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.
American Buddhism Growing
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060914/ts_csm/cbuddha
Jane Lapman talks about the emergence of American Buddhism in the past 20 years and how people like Hanh, HHDL, and Lama Surya Das have contributed to it. A good read.:bigclap:
Jane Lapman talks about the emergence of American Buddhism in the past 20 years and how people like Hanh, HHDL, and Lama Surya Das have contributed to it. A good read.:bigclap:
0
Comments
Yes, this was a great article. Thanks for sharing it.
Adiana:wow: :thumbsup:
I think it's interesting that, in the mainstrean, it is religiously non-aligned social scientists who have been the first to smell the emergence of an American Buddhism. Buddhists in America outnumber all of the Christian sects except the major ones like Catholicism, for example. There are more Buddhists in America than Charasmatics, Congregationalists, Mormons, or Unitarians. Buddhism is the fastest-growing religion in America by far. If you extrapolate the trend, you're looking at a major direct competitor to Christianity, in the next decade.
The other group that isn't confused about American Buddhism is ordinary Asian Buddhists (Forget the high-profile lineage holders and their academic followers, who have political agendas). When asked what it is that American Buddhist converts actually practice, ordinary Asian Buddhists universally reply "American Buddhism." There is no doubt in their minds that what we call Buddhism is not what they call Buddhism, but it is still genuine Buddhism, and they value our practice and our point of view, which in general, they find corrective for the shortcomings of their tradition.
Oh, and hey, did I forget to mention the actual American Buddhists themselves? There actually are a few of us who know who and what we are. It has been reported that consciousness has something to do with Buddhist practice.
Oh, and hey again, there have been three dozen articles, containing exactly this content, that have been published in the American mainstream press in the last two years. Have you seen any sign of them on that most precious of all possible Buddhist BB's?
Thanks for sharing, Makaraov.
Buddhism has been in America since the founding of the Republic. It is not necessarily percieved as alien. There are now many third-generation Buddhists in America from the transmissions of the '60's.
And, you know, we do have freedom of religion in America. If your religion is true, it will wind up being respected no matter what it is. There are now even Wiccan markers placed on the graves of U. S. soldiers by the American government.
Yes, intolerance is a universal human weakness, and America is no exception. But I think it's a mistake to define yourself, as a Buddhist, by what people of other faiths think of you. Indeed, you can't be practicing if that's how you've got it wired.
No problem, dude. Check it out:
Lawrence O. McKinney's classic Cybersangha riff on the American Buddhist Lineage, 1995
Thanks for the link, Xing Ping. The article, even without footnote references or bibliography, is interesting, if somewhat jingoistic - a worrying aspect of Sri Lankan Buddhism, for example. Perhaps the Olcott connection explains both.
There si, however, no reference to Buddhism in the Americas prior to the mid-19th century, whereas you reference "since the founding of the Republic".
Well shucks, dude, does that mean that we're not having fun yet?
I really do wonder how that could have happened? I'll bet my finger just slipped on the keyboard. This is probably what I was trying to write:
Jeff Wilson's classic web riff on Unitarian Universalism and Buddhism.
The fact that UU beliefs and the Dharma have similarities is hardly surprising. It certainly doesn't prove any contact before a mere 150 years ago.
In fact, I'd very rather wish to call it Modern Buddhism or something... :rockon: Go by all labels! I'm non-attached!
THE COUNTER-INVASION OF BRITAIN BY BUDDHISM IN MARIE CORELLI'S A ROMANCE OF TWO WORLDS AND H. RIDER HAGGARD'S AYESHA: THE RETURN OF SHE
A set of Upham was sold on eBay. This is the seller's description:
I am so glad the auction is over and that I did not see it earlier!!! What a fascinating read that would be - and I would love to find the publishers' records to see how popular.
But what is does prove, please, is that America was not founded by people who were fundamentally opposed to Buddhism, or Hinduism, for that matter.
Our Founding Fathers were, in fact, the kind of edgy, progressive, and philosophically creative people who have become the Buddhasangha wherever it appears.
I think that Wilson's date of the first translation will prove to be true. He's talking out of the current academic mainstream about the academic mainstream of that time, and he is unlikely to have gotten these essential facts wrong. If there were earlier translations, they weren't prominent.
