west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 32,010
It’s weird that you’re more triggered by Gary Lineker than by a government behaving like fascists.
ZenHalfTimeCrock
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 1,391
- Team supported
- Manchester City
There's one other aspect to all this that, while it has not been entirely overlooked by the media, has not, perhaps, been delved into sufficiently, namely, Braverman's affiliation with the Buddhist Triratna movement.
To date, there have been several stories published about Braverman that have drawn attention to this connection, like this one:
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ella-braverman-in-controversial-buddhist-sect
In particular, they highlight the fact that the founder of this organisation, Sangharakshita (aka Dennis Lingwood), has been exposed as a sexual predator.
Personally, I am not all that impressed by them. They are attempts at guilt by mere association that don't really work for me.
However, what has yet to be made public are the striking congruences between the political philosophy of Sangharakshita and specific public statements made by Braverman. Significantly, both are opposed to universal notions of human rights, and to the '-isms' that are readily associated with political correctness.
For example, in one of his aphorisms Sangharakshita stated that:
‘Political correctness’ is one of the most pernicious tendencies of our time – far more pernicious than pseudo-liberalism, of which it is probably the extreme form.'
He has also suggested in terms of debates around human rights issues that the focus should be on duties as opposed to rights, arguing that:
'Duties consist in what is due from us to others, and are based upon giving, whereas rights consist in what is due from others to us, and are based (from the subjective point of view) upon grasping and getting. … the clamorous insistence upon our rights, upon what is legally, morally or even spiritually due from others to us, only strengthens greed, strengthens desire, strengthens selfishness, strengthens egotism.'
Now compare that with this extract from an article posted on Braverman's own website:
'In Brazil, there have been several cases of the use of torture by the police in the name of crime prevention. They justify this by putting a general right to live free from crime and intimidation above their rights of those who are tortured. To wipe out torture, the government would need to create robust, well-paid policing and judicial services to guarantee the same results. The government might argue that this money is better spent on new schools and medical clinics, protecting wider rights to freedom of education and health. These sort of value judgments, inherent in the practical application of human rights (whether we agree with them or not), undermine their "universality".
But across most of the West, something else has happened to devalue human rights. A fatal misassumption plagues our whole approach to civil liberties: the predominance of the individual over the communal. The importance of the individual is seen as the defining axiom upon which we should base our policy and gauge its success. Emerging by reference to individual instincts and desires, rights and entitlements are paramount in our society, prevailing over considerations of how our choices affect others, over reference to past experience, or over the consequences for those born later on.'
'...A fair, decent and reasonable society should question the dilution of our sense of duty, the demotion of our grasp of responsibility and our virtual abandonment of the spirit of civic obligation. What we do for others should matter more than the selfish assertion of personal rights and the lonely individualism to which it gives rise.'
Then, of course, there was that comment she made about 'Guardian reading, tofu eating wokerati.'
Additionally, there is a suggestion that some members of Triratna believe that it is possible to become so spiritually 'enlightened' that this places them above the law. See, for example, this online blog entry:
https://buddhism-controversy-blog.c...-the-law-the-subjective-morality-of-triratna/
This is the key bit:
'....some at least of the membership seem to think they are beyond the law.
They tend to see themselves as beyond the law, partly because they regard themselves as being spiritually advanced people who are able, to some extent at least, to see and understand the world in terms of what they believe to be “ultimate reality”. They regard themselves as being able to see and experience the world from “a truer, wider perspective” than conventional, mundane society.
Another, related reason why Triratna members may see themselves as above the law, is because they tend to see themselves as operating on a higher, more spiritual moral plane than conventional society. They make a distinction between ‘conventional morality’, and their own superior ‘natural morality’.
According to FWBO/Triratna teaching, ‘conventional morality’ is based on guilt and fear – fear of punishment by the law, or by God. Such fear-based conventional morality is therefore, in their view, only a pseudo-morality. True morality, or ‘natural morality’, is not based on external authority or on commonly agreed standards, but on an individual’s own appraisal of what is ‘skilful’ or ‘unskilful’.'
