Monarchy

Some topics tend to get heated and go off track in unwholesome ways quite quickly. The "hot topics" sub-forum is a place where such topics may be moved so that each post must be manually approved by moderator before it will become visible to members.
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Monarchy

Post by Dan74 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:19 am
Dan74 wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:13 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:03 am to be born a monarch is to have had a fortunate rebirth and so the monarch does have a Buddhist version of the divine right of kings. Thoughts?
This seems to me to fall apart on a number of grounds.

Firstly, a cursory perusal of history will show any number of monarchs brutalising their subjects and leading their countries to ruin.

Secondly, even if some kammic merit leads to one being born a monarch, it does not follow that they will either do their job well, not that their people should hand them more powers or a carte blanche to do as they wish.

Argumentum ad hitlerium must read its ugly head here, since then it can be argued that everyone had the kamma to be exactly what they were, including our friend Adolf, your abusive ex-boyfriend and the psychopathic boss of Hate Inc. Does it give them any rights to do their evil?
Hitler wasn't a monarch. Most monarchs in history did more good than harm.
How do monarchs become monarchs in the first place? Usually by seizing power in a similar manner to Hitler and passing it to their progeny. Was Napoleon a monarch or his descendants?

Most monarchs did more good than harm is a belief. Do you have any evidence to back it up at all? Handing power to someone by virtue of their birth appears to me to be rather risky, at best. Even Tibetans, a Buddhist people, who believe that their great masters take rebirth in Tibet and leave clues as to where, have had some absolute disasters and many are calling for an end of their tulku system, since it seems to lead to more harm than good.

Of course British monarchy and its upper class almost shine as a wonderful example of meritocracy in this age of political paralysis. But read about their disastrous last 50 years in India and you might be somewhat disabused of any rosy-coloured notions.
_/|\_
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Monarchy

Post by Ceisiwr »

How do monarchs become monarchs in the first place? Usually by seizing power in a similar manner to Hitler and passing it to their progeny. Was Napoleon a monarch or his descendants?
Via kamma. Hitler was a politician, not a monarch.
Most monarchs did more good than harm is a belief. Do you have any evidence to back it up at all?
Most monarchs stabilised societies and hardly engaged in imperialism.
Handing power to someone by virtue of their birth appears to me to be rather risky, at best. Even Tibetans, a Buddhist people, who believe that their great masters take rebirth in Tibet and leave clues as to where, have had some absolute disasters and many are calling for an end of their tulku system, since it seems to lead to more harm than good.
I’m not necessarily arguing for an absolute monarchy.
Of course British monarchy and its upper class almost shine as a wonderful example of meritocracy in this age of political paralysis. But read about their disastrous last 50 years in India and you might be somewhat disabused of any rosy-coloured notions.
On the whole the Empire was good for India.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
SarathW
Posts: 21226
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Monarchy

Post by SarathW »

On the whole the Empire was good for India.
Top
But the majority of people do not think so.
Sri Lankans still put the blame on the British for their misfortune even after gain independent about 75 years ago.
British invaded other countries for their own benefits, not for the benefits of other countries.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Monarchy

Post by Dan74 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2019 7:51 am
How do monarchs become monarchs in the first place? Usually by seizing power in a similar manner to Hitler and passing it to their progeny. Was Napoleon a monarch or his descendants?
Via kamma. Hitler was a politician, not a monarch.
Most monarchs did more good than harm is a belief. Do you have any evidence to back it up at all?
Most monarchs stabilised societies and hardly engaged in imperialism.
Handing power to someone by virtue of their birth appears to me to be rather risky, at best. Even Tibetans, a Buddhist people, who believe that their great masters take rebirth in Tibet and leave clues as to where, have had some absolute disasters and many are calling for an end of their tulku system, since it seems to lead to more harm than good.
I’m not necessarily arguing for an absolute monarchy.
Of course British monarchy and its upper class almost shine as a wonderful example of meritocracy in this age of political paralysis. But read about their disastrous last 50 years in India and you might be somewhat disabused of any rosy-coloured notions.
On the whole the Empire was good for India.
Sorry, Craig. Not a serious effort. "Via kamma" - what is not via kamma, exactly? You didn't address my question earlier, so I don't suppose you will here either.

"Most monarchs stabilised societies and hardly engaged in imperialism. " Based on what? Blanket assertions is not a serious way to conduct a discussion.

"On the whole the Empire was good for India." This is contentious, but hardly the point. The point was that when the monarchy and aristocracy had more power, they hardly showed themselves to be capable rulers.

