Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:55 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 367 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 19  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 12:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
MalaBeads wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
The difference, Jikan, is that Dharma is based on wisdom, and politics is based on the limitations of thinking and judging and choosing. M


As a statement, I would agree.

However, a query immediately comes to mind. There was plenty of Dharma, based on wisdom, in old Tibet. And yet....look what happened.

In your opinion, Malcolm, what happened there?


There was more counterfeit Dharma in old Tibet than authentic Dharma towards the end — mostly, but not exclusively, in the monastic establishment (in case anyone was wondering why I think the monastic system is basically defunct and not worth preserving).

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:23 am 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am
Posts: 1140
Malcolm wrote:
The difference, Jikan, is that Dharma is based on wisdom, and politics is based on the limitations of thinking and judging and choosing.

M


This seems to me to be an arbitrary demarcation.

Unless wisdom is trapped eternally in some Platonic realm, then it must be able to interact with phenomena. If it can interact with phenomena, then it can be political.

:anjali:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 3:08 am
Posts: 428
Location: Trāyastriṃśa. Just kidding. What a cool sanksrit word, huh?
Quote:
Malcolm wrote:The difference, Jikan, is that Dharma is based on wisdom, and politics is based on the limitations of thinking and judging and choosing.

M


So theres this lengthy quote I thought of :

"Pure worldly wisdom is wisdom that occurs when entering the path of enlightenment and starting to practice so that wisdom mind is developing. It is not totally ordinary because wisdom is still blossoming, yet it is not fully enlightened because it is still remaining in habitual samsaric phenomena. Wisdom has not fully expanded, but because it excels beyond ordinary beings, it is pure; yet residual habit still remains, so it is worldly, while excelling beyond the ordinary. Buddhism teaches that pure worldly wisdom is spiritual but not completely spiritual since it does not excel beyond worldliness if compared with the state of Buddha, which has no worldliness. Pure worldly wisdom is mixed, having both worldly and holy wisdom mind and activity. It is performing in samsara, but at the same time, it is not like other beings' extremely ordinary samsaric phenomena, because there is wisdom. Also, one cannot say that an aspect that seems to be mixed with worldliness cannot be enlightened, since enlightenment can manifest within worldliness." Thinley Norbu Rinpoche Cascading Waterfall of Nectar, 16.

I haven't begun to grasp the beginnings of this paragraph, but it has always seemed to me that Wisdom and activity, even worldly activity, are no hard-and-fast duality.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Posts: 1119
Location: Canada
Nilasarasvati, I apologise if I misquoted you. I had a lot to reply to and must have mixed up the names.
Johnny Dangerous wrote:
In addition, the very "traditional" societies that are getting romanticized as the best models have been responsible in part for their own undoing by creating the conditions for modern capitalism.
I do not buy into dialectical materialism, but rather believe all economies to be one form or another of what Marx called "the law of value." I believe that you can't actually undo the law of value, you can't undo capitalism, but you can undo tradition. Capitalism of course is one of the biggest catalysts in destroying tradition - I think this is what you meant. If so, I agree. But I would go to John Adams in finding a solution rather than Marx, who said that a free society can only be founded with the prerequisite base of a populace which is reigned in by religion and morality. I believe that it was the diminution of religion and morality in society which allowed capitalism to destroy tradition, rather than capitalism just actively destroying tradition by it's very nature. These are just adventitious frailties in human history, which although lamentable, can also serve as a good lesson for the future, and above all else teach us the value of prudence.
Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Therefore, traditional societies have sown the seeds of their own undoing through the creation and maintenance of things like class and gender structures that set the stage for the various struggles we see.

Class and gender structures exist in every society in different arrangements. They don't inherently destroy themselves by their very nature, they are destroyed by a diminution and lack of prudence. Modern society is presently heading towards class and gender structures which I believe would make everyone suffer more, and I think that the past was, though not perfect, more time tested and more conducive to harmony and stability.
Johnny Dangerous wrote:
So rather than standing in opposition to greatest excesses of capitalism and modernity, traditional societies have actually been responsible for the creation of those things.
I don't quite think this is true. Traditional society is a check on the excesses of capitalism, and doesn't require an immense totalitarian government to do the job.

I recommend John Adams' Defense of the Constitutions of the United States, I've always believed he most eloquently explained this point.
Nilasarasvati wrote:
Ben Yuan, you may not have heard of a philosophy called Objectivism, but whenever you get into the sphere of economics or political theory it sounds like you're reading it straight from an interview with Ayn Rand.

