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.
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited March 2009
I didn't miss your point.
I have interpreted it in a different way to your possible intention.
Sexual neediness is not a vice.
Your mother may simply have been a less sexually oriented woman to others.
Your interpretation of self-control' could well have been a simple case of lack of desire.
It's not uncommon. In fact, quite the opposite.
But that does not make anyone better than anyone else.
Just different.
I didn't miss your point.
I have interpreted it in a different way to your possible intention.
Sexual neediness is not a vice.
Your mother may simply have been a less sexually oriented woman to others.
Your interpretation of self-control' could well have been a simple case of lack of desire.
It's not uncommon. In fact, quite the opposite.
But that does not make anyone better than anyone else.
Just different.
Nicely said, Fede!
The fact that most people confuse sexual proclivities and behavior with sin/immorality is due to religious culture. Too bad the religions that claim to "free" us end up all too often making us lay ownership to those closest to us. This so-called "love," though, is only conditional. It does not strive to accept and honor what the person is in herself or himself, but really only what that person does for us. But is this real love?
I believe that the Healing and liberating ministry of Jesus is on an entirely different and higher level than the Pope's disease-affirming moralistic one. The Pope's Pharisaic actions remind me of logion 102 of The Gospel According to Thomas:
Jesus said: Woe to them, the Pharisees, for they are like a dog sleeping in the manger of oxen, for neither does he eat nor does he allow the oxen to eat.
The Pope preaches that condom use can only be a bad thing and that everything would be better in a world without condoms. In this kind of thinking, reality is just washed down the drain. Misshapen thinking suspends reality and seems to believe that things like strong instinctual drives can simply drift away on some impulse for personal holiness, which somehow magically becomes almighty and overwhelms us with great, irresistible strength, if God should favor us with that strong impulse in the first place. (Woe unto those not so favored!)
Golly! To be so screwed up in ones thinking that you cannot clearly see the difference between a moral principle and a hygienic practice! Or to be so triply contemptible as to see the difference, but not to care! Condoms are a dual prophylactic. They not only stop transmission of sperm to ovum, but also of viruses known to cause a serious, deadly disease which is also a threat to our very survival as a species on this our fragile island home, as the Prayer Book calls it. It's really a primitive belief system. Let's say some deadly bacteria evolved that could only be killed by incineration or with alcohol. Now, X starts a religion stating that because drunk drivers sometimes kill people, all alcohol should be outlawed and none was ever to be made again. Period. Would the X religionists triumph? I trust not. Incineration of infected tissue does not compute, saith the robot.
__________
Thinking is one thing and reality, on the other hand, quite another. Perhaps in evolutionary development the human brain swelled and swelled, making it possible for us to believe all that we think. However, there is an antidote for that malady: Science. Let us go inveighing!
Thoughts and ideas need constantly to be reassessed. I think Lord Buddha said that.
Different strokes for different folks. Accept people for what they really are. We would expect people to have some control over their sexual urges, hoping for them to order their lives in productive ways, without hurting, embarrassing, or exploiting others. But who are we to restrict the number of lovers they might choose to have or have at one time? Would that not perhaps in some cases uproot one's very will to live? I mean, perhaps some people are just built that way. Perhaps if we let go a bit we'd find that by middle age people might settle down into an economy that suited everybody well. The young would have a roller coaster ride, but they'd have their support systems, too. At least they might be more honest people than those we know and perhaps more generous and kind, too. I say, let people love one another in a genuine way and they'll be more ready to work on their socialization skills and needs more ably.
To require uniformity in these matters only creates inauthentic people who hide the truth. Some of the Pope's subordinates are the biggest hypocrites of all. Shame! Shame! Let their vileness be not forgot! Shame!
My word! There are too many phonies in the world already. They need not run the whole world, though! The people of this world will not long submit to any sharia or vatican or infallible bible. Those days are gone forever.
I would consider this to be a good thing. Anything that helps bring the perversion of Christ's teachings that is known as the Roman Catholic Church to destruction has got my support. This latest gaffe by the ivory-tower pope reaches a new low, even for him. How many more lives must be sacrificed to these holy stooges in Rome?
And Simon, your attitude that one can simply ignore wrong speech and maybe it'll go away is simply wrong. That is the Neville Chamberlin approach (and we all know how well that went!). The notion that we can somehow ignore evil and it won't be there is morally bankrupt. We have to stand up to evil wherever it raises its ugly little head and beat it back into the ground.
I find it very interesting and hopeful that in a survey done by American Catholic bishops, nearly 100% of American Catholics ignore the pronouncements of the Vatican and practice safe sex and birth control. Hooray for them! Now, if we could just make them go one step further and become Buddhists...
As for the Brazilian situation, it is obvious that the Catholic church made an ass of itself one more time. The statement by the Archbishop saying that it was wrong to excommunicate the people involved does not go so far as to say that the excommunication will be lifted, does it? Guess that would be a little too politically hot for the bish.
As for the Buddhist standpoint on such a situation, you have to remember that Buddhism does not have hard and fast rules. No "thou shalt nots" in Buddhism! It's never that easy. You can't come out with a blanket statement that covers all possible permutations. That's what the law tries to do, and that's what religions of the law (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) try to do. It has never worked for them, and it will never work. People are far too complex. In this case I would definitely support what was done. Seems like a no-brainer for me. Why wouldn't you? What would be gained by not doing the abortion? As for the resulting karma, the motivation is the key here, I would say, the motivation being the best outcome for all involved. Generally speaking, I am against abortions because it is killing a potential human life, and to be reborn as a human is any being's best shot at enlightenment. This is especially true in cases where the pregnancy is inconvenient rather than life-threatening and the abortion is done with little thought or regard for the fetus. But it is not a hard and fast rule.
Palzang
Do you think it is fair to support the destruction of the Roman Catholic Church because of your disagreement with it?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited March 2009
It's not necessarily the Catholic Church that needs 'destroying'....it's the ideology perpetuated by the authoritarian and controlling attitudes of 'those in charge'. They impose their own agenda and doctirne, which are not necessarily founded or based on the scriptures....
For example, celibacy for priests is not mentioned as part of Christ's teaching. This is an imposition upon pastors by the authorities.
Similarly, the ban on women priests is also archaic and mysogynistic, in my view.
I have grown up in a Catholic family and I stopped attending church on my own free will at a young age because I did not agree with some of the major tenants. I definitely see the hypocrisy and the archaic agendas. I also believe that it is those in 'power' that have allowed it to come to such, and to remain as backwards as it is. I might be understanding Palzangs post incorrectly, though it seemed that he was supportive of anything that would destroy the church - as it is now a pervasion of Christ’s original teachings. Is this incorrect Palzang? While I agree that the Roman Catholic Church today is far from the original teachings of Christ, I do not believe that calls for its destruction - rather it is in great need of a face lift.
If you are really interested in expanding your underatanding beyond the paucity of the school teaching you are receiving, may I suggest a writer who turned me on to a life-long fascination with the subject? It is Arnold Toynbee.
I believe that the Healing and liberating ministry of Jesus is on an entirely different and higher level than the Pope's disease-affirming moralistic one.
Jesus said: "When a man joins himself to a woman they become one flesh. Let man not separate what God has put together".
Is that the 'liberation' & 'healing' being referred to?
My word! There are too many phonies in the world already. They need not run the whole world, though! The people of this world will not long submit to any sharia or vatican or infallible bible. Those days are gone forever.
Yet you wish to rely on Jesus & the Gospel of Thomas?
S. PILGRIM, you mention Toynbee. I've really never delved into his work, but understand, I think, one major theme. That is that only singular, reflective individuals seem to be able to draw on life experiences and learn from their mistakes. Nations and peoples cannot seem to do this, unfortunately, as they cannot "connect" to blunders of the past.
What, learned Pilgrim, if anything, did Toynbee write concerning the martyrdom of Charles the First and the continental reaction to this? If the English could rid themselves of an anointed King, were not the bishops and princes of the continent also pushed a bit closer to the possibility of being overthrown?
Palzang says it so much better than I. The "Tenants" occupying the church need more than a mere "facelift." They need to repent and rend their hearts. They should work for justice, defending the oppressed and the widowed, to use biblical language.
In relation to the stated subject matter of this thread, I submit another question: What makes the position of the Pope secure?
History gives us lists of antipopes, and I suppose that suggests that the papacy is one of those offices that by definition cannot long remain vacant. Someone is sure to claim the honor and distinction.
The Bishop of Rome is of first rank among the bishops of the church, but when that office is elevated beyond all reason to a certain level of hoopla-holiness that would dictate too many terms regarding the disposal of basic human liberties, one must stop and think. Enough of this, "The Holy Father says" cult!!!! Those who call themselves Christians have a meeker Shepherd who is not invested in so much property and whose burden is light:
_______________________
Property does have this effect. Property produces men of weight, and it was a man of weight who failed to get into the Kingdom of Heaven. He was not wicked, that unfortunate millionaire in the parable, he was only stout; he stuck out in front, not to mention behind, and as he wedged himself this way and that in the crystalline entrance and bruised his well-fed flanks, he saw beneath him a comparatively slim camel passing through the eye of a needle and being woven into the robe of God. The Gospels all through couple stoutness and slowness. They point out what is perfectly obvious, yet seldom realized: that if you have a lot of things you cannot move about a lot, that furniture requires dusting, dusters require servants, servants require insurance stamps, and the whole tangle of them makes you think twice before you accept an invitation to dinner or go for a bathe in the Jordan. Sometimes the Gospels proceed further and say with Tolstoy that property is sinful; they approach the difficult ground of asceticism here, where I cannot follow them. But as to the immediate effects of property on people, they just show straightforward logic. It produces men of weight. Men of weight cannot, by definition, move like the lightning from the East unto the West, and the ascent of a fourteen-stone Bishop into a pulpit is thus the exact antithesis of the coming of the Son of Man.
Jesus said: "When a man joins himself to a woman they become one flesh. Let man not separate what God has put together".
Is that the 'liberation' & 'healing' being referred to?
Whilst some (and only some) Christian groups oppose divorce on the basis of this text, others do not. My own view is that Jesus is referring, here, to marriage according to Jewish law and custom because he refers to 'God'. The Temple having been destroyed and the people dispersed, that no longer obtains.
If you want to suggest that the Jesus message is not about liberation, you might do better to point out that, at no time, does he or Paul oppose slavery - although the churches have been central to the anti-slavery movement.
As for healing, the gospels are stuffed with stories of it.
What, learned Pilgrim, if anything, did Toynbee write concerning the martyrdom of Charles the First and the continental reaction to this? If the English could rid themselves of an anointed King, were not the bishops and princes of the continent also pushed a bit closer to the possibility of being overthrown?
It is getting on for 50 years since I read Toynbee. What I remember is his emphasis on the broad sweep of history and his division into succeeding civilisations. I also remember how exciting I found his way of seeing history as more than a simple list of dates and battles, kings and so on.
On the topic of Charles I, I hope I do not upset you when I sayb that I reject the 'Martyr' title: he was a petty, selfish and ineffectual monarch - typical Stuart, in fact - and the slaughter of the Civil Wars lies against him and his intransigence.
Taking the longer view, the execution of an anointed monarch already had a precedent: the beheading of Mary of Scots on the orders of Elizabeth I. This is why Elizabeth hesitated so long before signing the death warrant: she was well aware that she was establishing a very dangerous precedent. Killing a king on the battle-field (Richard III at Bosworth, for example) or imprisonment (e.g. Richard II) were OK but public execution set the scene for the events, ultimately, of January 21st 1793, when Louis XVI was guillotined.
As a P.S., I live just down the road from Berkeley Castle where Edward II was imprisoned and Gloucester Cathedral which house his splendid tomb (a placve of pilgrimage until the Commonwealth). I have become convinced that the story of his terrible murder is a fiction and that he lived out his life as an exile in a momnastery in what is now Italy. Another body was buried in his place in 1327, to be replaced, 14 years later, the the real body. I am persuaded of this because, at that time, the anointing of a king was deemed to make him holy and I think it unproven that Mortimer or Isabella would have imperilled both their rule and their immortal souls by condoning murder.
Also, as a P.S., whether Richard III (unlikely) or Henry VII (very likely) had Edward V and the Duke of York killed in the Tower of London ("the Little Princes"), it should be noted that Edward V was never crowned or anointed - although that nasty thug Henry Tudor would probably not have hesitated, just as his granddaughter unhesitatingly had the uncrowned Queen, Lady Jane Grey, decapitated.
The execution of Charles I marks the growing importance of the secular, anti-superstitious philosophy of the early, radical Enlightenment.
My own view is that Jesus is referring, here, to marriage according to Jewish law and custom because he refers to 'God'.
How can that be so, when Jesus stated: "Moses or the Jewish Law (whatever) allowed a man to divorce a woman." Jesus said: "But this is not how it was in the beginning".
The way in which this thread has developed suggests some thoughts:
Pope Benedict appears to have a serious case of pedodentology (foot-in-mouth). this is bad enough in a minor politician or spokesperson who "misspeaks". When it is an individual who claims dogmatic and moral authority over millions across the world, it becomes serious indeed. I believed that these "clangers" were unfortunate but "three's a charm", and his latest gaffe suggests that he is going to go on saying unacceptable things. Even when not speaking "infallibly", ex cathedra, people take him seriously. It is to the credit of so many, both within and outwith the Catholic Church, who are prepared to speak out loudly against such statements - and a tribute to the value of a free press.
From a purely personal point of view, I am saddened that the most visible individual in the Catholic Church cannot be trusted to speak truth or respectfully. Look above thisn post: Dhamma Dhatsu and I appear to have entered the muddy waters of scriptural analysis and exegesis. What a waste of time and bandwidth!
To repeat, yet again, the words of Saint John, the only "sermon" he would agree to preach in old age: "Love one another, my little children. When you have done that, all is done."
To repeat, yet again, the words of Saint John, the only "sermon" he would agree to preach in old age: "Love one another, my little children. When you have done that, all is done."
Yes, but in these days of STDs we must add the admonition:
I think the pill is good for family planning but teenage girls are not married and therefore not 'family planning'. If the pill was not given to teenage girls, then those with natural lack of self-control would fall pregnant and those with natural wisdom & strengh would flourish. They would become very strong women. Today, strong women with strong ingrained moral values are becoming less in the world. When women lose their natural, innate moral values & wisdom, the world has problems.
OK, now you are descending into crypto-Islamism. What's next, women wearing veils to preserve their chaste nature? Beyond that, you confuse the meaning of "innate". There is no need to ingrain something which is innate.
I am not at all certain what you mean by "natural". Sex is entirely natural, more so than morality. To your conception of wisdom and strength, I will have you know that the teenage girls I was shacking up with in my youth were extremely wise and strong, their wisdom clouded only perhaps by their puzzling choice of partner. On the other hand, some of the most fearful, confused people I know cling to outmoded ideas of moral purity-- generally as an excuse for why they aren't getting laid.
Our modern ideas of chastity are patriarchal inventions that hearken back to the not so distant past where women were viewed as little more than property. Hallelujah for women being able to steer their own sexual destiny now. If their freedom frightens little men who lack respect for their capability to make decisions about their body for themselves, all the better.
With contraception, human beings become over-sexualised and often develop wrong views about sex. With both of these things occuring, relationships can become unstable, thus the very high divorce rates in the West and a plethora of relationship problems.
With sanctimony, humans become over-generalized and often develop wrong views about logical argumentation. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
When I was 12 years old, I received hard-core sex education at school.
I love Australia! What a country. We here in Canada had to wait for our university career to get into hard-core sex. Who knew?
Freedom & responsibility always go hand-in-hand. Also, idealism is just delusion. The world is just the way it is, following its own spiritual evolution.
You have a peculiar habit of undercutting all of your previous arguments and then ending with a smiley. Is this a ruse? Maybe you need to spend some time in a seminary learning some of the Pope's much vaunted consistency.
On the other hand, some of the most fearful, confused people I know cling to outmoded ideas of moral purity-- generally as an excuse for why they aren't getting laid.
Do you think it is fair to support the destruction of the Roman Catholic Church because of your disagreement with it?
No, but I think it's fair to support the destruction of the Roman Catholic Church on account of all the egregious harm and murder they have perpetrated for 2000 years.
No, but I think it's fair to support the destruction of the Roman Catholic Church on account of all the egregious harm and murder they have perpetrated for 2000 years.
Palzang
But what of the good?
The catholic church hasn't only done harm in its 2000 year history. We can't believe the Buddha's teachings and expect perfection from any human organization.
In all large movements there is great good and great bad, small good and small bad. There is always a balance. Sometimes we are simply unable to see it.
Our modern ideas of chastity are patriarchal inventions that hearken back to the not so distant past where women were viewed as little more than property. Hallelujah for women being able to steer their own sexual destiny now. If their freedom frightens little men who lack respect for their capability to make decisions about their body for themselves, all the better.
How in the hell is marriage a patriarchal invention? The notion of men being devoted only to one woman and not having any relations with other women goes against male nature. I don't see what sinister patriarchs have to gain by that.
To your conception of wisdom and strength, I will have you know that the teenage girls I was shacking up with in my youth were extremely wise and strong, their wisdom clouded only perhaps by their puzzling choice of partner. On the other hand, some of the most fearful, confused people I know cling to outmoded ideas of moral purity-- generally as an excuse for why they aren't getting laid.
I'm sorry, but you have your head a bit too far up your ass for my liking.
I know lots of girls who shun the idea of pre-marital sex for moral reasons. Maybe they don't want to get pregnant, or maybe they don't want to get a disease. Maybe they don't want to feel like whores. I don't know.
Some of the most fearful, confused people I know cling to outmoded ideas of moral purity-- generally as an excuse for why they aren't getting laid.
T M, I like the way you express yourself. It's so fun to read you. I know I myself can be dense, but I think I can learn a lot from your nimble mind. Thanks for opining and doing it so aptly and with such good humor.
My post had to do with standing up for your beliefs.I did not say that I found all his words acceptable. If it were up to me I would probably ask him to refrain about remarks having to do with ones head and posterior.
grackle
Look, I don't know what you all would like me to say. I guess I could just repackage the same exact thought into different words.
"I find your boasting in regards to your teenage sexual exploits not only ill-advised, but also highly arrogant as well. Also, your implication that individuals who refrain from sexual activity as a matter of principle are using that as an excuse for not being able to copulate more competitively is not only demonstrably false on several levels, but distasteful as well."
Yes, that is better. But, as some people find it hard to get into a mood that will allow them to apologize, it's probably best not to say anything insulting in the first place.
But, Grackle, I think you miss my point entirely. As on online sangha, we members have as our first and foremost responsibility the duty to be kind and welcoming. We may not always be able to agree in any way at all, but that's not what we are about. We are about helping each other to understand and live the Dharma. If each and every one of us was not very dear to the Lord Buddha, rude lapses might sometimes occur. However, there is no excuse for rudeness along the approaches and bridges that connect to the High Road (which is the Buddhadharma).
No one should empty his chamber pot on travellers along the way. The devoted pilgrims will, of course, persevere, but they, too, need the occassional kindly word and friendly watering place.
A statement without any foundation. If one has lived in Buddhist countries or in Bali, the village women are extremely moral. Yet they walk around topless. If they sense a man has no morals, they will trash him and humiliate him. I suggest you study some of the writings of Gregory Bateson about Balinese culture. Or better still, travel the world.
Whilst my views are in the middle, your views appear to be the liberal extreme of crypto-Islamism.
Beyond that, you confuse the meaning of "innate".
Innate is the wish for secure relationship. Each human being has the innate longing to be loved & respected. Most women have the wish for the love they give to be returned to them.
Sex is entirely natural, more so than morality.
Are you sure?
Morality is perfectly natural. The law of evolution is if there is no morality, a species will cease. A species that destroys its environment will destroy itself. A society that destroys its family structure will diminish.
Animals have sex only at certain times of the year for reproduction. Animals are moral in that their relationship towards their offspring is one of protection & nurturing.
Buddhism teaches about right sexual conduct. This is because the nature of sexuality is to nurture life and to develop oneself spiritually.
The natural wisdom of women is generally moral. It is for nest building.
Regardless, your view is certainly not Dhammic. The word 'Dhammic' means that which sustains and upholds life.
To your conception of wisdom and strength, I will have you know that the teenage girls I was shacking up with in my youth were extremely wise and strong, their wisdom clouded only perhaps by their puzzling choice of partner.
The girls "appeared" strong & wise to you. They were only girls. They longed for something and of course chose the wrong partner who could not deliver.
Their wisdom was the "innate wisdom" I was referring to. It was not taught to them. This innate wisdom was for them to apply to their children and families, just like a mother cat or tigress instructs its young. However, instead, these girls probably used their wisdom to listen to your frustrations and problems.
When I was a teenager, I regarded a certain woman as wise & strong. Such was my beguilement, understood when I suddenly saw that strength & wisdom disintegrate into desparate tears & longings. [Note: Men can be exactly the same].
On the other hand, some of the most fearful, confused people I know cling to outmoded ideas of moral purity-- generally as an excuse for why they aren't getting laid.
Getting laid?
Are you making assumptions about myself? I can only laugh. I have said "no" countless more times in my life than I have asked. (Although I have not asked since I was 21 years old).
I know many lonely & vulnerable women. Whilst I usually spend my time with them offering spiritual support, most are longing for an intimate relationship. Thubten Namgyal.Do you recommend I take advantage of their situation and get laid? :rolleyes:
Our modern ideas of chastity are patriarchal inventions that hearken back to the not so distant past where women were viewed as little more than property.
I am not talking about chasity. I am talking about non-harming. Not harming oneself. Not harming another. Not harming both oneself and another.
Hallelujah for women being able to steer their own sexual destiny now. If their freedom frightens little men who lack respect for their capability to make decisions about their body for themselves, all the better.
Are you sure women are steering their destiny?
If so, why are there countless websites of women seeking a partner? Why are there so many women seeking psychological help and being prescribed psychiatric medicines? Why is the divorce rate in so many Western nations over 50%?
Are you sure certain men are frightened? What would they be frightened of?
Are you sure your attitude is a responsible, wise & compassionate attitude?
With sanctimony, humans become over-generalized and often develop wrong views about logical argumentation. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
You need to talk about actualities friend, which are based in the criteria of suffering & freedom from suffering.
I love Australia! What a country. We here in Canada had to wait for our university career to get into hard-core sex. Who knew?
You have a peculiar habit of undercutting all of your previous arguments and then ending with a smiley.
I would say your views are unbalanced. They only see one-side. They are not in the middle. Buddha taught a wise person sees the origin of things, their cessation, their attraction, their danger and the skilful means to escape the danger.
Sexuality has its origination in reproductive instinct. It ceases when compassion is fulfilled. Its attraction is its pleasurably . Its danger is it can create tremendous sufferings, pain, heatbreaks & confusions . The way to escape the danger and reap the attraction is to practice sexual morality.
