The Unsmiling Bodhisattva: Ending Our Collaboration With War

[Mr. G]

The Unsmiling Bodhisattva: Ending Our Silent Collaboration With the War Machine

In 1988, Buddhist scholar Graeme MacQueen gave a talk that explained why Buddhists should take action to stop war and its causes. Unfortunately, even the most compassionate people in our western society often find justification for doing nothing while suffering grows around them. Many Buddhists are in that frame of mind and they justify their non-action by claiming that their responsibility is soley to avoid violence in themselves. But Professor MacQueen has challenged this stance, recalling Buddhist scripture and revisiting the concept of a bodhisattva.

As Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “There comes a time when silence is betrayal.” Similarly, Professor MacQueen asks in this talk if we have the right to “give away things that don’t belong to us… the earth… species… ecosystems… the futures of our children and other people’s children.” Through silent collaboration, that is what many people are doing today.

Read More Here...

[Konchog1]

I get what he's saying but I think he needs to understand long time scales. There is suffering now and there will be suffering forever. Running from hotspot to hotspot putting out the fires is fruitless without a Buddha's powers. Remember the story of Avalokiteshvara who was so shocked that his efforts hadn't done anything that his head split into ten pieces. I know people who have killed themselves in despair over not being able to help everyone. Surely it's better to gain Enlightenment first before helping others on a massive scale? After all, how often does charity become a fun game for us? "Oh oh I gave 100 dollars for the children in Africa. Look at me! I'm such a good person!" It's the same with any war protest or whatever.

[ronnewmexico]

I am not bodhisattava...but my opinion is that this as with all must be balanced in buddhism.

Democracies did not exist in the time of the buddha and most scripitual reference is not to that form of government hence.
So we must use the basic principals to make the determination how and when to act.

No acting whatsoever...one whose whole life is single solitary meditational means of varying sorts...that person to my opinion may do nothing...most of us are but balancing that with the conventional.So we must balance the political (in forms of democracies) with the spiritual.

A bit of this a bit of that. Those doing just the political, I have known some of them...most sad some of them are, as few goals are realized.
They may end up looking for another way..but then it is mostly to late for them.

No political as we are spiritual...for most of us that is only true to a certain extent..so we are mostly kidding ourselves if we use that as basis for non involvement in things. AS commoner is not ordained such is democratic necessity not as in totalitarian government...saying nothing in democracy is indeed saying yes to things as they are.

[Thug4lyfe]

war is bad.

[Lhug-Pa]

war is bad.

[Indrajala]

If you pay taxes in a number of western countries (France, UK, USA, Canada, etc...), you are directly topping off the war chests that federal governments use to launch wars of aggression and economic colonialism.

There is something to be said of collective karma. If you are part of an army, for example, you are guilty even when another member of your collective group kills because of the mutual-support and commonly sanctioned misdeed, unless you specifically think, "I will not harm any being," and don't make a willed effort to aid in the activities of the organization.

In a nation-state, this is perhaps equally applicable in a sense because we give tacit consent and support to the state to carry out killings, which is done in the name of the people and by their mandate.

This leads to the question, "So, what should I do then?"

Not paying taxes, or only doing it under duress is one step.

Don't consent mentally or verbally to the killings carried out by the state, even if they claim it is for your own protection, or for freedom and democracy.

[Lhug-Pa]

Under duress....

Has anyone here looked into the whole thing about renouncing U.S. citizenship (S.S. #, D.L. #, and all that crap), in order to simply be an American National of the U.S.A. who is only subject to the Law of the Land/Common Law, the latter not having to pay taxes to the I.R.S/U.S. Corporation, carry a State I.D./D.L. #, or follow any other unlawful U.S. Corporation statutes?

I've actually looked into this enough to see that it could very well be possible, however that one would seemingly have to have the knowledge of a lawyer or attorney to be able to pull it off.

If you're Caucasian and try to do this, they might paint you as a militia type white supremacist; and if you're of African or dark-skinned Arab descent they might try to paint you as something like "one of those crazy Moorish cult guys" or a "radical Muslim".

How is it that the Unconstitutional Federal Reserve and Zionist bankers find so many ways to generate so many imaginary numbers that they call "money" for their wars?

Not sure if it would even be worth the trouble to do all that law research though:

http://gnosticteachings.org/books-by-sa ... d-war.html

Probably better to use that time meditating instead.

By the way Konchog1, I've never heard that story about Avalokitesvara. Thanks, I'll have to look it up.

[Will]

Not paying taxes will just put you in jail. Even withholding whatever percentage is used for the military, will only mean that the political representatives will cut non-military parts of government that you might like. Defense spending is too popular & too needed in the minds of most politicians.

The only short-term solution is to find, nominate & elect pacifists. From the experience of the Peace & Freedom party here in California, that is & will be a complete failure.

Even if a nation is ruled by peaceful folk, that will not prevent war against that nation. Tibet is only one example in recent memory.

No, the best approach is a mass movement that thinks, speaks & acts peacefully; which means the spiritual transformation of individual attitudes & minds.

[ronnewmexico]

To my opinion that is the bigger part of the problem.

Most all americans do not abscribe to pacifism, and for good reason that to my opinion.
A miliary of expansive nature with intention of conquest and colonial thing is large very large by necessity
A military of equal defensive nature is small

In defense of these things of the first(the present in america) the pacifist argument is used and purposely confused.
All military reduction is considered a means towards pacifism

This is used for purpose.So pacifists elected actually work towards this aim the way the thing is used in the current politic. The reaction is...we must build the military only pacifists want to reduce it.

The truth is the military of the us is way way out of proportion to the rest of the world it is all about conquest and exertion of control political through the military.
REasonably a nation has a right to defend itself and its peoples. The problem in america is that this is a military that is designed for such purpose will be used for such purpose.
All reductions are called attempts at pacifism and they are firmly rejected by the electorate. To counter this.... stingy peoples(and this is happening) not pacifists will be the ones to reign in the colonially inspired military in america not pacifists. So it will become defensive by economic need.

ON the fed....do you know the inception of that thing what caused it? That a thing may be used wrongly does not infer it wrong.
Read about the circumstances of its inception....it was created for reason in its current form not for select policy with agenda, quite the opposite in fact.
To prevent private corporate interest in fact...JP Morgans in fact. JP Morgan countered Theodore Rosevelts anti monopoly incentive by aiding in the depression of the day caused by shorting of a copper company. To extract the US and to aid then the recovery by providing capital and credit(the feds role now)....Morgan did so...but was allowed to thwart the laws of congress restricting monopoly. The US government with no fed was forced to allow such a thing....so the fed was created so it would not happen again. Bare bones...that is the current fed to prevent that. Private only....the US is forced to capitulate policy to private interest if no fed is present.

Why do you know know this really simple thing...they have agenda those that would furthur economic private interest that are served by such things as monopoly and no regulation.....to see to it you do not know this thing. So they may eliminate the fed and go back to what was JP MOrgan riseing from his grave with glee and joy.

[Lhug-Pa]

The only Presidential candidate, as far as I know, who wants to REALLY cut taxes, and military spending, and who also wants to dismantle the Federal Reserve and pull all the U.S. troops out of foreign countries; is Ron Paul.

Not saying that Ron Paul is perfect. Nonetheless, Romney, Obama, Perry, etc. are all puppets of the warmongers.

[ronnewmexico]

Ron Paul..wants to eliminate the fed and about all federal financial regulations...

Sorry no..that is the cause of he present debacle. No regulation of credit derivitives is the cause of subprime..I can explain it if necessary.
That was legislated concurrent with the elimination of the glass steagle act duing the later stages of the clinton adminstration with bipartisan support.
Glass steagle was the act that sperated investment banking from normal banking process, a lesson learned from the great depression.

