The Century Of The Self

[camerata]

Ven Buddhadasa was fairly sceptical about liberal democracy. He said:

"Liberal democracy opens the way for full freedom but doesn't clearly

define what freedom is. Then people's kilesa snatch the opportunity to be

free according to the power of those kilesa.

...it [democracy] is extremely dangerous, because if the common person

is not yet good it will immediately turn the whole of this world into a

hel_l."

Actually, I agree to a large extent, but I don't think there is a better system available at present. Buddhadasa's idea of a Dhammocracy run by a supposedly "benign dictator" is not very attractive either because, as we know, power corrupts.

The world's most powerful democracy has alternately attempted to control its citizens by supressing their desires and satisfying their desires ever since the ideas of Sigmund Freud came into fashion. It was Freud's nephew who invented Public Relations Counseling and first began showing corporations how to persuade consumers to buy what they wanted rather than what they needed, thereby stimulating the economy and keeping the masses docile. The whole incredible story is told in a 4-part BBC documentary called The Century of the Self available on Google Video:

1. Happiness Machines

2. The Engineering of Consent

3. There is a Policeman Inside all our Head: He Must be Destroyed

4. Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering

Buddhists have known for a long time that conscious and subconscious desires are the cause of suffering, but here's proof that governments are manipulating those desires for their own ends.

[Virin]

This reminds me of Thai politics .

camerata, thanks for sharing.

[camerata]

This reminds me of Thai politics .

I had the same thought. Part 4 features two recent Western leaders, Clinton and Blair. From what I recall reading about Clinton's presidency, his penchant for polling/researching voters' wishes and then giving them what they wanted was emulated by Thaksin in the early days of his first term.

[Plus]

I've read an article a few months ago written by a pollster who worked for various political campaigns in the US.

Apparently in some cases it's gone very far. To the point where political parties and ideologies don't matter anymore. It's who is able to better read the polls and better react to them. And it is usually determined by who has more resources, i.e. money.

They have turned it into a science and almost perfected it - the link between money and the number of votes. It almost never fails.

They don't need to WIN the majority to get in power, they need to COMPLY with the majority.

In a way it's a perfection of democracy, the problem is it's presumed that that the majority always knows what is best, but this is not always true, as Ven Buddhadasa noted in that quote.

One possible solution is to declare the opinion of the majority as the "best" no matter what. All previous notions and scales of what is good or bad are discarded. It leads to a question of ultimate authority, and it IS a question for Buddhism.

[jamesc2000]

Buddhism is all about wisdom and compassion and the big picture.

Anybody exercising any authority and I don’t just mean politicians but managers and supervisors and teachers and parents who act with a clear and level head, making decisions after considering the needs and thoughts of everyone and not just for the benefit of the decision makers is a good thing.

Surely making wise and compassionate decisions and not selfish and egoistic ones is what Buddhism is all about.

I fully understand that not everyone will make wise and compassionate decisions whether they are Buddhist or not but having Buddhism in Thailand can only help people in authority do what is wise or at least remind them that they should be taking the wise and compassionate way.

One thing I really love about Buddhism is that Buddha started out rich and powerful with everything and ended up with no material possession but the knowledge of the Truth.

Most people seem to be working in the opposite way. Born with very little material possession but trying to accumulate as much as possible and dying with as much to their name as possible.

[Naam]

I fully understand that not everyone will make wise and compassionate decisions whether they are Buddhist or not but having Buddhism in Thailand can only help people in authority do what is wise or at least remind them that they should be taking the wise and compassionate way.

the emphasis is on "should" but a different reality prevails.

[jamesc2000]

the emphasis is on "should" but a different reality prevails.

Quite right!

We sometimes lump all politicians together and that they are all self-serving.

However all politicians are individuals and as such some actually try to and actually do do the right thing.

Sadly doing the right thing means also not doing the underhanded way of achieving power and hence not winning and being elected and not having the authority to serve with wisdom and compassion.

But good and honest politicians do exists and I think that there are more of them than people think.

[Plus]

Without clear rules anyone can say that his actions are "wise and compassionate" and you can't argue with that.

[camerata]

The whole series is worth watching, but if you only watch one part, watch Part 4. It was two conservatives, Reagan and Thatcher, who first attracted voters by encouraging their individualism (which was to be satisfied by big business providing "lifestyle" consumer products), but it was Clinton and Blair who abandoned their party's key policies to get elected by simply giving voters whatever they wanted.

