yegyal wrote:What is more appropriate for a monk, to renounce samsara or justify it?
Monsoon wrote:Morality/ethics can never be forced on people.
1. If enough people willingly adopt it to create a ripple out effect.
Also, when referring to anything as a 'national level' it would be well to bear in mind that a nation is not a single entity and cannot be treated as such.
No, a nation can be defined. It is a subjective designation, but one that has legal and linguistic functions.
Monsoon wrote:Apologies Indrajala but I think you are incorrect. Morals that are forced upon people are rarely strongly held, and often easily bypassed with the right inducement.
In other words, if you ask at the individual level if people think their government represents them well I doubt you would get much in the way of solidarity.
shaunc wrote:... but the fact of the matter is that occasionally I have to box on with the best of them.
Johnny Dangerous wrote:Yes, doing what is right is hard or near impossible on a large scale..and the closer you get to having power or influence, the more being ethical cannot be part of the calculus if you want to continue, isn't that samsara?
Not sure where you're going with is, that it's best for Buddhists to support authoritarian governments or something?
You could just as easily draw the conclusion that it is not worth a Buddhists time to support political organization at all, or that they should do a small part to put some "non samsaric" ethics out there.
Zhen Li wrote:It doesn't seem to be a huge demand to wish for a government to abide by the five precepts.
Indrajala wrote:The five precepts are just the basic morals of Buddhism, but these can be translated into other terms like non-violence, honest and so forth, all of which are characteristics a successful state cannot abide by unless it is somehow under the protective umbrella of a charitable power that does all the evil for them.
kirtu wrote:Greenland has never been in a war. Iceland withdrew from the Iraqi War and does not need the US or UK for a protective umbrella (at least not since the end of the Cold War). It is true that with a single exception, Buddhist countries without militarizes disappeared. But after the 20th century we can try again to live in peace without the naked worship of force.
Really? Look at the success of nationalism where people become ready to lay down their lives for the state, or throw away their religious morals to kill and steal for the country. Or for that matter, look at how successful new Marxist morals and ethics were in the Buddhist world not so long ago.
These new morals can be forced on a Buddhist country and suddenly the youth are ready to murder the monks they used to fold their hands to. It became for them a moral duty to rid the world of what they perceived of as oppression and exploitation.
In a lot of Asia people get upset if, as a foreigner, you criticize their government of which they personally identify with.
Users browsing this forum: Challenge23 and 2 guests