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.
Sangha, the position that you are taking on this subject holds no water! firstly as I pointed out the killing of another human being is not Buddhist, secondly your comments about the Germans who gassed the Jews and others should be gassed themselves is plainly ludicrous!..By this logic the cycle of death is perpetual and never ending!
It appears that you want to adopt Buddhism with your own set of rules and agenda, well you can but that does not make it Buddhism. Palzang's point was exactly this! I welcome the input of our younger members but sometimes I despair:rolleyesc ...This attitude of an Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth has no place in Buddhism or perhaps you are thinking of starting your own School where this would be viewed as acceptable:skeptical
We live in a world too full of death, I was kind of hoping that your generation might move the World forward and help stop the killing or at least speak out against it....Sadly this appears not to be the case. I am sorry that so many people on here have FAILED to show you that your stance is wrong.
And we also must never forget, not everone believes in your notion of rebirth. Even among Buddhists there is great disparity of the idea of it.
Using some universally agreed concepts in rebirth, may I thus remind you that the fellow who does not repent only gets reborn in the lower realms or if, you do not believe in the moving of classes, be reborn as an unsuccessful human in everything? A life of desire and sufferring, in what way can it be called a second chance? Why not let him repent, and offer his services then?
If someone kills another, their life is over. It can never go back to how it was. The constant guilt of knowing that you killed someone. Knowing you're responsible for their death. That person will be dead inside. So if the death penalty is given, they can be reborn and have the second chance, without the guilt. Without that voice in the back of their heads.
Some things are worse than death.
And they are reborn lower, but that will happen anyway. At some point all will die. Why should they continue to live with that grief, that consiuonce, that desparity.
Abraham, don't condemn him like that, he can speak out whatever he likes, it's guranteed under UN Law... And Buddhism stripped to the core is simply the non-attachment part. Even myself, I do not have a school because I bend the laws of Buddhism alot.
Sangha, it is of great importance to you to correct this notion. This cycle cannot be made possible.
Have you ever heard stories of WWII from the real vets who were there fighting it? I swear to you none of them wanted the war, and all of them were so digusted by the Nazis' acts, inhumane, relatively immoral, and uncivilized. No one had wanted to put this crap back on the Nazis. It was too unbearable.
The very reason why the war had even started was because of the Treaty of Versailles, signed by the Allies, that is us - who calim to be of higher moral calibre. If we must punish someone for the Holocaust, it would be us included with the Nazis too.
For the murderer, we'd have to kick everyone in the ass - for obviously society has driven him to such a point that he had to do it. Or laugh at the victim for being such a pain in his ass for irritating him so much. Or gun his parents down for failing to impart to him the relatively correct morals. :doh: I believe it is absolutely unwarranted.
I think that many of you have misunderstood my WW2 comment, and for that reason I withdraw my comment on the war subject.
However I still stand by my views that criminals should be treated as they treated their victims. Otherwise, this world would have no justics - and that is sometime that I, am saying as ME not as a Buddhist, cannot stand to see.
Do you believe that the laws of karma, meaningnless though it is, in the human world, will always work to produce something humans call "justice"?
For a more in-depth elaboration, you can choose to PM me. I once spent a whole week formulating how karma is affected by us and us affect karma and karma "helps" us and us "help" karma. A very wide idea that caused me many headaches.
I think that many of you have misunderstood my WW2 comment, and for that reason I withdraw my comment on the war subject.
However I still stand by my views that criminals should be treated as they treated their victims. Otherwise, this world would have no justics - and that is sometime that I, am saying as ME not as a Buddhist, cannot stand to see.
Yes, Sangha, but if you look at the title of the thread, it asks what the BUDDHIST view of the Death penalty is....
A good marker, especially for exam time,
Read the Question, then read the question, then READ THE QUESTION!
Yes. Those who do wrong and are not condemned will only continue to do wrong.
Do the good always have to be rewarded?
No, people should do good anyway. But that's a different topic entirely.
Do you believe that the laws of karma, meaningnless though it is, in the human world, will always work to produce something humans call "justice"?
The laws of karma are simple, you do something, something happens. Karma leads to your karma-vipaka (sp?). So if you do wrong, you're punished. That is a very simple karma equasion for justice.
For a more in-depth elaboration, you can choose to PM me. I once spent a whole week formulating how karma is affected by us and us affect karma and karma "helps" us and us "help" karma. A very wide idea that caused me many headaches.
Why do you dealve in karma so? If all one does is retrace one's previous actions, one cannot move forward.
Yes, Sangha, but if you look at the title of the thread, it asks what the BUDDHIST view of the Death penalty is....
But we've side-tacked and I am now giving my opinion.
Ah! Are GOOD and BAD not extremes relative to anything? We expect one to give us space, but for the one who wants space for himself we whack the shit out of him and we say we are being good.
You do not get immediate punishment for doing bad, Sangha.
The punishment is metted out by Man. The poor murderer himself has his head full of negative thoughts - enough to poison him. That is the law of karma. It works back on you without anyone else involved. You involve the executioner and has anyone cared about the executioner's mental stress? Maybe he does get used to it, but in his neural pathways (Yes! All Buddhists should study neuroscience!) an imprint has been left by all the adrenaline and hormones involved. The more he does it the deeper it gets. His life, as much as he does not want it, his mind will be affected. DO we actually care about the exceutioner when we execute the murderer?
What? Electric chair? Somebody has to make an electric chair. Even robots that build the killing mechanism have to be built all the beginning by a human.
There's just one little problem with your "theory", Sangha. If we kill the killer, who's going to kill us to keep us from killing again? :winkc:
The point that I was trying to make earlier is that this board is supposedly for those who are new to Buddhism or are perhaps exploring Buddhism but haven't made up their minds yet, is that not true? If so, then I would suggest that the posture a student should take who is new to the Path is one of listening to the teachings and not interjecting one's own views (which are bound to be wrong anyway).
When listening to teachings, I have been taught that there are four ways to hold one's mind, using the metaphor of a cup. First, there is the overturned cup. An overturned cup can contain nothing, and anything poured over the cup will simply run over it and not stick. That is like the mind that is completely closed and refuses to listen to anything new. That is the worst posture one can take.
Then there is the mind like a cup that is turned rightside up but which contains poison. Anything poured into the cup will also become poison. That is like the mind that mixes its own views with the teachings, producing something that is not at all the teachings and is instead wrong view, which is poison on the Path. Again, a very bad posture to take.
Next there is the cup that is overturned and empty but which has a crack in it. Anything poured into the cup will leak out eventually. That is like the mind that is distracted and not really listening. The teachings will enter the mind but not stick, the old "in one ear, out the other" syndrome.
