Tibetan Uprising

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Francis king

yes tao, I do... ultimately, it is just another man-made concept, and while it may be the case we can explain "it" in this way, it does not mean that "it" is what "it" appears to be...

I dont get it. Gravity is not only a theory developed by humans it holds as true for cats and horses, rocks and oceans. Without gravity there would be no particles bigger than an atom in the universe. So please explain how you can make such statements. Are you trying to say the observable is illusion?

Tao

[seattlegal]

I have suffered at my own hands, through ignorance, through holding wrong views, for not seeing everything "as it is" and instead "imposing my views upon reality"

I thought this thread was about the Tibetan uprising instead of about ISKCON.

[Pathless]

Is the uprising in Tibet and China about Buddhism? Is it about culture? Or is it about something more basic than both of those: food?

The most dramatic change on the landscape is neither the recent failure of Bear Stearns nor the dramatic action taken by the Fed in response to it. The most important development on the global economic landscape is that the inflation problem in China is now so great that it is giving rise to social unrest on a scale that requires a military response.

That is an excerpt form a report that you can buy online for fourteen british pounds: mi2g

If anyone decides to buy it (I won't because I have to save my money for food), please give us a summary. Thanx.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Pathless

Is the uprising in Tibet and China about Buddhism? Is it about culture? Or is it about something more basic than both of those: food?

The most dramatic change on the landscape is neither the recent failure of Bear Stearns nor the dramatic action taken by the Fed in response to it. The most important development on the global economic landscape is that the inflation problem in China is now so great that it is giving rise to social unrest on a scale that requires a military response.

That is an excerpt form a report that you can buy online for fourteen british pounds: mi2g

If anyone decides to buy it (I won't because I have to save my money for food), please give us a summary. Thanx.

Interesting angle, Pathless.

Since there is hostility among the Han Chinese towards the Tibetans, could this move by the Chinese government be a preemptive move to make possible future economic protests (due to inflation) 'distasteful' to the majority Han Chinese citizens? (By associating them with what the 'distasteful Tibetans' do?)

From Investor's Business Daily:
Investors In Chinese Stocks Eye Tibet

[seattlegal]

You know, Pathless, your angle becomes very interesting when you bring in the recent protests in Burma for comparison. {Which, incidentally, were spurned by the junta doubling fuel prices so they could sell more of the natural gas resources to other countries...}

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Francis king

if you see compassion as akin to agape, how lovely it must be to "feel" this, but my point is, if you did not have the concept, you couldn't possibly have the feeling in the first place...

Not so. In my own life, I have many times first experienced something, and only later (sometimes years later) found the word (after study) that most adequately described it.

It is not like I first read about agape and then said, "Oh, now I can be compassionate!" Compassion started growing in me when I was but a small child and had no way to express that which was experienced. Only later did I find the word agape, which mostly matched what I experienced. I had similar experiences for other such experiences as multiverse, infinite, etc. First the experience and the lack of being able to express *at all* that experience to others, then the learning of a word or concept that helped me to express it, though imperfectly.

Maybe I'm an oddball case, but it does happen.

what did people call agape before the concept of agape was created by the mind of man?

I suspect some other languages had the equivalent. However, if there are no words to express an experience or state of consciousness, that does not mean it does not exist. We invent words to express what we experience. If it were otherwise, our own (first) language would so dominate our experience of the world, we could not adequately learn another culture or language. However, people do this all the time. So while language may influence our later experience, it is not the root cause of it.

I say this is an impossibility- it is the inferring consciousness that creates the affection- as you point out, I would not be able to discern even the motivation of a cat, unless I was a cat psychic...

Well, that is just not the case. We can define what we mean by affection and the standards of measure by which we decide if a behavior qualifies or not. Affection as a behavior is certainly measurable.

Now, on the other hand, I distinctly said that compassion (as a state of consciousness) is not the same thing as affection, nor can it necessarily be related in a way that can be testable. You were the only who initially brought up the arguments about affection, related to compassion. I pointed out that the two were not equivalent in my understanding, but that the evidence for affectionate behavior among species was available.

what you are witnessing is not affection, but a repeat pattern of two seperate species not competing for resources and co-existing in the same space.

Sitting in the same room together and allowing co-existence is one thing.

