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.
And it's also worth pointing out that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single person. It only applied to the rebel states, over which Lincoln had no control at the time.
Palzang
It did free some. In the Union-occupied areas of the South, there were tens of thousands of slaves freed.
You're right, 5B. Lincoln was never an Abolitionist. In fact, as President he met with black leaders and told them the best thing for the US would be for them to leave as the races could never live together!
As an aside, Grant's home is preserved in Galena, Illinois, not far from where I grew up. Galena (named after the lead ore that is mined there) used to be on the Mississippi when Grant lived there, but then it decided to move west a couple of miles, leaving poor Galena high and dry. But in its day it was one of the major cities on the river and in the west (yes, that used to be considered the West). His home is really interesting to visit, and the town itself, since the industry basically moved away with the river, is well preserved and also very interesting. Worth a trip if you're ever around that area.
Palzang
Thanks for the info. It's one of the few things I can say I like about Ohio country here is that the state produced Sherman and Grant. Next year, I'm hoping to make some stops on a few battlefields of the war. Gettysburg for sure. And I'd like to visit Galena one day too.
Well, I for one am never thankful for a war, even if "we" won it.
I am. No matter how much the Lost-Causers have smeared the trio, Lincoln and his generals, however terrible the price, ended up freeing over 4 million slaves through their actions and destroyed the insidious Southern Confederacy, undoubtedly the most militantly hell-bent pro-slavery country that has ever existed.
BTW, KoB, if you do go to Gettysburg, also be sure to visit Antietam. It is not heavily commercialized like Gettysburg is, so it is much more like it was at the time of the battle, the bloodiest single day in US history. It is quite a sobering experience for sure. If that place doesn't arouse compassion in the visitor, they have a stone heart. And it is also very beautiful there, ironically. I consider it a perfect charnel ground for practice.
While reading about the Emancipation Proclamation yesterday, I came across some census statistics about the slave population of the South leading into the war. To my surprise, Virginia (just across the river from where I'm sitting now) had the most, over 400,000. Mind boggling. But Virgina may as well be a million miles away from Maryland. That's how different the mindsets are and always have been (well, at least since the Europeans arrived!). I also found it surprising that in some areas of the South the slave population greatly exceeded the white population. One county in South Carolina, for instance, had a white population of only 222, while the slave population was over 6,300! So sad...
The competitors are legion. But I'd still say the CSA because to the best of my knowledge, no other government or nation has ever been established for the sole reason of preserving (and spreading) the institution of slavery.
While reading about the Emancipation Proclamation yesterday, I came across some census statistics about the slave population of the South leading into the war. To my surprise, Virginia (just across the river from where I'm sitting now) had the most, over 400,000. Mind boggling. But Virgina may as well be a million miles away from Maryland. That's how different the mindsets are and always have been (well, at least since the Europeans arrived!). I also found it surprising that in some areas of the South the slave population greatly exceeded the white population. One county in South Carolina, for instance, had a white population of only 222, while the slave population was over 6,300! So sad...
It's very sad. I believe the slave population of Georgia was close to half.
Anytime I hear a two-bit Lost Causer or romanticist for the rebellion, it makes me furious. The "states' right" line is a sham if you read the history of the antebellum period. The South had no problem with an intrusive Federal government so long as it benefited the institution of slavery. (See the Fugitive Slave Law) And it had no problem considering slaves human beings either, so long as they could be counted for representational purposes and still remain in bondage.
It's shameful to me that criminals like Lee are immortalized as reluctant, chivalric knights who defended their country's honor, while the crass Sherman, who liberated slaves by the hundreds of thousands, is seen as a terrorist in the South still.
Also, I'm not advocating that we should stop pollution controls. I think there are lots of pollution problems that need to be addressed. Metals, plastics, chemicals, industrial dumping and other pollution sources to name a few. I just don't think that CO2 is a pollutant or a problem. And I don't think that humans are driving global temperatures. I do think that land use changes and human activities have impacted local climates, but that's a far cry from controlling the global climate.
I would like to see decisions made based on hard data and facts, not political agendas and skewed computer models. Unskillful and hasty actions may do more harm than good. It's a noble ideal to want to save the planet, but when politicians and vast sums of money become involved, I become skeptical of the motivations of those in power pushing such agendas.
Sherman <i>was</i> a terrorist. There is no way around it. Just because you support his cause doesn't mean you have to support his methods.
I support both actually. For all Sherman's fire-and-brimstone demeanor, his march killed very few people. Only several hundred died throughout the course of the 400+ mile march.
That's what always baffles me about perceptions of him. Sherman destroyed property, but he admitted himself in his memoirs and elsewhere that he preferred to avoid battles if at all possible. Do you think that the industrial slaughter between Lee and Grant was somehow more humane since it didn't target civilians?
And terrorizing who exactly? Southern plantationists were the ones he hated the most, but the 'terror' he inflicted on them robbed them of their property; both land and human property! Should he have asked them kindly to release their slaves?
What was the alternative exactly to the March? A triumphant President McClellan and a brokered peace with slavery left intact? Or perhaps several more years of continuous warfare with deaths into the millions?
There is no similar hatred for Grant, the greatest butcher of Southern manhood ever. Instead, Sherman receives the hatred, which shows me that people tend to value property more than lives.
"I believe that a true civilization is a society where people are "civil"; that is, where they behave so well toward each other that they do not need police or other armed systems of control."--Jack D. Forbes
I believe that the real threat to humanity, the world, global warming, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and everything inbetween is desire. Cease desire, and you will cease mankinds woes...
Tosh, the worst plagues in history never wiped out the entire population of a locale or region.
My answer to the threat question is with pally. Ignorance, intolerance, and hatred are our biggest threats, coupled with the fact that several nations have nuclear weapons.
Sherman was a terrorist in that he did use terror as a weapon, effectively I might add. and you're right in that he did minimize hte loss of life in doing so.
And as crappy as a war is, I have to agree with the Union leadership for going after the south after hte secession. Leaving hte union at the drop of a hat is bad business in the long run, evne though I see it happening again very soon, and I'm not going to be happy if I have to pick sides.
I think ignorance is probably the greatest evil, or threat to the world, when people are ignorant, of whatever, be it what is considered good, or of others, etc.
Like, I think there's a lot of ignorance going on in the world right now, I mean, extremist Muslims are recruiting more followers for their "war", bombs are being dropped in Iraq, not only by Western governments, but, also, by Al Qaeda, there seems to be violence in India amongst Hindus and Muslims or Hindus and Christians (I don't know much at all about Indian politics so I can't really comment). If they weren't being so ignorant, they wouldn't be engaging in such destructive actions (IMO), if there was less ignorance in the world, the Mandaeans of Iraq wouldn't be facing extinction, the Chinese wouldn't be occupying Tibet, the Sudanese government wouldn't be killing the people of Darfur, etc.
I like studying the Gnostics (the early Christians), and both ancient and modern Gnostics consider ignorance to be the root of all evil, even the God that made this world is seen as being ignorant.
This discussion could go anywhere. But what do you all feel is the greatest threat to civilization today?
I know some of you might be tempted to argue with my usage of the word "evil." But we can argue the existence of good and evil somewhere else. Ignore it and use the word "threat" if it suits you better.
Please try to be as specific as possible.
Ignorance, plain and simple. Ignorance of reality as it is causes all evil pursuits, just as it causes all unskillful mental states within us.
Fixing the world one evil at a time is a futile pursuit, as even eradication of one will lead to the uprising of another.
I agree aldrising, and the other who said ignorance.
Good cannot battle evil, if it does it becomes evil itself. Good can only help good. The best way one keeps from doing anything bad is by simply moving to apply themselves correctly.. through proper application of self any mis-application falls away.. The answer isnt eradication but rather right-use-nous.
This is simply wrong. Knowing many religious evangelicals, I can attest that there is no comparison with fundamentalist Muslims. Christians, even the fundamentalists do not call for the death of unbelievers nor are there even small numbers of Christian suicide bombers and terrorists.
There is simply no Christian doctrine that has developed that incites followers to fight in the name of Christianity and conquer the world for Jesus. (As in literally fight). In Islam, there is. There is no concept in any other religion that is equivalent to jihad. Not even a crusade.
Extreme fundamentalists might externalize their own inner dramas/conflicts and project them onto the world. For example, many in Islam take Jihad to relate to the spiritual war going on inside one's mental constructs, much like the war between the forces of dharma or adharma. Similarly, in the Bhagavadgita, extreme fundamentalists consider the battle field to be in "the world" rather than the war between the inner adversary – the ego. Likewise we all remember that the victorious one defeated Mara on the eve of his enlightenment. In short huamn beings who are immersed in inner turmoil tend to project that upon the world and act it out. This is not unique to Islam to be sure. The imputation of an enemy or even ultimate enemy is itself a kleshic projection of a confused mind.
