Monarchy

Some topics tend to get heated and go off track in unwholesome ways quite quickly. The "hot topics" sub-forum is a place where such topics may be moved so that each post must be manually approved by moderator before it will become visible to members.
Dan74
Posts: 3091
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: Monarchy

Post by Dan74 » Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:51 am

Ceisiwr wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:19 am
Dan74 wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:13 am
Ceisiwr wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:03 am
to be born a monarch is to have had a fortunate rebirth and so the monarch does have a Buddhist version of the divine right of kings. Thoughts?
This seems to me to fall apart on a number of grounds.

Firstly, a cursory perusal of history will show any number of monarchs brutalising their subjects and leading their countries to ruin.

Secondly, even if some kammic merit leads to one being born a monarch, it does not follow that they will either do their job well, not that their people should hand them more powers or a carte blanche to do as they wish.

Argumentum ad hitlerium must read its ugly head here, since then it can be argued that everyone had the kamma to be exactly what they were, including our friend Adolf, your abusive ex-boyfriend and the psychopathic boss of Hate Inc. Does it give them any rights to do their evil?
Hitler wasn't a monarch. Most monarchs in history did more good than harm.
How do monarchs become monarchs in the first place? Usually by seizing power in a similar manner to Hitler and passing it to their progeny. Was Napoleon a monarch or his descendants?

Most monarchs did more good than harm is a belief. Do you have any evidence to back it up at all? Handing power to someone by virtue of their birth appears to me to be rather risky, at best. Even Tibetans, a Buddhist people, who believe that their great masters take rebirth in Tibet and leave clues as to where, have had some absolute disasters and many are calling for an end of their tulku system, since it seems to lead to more harm than good.

Of course British monarchy and its upper class almost shine as a wonderful example of meritocracy in this age of political paralysis. But read about their disastrous last 50 years in India and you might be somewhat disabused of any rosy-coloured notions.
_/|\_

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 5395
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Monarchy

Post by Ceisiwr » Sun Jun 23, 2019 7:51 am

How do monarchs become monarchs in the first place? Usually by seizing power in a similar manner to Hitler and passing it to their progeny. Was Napoleon a monarch or his descendants?
Via kamma. Hitler was a politician, not a monarch.
Most monarchs did more good than harm is a belief. Do you have any evidence to back it up at all?
Most monarchs stabilised societies and hardly engaged in imperialism.
Handing power to someone by virtue of their birth appears to me to be rather risky, at best. Even Tibetans, a Buddhist people, who believe that their great masters take rebirth in Tibet and leave clues as to where, have had some absolute disasters and many are calling for an end of their tulku system, since it seems to lead to more harm than good.
I’m not necessarily arguing for an absolute monarchy.
Of course British monarchy and its upper class almost shine as a wonderful example of meritocracy in this age of political paralysis. But read about their disastrous last 50 years in India and you might be somewhat disabused of any rosy-coloured notions.
On the whole the Empire was good for India.

SarathW
Posts: 12020
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Monarchy

Post by SarathW » Sun Jun 23, 2019 8:57 am

On the whole the Empire was good for India.
Top
But the majority of people do not think so.
Sri Lankans still put the blame on the British for their misfortune even after gain independent about 75 years ago.
British invaded other countries for their own benefits, not for the benefits of other countries.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

Dan74
Posts: 3091
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: Monarchy

Post by Dan74 » Sun Jun 23, 2019 9:04 am

Ceisiwr wrote:
Sun Jun 23, 2019 7:51 am
How do monarchs become monarchs in the first place? Usually by seizing power in a similar manner to Hitler and passing it to their progeny. Was Napoleon a monarch or his descendants?
Via kamma. Hitler was a politician, not a monarch.
Most monarchs did more good than harm is a belief. Do you have any evidence to back it up at all?
Most monarchs stabilised societies and hardly engaged in imperialism.
Handing power to someone by virtue of their birth appears to me to be rather risky, at best. Even Tibetans, a Buddhist people, who believe that their great masters take rebirth in Tibet and leave clues as to where, have had some absolute disasters and many are calling for an end of their tulku system, since it seems to lead to more harm than good.
I’m not necessarily arguing for an absolute monarchy.
Of course British monarchy and its upper class almost shine as a wonderful example of meritocracy in this age of political paralysis. But read about their disastrous last 50 years in India and you might be somewhat disabused of any rosy-coloured notions.
On the whole the Empire was good for India.
Sorry, Craig. Not a serious effort. "Via kamma" - what is not via kamma, exactly? You didn't address my question earlier, so I don't suppose you will here either.

"Most monarchs stabilised societies and hardly engaged in imperialism. " Based on what? Blanket assertions is not a serious way to conduct a discussion.

"On the whole the Empire was good for India." This is contentious, but hardly the point. The point was that when the monarchy and aristocracy had more power, they hardly showed themselves to be capable rulers.

I don't know how knowledgeable you are about history, because so far you've just made some assertions with no backing, but just in case, this list shows that being born a monarch (or a prince with a claim to the throne) is hardly a guarantee of an able ruler. Glad that democratic societies make these atrocities impossible for the heads of state to commit, at least upon their own people.

https://www.historyextra.com/period/med ... n-history/

Edit: link added
_/|\_

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 5395
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Monarchy

Post by Ceisiwr » Sun Jun 23, 2019 10:34 am

Dan74
Sorry, Craig. Not a serious effort. "Via kamma" - what is not via kamma, exactly? You didn't address my question earlier, so I don't suppose you will here either.
Birth is via kamma. After that events can be due to kamma or not. Crowns are usually inherited and so monarchs get there via birth.
"Most monarchs stabilised societies and hardly engaged in imperialism. " Based on what? Blanket assertions is not a serious way to conduct a discussion.
History.
"On the whole the Empire was good for India." This is contentious, but hardly the point. The point was that when the monarchy and aristocracy had more power, they hardly showed themselves to be capable rulers.
But they did. The Empire uplifted the world through the spread of capitalism.
I don't know how knowledgeable you are about history, because so far you've just made some assertions with no backing, but just in case, this list shows that being born a monarch (or a prince with a claim to the throne) is hardly a guarantee of an able ruler. Glad that democratic societies make these atrocities impossible for the heads of state to commit, at least upon their own people.
It’s not a guarantee but it’s a good kammic start.

Wasn’t Hitler elected? ;)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest