Ajahn Pannobhasa is disrobing

[GnosticMind]

Once again, twist and turn it anyway you want --

I repeat --

"Evola was a fascist -- if you like Evola, you are buying into that. There's no way round it.

If you are into Charlie Manson's 'philosophy' then you have to take all that comes with it -- the whole package.

Same with Evola. It's an occult path connected to extreme violence up to the present day in underground white power fascist groups from the old industrial towns of the north of England to Krakow to Hungary and Lithuania.

If that's your thing, go for it.

But it sure ain't my thing.

Violence isn't in the Suttas. It is in Evola and the neo nazi groups of Europe."

[GnosticMind]

Followers of Evola include the British BNP , Nick Griffin, Johnathan Bowden, the far right in Italy, lots of underground far-right industrial bands and occultists -- whose names I won't even mention they are so vile--, and skinheads and holocaust deniers.

If that's a good Dhammic scene and good Kalyana Mitta, well...

People should know what they are getting themselves into here. It sure ain't for the faint hearted.

[Ceisiwr]

Once again, twist and turn it anyway you want --

I repeat --

"Evola was a fascist -- if you like Evola, you are buying into that. There's no way round it.

If you are into Charlie Manson's 'philosophy' then you have to take all that comes with it -- the whole package.

Same with Evola. It's an occult path connected to extreme violence up to the present day in underground white power fascist groups from the old industrial towns of the north of England to Krakow to Hungary and Lithuania.

If that's your thing, go for it.

But it sure ain't my thing.

Violence isn't in the Suttas. It is in Evola and the neo nazi groups of Europe."

He was more of a Traditionalist than a Fascist. He considered Fascism just another form of Modernism.

[sphairos]

...

Ven. Dhammanando expressed his political views very clearly here:

viewtopic.php?p=601119#p601119

viewtopic.php?p=601156#p601156

And many of the forum members seem to conform to/with such views.

Ven. Dhammanando's views were likely shaped by the Realpolitik of the Thai Sangha, which is very conservative and traditionalist (and the Burmese one is even more so).

On the contrary, I would like to post here thoughts of a far better connoisseur of Buddhism and Pāli, G.P. Malalasekera:

The Buddha was a great believer in democracy. The Order of Monks
which he founded is the oldest democratic institution in the world. Every
decision taken therein is guided by the votes of those present. No one can
be made to suffer a penalty for any offense, even after he is found guilty by
a committee of his peers, unless the offender admits his guilt of his own
free will. In the Order, the Buddha claimed no greater privilege than was
voluntarily afforded to him as teacher. When the time came for him to leave
this life, he stoutly refused to appoint a successor, leaving it to the monks
themselves to choose their own h

The Status of the Individual in Theravāda Buddhism, 1964.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1396982?se ... b_contents

and

The elimination of economic inequalities in human society will therefore be an essential precondition for the emergence of harmonious relations among human beings, so that what is required is both a change of heart as well as a change of system.
Such sweeping changes can however only be brought about by—as they are the responsibility of—those who at present wield economic and political power in the world. The individual can only make decisions for himself and employ in his own way the weapons of rational persuasion and example.

Except when truly Buddhist kings like Asoka were in power, when political and legal methods were possible, these were the weapons that the Sangha or the Order of Monks and Nuns as well as lay Buddhist individuals employed. The Sangha is the oldest historical institution which has had as its members people of diverse races, castes, classes and tribes who have shed their racial prejudices for the universalism of the Order. In reflecting the Buddhist conception of the equality of man its structure is democratic. As Mookerji says, ’the Pali texts furnish interesting information of the working of the Buddhist Sangha in strict and minute conformity with genuine democratic principles.’ [98]

https://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh200_Malala ... stion.html

The Buddhist Ideals are clearly democratic, and we shouldn't be blinded by perversions of them of modern Buddhist institutions.