UU doctrine didn't fall out of the sky. Neither was it invented out of thin air. Neither was it the result of subjective phantasies. It was written by people who read and thought, and what they read, in part, was accounts of Asian philosophies including Buddhism. Buddhist ideas were current in America from its inception. Failing that, there would have been no Unitarian Universalism.
I wonder how many among us, non-Buddhists included know this... Thanks for letting us onto this history!
So what is your practice, exactly?
Now let's try that again!
I AM A BUDDHIST.
MUAHAHAHA!!!! That was cool!!!
You can't be a Christian without having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and you can't be a Buddhist without taking Refuge with the Triple Jewel (the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha).
So, assuming that you actually know the teaching of the Buddha, which is, in fact, not assumed by most Buddhists in their own case, and that you have some working notion of Who the Buddha is, who do you consider to be your Sangha?
I am sure that that is true of you, dear Federica. But you are not claiming to be an Asian practicing American Buddhism, and wishing it could be called something like modern Buddhism instead.
What I am trying to get at is this matter of practice. What does such a person actually do that makes him say he is practicing American Buddhism? Practice, for practical purposes (is makink Xing Ping dumb joke, ja?) is usually defined, or at least witnessed, by your Sangha. Ditto the lack thereof. I'm not questioning your practice. I've seen it. Of this other character I know nothing except that what he claims as his practice would seem, um, not obvious.
Without wishing to extend this discussion beyond reason, I am concerned by the sentence Our Founding Fathers were, in fact, the kind of edgy, progressive, and philosophically creative people who have become the Buddhasangha wherever it appears. In a later post, you go on to say: You can't be a Christian without having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and you can't be a Buddhist without taking Refuge with the Triple Jewel (the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha).
Whilst the 'Founding Parents' or the 'True Levellers' or some Christian, Sufi, Sikh or any other group may teach a dharma which has much in common with the Dharma of Refuge, iyou show how terribly dangerous it is to try and pretend that they are identical or, even, that one influenced the other. Why should there be direct connection? At school, I learned, in physics, a 'law' which, in my lycee, was called Le Principe de Pascal but which my English friends call Boyle's Law. Truth is truth. To repeat myself: truth usually resembles itself.
The really interesting thing, to me, is that the same treasures are uncovered again and again. Buddhist cosmological stories tell of the Dharma being taught over and over again through the ages, being lost and being taught again. The Buddha Shakyamuni may be seen as the last (or latest) revealer in an age that needs the Turning of the Wheel. It is my opinion that the Wheel still turns, has always turned.
I recognise, also, that there is a deep need, within organisations, to establish 'lineage'. It is as if connecting with an ancestral line is that which brings validation. The Christian, Jewish and Islamic communities claim long-term validity from an arguably tenuous connection with Israelite history. This apparent need for a long back-story may be an inchoate understanding of the interdependence of all arising causes.
My own theory is that the connection between Buddhism and the West was subliminal for centuries. If I were younger, I would be devoting more time to exploring the possible connections in the great study-centre at Alexandria. I would want, also, to determine who might have returned with Alexander's armies. I also have, high in my pile of 'to read' books, a fascinating study called 1421 by Gavin Menzies. It recounts the extraordinary round-the-world saling fleets of the Chinese Emperor Zhu Di. Buddhist ideas sailed with the fleet, It may not have had the same steel-and-fire approach of the Christian Europeans, but its influence would be worth studying.
The Founders of the American Republic were a very mixed bunch when it comes to their belief structures, in line with the context of the times. The leaders were, self-confessedly, theists, which was very fashionable among the intelligensia and well-read cosmopolitans. 300 years of exploration had brought all sorts of new religious ideas into the darkness of Christian Europe. Trade with India nad China was well-established. If our contemporary sangha is anything to go by, Buddhist monks are great travellers, wanderers like the Ascetic Gotama. Look at what has happened in the last decades, particularly since 1959: like champagne out of a shaken bottle, Buddhist teaching monks have spread everywhere!
Unitarian Universalism fascinates me. It appears to be, from this side of the Pond, a genuinely US religion. It is the melting-pot at worship and wonderful thereby. Like Einstein, it stands on the shoulders of giants.
