Buddhism, Social Equity, and odd interpretations of karma

[Admin_PC]

Mod note:
We removed this thread for review and are now moving it back.

[Malcolm]

You said there are positive, negative and neutral volitions. You didn't say there is volition, and it can be conditioned by mental factors.

In fact I did say this here:

[Grigoris]

You said there are positive, negative and neutral volitions. You didn't say there is volition, and it can be conditioned by mental factors.

In fact I did say this here:

Oooops... sorry, didn't remember this one!

So now mental factors are the unconditioned dharmas?

[Malcolm]

You said there are positive, negative and neutral volitions. You didn't say there is volition, and it can be conditioned by mental factors.

In fact I did say this here:

Oooops... sorry, didn't remember this one!

So now mental factors are the unconditioned dharmas?

That is a nonsequitur.

[Grigoris]

That is a nonsequitur.

It is a serious question, not a claim. I am trying to ascertain (in terms of cause/condition) how far down it is all reduced.

[Malcolm]

That is a nonsequitur.

It is a serious question, not a claim. I am trying to ascertain (in terms of cause/condition) how far down it is all reduced.

Caittas and cittas are always conditioned. Negative cittas are conditioned by negative caittas, which in turn are conditioned by afflicted caittas; positive cittas are conditioned by positive caittas, which are conditioned by positive caittas. Neutral cittas are conditioned by the ten neutral caittas, in absence of either positive or afflicted caittas. The minimum number of caittas a sentient being in desire realm can possess is twelve — the ten neutral caittas that accompany all minds or cittas in the desire realm, including coarse attention and sustained attention. That number decreases in the form and formless realm.

That said, even positive and neutral cittas and caittas are contaminated if they are not connected with the path dharmas of the 37 adjuncts of awakening.

[Grigoris]

That is a nonsequitur.

It is a serious question, not a claim. I am trying to ascertain (in terms of cause/condition) how far down it is all reduced.

Caittas and cittas are always conditioned. Negative cittas are conditioned by negative caittas, which in turn are conditioned by afflicted caittas; positive cittas are conditioned by positive caittas, which are conditioned by positive caittas. Neutral cittas are conditioned by the ten neutral caittas, in absence of either positive or afflicted caittas. The minimum number of caittas a sentient being in desire realm can possess is twelve — the ten neutral caittas that accompany all minds or cittas in the desire realm, including coarse attention and sustained attention. That number decreases in the form and formless realm.

That said, even positive and neutral cittas and caittas are contaminated if they are not connected with the path dharmas of the 37 adjuncts of awakening.

Would it be true to say that ignorance is the ultimate cause of all afflicted relative mental states, positive or negative?

If Mahamudra/Dzogchen is unconditioned then it would not be associated with positive mental factors either. Right?

[maybay]

There's this story about a British missionary in India during Victorian times who saw a girl being swept downstream by a river. An old Indian man by the river stood by and watched while the missionary went in to save the girl. Afterwards he asked the old man why he didn't save her. He said it was her karma to fall into the river.

When I read that story, I wondered why the old man didn't think it was his karma to be there and try to help her.

Thats the thing right? Its kind of irrelevant if the girl "deserved" to die or not. By cultivating a lack of compassion, the fault is with the man in the story, who failed to act with compassion.

The story with the missionary seems to be politically and culturally charged in favor of the British Christian missionary.
The missionary's question is such that it is bound to elicit a face-saving reply. When you ask people about their morality, and especially when asking them about situations where they apparently failed to live up to their professed moral beliefs, these people will possibly come up with face-saving replies.

There's that bit of common-sense wisdom that says that one should never discuss religion and politics in polite society ...

[maybay]

Even though white privilege is a thing, its not all its cracked up to be. Theres draw backs to being a white man...

For example in the eyes of society you have 0 excuse for not being successful and wealthy. Oh youre white? If your not wealthy/have a car/have a home then you are somehow a frak up and someone to avoid. People easily forgive anyone else for not having these things because of their disadvantages, but a white man without these? Worthless. Pathetic. A loser.

If you need help there are not organizations who will really help you. There is no support group. If you are gay you can easily find groups that will take you in, help you, take care of you. If you are a straight white male? Good luck! Same goes with other minorities who have groups focused solely on helping them. As a white man Ive never been able to get help from anyone except immediate friends or family. The government could care less if I fall through the cracks, and there are no real groups that help white men that are easily accessible. You are basically laughed at and ignored if you need help as a white guy.

If you end up homeless as a white man? Well good luck with that! Theres plenty of groups helping women, gays, youths and others but a white man? Again it goes back to this expectation that white = intelligent and competent and if you dont have it all youve done something terribly wrong.

