On the hypocrisy and Tibetan Buddhism and Dalai Lama. He certainly seems to go with the flow, particularly the flow of money and power.
youtube.com/watch?v=dBH0ywUUx5k
That video too long for me to listen through.
The Dalai Lama is supposed to be the head of government [in exile] of the Tibetans, thus he has to perform within his defined responsibilities.
However based on what is read of the Dalai Lama, and going with the flow inherent in Buddhism, there are no evidence he was and is power-crazy, an ego-maniac, a narcissistic, authoritarian like many current world leaders. Despite Tibet being occupied by China, the Dalai Lama had never promoted nor encouraged violence against the Chinese government like those Muslims in Xinjiang. That is going with the flow of maintaining peace and not promoting evil and violence.
There were violence in Tibetan monks and others but that was not condoned by the Dalai Lama nor inspired by Buddhist sutras.
Because if they do it, it’s not violence.
He said it himself, if a forceful action (verbal or physical) is made out of compassion it is not violence. Violence, he says, is determined by one’s intent, and if one’s intent is driven by compassion then his actions are essentially non-violent.
youtube.com/watch?v=lQxp7dZWlHI
(0:54:55-1:01:04)
I wonder you had listen to the above (0:54:55-1:01:04).
The DL stated the concept of violence is totally out of question within Buddhism.
What is critical is whether the act is driven by compassion to ensure the safety of victims or the act is based on negativity/hatred to hurt the victims.
Thus if a mother/father has to defend a child [when attacked] the defensive actions resulted in fatality or physical damage, that is not consider to be violent.
In the above, the DL was describing a general principle re violence.
What is notable re violence was the riots in Tibet and this is the DL’s view on the acts of those monks and Tibetans.
Dalai Lama Decries Violence, Threatens to Resign
npr.org/templates/story/sto … d=88460855
So my point above still stand, i.e.
“There were violence by Tibetan monks and others but that was not condoned by the Dalai Lama nor inspired by Buddhist sutras.”
My main point is,
With equanimity, compassion as virtues of Buddhism, there is no way you will be able to nail Buddhism per se with any acts of evil. OTOH the Abrahamic religions are inherently toxic and malignantly evil -the worst is Islam.
He redefined the concept of violence itself to be a subjective term, so one can preserve his inner peace while still being able to engage in violence. The emphasis is on inner peace (as he himself pointed out). And the way to immunize himself from violence/mental disturbance is to essentially become psychotic. Violence simply does not exist in Buddhist brainwashed mindset (because it’s “free” from hate), in the same way as reality and their own self does not exist in their own mind. It is a form of delusion, as is clearly seen from the actions of his friend Shoko Asahara, who orchestrated sarin attacks in Tokyo. I can only imagine what atrocities they commit in their secluded monasteries/cults in the name of compassion and while still maintaining their inner peace. They are incapable of “violence” because they are insane.
The Buddhist mindset: if it’s done not out of hate, but out of compassion it’s not violence.
I don’t think the DL was describing the point with reference to Buddhism is particular rather it is with reference to general knowledge.
Note the DL title and authority is based on theocracy i.e. religion mixed with politics.
Shoko Asahara is from a fringe sect and cult involving various religious doctrines including Christianity.
As far as his evil acts are concern it has nothing to do with Buddhism per se because Buddhism overriding maxim and ethos is that of pacifism.
“seen from the actions of his friend Shoko Asahara”
Come on, maintain some intellectual honesty and avoid the above sort of blatant lies.
You got it wrong in the above.
The concept of violence do not exists in Buddhism.
But there Buddhists who are evil prone and commit evil acts from their own inherent nature which has nothing to do with the Buddhist sutras and doctrines.
Show me one case or reference where Buddhists commit evil acts and violence in the name of the Buddha or quoting verses from any Buddhist sutras?
Note the comparison to evil prone Muslims who hold up the Quran, shout Allahu Akbar and quoting verses from the Quran to justify their evil acts and violence.
Shoko Asahara and Dalai Lama
Dalai Lama himself admitted to Japanese news service that Asahra was his friend (although, as he said, not a perfect one).
arebuddhistsracist.com/shoko … _lama.html
Ok, noted the point.