Finally there is the best posture of all to take, and that is the cup that is whole and rightside up and empty. Whatever is poured into the cup will stay there. That is like the mind that is competely open to the teachings, free from distraction, and which doesn't let its own poisons (and we've all got them!) mix with the teachings.
I offer this for the sake of anyone on this board who wishes to live their life according to the teachings of Lord Buddha, myself included. I do not mean to criticize anyone, but simply to pass on a teaching that I myself have received. So I hope that you take it in that spirit.
Killing is wrong period. In Buddism there is no way 'around' it. Also from a Buddhism standpoint why do him the favour of ending his suffering in this life? Would it not serve justice to allow him to live his suffering? Prison is not against Buddhist beliefs, as he would live his own torment and suffering. That is the Buddhism way.
As far as if he was guilty or not? There was adequate evidence of his guilt. His punishment should equal his crime.
Killing is neurally damaging, no matter your mood then. I worry for the executioner who thinks it is good, even. Such executioners would have a strong tendency to become serial killers themselves. Have you heard of the Vikings when they ruled parts of Europe? Civilized and moral as they were, they ultimately feel the need for battle. It is not because of their blood-thirstiness because there is no such thing. It is a neural connection that links killing to adrenaline high. Executioners upon signing up for the job always never have the thought of joinning to end lives but simply to put bread on the table. If each time they feel happy upon ending a life, there is a very strong chance of mental diseases developing, an emptiness in the mind (non-Buddhist sense speaking!), depression, a false happiness. You have never heard an executioner or any account by anyone who has killed for relative good, did you? :doh:
Prison is not against Buddhist beliefs, as he would live his own torment and suffering.
Actually in old Tibet the Karmapas would go around and free all the prisoners in prison periodically. Wouldn't that be a schocker in this hate-filled us vs them culture?
Release should be given upon repentance. For those who do not, I guess more psychatrist sessions and some MRI scans...
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 December 2005
Ajani, the difficulty would be establishing sincerity of repentance, wouldn't it....?
And we have to differentiate between what is correct Practical action, as required by society ( incarceration or punitive measures) and correct 'Spiritual' action as required by those who practise Compassion, forgiveness and Metta....
Sangha, refer to my earlier comment regarding cost effectiveness and risk of escape. That's the main issue with this thread. It's not whether Buddhists agree or disagree with the death penalty, that's an obvious given. It's whether or not we can come up with a better way to confine and house such prisoners without putting a huge burden on the rest of the population who has abided by the law. Like I said, the death penalty isn't for the person who acted out of a moments passion, it's for the person who isn't exactly mentally ill (they lack the mental faculties to know what they did was wrong) but is sociopathic/antisocietal.
Simon, it is a hard thing to put a value on a human life, or any life for that matter. However, it just as hard to ask those who have made their place in society to bear the burden of supporting one who has rejected society and its morals. Like I said, if there was a better way, I would reject the death penalty as unnecessary and wrong. But if there were a better way to deal with men like bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, I wouldn't be joining the Army either. There are people who cannot be reasoned with, who make such things as war and execution a necessity.
Buddhism has a prohibition on killing much as Christianity does. The issue then becomes whether or not Buddhism can make room for societal needs, even if it means compromising on certain issues. I could never be an executioner, as the issue then becomes too personal. But, even knowing that my actions as a soldier could directly result in the deaths of others, I can handle that because of the impersonal nature modern warfare exhibits. The Way guides my personal life, but I keep religion and politics seperate, for the obvious reason that societal necessity must come before ideology. It is not really that different for us today as it was for the Bushi/Senshi of Japan for 800 years. It is an issue for someone who has to be personally involved in actions involving the deaths of others, but it is nonissue for someone who can stand back and never know if a person died by their bullet.
Gil Fronsdal gave some Dharma talks about each of the first 5 precepts. They can be downloaded from the iTunes podcast directory if you have access to it (search for his name).
In one of them he told a story (I believe it was true) about a murderer.
There was a fight and as a result of it a young man was killed by another teenager. When he was being sentenced the mother of the dead boy shouted across the court room that she was going to kill him.
The murderer went to prison and during the time he was there the mother of the dead boy started contacting him, and eventually started to visit him as well.
On his release the mother offered to let him stay at her house. She took care of him, and basically got him back on track again.
The murder then said to her "You remember the court case when you said you would kill me? Why haven't you?"
She answered " I have."
Even a murderer can be redeemed through compassion.
Simon, it is a hard thing to put a value on a human life, or any life for that matter. However, it just as hard to ask those who have made their place in society to bear the burden of supporting one who has rejected society and its morals. Like I said, if there was a better way, I would reject the death penalty as unnecessary and wrong. But if there were a better way to deal with men like bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, I wouldn't be joining the Army either. There are people who cannot be reasoned with, who make such things as war and execution a necessity.
Buddhism has a prohibition on killing much as Christianity does. The issue then becomes whether or not Buddhism can make room for societal needs, even if it means compromising on certain issues.
Society does not have a need to execute people. Buddhism is clear on this - killing does not end killing and is not a valid tactic for any state to engage in. As for people like Saddam, what will be your justifcation when Bush and Rumsfeld are accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity? Should they too be executed? Or is there one law for others and another for ourselves (as in Westerners)? Neither war nor execution is a necessity.
Ok, genryu, I'm calling you on this one, name specific warcrimes that Bush and Rumsfeld are responsible. I want specific occurences in which Bush ordered a group of people executed without trial, or proof that Rumsfeld ordered illegal torture of suspects.
How can you concievably compare Bush and Rumsfeld to bin Laden and Hussein. Bush has not ordered the execution of people for political affiliation or racial reasons. And it has not yet been established that US agents were torturing suspects. The only thing there is to go on is Abu Ghraib, and that was the doing of field operatives of the US military who were subsequently punished for their violations.
Buddhism percieves the taking of human life as inherently wrong, no matter the reason. That I can accept. However, what I can apply to my personal life and what society often needs are two different things. The rights of the individual must be protected, but not at the expense of the rights of others.
Ok, genryu, I'm calling you on this one, name specific warcrimes that Bush and Rumsfeld are responsible. I want specific occurences in which Bush ordered a group of people executed without trial, or proof that Rumsfeld ordered illegal torture of suspects.
How can you concievably compare Bush and Rumsfeld to bin Laden and Hussein. Bush has not ordered the execution of people for political affiliation or racial reasons. And it has not yet been established that US agents were torturing suspects. The only thing there is to go on is Abu Ghraib, and that was the doing of field operatives of the US military who were subsequently punished for their violations.
Buddhism percieves the taking of human life as inherently wrong, no matter the reason. That I can accept. However, what I can apply to my personal life and what society often needs are two different things. The rights of the individual must be protected, but not at the expense of the rights of others.
Well, I think that:
* invading a sovereign country
* attacking them under the guise of WMD with no "real" evidence of WMD
* attacking a country when that country or leader that never openly attacked us
* slaying hundreds (if not thousands) of innocent civilians (you MUST see the pictures of children injured, maimed and killed from our attacks)
* not to mention the torture and such that took place to Iraqi's that were held for interrogation
I think all of those could fall under the heading of war crimes. What right did we have to attack someone that we set up as a puppet so that we could have a safe haven for monitering our new enemies (circa 1978) in Iran?
Should other people be allowed to attack and kill our civilians because we have weapons of mass destruction AND have many, many friends in "low, low" places? Heck, why did we invade and kill hundreds of people in Panama? Oh yeah, so we could get rid of another puppet (Noriega) that George senior had set up in Panama!
If that's the case, I think we got what we deserved on 9/11 and we should not open our mouths about such an awful tradjedy.
If we're truly upset with the tradjedy that occurred on 9/11 - why did we turn around and do the same thing back to a country that never attacked us? Because they might have "bad" friends like our government does?
Lastly, I don't remember giving the order to invade Iraq. The person who did is responsible for all these deaths.
Most of us, here, have to write about the question of capital punishment from a theoretical standpoint only. But we have some examples of those who, despite being Buddhist, are enmeshed in a legal system which mandates the death penalty, both in the East (Burma, for example) and the West.
Unfortunately, I have no evidence of Buddhist advocates and judges in the US but I know of two European ones. The more famous must be the late Christmas Humphreys, who founded the Buddhist Society in 1924. As a barrister, he prosecuted both Timothy Evans and Ruth Ellis, both of whom were hanged for murder. In the latter case, he refused to make a final address to the jury on the grounds that remarks from the Bench had already ruled out his peferred outcome of "manslaughter" which did not lead to the gallows. I am still not sure how he managed to undertake the prosecution, although I have read much of what he wrote about karma, and I think that he may have found some justification there. What is, however, significant is that he refused promotion to the Bench until Parliament had abolished the death penalty and was, finally, forced to resign because his sentences were "too lenient".
On a personal note, my late father, although he would have rightly refused the label Buddhist, was a staunch atheist and a life-long Conservatve voter. He was also an abolitionist and a Home Office pathologist. In the latter role, he regularly put his career on the line by refusing to act in cases of capital murder.
Arriving at the conclusion that capital punishment is wrong does not mean that we have to have discovered some magic solution as to the treatment of convicted murderers. Wrong is wrong. For those who have doubts, perhaps it would be useful to consider that the prosecutions after the Birmingham and Guildford IRA bombings would, before 1962, have led to the gallows. It took decades to ascertain that the men imprisoned for those mass muders were innocent, just as it did with Timothy Evans. Evans, however, was hanged and buried in an unmarked grave. The unjustly imprisoned Irishmen could, at least, be freed and receive some compensation for over-zealous police intimidation, fabrication and perjury.
Buddhafoot already gave a clear response. You can add to that the sanction of torture, kidnapping and detainment of individuals, without sufficient evidence or due process, against international law, and the US constitution. It's not a question of if Bush and Rumsfeld will face trial but when.
Invading Iraq when we did was a mistake. I do admit that. I personally feel that war with Iraq was inevitable, but we could have done a much better job of fighting it, and we could have afforded to wait.
That the US bears responsibility for the deaths of innocent civilians, I do not dispute. At this point, it becomes our responsibility to ensure that the people of Iraq can move forward and become the society that they need to become. Only a helpless fool would believe that we could honestly institute a form of government exactly like that of the US, but we can help to build a society that is fairly secure against another dictator like Hussein.
As for the detainment of suspected terrorists, I must agree that four years is more than enough time to conduct an investigation and start trial proceedings. Continued interment is unreasonable, however, I do not feel that it is worthy of a warcrimes trial.
I still say, give me specific examples of authorized torture (by Bush or Rumsfeld), and how the acts were torture. I think the word torture is just being flung around anymore to discredit Bush, even though there is no evidence linking him directly to any of the proven acts of torture perpetrated upon any prisoners in US custody. Remember that for an interrogative technique to be torture, it must inflict physical or emotional pain, or humiliate the victim. Show me specific cases where Bush authorized such measures be used to interrogate terror suspects.
Back on the subject of invading a sovereign nation, and how Bush could be charged with a war crime for it, how does Bush's acts compare to those of Nazi Germany under Hitler? One of the charges leveled against the defendents at Nuremburg was "waging an agressive war". Germany's invasions were an overt attempt to conquer other nations. The US under the Bush admin. has not sought to annex Iraq directly as US territory, but has undertaken to build a new soveriegn government in Iraq that directly involves the people in the political process.
Nations rise and fall. It is the way of the world. People group together for the common good and act in accordance to agreed upon morals so that the majority can live in peace. Often in times past, such nations were almost completely unified in leadership and thought, and thus those nations rose to become great empires. Other civilizations have fallen by the wayside, shrouded in the layers of dust as time passes by. Shakespeare once put forth the question "Too be or not to be", and Descartes tells us "I think therefore I am". We, the People of the United States have brought forth a society, one that claims to be dedicated to the principal that all are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain "inalienable" rights. Of those rights guaranteed in our Constitution, we are given Free Speech, Free Exercise of Religion, and the Right to Peaceably Assemble. We have therefore taken this great nation, and brought it to the point where we are truly diverse, with many people who think differently. There have, in recent times, been those who have sought to polarize our nation, creating an "Us" vs. "Them" mentality. We must not yield to the temptation to say that there is only one Way, and only one right answer, for to contain the diversity which this nation has striven for generations to attain would be to denounce the very principals upon which this great nation was founded.
The US Goverment was shaken to the core following the events of 9/11, however the immediate reaction was to lash out and take revenge against the perceived enemy. The invasion of Iraq using WMD as justification was rash, ill conceived, and frankly has left the US with Egg on it's face. The UN never really gave a concrete mandate for invasion, indeed the US was always going to ignore any advice given by anyone. I agree that the intention of the US was never to annexe Iraq as a US held territory directly, but via the back door.
The sad irony of all this is that the US is the only country ever to use WMD on a large scale. As for taking responsibility for their actions, Bush and Rumsfeld will in all probability never be charged, for there are too many convenient scapegoats in the chain of command. The trial of Saddam is interesting in that the authorities have gone straight to the top of the tree. The same rules should apply in our respective goverments, but in reality this never happens; instead maybe a few Officers get charged, together with dozens of NCO's. The War on Terroism is a laudable notion, but one that requires facts not fiction, for as soon as the 'Agenda' becomes questionable, any mistakes or failings need to be accounted for. Those at the top are never 'backwards in coming forwards' to receive the plaudits, but always refute any blame or criticism..( Spot the duplicity? )
bf u said something very worth talking about.. But mostly when these happens it is the people of both countries to suffer, including Americans. See the bombings? And when they happen the President pushs everything on the Middle-East terrorists, and cause only more misunderstandings and hatred. This should justify the claim of murder-murder sucks.
I remember hearing something about that. Obviously, with a mistaken arrest and detention, he deserves some compensation, but the proof of torture isn't in yet. Let's all keep an eye on this, and see how it plays out.
In the mean time, genryu, if you have others, feel free to post them.
The only way you can defend Bush on this one, quite frankly, is to stick your head and the sand and pretend not to see the overwhelming evidence that is out there, if you just look for it. He has trashed our civil rights with the ironically named "Patriot" Act, tortured who knows how many "detainees" (who should be considered Prisoners of War under the Geneva Conventions), invaded a country which never lifted a finger against us, killed innocent civilians in Iraq (and other places) by the thousand, sent thousands of our own young men to die in a war that has never been officially declared nor supported by our own people and which has been condemned by all but a few of our (former) allies, etc., etc. So I fail to see where this support is coming from except that it's a phenomenon I also saw during the Vietnam War when many people, rather than think about anything, just swallowed the government's lies and spewed them out as their own opinions. So I'd really suggest that you take some time to contemplate what's really going on in the world and how that synchronizes with your own beliefs, be they Buddhist or otherwise. Certainly even a simple sense of justice and fairness would be enough to make anyone outraged. And I have to tell you that we as a nation are only beginning to suffer the karmic effects of all that W has done for us.
"And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view."
— DN 22
Its relation to the other factors of the path
"And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view...
"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view."
— MN 117
The consequences of wrong view...
"In a person of wrong view, wrong resolve comes into being. In a person of wrong resolve, wrong speech. In a person of wrong speech, wrong action. In a person of wrong action, wrong livelihood. In a person of wrong livelihood, wrong effort. In a person of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness. In a person of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration. In a person of wrong concentration, wrong knowledge. In a person of wrong knowledge, wrong release.
"This is how from wrongness comes failure, not success."
— AN X.103
...and of right view
"When a person has right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration, right knowledge, & right release, whatever bodily deeds he undertakes in line with that view, whatever verbal deeds... whatever mental deeds he undertakes in line with that view, whatever intentions, whatever vows, whatever determinations, whatever fabrications, all lead to what is agreeable, pleasing, charming, profitable, & easeful. Why is that? Because the view is auspicious.
"Just as when a sugar cane seed, a rice grain, or a grape seed is placed in moist soil, whatever nutriment it takes from the soil & the water, all conduces to its sweetness, tastiness, & unalloyed delectability. Why is that? Because the seed is auspicious. In the same way, when a person has right view... right release, whatever bodily deeds he undertakes in line with that view, whatever verbal deeds... whatever mental deeds he undertakes in line with that view, whatever intentions, whatever vows, whatever determinations, whatever fabrications, all lead to what is agreeable, pleasing, charming, profitable, & easeful. Why is that? Because the view is auspicious."
— AN X.104
A thicket of wrong views
"There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person... does not discern what ideas are fit for attention, or what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas fit for attention, and attends instead to ideas unfit for attention... This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
"The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones... discerns what ideas are fit for attention, and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention, and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention... He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices."
— MN 2
When one's knowledge is truly one's own
[Kaccayana:] "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"
[The Buddha:] "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that, when there is arising, only stress is arising; and that when there is passing away, only stress is passing away. In this, one's knowledge is independent of others. It is to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view."
— SN XII.15
Abandoning the unskillful, cultivating the skillful
"Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them...
"When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them."
Palzang, do yourself a favor and don't ever post Washington Post articles when debating me. They are no better than the New York Post in my experience. Also, key word, editorial, which means that much of what was in the article is the opinion of the writer/editor. The credibility of the entire newspaper is in question with me.
You want to compare Iraq with Vietnam, that's fine. Answer me this, why do you want the US to lose this war. Vietnam was won in 1968, Just like Iraq was won in 2003. The victory was as good as ours, but then people have to start protesting and making enough of a stink over here, that the enemies we are fighting see that they can be victorious in Washington, even if they can't win in Iraq/Vietnam. So the question is, why are Americans prolonging a war that has already been won, when if they would just SHUT UP FOR SIX MONTHS THE INSURGENCY WOULD SURRENDER BECAUSE THEY LOST THEIR ONLY REAL WEAPON AND THE US TROOPS IN IRAQ WOULD GET TO COME HOME.
· Appeal court extends ban on degrading treatment
· Army inquiries into Iraqi civilian deaths criticised
Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday December 22, 2005
The Guardian
But the judges condemned the army's handling of investigations into the deaths of Iraqi civilians. "If international standards are to be observed, the task of investigating incidents in which a human life is taken by British forces must be completely taken away from the military chain of command and vested in the Royal Military police," said Lord Justice Brooke.
In a stinging passage, he added: "It could be difficult for a European government to decide to pursue policies that treated human life as more readily expendable just because those whom their forces kill are not themselves European.
The myth of the Judgment of Paris is still there to teach us. Alongside all the horor and devastation of the war, one of the serious casualties is our own harmony: harmony within opur minds, harmony with our neighbours and harmony in society at large. The apple of Eris was tossed onto the table and we picked it up!
The true war against terror will only be waged when it is transformed into peace-building against terror.
Simon, that I can readily agree with, but first we must deal with the problems at hand.
This is the problem in hand: as far as I can see, the allied invaders have no clear plan to build peace in the Middle East, let alone the rest of the world.
Simon, that exactly is the area of disagreement I have with the war in Iraq. There were much better ways to deal with this. Obviously, I believe that as long as Saddam Hussein was in power, a war was inevitable, however, we could have dealt with Afghanistan and Al Qaeda first, and not have had al Zarqawi to deal with in Iraq. There has been far more bloodshed than was necessary because the whole situation was poorly planned and handled wrong from the start.
We do need to change the way in which we deal with the problems of the MidEast, but that has been necessary for over fifty years now, and each change in policy only seems to be wrong.
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way about the Washington Post and The New York Times. They are only two of the very best newspapers around! But each to his own...
Perhaps the Vietnam war was "won" in 1968, perhaps not. The real question, however, is should we have been there at all. The answer is a resounding no. It wasn't our war. The North Vietnamese didn't view the war in global terms like we did. To them it was a war of independence, one they'd been fighting first against the Chinese, then the Japanese, then the French, then the US, and Ho Chi Minh was their George Washington.
As for war being "inevitable" with Iraq, I really don't agree at all. First of all, they've never done anything against us. All the weapons of mass destruction hooplah and the terrorist link hooplah was just that - hooplah. The administration knowingly lied to us about it just to get us into this war, which only benefits oil companies and military contractors, no one else.
And why do "we" need to "deal with the problems of the MidEast" at all? Who made us the world's policeman?
If we really want to fight terror, the only effective way to do it is to eliminate terrorism in our own mindstreams. Do you really think we can kill all the terrorists?
Palzang, the NY Times is a great News Paper, even for such an obviously liberal outlet. They at least have the apparent integrity that so many news media outlets displayed a lack of during the last Pres Election. It's the NY Post that I have a problem with, as well as the Washington Post. They're right up with Dan Rather as far as journalistic integrity goes, which is to say none.
Now, as far as the problems in the MidEast, they are our problems because the US supplied Israel with all of their weapons. The US is Israel's Closest Ally. Now, I know you know Buddhism, how about studying the relationship between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam now. Then tell me we that we have no business in the MidEast. The only way for the US to bring a complete end to terrorism in the near future is to abandon Israel altogether. Then, Israel is as good as doomed. Think of that. To remove the "terrorism from our mindstream" as you propose, we'd have to sacrifice millions of lives, so the Muslims will be happy.
Yes, I am very aware of the bad blood between Judaism (or rather Zionism), Islam and Christianity in the Mideast. It is truly a mess. It is a rather obvious example of what happens when you ignore the law of karma, imho. It proves very graphically that killing only leads to more killing and yet more killing. One side kills, the other retaliates, the other escalates, and so on ad infinitum. It's truly heart-wrenching to watch, but what to do? Help them kill more people? Doesn't make any sense, particularly from a Buddhist point of view (which US foreign policy has nothing at all in common with). That's the whole root of the problem there, I'd say. And I wholeheartedly believe that the only way to solve it is to remove the poisons from your own mind. If everyone did that, who would there be left to fight? Might sound overly simplistic, but it's the way I've been taught by my teacher, who I consider to be a Living Buddha, so I'm willing to give it a try. Remember, samsara is flawed, and you can never, ever take refuge in samsara because it will never work. Certainly none of the policies we've implemented or the Israelis have implemented or the Arabs have implemented have brought anything resembling peace to the region. So why not think outside the box a little? Eh?
Thinking outside the box I agree with. We do need to find a different way to do things. Well, not really "us", as we aren't the ones on the edge of war constantly, and we aren't the ones who are trying to keep a site and building holy to our Religion.
Something I've half joked about in the past is that we would probably be better off to destroy the mosque and tear down the mountain altogether. The long term result would probably be just as many deaths, but it would be over much faster. A strong US presence in the MidEast for the past four years has actually helped stabilize the region some. The terrorism still continues, but the governments themselves are actually quite nervous with the US having an all volunteer military right next door to them. We still have not enacted the draft, and yet we maintain strength in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Only the hardliners, like the Pres. of Iran, still trashtalk the US and act ready to start something, but even he is losing support in his own country, due to modern advances and the progress that has been made in Iraq.
The Lives lost in Iraq can never be restored in their original form, and that is tragic, and I feel great sympathy for the families that have made that sacrifice, but if a few more years down the road, peace is achieved, and the area starts to settle down, then this war was the right war, at the right time, in the right place, but only if we are willing to put up with a necessary evil now, and stay the course.
The Lives lost in Iraq can never be restored in their original form, and that is tragic, and I feel great sympathy for the families that have made that sacrifice, but if a few more years down the road, peace is achieved, and the area starts to settle down, then this war was the right war, at the right time, in the right place, but only if we are willing to put up with a necessary evil now, and stay the course.
Now that's something to pray for! Would you like to come join our 24 hour Prayer Vigil for Peace? We've been doing it now for 20 years...
Comments
It appears that you want to adopt Buddhism with your own set of rules and agenda, well you can but that does not make it Buddhism. Palzang's point was exactly this! I welcome the input of our younger members but sometimes I despair:rolleyesc ...This attitude of an Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth has no place in Buddhism or perhaps you are thinking of starting your own School where this would be viewed as acceptable:skeptical
We live in a world too full of death, I was kind of hoping that your generation might move the World forward and help stop the killing or at least speak out against it....Sadly this appears not to be the case. I am sorry that so many people on here have FAILED to show you that your stance is wrong.
Using some universally agreed concepts in rebirth, may I thus remind you that the fellow who does not repent only gets reborn in the lower realms or if, you do not believe in the moving of classes, be reborn as an unsuccessful human in everything? A life of desire and sufferring, in what way can it be called a second chance? Why not let him repent, and offer his services then?
Some things are worse than death.
And they are reborn lower, but that will happen anyway. At some point all will die. Why should they continue to live with that grief, that consiuonce, that desparity.
Sangha, it is of great importance to you to correct this notion. This cycle cannot be made possible.
Have you ever heard stories of WWII from the real vets who were there fighting it? I swear to you none of them wanted the war, and all of them were so digusted by the Nazis' acts, inhumane, relatively immoral, and uncivilized. No one had wanted to put this crap back on the Nazis. It was too unbearable.
The very reason why the war had even started was because of the Treaty of Versailles, signed by the Allies, that is us - who calim to be of higher moral calibre. If we must punish someone for the Holocaust, it would be us included with the Nazis too.
For the murderer, we'd have to kick everyone in the ass - for obviously society has driven him to such a point that he had to do it. Or laugh at the victim for being such a pain in his ass for irritating him so much. Or gun his parents down for failing to impart to him the relatively correct morals. :doh: I believe it is absolutely unwarranted.
However I still stand by my views that criminals should be treated as they treated their victims. Otherwise, this world would have no justics - and that is sometime that I, am saying as ME not as a Buddhist, cannot stand to see.
For a more in-depth elaboration, you can choose to PM me. I once spent a whole week formulating how karma is affected by us and us affect karma and karma "helps" us and us "help" karma. A very wide idea that caused me many headaches.
Do the good always have to be rewarded?
Yes, Sangha, but if you look at the title of the thread, it asks what the BUDDHIST view of the Death penalty is....
A good marker, especially for exam time,
Read the Question, then read the question, then READ THE QUESTION!
No, people should do good anyway. But that's a different topic entirely.
The laws of karma are simple, you do something, something happens. Karma leads to your karma-vipaka (sp?). So if you do wrong, you're punished. That is a very simple karma equasion for justice.
Why do you dealve in karma so? If all one does is retrace one's previous actions, one cannot move forward.
But we've side-tacked and I am now giving my opinion.
You do not get immediate punishment for doing bad, Sangha.
The punishment is metted out by Man. The poor murderer himself has his head full of negative thoughts - enough to poison him. That is the law of karma. It works back on you without anyone else involved. You involve the executioner and has anyone cared about the executioner's mental stress? Maybe he does get used to it, but in his neural pathways (Yes! All Buddhists should study neuroscience!) an imprint has been left by all the adrenaline and hormones involved. The more he does it the deeper it gets. His life, as much as he does not want it, his mind will be affected. DO we actually care about the exceutioner when we execute the murderer?
The point that I was trying to make earlier is that this board is supposedly for those who are new to Buddhism or are perhaps exploring Buddhism but haven't made up their minds yet, is that not true? If so, then I would suggest that the posture a student should take who is new to the Path is one of listening to the teachings and not interjecting one's own views (which are bound to be wrong anyway).
When listening to teachings, I have been taught that there are four ways to hold one's mind, using the metaphor of a cup. First, there is the overturned cup. An overturned cup can contain nothing, and anything poured over the cup will simply run over it and not stick. That is like the mind that is completely closed and refuses to listen to anything new. That is the worst posture one can take.
Then there is the mind like a cup that is turned rightside up but which contains poison. Anything poured into the cup will also become poison. That is like the mind that mixes its own views with the teachings, producing something that is not at all the teachings and is instead wrong view, which is poison on the Path. Again, a very bad posture to take.
Next there is the cup that is overturned and empty but which has a crack in it. Anything poured into the cup will leak out eventually. That is like the mind that is distracted and not really listening. The teachings will enter the mind but not stick, the old "in one ear, out the other" syndrome.
Finally there is the best posture of all to take, and that is the cup that is whole and rightside up and empty. Whatever is poured into the cup will stay there. That is like the mind that is competely open to the teachings, free from distraction, and which doesn't let its own poisons (and we've all got them!) mix with the teachings.
I offer this for the sake of anyone on this board who wishes to live their life according to the teachings of Lord Buddha, myself included. I do not mean to criticize anyone, but simply to pass on a teaching that I myself have received. So I hope that you take it in that spirit.
Palzang
As far as if he was guilty or not? There was adequate evidence of his guilt. His punishment should equal his crime.
Actually in old Tibet the Karmapas would go around and free all the prisoners in prison periodically. Wouldn't that be a schocker in this hate-filled us vs them culture?
Palzang
And we have to differentiate between what is correct Practical action, as required by society ( incarceration or punitive measures) and correct 'Spiritual' action as required by those who practise Compassion, forgiveness and Metta....
What are your ideas for punishing murderers?
Simon, it is a hard thing to put a value on a human life, or any life for that matter. However, it just as hard to ask those who have made their place in society to bear the burden of supporting one who has rejected society and its morals. Like I said, if there was a better way, I would reject the death penalty as unnecessary and wrong. But if there were a better way to deal with men like bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, I wouldn't be joining the Army either. There are people who cannot be reasoned with, who make such things as war and execution a necessity.
Buddhism has a prohibition on killing much as Christianity does. The issue then becomes whether or not Buddhism can make room for societal needs, even if it means compromising on certain issues. I could never be an executioner, as the issue then becomes too personal. But, even knowing that my actions as a soldier could directly result in the deaths of others, I can handle that because of the impersonal nature modern warfare exhibits. The Way guides my personal life, but I keep religion and politics seperate, for the obvious reason that societal necessity must come before ideology. It is not really that different for us today as it was for the Bushi/Senshi of Japan for 800 years. It is an issue for someone who has to be personally involved in actions involving the deaths of others, but it is nonissue for someone who can stand back and never know if a person died by their bullet.
In one of them he told a story (I believe it was true) about a murderer.
There was a fight and as a result of it a young man was killed by another teenager. When he was being sentenced the mother of the dead boy shouted across the court room that she was going to kill him.
The murderer went to prison and during the time he was there the mother of the dead boy started contacting him, and eventually started to visit him as well.
On his release the mother offered to let him stay at her house. She took care of him, and basically got him back on track again.
The murder then said to her "You remember the court case when you said you would kill me? Why haven't you?"
She answered " I have."
Even a murderer can be redeemed through compassion.
Society does not have a need to execute people. Buddhism is clear on this - killing does not end killing and is not a valid tactic for any state to engage in. As for people like Saddam, what will be your justifcation when Bush and Rumsfeld are accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity? Should they too be executed? Or is there one law for others and another for ourselves (as in Westerners)? Neither war nor execution is a necessity.
How can you concievably compare Bush and Rumsfeld to bin Laden and Hussein. Bush has not ordered the execution of people for political affiliation or racial reasons. And it has not yet been established that US agents were torturing suspects. The only thing there is to go on is Abu Ghraib, and that was the doing of field operatives of the US military who were subsequently punished for their violations.
Buddhism percieves the taking of human life as inherently wrong, no matter the reason. That I can accept. However, what I can apply to my personal life and what society often needs are two different things. The rights of the individual must be protected, but not at the expense of the rights of others.
Well, I think that:
* invading a sovereign country
* attacking them under the guise of WMD with no "real" evidence of WMD
* attacking a country when that country or leader that never openly attacked us
* slaying hundreds (if not thousands) of innocent civilians (you MUST see the pictures of children injured, maimed and killed from our attacks)
* not to mention the torture and such that took place to Iraqi's that were held for interrogation
I think all of those could fall under the heading of war crimes. What right did we have to attack someone that we set up as a puppet so that we could have a safe haven for monitering our new enemies (circa 1978) in Iran?
Should other people be allowed to attack and kill our civilians because we have weapons of mass destruction AND have many, many friends in "low, low" places? Heck, why did we invade and kill hundreds of people in Panama? Oh yeah, so we could get rid of another puppet (Noriega) that George senior had set up in Panama!
If that's the case, I think we got what we deserved on 9/11 and we should not open our mouths about such an awful tradjedy.
If we're truly upset with the tradjedy that occurred on 9/11 - why did we turn around and do the same thing back to a country that never attacked us? Because they might have "bad" friends like our government does?
Lastly, I don't remember giving the order to invade Iraq. The person who did is responsible for all these deaths.
-bf
Unfortunately, I have no evidence of Buddhist advocates and judges in the US but I know of two European ones. The more famous must be the late Christmas Humphreys, who founded the Buddhist Society in 1924. As a barrister, he prosecuted both Timothy Evans and Ruth Ellis, both of whom were hanged for murder. In the latter case, he refused to make a final address to the jury on the grounds that remarks from the Bench had already ruled out his peferred outcome of "manslaughter" which did not lead to the gallows. I am still not sure how he managed to undertake the prosecution, although I have read much of what he wrote about karma, and I think that he may have found some justification there. What is, however, significant is that he refused promotion to the Bench until Parliament had abolished the death penalty and was, finally, forced to resign because his sentences were "too lenient".
On a personal note, my late father, although he would have rightly refused the label Buddhist, was a staunch atheist and a life-long Conservatve voter. He was also an abolitionist and a Home Office pathologist. In the latter role, he regularly put his career on the line by refusing to act in cases of capital murder.
Arriving at the conclusion that capital punishment is wrong does not mean that we have to have discovered some magic solution as to the treatment of convicted murderers. Wrong is wrong. For those who have doubts, perhaps it would be useful to consider that the prosecutions after the Birmingham and Guildford IRA bombings would, before 1962, have led to the gallows. It took decades to ascertain that the men imprisoned for those mass muders were innocent, just as it did with Timothy Evans. Evans, however, was hanged and buried in an unmarked grave. The unjustly imprisoned Irishmen could, at least, be freed and receive some compensation for over-zealous police intimidation, fabrication and perjury.
-bf
That the US bears responsibility for the deaths of innocent civilians, I do not dispute. At this point, it becomes our responsibility to ensure that the people of Iraq can move forward and become the society that they need to become. Only a helpless fool would believe that we could honestly institute a form of government exactly like that of the US, but we can help to build a society that is fairly secure against another dictator like Hussein.
As for the detainment of suspected terrorists, I must agree that four years is more than enough time to conduct an investigation and start trial proceedings. Continued interment is unreasonable, however, I do not feel that it is worthy of a warcrimes trial.
I still say, give me specific examples of authorized torture (by Bush or Rumsfeld), and how the acts were torture. I think the word torture is just being flung around anymore to discredit Bush, even though there is no evidence linking him directly to any of the proven acts of torture perpetrated upon any prisoners in US custody. Remember that for an interrogative technique to be torture, it must inflict physical or emotional pain, or humiliate the victim. Show me specific cases where Bush authorized such measures be used to interrogate terror suspects.
Back on the subject of invading a sovereign nation, and how Bush could be charged with a war crime for it, how does Bush's acts compare to those of Nazi Germany under Hitler? One of the charges leveled against the defendents at Nuremburg was "waging an agressive war". Germany's invasions were an overt attempt to conquer other nations. The US under the Bush admin. has not sought to annex Iraq directly as US territory, but has undertaken to build a new soveriegn government in Iraq that directly involves the people in the political process.
Nations rise and fall. It is the way of the world. People group together for the common good and act in accordance to agreed upon morals so that the majority can live in peace. Often in times past, such nations were almost completely unified in leadership and thought, and thus those nations rose to become great empires. Other civilizations have fallen by the wayside, shrouded in the layers of dust as time passes by. Shakespeare once put forth the question "Too be or not to be", and Descartes tells us "I think therefore I am". We, the People of the United States have brought forth a society, one that claims to be dedicated to the principal that all are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain "inalienable" rights. Of those rights guaranteed in our Constitution, we are given Free Speech, Free Exercise of Religion, and the Right to Peaceably Assemble. We have therefore taken this great nation, and brought it to the point where we are truly diverse, with many people who think differently. There have, in recent times, been those who have sought to polarize our nation, creating an "Us" vs. "Them" mentality. We must not yield to the temptation to say that there is only one Way, and only one right answer, for to contain the diversity which this nation has striven for generations to attain would be to denounce the very principals upon which this great nation was founded.
The sad irony of all this is that the US is the only country ever to use WMD on a large scale. As for taking responsibility for their actions, Bush and Rumsfeld will in all probability never be charged, for there are too many convenient scapegoats in the chain of command. The trial of Saddam is interesting in that the authorities have gone straight to the top of the tree. The same rules should apply in our respective goverments, but in reality this never happens; instead maybe a few Officers get charged, together with dozens of NCO's. The War on Terroism is a laudable notion, but one that requires facts not fiction, for as soon as the 'Agenda' becomes questionable, any mistakes or failings need to be accounted for. Those at the top are never 'backwards in coming forwards' to receive the plaudits, but always refute any blame or criticism..( Spot the duplicity? )
Whodathunkit?
-bf
In the mean time, genryu, if you have others, feel free to post them.
The only way you can defend Bush on this one, quite frankly, is to stick your head and the sand and pretend not to see the overwhelming evidence that is out there, if you just look for it. He has trashed our civil rights with the ironically named "Patriot" Act, tortured who knows how many "detainees" (who should be considered Prisoners of War under the Geneva Conventions), invaded a country which never lifted a finger against us, killed innocent civilians in Iraq (and other places) by the thousand, sent thousands of our own young men to die in a war that has never been officially declared nor supported by our own people and which has been condemned by all but a few of our (former) allies, etc., etc. So I fail to see where this support is coming from except that it's a phenomenon I also saw during the Vietnam War when many people, rather than think about anything, just swallowed the government's lies and spewed them out as their own opinions. So I'd really suggest that you take some time to contemplate what's really going on in the world and how that synchronizes with your own beliefs, be they Buddhist or otherwise. Certainly even a simple sense of justice and fairness would be enough to make anyone outraged. And I have to tell you that we as a nation are only beginning to suffer the karmic effects of all that W has done for us.
Palzang
samma ditthi
The definition
"And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view."
— DN 22
Its relation to the other factors of the path
"And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view...
"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view."
— MN 117
The consequences of wrong view...
"In a person of wrong view, wrong resolve comes into being. In a person of wrong resolve, wrong speech. In a person of wrong speech, wrong action. In a person of wrong action, wrong livelihood. In a person of wrong livelihood, wrong effort. In a person of wrong effort, wrong mindfulness. In a person of wrong mindfulness, wrong concentration. In a person of wrong concentration, wrong knowledge. In a person of wrong knowledge, wrong release.
"This is how from wrongness comes failure, not success."
