Tibetan Uprising

[Francis king]

In Praise of the 37 factors of enlightenment

Like the Tathagatas gone before us, radiant in their bliss, seesing that as it is, I shall strive to perfect the 37 factors of enlightenment.

I shall be forever mindful of the buddhadharma, and shall investigate truth, I shall apply effort and experiencing joy I shall attain the complete insight and have equanimity and serenity.

I shall follow the noble eightfold path and endeavour to shine forth in all its arenas. I shall guard the three doors of body speech and mind. I shall perfect my conduct and livelihood with complete effort and concentration and mindfuless, complete thought and views and awareness of time.

I shall realise the four means of accomplishment, cultivate wisdom and investigate thought, and with will and effort I shall accomplish the means.

With the five forces of wisdom, confidence, concentration mindfullness and energy I shall futher develop the five faculties of wisdom, energy, concentration, mindfulness and confidence. I shall guard my grounds from the position of the four foundations of mindfulness- I shall be mindful of body, feelings, thoughts and phenomena.

With the four supreme efforts of cultivating arisen good, with the effort to promote good that has already arisen, to discard evil that has already arisen and the effort to prevent evil that has not yet arisen I shall strive to perfect the 37 factors of enlightenment- to perfect these is to be a buddha.

I realise that most sufferings arise from poisons and afflictions and hindrances, from graspings and attachments and ties.

Because of this I vow to live a life which does not harm.

Buddha says there are five mahadanas- not to kill creatures, not to take that which is not given freely, not to have bad blood, to speak the truth and not drink intoxicants.- these are the mahadanas.

To guard the doors of perception I shall strive not to condemn others or praise them for the sake of gain. I will aspire to relinquish the poisons of anger, avarice and arrogance. I will apply the antidotes to the afflictions, practise charity, be ethical, cultivate wisdom, apply effort, discover perfect insight, and analyise thought.

The affliction of ignorance shall be cured by learning, desirous attachments quelled by austerities, hatred and delusion and doubt will be vanquished by the power of meditation, wrong views and fear will be abandoned with the power of the awakened mind.

I will abandon hatred and the hindrances of sating sense desires- ill-will, sloth, restlessness, indecision, brooding and illusion. I vow not to indulge in hypocrisy, devisive speech, harsh speech and senseless talk- what use are these to a person who seeks to walk in the way of the arhats?

I will let go of the four graspings of false beliefs and adherence to wrongful rites and ceremonies, I shall let go of sense desires and grasping and self made illusions.

I shall not be bound by the four ties- jealousy and covetesnous, illwill, indulging in wrongful rites and ceremonies and the ties of adherence to my own preconceptions as truths.

Through all of this I shall aspire to abandon the fetters, give up poisons and cure the afflictions- this is the path of deliverence.

Perfecting the equipment, untilising dhyana, with sraddha and virya, practising samatha and sila, samadhi will arise. It takes ksanti and prajna to possess samjna and upaya- but only with upaya will those truths of sunyata and nirvana be realised.

May all beings who practise in ways such as this come to fuill and perfect vision.

*********************

[Francis king]

notice then that compassion does not feature here, in the 37 factors of enlightenment...

[path_of_one]

What is charity for a Buddhist? Is it merely donating some cash or goods? In Christianity, charity is synonymous with brotherly love- it is compassion.

What is cultivating wisdom for a Buddhist? What is wise? In my own path, I found that practicing loving-kindness without attachment to outcome is the highest form of wisdom. Loving-kindness involves compassion.

In our modern world, what does it mean to avoid harming other beings? If I do not directly maim or kill, is that enough? If I still buy goods made by harming other beings- human and other- is that wrong? If I willingly support nations or corporations that do harm to the earth and her creatures, is that wrong by Buddhist standards?

I mean no attack, but to be honest Francis King, I can see nothing particularly Buddhist about your discussion in this thread. It sounds more or less like the atheist cynics I know. And to be honest, to me it comes across as arrogant and clinging to your own preconceptions of the situation. No doubt, others' views will come across likewise to you. So what then is the value of a command to avoid such?

As for me, unbound as I am by Buddhism (but having a great respect for it in its various forms), I will continue to be opposed to social injustice. Whether it is pragmatic to be so or not, surely there is evidence that change for what is right only comes about through efforts to bring such change. All peoples (no matter how "stupid" and "peasant-like"- and by the way, it's a lousy definition of peasant- peasant is by definition an economic position not an intellectual one) have certain human rights that are tied to the ability to have self-actualization (Maslow is handy here). Cultures change, yes. But they should not be subject to changes wrought by violence, oppression, and force by other nations.