A dog or cat nursing baby squirrels is another. A blind horse being led by a dog or vice versa is another. A bird taking care of a kitten feeding it worms and keeping it off the highway is another. None of those actions is co-existence, but rather something quite beyond it.

You can say "that's not affection" but then I would say, define what affection is (and it's measurable behavioral standards) and what you define these other behaviors as. Speaking in vague terms makes everything unscientific and we can go 'round all day.

This is perfctly natural. Man is the only animal who attacks other animals for fun and sport. Most animals do not attack wily-nily- they attack because they want to eat, they attack to defend territory, they attack because they seek to have the superior position- usually for the purposes of mating.

That is not true, either. Cats attack for fun sometimes. My cat used to love to "play" with the field mice she found and she never ate one of her kills. However, overall humans are a rare type of animal that seems to enjoy inflicting suffering more than other types of animals.

A horse and a coyote will not neccesarily fight- both animals have their strengths- the horse could kick the coyote's head in, the coyote could bite a big chunk out of the horse. If they get injured, then potentially they get sick and die.

Doesn't seem to stop other such cases from occurring and going in the opposite direction, resulting in injury. Animal behavior is varied just as our own is. In the vast majority of cases, you can find evidence of certain behaviors and against certain behaviors. Individual variation is the name of the game.

Primates are never a good example for animal behaviour- they are too human... apparently, the average primate and child 5 years and under have the same level of reasoning and potential for language...

But aren't humans just another type of animal? I mean, really, why put us in a different category? It is a matter of degree, not categorical difference. Some primates (the apes, for the most part) are very much like humans. Other types of primates (prosimians) are very much like intelligent rodents. In between, monkeys range the gamut from pretty complicated and ape-like in behavior to pretty boring and animal-like. It's a range.

we cannot infer from this that all animals have the same depth of intellectual reasoning as humans do, as they do not have the brain structures to do it as well as we do... as for the research which proves the biological basis for emotion- nope... I'm not buying it...

Of course not (in terms of animals having the same intellectual reasoning). That was my point. Affectionate behavior is not tied to compassion, but rather biology. Compassion, as a state of consciousness, is something else entirely.

As for the research on emotion and biology, it doesn't matter if you buy into it. Science is science, and the way the body works is how it works. Apparently, you do not "buy into" gravity as a law of physics but rather just a construct, too. But until I see someone free themselves from gravity and just float away, I'll stick with the science. It's similar to all the conservative Christians that don't "buy into" evolution. People regularly distrust scientific findings or refuse them because they don't easily integrate into their current worldview. I just throw out the findings I have had or have read in peer-reviewed journals and books by other, recent, well-respected scientists. If someone doesn't want to "buy into" it, it doesn't much matter in the long run. It's their perogative.

But, in truth, the pain is the same- the only difference in the pain felt is due to perception...

Your justification? And why is pain the exception? (I.e., why is it not the case to replace "pain" with "disgust" or "fear" or "love" etc.)

If there is no justification, the statement is belief but does not stand up to scientific methodology. Which is OK. But then we're talking apples and oranges. I am exploring human cognition, perception, and culture (and animal behavior) through the lens of testable, observable stuff, separating out what falls outside this bucket (compassion, states of consciousness, etc.) and you are exploring these things through belief systems and philosophy.

But the pain of a hypochondriac is NOT real... Nor that in phantom limbs...

On the contrary, the cascade of neurological and hormonal and physiological reactions, from what I understand, is the same as if there is a cause for the pain. So the pain is real. The cause is unfounded. That's the interesting part of it all.

There are only two forms of consciousness... the cause consciousness and the effect consciousness...

I disagree. What is the foundation of this, if you don't mind my asking? The universe doesn't break down into cause/effect ultimately. That relies on time working in a linear fashion, which it only appears to.

For them to be in themselves, actual realities, is impossible.

Nor can they be anything more than conditioned responses...

Sorry, but that whole analogy just doesn't hold water at all. A beansprout is not a conditioned response. It is just something that happens if the conditions are right. So, by extension, if you are saying love is like a beansprout, ditto for the love. The conditions (environmentally) are right, love blooms.

