Can we not love our brother as ourselves?

[liminal_luke]

If some guys attacked me in the street I´d do whatever I could to protect myself. Once the immediate threat was averted, I´d do whatever I could to prevent them from attacking others in the future. And then I´d let it go (or at least the best version of myself would): no indulging in fantasies of painful death and revenge, no cultivation of anger and hate. I´d fight the bastards one moment and forgive them the next; lock them up and love them forever.

 

Liminal

[Aetherous]

Thats as good as deed done. Seriously.

 

You have a good point - cultivating anger or hatred, or the idea of killing someone, or actually doing it, is bad for spiritual cultivation as well as the world.

 

Yet...what would you do in this situation: Lets say you're a police officer in Paris right now, and you alone have these two guys in your sights. You are 100% certain it's them. If you don't shoot within 30 seconds, they get away and kill more people.

 

Do you agree that allowing them to continue murdering is wrong? Some would say, permitting it when you could put an end to it, is essentially doing it yourself.

 

So what is worse: to take the lives of murderers of the innocent, or to let them continue murdering innocents? What if they murdered 30 more people the next day? What's worse: 2 terrorist lives lost, or 30 normal people's lives lost? At least personally, if I didn't take the shot, I would feel that the blood of those innocents is partially on my hands.

 

Not to try and make you think about things you would rather not...I don't wish to negatively affect your cultivation. But these are choices people have to make in our world. One day, it could be one of us making these split second decisions. We don't know since terrorists attack literally anywhere. Even cartoonists get it from them.

 

I like how liminal luke put it. There's nothing wrong with protecting oneself and others.

[Brian]

An "Opposing View" Opinion piece from USA Today:

People know the consequences

Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people's desires.

 

Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

 

Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him...

 

 

I think it is worth reading, along with the "official" position of USA Today to which this is a counterpoint, which is linked to within the article.

[Aetherous]

the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike

 

On that opinion piece...I am strongly opposed to calling terrorism and the murdering of innocent people, "consequences"...as if it were the law, a just punishment, or an inevitable reaction. It is not any of those...but a choice to commit murder in the name of a religion.

 

There are other "consequences", though, which actually are inevitable. Ones that oppose terrorist and murderous activity, which are actually within the law, and which are there to preserve life and liberty rather than take it. Let Muslims know of those consequences.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Aetherous

[C T]

You have a good point - cultivating anger or hatred, or the idea of killing someone, or actually doing it, is bad for spiritual cultivation as well as the world.

 

Yet...what would you do in this situation: Lets say you're a police officer in Paris right now, and you alone have these two guys in your sights. You are 100% certain it's them. If you don't shoot within 30 seconds, they get away and kill more people.

 

Do you agree that allowing them to continue murdering is wrong? Some would say, permitting it when you could put an end to it, is essentially doing it yourself.

 

So what is worse: to take the lives of murderers of the innocent, or to let them continue murdering innocents? What if they murdered 30 more people the next day? What's worse: 2 terrorist lives lost, or 30 normal people's lives lost? At least personally, if I didn't take the shot, I would feel that the blood of those innocents is partially on my hands.

 

Not to try and make you think about things you would rather not...I don't wish to negatively affect your cultivation. But these are choices people have to make in our world. One day, it could be one of us making these split second decisions. We don't know since terrorists attack literally anywhere. Even cartoonists get it from them.

 

I like how liminal luke put it. There's nothing wrong with protecting oneself and others.

Hypothetically, if i was a police sniper, i would not for an instant hesitate to neutralise the perpetrators. However, there is no call for me to take delight nor feel regret for the action, for it is within the scope of my duty to act swiftly so as to diffuse the potential of further harm - not only to others, but in some twisted way, also to the criminals as well. The implications go some way beyond merely the determination of right or wrong.