Quite frankly, I am appalled. Most especially at the characterization of the bulk of the world's population as stupid, moronic, and so forth (and, by extension, seemingly unimportant in the realm of social justice and human rights). To claim oneself as somehow superior, and most of the world as intellectually inferior- how arrogant can one be?

[Snoopy]

I would not want the disinterested reader to gain the impression that compassion had nothing or little to do with Buddhism. An internet search for “Buddhism” together with “compassion” will reveal I think how fundamental it is.

I briefly offer the following: The Four Immeasurable Minds are: love, compassion, joy and equanimity. The Buddha said: “Whoever practices the Four Immeasurable Minds together with the Seven Factors of Awakening, the Four Noble Truths, and the Noble Eightfold Path will arrive deeply at enlightenment.”

- (Madhyama Agama).

s.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

I would not want the disinterested reader to gain the impression that compassion had nothing or little to do with Buddhism.....
I briefly offer the following: The Four Immeasurable Minds are: love, compassion, joy and equanimity.

Greetings Snoopy. Your source evidently discussed the Four Immeasurables as mental states. I have seen them referred to as "Divine Emotions." More specifically, they have been identified as the highest emotions.

I notice that Buddhism does not always makes a clear distinction between cognition and emotion. I recently saw reference to "thought-emotion," as though certain thoughts have corresponding emotions that typically co-occur. At any rate, compassion and the related "sublime states" or Brahma-viharas are sometimes referred to as Abodes of Living that comprise the person's inner environment.

Equanimity (Upekkha) is thought to shape the other three states. Of the Four Immeasurables, Equanimity it is the most explicitly cognitive because it entails an attitude of good faith toward all, with the intent to be evenhanded in application because all sentient beings are seen as equally deserving of compassion. The Brahma-viharas are considered "excellent" or "sublime" because they inform a lifestyle focused on refraining from harm and healing the wounds of the world.

[Virtual_Cliff]

Originally Posted by Francis king

In Praise of the 37 factors of enlightenment

Like the Tathagatas gone before us, radiant in their bliss, seesing that as it is, I shall strive to perfect the 37 factors of enlightenment.

I shall be forever mindful of the buddhadharma, and shall investigate truth, I shall apply effort and experiencing joy I shall attain the complete insight and have equanimity and serenity.

Actually Francis, I don't see very much serenity in your posts.

At least though, as the world goes up in flames, I shall know that you have attained perfection, and that will comfort me.

Love,
Cliff

[Snoopy]

Thanks for all the positive responses.

s.

[Netti-Netti]

I wanted to underscore that the Buddhist idea of Compassion is not just a feeling of empathy. It is a basic attitude of openness, an abiding aspiration (the commitment to help others be free from suffering), a sincere and joyful wish (wanting others to be happy), as well as a way of responding to the human condition by dealing directly with samsara. In other words, it is essential practice.

It gets more specific. In Thrangu Rinpoche's words (by way of Kagyu Shenpen Ösel Chöling of Seattle): "(B)ecause the experience of happiness and freedom from suffering depend upon the generation of the causes of these, then the actual form your aspiration takes is that all beings possess not only happiness but the causes of happiness, that they not only be free of suffering but of the causes of suffering."

Btw, the Seattle Shambhala center is located at 3017 East Harrison Street
They have a bi-monthly art salon. Info here: Shambhala Art

[Netti-Netti]

Last I heard, the Chinese were moving toward lockdown mode, closing Tibet to outside scrutinity by chasing Western journalists out. Only getting a trickle of information now, a fair amount of it being Chinese propaganda.

Check Tibet blogs, but avoid blog.studentsforafreetibet.org (virus detected).

[Francis king]

compassion without action is purely pity- what use is pity for others?

even if it is only pity, why just pity one side, one team, one gang?

brotherly love... does that apply just to one group, colour/creed/religion/nationality/genetic mix?

if it does, we're all doomed... we're all "in" and "out" at the same time.

personally, I find all these neat little slogans- loving kindess, brotherly love, to be just that- neat little slogans... ideas we can pretend we adopt when it suits our psyches to do so, and cunningly disguise or dismiss as something else when they don't...

ahimsa... non-harm... giving all creatures the gift of the mahadanas... not just the ingroup...

a chinese man in Tibet who wakes up one morning to find his shop burnt out and his livelihood destroyed is not receiving these great gifts- it doesn't matter what happenned 50 years ago... we work with the today, and the here and now...

As I have said continually through this thread... I understand how human beings feel in situations such as this- and I can also empathise with people who feel they are oppressed, nationless, their way of life and cultures threatened, but throwing stones in the street and setting fire to things is not the way to do it.