A beansprout sprouts in the correct conditions whether we believe it will or not, have been taught it will or not, indeed, whether we even acknowledge it or not. We could create better conditions to help the beansprout to grow, but this will occur in some places in the world whether we are involved or not. Culture has nothing to do with the process, with the actuality. Only with one's perception of that process. There is the "thing" and then our perception/interpretation of it.

That said, I don't think love is that much like a beansprout, but I'll work with the analogies I'm given.

Gravity, in itself, does not exist. "We", mankind, grasps this explanation for the attraction and repulsion of forces as gravity, for without the concept to be perceived man would float around non-plussed in his own ether...

Sorry, but I'm with Tao Equus on this one. I don't think my dogs understand much about gravity, but somehow they never float around either. They remain firmly attached to the floor, or sometimes the couch.

You seem to be saying that all natural laws and science are simply conditioned ideas and no reality or laws exist at all. Well, you can think that. But I don't see you walking off a cliff to prove that theory, either.

So, why do you behave in the ways which you do AND hold the opinions that you do?

Because you have presented with concepts and ideals via your family, and peers, and life experience and your own investigations, and have arrived at what you think are your own conclusions, but...

without the initial exposure to the concept/subject, you would have no basic for any of your rationales, which would render them non-objects/subjects.

Two different things. What I do and my opinions. I do what I do because at the moment, intuitively, an action resonates harmoniously with my sense of the Whole, the All. Unless I screw it up, but that is when I'm wallowing a space of self-centeredness and fear. My opinions are theories, some grounded in science and some not, overlaid on my analysis of experience and evidence.

Is this based on my life (social, environmental, and otherwise)? Of course. But that does not make it all *conditioned.* Just because we are interacting within a system, does not mean we are made automatons by the system. I am not saying everyone (or anyone) is not conditioned. I am saying that reality is what is beyond the conditioning. It is a black box none of us can fully get into, but we can get closer by examining our own conditioning. But to say that nothing resides beyond the conditioning is just an excuse to avoid self-examination. And it is simply untrue. People were conditioned to think the world was flat. But someone eventually broke free of the conditioning in some small way, looked at the real evidence beyond the fog of culture, and said, "Hey, but it seems round!"

I never railed against your argument that conditioning happens to everyone. What I am saying is that 1) it's not about reward/punishment all the time and 2) conditioning is not all there is, or no one would ever generate something new that is against their conditioning (which, to the contrary, people do all the time).

[path_of_one]

I feel that studying buddhism has enabled me to go beyond that conditioning...

And I feel that science and mysticism has enabled me to go beyond that conditioning...

I feel that yes, everyone is "stuck in conditioning", but, rather than believe there is no escape I say there is...

buddhism can be this escape...

And so can shamanism, and mysticism, and science, and any other "ism" type constructs you care to name...

However, escaping one conditioning presents us with others. So, simply put, I tend to think it best that I am vigilant to examine my own conditioning and bounce it off the evidence and others' interpretations of that evidence.

You may feel that you have not been rewarded for saying prayers, but the action of you saying prayers tells me otherwise-
the reward is there, you just don't accept that is your motivation (of course, it might not be your motivation... I mean "you" in general here...)

Circular reasoning, without any evidence.

You say prayers, so you are being rewarded even though you think you're not. Which is why you say prayers...

You claim to know motivation by action, and then that motivation begets action and action is evidence of motivation. It's just not a reasonable or logical argument at all.

They aim their good intentions into the ether and hope that somebody somewhere will intervene/intercede/interject...
there is the reward... not only is the reward there, the reward is also present in the idea of prayer- it being a good thing to do, it being something that works, etc, when, actually...

That is not how I pray. Maybe you speak of intercessory prayer? I don't do that. Aiming my good intentions into where-ever is magic. And it is a practice I sometimes do. But I don't disguise it as prayer. Prayer is a thank you note to the Divine. In my practice, prayer is part of worship. It is a refocusing of my mind and is a contemplative action, not a intercessory one. No intervention is necessary. Life is what it is, and prayer is an expession of my thankfulness for it.

prayers are useless, unless you want to impress somebody's mind with a concept... if you want to save the world from suffering, philanthropic acts and the study of science and medicine... this is far more useful than prayer, I would think....

