. I have known Buddhists who are very knowledgeable about Buddhist history and can quote suttas left and right, but who in their actions are anything but understanding and compassionate.
You said, above, "In your world one is whatever one says one is. In mine, your action determines what you are." That way oversimplifies what I believe. It's more than just saying, it's doing...but not necessarily always being successful...that's where the intent factor comes in...honest intent. To me, your attitude towards it seems judgmental. While at the same time I am saying that someone "seems to act" more along the lines of my understanding of Buddhist principles. It's a fine line, and it seems to me you don't see the difference. But that's just me and my opinion...not my judgment.
It's all an odd situation. I don't think any of us would say that someone wasn't a Buddhist in a face to face discussion. On an internet conversation, its a little bit like watching other separate car drivers vocalizing things that they wouldn't dream of doing if walking on the sidewalk. I hope that what you discern as my judgementalism falls into that category.
I don't think I know what a Buddhist is!
In the real world...
I think that if someone asked me what a Buddhist was, I'd probably just talk about what some of the Buddha's basic teachings were.. If someone claimed to be a Buddhist and was obliviously breaking precepts, I would try to find a skillful way to point that out.
Usually I view any identity that one clings to (Buddhist included) as a hindrance to the Buddha's path.
The better response from me would have been if I stated that I don't usually concern myself with a Buddhist label, just how to best walk the path to sufferings end.
Well you could say they weren't a Buddhist, but it might not be skillful. If they gave up their practice it would be horrible karma for you to disrupt their interest. At the same time perhaps they would take to heart their lack of precepts and turn around their interest.
So it depends if you want to give the carrot or the stick. What if you were selfish and felt too bad to practice? That could discourage a person.