Thomas Jefferson Quote

I do take to heart the "Do not believe anything simply because..." quote -- that is in fact my very premise. Buddha follows with "But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." This is what I call a matter of conscience -- the process of reasoning good and evil -- that is dharma -- karma is what you do with it and what happens next because of it. (I think it is funny that you include this quote and then quote Buddha several more times to make your point... ;-)

When one tries to squeeze what is essentially a philosophy of individual detachment and renunciation into practice for a group or a society, you essentially get a monastery of renunciates meditating peacefully, working 'selflessly' together as an 'order,' until they can one day leave this world once and for all never again to have to bear the burden of 'worldliness' (maybe making a little beer, wine or cheese along the way). We are taught that both Buddha and Jesus were wandering sages without property, producing nothing, living off the 'compassion' and 'charity' of those whom they taught along their path -- of course each are attributed with amazing metaphysical powers, thus not needing anything anyway. This is an INDIVIDUAL path, one of renunciation of the world, surrendering to the Tao or God or equivalent (the One, the Creator, the Way, the Uni-verse, etc.) -- it is a trust, shall we say instead of 'faith,' in the nature of things and impervious to human control. Will the perfect world be one big monastery? 'Fetch wood, carry water' because that is what the head monk says will lead you to enlightenment and the promise of nirvana? I smile, because as an enlightened one, I too once sought long and hard for that which already was -- the only thing left was to realize the cosmic joke -- that is why enlightenment is often referred to as 'self realization' because it is not achieved, it is not bargained for, or acquired through meditation, or through austere acts of penance and self sacrifice -- it is already so. There is no need to fill the hole -- just let go of the hole! ;-) My assertion is that true service, real compassion, comes from a place of wholeness, not from a place of desire or duty or dogma or even philosophy. Then service to others is not a sacrifice, not an obligation, but a gift -- THAT is empathy.

Mustn't we remember that 'renunciation and detachment' whether from a Buddhist point of view or a Christian point of view is that 'this world' is but an 'illusion' and a kind of prison from which we need to be liberated? While the followers of Buddha or Christ may proscribe different 'means' the 'end' is the 'liberating of oneself' of this material world for nirvana or heaven where we will be one with the truth and light (of course volumes have been written to describe this indescribable state of man). Lao Tse is supposed to have written Tao Te Ching after he attempted to leave the city forever because he was fed up with it -- he was stopped as the legend goes to write down his philosophy before leaving the world so that others might also learn how to liberate themselves.

Now, well-intentioned zealots have throughout history taken these lessons not to renunciate the world themselves but to make others renunciate the world thus leaving the world in their hands and assuming some sort of god-like power to lead men to salvation while they rise in political stature, wealth and power. That is why Marx referred to religion as the opiate of the masses -- and on that point I can agree, for dogma is not truth, and it is the truth that sets one free. ;-) These zealots also preach 'compassion and empathy,' brotherhood, and equality side-by-side with the power of the state/church, and therefore, giving to the state/church is supposed to be the equivalent to giving to the needy directly. It is not too hard to see so many deluded 'Christians' surrendering their will to 'God' in the form of their minister, and do whatever he/she tells them is God's will. Is it any less apparent with Buddhists, Hindus, or Muslims?

I have practiced various forms of meditation, visualization, and prayer since the 70s -- I won't go into all of it, but suffice it to say that I find that quieting the mind for 15-30 minutes a couple times a day helps keep me grounded, calm and less easily distracted or disturbed by external circumstances. I would recommend it to anyone who has the inclination.