And taxes....what exactly do taxes at the current rates have to do with anything.

You want a candidate...Rocky Anderson. Support for him means the republicans will actually win and the destruction of america financially be guaranted.
As he will draw the liberal left.
So it will then get far far worse very quickly and when americans are forced into a corner all else has been tried..they then will do the right thing.

[Lhug-Pa]

I need to learn more about Rocky Anderson. He seems a bit too leftist, but if he's anti-corporatist and anti-war like Ron Paul is then that's good. Ralph Nader's alright too, although he is probably not running for President this time around.

Are you saying that the Fed was created to stop monopolies? Well that obviously didn't work. We may not have absolute monopolies, but considering how strong greedy corporations are right now, we might as well. The Fed and IRS need to go, and in their place should be either a truly Free-Market Capitalism or a non-Marxist Socialism. However this Corporatist-Capitalist warmongering crap that we have going on with the Fed/IRS and people like the Clinton's, Bush's, and Obama's, is horrible.

But anyway, instead of focusing on the negative, let's focus more on the positive whatever that happens to be.

[ronnewmexico]

Yes the fed was created(this go around) to stop a corporation or individual such as JP MOrgan from having undue ability to influence things.
The specific in the case was JP MOrgan was allowed to circumvent law on monopoly specific to the copper trade to enable the freeing of credit to get the market moving again. JP MOrgan was the only corporation with the free cash to do so.

Without such movement of credit the depression of that day would have essentially stopped commerce and have had drastic effect.
So Theodore Rosevelt allowed the exception to monopoly so JP MOrgan could essentially act as the fed would act. There being no fed then at that time.
But being privately owned and controlled by one individual it was to JP Morgans interests to help and find exception..they benefitted handily. They consequent to this exception were allowed to establish monopoly interest in certain mining/commodity investments.

Did they have a hand in then creating the crisis...perhaps perhaps not.
But it was clear a fed was needed from the experience.

Do you not see that we tried no fed and it did not work?
Ron Paul wants that.

The fed can be corrupted that is clear, but no fed....quite unwise.
Capitalism only works in one situation...if handily tethered to regulation.
Otherwise peoples being as they are greedy and short sighted..it self destructs always..

Greenspan(head of the fed in the creating time of the debacle) the most ardent supporter of no regulation after the debacle found that out and admitted his mistake...corporation/banks can not self regulate.
He admitted that error.

He and those that advocated and then realized...... no regulation in things, particularly credit derivitives and related issues such as credit default swaps, and removed the seperation between investment and other banking...they were the complete total cause of the collapse.
I can explain that if necessary.
Anyone saying otherwise..they are lying to you about that thing. Intentional or just misinformed they are telling untruths.

I can never fathom how peoples can hold political and economic viewpoint and not know of things of that sort. Just guessing or taking some talking heads lead on these things.
It takes time and effort but the answers are not very hard to find out.
It is absolutely necessary we know these things in a democracy or else we be manipulated.
War is but a extension of the economic..always has been and always will be.

[Lhug-Pa]

Well, offering people to more or less choose between JP Morgan and the Federal Reserve, is like offering a Muslim bacon or porkchops.

And you can bet that JP Morgan didn't really lose out when the Fed/IRS was instituted.

There's a YouTube video of a interview with Ron Paul that shows that his views are not really what people think they are. If I have time, I'll dig it up and post it.

Like I said, Ron Paul may not be perfect, but he's still a whole lot better than the other mainstream stooge candidates.

[ronnewmexico]

Sorry no...the fed was created(in present form)..not so people could choose but so a private corporation or individual could not take advantage of a lack of credit availabilty to pursue their own corporate agenda.

A company with means(many corporations hold cash assets equal or exceeding the GDP of many nations)can manufacture a crisis of confidence at any time.

No fed they have a opportunity to do so, and the response then being only a corporation to provide the credit mechanism.

