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.
Power, huh? Are the people who own them stable and happy?
I doubt that very much! But as said, the "owners" are pretty irrelevant to the problem, the problem is the system that has evolved to be the dominating global system.
I guess if you see money as power, then perhaps they have power. Otherwise, they have money.
In terms of governance wealth is power. Or if it is not, kindly, what is?
Yes, but you first, then others. It is impossible to free others from suffering while one is in a state of delusion as to the nature of reality.
I don't see it like that for two reasons. One I don't see at this level a differnce between me and others and two I don't think in terms of freedom from dukka but reduction of dukka.
I don't mean to imply that you specifically are deluded, but as we develop our own freedom, we are more able to help others skillfully. This, in my understanding, is the way of dharma... in both the literal teachings of the Buddha, and the nature of reality that he taught.
Sure, but lets be clear, that is your understanding, as said, it is not mine. Dharma is big and true enough to contain such differences of opinion, such is its wonder!
(When you say "litteral teachings" I am not sure what you mean.)
So then, how would one skillfully help a president or politician? Condemn their subjectively important systems? I think it would be better targeting to help them approach their delusions, which prevent them from helping others skillfully.
I don't think we should have presidents or politicitions.
It is better to meditate in isolated silence, then speak from the stable qualities that arise in the absence of mental fixations. In your example, it does not sound selfless to approach life in this way... I hear it as saying "I am part of the problem so I help the problem, I help myself."
Unto each their own:)
Have you ever seen nature? It is often quite violent! Especially when it comes to territory, food, social groups and mating. Even trees overshadow each other. Peace is only really found in the stability of the awakened view... and that view does not depend on any external causes to be stable.
If you think the "violence" of nature is in any way comparable to that of man then I assure you of this, I aint go for a walk in your woods!:p
Well then, why wasting your time with Buddhism if it is so naive?
It is naive to think that if everyone became a Buddhist then the problems I mentioned would be solved. The dominating system itself causes its own kind of suffering, and "lets all meditate" wont chage that, even if we did all meditate. See what I mean? I'm talking about the world's problems, not the individuals problems....
So why did Buddha spend his life teaching the Dhamma in your opinion?
Because he knew it was eternal truth and that by understanding how it conditioned human life he knew it could lead to the reduction of individual suffering and an increase in peace, truth and happiness....
In terms of governance wealth is power. Or if it is not, kindly, what is?
Social mindset? You seem to hold to the conflict theorist framework of social norms and governance. "People are held fast by those who own the most guns." I find that to be counter intuitive to Buddhist ideologies of equanimity.
For instance, MLK helped bring about large social change in the face of financial opposition.
I don't see it like that for two reasons. One I don't see at this level a differnce between me and others and two I don't think in terms of freedom from dukka but reduction of dukka.
Its odd, because at the level where there is no difference between self and other, isn't there also no difference between self and government? They are all deluded projections.
(When you say "litteral teachings" I am not sure what you mean.)
Dharma is often referred to as the direct words of the Buddha, and the natural world he pointed toward. When I said literal teachings, I was referring to the words in the suttas.
I don't think we should have presidents or politicitions.
I'm not wondering if presidents or politicians are an ultimate good. I am looking at the OP about whether or not Buddhism is congruent to Anarchy. I have not seen a skillful Buddhist teacher condemn political systems, only actions of political leaders. There is a big difference. One is looking to help the personal evolution of those in office.
Until you simply accept that we do have presidents and politicians, you are crippled to help them. In the spirit of the Dalai Lama's video that I posted above: Those with political power are blessed to be in a position where they can help educate and contribute to the health of many people.
If you think the "violence" of nature is in any way comparable to that of man then I assure you of this, I aint go for a walk in your woods!:p
I think humankind's violence is only more contrasted because it is our social context. A baboon's fear of territory war is perhaps even more present in their every moment, impacting their total emotionality and mental states than war is in ours. It is ego to think that our violence is somehow outside nature.
"Yes, but you first, then others. It is impossible to free others from suffering while one is in a state of delusion as to the nature of reality."
If your comment is a passive-aggressive tearing at my phrasing, then perhaps:
"Yes, but you first, then others. If we are blinded by dukkha, then it is quite usual for us to act unskillfully towards others. So, clear your mind first."
i'm not claiming a relativism, as much as acknowledging that the needs of different beings do not necessarily pertain to noumenal reality, and that the service of noble people is secondary to the satisfaction of basic needs. what remains fundamentally necessary for people is food, shelter, clothing, and medicine (without these requisites the buddha wouldn't teach you.) we also note from the abhidharma for example, that many human beings (and most all animals, or organisms) are not capable of actualizing the extent of the teaching. getting caught up in time between loving oneself, and being enlightened, etc. and caring for others is an unnecessary dogma. understanding the nature of reality is not an immediate universal need. we can't say it's pertinent to the experience of many people. so what is that archetype that is clear for every being, and who are we to say? qualities like love, respect, non-violence, and a shift in the content and aims of dominant social institutions from qualities of the lower (consumer, violent, etc) to the higher (creative, non-reactionary, etc.) "self" would work well. this is part of how many ancient civilizations functioned so well. much of what we know and much of our reality is conditioned in this way. that there is potential for the unconditioned in human beings should not undermine the extent to which our defilements are conditioned by the dominant behavior shaping institutions today.