[GnosticMind]

Phairos wrote,

"The Buddhist Ideals are clearly democratic, and we shouldn't be blinded by perversions of them of modern Buddhists."

At last -- some straightforward sanity on the thread amongst all the apologists, evaders and dog whistlers.

[GnosticMind]

ceisiwr wrote --

"He was more of a Traditionalist than a Fascist. He considered Fascism just another form of Modernism.''

Possibly -- but what is at the core of Evola's work? Let's get to the nitty gritty of it all -- no need for dog whistling ( I am not implying you are doing so)

Evola : Hate. Racial elites. Violence. Fanatical paranoia about Jews. Groundless elitism. Fantastical , hallucinatory theories of occult war and mind war. A bizarre , delirious pre-occupation with the Elders of Zion.

Conversely, what is at the core of other traditionalists writings?

It's a far more pleasant picture, perhaps even a little mundane.

Ernst Junger -- a very very good WW1 writer who wrote one of the most admirable accounts of trench warfare, a peerless text, a botanist, and a quasi-surrealist-magical realist writer with an profound admiration for and heightened curiosity about, and love for Stirner-ite anarchism fused with Hegelian dialectic ( the anarch) and the time-mysticism of Angelus Silesius, to which he devoted his entire life, though he's adored by fascists who fetishise him. Much of his work is remarkably similar in spirit to that of Sa'd ud Din Mahmud Shabistari.

Rene Guenon - harmless Sufi-Hindu paganism.

Mircea Eliade -- ex fascist -- iron guard - -he left it all behind and became a very good Jungian-Weberian-Durkheim - inian anthropologist.

Martin Lings -- peerless Islamic scholar, with specialist insight into Tasawuf and the mysteries of the nafs and the nur.

Seyyed Hosein Nasr -- peerless Islamic scholar and committed traditionalist.

Evola ranks highly in the 'evil' stakes and 'willing to do serious harm' ranks compared with these aforementioned interesting, harmless occasionally great traditionalist thinkers.

[DNS]

Phairos wrote,

"The Buddhist Ideals are clearly democratic, and we shouldn't be blinded by perversions of them of modern Buddhists."

At last -- some straightforward sanity on the thread amongst all the apologists, evaders and dog whistlers.

Buddhists come in a variety of political ideologies, this shouldn't be a surprise; political diversity is found among all religions and religious adherents.

I've written how one could cherry-pick various suttas / sutras to justify just about any political ideology. Here is a post briefly showing how that can be done via the U.S. major parties. Since politics in general is shunned here, I'll post the link to the post at DWE:

https://www.dharmawheel.org/viewtopic.php?p=609#p609

[Dhammanando]

I repeat --

"Evola was a fascist -- if you like Evola, you are buying into that. There's no way round it.

Then it's a jolly good thing that we've got you here to warn us about him! I mean if there's one thing Dhamma Wheel's famous for it's our gigantic vanguard of Julius Evola fans. The forum these days seems to be positively teeming with them. I might have been in danger of becoming one myself if I hadn't learned from you that he was a fascist of all things. Phew, what a relief.


.

[Jgood]

The elimination of economic inequalities in human society will therefore be an essential precondition for the emergence of harmonious relations among human beings, so that what is required is both a change of heart as well as a change of system.
Such sweeping changes can however only be brought about by—as they are the responsibility of—those who at present wield economic and political power in the world. The individual can only make decisions for himself and employ in his own way the weapons of rational persuasion and example.

Except when truly Buddhist kings like Asoka were in power, when political and legal methods were possible, these were the weapons that the Sangha or the Order of Monks and Nuns as well as lay Buddhist individuals employed. The Sangha is the oldest historical institution which has had as its members people of diverse races, castes, classes and tribes who have shed their racial prejudices for the universalism of the Order. In reflecting the Buddhist conception of the equality of man its structure is democratic. As Mookerji says, ’the Pali texts furnish interesting information of the working of the Buddhist Sangha in strict and minute conformity with genuine democratic principles.’ [98]

https://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh200_Malala ... stion.html

The Buddhist Ideals are clearly democratic, and we shouldn't be blinded by perversions of them of modern Buddhist institutions.

