POTUS 2016, part 3

[Johnny Dangerous]

"Sure, and recall that Fa Dao has been chief among those of us here hysterically decrying Muslims for being, well, Muslim" I may not agree with everything Fa Dao has to say but I don't find him hysterical anymore then I find you hysterical. Let people have their say!

From my reading of the thread, people did let him have his say, and simply elucidated where they disagreed with him, and why.

It ended in the predictable way these sorts of debates end these days, with the person making assertions claiming they were somehow silenced by the people responding to them, or claiming that people who want approach issues of inequity are somehow perpetuating inequity; it's circular and tiring.

[dreambow]

Years ago there was some Greek guy on the forum, strictly vegetarian or perhaps he was vegan and working in a factory or some menial job. Some member complained as they didn't believe his Buddhist input was sufficient and consequently he was kicked off the forum. He was really quite interesting and I think it a pity that he was asked to go. Now people are totally engrossed in the politics of America and argue vociferously from the left or right and believe strongly they have fair play or truth on their side. It now appears in 2016 its ok to do so.

[Kim O'Hara]

A thought-provoking blog post from one of my favouriet authors -

119. The Election, Lao Tzu, a Cup of Water

Americans have voted for a politics of fear, anger, and hatred, and those of us who oppose this politics are now trying to figure out how we can oppose it usefully. I want to defend my country, my republic. In the atmosphere of fear, anger, and hatred, opposition too easily becomes division, fixed enmity. I’m looking for a place to stand, or a way to go, where the behavior of those I oppose will not control my behavior.

Americans are given to naming enemies and declaring righteous war against them. Indians are the enemy, socialism is the enemy, cancer is the enemy, Jews are the enemy, Muslims are the enemy, sugar is the enemy. We don’t support education, we declare a war on illiteracy. We make war on drugs, war on Viet Nam, war on Iraq, war on obesity, war on terror, war on poverty. We see death, the terms on which we have life, as an enemy that must be defeated at all costs.

Defeat for the enemy, victory for us, aggression as the means to that end: this obsessive metaphor is used even by those who know that aggressive war offers no solution, and has no end but desolation.

The election of 2016 was one of the battles of the American Civil War. The Trump voters knew it, if we didn’t, and they won it. Their victory helps me see where my own thinking has been at fault.

I will try never to use the metaphor of war where it doesn’t belong, because I think it has come to shape our thinking and dominate our minds so that we tend to see the destructive force of aggression as the only way to meet any challenge. I want to find a better way.
Spiral

My song for many years was We Shall Overcome. I will always love that song, what it says and the people who have sung it, with whom I marched singing. But I can’t march now, and I can’t sing it any longer.

My song is Ain’t Gonna Study War No More.

Though we’ve had some great scholars of peace, such as Martin Luther King, studying it is something Americans have done very little of.

The way of the warrior admits no positive alternatives to fighting, only negatives — inertia, passivity, surrender. Talk of “waging peace” is mere glibness, you can’t be aggressively peaceful. Reducing positive action to fighting against or fighting for, we have not looked at the possibility of other forms of action.

Like the people who marched to Selma, the people who are standing their ground at Standing Rock study, learn, and teach us the hard lessons of peace. ...

http://ursulakleguin.com/Blog2016.html#119Election



Kim

[maybay]

Well said. I would add disgust as one of the vices. It has been probably the most dominant this year.

Jonathan Haidt: Can a divided America heal?
https://go.ted.com/Cy7S

[maybay]

But as for being a warrior, I think this just needs to be understood in its dignified aspect, and not squandered through the veil of literal thinking. Lao Tzu explains how a true warrior is never angry. The warrior features prominently in Tibetan nomadic culture where it is not defined by the appearance of violence, but by the quality of bravery.

[Caoimhghín]

Years ago there was some Greek guy on the forum, strictly vegetarian or perhaps he was vegan and working in a factory or some menial job. Some member complained as they didn't believe his Buddhist input was sufficient and consequently he was kicked off the forum. He was really quite interesting and I think it a pity that he was asked to go. Now people are totally engrossed in the politics of America and argue vociferously from the left or right and believe strongly they have fair play or truth on their side. It now appears in 2016 its ok to do so.

That is odd and troubling. How long before it's decided that any on our postings "aren't Buddhist enough" on a frequent basis? Surely there must have been more to the story than that?

[PuerAzaelis]

@ Kim a great blog post by one of my favorite authors. Nevertheless militancy is part of the language of resistance. Without it don't we become doormats? And I don't want to be a doormat. Gandhi and Martin Luther King were "warriors" of "ahimsa". Paradoxical but true. If the word is in our language I say we use it for the sakeg of dharma, like Trungpa.

[Malcolm]

The warrior features prominently in Tibetan nomadic culture where it is not defined by the appearance of violence, but by the quality of bravery.

You have apparently never met any Tibetan nomads. Thus you suffer from the noble savage bias.

[Malcolm]

@ Kim a great blog post by one of my favorite authors. Nevertheless militancy is part of the language of resistance. Without it don't we become doormats? And I don't want to be a doormat. Ghandhi and Martin Luther King were "warriors" of "ahimsa". Paradoxical but true. If the word is in our language I say we use it for the sake of dharma, like Trungpa.