<o></o>
I hope that human beings learn from the errors of the past – war begets more – slayers create future negative causes and conditions.
<o></o>
I suggest that there are at least two unexamined assumptions here (with a few exceptions).
<o></o>
1) That the imputation of evil was nothing more than a reification of our own mental defilements as in hatred, fear, and delusion. In short, evil is something that we dislike, hate, or fear – something that goes against our predilection, hopes, and desires. This is the only logical conclusion unless we take into consideration of an absolute evil as truly existing which is of course not very Buddhist. Buddhists must destroy egoic dualistic confusions by any (skillful) means possible!
<o></o>
2) The second assumption was that civilization was generally considered to be good or of value (with noted exceptions). As we all know there have been many different and opposing civilizations throughout history, each with very different cultural assumptions and values.
<o></o>
For example, the native Americans did not consider Western Civilization to be very civilized in regard to their own values. Neither did the African slaves which suffered from western "civilization", the Vietnamese people which also suffered from Western arrogance, nor dare I say the majority of Middle Eastern people today. The same errors will repeat until the lesson is learned.
<o></o>
What is perhaps of greater value is to analyze causes and conditions – the solution is always upaya, the embodiment of compassion and wisdom. Probably here all Buddhists will agree.
<o></o>
So if evil is merely a label we put on things/conditions which cause aversion (dvesa) – that we associate with pain, then it is due to our attachment, unawareness, and inability to bring forward our love and light in all circumstances. A large ongoing job, but for some the only game in town.
<o></o>
sarva mangalam <o></o>
Well maybe the foot soldier in the paddy fields and desert sands may have learned a thing or two, but I don't think the generals, congress, presidents, or people who voted for aggressive war polices (versus peace policies) have learned much at all.
I hope you stay out of harm's way and get the GI Bill while the entire world can rest without ceaseless wars caused by ignorance as the root.
No, I think society would be better off if fully enlightened Buddhas ran it, or at least Arahants, but that's not likely to happen. And you didn't ask what we think would be best for society. You asked what civilization's greatest threat was.
I was not trying to be vague. I have read that if a population's average IQ falls below 90, it will become increasingly difficult to maintain a high-tech infrastructure without outside help. Buildings, roads, bridges, power plants, power lines, water and waste treatment all require a certain level of intelligence to build and maintain in working order. Without those things it would not be possible for our present civilization to exist. If the general population isn't able to continue to produce people smart enough to maintain those complex systems, they will break down. Everything we have built is impermanent.
Being a free civilization was not specified in your original post. Many civilizations throughout history have not been free. Liberty is wonderful, but again, it is not needed for a civilization to function.
Newflash: SES generally a better predictor of the level of degree attained
rather than IQ. And the positive correlation of IQ is modest, at
best.
While we're being elitist, yet hillariously linking to wikipedia and random internet articles from doubtful sources, maybe you should check out these awwweeesomeee things called peer-reviewed academic journals.
Don't tell me during your time working in a university you've never accessed one?
At the very least, you'll have access to the abstacts, and can generally view them in your local university library in their entirety.
Whats that? Oh yes, its called a library. I've found within recent years the popularity of wikipedia has decreased the amount of self-important idiots populating libraries; the same ones that love to be seen carrying a book and couldn't give a damn about reading it other than trying to sound superior, and have in fact created a utopic environment from their absence.
Yes, its self-important elitists with little actual substance that will destroy civilization.
Luckily, while the internet allows you to have a voice, in reality you have none... Although considering Bush can get elected twice, maybe I'll have to renege on that comment.
I'm hoping most of you are Americans.
Why? Your civilization is going to be destroyed in the fairly near future by the gigantic and terribly managed debt crisis you've been happily ignoring.
I'm not going to assume you know anything about the actual economic state of your country, because without the assistance of wikipedia you probably don't.
Well, its terrible - and no, I'm not talking about your little recession and bailout fiasco. If you want a good summary, you can watch I.O.U.S.A - surprisingly good film made by Americans who actually have a brain and sense of responsibility beyond themselves.
For you guys, people with the sense of entitlement for things they don't deserve or afford will be the end of you. People want the status, but they don't want the work or responsibility that grants it.