 

In the Buddhist teachings, unless one is a monk or nun, the moral codes for lay practitioners are fairly relaxed - there are guidelines by which adherents are encouraged to follow, for example, to work in professions which does not involve the taking of lives, and generally, to avoid all types of killing, or any profession where one obtains livelihood dependent on any form of slaughter and the perpetuation of slaughter, but if that is unavoidable, then one has to work a lot harder to repair that particular karma - it further states that if one were to ignore the steps required for the repair to be effected, then be mindfully prepared for the consequences; Some texts then lay out clearly what these consequences are so that one cannot then claim ignorance of one's preceding actions in this regard. As i am not well-versed with this particular area of the teachings, i can only offer this rather simplified and limited explanation. I am sure there is a greater depth to this particular moral issue, one which im sure is thoroughly covered in the Suttas, but do not have enough knowledge to offer more at this juncture.

Edited January 8, 2015 by C T

[3bob]

something has got to give and it won't be the Tao, thus "that which is against the Tao will soon cease to be"; which does not seem to help in horrific situations such as being discussed yet if that is not the ultimate standard (and a default besides our various human standards) then Tao would be utter chaos without any quintessential and foundational truth.

[manitou]

something has got to give and it won't be the Tao, thus "that which is against the Tao will soon cease to be"; which does not seem to help in horrific situations such as being discussed yet if that is not the ultimate standard (and a default besides our various human standards) then Tao would be utter chaos without any quintessential and foundational truth.

 

And this is why it is incumbent upon those world leaders who are capable of reaching across the divide, swallowing their national pride, and trying to bridge the gap to some point of understanding to do so. Things are only getting worse, not better. Seeking revenge as a motive, wishing hateful ways for the perpetrators to die - these are not the actions of the sage. The Tao must be followed, and loving kindness is at the heart of it. As you say, 'that which is against the Tao will soon cease to be.'

 

Yes, I agree with what CT said above - of course if I were a police sniper and it were my job, one must do what one must do. But CT also alluded to the reluctant warrior, the concept of Sun Tzu. To not relish the taking of life.

 

What could possibly further the Tao by enraging a particular segment of people, in this case some Muslims who have no appreciation for farcical depictions of their beloved prophet, intentionally? To sell some newspapers? Because we have the legal right to free speech does not mean that we all go around and verbally assault everybody we come across. If people of the spirit were in the majority, human kindness and understanding would prevail. The Tao would continue its course of love; best case scenario is that we would love our brothers as ourselves. And even the angry hot-headed Muslims who twist the Koran to suit their purposes are our brothers; it cannot be otherwise. The world is as a huge giant squid with all the tentacles fighting amongst themselves, not knowing they're all attached.

 

This intentional agitation has got to stop. We have got to get a hold of ourselves. For the people of spirit on this forum, do we walk our talk, or do we merely pass around pretty words and lofty thoughts, only to walk away from our computers and hate our neighbors? To disregard human kindness and compassion? To buy into the hate talk? Hopefully not.

 

Can we not step into the moccasins of those born on a dusty patch of dirt - who have no access to clean water - who perhaps are supported by the local religious sects and dependent upon them for food - whose only reason for living is as they are taught from birth - to revere their beloved prophet? I look at the horrible fighting that takes place for territory in countries where there is virtually nothing to fight over but sand.

 

Can we not see where they are coming from and understand why it is that they react so violently? It's all they have; they probably have no opportunity for employment, for travel, for recreation, for going to a movie, for any of the thousands of things we take for granted. And now that they can see for themselves just how the West lives in relative luxury, even those of us who have humble homes - it is so far superior to what they have that is it not understandable human nature that they would be envious? That they would hate the way we live because they cannot have it? That they would hate us because we are so much more fortunate? They can see it on TV now. They can see it on the internet. This is a relatively new phenomenon, and perhaps it explains much of the violent anger rising in this day of mass communication.

 

Yes, the way of the Tao must prevail. But to continue on the path we are is sure annihilation - there will be no winner. Cooler heads must prevail, and we must accept that we are all brothers. We don't get to pick and choose.

[thelerner]

 

You, me, or anyone for that matter, we can always make the choice to find another vantage point, preferably one where no harbouring of harmful thoughts will cloud one's view. If we don't opt for a virtuous response to what passes through our minds, then we and these killers are basically like a pair of conjoined Punch & Judys.

 

If we cannot help but think harmful thoughts, sooner or later, these thoughts will manifest results - perhaps not directly affecting us, but be sure that every thought leaves imprints somewhere (the Buddhists call it the alaya, which is like a universal thought pool where every single thought, motive & intention is stored and where the prevailing energy from that pool then determines the general state of the world of humans).

