Connecting Singles^® Forums 100% Free Online Dating

My friend was a member of SG International for many years !!

I do love the buddahs principles


lovely post Bodhi !!

As most people know, Buddhism is a religion of pacifism. It holds that life itself is the highest treasure, and that to trample on the inherent dignity of life is not only to show the ultimate disrespect for others, but it is also to make an extremely negative cause for one's own life - the simultaneity of cause and effect means that the consequences of your actions, both positive and negative, are implanted in your own life, and will in due course definitely rebound on you, for good or evil. At various times, however, this central tenet of Buddhism has not stopped Buddhist monks supporting war, or even carrying arms and fighting themselves - so wealthy did some monasteries grow in Japan between the 14th and 16th centuries, for example, that they formed private militias of armed monks to defend their property, attack rival sects and even threaten the government. Also, at times a perversion of Buddhist doctrine has also been put forward to justify Buddhist violence - that killing others for some higher cause, in the full knowledge that you yourself will suffer the inevitable consequences, is in fact a noble act. And of course, the island of Sri Lanka has periodically been rent with violent conflict between the Hindu Tamil and Buddhist Sinhalese communities. Indeed, supporters of Sinhalese nationalism include some Buddhist monks who believe that only a military defeat and the expulsion of the Tamils from the country will bring a lasting peace. But such cases are the exception - overwhelmingly Buddhism has been a religion of peace, both in word and deed.

yes but as in all beliefs ,

people are just that ,

people !

(The descriptions of other religions and their histories of violence I have deleted. I don't wish this to be about religion, but about violence).

I could go on, but my point here is not to castigate religions for those elements of their teachings that support violence. Rather, it is to indicate how deeply rooted the justification for violence is in virtually every major culture of the world - perhaps because of some deep-rooted human need somehow to be absolved of guilt when we succumb to violence; a need to find an excuse somewhere other than in our own lives.

Even those who follow no particular religion often believe that because violence is inherent in human nature, large-scale violent conflict is inevitable. But this is to undervalue the effect that culture has on our way of thinking. I fully accept that our capacity for violence is intrinsic, but the extent to which we express that violence directly; or channel it peacefully into some other area such as, say, sport; or transform it altogether, is largely the result of our social and cultural conditioning - within our family, our peer group, social class, religion and nation. Since 1814, for example, Sweden has not fought in a single war, while this country has fought in too many to count. And the history of each country plays a large part in shaping the consciousness of its people - many Swedes are as proud of their peacefulness as we Brits take pride in our armed forces.

Moreover, according to the Norwegian pioneer of peace studies, Johan Galtung, a third kind of violence must be added to direct violence and cultural violence. This is "structural violence", where people are repressed or exploited by structures or institutions based on force, or the threat of force. Examples range from outright slavery to economic systems that keep people in grinding poverty, and are sustained, ultimately, by military power. Such structural violence, Galtung argues, often leads to direct violence, in the form of crime, armed revolt and military reaction. So structure violence, too, must be reformed if we are to minimize direct violence in the future

Let me return to the words of Daisaku Ikeda. "Unless we can widely spread and deeply implant among all peoples the principle that violence can never be condoned as a means of advocating one's beliefs, humanity will have learned nothing from the lessons of the 20th century." The real problem, of course, is how to do this.

One answer - although this, too, poses formidable challenges - is also supplied by Galtung. He says that the best way to convince people to change is to offer them feasible, practical alternatives. Criticism and/or exhortation alone will not work. So what are the feasible alternatives to violence?

Well, the last century did see examples of non-violence overturning monstrous injustice - Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mandela. Even the fall of communism in Eastern Europe was largely achieved non-violently - although it can be argued with some justification that this was considerably helped by the implicit threat of violence on both sides.

But if we do not yet have enough leaders of the calibre of these men to change the current of the times, an awareness is growing of the need to take action to foster a culture of peace around the world. The SGI is by no means alone in calling for a change in human consciousness. For example, in October 1999 the UN General Assembly unanimously agreed a Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace, which committed all governments to taking positive steps in eight different areas to promote and support a culture of peace. Needless to say, most governments (including ours) have done very little, but at least the concept is on the agenda, which is a start.

