I can appreciate your perspective that the thread leans heavily on political discussion, which tends to get heated and prickly. Hence, my reminder above.
As for the thread being inappropriate for the forum, the Watercooler category has a bit of a winding history. Initially, it was intended to give a little vent to the otherwise very serious nature of the rest of the forum discussion: the kind of goofy stuff one would chat about around the watercooler of one’s Buddhist oriented office. It has since broadened to a degree that can sometimes, in my opinion, be difficult to moderate. For instance, this thread might be better in the Discussion category so that it can be anchored firmly in the EBTs. It’s all a work in progress.
I can understand perfectly how difficult it is. I hope my message is more viewed as a help than any criticism of your highly difficult and demanding task. Thank you Nadine.
The purpose of the thread was to explore the intersections between a particular political philosophy and early Buddhism.
Both of your messages seems to have been predicted in the very first comment on this thread by @JimInBC
You bumped up his prediction accuracy from 50% to 75%.
Now it is up to harmful online verbal actors and the moderators to bump him up to a solid 100%.
Honestly, if you are able to cite buddhist texts to support your position on this topic, that would be very much welcome.
Sorry that I don’t make your job any easier.
Ohhhhh, thank you for letting me know.
I didn’t think to do that.
Will keep that in mind for future topics that I am wanting answers for that are based on the ETBs.
Good prediction. I think you missed only one predictable point:
Bhante Sujato will nail amazing and balanced post that doesn’t belong to any extreme, but let us see the problem from deeper and essential perspective.
Which he already did in first post he written in this thread But it was pretty predictable as well
Politics functions through negotiating the realm of possibilities hence often defined as “the art of the possible”. The realm of possibilities is the realm of change, and within that realm choice functions.
Progressives choose to trust change, while conservatives choose to trust the old and resist change. If change is to be trusted, then the significance of the conditioned is acknowledged which makes the progressive vulnerable to it. If change is not trusted, then the significance of the conditioned is denied which makes the conservative equally vulnerable to it.
This is why, even though not a politician but a philosopher, Kierkegaard’s view seems to be closer to Buddhism than both conservatism and progressivism, playfully elaborating on the nature of choice:
Marry, and you will regret it. Do not marry, and you will also regret it. Marry or do not marry, you will regret it either way . . . Laugh at the stupidities of the world, and you will regret it; weep over them, and you will also regret it. Trust a girl or do not trust her, you will regret it either way. Hang yourself, and you will regret it. Do not hang yourself, and you will also regret it. Whether you hang yourself or not, you will regret it either way. That, gentlemen, is the essence of the wisdom of life
But I think that progressives misplace their trust when they favor harmful, unbeneficial changes and the conservatives misplace their trust when they disfavor harmless, beneficial changes.
Changes are not inherent bad or good.
I think Kierkegaard’s view is actually not in accordance with Buddhism because I think the Buddha discourages harmful choices and encourages beneficial choices.
Therefore, I think the Buddha would claim that harmful choices/actions should be regretted whereas beneficial choices/actions should not be regretted.
I think that it would be foolish to regret beneficial choices and not regret harmful choices.
I think that it would be wise to regret harmful choices and not regret beneficial choices.
I think different presentations lead to different conclusions. In AN 10.2, the Buddha asserted virtue, none regret, joy, rapture, tranquility, non-sensual pleasure, concentration, knowing things as they really are, dispassion and liberation and denied choice/volition to have any role for going from the near shore to the far shore.
The kamma that is necessary for liberation is neither white nor black eliminating the two. The two are anicca dukkha and anatta and within them choice functions.
Yes. The Noble Eightfold Path begins with right view. which involves knowledge of the right path leading to the cessation of stress, of which choice has no role according to AN 10.2
Dear @animitto , very sorry if I hurt you, please forgive me. I can see why you were upset but please know that wasn’t my intention, but yes I was unskillful. If you’d like to discuss this further don’t hesitate to message me privately.
Personally I don’t believe that people should be gatekeepers for what types of topic is “Buddhist”
Certainly the Buddha talked on a range of issues, including war, kingship, weight loss, views of other sects, family life, pleasure, and much more!
In a discussion about politics there’s bound to be some disagreement. I think it’s ok as long as no one is being spiteful or hurtful. We can have conversations where not everyone agrees. There were often strong disagreements at the time of the Buddha just as there are today, but we maybe shouldn’t be too quick to judge others, because our own speech can sometimes come across as divisive and unharmonious, as I perceived yours and you perceived mine! In both cases I’m sure that we were trying to make a point and that no malice was intended.
Kierkegaard’s view actually reminds me of the views of many of the famous religious during the time of the Buddha, whom the Buddha actually disagreed with:
"When this was said, Purana Kassapa said to me, ‘Great king, in acting or getting others to act, in mutilating or getting others to mutilate, in torturing or getting others to torture, in inflicting sorrow or in getting others to inflict sorrow, in tormenting or getting others to torment, in intimidating or getting others to intimidate, in taking life, taking what is not given, breaking into houses, plundering wealth, committing burglary, ambushing highways, committing adultery, speaking falsehood — one does no evil. If with a razor-edged disk one were to turn all the living beings on this earth to a single heap of flesh, a single pile of flesh, there would be no evil from that cause, no coming of evil. Even if one were to go along the right bank of the Ganges, killing and getting others to kill, mutilating and getting others to mutilate, torturing and getting others to torture, there would be no evil from that cause, no coming of evil. Even if one were to go along the left bank of the Ganges, giving and getting others to give, making sacrifices and getting others to make sacrifices, there would be no merit from that cause, no coming of merit. Through generosity, self-control, restraint, and truthful speech there is no merit from that cause, no coming of merit.’
"When this was said, Makkhali Gosala said to me, 'Great king, there is no cause, no requisite condition, for the defilement of beings. Beings are defiled without cause, without requisite condition. There is no cause, no requisite condition, for the purification of beings. Beings are purified without cause, without requisite condition. There is nothing self-caused, nothing other-caused, nothing human-caused. There is no strength, no effort, no human energy, no human endeavor. All living beings, all life, all beings, all souls are powerless, devoid of strength, devoid of effort. Subject to the changes of fate, serendipity, and nature, they are sensitive to pleasure and pain in the six great classes of birth.
"‘Though one might think, “Through this morality, this practice, this austerity, or this holy life I will ripen unripened kamma and eliminate ripened kamma whenever touched by it” — that is impossible. Pleasure and pain are measured out, the wandering-on is fixed in its limits. There is no shortening or lengthening, no accelerating or decelerating. Just as a ball of string, when thrown, comes to its end simply by unwinding, in the same way, having transmigrated and wandered on, the wise and the foolish alike will put an end to pain.’
“Thus, when asked about a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, Makkhali Gosala answered with purification through wandering-on.”
"When this was said, Ajita Kesakambalin said to me, ‘Great king, there is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary elements. At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after death.’
“Thus, when asked about a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, Ajita Kesakambalin answered with annihilation.”
"‘And among them there is no killer nor one who causes killing, no hearer nor one who causes hearing, no cognizer nor one who causes cognition. When one cuts off [another person’s] head, there is no one taking anyone’s life. It is simply between the seven substances that the sword passes.’
“Thus, when asked about a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, Pakudha Kaccayana answered with non-relatedness.”
"When this was said, Sañjaya Belatthaputta said to me, ‘If you ask me if there exists another world [after death], if I thought that there exists another world, would I declare that to you? I don’t think so. I don’t think in that way. I don’t think otherwise. I don’t think not. I don’t think not not. If you asked me if there isn’t another world… both is and isn’t… neither is nor isn’t… if there are beings who transmigrate… if there aren’t… both are and aren’t… neither are nor aren’t… if the Tathagata exists after death… doesn’t… both… neither exists nor doesn’t exist after death, would I declare that to you? I don’t think so. I don’t think in that way. I don’t think otherwise. I don’t think not. I don’t think not not.’
“Thus, when asked about a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, Sañjaya Belatthaputta answered with evasion.”
I think maybe Kierkegaard’s view is more similar to some of the other religious leader’s views at the time of the Buddha’s than the Buddha’s view…
I am very cheered to see how this thread is developing.
But is it anchored firmly in the EBT’s? I think not. It might even get tossed out of the Discussion category on the grounds that it barely mentions an EBT right back to here.
Thanks to everybody who is discussing how this thread is going, and for all the timely reminders of our purpose for being here.
That was a very funny prediction. But sadly too close to reality, as it’s exactly what has happened so often before.
But I begin to see a glimmer of light that this may not be necessary.
That would be wonderful.
I feel I am watching our community learn and grow, as the discussion moves onwards.
It’s a great moment for us all to pause and think about our individual contributions.
It’s not easy to find solutions to Twenty-First Century problems in texts that came to be Before the Common Era, however wonderful and insightful those texts may be. It always blows my mind when I think that the Buddha lived in the Iron Age. People had only just started moving to live in small cities; the new iron plough heads meant that food production became so productive that everyone didn’t have to struggle to grow just enough for themselves. It was that long ago.
The merchant class was just emerging and the Buddha was on hand to give advice to merchants and other new types of city-dwellers, as well as to the rulers of the small states. If only he had been around to give advice to the national parliaments that arose out of the political turmoils of the Nineteenth Century, and on the entrenched political movements that grew out of them. He surely would have! And as for now, when those very same national parliaments are failing in the face of global conglomerates; if only he were here!
We can’t dredge through the EBTs to see what the Buddha said about our contemporary issues, but we can read the texts carefully and ask sensitively, “What type of advice might the Buddha offer in these new circumstances?” If we also ask, “How would he have entered the discussion, and how would he have spoken to the people he didn’t agree with?” we can answer with some confidence, “He would be doing so with kindness, aiming for a political discussion that is conducted with good-will and seeks interpersonal harmony even while opinions differ”.
My feelings are that a Buddhist forum built on goodwill is the very best place to discuss the difficult issues that confront the current century. It’s up to each contributor to express goodwill along with their ideas.
Huge thanks to all of you for bringing this into the open and being prepared to discuss it. … Thank you for enabling us to leave this thread open.
Yes, thank you! To read with compassion and empathy, to learn and to take charge of drawing out your own meaning; this is the skill of spiritual reading.
But it was pretty predictable as well 
