Wonderful! Sikkim is where the Karmapa's head monastery is. Western people aren't too familiar with the Karmapa at this point, but he is believed to be reincarnation of the historical Buddha amongst the Tibetan people. The Dalai lama is thought to be Avalokeshvara, the Bodhisattva of Compassion, one of his main disciples during that time.
I don't know if all this is true, but it is kind of fun.

bodhisamaya Wrote:@Liosma
It is only land. Even if it was somewhere amazing like Hawaii, for your own happiness, it is best not to get attached to such things when the world is such a big place and life is so short.

SendaiDan Wrote:

liosama Wrote:As a Palestinian, never have I ever been so inspired in my life.

liosama, please don't take this the wrong way, but I see that you live in Sydney, so just out of curiosity, were you born in Palestine or Australia?

@bodhisamaya
I guess there's a fundamental difference between both of us. I'll try answer this in the post below in response to Sendai.

I was born in Kuwait, lived there for 3-4 years, lived in Jordan for 1 year, then migrated to Australia. Visited Palestine twice in my life so far, traveled on farm land owned by my family, felt a connection to the land, both physically, and vicariously through my grandfather and family. A connection to a land is something people like bodhisamaya will never really understand, not because of the underlying selfless, immaterial, ephemeral, transcendent Buddhist mentality but because of something else which I'll need more time to put my finger on. Land is land yes, different geographical locations, like different blends of; i don't know, tea or coffee, each arouse different senses and with time one can accustom themselves to the new taste aroma, texture, sensation et cetera. But at the end of the day, you can't just ignore the the tea cup, by which thousands of years of stains, erosion, weathering, of the one type of tea have grown and taken over the cup, molded and shaped its structure. It is much more simple than a combination of pieces of dirt piled onto each other, different weather conditions, air composition, density. If you can't see that then you haven't lived and you shouldn't subject your notions of land onto others' simply because you don't understand that, it's not a question of land-obstinacy, there is so much more to it. I don't think I've explained it well enough, but it's the best I can do. Icecream put it well too, from a humanistic and legalistic point of view.

Though I have not taken offence, I can guess why you asked the question. That I'm some middle class; and now essentially, a white boy using his meek understanding of his nationality and identity to his advantage to where he sees fit? No, I equally respect the rights of any indigenous peoples no matter where I go. The same way I expose Al-Nakba, I do not celebrate Invasion Day ('Australia day') given the fact that I live here.

also, Bodhi, don't you oppose the chinese invasion of Tibet? Wouldn't you prefer the Delai Lama and all the other refugees could return and live peacefully there?

SheekuAltair Wrote:There's certainly no courage if you are technologically advanced and fight unfairly.

I think that's kinda the point he was trying to make.

From what I've seen over the years, Bohisamaya would never engage in an "America is better than you" type of argument.

kazelee Wrote:

SheekuAltair Wrote:There's certainly no courage if you are technologically advanced and fight unfairly.

I think that's kinda the point he was trying to make.

From what I've seen over the years, Bohisamaya would never engage in an "America is better than you" type of argument.

I reread the marines part and I think I misunderstood him. I've to admit that I have no idea where that conversation was heading or was about.

SheekuAltair Wrote:"If you know you are going to Heaven, it doesn't take any courage at all to die. "
. There's certainly no courage if you are technologically advanced and fight unfairly.

Umm... Americans and members of other western countries *are* dying in these conflicts. "Fight unfairly"... are you proposing we hand half our tanks to the other side and make it a fair fight? Did Mohammed do that in any of his battles (just asking... maybe he did). It's not our fault the people we are fighting are decades to centuries behind us in military technology.

There is no courage involved in blowing up a bus full of civilians. Sorry, but just because you die, doesn't make it courageous. Going after soft targets is pretty much the definition of cowardice. They don't expect you and have extremely limited ability to fight back even if you give warning.

liosama Wrote:

zigmonty Wrote:

liosama Wrote:israel is, was, and always will be in the hearts and minds of Arabs a colony.

