Author Archives: NIKAYA DHAMMA SOCIETY

Buddha Predicted Feminism

The article below is from:  http://www.buddhazero.com/buddha-predicted-feminism/ It is re-blogged here in its entirety.

By the book, feminism sounds like a good cause to promote equality between men and women. But in reality, feminism resulted in more inequality than equality because women and men are never equal in the first place. Even more than two thousand years ago when women were mostly subservient to men, Buddha saw feminism today. He predicted that women will control men when men lose their judgement and self-respect. With the way the society treat men today, this prediction is very true.

Buddha said this from Mahasupina Jataka (The Great Dreams),

This dream too will not have its fulfillment until those future days of which I have already spoken, when the world is declining. At that time men’s passions will be so strong that husbands will be thoroughly infatuated with their childish wives. Men will lose all judgment and self-respect. Being completely smitten, they will place their infantile wives in charge of everything — servants, livestock, granaries, gold and silver, everything in the house. Should the over-fond husband presume to ask for some money, or for a favorite robe, he will be told to mind his own business, and not to be so inquisitive about property in her house. These abusive young wives will exercise their power over their husbands as if the men were slaves.

Let’s break this down and examine the words of the past with the reality of today.

The Dream

This dream too will not have its fulfillment until those future days of which I have already spoken, when the world is declining.

First, let’s understand the context. Buddha mentioned the dream because the king of Kosala asked Buddha about the several bad dreams he had. For this dream, he saw little frogs chasing and eating huge snakes. According to Buddha’s interpretation, the frogs represent women while the snakes represent men. The part “when the world is declining” is important to note. Women have power over men is one of many signs to notice when our world is in decline.

Passion for Women

At that time men’s passions will be so strong that husbands will be thoroughly infatuated with their childish wives.

Men do stupid things for women. But never in our history, men put women on a pedestal so high that it stinks to high heaven. Men lost their self-respect through passion. For example, when a man asks a woman to marriage these days, he gets down on one of his knees and presents the woman a ring that supposedly worth three months of his income. Since women usually marry up on the social ladder, there is really no logical reason for men with higher social status to lower themselves to women with lower status. This gesture is both illogical and humiliating for men.

Instead, women should lower themselves when men ask them to marriage. Men take many risks going into marriage with little to gain. Women should be respectful for the men who still dare (or are stupid enough) to believe in them.

Also, society today does not allow men to have self-respect, especially with anything that involves women. For example, should a woman assault a man physically, the man cannot fight back. If he uses violence to defend himself, regardless of what he says in court, the judge will probably side with the woman. And if the man does not use violence to defend himself, people watching nearby will laugh at him.

The media obviously played a major role in shaping our society this way. Look at this AT&T commercial, for example. It portrays the husband as a financially irresponsible person who lost a good sum of money in Vegas while his wife is at home cooking. Men are bad and women are good, according to our media. But in reality, women are less financially responsible than men, especially when it comes to women’s credit card debt.

No Judgement

Men will lose all judgment and self-respect.

Today, men with good judgement will not marry. Marriage is no longer a prerequisite for living in the same house and having sex. But the ones who are without judgement still do not know of the danger of marriage. Not only these men must kneel to ask for marriage, they must be stupid to accept the financial risks of divorce that could cost them for the rest of their lives, if not their lives. Divorce lawyers and judges are notoriously corrupt to favor women since they have more to gain when men lose. There’s a book about this.

Johnny Depp’s recent divorce with Amber Heard cost him seven million dollars for 15 months of marriage. Heard tried but failed to get $50,000 a month in alimony. Seven million dollar is probably not a lot for Depp, but it shows that even the cunning Captain Jack can be fooled by a woman much younger than him. There is even more troubling news though. A recent report from TMZ suggests that Heard is now spending a lot of time with Elon Musk. It seems that men can have either good judgement or women, but not both.

Women in Charge

Being completely smitten, they will place their infantile wives in charge of everything — servants, livestock, granaries, gold and silver, everything in the house. Should the over-fond husband presume to ask for some money, or for a favorite robe, he will be told to mind his own business, and not to be so inquisitive about property in her house.

Many men usually have expensive hobbies. I see their complaints in online forums all the time about how they must ask their wives for permission to buy new toys. I was not sure at first how that is a problem. In most families, husbands bring in more money than their wives. Reasonably, they should have more control of the money even if the spending is for their own enjoyment.

At home, husbands usually have the least privilege. For example, Dr. Helen Smith, the author of Men on Strike said in an interview,

Men are often relegated to the dirtiest part of the house — the garage, the attic, or the basement. The wife and kids occupy the main living space. Men may say they like it down there, but I have noticed, the minute the wife or kids are gone, they often go back upstairs. We have a decline of male space in our society these days and our houses reflect that.

Submissive Men

These abusive young wives will exercise their power over their husbands as if the men were slaves.

Through passion, women enslaved men. Today, this slavery goes as far as a feminist claiming that husbands who do not allow their wives to cheat are sexists. That’s an extreme case.

The more common case is staying home wives and working husbands. In the past, wives had to actually work at home and raise children. Today, we have appliances for almost all traditional housework and public schools for children. Wives do very little actual work in the house. It’s the husbands who spent all the time working and providing for their family like slaves.

For unmarried women, there are of course the female privileges in the society. For example, they can get guys to fix anything for free. They don’t even have to be young and attractive to claim this privilege. A 47-year-old woman from New York City uses Tinder to find men to work for her for free.

What We Can Do

The sad (or perhaps happy) part of this problem is that no one can really do anything to fix it. In Buddha’s prediction, he said that the world will get much worse from this point. As pessimistic as I may sound, I believe that he is absolutely right.

However, on the individual level, everyone can all learn from this and improve their own lives. Women need to stop being selfish about equality that never exist in the first place. They must accept that men and women can never equal. Some women are greater than some men. But most men are greater than most women. Nobody is equal because no one is exactly the same in every way.