I agree to dwell on, to look long into the abyss, it stares back and infects us, we risk becoming the horror we oppose.

 

I'd also add, we need the big hearted people in the world (like Manitou) who point the way to being real human beings. There is a time to mourn and a time to celebrate the lives of those who have passed. The best justice is a life well lived.

[Aetherous]

On second thought, letting it go. I am the way that I am, and disagreeing with people doesn't change the way that they are. I'm fond of everyone here, and have said more than enough already which might have made that seem otherwise. Sorry for getting heated.

(what I edited out here, for those who didn't see it, wasn't anything harsh. It was just more of the same arguments)

Edited January 9, 2015 by Aetherous

[gatito]

These dickheads should certainly not be killed except under circumstances that a failure to use lethal force would allow them to kill or to seriously injure other innocents.

It's my sincere hope that they're taken alive, tried according to French law for what they have done and locked safely away from civilised people, if it's found that the idiots who did this are the ones put on trial.

They should certainly not be tortured because the rule of law as agreed by the democratic will of the people in a free-thinking, civilised society should not be jeopardised by the actions of these primitive, medieval twats, who in no way represent the true face of Islam.

Just read some Rumi for confirmation if you've the slightest doubt about that fact.

 

This is not Rumi...



Why are we still laughing at you?

Isn't that obvious..

[Astral Monk]

Maybe it's not something to fear at all. Maybe everything is exactly opposite of how it appears to be.

I reckon death is exactly what it appears to be--the end. Why would it be othrwise? Nature is not a deceiver. All religion and philosophy are designed to prepare you for that moment when you face the void and end.

 

All we can do is hope to pacify all fears by realizing form is emptyness and emptyness is form.

 

For those who die naturally under the spell of religion, their paradise will be short-lived; for those who die suddenly, violently, there is none at all.

 

The only way to love one anothr is to destroy all religion.

 

8)

[C T]

Brunei has banned Christmas celebrations. Its ironical the amount of restrictions non-muslims are subjected to when in islamic countries. Some sort of balance will be most welcomed.

 

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/brunei-bans-christmas/1576850.html

[Marblehead]

I saw a quote yesterday, can't remember it word for word nor from whom it came but I think it is worthy of mentioning in this thread.

 

 

Don't grieve the loss of those who died preserving our freedoms but rather celebrate that they lived.

[manitou]

Well, we do have the precious freedom of speech. Let us just know that for using it to insult the disenfranchised, these hostage situations are the price tag?

 

Are we willing to continue paying it?

[manitou]

Of course I'm not trying to make it justifiable. I'm trying to make it understandable.

 

Here's my point. If you were raised in the same family, under the same circumstances, within the same peer group, in a religion that has one very small faction of violence contained within; that there is all likelihood that you, in your mind, would feel that you are protecting your beloved prophet, and in fact were performing your religious duty to do so.

 

If we are dealing with people with this mindset, then to continue to insult their beloved prophet will produce the very same results over and over. Just like the definition of insanity. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

 

I am saying that further insults and further police action, further military build-up toward countries that do not believe in freedom of speech will produce only a build-up of tension and result in total world conflict. Everbody is armed now. With big weapons.

 

I am saying that the only thing that can prevail over this is love. Very, very, very creative love by leaders, societies, and Imams that have the capacity to reach across the divide and help those that listen to them to understand the Oneness of us all.

 

I believe the very worst mindset we can have is the one several posts ago, where we are flipping off those with that ideology.

 

What would the Sage do? What would Buddha do? What would Jesus do? Can you see any of them flipping off their opponent? I say, we must open our hearts as wide as we possibly can and look for solutions; not to continue to inflame under the guise of free speech. Just because we have it doesn't mean we have to abuse it.

[Bubbles]

edited

Edited January 14, 2015 by bubbles

[Marblehead]

Well, we do have the precious freedom of speech. Let us just know that for using it to insult the disenfranchised, these hostage situations are the price tag?

 

Are we willing to continue paying it?

