11–20 of 69 posts
It is none of your business, leave him alone. I think he would be sick of that idolatry.
Would he? His private life was indeed very private while he was alive. But, the guy sat down for hours of interviews with Isaacson so that a book could be produced about him. If he didn't to be the centre of any kind of attention, he choose strange ways of showing it.
Not much of one. I read the bio too, and got a different picture - Jobs used Buddhism because he had such problems. We'll probably never know what problems specifically, just like we'll never know what his eating issues were (Isaacson says Jobs was urged to see a therapist about it, but refused) - narcissism as one woman speculated? Bi-polar? To me, the most insightful anecdote was: > 'Our consumer desires are unheal…
In retrospect, that biography is quite lacking on a lot of points. It seems like Isaacson was not able to get through to jobs in any other way than Jobs allowed. Maybe this is due to him rushing the book to be released 2 weeks after his death, there is almost no analysis of Jobs. I also wonder how Jobs, as buddhist as he was, would rationalize his anger. In the book he repeatedly says "that's how I am", which is pret…
Not much of one. I read the bio too, and got a different picture - Jobs used Buddhism because he had such problems. We'll probably never know what problems specifically, just like we'll never know what his eating issues were (Isaacson says Jobs was urged to see a therapist about it, but refused) - narcissism as one woman speculated? Bi-polar? To me, the most insightful anecdote was: > 'Our consumer desires are unheal…
Buddhism expresses a distinction between a thing in and of itself and an individual's interpretation of a thing.
"Computers and other products" are simply things in and of themselves. However, it is the individual that applies an interpretation to these things, such that the individual can allow these things to define him or her.
In essence, there is nothing "defying that philosophy", as the question asks. If an individual covets or self-identifies with a thing, Buddhism says that this attachment is what ultimately causes suffering. This attachment is the result of an individual's interpretation of a thing, and not due to a thing in and of itself.
1. The Golden Rule: Treat others as you wish to be treated. 2. The Golden Mean: Everything in moderation, nothing in excess.
and the related commentary as to why these are good policies to follow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In retrospect, that biography is quite lacking on a lot of points. It seems like Isaacson was not able to get through to jobs in any other way than Jobs allowed. Maybe this is due to him rushing the book to be released 2 weeks after his death, there is almost no analysis of Jobs. I also wonder how Jobs, as buddhist as he was, would rationalize his anger. In the book he repeatedly says "that's how I am", which is pret…
There are limits to Buddhism. It can't change your sexual orientation; it can't make you immune to pain, and, apparently, it can't eliminate temper--especially if you're ancestors are from herder societies, which evolved temper to protect their vulnerable assets. Certain things are predominately innate.
Letting go of conceptions was one of Buddha's teachings. "Certain things are predominately innate" is a conception and holding on to that limits progress [1].
[1] Progress in this case means deliverance (enlightenment).
Wake Up!
Life is transient
Swiftly passing
Be aware
The Great Matter
Don’t waste time.Not much of one. I read the bio too, and got a different picture - Jobs used Buddhism because he had such problems. We'll probably never know what problems specifically, just like we'll never know what his eating issues were (Isaacson says Jobs was urged to see a therapist about it, but refused) - narcissism as one woman speculated? Bi-polar? To me, the most insightful anecdote was: > 'Our consumer desires are unheal…
In retrospect, that biography is quite lacking on a lot of points. It seems like Isaacson was not able to get through to jobs in any other way than Jobs allowed. Maybe this is due to him rushing the book to be released 2 weeks after his death, there is almost no analysis of Jobs. I also wonder how Jobs, as buddhist as he was, would rationalize his anger. In the book he repeatedly says "that's how I am", which is pret…
Spiritual progress is intensely personal and hard to measure, but the existence of anger in a person doesn't make that person "a bad Buddhist". It's not like Western concepts of religion where you're a bad $RELIGIOUS_DEMONYM or a good one. There are skilled people and unskilled people. Steve Jobs was using Buddhist teachings and practices to develop skills that most people don't have and that he probably lacked, to some degree, even unto death. No shock there. Getting to Enlightenment takes a long time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In retrospect, that biography is quite lacking on a lot of points. It seems like Isaacson was not able to get through to jobs in any other way than Jobs allowed. Maybe this is due to him rushing the book to be released 2 weeks after his death, there is almost no analysis of Jobs. I also wonder how Jobs, as buddhist as he was, would rationalize his anger. In the book he repeatedly says "that's how I am", which is pret…
There are limits to Buddhism. It can't change your sexual orientation; it can't make you immune to pain, and, apparently, it can't eliminate temper--especially if you're ancestors are from herder societies, which evolved temper to protect their vulnerable assets. Certain things are predominately innate.
Sexual orientation: Buddhism's stance on sexual morality is pretty simple. No rape and no deception (cheating on a partner, sex with someone underage, and misleading a person to acquire sex all qualify as "deception"). There aren't rules about before vs. after marriage or gender. Buddhism is focused on practicality and harmony, not adherence to assertedly eternal rules.
Immunity to pain: not sure of that one. The brain is a powerful thing, and accomplished yogis (not to claim equivalence between yoga and Buddhism) can get power over their bodies in pretty unusual ways. However, Buddhism's main concern is the reduction of dukkha, which translates as "mental suffering". Focusing on the elimination of physical pain is not a primary goal. This wouldn't even be desirable.
Temper: I think you put your foot in your mouth here. Spend some time around some seriously accomplished meditators. Yes, there are difficult personalities and some strange (even arrogant) people. However, if you look at aggregate differences, the serious practitioners (and it has more to do with depth of practice than identification with "Buddhism" per se) are remarkably (on average; these are aggregate comparisons) calmer, less neurotic, and less self-absorbed than people without practice.
Not much of one. I read the bio too, and got a different picture - Jobs used Buddhism because he had such problems. We'll probably never know what problems specifically, just like we'll never know what his eating issues were (Isaacson says Jobs was urged to see a therapist about it, but refused) - narcissism as one woman speculated? Bi-polar? To me, the most insightful anecdote was: > 'Our consumer desires are unheal…
"Wasn't he defying that philosophy, she asked, by making computers and other products that people coveted?" Buddhism expresses a distinction between a thing in and of itself and an individual's interpretation of a thing . "Computers and other products" are simply things in and of themselves. However, it is the individual that applies an interpretation to these things, such that the individual can allow these things t…
It is also an individual who devotes his life towards working on ever more desirable consumer products, and also individuals who devise and support ad & PR campaigns based on the idea of defining oneself with a brand and associating with it and all the insidious consumerism ideology that comes with 'lifestyle' brands.
> In essence, there is nothing "defying that philosophy", as the question asks.
The philosophy in question was not Buddhism's ontology, which varies drastically from Madhyamika-style emptiness to older karma entities; nothing can defy that philosophy because they are consistent with all possible actions and observations. The reference was to the moralizing; for all you wrote, I still see tension between a stance based on eliminating cravings and a life spent stoking and satisfying for cash cravings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Wasn't he defying that philosophy, she asked, by making computers and other products that people coveted?" Buddhism expresses a distinction between a thing in and of itself and an individual's interpretation of a thing . "Computers and other products" are simply things in and of themselves. However, it is the individual that applies an interpretation to these things, such that the individual can allow these things t…
> "Computers and other products" are simply things in and of themselves. However, it is the individual that applies an interpretation to these things, such that the individual can allow these things to define him or her. It is also an individual who devotes his life towards working on ever more desirable consumer products, and also individuals who devise and support ad & PR campaigns based on the idea of defining one…
It seems as though that tension arises in you simply imposing your misunderstandings of what Buddhism seeks to do in eliminating worldly desires, though. Buddhism fundamentally offers the proposition "if you are dissatisfied with life, and if you agree that certain things are responsible for that dissatisfaction, here is what you can do about it." It isn't proselytory. It doesn't require that you impose that view on others, or work to reduce their attachment, whether they want it or not, out of some need to save them from some Western concept like sin.
The fact that you think the right livelihood for a Buddhist ought to be one that in no way involves creating or selling things that people might form worldly attachments to, doesn't mean that Buddhism itself teaches that, or that people doing so are behaving inconsistently with the teachings of the Buddha.
There are Buddhist teachings surrounding what the right livelihood is and is not. Being a salesman doesn't fall under the "inconsistent with the teachings of Buddhism" livelihoods, even though it, by definition, means making others want to buy things from you.