There is a lot of sturm and drang right now for milliions (billions?) of sentient beings regarding the naming of that body of water located at 25°N 90°W.
How much stress and unsatisfactory conditions are created by sentient beings over this name and form? How does it arise? How does it cease?
How much energy is it wise to pour into this debate about the naming of that body of water located at 25°N 90°W? Isn’t this just a convention?
What is the true name of that body of water? What does reality demand we name it? Wars can and have been fought over such things.
What is the proper Buddhist response to this sturm and drang? How should a Buddhist contemplate and meditate on the conflict over the name of this body of water?
I gather this is primarily directed at Dogen coming from the “brahmaviharas are dukkha”-thread - I’ll nevertheless chime in and leave my thoughts.
Personally, I’d go with the name of that body of water by the indigenous people → Nahuatl Chalchiuhtlicueyecatl and I like the idea of everybody having to master the pronunciation.
Yes, the name is convention as is all language except the onomatopoetika (and even they differ from language to language). The problem is that people claim posession of water, land whatever and as long as there are nation-states there will be geopolitical struggle.
There is no true name. It’s state officials claiming territory and naming it after the nation state’s name to show that “it belongs to that state”.
I think it is a good example for elucidating that separate conversation, but it is posted here because I think the topic might be helpful independent of that separate conversation.
Why? More importantly, for those who don’t choose to master the pronunciation is that unsatisfactory to you? Why?
Is it just the name that is convention or is the referent of the name a convention too?
In this case, people are not claiming possession of the water. AFAIK, no one is disputing that the international rules for the possession and navigation of this body of water have not changed. Those conventions stay the same.
There is no dispute over the body of rules and regulations concerning the water that the name refers to. There is dispute only about the name. The referent of that name is also just a convention.
I didn’t really want to comment on the topic because frankly I have no idea what’s going on. I think Trump wants to call is GoA and there’s a bit of ruckus going on.
But perhaps it’ll offer a fresh restart to this debate.
I’m not even sure if there is dukkha going on by this strife. Perhaps people who are engaging in this polemic, whatever their position is, enjoying the process as a means to further their political agenda, one way or another. I can’t even comment if anyone is suffering (except for me, who’s now struggling to learn about this news!).
But perhaps that would serve as an interesting tangent on my preferences - I would very much prefer to not live in a world where I have to read the news about whatever BS politicians are cooking up to fool the public.
Expecting this not to happen in this world is a suffering. The next question is - is there any form of existence where I can evade being annoyed with petty little disputes like this?
And what is a petty dispute? Who decides whether arguing about the name of a Gulf or the kind of food we’re having tonight, that either one, both or neither is a worthy subject to devote our time? Are some of the disputes worthy? Are none of the disputes worthy? Some are worthy and some not worthy?
It seems hard to draw a line, and indeed, any line drawn would be completely arbitrary and preference based.
Not drawing any line at all and having no preference whatsoever, seems like a strategy that’s vulnerable to a DDoS attack as well.
Having an agenda, no clear preferences and neither dukkha no sukha in the resolution, sounds like a life-form that is more like a robotic servitude than a spiritual fulfillment.
I’ll likely have more but this should be enough to fire you up into a reply to give me more to work with.
The President of Mexico and many others ridiculed and condemned the renaming
Many that oppose the Trump administration are outraged and you can find copious amounts of sturm and drang among them in social media posts
Many that support the Trump administration are outraged by the pushback and you can find copious amounts of sturm and drang among them in social media posts
There is stress, anxiety, even violence that is being generated as a result of the above among millions of sentient beings. It seems hard to fathom that this stress, anxiety, even violence doesn’t amount to the experience of dukkha for milions of sentient beings.
Other things are being renamed such as the highest peak in the Americas as well as various US military forts that were previously named after confederate generals.
Thanks for offering the briefing and catching me up to speed.
Okay, this is one the crux of Buddhist ethics - since for example, you hold something like “Having a false view of the world” and/or expectations not being met being the cause of dukkha, is it that this incident is causing dukkha, or is it the case that such myriad sentient beings are having their false-views challenged because of this incident that is causing the dukkha?
If dukkha can be completely overcome with the efforts of a person’s correct view, then how does it translate to accountability with regards to perpetrators? Are perpetrators really so, or is it our false view that regards them as such?
Where do you see the cause of dukkha in this case? If all sentient being affected with this incident were ariya arahants and bodhisatvas, could this suffering have been avoided, accomodating a large baby like Trump with patience and generosity?