What that blog is referring to is a teaching called upaya-kausalya, or 'skilful means, according to which conventional Buddhist morality may be set aside by spiritually advanced teachers if the occasion demands. Without going into detail, it has proven to be a very elastic principle, and the history of Buddhism, especially its recent history, has been marred by some notorious and scandalous behaviour on the part of Buddhist teachers, which has been explained away by devotees as 'skilful-means'.
Braverman is a 'Mitra' in Triratna. That does not necessarily entail that she sees herself as being 'above the law'. But it could account for her strange ideas, and you can only receive the status of Mitra ('friend') after a four-year course involving retreats and other activities. So she is 'in deep'.
It is also interesting that we may therefore have had a former Attorney General and now a Home Secretary aligned with a movement with some senior members who appear to think that laws sometimes do not apply to them.
Of course, everything I have described is merely circumstantial, but it seems to me that it is not unreasonable to conclude that such an attitude may also have rubbed off on some of the laity.
I only found out about this myself through doing some digging around in some obscure sources such as, in one instance, an unpublished PhD thesis on Triratna.
But I still think it is worth drawing attention to.
To date, there have been several stories published about Braverman that have drawn attention to this connection, like this one:
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ella-braverman-in-controversial-buddhist-sect
In particular, they highlight the fact that the founder of this organisation, Sangharakshita (aka Dennis Lingwood), has been exposed as a sexual predator.
Personally, I am not all that impressed by them. They are attempts at guilt by mere association that don't really work for me.
However, what has yet to be made public are the striking congruences between the political philosophy of Sangharakshita and specific public statements made by Braverman. Significantly, both are opposed to universal notions of human rights, and to the '-isms' that are readily associated with political correctness.
For example, in one of his aphorisms Sangharakshita stated that:
‘Political correctness’ is one of the most pernicious tendencies of our time – far more pernicious than pseudo-liberalism, of which it is probably the extreme form.'
He has also suggested in terms of debates around human rights issues that the focus should be on duties as opposed to rights, arguing that:
'Duties consist in what is due from us to others, and are based upon giving, whereas rights consist in what is due from others to us, and are based (from the subjective point of view) upon grasping and getting. … the clamorous insistence upon our rights, upon what is legally, morally or even spiritually due from others to us, only strengthens greed, strengthens desire, strengthens selfishness, strengthens egotism.'
Now compare that with this extract from an article posted on Braverman's own website:
'In Brazil, there have been several cases of the use of torture by the police in the name of crime prevention. They justify this by putting a general right to live free from crime and intimidation above their rights of those who are tortured. To wipe out torture, the government would need to create robust, well-paid policing and judicial services to guarantee the same results. The government might argue that this money is better spent on new schools and medical clinics, protecting wider rights to freedom of education and health. These sort of value judgments, inherent in the practical application of human rights (whether we agree with them or not), undermine their "universality".
But across most of the West, something else has happened to devalue human rights. A fatal misassumption plagues our whole approach to civil liberties: the predominance of the individual over the communal. The importance of the individual is seen as the defining axiom upon which we should base our policy and gauge its success. Emerging by reference to individual instincts and desires, rights and entitlements are paramount in our society, prevailing over considerations of how our choices affect others, over reference to past experience, or over the consequences for those born later on.'
'...A fair, decent and reasonable society should question the dilution of our sense of duty, the demotion of our grasp of responsibility and our virtual abandonment of the spirit of civic obligation. What we do for others should matter more than the selfish assertion of personal rights and the lonely individualism to which it gives rise.'
Then, of course, there was that comment she made about 'Guardian reading, tofu eating wokerati.'
Additionally, there is a suggestion that some members of Triratna believe that it is possible to become so spiritually 'enlightened' that this places them above the law. See, for example, this online blog entry:
https://buddhism-controversy-blog.c...-the-law-the-subjective-morality-of-triratna/
 | Do some Buddhist groups see themselves as above the law? – The Subjective Morality of Triratna – Tibetan Buddhism – Struggling With Diffi·Cult Issues GUEST POST by Mark Dunlop. T his article is prompted by a video talk given by Carol Merchasin, an American lawyer.Her talk is part of a video presentation titled “Speaking As, With, and For Survivors”, in which a number of people examine various aspects of abuse in certain Buddhist communities, and discuss ways to alleviate the dangers of such abusive environments. buddhism-controversy-blog.com |
This is the key bit:
'....some at least of the membership seem to think they are beyond the law.