I have not read the Fountainhead, but I have read Atlas Shrugged. I don't really think much of it, and find it rather superficial. I am more influenced by pre-20th Century thinkers.
Nilasarasvati wrote:
It sounds like you're saying only English people care about civil rights/democratic freedoms/ a system of justice predicated on equality.

Plenty of people want their version of Civil Rights...it doesn't have to be a Western power subtly/not so subtly pushing it down the throat of some developing country. Your assertion is ignoring the action and self-stated desires of the protesters in Turkey right now, for example.

Personally, I think the middle east would be better if we didn't cause the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire - which sowed the seeds of Islamic Fundamentalism. But the actual ideas which you are referring to were spread by British Imperialism, and they disturbed the world because they were cooked in the furnace of the resistance to a certain kind of royal tyranny. From Magna Carta, establishing limitations on the King in general, to the Declaration of Right, establishing the principle of representation and individual liberty as a result of a century of civil war and the excesses of both absolutism and republicanism. These are not things which every society needs or is better off with. India and China were, in my reckoning, more civilised and developed in terms of law and justice before we imposed this more limited vision. Their notions of law and justice were unique to their values and their situation and deserve preservation and respect.
Nilasarasvati wrote:
The radicals and liberal intellectuals in Iran.

I don't support them. I also don't support the Islamic Republican regime. Persia would be better undisturbed by western thought. Why are you so adamant that your culture's views are better? Do you not believe that Persia was civilised before Europe arrived on the scene? This is pure cultural imperialism and orientalism.
Nilasarasvati wrote:
Your argument just sounds like a lame excuse to continue the injustice and unchecked power of traditional forms of despotism, racism (as a system like Apartheid), and classism.

An evil despot to one person is an enlightened despot to another. Even Asoka was a despot. Despotism is not inherently evil.

Racism I despise, and don't see how my argument supports it. According to my own logic, the Dutch and British wouldn't have even been in South Africa in the first place.

As for classism, I think that traditional arrangements are usually better in each society. If you try to abolish them, you will just end up creating a new class arrangement. Just look at any attempt to abolish classes thus far - they always result in greater inequality. In fact, classes in western society are extremely malleable and we have great social mobility, historically speaking, which adventitious profiteers are causing stagnation in. I believe traditional values in the west are more conducive to social mobility than contemporary ones.

I just find it arrogant to think that other cultures who have lived a certain way for hundreds of years with their own societal arrangements should suddenly follow the guidance of Nilasarasvati's enlightened societal arrangement. Do you have the wisdom of ages? The foresight of unbridled prudence? The inherited knowledge of millennia? I know I don't, so I don't meddle with things I don't fully understand. History has a certain way of ironing out creases - I think it is reckless of us to therefore abolish history.

As for worldly and transcendent wisdom, the issue is that we are not being governed by Buddhas. We lack that wisdom in worldly affairs. We must put on the breaks, and be careful.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:58 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Posts: 5771
Malcolm wrote:
Jikan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:

Ok, well, in this case we do not agree. Dharma is two-fold, the Dharma of realization and the Dharma of texts. What is the Dharma of realization? It is pretty straight-forward, summed up in the Lalitavistara, it is blissful, free from proliferation, luminous, permanent, etc. The Dharma of texts allows one to taste and realize that state.


Hi Malcolm, I'm having a hard time understanding how this rebuts tobes' claim on conduct in the world, which (to my mind) necessarily involves integrating in all moments and in all relationships. Which means that realization must be, in this limited sense, a social phenomenon, even a collaborative one. I think I see more agreement between your position and tobes than disagreement if this exchange is taken in a bigger context.

Am I misunderstanding?


The difference, Jikan, is that Dharma is based on wisdom, and politics is based on the limitations of thinking and judging and choosing.

M


OK. What is the word for conduct that is based on wisdom and not on thinking and judging and choosing? How would you characterize such activity?

_________________
Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

viewtopic.php?f=114&t=13727


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 3:08 am
Posts: 428
Location: Trāyastriṃśa. Just kidding. What a cool sanksrit word, huh?
Quote:
I just find it arrogant to think that other cultures who have lived a certain way for hundreds of years with their own societal arrangements should suddenly follow the guidance of Nilasarasvati's enlightened societal arrangement. Do you have the wisdom of ages? The foresight of unbridled prudence? The inherited knowledge of millennia? I know I don't, so I don't meddle with things I don't fully understand. History has a certain way of ironing out creases - I think it is reckless of us to therefore abolish history.