Especially if you're a buddhist. Hating your foreign neighbour is nothing new. Neither is "sticking it to the man"... they are not the same thing...

The western world is currently in recession. The capitalist economy often does this boom and bust thing...

Regardless; China is currently producing most of the western worlds cheap chain store clothing and consumer electrics and plactic Poundland and discount store products. They won't have an embargo and stop the importation of Chinese products because we collectively do not have the industrial capacity in the west to manage production of all those cheap bits of tat we can't live without AND pay people the levels of wages they need to work for us in the first place. So, that won't happen.

What are the other options? China plays ball or... or what, exactly?

We could have a world war, maybe, but, well... "we" need China... and it's tat... they have big bombs too, just like us... they potentially have an have an army of billions... the yellow peril... this was how China was described in the Cold War- but again I digress...

So, how is this going to play out..?

"We", the Liberals, collectively decide not to buy chinese goods. Great, noble idea... however...

Mrs Chin works in factory A, and she looks after her husband and son and old sick grandmother. She earns 200£ a week in a minimum wage job and just about survives as it is... but... well, soon she won't have that, either...

Is this all Mrs Chin's fault? And, if it isn't, then why should she suffer?

Violence and destruction feels great- nothing better than "sticking it to the man", but... it breeds chaos. It gives others the opportunity to use this same force against you. You're fighting a losing battle. Why suffer like that?

path of one... you said-

In our modern world, what does it mean to avoid harming other beings? If I do not directly maim or kill, is that enough? If I still buy goods made by harming other beings- human and other- is that wrong? If I willingly support nations or corporations that do harm to the earth and her creatures, is that wrong by Buddhist standards?

And I say to you, path... this is exactly the way your action, or non-action, is best applied. By being ethical.

Being ethical in this way and applying the rule of non-harm doesn't happen because you're so loved up and compassionate and pitying that you want to save anyone- there are no medals for behaving this way- this is how people should act simply because they are intelligent human beings. And of course, by the same token, people should also feel they recieve the same respect, simply as human beings.

I am an atheist, in the strictest sense of the word- for me there is no God, and no heavenly kingdom, and holy beings floating round the ether on their little clouds and swans and magic carpets...

And yes, I appear to be a cynic, but I prefer the term- realist...

By all means, do your thing to fight these social injustices, this is noble, but being practical as well is best...

Change happens regardless of what you, the indivdual believes...

I determine a peasant to not be a person with limited means, and a purely economic definition- I believe that the majority of people are intellectual peasants- superstitious, never venturing further than a 30 mile mental radius in their lifetimes, and constantly deferring to those others who are in supposed positions of authority through sheer ignorance of the alternatives or from fear or a desire to appear to play the game for their own gain. They exist in Eton, in Yale, the House of Lords, The house of Representatives... wherever there is poverty of thought...

Yes, all beings do have certain human rights... and as you say, "should not be subject to changes wrought by violence, oppression, and force by other nations".

Forget other nations... forget other political parties, forget the clinging to the ideologies... People should be able to go about their business relatively undisturbed unless they are directly involved. The average man and woman on any street anywhere in the world is not your enemy. They do not want to destroy you. They do not want to see you wiped out.

You want to overthow the regime? By all means, go for your life. Enjoy it too, while you do so. Attack military and government targets.

But while you do so, remember that militaryman number 1 probably has a wife, and a son. He is here through the same twists of fate as you are, there on your "other side". The side of "right". But well, because he's on the other side, he thinks he's right too.

If I go to Barking and throw stones through the shop windows because I want to "stick it to the man" and choose "Paki's" as my target (they shouldn't be here, they're taking our jobs, they're changing the culture and fabric of our society, etc, etc) I am a racist, and I am scum.

Where's the difference?

It's right, because... it's always "right, because..."

That's my point...

[Virtual_Cliff]

As far as I can see we all agree with you in the main thrust of your argument, Francis. Those who live by the sword die by the sword. Love your enemies. etc

The Dalai Lama has urged people NOT to boycott the Olympic games. He has said he feels sad for the Chinese oppressors, not angry. Because when they and their regime have passed away, Buddhism will still remain.

But the suffering is real. Yesterday I was listening to an interview with a Buddhist nun who was imprisoned and tortured for eleven years for singing a nationalist song. Sympathy alone may be cheap, it may be ineffective but not to feel sympathy demeans us.

Amnesty International has shown that international displays of displeasure can mitigate the actions of a harsh regime, and this is probably the wisest course to follow. Perhaps all those who have felt the desire to demonstrate their solidarity with the Tibetans should write respectfully to their respective Chinese consulates / embassies. Little by little we may wear this mountain down.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Francis king

compassion without action is purely pity- what use is pity for others?