What comes out of this episode is how selfish people are these days and how little chance real socialism has for a comeback. In the end, the pollsters found that people were so selfish that their answers to polls didn't make sense. For example, they wanted better public services but also lower taxes.

The end result of all this was that politics in the UK and USA had become a matter of satisfying the voter's selfish desires rather than getting the voter to take some responsibility for the less fortunate in the world. No wonder capitalism/consumerism is the antitheses of Buddhism. There's not much room for compassion in politics when every voter is treated as a consumer.

[Plus]

... capitalism/consumerism is the antitheses of Buddhism...

Is it?

In what way? I'm thinking about how a Buddhist country, Thailand, is the most capitalistic of it's muslim/christian neighbours. Low taxes, no social services, non-existing charities, largest income gap in the region.

In Thai interpretation of Buddhism individuals are disconnected from each other, every one is on his own, karma doesn't work on a society level. Merit making is not aimed at improving a society but rather for personal gains in the next life. Hardly a case for socialism or compassion.

[Brucenkhamen]

... capitalism/consumerism is the antitheses of Buddhism...

Is it?

In what way? I'm thinking about how a Buddhist country, Thailand, is the most capitalistic of it's muslim/christian neighbours. Low taxes, no social services, non-existing charities, largest income gap in the region.

In Thai interpretation of Buddhism individuals are disconnected from each other, every one is on his own, karma doesn't work on a society level. Merit making is not aimed at improving a society but rather for personal gains in the next life. Hardly a case for socialism or compassion.

Thailand is no more a Buddhist country than England or the USA is a Christian country. Do you judge Christianity by the actions of those countries or activities of their citizens? of course not.

If you think Thailand and Thai culture is a model of what Buddhism teaches then you obviously haven't been paying attention.

Please try again.

[Plus]

Do you judge Christianity by the actions of those countries or activities of their citizens?

Actually, I do. Religion installs core believes and values in citiziens. In the west these values are undeniably of Christian origin, even if the people have stopped practicing.

If there's no connectin between religion and societies this thread would be meaningless in the first place.

"Thailand and Thai culture is a model of what Buddhism teaches" - actions speak louder than words. Thailand is an example of how it works out in real life with real people, not on centruries old manuscripts.

[Brucenkhamen]

Do you judge Christianity by the actions of those countries or activities of their citizens?

Actually, I do. Religion installs core believes and values in citiziens. In the west these values are undeniably of Christian origin, even if the people have stopped practicing.

If there's no connectin between religion and societies this thread would be meaningless in the first place.

"Thailand and Thai culture is a model of what Buddhism teaches" - actions speak louder than words. Thailand is an example of how it works out in real life with real people, not on centruries old manuscripts.

I won't deny that Christianity has been a large influence on western culture and the way we think. Nowadays though the vast majority of westerners have no interest in it

Thailand is an example of how religion gets corrupted and distorted over time, as would the West be also if we hadn't gone beyond it into secularism.

Much of what we see in Thai Buddhism bears little relation to the original teachings. The most popular form of Chritianity in the West is all about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and what we see in modern popular Thai Buddhism is on the same level.

[camerata]

... capitalism/consumerism is the antitheses of Buddhism...

Is it?

In what way?

In the sense that consumerism promotes greed. I wasn't talking about any specific country but up until 20-30 years ago, upcountry Thais tended to share and to help each other. Now they all want the motorbikes and pickup trucks they've seen on TV. And many have moved or been forced to move from subsistence farming to cash-crop farming. This new materialism is certainly further away from the Buddhist ideal than Thailand used to be.

I'm thinking about how a Buddhist country, Thailand, is the most capitalistic of it's muslim/christian neighbours. Low taxes, no social services, non-existing charities, largest income gap in the region.

This just shows that the elite that runs Thailand doesn't do so on Dhammic principles.

In Thai interpretation of Buddhism individuals are disconnected from each other, every one is on his own, karma doesn't work on a society level. Merit making is not aimed at improving a society but rather for personal gains in the next life. Hardly a case for socialism or compassion.

And yet there was a notable lack of craving for material things outside the city until a couple of decades ago. On a personal level, Thais are still the most generous people I've come across anywhere in the world.

Anyhow I was thinking more of true Buddhism than the popular Buddhism in Thailand.

[Plus]

... capitalism/consumerism is the antitheses of Buddhism...

Is it?

In what way?