I do believe that Liberation is a constant process, but I do not call it progressive liberalism. Your references to 'progressive' liberalism in the 16th century have been historically called 'classic liberalism' to describe the intentions and actions by people trying to free themselves from the binds of their feudal lords, the church, and the hierarchy of servitude to monarchy -- that is not socialism but the cause of Liberty (classic liberalism). From my "observation and analysis" (as Buddha says) progressive liberalism -- as stated by the Progressive Caucus, for example -- is NOT about individual liberty and self determination, but about collectivism, about serving the state, about compulsion to support the 'compassionate' plans of its leaders, about regulating the lives of the people by decree, about taxing one's labors and property, about dependency. Now you say what's the big deal, America is about as socialistic as can be -- I agree but I do not approve! Socialism is NOT progress or even prosperity -- it is CONTROL and it is about collective POWER -- that might makes right, and that the needs of the many (as THEY define them) outweigh the needs of the few. It is about monopoly. The people who bankrupted the country to the banking elite were 'progressive liberals.' The people who brought us the Federal Reserve were progressive liberals. The people who have laden the country with perpetual debt are progressive liberals. The people who have created the trade unions that have effectively monopolized industry, education, transportation, communications, and energy were/are progressive liberals. ALL are designed to create mini empires and secure to themselves power and money -- they do not care about individual rights, they care about cornering the market and keeping it forever. It is about POWER pure and simple.

Now what are the ideals of a progressive liberal? Peace, safety, equality, education, food, labor, housing, health care -- right? Lofty ideals -- they are however the same intents of a prison warden. Where is the trust in the Tao? Where is the detachment and renunciation? Where is the liberation? Where does the responsibility lie -- with the individual or with the state? The classic liberal cares, too, about all these things BUT recognizes that it is his responsibility for these things for his own survival and happiness -- and that when left unimpeded with the right of conscience and the right of ownership of his body, his property, his labors and the fruits thereof he can prosper and deserves to reap the benefits of that prosperity. This is primarily an agrarian way of life without which the great cities would starve. What is the 'end' of progressive liberalism? A roof over everyone's head, 3 square meals a day, a job throughout one's life, a modest income to support his basic needs, the rest to be given to the state for all that everyone depends upon, free medical care which is to be a public service, free education for which all will be trained to live in such a society, no wars as there is but one beneficent government ruling the world, and perpetual security because no individual will have more power than another and all merely want the others to be happy. Have I got that right? ;-) They call it progressive because there is in fact no end only a means to a never ending promise of a future utopia. That is why it is said that socialism is but the means to communism. And we all know why communism doesn't work don't we? Perhaps not, for if you can get everyone to 'detach' themselves, fetch wood, carry water, and live an 'ordered' life who would ever want anything else? ME that's who!! ;-) And I am not alone either. I do not want your brave new world, and I won't be relegated to some far away island by the powers-that-be so that I won't stir up the 'order' of progressive servitude. I am not an animal to be domesticated like a beast of burden. I am not to be controlled. I am not to be 'secured.' I am not to be 'taken care of.' And may I remind you that America is the only country that I am aware of that stands on the principle that the government is the servant of the people, not the other way around. No European country has ever managed to establish that, and socialism is in complete opposition to the principles of freedom and the responsibility that comes with it. Your friend,
 -- E Archer, NYC     

You too have made some very good points - so we continue. First, let me say that much of our respective comments are over semantics, so for the sake of brevity I have take points where I feel there is direct conflict, or not so harshly, where there is a difference of opinion.

Point 1. The separation of church and state (not philosophical thought): Though this was first mention by Thomas Jefferson the Supreme Court, since 1947, interpreted this to mean "religion and government must stay separate for the benefit of both, including the idea that the government must not impose religion on Americans nor create any law requiring it." Please tell me where they use the word 'Philosophical'. Not once have I mentioned the state to enforce any religion or philosophical doctrine. By the way, Buddhism is not a religion or a doctrine. Your remark that philosophy and its expression are often at odds with each other is a non-sequitur as philosophy is just a love of knowledge and a seeker for truth, it has nothing to do with the how individuals, including Spinoza, express their opinions.

Point 2. In your same paragraph you mention SELF, please let me enlighten you on the Buddhist interpretation of (great) SELF; though this topic is one of the hardest to understand it is central to the Buddhist way. First, it is not a physical or spiritual state - It is the way to enlightenment. The five Skandhas, let's call them buckets; form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness, with regard to SELF are all empty. This SELF, the Atman, has nothing to do with the buckets with regard to self-improvement, self-esteem, and all the other individual "self's", etc. etc. those are all ego and actions. The SELF as taught by Buddhism is absolute, meaning it is empty of all thought and action and nothing can effect it. SELF is the most inner and ultimate state - it is the Universe, where there is no ego, no conflict, no me, and no suffering; conflict is what keeps us from enlightenment. Once you have reached Nirvana you are one with SELF (the Dhammakaya movement). The key here is that the state of SELF is difficult to understand and therefore even more difficult to explain. Even in the East there are two primary schools of thought on the subject of SELF. I believe the major difference between the Abrahamic religions and Buddhism is very simple; Abrahamic religions are judgmental, fearful, and need an intermediary where as Buddhist tradition is non-judgmental and all about self-attainment. Zen-Buddhism has a similar teaching with regard to the true SELF - a self without limits, invisible. The wonderful thing about Buddhism is that it doesn't tell you how to behave, it enlightens you, and the decision as to what path you take is yours. Ok, that's enough about Buddha, let's move on.

Point 3. Detachment - non-clinging: This is really very simple; first Detachment is NOT a philosophy it is the same as saying truth, love, honesty, attachment, they are all components within a particular philosophy but not a philosophy in itself. Detachment in this sense and this use is meant physically and mentally from materialism, ego, conflict, avarice, and so on. And, the last thing it could be associated with is a monastery with regard to it being an instrument for renunciation and a means to a world after death. Detachment is very much an action of the 'Now' of the 'Is'; in that sense it has power, otherwise, it is as dead as a door nail. Buddha was not a wondering sage, far from it, and he most definitely didn't want for anything. As far as producing nothing, it couldn't be further from the truth; the enlightenment and knowledge past onto his disciples was worth mountains of gold, if that's what you mean by producing. Buddha didn't need to live of the compassion and charity of others - he is compassion, he is charity. You summed it up perfectly when you said "metaphysical powers, thus not needing anything anyway." Buddha had no need to surrender to himself - when you are One you are One with everything.

Your third paragraph is full of enlightened truths and none more so than "it is already so." Empathy is rooted in compassion and is most pure through a total state of detachment. The greatest freedom of all is through detachment. Once mastered the chattels that tie you to Materialism vanish as if they were never there. Ego, conflict, avarice, and anger have gone. Suddenly, there is no need for compromise or Flexibility, they are no longer a decision.

As Socrates said "He is richest who is content with the least, for content is the wealth of nature." And in Zen it is the center of your being. Unfortunately, when reading the writings and thoughts of Buddha they can easily be taken out of context; for instance, when mentioning the word detachment it can so easily be mistaken for selfishness or a lack of concern for others, aloofness, and physically withdrawing, and compassion, on the other hand, for passiveness and inwardness. When reading Buddha Detachment and Compassion must be read in full context of the subject matter, otherwise, the reader may misinterpret the message. A layman sense was put well by Joseph Goldstein "This (compassion) isn't self-pity or pity for others. It's really feeling one's own pain and recognizing the pain of others. Seeing the web of suffering we're all entangled in, we become kind and compassionate to one another." And, this from Global Oneness, "According to Sri Aurobindo , when one withdraws from the turmoil of outer life, the evolving consciousness becomes centered and observant like a detached witness or sakshi . The witness state, sakshi bhav , is a continual disassociation from worldly desires and sense-identification. It is a state of neutrality that goes beyond body and mind to communicate with the spirit."

Point 4. Detachment is not renunciation, it is a state of self realization for another way. No, no, no, the world is not the illusion to escape from, it is our concept of the world which we need to be liberated from. Yes, we need to be liberated from the chattels of materialism and the swirling thoughts that keep us imprisoned. Each can attain this state, and each has the ability to experienced the power that liberates you from this world. The primary vehicle for this is meditation, through mediation you are more able to reach a state of freeing the conscience which is essential when communing with the SELF- It's the search for the supreme consciousness. The Tao Te Ching was written about the same time as Buddha and provides the basis for Taoism. It's primary message is that there is one individual truth at the root of all things.