I would advocate action. Or non-action (depending on which of the two gets the job done). Now, what action is correct depends on the situation and I am bound by pacifism myself, so violence is always out.

Furthermore, you and I differ in how we understand the universe to operate. I think the energetic flows from compassion, even without action, make a difference. It appears you do not. I am not attempting to convince you that it does, but it is what I have observed in my own life, so I will go with my own belief system and experience on this.

Even if my compassion and empathy is "useless" in a pragmatic sense, it is not so on an energetic plane. Empathy matters. Love matters. "As above, so below... as within, so without." Part of my spirituality is energy work, and I've seen it do some interesting things. Emotions and attitudes carry with them energy. So I am careful to try to be empathetic and compassionate, loving and gentle-- this energy impacts the world in a ripple effect.

brotherly love... does that apply just to one group, colour/creed/religion/nationality/genetic mix?

On the contrary, for me, love and compassion is extended to all beings. I will use a clear example. When the terrorists hit the trade centers and Pentagon on 9/11, I was as compassionate for the terrorists as I was for the victims. In some ways, more so. Why? Because that sort of violent action speaks to a person's loss of humanity, to their lack of connection to the divine spark within us all.

Yet, I can feel compassion and still analyze the situation and see where there is injustice. Loving all beings does not mean avoiding justice. Just because beings do things out of fear (which breeds hatred and oppression) does not excuse their action. I can love all beings and still work toward a just world.

I do not work against other beings. I identify what is just, what is ideal (to the best of my ability, combining reason and spiritual insight) and then I work toward this purpose.

In this way, I retain compassion for all beings and yet I do not abandon the cause of justice.

I cannot say if this is a correct way for a Buddhist, but only that as a Christian and a Druid, God/the Divine is both just and merciful.

personally, I find all these neat little slogans- loving kindess, brotherly love, to be just that- neat little slogans... ideas we can pretend we adopt when it suits our psyches to do so, and cunningly disguise or dismiss as something else when they don't...

I would say that they are what one makes of them. Some people treat them as slogans. Other people treat them as ideals and work unflaggingly toward them. If a person fakes it, that is their problem. It doesn't make the people who don't any less sincere. You cannot know all people's experience and depth of devotion to the ideal of love, and so you cannot judge them.

a chinese man in Tibet who wakes up one morning to find his shop burnt out and his livelihood destroyed is not receiving these great gifts- it doesn't matter what happenned 50 years ago... we work with the today, and the here and now...

There is a difference between means and end. I do not agree with the means that some Tibetans are using to show their opposition to their oppression. I do agree with the end or principle- that people should not be oppressed by others.

To that end, I do not support or condone harmful or violent action against the Chinese. I do support what actions I can take to show that I disagree with their policy toward Tibet.

They won't have an embargo and stop the importation of Chinese products because we collectively do not have the industrial capacity in the west to manage production of all those cheap bits of tat we can't live without AND pay people the levels of wages they need to work for us in the first place. So, that won't happen.

Perhaps not. But it should. We don't actually need much of that stuff. There is an overall need for the West to quit overconsumption and materialism anyway. Will it happen right now? Highly unlikely. However, I have seen in the last decade an increasing movement toward low consumption, local consumption lifestyles.

As for the collective action vs. the individual. I do not base my course of action on what I think might work collectively. I base it on what I feel is right spiritually. That is, just because my little life won't amount to a hill of beans in the collective wave of consumerism, materialism, and violence does not excuse me from taking ethical action as an individual. If I am awake to what is right, if I am awake to love and justice, I am responsible for taking the right course of action. The outcome is not the point. The principle is the point. And if I am aligning my action with what is in harmony with the will of God (or, you might say, with the energy of the universe), then it is as it should be.

Perhaps it's easier for me to avoid stuff made in China because I already came to the conclusion that unnecessary consumerism is wrong because of its impact on the earth.

Mrs Chin works in factory A, and she looks after her husband and son and old sick grandmother. She earns 200£ a week in a minimum wage job and just about survives as it is... but... well, soon she won't have that, either...

Again, outcome vs. ideal. We will never have a just and loving earth if we pander to unjust social structures. I can choose to take action based on the "rat race" or to rise above.

The more that people refuse to make their decisions based on our illusory reality (and it is illusory- we keep ourselves in these hells we create here on earth), the more we will experience heaven. This is not just a practical "here and now" issue (though it is that as well), but also about the energetic flow of beings on earth.

