Silly Buddhist!

The opposite of compassion is callousness;
showing or having an insensitive and cruel disregard for others.

For years, I’ve thought that global corporations and politicians were greedy to the extent of causing suffering. When engaging with others about this issue, I would say, “That act seems deliberate.” The reply would usually be, “Nah, it’s just a cock up”: the implications of a deliberate action are too horrendous to accept.

For example, huge fizzy drink companies manufacture products with a sugar content (and other additives) well above anything that could ever be called beneficial; in fact, it is detrimental to our health and they produce billions of gallons of this addictive toxic substance. “Hmm…just a soft drink?”

This topic gives rise to much misunderstanding and argument. Is it deliberate social engineering, a fear of not making as much money as possible or stupidity? Or all three? Of course, it’s all three. Satisfied with that knowledge, we go about our business…and so do the global corporations. Nothing changes, and there’s just more suffering.

On the “table of all possibilities” the number three rings bells…

When conversing with others, one of the main problems we encounter is being brought down to a conventional level, in which we just go round in circles. That is what samsara is – circles of confusion. In fact, all media plays on this, consciously and unconsciously. Our problem is really one of communicating through a confused mind; the wiring is connected in a conventional manner, when it should have a absolute connection as well. We oscillate between relative reality and ultimate reality and that’s where we can get stuck sometimes as we forget the unity, and just have to throw the whole thing up in the air.

Let’s look at this again through Buddhist eyes – and this hit me yesterday for the very first time! Silly me…silly Buddhist 😉

I asked, “Are people being deceived by deliberate social engineering, a fear of not making as much money as possible, and stupidity?” Then I realised that I have been using convention terms, and I had forgotten to apply Buddhist principles … silly me! Silly Buddhist!

A deliberate act is desire.
Fear is aversion: a perceived obstacle.
Stupidity is ignoring the consequences.

And people are right; it is a cock up. Just look and see. It is desire, aversion and ignorance on a huge scale. ‘They’ get away with it because we gave them the power, because we were distracted.

One such arena of investigation:

Endocrine-disrupting Chemicals
Pesticides are worth billions.
Intense desire can make us callous.


This is part of the article:

Science paper recommended ways of identifying hormone-mimicking chemicals in pesticides linked to foetal abnormalities, genital mutations, infertility and other diseases including cancer and IQ loss.

As many as 31 pesticides with a value running into billions of pounds could have been banned because of potential health risks, if a blocked EU paper on hormone-mimicking chemicals had been acted upon.

Commission sources say that the paper was buried by top EU officials under pressure from big chemical firms which use EDCs in toiletries, plastics and cosmetics.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to SILLY BUDDHIST!

  1. crestedduck says:

    It is so obvious at this point that a person would have to be in a propaganda induced coma not to see it themselves…….Or is the reality that the subconscious has been covertly trained to put you in a state of denial when you do look directly at the problem, like when I used to approach certain subjects to research online I would become sleepy and feel like I was doing something wrong even if drinking coffee at the time…….avoidance ??? Which causes one to not learn and correct the problems….stupidity ???
    It’s not simply a case of paranoia when you are actually being fucked with intentionally !

  2. tony says:

    Once the secret is out, the devil’s activity cannot be maintained.

    Here is an extract from S.C Lewis’s “Screwtape Letters”. A correspondence between two devils… Dear Wormwood, Do remember you are there to fuddle him.

    I note what you say about guiding your patient’s reading and taking care that he sees a good deal of his materialist friend. But are you not being a trifle naif? It sounds as if you supposed that argument was the way to keep him out of the Enemy’s clutches. That might have been so if he had lived a few centuries earlier.

    At that time the humans still knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not; and if it was proved they really believed it. They still connected thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life as the result of a chain of reasoning. But what with the weekly press and other such weapons, we have largely altered that.

    Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to having a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn’t think of doctrines as primarily “true” or “false,” but as “academic” or “practical,” “outworn” or “contemporary,” “conventional” or “ruthless.” Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church.

    Don’t waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true! Make him think it is strong or stark or courageous—that it is the philosophy of the future. That’s the sort of thing he cares about.
    The trouble about argument is that it moves the whole struggle onto the Enemy’s own ground. He can argue too; whereas in really practical propaganda of the kind I am suggesting He has been shown for centuries to be greatly the inferior of Our Father Below.

    By the very act of arguing you awake the patient’s reason; and once it is awake, who can foresee the result! Even if a particular train of thought can be twisted so as to end in our favour, you will find that you have been strengthening in your patient the fatal habit of attending to universal issues and withdrawing his attention from the stream of immediate sense experiences. Your business is to fix his attention on the stream. Teach him to call it “real life” and don’t let him ask what he means by “real.”

    Remember, he is not, like you, a pure spirit. Never having been a human (oh, that abominable advantage of the Enemy’s!) you don’t realise how enslaved they are to the pressure of the ordinary. I once had a patient, a sound atheist, who used to read in the British Museum. One day, as he sat reading, I saw a train of thought in his mind beginning to go the wrong way.

    The Enemy, of course, was at his elbow in a moment. Before I knew where I was I saw my twenty years’ work beginning to totter. If I had lost my head and begun to attempt a defence by argument, I should have been undone. But I was not such a fool. I struck instantly at the part of the man which I had best under my control, and suggested that it was just about time he had some lunch. The Enemy presumably made the counter-suggestion (you know how one can never quite overhear what He says to them?) that this was more important than lunch.

    At least I think that must have been His line, for when I said, “Quite. In fact much too important to tackle at the end of a morning,” the patient brightened up considerably; and by the time I had added “Much better come back after lunch and go into it with a fresh mind,” he was already halfway to the door.

    Once he was in the street the battle was won. I showed him a newsboy shouting the midday paper, and a No. 73 bus going past, and before he reached the bottom of the steps I had got into him an unalterable conviction that, whatever odd ideas might come into a man’s head when he was shut up alone with his books, a healthy dose of “real life” (by which he meant the bus and the newsboy) was enough to show him that all “that sort of thing” just couldn’t be true. He knew he’d had a narrow escape, and in later years was fond of talking about “that inarticulate sense for actuality which is our ultimate safe guard against the aberrations of mere logic.”

    He is now safe in Our Father’s house.
    You begin to see the point? Thanks to processes which we set at work in them centuries ago, they find it all but impossible to believe in the unfamiliar while the familiar is before their eyes. Keep pressing home on him the ordinariness of things. Above all, do not attempt to use science (I mean, the real sciences) as a defence against Christianity.

    They will positively encourage him to think about realities he can’t touch and see. There have been sad cases among the modern physicists. If he must dabble in science, keep him on economics and sociology; don’t let him get away from that invaluable “real life.” But the best of all is to let him read no science but to give him a grand general idea that he knows it all and that everything he happens to have picked up in casual talk and reading is “the results of modern investigation.”

    Do remember you are there to fuddle him. From the way some of you young fiends talk, anyone would suppose it was our job to teach!

    Your affectionate uncle

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.