Point 5. "Opiate of the masses," yes, perfect, we agree on that which is good. Wow! "and it is the truth that sets one free" we may be the only two that know that (lol). Yes, indeed they preach empathy and compassion and yet do not practice what they preach, just look at what recently occurred with Paladino who basically said that children must be kept away from gays and that they are dysfunctional - what a hypocrite watching pawn of the most debauched nature, has two families, and fathered a kid out of wedlock. This is only one example of hundreds that these zealots are responsible for. There are over a million children abused every year in America and 99.9% from a family setting. It has been documented that Gays who adopt children are the most cared for and well looked after than traditional adoptions.

As for the religious zealots, as you said, who preach "compassion and empathy" from the liturgical corridors of the faux news media and Sunday get-togethers, who then institutionalize their corrupt rhetoric in the halls of the America political machine. Archer, yes, very much less apparent (re; Buddhism) to the point of non-existence. Please inform me if you know of a source I could check if you feel I am mistaken.

Point 6. Meditation: I am very impressed that you spend 15-30 minutes twice a day in mediation, excellent. Even some of my most ardent Buddhist friends don't spend that much time mediation - well done.

Point 7. Liberation: This is a continued discussion with regard to classical liberalism and modern liberalism, my stand has always been Liberalism has never changed its primary goals - I think I provided evidence of this in on an earlier post. So, for want of repeating my self here it is again from the May blog: "First, let's do away with your immediate mistake of trying to classify Liberalism into any category your agenda desires - liberalism is not to be confused with socialism, conservatism, or progressivism - if anyone co-opted liberalism it was libertarians. From the early references to Liberalism, and Mises attempt to reinvent the wheel (laissez-faire liberalism), to today's understanding (by intellectuals), the core definition of liberalism remains the same. Many of the liberal ideals are similar to libertarians but for one major difference; social and welfare programs. Liberals believe in limited government; the people's right for freedom and happiness; freedom without recourse to believe in anything you wish, whether it be an almighty being, a God, or none at all; to have the right of assembly and the free representation of workers through unions (though a number of union organizations have been corrupted through greed and power at the beginning of the century). Many of the libertarian ideals have gotten us into this present mess such as free-trade, the deregulation of industry and the banking system (laissez-faire economics). In actual fact the republicans and the conservatives (on the right) have done as much for the liberal causes as the democratic party - the liberals won the twentieth century and yet only had a total of 19 years in power. Lastly on this point here are two definitions one from the start of Liberalsim and the other from today's Webster Dictionary: first; Half way into the 19th century Liberalism was defined (Webster's dictionary): One who advocates greater freedom from restraint; as a free heart; open and candid; munificent; not selfish, narrow or contracted; someone who embraces other interests than his own; embracing literature and science; depended more on the exertions of the mind rather than the playing fields. A liberal education is generally arts and science based - a long way from the present system of providing cannon fodder. And at the end of the 19th century liberalism was define (Webster's 1898 addition): One who favors greater freedom in political or religious matters, an opponent of the establish systems; a reformer. Someone that considers all arguments without being either dogmatic or rigid of opinion (flexibility is the key here). And I love this one: A spirit that goes out of self, and finds its enjoyment in consulting the feelings and happiness of others. In other words a liberal is someone who believes in free opinion, equality, liberty, freedom, and someone who is generous and believes in the positive rewards of the arts and science. Lastly; Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, 1996 (Random House edition) defines liberalism as based on the ideals of the individual; free, generous and open handed, and of fair mind; one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms of ways. Archer, you call this classical liberalism, well, to a point you are correct, but what you sadly leave out of the equation is that these classical liberal traits are still the main core of what liberalism is today. As I have said before, I am Liberal and proud of it - there are a number of topics within the Liberal ideology that I disagree with, but not with its core principles. By the way, the English Oxford Dictionary is very much of the same definitions as above. For the last 150 years Liberalism has not change its definition. In actual fact the 1996 definition is closer to the 1893 definition than the later definitions. The key for you to understand this is to go back even further to how the word Liberal came about. Liberal late 14th c., from old French meaning 'benefitting free men from the Latin word liber meaning "free." So, even from its very birth the definition of Liberalism has not change one bit.

