Apech

Many thanks for all your efforts - just logged in and having a look round By the way earlier on I couldn't log in - until I realised the system had changed my log in member name to my display user name (they were different before) - I sent a message thru 'contact' - so ignore it - everything fine.

I can guarantee there is not one foolish person on DaoBums.

Expect the expected.

Well yes exactly - a strong government with a strong opposition (who hold the government to account). This breaks down if one side just says the other side is not legitimate. As the Republicans did to Obama and now the democrats are doing to Trump.

If Marine Le Pen had won that would also have been democracy in place - because she would have won the popular vote. I don't get this narrative that a vote for the right is not democratic (not sure if that's what you're saying - though others are). The narrative is Right wing non party aligned = populist. ..........................Left wing/progressive non party aligned = democracy.

Macron has won apparently.

I was thinking more ...

Not saying I agree with all this - and I will NEVER vote Tory .... but:

It would be a small price to pay for the science of magical enquiry.

It's very sobering to read the history of Buddhist countries - including Tibet. You realise very quickly that religion and state should be kept apart. I suppose the question is - which group or groups are proposing global theocracy/ or religious rule and working to implement it?

Acrobatics on the tip of an iceberg is a slippery slope.

No its the UK and French elections not your sodding gun control OK!

Snore!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hang on this is the UK election thread!

Interesting question. I think the idea that sin means missing the mark comes from Christianity through the etymology of the Greek word 'hamartano' http://biblehub.com/greek/264.htm , but I have heard it suggested that the sin is to aim in the first place - in the sense that to have an aim is to have a private purpose of one's own as distinct to God's will. I haven't heard Buddhist teachers use the word sin but rather what is wholesome and what is unwholesome - and of course the background to this is what generates helpful karmic outcomes and what generates harmful karmic outcomes. Buddhists are not supposed to kill, lie, steal, become intoxicated or do sexual misconduct - and broadly it is these things which are thought of as bringing about essentially a bad future or a low level rebirth. Now it's possible to get into the mine field of moral philosophy and come up with circumstances where it is better to kill for instance - maybe if your child has a parasitic worm and you give medicine which kills the worm - and the ideas about what is and is not sexual misconduct are superbly vague and yet unhelpfully specific - like don't have sex with the wife of an arhat (chance would be a fine thing) or don't have sex with a prostitute paid for by another (!). These are rules for lay people - obviously monks don't have sex at all (officially). But overall if you are not a monk the attitude to transgression is very forgiving - as in you are hurting yourself and you should try to be better - rather than condemning. My own approach is that it is all about your own cultivation - in that ethical conduct is conducive to forming a balanced and stable subtle body and mind - and the effect on others is the same. So yes I would say ultimately it is about your will and the value you place in truth and consistency. If you indulge you are indulging in appetival drives over which you have no control - rather as in addiction of some kind - this is weakening and destructive to yourself and those around you. But the rules you adopt are rules of thumb which occasionally may not apply and you have to remember that you adopt them to learn about yourself. Ultimately you can learn to be spontaneously responsive to whatever is going on - but that is quite an advanced state.

dizziness henceforth but whence cometh such a dizz? From chronic dizzease.

Well my vote - if I had voted Lib Dem would have been cast in Salford/Manchester and so would have been wasted because that area is staunchly Labour. I think the total collapse of Labour will not happen even though I'm sure they will loose badly on the night. I notice UKIP is fast disappearing - which is a relief (but only because of 'job done' I suppose). What happens in Scotland will be interesting - the Tories seem to be gaining ground and they may use any increase in vote there as a vote against a second independence referendum. I think Trump used Brexit/Farage just as a meme for 'vote against the elite' - but for me that is the only link. Le Pen in France is a different matter as she seems to have a large genuine popular following in distinct geographical areas (which is a bit like Trump except he had a lot of switch voters from Obama). Someone pointed out that the geographical split is almost exactly the ancient Frankish vs. Angevine empires! Maybe there are some very basic traditional values being tested here. I hope she doesn't win but I can't help seeing macron as another Blair (and he's best mates with George Osbourne!!!).

