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.
What is a Bodhisattva?
Dennis1
Veteran
I am truly amazed to see these two questions below asked and openly debated in this venue. Delusion is a stain on our path. We should seek balance and perspective in our views of the world. Here are the two discussions
1. Is Trungpa a Bodhisattva? Well he wrote neat books and influenced many toward Buddhism...
2. Was Linen a Bodhisattva? Well he destroyed a democracy (Russia under the White Army) and murdered an awful lot of people including quite a few of his buddies, while creating a totalitarian dictatorship that destroyed the lives of 100's of millions of people. Now I would like to understand why this venue considers these two questions reasonable for discussion.
At the risk of being unwanted I would like to point out that Socialism is an unmitigated evil on the Earth and this is not a political hack shop for Socialist agitators. Please don't seriously compare a true Buddhist Zealot with a mass murderer
and forget to give yourself a LOL button.
I'm just sitting here expecting a flag! mtgby
Moderator edit:
Personal contact details removed.
The only safe place to publicly publish personal info of that kind, is in 'Members-Only'.
1. Is Trungpa a Bodhisattva? Well he wrote neat books and influenced many toward Buddhism...
2. Was Linen a Bodhisattva? Well he destroyed a democracy (Russia under the White Army) and murdered an awful lot of people including quite a few of his buddies, while creating a totalitarian dictatorship that destroyed the lives of 100's of millions of people. Now I would like to understand why this venue considers these two questions reasonable for discussion.
At the risk of being unwanted I would like to point out that Socialism is an unmitigated evil on the Earth and this is not a political hack shop for Socialist agitators. Please don't seriously compare a true Buddhist Zealot with a mass murderer
and forget to give yourself a LOL button.
I'm just sitting here expecting a flag! mtgby
Moderator edit:
Personal contact details removed.
The only safe place to publicly publish personal info of that kind, is in 'Members-Only'.
4
Comments
There’s an anecdote in my head somewhere and the source could be Ajahn Brahm or Adyashanti, I really don’t remember.
Anyways it is roughly about a butcher who one day is about to kill (just another) calf. But for some strange reason the man looks the animal in the eyes and he sees tears in the eyes of the calf. He sees no fear of death but sadness and compassion. The experience deeply changes him. He quits his job and becomes a Buddhist.
The calf in this anecdote could be a bodhisattva; that’s the idea of being a bodhisattva the way I understand it. The bodhisattva lives his life outside the monastery walls. He reaches out to people; he meets them in their own environment. He plays the away game.
Jesus had a similar idea in mind when he taught people how he would meet them at the gates of heaven and remind them (devout people) how they had let him down. Remember that beggar who knocked on your door and you refused? That was me.
What I like about the idea - as a metaphor – is that religion is not about doing the proper rituals in the proper setting. It is our daily life. To encounter a living Buddha we don’t need to travel to India or Japan; we can encounter him as the colleague or the family-member.
A Bodhisattva is someone who tries to help all beings. Period. Killing a million people in order to create a utopia that exists only in your mind is hardly being a Bodhisattva. You certainly didn't help those million people, did you? Beyond that, sounds like you're in for some arguments if you want to hang around.
and don't get me started on Socialism.. oi. I wouldn't consider any political system evil though, cause I don't believe in good and evil.
and ruined nations-100's of millions of lives lost. If you are going to deride my commentary-you have that right of course-why don't you check out some of the data I present and then contend with the truth of that data. Attacking the person is evidence of an insufficiency of data and truth. The Greeks call it ad hominem-to the man.
Why not go to the data?
By the way: I have no intention of leading this fine Buddhist venue into the weeds of political discussion. My responses to those who do, extend from the first Paramita.
Liberality has three parts 1. coming down on the side of people -or humanity
2. Giving the good to others 3. Correcting bad teachings. Now, warm fuzzy teachings which lead to horrible results are bad teachings. Giving others the good produced by others is not liberality-that is theft. And, supporting perverted views that justify murder, theft and destruction is not coming down on the side of people.
So, Please let us not do the yeah sure Linen was a Bodhisattva-thing. I can go to a political site for that thrill up my leg-or the world press. I like your religious views
Lobster, please bless us with some more.
