It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
A little about how he saw himself. Very philosophical but still this view of himself is mentioned in several places.
The Buddha speaking to his 7 year old son. This I will use when speaking to my children. Good one. Emotional one if you keep in mind he is speaking to his son. It is said he never made a difference. That a Buddha is incapable of it. Since it would make the dhamma lesser if he did I rather read it as if he did not. But still I wonder. What do you think?
The Buddha was the head of a order under strict discipline but he also described how lay people should practice. This is one of those. If you read between the lines you will see his practical view on everyday life.
Hope they help.
Thanks @David. Yes. Greed, ill-will and avijja are the eternal enemies. But somehow I think it is too much to ask of people to entirely become devoid of these traits. (I mean look at us here, how we try and fail ). We will never get there. Instead I think the solution must be to build a system that facilitates the satisfaction of reasonable greed, reasonable ill-will (what the H is that? ) and reasonable ignorance.
And I think that is what you are saying too?
I think scientific advancement will have to make greed obsolete before we kick these growing pains.
I have been thinking about "citizens pay". A fixed amount of resources made available to citizens without any form of requirement.
But also about the government monopolizing the private bank lending system...
I think that is a better solution...initially.
But the first system require advancements in automation. The last one less so.
Still something that is good is that Europeans see the result of Populism. That he Alt right movement is slightly in decline in popularity here is I think in some part trumps doing.
Thanks guys you have broadened my view on this issue.
Let me just explain my view a little bit. Globalism for me is not capitalism or communism, it is not dictatorship. Globalism or as Jason puts it Internationalism is for me the way for the small guy to be able to run and rule E's life with minimal interference from government and with as big a wholesome impact on E's environment.
My view comes closest to Karastis and Jasons. As they point out for themselves I do not have a separate view on the two questions.
Maybe I am using the wrong word. Maybe the reason I am using that word is because my feeling of belonging (as far as I feel I need one) does not limit to one country but rather the the Globe itself and ultimately to the universe. I do not feel entirely Swedish nor entirely Sri Lankan but I do feel entirely Lankaean (the formation of the known universe) or in other words Yggdrasilian which would be the Norse word. .
I think that a global leadership does not have to be ONE man or woman. But could be democratic. Still to come to that there must be a severe limitation on what the government decides and practical problems must be solved systematically, automatically. After all everyday life is a problem of resource division. Not rocket science.
Of course for this to work people need to be on an entirely different level of maturity.
More thoughts are welcome. Mine are not yet fastened down...
I am very attached to it. Hur hur hur...