Buddha said:
Husband & wife, both of them
having conviction, being responsive, being restrained,
living by the Dhamma, addressing each other with loving words:
they benefit in manifold ways. To them comes bliss.
Their enemies are dejected when both are in tune in virtue.
Having followed the Dhamma here in this world,
both in tune in precepts & practices,
they delight in the world of the devas, enjoying the pleasures they desire .
I disagree completely. The Bible states "wisdom is fear of the Lord". Buddha said there are five dhammas which are the gateway to the Dhamma: (1) mindfulness or sati; (3) applied wisdom or sampajanna; (3) concentation or samadhi (bliss :rolleyes:) ; (4) moral shame or hiri and (5) fear of the results of unskilful actions or otappa.
No fear, no heedfulness. No heedfulness, no Deathless state.
How in the hell is marriage a patriarchal invention? The notion of men being devoted only to one woman and not having any relations with other women goes against male nature. I don't see what sinister patriarchs have to gain by that.
I agree here.
Sexuality is beguilement. If it was not beguilement, how could something like reproduction, which creates so many burdens, sustain the world & evolution for millions of years.
Buddha could see clearly. Buddha was not beguiled. Buddha recommended a husband serve his wife and, thus being served, a wife returns her love. Buddha said a husband gives authority to the wife.
Male nature can have multiple relations and impregnate many women. Yet Buddha understood what was most beneficial for both man and woman was a man support a woman in her aims and goals.
This is why many Buddhist cultures, such as Thai or Balinese culture, are pervasively matriarchial in their functioning. If we live in a Buddhist country like Thailand, which is inherently very moral (despite impressions to the contrary), women express themselves fully whereas men act quite subdued.
Whilst Buddha was a man, his recommendations for human society were certain not patriarchial in the same manner as the desert religions. Buddha suggested the woman called the shots and that a man develop self-control. This is contrary to Islam, which suggests men call the shots and women be covered under the view men have no self-control.
I theorize morality is inherently a female principle.
I personally only developed morals in my life in response to what I perceived to be female needs, aspirations and expectations. Before that, I had no inherent morals, apart from the general wish to do good things for people. When my perception of "good" changed, my morals changed.
I disagree completely. The Bible states "wisdom is fear of the Lord". Buddha said there are five dhammas which are the gateway to the Dhamma: (1) mindfulness or sati; (3) applied wisdom or sampajanna; (3) concentation or samadhi (bliss :rolleyes:) ; (4) moral shame or hiri and (5) fear of the results of unskilful actions or otappa.
No fear, no heedfulness. No heedfulness, no Deathless state.
Hi Dhamma Dhatu,
I think we're mixing up two issues here; general structure of society with its freedoms/responsibilities etc and the training within a spiritual path.
The choices you make are ones which you feel are conducive to your own progress but there is a line which one should not cross and that is the sectarian proscription of others rights.
It's one thing regulating ones private life and quite another preaching morals to others and advising against condoms. I'm sure your stomach turns at the sight of people being dragged through the streets of some middle eastern lands by religious zealots and being publicly 'dealt with' by the same self-appointed guardians of moral law.
Sure you wouldn't condone such extreme action, but consider how violence gets started with anger and hatred in the mind. If someone feels moral justification in condoning, or carrying out ad hom attacks on individuals because they are, in their estimation, morally inferior (or whatever) then consider where that puts them.
I've had born-again Christians and Muslims verbally abusing me for being a Buddhist and they were all "justified" in doing so according to their beliefs. They felt that they 'had' to take a stand and 'put me right'.
Where's the difference?
I don't see any. I find that kind of self-righteous approach disappointingly familiar from other boards.
Thanks, Srivijaya, for spelling this out so well. You are a very agreeable fellow.
Maybe it's time to close this thread, though. It has become a bicker board. The attacking is so tiresome.
Also, logic has walked out the door. Somebody says "SOME" men are blind and the next guy hears him say "ALL" men are blind. Then the next person hears, "All men are godless," &c. Then SOME mount their high horses.
It's really all so tedious and parochial, though not so ridiculous as the Hitler-Youth Pope and his anachronisms.
The catholic church hasn't only done harm in its 2000 year history. We can't believe the Buddha's teachings and expect perfection from any human organization.
In all large movements there is great good and great bad, small good and small bad. There is always a balance. Sometimes we are simply unable to see it.
While there have been many catholics who have indeed been saints, such as Mother Theresa, I think the catholic church as an institution is about as corrupt and unfixable as it is possible to be. Did Jesus, do you think, want such a byzantine hierarchy to be the sole arbiter of his teachings? I think not! The history of the church is littered with immoral and unethical popes, murder on a massive scale, enslavement, greed, genocide, not to mention countless numbers of children who grew up drowning in guilt because of the utterly idiotic teachings of the church. If there is an Antichrist, it is the Roman Catholic Church. I don't honestly see anything worth saving there. Your argument, Brigid, is like the argument that the Nazis weren't all bad because at least the trains ran on time.
While there have been many catholics who have indeed been saints, such as Mother Theresa, I think the catholic church as an institution is about as corrupt and unfixable as it is possible to be. Did Jesus, do you think, want such a byzantine hierarchy to be the sole arbiter of his teachings? I think not! The history of the church is littered with immoral and unethical popes, murder on a massive scale, enslavement, greed, genocide, not to mention countless numbers of children who grew up drowning in guilt because of the utterly idiotic teachings of the church. If there is an Antichrist, it is the Roman Catholic Church. I don't honestly see anything worth saving there. Your argument, Brigid, is like the argument that the Nazis weren't all bad because at least the trains ran on time.Palzang
Okay, then let me ask you this: Do you believe any Nazi party members were redeemable?
P.S. Just to note, I do not think Mother Theresa was a "saint" at all. I believe sex education and birth control, particularly for women for the sake of their autonomy and control over their own bodies and lives, is the wisest and most compassionate way to help many people in developing countries around the world. Not the exact opposite.
Sure I do. Some Nazis were Nazis just to get a job in the government or whatever. They weren't dyed-in-the-wool, fire-breathing, kill-all-the-Jews Nazis. Just look at Herr Schindler. I don't recall if he actually was a member of the party, but he was a powerful industrialist producing goods for the Reich. He couldn't stomach the wholesale slaughter of people who just happened to be Jews and saved a lot of people who otherwise would have joined the Holocaust.
I feel Mother Teresa was a saint for her tireless efforts to help the poor and needy in India, irregardless of the methods she may have utilized. She helped many people out of simple compassion and love. She sought Christ sincerely and, apparently, in her opinion, unsuccessfully for many, many years, yet she persevered. It's her motivation that qualifies her, imho, not really what particular religious beliefs she may have believed in, which are always arguable in any event. I also think Thomas Merton was a saint, though I doubt the catholic church would agree with me!
I don't believe that my ravings about the catholic church will result in the destruction of that institution. Just tilting at windmills. But I do feel that their karma will eventually result in just that. The sex scandal involving the priests of the last few years did enormous damage to the church in the US, as well as other countries. Many parishes are closing on account of insufficient membership. Priests are becoming fewer and fewer as more and more men opt not to enter the priesthood. The writing is on the wall, so to speak. I think that someday American catholics will abandon Rome and either create their own church a la the Anglicans or be absorbed into other denominations. Most catholics in the US have already abandoned Rome on birth control and other such issues.
I think we're mixing up two issues here; general structure of society with its freedoms/responsibilities etc and the training within a spiritual path. It's one thing regulating ones private life and quite another preaching morals to others and advising against condoms.
Hi Srivijaya
Religions have certain responsibilities to their followers. HHDL has some very austere views about sex. If Buddhism did not recommend morality (non-harming) then what purpose would Buddhism have given morality is an essential aspect of freedom from suffering?
That said, if we try to idealise the matter, I would probably say the Pope's methods are a little clumsy. At least from a Theravada perspective, learning & education is the way to address these issues.
