[Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism

[Gad Horowitz]

This is a great response Joy.  I.read it after sending my own paltry
crotchets.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joy Vriens" <joy.vriens at nerim.net>
To: "Buddhist discussion forum" <buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism


> 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
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l