But I believe this is the common and typical ‘friend’ thing until something obvious happens. This happens all the time everywhere. It is not easy to detect human potentials of evil that are hidden within the mind/brain of individual[s] until they state their beliefs openly or commit evil acts and violence.
The various known cults, e.g. Jim Jones, Scientology, David Koresh, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh , etc. who has many friends and supporters from all over when they first emerged as very positive to society but many abandoned them when the cults later turned out to commit terrible evils and violence.
What is critical is whether they share the same evil potentials in person or beliefs.
Btw, I don’t idolize the Dalai Lama and I think he is drunk with compassion to be very blind and stupid not to understand the evils and violent potential of Islam.
Right, when you cannot find a solution on your own, or at least, when you’re used to relying on others for solutions, you look for other people’s guidance. Everyone does that from time to time but some people do it more frequently than others. No doubt about that. There is also no doubt that it is superior to do everything on your own than to rely on others for help; but in reality noone does everything on their own. That’s just an ideal. With that out of our way, I have to say, and probably repeat, that I have no interest in Buddhism. Therefore, I am not looking for a solution in it. Instead, what I am doing, and only in this thread, is focusing on what is good in Buddhism. Not because I am looking for a solution but because someone brought the subject of Buddhism in this thread. In other words, I am merely socially interacting. Other than that, I do not care about Buddhism and in many ways I am repulsed by Eastern thought (and what goes under the name of holism in general.)
My holism is of personal kind rather than of universal kind. In this regard, I think I differ from Prismatic. Prismatic thinks that the universe is a oneness, a whole, a unity, a singleness, etc. He constantly repeats that the ultimate goal is the good of humanity. I don’t care about humanity. He’s a monist on a universal level. I am not. I do not think that “all is one”. I am a pluralist and I am more inclined to take the position that unity is an indication of blindness rather than of objective reality; and I am certainly disinclined to take the position that the opposite, the disunity, is merely an appearance. I am more sympathetic to the position that the more you are engaged with reality the more change you perceive (but that, at the same time, you never stop perceiving stasis since that’s how our minds work.) So I follow the footsteps of Heraclitus, or at the very least, I am more sympathetic to Heraclitean and Nietzschean position, than that of dialectical monism (which acknowledges antagonism but subsumes it to oneness.)
Let’s not confuse what is real with what is ideal. High-energy is an ideal. It is not what is real even in the strongest organism. Every organism goes through periods of high-energy and low-energy. Those who are constantly on high-energy die very quickly. We all have to sleep, right? Sleep is a low energy state. Without sleep, we die. My point is merely that there must be a balance between engagement with and disengagement from reality. You need both and not only one. Short-term weakness is long-term strength. And vice versa. Short-term strength is long-term weakness. Appearances can be deceptive.
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, a time to reap that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
The above is my slant on what true equanimity is all about.
I know I’m late here, but this is a good topic and I have thoughts.
Put that way, the question being asked is whether one should base their life on equanimity. To make it the organizing principle.
I generally think of equanimity as the positive moment when self-control and emotional/psychological wisdom prevails in a tough situation. This is a virtue in particular contexts, but I would not universalize it. If I understand the question being asked in this OP, then I find equanimity, like most other singular principles, too limited to be a lone ruling principle. Probably better to have many gods.
This also comes to mind…
Agreed. Once it is universalized, it is problematic. There are crises when it is good to remain calm despite the stakes. The stakes might make one want to scream - an escaped tiger is running at you and your child - but it better to not flip out, but rather to use the adrenalin to act, decisively. I think actually these situations are fairly rare. Here’s the trick: since society - let’s say Western right now, so Europe and the US, despite the wide variations involved in subcultures and even at national level - dislikes and punishes emotional expression except in certain situations - you can cry publically at moves (at least if you are woman), you can scream with rage at soccer games, etc. Given that people judge emotions harshlyl, equanimity can be a good strategy, in a more general way when dealing with others expecially strangers. But that is a sad compromise. Because there is a problem in society where hiding emotions is culturally valued and deviations punished, then, yes, it is often the wise move to stifle emotions. But we shouldn’t confuse this with some essential good.
It’s always better to be in charge of your emotions than to be under their control.
They are you, a part of you. Who is this other you you trust to rule over that part of you and why is that part in charge? Why not be a team? Or really one person?