I didn't renew my proxy vote - because I thought there wouldn't be a general election - and so I won't actually be voting. If I was I'd probably vote Lib Dem only because of Brexit (as I voted Remain in the referendum). I think the whole Brexit/Trump link is ridiculous - as if they are somehow part of some global movement - I notice that they are not labelling Macron in France a 'popularist' despite his lack of party allegiance - I think the only thing in common is that people have turned away from mainstream parties in every country. The Tories in England seem to have been able to recapture popular support by means of 'Brexit means Brexit'. And the labour party is in such a mess I think it is heading for disaster (tho probably not quite as bad as some predictions).

I'm a Brit too - so maybe what I think of the US is a bit thru the lens of the internet. I don't think I said Muslim majority countries are not civilised. In fact I suppose Iraq, Egypt etc. can claim to having been civilised a lot longer than us. But civilisation can be based on very different value systems and they are not all equivalent. I don't know about HK but I think it continues to exist very much under the patronage of China which in terms of human rights has a pretty poor record. So are you voting in the UK elections? and if so which way - I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Hi Dust - are you American? I agree with most of what you say except to say that the death penalty in the US is reserved for serial killers and the like and not apostasy or being gay. Sure there is a variation state to state - but even so the whole thing is held together by the constitution which is basically 18th century European enlightenment values writ large. I'm certainly not uncritical of what the western powers do int he world - but at the end of the day if you want to live free and so on - well the best countries are all western. I think the Buddhism example is interesting as I am a Buddhist. By reading Tibetan history I was able to disabuse myself of the notion that applying Buddhist values to statecraft guaranteed a Shangrila. Tibetan history is a continuous struggle of politicking, warfare (even between monasteries!), torture and power-seeking. Similarly the track record in Sri Lanka is not great and I could go on. So even with gentle, compassionate Buddhism you should not mix religion and politics. Same for Hinduism - I don't know if Daoism is an exception.

In the USA these things are crimes - in some parts of the world they are institutionally justified. Not that I accept the definitions - just saying. Of course both cultures share the Abrahamic root religion - but in the west the value system has evolved into the attitudes we have today about equality and fairness, while Islamic countries (or at least some) seem to have gone backwards towards fundamentalist understanding. So while we since the second world war have increased civil liberties and rights for women and gay people, which is really founded on not grouping people by gender and sexuality and so on - but saying each is an individual with rights. In the islamic world the harder attitudes prevail centred round literal interpretation of the word of the Koran. There's a similar attitude in fundamentalist Christianity - but while this has a big influence in the US in Europe is not a political factor. And while it does have an evangelical world view it does not have the same aggressive approach. The problem with Islam interpreted in a certain way is that it translates into the political movement which upholds violence as legitimate means. This does not mean that most Muslims would commit acts of terrorism but that the conservative nature of the society makes protest against such acts quite difficult and sometimes dangerous. As most acts of terrorism actually target other muslims - and a stern upholding of a Sharia law based system plus public shaming - makes any voice which prefers secularism and moderation unsustainable. It takes a lot of effort and struggle to reform social attitudes to say, race, sex and sexuality and there is usually a tipping point from generation to generation whereby things like being gay become accepted - even thought as being quite cool. We forget how recent this is is for us. Certainly attitudes have changed massively since the 60's and 70's. But what backed up these changes was the ability to appeal to the law and the legislators who basically all upheld some version of fairness and equality under the law based on reasoned argument and not the immutable word of God. Once a pressure group has established their rights then there is probably a generational adjustment in social attitude which follows - as with gay rights following the AIDS epidemic in the 80's. The Islamic world has not embraced any of this change because if you link church and state you can't. In England the leader of the Liberal Democrats who is a born again christian is being repeatedly asked if homosexuality is a sin. He must of course being a Christian believe it is because he reads the Bible literally. But what he says is that as a Liberal what he upholds is individual liberty - so even if he personally has a view what overrides that is his wish to see every individual live their own lives in their own way if they do not harm others. This may at first seem a little contradictory but I think actually if you examine his position it is the same as we all must inevitably take. That is, we all uphold our own ethos based on what we have experienced and understand - and all we can wish for is that others respect our views just as we respect theirs - and that our respective views are debated and challenged by reasoned discourse. What has been lacking from our western leaders is a forceful defence of this position. This partly because of political correctness of not wanting to sound racist or bigoted when critiquing islam and partly because our very own base on these values has been undermined by inter-sectionalist debased marxism and postmodern relativism.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/22/the-ice-stupas-of-ladakh-solving-water-crisis-in-the-high-desert-of-himalaya Brilliant! We need more people like this in the world.

could be syphonage