Michael Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009)

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
thecap
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Michael Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009)

Post by thecap »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

Firstly, I want to apologise to anyone who was offended ...

It was neither the time and place ...

This attachment and clinging ...

Hence, at thecap's invitation, I decided to think ...

Metta,
Retro. :)
Mikaeel Jackson wrote: If you wanna make the world a better place
Take a look at yourself and then make a change
Image


Man in the mirror!
User avatar
Annapurna
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Michael Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009)

Post by Annapurna »

I watched the Dangrous tour onTV.

He sang this song.

Nearly everybody in the audience began to sob.
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Michael Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009)

Post by christopher::: »

While i think we should try to be nonjudgmental about Michael Jackson, putting ourselves in his shoes, i think that courtesy should also be extended to folks who feel some aversion towards him, when there are sensible reasons for that.

Is aversion always a "bad" thing? As a parent with 2 sons, there are situations that i try to steer them clear of, that i have taught them to "avert."

You don't go into rooms alone with adults, where the door is closed. How some parents could allow their kids to be alone with Michael, is a mystery to me.

I would have an "aversion" to my sons walking into a room with any adult on this planet, alone, where the door is closed.

I don't feel its right to judge Michael Jackson for this, but i can understand how he pushes a natural protective button in many sincerely caring parents...

Still, there is no "proof" that he ever did anything wrong, and the past is gone.

:namaste:

Last edited by christopher::: on Sat Jul 04, 2009 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
Journey
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:06 am

Re: Michael Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009)

Post by Journey »

christopher::: wrote:While i think we should try to be nonjudgmental about Michael Jackson, putting ourselves in his shoes, i think that courtesy should also be extended to folks who feel some aversion towards him, when there are sensible reasons for that.

Is aversion always a "bad" thing?

:namaste:

I never was a Michael Jackson fan. I am a fan of not spreading negativity.
Spreading negativity is always harmful, it creates more negativity. Aversion is not helpful, acknowlegement is.
Aversion harms. Dhamma courtesy is pointing this out.
Aversion comes to manifestation either in thoughts of ill will — as angry, hostile, or resentful thoughts; or in thoughts of harming — as the impulses to cruelty, aggression, and destruction. Thoughts of good will counter the former outflow of aversion, thoughts of harmlessness the latter outflow, in this way excising the unwholesome root of aversion itself.
Right Intention (Samma Sankappa)Bhikkhu Bodhi


Nidana Sutta: Causes

A person unknowing:
the actions performed by him,
born of greed, born of aversion,
& born of delusion,
whether many or few,
are experienced right here:
no other ground is found.

So a monk, knowing,
sheds
greed, aversion, & delusion;
giving rise to clear knowledge, he
sheds
all bad destinations
User avatar
Annapurna
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Michael Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009)

Post by Annapurna »

christopher::: wrote:While i think we should try to be nonjudgmental about Michael Jackson, putting ourselves in his shoes, i think that courtesy should also be extended to folks who feel some aversion towards him, when there are sensible reasons for that.

Is aversion always a "bad" thing? As a parent with 2 sons, there are situations that i try to steer them clear of, that i have taught them to "avert."

You don't go into rooms alone with adults, where the door is closed. How some parents could allow their kids to be alone with Michael, is a mystery to me.

I would have an "aversion" to my sons walking into a room with any adult on this planet, alone, where the door is closed.

I don't feel its right to judge Michael Jackson for this, but i can understand how he pushes a natural protective button in many sincerely caring parents...

Still, there is no "proof" that he ever did anything wrong, and the past is gone.

:namaste:

i think that courtesy should also be extended to folks who feel some aversion towards him, when there are sensible reasons for that.
What journey said.
Is aversion always a "bad" thing? As a parent with 2 sons, there are situations that i try to steer them clear of, that i have taught them to "avert."

You don't go into rooms alone with adults, where the door is closed.
That's not aversion,that's caution... :juggling:
I would have an "aversion" to my sons walking into a room with any adult on this planet, alone, where the door is closed.
I'd say you feel concerned & protective, not aversion.
How some parents could allow their kids to be alone with Michael, is a mystery to me.
Yes. there you have a point. However, some either knew nothing bad would happen, and some thought: "Oh, money, money, money...let's see how to get some. Let's blackmail the guy. He will pay. He's got a reputation to lose." And initially that strategy may have paid off well.

Look at me. I am a private teacher, should I am now be concerned a male pupil could accuse me of seduction? What if??? How could I ever prove I didn't?

My reputation and livelihood would be destroyed forever, like Michaels.

And people would say: "She is a sick pedophile".

Some would say: "She was too innocent and naive, she just enjoyed helping children."

It would give me insomnia and migraine.

I would take sleeping pills and painkillers to be able to go to work.

One day, whilst exerting myself over work, I would collapse in my house, and be found by a friend "not breathing".

