Why is right right and wrong wrong?

[PadmaVonSamba]

I mainly study the lives of those we consider extremist. Like Hitler, Stalin, Zedong, and men of that source. And also the Soviet Union.

(small correction; Mao ZeDong's "last name" or surname, is Mao, not Zedong).

[zAnt]

I mainly study the lives of those we consider extremist. Like Hitler, Stalin, Zedong, and men of that source. And also the Soviet Union.

(small correction; Mao ZeDong's "last name" or surname, is Mao, not Zedong).

It's actually Tse-Dong...

[KeithBC]

Hitler may have had good wishes for (some of) the German people,

I don't think you can call an intention benevolent, even if it involves wishing well for some, if it comes at the price of wishing harm for others. At best it is misguided. At worst, malevolently exploitative.

Om mani padme hum
Keith

[PadmaVonSamba]

I mainly study the lives of those we consider extremist. Like Hitler, Stalin, Zedong, and men of that source. And also the Soviet Union.

(small correction; Mao ZeDong's "last name" or surname, is Mao, not Zedong).

It's actually Tse-Dong...

"Mao", like "Hitler", is the family name.

btw, Stalin was not Stalin's real name.

[zAnt]

(small correction; Mao ZeDong's "last name" or surname, is Mao, not Zedong).

It's actually Tse-Dong...

"Mao", like "Hitler", is the family name.

btw, Stalin was not Stalin's real name.

Yes, I understand this. Stalin means "Man Of Steel" In Russian. I speak Russian. I also speak French, German, and a bit of Icelandic and Japanese. Stalin changed his name later in his life, from his previously born name.

When we use English, Mao is not used as the surname.

I don't know what you are trying to prove.

[PadmaVonSamba]

When we use English, Mao is not used as the surname.
I don't know what you are trying to prove.

When who uses English?

I am not trying to prove anything. Just a tiny correction.
We say "Chairman Mao" because Mao is his family name.
Not "Chairman ZeDong"
"Nixon met with Mao" , not "Richard met with ZeDong".
In Chinese, the family name comes first and is always (there is a rare exception, I think) a single character, meaning a single syllable. Given names are usually, but not always two or more Characters, and follow the family name.

So, sometimes right is right and wrong is wrong (trying to stay on topic here!)

[greentara]

"Truth is not a reward for good behaviour"

Q: Experience is subjective, it cannot be shared. Your experience leaves me where I am.

Nisargadatta: Truth can be experienced, but it is not mere experience. I know it and I can convey it, but only if you are open to it. To be open means to want nothing else.

Q: I am full of desires and fears. Does it mean that I am not eligible for truth?

Nisargadatta: Truth is not a reward for good behaviour, nor a prize for passing some tests. It cannot be brought about. It is the primary, the unborn, the ancient source of all that is. You are eligible because your are. You need not merit truth. It is your own. Just stop running away by running after. Stand still, be quiet.

[gregkavarnos]

Once, when he was studying art, He lived in a dorm with a man whom was Jewish. Hitler was going to his classes and it was raining outside. His room-mate offered him his coat before he left the dorm. Much later, when he has became the Dictator of Germany, and his plan of extermination was coming intact, he made sure that his friend was never harmed. He shipped him out of the country, and to somewhere safe. Although he created this reign of terror, he made benevolent decision. But he by no means was a benevolent person.

This is why I said people should not be judged by those two words, only their actions should.

Your (apparently factual) example merely affirms the fact that Hitler was interested only in issues and individuals that directly benefited himself. If he was worried about the good of the "pure" German people and truly considered that Jews were against against the "pure" German people then he would have have had this one Jew killed as well as the other 4.9-6 million that he had murdered.

If the account is true it is a perfect example that even in the most apparently evil of people their Buddha Nature can shine through, albeit via the ego.

As for the imponderability of karma. Actually what is imponderable is to predict the exact outcome of a single action in the distant future. There are a whole bunch of Sutta in the Pali Canon where the Buddha explains quite clearly the consequences of a mind filled with wrong view at he time of death leading to animal birth, or to rebirth in hell:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html

There are also a number of Sutta outlining quite clearly that some actions bring negative results and others positive results: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/search_r ... -8&q=kamma

Shakyamuni Buddha did not teach moral relativism, he taught right action.