Men must start believing in themselves more. They must never put women on pedestals and become their servants. There are many things in life that bring more happiness than vaginas. The men who obtain their happiness solely from women is bound to be disappointed often. Women’s minds change constantly. Men should diversify their source of happiness so that if one should fail, they have backups to keep them happy.

Conclusion

Men have really lost self-respect and enslaved themselves to women by their own foolish desires for women. This consequently gave women the powers to walk over men without getting punished. When women come into power, this is how society begins to fall apart.

The article above is from:  http://www.buddhazero.com/buddha-predicted-feminism/ It is re-blogged here in its entirety.

We would also like to recommend the article Anuruddha Sutta, Characteristics of an Admirable Wife, by the same author.

Advertisements

On the 500-Year Lifespan of Buddhism

(The article below has been re-blogged here with the author’s permission. The original post is located at: http://thebahiyablog.blogspot.com/2012/09/on-500-year-lifespan-of-buddhism.html

On the 500-Year Lifespan of Buddhism

      There is a very politically incorrect story in the Pali Buddhist texts, in the tenth chapter of the Vinaya Cullavagga, describing how the Buddha’s aunt/stepmother Mahāpajāpati Gotamī approaches the Buddha and asks him for permission to become the first ordained Buddhist nun (bhikkhunī). She asks three times. The Buddha, apparently considering this to be a bad idea, sternly refuses all three times. Mahāpajāpati Gotamī goes away weeping. Later she begins following the Buddha and standing outside his door with dust on her body and tears on her face, grieving because women are not allowed by the Buddha to be ordained as nuns. The Buddha’s cousin and faithful attendant, the venerable Ānanda Gotama, who in the texts is often portrayed as having a tender spot in his heart for women, then remonstrates with the Buddha on Mahāpajāpati Gotamī’s behalf. After being sternly refused like Mahāpajāpati was, he employs persuasive arguments that the Buddha cannot deny, for example that women are just as capable of attaining enlightenment as men are. Finally the Buddha relents, but gives Ānanda a sort of “OK, but now you’ve done it” speech:

     If, Ānanda, women had not gone forth from the home into homelessness in the Way and Discipline made known by the Tathāgata, then the Holy Life would last a long time; the true Way would last for a thousand years. But since, Ānanda, women have gone forth from the home into homelessness in the Way and Discipline made known by the Tathāgata, now, Ānanda, the Holy Life will not last for a long time; now, Ānanda, the true Way will last for only five hundred years.