Fair question to one who considers himself a cosmopolitan. But remember, this cosmopolitan is also an Atheist and there is just cause for my being so.

 

I have said a number of times over the years, and this was a realization I had back in the late 1960s, that for people of the world to polarize themselves into groups claiming to be different and better than members of other groups only gives cause for discrimination. This has shown itself to be true over the years and I still hold to the thought.

 

I am sure all know that I am retired Army. I am proud of that. But during my twenty years in the Army I never had to have a passport. And I visited many, many countries while in the Army. My Army ID card (and sometimes "leave" papers) were all I needed to travel from one country to another.

 

Today an American can't even go to Canada or Mexico without a passport!

 

Religions will keep people separated from each other just as effectively as will the governments of various countries. Governments have evil intent and so do all religions.

 

During my travels I never insulted anyone badly enough to cause them to want to kill me.

 

No, it's not the insults that are hurting the disenfranchised, it is the "truth" that is insulting. Those terrorists can't handle the truth. One must kill the truth because if truth would be known then they would have nothing at all. Their lives are supported by one big lie - that they are better than others because they believe in this religion and not that one.

 

It's all bull shit. And what's worse, the truth won't even help these people. The truth only further angers them. The truth will never stand tall until all the lies have been destroyed.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Marblehead

[3bob]

Jesus fearlessly pointed out the hypocrisy and far worse things of his time (for instance occurrences of corruption in the Jewish establishment and Roman Empire, and that's putting it very mildly) Thus the point is not really the outer form or names of such but what they are doing nitty-gritty wise or what they boil down to, and then to be to be pointed out and recognized for such meanings - whether negative and violent or positive and kind . Problem is having the wisdom to point correctly.

Edited January 9, 2015 by 3bob

[thelerner]

Beware letting off murderer's to easily. Most poor disenfranchised people who don't kill others. Beyond basic morality there is common sense intelligence of what comes next and these terrorists reap more repression, violence and prejudice for there people.

 

France is not Saudi Arabia or Iran, they cannot dictate what a free country does. There social mores and taboos do not have to be universally accepted by other countries. Though if you choose to live in those countries then yes you should abide respectfully. Things are not equivalent. In some ways its an insult to Islam to say they 'don't know any better, that's the way they were raised'. Because the vast majority do know right from wrong and know such terrorists acts are counter to the spirit and law of there beliefs.

[Aetherous]

Let us just know that for using it to insult the disenfranchised, these hostage situations are the price tag?

 

 

Are we willing to continue paying it?

 

I will never accept Islamists as being the dispensers of our justice. They are not our authority figure or legal system - they are mere criminals under our law. Even international law. To be locked away, or sent to paradise.

 

They aren't the ones who give us the "price tag" for our freedom...they're the ones who attempt to steal our freedom from us. At least personally, I will always fight against that.

 

Some people having to fight is the real price tag of our freedom...terrorism and being murdered (which you oddly call "hostage situations" when 12+ people are killed) is not. We don't create their ideology, and we don't commit their acts...they do. And may they continue to pay the price tag for it.

[closrapexa]

I think there is a problem of a certain double standard in the West, no matter how much "enlightened" people may be. Targeting those civilians was a horrible act, but how different was it from the half million dead during the American fiasco in Iraq? Or the Israeli fiasco in Gaza? Or Afganistan? Or in Ukraine? It is all warfare and it can all be justified, depending on who's side you're on. Of course, justifications can be found, but they would still be the wrong justifications. It is ultimately all a symptom of "they started it," no matter what the issue whether it is oil, free speech or simple retribution for violence.

[Marblehead]

I think there is a problem of a certain double standard in the West, no matter how much "enlightened" people may be. Targeting those civilians was a horrible act, but how different was it from the half million dead during the American fiasco in Iraq? Or the Israeli fiasco in Gaza? Or Afganistan? Or in Ukraine? It is all warfare and it can all be justified, depending on who's side you're on. Of course, justifications can be found, but they would still be the wrong justifications. It is ultimately all a symptom of "they started it," no matter what the issue whether it is oil, free speech or simple retribution for violence.

