Unconditional Objects

[paulio]

Hi,
So, all things are conditional and only Enlightenment is un-conditional. But
what about energy, especiallly potential energy? This doesnt rely on
anything so could that be called Un-conditional?

Paul

[scameter]

Well, it does rely on it's self, and on the conditions of it's environment to permit it's existence. Thus, I suppose the real question is whether enlightenment relies on it's self and/or it's environment or not. By the way, welcome. :)

[TruthSeeker]

Definition of "uncoditional" seems ambiguous... <_<

I could say nothing is really unconditional because everything is in a relationship with something else. Such a relationship would create a cause-effect relation, which is conditional.

Welcome! :)

[buzzlightyear1982]

Enlightenment relies on it's enviroment...like everything else it has to be supported by the alements around it B) I agree with Truth seeker...it would create an cause and effect relationship. But the question to be determinded is if it is a possitive or neggetive effect B)

[______]

Originally posted by @--
Enlightenment relies on it's enviroment...
I'm not so sure this is entirly true. Now, I'm nowhere near being Enlightened, but my progress towards it has never been hindered by my environment.
For this to be clear, one must understand what my environment has been since my first step was taken along the Path. When I first came across Buddhism and took it seriously, I was living in my car in a subburb of Kansas City during the winter. I was also a devout Christian. I had nothing to do during the day, so I took up meditation (this is extremly hard to do with no experience and no comforable place to meditate). Currently, I am in the US Army stationed in Germany. My environment is no longer familiar--and at times not very friendly--yet my practice has never faultered.
I think that Enlightenment depends upon one's determination to be freed from cyclic existance.

[redraven]

All things are conditional, including Enlightenment, according to Nagarjuna. I'm not sure what Theravedan Buddhists believe, but the more pure Mahayana schools believe that "Nirvana is Samsara." There's a koan to puzzle out. And when you ask what's the point? Nagarjuna says "emptiness." Or in essence, there is no point. None whatsoever, that is absolute. Strange to think that way but it freed my mind a great deal.

[Thomas Knierim]

____: Currently, I am in the US Army stationed in Germany.

Where are you stationed? USAG Hessen? What's the unfriendly part about the environment if I may ask?

I did my civil service in Bingen near the Ramstein US airbase.

How does being a Buddhist and being in the army go together?

Cheers, Thomas

[CSwriter1]

There's a koan to puzzle out. And when you ask what's the point? Nagarjuna says "emptiness." Or in essence, there is no point. None whatsoever, that is absolute. Strange to think that way but it freed my mind a great deal.

Interesting how differently we react to the same thing.
I don't like the idea at all. I don't like for it for many reasons, and one of them is, some with this reasoning, have cause great human suffering, evidently with the idea that nothing matters, not even the difference of life or death. Such as the treatment of those who built the Great Wall of China, or how the Sumeri (sp?) treated the peasants. We can go on to Christian examples of badly treating slaves and native Americans, you know, the whole ethnicity thing of thinking one's own kind is somehow more human than others. My point is, as I said some time ago, it does matter. I find the idea that "there is no point", a very repulsive idea.

[______]

Originally posted by @--
Where are you stationed? USAG Hessen? What's the unfriendly part about the environment if I may ask?

I did my civil service in Bingen near the Ramstein US airbase.

How does being a Buddhist and being in the army go together?

Cheers, Thomas
Well, Thomas, I am in Ansbach. The unfriendly environment I am refering to is not the German people. The people are very friendly and understanding. It's my work environment that I refer to.

The people I work around tend to be a little disgruntled at the fact that there's "never anything to do but get drunk and go to the discos". Their hostilites come out when I give them suggestions on things to do other than these destructive habits.

Being Buddhist and in the Army... it's definitly interesting! :lol: It gives me many chances to utilize patience, kindness, compassion, etc. every single day, whereas before the Army, I mainly only cultivated these. In fact, before joining--in a time of war no less--I held firm to causing no things any harm. Then I realized that Christians hold very similar beliefs and still defend their country. So why shouldn't Buddhists?