Wow. I must really sound like a huge prick! I also must be giving the impression that I am prescribing my own lifestyle for the entire planet. Or my own "isms". I am sorry if I came across as imperialist at some point--but I'm fairy certain you actually made the following leap:

I was talking about "civil rights"
you labeled all of that "intellectual imperialism" (even though we had no scope for this conversation--I was talking about my hometown in Price, Utah in one example.)
I say "Tiananmen square, 1989--those people wanted civil rights!"
You say...I'm a colonialist who thinks Persia wasn't civilized and you go back in time and argue that everything would have been better if imperialism had never happened.

(Which, btw, I 100% agree with. Or anyway, I don't know if it would be better or worse, but the scourge of Western colonialism scarred and massacred every landscape and population on the earth. Unfortunately, that's the aftermath we live in.)


My real point that I apparently didn't express clearly enough was that actual people alive today--not the ottomans you're more concerned with defending retrospectively are advocating for their own social change and social justice.

You totally ignored this assertion.
I'm going to say it's because you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to telling people who want "civil rights" AKA justice (worldwide) that they are just being the pawns of Imperialist influence.

It sounds like you're suggesting people's only option for a better world is to go back in time. If people in nations where colonialism reigned for a long time are discontented, fed up, angry and dissatisfied with their political system, society, etc. TOO BAD! You can't advocate for yourself because Ben Yuan labeled that "Democracy" or "civil rights", so it must be intellectual imperialism. If you want justice, you must go back to the Empire of Asoka, the Persians before colonialism, or Song Dynasty China. Sorry. Those are the only options.


However, I'm not even really arguing that we as Buddhists should meddle in the affairs of other cultures or something...I don't even understand where that idea came from. Just because I believe certain things in my personal politics doesn't mean I believe that everybody else has to subscribe to the same system or beliefs, or that I am the sole arbiter of all truth and correct politics. I should think that goes without saying, but apparently I came across as a little Hitler.

To clarify, the SCOPE the range the extent of the OP was about: our personal politics as Buddhists; our lived-experience, our communities, our lives, our choices, our relationships with people abroad and at home. Our attempts or lack thereof to stand for justice, whatever that means.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Posts: 1119
Location: Canada
[quote="Nilasarasvati]My real point that I apparently didn't express clearly enough was that actual people alive today--not the ottomans you're more concerned with defending retrospectively are advocating for their own social change and social justice.
[/quote]My point is that every nation has it's own inherited karma, it's own habits - this is what we normally call culture. Just as one teaching from the Buddha cannot equally be applied to all humans, or all world systems, similarly, one political worldview cannot equally be applied to all.

You'll find that this is expressed when people from different cultures try to apply "democracy" or "human rights" to their own nation. You will find a conflict. Western notions of human rights and democracy don't cohere to other cultures because they developed along different lines. This doesn't mean everyone needs to use past models, but I personally think that is the best way to go forward. With all their problems, Cambodia is an example which I think Burma would do well to emulate.

The dissidents in Iran are just about equally fundamentalist in terms of Islam as the Ahmadinejad regime. What Islamic Fundamentalists are looking for is a return to a caliphate. The Ottoman Empire was that caliphate, whose power vacuum they are filling. Nothing is perfect, but radical change is usually more imperfect than tradition and prudence.
Quote:
I'm going to say it's because you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to telling people who want "civil rights" AKA justice (worldwide) that they are just being the pawns of Imperialist influence.
If you are talking about actual incidents of brutality which both violate objective rules of ethics and the individual cultural rules of ethics, rather than systems and models of government and justice, then I would agree. But as for the systems and models of government, yes, I think the best arrangement for most societies would be the traditional ones. Without radical changes however, these systems do evolve, but they do so slowly and naturally and adapt to times and events. That kind of change is fine, but when it is radical and sweeping, based upon abstract idealism and a priori postulates, then it is usually harmful in one way or another.
:namaste:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 3:08 am
Posts: 428
Location: Trāyastriṃśa. Just kidding. What a cool sanksrit word, huh?
Quote:
Ben Yuan:
You'll find that this is expressed when people from different cultures try to apply "democracy" or "human rights" to their own nation. You will find a conflict. Western notions of human rights and democracy don't cohere to other cultures because they developed along different lines.