What makes Asian Buddhism Asian and American Buddhism American? To me personally, it is the geology and also the environment to which they grow in.
Modern Buddhism seems not to go by any labels. In fact, even the term "modern" here is wrong, I apologize. Accurately it would be something like "secular Buddhism" or something. This Buddhism draws on everywhere everything - where Buddhism seems not to be a result but rather a set of processes to which the Dharma can be tested. Isn't it so?
I don't feel like I have a real argument with you. I'm not claiming that these people were Buddhists, but that they knew of Buddhism, and were influenced by it in what they thought and wrote, including the founding documents of the United States of America.
We have at present, in Washington, an attempt to say that America was founded by Christians as a fundamentally Christian state. Most of the current idiocy in foreign policy has been justified, subliminally, by this. We're on a Crusade against international terrorism, don't you know?
We also have, by Asian lineage holders, a jingoistic attempt to say that any American is de facto and fundamentally Christian, and that we should not attempt Buddhism, because we're fundamentally incapable of it. We can give them money. We can go to seminars and talk. But beyond that, they're the Buddhists, and we're their Christian donors. The most prominent of these is the Dalai Lama.
It is these extreme views that concern me because of the unparalleled stupidity of their outcomes, and indeed, their presumptions altogether.
The Buddha taught the cessation of suffering, and a Path by which that can be accomplished. He did not teach the connection of everything or the equality of everything. Those ideas are part of the planetary avidya (ignorance) by which we suffer.
What American Buddhists practice is actually the same thing as what Asian Buddhists practice -- that Path taught by the Buddha. But they speak about it in English, and with the cultural presumptions of American culture. American Buddhism is an artifact of the American mind and its peculiar habits and needs with respect to the Doctrine of the Jina.
As for modern Buddhism or secular Buddhsm, are there modern people or secular people to practice these things? Most people, both Asians and Westerners, identify themselves by their birth culture.
True, all Paths lead to the same Nirvana - Asian or American. From what I have so far observed, Asian Buddhists tend to lead simple lives less in pursuit of great wealth and repute, in an attempt to not get attached to them. By this, I am referring to those who change mindsets from paper-chasers to the simple, aware soul. American Buddhists, as they cannot possibly give up the paper chase in any point of their lives possibly, instead find a workaround as they get non-attached to their repute and wealth and possibly every other thing else. It's all about culture.
Asian societies have long stressed about service to others before self (even though it may only be something more of a fantasy in modern times), and all of us grow up thinking and acting that way ideally - notice, ideally. Such Asians do not grow up to ask for what they cannot manage.
Western societies are concerned more with self-interest, and Buddhists in such cultures would have to strike a delicate balance between desire and practice. Once they turn Buddhist, ideally they should also be following the path of the Asians. Unfortunately no kid in the West can grow up wanting just the simple life, so a non-attachment approach is stressed rather than the simply-happiness appoach. One who does the paper chase must do it for survival above all, and is often asking more than they can manage. Buddhism here steps in to help them manage what they cannot.
Of course, in our world today, such stereotypes are HOGWASH! and probably will be history by the end of the decade. Every culture in the world (in terms of the paper chase) is becoming alik. Demands of modern life seem to push us all into some form of the Western model of things, while we keep our service to others creed strong. As such, due to this change, and this process of making things similar, there will soon be one such culture only, and the model of Buddhism should evolve along with it into Modern Buddhism.
Of course, this is only an opinion, and I may prove my point wrong. I am no anthropology major, but this is how I feel. In the same way, we cannot today all run off into the Sangha and ask to be ordained for we as the lay have our duty to pay to the Sanga ourselves. We also will not be able to give up our duties as the paper chasers as the lay soon, if that is hat society entails. We may either follow it as humans, or revolutionize it as robots. :rockon:
And indeed there are secular Buddhists around. There are those who may advocate not calling Buddhism anything like a religion because it shouldn't be a religion! Buddhism seems a way of life, a toolset to truth, and religion may stereotype Buddhism to be the domain of Gods whose workings we may not understand. In their own right, we must call these people secular Buddhists if they insist. We ought to remember how Buddhism has attracted many around the world deeply, and not all move on to take Buddhism as their dominant faith. In the same way, I may be attracted to the teachings of Christ indeed, but I cannot call myself a full Christian but rather a secular one if I do not place faith in the Trinity.