[Thomas Knierim]

Being Buddhist and in the Army... it's definitly interesting! laugh.gif It gives me many chances to utilize patience, kindness, compassion, etc. every single day, whereas before the Army, I mainly only cultivated these. In fact, before joining--in a time of war no less--I held firm to causing no things any harm. Then I realized that Christians hold very similar beliefs and still defend their country. So why shouldn't Buddhists?

That's interesting. There appears to be a contradiction between the Buddhist principle of non-violence and the ultimate purpose of the military. Of course, you could argue that the military's primary mandate today is peacekeeping.

On the other hand, when I look back on the recent history of US military deployments, I can think of many offensives that seem to be quite removed from the ideal of peacekeeping.

Cheers, Thomas

[______]

Originally posted by @--
...I can think of many offensives that seem to be quite removed from the ideal of peacekeeping.
I agree. The U.S. military has done some good in these offensives, however selfish they may be. For instance, we freed Iraq from Saddam's torturous grip.

But I think the people of America may have forgotten about why we are in middle east in the first place. What about that Bin Ladden guy? Was it not he who organized 9/11? The only reason we even entered Iraq was because we thought that Saddam was supplying WMD's to Bin Ladden.

Perhaps that belonged in another forum (perhaps it's on thread even). :lol:

[MidnightSun]

Yes, ur right, it dont havemuch to do with buddhism :D

[Thomas Knierim]

The U.S. military has done some good in these offensives, however selfish they may be. For instance, we freed Iraq from Saddam's torturous grip.

Yes, this was certainly a good thing. However, when achieving this goal comes at the cost of thousands of lives and billions of dollars which could have been spent in other good ways, I become ruminative.

Anyway, it is good to know there are Buddhists in the US Army. There ought to be more. :lol:

Cheers, Thomas

[namtso]

That's interesting. There appears to be a contradiction between the Buddhist principle of non-violence and the ultimate purpose of the military. Of course, you could argue that the military's primary mandate today is peacekeeping.

On the other hand, when I look back on the recent history of US military deployments, I can think of many offensives that seem to be quite removed from the ideal of peacekeeping.

Mr. Knierim,
I completely understand your position on the function of the U.S. Military but I've never been able to convince myself that the world would be a more friendly place without it. The U.S. Gov. does seem to be very selective about which wars to fight however there are so many factors at play that it becomes a tremendous task to understand U.S. military strategy. Of course oil is one part of it. But it's not really fair to blurt out some blanket statement like "they're not in Iraq because of terrorism, it's because of the oil". The thing to remember is that an industrial nation runs in very large part on it's ability to get oil at a reasonable price. That may sound kind of mercenary or something but the sad fact is that if we did not have oil, the U.S. economy would come to a screeching halt and it would endanger our national security. And now the global economy is so intertwined that if the U.S. economy were to fail it would negatively impact the global economy severely, specially the countries that do a lot of business with the U.S. Is it time for a whole different way of running our national economy? You bet. Should the U.S. Gov. work towards becoming more self sufficient instead of being so reliant on oil from the Middle East? Absolutely. Unfortunately that is not the current reality. If the United States were to fail and be over run by an outside country due to a sudden loss of access to reasonably priced oil, regardless of what country that would be, it would leave a huge power vacuum and I fear that life on earth would get much nastier at least in following 100 or more years. The U.S. also acts as a sort of global police force. It would be easy to argue that the U.S. does not do a great job of it and I'm not really prepared to argue that point. But if the U.S. just all of the sudden put the word out that it would not back up anyone who might be under attack or threatened, like what happened in Kuwait when Iraq invaded, then the world might become a much more dangerous place. I personally think the U.S. can transition to better energy sources where we can become mostly self sufficient in that respect. I often wonder if it's only greed by major oil companies or if there's also some other hidden agenda at play where the U.S. Gov. is also trying to buy up and expend the oil resources from other countries as a means of ultimately weakening those countries. It's also important to consider that when the U.S. is buying up mass quantities of crude oil from a country, that country is going to be more inclined to remain "friendly" with the U.S. at least while they are doing business. That dynamic seems to also have failed to a degree since it seems like terrorist groups are being used sort of as mercenaries to cause problems, even if the terrorist themselves don't realize they are being used for that purpose. Just theories on my part. Here's one thing I do believe completely. I like to distill the idea of a strong military down and just look at a single local city police force. If you live in a city that has very low crime you can probably give thanks to a strong, well run police force that is not corrupt in that city. If that police all of the sudden decided to move out and leave that city to it's own devices, how long do you think it would take for the city to be overrun with crime? Or for it to turn into a war zone with the citizens themselves organizing militias to combat a surge in crime, violence and shameless opportunism run wild? I'm sure you've seen video footage of what happens during riots. The Los Angeles riots during the Rodney King trial was one example. It starts out as a protest and almost immediately turns into a free for all where individuals and groups just start following their own agenda without caring who gets hurt. Buildings start getting burned down, businesses get looted. It happens all the time. That's the worse example of instinctive human nature just playing itself out. Without a strong police force a city just revert back to the "wild west" style of frontier town where the best gunslinger in town calls the shots and rules by the use of fear. Not the kind of place I'd want to live in.

