Buddhism a la surprise

[Skybird]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/I...ow/3995810.cms

Non-violence can't tackle terror

18 Jan 2009, 0451 hrs IST, PTI
NEW DELHI: The Dalai Lama, a lifelong champion of non-violence on Saturday candidly stated that terrorism cannot be tackled by applying the principle of ahimsa because the minds of terrorists are closed.

"It is difficult to deal with terrorism through non-violence," the Tibetan spiritual leader said delivering the Madhavrao Scindia Memorial Lecture here.

He also termed terrorism as the worst kind of violence which is not carried by a few mad people but by those who are very brilliant and educated.

"They (terrorists) are very brilliant and educated...but a strong ill feeling is bred in them. Their minds are closed," the Dalai Lama said.

He said that the only way to tackle terrorism is through prevention. The head of the Tibetan government-in-exile left the audience stunned when he said "I love President George W Bush." He went on to add how he and the US President instantly struck a chord in their first meeting unlike politicians who take a while to develop close ties.

[Letum]

If it can't be tackled with out violence, then it can't be tackled at all in the long run.
Fortunately for all, H.H. the D.L. is certainly not infallible.

[Rockstar]

I met the Dalai Lama once, the late 90s. I had my preconcieved notions about him which were quite contrary to my thoughts of him now. Shipmates were waiting for me to make a spectacle out of the event. He, a relatively short man dressed in robes, I being 6'-4" and then as many would tell you somewhat intimidating in size and manners. When he came up to me he looked as is if he was about to climb a mountain. I looked down thinking to say something colorful and get a laugh at his expense.

We took one anothers hand and looked at each other. Just then he let loose with the biggest most geniune smile I had ever seen on anyone in my life which in turn brought the same from me. There was a certain strength in him, in his arms, in his grip and a hardness I thought from having seen too much in life. I thought how can I hate this man he is so kind I am glad to have met him.

I don't agree with his beliefs I wish I could have spoke to him in peace and love with what I now know of Mashiach. But I don't hate the guy for it, that word 'hate' today unfortunetly it is all too common place.

Whats so hard or surprising to say you love someone you've never met why is it so difficult for so many? By 'stunning' the audience like he did with those words I wonder how close they must be to being like them who attacked Mumbai.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

If it can't be tackled with out violence, then it can't be tackled at all in the long run.
Fortunately for all, H.H. the D.L. is certainly not infallible.

Neither are you.
Let there be nobody mistaken, that the use of force probably has brought more ends to bad things, and has helped more good things in man's evolution to emerge than mere philosphies and good intentions alone. As Thomas Mann said: "Tolerance of evil is a crime", and it never leads to anything different than this: tolerating evil. the dalai Lama said "their minds are closed." I assume he means the same thing like me when saying they are blind by mind and heart. Such people you can't reach with reasons and arguments or intentions. you stop them and hinder them to carry on with all means needed to acchieve that effect, or they carry on. Simply that. As the Dalai Lama also is quoted to have said some years ago: "If somebody has a rifle and starts shooting at you, eventually it may be a good idea to pick up a rifle yourself and start shooting back." Call it pragmatic pedagogics.

Originally Posted by Rockstar

I met the Dalai Lama once, the late 90s. I had my preconcieved notions about him which were quite contrary to my thoughts of him now. Shipmates were waiting for me to make a spectacle out of the event. He, a relatively short man dressed in robes, I being 6'-4" and then as many would tell you somewhat intimidating in size and manners. When he came up to me he looked as is if he was about to climb a mountain. I looked down thinking to say something colorful and get a laugh at his expense.

We took one anothers hand and looked at each other. Just then he let loose with the biggest most geniune smile I had ever seen on anyone in my life which in turn brought the same from me. There was a certain strength in him, in his arms, in his grip and a hardness I thought from having seen too much in life. I thought how can I hate this man he is so kind I am glad to have met him.

I don't agree with his beliefs I wish I could have spoke to him in peace and love with what I now know of Mashiach. But I don't hate the guy for it, that word 'hate' today unfortunetly it is all too common place.