Its odd, because at the level where there is no difference between self and other, isn't there also no difference between self and government? They are all deluded projections.
Absolutely. And the way Dharma extinguishes the delusions of self involves seeing the illusionary ego for what it is. Confronting it head on...
The same with concepts like state, nation, sovereignty....
A large part of freedom from the cage is seeing the bars.
Dharma is often referred to as the direct words of the Buddha, and the natural world he pointed toward. When I said literal teachings, I was referring to the words in the suttas.
OK. I don't think you can rightly call any of suttas the literal words of the Buddha. A very important point for we Buddhists!
I have not seen a skillful Buddhist teacher condemn political systems, only actions of political leaders. There is a big difference.
Sure, but that may well be because in the Buddha's time there were not the social systems we have now. I am guessing not many Buddhist leaders condemn net neutrality either:)
The point is, we have a perfectly good tool-kit in Dharma for analysing the wholesomeness of all systems.
Do they tolerate, increase or reward the Defilements?
I cannot think of system less defiling than an open and total technolically enabled anarchy:)
I would love to hear any other suggestions!:)
Incidentally, if you are a pacifist, you might be able to find our way to anarchy from the other direction.
Until you simply accept that we do have presidents and politicians, you are crippled to help them.
That is a statement from within the dominating norm, it isnt a statement about a stateless society.
Those with political power are blessed to be in a position where they can help educate and contribute to the health of many people.
Yes, of course! I get that. Unfortunately it is a dream. Take a look at the noble intentions of the founding fathers and what their dream has become.
If you have a concentration of power that concentration will only increase. Its Darwinian.
I think humankind's violence is only more contrasted because it is our social context. A baboon's fear of territory war is perhaps even more present in their every moment, impacting their total emotionality and mental states than war is in ours. It is ego to think that our violence is somehow outside nature.
Matt, I am sorry, but I just cant get why you would say that. Turn on the news - but not the news controlled by the very people who own or control the media, banks, industry, oil, education, police.....
With Metta,
In fact, Buddhism and Anarchism is the same if one's is in supremeness. The degree of one's anarchism would depend on the degree of government over one's anarchism In this context, one can refer to The Avatamsaka Sutra (The Flower Adornment Sutra) for more appreciation of yr Buddhism. What I m stating here is referring to one's Buddhahood
Is Buddhism and Anarchism consistent with eachother?
I don't think they're necessarily inconsistent, especially the anarchism of Kropotkin, which, focusing on cooperation rather than competition, was a needed counter to the social-Darwinism popular at the time.
I've never seen an animal arrest another, I have never seen an animal enforce laws.
Animals have territory and they enforce that territory with violence. Social animals have a social structure, and those animals who step out of line with their position are punished, sometimes to the degree of being cast out of their pack and left to fend for themselves.
The law of the jungle is anarchy.
And yet within this anarchy you will still find structure, order, and rules.
It is not natural for there to be the manipulators and the manipulated, the controllers and the controlled.
It is not natural to use a computer ether, yet here we are.
My take on Dharma isn't about freeing oneself from suffering but from reducing the suffering in the world. So for me Dharma has to have a politial component as much as it does a spirtual or moral component.
There will always be suffering in the world. And how can you reduce suffering in others while you are suffering yourself?
I've never seen an animal arrest another, I have never seen an animal enforce laws.
The law of the jungle is anarchy.
No, the just eat each other when they get pissed and one of them does something stupid, instead of phoning the cops.
Really, though, there are of course rules in the animal kingdom. There's hierarchy which they establish by their own methods. There's enforcement of rules.
Do the ones at the top of the hierarchy that enforce wear badges and uniforms and drive around in cars with flashing lights? No. You won't find them partaking in this discussion on their laptops at Starbucks either.
You don't think they had governments in the Buddha's time? Do you forget that the Buddha himself was the son of a king?
Bit of a difference between being a prince in small village state in the Himalayan foothills and a a cabal of oligarch controlling the lives of millions using sophisticated population mind controls, like the media and the economy.
keep it real;)
There will always be suffering in the world. And how can you reduce suffering in others while you are suffering yourself?
I just don't get this brand of buddhist absolutism that seems so common.
I would rather a million people got a little less suffering from the kind of understanding of the 4NTs you can write on a postcard, than one new Buddha reaching some idealised enlightenment...
Bit of a difference between being a prince in small village state in the Himalayan foothills and a a cabal of oligarch controlling the lives of millions using sophisticated population mind controls, like the media and the economy.
keep it real;)
There have always been situations of a few controlling the lives of millions. I don't know why you think this is something new.
I just don't get this brand of buddhist absolutism that seems so common.
I would rather a million people got a little less suffering from the kind of understanding of the 4NTs you can write on a postcard, than one new Buddha reaching some idealised enlightenment...
How about you?
Or like my old friend J.C. said: "First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Bit of a difference between being a prince in small village state in the Himalayan foothills and a a cabal of oligarch controlling the lives of millions using sophisticated population mind controls, like the media and the economy.
I just don't get this brand of buddhist absolutism that seems so common.
I would rather a million people got a little less suffering from the kind of understanding of the 4NTs you can write on a postcard, than one new Buddha reaching some idealised enlightenment...