(This reminds me of a fictional story idea I’ve been having for a while, the account of a Māra self-inflicting pain in order to keep Bodhisatvas accompanying him forever in saṁsara - but I don’t know where to go on with this idea )
Yes, you are correct - I didn’t read the Wiki carefully enough.
At least for now. I think we can all imagine certain head of states wanting to rename stuff as a first step to be able to make the claim later on: “This belongs to me”.
That just me being mischievous on the one hand and trying to lessen the eurocentric perspective (of territory’s names given).
This is where our disagreement lies. And a massive deja-vu There is water and it’s a good thing to be able to refer to that body of water. What is water by convention? Do you get wet when you step into that water?
I mean I’m absolutely with you that the renaming business is nonsense and it’s unbelievable that people fight over this causing massive dukkha.
Rather than broadening this out to all dukkha I was hoping to stick to this specific experience of dukkha that is arising due to causes and conditions. Unfortunately, (and fortunately!) it appears you are not experiencing dukkha with regards to these. I would suggest a remedy that involves seeing things as they really are, but I doubt it would be persuasive to you since you could not put the remedy to the test empirically.
Yes, but I won’t rehash that here because I’d rather keep the thread focused on the specific experiences of dukkha that arise from this renaming rather than diverge into more abstract debates.
As for the remedy: Do you mean remedy in the sense that for the individual dukkha doesn’t asrise when reading/hearing about the naming game or do you mean remedy for stopping people to engage in it in the first place?
The first one could be remedied with cultivating upekkha. (Or not watching the news too often.) The second one…uff…people would have to be willing to give anatta a chance, so to say. I don’t see that happening very soon…
If you fall back on emptiness being the ultimate reality (incl. of itself), then what makes one description of conventional reality inherently more correct or more valid than another? If dukkha is the situation itself, or if dukkha is the beings’ reaction to the situation, either way you are in the realm of conventional reality. You cannot really appeal to emptiness for explanations of the conventional.
At the end of the day, the arguments around dukkha might be just as silly as arguments around the name of the body of water you mention.
Nothing whatsoever! They are just shared agreements. Nothing makes one shared agreement inherently more correct or more valid than another. Also, indeed dukkha is also a convention. We’re in agreement that generating dukkha by arguing that dukkha really is this or that is quite silly
Nonetheless, certain shared agreements are more skillful than others for certain goals empirically ascertained. Not inherently more skillful, but more skillful given context.
Sturm und drang–reminds me of “it was a dark and stormy night…”
It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents—except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.
If one thinks there is anything auspicious with regards to the arising of dukkha, they are mistaken, there is nothing in fact auspicious about the arising of dukkha. Meaning is found in the Remedy.
I think the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico was intended as a diplomatic insult to Mexico and Mexican immigrants in the United States. Once upon a time, the entire Western part of the United States was Mexico, which the United States conquered in a war to take it from them in the 19th century. Basically, Trump and his hangers on are continuing the conflict between English and Spanish America.
Buddhists like to know the back story of these things, the dependent origination of them, as a way of disentangling themselves from attachment and discernment of reality. The posters in this thread who have no idea why any of this would be a problem are probably ignorant of the ethnic conflict and past wars that it reflects.
As far as it goes, Trump has only ordered that the Federal gov’t refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. The Gulf of Mexico is international waters, so the United States doesn’t have the authority to actually rename it for the whole world. Eahx country can name parts of the world however they like. Mexico has a problem with Google renaming it on Google Maps for Mexican users as well as American users. I believe they intend to sue Google in Mexico to stop doing that. That was the last I heard about it, at least.
It could very well be, but it isn’t the stated intention AFAIK. The stated intention is that the new name is ‘beautiful’ and ‘yay America!’ and so on.
Regardless of the intention, I think there is stress, anxiety, and even the potential for violence being generated as a result of the above among millions of sentient beings. It would seem the experience of dukkha is arising for millions.
Certainly, for some who view this as an intentional insult that might cause even more stress, anxiety and potential for violence.
Do you think the intention matters in determining how much energy it is wise to pour into this debate? Does the intention change whether the name is just a convention? Does the intention change whether it is a true name?
What is the proper Buddhist response to this? How should a student of the Teacher contemplate and meditate on the conflict over the name of this body of water?
I think Trump wants to call is GoA and there’s a bit of ruckus going on.
)