Whats so hard or surprising to say you love someone you've never met why is it so difficult for so many? By 'stunning' the audience like he did with those words I wonder how close they must be to being like them who attacked Mumbai.

I understand what you mean. I also once met him, in the early 90s, and beside him several other Lamas as well. I am not completely overthrown and enthusiastic about him, that simply is not in my stoic cold temper, but surely one needs to be already dead in order to not realise that there is something special around this man, and that he means it straight, open and honest, whatever it is. If more leaders of peoples in the world would be like that, this world would be a better place, no doubt. Unfortunately, we need to deal with the world as it is - and it lacks such leaders. We only know that we could desperately need them, to learn by their example.

[Stealth Hunter]

I would sooner convert to Buddhism than any other religion, though. I like their philosophy of peace, enlightenment, and tapping in with your surroundings.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

I would sooner convert to Buddhism than any other religion, though. I like their philosophy of peace, enlightenment, and tapping in with your surroundings.

Converting to it makes little sense, since converting to it has no real meaning for you or anybody else and will help you nothing. Of course there are many schools and sects and lineages you can gain membership in, and they have ceremonies and rituals like other religions, but all that has nothing to do with what Buddha wanted to point at, at best it teaches you over time what "it" is not. You already have one head on your shoulders, and you don't need somebody else's head put on top of it, not even Buddha's, so use what you've already been given. All what you will ever need you already have.

Learn about and then check for yourself with reason and logic the basic ideas of Siddharta's reasoning and argument. What you find convincing in your analysis and find to be of good for you and others, and not being at the cost of anybody else - keep that and live by it. Doing so is a thousand times better than practicing rituals and "spiritual practices". If you do so, the rest will come by itself. There is no enlightenment you could "gain". Free your mind from images and conceptions. Stop worrying about whether you want to "convert" to Buddhism or not. It is totally unimportant and will give you nothing, and the question can only hinder you. Leave it behind like the steps of the stairs behind you - you hardly give them any second thought, do you.

Stop searching for something, and don't yearn for it outside yourself. That's the essence of Buddhist practice, really, and it is quite simple: awareness. But people do not believe that and start to hassle around. Not before then life become's complicated and mind gets upset. Ideas raise, theories and and clever thoughts, arguments are given and counter-arguments appear - clearness leaves, confusion reigns.

Best way to clear a muddy water is not trying to clear it - but to let it be.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Let there be nobody mistaken, that the use of force probably has brought more ends to bad things, and has helped more good things in man's evolution to emerge than mere philosphies and good intentions alone.

Shall we compare the number of violent deaths in countries where the use of violent
force is common place with the number of violent deaths in countries where the use of
violent force is rare?

It is a culture of peace, rather than the domination of enemies via force, that produces
lasting peace.

There are many hundreds of times fewer violent deaths, illnesses, famines, disasters,
wars, genocides etc. now than there where 2000 years ago. This is not because we
use more force now, but because of medicine, modern farming, law, government and
other such "mere philosophies and good intentions".

[Skybird]

Shall we compare the numbers of revolutions, violent uprises and wars being fought against "evil" with where the world would be today if they would not have been fought, not to mention: would have been lost? Should we consider the number of tyrants and dicators who had been driven out by force, barbaric ideologies overcome by violent resistance, and the power monopoles of some and abuse of these broken with brute force?

Peaceful revolutions are a relatively young phenomenon, and not many examples are to be given. Wars have had a tremendous influence in shaping the world we currently have. Also in shaping our today's freedoms, and local peace.

Freedom is no natural right by birth, but a conseqeunce of action. Freedom needs to be fought for, and needs to be defended, if needed by force. He who is not willing to fight for freedom, his or that of his children, does not deserve freedom, for he does not esteem it. Such is a man who carelessly throws it away and does not see the loss, and minimises it.

And let's face it - Ghandi only is a name in the history book because he confronted the British, and the British Empire after all - and despite undeniable excesses - all in all was a relatively civilised power that I rate much higher in reputation than it is en vogue today. If Ghandi would have had to deal with Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Third Reich, with Tamerlan'S kingdom or the Mongoles, we would not even know today that he ever had existed, for already his first pacifistic rally would have been shot or hacked into bloody pieces.