I don't know how knowledgeable you are about history, because so far you've just made some assertions with no backing, but just in case, this list shows that being born a monarch (or a prince with a claim to the throne) is hardly a guarantee of an able ruler. Glad that democratic societies make these atrocities impossible for the heads of state to commit, at least upon their own people.

https://www.historyextra.com/period/med ... n-history/

Edit: link added
_/|\_
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Monarchy

Post by Ceisiwr »

Dan74
Sorry, Craig. Not a serious effort. "Via kamma" - what is not via kamma, exactly? You didn't address my question earlier, so I don't suppose you will here either.
Birth is via kamma. After that events can be due to kamma or not. Crowns are usually inherited and so monarchs get there via birth.
"Most monarchs stabilised societies and hardly engaged in imperialism. " Based on what? Blanket assertions is not a serious way to conduct a discussion.
History.
"On the whole the Empire was good for India." This is contentious, but hardly the point. The point was that when the monarchy and aristocracy had more power, they hardly showed themselves to be capable rulers.
But they did. The Empire uplifted the world through the spread of capitalism.
I don't know how knowledgeable you are about history, because so far you've just made some assertions with no backing, but just in case, this list shows that being born a monarch (or a prince with a claim to the throne) is hardly a guarantee of an able ruler. Glad that democratic societies make these atrocities impossible for the heads of state to commit, at least upon their own people.
It’s not a guarantee but it’s a good kammic start.

Wasn’t Hitler elected? ;)
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Zenny
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:09 pm

Re: Monarchy

Post by Zenny »

A way of using kamma to justify one's speculations and political beliefs
Monarchy is dictatorship by fiat. Elitism by fiat.
Zero spirituality in the divine right of Kings.
Pure political apologism and sophistry.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: Monarchy

Post by TRobinson465 »

Its a double edged sword. Absolute monarchies (and dictatorships, which are basically the same thing) can be benevolent and cause great prosperity, even more so than mind-numbingly slow working democracies. Taiwan and South Korea were dictatorships for a period before transitioning to democracy and they went from some of the poorest nations in asia to some of the richest thanks to effective absolute rulers. Likewise Monarchs and absolute rulers also have the risk of becoming incredibly tyrannical, like the Kim dynasty of North Korea.

It is right to say that democracy isnt immune to these problems. Take the classic extreme example/everyones favorite ad hominem when trying to attack someone u dont like but dont have a tangible argument, Adolf Hitler. Hitler was indeed elected. And as MLK said, everything Hitler did was "legal", and it was those who defied Hitler and hid the jews that were criminals breaking the laws of Nazi Germany rather than being good citizens and "obeying the law". Blind support for elected goverments or blind respect for the "the law" is not conducive. Same goes for some1 ruling just because of thier bloodline, some rulers are good, some rulers are bad.

However, Hitler was very much an exception, not a rule. Most elected governments have significantly lower rates of tyranny and corruption than ones with dictators. I think it was in that sutta about the dreams of king pasadeni or maybe the cakkavatti sutta. But the Buddha says that in the future (from his time) there will be tyrannical and corrupt kings. Given that probably most of the governments in todays world are not real democracies, and are mostly either tyrannical or corrupt, i think we are living in that age the Buddha predicted. The few governments that are at not that tyrannical and are relatively less corrupt are mostly elected governments. Although it still exists the corruption in the US and UK is relatively small compared to the corruption of places like N Korea or faux democracies like Thailand is currently.

Given the state of the world we live in currently, elected government with checks and balances is "usually" better imo. Because it lowers the risk of a N. Korea style Kim dynasty ruling. Although the future, like in the time of Lord Maitreya Buddha where there will be a benevolent and virtuous universal monarch ruling, monarchy will certainly be better than a mind-numbingly slow moving elected government.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Monarchy

Post by Coëmgenu »

I missed the claim that "On the whole the Empire was good for India." A basic perusal of Indian history, as well as talking to someone who isn't an Anglo-Indian, will show that this is absolutely untrue. Certainly, a small class of Indians willing to interbreed and settle down, to acclimatize "to the English" had it very good in the British Raj.

If the Empire was good for India, India would be like America and Canada now. At is stands, India is an impoverished place with extraordinary wealth gaps that would make Americans blush. If the Empire was good for India, India would be full of white people right now. It's insensitive to say, but true of the colonizing process. If it "goes well," you end up with an entirely new demographic living in the colony. China is holding Tibet because they've changed the demographic. They forcibly resettled the Tibetan people in newly built urban spaces where they are dispersed and outnumbered by Han Chinese. There are now more Han Chinese in Tibetan urban spaces than Tibetans because they've thoroughly settled everywhere you can build an artificial city and forcibly relocate natives to it while also paying your own impoverished citizenry to settle there in larger numbers. The only places where Empire manages to stabilize an invaded country, a claimed country, etc., are areas where the native population is displaced and/or assimilated like in the Americas: the only former colonies doing particularly well.
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Fri Sep 24, 2021 8:03 am, edited 6 times in total.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Monarchy

Post by mikenz66 »

Yes, there is definitely some screwed up logic amongst apologists for colonisation.
Now before someone says something hysterical about how if we hate colonisation so much, we shouldn’t use cell phones or cars – the first British settlers did not get here using GPS on the latest iPhone in a Ford Ranger. Those are recent American inventions that are available to people in countries that haven’t been colonised by America. If we’re giving up sovereignty to countries based on our use of their technological advances, Cook and friends would have turned up on these shores speaking a Chinese language, thanks to the paper, printing, gunpowder and compasses required to colonise the shit out of other countries.

