Re: Buddha vs Democracy

On Mar 28, 9:24 am, "Evelyn Ruut" <evelyn.r...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Hollywood Lee" <hollywood...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:eudpb8$hr0$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





Evelyn Ruut wrote:
<bakerjo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1175043646.730478.266050@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Evelyn, thank you for your opinion. Do you think Buddha would have
been neutral during any war? Is there nothing Buddha would fight for?

I honestly don't know, bakerjohnj.... I haven't come across anything in
buddhist books or lore that would indicate that violence has a place.
Perhaps one of our more scholarly posters, such as Lee or Tang might have
a better answer based on buddhist scripture.

Of course you know it is a little more complicated than the simple
question you have posted, too. We are free to do what we think is
right, but buddhism does have very strong admonitions about harming other
living beings, in everything I have ever read.

Yeah, the answer can get complex (and quite heated) rather quickly. I
have been busy making pies as penance for the DT/Lee flamewars of old.

My sense is that a person looking at Buddhism will answer the question
dependent on whether they see their spiritual practice as directed at
changing the world out there (as Lawson hopes to do with TM and perhaps
"engaged" Buddhists try to do with Buddhism) or as directed at changing
your mental attitude towards the world as Tang suggests.

I tend to come down on the Tang side of the equation, not because I don't
think the former is impossible in principle, but because I have so much
work to do with my own mental attitude, while I do engage in small (but
important to me) ways with the my family and community.

Yes, I can relate. Everybody knows that violence of any degree is unkind
to others, but if you haven't managed to master it in the smallest of ways
in your very own small scope, certainly there is nothing you can say or do
that would help on a global level.

But if everyone did their part, working on themselves and trying to
eradicate negative attitudes and energies in their own interactions with
others, it might have a greater effect on the world one day.

I still wrestle with it myself. Especially when I see the violence in the
world, even just watching the evening news, it inspires the thought that
they deserve violence back at them. But violence has got to be recognized
as generally wrong, or the continuing retaliation soon becomes a monster,
perhaps even greater than the initial injury or insult.

--
Best Regards,

Evelyn-

Some really good stuff here:

http://www.markshep.com/nonviolence/Myths.html

Some of the best text about the philosophy of non-violence I've ever
read. It answers a lot of the tricky questions. It is really quite
a bit more involved than the idle pacifism people tend to associate
with peaceful types. I can't explain it any better than that.

-DaveK

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Buddha vs Democracy
    ... >>> Evelyn, ... Is there nothing Buddha would fight for? ... >> buddhist books or lore that would indicate that violence has a place. ... but buddhism does have very strong admonitions about harming>> other ...
    (talk.religion.buddhism)
  • Re: Buddha vs Democracy
    ... "Hollywood Lee" wrote in message ... We are free to do what we think is right, but buddhism does have very strong admonitions about harming other living beings, in everything I have ever read. ... My sense is that a person looking at Buddhism will answer the question dependent on whether they see their spiritual practice as directed at changing the world out there or as directed at changing your mental attitude towards the world as Tang suggests. ... Everybody knows that violence of any degree is unkind to others, but if you haven't managed to master it in the smallest of ways in your very own small scope, certainly there is nothing you can say or do that would help on a global level. ...
    (talk.religion.buddhism)
  • Re: Atrocious statements against Christianity by Hindu leader in
    ... Japanese violence was not a result of Buddhist teachings, ... aggessor has been Pakistan. ... neither Hinduism or Buddhism have been primary ...
    (soc.religion.christian)
  • Re: Does Buddhism create its own opposite?
    ... So where there are violent means present, evil will ... And it is quite impossible to get rid of all violence just ... If Buddhism would not be so strict about nonviolence, ... they could dominate in a way that is ...
    (talk.religion.buddhism)
  • Re: Buddha vs Democracy
    ... We are free to do what we think is right, but buddhism does have very strong admonitions about harming other living beings, in everything I have ever read. ... My sense is that a person looking at Buddhism will answer the question dependent on whether they see their spiritual practice as directed at changing the world out there or as directed at changing your mental attitude towards the world as Tang suggests. ...
    (talk.religion.buddhism)