[gregkavarnos]

Old Bob, each person is entitled to a point of view. You may not agree with zAnt or Viniketa in their statements.
This is fine, but one must also remember to further progress on our path, we must have wisdom, compassion and understanding......

Not judgment.

My dear Dave, you do realise there is such a thing as discriminating wisdom? Judgement must be applied in the realm of the relative in order to evaluate what will be benificial or harmful for sentient beings. Which is to say that judgement is not always a negative thing and is included within wisdom, compassion and understanding.

[oldbob]

I wouldn't think I'd be attacked from this of all places. Old Bob, I respect your opinion, but I do not respect you wishing me hell. It reminds me of Christianity, and it surprises me.

A little back story of me, I am a historian. I mainly study the lives of those we consider extremist. Like Hitler, Stalin, Zedong, and men of that source. And also the Soviet Union.
I am not a Buddhist, not at this point, but I wish to be considered one in the future.

Have you ever been in Hitlers shoes?


Once, when he was studying art, He lived in a dorm with a man whom was Jewish. Hitler was going to his classes and it was raining outside. His room-mate offered him his coat before he left the dorm. Much later, when he has became the Dictator of Germany, and his plan of extermination was coming intact, he made sure that his friend was never harmed. He shipped him out of the country, and to somewhere safe. Although he created this reign of terror, he made benevolent decision. But he by no means was a benevolent person.

This is why I said people should not be judged by those two words, only their actions should.

Dear zAnt and all,

I sincerely apologize if anything I said was interpreted in such a way as to indicate that I wished you to "go to hell." I did not, and do not, wish this in any way.

Ultimately, only you can send yourself. When I wrote: "Have a nice rebirth, but I don't think it will be too nice," This is not a curse, or a wish, but an honest appraisal of what I fear you will face, both in this life and possibly others if you are seen as an apologist, or supporter, of Hitler and his values.

My references to hell were to suggest to you that if you are presenting Hitler as a good guy, benevolent in any way, out of the context of his reign of terror, as you call it, then this provokes a visceral reaction, from many, which will be directed against you for appearing to be a protagonist for Hitler, and his values.

This should not surprise you. If you are publishing a view that Hitler was benevolent without clearly distancing yourself from his actions and values, I am sure that you will be chastised by your academic peers.

I listed the rather graphic, 18 hells to "get your attention." Seems like it worked. That is its purpose.

The key point is that this whole subject of post Holocaust history formulation, is an area that is highly emotional for many people, on all sides. I think that most people think of Hitler and his values with shock and horror. Without voicing that shock and horror, and making clear your personal distance, from Hitler and his values, you run the risk of being seen as a Hitler admirer by saying that he was benevolent in any way. I fear this will send you to "hell".

Please note:You had previously written in your first post in this thread, "Hitler did wish good for the pure Germans. So some of his acts are benevolen, and really we can only classify acts to benevolent and maleovent, rather then classifying characters as such." In the absence of a shock and horror disclaimer, you can see how your statement led to my hell, fire, and brimstone reply.

Please note that I ended my previous post to you with the word "best". This is short for best wishes.

Best,

oldbob

[Dave The Seeker]

Old Bob, each person is entitled to a point of view. You may not agree with zAnt or Viniketa in their statements.
This is fine, but one must also remember to further progress on our path, we must have wisdom, compassion and understanding......

Not judgment.

My dear Dave, you do realise there is such a thing as discriminating wisdom? Judgement must be applied in the realm of the relative in order to evaluate what will be benificial or harmful for sentient beings. Which is to say that judgement is not always a negative thing and is included within wisdom, compassion and understanding.

Thanks my friend, I do understand this and should have used a bit different wording.
My reply was written a bit quickly without total clarity.

[Anders]

I mainly study the lives of those we consider extremist. Like Hitler, Stalin, Zedong, and men of that source. And also the Soviet Union.

(small correction; Mao ZeDong's "last name" or surname, is Mao, not Zedong).

It's actually Tse-Dong...

That depends on what transliteration system you use. Tse-dong/tse-tung is wade-giles, but that is largely considered outdated these days. In Pinyin, as is used in the PRoC these days, it is 'Mao Zedong'.

[Anders]

I think that loving kindness is the natural unaffected universal nature of all sentient beings. Therefore anything that shifts us outside of this centre of loving kindness is illusion of the mind. All illusion of the mind is wrong because it is illusion.

