Marijuana.com

gangstahippi

Okay, so I'm reading a book called the Tibetan book of the Great Liberation of Achieving Nirvana through knowing the One Mind.

So, it says in there (in the incredibly long and interesting introduction) that esoterically, good and evil are the same.

I decided it had to do with Nietzsche, and that the tree is the same underground as above.

I don't know if this is the best forum... but potheads be smart sometimes.

So anyway, I started thinking about the similarities between Ghandi and Hitler. Both had control over a nation, and both had a defined goal. It's just that one was evil and one was good.

Should I not even try to understand things esoterically? Anyway, just some interesting stuff.

 

drakester

Buddhism aims to reduce suffering. Part of suffering is self-caused. That is, the way we feel about events influences our own sense of peace and well-being. So by making good and evil equal, the mind can remain calm, even in the face of appalling injustice such as China now inflicts upon Tibet. The Buddhists promote a calm state freed from strong passions because they believe such a mind can progress closer to enlightenment and liberation from desire. Desire, even the desire for good to conquer over evil, binds humans to the chain of karma, and results in reincarnation after this life, and an endless cycle of suffering.

I reject Buddhism b/c this attitude of detachment, though it might have positive psychological effects, can have negative social effects. What would the Buddhist response to Hitler be? There wasn't one, in fact, despite millions of Buddhists being aware of what was going on in Europe in the 1930s - 1940s. What was the Buddhist response to China's problems, such as the Cultural Revolution? Not much of anything... Mao had a free ride. The monks were interested in self-preservation of themselves and their monasteries, and cared little for what was happening to the intellectuals.

Sometimes one should be willing to sacrifice the selfish goal of enlightenment/psychological well-being for the greater good, such as the survival of democratic institutions. Monks meditating in isolated communities may be charming relics from another age, but they can also be viewed as socially worthless, because they make no contributions to society, other than producing more monks and promoting superstition. This may explain the Chinese attitude to the monks. However, I strongly disapprove of China's repression of the monks and the draconian measures being used in Tibet. The monks there can only be viewed as heroes and martyrs. China is showing itself to be incredibly stupid and brutal and without ethics. They are still trapped in the Communist mindset.

Freedom_User

Because kamma is directly concerned with good and evil, any discussion of kamma must also include a discussion of good and evil. Standards for defining good and evil are, however, not without their problems. What is "good," and how is it so? What is it that we call "evil," and how is that so? These problems are in fact a matter of language. In the Buddha's teaching, which is based on the Pali language, the meaning becomes much clearer, as will presently be demonstrated.
The English words "good" and "evil" have very broad meanings, particularly the word "good," which is much more widely used than "evil." A virtuous and moral person is said to be good; delicious food might be called "good" food; a block of wood which happens to be useful might be called a "good" block of wood. Moreover, something which is good to one person might not be good to many others. Looked at from one angle, a certain thing may be good, but not from another. Behavior which is considered good in one area, district or society might be considered bad in another.
It seems from these examples that there is some disparity. It might be necessary to consider the word "good" from different viewpoints, such as good in a hedonistic sense, good in an artistic sense, good in an economic sense, and so on. The reason for this disparity is a matter of values. The words "good" and "evil" can be used in many different value systems in English, which makes their meanings very broad.

glorious

Freedom, you completely plagiarized your response. I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, just saying, next time you should post the source with it...

Good and Evil in Buddhism

Trocisp

Similarities:
Both were racist on some level (Ghandi hated black people)

Dissimilarities:
Everything else.

Ghandi was a man of peace, where Hitler was a man of war. Ghandi encouraged change through social, nonviolent protests, Hitler encouraged change by exterminating those who didn't agree with him or those who were different.



You should read introduction and histories to a religion before diving into it's beliefs and cultures. It helps to give some... background and encourage understanding. As happens very often when one culture seizes the religion/belief system (or any single part) of another culture, it gets warped, sometimes perverted and almost universally looses its core meaning.

Examples?
Greek "influence" in Roman religion (Jupiter/Zeus, among many others. The Gods personalities were also changed)
Christianity (was a Greek/Hebrew thing and turned into the official religion of the Roman Empire)
Democracy (<--- had to throw that one in there )

__________________
"No references to the need to fight terror can be an argument for restricting human rights." - Vladimir Putin
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Sir Winston Churchill
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
"Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months." - Oscar Wilde
"I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who overcomes his enemies." - Aristotle

 

Buzzby

Mahayana Buddhists (Tibetan Buddhism is a branch of the Mahayana school) do not pursue enlightenment for themselves. They take the Bodhisattva Vow, rejecting Nirvana until all sentient beings have achieved it. Their goal is the polar opposite of "selfish". You must realize that "democratic institutions" are a relatively recent Western innovation and are not part of most of the world's cultures. Because it's your way doesn't mean that it has to be their way. GWB believes in forcing democracy on other cultures. I don't. Tibet was very happy with it's spiritually-based feudal culture until the materialistic Chinese Communists invaded, enslaved, imprisoned, and killed the population, and destroyed more than 99% of the country's major cultural institutions.

Materialism = Good. Spirituality = Bad. Is that your point? They don't make any material contributions to society but were gladly supported by the rest of the population because of the spiritual benefits of their work. Having a son or daughter in a monastery was the dearest wish of every family.

A little prejudice there? Disrespecting a whole culture because it differs from yours is, how do you say, unenlightened.

Tibetans, as a culture completely distinct from that of China, should be allowed to pursue their own path, not be forced vanish to make way for the invaders' version of reality.

__________________

Freedom_User

My bad, I edited my post because the link I put up messed up when I put it in. It was an accident.

gangstahippi

I actually have read introductions and other books on the subject of Buddhism. I do understand that Hitler and Ghandi are different in every way. But think about what you said. They both encouraged change on the highest level, one through peace, and one through war. On the basest level their goal is the same--change. But Hitler was filled with hatred, Ghandi with love. Except I guess Ghandi was racist. Oh well.

drakester

I have warm feelings for Tibet and support their right to self-determination. I think China has a poor moral record across the board. They seem to be guided by no sense of ethics, other than what's good for a small group of CP elites.

Unfortunately, powerful leaders such as Bush don't study history and haven't learned anything from it. Instead, they seem to be good at schmoozing and saying the "right" things to the "right" people. In this way, they can be expected to do all the wrong things. In Bush's case, he is pretty consistent.

Now, you asked a very interesting question. Is materialism good, and spirituality bad? I would put it this way: materialism is necessary, and spirituality not. There are so many different forms of spirituality, that the term is too ambiguous to be very useful to anyone. Isn't the Jihadist just as spiritual as the bodhisattva? What about Jehovah's Witnesses? The world's religions vary so much, that one person's spirituality is another person's belly laugh.

That said, I think Buddhism has more to recommend itself than most, if not all, of the world religions. I have listened to the Dalai Lama in mp3 format during many of my walks in the park, and I have been impressed with his eloquence. In fact, it makes me high to listen to him. I like to imagine his world, a world of compassion and reflection. However, like a Westerner, I also criticize, and find fault with his arguments. So, I do not believe all that he believes. If you looked for any other religious speaker in my mp3 collection, though, you would not find a single one.

Herbal Meditation

As an answer to the first post:

"Good" and "evil"
are just observations, words we use to describe situations and such. However this often turns into judgement, which limits our perception and being. There is no essential good or evil energy, just perceptions of the one same thing..