No, I will never attempt to justify any of it, especially those acts of my country's government. I was disgusted with my government starting the Vietnam War. But I served proudly when I was put on orders to serve because I was (still am) a professional soldier and that's what we do - the bidding of our nation.

 

Are any of these acts of violence justifiable? I really doubt it. But I am not the leader of any religion or government. Those who say that violence is the only way are the ones to blame. But we must also blame the followers who do the killing. Personally, I have never killed anyone who didn't need killing. (Yes, I can justify my actions.)

 

I do not hold double standards. Back when I traveled I always made sure the people knew I respected them and their culture.

 

And that brings us right back to Manitou's point of this thread. Why can't we just respect the values of others as long as they are not trying to kill us and just leave them alone? And yes, I do respect the concepts presented in the opening post although I still stand by the posts I have made in this thread.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Marblehead

[gendao]

My wife has two distinct round birthmarks, one on her hip and one on her thigh so it was now time to understand why.

There started an impressive regression by participating at a ceremony of initiation of young Indians now about to become fighters and hunters. They were dancing in circle around a fire singing entranced. The shaman was at the centre of the circle and had in the fire a burning wooden rod, which he used to brand with it each young man at three different spots. No matter how deeply entranced the young man named Hanok (?) was in deep pain and he managed to avoid the third burning brand on his arm to affect him as much. The initiated man distrusted and did not like or respect the shaman at all. After the ceremony he had the right to mate with his beloved girl (Umak?) and it was a rather strange and bizarre feeling for my wife to feel the satisfaction that a male gets through sex. She could not only feel the difference by comparing the sexual feelings of this life as a female to those felt while regressed as a male but also she felt all the passion for her (his) female wife, a feeling that certainly is absent in her current life. The story is long and beautiful with a sad ending like a nice fairy tale. But, did she make all this up, or did she really tune in one of her past incarnations?

For her, all kinds of tiny, ostensibly insignificant questions about her behaviour were answered.  Why had she been hating white, blonde, Anglo-Saxons all her life? Why did she dislike the English language? Why did she always sympathize with Indians and non-white tribes? For one thing the end of the story is that the “stinking and dirty” white people moved in the West and chased their tribe and killed all of the Indians after they found them, with the help of the Shaman. He became the traitor who gave away their position and fought on whites’ side.

I think there is a problem of a certain double standard in the West, no matter how much "enlightened" people may be. Targeting those civilians was a horrible act, but how different was it from the half million dead during the American fiasco in Iraq? Or the Israeli fiasco in Gaza? Or Afganistan? Or in Ukraine? It is all warfare and it can all be justified, depending on who's side you're on. Of course, justifications can be found, but they would still be the wrong justifications. It is ultimately all a symptom of "they started it," no matter what the issue whether it is oil, free speech or simple retribution for violence.

Well, "unjustified" killing of another human (or few) is simply called murder. But, mass murder is rebranded as "warfare" or by the Anglosphere as "police action," "liberation" or "Operation Iraqi Freedom," LMAO!!!  And unpunishable and actually revered with shiny gold stars...if you win!

It's only "murder" or "terr0rism" if committed by "enemies" of the State?

[closrapexa]

No, I will never attempt to justify any of it, especially those act of my country's government. I was disgusted with my government starting the Vietnam War. But I served proudly when I was put on orders to serve because I was (still am) a professional soldier and that's what we do - the bidding of our nation.

 

I,too, served in the army and felt I was doing my duty by doing so. However, that viewpoint can be taken to extremes. Indeed, it has been, by people who were "only following orders." Sometimes the true heroes are those who refuse to fight, despite the bidding of their nation.

 

In addition, who is it that decrees who "wants to kill us." My own country illegally occupies territories, and the people who live there are indeed considered enemies of the State. Although I did not vote for the present government, I still share responsibility for its actions, seeing as I pay taxes and serve in the reserves (as a non-combatant). My nations bids me hate these people as it has decided they want to kill me, but I can't subscribe to that view and never have, despite being the victim of terrorist attacks myself.

[Aetherous]

My nations bids me hate these people as it has decided they want to kill me, but I can't subscribe to that view and never have, despite being the victim of terrorist attacks myself.

 

Despite them attacking you, you don't subscribe to the view that they want to kill you...