In the sense that consumerism promotes greed. I wasn't talking about any specific country but up until 20-30 years ago, upcountry Thais tended to share and to help each other. Now they all want the motorbikes and pickup trucks they've seen on TV. And many have moved or been forced to move from subsistence farming to cash-crop farming. This new materialism is certainly further away from the Buddhist ideal than Thailand used to be.

True, but it belongs more to political forum rather than shift in Buddhist values. Self-sufficiency concepts are popular, too.

I'm thinking about how a Buddhist country, Thailand, is the most capitalistic of it's muslim/christian neighbours. Low taxes, no social services, non-existing charities, largest income gap in the region.

This just shows that the elite that runs Thailand doesn't do so on Dhammic principles.

I don't think it's only the "elites" fault, the whole society is wired that way. Government can't stop affluent Thais from donating to the poor, it's just not in their books of dhammic principles.

In Thai interpretation of Buddhism individuals are disconnected from each other, every one is on his own, karma doesn't work on a society level. Merit making is not aimed at improving a society but rather for personal gains in the next life. Hardly a case for socialism or compassion.

And yet there was a notable lack of craving for material things outside the city until a couple of decades ago. On a personal level, Thais are still the most generous people I've come across anywhere in the world.

Yes, but when taken to a societal level - being generous to people they personally don't know, they fail. They just don't see the connection, they don't think they are all part of the same society. In the US hugging strangers is not strange anymore, Thailand hasn't developed that level of trust in fellow Thais yet.

[camerata]

Yes, but when taken to a societal level - being generous to people they personally don't know, they fail.

The relative lack of charities in Thailand seems to stem from the emphasis on donating to the Sangha as set out in the Pali Canon. To me this is a weak point of Theravada although the scriptures don't say people shouldn't help out strangers in need. Also, Thai friends have told me Thais don't donate to charities because they don't trust secular organizations with their money. Sad, but true.

[thaiclan]

Yes, but when taken to a societal level - being generous to people they personally don't know, they fail. They just don't see the connection, they don't think they are all part of the same society. In the US hugging strangers is not strange anymore, Thailand hasn't developed that level of trust in fellow Thais yet.

Hugging strangers is hardly an indicator to a person's or nations compassion! Neither are the charitable donations made on an individual or national level. Charity requires a receiver and therefore by giving to charity one is perpetutaing the need for a reciever - and thus a reciever there will always remain.

Most western style of charity is extremely unempowering and requires a huge shift to really work (read Banker to the Poor by Mohammed Yunnus). Billions are donated to the "needy" yet the "needy" are still "needy".

Perhaps those nations that can hug a stranger within their borders should send plane loads of people to hug those they have conflict with!

Peace!

[jamesc2000]

Do you judge Christianity by the actions of those countries or activities of their citizens?

Actually, I do. Religion installs core believes and values in citiziens. In the west these values are undeniably of Christian origin, even if the people have stopped practicing.

If there's no connectin between religion and societies this thread would be meaningless in the first place.

"Thailand and Thai culture is a model of what Buddhism teaches" - actions speak louder than words. Thailand is an example of how it works out in real life with real people, not on centruries old manuscripts.

I think there is a great danger of judging Christianity by the actions of those countries or activities of their citizens.

Italy, Mexico and Philippines are well know for political corruption. These are also Christian countries, I think it would be wrong to link political corruption with the Christian faith!

People here have written about wrongdoings by Buddhist monks and I think it is wrong to link the wrongdoings with Buddhism.

A few Catholic priest abuse little boys and some people will make the link but it is wrong to link the Catholic faith with abusing little boys.

People understand how wrong racial stereotyping is but sometimes fail to see religious stereotyping is just as wrong.

Some of the stereotyping on TV is simply amazing! I was reading how someone thought that all oil massages in Thailand are fronts for sex services!

And how is all this related to the topic of The Century Of The Self, Buddhism, Liberal Democracy and Mind Control?

Thailand isn’t as sleezy as people think and a lot of the sleeze is in people’s minds. And if we want to denigrate a religion we don’t like, one way is just to pick something a person of the religion did that is wrong and say see what a lousy religion it is just because a few of its members do bad things!

All societies have their own less that attractive traits and to link any negative traits in Thailand with Buddhism is equally wrong.

Maybe its not so much anything wrong with Buddhism or liberal democracy but the danger is more with our own thinking and perceptions and how we are blinded by our own bigotry and ego.

If anyone have any different ideas please feel free to share. And if anyone is against liberal democracy and the free sharing of ideas, I would love to hear your views too!