Stalin was able to use the NKVD through his control of the Military-he murdered the generals.... By the way, the NKVD executed the purges in the USSR, the purpose of which, was to keep people ignorant and malleable-over 20 million Soviets died in those purges. It was the totalitarian dictatorship that did the killing-the one Linen created. may the good be yours
@vinlyn
Well, according to @Chaz, murder means nothing if one can cure cancer or be a Bodhisattva.... so yeah, why not say Lenin 'wasn't perfect'?
1 You need to take refuge AND develop some degree of calm abiding (shamathai)
2 abandon negative actions
(1) aspiration (strong determination to practice Dharma), (2) diligence (enthusiastic effort), (3) recollection (not forgetting the practice), and (4) meditative concentration (one-pointedness of mind without distractions).
Swedish socialism isn't an unmitigated evil on the Earth. Socialism can be pretty cool, as long as it's not combined with totalitarianism. In fact, the Dalai Lama says communism is pretty cool, in theory, at least. He's a fan. Be careful about the assumptions you make.
My candidate for Bodhisattvahood is Harry Belafonte. An amazing guy who's worked most of his life to liberate people from oppression and to bring joy into people's lives.
Subsidies considered excessive, unwarranted, wasteful, unfair, inefficient, or bought by lobbying are often called corporate welfare. The label of corporate welfare is often used to decry projects advertised as benefiting the general welfare that spend a disproportionate amount of funds on large corporations, and often in uncompetitive, or anti-competitive ways. For instance, in the United States, agricultural subsidies are usually portrayed as helping honest, hardworking independent farmers stay afloat. However, the majority of income gained from commodity support programs actually goes to large agribusiness corporations such as Archer Daniels Midland, as they own a considerably larger percentage of production.[3]
Alan Peters and Peter Fisher (Associate Professors, Graduate Program in Urban and Regional Planning, University of Iowa)[4] have estimated that state and local governments provide $40–50 billion annually in economic development incentives,[5] which critics characterize as corporate welfare.[6]
Some economists consider the recent bank bailouts in the United States to be corporate welfare.[7][8] U.S. politicians have also contended that zero-interest loans from the Federal Reserve System to financial institutions during the global financial crisis were a hidden, backdoor form of corporate welfare.[9]
Retrospect is a big problem when examining the lives of notorious people. Folks who haven't been at this for long don't have the inner discernment to know they are mistaking their selfing thoughts for an abiding truth (or even an idea worth mentioning). No blame or shame, that's just how it is, it isn't like we are taught this discernment in grade school. If anything it is encouraged and reinforced in western culture, and it takes a ton of inner work to pop out of pure subjectivity.
It's a no brainer to recognize as a species we've made some lemonade out of the lemons delivered by Hitler and other disgusting examples of homo sapiens.
Just don't forget THEIR INTENTIONS, while they were about their atrocious 'works'.
I thought Buddhism was all about INTENTION.
'Nuff said.
Gassho
A Buddhist bodhisattva is the natural outcome of realisation. It is not an implied posture, hereditary or social status, contrived practice, social or psychological inclination or indoctrination. You can 'fake it till you make it', if that is your way. You can not avoid its natural consequences, behaviour and wisdom. In other words it is the natural outcome of any spiritual path. Fall off, 'transcend' or being somewhere else and the results are another form of sleep.
Some people for example Gandhi or Nelson Mandala are sometimes considered emanations of the 'will to good' and the easing of suffering. Personally I feel that a sleeping individual unaware of the goal and diverse skilful unfoldment requirements is just another force for agitation, even for good but not necessarily for awakening. In this sense there is no difference between a rogue Tulku, a well meaning politico, a social reformer and a doctor. Though I would suggest the doctor and social reformer is closer to the secular 'Bodhisattva' ideal.
The closest definition of Buddhist Bodhisattva might involve words such as exemplar, awakener, teacher, revealer. The aspect of discipline, restraint, wisdom, skilfulness, sacrifice etc is apparent in the Bodhisattva. The Bodhisattva is a type of Buddha by choice, not necessarily by inclination. The question might arise was the Buddha a Bodhisattva after Buddhahood?
Linen be praised
I am a Tibetan Buddhist-although I have read a little Pali . And yet, I have not been castigated, thrown out or ganged up on. That says a lot about your Buddhist principles.
So, Thank you very much for allowing me to be so unrestrainedly active on these pages.
Did you actually read my longish comment? Skipping to the bottom is no assurance that
you got what I was saying. When lobotomies were commonly done to mental patients the reasoning was that you could actually take out an important part of the brain and the person could stay alive-for about 5 years. So maybe you are correct-maybe you can survive socialism if they don't have complete control-for about 5 years-LOL.
For a while I had my hands on a complete set of Lenin's writings around 30 green volumes. I have read Marx and Engels. I have read St Simeon. I have read more modern purveyors of Socialism as well. I think I do have a pretty thorough handle on Socialism. I suspect most people who are pushing Socialism have never read any basic Socialist texts. In an earlier comment I explained the two reasons Socialism must be a failure-they are not human nature. They are a failure of Socialism to make good decisions.
Swedes are very bright people and I hear they are doing pretty well. I agree with you that a Socialism without complete control is not necessarily completely destructive.
Swedes have a pretty low standard of living-I think they would do better with the four elements of a free market which are so despised by Marx-and no Socialism. Private property, competition, profit and the freedom to go or stay, make abundance and upward mobility. No they don't make everyone equal. But, most people will get ahead.
Most people will do better. Charity is more abundant and freely given-not stolen at the point of a gun. History is clear. Economics is clear. I am not debating philosophy.
The Dalai Lama-whom I have also read and admire greatly doesn't necessarily have a handle on the subject. I do. I will happily send you-Mr. Moderator, a 25 page article I wrote on Fairness In The Market Society-if you like. Let me know. You have my email.
I am doing my best to live up to my standards of Liberality as promoted in the Paramitas.
When I see teaching I consider in error, I speak up. I know you honor this or I wouldn't still be here. When someone supports destructive activities I speak up. I make sure I am well informed and know the subject I am discussing. I am pretty honest and am able to make a pretty undeluded assessment of my knowledge. My reading on Social Philosophies, Economics and History spans several hundred works from every side.
I have probably read about 1,000 books on these subjects-all sides. But I am not claiming to be an authority (well maybe I am now-here), I present arguments and data which can be verified and challenged. I can supply several of my well researched articles to you and any others who are interested.
I am not really interested in debating social philosophy or Economics. I am here because I am a Buddhist. I am opinionated but I am willing for others to hold different views-as on reincarnation. When my seeking after self perfection for the benefit of others is stirred I see no reason not to uphold the truths as I see them. Liberality pushes me to disagree that socialism is a worthwhile pursuit. Buddhism is. I think we can all agree that Buddhism, human kindness and unobstructed awareness are worthy of pursuit. may the good be yours
Where to begin. First off, it's not my site. I'm simply an old member/moderator. I don't censor or ban people for having different views, I do so for being abusive, disruptive, or spammers. Secondly, yes, I did read your comment, and I think I did get the gist of what you're saying. I just don't agree with the vast majority of it. Thirdly, you haven't really explained anything, in my opinion, you've simply made a bunch of random and uncontextualized assertions. Finally, I don't recall ever supporting "destructive activities," unless you consider things like economic democracy, universal education, universal healthcare, etc. destructive. And if you do, then I think you may need to revise your definition of destructive.
You are right I am making assertions. For instance Lenin's take over by force (that is history-you can easily verify if you wish) Led to the murder of over 40 million Soviets who were not being hostile (history-east to verify) was a take over of a Democracy which had just held an election where the Communists received around 10% of the vote.
They then took over by force. Again this is history and easy to check. So It is not economic democracy you are supporting it is raw brute force and the enslavement of Millions and death of millions. You can check this-it's not hard but perhaps you would prefer to make unsupported assumptions and tout them as facts.
Of course nothing I said could be construed (easily) to mean I don't believe in care or liberality or the teachings of Buddha. It is education and Liberality I am pushing. The USSR fell because the people started finding out that the constant diet of lies and ignorance were in fact lies. The USSR destroyed the lives of it's people which they held as slaves. When they got hungry they demanded change. They were denied access to
the truth. The pro socialists on this site don't have that excuse.
They do have another excuse. It is made clear in the teachings. Strongly held wrong convictions are hard to change and don't respond to reason or data. I have presented a lot of data and some reasoning. You have not contended with my data. You have said I am doing what I am not doing ("you've simply made a bunch of random and uncontextualized assertions". ) Did you look up Fabian Socialism? Why should you ?
After all, wouldn't it be terrible if you were in error about the value of Socialism and the world socialist movement? This conversation came up because of my comments about Lenin. He was not a Bodhi and yes his actions destroyed millions of lives. I am not implying you don't have genuine heartfelt good in your motivations. I'm saying, you should become better informed if you are going to be supportive of efforts which others (me) have called in question. The very things you hate are the things you lend power to.
Greed, suffering, slavery, ignorance are all greatly increased by socialist dogma spread ignorantly by caring hearts. I am not ill informed. Just check out one line of thought.
Look up Fabian Socialism and discover it's roots and it's activities. They are the power mongers of immense wealth who are attempting to enslave the world. Unfortunately they are winning and you sir appear to be helping them with all of your might.
One more thing Adolf Hitler was a Socialist. He was a left wing radical-not a right wing
radical. Look up NAZI. The evidence is all around. You need to be willing to look.
When I say I have read hundreds of books on these subject that is not an exaggeration.
I would be happy to supply you with resources. But if you won't look where would be the value. Strongly held wrong views are held in place by refusing to look.
Best to you sir, Dennis
Dennis1 said:
Attacking the person is evidence of an insufficiency of data and truth. The Greeks call it ad hominem-to the man.
and Poptart said:
Where did I attack you?
And also Poptart said:
"Neither is it a soap box for bigots." and "And therein lies the contradiction."
Poptart: Those are attacks. What I mean is they go to the person rather than to the data.
Why don't you look up NAZI. Or, try finding out who passed the 14th amendment making all citizens equal under the law. Then we can talk about some data.
You could try reading a history of the years from 1915 to 1919 in the USSR and then come back and tell me how Lenin was a Bodhisattva-that was the original conversation.
If you had data we could talk data. Calling me a bigot or self contradictory is just ad Hominem. To the man-like I said. And you are correct: I am not humble, I am opinionated and I do call myself a Buddhist. A very well informed Buddhist. One of the great thing about being a Buddhist for 48 years is that you can decrease your delusion, increase your capacities and use your Buddha gifted new abilities to learn and become a valuable person. May the good be yours
In addition, I never said I uphold the Russian Revolution as a method for achieving economic democracy in the US; I'm simply disagreeing with what I view to be a simplistic characterization of Lenin and the complexities of what happened in Russia during his lifetime. As I said before, the situation in Russia was unique to Russia and that specific point in its history.
Russia didn't have an industrialized capitalist economy to begin with (which is a key theoretical component for the successful transition of a capitalist economy to a socialist one) and was relying on other advanced industrialized countries such as German to join its revolution for it to succeed — which, of course, didn't happen — and that's one of the main reasons why socialism failed there. Both Lenin and Trotsky acknowledged this. To add to this, the Russian working class itself was decimated on the front lines of WWI and the Russian Civil War, as well as by famine, and the Bolshevik Party basically ended up substituting itself for the working class by taking over its role in the government.
After the removal of Provisional Government by the Bolshevik Party in October of 1917, the country erupted into civil war, and the Allied Power's intervention in Russia's Civil War on the side of pro-monarchist and anti-Bolshevik forces didn't help matters any. During this time, the Bolshevik-lead government did become increasingly more brutal and repressive in an effort to hold on to power amidst the chaos and upheaval. They suppressed rival political organizations and began taking away power from what was left of the directly democratic workers' councils (i.e., soviets) that consisted of worker-elected delegates with both legislative and executive powers.
Even after the civil war was over, however, the state kept control under the guise of protecting the revolution from the ever-present threat of counterrevolution. Russian workers were never really free to organize and make their own decisions. It was either the Communist Party's way or the gulag. (Ironically enough, it was the Communist Party itself that effectively killed the revolution in the end.) These events paved the way for Josef Stalin's eventual rise to power (who Lenin distrusted and thought should be removed as General Secretary of the party), his adoption of Bukharin's idea of 'socialism in one country,' and the formation of the USSR.
Now, it could very well be that Russia would have ended up becoming a repressive, totalitarian state even if the Allied powers hadn't interfered in their civil war on the side of pro-monarchist and anti-Bolshevik (which was basically done to keep Russia in WWI), but I don't think we can say that with any real certainty. As for government-run economies in and of themselves, such as the kind that developed in Russia, I think they've failed for the most part, primarily because of their totalitarianism and their exploitative role as national capitalist.
In most cases of 'socialism,' the state claims they are the 'representatives' of the working-class, but the fact of the matter is that the state is almost always in charge of the country's means of production, not the workers themselves. And usually a one-party state on top of it. If one defines socialism as an economic system characterized by worker control and ownership of the means of productions, then state control and ownership, even if it's in the name of the workers, isn't technically socialism. This very point was made by Wilhelm Liebknecht in 1896 when he said: "Nobody has combatted State Socialism more than we German Socialists; nobody has shown more distinctively than I, that State Socialism is really State capitalism!"
Frederick Engels also made this distinction a decade earlier when he argued in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific that state-ownership of certain industries isn't the same thing as socialism, nor does it solve the problems inherent in the capitalist mode of production, most notably the exploitation of working-class citizens, not to mention the problems of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and crises of overaccumulation. In fact, he argued that "the more [the state] proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit." And I think the former USSR was the perfect example of what Engels was talking about. As a friend of mine summed it up in a reply to an essay by Seth Ackerman: As for the rest, I'm not a Fabian socialist. But I do believe that socialism in some form can work, and that a radical economic transformation in which the exploitation, alienation, and commodity fetishism of the present system are gradually eliminated via a more socialized mode of production is both possible and needed. I don't think that socialism can be forced onto people through a violent revolution by a small band of professional revolutionaries and their followers, however. Like democracy, for socialism to have any chance of being successful anywhere, it must be an experiment conducted with the consent of the majority of the people. Positive change rarely comes from the barrel of a gun, although I admit that I'm not philosophically opposed to violence as a means of self-defense or fighting against oppression.
1. Lenin founded the Bolshevik party in 1903. So he was the main cog in the elimination of the Democratic white army government which was removed by force. You call the party removed, the unpopular and ineffective Provisional government. However they held what I believe was the first ever free (democratic) election in Russia and received about 65% of the vote-so ineffective is a debatable adjective. It's true they lacked funding and USA refused to help even though they were Democratic. The take over by the party which received only 10% of the electoral vote was by force so #1. I contend it was a lawless Communist/Socialist forceful takeover which led to many deaths and occurred because Lenin refused to accept the judgment of the Russian people.
2. As to the # of deaths, you are correct, it is debatable and certainly the 40 million I mention is a figure which includes the huge # Stalin murdered and cannot be attributed to Lenin. However, Stalin would never have come to power if not for Lenin so I attribute those deaths indirectly to Lenin.
3. Of course you are correct you never promoted the Socialist take over in Russia as an American model-and I never suggested you did. In fact the subject that brought up all of this is the question "Was Lenin a Bodhisattva?". Then In my righteous indignation (which may be inappropriate as this is not my site) I resented the idea that a misguided
and murderous zealot should be favorably compared to a genuine Buddhist of good standing for many years. A man with much merit and excellent works to his name.
So The question above was MY question and that is: What is a Bodhisattva?
4. Some people have suggested that it is the intention that counts and not the actual products which are created by a person that we should judge by. I completely disagree.
If a man destroys lives, kills, maims and wipes out millions of people (directly or indirectly) I say it inconsequential whether we look back a hundred years later and say: well he had good intentions. Good intentions don't make a Bodhi. It's true good intentions are a requirement for a Bodhi. But the very concept of Buddha Fields is that every sentient creature is perfect as they are because it is their nature. Well, the nature of a wolf is to consume sheep. Being true to your nature can be pretty ugly-especially for a sheep. It is a Bodhi's nature that he resolves the stains on his path (including delusion) and actually creates good effects. Bodhicitta motivation in connection with worthy effects is merit. Killing of Buddhists because your "Holy Book" says they are atheists and should all be killed, is true to the nature of a Muslim but that will never make a Bodhi.
4. You are correct about Marx's view that only a developed economy could be Socialized. Actually it was the great capacity of capitalists, using their accumulated wealth, to bring much labor together and take advantage of the efficient division of labor, that created great wealth. Marx saw this as a great opportunity to take this vast wealth and creative energy away from the capitalists and return it to the "Natural Rulers".
by this Marx meant the Aristocracy. This is spelled out explicitly in Das Kapital.
He thought the natural rulers could then put a few technocrats in charge of all of this wealth creation and keep things running without the need for the genius and wealth of the (bad) capitalists-who would now be dead. He failed to see that the genius and creative ability which made wealth in an industrial economy was needed to keep the economy running. Of course the USSR was a failure. They lacked everything but the desire to take over by force.
5. Interestingly I never thought you were a Fabian Socialist. But, I am pleased you brought that up again. Marx had a problem with his plan-he couldn't be up front about his plans or workers (who were constantly doing better) wouldn't go along. So Marx used words in creative ways to disguise his purpose. Now Later, when the World Bank was being formed by George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes and a few other fabulously wealthy and powerful men, they saw no need to be duplicitous about their intentions or methods. in 1944 at the Bretton Woods meeting when the World Bank and IMF were being created the group doing the planning was the world dominating, Society of Fabian Socialism. They openly planned and executed their take-over of the free economies of the world. They were Marxist/Socialists but they were pretty up front about their plans. It was their methods which were hidden and deceptive. They had just failed to take over militarily (through Hitler and the German Socialist Worker's Party), partly because the other big Socialist guy Stalin, (who had a treaty with Hitler to help each other and did with Poland), was made hostile by Hitler's push against the Russian oil fields.
Now the plan was to take over the economies of the world through manipulation of the currencies. Woodrow Wilson in 1913 had already set America up by creating the Federal Reserve, a private corporation which controls the American dollar. He also created the 16th amendment which allows the Congress to Tax away every dollar of earned income.
Please note the truly wealthy pay very little in income taxes. This is a way to confiscate the earnings-not the accumulated wealth.
America was an experiment in freedom. Because our Republic has a Constitution which protects the people, we have been able to create free markets working in a free society. These markets have created a huge wealthy middle class. It is our freedoms that makes this possible. Yes freedom to work and save, freedom to own and accumulate wealth,
freedom to change jobs and find better work or start your own business. This is not the freedom Marx foresaw. And this is not the freedom available in any Socialist country. In Socialist nations the guns point inward. Choice is precious and goes away when an over-powerful government consumes all in the name of good works. That huge and well off middle class in the USA and elsewhere, is about to be shorn. The symbol of the Fabian Socialists is the wolf in sheep's clothing. Their motto is "as a wolf in sheep's clothing go among them." They are no longer hiding. They don't need to. Marx had to deceive and trick the common man into doing himself into slavery-financial slavery.
Now with most of the power and freedom failing, the wolves can throw off their sheep's cloth because their methods have won them the power they sought-they control our money which is backed by nothing.
Sadly their philosophy which produces slaves-in every single example-given sufficient time, is now promoted by men of good heart and fine intelligence. NO, Lenin was not a Bodhisattva-neither was Karl Marx or Hitler. I'm tired of writing now. If you respond to this much I will finish my response to your comment. Thank you for providing information with which, I can contend. I appreciate your honest good intentions.
Namaste.
Marx wanted to take the vast wealth and creative energy away from the capitalists and return it to the aristocracy? lol Wow, I've never seen a grosser mischaracterization of Marx in my life. I'm confident that anyone who's ever read anything by Marx will realize straight away that this is pure and utter bollocks and not even bother refuting, let alone the rest.
Jason: It is apparent you have not read Das Kapital. I have. When the population had just shifted from tilling the fields of the Aristocracy to working in the factories in the cities and Marx says we should return the workers to their natural masters, what do you think he meant? It's true that Russia is not Communist now-they are sort of a thugocracy. But Putin is a Billionaire.
It's true that China's rulers are not "aristocrats" but they are Billionaires. China has 1.1 billion very poor, a few 10s of millions who make 20-40,000 per year and about 200 multi-billionaires. You don't think those "leaders" are aristocrats? Call them what you like they are the natural masters Marx meant when he said he intended to return the workers to their natural masters. The Fabian Socialists who created the IMF and world bank are Billionaires too-more so now-you don't think that is an aristocracy?
Come on, quit objecting to my comments and read Marx. It is obvious you have not.
Then maybe we can return to the useful conversation about the functions etc. of Buddhists in the world today. If you are going to support Marx and his minions you should at least read Das Kapital. Namaste
The dangerous delusions is to think that one system or another solves this problem and will solve it in your favor, despite the fact that you are part of the 99% who has 1% of the power, assets and so.
The only difference between Kingdoms and the Capitalist and Statist systems is that Kingdoms made no pretense about how the King was seizing what ever he wanted for his own personal benefit, while in the later systems, we imagine that the system is somehow run in our personal interests, despite our lack of power, participation and so on.
The only reason the West has been temporarily blessed with widespread wealth is that, temporarily, the elites knew that they couldn't take it all for themselves and still motivate people to get the degrees to be doctors, work over time in the factory and so on. Now with globalization, it looks like this problem will be solved (in favor of the aristocracy)
Anyhow. Not sure what's Buddhist about this. The Buddhist political advice seemed to be aimed at Kings, not sure that I'd want to go back to royalty and aristocracy just to make the system less hypocritical.
Part of the reason is that I used to have the same opinions, but after having discussions with others and reading more about things, I realized that I was simply repeating Cold War, Red Scare-propaganda. Lenin wasn't perfect, but if things had worked out differently, he might have been looked at as a Russian Washington (and I find it curious that few criticize the American Revolutionaries from violently expropriating the private property of Britain, but have issues with, say, Lenin et al.).
Moreover, the US played a big role very early on in trying to crush the revolution by supporting the pro-Czarist forces during the civil war, as well as later on in instigating the US/Soviet military buildup. It's not as if Lenin and the Bolsheviks were inherently evil and set out to build a totalitarian utopia. Circumstances pushed them in that direction, and I think those circumstances need to be acknowledged in order to get a more accurate picture of history and the lessons to be learned from it.
As for what the Buddha said about politics, he general abstained from talking about them; although there are suttas which seem to suggest that he was at least in favour of some type of welfare-state. There's the case of DN 5, for example, where the brahmin Kutadanta asks the Buddha for advice on how to best conduct a great sacrifice. Kutadanta, who was evidently wealthy, had been given a village and some land by King Bimbisara, which he ruled as a king himself. On being asked by Kutadanta — who had a legion of animals waiting to be slaughtered — how to perform a great sacrifice, the Buddha answered with a fable about a great king who asks his chaplain a similar question.
Long story short, the king (i.e., the state), who'd amassed great personal wealth but whose kingdom was "beset by thieves" and "infested with brigands," is told by his chaplain that taxing the people, executing and imprisoning them, or simply banishing them from the land won't solve his kingdom's problems, and is given this advice: In general, though, I think the Buddha would favour any kind of politics informed by the Dhamma, rooted in harmlessness, compassion for others, and honesty. And even though no person or system is perfect, I don't think that means we each shouldn't try to improve ourselves or the world around us. If the proper Buddhist attitude is to complacently accept things like exploitation, imperialism, racism, sexism, etc. rather than challenge them, then I'm not a proper Buddhist nor do I ever wish to be one.
propaganda. Lenin wasn't perfect, but if things had worked out differently, he might have been looked at as a Russian Washington (and I find it curious that few criticize the American Revolutionaries from violently expropriating the private property of Britain, but have issues with, say, Lenin et al.).
Now you say Americans violently expropriated British Property. Well first Americans were British subjects and as such had the rights of British Subjects. They addressed themselves to the King (Jefferson) and got no satisfaction. They then did what colonies (at least since the Pelopponesian war about 425 BC) have always done, they disassociated themselves from the mother country. They did this by a unanimous vote of all 13 colonies. Yes there was a war and yes many were killed. That is not what happened in Russia.
Jason said
Moreover, the US played a big role very early on in trying to crush the revolution by supporting the pro-Czarist forces during the civil war, as well as later on in instigating the US/Soviet military buildup. It's not as if Lenin and the Bolsheviks were inherently evil and set out to build a totalitarian ...
I am going to start copying stuff from other sources as I see you are simply ignoring my statements and picking out a point here or there to disagree with. This will be easier for me and no one will have to take my word for things. As I said, The Lenin Bolsheviks lost the election and took over by force.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Russian Constituent Assembly election, 1917
The elections to the Russian Constituent Assembly that were organised as a result of events in the Russian Revolution of 1917 were held on November 25, 1917 (although some districts had polling on alternate days), around 2 months after they were originally meant to occur. It is generally reckoned as the first truly free election in Russian history.
