51–60 of 177 posts
> When you notice a negative emotion in someone, get curious about what that emotion might be — and try to uncover the unmet need that accompanies it. ‘Are you feeling X because you’re needing Y?’.
I have a sense that this practice could change the world and make life better for everyone. I wonder what it would take for everyone to start doing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This reminds me of a conversation I overheard regarding legality of sex work. Apparently the individual was in favor of it, but when asked about hybrid options, where a administrative assistant would be available for office support and sex, they weren’t quite able to explain why that should be illegal.
Interesting thought. My reply would be that a similar situation as with drugs, gambling and other vices applies. That is, it can be allowed but in specific establishments with clear rules and expectations. Not that sex is exactly like the other vices, but the lust variety kind of is.
Counterpoint: enlightenment is overrated and life is meant to be taken personally. In some senses, it is a bit cowardly to run away from the current moment we live in by stepping back and viewing the big picture too often. "Negative" emotions and experiences are valid parts of life. Anger, anxiety, fear etc are all part of being a human being and have evolved over billions of years to reach their current forms. We ma…
I'm an atheist, but I've studied this, and I think this is a matter of major disagreement in the different schools.
In the west, more contemporary (and often secular) teachers talk about how everyone is a potential Buddha.
There are also close parallels with the more hippie, Christian schools that arose in the 1960s-1970s era (intentional communities) which also taught (quietly I might add), that everyone is a potential Christ.
While this might seem like a trivial point, we do see signs of these teachings arising in the past, from century to century.
These ideas are generally criticized as heretical and repressed because they threaten the hegemonic, institutional nature of religion, which still maintains that the one true interpretation is that there is a single figure (Christ, Buddha, etc) that adherents should aspire to worship, and that they can never equal or match.
The heretical version states the opposite. These adherents believe that Christ and Buddha (assuming for the sake of this argument that they are real, historical figures) did not teach so that they could be worshipped, they taught so that others could become like them.
When you see the religions in this way, then yes, everyone is truly the potential Buddha and the potential Christ, and the vast institutional power of the church disappears, and the roles of priests and clerics vanishes with them.
This kind of change has the effect of emphasizing philosophy over ideology, and places the onus of being a good person and doing good works on the here and now, not on some mythical afterlife or legendary heaven or hell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without understanding, we can’t take productive action. Of course, one can instead exit the situation, which may be the right move and doesn’t require much understanding. But that is often not an option.
> Without understanding, we can’t take productive action. That is not true. You can protect against abusers without understanding them. Whether making sure you respond (so that you are not attractive target) or leaving or going public or retaliating. But, victims who believe they need to understand and emphasize with them end up excusing abusers, blaming themselves and end up perpetual victims.
You can, but not as fully nor as well.
> Whether making sure you respond (so that you are not attractive target)
You have to know that responding indeed doesn't make you an attractive target. Which varies depending on the motives of the abuser. Some are looking for a response, where the cruelty is the point.
> or leaving or going public or retaliating.
All of these may or may not be helpful. The first two largely based on power relations and PR. But the last is vitally dependent on the reactions of the abuser -- and again understanding the abuser is needed to predict whether that's a useful response.
Counterpoint: enlightenment is overrated and life is meant to be taken personally. In some senses, it is a bit cowardly to run away from the current moment we live in by stepping back and viewing the big picture too often. "Negative" emotions and experiences are valid parts of life. Anger, anxiety, fear etc are all part of being a human being and have evolved over billions of years to reach their current forms. We ma…
> no one is actually the Buddha I'm an atheist, but I've studied this, and I think this is a matter of major disagreement in the different schools. In the west, more contemporary (and often secular) teachers talk about how everyone is a potential Buddha. There are also close parallels with the more hippie, Christian schools that arose in the 1960s-1970s era (intentional communities) which also taught (quietly I might…
Whether that potentiality can be realized here on earth, in this life, is where I would start to quibble.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So true. I read an article ago where they studied aging and they found that everything about a person degrades, eyesight, strength, cognition, etc with the exception of impulse control and patience. As you age, you mellow out and are less tethered to knee jerk reactions. For me, as someone approaching 'early geezerdom', I see it in my work interactions. What used to bother me, I can now let pass.
This progress can be be sped up with meditation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> no one is actually the Buddha I'm an atheist, but I've studied this, and I think this is a matter of major disagreement in the different schools. In the west, more contemporary (and often secular) teachers talk about how everyone is a potential Buddha. There are also close parallels with the more hippie, Christian schools that arose in the 1960s-1970s era (intentional communities) which also taught (quietly I might…
That seems reasonable to me, emphasis on "potential." Whether that potentiality can be realized here on earth, in this life, is where I would start to quibble.
The best description of the doctrinal differences between the Buddhist schools that I've ever heard expressed clearly and with great humor was by Hyon Gak Sunim.
As I get older, the less I identify as my current state and the more I identify with the person who transitions through states. My change in perspective has reduced my anxieties and anger significantly. "This too shall pass" and all that. The more of my self image is focused on superficial things, the more I will take things personally. What we are angry about tends to be a reflection of ourselves more than the curre…
That's interesting and well-put! I've thought for a long time that the world is, in a sense, a mirror: what you see out there is a reflection of yourself. A social climber worrying about being used is a part of that I hadn't considered before.
It is the motives and reasons behind events that are most subject to gap filling with our personal experiences "He must be climbing the corporate ladder."
When the Bible (via Jesus) speaks about judging, it is referring to being cautious with assessing motives, not drawing conclusions about factual happenings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems reasonable to me, emphasis on "potential." Whether that potentiality can be realized here on earth, in this life, is where I would start to quibble.
Yes, I am reminded of the differences between, let's say, Joseph Goldstein, who non-dogmatically insists (hopefully that's not too strong a word, but it was the impression that I got from him) that one must conclude in the reality of rebirth; whereas someone like Gil Fronsdal can't quite be pinned down, but I have seen an essay by him (again, I hope I'm not misinterpreting things) that suggests that the concept of re…
Rebirth is a tricky one for me because it just seems too fantastical, but then many things about our world and our selves remain inexplicable, if not outright fantastical themselves.
Rebirth also might not be a true continuation of our individual consciousness, but a repackaging of sorts.
I try to square these ideas with the physical world we inhabit, where our consciousness is very much affected by the environment and the state of our bodies and minds. It seems hard to believe in a soul (or anything ineffable that is a part of us lasting beyond death) in the traditional sense, when we are so malleable and our experiences so subjective. A tweak to my brain chemistry can drastically alter my behavior etc.
So if I still want to think about rebirth, I feel I must conclude that whatever can survive death must be quite a bit more abstract than the consciousness I am familiar with.
Fragility comes from insecurity. Insecurity is both objective and subjective. On different days you may feel more or less secure. To not care too much about yourself is the first step. The world is what it is and our desires are just that. Desires. Easy to forget that the world owes or cares. It does not. Luckily it does not care about anyone else. We only have this life to live. “We have two lives, and the second be…