They tend to see themselves as beyond the law, partly because they regard themselves as being spiritually advanced people who are able, to some extent at least, to see and understand the world in terms of what they believe to be “ultimate reality”. They regard themselves as being able to see and experience the world from “a truer, wider perspective” than conventional, mundane society.
Another, related reason why Triratna members may see themselves as above the law, is because they tend to see themselves as operating on a higher, more spiritual moral plane than conventional society. They make a distinction between ‘conventional morality’, and their own superior ‘natural morality’.
According to FWBO/Triratna teaching, ‘conventional morality’ is based on guilt and fear – fear of punishment by the law, or by God. Such fear-based conventional morality is therefore, in their view, only a pseudo-morality. True morality, or ‘natural morality’, is not based on external authority or on commonly agreed standards, but on an individual’s own appraisal of what is ‘skilful’ or ‘unskilful’.'
What that blog is referring to is a teaching called upaya-kausalya, or 'skilful means, according to which conventional Buddhist morality may be set aside by spiritually advanced teachers if the occasion demands. Without going into detail, it has proven to be a very elastic principle, and the history of Buddhism, especially its recent history, has been marred by some notorious and scandalous behaviour on the part of Buddhist teachers, which has been explained away by devotees as 'skilful-means'.
Braverman is a 'Mitra' in Triratna. That does not necessarily entail that she sees herself as being 'above the law'. But it could account for her strange ideas, and you can only receive the status of Mitra ('friend') after a four-year course involving retreats and other activities. So she is 'in deep'.
It is also interesting that we may therefore have had a former Attorney General and now a Home Secretary aligned with a movement with some senior members who appear to think that laws sometimes do not apply to them.
Of course, everything I have described is merely circumstantial, but it seems to me that it is not unreasonable to conclude that such an attitude may also have rubbed off on some of the laity.
I only found out about this myself through doing some digging around in some obscure sources such as, in one instance, an unpublished PhD thesis on Triratna.
But I still think it is worth drawing attention to.
Last edited:
And he cannot answer it because they have no need to sort the practicalities, because they know that the policy will not happen. They have already been told that it breeches international law, indeed Suella has been confronted, repeatedly, with that fact. Their denials are simply buying time, in my opinion, so that when it all collapses, it will be others who have 'stopped the will of the British people'. Supporters will throw their arms about in absolute rage, reinforcing their hatred of 'the left' and 'the blob' when, in fact, all that has happened is that the government has been thwarted by international laws that they are completely aware of, have been reminded of, and often had a role in writing. Their supporters won't have that, of course, because someone else is always to blame...ALWAYS.
Gabriel
Well-Known Member
Yet the Government is quite willing to send more money abroad, to France and Rwanda, to do something.
If the government we're behaving like fascist's you'd have a point,but unfortunately you're talking bollocks.
Gabriel
Well-Known Member
I agree that its policy will probably fail in the courts, but that doesn’t mean the Government can ignore the practicalities. If some 80,000 start arriving this year, as has been anticipated and reported, then they will still need to be accommodated, otherwise you end up with a situation like we have in Brussels.
mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
So, if this bill gets passed (unlikely), then anyone rocking up in a dingy will be processed within 28 days and heaved out. The Government are already struggling to process the 100k+ already here, so how on earth are they going to fulfil this latest promise.
mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
How would you say the Government are behaving?
they have only failed the vast majority. The tax-evading non-doms and their off-shore non-tax paying millionare "chums" are laughing kit-bags at the state/fate of the bulk of the population, so, a roaring success, in their view
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
It seems impossible to put all their thought plans into a logical plan.
Of course, the asylum checkers probably rate as civil service, and the govt also seem to detest the civil service.
I've said before that their current plan is little more than vandalism, which they will then claim that Labour are having to spend vast amounts to repair.