And the middle east is, was and always will be a war-ridden hellhole. If you can't see why the attitudes in your post are every bit as much a part of the problem as right-wing Zionist wankers who see themselves as god's gift to the world... well... whatever.

I for one look forward to the day we wean ourselves off oil and can go back to not giving two shits about what goes on in middle east.

My attitudes are not a problem. Though I do not recognize the state of israel, evident by the immature fact that I refuse to even capitlise the i in israel. As was put forward by you in a few posts back, I do certainly accept the notion for a group of people asserting self determination, theres' nothing wrong with that. But again, as mentioned before, it should not come about from dispossessing a whole indigenous population.

The fact you live in Australia is a serious contradiction then.

liosama Wrote:2. The middle east is a war ridden hell hole you are correct. But what does that have to do with anything. "Go back to not giving two shits about what goes on" Really?
"***** them, let them fend for themselves" how is that not an attitude problem? So you; go into a continent, colonise, dispose, destabilize, and restructure their entire economic infrastructure, spoil generations worth of civil progress. Then, after decolonizing, you don't disappear entirely, the economic footprint still remains. Just think about what you've just said. I refuse to point out the obvious.

No, this is my point. *I* didn't do any of those things. You'd have a hard time even tying any of my ancestors to it (not that i believe doing so is valid). Australia never colonised the middle east. And, in fact, we don't import very much oil (our exports nearly match our imports). So why should i give a damn about self-important middle easterners who blame everyone for the problems in their region except themselves? And i include crazy Zionist Israelis in this.

Asia was colonised too. Yes, there is still lingering resentment over it, but the region has been so successful in moving on from these times that it's now pretty much the centre of the global economy.

zigmonty Wrote:

SheekuAltair Wrote:"If you know you are going to Heaven, it doesn't take any courage at all to die. "
. There's certainly no courage if you are technologically advanced and fight unfairly.

Umm... Americans and members of other western countries *are* dying in these conflicts. "Fight unfairly"... are you proposing we hand half our tanks to the other side and make it a fair fight? Did Mohammed do that in any of his battles (just asking... maybe he did). It's not our fault the people we are fighting are decades to centuries behind us in military technology.

There is no courage involved in blowing up a bus full of civilians. Sorry, but just because you die, doesn't make it courageous. Going after soft targets is pretty much the definition of cowardice. They don't expect you and have extremely limited ability to fight back even if you give warning.

You're taking this a bit personal and I'm not saying I sympethize with suicide bombers, if you've read what I wrote. There seems to be two definitions of courage here: Without fear, and the other definition being heroic. And I wasn't addressing the second definition. A person murdering school children and blowing himself without fear, is courageous. But still a crime and horrendous action, and there's still a special hell awaiting for them. And not all Muslims in Iraq/Afghanistan are/were fighting that dirty, mind you, so when I was talking about insurgenets I meant combatants not suicide bombers per se. I don't consider people who blow other Muslims and other civilians, as Muslims or even as humans.

zigmonty Wrote:It's not our fault the people we are fighting are decades to centuries behind us in military technology.

Hmm. The West is responsible for quite a bit of ongoing underdevelopment, to varying extent across the globe (the British Empire, re: the Middle East in particular).

SheekuAltair Wrote:You're taking this a bit personal

Nah, i just like arguing. I see this more as a debate than a fight... sorry if i give off a different impression.

SheekuAltair Wrote:A person murdering school children and blowing himself without fear, is courageous.

No, the word is psychopathic. If you can do that without feeling something, you are abnormal. You might be able to make a case for "brainwashed", if you were being generous to the poor young guy who was encouraged to do it. Mass murdering without fear is not courageous.

In fact, courage is usually defined as carrying out a task *despite* fear. Most accounts from soldiers admit they were terrified and did it anyway.