Well, you certainly have your opinions, Xing Ping. So the Dalai Lama is just coming over here to milk the Xians. Interesting! And where did you come by that choice piece of dirt?
Perhaps you could explain why H.H. Penor Rinpoche gives teachings to American students that he doesn't give to his students in India and Tibet. Bet you can...
Palzang
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0914/p14s01-lire.html
Most individuals don't read far enough to find this, far down in both versions:
The Dalai Lama's attitude is well known; he doesn't like American Buddhism. He likes Tibetan Buddhism. If you bring up the subject of American Buddhism, he tells you to remain, or become, an Xtian. If you are willing to do Ngondro and spend a decade in Asia learning Tibetan language and culture, well, that's different. You might be Buddhist material.
In general, Dzogchen is at the opposite end of the spectrum in Tibetan Buddhism; it gives Americans what they need, which is an effective meditation practice, without being lumbered by Ngondro and the whole gamut of Tibetan-oriented preliminary practices.
Let's be a little bit realistic about the Dalai Lama, OK? The transmission of the Buddhadharma to the West is not on his personal agenda. What he does in the West is to raise money for his political agendas. That's not wrong. It simply is what it is. If you're an American Buddhist, at this point, transmission is your first priority, and the Dalai Lama is no help in it.
However I do not see why there is a contradiction of any way. Neglecting that it is from a Christian-supporting source to rule out any hidden agendas, I would like to point your attention to this. http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=70,2987,0,0,1,0
I do trust that HHDL is talking about Westerners who want to look for Tibetan Buddhism rather than American Buddhism - this he does not support. I have in my last post spoken of the need for such "two Buddhisms", although I see that they will very soon have to converge as one as our cultures shift and become globalized. He could be placing his palm face up to those Americans who are searching for Tibetan Buddhism, as he does it to Asians looking for American Buddhism, rather than the other way round.
Even as my country becomes more Western gradually, allowing me to see American Buddhism as a better alternative to the Asian type, Tibet, under Chinese grip, remains largely un-Western - and the difference between American Buddhism, or for that matter, all Buddhism and a non-spiritual atheist may be as much as the label and the intention, as rwo may do one thing with two different attitudes.
Buddhist ideals are but a minority compared relative to the American Dream. You cannot adopt Buddhist ideals still and hope that society changes for you. As Buddhists, we must fit in when we cannot live in.
I doubt what you may believe about HHDL . The Fundie government will be more than willing to expose him if he is doing so, and Tibetan sympathizers are not necessarily more in numbers than Buddhists. In fact, in spite of all of China's doings, I am slightly amused by the way karma turns in the Dharma's favour. Without China, there would be perhaps no Modern Buddhism as we know it today.
Go by no labels, after all we all follow the same Path. Walk on! :rockon:
This is a crucial point and one on which we have an interesting witness here at NB. Brother Palzang has told us, over and over, that his teacher, Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo, is not a Tibetan speaker. How far is it skillful to suggest that the Kunzang Odsal Palyul Changchub Choling is somehow lacking or inauthentic. Our own experience of Palzang enables us to know that he is worthy of our trust. He wears the robes of a Tibetan monk, his practice is that of a Tibetan monk, that is one, authentic, aspect of Palzang.
It is an interesting aspect of the 'spiritual' work (another expression, anybody?) that national interest appears to get bound up in it, too. It is true enough that the language that we use, the jargon, the technical terms, enable or disable our understanding and practice. Since the 16th century, the idea has grown that a word has a sort of 'true' meaning, which has led to all the long discussions on the 'true' meaning or translation of dukkha or logos or jihad. Language has also been used to delineate geopolitical influence so that 'Aid' treaties often include obligations on the 'aided' to teach the 'aider's' language in their schools. I was told, by Tibetan friends, that the Tibetan language was the only one which was developed specifically to give an accurate transmission of the Dharma. Elohim/Jason would, I trow, assert that the Pali Canon, in Pali, is, verbatim, a record of Gotama's words.