China will never be forced to improve the lives of its people if we continue to support an unjust system (for their own workers and inequality, for global inequality, for exploiting the earth). U.S. factories will never be forced to change their ways of exploitation until we vote with our cash. Is such change painful? Yes. But "doing no harm," is I believe, more than what is immediately before us.

Harm comes to the Chinese woman either way. We can choose whether we continue in a system that exploits and harms, or whether we turn current harm into future equality.

Is this all Mrs Chin's fault? And, if it isn't, then why should she suffer?

We all suffer. It's what we do with our suffering that counts. Is it pointless suffering, or is it leading toward justice and peace?

Being ethical in this way and applying the rule of non-harm doesn't happen because you're so loved up and compassionate and pitying that you want to save anyone- there are no medals for behaving this way- this is how people should act simply because they are intelligent human beings. And of course, by the same token, people should also feel they recieve the same respect, simply as human beings.

I agree that it is not about reward. It is about being what we truly our. In our essence, we are loving.

On the other hand, right action without right energy/attitude doesn't have the same effect as right action with right energy. Intent/motivation matters. Love breeds compassion. Pity has no place, because it is condescending. At the root of it all is love. If love is one's intent, right action springs forth naturally and it is done with a passion and energy that has a strong ripple effect into the fabric of the universe. If one's intent is anything else, right action will not ultimately have the same effect, as it is self-serving and will perpetuate the problems that arise from self-centeredness.

We may just have very different ideas about how the universe works, which impacts how we see ethical action.

And yes, I appear to be a cynic, but I prefer the term- realist...

Everyone thinks their reality is reality. Everyone, in their own eyes, is a realist to some extent. I think the question is more what one's focus is. Reality is illusory. We create our reality by our intent and focus right now.

Change happens regardless of what you, the indivdual believes...

Change happens because of me (and others). "Be the change you wish to see in the world." (Ghandi) It has nothing to do with belief. It has to do with intent and action. I can usher in change. I am not a passive receiver of change. We all create the reality we experience.

I determine a peasant to not be a person with limited means, and a purely economic definition- I believe that the majority of people are intellectual peasants- superstitious, never venturing further than a 30 mile mental radius in their lifetimes, and constantly deferring to those others who are in supposed positions of authority through sheer ignorance of the alternatives or from fear or a desire to appear to play the game for their own gain. They exist in Eton, in Yale, the House of Lords, The house of Representatives... wherever there is poverty of thought...

I am only pointing out that it is not the "real" definition of peasant. To use peasant in this way is to buy into the stereotypes that the elite perpetuated about peasants. "Peasant" is an economic classification. You can expand its definition, but you do so by stereotyping real peasants, who were thought of by the elite as superstitious (because of their often earth-based and pastoral religions) and unintelligent.

Overall, I just find your thoughts about other beings to be judgmental and arrogant. What is superstitious to you is a working belief system for another, and frequently one, by the way, that has historically caused important social effects such as community solidarity, normative behavior, and good long-term ecological decision-making. Whether you attach the term to those "other folks" that are out in the fields in some third world country or those "other folks" that are next door to you going to church every Sunday... it's still arrogant. Sorry to be so blunt, but I'm just calling it as I see it. You presume you are right and more intelligent, you have "arrived" mentally and spiritually, and then you are looking out at the stupid masses who are still wallowing in their mental pigsty.

I've learned nearly every being on earth has something to teach me, if I am open to it. All beings have wisdom. All beings are also partially blinded by their view of reality.

People should be able to go about their business relatively undisturbed unless they are directly involved. The average man and woman on any street anywhere in the world is not your enemy. They do not want to destroy you. They do not want to see you wiped out.

True. But what to do about the political and social processes that are harming the average person, and the earth?

We *are* directly involved with these processes. Just because we don't personally go somewhere and pick up a gun doesn't mean that our decisions and intent do not resonate directly into that process.

You want to overthow the regime? By all means, go for your life. Enjoy it too, while you do so. Attack military and government targets.

I think you misunderstand me. Or perhaps this is a general "you," I do not know. In my case, I am not attacking. I am working toward an ideal, not against what is. Attack is not necessary. We cannot fight the darkness. But we can turn on the light. It is about being change, making decisions toward a more just and merciful earth.

I can work toward what I feel is right- the ability of peoples to be self-determining and be free from exploitation and oppression by other peoples. This comes out as opposition to China's actions, but my intent is not against China as much as for my principles. The difference in intent is very important. What we oppose, we strengthen. The key is to work toward the ideal rather than against what is. If we do so, we find that our actions are non-violent, that we are loving equally to all, and yet we do not sacrifice justice on the altar of the status quo.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Francis king

Imposing your will on a regime which is bigger than you and has more power than you is not enlightened- it is ridiculously foolish.