That’s what it means to be “one person”. That’s what “local holism” is all about. You are a unity to the extent you are in control of your emotions. You should be the one deciding when you will express this or that emotion and not your circumstances. Just because you feel like doing something doesn’t mean you should do that something. There must be a clean internal yes signalling it’s safe for the emotion to be expressed.
Sure, I explained above that GIVEN how much society tends to punish and be afraid of emotions, one should be careful. It’s a sad compromise, but it is not one with any essential value. I am a unity to the extent I do not need to control my emotions. To have one part control another part, in fact to have parts at all, is by definition not to be unity.
Just because I think I should do something does not mean that I should. I see people with ideals, self-hatred, images from media guiding their thoughts, fashion, ‘noble’ dreams, telling their emotions how to feel, telling themselves what to do - even though it feels wrong, and so on.
You don’t have to choose between thought and feeling, but since we are so trained to see this as a duality and to control our emotions and to disidentify with our emotions - see the way you worded the last two posts - we are split. They are ways to move towards unity.
It’s very sad that you think that there is only one reason to regulate our emotions – fear of being punished by society.
What about self-motivated individuals?
The problem is that the universe does not work according to our expectations, desires, needs, etc. So adaptation is required if you want to maintain unity.
I mentioned earlier in this thread that there are situations, generally rare in modern society, where, regulating emotions is necessary. Generally when there is an immediate physical threat, but here’s the thing. You are used to the split. You are used to having your emotions judged and shut down. The emotions, when split off like this seem disruptive, essentially, rather than because of the jailer/regulator —> jailed regulated dynamic. This is clear in the following…
Emotions are the prime motivators.
My emotional reactions pick up hte nature of the universe all the time. You are assuming something. LIke if I feel and express my emotions I am a baby in the corner with no intellectual understanding. That’s because you have the split and even venerate it. When the split is not present the emotions are informed by what the thinky parts of the mind are aware of, and the mind is free to fully notice the world since it does not have the role of controller. I know this is hard for people to get because they are so used to the split and what this has done to both the intellectual and emotional parts of the mind - both are damaged by this.
If I maximize my time with people who do not judge emotions, form friendships with people who are not afraid of passion, not afraid to be honest about how things make them feel, both good and bad, get a partner, which I have, who also is open, then I do not have to shut down my emotions as much as the average person. Work is of course the trickiest, but even there it can be done.
Allow those portions to express freely and they are not like how you experience yours.
But if you are sure you would become the irrational disconnected person you seem to think you would if you expressed emotions and allowed full integrations, then perhaps you are right. Do what you want. But when you talk about how I must be, you are not describing me at all.
You are trying very hard to downemphasize the fact that it is changing environments in general that necessitate emotional regulation. When you’re used to one kind of environment and then you are introduced to a different kind of environment this necessitates a change in your emotions in order to preserve self-unity. Some people are not used to modern environments so they require quite a bit of emotional regulation. You are pretending that emotional regulation is something that only makes sense within natural environments.
Yes, short-sighted people can only detect immediate threats. When it comes to long-term consequences that are moreover negative in their character, they are completely blind. So, for example, they cannot understand monogamy. Polygamy is simply not immediately dangerous – you need to use your intellect in order to perceive it as dangerous.
As I said, you have a problem seeing that emotional regulation within modern contexts is not merely due to a fear of being punished by society.
You can say that. But then you will also have to say that emotions are organized in a hierarchy. There is a dominant emotion and then there are many subservient emotions. And when these subservient emotions are not doing their job, i.e. when they are not aligned with the dominant emotion, they must be adjusted if you want to preserve the hierarchy. Otherwise, anarchy ensues.
Your emotions can only deal with what is familiar to them. Once we find ourselves in a situation that is not familiar to them, they become self-destructive . . . unless controlled. So reason must take over. You must restrain yourself. You must shape your emotions. You must decide what is the most important thing and then subordinate everything to that thing. Noone is speaking against emotions in general but against emotions that do not fit the situation.
This process of splitting, of division, will never stop unless the environment remains stable forever which is an unrealistic expectation. Instead, the environment changes and you are expected to adapt accordingly if you want to preserve some semblence of unity. There is no other option.
You are endorsing the childish tendency to surrender to emotions.