Historically, of course, as a new dharma/way/answer arises, it is expressed in a specific language in a specific context. Read Churchill's speeches without any knowledge of the war and they make different sense from at the time. And that's only just over 50 years ago. Each new "answer", as it is taken up by different language and societal groups, will acquire new meaning and spin. Stepping back, however, we may be able to comprehend all these interpretations as referring to a common "answer". It would be so much easier if there existed a common language or notation for such "answers" as in mathematics. Alas, we are not quite there yet!
As for the political dimension of His Holiness Tenzin Gyatso's writings and appearances, he has made it quite clear that he considers himself to have a mission to speak for a transformation of the status and treatment of Tibet by the PRC. He has used his heightened profile to plead his cause in a way that is politically very astute. For some years now, he has withdrawn from the active 'government-in-exile', democratising the process as far as is possible. He has ended the pre-invasion feudal system, completing the reforms initiated by his great predecessor. A problem, however, arises because the wisdom of Tibetan Buddhism and the cause of the Tibetan nation have become entangled. I met quite a number of Tibetans who still consider themselves Buddhist in the Tibetan tradition and who are opposed to HHDL's methods and programme. I am not sure how far non-Tibetan Buddhists of the same tradition can separate the two, just as (and I hesitate to say this) there is anti-Knesset feeling within Israel which is difficult to articulate from the diaspora.
@ Xing Ping:
I am not sure if I am fully understanding your point. Are you suggesting that there is a commonality between English-speaking Buddhists in the US and Canada which could be termed "American Buddhism" and which is a unifying factor among apparently disparate groups? I wonder whether what you are noticing is that Buddhists of different traditions and lineages, in the West, tend to be more respectful and courteous towards each other than, for example, Abrahamics of differing grouping. Whilst this respect and courtesy may be what we would hope to find between all groups, irrespective of their views and beliefs, it does not require or impose uniformity. On the contrary, respect and courtesy are only needed where there is difference, diversity.
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index....0,2987,0,0,1,0
I think that what you've excerpted makes more sense in context:
This is the best discussion of the Dalai Lama, by a confessed and practicing American Buddhist, that I have ever seen. There are real and karmically binding reasons for my statement that the Dalai Lama is of no help to us. This statement, which I repeat and emphasize, is the end of my discussion about this. We need to go on to teachers and lineages that intend to transmit.
I'm not sure what you mean by "karmically binding reasons" but I would challenge the stement that the Dalai Lama is "of no help to us". He has certainly helped me. Nor can I accept the suggestion that he does not "intend to transmit", this being contradicted by the many hundreds, both Tibetan and foreign, to whom he has.
I do agree that HHDL's teaching on the Sangha of Refuge is less than some may like, and this may be because he has lived all his life within the monastic sangha. It may also be that he understands that, in many parts of the West, the monastic tradition has either died out or is only marginal. In those places, the traditional notion of the monastic sangha is, therefore, inappropriate as a teaching, and new definitions, far outwith the original scope of the early teachings, have been imported, including the notion of the lay sangha. These new teachings are best spread by members of this enlarged sangha rather than from within the old, monastic tradition. It is similar to the reconstruction of our attitudes to race or gender: no 'white' person can effectively speak on behalf of the 'ethnic' community, nor any man speak for women. The best that can be done is to enable a preferential option, which I believe HHDL is doing.
But we may disagree, of course. My own opinion is that HHDL, seeing the harshness with which people treat each other within the marketplace dogma, concentrates on good-heartedness because that is what we need, above all, to learn.
Anyway, I would suggest that we not imply things about His Holiness beyond what the articles state or what we know through firsthand experience or very reliable accounts. Assumptions of that sort do little to no good & sometimes the opposite.
_/\_
metta
While I respect your years of experience, your knowledge, and you personally, I do not respect your consistent misrepresentations of my views. You still appear to be grasping at a non-existent reality—that I assert that the Pali Canon, in Pali, is, verbatim, a record of Gotama's words. I have never made such assertions, and further more, I have made repeated attempts at clarifying my position just so that these types of misunderstandings would not arise again.
In a brief summary: I believe that the Pali Nikayas are very close to what the Buddha himself taught. I also do not claim to know exactly what language the Buddha originally spoke or taught in, but I do know that the Pali Nikayas and Chinese Agamas are among the most ancient pieces of written literature that contain a complete set of structured teachings attributed to the Buddha besides the fragments of text found in the Kharosthi script and the Gandhari language.
