On Mar 29, 10:42=A0pm, "Jakub A. Krzewicki" <ebre...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> niedziela, 30 marca 2008 04:12. carbon entity 'ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
'
> <ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> contaminated talk.politics.tibet with the following
> letter:
>
> > You are quite right. However, theocracy is not central to buddhism.
>
> So what about the Chakravartin figure in the Indian Buddhism which had
an
> influence on Vajrayana? As an european socialist and an Aryan who shares
> the Eurasianist view of comrade (or if you will Count) Nicholas Roerich
> --- the aristocrat, spiritual teacher and artist who became a devoted
> Russian Communist and had also an influence on shaping the politics
> (including the secret services!) both of USSR and USA in the 1930's ---
> I see an onlky remedy to the Caliphate Islamic Eurabian theocracy in the
> linking of European socialism with the Buddhist Chakravartin figure. I'm
> not just a lonely follower of this idea among the european socialists.
> Although it's rather hardly popular in Poland, there is much more of
peopl=
e
> like me in Russia, Germany or the Scandinavian Countries. This is one of
> sources of the exceptional popularity of Dalai-lama both in the West and
i=
n
> the former Soviet Union.
Theocracy is not central to Buddhism because it is not necessary to
subcribe theocarcy in order to practice Buddhism.
>
> > It
> > is the remnamts of Bon influence.
>
> Don't be so unprecise --- the extant school of Bon (Yungdrug) is also in
> fact the Buddhist School, although not from India but from Afghanistan
and=
> Tajikistan. You should rather call the primitive religion you mentioned
> "Shamanism" than "Bon".
Of course, Tibet has its religious history. As a matter of fact,
Tibetan history is so closely interwine with religion such that one
cannot read one without reading the other. However, the first and the
second wave Buddhist influences occurred when Bon was the dominant
religious force in Tibet. Buddhism managed to established itself in
Tibet but could not changed the entrenched theocracy. These is why I
attributed theocracy to Bon. It is not saying that Bon did not have
its own history of absorbing and integrating different outside
influences like the one you described above.
>
> > And China was rssponsible for
> > establi****ng Buddhism firmly in Tibet (cultureal genocide?) about 800
> > yeaars ago. Princess Wen Chen
> > "brought in a second wave of Buddhist influence equal , if not
> > greater, to the first."
>
> Maybe the money for the first Buddhist temples in Tibet was from China
but=
> the very human capital of spiritual teachers didn't mostly arrive from
> China, they all but some exceptions which are hardly not worth
mentioning
> were just the Vajrayana Mahasiddhas from India, some of them the
refugees
> from the Islamic invaders.
Irrelevant. Actually, one can argue that it was the Tibetans who chose
to practice Buddhism, at least the Tibetan version of Buddhism. And
then they made up the stories which became myth to justify the cahnge.
Nevertheless, events did not happen in a vacuum. Of course, one can
still ponder the two waves of Buddhist invasion were coincidental or
it manifested a more deep seated societal need for change from Bon to
a more sophisticated religion. Do we really know the answer? Can we
really know the answer?
"All things which arise through conditioned co-arising,
I explain as emptiness.
Again, it is a conventional designation,
Again, it is the meaning of the Middle path." ---- Chih-i
> Therefore a kind of the alliance of China with
> the Wahhabi and Deobandi-dominated world of Islam --- which is both
deathl=
y
> menace to Europe and maximally intolerant to the Buddhist Dharma --- is
> like adding insult to the injury in the Western public opinion which is
> shaped by the Eurasianist socialists. When Drikung Kagyud Lamas bless
the
> Russian troops of presidents Putin and Medvedev which fight with the
menac=
e
> of al-Qaeda in Chechnya, the Chinese rapprochement with the
fundamentalist=
> and pro-American Musharraf's regime and the countries like Saudi Arabia
is=
> seen in Europe as a kind of an actual "stabbing in the back". I see this
> menace not only as an Eurasianist and an European socialist, but also as
a=
> Polish patriot who is proud from the glorious victory of king John
Sobiesk=
i
> in Vienna.
Don't understand the above.
>
> > Basically, when two peoples meet each other, cultural changes are
> > inevitable. Yes, one can yell cultural genocide when Buddhism took the
> > poace of Bon belief.
>
> Except for the extant Yungdrug Bonists many of whom sup****t the
Dalai-lama=
..
Now. Not when the Bonists were losing influence and rapidly
marginalized.
>
> > But without this change, there would not be
> > today's Tibetan Buddhism. Theocracy is not compatible with the 21st
> > century.
>
> Maybe not theocracy in the traditional form, but the socialist and
> democratic theocracy and monarchy in the syndicalist workers' state
> postulated by the Eurasians and Mladorossi in Russia, or by the comrade
> Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma and Piacenza, former Chief of Partido
Carlista
> in Spain. I was recently suggested to form such a political party in
Polan=
d
> by a group of aristocracy which sup****ted the former Communist
Government
> and presently I thorougly consider this proposal. The popularity of the
> propaganda for this movement may be wide because of the origin of the
> majority of the pre-WW2 Polish proletariat and the first socialist
> activists like Warynski, Pilsudski and Dzierzynski (the last one
> unfortunately a Luxemburgist and consequently a national traitor to the
> Bolsheviks) from the huge social class of lesser nobility disposessed
and
> degraded by Tzarists after the January uprising 1863.
I am not familiar with what you had described above. I am not in a
position to make comments. But if history is of any guide, the long
term trend is toward the separation of church and state. Of course
there had been and there will be counter trends. Suffice it to say,
there is no serious effort to restore theorcracy.
>
> > It will have to go the way like other components of Bon.
> > China's prseence is incidental.
>
> If the idea of Trikaya and Nirma****aya/Tulku is a Bon only component,
how =
do
> you explain the fact that it was present also in the _Indian_ Vajrayana?
> This idea is rather close to the Europeans because the local religions
lik=
e
> Orthodox and Catholic Christianity have a similar idea of Trinity and
the
> Incarnation/Created Body to the Vajrayana, so the propagating Buddhism
her=
e
> is not really an intellectual challenge, rather a political, cultural
and
> occult challenge of replacing one fading "mystical body" with the
another,=
> fresh and energetic one, to protect the European culture from the
rapidly
> growing Moslem poisonous jungle.
>
> --
> tois egregorosin hena kai koinon kosmon einai
> ton de koimomenon hekaston eis idion apostrephesthai
|