Look at how much amazing wisdom and lasting change came from a single Buddha! Its not about idealized visions of the process and the world and millions and blah blah blah. This is not about self-serving, its about self-awakening. Its about how directly, skillfully and openly you are able to deal with what is in front of you... right now.
Do you see how maybe you have been conditioned to thinking that you cannot have progress and technology without an implied dominating system?
I just don't see it like that - and nor do people a lot smarter than me:)
No I haven't been "conditioned" - I just think you're being too melodramatic and fundamentalist in your argument - and that's not the Middle Way either.
This short video, by a very insightful anarchist, is well worth watching:
No I haven't been "conditioned" - I just think you're being too melodramatic and fundamentalist in your argument - and that's not the Middle Way either.
We have all been conditioned, especially we in our cosey democracies.
I am very far from being melodramatic on this, I was once, perhaps... now I see that futility.
Traditionally it is oblivious. This mind control didn't really get going until the second world war and really got going after this with the morphing of propaganda into Public Relations.
Look at how much amazing wisdom and lasting change came from a single Buddha!
And suppose another arose tomorrow, you think the world would be that much better? I don't.
Its not about idealized visions of the process and the world and millions and blah blah blah. This is not about self-serving, its about self-awakening. Its about how directly, skillfully and openly you are able to deal with what is in front of you... right now.
There is no self.
We peddle a dangerous medicine when we think Dharma is the panacea to the world's suffering.
Dharma is the best thing that has happened to me, daily I feel blessed by it. But it is not the solution to all the problems of the world. To me that is very much wrong View.
namaste
on then global scale, noble though it may be on your level. There is so much suffering in the world that is the project of the system rather than individual attachment.
'
We peddle a dangerous medicine when we think Dharma is the panacea to the world's suffering.
Dharma is the best thing that has happened to me, daily I feel blessed by it. But it is not the solution to all the problems of the world. To me that is very much wrong View.
I do not believe there is anyone here who holds such a view.
I don't think they're necessarily inconsistent, especially the anarchism of Kropotkin, which, focusing on cooperation rather than competition, was a needed counter to the social-Darwinism popular at the time.
i agree.i haven't read up on a lot of anarchist philosophy and i don't like politics that much but i still consider anarchism as a very good political philosophy. many say anarchists are idealists, and that applies equally so to buddhists. so in that way they're twins!
buddhism + anarchism is good together
buddhism is like spiritual anarchism
the ego = the state
the reason why the world is a social-political mess and why government is often such a burdensome thing is because the world is infected with egos like so many small pox on the skin
and the earth's skin is mutilated. when one frees oneself of ego everything runs smoothly and naturally. similarly when one frees oneself of the state (a central governing apparatus analogous to a central governing self) society runs as easy as a river without the bureaucratic and authoritarian stranglehold. but since the state is the collective ego, you have to dissolve the individual ego one by one in order to bring about effective and wholesome political change. buddhism and buddhist meditation in itself is a political act, but i don't think that suffices, completely by itself.
buddhism on a political realm to me should encourage decentralized and autonomous and cooperative action
whatever that means!!!
with of course, wisdom, virtue and compassion as ideals. as buddhists, we practice awareness always. to be aware does not simply mean knowing what is going on in your eyes or your ears, it should extend to the whole world. we should really understand the institutions and infrastructure of our very society. in a sense, buddhism and anarchism go very well together for the reason that in capitalism, greed and desire mean profit, while greed and desire in buddhism lead to misery.
i dont believe anarchism is contradictory to a middle way avoiding of extremes either.... considering anarchism as an extreme may actually just be a prejudice instilled by a status quo where anarchism is very much an extreme
actually, anarchism practised in its true way is quite sane and rational..... UHHHH ok im just rambling but HAHAHAHA INTERESTING TOPIC
You clearly, simply, don't know what anarchy is....
Perhaps you have bought into the manfactured idea that it is about disorder and breaking things up, punks and riots. Most have, I used to.
I wish you luck in your path and hope that one day it extends beyond yourself.
namaste
No I don't think Anarchy = Sex Pistols, punks, riots etc. I just simply do not wish to investigate it at this time in my life. And I thank you for your condescending remarks and judgement over that one statement of mine.
You have no idea where any of us here are on our path. But if you choose to follow it, I wish you well on the path of Buddhism. Compassion and altruism are hard to follow - I'm still learning. But stick with it, you may find truth and peace in it.
No I don't think Anarchy = Sex Pistols, punks, riots etc. I just simply do not wish to investigate it at this time in my life.
Sure, and that's fine by me; Remember it was you who started the slight tension by suggesting I was being melodramatic in my concerns for the abhornt state of the world's systems.
If that doesn't interest you fine, but it would be good practice to not attempt to diminish the concerns of others for the suffering of others.
You have no idea where any of us here are on our path. But if you choose to follow it, I wish you well on the path of Buddhism. Compassion and altruism are hard to follow - I'm still learning. But stick with it, you may find truth and peace in it.
I have no significant issues about my path in Dharma. As said, my concerns is for the suffering of others now and in the future.
Dharma cannot solve the world's problems of State, in fact, if it got close the State would react as it has in the past...
keep it real
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
Dharma is (. . .) not the solution to all the problems of the world. To me that is very much wrong View.
