[Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism

[Joy Vriens]

Benito Carral wrote:

>    I  was  thinking  in  a Buddhist line. Everything is
> cause  and  condition.  What  I  was asking myself was,
> "What  is  the  cause  of  individuality?" (How does it
> work?)  and  "What  is  individuality a condition for?"
> (What is its function).

I personally like to think like Buddhadasa that interconnectedness 
(idappaccayataa)  is what Buddhism is (or ought to be) about. Thinking 
about causes is endless and can lead to controlfreakism, which 
consolidates the grip of self. Indiduality doesn't come with a function, 
it simply appears. It's not like it shouldn't be there and that we 
should wonder what can we do to prevent individuality to appear IMO.

>    An  individual  will always be a social being, given
> than  individuality  is  an  idea.  The  individual has
> learnt  his language, dreams, views... from society. As
> the Old Guy said, "Individuality is a delusion."

Isn't any -ity?  An individual is a combination of factors. Without 
those factors, no individual. A society is a combination of individuals. 
Without individuals no society.

>>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.

>    The Old Gay was everything but an individual.

It never occurred to me that he was, but he could have been of course. 
After all he did leave his harem to live among a bunch of guys. As for 
not being an individual, I think you should explain what you understand 
by individual and in what ways the Buddha wasn't one.


>>The  advantage of an individual is that they can feel
>>and  experience  things  directly in their bodies and
>>minds.
> 
> 
>    What an individual feels is socially mediated.

I assure you that when I am having root canal work being done on me, 
what I feel is not socially mediated. I expect that collateral damage 
being done on one even hurts more.

>>Societies don't feel anything, they are blind.
> 
> 
>    Are you sure?

Yes, the individuals in that society can see things and convince other 
individuals that some things in society ought to change, but the 
societies themselves don't see a thing. A society is a collective 
project of individuals.


>>Individuals can say "this hurts", individuals can die
>>and are mortal.
> 
> 
>    Can't societies?

Societies as collective projects can change, but they don't die.

>>Thanks to that they know the value of life.
> 
> 
>    How  do  individuals  know  it?  What's the value of
>    life?

Since individuals feel things in their flesh and minds they can know 
when something feels good or wrong. That gives them a sense of value. 
And being able to feel those things individually, they can than extend 
those values to others. through empathy. Life is a given and as such has 
no value. But individuals can attribute values to the things that are 
experienced during the experience called life.

>>Societies don't and can sacrify as many lifes as they
>>want.
> 
> 
>    Can't individuals?

No because there are laws made by individuals themselves prohibiting 
that individuals kill on their own account. Societies on the other hand 
have the right to kill and exploit if they think it is in their 
interest. Societies are collective projects of individuals. If some 
individuals hijack the collective project in order to fulfill their own 
interests and thereby neglect the interests of most individuals then 
there is a divorce with the individual values that should feed the 
collective project.

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

>    Maybe because individuals are the problem.

One can't blame individuals for behaving like individuals. "Who" thinks 
that individuals are a problem and what are "its" expectations of 
whatever "it" wishes?

>>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.

>    Our society is sick, of course, of the individuality
> disease.

This is very ironic because at the same time indivuals have less and 
less to say and are less and less implicated in decision making and 
democratic processes (apart from some formal expressions like showing 
you inky finger to a tv camera). Projects don't come from downwards to 
go upwards, but are more and more imposed by "those in power". The main 
project of those in power is to stay in power. If individuals don't 
follow their projects and express their dissent, then it is said that 
those individuals don't understand the project properly and that further 
explaining is needed. Individuals are blinded by masses of futile 
information, misinformation, "polls", propaganda, advertising to 
disconnect them from their individual intuitions.

>>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.
> 
> 
>    Love is a social thing.
> 
>    I'm going to quote Hsing Yun here:

And Hsing Yun reconciles us. ;-)