They then hold you the us citizen over a barrel. YOu must meet their demands whatever they be, or the depression/crisis continues and worsens.
A crisis they may have manufactured for this very purpose to provide opportunity to reap profit.

No fed is a bomb waiting to go off. A fed very closely monitored and regulated...yes, that is the answer.
Ron P wants no fed....it is incredibly unwise.

I personally hope he is the nominee and wins...then america will fail economically and the wars they perpertrate and the global warming they refuse to address will,, in the throws of economic depression, be no more.
I and other americans will starve but be that as it may....less harm will come from american globally.

2 terms and a repubiican majority in congress...that as they say is the ticket. End of america as global power forever.

[Lhug-Pa]

Hm, I just don't see how the Federal Reserve is much different than a big monopoly. Either way, the financial wealth is channeled into the hands of a few greedy warmongers. Look what's happening right now. Do you honestly believe that the people who run the Fed and the IRS have humanity's best interests in mind?

Here's the video I'd mentioned:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0mGDcybDL4

Very interesting.

If we can't have a workable Socialism (a good non-Marxist one that would be worth supporting), then the Libertarian-Republican Ron Paul is at least a lot better than our other current choices as far as I can tell so far.

He's against the wars and is also against Monopoly-Corporatism.

[ronnewmexico]

Sorry you are confusing the present unregulated unsupervise fed with the real thing.
Of course if you allow coporate interest to control the fed they will.

Government is the only player at the economic table that may..... if the climate is right... occasionally represent the interests of the common people.

That the climate is not right does not mean we then eliminate any chance of the common peoples at having a say in the thing of economy.
Market driven no regulation capitalism..is not pretty nor polite.
What do you think stops peoples from selling you for babies consumption.......... sugar water and labeling it as apple juice to innocent children....it is government...beachnut I think it was did that in the eighties.
No government..but one silly example....forget all about it...

[Lhug-Pa]

What I'm saying is that the Fed doesn't regulate anything, at least not for the good of the people.

Those who run the Fed have already manufactured a crisis or two in order to control the minds of people.

Anyway, so you're basically saying revamp the Fed and make it somehow more honest and workable?

Many of your other points are directly addressed in the YouTube video I've posted above. It really clears up a lot of misconceptions regarding Ron Paul's ideas.

Ron Paul says things like: If the people get involved, a free market is perfectly capable of regulating itself in regard to ensuring that apple juice is actually pure and organic. We don't need the greedy criminal FDA getting all up in our business. Who is the FDA to tell us that we can't buy Unpasteurized milk or juice?

[ronnewmexico]

How...how will they do this. ....If the people get involved, a free market is perfectly capable of regulating itself in regard to ensuring that apple juice is actually pure and organic. We don't need the greedy criminal FDA getting all up in our business...

This went on for a couple of years to my dim recollection and was found out by government, not arbitrarily nor by self concern did they fess up and do right.

Do you know what started the FDA...the deaths consequent to a antifreeze solution being in I believe it was cough syrup back in the day.
The no regulation back in the day that killed how many....?

[Josef]

What I'm saying is that the Fed doesn't regulate anything, at least not for the good of the people.

Those who run the Fed have already manufactured a crisis or two in order to control the minds of people.

Anyway, so you're basically saying revamp the Fed and make it somehow more honest and workable?

Many of your points are directly addressed in the YouTube video I've posted above. It really clears up a lot of misconceptions regarding Ron Paul's ideas.

If the people get involved, a free market is perfectly capable of regulating itself in regard to ensuring that apple juice is actually pure and organic. We don't need the greedy criminal FDA getting all up in our business.

The problem with the Fed is that it is a private, for-profit, bank.
Central banks in most countries have traditionally been public safety nets. Somehow we lost site of this in the States and started moving away from Keynesian economics to Freidman's Chicago School model.
That is the problem, having the "Fed" is actually a good idea. Having the "Fed" be private and for profit, is not.