For the Buddha, the Sangha was a unique community with a unique set of roles and standards- He had different standards for lay people and monastics. Although the Buddha often stated that distinctions in class and gender were meaningless in the context of the Sangha, Dhamma practice, and creating Kamma, never once does he argue for the reformation of the highly inegalitarian Indian society of his day, from which we can conclude that such a society was not antithetical to Dhamma. If it were, there would likely be suttas of the Buddha and the early disciples speaking out against it.

The Buddha's early sangha was far from diverse. Although all castes were admitted into his order, the majority of the Sangha was high-caste men.

To say that Buddhist ideals are "democratic" is a stretch, and is much of a perversion (although, admittedly, a more benign one) of the apolitical Dhamma as to connect it with fascism.

[GnosticMind]

Dhammanando wrote, in a shrill girl-guide like passive aggressive manner

"Then it's a jolly good thing that we've got you here to warn us about him! I mean if there's one thing Dhamma Wheel's famous for it's our gigantic vanguard of Julius Evola fans. The forum these days seems to be positively teeming with them. I might have been in danger of becoming one myself if I hadn't learned from you that he was a fascist of all things. Phew, what a relief."

Well, isn't that funny --

However --

1. The current thread is about pannobhassa, a fascist, or a man that openly loves to flirt with fascism and men who dress up as Hitler clones with a Hitler tache.
2. The monk in question pannobhasso seems somewhat preoccupied with EVOLA -- yes -- Evola. He has spent hours discussing EVOLA in his videos. He has written pages upon pages about EVOLA. Yes - Evola.
3. There has been much talk of...EVOLA on the current thread.
4. I am thrilled I say, thrilled that I could help you in teaching you about Evola.

Now what was it you were saying?

[Jgood]

ceisiwr wrote --

"He was more of a Traditionalist than a Fascist. He considered Fascism just another form of Modernism.''

Possibly -- but what is at the core of Evola's work? Let's get to the nitty gritty of it all -- no need for dog whistling ( I am not implying you are doing so)

Evola : Hate. Racial elites. Violence. Fanatical paranoia about Jews. Groundless elitism. Fantastical , hallucinatory theories of occult war and mind war. A bizarre , delirious pre-occupation with the Elders of Zion.

Conversely, what is at the core of other traditionalists writings?

It's a far more pleasant picture, perhaps even a little mundane.

Ernst Junger -- a very very good WW1 writer who wrote one of the most admirable accounts of trench warfare, a peerless text, a botanist, and a quasi-surrealist-magical realist writer with an profound admiration for and heightened curiosity about, and love for Stirner-ite anarchism fused with Hegelian dialectic ( the anarch) and the time-mysticism of Angelus Silesius, to which he devoted his entire life, though he's adored by fascists who fetishise him. Much of his work is remarkably similar in spirit to that of Sa'd ud Din Mahmud Shabistari.

Rene Guenon - harmless Sufi-Hindu paganism.

Mircea Eliade -- ex fascist -- iron guard - -he left it all behind and became a very good Jungian-Weberian-Durkheim - inian anthropologist.

Martin Lings -- peerless Islamic scholar, with specialist insight into Tasawuf and the mysteries of the nafs and the nur.

Seyyed Hosein Nasr -- peerless Islamic scholar and committed traditionalist.

Evola ranks highly in the 'evil' stakes and 'willing to do serious harm' ranks compared with these aforementioned interesting, harmless occasionally great traditionalist thinkers.

Junger was not a Traditionalist.

[GnosticMind]

Well, Junger was not a very good writer, that is for sure -- his WW1 memoirs are outstanding, incredible books and beautifully written, with lucid prose.