The Dalai Lama would agree with your assessment. He recently said "in our (Tibet's) case, violence is like suicide." However, issues of cultural and political autonomy are rarely resolved by some tactical successes. I expect political pressure on China may have an effect over time, especially when trade relations are at risk. Btw, haven't there been numerous historical examples of "client states" bringing down large empires?

Buddhism is an intelligent religion but here it is in the hands of peasants, and look at how it has become no better than any other religion - a fixed and rigid oddity which spawns bigots ...

Sure, blame it on religion.

The Chinese are not rounding Tibetans up and packing them onto trains and taking them away to be gassed. They are not invading Tibet and ethnically cleansing the area- they have not bombed anyone's temples or destroyed ordinary people's homes and livelihoods. Apart from being swamped with a lot of tourists, Tibet is not that much different to how it was before. In fact, I would go so far as to say they should actually be grateful to the Chinese for boosting their economy.

This is a remarkable argument that shows no real interest in seeing things from the point of view of the Tibetans.

With all due respect, the suggestion that Tibetan are merely peasants and that China is ushering in real progress is rather simplistic. You're right, China has taken an interest in Tibet's growth. However, while one might characterize this as desirable, one could credibly argue that it is not desirable in light of the adverse effects of China's recent industrialization -- i.e., pollution, climate change, post-industrial epidemiology, socioeconomic inequalities, etc.

Many Chinese has been left behind by China's rapid transformation into an industrial society. Perhaps Tibetans fear becoming pauperized like the average Chinese. This is understandable given that Tibet is an occupied country. These fears are further complicated by the possibility that Tibetans could become a minority in their own country - something the Chinese have tried to bring about by government-backed attempts to alter Tibet's demography via an infiltration of Han Chinese. It appears that the Han are still the minority in Tibet, but they have played a increasing role -- as in taking over commerce to the point of establishing monopolies.

Regarding environmental concerns, they seem well founded in relation to deforestation and wholesale plunder of Tibet's resources, not to mention looting the monasteries and temples. By one estimate, half of Tibet's forests have already been clear-cut and shipped off to China. China is apparently taking a very short-sighted approach to Tibet's resources -- for example doing little in the way of replanting or any other measures that could prevent massive erosion problems following large-scale clearcutting.

As for tourism, it has been increasing lately. But the Chinese current response it is not going to be helpful in the long haul, not only in terms of increased security concerns but also in terms of making Tibet a less desirable place to visit after it has been devastated by rampant exploitation and a cultural overhaul that leaves little of what was once distinctively Tibetan.

China currently has two so-called "special administrative regions" - Hong Kong and Macao. It is my understanding that the Dalai Lama has called for Tibet becoming a third such region in which the Tibetan people would have political and cultural autonomy. China's response to the proposed "one-country, two-systems" arrangement for Tibet has included the contention that such an arrangement would be unconstitutional. An obvious and simple solution, it seems to me, would be to amend the Constitution.

Some would contend that Tibet's increased autonomy would mean more ethnic conflict. It seems to me that conflict already exists in part because of differential socioeconomic privilege and power among the Chinese and Tibetans. Class struggle takes many forms. Religio-ethnic conflict is one of them.

For all its pretensions to communist ideals, China is a nation of haves and have-nots. Tibetans have been reduced to second class citizens in their own country. They are faced with staking a claim on their future now or resigning themselves to another 50 years of abuse, after which time there will be little left to inspire activism. Tibet will be depleted of resources and culture. At that point, China will be done with Tibet and its people and will simply turn their backs on them.

[Francis king]

You're right, we differ in our world view... I don't think energy flows from compassion. I think compassion is a lie, and I do not, as a buddhist, rate emotion highly.

Emotion, like the rest of the mental states, is a construct. It does not exist independently, alone, a free standing thing. Your perception of compassion is not something you are born with- it is something you are given to play with, by society, by your family and peers. In itself, it is not real. It is often useless, and does not bring about action (or non-action). It is a cloak we wear to cover up something else- we use compassion as an excuse to tell others how to act and think, we use it as an excuse to make ourselves feel more authentic and more human.

"Love all beings like your mother"... No! I refuse... beyond that, I was with you all the way, path-of-one, until you said...

"God and the divine is both just and merciful..." I feel this is a delusion too...

Everyone remembers where they were when president kennedy was assasinated... or so they say... for those of our generation, our defining moment in history will be...

everyone will remember where they were on 9/11.