Peace loving human beings have the gift and the freedom to practice peace at the expense of the police force who protects them and defends those rights. And by extrapolation, by a strong military force that will protect an entire country wherein that city resides. It's a sad fact of life. There's bad people on the planet who will take advantage of others if they get a chance. There are also peace loving people on the planet that want to make it possible for all sentient beings to escape suffering and attain happiness and enlightenment. As far as I can tell, we need police and military to coexist with the peace loving citizens in order to create an environment where we can enjoy a degree of peace, continue to work on creating a better world overall, and make any kind of advances whether they be scientific, social, philosophical, spiritual and religious. It's difficult to sit for meditation or tend to a farm plot when you, your family and friends are hiding from a band of gun toting criminal thugs out to steal whatever they can because the local police force is weak, under funded or corrupt. I could be wrong but from perspective and at my age, I don't believe that I am.

Some may openly wonder why I am spending so much time on a Buddhist bulletin board. I can say without hesitation that I would like to see violence stop immediately on this planet. A police officer and a soldier have the same capacity to desire peace as a Buddhist monk. And quite frankly, I have enormous respect for a soldier who practices Buddhism. That's the kind of soldier we need out there. One who would really rather not take another human life. It does not mean to be weak. A person can be very strong, have the ability to use deadly force, but also have enough wisdom to know that deadly force should only be used as a last resort when the alternative would be much worse. As for the ethical decision making of the U.S. Gov. and whether military force is being used for exactly the right reasons or not, I am not prepared to debate. Unfortunately I am ill equipped to fully understand global balance of power and global politics at present. I'm not sure I'll ever understand it completely.

I would of course like to read the opinions of others in regard to this subject, I always welcome new views that can expand my knowledge of global politics, balance of power and relative societal equilibrium.

[Thomas Knierim]

Wow, an unexpectedly detailed statement! I will reply to some freely picked items if you don't mind. Maybe I should also move this into the politics forum...

Namtso: I completely understand your position on the function of the U.S. Military but I've never been able to convince myself that the world would be a more friendly place without it.

I am certain that the world would be a friendlier place not only without the US military, but without any military, or at least with a greatly reduced military. Considering the present global state of national politics, worldwide demilitarisation seems to be out of the question. It's a lofty ideal. But we should remember that the democracy and civil liberty, which we have now in many parts of the world, were a lofty ideal only a few hundred years ago...

Namtso: But it's not really fair to blurt out some blanket statement like "they're not in Iraq because of terrorism, it's because of the oil".

Yes, you are right. Such a statement would grossly oversimplify things, because the US invasion into Iraq has very complex reasons. The salient and simultaneously problematic aspect of it is that it occurred because of national interests. Obviously, the world community cannot tolerate a unilateral offensive of any nation against another for no other reason than self interest.

