[Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism

[Joy Vriens]

Benito Carral wrote:

>>An  individual  is only the sum of various coexisting
>>physical  experiences,  impulses and ideas at a given
>>moment, like a society is.

> I don't usually like to ask,
> "What  is  it?,"  but, "How does it work?." I prefer to
> ask, "What is the function of an individual?", "What is
> a  function of a society?" - keeping in mind that there
> are many kinds of individuals and societies.

These are all questions that are guided by a certain idea. "What is the 
function of an individual" suggests that an individual has a function. 
It also suggests that whatever is their function lies outside that 
individual. I don't have a problem with an individual who sets himself a 
function outside of himself, it happens all the time. But I find it more 
troublesome when the function of an individual is imposed from outside. 
"Function" evokes the idea of usefulness and I start wondering whether 
usefulness is a very useful idea. Useful regarding to what?

>    I  think  of an individual as someone who thinks, "I
> must pursue my own dreams, feelings, and ideas," and in
> doing  so  he  remains  alone,  without  taking care of
> others, unable of offering trust and loyalty, unable of
> commitment.

I don't think that will ever happen. Even the Buddha couldn't keep his 
own dreams, feelings, and ideas to himself and felt the need to bother 
others with them.

Individuals and societies are expansive little creatures. The West has 
always  wanted to impose their good ideas onto others: first it wanted 
to christen them, then it wanted to civilise them (with its republican 
and human right values), now it's the turn of democracy and freedom that 
need to be imposed onto others. The history of colonisation is one of 
infinite care of and commitment to others.

>    In  the  other hand, a society member is someone who
> doesn't  think  in those terms, but understands himself
> as  part  of  a  team,  "I  must pursue our dreams, our
> feelings,  and  our ideas." Someone who can offer trust
> and loyalty, and keep commitments.

The advantage of an individual is that they can feel and experience 
things directly in their bodies and minds. Societies don't feel 
anything, they are blind. Individuals can say "this hurts", individuals 
can die and are mortal. Thanks to that they know the value of life. 
Societies don't and can sacrify as many lifes as they want. Therefore I 
don't feel any need to pursue the ideas and dreams of societies that 
don't respect the dreams, ideas or simply the physical integrety of 
indivuals.

Besides, Nirvana is only open to individuals not to societies.

>    So,  for  me, it's not a surprise that relationships
> are  falling apart and individuals feeling miserable.

That is because our society is sick of its own ideas and dreams and by 
pursuing those ideas and dreams, individuals and their relationships 
become sick too.

> I
> think  that  if there is something that matters that is
> others, and that's why I would like to develop a family
> centered Buddhism.

I think I see what you mean. What this world lacks is a stronger sense 
of solidarity. It needs to reconnect with and listen more to individual 
needs. The most fundamental need of individuals is love. Love is 
something only individuals can feel.

Joy