I'm sure your stomach turns at the sight of people being dragged through the streets of some middle eastern lands by religious zealots and being publicly 'dealt with' by the same self-appointed guardians of moral law.
Subjectively, yes. This is because I am Hinayana. I have abandoned being overly concerned about the world. In the spiritual sensitivity that manifests from that freedom, those murderous actions by zealots do not bring them any liberation & freedom. They know not what they do.
However, objectively, all societies have moral law. For example, if we read the suttas, the Buddha did not raise an eye-brow when describing how a man caught committing adultery would be brought before the king for punishment or even death.
Or, for example, how do people in our modern society react when they learn of rapists & pedophiles?
As you said, I think we're mixing up two issues here; general structure of society with its freedoms/responsibilities etc and the training within a spiritual path.
For example, extremes of moralism are found naturally in society. Moral righteousness is not something exclusive to religion. It was required of people like the Buddha to temper the approach to morals of society.
For example, if our society had no laws, we would have vigil antis everywhere imposing their own laws. When wife is caught having an affair, many husbands would kill their wife. Or often we read in newspapers of wives severing the sexual organs of their unfaithful husbands. This has nothing to do with religion.
The Hinayana Path is one of finding personal liberation and sharing the way of personal liberation with those individuals who also seek it.
However, once one gets caught up in the world, there is no certain method. Kammic law is not absolute truth.
Birth control has its harm & its benefits. The Catholic Church is justified to be concerned with it. However, trying to ban it outright or ignore its great benefits is clearly ignorance. There is ideally a Middle Way.
If someone feels moral justification in condoning, or carrying out ad hom attacks on individuals because they are, in their estimation, morally inferior (or whatever) then consider where that puts them.
Ad hom attacks is a very subjective statement. Buddha said:
"And this is the best of helpful acts: to arouse, instil and strengthen faith in the unbeliever; to arouse, instil and strengthen virtue in the immoral; to arouse, instil and strengthen generosity in the niggard; to arouse, instil and strengthen wisdom in the unwise. And this is the best bestowal of equity: if a stream-winner becomes equal to a stream-winner; a once-returner equal to a once-returner; a non-returner equal to a non-returner; and an arahant equal to an arahant. This, monks, is called the power of benevolence.
I've had born-again Christians and Muslims verbally abusing me for being a Buddhist and they were all "justified" in doing so according to their beliefs. They felt that they 'had' to take a stand and 'put me right'. Where's the difference?
The difference is what is beneficial and what is verbal abuse. Believing in another's subjective God will not bring one liberation.
Brigid,
One of those Nazi's, John Rabe was instrumental in helping Chinese reach the international safety zone during the rape of Nanking. An elderly Chinese woman told me he was referred to as the Bodhisattva of Nanking. You might like to read The Rape of Nanking by Iris Chang for further info.
Palzang,
Oskar Schindler was indeed an NSDAP member. He established his business in Poland as many of the nazi entreprenurs did. Because skilled labor was rented out both by Hans Frank as well as the SS. Oskar Schindler originally acted to protect his workers as part of business. Later to protect them from the holocaust. Growing up in Miami quite a few KZ survivors lived there. So I was able to hear directly.
grackle
I thought so. Been a while since I saw the movie. Thanks. Of course, after the war was over and the Nazis defeated and disgraced, it was very hard to find anyone who would own up to being one!
Palzang
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited April 2009
*This is a serious thread, but it's veering from one place to another, guys.... try to keep the discussion sequential, if at all possible.....we started off discussing the Pope and his comments. We could almost say we've virtually come full circle....!
But we've strolled around other matters too, so let's try to not get too waylaid....
KoB, I haven't edited any of your posts, but really, try to be a bit more thoughtful in your comments to people.
Ultimately, this forum is a nice place to be, and nobody deserves to get spoken to in that manner, whatever your reasoning may be.
Sure I do. Some Nazis were Nazis just to get a job in the government or whatever. They weren't dyed-in-the-wool, fire-breathing, kill-all-the-Jews Nazis. Just look at Herr Schindler. I don't recall if he actually was a member of the party, but he was a powerful industrialist producing goods for the Reich. He couldn't stomach the wholesale slaughter of people who just happened to be Jews and saved a lot of people who otherwise would have joined the Holocaust.
I feel Mother Teresa was a saint for her tireless efforts to help the poor and needy in India, irregardless of the methods she may have utilized. She helped many people out of simple compassion and love. She sought Christ sincerely and, apparently, in her opinion, unsuccessfully for many, many years, yet she persevered. It's her motivation that qualifies her, imho, not really what particular religious beliefs she may have believed in, which are always arguable in any event. I also think Thomas Merton was a saint, though I doubt the catholic church would agree with me!
I don't believe that my ravings about the catholic church will result in the destruction of that institution. Just tilting at windmills. But I do feel that their karma will eventually result in just that. The sex scandal involving the priests of the last few years did enormous damage to the church in the US, as well as other countries. Many parishes are closing on account of insufficient membership. Priests are becoming fewer and fewer as more and more men opt not to enter the priesthood. The writing is on the wall, so to speak. I think that someday American catholics will abandon Rome and either create their own church a la the Anglicans or be absorbed into other denominations. Most catholics in the US have already abandoned Rome on birth control and other such issues.
Palzang
Hi, Pally.
Thanks for the clarifications. All interesting thoughts and I have to agree on several points.
I'll just respond quickly to grackle and then stop hijacking the thread. Fede's right, it's going off topic a bit too much.
Brigid,
One of those Nazi's, John Rabe was instrumental in helping Chinese reach the international safety zone during the rape of Nanking. An elderly Chinese woman told me he was referred to as the Bodhisattva of Nanking. You might like to read The Rape of Nanking by Iris Chang for further info.
grackle
Hi, grackle.
Thanks for this info. Coincidentally my sister is reading The Rape of Nanking and I have the book after her. Strange, eh?
My point, which I shall put to bed directly after this, is that I believe strongly that all beings are redeemable no matter how evil their actions may appear.
No, but I think it's fair to support the destruction of the Roman Catholic Church on account of all the egregious harm and murder they have perpetrated for 2000 years.
Palzang
I think that if we extended this logic, then it would call for the destruction of a lot of people...amd there wouldn't be much hope for a lot of us.
Also, if the church was destroyed rather than modified, what of all the peoples whose lives have been shaped in a good way because of their relationship with the Catholic church?
I realize part of my last post might have been confusing. When I said there wouldn’t be hope for a lot of us, I didn’t mean it necessarily because there are a lot of Catholics, I meant because every one of us has imperfections large and small (semantics I suppose) and the capacity for enlightenment for everyone one of us is the same. Considering how many lives we have all probably had, there is the likelihood that each of us has committed murder in a past life…that doesn’t mean we should be destroyed.
I didn't say anything about destroying people, did I? Just the institution. Besides, who would ever pay any attention to my ravings? I mean, really!
Palzang
I suppose that because institutions themselves have no actions independent from the people who run them, I assumed the destruction of the church implied something of the same effect to those who 'run' it. But you know what they say about people who assume lol ...and I think you're ravings are quite enjoyable
Comments
I have interpreted it in a different way to your possible intention.
Sexual neediness is not a vice.
Your mother may simply have been a less sexually oriented woman to others.
Your interpretation of self-control' could well have been a simple case of lack of desire.
It's not uncommon. In fact, quite the opposite.
But that does not make anyone better than anyone else.
Just different.
Nicely said, Fede!
The fact that most people confuse sexual proclivities and behavior with sin/immorality is due to religious culture. Too bad the religions that claim to "free" us end up all too often making us lay ownership to those closest to us. This so-called "love," though, is only conditional. It does not strive to accept and honor what the person is in herself or himself, but really only what that person does for us. But is this real love?
