Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Badges

Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@newbuddhist.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take up to 48 hours. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

David · some guy · Veteran

About

Username
David
Location
The Hammer in Ontario, Canada, eh
Joined
Visits
1,620
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
3,068
Location
The Hammer in Ontario, Canada, eh
Badges
27
  • Re: Are atheistic Buddhists immoral?

    The study seems highly flawed to me. If someone would do bad things just because nobody is going to punish them then they are no less immoral than someone who is only decent for fear of said punishment.

    Someone that thinks in those terms whether Theist, Atheist or Agnostic is not a moral person. Actually, what it seems to suggest is that moral Atheists are more moral than moral Theists in that when they are nice to you it's because it's the right thing to do and not because a deity may be watching.

    Empathy does not come from religion. Empathy comes from understanding pain hurts.

    Shoshinperson
  • Re: Metta

    @lobster said:

    Agape, Chesed, Ishq, Metta etc. o:)
    Spiritual love. <3
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishq

    Metta is the unfolding of the Buddha/yogi heart chakra, very different to the most intense forms of mundane love which all have a component of suffering/dukkha.

    In the non-Buddhist traditions the experience often has elements of intense Dukkha/craving. Is this the same as the mature compassion tempered by wisdom and understanding?

    My experience of metta is an inevitable by product. Bliss and euphoric states come and go but metta increasingly unfolds.

    Not what you have read. What have you experienced?

    My experience also tells me it is a by-product of a way of seeing which can cause deep feelings of bliss or even despair depending on the lens.

    Jeffrey
  • Re: Third Precept...beyond adultery

    @vinlyn said:

    @David said:

    @Jeffrey said:
    I think it's just reality that there are different variations of Buddhism. There is no "this is the real Buddhism" in my opinion. But there might be "this is what I find in my awareness at this time".

    And then the 'cherry picking' is when you take things you like from different variations of Buddhism. So you could like the meditation method of Theravada but like Nagarjuna's analysis of dependent origination.

    I completely agree if by "like" you mean it makes sense or because it is a method that works for you.

    We have to cherry pick just to see which school resonates unless circumstance dictates the school.

    Being non-sectarian, I have no choice but to cherry-pick but I see it as testing as well as scrutinizing which comes from being agnostic.

    I did just notice how far we've strayed from the original topic so I guess I'm going to wait until either @Vinlyn comes back to steer or another topic is made about the pitfalls and benefits of cherry-picking.

    To reiterate what I said in another post, I don't have a problem with cherry picking AS LONG AS WE ARE AWARE WE ARE CHERRY PICKING. And I think this is very related to how we look at the Five Precepts.

    Yes but the problem is calling it all "pop" Buddhism as that would include any and all sects aside from the actual spoken words of the Buddha.

    You may not realize it but that's a derogatory term or at least is very suggestive of one and it feeds the divisiveness of the Sangha.

    As far as I know, "pop" is short for "popular" and suggests a fad or trend. It implies that anyone engaging in cherry picking is only doing it to be cool.

    That may not be your intention but it is the implication so perhaps just a bad choice of words.

    Jeffreykarasti
  • Re: Third Precept...beyond adultery

    @Jeffrey said:
    I think it's just reality that there are different variations of Buddhism. There is no "this is the real Buddhism" in my opinion. But there might be "this is what I find in my awareness at this time".

    And then the 'cherry picking' is when you take things you like from different variations of Buddhism. So you could like the meditation method of Theravada but like Nagarjuna's analysis of dependent origination.

    I completely agree if by "like" you mean it makes sense or because it is a method that works for you.

    We have to cherry pick just to see which school resonates unless circumstance dictates the school.

    Being non-sectarian, I have no choice but to cherry-pick but I see it as testing as well as scrutinizing which comes from being agnostic.

    I did just notice how far we've strayed from the original topic so I guess I'm going to wait until either @Vinlyn comes back to steer or another topic is made about the pitfalls and benefits of cherry-picking.

    lobsterJeffrey
  • Re: Third Precept...beyond adultery

    I think using the term "pop" Buddhism is just a way to feel superior and/or more secure. It's a dig at people who have found a differing interpretation but we all cherry pick to a degree. Especially those of us adhering to specific sects.

    Vastmindkarasti