SheekuAltair Wrote:But still a crime and horrendous action, and there's still a special hell awaiting for them. And not all Muslims in Iraq/Afghanistan are/were fighting that dirty, mind you, so when I was talking about insurgenets I meant combatants not suicide bombers per se. I don't consider people who blow other Muslims and other civilians, as Muslims or even as humans.

Right, sorry. Insurgents who attack soldiers, i can respect. They are in principle no different to freedom fighters throughout history in their motives and actions. Whether i *agree* with their views is not relevant. Along with the right to self-determination comes the right to fight for it if it is denied to you.

It is a little disturbing when their target is supposedly the foreign soldiers and the result is one of them wounded and 100 nearby civilians killed. Collateral damage is unavoidable sometimes but it'd be nice if they were as careful in their attacks as everyone insists the west be.

zigmonty Wrote:Nah, i just like arguing. I see this more as a debate than a fight... sorry if i give off a different impression.

That's great to know. Me too, obviously .

zigmonty Wrote:No, the word is psychopathic. If you can do that without feeling something, you are abnormal. You might be able to make a case for "brainwashed", if you were being generous to the poor young guy who wasencouraged to do it. Mass murdering without fear is not courageous.

I hear that often, that terrorists etc are cowards in English. In all the other languages it doesn't make sense to me, but maybe it does in English because there are more definitions within it. Psychopath means they are mentally ill, which they are not. Brainwashed, certainly, but that doesn't have anything to do with courage then. They're evil and more, but not cowards. And that's for the suicide bombers etc. Again not all fight as dishonorably, those who died in firefights and airstrikes aren't among the discussed here.

zigmonty Wrote:In fact, courage is usually defined as carrying out a task *despite* fear. Most accounts from soldiers admit they were terrified and did it anyway.

Everyone has doubts and fears (read: about afterlife and religion). And you think these people aren't scared too. Not having last second thoughts? I think every one of them was about to crap themselves.

zigmonty Wrote:Collateral damage is unavoidable sometimes but it'd be nice if they were as careful in their attacks as everyone insists the west be.

I seriously don't know how those terrorist justify it. I'll have to meet one or read about it, because I don't know yet after all these years. I guess it has to do with some wahhabis and their belief that Shias and other Muslims against them are non believers or something, and that they can kill every non Muslim(including Muslims against them), but I don't understand that yet.

SheekuAltair Wrote:

zigmonty Wrote:No, the word is psychopathic. If you can do that without feeling something, you are abnormal. You might be able to make a case for "brainwashed", if you were being generous to the poor young guy who wasencouraged to do it. Mass murdering without fear is not courageous.

I hear that often, that terrorists etc are cowards in English. In all the other languages it doesn't make sense to me, but maybe it does in English because there are more definitions within it.

It's partly that courage has nuances of a noble fight in it, of beating the odds. It's a very subjective word. Insurgents are courageous, suicide bombers aren't. The latter is killing himself; there are no odds he is going up against. If he had to slip past a police checkpoint on the way to the bus, i could call that action courageous but the act of pressing the button isn't. He is killing himself completely under his control. It's extremely grey though. I would feel more comfortable about calling kamikaze pilots courageous, because at least they were attacking something that was shooting back at them. It's the distinction between killing an enemy in battle and murder.

There are probably plenty of english speakers who would disagree with me though.

SheekuAltair Wrote:Psychopath means they are mentally ill, which they are not. Brainwashed, certainly, but that doesn't have anything to do with courage then. They're evil and more, but not cowards. And that's for the suicide bombers etc. Again not all fight as dishonorably, those who died in firefights and airstrikes aren't among the discussed here.

I dunno, i still say you have to be mentally ill to blow up a bus with women and children on it, guilty of nothing more than the crime of not being muslim. It probably takes a special sort of person to be a candidate for suicide bombing. Highly impressionable and borderline autistic maybe?

