|
I like to think that I'm just a sensor for the universe and this particular sensor happens to be fond of the Descendents. I don't know how Buddhist it is, but I've had enough of a bunch of poo poo. Maybe this tool should only be used for what it was designed for. I'm tired of getting mad at poo poo and being annoyed about what people do. Maybe, you should just not be a dickhead. There are a lot of negative people trying to tell people what to do. Why?
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 10:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:Okay, ya'll are making sense. I think, as you say, I'm not quite at the acceptance stage because I'm still dealing with existential anxiety and depression and doubt. A conceptual understanding of rebirth or no-self or whatever is not what will ease your suffering. You have to train yourself, you have to learn and develop the skills that cause happiness. An example from my own life, when I'm stressed before a university exam, intellectual understanding of no-self doesn't do anything to help me. But what I can do, is I can use this skill of compassion to relax my body and remove most of the physical symptoms of stress, and I can be kind to the anxious feelings and thoughts, and instead of feeling like poo poo, I have a beautiful sense of compassion and kindness towards myself. The short term "karmic result" for me is having a full night of sleep before an exam instead of just a few hours. I have had one winter where I would say I was depressed, but I was also practising Buddhism at the time so I was very mindful, careful not to let the feeling of sadness spill over into negative thinking. Now whenever I get a strong sense of sadness, I'm just so kind and gentle to that sadness, the sadness doesn't stand a chance. I mean, you can learn the antidotes to anxiety and depression, they are skills that you practice like you would practice to play the piano. This turned out to be kind of a long post, but I just want to emphasize that all the benefits of Buddhism come from the real life, day to day exercise of your good qualities. Have some good Dhamma talks about depression and fear. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 10:44
|
|
|
Like, the punk band Descendents? Anyways there's obviously no answer to that question, the question of evil has been raging for ages across all cultures. The buddhist resolution of that question is that poor feelings are conditioned by unskillful events coming into their fruition. These negative people are trying to tell other people what to do because of their experiences and prior information, Karma if you will. These experiences in their past resolve so as that their mind says "The response I wish to take here is to tell someone how they should live their life". So that's essentially the why, karma. How to deal with it from a buddhist perspective is to be compassionate towards those people, to everyone really, to look at calming yourself so as to not suffer about this. EDIT: Rhymenocerous, it's good to also point out that depression isn't just a skill that needs be practiced, sometimes medication is needed too. Going to throw those links in the OP though. Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 10:58 on Dec 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 10:55
|
|
|
What's the Buddhist position on free will? I'd say that the question of free will is irrelevant, because it's assuming the existence of a self. Materialists and dualists argue about whether we're magical spirit beings that aren't subject to physical determinism or if we're just sophisticated meat robots that are ultimately reducible to a collection of chemical reactions, the outcomes of which were predetermined by the Big Bang. But I say that both of these scenarios are treating the self as if it were real. Its either a mystical soul or simply a complicated mechanism. But Buddhism breaks the self down into a string of moment-to-moment occurrences of experience. It doesn't try to build a narrative about the self like materialism and dualism do; it just deals with what is observable at the present moment. There is thinking, there is seeing, there is breathing, there is this sensation, there is that sensation, and so on. And that's all there really is. No trying to build a backstory, just observing each experience as it happens. I think the Buddha instructed to not worry about metaphysics, as all metaphysical positions are equally irrefutable and unprovable, whereas anyone can observe the arising and falling away of phenomena, and that's all anyone can really know. But that's just my take. Those more learned and versed in Buddhism can correct me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 11:05
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:EDIT: Rhymenocerous, it's good to also point out that depression isn't just a skill that needs be practiced, sometimes medication is needed too. Going to throw those links in the OP though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 11:17
|
|
|
The buddhist position is pretty much as you said "I'd say that the question of free will is irrelevant". You've hit the nail on the head there, with the only caveat that not even karma is set in stone. The buddha has explicated that karma is not deterministic, the fruit karma bears can be modified just as any other action can have its result modified. So in the sense of karma, the question of free will has some import- We can exercise volitional changes that could free us from karma. Outside of that you're golden.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 11:19