     The purpose of this article is not to discuss the controversial issue of the recent attempted revival of the Order of Theravada Buddhist nuns. I’ve already written some of my ideas on that subject in a previous blog post (“The New Bhikkhunis,” July 1, 2012). The main purpose of this article is to address the strange prophecy made by the Buddha in the above text, that Buddhism would survive for only 500 years—not 500 years from now, mind you, but 500 years from the time of the Buddha; and if that is the case, then Buddhism should have died out some 2000 years ago. There are a number of possible explanations for this prophecy, and I will consider some of the most obvious ones.
  1. The commentarial explanation. According to the medieval commentaries, which happen to represent the official “party line” of orthodox Theravada Buddhist tradition, when the Buddha said that Saddhamma would survive for five hundred years what he really meant was that Saddhamma would survive for five thousand years. As far as I know, the commentator made no serious attempt to explain why the Buddha would say 500 if he really meant 5000. (This would be a rather misleading way of speaking to the venerable Ānanda, who of course would have no commentary to refer to for cases when the Buddha says X when he really means Y—the commentaries are indispensable for pointing out such cases.) This explanation may seem rather unlikely to Western Buddhists, but it is accepted without question by most Burmese Buddhists, for example, including most Burmese scholar-sayadaws. No doubt the commentator was faced with the dilemma of an old text which could not be doubted saying something which could not be believed, as the commentary was compiled and edited more than 500 years after the time of the Buddha. Theravadin tradition goes further with the legend of the 5000-year reign of the true Dhamma: at the end of this period all the relics of the Buddha enshrined in pagodas, etc., throughout heaven and earth will leave their places and assemble in midair over the site at Bodh Gaya where the Buddha first realized enlightenment, will assume the form of the Buddha, will perform the “twin miracle” of spraying water and fire simultaneously, and will deliver a final sermon—at the end of which the dispensation of Gotama Buddha will be at an end. The dispensation of Gotama Buddha will end with this sermon because no human will be present to hear it and be inspired by it—only gods and goddesses will attend. Thousands of years later another Buddha, Metteyya, will rediscover Dhamma and set the wheel rolling again.
  2. The Buddha didn’t really say it. This explanation would probably be the preferred choice for most skeptical Western Buddhists, and I must admit I prefer it also, although the notion that the scriptures are not 100% authentic and reliable is unthinkable for millions of faithful Asians, plus a fair amount of Western fundamentalists. One plausible theory is that the Order of nuns was not very popular with many of the monks in very ancient times, nor very well established, so the “prophecy” was added at an early Great Council as a moral lesson of some kind. If this theory is correct, then it is interesting that ancient Buddhist monks were so modest about the future popularity of the Buddhist system.
  3. The Buddha did really say it, but was mistaken. This one also is a non-starter for millions of faithful Asians, plus a fairer amount of Westerners than with the previous one. The idea that the Buddha was omniscient at least to the point of knowing anything he wanted to know is accepted by most Buddhists; that he could say what is not true, deliberately or accidentally, is considered an impossibility. However, as I’ve pointed out before, there is evidence in the Pali texts themselves that enlightened beings, and even the Buddha himself, can occasionally be mistaken. And of course there is plenty of evidence from other traditions that great sages can make great errors in their predictions. Probably the most famous is the apparent belief of Jesus of Nazareth that the world would come to an end, or at least Judgement Day would come, very soon, probably within a few decades of his own time. The belief that the End is Near has been assumed as gospel truth by Christians ever since. It does not necessarily imply a logical contradiction for a fully enlightened being to say something that isn’t empirically true; it may be that full enlightenment involves an awareness of Ultimate Truth that is not entirely relevant to the conventionally true mass delusion of Samsara. (See my post “Buddhism Meets Skepticism, July 28, 2012, for a slightly more detailed discussion of these points.) Even so, it does strike me as rather unlikely that the Buddha would predict that the existence of nuns would shorten the lifespan of Buddhism to only 500 years. It just doesn’t sound convincing for some reason.
  4. The Buddha did really say it, and was right. This strikes me as the most intriguing of the possible explanations—that the true Way, the Saddhamma, really did last only 500 years, and that what we’ve been calling Buddhism ever since has been some kind of cheap imitation. The Theravadins might derive some grim satisfaction from the idea that Mahayana arose about 500 years after the time of the Buddha, but still it would seem that virtually all Buddhists would prefer to believe that they themselves are following the “real deal” and not some pale shadow of the truth. (Incidentally, at least one Mahayana tradition has its own interpretation of the case—that there would be five 500-year periods of Buddhism: the first period being a time of genuine, pure Dharma; the second being a time of lesser purity but still strong practice; the third mainly being strong in Buddhist scholarship; the fourth degenerating into more superficial levels of practice and learning, and the fifth being characterized mainly by debate and dissension. If this is the case then we are at or very near the end of the last period.) Even if this fourth explanation were true, that real Buddhism no longer exists, it would not necessarily mean that people calling themselves Buddhists could not become liberated at all, as Buddhism does not necessarily have a monopoly on liberation. It would just mean that they were not attaining this in the way that Gotama Buddha advised. Interestingly, a plausible variation on this theme has been stated by the not particularly Buddhist spiritual teacher Paul Lowe: according to him (and I do not know how he arrived at this idea), for 500 years after the time of the Buddha there was an unbroken lineage of enlightened teachers and disciples; that is, there was always at least one teacher with at least one enlightened disciple, with this lineage continuing all the way back to the Buddha himself. After 500 years the lineage was broken, although since then there have been other enlightened lineages arising and passing away. Possibly the amazing profusion of great Zen masters in medieval China would represent such a later resurgence of liberating wisdom. I could only begin to guess at what lineages, if any, are going strong nowadays. Among the Tibetans maybe? Perhaps some obscure Theravadin forest tradition?
     This issue of the strange prophecy leads to the interesting either/or dichotomy of Eastern and Western Theravada Buddhism: the Eastern Buddhists being psychologically compelled to accept it all, and the Western Buddhists casually dismissing any parts they don’t want to believe. Another rather bizarre example of the former extreme is a case I came upon in Burma. There was a great and brilliant scholar-monk named Mingun Tipiakadhara Sayadaw, who I was told was in the Guinness Book of World Records for his prodigious memory: he had memorized by heart the entire 40-volume edition of the Pali Tipiaka, plus several other works like commentaries and Pali grammars. He knew the Pali texts inside and out, and had received a long list of ecclesiastical titles for his scholarship. So he well knew that, according to these texts, the Buddha was tall, but not phenomenally so; people would often meet the Buddha and mistake him for an ordinary monk, for example. But, the commentarial tradition asserts that Gotama Buddha was 4 1/2 times the height of an ordinary person, i.e. approximately 25 feet (8 meters) tall. Being exceedingly devout, the venerable sayadaw was not able to doubt even the commentarial tradition; consequently, also being brilliant, he came up with the following way of reconciling the data: According to him, people were more honest and virtuous in the Buddha’s time than they are nowadays. Because of this, the gods loved humanity more. Thus the gods in charge of influencing the weather caused the rain and sun to occur more seasonably, yielding greater benefit to the crops in farmers’ fields. The more greatly benefited crops were more nutritious…the result being that in the Buddha’s time everybody was much larger than they are today, averaging somewhere around 20 feet in height.
     At the other extreme, many Buddhists of the West reject not only talking animal stories, the theory of a flat earth floating on water, etc., but even such fundamental principles of Dhamma as the value of seeking out and examining unpleasantness, No Self, or karma conditioning our reality. Dhamma can thereby become something completely integrated into worldly, materialistic Western culture. The result can be not only a pale shadow of Dhamma, but a pale shadow of a dismembered fragment of it.
     Consequently, some Middle Way between unquestioning dogmatism and casual rejection of the parts we don’t like may be in order—the consideration of Dhamma not in terms of acceptance or rejection, belief or disbelief, but in terms of “I don’t know. I’ll consider it.” So long as we adjust the box to fit Buddhism, as Easterners tend to do, or adjust Buddhism to fit the box, as Westerners tend to do, we are still stuck in the box of our own limitations, our own limited beliefs. The point is to get out of the box; and outside of the box is “I don’t know.” By accepting this universal “I don’t know” we attain what the ancient philosophers called ataraxia, the peace of mind which comes from suspension of judgement. I think in Christianity it’s called “the peace that passeth all understanding.” But we can still use the box to keep our junk in.
(Of the possible explanations that the author noted above, I have to accept the most controversial one, option 4, the “True Way” was lost, at least substantially – mostly. This is especially true now, in light of “Western” fake liberal “Buddhism.” That does not mean that Buddhism is not true, or that we can never understand it, but it does mean we will likely never understand it in its entirety, at least in this present life. There is still much beautiful wisdom which has survived, however, which we must pursue. By studying the Pali texts, and endeavoring to practice Nikaya based Dhamma and meditation, we gradually rediscover it. – Editor Nikaya Dhamma Society.)

How Could a Free-Thinking Buddhist Monk Vote for Donald Trump?

(Donald Trump has already been elected President of the United States, however, we discovered the following article recently. It is by an American monk living in Myanmar. We were pleased to find other Theravadin Buddhists who also supported Donald Trump’s candidacy! This post has been re-blogged with the author’s permisison.)

The original post may be found here:

http://thebahiyablog.blogspot.com/2016/05/how-could-free-thinking-buddhist-monk.html

How Could a Free-Thinking Buddhist Monk Vote for Donald Trump?

The whole history of the world is summed up in the fact that, when nations are strong, they are not always just, and when they wish to be just, they are no longer strong.” —Winston Churchill
     Yeah, yeah, I know. This isn’t Dharma, and if it’s philosophy, it’s of a very crude and shallow sort. It is, however, still challenging established views, and possibly even favoring an outwardly better world. Don’t worry: It will be all over soon. Nothing lasts. Everything is impermanent. So there—some Dharma, right off the bat.
     I’ve mentioned elsewhere that I lost most of my interest in politics, most of what little there was to begin with, after realizing that what is good and right from an ethical point of view is not necessarily good and right from a political point of view. If we assume that the primary purpose of government is to ensure the prosperity and well-being of the people it governs, then sometimes favoring one’s own people and being unfair or uncharitable toward others is the sound, valid choice from a political perspective.
     The classic, most obvious example is war. From the perspective of ethics, particularly Buddhist ethics, war is mass murder, period. War is always a bad thing. It is morally superior to die than deliberately to kill. But if the purpose of a government is to protect its own people, then war may be an absolute political necessity. The position of the Allies during the Second World War is a case in point. If we didn’t fight against the Axis Powers, then our country, and the world at large, might be devoid of Jews, blacks, and other “inferior subhumans” right now, with furthermore no constitutional rights for anyone.
     Also, if we consider the history of classical Rome, we see that the political policies of Rome with regard to its own citizens were, relatively speaking, extraordinarily fair, especially at first before tyrannical Caesars took control, although quite ruthless toward outsiders, especially towards perceived rivals and enemies. Rome mercilessly conquered much of the Western world, sometimes perpetrating atrocities like the Third Punic War, yet at the same time introduced to the West what were extremely advanced, liberal, effective systems of law, governance, education, etc.. The UK and the USA also became great powers, for good and for otherwise, as a result of such ruthless actions as the UK’s Opium Wars and the USA’s war on Mexico in 1848, in which we essentially beat up the Mexicans, invaded their country and capital city, and stole from them Texas, California, and everything in between. Although the UK eventually returned Hong Kong to China, few Americans suggest that we should give Texas, California, etc. back to Mexico. Although the Mexican population of the Southwest USA is apparently increasing, which I guess is only fair.
     So I have reconciled myself philosophically to the idea that politics is to some degree its own sphere, and, like nature itself, is necessarily to some degree amoral. The first priority of a government should be the prosperity and well-being of its own people, with other considerations, like the well-being of everyone else, being still good and valid, but not to the extent that the nation itself is significantly harmed by it. I say all this by way of introduction, although it may not be in reality a major consideration in what follows.
     Perhaps I should say here that it looks like I won’t vote Donald Trump for president. I won’t vote for Hillary Clinton either. It looks like I won’t vote for anyone, unless by absentee ballot, largely because I will probably be living in rural Burma next November. But if I were in America at that time, and if I did vote, and if Donald Trump were running for president as a Republican or Independent or whatever, I would very probably vote for him as America’s only really viable option. If Trump weren’t running, then if I did vote it would be to throw my vote away on whomever is the Libertarian candidate. So I do favor Donald Trump (even if he wouldn’t favor the likes of me), and endorse him to some degree, although it is mainly due to a lack of anyone better.
     I have never voted for a Republican president. I consider Ted Cruz, Trump’s only remaining rival within the Republican party, to be at least as bad a choice as Hillary Clinton. (Ha, since writing that I learned that Cruz has dropped out. All academic now.) The Republicans have tended to favor militarism, Bible-thumping, tax breaks for the rich, and gratuitous, excessive Machiavellianism way too much for me ever to have endorsed them. As a young man I once resolved that if Ronald Reagan’s face ever appeared on money I would emigrate to Australia. But one reason why I like Trump is because the Republican Party itself hates and fears him. I’ll soon get back to that point.
     I really don’t care very much if Trump builds a wall to keep Mexicans out or prevents Muslims from immigrating to America. I suppose the USA has the right to guard its borders and filter who comes in. (I would like it if he promised Edward Snowden a fair trial if he returns to the USA, though.) I don’t care all that much if he is a racist or a sexist, or even if personally he is a colossal jerk. I do not, however, consider him to be evil, or “literally Adolf Hitler,” and I consider it extremely unlikely that if he were elected he would overthrow the US Constitution and have himself declared Dictator for Life, as some lefties seem to expect of him. His actual policies are almost irrelevant—which may seem ridiculous or bizarre to some Americans who see the upcoming presidential election as the climax of a kind of Western ethical crisis. As mentioned above, ethics are not the primary point at issue; and professional politicians exploit ethics in a Machiavellian manner anyhow, further demonstrating the ultimate pragmatic amorality of successful politics.
So following are the main reasons why I (provisionally, for the time being) endorse Donald Trump for US President. Even if you despise the man, at least you may see that not only stupid hicks and neo-Nazis can favor him. Consider this an anthropological study, or a case of pragmatism taking precedence over moral ideology.