Namtso: The U.S. also acts as a sort of global police force. It would be easy to argue that the U.S. does not do a great job of it and I'm not really prepared to argue that point.

I think no single nation would be able to do a good "global police" job, since national interests are inevitably in the way. Such a function can only be executed by an international force. The NATO and the UN come to mind as prototypes, albeit not very functional ones. One of the future tasks of mankind is to create such a force.

Namtso: I personally think the U.S. can transition to better energy sources where we can become mostly self sufficient in that respect.

I certainly hope so, but the political will of the US government to embrace environmental controls appears to be weak.

Namtso: If you live in a city that has very low crime you can probably give thanks to a strong and well run police force in that city.

I believe this in an error of thought. Crime statistics have little to do with the strength of the police force. Crime is low in areas where people are wealthy and where there are few social problems. Therefore it always makes more sense to increase the overall well-being of a community than to increase the number of policemen, prisons, and ammunition.

Cheers, Thomas :)

[namtso]

And when you ask what's the point? Nagarjuna says "emptiness." Or in essence, there is no point. - redraven

redraven, at least in Tibetan Buddhism, which is supposedly directly derived from Indian Buddhism, emptiness does not mean "no point". The term "emptiness" is one that is often explained by Tibetan Buddhists including HHDL since it is often misinterpreted. The definition they give for emptiness is that no person, thing or event exists autonomously. In other words nothing has intrinsic existence wholly independent of other causes and conditions. Essentially that all beings, things and events are interrelated. We are alive due to a myriad of causes and conditions. We have access to food, water, shelter, medical attention. We buy our food, clothing, bikes, cars, furniture and homes that were produced, manufactured, assembled, delivered etc. by other people. The basic materials that were used to manufacture all of those things, grow the food etc. all are part of the process. Without just sunlight or water, human beings could not survive. Emptiness in the Tibetan/Indian Buddhist sense means "empty of intrinsic existence". Or everything is dependent on other causes and conditions for it's very existence.

[namtso]

Wow, an unexpectedly detailed statement! I will reply to some freely picked items if you don't mind. Maybe I should also move this into the politics forum...* -* Thomas Knierim

Mr. Knierim,
I will definitely consider your points and do some research and further reading on the subjects. Some great dialogue happening here. As far as moving the post, I don't know. My reason for raising these issues is specifically about the whole idea of non-violence vs. acceptable use of military force. In my personal experience it is one of the most difficult questions as far as following Buddhist principles. A bunch of questions arise. How does one reconcile maintaining a relatively stable nation, inside and out? When is violence necessary and not an action (en masse) born of unethical intentions? Another thing that further clouds the issue quite a bit is the history of the United States of America. How did Europeans get to this continent in the first place and become established? Who did they displace and how when they did? The whole terrible period of the use of slave labor in America. So much violence and what could be deemed as unforgivable behaviour.