Regards,
Jason
Hope things resolve peacefully here.
_/\_
metta
P.S.- I guess I'd like to make my previously statement apply to everyone, not just His Holiness.
I appreciate that.
Jason
No problem. I probably didn't need to say anything, but I did so in hopes of a more peaceable resolution. Anyway, things seem to be cleared up now, so fahgetaboutit.
best wishes
_/\_
metta
Thank you, Simon, for your kind words. It has been a problem we have frequently encountered that since our teacher is not Tibetan and we're Americans that we couldn't possibly be practicing "authentic" Buddhism. In truth our lineage is very pure and our teacher is uncompromising in that regard. We are creating an American Buddhism for sure - what other kind could we create? - but we're doing it in a very pure, very traditional way. We keep our vows purely or we don't keep our robes. No waffling, no giving up one's robes after a year like in some traditions. We take life vows, and that's what it means. While some have given back their robes, it is done properly only after going back to the one who gave them to us in the first place (H.H. Penor Rinpoche) and meeting with him. Neither His Holiness or Jetsunma ever suggest that that is a good idea, but they won't prevent someone from doing it as long as it's done properly. And we're not the only place in the West practicing purely. I'm very impressed at how we in the West have grown spiritually in Buddhism in just my lifetime. When I was a kid, there was no such thing as Buddhism, nothing visible anyway. It was as foreign as the dark side of the moon. Now it seems to be everywhere, and it is being practiced in a true and proper way in many traditions from Theravada to Mahayana to Vajrayana. It is a beautiful thing to behold, and I feel really privileged to have been able to witness it. These truly are historic times we live in, whether we can see that or not.
Palzang
Afaik Buddhism came to America first as practice,not as philosophical idea among excentric romanticists, like in Europe. It was brought with Asian immgrants. The first Sanskrit professor of the US was Edward Salisbury and he got his teacher place at Yale 1841. Thomas Wentworth Higginson published "The Buddhist Path of Virtue" in 1871, it contained Dhammpada translations from Max Mueller, I doubt there was any in depth knowledge of Buddhism even among educated people at that time, let alone at the time of the founding of the republic.
However, I`d like to be shown otherwise, if someone has sources that show I am wrong.
Palzang
Consider this:
American Buddhist Values and the Practice of Enlightened Patriotism
This is out of a Zen group. From the persistence of the avidya on this thread, it is clear that these issues are much easier for meditators to percieve, because of their greater mental clarity. It doesn't make any difference if Jefferson channelled the material. The Founding Fathers of the United States of America were not speaking from a Christian perspective, and the institutions they established are consistent with the teaching of the Buddha.
The Mahayana Buddhist point of view is fundamentally inclusive. If, as Buddhists, we see similarities between the words of our Founding Fathers and those of the Buddha, that makes those similarities part of our Buddhist tradition. We don't need academic verification for the truth that we know on the basis of our practice. If you need that, you're just not practicing yet.
Please practice precious Buddhadharma.
I'm getting pretty tired of this phrase, Xing. If you were practicing the precious Buddhadharma you wouldn't be posting this bit of arrogance.
Umm, yeah. If you can't perceive why people are disputing what you are saying, perhaps you need to go meditate to gain some more clarity.
Could you please provide us to some links where the founding fathers spoke of the 4 Noble truths, dependent origination, or the three marks of existence. Whether or not there is a high amount of synchronicity between the philosophy of the founding fathers & buddhism, does not indicate that they knew of the buddhadharma. The founding fathers were deists who were greatly influenced by the principles of the Enlightenment period of Europe. I would suggest that this dispute is more based on miscommunication than disagreement.
Now, there is a significant degree of resonance between the Enlightenment philospy & buddhadharma, but does not mean these people were buddhists, or taught the three dharma seals.
Honestly, though, while taking up the practice can bring one greater clarity, it can also give the illusion of clarity & go to the practitioners head.
_/\_
metta
The Dharma does not exist solely in the Turnings of the Wheel. It is statement about what is and asserts that it has a truth that does not depend on the hearer for validation. Being truth, it can be stimbled upon even by the most unlikely of people, even by slave-owners or libertines or gluttons or regicides! (Not that I am suggesting that all revolutionaries can be thus described)