Yes, actually, it is.
because all the problems of the world find their basis in lobha, dvesha and moha. The three poisons.
The Dhamma actually IS the solution to all the problems in the world. it's just that not everybody either sees or accepts this.
because all the problems of the world find their basis in lobha, dvesha and moha. The three poisons.
The Dhamma actually IS the solution to all the problems in the world. it's just that not everybody either sees or accepts this.
I see it differently. I see it as the solution to the problem of individual suffering, we agree on that.
Unfortunately, I don't see it as a solution to the problems caused by the snowballing beast that is the State, Corporytocracy, Babylon... whatever you wish to label it.
This thing continues to enslave us, more and more, year by year. It is not a conspiracy of people that could be solved by Dharma, it is the way the systems have evolved that is the root culprit.
I would love to hope that Dharma was a solution, and I am very sure more Dharma equals more happiness, but still the beast grows irrespective of individuals.
namaste
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
Unfortunately, I don't see it as a solution to the problems caused by the snowballing beast that is the State, Corporytocracy, Babylon... whatever you wish to label it.
That's exactly it. It's merely a label. An Identity we put upon a specific authority or legislative body that is in place to govern and decide what happens. But they're just people. 'The State' is just a cover for a body-mass of different people having to make decisions every day.
Just like mum and dad make decisions for the family - which we might view as skilful or otherwise - 'nanny' does the same for the country. it's just like mum and dad. Only bigger. but even bigger, it's still 'people'.
This thing continues to enslave us, more and more, year by year. It is not a conspiracy of people that could be solved by Dharma, it is the way the systems have evolved that is the root culprit.
The system is created and implemented by 'people'. There's no machine or computer deciding this. It still eventually boils down to an individual or individuals, ticking or crossing something off....
I would love to hope that Dharma was a solution, and I am very sure more Dharma equals more happiness, but still the beast grows irrespective of individuals.
because of them, not irrespective of them.
If Dhamma equals more happiness, why should it not affect people in a state, as well as individuals in the populace?
That's exactly it. It's merely a label. An Identity we put upon a specific authority or legislative body that is in place to govern and decide what happens. But they're just people. 'The State' is just a cover for a body-mass of different people having to make decisions every day.
Just like mum and dad make decisions for the family - which we might view as skilful or otherwise - 'nanny' does the same for the country. it's just like mum and dad. Only bigger. but even bigger, it's still 'people'.
No, it isn't just people. It is the institutions, laws, trade agreements, quangos, lobbys, media....
The world above us is a very inhuman place.
There's no machine or computer deciding this.
There are many machines involved in the decisions, as well as the laws...etc
It still eventually boils down to an individual or individuals, ticking or crossing something off....
I disagree. The State is bigger than the sum of its people, in a sense this is the whole point.
If Dhamma equals more happiness, why should it not affect people in a state, as well as individuals in the populace?
Institutions, laws, trade agreements etc etc are all just people. For instance, a law does not exist without people, cannot exist without people...
Matt, I am certain that isn't the case.
I am not sure what to say, we seem to have a radically different view of the world above us. I have been interested in this kind of stuff since a boy, getting more and more passionate and concerned about it as I age.
I don't know why you don't see this, really I don't. Have a look at the sentiments of the founding fathers of America, noble and free. And have a look at what they have become. Do you not see how the beast runs away?
It isn't a conspiracy, its social evolution gone insane.
Please don't think I am trying to persuade you with my poorly appeal to my own beliefs; that is an expression of my incredulity.
I don't know what to say. Do you read the non mainstream news at all?
Have you heard of The CFR? The Trilateral Commission? Do you understand how the IMF works? Have you heard of Bernays? Only you can educate yourself.
Buddha was into teaching one how to control the mind and become free from suffering. He was pretty much Free of the eight worldly concerns from what i gather
Politics isnt a concern for people who actually practise the path as they know no suffering can be solved via the worldly method
(Not sure we share the same meaning of meme:) memes are not laws, they are "social viruses" that people don't uphold....)
Memes are archetypes of thought, no? "Social virus" sounds like more conspiracy mumbo-jumbo. I consider a meme to be a single unit of social evolution... an encapsulated idea that can be transmitted between minds.
Viruses have a self-propelling, infecting characteristic... some memes have this kind of behavior, but most do not.
I am not sure what to say, we seem to have a radically different view of the world above us. I have been interested in this kind of stuff since a boy, getting more and more passionate and concerned about it as I age.
And I wonder if your passions unfocus your clarity. I can see the trade agreements and blah blah blah, but when I look upon them, I see them as macro representations of micro delusions. All of those are simple social arrangements between people and groups of people (even groupthink is based off individual delusion.)
I don't know why you don't see this, really I don't. Have a look at the sentiments of the founding fathers of America, noble and free. And have a look at what they have become. Do you not see how the beast runs away?
It isn't a conspiracy, its social evolution gone insane.
I would say that individuals have run astray from a path of moderation. What benefit do you find from calling things "insane"? Do you feel more at peace or more skillful in relating to the world around you? You sound afraid of these people and systems.
I don't know what to say. Do you read the non mainstream news at all?
Have you heard of The CFR? The Trilateral Commission? Do you understand how the IMF works? Have you heard of Bernays? Only you can educate yourself.
My lack of zest for your world view is not from ignorance. I simply accept that those things exist, and when I read about them I recognize that the people who uphold those systems suffer in a way that is exactly as potent as the poverty and inequities that their dysfunctional system propagates in others.
One mind suffers from poverty, lack of education and poor health. One mind suffers from greed, restlessness, and paranoia. They are both my brothers and sisters, so I make room in my mind and heart for their troubled lives.
So you know all that I refereed to, eg CFR and you argree with the videos I linked to?
namaste
I find it interesting that you consider my agreement with those videos to equate to a lack of ignorance. I watched th first and found it to be infantile in comparison to Buddhist teachings. It spoke of humans as uniquely manipulatable through fear, which is ridiculous.
Certainly animals are not as cognitively capable as humans, making yelling at a hen to lay more eggs a ridiculous notion. However, it isn't cognitive, but genetic and endocrine manipulation that we turn to, and classical conditioning models clearly show that even basic brains can be patterned with a CR.
The missing piece on your side (I think) is that when a person is getting whipped, both the giver and the receiver of the whipping suffer. The reason Buddhism is so effective in changing the way people relate to each other is because it addresses the roots in a way that is much more direct than either of those videos... it does not cast blame into the hands of the one holding the whip, but sees both as subject to the same delusions.
when first introduced to the dhamma it seemed like anarchists are the hare krishnas of buddhism. As in we begin from the d.i.y. pursuit of truth, harmony, and freedom, questioning everything, and then more and more realize through progressive dissatisfaction the greater extent of the path of liberation; employ precepts, and so on. Perhaps speaking personally...
i'm too lazy to read the entire thread so you might have answered this already but would you be kind enough to tell me?
To a system in which all individuals of the world have determination over their lives.
Now it is easy to label this "a dreamy idealism," but that plays into the hands of the system we have now.
You see, control is becoming focussed more and more into fewer and fewer systems (UN, IMF...). We are moving away from this peacful ideal, not towards it.
That is the problem, I am not saying "Bring me Utopia," I am saying, let us at
least, as a planet, change direction towards this ideal.
would there be an economy? would there be schools?
How would this system function?
Gosh! It would be very arrogant for me to assume that I have the answers... or anyone. Nobody has the answer to this questions. As Chomsky (The worlds smartest Anarchist) say, we just don't know but that isn't a reason not to want it.
Sure, there would be huge problems of adjustment, and nothing is perfect and all is compromise and it would be trial and error.
It would be a diaster if we suddenly swicthed to this tomorrow, but if we gradually rolled it our, let it evolve as the Corpotocracy has evolved, only with equanimity and liberty rather than the bottom line as the driving conditions.
You might want to google and read a paper from the 50's called "I, Pencil", that I hope address your points better than me about the ability of humanity to achieve this.
Gosh! It would be very arrogant for me to assume that I have the answers... or anyone. Nobody has the answer to this questions. As Chomsky (The worlds smartest Anarchist) say, we just don't know but that isn't a reason not to want it.
Sure, there would be huge problems of adjustment, and nothing is perfect and all is compromise and it would be trial and error.
It would be a diaster if we suddenly swicthed to this tomorrow, but if we gradually rolled it our, let it evolve as the Corpotocracy has evolved, only with equanimity and liberty rather than the bottom line as the driving conditions.
You might want to google and read a paper from the 50's called "I, Pencil", that I hope address your points better than me about the ability of humanity to achieve this.
namaste
yeah i use to read Chomsky.
But he is a terrible writer tho (very dry), how can a linguistic expert be so bad at writing??
anyhow, so if anarchy is not the system you are referring to, than this whole discussion is a bit off topic don't you think?
Comments
I doubt that very much! But as said, the "owners" are pretty irrelevant to the problem, the problem is the system that has evolved to be the dominating global system.
In terms of governance wealth is power. Or if it is not, kindly, what is?
I don't see it like that for two reasons. One I don't see at this level a differnce between me and others and two I don't think in terms of freedom from dukka but reduction of dukka.
Sure, but lets be clear, that is your understanding, as said, it is not mine. Dharma is big and true enough to contain such differences of opinion, such is its wonder!
(When you say "litteral teachings" I am not sure what you mean.)
I don't think we should have presidents or politicitions.
Unto each their own:)
If you think the "violence" of nature is in any way comparable to that of man then I assure you of this, I aint go for a walk in your woods!:p
namaste
That's all sounding nice and wholesome, but really, its terribly naieve in the context of the atrocious violence and in justice in the world.
Then we are trully scuppered if that is the case, if we must wait until what? Stream stepping? Nibbana?
In Buddhist countries as I write this people are suffering terribly at the hands of Buddhist governments...
That sentiment has no place in my spiritual life, nor do I imagine it would have in the Buddha's.
So why did Buddha spend his life teaching the Dhamma in your opinion?
It is naive to think that if everyone became a Buddhist then the problems I mentioned would be solved. The dominating system itself causes its own kind of suffering, and "lets all meditate" wont chage that, even if we did all meditate. See what I mean? I'm talking about the world's problems, not the individuals problems....
Because he knew it was eternal truth and that by understanding how it conditioned human life he knew it could lead to the reduction of individual suffering and an increase in peace, truth and happiness....
this is Buddhism.
Social mindset? You seem to hold to the conflict theorist framework of social norms and governance. "People are held fast by those who own the most guns." I find that to be counter intuitive to Buddhist ideologies of equanimity.
For instance, MLK helped bring about large social change in the face of financial opposition.
Its odd, because at the level where there is no difference between self and other, isn't there also no difference between self and government? They are all deluded projections.
Dharma is often referred to as the direct words of the Buddha, and the natural world he pointed toward. When I said literal teachings, I was referring to the words in the suttas.
I'm not wondering if presidents or politicians are an ultimate good. I am looking at the OP about whether or not Buddhism is congruent to Anarchy. I have not seen a skillful Buddhist teacher condemn political systems, only actions of political leaders. There is a big difference. One is looking to help the personal evolution of those in office.
Until you simply accept that we do have presidents and politicians, you are crippled to help them. In the spirit of the Dalai Lama's video that I posted above: Those with political power are blessed to be in a position where they can help educate and contribute to the health of many people.
I think humankind's violence is only more contrasted because it is our social context. A baboon's fear of territory war is perhaps even more present in their every moment, impacting their total emotionality and mental states than war is in ours. It is ego to think that our violence is somehow outside nature.
With warmth,
Matt
No thanks, try google.
"Yes, but you first, then others. It is impossible to free others from suffering while one is in a state of delusion as to the nature of reality."
If your comment is a passive-aggressive tearing at my phrasing, then perhaps:
"Yes, but you first, then others. If we are blinded by dukkha, then it is quite usual for us to act unskillfully towards others. So, clear your mind first."
Either way, I feel the archetype is visible.
With warmth,
Matt
Yes, of course.
Absolutely. And the way Dharma extinguishes the delusions of self involves seeing the illusionary ego for what it is. Confronting it head on...
The same with concepts like state, nation, sovereignty....
A large part of freedom from the cage is seeing the bars.
OK. I don't think you can rightly call any of suttas the literal words of the Buddha. A very important point for we Buddhists!
Sure, but that may well be because in the Buddha's time there were not the social systems we have now. I am guessing not many Buddhist leaders condemn net neutrality either:)
The point is, we have a perfectly good tool-kit in Dharma for analysing the wholesomeness of all systems.
Do they tolerate, increase or reward the Defilements?
I cannot think of system less defiling than an open and total technolically enabled anarchy:)
I would love to hear any other suggestions!:)
Incidentally, if you are a pacifist, you might be able to find our way to anarchy from the other direction.
That is a statement from within the dominating norm, it isnt a statement about a stateless society.
Yes, of course! I get that. Unfortunately it is a dream. Take a look at the noble intentions of the founding fathers and what their dream has become.
If you have a concentration of power that concentration will only increase. Its Darwinian.
Matt, I am sorry, but I just cant get why you would say that. Turn on the news - but not the news controlled by the very people who own or control the media, banks, industry, oil, education, police.....
namaste:)
In fact, Buddhism and Anarchism is the same if one's is in supremeness. The degree of one's anarchism would depend on the degree of government over one's anarchism
I don't think they're necessarily inconsistent, especially the anarchism of Kropotkin, which, focusing on cooperation rather than competition, was a needed counter to the social-Darwinism popular at the time.
Animals have territory and they enforce that territory with violence. Social animals have a social structure, and those animals who step out of line with their position are punished, sometimes to the degree of being cast out of their pack and left to fend for themselves.
And yet within this anarchy you will still find structure, order, and rules.
It is not natural to use a computer ether, yet here we are.
There will always be suffering in the world. And how can you reduce suffering in others while you are suffering yourself?
You don't think they had governments in the Buddha's time? Do you forget that the Buddha himself was the son of a king?
No, the just eat each other when they get pissed and one of them does something stupid, instead of phoning the cops.
Really, though, there are of course rules in the animal kingdom. There's hierarchy which they establish by their own methods. There's enforcement of rules.
Do the ones at the top of the hierarchy that enforce wear badges and uniforms and drive around in cars with flashing lights? No. You won't find them partaking in this discussion on their laptops at Starbucks either.
Bit of a difference between being a prince in small village state in the Himalayan foothills and a a cabal of oligarch controlling the lives of millions using sophisticated population mind controls, like the media and the economy.
keep it real;)
I just don't get this brand of buddhist absolutism that seems so common.
I would rather a million people got a little less suffering from the kind of understanding of the 4NTs you can write on a postcard, than one new Buddha reaching some idealised enlightenment...
How about you?
There have always been situations of a few controlling the lives of millions. I don't know why you think this is something new.
Or like my old friend J.C. said: "First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Buddhism is about uprooting this mind control.
Look at how much amazing wisdom and lasting change came from a single Buddha! Its not about idealized visions of the process and the world and millions and blah blah blah.
With warmth,
Matt
No I haven't been "conditioned" - I just think you're being too melodramatic and fundamentalist in your argument - and that's not the Middle Way either.
Thanks but I'm not interested in anarchy so it would be a waste of time for both of us.
We have all been conditioned, especially we in our cosey democracies.
I am very far from being melodramatic on this, I was once, perhaps... now I see that futility.
(That video isnt about anarchy)
You clearly, simply, don't know what anarchy is....
Perhaps you have bought into the manfactured idea that it is about disorder and breaking things up, punks and riots. Most have, I used to.
I wish you luck in your path and hope that one day it extends beyond yourself.
namaste
No it isn't, at least not Traditionally.
Traditionally it is oblivious. This mind control didn't really get going until the second world war and really got going after this with the morphing of propaganda into Public Relations.
And suppose another arose tomorrow, you think the world would be that much better? I don't.
There is no self.
We peddle a dangerous medicine when we think Dharma is the panacea to the world's suffering.
Dharma is the best thing that has happened to me, daily I feel blessed by it. But it is not the solution to all the problems of the world. To me that is very much wrong View.
namaste
on then global scale, noble though it may be on your level. There is so much suffering in the world that is the project of the system rather than individual attachment.
'
I do not believe there is anyone here who holds such a view.
buddhism + anarchism is good together
buddhism is like spiritual anarchism
the ego = the state
the reason why the world is a social-political mess and why government is often such a burdensome thing is because the world is infected with egos like so many small pox on the skin
and the earth's skin is mutilated. when one frees oneself of ego everything runs smoothly and naturally. similarly when one frees oneself of the state (a central governing apparatus analogous to a central governing self) society runs as easy as a river without the bureaucratic and authoritarian stranglehold. but since the state is the collective ego, you have to dissolve the individual ego one by one in order to bring about effective and wholesome political change. buddhism and buddhist meditation in itself is a political act, but i don't think that suffices, completely by itself.
buddhism on a political realm to me should encourage decentralized and autonomous and cooperative action
whatever that means!!!
with of course, wisdom, virtue and compassion as ideals. as buddhists, we practice awareness always. to be aware does not simply mean knowing what is going on in your eyes or your ears, it should extend to the whole world. we should really understand the institutions and infrastructure of our very society. in a sense, buddhism and anarchism go very well together for the reason that in capitalism, greed and desire mean profit, while greed and desire in buddhism lead to misery.
i dont believe anarchism is contradictory to a middle way avoiding of extremes either.... considering anarchism as an extreme may actually just be a prejudice instilled by a status quo where anarchism is very much an extreme
actually, anarchism practised in its true way is quite sane and rational..... UHHHH ok im just rambling but HAHAHAHA INTERESTING TOPIC
No I don't think Anarchy = Sex Pistols, punks, riots etc. I just simply do not wish to investigate it at this time in my life. And I thank you for your condescending remarks and judgement over that one statement of mine.
You have no idea where any of us here are on our path. But if you choose to follow it, I wish you well on the path of Buddhism. Compassion and altruism are hard to follow - I'm still learning. But stick with it, you may find truth and peace in it.
Sure, and that's fine by me; Remember it was you who started the slight tension by suggesting I was being melodramatic in my concerns for the abhornt state of the world's systems.
If that doesn't interest you fine, but it would be good practice to not attempt to diminish the concerns of others for the suffering of others.
I have no significant issues about my path in Dharma. As said, my concerns is for the suffering of others now and in the future.
Dharma cannot solve the world's problems of State, in fact, if it got close the State would react as it has in the past...
keep it real
Yes, actually, it is.
because all the problems of the world find their basis in lobha, dvesha and moha.
The three poisons.
The Dhamma actually IS the solution to all the problems in the world. it's just that not everybody either sees or accepts this.
I see it differently. I see it as the solution to the problem of individual suffering, we agree on that.
Unfortunately, I don't see it as a solution to the problems caused by the snowballing beast that is the State, Corporytocracy, Babylon... whatever you wish to label it.
This thing continues to enslave us, more and more, year by year. It is not a conspiracy of people that could be solved by Dharma, it is the way the systems have evolved that is the root culprit.
I would love to hope that Dharma was a solution, and I am very sure more Dharma equals more happiness, but still the beast grows irrespective of individuals.
namaste
Just like mum and dad make decisions for the family - which we might view as skilful or otherwise - 'nanny' does the same for the country. it's just like mum and dad. Only bigger. but even bigger, it's still 'people'.
The system is created and implemented by 'people'. There's no machine or computer deciding this. It still eventually boils down to an individual or individuals, ticking or crossing something off....
because of them, not irrespective of them.
If Dhamma equals more happiness, why should it not affect people in a state, as well as individuals in the populace?
No, it isn't just people. It is the institutions, laws, trade agreements, quangos, lobbys, media....
The world above us is a very inhuman place.
There are many machines involved in the decisions, as well as the laws...etc
I disagree. The State is bigger than the sum of its people, in a sense this is the whole point.
Sorry, I don't get what you mean here.
namaste
The mundane teachings for worldly relationships & behaviours are very conservative.
Anarchism is not Buddhism.
If one realises...yes...realises!...the mundane teachings, so much harmony will be found.
The 'bright delusion' or 'white darkness' of 'non-duality' will drop away and true clarity will come.
I say to regard one has nibbana but not realise the mundane teachings cannot be so...
Institutions, laws, trade agreements etc etc are all just people. For instance, a law does not exist without people, cannot exist without people...
No matter how resonant or how powerful a meme appears, it is never any stronger than the hands of those who uphold it.
(Not sure we share the same meaning of meme:) memes are not laws, they are "social viruses" that people don't uphold....)
Matt, I am certain that isn't the case.
I am not sure what to say, we seem to have a radically different view of the world above us. I have been interested in this kind of stuff since a boy, getting more and more passionate and concerned about it as I age.
I don't know why you don't see this, really I don't. Have a look at the sentiments of the founding fathers of America, noble and free. And have a look at what they have become. Do you not see how the beast runs away?
It isn't a conspiracy, its social evolution gone insane.
Please don't think I am trying to persuade you with my poorly appeal to my own beliefs; that is an expression of my incredulity.
I don't know what to say. Do you read the non mainstream news at all?
Have you heard of The CFR? The Trilateral Commission? Do you understand how the IMF works? Have you heard of Bernays? Only you can educate yourself.
I would start with these two videos:
The Story of Your Enslavement
On modern servitude
I look forward to your thoughts,
namaste
Politics isnt a concern for people who actually practise the path as they know no suffering can be solved via the worldly method
Memes are archetypes of thought, no? "Social virus" sounds like more conspiracy mumbo-jumbo. I consider a meme to be a single unit of social evolution... an encapsulated idea that can be transmitted between minds.
Viruses have a self-propelling, infecting characteristic... some memes have this kind of behavior, but most do not.
How in the world can a social law exist without a person?
And I wonder if your passions unfocus your clarity. I can see the trade agreements and blah blah blah, but when I look upon them, I see them as macro representations of micro delusions. All of those are simple social arrangements between people and groups of people (even groupthink is based off individual delusion.)
I would say that individuals have run astray from a path of moderation. What benefit do you find from calling things "insane"? Do you feel more at peace or more skillful in relating to the world around you? You sound afraid of these people and systems.
My lack of zest for your world view is not from ignorance. I simply accept that those things exist, and when I read about them I recognize that the people who uphold those systems suffer in a way that is exactly as potent as the poverty and inequities that their dysfunctional system propagates in others.
One mind suffers from poverty, lack of education and poor health. One mind suffers from greed, restlessness, and paranoia. They are both my brothers and sisters, so I make room in my mind and heart for their troubled lives.
With warmth,
Matt
I practice the path. It is a concern for me:)
Should I forget about the suffering of others caused by "The State", the injustice, exploration and deceptions that expand above me?
I cannot do that, sit and meditate ignoring this monster. Not would the Buddha I follow.
Not at all, it is just ideas that are successfully spread more than those that are not.
Laws on the other hand are structured into the society.
Maybe!
No benefit, it is my opinion that there is much inanity above us in the way the system dominates and exploits.
Not afraid. Aware.
So you know all that I refereed to, eg CFR and you argree with the videos I linked to?
namaste
I find it interesting that you consider my agreement with those videos to equate to a lack of ignorance. I watched th first and found it to be infantile in comparison to Buddhist teachings. It spoke of humans as uniquely manipulatable through fear, which is ridiculous.
Certainly animals are not as cognitively capable as humans, making yelling at a hen to lay more eggs a ridiculous notion. However, it isn't cognitive, but genetic and endocrine manipulation that we turn to, and classical conditioning models clearly show that even basic brains can be patterned with a CR.
The missing piece on your side (I think) is that when a person is getting whipped, both the giver and the receiver of the whipping suffer. The reason Buddhism is so effective in changing the way people relate to each other is because it addresses the roots in a way that is much more direct than either of those videos... it does not cast blame into the hands of the one holding the whip, but sees both as subject to the same delusions.
With warmth,
Matt
You missunderstand me...
Sure, most things are when compared to Dharma.
But the Buddha was teaching liberation from personal suffering not post-industrial global imprisonment....
I disagree. As Wittgenstein said, a dog will know it may get punished if it is naught now, but not if it is naught tomorrow...
No no, not missing, and I agree. But, as I repeatedly say, I refer also to the actual system of domination that has evolved.
Again, you miss my point... I am not talking about the whipper, or the banker or the general and their suffering. i speak of the system itself.
If we swapped the oligarchs of the world with Buddhists, the world wouldn't change that much. the system must change.
We go round in circles....
i'm too lazy to read the entire thread so you might have answered this already but would you be kind enough to tell me?
To a system in which all individuals of the world have determination over their lives.
Now it is easy to label this "a dreamy idealism," but that plays into the hands of the system we have now.
You see, control is becoming focussed more and more into fewer and fewer systems (UN, IMF...). We are moving away from this peacful ideal, not towards it.
That is the problem, I am not saying "Bring me Utopia," I am saying, let us at
least, as a planet, change direction towards this ideal.
namaste
would there be an economy? would there be schools?
How would this system function?
Gosh! It would be very arrogant for me to assume that I have the answers... or anyone. Nobody has the answer to this questions. As Chomsky (The worlds smartest Anarchist) say, we just don't know but that isn't a reason not to want it.
Sure, there would be huge problems of adjustment, and nothing is perfect and all is compromise and it would be trial and error.
It would be a diaster if we suddenly swicthed to this tomorrow, but if we gradually rolled it our, let it evolve as the Corpotocracy has evolved, only with equanimity and liberty rather than the bottom line as the driving conditions.
You might want to google and read a paper from the 50's called "I, Pencil", that I hope address your points better than me about the ability of humanity to achieve this.
namaste
But he is a terrible writer tho (very dry), how can a linguistic expert be so bad at writing??
anyhow, so if anarchy is not the system you are referring to, than this whole discussion is a bit off topic don't you think?