Contentious Objector

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

It is this concept of forgiveness I believe to be foreign to Buddhism, but the concept of bearing the scars of one's "sins" seems to be elemental to your description, if not now then in a future life. Is this correct?

Namaste Juan,

yes, you are correct. though "sin" isn't the word we'd normally use... try, instead.. unskillful action.

???

iirc stands for: If I recall correctly... something i've picked up in my internet exploration

Understood. Whereas, rather than a "judge" to direct traffic, some form of automatic pilot or rheostat or elemental control directs the same energy manifestation that equates between the two disciplines as "soul," yes? Different traffic cop analogies between the two traditions, yet traffic is still routed and directed.

no soul to direct in our tradition other than that term... yes... the energy can perhaps be conceputalized in the same fashion... however... i feel that i'm leaving you with some inaccurate understandings... and i deeply apologize. there is no traffic cop... no indepedent entity.. that directs your karmic energy in any sort of conscious sense. ones karmic energy arises like a shadow clings to form.... it's a completely natural outcome of the process of intending.

If things aren't born and don't die, then what purpose and why the emphasis on karma. Maybe better stated, why the emphasis on Karma if in the end it really doesn't matter anyway? Even in considering the comment "only that being itself, can create the causes and conditions for it to cease," (which I presume to imply nirvana, or my understanding of it), if energy (and by extension, matter) cannot be destroyed, then either nirvana is an impossible goal, or it is merely the place to begin everything all over again. Which returns me to my earlier question, why, if it doesn't really matter anyway?

this is a very good question... and one which i'm only able to give a partial and inadequate answer.

remember our teaching of the two truths? this is going to be an important aspect to grasp to understand why the teachings are as they are. in any event... the Buddha taught the doctrine of karma to sentient beings that believed that their actions had no consequences.. that, "in the end, it doesn't matter." the Buddha rebuked this notion and taught that all intentions produce karma.. in essence, karma is the fruit of our intentions, whether positive, negative or neutral.

for beings that held the mistaken view that our actions are the sole criteria by which we make progress along the spiritual path, the Buddha taught the teaching of Shunyata or Emptiness. where there is no "self" who makes progress along a spiritual path.

one of the really tricky bits that we tend to overlook or misconstrue is that the Buddhist teachings were expounded for a particular group of beings at a particular time and place. as such, not every teaching is applicable for every being... and this has caused a great deal of confusion amongst later Buddhists, especially those that come from the west.

now... the rest of this converstation should, probably, be under one of the religious sections of the site... nevertheless...

nirvana is not the final teaching.. nirvana was taught as a way point.. a resting place, if you will, along the spiritual journey... it is not, however, the destination or goal of the practice. this gets into some rather technical areas of discussion which i'd rather leave aside for now.. at least on this particular section of the site.

let's talk about this bit for a moment... we both understand that energy is matter.. and that energy cannot be destroyed. from the Buddhist view, this means that energy is not born.. for anything born, dies and decays. our consciousness or mind, if you will, is energy... and thus, also, was never born and will not die. this is, of course, a more modern view of this subject.. but one that has a great deal of relevance for a modern person versed in scientific theories.

[mcedgy]

Vajradhara, you said, “our consciousness or mind, if you will, is energy…and thus, also, was never born and will not die.” Fascinating. Do you think that the human personality is of that same energy and therefore survives bodily death?

I know this is getting off subject and if you’d like to respond elsewhere just point me in the right direction. Thanks mcedgy

[Vajradhara]

Namaste mcedgy,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by mcedgy

Vajradhara, you said, “our consciousness or mind, if you will, is energy…and thus, also, was never born and will not die.” Fascinating. Do you think that the human personality is of that same energy and therefore survives bodily death?

I know this is getting off subject and if you’d like to respond elsewhere just point me in the right direction. Thanks mcedgy

let's continue this aspect of our conversation here:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...ead.php?t=1055

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all...


to continue our thread....

here's the bit that got me going on this and why i was curious as to others with and without a religious belife thought about the matter:

"With reference to the absolute pacifists, or conscientious objectors to war; their attitude, judged from the Baha'i standpoint is quite anti-social and due to its exaltation of the individual conscience leads inevitably to disorder and chaos in society. Extreme pacifists are thus very close to the anarchists, in the sense that both of these groups lay an undue emphasis on the rights and merits of the individual. The Baha'i conception of social life is essentially based on the subordination of the individual will to that of society. It neither suppresses the individual nor does it exalt him to the point of making him an anti-social creature, a menace to society. As in everything, it follows the 'golden mean'. The only way that society can function is for the minority to follow the will of the majority.

"The other main objection to the conscientious objectors is that their method of establishing peace is too negative. Non-cooperation is too passive a philosophy to become an effective way for social reconstruction. Their refusal to bear arms can never establish peace. There should first be a spiritual revitalization which nothing, except the Cause of God, can effectively bring to every man's heart."

(Directives from the Guardian, p. 53-54)

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vaj!

I'm afraid I haven't taken the time to look at the Ba'hai thread. My religion instills a revulsion and wariness of global government (at least in me), yet in my education I see the expansion of business to a global scale may bring about global government by default. It is a subject I am spiritually torn on, so I have avoided that particular thread.

I am inclined to agree with Lord Acton, "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Stated another way, "More is not necessarily better."

I do not see absolute pacifism as a particularly wise mode of existence. Peace should be, and it is a noble goal to strive for. But it should not be assumed. Human nature being what it is, there will always be those who for reasons of power will seek to exert themselves over others. War, in the philosophical and physical sense, has been with humanity since the first tool was used to procure flesh food. It could be argued that it has been since the first root or tuber was dug. It is a part of nature since the first microbe consumed another.

In the more modern translation, it has existed in humanity since the first tool was diverted to use as a weapon against another human, whether for defense or offense may never be known. Since then, humans have exerted authority other each other by force of arms. As long as we continue to do so, a society of pacifists is merely an easy mark or target.

War is dirty, nasty, ugly. It is unpleasant, as a gross understatement. It is not something to be desired. Yet it is a reality, and one that must be guarded against. It cannot be effectively guarded against with a dogma of unquestioned pacifism.

One more thing quickly. I'm not certain of the context or significance of the quote you cited, but an italicized line disturbs me. "The only way that society can function is for the minority to follow the will of the majority." I have some fundamental problems with this. If this were so, slavery would still exist in its former form. All manner of gross human injustice would not only still exist, it would be further entrenched. There would be no mechanism for social "evolution." The needs and requirements of the majority should be the drive perhaps, but not at the expense of any minority.

My two cents.