SheekuAltair Wrote:

zigmonty Wrote:In fact, courage is usually defined as carrying out a task *despite* fear. Most accounts from soldiers admit they were terrified and did it anyway.

Everyone has doubts and fears (read: about afterlife and religion). And you think these people aren't scared too. Not having last second thoughts? I think every one of them was about to crap themselves.

Well, i was just responding to your use of "without fear". But i guess you intended that as "without showing fear" or something? I get the feeling i'm arguing over nuance with someone who isn't a native speaker, which is rude of me.

SheekuAltair Wrote:

zigmonty Wrote:Collateral damage is unavoidable sometimes but it'd be nice if they were as careful in their attacks as everyone insists the west be.

I seriously don't know how those terrorist justify it. I'll have to meet one or read about it, because I don't know yet after all these years. I guess it has to do with some wahhabis and their belief that Shias and other Muslims against them are non believers or something, and that they can kill every non Muslim(including Muslims against them), but I don't understand that yet.

What i don't get isn't so much why terrorists do what they do, but why they have the support that they do. Why are people who are killing far more muslim civilians than foreign soldiers so glorified in the arab world? They're at best incompetent and at worst monsters who don't care.

zigmonty Wrote:

liosama Wrote:

zigmonty Wrote:And the middle east is, was and always will be a war-ridden hellhole. If you can't see why the attitudes in your post are every bit as much a part of the problem as right-wing Zionist wankers who see themselves as god's gift to the world... well... whatever.

I for one look forward to the day we wean ourselves off oil and can go back to not giving two shits about what goes on in middle east.

My attitudes are not a problem. Though I do not recognize the state of israel, evident by the immature fact that I refuse to even capitlise the i in israel. As was put forward by you in a few posts back, I do certainly accept the notion for a group of people asserting self determination, theres' nothing wrong with that. But again, as mentioned before, it should not come about from dispossessing a whole indigenous population.

The fact you live in Australia is a serious contradiction then.

Not really no.

zigmonty Wrote:

liosama Wrote:2. The middle east is a war ridden hell hole you are correct. But what does that have to do with anything. "Go back to not giving two shits about what goes on" Really?
"***** them, let them fend for themselves" how is that not an attitude problem? So you; go into a continent, colonise, dispose, destabilize, and restructure their entire economic infrastructure, spoil generations worth of civil progress. Then, after decolonizing, you don't disappear entirely, the economic footprint still remains. Just think about what you've just said. I refuse to point out the obvious.

No, this is my point. *I* didn't do any of those things. You'd have a hard time even tying any of my ancestors to it (not that i believe doing so is valid). Australia never colonised the middle east. And, in fact, we don't import very much oil (our exports nearly match our imports). So why should i give a damn about self-important middle easterners who blame everyone for the problems in their region except themselves? And i include crazy Zionist Israelis in this.

Asia was colonised too. Yes, there is still lingering resentment over it, but the region has been so successful in moving on from these times that it's now pretty much the centre of the global economy.

Where did I say Australia did any of those things??? I'm talking about the West in general. You have a very poor understanding of the differences in Asian colonization and colonization in the Middle East and Africa then. Last time I checked, Most of Asia didn't have their democratic revolutions over monarchies quelled under (Western) foreign intervention and then later have Western oil companies all over the place.

I cannot believe you even have the audacity to say that the problems in the Middle East are our problems and our problem alone? ***** Absurd.

IceCream Wrote:also, Bodhi, don't you oppose the chinese invasion of Tibet? Wouldn't you prefer the Delai Lama and all the other refugees could return and live peacefully there?

I would love it if the Tibetans were given autonomy over their country again, but I believe the Dalai Lama has handled the situation correctly through his non-violence approach. His way is taking a very very long time requiring incredible patience, but eventually it will work. Although it is some of the most beautiful geography in the world, it is after-all just land.
Though, like I said before, Israel took Palestine through military aggression and should give it back.

zigmonty Wrote:It's a very subjective word.

