401–410 of 423 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure why you would think that, as it's not what I said at all. Rather, I suspect based on this opinion that I disagree with some things you take as axiomatic, and vice versa, and therefore we have little to learn from arguing with each other.
So much for tolerance. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...
> Mindfulness, as it was practiced for most of its history in Asia, was a very elite practice reserved only for advanced monastics. I don't think that's true; or at least, it depends on what you mean by "mindfulness". That claim is made in the context of vipassana, which can be an advanced practice. But mindfulness as such is one of the spokes of the Wheel of Dharma; it's simply paying attention, and it's a necessary…
It is true. >Traditionally a monastic practice, meditation was even then considered a specialty of only certain monks. Furthermore, it is only since the 20th century that meditation has been considered a practice appropriate to teach to laypeople. https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/biggest-misconception-about-...
But I didn't speak of meditation; I was speaking of mindfulness. Everyone that hopes to follow a Buddhist path needs to practice mindfulness. The idea that mindfulness is a meditation practice is pretty-much western, and modern.
"Mindfulness" could simply be not drifting off; it could be a practice you do while walking, or programming, or whatever; or it could be a rather intense investigation of your whole experience, with the goal of exposing what you think your selfhood consists of. I think the latter is usually referred to as "vipassana". In the West, vipassana is taught to newbies and non-Buddhists, as a relaxation technique. But it can be strong medicine.
I'm pretty sure you're right that it's only recently, and in the West, that meditation has been widely taught to laypeople. But, for example, Shaivite and Buddhist lay yogins have been practising meditation for centuries. Not very many of them, sure; but these yoga practices are not monkish specialties at all.
That Tricycle article is, I'm afraid, full of speculation. And in the early paragraphs, the article notes that solitary meditators sitting under trees were scorned by the monks; they didn't follow the vinaya. So if we're allowed to speculate, I'd speculate that most meditators were not monks, at least in the mediaeval period.
The stories about Shariputra and Ananda are instructive, but they're 2,500 years old, and were not written down contemporaneously. An outstanding example of a monk-meditator is Shantideva, who lived in the 8thC, and was a monk at Nalanda University. His work is remarkable on its own merits, but he's also remarkable for being a monk; most of the famous meditation teachers were lay people. And Shantideva was criticised, because as a monk he was practicing tantra. Tantra calls for behaviour that is not permitted for monks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many, many nations allow 2nd trimester and late term abortions, though those are always extremely rare and often have complicating circumstances. I don't tend to respect people who use the fringe case to argue the mainstream point as I find it disingenuous.
Only two EU countries allow elective abortions—what we’re talking about here—significantly into the second trimester. The Netherlands applies a viability standard similar to Roe , and Sweden draws the line at 18 weeks. Every other EU country has found that a fetus is sufficiently developed at 12-14 weeks that its life can’t be extinguished absent extenuating circumstances. For that reason, you can’t sweep them under…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A way in is better than no way at all. A friend of mine was concerned about a similar (mis)use of psychedelics in the service of productivity. Except that neither Buddhism, nor psychedelics discriminate in the kind of insights you end up with. So as workers are encouraged to boost creativity through microdosing, employers might be surprised to see some employees quit after they got curious, took a bit too much Ayahua…
All Buddhisms are not created equal. I'm always amazed to see westerners, who are otherwise very weary of cultish behavior within Christian denominations, embrace and praise Eastern cults. Osho is not a wise man, given his actions. Thich Nhat Hanh deserves history's attention. A horrible and oppressive introduction to Buddhism is actually worse than no introduction.
Regarding Osho specifically, I might not have heard or read enough from him, but I have yet to come across something he's said or wrote personally, that contradicts anything said by the likes of TNH or J.Krishnamurti. And vice versa. His life has concluded, and with hindsight it's easy enough for anyone to put his words and actions in the context of his times and to deliberate as to the rightfulness of thence judgments. If you've avoided his words based on popular sentiments, do yourself a favor, listen for yourself and make up your own mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's apply that same reasoning on a different scale. Rome violently occupied most of Europe and forced its culture on to those peoples. Therefore, most Europeans may eat as much pizza as they like. But if an Italian so much as looks at a croissant or wears pants, they've done A Cultural Appropriation. Seems sensible to me!
Your example would stand if Rome was the #1 economic power, was also the #1 producer of movies in the world, exported it's myths and culture all around the world all year long, forced their neighboring countries into trade partnerships to make sure Rome's products (including their music, movies, beverages etc.) weren't blocked from competing with local products. Then yes, people could be pissed at Rome companies also…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Did she even study Buddhism at all? Did you? https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/biggest-misconception-about-... https://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/ten-misconceptions-about-b... https://vividness.live/the-making-of-buddhist-modernism The book you are referring to means nothing because it is a recent interpretation exactly as the author of the article is describing. From The Making of Buddhist Modernism: >1. Rahula select…
My tbought are limited to Buddha's teachings only. SEAns can live their life as they see fit, they just shouldn’t demand that everyone conform to their version. > occludes many features of the tradition on the ground, such as ritual, devotion, and exorcism, that are actually more central to many Buddhists’ lives than abstract doctrines. Same goes here. Just because hundreds of thousands of people are practising Buddh…
While you might be able to construct a philosophy from the Buddha's teachings, Buddhism is not it. The Buddha never created Buddhism; he never said these are my teachings and this is Buddhism. Buddhism was established by the people who listened to him. It also contains aspects such as the vinaya and rebirth, which make it not a philosophy but a religion (or are rules on robes philosophical ideas?). Therefore it is entirely appropriate to look at it from an anthropological lens. And from that lens, it is not inaccurate to claim that lay people did not generally practice meditation, and there has been reform, by people who likely had to invent their meditation practice as it did not come by lineage.
Surely you won't claim that Jack Kornfield himself read the scriptures or whatever and got closer to the Buddhism as Buddha intended it! And he left stuff out to make it palatable in the West, unless he teaches about the realm of hungry ghosts? That makes what Chen wrote entirely accurate both in the paragraph you quoted and in a wider sense as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but if you don't believe the religion then why should you believe that you'll be able to dredge up enough good to outweigh the bad?
I don’t think you read my initial comment fully. You don’t need to believe in any religion, though even theists are very selective followers. The point is to use philosophy from religions/etc to inform your own worldview and improve your life.
My point is, why believe that philosophy has merit, or that you'd be able to distinguish the good parts from the bad parts? (And if you are able to distinguish good from bad philosophy, why would you need an existing religion as a starting point?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think you read my initial comment fully. You don’t need to believe in any religion, though even theists are very selective followers. The point is to use philosophy from religions/etc to inform your own worldview and improve your life.
I don't know why you'd think that. My point is, why believe that philosophy has merit, or that you'd be able to distinguish the good parts from the bad parts? (And if you are able to distinguish good from bad philosophy, why would you need an existing religion as a starting point?)
Obviously, the authors must be beyond reproach in their lives. And, do ensure that everything in their writings & speech are “good” before their time, during their time, during our time, and for all future times to come.
Your other point seems to be that it’s better to avoid all this, and start from scratch. It’s good for you that you are able to inform yourself of everything with no materials. The rest of us need something to go off of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s as “essentially” about human life as it is about “bodily autonomy.” As to “women”—they’re voting for these laws. The Mississippi electorate that voted in the 15-week ban at issue in Dobbs had 25% more women than men. And the large majority voted Republican.
ah, well if mississippi is doing it, that just settles it once and for all i guess. diehard partisanship gets us nowhere. women wanting to coerce other women is nothing new, but it’s still against our natural rights. and yes, it’s essentially about the woman’s life too, i agree there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ah, well if mississippi is doing it, that just settles it once and for all i guess. diehard partisanship gets us nowhere. women wanting to coerce other women is nothing new, but it’s still against our natural rights. and yes, it’s essentially about the woman’s life too, i agree there.
No, it doesn't settle it once and for all. It settles it once for Mississippi. Other states are free to have different laws. That's the point of Dobbs.
in time, this will be a case where the court will be found to be right in the small and wrong in the large.