I Absolutely agree. We have no conflict here. When "democracy" or "civil rights" as an external, foreign concept is forcibly applied in a culture with no concept of that based on it's own cultural vocabulary, it never even remotely gets understood, much less functions. For example, U.S. military toppling Afghanistan's government and then holding "free elections" in a tribal, strongly patriarchal nation--everybody is going to vote along lines of tribe, religion, patriarch etc. They are going to be superficially engaging in "democracy" but ultimately just rehashing their same exact system of patriarchal tribal authority.

But my real concern is ideologies aside--there are some things that, although not "universal" are definitely "human." Every culture has its own expectation of accountability in a ruler, in a government, in a society.

Image

India's outrage over the gangrape that happened in Dehli a few months ago was a great example of a situation where indviduals with no real political power took action to make change and confront what they felt was unjust.

The Gulabis are vigilantes who hunt down (known) abusive husbands and will mercilessly beat them unless they vow to stop. They also intervene in stopping Child marriages etc. They're a force for the representation of the oppressed.

And they are a product of a post colonial state with influences from Humanistic/Anarchist/Western citizens movements.
There's no clean line anymore between the Imperialist/colonial pressures you are so opposed to (and admittedly so am I), and the self-determined action of citizens in post-colonial societies.


In fact much of your hesitation to recognize this seems really outdated/obsolete. Moreover it ends up serving nobody, least of all the people IN those places that are the inheritors of the history you so often cite. You and I both have very vast knowledge about history, in my opinion (although we have very different takes on its consequences and the value judgements we have about the specifics) but to me it just seems like you are nostalgaic/conservative about forms of society that don't even have living advocates in the places they once were.

Basically Ben Yuan,
I'm asking you to scrape up some living defenders of the Shah of Iran.
Of Czar Nicholas II.
Of Marie Antoinette.


Quote:
Ben Yuan: My point is that every nation has it's own inherited karma, it's own habits - this is what we normally call culture. Just as one teaching from the Buddha cannot equally be applied to all humans, or all world systems, similarly, one political worldview cannot equally be applied to all.


Right on. Absolutely not. However, in a post-colonial world, where everything has been mixed and chopped, diluted and corrupted, irrevocably harmed and inconceivably changed---are you saying our shared Karma comes in these nice, neat, cleanly defined little ice-cube trays? French people in one box, Germans in another, Vietnamese over here...these boundaries are all fabricated.

Likewise, "rights" are fabricated. But as fabrications, because their nature is emptiness, and they have infinite potential. Concepts are not restricted to any one populace or person. If I can appreciate Buddhism, which has no cultural root in the English language and English genealogy that is my heritage, then the Gulabis can appreciate the anarchist militant ideology they are indirectly or directly reflecting in their actions.

We are continually evolving, even though we are in a degenerate age, and although we may admire the forms and systems of the past, we cannot go back in time nor resurrect them. You should acknowledge the insights of contemporary thinkers as well as ancient ones because any attempt to draw a line in the sand after a certain point in human thinking (as you seem to have done) divorces you from reality. From living in the world you actually live in. From responding to the valid and irrefutable suchness of the movements of time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Posts: 1119
Location: Canada
nilasarasvati wrote:
In fact much of your hesitation to recognize this seems really outdated/obsolete. Moreover it ends up serving nobody, least of all the people IN those places that are the inheritors of the history you so often cite. You and I both have very vast knowledge about history, in my opinion (although we have very different takes on its consequences and the value judgements we have about the specifics) but to me it just seems like you are nostalgaic/conservative about forms of society that don't even have living advocates in the places they once were.

I enjoyed your colourful post, but I think you missed my point, but I am not also beyond missing points as you well know.

The point is not to engage in reactionary counter-revolution all around the world, the point is that when we find problems and assign solutions based upon our abstract values and assumptions, we cause problems. Problems which don't arise when we leave things alone - the deviation from which is always in a good name, and which always has unforeseen consequences. If you're ever in Britain, ask anyone who served in the Empire overseas what they were there for. They will say it was to keep order, provide them with statehood and a government, to bring modern medicine, infrastructure, and education. People didn't intentionally disrupt the world and decide one day to ruin the natural development of ancient civilisations - they thought they were doing good, which is what you are also doing Nilasarasvati.