[Letum]

Indeed. He would have been hacked to death by any government that viewed the use
of force as the best means of solving a problem.

It's a jolly good thing the British Empire where not as keen on force and violence as
you seam to be.

All revolutions; violent or non-violent, good or bad, have at their core a popular
ideology or philosophy that moves the population as one. No small minority in power
can resist the will of the majority then the majority act as one either violently or
peacefully.

Peaceful revolutions happen several times a year in Europe and have done for
quite a while now.
Being peaceful by nature, so very effective and common place, perhaps you don't
notice them for what they are anymore, but revolutions they are. They could be done
violently, but it is a good thing they are not!

I believe the next one in the UK will happen some time this year, although it is yet to
be announced.

Doesn't surprise me one bit that the Dalai Lama was very friendly with Dubya. Afterall, the US did exact a bloody vengeance on Afghanistan for the Talibans blowing up Buddha-statues. Not exactly 'non-violent', not sure how the Dalai Lama defends the whole thing with 'extraordinary renditions' etc.

I agree with Skybird about Buddhism being just a religion among others. Nothing else, nothing more. Just another fairytale among many others.

But to think that the British colonial empire was somehow 'kinder' than Stalin's Soviet...I don't exactly get that comparison. And this coming from someone who's both grandfathers fought against the Soviets in WW2. First of all it's comparing apples to oranges. Secondly, the cruelty of British colonialism lie in their special brand of colonial politics that, read very carefully, is still continuing. So until the British colonialism lay in it's grave I won't be making any final conclusions about their 'kindness'.

[Skybird]

The presence of British colonialism caused violence, yes - but all too often it ended in even more violence between tribes in Africa. It brought rudimentary basics - and often quite some more - of humanism, civilisation and education to quite some hellholes of blossoming barbarism and places of constant bloodshed. It taught people the basics of administration and maintaining a public society where before people spend their time with trying to kill each other with clubs and axes.

To compare it with Stalin's tyranny, is the most absurd thing I've red in this board for one or two weeks. which means it is really quite absurd. The British Empire was Light and Shadow, in in many places it was more light than shadow. Stalinism only was deepest darkness. Is there any civilisational benefit you would see in it? Hardly. with estimations of victims killed by Stalinism ranging from 20 to 40 millions, it would need courage to claim that.

Also, i would not even rate buddhism (the essentials of it, ignoring the sects and school'S institutional businesses) a religion, nor a belief. It does not tell you fairy tale stuff to believe. It hints you to the need to examine your mind - and by that, learn and find out about yourself, your own true nature. Buddha insisted on you testing and examining stuff all by yourself, by reason and logic and common sense and analysis. He cautioned you to not just "believe", he even cautioned you against believing in his own words, but to test them. Test it yourself, keep what convinces you after you examined it by reason and logic, and live by it if you found it to be of good for you and for others, and not being at the cost of others. There is no stuff to "believe" in buddhist thinking. Believing and buddhist thinking are mutually exclusive. Buddhist schools may tell you to believe their rite and rituals, your Lama, your teacher, or to believe in Dhakas and dhakinis and mantras and whatever, and here you touch the fact that many of them - imo in ignorration of basic principles of Siddharta's way of thinking - indeed behave like the Christian church does. but both are raising these false impressions of their religion for reasons of material and powerpolitical self-interest. religious institutions are not interested in your interest to get free. They are interested to make you support their political interests and their material existence - and that means for you to give up your freedom. forget them, no matter whether you call yourself Buddhist or Christian or whatever. If you meet buddha, kill buddha. If you meet Jesus, slay him. You have holy scriptures - burn them. There comes Muhammad - shoot him. Buddha is a state of self-knowledge in your mind. The kingdom of heaven is a state of mental evolution. Only "what is" will set you free.