The Bolsheviks, who had seized power in the October Revolution, believed that it would consolidate their power and prove that they had a clear popular mandate to govern. Instead, the election yielded a clear victory for the Socialist Revolutionary Party (SRs), who polled far more votes than the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks allowed the Constituent Assembly to convene on 18 January 1918. However, the other parties refused to give their support to Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin's idea of a soviet republic. He persuaded the rest of the Bolsheviks to leave in protest with him and later that day, it emerged that he had dissolved the Constituent Assembly after only one day. This action is considered to be the onset of the Bolshevik dictatorship. Within a few months of the assembly's dissolution, all opposition parties had been banned. Following the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, no free elections of any sort would be held in Russia until the 1990 republic election.
Jason, I am sure you are well meaning and came by your views honestly. However,
I don't appreciate the distraction presented by Socialist leaning members comparing Dictators favorably to Buddhist teachers and calling them Bodhis. That is why I opened this question. I thought the answer was obvious. Totalitarian Dictators are not Bodhis.
I will continue to answer your statements with data. However there is something wrong
with continuing to support the proposition that Lenin was a Bodhi. I think you should recognize this and quit demeaning a being who is treasured by so many members of this group-A Bodhisattva. I also don't appreciate that you continue to ignore my reasoning by characterizing it as non-contextualized-I make complete reasoned arguments and make statements with data.
Socialist Nations destroy their people. How can there be any contention. Lenin lead directly to Stalin who destroyed his people. Hitler, the national socialist, did the same.
Mao murdered over 80 million Chinese. Immediately upon ceasing power Castro murdered about 30,000 Cubans. I have not seen you deny these facts. They are common Knowledge. And yet you contend somehow that Communist/Socialist leaders might be Bodhis?
Now through the slow takeover of the Fabian Socialist movement,
our finances are being destroyed. The intention it to eliminate the unuseful elements of society and enslave the useful. This is perfectly in keeping with the past activities of Socialists and Socialist States. The slower, peaceful takeover has been clearly presented
and successful. The end result will probably accomplish the normal ends of Socialism-slavery. Mao said "all political power comes from the barrel of a gun. Well that is old fashioned now. Now the power comes from a printing press.
I am a devoted Buddhist of 48 years. I am alarmed by this evil association of Bodhis with Socialism. I am speaking up because I feel it is my duty as an informed Buddhist.
Please desist and I will happily do the same. However, If You feel this is a worthwhile activity I will continue to respond. I will not give up on you. That is one of my vows as an aspiring Bodhisattva. I keep my vows-I am here for you. Namaste
and the parliaments were elected to govern. So even kings-most kings, were not totalitarian. A totalitarian government has no restrictions. That is where the evil begins.
A democracy can produce evil results as minorities may be destroyed or persecuted by a majority-like slaves in America until 1865. A Republic is probably the most trustworthy form of government because it is a government of laws and not men. If the Laws are well designed to prevent excessive power build-up, and applied evenly amongst all citizens-as with our 14th amendment, the people can be secure in their property and their rights and liberties. Oligarchy-the power in the hands of a few is often, very often,
an abusive form-Socialism usually ends up being an Oligarchy of a few very rich and powerful. Anarchy is temporary and usually resolves to an Oligarchy of the rich or powerful-usually both.
The reason America created such a large well off middle class and denied power to the wealthy, was the creation of a Republican Constitutional Democracy, which held power and prevented abuse. We still have the best upwardly mobile population in the world but that is being eroded over the last 50-100 years. This erosion can be seen in the ease with which our politicians neglect or abuse our Constitutional rights and liberties and debase our currency for the benefit of a few super-wealthy. The Federal Reserve is the favorite tool for that. Thank you for your post, Dennis
read the quote of marx I am making you will do the same thing. So, why don't you first acknowledge that Lenin did indeed take over by force after losing a free election.
Another thing. Why is this commentary not updating as the others do when there is a new comment. Cheating is unworthy. Acknowledge the above quote and then I will do the work to dig up what you are asking for. I can see you are a zealot. Hard held wrong convictions are a stiff barrier to overcoming delusion. Please acknowledge the above quote from Wiki and admit you repeated the same untruth at least twice-since you are now informed thru wiki what excuse can there be to continue the same wrong idea.
Lenin was no Bodhi. He was an evil man who refused to accept the democratic decision and thereby pitched his nation ( not really his nation he was shipped in from Germany)into horrible suffering-not a Bodhi. Please update this post.