If you start from wanting to change the world, we will get nowhere. People die from stress and addiction to watching news media because of this worldly desire. Whatever changes you do exact, they'll be temporary and marked by suffering. As Buddhists, we must be disillusioned with the mundane world and see how useless it all is. Yes, you can give gifts of various kinds which bring about gratification of various sorts, but that's just the start of troubles,
AN 3:102; 1260 wrote:
"If, monks, there were no gratification in the world, beings would not become enamored with the world. But because there is gratification in the world, beings become enamored with it.
"If there were no danger in the world, beings would not become disenchanted with the world. But because there is danger in the world, beings become disenchanted with it.
"If there were no escape from the world, beings could not escape from it. But as there is an escape from the world, beings can escape from it."

We should give that escape. No gifts are equal to the gift of giving the Dharma.
Diamond Sutra, 8 wrote:
"Let me ask you Subhuti. If a person filled over ten thousand galaxies with the seven treasures for the purpose of compassion, charity, and giving alms, would this person not gain great merit and spread much happiness?"

"Yes, Most Honored One. This person would gain great merit and spread much happiness, even though, in truth, this person does not have a separate existence to which merit could accrue. Why? Because this person's merit is characterized with the quality of not being merit."

The Buddha continued, "Then suppose another person understood only four lines of this Sutra, but nevertheless took it upon themselves to explain these lines to someone else. This person's merit would be even greater than the other person's. Why? Because all Buddhas and all the teachings and values of the highest, most fulfilled, most awakened minds arise from the teachings in this Sutra. And yet, even as I speak, Subhuti, I must take back my words as soon as they are uttered, for there are no Buddhas and there are no teachings."


But if you start from yourself and cultivate for the attainment of Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings, then you can really change lives for eternity. (And yet, change no life.)
:anjali:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 3:08 am
Posts: 428
Location: Trāyastriṃśa. Just kidding. What a cool sanksrit word, huh?
Quote:
The point is not to engage in reactionary counter-revolution all around the world, the point is that when we find problems and assign solutions based upon our abstract values and assumptions, we cause problems. Problems which don't arise when we leave things alone - the deviation from which is always in a good name, and which always has unforeseen consequences.


I absolutely agree that we are always acting in ignorance and assigning solutions based on abstract values and assumptions.
But when you come across a person collapsed in the street, and you have an EMT certification and decide to perform CPR or decide to call an ambulance in spite of not knowing the person's true wishes (maybe they were suicidal!) -you are also acting on abstract values and assumptions. We are constantly doing this...it is the limitation of our karma. Admittedly--maybe we should "leave things alone" but I wonder are you secretly being Daoist? Abandoning things to their own karma is, as I keep saying, just as much of a choice and a karmic action as getting involved.

Anyway.

What if Alan Ginsburg was Manjusri?

"Pure worldly wisdom is wisdom that occurs when entering the path of enlightenment and starting to practice so that wisdom mind is developing. It is not totally ordinary because wisdom is still blossoming, yet it is not fully enlightened because it is still remaining in habitual samsaric phenomena. Wisdom has not fully expanded, but because it excels beyond ordinary beings, it is pure; yet residual habit still remains, so it is worldly, while excelling beyond the ordinary. Buddhism teaches that pure worldly wisdom is spiritual but not completely spiritual since it does not excel beyond worldliness if compared with the state of Buddha, which has no worldliness. Pure worldly wisdom is mixed, having both worldly and holy wisdom mind and activity. It is performing in samsara, but at the same time, it is not like other beings' extremely ordinary samsaric phenomena, because there is wisdom. Also, one cannot say that an aspect that seems to be mixed with worldliness cannot be enlightened, since enlightenment can manifest within worldliness." Thinley Norbu Rinpoche Cascading Waterfall of Nectar, 16.

since enlightenment can manifest within worldliness.
since enlightenment can manifest within worldliness.
since enlightenment can manifest within worldliness.

What if Ben Yuan was Akasagarbha?
What if Nilasarasvati was Vajrasarasvati?
What if Dharma Wheel was Sukhavati
and the whole mess of this thread was a Tantra?

:P

Oh I wish I really understood what it meant.
To take the result as the path.