Edited March 10, 2008 by jamesc2000

[lost_in_space]

Camerata,

Thanks for the link. I downloaded and watched it. One of the most poignant quotes was by Bernays' daughter, who said her father referred to the masses as stupid, and in a mean spirited way.

The Buddha took the kinder view that people were deluded, not evil or stupid, and just needed the dust removed from their eyes. I find this view more helpful in my daily life and in my overview of world politics.

I once read an article by a reformed public relations man who claimed that if he were given General Motor's PR budget, he could have the US voting socialist in a decade.

As to your comment about Dhammocracy, what do you think about Bhutan? It seems the former king set a pretty good example of rising above the corrupting influence of power. I think he may provide an example that all may not be lost in human nature.

[Plus]

I think there is a great danger of judging Christianity by the actions of those countries or activities of their citizens.

Italy, Mexico and Philippines are well know for political corruption. These are also Christian countries, I think it would be wrong to link political corruption with the Christian faith!

They are all Catholic. Protestant countries are on the opposite end of corruption spectrum.

Hugging strangers is hardly an indicator to a person's or nations compassion! Neither are the charitable donations made on an individual or national level. Charity requires a receiver and therefore by giving to charity one is perpetutaing the need for a reciever - and thus a reciever there will always remain.

Jamesc2000, are you saying that charity is not a sign of compassion, or are you arguing against charities in principle?

One of the biggest recipients in the US are the universities, btw.

[jamesc2000]

I think there is a great danger of judging Christianity by the actions of those countries or activities of their citizens.

Italy, Mexico and Philippines are well know for political corruption. These are also Christian countries, I think it would be wrong to link political corruption with the Christian faith!

They are all Catholic. Protestant countries are on the opposite end of corruption spectrum.

Maybe you have a point here that Catholic countries are more likely to have corrupt politicians while Protestant countries are less likely!

But could it be more a case of culture rather than religion as the influencing factor? India and China are also known for political corruption and I don't reckon that the Catholics have caused this!

Hugging strangers is hardly an indicator to a person's or nations compassion! Neither are the charitable donations made on an individual or national level. Charity requires a receiver and therefore by giving to charity one is perpetutaing the need for a reciever - and thus a reciever there will always remain.

Jamesc2000, are you saying that charity is not a sign of compassion, or are you arguing against charities in principle?

One of the biggest recipients in the US are the universities, btw.

It wasn't me that made the comment above about charities. It was thaiclan so you have address your question to him!

[thaiclan]

Yes that comment was made by me about charities.

I believe that charity as we know it is one of the most disempowering actions that we can bestoll upon a person/nation.

I must admit I gave to charity "blindly" for years - the usual sponsor a kid in Africa, buy an Ox for a Xmas gift -monies in a fundraising box etc. Then I read a brilliant book by Yunnus Mohammed (NObel Prize winner) called "banker to the poor". This changed my view unimaginably and therefore I recommend the book entirely.

Rather than millions of us trying to think of WHAT we can give, how much we should give etc we need to be thinking what we can DO to solve the issues of the world.

I later read another book which honed in on the fact that as long as we treat our fellow humans as charity cases we are in effect creating more charity cases as the identification of the ego (in this case being a benign giver) will be manifested in the outer world by creating more of what is required to keep the ego validated.

I analysed within myself what type of charities I was giving to and why I was doing it. basically I was choosing which charities, judging for myself who was the most needy and therefore worthy of my donation. The base reason for this giving was the sense of pleasure/validation/erradication of guilt it gave me. Now this was a harsh lesson for me to learn but I know it to be true and I see it to be true in countless others. Our charity of choice usually is an accurate indicator of our own psychology.

Thus the brilliant Yunnus talks about his journey to erradicate poverty amongst the Bangladeshi women by grassroots exploration leading him to the microfinancing idea. An emporwering and enlightened form of charity.

[camerata]

As to your comment about Dhammocracy, what do you think about Bhutan? It seems the former king set a pretty good example of rising above the corrupting influence of power. I think he may provide an example that all may not be lost in human nature.

I don't know enough about it really. If it's going to work anywhere, it would probably be in a remote kingdom under absolute monarchy and with a fairly homogenous population. But the trouble with the "benign dictator" model is there's no guarantee the dictator's successor will also be benign. Also, the population may get happiness, but it's still a happiness that someone else chose for them.

Having said that, I'd really like to go to Bhutan to see for myself.