So theres upsides and downsides, but its not all its cracked up to be. My main experience of being white is being held to an impossible standard that in my entire life Ive never been able to live up to.

No different than being a black man or a latino man. Men have zero access to social services apart from food stamps. It is not a white man thing, it is a man thing. Also if you are a women, it is the same, unless you have young kids. Of course, the amount of money spent on social services such as welfare are a tiny percentage of the budget, but no one ever notices this when they bitch about lack of access to social services they imagine "other" people have access to. In other words, your post is basically racist since you imagine you are being held up to a standard that people of color are not being held up to.

Another defiant use of the incendiary term "racist" where "prejudice" would suffice, and is clearly more representative of his post. Moreover, you've isolated the point about social services, the part government plays, which is only part of his grievance, and made a sharp edge of it.

[Grigoris]

Another defiant use of the incendiary term "racist" where "prejudice" would suffice, and is clearly more representative of his post. Moreover, you've isolated the point about social services, the part government plays, which is only part of his grievance, and made a sharp edge of it.

In some cases to say somebody is in engaing in prejudice is too broad and does not carry the same (negative) connotations. Racism is a specific type of prejudice. Sexism is another type. Etc...

I can be prejudiced towards one type of food in preference to another, but this is not an -ism. Prejudice against somebody on the basis of their skin colour is (generally) accompanied by an -ism.

[Malcolm]

It is a serious question, not a claim. I am trying to ascertain (in terms of cause/condition) how far down it is all reduced.

Caittas and cittas are always conditioned. Negative cittas are conditioned by negative caittas, which in turn are conditioned by afflicted caittas; positive cittas are conditioned by positive caittas, which are conditioned by positive caittas. Neutral cittas are conditioned by the ten neutral caittas, in absence of either positive or afflicted caittas. The minimum number of caittas a sentient being in desire realm can possess is twelve — the ten neutral caittas that accompany all minds or cittas in the desire realm, including coarse attention and sustained attention. That number decreases in the form and formless realm.

That said, even positive and neutral cittas and caittas are contaminated if they are not connected with the path dharmas of the 37 adjuncts of awakening.

Would it be true to say that ignorance is the ultimate cause of all afflicted relative mental states, positive or negative?

If Mahamudra/Dzogchen is unconditioned then it would not be associated with positive mental factors either. Right?

In order to arrive at the realization of either, one must have first given rise to five faculties (faith, diligence, mindfulness, samadhi and wisdom), the first set within the 37 factors of awakening. These five faculties are found with neutral (mindfulness, samadhi and wisdom) and positive mental factors (faith and diligence), and when combined with the right path, lead to eventual buddhahood.

[maybay]

Another defiant use of the incendiary term "racist" where "prejudice" would suffice, and is clearly more representative of his post. Moreover, you've isolated the point about social services, the part government plays, which is only part of his grievance, and made a sharp edge of it.

In some cases to say somebody is in engaing in prejudice is too broad and does not carry the same (negative) connotations. Racism is a specific type of prejudice. Sexism is another type. Etc...

I can be prejudiced towards one type of food in preference to another, but this is not an -ism. Prejudice against somebody on the basis of their skin colour is (generally) accompanied by an -ism.

If I said I don't like fruit (prejudice), and you told someone I hate pears (racism), I would feel misrepresented. You've added something that was not there.

Moreover, I don't even see how his post can be called prejudicial, since he is not acting on anyone. He is the subject. If his perceptions were flawed, then we might identify him as neurotic, and compassionately disregard any views which might appear prejudicial. Except that in this case I think his perceptions are not flawed. He has grasped the essential dynamic.

[Malcolm]

Even though white privilege is a thing, its not all its cracked up to be. Theres draw backs to being a white man...

For example in the eyes of society you have 0 excuse for not being successful and wealthy. Oh youre white? If your not wealthy/have a car/have a home then you are somehow a frak up and someone to avoid. People easily forgive anyone else for not having these things because of their disadvantages, but a white man without these? Worthless. Pathetic. A loser.

If you need help there are not organizations who will really help you. There is no support group. If you are gay you can easily find groups that will take you in, help you, take care of you. If you are a straight white male? Good luck! Same goes with other minorities who have groups focused solely on helping them. As a white man Ive never been able to get help from anyone except immediate friends or family. The government could care less if I fall through the cracks, and there are no real groups that help white men that are easily accessible. You are basically laughed at and ignored if you need help as a white guy.

If you end up homeless as a white man? Well good luck with that! Theres plenty of groups helping women, gays, youths and others but a white man? Again it goes back to this expectation that white = intelligent and competent and if you dont have it all youve done something terribly wrong.

So theres upsides and downsides, but its not all its cracked up to be. My main experience of being white is being held to an impossible standard that in my entire life Ive never been able to live up to.

No different than being a black man or a latino man. Men have zero access to social services apart from food stamps. It is not a white man thing, it is a man thing. Also if you are a women, it is the same, unless you have young kids. Of course, the amount of money spent on social services such as welfare are a tiny percentage of the budget, but no one ever notices this when they bitch about lack of access to social services they imagine "other" people have access to. In other words, your post is basically racist since you imagine you are being held up to a standard that people of color are not being held up to.

Another defiant use of the incendiary term "racist" where "prejudice" would suffice, and is clearly more representative of his post. Moreover, you've isolated the point about social services, the part government plays, which is only part of his grievance, and made a sharp edge of it.

When racist language is used, it is appropriate to term it racist. For example, there is a so called "men's movement" where men complain about how they are disadvantaged by their gender because of the success of the women's movement; but in reality they are basically upset that they cannot with impunity behave like sexist pigs anymore. When such complaints are lodged by such men, it is appropriate to call those complaints sexist. When an advantaged person complains that their advantage is a disadvantage by either ethnicity or gender, that complaint is wither racist or sexist because it involves pointing out something undesirable about another race or a gender.

[Rakz]

No different than being a black man or a latino man. Men have zero access to social services apart from food stamps. It is not a white man thing, it is a man thing. Also if you are a women, it is the same, unless you have young kids. Of course, the amount of money spent on social services such as welfare are a tiny percentage of the budget, but no one ever notices this when they bitch about lack of access to social services they imagine "other" people have access to. In other words, your post is basically racist since you imagine you are being held up to a standard that people of color are not being held up to.

Another defiant use of the incendiary term "racist" where "prejudice" would suffice, and is clearly more representative of his post. Moreover, you've isolated the point about social services, the part government plays, which is only part of his grievance, and made a sharp edge of it.

When racist language is used, it is appropriate to term it racist. For example, there is a so called "men's movement" where men complain about how they are disadvantaged by their gender because of the success of the women's movement; but in reality they are basically upset that they cannot with impunity behave like sexist pigs anymore. When such complaints are lodged by such men, it is appropriate to call those complaints sexist. When an advantaged person complains that their advantage is a disadvantage by either ethnicity or gender, that complaint is wither racist or sexist because it involves pointing out something undesirable about another race or a gender.

You have a narrow minded view when it comes to the men's movement. I recommend this documentary for you.

phpBB [video]

[Malcolm]

You have a narrow minded view when it comes to the men's movement. I recommend this documentary for you.

Sorry, I think these guys are a bunch of [insert favorite Bill Maher insult here]. I have zero sympathy for them.

[Rakz]

You have a narrow minded view when it comes to the men's movement. I recommend this documentary for you.

Sorry, I think these guys are a bunch of [insert favorite Bill Maher insult here]. I have zero sympathy for them.

Why shouldn't they be worthy of any sympathy?

[Malcolm]

You have a narrow minded view when it comes to the men's movement. I recommend this documentary for you.

Sorry, I think these guys are a bunch of [insert favorite Bill Maher insult here]. I have zero sympathy for them.

Why shouldn't they be worthy of any sympathy?

If they were actually suffering from some real oppression, then I would have sympathy for them. But since they are behaving like hysterical children who are complaining of monsters they imagine to be under their bed...well, they are not children...so...

[Grigoris]

If I said I don't like fruit (prejudice), and you told someone I hate pears (racism), I would feel misrepresented. You've added something that was not there.

Sorry, but that metaphor is totally inexpedient. You are splitting hairs. When somebody is being racist you say they are being racist. If they are being homophobic, you call them homophobic. If they are generally being an ass you call them prejudiced. If this prejudice is predicated on a particular political position...

[Rakz]

Sorry, I think these guys are a bunch of [insert favorite Bill Maher insult here]. I have zero sympathy for them.

Why shouldn't they be worthy of any sympathy?

If they were actually suffering from some real oppression, then I would have sympathy for them. But since they are behaving like hysterical children who are complaining of monsters they imagine to be under their bed...well, they are not children...so...

You know better than they do? Do you have firsthand experience of what it is like to go through a divorce in the west as they have? Have you ever heard the term divorce raped?

[Malcolm]

You know better than they do? Do you have firsthand experience of what it is like to go through a divorce in the west as they have?

Yup, was taken to the cleaners too. But I am a man, not a child. So you know what? I don't complain because I am old school, not like these modern whiny man-babies of today.