Maybe Malcolm can help me with that one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Posts: 1119
Location: Canada
Nilasarasvati wrote:
But when you come across a person collapsed in the street, and you have an EMT certification and decide to perform CPR or decide to call an ambulance in spite of not knowing the person's true wishes (maybe they were suicidal!) -you are also acting on abstract values and assumptions. We are constantly doing this...it is the limitation of our karma. Admittedly--maybe we should "leave things alone" but I wonder are you secretly being Daoist? Abandoning things to their own karma is, as I keep saying, just as much of a choice and a karmic action as getting involved.

There is a difference, in one you are dealing with one person, and can know from experience or inference that doing something is the right thing to do at the time. In the other, you are dealing with millions of people and centuries of history which would require a level of discernment that no ordinary human has.
Nilasarasvati wrote:
What if Alan Ginsburg was Manjusri?

I'm not familiar with him, but we all have a jewel within us, a blue sky beneath clouds. Of course he was Manjusri.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:03 am
Posts: 933
Malcom is right about the Buddha "With kings and ministers, but what is remarkable is that in his advice to them the goals of realization always are prioritized over and against any secular value his advice could have had" is this so difficult to understand? Yes politics is always about quest for power, judging and manipulation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 3:08 am
Posts: 428
Location: Trāyastriṃśa. Just kidding. What a cool sanksrit word, huh?
:toilet:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Posts: 1119
Location: Canada
Malcolm wrote:
There was more counterfeit Dharma in old Tibet than authentic Dharma towards the end — mostly, but not exclusively, in the monastic establishment (in case anyone was wondering why I think the monastic system is basically defunct and not worth preserving).

This is an interesting view, do you have any threads or writings explaining your opinion further on this topic?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 3:08 am
Posts: 428
Location: Trāyastriṃśa. Just kidding. What a cool sanksrit word, huh?
Ben Yuan, I still wonder if you are secretly Daoist. :spy:

I am not-so-secretly Daoist sometimes. Especially when it comes to how governments should function....but that's a whole other conversation from how people ought to work with their governments/societies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Posts: 1119
Location: Canada
Ultimately in Buddhadharma too, the trick is to just let things be. How very hard it is. :yinyang:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am
Posts: 3043
MalaBeads wrote:

Sorry, but i did not understand what you are saying.


Sorry, Malabeads. Buddha wasn't correcting/purifying the universe, comparing dharmas but saw the problem was in own Being/Mind. While samsara is correcting others (mistaken/dual), Buddha showed us the other way. This just makes it again clear the method that will work depend upon the individual. A medicine for each of us.
Not exactly an answer on what you wrote, rather a simple general buddhist affirmation in another way of saying.

:namaste:

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG_lNuNUVd4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:25 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Ben Yuan wrote:
Ultimately in Buddhadharma too, the trick is to just let things be. How very hard it is. :yinyang:
Really? Can you give a source for this line of thinking coz it seems to me that "codes of ethical conduct" (Noble Eightfold Path for example) are anything but about letting things be?

Or, let's say, I practice the Brahama Viharas or Lojong. As a consequence of this practice I start to develop a change of attitude. My change of attitude is reflected in my social interactions. This change in my social interactions influences the way I people relate to feel , etc... So I fail to see how the Buddhadharma is about "letting things be". It seems to me that letting things be as they are now is just a way to perpetuate samsara (since samsara is the way things are right now).

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am
Posts: 3043
Ben Yuan wrote:
Ultimately in Buddhadharma too, the trick is to just let things be. How very hard it is. :yinyang:

They say "Enlightenment" is not difficult since it just is. But to stop clinging to what not exactly ís, is very very very hard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0714IbwC3HA :yinyang:

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG_lNuNUVd4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Posts: 1119
Location: Canada
gregkavarnos wrote:
Really? Can you give a source for this line of thinking coz it seems to me that "codes of ethical conduct" (Noble Eightfold Path for example) are anything but about letting things be?

Astasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra: 16 wrote:
"Subhuti: As the non-observation of all dharmas, to be sure, is this dharma taught. Nowhere is this dharma obstructed. Through its identity with space this dharma is, to be sure, marked with non-obstruction, since no traces of it are noticed. It has no counterpart, because it is without a second. It has no opponent, because it has gone beyond all opposites. It is without a trace, because it has not been caused to become. It is unproduced, because there is no occasion for rebirth. It is pathless, because no path is noticed."
:anjali:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 367 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 19  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group