That is how I am coming to think of it.

If I may suggest a small difference in perspective: It is not so much that illusion is wrong. Bodhisattvas make use of illusion to guide other beings after all.

In actual fact, [the recognition of] illusion is a delightful play. It is only when when we fail to recognise it for what it is, that il-lusion manifests as de-lusion.

Then all bets are off!

[oldbob]

"Truth is not a reward for good behaviour"

Q: Experience is subjective, it cannot be shared. Your experience leaves me where I am.

Nisargadatta: Truth can be experienced, but it is not mere experience. I know it and I can convey it, but only if you are open to it. To be open means to want nothing else.

Q: I am full of desires and fears. Does it mean that I am not eligible for truth?

Nisargadatta: Truth is not a reward for good behaviour, nor a prize for passing some tests. It cannot be brought about. It is the primary, the unborn, the ancient source of all that is. You are eligible because your are. You need not merit truth. It is your own. Just stop running away by running after. Stand still, be quiet.

Good advice for everyone.

Stand still, be quiet.

I like that!

ob

[Ervin]

What I am asking is if you believe there is infinite good wich would be infinitely gentle and fair wich I believe is the Source of everything that exists , wich is in your case according to your beliefs Budha. Now if Buddha is infinitely good wich wich means hem ( I imagine according to your beliefs Buddha wouldnt be him or her, so I say hem instead) would be infinitely good wich means infinitely gentle and fair, the how could hem say that there is such thing as wrong. I can imagine that there is good and evil, but to someone like what I believe is the Source or what you believe is Buddha can anything be wrong?

Thanks

[Dave The Seeker]

What I am asking is if you believe there is infinite good wich would be infinitely gentle and fair wich I believe is the Source of everything that exists , wich is in your case according to your beliefs Budha. Now if Buddha is infinitely good wich wich means hem ( I imagine according to your beliefs Buddha wouldnt be him or her, so I say hem instead) would be infinitely good wich means infinitely gentle and fair, the how could hem say that there is such thing as wrong.

The Buddha doesn't judge anyone's actions so there's no real gentle and fair. All Buddhas help sentient beings attain Enlightenment because they are compassionate.

I can imagine that there is good and evil, but to someone like what I believe is the Source or what you believe is Buddha can anything be wrong?

Thanks

There are wholesome and unwholesome actions. Those which benefit sentient beings and those that benefit no one.
Wholesome actions benefit all sentient beings through compassion, and help us become closer to Enlightenment.

[KeithBC]

What I am asking is if you believe there is infinite good wich would be infinitely gentle and fair wich I believe is the Source of everything that exists , wich is in your case according to your beliefs Budha. Now if Buddha is infinitely good wich wich means hem ( I imagine according to your beliefs Buddha wouldnt be him or her, so I say hem instead) would be infinitely good wich means infinitely gentle and fair, the how could hem say that there is such thing as wrong. I can imagine that there is good and evil, but to someone like what I believe is the Source or what you believe is Buddha can anything be wrong?

Thanks

That isn't Buddhism you are talking about. That is Christianity with the names changed.

Infinitely good?? What is that? Infinitely gentle and fair? What does that mean? The source of everything that exists? That concept does not exist in Buddhism, and is explicitly refuted in the doctrine of dependent co-arising.

Buddhism (and other religions generally) is more than just Christianity with different names. You do yourself a disservice if you do not learn what the differences are.

There is relief from suffering. Perhaps that is what you mean by "infinitely good"? Relief from suffering comes from within. There is also a cause for suffering. If relief from suffering is "right", then causing suffering must be "wrong". The cause of suffering also comes from within.

The historical Buddha was male.

Om mani padme hum
Keith

[oushi]

Buddhism (and other religions generally) is more than just Christianity with different names. You do yourself a disservice if you do not learn what the differences are.

Although I mostly agree with what you wrote, but I think you do yourself a disservice by judge Christianity in this way.

[KeithBC]

Buddhism (and other religions generally) is more than just Christianity with different names. You do yourself a disservice if you do not learn what the differences are.

Although I mostly agree with what you wrote, but I think you do yourself a disservice by judge Christianity in this way.

Please be specific. In what way did I judge Christianity?

Om mani padme hum
Keith

[Ervin]

I am not a Christian. My beliefs are the truth as I see it.

Thanks