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:Then please, practice virtue, kindness and compassion. Not being anxious and depressed is a skill that you learn through practice. This. I'm a bookworm and tend to focus too much on rearranging the mental furniture, letting go of all the preparatory reading and actually just doing it was an important step that required conscious effort for me. You don't need to be a scholar to meditate, experience metta, work on your aversion to doing the dishes or whatever. Focusing on developing yourself in small steps is showing kindness to yourself, you are already doing good things. One of my most significant learning moments was catching myself getting grumpy and stressed from having to walk to work in the rain: I spent time doing my hair and make-up just to get to work looking like a mess anyway, I was a mess and I was cold and now I was grumpy and negative so of course I was going to be unpleasant at work and everyone would hate me and so on. So I slowed down, took off the hood of my coat,turned my face into the rain and just let myself be rained on. I focused on my breath and feeling the rain and it became the most refreshing experience I'd had in ages. The rain was good, I was good, it was a pleasure to walk around just being a human in the rain. What's more, a quiet sense of humour bubbled up naturally that stayed with me effortlessly throughout my workday, making me feel more kindness and gentleness towards my coworkers too. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 12:24
|
|
|
Quantumfate posted:You don't wake up from sleep however, the you that awakes is entirely different. When you die, you enter into a new birth, with a you that is entirely different. If a being is suffering but there is no one to "be" it and experience it, is he really suffering? Seems by your beliefs, he isn't, and I think we could all take our balls and go home in that case, if that were true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 13:29
|
|
|
Uh, what? I didn't mention a viewpoint at all, let alone the manifestation of "karma" (did you mean vipaka?) as a consciousness. I'm not following where you're getting this from? Regardless: Entire may have been a tad hyperbolic, but its use was to indicate that similarities aside, the You that exists each morning when you wake up is constructed anew, not a remnant of a past-you that's continuing in a modified manner. I see out of my own eyes because these are the eyes attached to me. I experience the ripening of basal karma because this is the karma attached to my life, across births. "If a being is suffering but there is no one to "be" it and experience it, is he really suffering?" Well, naturally yes- by the wording of the question this being is suffering. Even more so if there is an affliction causing a being to distress or experience unease, that is something you might construe as suffering. From emotional pain to nociception. There is still a being, a receptacle capable of experiencing suffering, but there is no ego-differentiated self that truly suffers. Rather this ego-differentiated self manifests as a suffering being because it is an illusion that emerges from contributory inputs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 13:42
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:I agree, there is nothing un-Buddhist about medication. The whole point is to use skillful means to reduce suffering. Quantumfate posted:Uh, what? I didn't mention a viewpoint at all, let alone the manifestation of "karma" (did you mean vipaka?) as a consciousness. Anyway, isn't the whole point that you THINK it's the same you? And isn't karma nothing but its manifestation anyway, even if there is some cute little word for that somewhere? Are we looking for our hidden karma again? the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Dec 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 13:46
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:What's the Buddhist position on free will?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 13:53
|
|
|
I want to throw my definition of free will into the ring, take it for what you want. Free will is what lies beneath all of the conditioning. Yes, we have free will, but it's covered up. What are you going to do about it? And to make my point clearer, I want to add that, to build off Rhymenoceros's analogy, to me, instead, all of your karma/conditioning (all of it!) is like the layer of dirt and slime on top of your stove. You have to clean it off before you can cook anything. Do you have the right cleaner? Do you need one at all? Find out! The books will be waiting for you when you get back. the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Dec 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 14:05
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:I'd say karma is like ingredients and free will is like a chef. Even the worst ingredients can be made into a tasty meal by a skillful chef. This Is how I understand it. In relative reality, karma comes to fruition and our reaction to it is what goes forward generating new karma. It's completely a compatible idea with free will. I've heard it explained similarly (via Trungpa?) that karma is a chessboard and it is up to us to move the next piece. We can't really affect past karma (sure we can apply antidotes etc but leaving that aside..) but how we react to each moment is what is important right now because that is what is generating karma. Regarding ObamaCaresHugSquad's comment about anti-depression drugs -- they often are prescribed to correct a real chemical imbalance in the brain. No amount of meditation is going to help that and maybe seeking help to get that medication was the most skillful thing they could do. he1ixx fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Dec 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
he1ixx posted:Regarding ObamaCaresHugSquad's comment about anti-depression drugs -- they often are prescribed to correct a real chemical imbalance in the brain. No amount of meditation is going to help that and maybe seeking help to get that medication was the most skillful thing they could do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:And pharmaceutical antidepressants have been around for less than 100 years, whole civilizations got along perfectly fine for millenia without them. Yeah, historically people with mental problems/depression etc got along just great. *mugs at camera while funny sound effects play* (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
Ruddha posted:Yeah, historically people with mental problems/depression etc got along just great. *mugs at camera while funny sound effects play* I just think modern societies have improved just as much at creating problems as they have at solving them. Maybe the causes, and the actual effects of what are termed mental disorders have changed over time? Remember hysteria? Do you want to try to explain that in terms of today's science? What about the documented "fear of castration" among Asian men? What about how victims of the 2004 Tsunami in Sri Lanka displayed little to no effects of what the Western aid workers termed "PTSD" when they tried to help them? It goes on. Mental disorders as such can also have societal roots, and is a societally conditioned term itself. Modern science in the western world is still a specific worldview. Your endless snark is a specific worldview too 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
There is an epidemic of mental health problems in the US (and Canada too). Does anyone actually think we are doing better than ever in that regard? Think of how many kids are on stimulants right now. And how many people of all ages are on anti-depressants, not to mention anti-psychotics, mood stabilizers, and all the rest. It's like how the War on Drugs only served to increase supply AND demand 10fold, while simultaneously making the drugs cheaper and purer. The legal (but no more ethical) drugs are the same way. The solution is the problem, at least the way it is implemented. Stay away from that poo poo, don't take drugs. I take vitamins and ibprofen that's it. I want to feel what's going on in itself, and rise above it all. Why let myself be controlled? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Oh so we're doing better than ever before in this day and age when it comes to mental illness? There's probably differences between the questionable mental illnesses like you've described, and actual clinical depression. Like there's a difference between being born missing a body part, and someone who was bullied about a body part a bunch and then later in life hated it and wanted it changed or removed or damaged or whatever. Telling people not to properly medicate themselves is stupid and dangerous, which is in line with your style of having to be very different from everyone else in your assumptions, because you've, like, totally unlocked the answers to living and life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Ruddha posted:There's probably differences between the questionable mental illnesses like you've described, and actual clinical depression. Like there's a difference between being born missing a body part, and someone who was bullied about a body part a bunch and then later in life hated it and wanted it changed or removed or damaged or whatever. Telling people not to properly medicate themselves is stupid and dangerous, which is in line with your style of having to be very different from everyone else in your assumptions, because you've, like, totally unlocked the answers to living and life. The rest of your post I will ignore unless we all still love multi page derailed trainwrecks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
I think the issue of whether or not mental illness is valid as a paradigm, and whether or not we've as a society merely become more prone to diagnose variations which should not be considered illness, or if we're actually improving at identifying afflictions that went undiagnosed before clinical psychology became a Thing (late 1800s at the earliest, realistically early 1900s), or whether or not mental affliction can be treated without modern medicine, and so on, is not relevant to Buddhism. I think it is fair advice to say that if your Western physician diagnoses you with a Western illness and prescribes a medicinal treatment, that is worth pursuing as obviously your affliction is strong enough to warrant medical attention. I think it is also fair to say that ultimately all mental affliction is rooted in the mind, and so if through meditation and Dharma practice you can overcome those obstacles, that is worth the attempt, but is probably best done in conjunction with the skillful application of medicine by a physician. I think finally it is a good idea to drop this subject from this particular thread, as it's not on point and certainly not beneficial to be debating the merits of psychiatric medication non-compliance in a thread about Buddhism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:But there's been three phd dissertations between the original question and that post. It's not just you, I really think this thread is prone to wanting to solve and explain every broad theological topic whenever a a question is asked, and sometimes I think a partially inaccurate yet useful answer is better than a totally complete answer which is going to go over the heads of people without a really strong academic background in Buddhism. Weren't you just criticizing the tibetans and their sham debate which avoids digging into any questions in earnest? For not actually looking into the nuance of topics, which you thought could ultimately make the sangha and discussion stronger? I find actually engaging these topics much preferable to shutting down discussion with "Hey, in religions we just accept certain things uncritically, because thats how religions work. If you're not ready for that, maybe stick to your crass western materialism." Particularly when the Buddha exhorted others to examine everything he taught and said critically and weigh the merits of it for themselves. We do others a disservice by condescending to them and boiling the discussion down to Take it or Leave it terms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:Ok I will agree to disagree at exactly this point. I do not see "clinical depression" as a bogeyman above all bogeymen, in the grand scheme of things. I don't therefore think the same thing about exhibitions of symptoms all possible kinds of mental distress. Thanks, doctor. I'm with Ruddha on this one. I was going to say that you telling folks they aren't meditating hard enough after they've been prescribed meds for their physical condition was stupid and dangerous but I deleted it to be more kind and gentle but since you keep pushing these angles, I need to say it. People have been committing suicide since recorded history. Saying folks were "just fine" in the past and that clinical depression is no big deal is maybe the dumbest, most irresponsible thing said in this thread and we've seen some doozies lately. Depressed people reading this thread: please meditate, but also get help if you feel you need it. Taking medication to help a condition isn't a failing. Talk to a trained professional instead of listening to a misguided college student who has the audacity to tell you that your clinically diagnosed condition is the result of society, good marketing and a bad grasp of shunyata. OCHS, you've chased at least 1 person I know of away from this thread. Seems like you're trying for more? For all of our sakes, stop posting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
he1ixx posted:OCHS, you've chased at least 1 person I know of away from this thread. Seems like you're trying for more? For all of our sakes, stop posting. Edit: Please don't take this as criticism of you personally, because it's not. When we experience disliking a post, that is the ripening of negative karma in our minds. The experience feels bad in our mind because of our own karma, not because of what the other person is actually posting. Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Dec 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
Thus have I heard: At one time the Buddha was staying in Sarnath, with a great company of bhikkus, one thousand and more. One monk kept telling people they should stop eating at all, and that ghosts wanted to touch their peckers, or labia, and that dogs aren't friendly usually. A bunch of people wanted to tell that person to stop giving people stupid and quite possibly dangerous advice out of his ignorance, but the Buddha stopped them, "Monks, do you not realize that if you do that, you're uh, totally too worldly uh you're involved in the world. If something could happen that's karma, and the goal I teach is that uh always give in to karma don't escape from it or negate it because then you won't get reborned, or rebirthed. So um just let them do that, and don't wash your self or your clothes because dirt accumulating, is karma too, so you just have to let that realize it self okay please. Holy."
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
Ruddha posted:Thus have I heard: When ignorance is pointed out as the root cause of suffering, it is the ignorance without our own minds, not the ignorance of others
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:If I felt some suffering due to this post, my job as a Buddhist would be to look into my own mind to understand how this came to be. The only way to escape the suffering would be to understand my own mind. If you don't speak against people saying things that could cause themselves or others harm, I'd implore you to reconsider. Telling people people who suffer from mental illness not to take proper medication is a messed up thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
Not to interrupt the derail, but I've got an outsider question that I don't think has been asked before: The discussion about Tibetan debate made me wonder about something. This is less about doctrine and more about the social/organizational aspect of religion. What are the relations between the different traditions like, in general? In this thread it seems like you guys are super respectful of each other's, um, schools if they're viewed as legitimate, but I realize the thread isn't representative. Especially since it's full of Western converts. In practice, what would theological/doctrinal disputes look like between, say, Theravada and Zen adherents, and is that even a routine thing that happens? And is there a concept of heresy? I mean, I realize it's heretical to claim to be a teacher if you don't have lineage, but I don't mean that or "wrong view". I mean, let's say you have a teacher who has legitimate lineage and suddenly goes off his rocker and makes claims similar to those of a certain poster in this thread. At what point does the Buddhist community exclude this guy, and how does that happen?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 20:35
|
|
Yiggy posted:Weren't you just criticizing the tibetans and their sham debate which avoids digging into any questions in earnest? For not actually looking into the nuance of topics, which you thought could ultimately make the sangha and discussion stronger? There's a difference between monks who have dedicated their lives to understanding the Dharma engaging in debate and us turning every question from people who know nothing about Buddhism into a theological slapfight more reminiscent of The Appology than any actual attempts at teaching. There is absolutely value between you, Para, Quantumfate, myself, and others having these detailed and in-depth discussions about the deeper theological facets of Buddhism. Sometimes though there needs to be an easy answer to hard questions, even if that answer is imperfect. For example, and I think Para is super guilty of this, if someone says "Hey, I heard moment-to-moment rebirth is what Buddha meant, is this true?" there's a couple of answers, one is to say "It's a useful tool, but in the way you probably mean that question it isn't viewed as accurate, it is viewed as literal rebirth by every tradition." The other is to write a 3000 word treatises on every possible view of rebirth up to and including Yogācāra vs. Madhyamaka, various realms of rebirth, philosophical tools behind moment-to-moment rebirth being identical to literal rebirth, and so on and so on. This isn't useful, it doesn't help the people asking questions, and at the end of the day it's a lovely teaching method. We all want to be 1,000,000% accurate when we answer every one of these questions, but we're better off trying to give people with no background broad general concepts to build their understanding from, and then to answer any follow-up questions they may have, than to try and teach them everything right from the start. Basically we need some skillful means, here. If we're talking just with each other, yeah, let's do this whole big in-depth debate thing. But let's not turn every question anyone asks into graduate student happy hour in the theology department. ObamaCaresHugSquad posted:I'm totally not taking medication I have been prescribed or I am avoiding help because I know what the end result would be 100% not trolling, but in light of this post you really don't need to be posting here. You really need to be getting help. Also, from a Buddhist perspective, Buddha absolutely advocated medicine when needed. If you have something chemically wrong with your brain (which many mental illnesses are!) then you are not capable of functioning as well, and by extension as skillfully, as you possibly could without that medicine. I cannot think of a single source of Buddhist knowledge that has lived since the invention of modern psychiatry who has rejected mental health treatments as unskillful, but I can think of many who embrace it. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
 RESPONSIBLE NOTEIf you are reading this thread and you have mental health issues, please see someone and be open about it. Psychiatric drugs are important and are not a personal failing, they do not warp you. Buddhism is not a replacement for medication. It, like many other religions, can take the place of some therapy. Many modern CBT practises have been cribbed from the dharma. Please see your roshi/lama/bhikku only alongside pursuing medical help, not in lieu of it. Anyways, Guildencrantz! You bring up a very good question, there isn't a good general conception of heresy, which has caused problems before in buddhist communities- Japan in ww2, the ikko-ikki, nichiren, thai anti-muslim animus, etc All cases where people with legitimate lineages went batshit and did awful nonbuddhist things. The way buddhism usually handles heresy is with master/student relationships. If your lineage isn't sound, it's not good for you to be saying new things. Now YMMV, tibetan buddhism has a strongly defined concept of orthodoxy and heterodoxy, and has a good concept of heresy- look no further than Dorje Shugden. I don't feel comfortable getting into how vajrayana deals with excluding the crazies. I'm sorry, but I feel like I would say something and tread on someone's toes. For mahayana and theravada the process is usually to have that guy pushed out of the monastic community, though that process can take ages as the monks try and correct the "wrong view" of the person who has gone astray. Then again that's how you get crazy wisdom stories going. Now as far as how the relationships between the different sects of the dharma go- Usually there is an understanding that all are operating on the same principles. Nichiren buddhism is the exception here, with one of the tenets being that all mundane dharma is fundamentally corrupt and only Amidha Butsu in the pure land can teach you the true dharma. Vajrayana and Mahayana tend to get along pretty well. Mahayana buddhists tend to look at vajrayana and go "Those guys took syncretism too far, probably time to dial that back a little". Vajrayana tends to look at mahayana as something that works alright, but nowhere near as effectively as should be. Something Paramemetic likes to say to illustrate that is, and I'm paraphrasing him slightly here: "Mahayana is a bus, a bunch of people can get on and drive to their destination, and probably arrive safely. Vajrayana is an airplane, it can get a lot of people to their destination much faster, more effectively, but can also crash more spectacularly." Vajrayana thinks of itself as esoteric by need, there are certain practises that the uninitiated aren't ready for because it might hurt their understanding of the dharma in general. As for what those two and theravada? Therava looks at them and goes "Get back to the dharma crazy hindu people", because everything that's not pali canon is just kind of not the point. Maha/Vajra-yana looks at theravada as old, outdated and they call theravada "Hinayana". Super offensive term. Hina is supposed to mean little, or lesser, and yana is vehicle. But it carries another cultural message. Hinas were untouchable peoples,so the term is pretty offensive to theravadins because hinayana is pretty much "Religion of the poo poo-people" Dharma, ladies and gentlemen. Inclusive and open to all. 
Quantumfate fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Dec 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 22:13
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:Not to interrupt the derail, but I've got an outsider question that I don't think has been asked before: In modern times, super respectful. All paths are seen as arriving at the same goal, they are all seen as teachings of the Buddha maybe through a different lens, but they all lead to the cessation of suffering. The "core" of Buddhism as it were is unified across the faiths, take this as an example of a formalization of this relationship. Guildencrantz posted:And is there a concept of heresy? At a fundamental level, yes. There isn't the same kind of degree of inquisition-like things as Christianity has, but for example, if you claim that rebirth is a metaphor then you're pretty much standing on heretical ground from a theological standpoint since Buddha himself called it wrong view and the religion uses it as a basis to function. Vajrayana has a much stronger sense of heresy, but again most people would think of "heresy" in more Western terms which aren't as common. The idea of both an eternal soul and death being the end are both explicitly referred to as heresies.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
I've gotten the impression that people outside of Theravada consider it to be somewhat elitist, overly obsessed with scholasticism and even fundamentalist in some ways as well. Despite this I have really never had any negative experiences outside of the old e-sangha forum, where fighting between schools seemed to derail things regularly. The Dalai Lama wrote the foreward for Bhikkhu Bodhi's introduction to the Pali Canon. Bhikkhu Bodhi himself resides and teaches at a Mahayana monastery even though he was ordained in Sri Lanka and is very much a Theravada monk. I think, generally, we can get along. The biggest conflicts and gripes seem to come up when differences arise based on texts that one particular school doesn't consider canonical, or when a concept like bodhisattvas comes up which has different interpretations or even acceptance across traditions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:I mean, let's say you have a teacher who has legitimate lineage and suddenly goes off his rocker and makes claims similar to those of a certain poster in this thread. At what point does the Buddhist community exclude this guy, and how does that happen? The example of the Vajra Regent, Osel Tendrel, would make a good case study.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
Ruddha posted:If you don't speak against people saying things that could cause themselves or others harm, I'd implore you to reconsider. Telling people people who suffer from mental illness not to take proper medication is a messed up thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 22:36
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:If you really want to prevent someone from causing themselves or others harm, you have to speak out of compassion. Criticism and ridicule doesn't create good outcomes for anyone; the listener is less likely to take the words to heart, the speaker inclines his mind toward ill will. His comments are literally dangerous if anyone reading this thread decides that Buddhism is incompatible with medication they need, and he is unable to distinguish a lack of reverence from compassionate criticism. It's really hard for us to stay totally calm about it when in some ways it's more vital to get him to stop posting really dumb poo poo where it can influence others than it is to change his views.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
Sidenote: Ruddha don't stop posting. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:If you really want to prevent someone from causing themselves or others harm, you have to speak out of compassion. Criticism and ridicule doesn't create good outcomes for anyone; the listener is less likely to take the words to heart, the speaker inclines his mind toward ill will. Sometimes compassion isn't smiling serenely and nodding while calmly saying "yosh, yosh". Sometimes it's better to push a person out of the way of a speeding bus, instead of calmly trying to rationalize with a crazy person flailing around at night in traffic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 22:44
|
|
Ruddha posted:Sometimes compassion isn't smiling serenely and nodding while calmly saying "yosh, yosh". Sometimes it's better to push a person out of the way of a speeding bus, instead of calmly trying to rationalize with a crazy person flailing around at night in traffic. Keeping in mind that some of us are viewing ObamaCaresHugSquad as the bus.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
Nevermind, dunno how to put that in a way that couldn't be misused or probably dangerously misinterpreted. So instead: Guildenkratz, is there anyone you know involved in the school of Buddhism you are hypothetically referring to that you could talk to in person and voice your concerns with? Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Dec 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:His comments are literally dangerous if anyone reading this thread decides that Buddhism is incompatible with medication they need, and he is unable to distinguish a lack of reverence from compassionate criticism. It's really hard for us to stay totally calm about it when in some ways it's more vital to get him to stop posting really dumb poo poo where it can influence others than it is to change his views. Ruddha posted:Sometimes compassion isn't smiling serenely and nodding while calmly saying "yosh, yosh". Sometimes it's better to push a person out of the way of a speeding bus, instead of calmly trying to rationalize with a crazy person flailing around at night in traffic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
Aw look at you all, you're all such saints.. Stop the bad man (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2013 23:51
|
|