At 4/12/2012 3:33:34 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/11/2012 5:19:47 PM, DanT wrote:
At 4/11/2012 3:40:37 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:Didn't pull it off the internet; I pulled it out of a book. All of Buddha's teachings focus on self improvement. Buddha believed that people cause their own suffering, and it is up to the individual to eliminate their own suffering.
In fact the last words of the Buddha was, "Behold, O monks, this is my last advice to you. All component things in the world are changeable. They are not lasting. Work hard to gain your own salvation."
Granted. But why do you keep painting me as an anti-individualist?
because you favor collectivist policies.
It is only fair that I ask the same and you provide. Unlike many Buddhists on the Internet, I can provide sutta/sutra sources for nearly all the Buddha quotes I provide.
Probably because your list of quotes are limited to specific sutras; ignoring all other sutras that you either have not read, or don't aree with.
False. I read the scriptures and do the quote mining myself. I don't just go to some site that feeds me a list of selected Buddha quotes. (As of recently, I do however have an app which gives me a random scripture verse daily.)
I don't "just go to some site that feeds me a list of selected Buddha quotes" either.
There are no suttas that I ignore or disagree with as far as I know. That is all quite presumptuous on your part.
yet you keep denying that Buddha taught that only you can end your own suffering, because people cause their own suffering.
I'm a chan Buddhist, so I put little importance on scriptures.
Is that so? Tell that to Bodhidharma who carried around with him the Lankavatara Sutra everywhere he went. It was his favorite sutra (one of mine as well actually). He also said:
Chan Buddhism does not place importance on scriptures; that is not to say Chan Buddhists don't read scriptures, or find them as helpful guides.
"I have here the Lankavatara in four fascicles which I now pass to you. It contains the essential teaching concerning the mind-ground of the Tathagata, by means of which you lead all sentient beings to the truth of Buddhism."
-- Bodhidharma [Suzuki, D.T.]
"The true Way is sublime. It can't be expressed in language. Of what use are scriptures? But someone who sees his own nature finds the Way, even if he can't read a word." ~ Bodhidharma, The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma: A Bilingual Edition
And ironically, if you read further into that Sutra (central to the Chan tradition), it also explains the importance of scripture.
That being said, I have seen that quote before and I agree with it. However, I don't see it's contradictory to Left Libertarianism.
So you know it's legit, but you still question it, for the sake of argument?
1st off, define left libertarianism, because you seem to think social liberalism is left libertarianism, when in actuality anarchism is left libertarianism.
I am not a social liberal that's for sure. I am anti-welfare, against government healthcare, against most government subsidies, against Federal environmental intervention, against Federal funded education, .
I am Left Libertariam because I strongly support civil liveries, the Constitution, against initiatory coercion, protection of property rights, but I also support the government funding and sustaining an infrastructure for the nation, states rights, a safety net, pro environmental protection (state level), pro drug legalization, non-interventionism, and .
You are a social liberal. You mix elements of classic liberalism, and populism.
I agree much with Noam Chomsky and Aristotle, as well as Ron Paul and John Locke.
John Locke believed the only purpose of government was to protect the life, liberty, and property of it's citizens, and that no citizen may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.
Aristotle believed in Republicanism; he believed in a government where the common people held sovereignty, the government was restricted by rule of law, and the governing body took the form of a Oligarchical-Democracy.
2ndly, it shows that Buddha was a individualist, economically, and culturally
Indeed. But Left-Libertarianism =/= collectivist, non-individualist.
you are labeling yourself a left wing libertarian, when in reality you are a social liberal. Left wing libertarianism is anarchism. Right wing libertarianism is classic liberalism, which uses minarchism. Left wing means reformism, and right wing means traditionalism. So Minarchism is by nature right wing, while anarchism is by nature left wing. Classic liberalism has 2 aspects; free market capitalism, and minarchism. The opposite of capitalism is socialism which is left wing fascism, the opposite of anarchism is nationalism, which is right wing fascism.
We have now established that
Left wing = reformism (progressivism)
Right wing = traditionalism (conservatism)
Classic liberalism (minarchism/capitalism) = Right wing libertarianism
Anarchism = Left wing libertarianism
socialism = Left wing fascism
Nationalism = Right wing fascism
If plotted on a chart it would look something like thishttp://www.debate.org...
Conservatism in it's truest form is traditional conservatism.
Now traditional conservatism is collectivist in nature, and can be compared to the UK's Tory party (no longer exists) . traditional conservatism favors tradition, as well as a an authoritative hierarchy (such as kings, and lords). It is not as collectivist as nationalism however.
When traditional conservatism is combined with classic liberalism (minarchism/capitalism) it becomes liberal-conservatism, which is more individualist, and can be compared to the UK's modern conservative party.
Progressivism in it's truest form is Populism. Populism is against elitism, and believes in reform based on the will, or need of the majority.
Populism by nature is collectivist, because it believes what is good for the goose is good for the gander. It is often a tyranny of the majority, as opposed to a tyranny of elites. Populism often leads to fascism.
When populism is mixed with aspects of classic liberalism (minarchism/capitalism) it becomes social liberalism.
That is what you are, a social liberal. You combine aspects of classic liberalism, and aspects of populism.
If you were an anarchist. Say anarcho-capitalist or anarcho-socalist; than and only than would you be a left wing libertarian.
Here is a picture showing all the ideologies in place on a chart; http://www.debate.org...
Social liberalism is not a collectivist ideology, but it is more collectivist than anarchism and classic liberalism.
Dan's wall of Shame
"Banning the expression of hatred far outweighs the negative effects of 'thoughtcrime'." ~ royalpaladin
"That's like saying that people who want to drink and drive will drink and drive. Which is true..." ~ Ore_Ele
"The great lie, Going to college equates to being educated." ~ sadolite
"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" ~ GeoLaureate8