The point of prayer is not to save the world from suffering (directly). The point of prayer is closer to the point of meditation. It is to refocus my own mind and to replenish my own soul, that I might be a vessel for something greater than myself, that I may ground myself in gratitude for life and in strength of the Divine, the Wholeness that is the Universe. I am then more capable of philanthropic acts and science. The two work together, but prayer has nothing to do with the intercession. That is in the realm of action (either physical or mental/energetic, as in magic). I keep the two firmly separated. Does everyone? No. But then, you speak in absolutist statements "prayer is for reward" and I say that there is variation in nearly everything, particularly human motivation and intent.

but we are blind and deaf and heartless and take sides based on non-facts, in equal measure- hence the exhortation to generate the four immeasurables...

But my point is that if we are solely capable of conceptualization and action based on conditioning, we cannot possibly generate the four immeasurables. We have been conditioned to be blind and deaf, so how do we see and hear?

That we can do this, means that conditioning is a veil between us and reality, not reality itself.

I disagree. We can experience ultimate reality and understand ultimate truth...

Then we agree. We just disagree on what this is.

hence my objection to buddhists running around in the street and throwing stones and smashing windows.

I object to this as well. But objecting to the reactions of the Tibetans does not preclude me from also objecting to the oppression of the Chinese. I do not think anyone was saying that smashing windows is the best course of action. I think others were saying that China's oppression of Tibet is also an unethical and distateful action, and should be resisted, though not in an unethical, illogical, and ineffective way.

[Francis king]

seattlegal- who mentioned ISKON?

[Francis king]

what I mean, Tao, is...

if the earth was a game, then physics, and concepts such as gravity would be the rules...

now, the rules may hold in a general, every-day game, but the rules themselves are not true- they are just parameters for the game.

Twenty years ago people said- nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. For the past ten years, some scientists have been experimenting with teleportation.

So far, they have managed to teleport light. Or rather, they can make light travel faster than the speed of light...

curious...

[Francis king]

Path-of-one.. I do not think that you first read the word agape, and then decided to be compassionate- you are taking me far too literally, I think...

what I mean is, it is impossible for compassion to spring from the ground without first being fed and watered first... without being presented with it, as an option, you would not have been able to adopt it for yourself...

Affection as a behaviour is not measurable- we measure instead behaviours which we believe to represent affection... it is not the same thing at all..

In buddhism, there is a concept called... pratityasamutpada... you will have come across it as the 12 membered dependent arising, or the wheel of birth and death...

the 12 limbs comprise the individual- name and form, circumstances of birth, etc, all of which are headed by consciousness...

within consciousness, there are two seperate types- the cause consciousness, and the effect consciousness...

this explains that the consciousness is composed of these two main strains- motivations- the cause consciousness, and conditioning mechanisms- the effect consciousness... these two things make the consciousness, and the consciousness is part of the 12 limbs.

So, thats where I get this idea from...

I did not mean for you to think I thought the beansprout was a conditioned response... what I meant for you to see via my poor anology was...

we might think the cause of a beansprout/compassion relies on one thing (the seed/self), but really, there needs to be more than just a seed...

or rather... you would not be able to be compassionate if you did not know what it was- i.e., if you had not seen such behaviours demonstrated, or upheld as admirable qualities of man...

without the previous "words" from others, without witnessing their actions, you would not know what to do, or even if it existed...

[Francis king]

hence, you have been conditioned to be compassionate...

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Francis king

Path-of-one.. I do not think that you first read the word agape, and then decided to be compassionate- you are taking me far too literally, I think...

Sorry- it's always difficult to interpret another's words when typing.

what I mean is, it is impossible for compassion to spring from the ground without first being fed and watered first... without being presented with it, as an option, you would not have been able to adopt it for yourself...

I'd agree with this... sort of. I don't think that you have to be presented with it as an option by another human or by society or somesuch. But I do think that compassion initiates based on a pseudo-external cause... or more appropriately, an external cause made internal. Of course, we'll have different ideas on this, as you are atheist and I am not. I think compassion is an attribute of the Divine, and given freely to us through grace, but resides in us. So we discover it in ourselves, but it is not part of our egoic self, but rather lies beyond it.

Affection as a behaviour is not measurable- we measure instead behaviours which we believe to represent affection... it is not the same thing at all..