The city would gossip about me, and badmouth me, most of those wouldn't even know what I looked like and never heard me speak a word. Total strangers.

Yet they would be convinced: She abused a boy.

Why?

Do we assume in others that, what we carry within ourselves?
thecap
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 9:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Michael Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009)

Post by thecap »

christopher::: wrote:While i think we should try to be nonjudgmental about Michael Jackson, putting ourselves in his shoes, i think that courtesy should also be extended to folks who feel some aversion towards him, when there are sensible reasons for that.
Here I don't agree, friend. There are no sensible reasons for hate. Avoiding a person is one thing; having aversion for a person however is a manifestation of one's hate. It causes distress and puts an end to discernment. It's abandonment is recommended out of compassion. Na hi verena veráni sammantídha kudácanam; verena ca sammanti esa dhammo sanantano. (Hate can never be stilled by hate, but by non-hate alone.) Living beings are the results of their conditions. Thus how we perceive others tells more about ourselves than about the world.
Last edited by thecap on Sat Jul 04, 2009 7:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Journey
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:06 am

Re: Michael Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009)

Post by Journey »

thecap wrote:There are no sensible reasons for hate. Avoiding a person is one thing; having aversion for a person however is a manifestation of one's hate. It causes distress and puts an end to discernment. It's abandonment is recommended out of compassion. Na hi verena veráni sammantídha kudácanam; verena ca sammanti esa dhammo sanantano.
:goodpost:
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Michael Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009)

Post by mikenz66 »

I'm getting a little confused about this conversation.

Clearly Michael Jackson was a talented entertainer, brought joy to many people, and did some good charity work.

I enjoyed his performances. Some people don't. I don't see any problem with people having different preferences about entertainers.

Quite a lot of musical entertainers have died in my lifetime whose work I have enjoyed at some level:
Jimi Hendrix, Elvis, John Lennon, Keith Moon, Ian Curtis, Ian Drury, Kurt Kobain, Miles Davis, Frank Sinatra, Ray Charles, John Bonham, Johhny Cash, Michael Brecker, Michael Jackson.
I'm sure most readers here don't care for the performance of at least some of them...

May all of them have good rebirths...

Metta
Mike
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: Michael Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009)

Post by Ben »

Hi Mike
mikenz66 wrote:I'm getting a little confused about this conversation.
You're not the only one!
Clearly Michael Jackson was a talented entertainer, brought joy to many people, and did some good charity work.

I enjoyed his performances. Some people don't. I don't see any problem with people having different preferences about entertainers.

Quite a lot of musical entertainers have died in my lifetime whose work I have enjoyed at some level:
Jimi Hendrix, Elvis, John Lennon, Keith Moon, Ian Curtis, Ian Drury, Kurt Kobain, Miles Davis, Frank Sinatra, Ray Charles, John Bonham, Johhny Cash, Michael Brecker, Michael Jackson.
I'm sure most readers here don't care for the performance of at least some of them...

May all of them have good rebirths...

Metta
Mike
Thanks for returning some common sense to this thread.
Metta


Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Michael Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009)

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Annabel,
Annabel wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:I hope you didn't take Michael Jackson's "crotch framing" seriously?

Let's be honest, that was pretty disturbing.
He did that on stage
Precisely my point, he should have saved it for the bedroom.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Michael Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009)

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

The word "aversion" is being bandied around a lot, when there really is no logical basis for it.

The Buddha said that killing, sexual misconduct and boozing it up are inappropriate actions... but does that necessarily mean he had aversion or hatred towards them, or to those who perform these actions? No, of course not. Please stop and think about that for a minute.

:buddha1:

Just because you don't actively like something or find sensual enjoyment in it... or think that something is immoral behaviour, or think that certain acts are best confined to the bedroom, doesn't mean that these perceptions are based on unwholesome mindstates of aversion. They could well be based upon compassion for those who genuinely do have aversion to such things and get upset by them. They could well be based on wisdom, knowing that these actions are bound to cause suffering (as per Anna's example above, Michael's exploits with children were bound to cause suffering - innocent or not).

Accordingly, it's getting rather tiresome having false accusations about mindstates thrown around at people, simply because they don't like the same entertainers as those casting these aspersions. Where is this so called respect, universal love and compassion which they claim to possess? Are non-fans excempt from this? Can they not handle people not agreeing with them? Can they not handle their emotional expressions not being reciprocated? Does this lack of universal reciprocation represent a questioning of the validity of their emotional bond and what Michael Jackson represented to them? Dare this attempt to marginalise and ostracize non-fans who do not share this bond be called greed, delusion or aversion? etc.etc...... I don't know - I'm not a mind-reader, therefore I will not accuse others with the arrogance that I know what they're thinking.

