tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8485583244199236996.post6710619458873407446..comments2024-03-27T14:35:59.406-07:00Comments on The Outsider: Reflections on Buddhist MilitarismPaññobhāsahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14148206217028034038noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8485583244199236996.post-73689825984776513092019-12-10T03:42:44.822-08:002019-12-10T03:42:44.822-08:00To me, and the main reason Buddhism is non militar...To me, and the main reason Buddhism is non militaristic is that if practiced and followed correctly one will have a hard time fighting and striving for anything that is dependent and conditioned which is basically everything and knowing this is knowing Dhamma and Dhamma is timeless and the highest process of things. While the knowledge of such Dhamma is probably the only thing worth striving for and it cannot be seen so long is one is so infatuated with the world that they are willing to fight, kill, steal, or do other evil deeds which tend to bring hateful, greedy, and ignorant mind States with them...<br /><br />I agree with Ven. Pannobhasa here. I would add that there is also the worldly mundane Dhammas which are good in the sense that they bring balance. These should not be confused with Buddha Dhamma however. Mental states should always be watched and only each individual can know their own hearts. I believe there are worldly heroes who do fight and go to war for noble(ish) causes. In short probably the best distillation I can think of in regard to worldly Dhammas is the Tao. Taoism is true in a worldly sense and when I think of Zen I kind of see a fusion of Tao and Buddhism with some other cultural by products as well... If I decided to take up arms and go to battle I would do so with Tao is mind knowing that for the time being the ultimate goal of Buddhism was being put on hold. I would prefer not to do such things....Inmanusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8485583244199236996.post-88691399498833637952019-04-22T10:04:23.897-07:002019-04-22T10:04:23.897-07:00First of all, your comment "Original Buddhism...First of all, your comment "Original Buddhism equals Rigvedic teachings" is really nonsensical. Buddhism relies more on the samana tradition going all the way back to the prehistoric Indus Valley Civilization than it does on the Indo-Aryan Vedic tradition. With all due respect to Evola, his understanding of Buddhism was very limited, as he was relying mainly on one old Italian translation of the Majjhima Nikaya. He didn't know Pali, had few translations to rely on, and furthermore the translations in those days were pioneering works and very faulty. Buddhism really was radically pacifist, in accordance with the same samana traditions that produced the even more non-violent Jainism. For example it is against ancient rules of monastic discipline for a monk even to visit a battlefield or go to see an army in formation or on maneuvers. To kill is condemned in Buddhism, and there's no way to spin that into non-pacifism.Paññobhāsahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14148206217028034038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8485583244199236996.post-76637891435080447912019-04-22T07:49:26.518-07:002019-04-22T07:49:26.518-07:00I believe you are approaching the problem of buddh...I believe you are approaching the problem of buddhist warfare wrong way around. You are inspecting samurai zen and tantric buddhism which are later developments, and claiming that original buddhism was pacifist. This is not true, as Evola pointed out. Original buddhism equals Rigvedic teachings. Mongol fighters are closer to original proto-indo-european nomads than sinhalese. Buddha never invented a religion, he reformed old aryan tradition.<br /><br />Many have confused what Evola actually did. The Inner Traditions version of the book is wholly wrong when it says right in the subtitle: "The Attainment of Self-Mastery According to the Earliest Buddhist Texts".<br /><br />More appropriate title, one that is in line with what Evola wrote, goes like this: "The Attainment of Self-Mastery Derived from the Critical Method of Traditional-Metaphysical Analysis Applied to Pali Canon".<br /><br />Evola DID NOT condense pali canon, he RETRIEVED bits from the pali canon THAT WERE LOST. If you just read pali canon without the necessary framework that was discovered by Guénon and Evola in their magnum opuses, then you will not understand AT ALL what Evola was trying to do, like the people in Inner Traditions did not. Evola was not trying to find the correct method discussed by the First Buddhist council - he was trying to find ETERNAL METAPHYSICAL PRINCIPLES that are absent in the canon but RETRIEVABLE from it.<br /><br />Someone more intelligent than me said about Evola: "He must not be read selectively, to the contrary he must be read in full."<br /><br />And the reason why I constantly bring up Evola is because he answers the problem of militarist buddhism. But do we have the strength to trust our metaphysical knowledge, i.e. to dismiss theravada, mahayana and vajrayana traditions, and to re-connect to the primordial tradition?<br /><br />Until we have männerbund-style groups of men looting and pillaging in holy and ascetic warfare, we will not have re-awakened the primordial tradition.user34987546https://www.blogger.com/profile/04428727807471156804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8485583244199236996.post-16508236720950316222019-02-12T19:04:47.879-08:002019-02-12T19:04:47.879-08:00This reminds me how the biblical definition of the...This reminds me how the biblical definition of the word "meek" was explained to me. In English, the word meek means weak or submissive. However, this is a mistranslation. The original word in Greek that this word is derived from has no translation in English. It means, a swordsman who is well trained in swordplay, but who would rather keep his sword sheathed if he can settle the situation diplomatically. In that sense, perhaps it is true, that the meek will inherit the earth.Justin Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03954012349900148370noreply@blogger.com