You can quote the text?Didn't the Buddha say that a sentient being is basically insane?
Tolerance versus hiding your head in the sand
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Tolerance versus hiding your head in the sand
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Tolerance versus hiding your head in the sand
Of course. As, for example, Ajahn Brahm would say "There are no bad people, just bad actions." I applaud your "turning around" attitude.Dan74 wrote:. By splitting off some of humanity as subhuman for whatever reason we are diminishing any chance they have at rehabilitation.
However, it seems to me that there is some confusion here between compassion and approval. As the Buddha taught us, when useful and appropriate, wrong actions can and should be criticised.
e.g. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Metta
Mike
Re: Tolerance versus hiding your head in the sand
Well, my complete collection of short, middle and long discourses is unavailable at the moment...tiltbillings wrote:You can quote the text?Didn't the Buddha say that a sentient being is basically insane?
Ok, ok, my copy of What the Buddha Taught is circulating somewhere in the Correctional system and I can't fulfill your request, Tilt. Sorry. But the sense of this is that until I am enlightened, I am deluded and my perception of reality is pretty skewed. Of course you know that but you were after the quote. Let me google...
_/|\_
_/|\_
- appicchato
- Posts: 1602
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:47 am
- Location: Bridge on the River Kwae
Re: Tolerance versus hiding your head in the sand
I like to think so...tiltbillings wrote:appicchato wrote:Wise enough to know not to get into mindless debates...
... would you?
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Tolerance versus hiding your head in the sand
appicchato wrote:I like to think so...tiltbillings wrote:appicchato wrote:Wise enough to know not to get into mindless debates...
... would you?
So, no tolerance for "mindless debates"?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
- christopher:::
- Posts: 1327
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am
Re: Tolerance versus hiding your head in the sand
I put it forth as a question, Chris, since most folks here have a deeper knowledge of the Buddha's teachings then I. However in terms of life experience it's been my observation that the rubbing of minds that happens in the world tends to have a pinball machine kind of effect, or maybe something like balls on a pool table. I did not mean that we don't have our own karma, but that unelightened beings do seem to trigger one another's reactions. Thus the need sometimes to withdraw from social interactions, from online forum debates, from discussions with irritable family members, etc. Once fully realized, enlightened, one could probably enter into any social situation and not be effected. Most of us just arent there yet though...Chris wrote:Could you say some more about this please Christopher?christopher said: ....isn't there also a collective element to karma and dukkha, in that its born of our interactions, reactions, responses, etc?
metta
Chris
I would think this explains in part why people who wish to go really deep with the dharma have been advised down through the ages to leave their homes. Is there some kind of cause/effect dynamic in effect with socially constructed dukkha, sort of like how its hard to wade into water without getting wet?
I put forward more questions then answers.
"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
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
Re: Tolerance versus hiding your head in the sand
Hi Dan,
Thanks for your post and for your work in prisons, I wish you every success.
Perhaps we are all insane, yet for reasons that I feel are beyond this topic. My particular brand of insanity doesn't encompass the crimes I outlined above, we need to differentiate. I don't split off humanity, your legal/prison system does, I feel that your comment would be more suitably aimed at them. I applaud any legal system that puts 'those' sort of people away, separated from the society they prey on. It is one thing to speak out for the rights of these abusers but we also need to speak for, and most importantly protect the victims – human and animal.
You ask, “Who is without sin”. Well, as far as my previous post goes, I am. Just as I would assume that most of humanity is. Of course I'm no saint but I (we) don't delve into these forms of sub-human practices. I have no tolerance whatsoever for the cruel.
Hi Mike,
Best wishes to you both...
k
Thanks for your post and for your work in prisons, I wish you every success.
Perhaps we are all insane, yet for reasons that I feel are beyond this topic. My particular brand of insanity doesn't encompass the crimes I outlined above, we need to differentiate. I don't split off humanity, your legal/prison system does, I feel that your comment would be more suitably aimed at them. I applaud any legal system that puts 'those' sort of people away, separated from the society they prey on. It is one thing to speak out for the rights of these abusers but we also need to speak for, and most importantly protect the victims – human and animal.
You ask, “Who is without sin”. Well, as far as my previous post goes, I am. Just as I would assume that most of humanity is. Of course I'm no saint but I (we) don't delve into these forms of sub-human practices. I have no tolerance whatsoever for the cruel.
Hi Mike,
Perhaps someone should remind the good Ajahn that prisons are not populated by 'bad actions'.Mike wrote:Of course. As, for example, Ajahn Brahm would say "There are no bad people, just bad actions."
Best wishes to you both...
k
Just a view - nothing more...
Re: Tolerance versus hiding your head in the sand
Thank you.kannada wrote:Hi Dan,
Thanks for your post and for your work in prisons, I wish you every success.
Of course. No one would argue with that. But eventually they are let out and what protection does society have then, except for the seed of compassion of wisdom that is in their hearts? Watering this seed and nurturing it appropriately is far more important IMO for them and for the society at large than simply locking them up.kannada wrote: Perhaps we are all insane, yet for reasons that I feel are beyond this topic. My particular brand of insanity doesn't encompass the crimes I outlined above, we need to differentiate. I don't split off humanity, your legal/prison system does, I feel that your comment would be more suitably aimed at them. I applaud any legal system that puts 'those' sort of people away, separated from the society they prey on. It is one thing to speak out for the rights of these abusers but we also need to speak for, and most importantly protect the victims – human and animal.