:?:

From the Terms Of Service...
Mutual respect and friendliness should be the basis of all interactions
If this can not be followed, this topic will be closed. No more accusations about people's mindstates please (you're not mind-readers either) - play the ball and not the man. Talk about Michael Jackson if you like, but stop talking about and casting nasty aspersions upon each other in ways that violate the Terms Of Service. Thank you.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
pink_trike
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am
Contact:

Re: Michael Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009)

Post by pink_trike »

retrofuturist wrote:Precisely my point, he should have saved it for the bedroom.

I disagree that his "crotch-framing" was necessarily negative...and this makes me curious what your mind brings to it. We are sexual. We will always be sexual. Sexuality isn't inherently negative. We eat, we breathe, we have sex. All of these must remain healthy, spontaneous, and instinctive within the limits of compassion.
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
User avatar
Annapurna
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Michael Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009)

Post by Annapurna »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Annabel,
Annabel wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:I hope you didn't take Michael Jackson's "crotch framing" seriously?

Let's be honest, that was pretty disturbing.
He did that on stage
Precisely my point, he should have saved it for the bedroom.

Metta,
Retro. :)
With lights out....huh? :tongue: Kiddig.

Seriously, Retro. He didn't really touch himself, you see!

It was a suggested gesture,and it fit some roles he played, as a "smooth criminal" ,"I'm bad", and so forth.

Nothing else happens when some female artists hop around with dancing boobs, and bend forward to dangle their cleavage right into the camera.

Or make other suggestive gestures further down south, like Gwen Stefani ,Lady Gaga, and Madonna. It sure brings publicity, you gotta understand the entertainment-biz.

And WHY should a man not be allowed to be sexually provocative in a playful, flirtatious and ironic way?

Why only women?

Are the buttons of men pushed when a man kicks off an erotic flirt in a rather suggestive way with the (female)audience?

Are the buttons of women pushed when Christina Aguilera's red slip bumps up from under her skirt in "Dirty"?

She sings:"to get me off" and moves her hand in a way that can't be misunderstood, which Michael never did.

Anyhow. I always thought that Michael's gesture was a persiflage anyhow, and not threatening at all.

It may cause aversion though in heterosexual men, I understand that, but you're probably not addressed by him anyhow, so why respond? :anjali:
User avatar
Journey
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:06 am

Re: Michael Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009)

Post by Journey »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

The word "aversion" is being bandied around a lot, when there really is no logical basis for it.


Metta,
Retro. :)
Christopher::: asked a question -
Is aversion always a "bad" thing?
On that basis, I and others responded, that's all.
User avatar
Annapurna
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Michael Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009)

Post by Annapurna »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

The word "aversion" is being bandied around a lot, when there really is no logical basis for it.

The Buddha said that killing, sexual misconduct and boozing it up are inappropriate actions... but does that necessarily mean he had aversion or hatred towards them, or to those who perform these actions? No, of course not. Please stop and think about that for a minute.

:buddha1:

Just because you don't actively like something or find sensual enjoyment in it... or think that something is immoral behaviour, or think that certain acts are best confined to the bedroom, doesn't mean that these perceptions are based on unwholesome mindstates of aversion. They could well be based upon compassion for those who genuinely do have aversion to such things and get upset by them. They could well be based on wisdom, knowing that these actions are bound to cause suffering (as per Anna's example above, Michael's exploits with children were bound to cause suffering - innocent or not).

Accordingly, it's getting rather tiresome having false accusations about mindstates thrown around at people, simply because they don't like the same entertainers as those casting these aspersions. Where is this so called respect, universal love and compassion which they claim to possess? Are non-fans excempt from this? Can they not handle people not agreeing with them? Can they not handle their emotional expressions not being reciprocated? Does this lack of universal reciprocation represent a questioning of the validity of their emotional bond and what Michael Jackson represented to them? Dare this attempt to marginalise and ostracize non-fans who do not share this bond be called greed, delusion or aversion? etc.etc...... I don't know - I'm not a mind-reader, therefore I will not accuse others with the arrogance that I know what they're thinking.

:?:

From the Terms Of Service...
Mutual respect and friendliness should be the basis of all interactions
If this can not be followed, this topic will be closed. No more accusations about people's mindstates please (you're not mind-readers either) - play the ball and not the man. Talk about Michael Jackson if you like, but stop talking about and casting nasty aspersions upon each other in ways that violate the Terms Of Service. Thank you.

Metta,
Retro. :)
Retro, you know that the Buddha said,if you don't accept a gift, who does it stay with?... :anjali:



So.....


.....hey, what did I want to say?.....


Oh! Ok... I wanted to ask if you think that "crotch-shadowing" was sexual misconduct.

Or if hopping boobs are?

(I don't know if the word "boobs" is koscher, but I'm using it since Venerable Shi Yong Hang calls her "sisters" boobs, so I assume it's ok...) :mrgreen:
Locked