I believe that the Healing and liberating ministry of Jesus is on an entirely different and higher level than the Pope's disease-affirming moralistic one. The Pope's Pharisaic actions remind me of logion 102 of The Gospel According to Thomas:
The Pope preaches that condom use can only be a bad thing and that everything would be better in a world without condoms. In this kind of thinking, reality is just washed down the drain. Misshapen thinking suspends reality and seems to believe that things like strong instinctual drives can simply drift away on some impulse for personal holiness, which somehow magically becomes almighty and overwhelms us with great, irresistible strength, if God should favor us with that strong impulse in the first place. (Woe unto those not so favored!)
Golly! To be so screwed up in ones thinking that you cannot clearly see the difference between a moral principle and a hygienic practice! Or to be so triply contemptible as to see the difference, but not to care! Condoms are a dual prophylactic. They not only stop transmission of sperm to ovum, but also of viruses known to cause a serious, deadly disease which is also a threat to our very survival as a species on this our fragile island home, as the Prayer Book calls it. It's really a primitive belief system. Let's say some deadly bacteria evolved that could only be killed by incineration or with alcohol. Now, X starts a religion stating that because drunk drivers sometimes kill people, all alcohol should be outlawed and none was ever to be made again. Period. Would the X religionists triumph? I trust not. Incineration of infected tissue does not compute, saith the robot.
Thinking is one thing and reality, on the other hand, quite another. Perhaps in evolutionary development the human brain swelled and swelled, making it possible for us to believe all that we think. However, there is an antidote for that malady: Science. Let us go inveighing!
Thoughts and ideas need constantly to be reassessed. I think Lord Buddha said that.
Different strokes for different folks. Accept people for what they really are. We would expect people to have some control over their sexual urges, hoping for them to order their lives in productive ways, without hurting, embarrassing, or exploiting others. But who are we to restrict the number of lovers they might choose to have or have at one time? Would that not perhaps in some cases uproot one's very will to live? I mean, perhaps some people are just built that way. Perhaps if we let go a bit we'd find that by middle age people might settle down into an economy that suited everybody well. The young would have a roller coaster ride, but they'd have their support systems, too. At least they might be more honest people than those we know and perhaps more generous and kind, too. I say, let people love one another in a genuine way and they'll be more ready to work on their socialization skills and needs more ably.
To require uniformity in these matters only creates inauthentic people who hide the truth. Some of the Pope's subordinates are the biggest hypocrites of all. Shame! Shame! Let their vileness be not forgot! Shame!
My word! There are too many phonies in the world already. They need not run the whole world, though! The people of this world will not long submit to any sharia or vatican or infallible bible. Those days are gone forever.
Do you think it is fair to support the destruction of the Roman Catholic Church because of your disagreement with it?
For example, celibacy for priests is not mentioned as part of Christ's teaching. This is an imposition upon pastors by the authorities.
Similarly, the ban on women priests is also archaic and mysogynistic, in my view.
Just my 2 cents.....
While I agree that the Roman Catholic Church today is far from the original teachings of Christ, I do not believe that calls for its destruction - rather it is in great need of a face lift.
If you are really interested in expanding your underatanding beyond the paucity of the school teaching you are receiving, may I suggest a writer who turned me on to a life-long fascination with the subject? It is Arnold Toynbee.
Jesus said: "When a man joins himself to a woman they become one flesh. Let man not separate what God has put together".
Is that the 'liberation' & 'healing' being referred to?
S. PILGRIM, you mention Toynbee. I've really never delved into his work, but understand, I think, one major theme. That is that only singular, reflective individuals seem to be able to draw on life experiences and learn from their mistakes. Nations and peoples cannot seem to do this, unfortunately, as they cannot "connect" to blunders of the past.
What, learned Pilgrim, if anything, did Toynbee write concerning the martyrdom of Charles the First and the continental reaction to this? If the English could rid themselves of an anointed King, were not the bishops and princes of the continent also pushed a bit closer to the possibility of being overthrown?
Palzang says it so much better than I. The "Tenants" occupying the church need more than a mere "facelift." They need to repent and rend their hearts. They should work for justice, defending the oppressed and the widowed, to use biblical language.
In relation to the stated subject matter of this thread, I submit another question: What makes the position of the Pope secure?
History gives us lists of antipopes, and I suppose that suggests that the papacy is one of those offices that by definition cannot long remain vacant. Someone is sure to claim the honor and distinction.
The Bishop of Rome is of first rank among the bishops of the church, but when that office is elevated beyond all reason to a certain level of hoopla-holiness that would dictate too many terms regarding the disposal of basic human liberties, one must stop and think. Enough of this, "The Holy Father says" cult!!!! Those who call themselves Christians have a meeker Shepherd who is not invested in so much property and whose burden is light:
_______________________
Whilst some (and only some) Christian groups oppose divorce on the basis of this text, others do not. My own view is that Jesus is referring, here, to marriage according to Jewish law and custom because he refers to 'God'. The Temple having been destroyed and the people dispersed, that no longer obtains.
If you want to suggest that the Jesus message is not about liberation, you might do better to point out that, at no time, does he or Paul oppose slavery - although the churches have been central to the anti-slavery movement.
As for healing, the gospels are stuffed with stories of it.
What do imply by "rely on"?
It is getting on for 50 years since I read Toynbee. What I remember is his emphasis on the broad sweep of history and his division into succeeding civilisations. I also remember how exciting I found his way of seeing history as more than a simple list of dates and battles, kings and so on.
On the topic of Charles I, I hope I do not upset you when I sayb that I reject the 'Martyr' title: he was a petty, selfish and ineffectual monarch - typical Stuart, in fact - and the slaughter of the Civil Wars lies against him and his intransigence.
Taking the longer view, the execution of an anointed monarch already had a precedent: the beheading of Mary of Scots on the orders of Elizabeth I. This is why Elizabeth hesitated so long before signing the death warrant: she was well aware that she was establishing a very dangerous precedent. Killing a king on the battle-field (Richard III at Bosworth, for example) or imprisonment (e.g. Richard II) were OK but public execution set the scene for the events, ultimately, of January 21st 1793, when Louis XVI was guillotined.
As a P.S., I live just down the road from Berkeley Castle where Edward II was imprisoned and Gloucester Cathedral which house his splendid tomb (a placve of pilgrimage until the Commonwealth). I have become convinced that the story of his terrible murder is a fiction and that he lived out his life as an exile in a momnastery in what is now Italy. Another body was buried in his place in 1327, to be replaced, 14 years later, the the real body. I am persuaded of this because, at that time, the anointing of a king was deemed to make him holy and I think it unproven that Mortimer or Isabella would have imperilled both their rule and their immortal souls by condoning murder.
Also, as a P.S., whether Richard III (unlikely) or Henry VII (very likely) had Edward V and the Duke of York killed in the Tower of London ("the Little Princes"), it should be noted that Edward V was never crowned or anointed - although that nasty thug Henry Tudor would probably not have hesitated, just as his granddaughter unhesitatingly had the uncrowned Queen, Lady Jane Grey, decapitated.
The execution of Charles I marks the growing importance of the secular, anti-superstitious philosophy of the early, radical Enlightenment.
Pope Benedict appears to have a serious case of pedodentology (foot-in-mouth). this is bad enough in a minor politician or spokesperson who "misspeaks". When it is an individual who claims dogmatic and moral authority over millions across the world, it becomes serious indeed. I believed that these "clangers" were unfortunate but "three's a charm", and his latest gaffe suggests that he is going to go on saying unacceptable things. Even when not speaking "infallibly", ex cathedra, people take him seriously. It is to the credit of so many, both within and outwith the Catholic Church, who are prepared to speak out loudly against such statements - and a tribute to the value of a free press.
From a purely personal point of view, I am saddened that the most visible individual in the Catholic Church cannot be trusted to speak truth or respectfully. Look above thisn post: Dhamma Dhatsu and I appear to have entered the muddy waters of scriptural analysis and exegesis. What a waste of time and bandwidth!
To repeat, yet again, the words of Saint John, the only "sermon" he would agree to preach in old age:
"Love one another, my little children. When you have done that, all is done."
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. -Ralph Waldo Emerson
Give me a little wise compassion over foolish consistency any day.
Namgyal
Yes, but in these days of STDs we must add the admonition:
"When you do, be sure to use a condom."
OK, now you are descending into crypto-Islamism. What's next, women wearing veils to preserve their chaste nature? Beyond that, you confuse the meaning of "innate". There is no need to ingrain something which is innate.
I am not at all certain what you mean by "natural". Sex is entirely natural, more so than morality. To your conception of wisdom and strength, I will have you know that the teenage girls I was shacking up with in my youth were extremely wise and strong, their wisdom clouded only perhaps by their puzzling choice of partner. On the other hand, some of the most fearful, confused people I know cling to outmoded ideas of moral purity-- generally as an excuse for why they aren't getting laid.
Our modern ideas of chastity are patriarchal inventions that hearken back to the not so distant past where women were viewed as little more than property. Hallelujah for women being able to steer their own sexual destiny now. If their freedom frightens little men who lack respect for their capability to make decisions about their body for themselves, all the better.
With sanctimony, humans become over-generalized and often develop wrong views about logical argumentation. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
I love Australia! What a country. We here in Canada had to wait for our university career to get into hard-core sex. Who knew?
You have a peculiar habit of undercutting all of your previous arguments and then ending with a smiley. Is this a ruse? Maybe you need to spend some time in a seminary learning some of the Pope's much vaunted consistency.
What a shameless pseudo-Hindu you truly are!
Agree 100% with all that though!:D
No, but I think it's fair to support the destruction of the Roman Catholic Church on account of all the egregious harm and murder they have perpetrated for 2000 years.
Palzang
The catholic church hasn't only done harm in its 2000 year history. We can't believe the Buddha's teachings and expect perfection from any human organization.
In all large movements there is great good and great bad, small good and small bad. There is always a balance. Sometimes we are simply unable to see it.
How in the hell is marriage a patriarchal invention? The notion of men being devoted only to one woman and not having any relations with other women goes against male nature. I don't see what sinister patriarchs have to gain by that.
I'm sorry, but you have your head a bit too far up your ass for my liking.
I know lots of girls who shun the idea of pre-marital sex for moral reasons. Maybe they don't want to get pregnant, or maybe they don't want to get a disease. Maybe they don't want to feel like whores. I don't know.
I appreciate your pluck and standing up for what you believe in. Its very refreshing.
simplicity
It's always great to have spirit, but insulting others is not OK.
T M, I like the way you express yourself. It's so fun to read you. I know I myself can be dense, but I think I can learn a lot from your nimble mind. Thanks for opining and doing it so aptly and with such good humor.
I'll second that. Very poor indeed.
grackle
"I find your boasting in regards to your teenage sexual exploits not only ill-advised, but also highly arrogant as well. Also, your implication that individuals who refrain from sexual activity as a matter of principle are using that as an excuse for not being able to copulate more competitively is not only demonstrably false on several levels, but distasteful as well."
Is that better? It certainly sounds much softer.
I think you did a very nice job of restating your position.
grackle
But, Grackle, I think you miss my point entirely. As on online sangha, we members have as our first and foremost responsibility the duty to be kind and welcoming. We may not always be able to agree in any way at all, but that's not what we are about. We are about helping each other to understand and live the Dharma. If each and every one of us was not very dear to the Lord Buddha, rude lapses might sometimes occur. However, there is no excuse for rudeness along the approaches and bridges that connect to the High Road (which is the Buddhadharma).
No one should empty his chamber pot on travellers along the way. The devoted pilgrims will, of course, persevere, but they, too, need the occassional kindly word and friendly watering place.
A statement without any foundation. If one has lived in Buddhist countries or in Bali, the village women are extremely moral. Yet they walk around topless. If they sense a man has no morals, they will trash him and humiliate him. I suggest you study some of the writings of Gregory Bateson about Balinese culture. Or better still, travel the world.
Whilst my views are in the middle, your views appear to be the liberal extreme of crypto-Islamism.
Innate is the wish for secure relationship. Each human being has the innate longing to be loved & respected. Most women have the wish for the love they give to be returned to them.
Are you sure?
Morality is perfectly natural. The law of evolution is if there is no morality, a species will cease. A species that destroys its environment will destroy itself. A society that destroys its family structure will diminish.
Animals have sex only at certain times of the year for reproduction. Animals are moral in that their relationship towards their offspring is one of protection & nurturing.
Buddhism teaches about right sexual conduct. This is because the nature of sexuality is to nurture life and to develop oneself spiritually.
The natural wisdom of women is generally moral. It is for nest building.
Regardless, your view is certainly not Dhammic. The word 'Dhammic' means that which sustains and upholds life.
The girls "appeared" strong & wise to you. They were only girls. They longed for something and of course chose the wrong partner who could not deliver.
Their wisdom was the "innate wisdom" I was referring to. It was not taught to them. This innate wisdom was for them to apply to their children and families, just like a mother cat or tigress instructs its young. However, instead, these girls probably used their wisdom to listen to your frustrations and problems.
When I was a teenager, I regarded a certain woman as wise & strong. Such was my beguilement, understood when I suddenly saw that strength & wisdom disintegrate into desparate tears & longings. [Note: Men can be exactly the same].
Getting laid?
Are you making assumptions about myself? I can only laugh. I have said "no" countless more times in my life than I have asked. (Although I have not asked since I was 21 years old).
I know many lonely & vulnerable women. Whilst I usually spend my time with them offering spiritual support, most are longing for an intimate relationship. Thubten Namgyal. Do you recommend I take advantage of their situation and get laid? :rolleyes:
I am not talking about chasity. I am talking about non-harming. Not harming oneself. Not harming another. Not harming both oneself and another.
Are you sure women are steering their destiny?
If so, why are there countless websites of women seeking a partner? Why are there so many women seeking psychological help and being prescribed psychiatric medicines? Why is the divorce rate in so many Western nations over 50%?
Are you sure certain men are frightened? What would they be frightened of?
Are you sure your attitude is a responsible, wise & compassionate attitude?
You need to talk about actualities friend, which are based in the criteria of suffering & freedom from suffering.
Australia is cool. My favourite Australian website is the Australian Breastfeeding Association. Check it out!
I would say your views are unbalanced. They only see one-side. They are not in the middle. Buddha taught a wise person sees the origin of things, their cessation, their attraction, their danger and the skilful means to escape the danger.
Sexuality has its origination in reproductive instinct. It ceases when compassion is fulfilled. Its attraction is its pleasurably
Buddha said:
I disagree completely. The Bible states "wisdom is fear of the Lord". Buddha said there are five dhammas which are the gateway to the Dhamma: (1) mindfulness or sati; (3) applied wisdom or sampajanna; (3) concentation or samadhi (bliss :rolleyes:) ; (4) moral shame or hiri and (5) fear of the results of unskilful actions or otappa.
No fear, no heedfulness. No heedfulness, no Deathless state.
Sexuality is beguilement. If it was not beguilement, how could something like reproduction, which creates so many burdens, sustain the world & evolution for millions of years.
Buddha could see clearly. Buddha was not beguiled. Buddha recommended a husband serve his wife and, thus being served, a wife returns her love. Buddha said a husband gives authority to the wife.
Male nature can have multiple relations and impregnate many women. Yet Buddha understood what was most beneficial for both man and woman was a man support a woman in her aims and goals.