The language of Buddhadharma is kitted out in all kinds of martial metaphors. The Buddha, in this dispensation, was after all a member of the warrior class.

[maybay]

The warrior features prominently in Tibetan nomadic culture where it is not defined by the appearance of violence, but by the quality of bravery.

You have apparently never met any Tibetan nomads. Thus you suffer from the noble savage bias.

Disingenuous correlation. You just want to shout down the idea by painting me as an anachronistic snob. Well its not my idea.

[maybay]

@ Kim a great blog post by one of my favorite authors. Nevertheless militancy is part of the language of resistance. Without it don't we become doormats? And I don't want to be a doormat. Ghandhi and Martin Luther King were "warriors" of "ahimsa". Paradoxical but true. If the word is in our language I say we use it for the sake of dharma, like Trungpa.

The language of Buddhadharma is kitted out in all kinds of martial metaphors. The Buddha, in this dispensation, was after all a member of the warrior class.

The Buddha used metaphors in his teachings according to who he was speaking to, not according to the class he was born into.

[PuerAzaelis]

Well, everyone else has an ego and the only language the ego understands is that "justice" as it understands it is more important than peace. Hence, the language of war is needed bc nothing else will be understood?

PS Maybe that's the only way some of us can learn? Which is kind of a depressing thought.

[Malcolm]

The warrior features prominently in Tibetan nomadic culture where it is not defined by the appearance of violence, but by the quality of bravery.

You have apparently never met any Tibetan nomads. Thus you suffer from the noble savage bias.

Disingenuous correlation. You just want to shout down the idea by painting me as an anachronistic snob. Well its not my idea.

No, I am just pointing out that you are talking out of your ass since you don't read Tibetan and have never met an actual Tibetan nomad.

[Malcolm]

@ Kim a great blog post by one of my favorite authors. Nevertheless militancy is part of the language of resistance. Without it don't we become doormats? And I don't want to be a doormat. Ghandhi and Martin Luther King were "warriors" of "ahimsa". Paradoxical but true. If the word is in our language I say we use it for the sake of dharma, like Trungpa.

The language of Buddhadharma is kitted out in all kinds of martial metaphors. The Buddha, in this dispensation, was after all a member of the warrior class.

The Buddha used metaphors in his teachings according to who he was speaking to, not according to the class he was born into.

And you are confident of this for what reason that is hidden to ordinary mortals?

[maybay]

You have apparently never met any Tibetan nomads. Thus you suffer from the noble savage bias.

Disingenuous correlation. You just want to shout down the idea by painting me as an anachronistic snob. Well its not my idea.

No, I am just pointing out that you are talking out of your ass since you don't read Tibetan and have never met an actual Tibetan nomad.

You don't need to read Tibetan or meet a nomad personally to know about their culture.

[maybay]

The language of Buddhadharma is kitted out in all kinds of martial metaphors. The Buddha, in this dispensation, was after all a member of the warrior class.

The Buddha used metaphors in his teachings according to who he was speaking to, not according to the class he was born into.

And you are confident of this for what reason that is hidden to ordinary mortals?

Because I read the sutras. Its common knowledge to anyone who does the same.

Through his deep meditative attainments and his enlightened wisdom, the Buddha had the special ability to discover the precise way to teach the people who came to him for guidance. He could read deep into the hidden recesses of a person's heart, perceive that person's aptitudes and interests, and frame his teaching in the exact way needed to transform that person and lead him or her on to the path of freedom. Bhikkhu Bodhi

[Malcolm]

Disingenuous correlation. You just want to shout down the idea by painting me as an anachronistic snob. Well its not my idea.

No, I am just pointing out that you are talking out of your ass since you don't read Tibetan and have never met an actual Tibetan nomad.

You don't need to read Tibetan or meet a nomad personally to know about their culture.

Yeah, actually you do. Otherwise, you are just an armchair bore waffling on about things of which you have no experience.

[Malcolm]

The Buddha used metaphors in his teachings according to who he was speaking to, not according to the class he was born into.

And you are confident of this for what reason that is hidden to ordinary mortals?

Because I read the sutras. Its common knowledge to anyone who does the same.

Through his deep meditative attainments and his enlightened wisdom, the Buddha had the special ability to discover the precise way to teach the people who came to him for guidance. He could read deep into the hidden recesses of a person's heart, perceive that person's aptitudes and interests, and frame his teaching in the exact way needed to transform that person and lead him or her on to the path of freedom. Bhikkhu Bodhi

This does not preclude the Buddha from speaking about things according to the class to which he was born.

[Yavana]

It ended in the predictable way these sorts of debates end these days, with the person making assertions claiming they were somehow silenced by the people responding to them, or claiming that people who want approach issues of inequity are somehow perpetuating inequity; it's circular and tiring.

Maybe. But I think also that there's just a point when you stop arguing with people and let things take their course, come what may. Maybe that dude just stopped posting here.

[maybay]

No, I am just pointing out that you are talking out of your ass since you don't read Tibetan and have never met an actual Tibetan nomad.

You don't need to read Tibetan or meet a nomad personally to know about their culture.

Yeah, actually you do. Otherwise, you are just an armchair bore waffling on about things of which you have no experience.

Appeal to consequence fallacy.