Letum,

obviously you mean the term revolution metaphorically when you really think there are several ones every year. I mean the term in the more historic meaning of events like the French or american or Russian or Chinese revolution, and that means: a violent overthrowing of an established order, violent so that nothing of the old order shall remain and be given the chance to reestablish itself again later - that'S why revolutions tend to be so bloody. Exceptions to this rule are for example the peaceful overthrowing of the government in the GDR in 1989.

And your reply to Ghandi just states the obvious and confirms my argument. It means that he would have been ineffective with damn many nations and societies on this planet, from the contemporary and obviously barbaric Saudi to the apparently more civilised Chinese, from the corrupt despots of Kongo to the jihaddi djanjaweed in Darfhur or any Talebna-formed government like you had it in Afghanistan before. In Kongo alone you would have saved 7 million lives by now if the world wpould have willed to intervene by force, and over 1 million in Darfhur have been killed due to lacking efficient military action. On the other hand, substracting those 6 millions murdered in the camps, the 6 million killed Germans who for the most happened to have been born on the wrong side of borders, those 40+ million people who died in WWII, died for the freedom you know enjoy and that allows you to argue that only peaceful means could overcome terrorist violence and violence shall never be used. Had that attitude been the norm with leaders of the Allies, for your unconditional pacifist views you maybe would sit in a concentration camp yourself today. And do you really believe that working there would set you free just because the slogan over the gate of Auschwitz said so?

Face it, this world has plenty of beasts with claws and teeth, and sometimes it'S the lesser harm to kill the other than to accept him committing his own killing spree. The Khmer Rouge as a reminder. The Skull Towers Islamic conquerors built in Northern Africa. The many, many genocides taking place in Africa - and who temporarily interrupted during the British ruling, and broke out again after the British had left. Not always such conflicts arise from artificial border-drawing on maps that lead to failed states like Irak. I do not mind (and I do not care) whether there are "just wars", all I know is that there are wars of needs and wars of choice. The first should not be avoided, the last better should. Even if following Buddhist thinking to major parts and considering karma and all that, I have no problem and see no evil in eventually killing by my own hands. The critical questions are: for what reason, and in what state of mind and emotional condition. Unlimited pacifism - is one of the most inhumance and uninterested factors in human history, causing an incredibly load of horror and suffering to continue. and there is neither peace of mind nor a superior humane argument to be found in that attitude. It just is carelessness and dsinterest, taking itself as more important than to engage in trying to stop such events going on. You must neither convince nor argue with for example terrorists, or barbars. You ust make them stop without giving them reward for their being what they are. That is good enough. That is what decides on whose side you really are. Reason only convinces you still is open to reason. Many are not.

Originally Posted by Skybird

The presence of British colonialism caused violence, yes - but it ended even more violence between tribes in Africa. It brought rudimentary basics - and often quite some more - of humanism, civilisation and education to quite some hellholes of blossoming barbarism and places of constant bloodshed. It taught people the basics of administration and maintaining a public society where before people spend their time with trying to kill each other with clubs and axes.

To compare it with Stalin's tyranny, is the most absurd thing I've red in this board for one or two weeks. which means it is really quite absurd. The British Empire was Light and Shadow, in in many places it was more light than shadow. Stalinism only was deepest darkness.

You use a lot of emotive words where there really is no need for any. Barbarism? Light? Darkness?

The British empire has had a constant presence in Africa for centuries. It continues it's presence there through economical systems that allow for example the mining companies to continue where the colonial governments left off. In essence nothing has really changed since the 1960's and -70's when most African former colonies began to get their so called independence. When the Soviets and also GDR tried to set up trade unions in African nations the trade unionists were murdered with help from CIA. I guess that's one example of 'civilisation'. We have trade unions in the west, why can't Africa have them?

But it's somehow interesting that a German should be so adamant about defending the British empire. I mean, it was the Brits, the 'Tommies', who took such great delight in bombing places like Dresden, testing the principles of 'fire storm' and napalm use against civilians. I'm sure this further endeared them to you?