What I'm getting at is that a person or groups opinion about the use of police, military and force are linked to that person/group's opinion about the use of violence and force in general. I am not very knowledgeable at all in regard to politics. My views on the military, wars being fought and even the necessity of a strong police force are based on my own generalized view of how a society functions. It's quite possible that I need to take some political science classes or do some of my own self directed reading/learning in order to get a clearer view of world power-politics. I am interested in the ethical use of the military and the long term implications, regardless of what country it is in question. And the question of whether or not it is acceptable to use military force as measured by Buddhist principles and guidelines. I am an American citizen so that's what I'm more familiar with (relatively speaking) and of course keeping in mind that what makes it to my ears and eyes is filtered through American media and the current prevailing opinion of those people I come into contact with. In that regard, I welcome the views of anyone living in other parts of the world. I'd be very much interested in their views and opinions too. But when I discuss these things, military, war, violence, use of force and even an individual's personal freedoms, in this forum I am relating those things to Buddhist principles. History proves that any nation that is less skilled and prepared to wage war, even in defending itself from an outside aggressor, usually falls to the invading nation. A good recent example of that being Tibet. Over 1,000 years ago, before the country adopted Buddhism as the its central guiding ideology and reduced their military to almost nothing, Tibetans were fierce fighters to be feared by all. Then the entire country went mostly non-violent and ended up getting invaded in the 1950s. But my question is still a Buddhist question. I guess the question or issue I'm concerned with is how does a nation like America prevent itself from being invaded or destroyed while at the same time following Buddhist principles? If I as an individual were to join the military and go fight a war, can I still follow Buddhist principles in the larger context? What's ethical use of force and violence? Based on what I've heard in some of the recorded teachings by Prof. Robert Thurman and even in recorded talks by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, violence is not completely ruled out as being an acceptable possible response by Buddhist standards. It is of course the very last resort, but not entirely prohibited. I remember one example the Dalai Lama gave. I have forgotten exactly the way he told it but it was something like this, if a thief breaks into your home and he has a weapon and clearly intends to kill everyone in the house before robbing the place, what do you do? HHDL said that it is acceptable to use violence to disable the thief. He says that it would be best to not harm or kill the thief if that is possible. But if it is not possible in that particular situation, it's not prohibited to use violence against the thief. He went on further to state that the person who used violence to disable the thief would be taking on a certain amount of karma (negative karma?) him/herself but they would be preventing the thief from generating much more negative karma by the act of killing the people in the house. And in Buddhism, the actual intent in the mind of a person is very important. The intent of the person who uses violence against the thief is to prevent as much pain and suffering to all concerned as is possible. That point is the same even if eventual outcome is that the thief was killed if it was the only way to subdue him/her considering the circumstances and what was possible and necessary at the time. So that's the issue of acceptable use of violence/force distilled down to an event with a single family defending itself against a single attacker. The same principle can be applied on a much larger scale to a nation defending itself against an invading group. It naturally get's much more complicated which is why I like to use the small scale examples to examine the ethical question and try to extract that from any more complex political questions. Politics is where my knowledge is severely lacking and it's not the main thing I'm interested at this stage of my life, although I am very aware that I need to become more politically aware so I can more effectively apply my beliefs when I go to vote for political representatives. I sort of instinctively also bring up something like the U.S. invasion of Iraq because it gives a clear and current example of the use of military force on a much larger scale. And I also wanted to make a general statement about how complex something like that can be considering that stable economies also equate to stable societies etc. Not to turn this into a political discussion, merely to make the statement that wars are waged for complex reasons where the intent may be to provide more stability in the long term for the nations involved. Thereby bringing the question right back to the issue of what is acceptable use of force and violence by Buddhist standards and when is it the wisest course of action to eliminate the largest amount of suffering in the long term for all involved, perhaps even for the entire human race.


I believe this in an error of thought. Crime statistics have little to do with the strength of the police force. Crime is low in areas where people are wealthy and where there are few social problems. Therefore it always makes more sense to increase the overall well-being of a community than to increase the number of policemen, prisons, and ammunition.

I definitely see your point. I would still assert that a police force is required but I understand your point very clearly in regard to the size/strength of that police force. When everyone is content they are less likely to victimize each other.

[redraven]

Yes Namtso, (and I'm not mad you're right) in Tibetan Buddhism they do not like Nagarjuna or find his teachings useful. They are Therevedan, and actually, there is one unconditional thing in Thereveda, and that is the teachings of the Buddha. This is not a pure unconditional thing, but it is in some way immutable.

I'm not Thereveda because of Nagarjuna, and you are also right, Thereveda and in particular Tibetan Buddhism is very pure. They only use the Pali canon, the oldest and most authentic scriptures and there practice is very, very close to what Buddha taught. I love Thereveda, and I reverence it's purity, but I am Mahayana. I could make clear the reasons why if you like.

[namtso]

I love Thereveda, and I reverence it's purity, but I am Mahayana. I could make clear the reasons why if you like.

Yes, please do

[______]

I'm not sure what I would say what I fall under.... Perhaps a little of everything? :dunno: