Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
"low self esteem"
Iv heard that HHDL did not no what "low self esteem" was.. and that he later followed through and did some research on it. the reason was that in the east there was / is no
such thing..
i find that very interesting.. and i have my assumptions of why.. and how things are
different here in the west. and iv heard buddhist reasons.. i just cant figure it all out. if anyone wants to share their thoughts in applying a buddhist connection as to how this is so different from east to west.. that would be great.
i find it a great interest.
such thing..
i find that very interesting.. and i have my assumptions of why.. and how things are
different here in the west. and iv heard buddhist reasons.. i just cant figure it all out. if anyone wants to share their thoughts in applying a buddhist connection as to how this is so different from east to west.. that would be great.
i find it a great interest.
0
Comments
It's sort of like the way homosexuality is viewed in West and East. In the West it's all about the individual again with a person's right to self-fulfillment considered to be much more important than society's view of the way the person goes about it. Being gay becomes the person's identity, the mask he/she wears in society, and the person's right to wear that mask and behave the way he/she chooses (within limits, of course) is considered sacrosanct. In the East, once again, it's society's perceived needs that are preeminent. Although sex between young monks is commonplace in Tibet, for example, any suggestion that they are gay would receive a blank stare. They're just having sex, not assuming a particular identity. Their identity is as a monk within a monastery that exists in the social space known as Tibet (or at least that used to be the case before a certain neighbor walked in and changed everything). So any identity the individual assumes is based more on the function they fulfill in society than any individual expression of some kind of personal identity.
Does that make sense?
Palzang
i am goin to reread.. there was lots there~
I sorta figured that everyone would suffer from low-esteem some time in their lives... Well I have a friend whom I try hard to make him confident (because he simply suffers from inconfidence), and I guess perhaps it could be that HHDL simply didn't really thought of that in monasteries - just as they don't usually think of stuff like the Iraqi War and stuff...
Crikey... This gets me thinking... Perhaps the West (or the East even) really has alot we can all learn from the humble monk...
Palzang, Thanks for the great answer...........
we in the west are all about ego period.!!!. expecially this generation of kids.. as a mom, if you didnt have lil holly in dance/piano/and soccer you were a bad mom. "yes dear what are your feelings on what you would like to eat today" are common phrases i heard as i was raising my kids.. ( to which i never bought into ) .. and what kind of dress do you want to wear today" .. i could go on and on. .. we thought we were feeding self esteem?
we were feeding an ego..
and out of that only makes stand out.. I .. ME.. and what goes up comes down.. meaning as big as we blow up the ego we can feel " depressed and insecure and not worthy" because we dont have the designer coat, or a boyfriend at a certain age, or meet the standard look seen in magazines,
one begins to find.. they dont measure up . they feel not as good, very insecure when all the measures they have been fed as a kid arent being fed anymore.
i guess women continue to spend huge money on makeups and creams to "feel good/young".. drink or abuse drugs for feelings of depression and insecurity.. because the ego may never have been fed as a kid.. when all the culture thought that was wrong.
i could go on and on here. this could be a lengthy thread of posts..
next life maybe i will choose the east to be born..tehe
cas i stil buy the makeup etc. lol
i guess its balance as to what your culture is.
anyway.. just thought i would add to my thread.. and thanks for the guidence on this quest.
"i had to reread.. i thought you said.. "here on consumers drive" meaning a street in the west.. lol"
i thought ya.. cool.. we do have alot of consumers drives in the west..
anyway. .. im glad i saw the humour in that.. and your point on your reply was well read.
This is why democracy is anathema to many 'Muslim', 'Hindu' and 'Christian' extremists. In Egypt (as well as on some extreme Christian web fora), the religio-politicians called for a final election which would put their version of sharia in power, after which no further election would be necessary! And I have found similar sentiments among the KKKristian 'neo-cons': theocracy rules.
If we are promoting non-self as a way to live with each other, what is the alternative to the US or UK models and institutions of democracy? How do we, for example, arrive at a system of consensus?
I believe this to be a vital question because 21st century Buddhism is no longer the social opt-out into monasticism that it once was. It must confront the political world with a theoretical structure that can replace the current one.
Well, it is true that we are brought up to put others before us and all that pro-social behaviour, but still, all that is something taught only, and the fact of whether it is indoctrinated into us seems fairly questionable...
I guess Paretto's Principle work here, I'd dare argue, even as one Asian speaking for the rest, that what the West sees as the East is as much as 20% of the people (who all happen to be good-hearted) of Asia and there is still a good 80% of not-so-nice people in Asia that remain unseen to the West (for very good reason indeed!).