That was my point. We define what we are measuring and then measure it. We define what affection is, and then how we measure affectionate behavior. Otherwise, it's all rhetoric and no one will be able to show evidence either way, since both parties will be measuring different things and holding different concepts.

within consciousness, there are two seperate types- the cause consciousness, and the effect consciousness...

this explains that the consciousness is composed of these two main strains- motivations- the cause consciousness, and conditioning mechanisms- the effect consciousness... these two things make the consciousness, and the consciousness is part of the 12 limbs.

Ah, this makes sense to me now. It isn't my own worldview, but I see where you are coming from. I happen to not be into cause/effect that much, as I think it breaks down in certain processes, but I of course it's a useful conceptualization. I just see it as one among many.

we might think the cause of a beansprout/compassion relies on one thing (the seed/self), but really, there needs to be more than just a seed...

or rather... you would not be able to be compassionate if you did not know what it was- i.e., if you had not seen such behaviours demonstrated, or upheld as admirable qualities of man...

Again, I agree there must be more than the seed, but I think this is the Divine, which may work through a human, or through the natural world, or through mystical experience directly... all of which may cause the seed of compassion/love to grow.

We differ on that point. I believe that the Divine is perfectly capable by Itself of directly interacting with a human being, of revealing one's essence. I don't think that's the only way to compassion, but one of many ways. Frequently, human demonstration and ethics are not sufficient to fully develop compassion as well. These may begin with human demonstration (or inspiration from the natural world) and fully develop in mysticism, which is to say, direct Divine revelation or experience.

This is where our religious differences come into play, because you would deny such experience as real (from what I gather), but as such experience is mine (and is the biggest cause of the growth of love for all in me), I cannot deny it.

without the previous "words" from others, without witnessing their actions, you would not know what to do, or even if it existed...

I would say this is untrue, that the natural world itself inspires us to love, to connect with the Divine and so to awaken compassion. This is why people are not entirely dependent on culture/society for information, thought, feeling, or state of consciousness. There is always an interplay of the individual with the natural world, apart from human society, and so people generate new and original stuff all the time.

Of course, it all begs the question... the first human to attain compassion... how did it happen? If it is all conditioned by other humans?

In my worldview (upheld by my own experience), the Divine is the source of compassion, and there are myriad ways this is awakened in an individual. For some, it is through social conditioning and human inspiration. For others, through the natural world and the feeling of Wholeness it generates. For still others, direct mystical experience. Any can mesh with the others, and there may well be pathways I am missing. But to say it all is from social conditioning... this does not fit with my own life's experience.

This is also the case with other concepts that are part of states of consciousness, and particularly some of the experience of trance states. I first experienced what infinity was before I even knew such a concept was named. It was several years between the experience and the social conditioning that allowed me to express the experience. Now, I cannot think of a way "infinity" was demonstrated to a kid under the age of 9, when the concept had not been discussed or introduced in math. Similarly, the experience of "emptiness" or "no-thought."

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

In my worldview (upheld by my own experience), the Divine is the source of compassion, and there are myriad ways this is awakened in an individual. For some, it is through social conditioning and human inspiration. For others, through the natural world and the feeling of Wholeness it generates. For still others, direct mystical experience. Any can mesh with the others, and there may well be pathways I am missing. But to say it all is from social conditioning... this does not fit with my own life's experience.

My sense is that Compassion in Buddhism is not just empathy or interpersonal resonance. It is actually an ethical commitment which arises from Enlightenment and which is cultivated as part of a personal practice. In a sense, the suggestion that it is merely a product of social learning would seem to nullify the significance of Enlightenment and practice, which inform and strengthen Compassion as an ethical commitment.

[Snoopy]

This harrowing documentary was on British TV last night.

“To make this film, Tibetan exile Tash Despa returns to the homeland he risked his life to escape 11 years ago, to carry out secret filming with award-winning, Bafta-nominated director Jezza Neumann (Dispatches Special: China's Stolen Children). Risking imprisonment and deportation, he uncovers evidence of the "cultural genocide" described by the Dalai Lama.

He finds the nomadic way of life being forcefully wiped out as native Tibetans are stripped of their land and livestock and are being resettled in concrete camps. Tibet reveals the regime of terror which dominates daily life and makes freedom of expression impossible. Tash meets victims of arbitrary arrests, detention, torture and "disappearances" and uncovers evidence of enforced sterilisations on ethnic Tibetan women.

He sees for himself the impact of the enormous military and police presence in the region, and the hunger and hardship being endured by many Tibetans, and hears warnings of the uprising taking place across the provinces now.”



Channel 4 - News - Dispatches - Undercover in Tibet



s.

[Francis king]

I understand you Path... but from my point of view I would say that this thought you have, of the divine, and how it manifests, is another product- a way of looking at things which has been presented to you- but, as you point out, by the same token, my opinion is much the same- not original, but presented to me, also...

it's not that I am trying to deny your experience has validity, but rather, I claim it to be "un-original"... that isn't meant to be disparaging- just a further example, for me, of how you have been presented with a specific world-view and have adopted it for yourself... (just like me and mine...)

....

Snoopy... I also watched "undercover in Tibet"... at the same time, I watched a documentary series called... "a year in Tibet"...

...last night, number four out of five, a family group of five people; four men and a girl, decided to leave town to look for jobs elsewhere... their mum wrapped katas around their necks, and bid them goodbye- in much the same way as Mrs Pole has recently said goodbye to her well wrapped up Polish sons and a daughter, who have similarly gone "far away" to look for work and are living in my street, right now... due to economic neccesity...

an abbot of a monastery was making cages and installing security cameras around his place- he'd been broken into a few times, recently... you know, just like the priest down my street has... by the junkies...

...another "scene" involved the building of a school, a tibetan school, just for tibetan kids, so they would not have to attend state school and be indoctrinated... the woman running the show was a "party" official...

In "A year in Tibet" I saw people performing prostrations for the Buddha right next to Chinese police guards... neither of them seemed to resent the others' presence...

am I to make the assumption that this series was Pro-China propaganda?

The documentary "undercover in tibet" was hardly harrowing- I was hoping for some blood and guts, at least... but no! Only two people would speak to "Tash"... one had been sterlised-or so they said, and the other had had his hands whipped by the police...so he said...

...look how we use words to make our point seem more valid... Snoopy says...

“To make this film, Tibetan exile Tash Despa returns to the homeland he risked his life to escape 11 years ago, to carry out secret filming with award-winning, Bafta-nominated director Jezza Neumann (Dispatches Special: China's Stolen Children). Risking imprisonment and deportation, he uncovers evidence of the "cultural genocide" described by the Dalai Lama.

He finds the nomadic way of life being forcefully wiped out as native Tibetans are stripped of their land and livestock and are being resettled in concrete camps. Tibet reveals the regime of terror which dominates daily life and makes freedom of expression impossible. Tash meets victims of arbitrary arrests, detention, torture and "disappearances" and uncovers evidence of enforced sterilisations on ethnic Tibetan women.

He sees for himself the impact of the enormous military and police presence in the region, and the hunger and hardship being endured by many Tibetans, and hears warnings of the uprising taking place across the provinces now.”

...risked his life to escape... emotive... so risky, and so dodgy, that he returned, with his secret cameras... such a brave boy...let's not forget the Bafta nominated director- woo! big licks- it all must be true then, right? I mean, this director is so cool... (he also did the Dispatches Special: China's Stolen Children- so we know he likes "that" kind of thing... ).

Tashi finds the nomadic way of life being forcefully wiped out... ah, right...so forcefully that the issue never arose in "a year in tibet"...

nomads? stripped of their lands... what, to feed the people? whats wrong with that? ...resettled in concrete camps (what, like they're living in sink estates...? like we do, the poor underclass of Britain, you mean? I don't see anyone waving banners for us...)

"Tibet" reveals the "regime of terror" which "dominates daily life" and makes "freedom of expression impossible" (yet scroll up and look at "a year in tibet", and our tibetan woman and our chinese policeman coexisting in the same space without coming to blows...should I make the assumption that this is a rare occurance, and a show for the cameras..?)

Tash meets victims of "arbitrary arrests, detention, torture and "disappearances" and uncovers evidence of enforced sterilisations on ethnic Tibetan women.

and I can go along my road and knock on a few doors and find the same
thing... arbitary arrests, detention, torture and dissapearances... I can only pray for enforced sterilisation happenning to the natives where I live...

A lack of ASBO louts and third-generation welfare claimants spawning more teenage "hoody" peasants?

I pray for these things to happen here...