I shall tell you were I was... I was inside a temple, praying to Avalokiteshvara, chanting mantra's for peace... the result? Nothing... a wasted afternoon convincing myself that I, the little inconsequential human being will somehow make a difference with my prayers.

When the people took to the streets and marched to London to protest against the Iraq war, there was over a million people on the streets, all democratically exercising their right to peaceful protest... Did they listen?

Five years later, the same people are still marching down to London, waving their banners...

None of it makes a real difference. Whether or not I use CFC filled aerosols or recycle my paper, in the great grand scheme of things, means absolutely nothing. Look at Beijing... seen the smog? And me burning old car tyres on my bonfire makes a difference how, exactly?

Then later Path, you said... "The outcome is not the point. The principle is the point"..."We will never have a just and loving earth if we pander to unjust social structures..." but then you say... regarding our fictitious Mrs Chan... "harm comes to the Chinese woman either way".

Which kinda stinks, in my opinion... The cause is bigger than the individual... I thought that was the Commie line? I didn't think Liberals thought like that...

So, Mrs Chan's individual personal suffering is not as important as fighting to maintain a principle or upholding an ideology...?

Careful now...

That doesn't sound very loving at all...

I admit- I don't think every person on earth has something to teach me... I used to, of course, but only because that was the line I'd been fed too. Of course we are supposed to be meek, and humble, and not egotistical, and well... ooh, nobody please mention arrogance- the modern day sins of man!

Yet, at the same time, we prize these qualities, we give those with these qualities higher wages and better social status than the humble peasants who happily wallow in their own pigsties...

and so how does that work?

Easy... you can hide your own arrogance and egotism behind more noble value constructs such as "just", "principled", "compassionate", while at the same time openly displaying your own witty elitisms while dressing them up in the garb of righteousness...

wah hey!

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Francis king

You're right, we differ in our world view... I don't think energy flows from compassion. I think compassion is a lie, and I do not, as a buddhist, rate emotion highly.

Well, yes, I figured as much. We have pretty different worldviews.

Emotion, like the rest of the mental states, is a construct. It does not exist independently, alone, a free standing thing.

Well, yes and no. Part of emotion is grounded in physical/hormonal responses to stimuli and part of it is grounded in cultural conditioning.

That said, I don't think compassion is an emotion. Love (the kind I'm talking about) isn't either. They are states of intent, of motivation- they are states of consciousness. I can feel angry with my husband and still uphold a state of love toward him. It is a matter of acknowledging the ever-shifting emotional state of my body/hormones while grounding my mind and spirit in a state of loving awareness. I don't know if I can explain it adequately, but it's just how I experience the world now. I am an observer that watches my body, emotions, thoughts. And because I'm an observer and not the body/emotion/thoughts- I am able to get away from the construct and see it as it happens.

Your perception of compassion is not something you are born with- it is something you are given to play with, by society, by your family and peers. In itself, it is not real. It is often useless, and does not bring about action (or non-action). It is a cloak we wear to cover up something else- we use compassion as an excuse to tell others how to act and think, we use it as an excuse to make ourselves feel more authentic and more human.

Well, as I said, we just have different worldviews. You see compassion as a lie, and I see it as a state of consciousness. If it is a lie, at least it is one that has allowed me to help others, to create good relationships, and so forth. It does no harm to me or others. If I feel more authentic (whatever that means, I'm not sure), so be it. I don't think I feel more human. That isn't my purpose in life. My spirituality centers on just being one more manifestation of the Divine, of Nature. I see myself no more and no less than any other creature.

As for telling others what to do/think, I just give my opinion. I'm not out there with a bull-horn. These boards are for discussion, and I'll give my side. Generally speaking, I'm not about being right. I'm about love, peace... yeah, all the things you apparently think are lies and worthless and useless. But, hey, to each her/his own... You can be the "realist" and I'll be the "idealist"...

"God and the divine is both just and merciful..." I feel this is a delusion too...

Of course you would, because you are atheist. That's OK. It doesn't bother me if people think my experiences are delusions. I think no one has a very tight grasp of reality anyway, no matter how much they think they are being realistic.

I shall tell you were I was... I was inside a temple, praying to Avalokiteshvara, chanting mantra's for peace... the result? Nothing... a wasted afternoon convincing myself that I, the little inconsequential human being will somehow make a difference with my prayers.

For some, faith in making a difference is shattered by not seeing their impact in a reasonable time frame. I see myself as inconsequential and also deeply important- the paradox of every being- precious and yet so small. I do not partake in any activities I experience as a waste, that are dependent on the outcome.

The problem I see is that everyone is so attached to outcome. When I let go of that attachment and pray or meditate for peace, I experience peace in me, and then I can share this with others. It is not about the outcome. It is about what is right, what is the ideal. I do not find any of my time spent in such activities wasted, and I would not think it is a good thing for someone to do these things if they perceive it as a waste or are attached to the outcome.

Five years later, the same people are still marching down to London, waving their banners...

Five years is nothing. Social processes can take a very long time to change. I think what is most wise is how many indigenous traditions work today for seven generations down the road. You plant trees whose shade you will never enjoy. It isn't for oneself, one's own generation that one works toward peace and justice... it is for the beings of the future, and the earth.

From what I've gathered, in your worldview, nothing has spirit. There is no purpose to ethical action if it is not tied to some immediate or near-term pragmatic end. No use in wasting time on such boring or frustrating activities since it won't make my life better tomorrow or next year. In my worldview, everything is spirit. Ethical action, even certain states of consciousness, are gifts we give to the future beings and to earth itself, which is an alive spirit of its own. These actions aren't a waste of my time- there is nothing I'd rather do. They are worth doing because they are good things to do.

Then later Path, you said... "The outcome is not the point. The principle is the point"..."We will never have a just and loving earth if we pander to unjust social structures..." but then you say... regarding our fictitious Mrs Chan... "harm comes to the Chinese woman either way".

Which kinda stinks, in my opinion... The cause is bigger than the individual... I thought that was the Commie line? I didn't think Liberals thought like that...

So, Mrs Chan's individual personal suffering is not as important as fighting to maintain a principle or upholding an ideology...?

It stinks, but it is what it is. It is not that the cause is bigger than the individual. It is that if harm will come about no matter what one does, one should work toward improving the life of future beings. I don't look only at the individuals present at this moment. I look at the individuals who will be here 100, 200, 500 years from now. Longer time horizon on my decision making.

I said nothing of ideology. As for principles, my principles are love, peace, equality, and so forth. Nothing very complex. The principles/causes are tied directly to the needs of beings for sustainability, peace, limiting suffering to the extent possible.

It is not that I sacrifice personal suffering of Mrs. Chan for a cause or ideology.

I say that if Mrs. Chan will inevitably suffer (and in this scenario you set up, she will), then I would choose a path of action that would at least make that suffering meaningful in the context of alleviating suffering of future individuals. Nothing ideological about it. It is all about individuals and their lives.

And if that does not sound loving to you, I would wager that you and I have very different ideas of what love is. I'm not talking about fluffy love that is all roses and pats on the head. I'm talking about tapping into the underlying current of the universe- an awareness that everyone is of one essence, and treating other beings as one treats oneself. Mrs. Chan is just one of many beings, as am I. Her personal suffering, and mine, is just one of many. I am equally concerned with the suffering of all beings, rather than just whatever individual being happens to be in front of me at the moment.

I admit- I don't think every person on earth has something to teach me... I used to, of course, but only because that was the line I'd been fed too. Of course we are supposed to be meek, and humble, and not egotistical, and well... ooh, nobody please mention arrogance- the modern day sins of man!

Funny, my culture teaches (more or less) that once you get your higher degrees and whatnot, few people have much to teach you. And there's all those prejudices that 3rd world folks, poor folks, etc. have nothing to offer us western middle class and above "enlightened and educated" folks. So my viewpoint is actually a minority one and counter-cultural to what is taught. But I consider you fortunate if you were taught to think that way.

I see it, in part, as a matter of practicality. I have learned that I really do learn things from everyone else if I'm open to it. It hasn't much to do with me trying to be humble. It's just being practical and liking the learning process.

As for arrogance and the rest, our current society does reward this. Doesn't make it right or best for people's spiritual growth or their capacity for joy and peace. Look at all those high rates of depression and other issues among those that have it all. Plus, we may reward arrogance with cash and status, but we avoid these people like the plague in relationships because they are no fun at all. So, like many in our society, they get the cash prize but are lonely. I'm content to have deep connections with other beings (human and not) and do my thing and be joyful. I was never much one for competition and cash and status anyway.

Easy... you can hide your own arrogance and egotism behind more noble value constructs such as "just", "principled", "compassionate", while at the same time openly displaying your own witty elitisms while dressing them up in the garb of righteousness...

wah hey!

I don't try to hide anything. If that is what you perceive, well, that is your perception. Criticism doesn't bother me. If being loving and concerned with social and environmental justice makes me egotistical in your eyes, OK. But from what I understand, it's hard to be egotistical when you don't care about getting credit. I'm not looking for medals or status or honors for being compassionate or living my life according to my principles. I don't talk about it much outside of CR and my closest family. I'm non-competitive. I just do what I do.