     >Trump is filthy rich, in addition to having cojones and being a political outsider, and consequently he kisses the ass of nobody. Most politicians in the current American political scene are stuck in a morbid system in which their Party and their financial backers get strings attached and thereby limit the powers of whomever they buy. Obama, for example, after starting as some idealist Great Hope (and I voted for him too), apparently has degenerated into a politically correct puppet. So Trump is relatively independent of this screwed up political system which hampers the effectiveness of its executive officers. The main reason why the Republican Party itself hates and fears Trump is mainly that he won’t kiss their collective behind. Nobody can control him the way a professional politician can be controlled; and an obedient puppet is hardly likely to accomplish anything “great,” or even really significant, unless it is significantly for the worse.
     >He is the stereotypical “alpha male” who has the force of character to go against the current of the political status quo (like an ever-increasing national debt, let alone corrupt politics) and to make significant changes for the better. It has been human nature for a million years for the majority to support a strong, dominant leader, especially in times of crisis, which we arguably are in nowadays. Few who are familiar with the old Star Trek TV show would argue that Captain James Tiberius Kirk was the right man for the job of commander. And one of the most outstanding qualities of Captain Kirk was an unusually high magnitude and quality of cojones. And Trump, much more than Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, has this qualification.
     >He is a skilled businessman, and since the USA is in an economic mess, it is more likely that he would be able to turn the mess around. What America needs is a skillful chief executive who can drive a shrewd bargain when negotiating treaties and trade agreements, which is something that the US has done badly over the past few decades.
     >With regard to his foreign policy he may be farther to the political left than his main rival Hillary Clinton. One of Trump’s policies in particular that I can’t help but like is that he is willing to be on friendlier terms with Russia, whereas Clinton seems intent upon continuing the Cold War. (I happen to like the Russian people, and think our two countries have been enemies for far too long. I agree that we should extend a hand of friendship and be allies if at all possible. The same probably goes for China too, although Russia is more interesting to me, and probably has more common ground with us Americans.) But part of the problem is that the American political machine, as part of its status quo, has been interfering in international politics in a partly successful attempt to get as many countries as possible under US influence, in order to dominate world politics in a kind of Pax Americana; and of course some other countries like Russia and China don’t like this. Better a more or less cooperative community of independent nations with the USA being one of the big guns than a kind of crypto-Empire with America calling the shots—especially if the latter is prohibitively expensive for America. The Obama administration, partly, I assume, due to Obama’s inability or unwillingness to go against the political current (unlike a strong president like JFK), has largely continued with the second Bush administration’s interference in West Asian and North African politics (let alone electronic surveillance of the American people in the name of national security), with calamitous results. A little more of minding our own business could make us more respected and popular in the world, as well as saving money. 
     >Again, although he’s technically a Republican, the Republican party’s elite hates and fears him, and I am no Republican; and I consider the far right to be just as foolish as the far left, although nowadays in America they are less of a danger to freedom and individual rights.
     >Also again, Trump is not a professional politician, and for that reason he is more in a position to think “outside the box,” providing fresh solutions to problems that the professionals, obviously, have been unable to solve. He is, however, a veteran executive officer, and an extremely successful one. It may be that treating American economics as a business problem may be much more effective than relying on professional politicians trying to please their voters and string-holders.
     >But one of the most important reasons why I (provisionally) endorse Mr. Trump is that he is not politically correct, and I consider PC to be a dangerous cancer on American society. It is a kind of mandatory hypocrisy, institutionalized dishonesty, in which a person dares not say what he or she really feels for fear of persecution. Furthermore, although many do not realize this, political correctness hysteria is based upon a newish progressive liberal ideology, suffused with so-called Social Justice, Marxism, and third wave feminism, that is rife with pseudoscience, sloppy thinking, and just plain falsehood. Consider, for example, the “progressive” axiom that both genders and all races are naturally exactly the same, with any apparent differences being oppressive cultural constructs. To question this at all, even with scientific evidence, is howled down with shouts of “Racist!” and “Hate speech!” But the idea that the different genders and races naturally have different strengths and weaknesses, and thereby different ways in which they best contribute to society (speaking generally, admitting individual differences), has objective, empirical support; so if that is “sexism” or “racism,” then to that extent sexism and racism are true and valid. Yet I think almost all of those who endorse such “hate speech” would agree that everyone is equally human, and equally entitled to equal human rights, respect, and opportunity. So, we Americans are in the midst of a kind of culture war, and I consider Trump to be more on the side of empiricism, reason, and common sense, and more against a philosophically flimsy neo-liberal ideology.
     Consider the following long quote, which is actually from a vehemently anti-Trump article on the website nymag.com: 