You'll notice... That in the East, despite the few democracies that have grown, where some "democracies" sadly, are so only constitutionally, but remain bound to the influence of religious authorities. Most of us still remain under autocractic regimes, and some under Communism dictatorships. Such means that power itself is concentrated, and what you see is not always what you get.
While I'd gurantee that the education syllabuses, as well as the "ideal" of all the Asian countries seems to point more towards a civic society, I cannot do the same to gurantee our own Asian way of life pointing towards a more civic society. Well, one exception is Japan, but that took like hundreds of years for such identities to build up, and that it is indeed a liberal, full-fledged democracy.
We Asians are as influenced by the West as any other place in the world. Heck, even before Western influence, bandits, pirates, barbarians, bloodthirsty triads, swordsmen, war-liking maharajas etc. etc. ruled over all Asia in various ages and guises. We have been so long used to power-concentration, that ultimately, the brutal policies of such rulers rub off on our forefathers, and colonial Asia, significantly with its huge immigration numbers, started off as "each man for his own, all for a better life!" Helping each another? Maybe. But that's as much limited as to family, close friends, and in the long past of kampongs and small villages, fellow villagers.
The West in generalizing this may have left out many factors e.g. religion, size, control, the "ideal" state that is pro-social but non-existent compared to the "real-world" state that is so individualistic but well - that's life etc. etc.
True, I'll not discount the many notables who indeed are great "ideal" Asians, the HHDL etc. etc. (Darn, I realize I don't really know many secular Asians with a name in the West), but has mistaken the Asian "ideal" for being the Asian "real-world".
But, in anyway, we Asia have a headstart because we have already been planning such an ideal environment for millenias now!
Well, link one thing to the other, and you realize that Asians are as prone to low self-esteem as Westerners. If you haven't ever met an Asian who has never been depressed, never been sad, always happy - boy, you sure are lucky. (Hey, HHDL doesn't count!)
I just thought I'd say that that is disturbing to me (that sex between young monks is commonplace). Is everyone else ok with that? I would like to know.
Palzang
Ugh...no kidding, Palzang. What is our country's hang up with sex anyways?? Its just sex!!!!!
I am ok with it...doesn't really bother me. What about it is disturbing to you?
The fact that so many priests have sex with young children is WAY more troubling to me than that is!
YogaMama,
It disturbs me, too, about priests having sex with children---ugh! Disgusting!
Adiana:mad: :wtf:
Also, a sexual predator lived in my home for years and he was older than me. My parents didn't exactly know that he did those types of things but he ended up basically raping my younger brother and molesting me. So that also makes me much more uptight about sexuality.
I said young monks, but they're not really monks. They dress like monks, they live in the monastery, but they're not really monks. They're actually students. That's the most common way to get educated in Tibet, at least it used to be, so many children are sent to the monastery to study. If they want to become a monk, they're not allowed to take vows until they're old enough to understand what it is they're vowing. I'm not sure how old that is, but at least teenage. So before that they're just kids away at boarding school.
Palzang
Singapore used to have, or could possibly still be having, two-week long Pure Land enrolment in monasteries, where parents could opt for their children to be sent to monasteries for two weeks to learn the basics of Buddhism, and live life as a monk (yes, heads shaved and little sleep!).
How... Practical are these things I question? (Even though news reports I remember quote such two-week-long monks as having learnt self-discipline and various Buddhist ideals during the course)
I agree with you on so many of the points that you made. There are so many of us on here that were also sexually abused, so we know what you mean when you say this subject makes you uptight.
I just feel that our country makes sex such a taboo subject that it makes people feel guilty for having sex and it makes it seem so "dirty". No, I don't agree that it is ok to have sex with multiple partners, or just have casual sex, etc, but I just think we wouldn't have such an issue with it if it didn't seem so "taboo". Does that make sense?
In other cultures, there hasn't been any teachings against adultery. There hasn't been Sodoms and Gomorrahs that were destroyed because of "men turning to men" and seeking "strange flesh" and so on.
Other societies probably look at sex a whole lot different than centuries of people who have been mentally punished and warped by the good Book.
If we find that we are apalled by young people, mutually consenting to sex in a country and background completely different from ours - we should ask ourselves why we are so disturbed by it and what causes us to feel so.
This just reminded me of a book I'm reading. Here is a scenario that the author presented:
A brother and an sister, both in their late teens (both legally adults) decide to spend the weekend at the family lake place. While they were there, the discussed with each other that they had never engaged in the act of sex with anyone.
The brother and the sister then decided to have sex with each other. They knew each other and thought it would be okay to experiment.
So, the brother and the sister had sex a couple of times that weekend. Afterwards, they talked about it and while they felt that the act had brought them closer together and made them feel a deeper love and caring for each other - that they would not try it again because it just wasn't for them.
So - what are your thoughts about this brother and sister having sex?
-bf
-bf
The only objections are genetic, (there is more chance, in the case of impregnation, of there being a genetically defective offspring...Inbreeding with show-animals proves this) and Moral/Social/Religious... take the imposition of socio-religious prejudices away, and what can one object to?
When he relays this scenario to people, most of them are disgusted. Then he says, "Why?"
"Well, their kids will be retarded."
"Nope. No kids. They used protection."
"It's perverse and will cause emotional issues."
"Nope. In the story, they said it made them closer."
"Well... then I guess I can't think of anything, but it's still wrong."
And no one can tell the author why it's wrong.
Not that I'm condoning this - I'm just saying that I think it's been something that has been defined as taboo and wrong in Western culture for so long - that we cannot see it any other way.
Just like there may be other things we, as Westerners, have been conditioned about for so long - that we don't see things with clear eyes or a clear heart. Not that ~everything~ should be "accepted" - but that we should really try to see it as it is. Instead of letting our gut reactions immediately define our response.
The book is:
http://www.happinesshypothesis.com/
-bf
If I remember correctly, Chinese legend believes that Nu-wa, the Creator of Man, formed us out of clay and married her brother to be her husband - could this be perhaps a reflection of the Asian attitude?
Well, ancient Egyptians did it when the Pharoah had to be made Pharoah... If the Bible was right for a while, it did happen too for a while... I think it is only how we have evolved so far - but if to speak of it in use for procreation now I guess nope.
For bringing siblings closer... I dunno.... I think incest has been long associated with the likes of the adult film factory. Whether in real life it is the way as fiction, I wonder. Yet real-life accounts of people becoming married, only to find out that they happen to be long-lost siblings, usually choose one identity out of the two.
Besides, if sex is to be used in this case, would that not violate the precept on sexual misconduct since it is not used for the conventional, emotional love instead? (For me, that's the purpose of sex.)
Yes, it does make sense. I appreciate what you are saying.
Well I tried to explain to everyone why it bothered me.
"The reason it all disturbs me is because I like to show a little restraint especially if I were a monk pursuing spiritual matters and enlightenment. It disturbs me because people have a hard time defining when sex is 'wrong'."
I agree that sometimes we can be mislead to think that something is 'wrong' even if we don't have a logical reason as to why it actually is wrong. I like to use the terms healthy and unhealthy as well as positive and negative (rather than the terms right or wrong). My thoughts about the siblings having sex is that why couldn't they have just waited for a significant other, if you will? why did they choose to have sex right then? just curiousity? that's their reason? Also, I think that even though it may have been consensual that there are still emotional/psychological/spiritual issues and problems that arise from such an act. I, again, come back to asking what was the purpose of them having sex? I can't believe that they grew 'closer' in any sort of positive way... maybe I'm wrong but I find that truly hard to believe. A fictional book is just a fictional book and it is my guess that in real life things wouldn't have turned out so smoothly. Lastly, what is the purpose of sex, I must ask? To me it is an expression of the true love two people have for each other (and of course, to really "enjoy each other's company" by partaking in something so wonderful and intimate) So, if one chooses to have casual sex in a way that could possibly be damaging to one's health then I must say I don't think that that is all right.
I try my best to have a solid reason for what I do or how I think. However, that isn't always the case and it is humbling to admit that sometimes I just tense up on issues and don't necessarily have any well thought out reason for how I think. So, this is a good discussion.
Good thing. Everybody knows what happens when a brother and sister do it - two headed babies!
Now, where did I put that "strange flesh"...
BTS,
I think that's one of the wisest and most honest things I've ever read. Very cool. And you express yourself beautifully. I feel the same way you do but wouldn't have been able to express it nearly as well. Thanks.
There is a family that I know and I believe that the older brother is in love with his younger sister. It shows in his actions. When he hugs her, kisses her hello etc... He is 30 and has never married. The sister does not feel the same way, you can tell. She is happily married and has just had her 1st child. Other ppl have also noticed that he has feelings for her more than say brotherly love. I don't know how I feel about it. One, it's not my business and two......I guess I feel sad for him......He has to be in a lot of mental pain....To be in love with someone that you know no matter what you can not have........They are christians and so this subject would be nothing to them but WRONG!!
And so that too would make your mental well being even worse because you would believe your love is as many christians would believe.....Sick, disgusting, dirty etc...
I guess my 1st thoughts on this is that it is wrong also. But I was also raised a christian so is it because that is ingrained in me? Some interesting points have been made here.
Interesting food for thought.......
Same here! Sometimes, we just feel a certain way about a subject, and we are not really sure why! I am sure that is just completely normal.
Palzang