Sure, we have no way of proving what a Māori society would look like today if violent settler colonialism hadn’t occurred, but as we were already exploring and trading with other countries and adapting to new farming techniques and crops like wheat long before Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed, presumably we would have continued to explore, progress and adapt to the changing world in our own Māori way because we are, as a people, incredibly innovative. Fun fact: you can trade with a country without beating the children there until they speak the same language as you.

What I’m saying is – without colonisation, there’s every chance we’d still be using cell phones today. We’d just be texting in te reo Māori.
...
https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/10-06-202 ... t-balance/
:heart:
Mike
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Monarchy

Post by Ceisiwr »

mikenz66 wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:05 am Yes, there is definitely some screwed up logic amongst apologists for colonisation.
Now before someone says something hysterical about how if we hate colonisation so much, we shouldn’t use cell phones or cars – the first British settlers did not get here using GPS on the latest iPhone in a Ford Ranger. Those are recent American inventions that are available to people in countries that haven’t been colonised by America. If we’re giving up sovereignty to countries based on our use of their technological advances, Cook and friends would have turned up on these shores speaking a Chinese language, thanks to the paper, printing, gunpowder and compasses required to colonise the shit out of other countries.

Sure, we have no way of proving what a Māori society would look like today if violent settler colonialism hadn’t occurred, but as we were already exploring and trading with other countries and adapting to new farming techniques and crops like wheat long before Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed, presumably we would have continued to explore, progress and adapt to the changing world in our own Māori way because we are, as a people, incredibly innovative. Fun fact: you can trade with a country without beating the children there until they speak the same language as you.

What I’m saying is – without colonisation, there’s every chance we’d still be using cell phones today. We’d just be texting in te reo Māori.
...
https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/10-06-202 ... t-balance/
:heart:
Mike
You wouldn't have America or cell phones without the British Empire, not for centuries more at least. Regarding the Māori, what of value did they have to trade?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Monarchy

Post by Ceisiwr »

Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 7:55 am I missed the claim that "On the whole the Empire was good for India." A basic perusal of Indian history, as well as talking to someone who isn't an Anglo-Indian, will show that this is absolutely untrue. Certainly, a small class of Indians willing to interbreed and settle down, to acclimatize "to the English" had it very good in the British Raj.

If the Empire was good for India, India would be like America and Canada now. At is stands, India is an impoverished place with extraordinary wealth gaps that would make Americans blush. If the Empire was good for India, India would be full of white people right now. It's insensitive to say, but true of the colonizing process. If it "goes well," you end up with an entirely new demographic living in the colony. China is holding Tibet because they've changed the demographic. They forcibly resettled the Tibetan people in newly built urban spaces where they are dispersed and outnumbered by Han Chinese. There are now more Han Chinese in Tibetan urban spaces than Tibetans because they've thoroughly settled everywhere you can build an artificial city and forcibly relocate natives to it while also paying your own impoverished citizenry to settle there in larger numbers. The only places where Empire manages to stabilize an invaded country, a claimed country, etc., are areas where the native population is displaced and/or assimilated like in the Americas: the only former colonies doing particularly well.
What I had in mind was the establishment of trade routes, the building of infrastructure, a common language and so on which gave the perfect foundation for the spread of capitalism once the industrial revolution started.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: Monarchy

Post by TRobinson465 »

Yes. Well. While I agree the British empire played a huge role in modernizing the world. For better or worse is a manner of opinion. I don't see how that's specific to a monarchy. There are tons of monarchies (most in fact) who didn't do that. This is a thread on the benefits of monarchies not the British.

As an American and offspring of Britains greatest creation. :tongue: I'm thankful for the British. As the old New World saying goes. The British turned dust into gold. The Spanish (also a monarchy) turned gold into dust.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
mabw
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:10 pm

Re: Monarchy

Post by mabw »

Question: As I understand it, Queen Victoria was not an absolute monarch, was she? At least that is the impression I get from films. Haven't researched it much. I was just wondering ; if Parliament objected to an invasion ordered by the Queen, did she have the power to push ahead or is she bound by the dictates of Parliament? My impression is she cannot. Can someone confirm?

This is purely a question on British history, I am not here to debate the merits/demerits of monarchy.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Monarchy

Post by Coëmgenu »

It was one of the Charles's who tried to introduce continental-style absolutism to England, if I'm not mistaken. It didn't work.
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Sat Sep 25, 2021 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Monarchy

Post by mikenz66 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Sep 25, 2021 11:03 am You wouldn't have America or cell phones without the British Empire, not for centuries more at least. Regarding the Māori, what of value did they have to trade?
They were growing and trading food, which was rather useful for the brits from the other side of the world...

The point is that it's not necessary to take over others to acquire technology. Gunpowder was acquired by trade and copying, not by taking over China. And so on. You keep conflating taking over, subjugating, and killing people with the good effects. Did the Native Americans dying in large numbers create cellphones? Did Japan and China have to be colonies to acquire world-class technology? Thailand was never a colony. It's admittadly not in great shape, but no worse than it's neighbours who were French and British colonies... Though it does still have a monarchy, so that should be a plus for you. :tongue:

Mike
Post Reply