See I've always had this theory that even if Germany was Britain's enemy during WW 2, the weren't complete enemies. Hitler admired the British royalty. The Soviets were the principal target and 'race enemy' of the Nazi-Germany. The British were even respected and hence no real attempt was made to conquer the British isles. As we know, u-boat war was waged but unfortunately u-boats can't conquer lands.

edit. And you can spare the new age-buddhist bull****, I'm not prone to believing that stuff. They brainwash kids to be their monks, why don't allow the kids to grow up into adulthood and then make up their minds about whether to become monks or not? It's just a religion, no better then, say, Scientology. Actually it's worse cause it has more members.

[Skybird]

You might be surprised at the low level of hard feelings in Germany for the bombings of cities, maybe that is because people here know that the bombing of cities has been started by Germany, and that the war has been started by germany as well. Was it pleasant to experience Dresden and Hamburg? Hardly. Was it a necessity to have this war against Hitler nevertheless? Absolutely.

The theory on the British empire carrying on to exist in contemporary trade systems, is not new, to some degree I agree, to some not. There is a parallel, an Anglosaxon version, to the conspiration theory called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. the Anglosaxon version says that Roosevelt only entered the war in order to have america take over rulership fromt he disappearing British empire in order to ensure ongoing anglosaxon world dominance in close cooperation and coordination with the British. Usually this theory is widespread amongst Russians, and the European left. But I think today's global trade structures may have been helped to form by the trade system of the British empire, but nevertheles are mostly caused by the scientific, technological, administrative and legal superiority of Europe one and two hundred years ago. And to the degree others have copied these very items items that once founded european superiority, the others became equals in power and the West gets under pressure, often in kind of boomerang effects (like this thing called "globalisation"). The influence of capitalism in anglosaxon understanidng is not so much directly caused by the existence of a physical, regional empire, but the influence anglosaxon culture in general had on the global cultural climate. It would dominate today even without a British Empire ever having existed, for it is basing on an aeons-old characteristic of man (egoism, the craving for profit, and to improve one's material basis), and just shifted some accentuations.

That does not mean I like or defend Anglosaxon understanding of totally liberal, unregulated markets and predator capitalism. I just describe how I see history's processes. the British already were able to hold their ground against overwhelming odds during the Napoleonic wars, which were an era before the British Empire in the meaning of the word emerged. Although france potentially was hopelessly superior in finances, the British changed certain aspects in their banking sytems and tax system to mobilise the needed economic and capital ressources to outsit the French, who also did not make best use of their economic potential. That way, a people that was smaller in numbers and smaller in economic power was able to not only survive Napoleon, but to increase it's influence in europe, and after the final defeat of the French "beast" continued to expand into a maritime trade empire. The understanding to support such a project had been formed before the structures of the global empire were formed.

Regarding buddhism, I want to make you believe nothing pro or contra, so do what you want. Your latest comment just clearly illustrates that you obviously lack needed knowledge about it. But if you criticise something, you need to know it in order to know why you criticise it. Note that I have expressed a rejecting attiude to buddhist sects myself - but said that they indeed are like any other religious institution - but do not necessarily focus of the essential basics of Siddharta's arguments. And that's what they were: arguments, born by observation, deductive logic, and rational conclusions. If you think you need to compare Buddhist thinking to scientology, you just reveal yourself as a total fool not really knowing what he is talking about. You could as well declare the sermon on the mountain a fashist manifest.

I do not like your always present, constant subliminal or obvious hostility, wether it be towards Germans, politics, me, or whatever, and your last unacceptable outburst some days ago still is on my mind. If you can't do without that, save your time, for I refuse to continue any communication with you then.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

I would sooner convert to Buddhism than any other religion, though. I like their philosophy of peace, enlightenment, and tapping in with your surroundings.

Yeah but the food gets a tad dull after a while. Other than that its all good.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

obviously you mean the term revolution metaphorically when you really think there are several ones every year.

No. I don't.
What are elections if not peaceful, well organized revolutions?

The old order is over thrown peacefully and non-violently. What do you expect a
peaceful revolution to look like? Some kind of anarchic rabble?

They are extremely effective.
They could be done violently, but they are not.