This is why many Buddhist cultures, such as Thai or Balinese culture, are pervasively matriarchial in their functioning. If we live in a Buddhist country like Thailand, which is inherently very moral (despite impressions to the contrary), women express themselves fully whereas men act quite subdued.
Whilst Buddha was a man, his recommendations for human society were certain not patriarchial in the same manner as the desert religions. Buddha suggested the woman called the shots and that a man develop self-control. This is contrary to Islam, which suggests men call the shots and women be covered under the view men have no self-control.
I theorize morality is inherently a female principle.
I personally only developed morals in my life in response to what I perceived to be female needs, aspirations and expectations. Before that, I had no inherent morals, apart from the general wish to do good things for people. When my perception of "good" changed, my morals changed.
Hi Dhamma Dhatu,
I think we're mixing up two issues here; general structure of society with its freedoms/responsibilities etc and the training within a spiritual path.
The choices you make are ones which you feel are conducive to your own progress but there is a line which one should not cross and that is the sectarian proscription of others rights.
It's one thing regulating ones private life and quite another preaching morals to others and advising against condoms. I'm sure your stomach turns at the sight of people being dragged through the streets of some middle eastern lands by religious zealots and being publicly 'dealt with' by the same self-appointed guardians of moral law.
Sure you wouldn't condone such extreme action, but consider how violence gets started with anger and hatred in the mind. If someone feels moral justification in condoning, or carrying out ad hom attacks on individuals because they are, in their estimation, morally inferior (or whatever) then consider where that puts them.
I've had born-again Christians and Muslims verbally abusing me for being a Buddhist and they were all "justified" in doing so according to their beliefs. They felt that they 'had' to take a stand and 'put me right'.
Where's the difference?
I don't see any. I find that kind of self-righteous approach disappointingly familiar from other boards.
Namaste
Maybe it's time to close this thread, though. It has become a bicker board. The attacking is so tiresome.
Also, logic has walked out the door. Somebody says "SOME" men are blind and the next guy hears him say "ALL" men are blind. Then the next person hears, "All men are godless," &c. Then SOME mount their high horses.
It's really all so tedious and parochial, though not so ridiculous as the Hitler-Youth Pope and his anachronisms.
While there have been many catholics who have indeed been saints, such as Mother Theresa, I think the catholic church as an institution is about as corrupt and unfixable as it is possible to be. Did Jesus, do you think, want such a byzantine hierarchy to be the sole arbiter of his teachings? I think not! The history of the church is littered with immoral and unethical popes, murder on a massive scale, enslavement, greed, genocide, not to mention countless numbers of children who grew up drowning in guilt because of the utterly idiotic teachings of the church. If there is an Antichrist, it is the Roman Catholic Church. I don't honestly see anything worth saving there. Your argument, Brigid, is like the argument that the Nazis weren't all bad because at least the trains ran on time.
Palzang
P.S. Just to note, I do not think Mother Theresa was a "saint" at all. I believe sex education and birth control, particularly for women for the sake of their autonomy and control over their own bodies and lives, is the wisest and most compassionate way to help many people in developing countries around the world. Not the exact opposite.
I feel Mother Teresa was a saint for her tireless efforts to help the poor and needy in India, irregardless of the methods she may have utilized. She helped many people out of simple compassion and love. She sought Christ sincerely and, apparently, in her opinion, unsuccessfully for many, many years, yet she persevered. It's her motivation that qualifies her, imho, not really what particular religious beliefs she may have believed in, which are always arguable in any event. I also think Thomas Merton was a saint, though I doubt the catholic church would agree with me!
I don't believe that my ravings about the catholic church will result in the destruction of that institution. Just tilting at windmills. But I do feel that their karma will eventually result in just that. The sex scandal involving the priests of the last few years did enormous damage to the church in the US, as well as other countries. Many parishes are closing on account of insufficient membership. Priests are becoming fewer and fewer as more and more men opt not to enter the priesthood. The writing is on the wall, so to speak. I think that someday American catholics will abandon Rome and either create their own church a la the Anglicans or be absorbed into other denominations. Most catholics in the US have already abandoned Rome on birth control and other such issues.
Palzang
Religions have certain responsibilities to their followers. HHDL has some very austere views about sex. If Buddhism did not recommend morality (non-harming) then what purpose would Buddhism have given morality is an essential aspect of freedom from suffering?
That said, if we try to idealise the matter, I would probably say the Pope's methods are a little clumsy. At least from a Theravada perspective, learning & education is the way to address these issues.
Subjectively, yes. This is because I am Hinayana. I have abandoned being overly concerned about the world. In the spiritual sensitivity that manifests from that freedom, those murderous actions by zealots do not bring them any liberation & freedom. They know not what they do.
However, objectively, all societies have moral law. For example, if we read the suttas, the Buddha did not raise an eye-brow when describing how a man caught committing adultery would be brought before the king for punishment or even death.
Or, for example, how do people in our modern society react when they learn of rapists & pedophiles?
As you said, I think we're mixing up two issues here; general structure of society with its freedoms/responsibilities etc and the training within a spiritual path.
For example, extremes of moralism are found naturally in society. Moral righteousness is not something exclusive to religion. It was required of people like the Buddha to temper the approach to morals of society.
For example, if our society had no laws, we would have vigil antis everywhere imposing their own laws. When wife is caught having an affair, many husbands would kill their wife. Or often we read in newspapers of wives severing the sexual organs of their unfaithful husbands. This has nothing to do with religion.
The Hinayana Path is one of finding personal liberation and sharing the way of personal liberation with those individuals who also seek it.
However, once one gets caught up in the world, there is no certain method. Kammic law is not absolute truth.
Birth control has its harm & its benefits. The Catholic Church is justified to be concerned with it. However, trying to ban it outright or ignore its great benefits is clearly ignorance. There is ideally a Middle Way.
Ad hom attacks is a very subjective statement. Buddha said: The difference is what is beneficial and what is verbal abuse. Believing in another's subjective God will not bring one liberation.
One of those Nazi's, John Rabe was instrumental in helping Chinese reach the international safety zone during the rape of Nanking. An elderly Chinese woman told me he was referred to as the Bodhisattva of Nanking. You might like to read The Rape of Nanking by Iris Chang for further info.
Palzang,
Oskar Schindler was indeed an NSDAP member. He established his business in Poland as many of the nazi entreprenurs did. Because skilled labor was rented out both by Hans Frank as well as the SS. Oskar Schindler originally acted to protect his workers as part of business. Later to protect them from the holocaust. Growing up in Miami quite a few KZ survivors lived there. So I was able to hear directly.
grackle
Palzang
But we've strolled around other matters too, so let's try to not get too waylaid....
KoB, I haven't edited any of your posts, but really, try to be a bit more thoughtful in your comments to people.
Ultimately, this forum is a nice place to be, and nobody deserves to get spoken to in that manner, whatever your reasoning may be.
Ok?
Thank you all.....
I have never encountered any Theravadan who accepts this category as a valid description of his path.
Thanks for the clarifications. All interesting thoughts and I have to agree on several points.
I'll just respond quickly to grackle and then stop hijacking the thread. Fede's right, it's going off topic a bit too much.
Thanks for this info. Coincidentally my sister is reading The Rape of Nanking and I have the book after her. Strange, eh?
My point, which I shall put to bed directly after this, is that I believe strongly that all beings are redeemable no matter how evil their actions may appear.
Okay, that's all. Brigid out!
I think that if we extended this logic, then it would call for the destruction of a lot of people...amd there wouldn't be much hope for a lot of us.
Also, if the church was destroyed rather than modified, what of all the peoples whose lives have been shaped in a good way because of their relationship with the Catholic church?
Palzang
I suppose that because institutions themselves have no actions independent from the people who run them, I assumed the destruction of the church implied something of the same effect to those who 'run' it. But you know what they say about people who assume lol
...and I think you're ravings are quite enjoyable