Respectfully, here you have either missed or ignored the point I was trying to make.kannada wrote: You ask, “Who is without sin”. Well, as far as my previous post goes, I am. Just as I would assume that most of humanity is. Of course I'm no saint but I (we) don't delve into these forms of sub-human practices. I have no tolerance whatsoever for the cruel.
_/|\_
_/|\_
Re: Tolerance versus hiding your head in the sand
"A worldling is truly like a madman (ummattako viya hi puthujjano)."tiltbillings wrote:You can quote the text?Didn't the Buddha say that a sentient being is basically insane?
It's a saying of the commentators, not the Buddha. You will find it in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the Mulapariyaya Sutta and its commentary.
Re: Tolerance versus hiding your head in the sand
Hi Dan,
I don't really know the answer to that Dan. One would hope an abuser had learned his/her lesson, after all, that's what prisons are supposed to be for. My only hope would be that they're not let out until their lesson is learned. Here in Australia we have a rule for persistent child abusers, if re-offending seems probable they just don't get out – regardless of the sentence given.Dan wrote:Of course. No one would argue with that. But eventually they are let out and what protection does society have then, except for the seed of compassion of wisdom that is in their hearts? Watering this seed and nurturing it appropriately is far more important IMO for them and for the society at large than simply locking them up.
Sorry Dan, I missed it, would you like to reiterate it please?Respectfully, here you have either missed or ignored the point I was trying to make.
Just a view - nothing more...
Re: Tolerance versus hiding your head in the sand
No disrespect intended, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, do we need someone else to tell us it is a duck?
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Tolerance versus hiding your head in the sand
Actually, I know that, but I thought was going to be a smart guy be able to quote chapter and verse where it came from, but - alas - I did not have the stuff at hand. Thanks. (Could you quote the page, please?)Macavity wrote:"A worldling is truly like a madman (ummattako viya hi puthujjano)."tiltbillings wrote:You can quote the text?Didn't the Buddha say that a sentient being is basically insane?
It's a saying of the commentators, not the Buddha. You will find it in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the Mulapariyaya Sutta and its commentary.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Tolerance versus hiding your head in the sand
Which duck are you talking about?genkaku wrote:No disrespect intended, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, do we need someone else to tell us it is a duck?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: Tolerance versus hiding your head in the sand
Hi Genkaku,genkaku wrote:No disrespect intended, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, do we need someone else to tell us it is a duck?
I don't understand you. To which post is this a reply?
Re: Tolerance versus hiding your head in the sand
Well if anything, prisons tend to entrench criminal patterns. After all when you are surrounded by offenders, many of them old hardened criminals, a first-time offender has a steep learning curve as far as all sorts of unsavoury stuff goes. From my experience, many first-time prisoners find the environment pretty unbearable. Until they get used to it - adapt, become more like the others.kannada wrote:Hi Dan,I don't really know the answer to that Dan. One would hope an abuser had learned his/her lesson, after all, that's what prisons are supposed to be for. My only hope would be that they're not let out until their lesson is learned. Here in Australia we have a rule for persistent child abusers, if re-offending seems probable they just don't get out – regardless of the sentence given.Dan wrote:Of course. No one would argue with that. But eventually they are let out and what protection does society have then, except for the seed of compassion of wisdom that is in their hearts? Watering this seed and nurturing it appropriately is far more important IMO for them and for the society at large than simply locking them up.
As for child abusers, they are (on average) no more likely to reoffend than any other criminal, and the laws that you mention (and yes, I live in Australia too - doesn't everyone on this forum?) are there for political purposes. It is very hard to judge whether someone will reoffend or not.
So learning the lesson is somewhat hard in the prison culture where most people are there precisely because they haven't learnt it.
What I was getting at was that we are not so different, "us" and "them." Angulimala was a mass murderer and an arahat, which one was he - "us" or "them"? A person you may look up to probably has some pretty nasty fantasies from time to time and hopefully will never have an opportunity to make them reality. The so-called moral fortitude of an average sentient being is a pretty shonky affair. Best left untested... And if you dig around in your mind, especially if you are an imaginative creative type (I was an artist in my "past life" before marriage and kids) you may walk through doors that are perhaps best left closed, or at least not opened without a good guide.kannada wrote:Sorry Dan, I missed it, would you like to reiterate it please?Respectfully, here you have either missed or ignored the point I was trying to make.
If you don't know what I am talking about - that's fine and nothing to worry about. But often it is precisely what ruffles our feathers the most that we should examine closely and dispassionately. Emotion as we know tends to cloud the waters, obscure clear seeing, putting it aside or paying careful attention to it, may help learn something about ourselves.. Perhaps something we'd rather not know. But these things are always best brought into the open.
I have no idea if this is relevant to you - just speaking more from my experience. But then again - I think we are not so different. All of us..
_/|\_
Last edited by Dan74 on Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_/|\_