As much as I think you're generally a repulsive embodiment of a level of conceit and ignorance only capable by humanity, a tiny little smug area in my heart feels sorry for you. Its not very big.
Enjoy ridiculous theories while you rot from the inside out. Which ridiculous theories? If you can't recognize them, you probably never will (death panels, for one). Also, I deserve a shopping spree once your dollar devalues itself when it invariably collapses beneath the sheer weight of your debt!
I'm actually really excited to watch you fall apart: Its almost cute in the sense that you're like fat little ill-disciplined children who want to be told about how wonderful and strong they are. Well kids! When you gourge yourself on candy too often, you develop dental caries.
Although the real abscess and etiology is far deeper and pervasive than that - it bores right into your unsatiable, myocardial infarctioned hearts.
At least the muslim religion isn't a threat to itself. Pathetic.
The sooner you atrophy and cannibalize yourselves the better.
Cant find it. And I'm not just being all zenny. The problem is that every problem desolves into a previous problem. Its like the buck never stops, so it is hard to tag the evil one. The buck stops here.
Cant find it. And I'm not just being all zenny. The problem is that every problem desolves into a previous problem. Its like the buck never stops, so it is hard to tag the evil one. The buck stops here.
wow... The first search result on google for I.O.U.S.A.:
They even have a section where you can watch a condensed version. Damn commies!
The notion of the "buck not stopping" and problems dissolving into previous ones have something to do with the lack of responsibility. BWhaaaaatttt???!!! :eek:
I didn't do it, HE did it!
No I didn't, this guy allowed it to happen first!
No this guy did!
Yeah but you can't forget x, y and z variables played a part too!
None of them are evil, but they all play a part. Therefore, all of them are parts of the collective problem, who all share a greater common root.
Does the superficial origin which allowed the initial event to occur really matter? If its still being perpetuated, they are all parts of the origin.
I thought Buddhists didn't believe in the arbitrary notion of "evil" anyways.
The greatest threat is the knowledge of how to create blind passion without the wisdom of knowing where to aim it - the essence of prolonged insanity.
Man has never known even a single day of sanity (truly knowing right from wrong) throughout his entire existence. Today he is so blinded as to declare that such a distinction doesn't even exist (thus necessarily insane).
Now if only the men would hand over the damn baton....:D
I think if control was transferred to the feminine, it would be a better thing than has hitherto happened so far....
Can't hurt to try can it...?
Sure, just look at the fine example set by Margaret Thatcher! A sentient being is a sentient being for all that...
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 2010
yeah. Pick her out, why doncha. the fact that she started a war in defence of sovereign land, is different to Bush, and every other male world leader you can think of, deciding to kick ass in order to steal something or control someone else.
Maybe we should stop now, before the thread becomes one of feminism/misogynism infighting. That's so 'yesterday'....!!
So, drop, are you saying there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong that is knowable?
Palzang
Only for the truly sane. But how would you know?
If an enlightened man declares a truth to which all others agree and can see, he is not said to be enlightened for what he has seen. If a truly enlightened man declares a truth to which no others have ascended to be able to see, for what reason is he to be believed? Yet if he is believed, then he is said to be enlightened.
In either case, is the real truth any different or changed by the belief of the listeners? Yes or no?
Aren't both the declaration for absolutes and the declaration against absolutes an absolute declaration?
Whatever it is cannot also be what it isn't, despite what might be said of it.
Disregard for that truth disables all mind and all argument to the contrary. Thus for the sake of rationality and sanity, it is absolutely true.
If there is an absolute truth how can there not be an absolute "right or wrong" concerning it?
This discussion could go anywhere. But what do you all feel is the greatest threat to civilization today?
I know some of you might be tempted to argue with my usage of the word "evil." But we can argue the existence of good and evil somewhere else. Ignore it and use the word "threat" if it suits you better.
Please try to be as specific as possible.
Ignorance and lack of efficient education are the greatest threats to civilization.
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
There is simply no Christian doctrine that has developed that incites followers to fight in the name of Christianity and conquer the world for Jesus. (As in literally fight).
The Crusades were started by the Muslim Turks invading a Christian occupied land (I don't remember which any more). The Pope requested an alliance so as to defend that land. What you hear most during these antiChristian political days, will always be tainted and spun against the Christians.
Even the famous Spanish Inquisition was started by the Jews pretending to be Catholic priests to the point that again, the Pope had to call a large scale inquiry and examination to try to find out who was pretending to be what they weren't.
I am not one of them, but to my knowledge, every Christian involved conflict has been an attack upon the Christians, usually subtly started. Even when they fought among themselves, it was found to be due to sly misinformation from outside, a practice in great use today.
I'd say the greatest evil facing our so-called civilization is the momentum and baggage that very same "civilization" carries with it in its customs, appetites, conventions, habits, attitudes, and various conflicting ideologies. Neither peoples or nations seem to learn from history, and as a result so many continue in the errors of their forbears. Unfortunately, the religions of their forbears —often inspired by real Saints who sought to challenge people to be holistic and sane— are often part of the problem. People are just trapped in a mentality based on things the founders never emphasized as being important. The things that were important to the founders are left out of mind all too often.
I think that Buddhism is more exempt from this condition than all the others, though.
Too bad we didn't have more consistent and altruistic forbears!
Let's all just revive the 1970's and usher in the age of Aquarius. If the world as we know it destroys itself I'm not sure that would be the greatest evil imaginable. To me, it seemeth not so vital to defend a "civilization" where people are treated as commodities and murdered en masse without thought of their humanity (Nazi Europe, Rwanda, Darfur, Armenia, Bosnia, North American Indians...). Indeed, I hold the more "primitive" societies to be more truly civilized, for at least they hold hospitality in highest place.
Our medical knowledge and medical technology will, I trust, survive if our other systems fail us.
The greatest evil would have to be our own ego. The idea the any one of us thinks that our point of view or our perspective or our "truth" is either the only way or more important than the other guys. When we believe that our political/religious/moral/etc. is the only way and it must be imposed on the rest of the world because we know best. That is the "evil" that terrifies me the most.
The greatest evil would have to be our own ego. The idea the any one of us thinks that our point of view or our perspective or our "truth" is either the only way or more important than the other guys. When we believe that our political/religious/moral/etc. is the only way and it must be imposed on the rest of the world because we know best. That is the "evil" that terrifies me the most.
That is very true.
An "ego" is a belief defense. All religions and all socialist governments are society's "egos" in defense of the beliefs thought to hold the society together. Racism is similar in that it is an ego belief defense of the genetic race. The most common ego is the personal ego in defense of individual inner and social respect and pride.
But just as religions grow subtle conflict and governments declare war, the personal ego can undergo conflict and clash as well. The end result is confusion, often depression, and a definite lack of confidence (infidelity). To a nation, this means economic disparity and thus weakness before an aggressing foe. An individual cannot well manage conflict in such a state either fore his inner spirit is divided.
One cannot maintain ego defense and also a state of enlightened awareness fore the ego always requires deception to ensure its firm support. Deception requires the lack of true awareness and thus a true enlightened state cannot coexist.
Thus, the devout Buddhist cannot entertain ego and/or pride. But more significant to the world is that neither can an enlightened nation, race, religion, or world, yet they proudly strive for it and flaunt it every day saying you are not being dutiful if you do not participate.
Thus ignorance in directing passion leads to sustained, protected deception and prolonged blindness that is a very ancient evil still governing mankind. An ignorance reverberating disappointing pain in the ears with each new day.
Im new here but i have a strong opinion on this.Over population,are water supply,and crazy people with the power to destroy, seems to be to the biggest threats to us as a planet.
I am the greatest threat to humanity. Still clinging to my attachments and false notion of self. Deluded by my own perceptions and preoccupation with satisfying my desires I cause the misery and death of all. All that is in me is in humanity.
Comments
It did free some. In the Union-occupied areas of the South, there were tens of thousands of slaves freed.
Palzang
Thanks for the info. It's one of the few things I can say I like about Ohio country here is that the state produced Sherman and Grant. Next year, I'm hoping to make some stops on a few battlefields of the war. Gettysburg for sure. And I'd like to visit Galena one day too.
I am. No matter how much the Lost-Causers have smeared the trio, Lincoln and his generals, however terrible the price, ended up freeing over 4 million slaves through their actions and destroyed the insidious Southern Confederacy, undoubtedly the most militantly hell-bent pro-slavery country that has ever existed.
That would be Belgium.
BTW, KoB, if you do go to Gettysburg, also be sure to visit Antietam. It is not heavily commercialized like Gettysburg is, so it is much more like it was at the time of the battle, the bloodiest single day in US history. It is quite a sobering experience for sure. If that place doesn't arouse compassion in the visitor, they have a stone heart. And it is also very beautiful there, ironically. I consider it a perfect charnel ground for practice.
While reading about the Emancipation Proclamation yesterday, I came across some census statistics about the slave population of the South leading into the war. To my surprise, Virginia (just across the river from where I'm sitting now) had the most, over 400,000. Mind boggling. But Virgina may as well be a million miles away from Maryland. That's how different the mindsets are and always have been (well, at least since the Europeans arrived!). I also found it surprising that in some areas of the South the slave population greatly exceeded the white population. One county in South Carolina, for instance, had a white population of only 222, while the slave population was over 6,300! So sad...
Palzang
The competitors are legion. But I'd still say the CSA because to the best of my knowledge, no other government or nation has ever been established for the sole reason of preserving (and spreading) the institution of slavery.
It's very sad. I believe the slave population of Georgia was close to half.
Anytime I hear a two-bit Lost Causer or romanticist for the rebellion, it makes me furious. The "states' right" line is a sham if you read the history of the antebellum period. The South had no problem with an intrusive Federal government so long as it benefited the institution of slavery. (See the Fugitive Slave Law) And it had no problem considering slaves human beings either, so long as they could be counted for representational purposes and still remain in bondage.
It's shameful to me that criminals like Lee are immortalized as reluctant, chivalric knights who defended their country's honor, while the crass Sherman, who liberated slaves by the hundreds of thousands, is seen as a terrorist in the South still.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/the_bottom_line.php
I support both actually. For all Sherman's fire-and-brimstone demeanor, his march killed very few people. Only several hundred died throughout the course of the 400+ mile march.
That's what always baffles me about perceptions of him. Sherman destroyed property, but he admitted himself in his memoirs and elsewhere that he preferred to avoid battles if at all possible. Do you think that the industrial slaughter between Lee and Grant was somehow more humane since it didn't target civilians?
And terrorizing who exactly? Southern plantationists were the ones he hated the most, but the 'terror' he inflicted on them robbed them of their property; both land and human property! Should he have asked them kindly to release their slaves?
What was the alternative exactly to the March? A triumphant President McClellan and a brokered peace with slavery left intact? Or perhaps several more years of continuous warfare with deaths into the millions?
There is no similar hatred for Grant, the greatest butcher of Southern manhood ever. Instead, Sherman receives the hatred, which shows me that people tend to value property more than lives.
If I had to bet money on it, I'd stick mine on this one.
My answer to the threat question is with pally. Ignorance, intolerance, and hatred are our biggest threats, coupled with the fact that several nations have nuclear weapons.
Sherman was a terrorist in that he did use terror as a weapon, effectively I might add. and you're right in that he did minimize hte loss of life in doing so.
And as crappy as a war is, I have to agree with the Union leadership for going after the south after hte secession. Leaving hte union at the drop of a hat is bad business in the long run, evne though I see it happening again very soon, and I'm not going to be happy if I have to pick sides.
Palzang
Like, I think there's a lot of ignorance going on in the world right now, I mean, extremist Muslims are recruiting more followers for their "war", bombs are being dropped in Iraq, not only by Western governments, but, also, by Al Qaeda, there seems to be violence in India amongst Hindus and Muslims or Hindus and Christians (I don't know much at all about Indian politics so I can't really comment). If they weren't being so ignorant, they wouldn't be engaging in such destructive actions (IMO), if there was less ignorance in the world, the Mandaeans of Iraq wouldn't be facing extinction, the Chinese wouldn't be occupying Tibet, the Sudanese government wouldn't be killing the people of Darfur, etc.
I like studying the Gnostics (the early Christians), and both ancient and modern Gnostics consider ignorance to be the root of all evil, even the God that made this world is seen as being ignorant.
Fixing the world one evil at a time is a futile pursuit, as even eradication of one will lead to the uprising of another.
Good cannot battle evil, if it does it becomes evil itself. Good can only help good. The best way one keeps from doing anything bad is by simply moving to apply themselves correctly.. through proper application of self any mis-application falls away.. The answer isnt eradication but rather right-use-nous.
How does that work exactly?
See "Jesus Camp"
<o></o>
I hope that human beings learn from the errors of the past – war begets more – slayers create future negative causes and conditions.
<o></o>
I suggest that there are at least two unexamined assumptions here (with a few exceptions).
<o></o>
1) That the imputation of evil was nothing more than a reification of our own mental defilements as in hatred, fear, and delusion. In short, evil is something that we dislike, hate, or fear – something that goes against our predilection, hopes, and desires. This is the only logical conclusion unless we take into consideration of an absolute evil as truly existing which is of course not very Buddhist. Buddhists must destroy egoic dualistic confusions by any (skillful) means possible!
<o></o>
2) The second assumption was that civilization was generally considered to be good or of value (with noted exceptions). As we all know there have been many different and opposing civilizations throughout history, each with very different cultural assumptions and values.
<o></o>
For example, the native Americans did not consider Western Civilization to be very civilized in regard to their own values. Neither did the African slaves which suffered from western "civilization", the Vietnamese people which also suffered from Western arrogance, nor dare I say the majority of Middle Eastern people today. The same errors will repeat until the lesson is learned.
<o></o>
What is perhaps of greater value is to analyze causes and conditions – the solution is always upaya, the embodiment of compassion and wisdom. Probably here all Buddhists will agree.
<o></o>
So if evil is merely a label we put on things/conditions which cause aversion (dvesa) – that we associate with pain, then it is due to our attachment, unawareness, and inability to bring forward our love and light in all circumstances. A large ongoing job, but for some the only game in town.
<o></o>
sarva mangalam <o></o>
Well maybe the foot soldier in the paddy fields and desert sands may have learned a thing or two, but I don't think the generals, congress, presidents, or people who voted for aggressive war polices (versus peace policies) have learned much at all.
I hope you stay out of harm's way and get the GI Bill while the entire world can rest without ceaseless wars caused by ignorance as the root.
"War is outdated"
~HH Dalai Lama
sarva mangalam
Newflash: SES generally a better predictor of the level of degree attained
rather than IQ. And the positive correlation of IQ is modest, at
best.
While we're being elitist, yet hillariously linking to wikipedia and random internet articles from doubtful sources, maybe you should check out these awwweeesomeee things called peer-reviewed academic journals.
Don't tell me during your time working in a university you've never accessed one?
At the very least, you'll have access to the abstacts, and can generally view them in your local university library in their entirety.
Whats that? Oh yes, its called a library. I've found within recent years the popularity of wikipedia has decreased the amount of self-important idiots populating libraries; the same ones that love to be seen carrying a book and couldn't give a damn about reading it other than trying to sound superior, and have in fact created a utopic environment from their absence.
Yes, its self-important elitists with little actual substance that will destroy civilization.
Luckily, while the internet allows you to have a voice, in reality you have none... Although considering Bush can get elected twice, maybe I'll have to renege on that comment.
I'm hoping most of you are Americans.
Why?
Your civilization is going to be destroyed in the fairly near future by the gigantic and terribly managed debt crisis you've been happily ignoring.
I'm not going to assume you know anything about the actual economic state of your country, because without the assistance of wikipedia you probably don't.
Well, its terrible - and no, I'm not talking about your little recession and bailout fiasco. If you want a good summary, you can watch I.O.U.S.A - surprisingly good film made by Americans who actually have a brain and sense of responsibility beyond themselves.
For you guys, people with the sense of entitlement for things they don't deserve or afford will be the end of you. People want the status, but they don't want the work or responsibility that grants it.
As much as I think you're generally a repulsive embodiment of a level of conceit and ignorance only capable by humanity, a tiny little smug area in my heart feels sorry for you. Its not very big.
Enjoy ridiculous theories while you rot from the inside out. Which ridiculous theories? If you can't recognize them, you probably never will (death panels, for one). Also, I deserve a shopping spree once your dollar devalues itself when it invariably collapses beneath the sheer weight of your debt!
I'm actually really excited to watch you fall apart: Its almost cute in the sense that you're like fat little ill-disciplined children who want to be told about how wonderful and strong they are. Well kids! When you gourge yourself on candy too often, you develop dental caries.
Although the real abscess and etiology is far deeper and pervasive than that - it bores right into your unsatiable, myocardial infarctioned hearts.
At least the muslim religion isn't a threat to itself.
Pathetic.
The sooner you atrophy and cannibalize yourselves the better.
wow... The first search result on google for I.O.U.S.A.:
www.iousathemovie.com
They even have a section where you can watch a condensed version. Damn commies!
The notion of the "buck not stopping" and problems dissolving into previous ones have something to do with the lack of responsibility. BWhaaaaatttt???!!! :eek:
I didn't do it, HE did it!