It seems so.

zigmonty Wrote:Well, i was just responding to your use of "without fear". But i guess you intended that as "without showing fear" or something?

I agree with your earlier definition that courage is to carry out an action despite their fear. I exaggerated it probably a bit when I defined as "no fear", to show that in contrast against "courage as a noble and heroic trait".

zigmonty Wrote:What i don't get isn't so much why terrorists do what they do, but why they have the support that they do. Why are people who are killing far more muslim civilians than foreign soldiers so glorified in the arab world? They're at best incompetent and at worst monsters who don't care.

I don't think they are glorified or supported though. Look at the demonstrations that happened in Egypt recentally, with huge crowds of people consisting of millions, and compare that to the usual pics of 10 to 20 people some Arab/Pakistani burning a US flag. It's laughable. They even take similar pics from Britain for example, which makes you think that there are hundreds of thousands of Muslims supporting terrorism. I question also pics showing hundreds people praying after a protest against USA etc, even if those people didn't agree with the demonstration it's poor taste not pray. So the media usually likes to take advantage of it.

liosama Wrote:

zigmonty Wrote:

liosama Wrote:My attitudes are not a problem. Though I do not recognize the state of israel, evident by the immature fact that I refuse to even capitlise the i in israel. As was put forward by you in a few posts back, I do certainly accept the notion for a group of people asserting self determination, theres' nothing wrong with that. But again, as mentioned before, it should not come about from dispossessing a whole indigenous population.

The fact you live in Australia is a serious contradiction then.

Not really no.

Well, you're living on land that was forcibly taken from Aborigines around 200 years ago.

liosama Wrote:Where did I say Australia did any of those things??? I'm talking about the West in general.

You said "you". I am not the west. You cannot counter my arguments by pointing to things the british or americans did. Frankly, it'd be suspect even if i were american or british.

liosama Wrote:You have a very poor understanding of the differences in Asian colonization and colonization in the Middle East and Africa then. Last time I checked, Most of Asia didn't have their democratic revolutions over monarchies quelled under (Western) foreign intervention and then later have Western oil companies all over the place.

Yeah, because what the french did in vietnam or the americans did in the philipines was pure benevolence. Of course the situation is different in different regions. I'm just trying to say that they moved on from that embarrassing period of world history.

liosama Wrote:I cannot believe you even have the audacity to say that the problems in the Middle East are our problems and our problem alone? ***** Absurd.

I did not say that. I said that i am tired of middle easterners that blame everyone but themselves (whom i hope are the minority). Nowhere did i say the west had no involvement in the current state of the middle east. I just don't like people with a victim complex, who refuse to see how their own actions are making the situation worse. Does a catholic thug committing acts of violence in northern ireland have the right to blame the conflict on the british, refusing to see how his own prejudiced views inflame the situation? Even if it was a british invasion hundreds of years ago that was the cause of the violence, in terms of his generation, it is his fault as much as the protestant he is fighting.

What this has to do with me, though, and my desire for a world where the middle east is back to being irrelevant (or relevant on actual merits, whatever, i'm not vindictive), i am unsure. I have no involvement with the events you are describing. You might as well blame me for things the chinese government has done. Or the Russian government.

SheekuAltair Wrote:

zigmonty Wrote:What i don't get isn't so much why terrorists do what they do, but why they have the support that they do. Why are people who are killing far more muslim civilians than foreign soldiers so glorified in the arab world? They're at best incompetent and at worst monsters who don't care.

I don't think they are glorified or supported though. Look at the demonstrations that happened in Egypt recentally, with huge crowds of people consisting of millions, and compare that to the usual pics of 10 to 20 people some Arab/Pakistani burning a US flag. It's laughable. They even take similar pics from Britain for example, which makes you think that there are hundreds of thousands of Muslims supporting terrorism. I question also pics showing hundreds people praying after a protest against USA etc, even if those people didn't agree with the demonstration it's poor taste not pray. So the media usually likes to take advantage of it.