His magical realism is -- in my opinion -- very boring and over rated. 'Total Mobilisation' is boring and shallow -- Walter Benjamin's critique of it was prescient and prophetic.

Junger's life long fascination with ( his own take on) anarchism is, in my view, again, shallow and lacking in originality. Max Stirner did it far better.'Eumeswill' is over rated and dull. 'Glass Bees' and 'On Marble Cliffs' are dreary and soporific -- there's a reason not many people read them.

I liked Junger's Waldeganger ( sp) and 'The Forest Passage' work very much, elaborating on themes from Tacitus' 'Agricola' on Saxon warrior pride and dignity aswell as encourarging development of stoicism in the face of modernity and alienation -- there are some inspiring -- if somewhat dry -- ideas there.

His autobiography ' Details of Time' is very interesting indeed, focusing on his love of Rimbaud, Angelus Silesius and Heraclitus, and again -- repeatedly -- on his utter fixation with ( his personal take on) anarchism, a life long fascination for him in the incarnation of the 'Anarch'.

His brother, Friedrich Georg Jünger was an even worse writer.

[Dhammanando]

Ven. Dhammanando's views were likely shaped by the Realpolitik of the Thai Sangha,

Not at all. I was an apolitical quietist throughout my first 9-year stay in Thailand. I became a conservative later, during four years out of the robes while living in Iceland. And my outlook was shaped by my own reading and reflection, not by the place I happened to be living.

On the contrary, I would like to post here thoughts of a far better connoisseur of Buddhism and Pāli, G.P. Malalasekera:

Since I'm largely in agreement with Malalasekera, I can't imagine why you wish to draw a contrast between his views and mine. The only place where we differ is that I think he somewhat overstates the extent to which the bhikkhusangha is democratically constituted.

For example, in the Vinaya procedures for the settlement of disputes the verdict of the majority is virtually the last resort, to be used only when the other (undemocratic) procedures have failed. Moreover, there are certain kinds of dispute that cannot be settled by democratic means at all. Disputes about whether something is dhamma or adhamma, vinaya or avinaya, for instance, are deemed far too momentous to be decided by a mere show of hands.

[sphairos]

To say that Buddhist ideals are "democratic" is a stretch, and is much of a perversion (although, admittedly, a more benign one) of the apolitical Dhamma as to connect it with fascism.

Hardly you would be able to persuade in that G.P. Malalsekera, who was an unexcellled expert in Buddhism, Buddhist culture, history and languages.

Bhikkhu-Sangha is an Ideal for lay world. It has its internal democratic politics. That politics is largely democratic. It's not a stretch that Buddhist ideals are democratic.

[sphairos]

Ven. Dhammanando's views were likely shaped by the Realpolitik of the Thai Sangha,

Not at all. I was an apolitical quietist throughout my first 9-year stay in Thailand. I became a conservative later, during four years out of the robes while living in Iceland. And my outlook was shaped by my own reading and reflection, not by the place I happened to be living.

On the contrary, I would like to post here thoughts of a far better connoisseur of Buddhism and Pāli, G.P. Malalasekera:

Since I'm largely in agreement with Malalasekera, I can't imagine why you wish to draw a contrast between his views and mine. The only place where we differ is that I think he somewhat overstates the extent to which the bhikkhusangha is democratically constituted.

For example, in the Vinaya procedures for the settlement of disputes the verdict of the majority is virtually the last resort, to be used only when the other (undemocratic) procedures have failed. Moreover, there are certain kinds of dispute that cannot be settled by democratic means at all. Disputes about whether something is dhamma or adhamma, vinaya or avinaya, for instance, are deemed far too momentous to be decided by a mere show of hands.

I see, then I was wrong regarding the origin of your views. But I know many Western monks who became conservatives after ordaining.

I don't think Malalsekera means "democratic" in the narrow sense of "majority rules". Rather "democratic" as equal, tolerant, just and harmonious etc., belief in dignity and integrity etc.