Additionally, whereas religions have been responsible in the past for encouraging terrible violence - and in some places still are - increasingly they are coming together to forge a consensus on universal human and spiritual values, through that essential process of non-violence called dialogue. The World Council of Religions for Peace is currently headed by Prince Hassan of Jordan, who recently sent a message to a peace conference I attended that included these words:

I have told the story many times of how, in 1994 in Aqaba with my late brother, the late King Hussein, at the signing of the peace treaty between Jordan and Israel, I was asked by Israeli media, "What do you think of all this?" I replied - and I wish that my words had not subsequently been borne out by events - "With all due respect to the personalities involved, peace is not just about talking heads; this peace will only succeed when it becomes a 'warm' peace, a people's peace."

This is why the role of interfaith dialogue in peacemaking within and between countries is not really about religions talking to one another; it is about the adherents of religions talking to one another. Over the past few decades we have seen many meetings in which high-level representatives of the faiths have come together to proclaim a common ground between their beliefs and scriptures. Now, we need to make this a "people's peace" - we need to find ways to bring together millions of individuals to talk to each other, not at each other, about their values, their convictions, their hopes and their anxieties.

It is said that, if you want people to agree with you, just invite your friends round for dinner; but if you want to make a change in the world, you must find a way to talk to those who disagree - your enemies and those who disapprove of you in some way. Technology has turned up the volume of our agreements and disagreements, but it has not taught us how to disagree.

"A civilised framework for disagreement" might be one way to define the difficult word 'peace'. Peace, to those who have seriously worked for it at a high level, is not merely the absence of war. It is a process which has to be continuously restarted with every new birth. It is easy for a human to agree peaceably with another; it is much less easy to disagree, and I think that the most important skill we can learn today is how to disagree, or how to agree upon rules of disagreement.

I like that idea - that we need to learn peaceful ways to disagree with one another. I also like the Prince's suggestion that "if you want to make a change in the world, you must find a way to talk to those who disagree - your enemies and those who disapprove of you in some way." In this, I believe, lies a way ahead.

So my challenge is to engage with my enemy and, I believe, to turn him into my friend – or at least a neutral. Since I have identified the enemy as violence itself, I must also recognize and transform my own capacity for violence, while engaging in dialogue those who disagree with me about violence. I must actively promote a non-violent alternative to difficult issues, while acknowledging the integrity of those who disagree with me.

Take the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for example. What would happen if the Palestinians turned away from violence and embraced Gandhi's path of non-violent resistance to the Israeli Occupation? Gandhi overturned the might of the British Empire by shaming the British, by forcing them to live up to the values they claimed to uphold. I think the Palestinians would achieve the same result. Why not? Martin Luther King did the same thing during the civil rights movement. He held a mirror up to white America and said "these are the values you espouse, that are written into your constitution, that are preached in your religion." And the ugly, brutal response he elicited from racist whites only served to increase the support he won not just from other parts of US society, but from around the world.

And if you doubt the power of non-violence and dialogue to counter violence, please visit the websites of organizations such as the Oxford Research Group and Galtung's TRANSCEND, which are actively involved in non-violent conflict resolution and transformation, and which have published many accounts of their success - all the while acknowledging the tremendous challenges of such work, including the ever-present possibility of failure.

The constant balance to be struck is obviously that between peace and security. Clearly, the need for security is real; the world is full of people who would do violence if they could. Al Qaeda exists and will not simply be wished away with messages of goodwill. So people of non-violence have to sit down and discuss with those who disagree with them how best to deal with this problem - and that discussion has to start between individuals of the same society and religion, not with 'foreigners' or those people who pray to a different god, or in a different way. There are Englishmen who believe in violence, and those who believe in non-violence. The same can be said of Jews. Arabs. Moslems. Catholics. Hindus. Americans Attitudes to violence - when it is acceptable, and when not (if at all) - cut through all groups, all religions, all classes, all nations. Let us start to talk about it.

"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent." - Isaac Asimov, Foundation

So right on. Apologies for cutting out some of your words, but this was the bit that really rang true for me. Beautiful post.

No need to hide LL, I just wanted to post the full pertinent text of the article...sorry if this is so long, but there's a lot of good ideas here.