Agreed, the media love stirring up shit. I'm curious btw since you mentioned it, what you think of what the media is calling the Arab Spring. We get such a conflicted view here. Like, should we be intervening against the violent crackdown by leaders such as Gaddafi and Assad? Or just watch it take its course? Libya doesn't seem to be going terribly well, but then neither does Syria. There's somewhat of a feeling of shame in the west over us doing nothing about places like Rwanda and the Balkans. And more shame over places like Iraq. It all seems to be lose-lose to me.

Okay read my posts properly. Sick of your imperialist bullshit.

Who is defending imperialism Liosama? I think most people here support Israel giving up the territory gained through its military in 1967.
Though, if you don't recognize Israel's right to exist, you really give legitimacy to their argument.

bodhisamaya Wrote:Who is defending imperialism Liosama? I think most people here support Israel giving up the territory gained through its military in 1967.
Though, if you don't recognize Israel's right to exist, you really give legitimacy to their argument.

You know when you think you're talking to someone, but it turns out they're actually on their phone and you only thought you were having a conversation with them and it's not until they start saying stuff that makes no sense based on what you said that you figure it out? That's kinda like what this feels like lol.

bodhisamaya Wrote:Who is defending imperialism Liosama? I think most people here support Israel giving up the territory gained through its military in 1967.
Though, if you don't recognize Israel's right to exist, you really give legitimacy to their argument.

That mentality carries imperialist tones. "Get the ***** over it" "We broke your leg, you'll grow out of it" "Get used to it"

If you can't see that, then I'm sorry you're just too stupid, my patience has its limits.

liosama Wrote:

bodhisamaya Wrote:Who is defending imperialism Liosama? I think most people here support Israel giving up the territory gained through its military in 1967.
Though, if you don't recognize Israel's right to exist, you really give legitimacy to their argument.

That mentality carries imperialist tones. "Get the ***** over it" "We broke your leg, you'll grow out of it" "Get used to it"

If you can't see that, then I'm sorry you're just too stupid, my patience has its limits.

You're talking to a Hawaiian buddhist and a generation Y Australian. "We" did nothing. This is the point you don't seem able to grasp. If my grandfather broke your leg and you came to me for compensation, i would feel sorry for you, but you aren't getting any of my money. If you came to me for compensation because he broke your grandfather's leg, i'd probably skip the pity and just laugh at you.

We are consistent in this philosophy. Nobody seriously holds a grudge against present generation germans or japanese people because of the wars their grandparents started. And we are talking wars in which roughly 60 million people died. Likewise, I'd be stunned if any Hiroshima or Dresden residents would blame a generation Y american or brit for what happened there.

"I hate you because your ancestors did X to my ancestors" is an extremely dangerous and stupid way to approach the world. It leads to nothing but endless cycles of violence.

It is a kind of interesting ironic karmic belief the Buddhists have is that often your children will be of a hated enemy you killed in this lifetime.

My grandmother was full Native American Cherokee, but if the theory of re-incarnation is true, I could have just as easily been one of those who slaughtered my own ancestors and stole their land in centuries past. Love your enemies!!!

Libya doesn't seem to be going terribly well, but then neither does Syria. There's somewhat of a feeling of shame in the west over us doing nothing about places like Rwanda and the Balkans. And more shame over places like Iraq. It all seems to be lose-lose to me.

I'm glad to see this happening. I think it's great that dictators like Mubarack, Gaddafi and Assad are deposed off. There was a risk that it would backfire, and the countries would end up in civil wars, but I think their people had enough and really need a revolution. It was bound to happen, no tyrant can stay on a throne too long.

I do think the age of religious militarism is on its last leg and will completely die out within ten years. The vast majority of people in every religion are moderates and mostly reasonable. The continuation of advances in communication and technology will render the problem-makers powerless.