For the white working class, having had their morals roundly mocked, their religion deemed primitive, and their economic prospects decimated, now find their very gender and race, indeed the very way they talk about reality, described as a kind of problem for the nation to overcome. This is just one aspect of what Trump has masterfully signaled as “political correctness” run amok, or what might be better described as the newly rigid progressive passion for racial and sexual equality of outcome, rather than the liberal aspiration to mere equality of opportunity.

Much of the newly energized left has come to see the white working class not as allies but primarily as bigots, misogynists, racists, and homophobes, thereby condemning those often at the near-bottom rung of the economy to the bottom rung of the culture as well. A struggling white man in the heartland is now told to “check his privilege” by students at Ivy League colleges. Even if you agree that the privilege exists, it’s hard not to empathize with the object of this disdain. These working-class communities, already alienated, hear — how can they not? — the glib and easy dismissals of “white straight men” as the ultimate source of all our woes. They smell the condescension and the broad generalizations about them — all of which would be repellent if directed at racial minorities — and see themselves, in Hoffer’s words, “disinherited and injured by an unjust order of things.”

And so they wait, and they steam, and they lash out.

The end of the first paragraph is indicative of what I just touched upon—a specious pseudoscientific ideology being forced upon the American people. The way it works is this: The ideology insists, based upon its own wishful thinking rather than upon empirical evidence, that both biological genders and all races are the same in every way, except for unfortunately undeniable, obvious physical differences. Consequently, ergo, if there is not exact sameness in career choices and material success, then there must be, ex hypothesi, oppression and a lack of equal opportunity. So things that men, and especially white men, do better than others on average, are seen as evidence or even proof of patriarchal oppression. Men come to be discriminated against in order to handicap them sufficiently that everyone else does everything as successfully as they do. Which of course weakens the country, but America is seen by the far left as a malignant force to be taken down anyhow. And many, many Americans are becoming thoroughly fed up with this, and are turning to Donald Trump as their champion. And they are not all ignorant hicks, and they are not all white racists and misogynists, and they are not all from the conservative right.
     Most professional politicians in America, especially those tending toward the left, are effectively crippled, or at least hobbled, by PC hysteria. I have no doubt that President Obama is basically a good man, and he’s obviously an intelligent one; but from being the idealist Great Hope he has declined into a political correctness puppet who is continually making a public fool of himself in order not to offend anybody. A relatively recent example of this occurred when a 14-year-old boy, a smartass kid who happened to be a Muslim, perpetrated a bomb hoax at his school. He took the insides out of an electric alarm clock and put them into a kind of suitcase, along with some other wires and stuff, so that it looked very much like a bomb. (He claimed to have “built a clock,” although simply taking the insides out of a case and putting them into a different case could hardly be called building a clock.) He then took this “clock” to school, where a teacher advised him not to carry it around from class to class, as people might get the wrong idea. The kid deliberately disregarded this advice, and not only carried it around, but provocatively was plugging the strange object into electrical outlets in a classroom and setting the alarm to go off in class. A teacher got worried and informed the principal, and the principal, out of concern for the school’s security, informed the police, and the police came to investigate and detained the bomb hoaxer—since, after all, the kid really had committed a crime, like mischievously bringing a fake bomb into an airport. Immediately the liberal media declared the school’s reaction to be politically incorrect Islamophobia, which caused a deluge of obsequious fawning on the 14-year-old provocateur. (His elder sister allegedly had already been temporarily expelled from school for a previous bomb threat.) The climax came when President Obama himself weakly and foolishly contacted the kid, praised his cool “clock,” and invited him to the White House for a friendly visit. That is political correctness hysteria at the highest level, and a case that made Obama look like a fool around the world, kissing the backside of a teenage Islamic bomb hoaxer. Trump is unlikely to play such games.
     So one of the biggest reasons why I readily accept the idea of Trump being president is that I despise PC culture as a disgraceful retreat into regressive, mandatory groupthink and, if it consolidates its power, into eventual inquisitions, witch hunts, and rampant persecution of any who stand in its way. And at present, Trump is America’s greatest hope for an effective counter response.
     Before abandoning, for the time, the topic of “mandatory groupthink,” I will point out that if a cultural ideology were uplifting, strengthening, mostly true, and relatively “enlightened,” then I might be able to endorse its encouragement in a society, for the good of that society. But the ideology fueling PC is, as I’ve already mentioned, philosophically feeble, being based not upon empirical evidence or logic so much as on Gender Studies pseudoscience and sloppy, wishful thinking. Also it promotes intolerance, mass hysteria, and civil strife. At any rate I have little choice but to favor the political right in this case, otherwise before long I may be persecuted in America for being a Buddhist monk, thereby defying PC by appropriating Asian culture. (I wish this were a joke) Ironically, the political right in America has become the defender of classical liberal values abandoned by the left. It has also become, very interestingly, a haven for a new breed of counterculture, a new movement of intellectual rebels thirsting for freedom from a repressive system.
     This whole situation is not so divorced from genuine Dharma as many people might think. Freedom, as well as Truth, could be called my religion; a synonym for Nirvana is “Liberation”; and at present freedom of thought and expression is under attack not so much by fundamentalist Christians on the right as by fundamentalist regressives on the left, a.k.a. Cultural Marxists, a.k.a. social justice warriors. For those of you who are doubtful of what is going on in this regard, you might find interesting the linked video of a discussion of political correctness on the campus of the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, with ultraliberals literally screaming in hysteria in an attempt to shut the whole discussion down. This is going on all over the country, not just at UMass Amherst. It’s going on at Trump rallies also, with most of the hatred, hostility, and howling hysteria coming from anti-Trump protesters on the political far left, as far as I have seen.
     >I may as well add that to some degree my preference of D. Trump to H. Clinton is simply a matter of personal taste. I would prefer a Putin to a Merkel as the strong, fearless leader of my country, and not only for pragmatic reasons. Putin comes closer to Captain Kirk also. In the war on testicles being waged in the West, with Western Europe and Canada already having succumbed, and Hillary C. the leader of the American Anti-Testicles Party, I have little choice but to vote in favor of cojones.
     All in all, I do not consider any of the candidates for US President to be anywhere near the position of Best Possible Person for the Job. And although Trump is clearly a huge gamble, since nobody really knows how good or bad of a president he would be, only he has even the potential to accomplish anything really “great.” Hillary Clinton’s election would be a practical guarantee of more of the same stuff, a continuation of a status quo leading to greater national debt, continued corruption and hypocrisy in politics, and more dangerous and harmful PC hysteria. Only Trump has any chance at all of correcting this, and I am willing to take that risk for the sake of my beloved country of origin. (That is one symptom of having cojones: a willingness to take risks.) I love America.
     Putting the situation extremely simply, Mr. Trump is the only candidate with the strength and the independence to swim against the current of a pathologically corrupt political system. President Obama may have had that strength at first, but before long he was swept along by the current of events and the momentum of the established political machine. And Hillary Clinton apparently has zero intention of swimming against the current; she is the representative of the establishment, she is its personification, its marionette, with plenty of strings attached to keep her in line.
     Recently it occurred to me that the SJWs, if they existed in the 1930s, would certainly, certainly be on the side of the appeasers for Hitler—you know, ideological supporters of Neville Chamberlain with his idea that if we just give Hitler what he wants, he’ll calm down and become a nice person. They’d spit on “war mongers” like Winston Churchill for insisting from the beginning that Hitler must be resisted. They’d hysterically scream and rave in favor of appeasing Hitler, hating the guts of politically incorrect, “hate speech”-spewing resisters. I betcha they’d be exactly like that. They’re already like that with regard to appeasing radical Islamists. As I said at the beginning of this discussion, or propaganda tract, or whatever it is, cold, hard facts must take precedence over virtuous ideology in the realm of politics if a political entity is to survive and prosper. But really, I do not see the Clinton Democrats as really holding the moral high ground. Trump appears to have non-hypocrisy more on his side at any rate. Plus he probably is not in favor of men dressed like women hanging around in women’s public restrooms.
     Getting back to Winston Churchill, just recently I heard a reference to a message that Franklin Roosevelt sent to Churchill just a day before he (Roosevelt) died. I have been unable to locate the exact quote, so I paraphrase it from memory. There was some kind of crisis afoot (remember, this was during WWII), and the dying Roosevelt advised Churchill not to take it too seriously, as crises are continually cropping up in this world, and most of them have a way of working themselves out. That’s a useful thing to bear in mind, I think. We often appear to be racing toward a cliff or brick wall, so it’s easy to prophesy doom; but we humans do have some common sense, and we usually make adjustments sufficient to avert disaster, usually. So fear mongering over the current rise of an ugly political far left and a resultant culture war in the USA, or over a Trump presidential administration, is probably unnecessary, although it can make interesting reading, and it can give some perspective on an alternative point of view.
     Those of you who are not Americans (and my blog stats indicate that about half of you are not), may see American cultural upheavals as typical of American silliness and foolishness. For the most part you are correct; although this same silliness is largely the product of freedom of thought, one of the most sacred ideals of the United States, no matter how much that ideal is sometimes trampled. This same freedom that allows howling hysteria over trivial quasi-issues also allows for genius, for genius most readily arises from chaos.
NOTE: In order to forestall political bickering back and forth, ad nauseam, I do not intend to publish comments to this post. Deal with it.

In Defense of Donald Trump

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2015/12/donald-trumps-tremendous-adventure-in-buddhist-hell/

This post is a response to the above article in Elephant Journal By D. Patrick Miller titled “Donald Trump’s Tremendous Adventure In Buddhist Hell”

Real Buddhists who are also patriotic Americans love Donald Trump and recognize that his policies are immensely good for America and the world. To accuse Donald Trump of racism is nothing short of outrageous libel! Donald Trump is supported by many Americans of different ethnic backgrounds and religions because they recognize that his policies are sound and good. I know of multiple African-Americans of prominence who have publicly and proudly endorsed Donald Trump.

The simplistic and nonsensical insinuation of the author seems to be that merely opposing illegal immigration makes one a racist. It does not. Illegal immigrants broke the law, they are criminals. Illegal aliens from Mexico also commit murder and rape at higher rates than Americans. That’s not racism, that’s a fact! You can pretend that fact does not exist, but you cannot make it go away! Solutions to problems remain especially elusive when many ignorant people refuse to recognize those problems exist.

Opposing the immigration of Muslims to the US likewise does not make one a racist or a bigot of any kind. Opposing such immigration is an immensely sensibly and morally urgent position. Need I remind the author of formerly Buddhist nations which were conquered by Muslims? For the record, at least one Muslim imam agreed with Trump’s remarks about curtailing Muslim immigration! He recognized that it does pose a danger to the US, as some percentage of radical Muslims are terrorists or sympathize with terrorists. In Muslim-Sharia nations Buddhists are not free to practice their religion.

According to the Center for Security Policy, in June 2015, 38% of Muslim-Americans said that the Islamic State’s beliefs are “Islamic” or “correct.” Let’s make this clear, a significant number of Muslims in the US would like to require American women to wear a burqa by law. They believe that a man should not be be convicted of rape unless there are four male witnesses (how often does that happen?), that homosexuals should be killed, and that it is morally acceptable to enslave and rape “infidel” females, including children. This author is a wilfully blind, naive and liberal ignoramus. Trump’s policies would protect America, liberal open border policies toward radical Muslims will destroy it!

Mr. Miller you sully and degrade Buddhism when you dare to speak of it. You should refrain from speaking until you educate yourself! This hit piece on Donald Trump is un-American drivel. This is liberal pablum. Please don’t sully Buddhism by trying to associate your liberal views with our noble religion! Buddhism and modern liberalism / pseudo-progressivism are diametrically opposed! There are none so blind as those who refuse to open their eyes! You are and I am sure will remain, willfully ignorant.

The Nikaya Dhamma Society has endorsed Donald Trump for President!

https://nikayadhamma.wordpress.com/2016/01/23/buddhists-endorse-donald-trump-for-president-of-the-united-states-2/

Copyright © 2016 Nikaya Dhamma Society All Rights Reserved.

 

 

Buddhists Endorse Donald Trump For President Of The United States Of America!

The Nikaya Dhamma Society was founded to preserve and expound historical and orthodox Buddhism. While we do not normally endorse presidential candidates or involve ourselves in the political process, in this case we are compelled to make an exception. Donald Trump stands out alone among all the candidates for president of the United States as the one man speaking up against illegal immigration and the threat of radical Islam. He is the only candidate not afraid to take on political correctness and to offer the American people straight talk, repudiating dishonest political correctness. With great pleasure, we endorse Donald Trump for President of the United States.

Radical Islam continues to menace Buddhist Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand as well as Europe. Radical Islam does not seek understanding, dialogue or tolerance with other religions or cultures, it seeks only conquest. We can ignore this truth at our peril, or we can acknowledge it and respond accordingly. In the past Islam conquered several formerly Buddhist nations. Islam conquered Buddhist Indonesia, and Buddhist women and children were enslaved and raped by terrorist Muslim savages. Real Buddhists have never forgotten that fact, nor can we forgive these atrocious crimes.

Those in the conquered lands who were not murdered outright by Muslims were given the choice of conversion or death. Many Buddhist martyrs died rather than renounce Buddhism, while others hoped to preserve their lives by taking leave of their conscience and personal honor to join those who murdered their families and came to enslave their land. Radical Islam is not a religion, but a dangerous political ideology that seeks conquest, material gain, and the enslavement of others. It is at its core a hedonist ideology motivated by a lust for power, wealth, material goods, and sexual immorality.

Like Communism, radical Islam divides the world into two territories, those under its rule, and those lands which are not yet conquered. The end goal is the total enslavement of the world. For this reason, we must be ever vigilant against the threat that it represents to our freedom. We cannot compromise with it, and we cannot afford to ignore it. We must respond to this threat with absolute force, strength of will, and stalwart determination. If we fail to do so, we will be destroyed, our children will be taken from us, to be raped and enslaved, and human civilization on this planet will be destroyed forever. If our enemy wins, a fate far worse than death awaits us. Radical Islam must be destroyed from this planet. It is a cancer that must be cut off from humanity with a scalpel.

There are those in America who profess the ideology of “Western” Buddhism, and teach a “Buddhism” separated from its historic moral positions. Real Buddhism, regardless of the school, has always regarded abortion as murder. It is the taking of innocent human life. This is a matter of scientific fact and not an opinion. Historic Buddhism has upheld sexual morality, and opposed homosexuality. Historic Buddhism does not tolerate that which is contrary to nature, unhealthy, and destructive toward society. Contrary to the misunderstanding of many in the west, even many of those who claim to be “Buddhist,” historic Buddhism upholds the justness of the death penalty and it always has. The second amendment to the US Constitution is fully in line with Buddhist teachings.

Some attack and revile Donald Trump because of his great success as a businessman. He is a very wealthy and successful man. Many deride him for this, perhaps out of jealousy. Yet, imagine what good Kamma (Karma) Mr. Trump must have accumulated in order to enjoy such success? Indeed, Mr. Trump has a long history of supporting charitable causes and the less fortunate. Mr. Trump also has shown himself willing to defend his country, even when it is contrary to his business and financial interests. The Buddha himself was born a wealthy prince, would liberals be prejudiced against him too? Sometimes people criticize Mr. Trump for using harsh language toward others. Yet, as the late Barry Goldwater observed “Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” The Buddha did not use sugar coated PC language when speaking of crooked and dishonest criminals.

We must recognize that the entire western world, and even the entire civilized world, is now at war with radical Islam. This is not a war we asked for, but it is here, and we must win it. Closing our eyes, smiling, and offering to embrace our enemy is worse than foolish, it is deadly insanity. Radical Islam, in the form of ISIS is a dangerous and totalitarian political ideology. America requires a strong president who is able to face this threat with stoic courage and determination! Western civilization cannot survive if its leaders are weak willed wimps. Europe too requires new leadership, and we welcome the rise of nationalist parties there, willing to demand a halt to Muslim immigration.

Countless jobs have left the US and have been outsourced to exploit slave labor conditions in Communist China, harming American workers, and enabling the continued exploitation of Chinese people by their oppressive and inhumane government. Communism has also ravaged Buddhist lands. Buddhist monks have been murdered, nuns have been raped, and Buddhist monasteries and statues destroyed by fanatical Communist criminal thugs.

Communism is evil, and we need a strong leader who is not afraid to criticize it and stand up to it. Too many American presidents have been lap dogs for the Communists.
As Buddhists in America, we are Americans. It is our duty to help to make America a better, stronger, and safer nation. Espousing liberal pablum like “guns are bad” and “the death penalty is wrong” or calling for amnesty for illegal aliens does not help America. Fake liberal “Buddhists” do that, real ones do not, and we condemn their lies! We would be honored if Mr. Trump would send us an autographed picture, to hang in a place of prominence at our Center. Donald Trump’s courage and forthright honesty has inspired Americans to speak their minds, and stand up against the threats faced by our nation.

For the first time in my life time, I am seeing a presidential candidate who isn’t afraid to take on the liberal media and call them out on their lies, and they lie all the time! The media is now bewildered, confused and afraid. They often break down and have tantrums on the air, unable to deal with the fact that someone finally is defending himself against them effectively, and their usual lies are not sticking. Donald Trump knows how to handle the media and he’s giving them a run for their money. Donald Trump will make America great again! Donald Trump will be an American Caesar!

Orthodox Buddhism based on the ancient Pali Nikayas has five precepts.

1. Abstain from killing
2. Abstain from taking what is not given.
3. Abstain from sexual misconduct
4. Abstain from false speech
5. Abstain from intoxicants

How does Donald Trump line up with real Buddhist values? Donald Trump will prevent more American deaths from terrorist attacks by radical Muslims as well as murders by illegal aliens. Donald Trump is pro-life and will end funding for planned parenthood which kills innocent babies in the womb. Donald Trump will stop the massive theft of our liberties by the US government, the worst kind of theft. Donald Trump’s election and the defeat of the liberal Democrats will be a great defeat for the forces of immorality. Bill Clinton was a philanderer, a sexual deviant, and has been accused of sexual harassment and even rape. Donald Trump loves his family and his children and grandchildren – and his country! Donald Trump gives us straight talk, without politically correct lies. Donald Trump never drinks or uses any illegal drugs!

Liberals and democrats who profess to believe in Buddhism, but who in reality believe in a false heretical western counterfeit Buddhism and who support Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, do not know what real Buddhism is and consequently they should refrain from expressing their erroneous views. They are fools and ignoramuses who know nothing about early Buddhism, its teachings, or texts. They are hedonistic and murderous degenerates with no morals or values. To use some Trumpian straight talk they are pathetic losers and trash and they should all shut up! Liberal frauds, put down your cannabis joints and pick up Buddhist texts! Educate yourselves and stop mindlessly parroting media lies.

Real American Buddhists who love their country endorse Donald Trump! Counterfeit fake “Buddhists” hate Trump because they are a bunch of entitled, whiney, hippy pansies who want other people’s money, who hate the successful, who delight in victim politics and who are blind to the real threats this nation faces. They are adult children who never grew up and who refuse to take responsibility for their lives and formulate a serious worldview based on reality. They will vote for liberal Democrats like a dog returning to his own vomit. Liberal fake “Buddhists” are contemptible vermin! Real Buddhists delight in Donald Trump’s candidacy. Let us pray for Donald Trump daily and for his continued success. May our country prove worthy of such a fine man and leader! Let’s make America great again!

– Nikaya Dhamma Society

Copyright © 2016 Nikaya Dhamma Society All Rights Reserved.