— AN X.103
...and of right view
"When a person has right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration, right knowledge, & right release, whatever bodily deeds he undertakes in line with that view, whatever verbal deeds... whatever mental deeds he undertakes in line with that view, whatever intentions, whatever vows, whatever determinations, whatever fabrications, all lead to what is agreeable, pleasing, charming, profitable, & easeful. Why is that? Because the view is auspicious.
"Just as when a sugar cane seed, a rice grain, or a grape seed is placed in moist soil, whatever nutriment it takes from the soil & the water, all conduces to its sweetness, tastiness, & unalloyed delectability. Why is that? Because the seed is auspicious. In the same way, when a person has right view... right release, whatever bodily deeds he undertakes in line with that view, whatever verbal deeds... whatever mental deeds he undertakes in line with that view, whatever intentions, whatever vows, whatever determinations, whatever fabrications, all lead to what is agreeable, pleasing, charming, profitable, & easeful. Why is that? Because the view is auspicious."
— AN X.104
A thicket of wrong views
"There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person... does not discern what ideas are fit for attention, or what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas fit for attention, and attends instead to ideas unfit for attention... This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
"The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones... discerns what ideas are fit for attention, and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention, and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention... He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices."
— MN 2
When one's knowledge is truly one's own
[Kaccayana:] "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"
[The Buddha:] "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that, when there is arising, only stress is arising; and that when there is passing away, only stress is passing away. In this, one's knowledge is independent of others. It is to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view."
— SN XII.15
Abandoning the unskillful, cultivating the skillful
"Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them...
"When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them."
— AN III.65
You want to compare Iraq with Vietnam, that's fine. Answer me this, why do you want the US to lose this war. Vietnam was won in 1968, Just like Iraq was won in 2003. The victory was as good as ours, but then people have to start protesting and making enough of a stink over here, that the enemies we are fighting see that they can be victorious in Washington, even if they can't win in Iraq/Vietnam. So the question is, why are Americans prolonging a war that has already been won, when if they would just SHUT UP FOR SIX MONTHS THE INSURGENCY WOULD SURRENDER BECAUSE THEY LOST THEIR ONLY REAL WEAPON AND THE US TROOPS IN IRAQ WOULD GET TO COME HOME.
· Appeal court extends ban on degrading treatment
· Army inquiries into Iraqi civilian deaths criticised
Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday December 22, 2005
The Guardian
But the judges condemned the army's handling of investigations into the deaths of Iraqi civilians. "If international standards are to be observed, the task of investigating incidents in which a human life is taken by British forces must be completely taken away from the military chain of command and vested in the Royal Military police," said Lord Justice Brooke.
In a stinging passage, he added: "It could be difficult for a European government to decide to pursue policies that treated human life as more readily expendable just because those whom their forces kill are not themselves European.
The UK has it fair share of problems:-/
The true war against terror will only be waged when it is transformed into peace-building against terror.
This is the problem in hand: as far as I can see, the allied invaders have no clear plan to build peace in the Middle East, let alone the rest of the world.
We do need to change the way in which we deal with the problems of the MidEast, but that has been necessary for over fifty years now, and each change in policy only seems to be wrong.
Perhaps the Vietnam war was "won" in 1968, perhaps not. The real question, however, is should we have been there at all. The answer is a resounding no. It wasn't our war. The North Vietnamese didn't view the war in global terms like we did. To them it was a war of independence, one they'd been fighting first against the Chinese, then the Japanese, then the French, then the US, and Ho Chi Minh was their George Washington.
As for war being "inevitable" with Iraq, I really don't agree at all. First of all, they've never done anything against us. All the weapons of mass destruction hooplah and the terrorist link hooplah was just that - hooplah. The administration knowingly lied to us about it just to get us into this war, which only benefits oil companies and military contractors, no one else.
And why do "we" need to "deal with the problems of the MidEast" at all? Who made us the world's policeman?
If we really want to fight terror, the only effective way to do it is to eliminate terrorism in our own mindstreams. Do you really think we can kill all the terrorists?
Merry Christmas
Palzang
Now, as far as the problems in the MidEast, they are our problems because the US supplied Israel with all of their weapons. The US is Israel's Closest Ally. Now, I know you know Buddhism, how about studying the relationship between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam now. Then tell me we that we have no business in the MidEast. The only way for the US to bring a complete end to terrorism in the near future is to abandon Israel altogether. Then, Israel is as good as doomed. Think of that. To remove the "terrorism from our mindstream" as you propose, we'd have to sacrifice millions of lives, so the Muslims will be happy.
We have no business in Iraq?
Yes, I am very aware of the bad blood between Judaism (or rather Zionism), Islam and Christianity in the Mideast. It is truly a mess. It is a rather obvious example of what happens when you ignore the law of karma, imho. It proves very graphically that killing only leads to more killing and yet more killing. One side kills, the other retaliates, the other escalates, and so on ad infinitum. It's truly heart-wrenching to watch, but what to do? Help them kill more people? Doesn't make any sense, particularly from a Buddhist point of view (which US foreign policy has nothing at all in common with). That's the whole root of the problem there, I'd say. And I wholeheartedly believe that the only way to solve it is to remove the poisons from your own mind. If everyone did that, who would there be left to fight? Might sound overly simplistic, but it's the way I've been taught by my teacher, who I consider to be a Living Buddha, so I'm willing to give it a try. Remember, samsara is flawed, and you can never, ever take refuge in samsara because it will never work. Certainly none of the policies we've implemented or the Israelis have implemented or the Arabs have implemented have brought anything resembling peace to the region. So why not think outside the box a little? Eh?
Palzang
Something I've half joked about in the past is that we would probably be better off to destroy the mosque and tear down the mountain altogether. The long term result would probably be just as many deaths, but it would be over much faster. A strong US presence in the MidEast for the past four years has actually helped stabilize the region some. The terrorism still continues, but the governments themselves are actually quite nervous with the US having an all volunteer military right next door to them. We still have not enacted the draft, and yet we maintain strength in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Only the hardliners, like the Pres. of Iran, still trashtalk the US and act ready to start something, but even he is losing support in his own country, due to modern advances and the progress that has been made in Iraq.
The Lives lost in Iraq can never be restored in their original form, and that is tragic, and I feel great sympathy for the families that have made that sacrifice, but if a few more years down the road, peace is achieved, and the area starts to settle down, then this war was the right war, at the right time, in the right place, but only if we are willing to put up with a necessary evil now, and stay the course.
Now that's something to pray for! Would you like to come join our 24 hour Prayer Vigil for Peace? We've been doing it now for 20 years...
Palzang