To say that the goals of a progressive liberal are the same as a prison warden is preposterous - where do you come up with such analogies? There is no connection whatsoever. I'm sorry Archer but that is not you. An agrarian way of life: yes, but the farmer needs roads, needs hospitals, needs, a market and million others things - is he responsible for providing those things of course not he shares those responsibilities. By the way an agrarian way is equal distributing land and I doubt very much if that's what you were referring to. Honestly, Archer your litany of things which a progressive liberal person would agree are ludicrous because they lack individual compassion and charity, instead you lump everyone together in some massive organization where there is no room for individualism - how wrong you are. You can still have many of the things you described under a progressive liberal without the need to have a totalitarian gamekeeper. Progressive liberalism stands for unalienable rights of the individual not their lack thereof. As our friend so well pointed out the word Liberal has its primary root in 'FREE' and a separation of church and state. I think equally rights for all Americans, the protection of the environment, a fair wage for a fair days work, Education for all children, health care for anyone who is in the confines of our sovereign state, a transportation infrastructure, shelter and food for those who have fallen on hard times, This is where criticism is unfounded with regard to classical and modern liberalism being different - the meaning of honesty, freedom, truth, trust, loyalty and so on are the same today as they were in the objective form a thousand years ago and same principle applies to Liberalism. It's politician's and those wishing to criticize and demean the historical meaning of liberalism by using their own interpretation that changes the meaning. Progressive means forward thinking, it also has a connotation of the word action which is an important aspect of progressivism, and actually getting off your ass and doing something about a situation which benefits those who are unable to voice their opinions or discontent. Classical means historically and the last thing Liberalism is is historic it means NOW today. I disagree with many academics on this issue and my comment here is only a very small version of my argument. To wrap this up, I think the primary problem with the definition of Liberalism is that the US and Europe have different views and interpretation on the meaning. It may be more correct to say American Liberalism and European liberalism and make the distinction there.

Your last point with regard to 'socialism is a means to communism' is misleading as suffice to say many intellectuals disagree with this statement, including me. So, I will not bore you with my argument. I suppose you are calling the state of Israel communists as they believe in the system of the Kibbutz where sharing is very much their philosophy - a form of collective community like socialism. I think before people who banter words about, like socialism, liberalism, communism, conservatism, libertarianism, should have a true understanding of their history before applying their own definitions. Unfortunately the medium of misinformation is rampant in the US, and understanding these primary socialistic meanings is misinterpreted, misrepresented, and often skewed by corporate propaganda who owns most of the news channels. Again you really make me laugh when you use progress and servitude in the same sentence, THEY ARE TOTALLY IN OPPOSITION TO EACH OTHER - where do you get this stuff from - you are far more intelligent than that - you must do it just to get me going. Now you are the one to say "I am not an animal to be domesticated like a beast of burden" - what a terrible implication you make. "I'm not to be controlled. I am not to be secured" - of course you are controlled and secured, just try stepping out of line in the US (and its getting worse under the teabaggers, the christofascists and right-wing fanatics) and you will either be tasered, put in prison, your house taken away, your car and stuff confiscated, and the list goes on. If you are destitute and have fallen on bad times of course I want a system to take care of you - hopefully that will never happen. Your friend, Robert

P.S. I don't see the people of America rioting in the streets because the government is not servant to the people where are their $%(*. In France they did and are doing so this very day. I'm sorry Sir, your interpretation of socialism has been totally skewed by your reading matter. Again, your friend, Robert
 -- RBESRQ