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.
the politics of music
genkaku
Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
Comments
To (over!)elaborate, the nobody is just ONE identity--we all play several different roles with several different people, in several different contexts. No one is ESSENTIALLY any one thing ("good" or "bad")--in fact non-self, emptiness and inter-dependency undermine this very notion.
Causes and conditions are created by other causes and conditions. To place dotted lines around anyone to lay blame for any one thing is not really helpful for others or for ourselves.
None of this negates the very harmful things Ms. Thatcher did in life, but neither did she do those things single-handedly (she was, after all, an elected official). It is lamentable her support of Pinochet and her policies that caused a great deal of harm to the UK and abroad. But it is more helpful to pinpoint the harmful actions themselves rather than pinning it on someone, as if that let's us off the hook for our own response-ability. The blame game is really just another unhelpful delusion. I at least know that I need to be reminded of that from time to time.
Her job was to skillfully represent the people who elected her. Whether or not she was skillful is difficult to say, but I imagine like most politicians it was -- as you point out -- a mixed bag. On the other hand, in some ways, "the buck stops here" philosophy also applies.
Attacking people upon their death, long after they've been out of public service...particularly through a much beloved song from 1939...well, at best it's a cheap shot. I think back to Bill Clinton's attitude at the death of Richard Nixon -- that it's time to put the bitter past behind us and remember that this is a man (albeit a very flawed man). And it sort of bothers me that some group of people -- most of whom have probably done very little in their lives -- feel the need to attack an 87 year old woman who had suffered a series of strokes, probably had cancer, and may have had Alzheimers.
On the other hand, she was a public figure, so she put herself in a position to be critiqued. But then again, playing the song about the wicked witch of the north is hardly an intelligent critique.
And, BTW, just for the record, I'm a somewhat liberal American Democrat.
He also had a plaque on his desk that read, "The buck stops here."
What is right speech?
I'm only half kidding.
That's my two cents, at any rate.
What I think you're mostly talking about is critiquing their performance in office. Here are their successes. Here are their failures. And the balance is _____. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Just last evening I met a new friend from India and we talked about culture, and religion, and eventually about politicians. And I commented on an interesting selection of political books he had -- bios of Nixon (although it turned out to be Pat), Carter, and a couple of others. We very much disagreed about the legacy of Carter. And each of us made valid points, and that's fair, and that's adult, and that's mature.
But what the original post was about was the song "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead". Now, we had a parent in our school who died, and when the daughter came back to school some jerk of a kid sang that song to her. And we labeled that as bullying.
Singing that because a human being has died -- IS THAT METTA? Or is metta reserved only for those people we like and agree with? You cannot tell me that when Thatcher died and someone is singing "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead", that that is an example of Buddhist loving compassion for all.
And even though I very much disliked Thatcher, when I heard the "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead" celebration, the word that came to my mind was snide (synonyms include hateful, nasty, base, cynical, disparaging, hurtful, insinuating, malicious, mean, sarcastic, scornful, sneering, spiteful, unkind). And those are not words I associate with Buddhism. The words I associate with Buddhism include the antonyms of those words (gentle, kind, loving, nice).
Intelligent critiquing, even if blunt. No problem there. But acting like children on the playground...well, that's just Buddhism to me, and to me it falls under the category of wrong speech.
I have a book called "Buddha, his life and teachings". I'm not sure if they are all from suttas, but in one of them the Buddha called the King a very vile word. It had something to do with vomit or something.
I don't see anyting wrong with those two things but I would think it's classy to not play Ding Dong the witch is dead.
Do I judge people. Sure. Just like you just did.
The Buddha has given us what HE considers wrong speech
You would if you were interested, find it in the Majjhima Nikaya.
He says clearly and unambiguously that;
Non factual speech
untrue speech
speech that does not contribute to the goal of Enlightenment
unendearing speech
and speech that IS DISAGREEABLE TO OTHERS
Are all wrong speech and will lead sooner or later to suffering.
But I am sure there are those who disagree.
Or alternatively how that absence of ambiguity is somehow temporary.
But if its a problem, lets leave out the term 'unambiguously.'
The words of the Buddha as recorded in the Majjhima Nikaya state in Thanissaro's translation
that non factual speech ( speculative speech )
untrue speech..speech that seeks deliberately to mislead
unendearing and disagreeable speech..speech that in its manner causes an emotional reaction that diverts attention away from the content of such speech..
lead to future suffering.
Conversely, that speech which deals with facts not speculation ( papanca )
truthful speech
diplomatic speech
and speech which while being truthful, addresses issues not personalities..
such speech leads to a reduction in suffering.
I would be interested to hear which of these in your view is a statement that misrepresents the Buddha's teaching, or is a mistranslation.
~Thich Nhat Hanh, For a Future to Be Possible: Buddhist Ethics for Everyday Life
...Written by a man who "by all rights" ought to be shaking his fist furiously, considering how terribly HIS country was ruined far worse than the UK. But he isn't. Why is that?
Speak one word, any word: Is it true? Maybe yes, maybe no ... but it's your word or mine, your choice or mine. I'm not suggesting that it's not nice to be nice. I am suggesting that the world is far more interesting and intriguing and full of sass than anything that might be "right" or "wrong." But again, that's your choice or mine. I like Gautama as well as the next fellow and am grateful he put his energies where he did. But even Gautama pointed out that I would be a fool to rely on him.
But if you want a challenge ,perhaps you could provide a reference to The Buddhas saying that we would be fools to accept his view.
Or that accepting his view amounts to relying on him in some perjorative sense...
First, you're criticizing me for judging people, and look what you do. I don't listen to FOX news. I'm a middle of the road Democrat. I listen to CNN and MSNBC.
Second, if you've actually read my posts in this thread, you would know that I heaped not one ounce of praise on Margaret Thatcher. I said nothing good about Margaret Thatcher. That hasn't been my point from the beginning.
Third, this idea that everything that is thought has to be said is not wise. In fact, that is the whole point of "right thought". We have a political system in the United States right now that can barely function. The right is making no real progress. The left is making no real progress. And one of the main reasons that has happened is due to the war of words that rages constantly. It began in the era of "Point - Counterpoint" on "60 Minutes" and was further fueled by "Crossfire" on CNN, at which point it became what politicians did...as exemplified by people like Newt Gingrich. And it's been going downhill ever since. Where every slam has to be spoken...or yelled. Where the political last word has to be achieved by each side, even though...of course...no one will ever have the last word. Because despite all the verbiage, most of the time neither side is capable of talking to the other side. Tit for tat. And that goes on forever. It heightens bitter feelings that are then left simmering until the next battle. And I'm sorry, but I don't feel that the "poke a stick in their eye" attitude really -- in this case, even upon death -- accomplishes much of anything except to continue the downward spiral of political discourse.
Right now we have a potentially very deadly scenario unfolding in North Korea. Shall we take the same road map. Keep poking sticks in each others' eyes? And where will that lead us? Probably to some level of war.
The title of this thread is about the power of music. And has so often been repeated, "power corrupts".
But the OP / musical commentary was not aimed at her PERSONAL life... it was aimed at her political life- and, as we all acknowledge, politicians can't make everyone happy all the time.
Thatcher's political power and views affected people in the UK when she was in office, and much of what she did still does affect people, every day since then as well.
Why must this thread turn into a Buddhist Perspective Pissing Contest like too many others do, lately? SMH
Just as I notice that there is a goal..in fact that there is a 'highest' goal.
I see no relativism, or references to ' foolishness ' in striving toward that goal.
No indicators of virtue in making our own goal, or relying on our own subjective truth.
What is ours and ours alone is the effort needed.
Not the means and not the end.