I'd like to initiate true dialogue among people on how their violence is justified, but their enemy's is not. Violence is violence, and has no justification. The past is no longer, the present is what we have, and its up to us to build a positive future.

Thanks for listening, people, and if you have anything constructive to add, by all means, contribute.

I'll not have violence in this thread though. If people seek to justify their violent stance, this is not the place for it. This is about peaceful dialogue to solve a WORLD issue. Its not about partisanship, religious dogma, or attempting to justify atrocity. There's no justification. Let us all look toward a better, and more peaceful future for everyone.

Sorry but fallin asleep here so will read it thru when awake in the morning.
What I read I loved.

thanks Bodhi ,

will read the rest as well,

as always you are very eloquent in what you write

Thank you LL. Effective dialogue is our only tool for peace. Bombs and guns do not a peaceful world create, unless it is the peace of extinction, which I refuse to accept. Everyone thinks we are living in the end times, and are happy to facilitate this end as an adjutant to their dogmas.

We most definately are not! If time is illusion, as the buddhist doctrine states, then where is the end of a mobius strip? It doesn't exist! Because we cannot perceive infinity doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I cannot perceive atoms either, but I'm pretty sure via some of the experimentation I have undertaken that they exist. Maybe not exactly according to the models set forth via chemistry, but then, that doesn't make the models incorrect, just incomplete. Again, a lack of the proper tools of perception.

As such, a new paradigm must dominate. That violence in the name of God, Country, or Political party is not acceptable, that the perpetrators of such atrocities will not be met with further atrocity, but with exile from human culture. Let us make pariahs of those who would use the tools of destruction to further their agendas. Nobody, and I mean, nobody, is above this. All such individuals should be treated as criminals, regardless of their doctrines to justify their barbarity.

Absolutely Bodhi,

I don't believe we are nearing the end of the world,
noo way, I believe man has not got the power to be all seeing in that way,

its about being human at the end of the day,
exercise caution because the world is ful of trickery as it says in "Diserata " but be kind if you can be, to all fellow man,
thats what I believe in but at the same time, if you step on my corns I will bite,
thats human too. I do think there should be more done about the folk who go out and hurt others in a violent way,
it is a scandal and shpuld be dealt accordingly

To you Bodhi for a lovely thoughtful thread !!

Too much thought, apparantly.

No way ,

not many in 2night !!

Have been thinking this over in my head. On an intellectual level I advocate peaceful measures for dealing with situations of conflict and I could march up and down the streets crying out for this. It always makes me sad and angered when I see violence. It scares me quite frankly. But (and this will not be received well I am sure), but...if people I love are wronged or hurt, I know that in my heart of hearts it evokes an incredibly violent reaction in me. I fortunately have never acted upon it. But...again, I do think that I would be capable of violence inflamed by emotional response if violence was perpetrated against my loved ones. Intellectual and emotional conflict don't always jive. I guess this is what happens on a world wide scale. I don't condone it, but I can understand it.

Hi Tracy,

I hope that both our threads offer the insight that will
help unify. I think we had some synchronicity going here.
I send my love to both you and your special one.
You are a brilliant writer with much to say!

Namaste'
Peace to us all.

And that is because you continue to think with a mind that knows the past, is unsure of the present, and is afraid of the future.

You're loved ones are hurt, perhaps killed. This is past. You react in the present with a hesitant anger, unsure if it is justified, afraid the loss will burden your future with sadness. You wish retribution.

Again. Incomplete perception. Everything must eventually pass. Who's to say that if they were not killed by someone's purposeful hand yesterday, they would not die a random, horrible death today? Escape the bombs or bullets of yesterday, only to be hit by a bus today?

We cannot know the reasons for why things happen. If we counter violence with violence, we KNOW what our actions create. More violence. The universe tends to unfold as it should, and my words, and my Bodhisattva vow, are part of that unfolding. These words are why I am here. I have already perished twice, only to be saved via "miraculous" means to be here right now.

I hope you can take something from this as was intended. I do not wish to sound condescending. I have worked hard, and suffered a lot, for the place I now manifest. These are things which the universe wishes from me. I have no choice but be an advocate for peace. This is my purpose. These are the words, straight from my buddha nature.

Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
TET