No I didn't, this guy allowed it to happen first!
No this guy did!
Yeah but you can't forget x, y and z variables played a part too!
None of them are evil, but they all play a part. Therefore, all of them are parts of the collective problem, who all share a greater common root.
Does the superficial origin which allowed the initial event to occur really matter? If its still being perpetuated, they are all parts of the origin.
I thought Buddhists didn't believe in the arbitrary notion of "evil" anyways.
That sure would explain a lot.
Man has never known even a single day of sanity (truly knowing right from wrong) throughout his entire existence. Today he is so blinded as to declare that such a distinction doesn't even exist (thus necessarily insane).
I think if control was transferred to the feminine, it would be a better thing than has hitherto happened so far....
Can't hurt to try can it...?
Palzang
Sure, just look at the fine example set by Margaret Thatcher! A sentient being is a sentient being for all that...
Palzang
Maybe we should stop now, before the thread becomes one of feminism/misogynism infighting. That's so 'yesterday'....!!
I am for one am leaving it at that.
Thanks Pally.
Well, we're certainly not close enough for you to be handling the baton.
If an enlightened man declares a truth to which all others agree and can see, he is not said to be enlightened for what he has seen. If a truly enlightened man declares a truth to which no others have ascended to be able to see, for what reason is he to be believed? Yet if he is believed, then he is said to be enlightened.
In either case, is the real truth any different or changed by the belief of the listeners? Yes or no?
Aren't both the declaration for absolutes and the declaration against absolutes an absolute declaration?
Whatever it is cannot also be what it isn't, despite what might be said of it.
Disregard for that truth disables all mind and all argument to the contrary. Thus for the sake of rationality and sanity, it is absolutely true.
If there is an absolute truth how can there not be an absolute "right or wrong" concerning it?
Ignorance and lack of efficient education are the greatest threats to civilization.
Ah.
Ok.
I'm going to have to think about that one...It could be taken two ways.
Couldn't it....?
The meaning is "people should retain autonomous control of their own lives, no matter what"... the duplicity aspect was a joke
Even the famous Spanish Inquisition was started by the Jews pretending to be Catholic priests to the point that again, the Pope had to call a large scale inquiry and examination to try to find out who was pretending to be what they weren't.
I am not one of them, but to my knowledge, every Christian involved conflict has been an attack upon the Christians, usually subtly started. Even when they fought among themselves, it was found to be due to sly misinformation from outside, a practice in great use today.
I think that Buddhism is more exempt from this condition than all the others, though.
Too bad we didn't have more consistent and altruistic forbears!
Let's all just revive the 1970's and usher in the age of Aquarius. If the world as we know it destroys itself I'm not sure that would be the greatest evil imaginable. To me, it seemeth not so vital to defend a "civilization" where people are treated as commodities and murdered en masse without thought of their humanity (Nazi Europe, Rwanda, Darfur, Armenia, Bosnia, North American Indians...). Indeed, I hold the more "primitive" societies to be more truly civilized, for at least they hold hospitality in highest place.
Our medical knowledge and medical technology will, I trust, survive if our other systems fail us.
An "ego" is a belief defense. All religions and all socialist governments are society's "egos" in defense of the beliefs thought to hold the society together. Racism is similar in that it is an ego belief defense of the genetic race. The most common ego is the personal ego in defense of individual inner and social respect and pride.
But just as religions grow subtle conflict and governments declare war, the personal ego can undergo conflict and clash as well. The end result is confusion, often depression, and a definite lack of confidence (infidelity). To a nation, this means economic disparity and thus weakness before an aggressing foe. An individual cannot well manage conflict in such a state either fore his inner spirit is divided.
One cannot maintain ego defense and also a state of enlightened awareness fore the ego always requires deception to ensure its firm support. Deception requires the lack of true awareness and thus a true enlightened state cannot coexist.
Thus, the devout Buddhist cannot entertain ego and/or pride. But more significant to the world is that neither can an enlightened nation, race, religion, or world, yet they proudly strive for it and flaunt it every day saying you are not being dutiful if you do not participate.
Thus ignorance in directing passion leads to sustained, protected deception and prolonged blindness that is a very ancient evil still governing mankind. An ignorance reverberating disappointing pain in the ears with each new day.
Palzang
Yours in the Dharma,
Todd
http://www.theonion.com/video/victim-in-fatal-car-accident-tragically-not-glenn,14380/