Best Of

@IdleChater said:
Well, Jeroen, I've never been one to waste time blowing sunshine up someone's backside.

And seeing how you aren't a Buddhist, yourself, and from what I've read of your posts, don't know much about it, either, what makes you believe you can comment on what a Buddhist should/shouldn't be? Hmmmmmm?

Considering the frequent ad hominem 'negative analysis' of (especially) @Jeroen, to my mind, this is getting into harrasment territory, and has been for some time.
EDIT: I've reviewed our ToS and, to my mind, this would be 'harrasment based on... religion (or lack thereof), theological perspective...'
Instead of reporting, as advised by our ToS, I am making you, @IdleChater, aware of my perspective and looking to hopefuly reach an acceptable solution.
This solution, to my mind, would enable you to still be a straight-talker on these boards, but not a 'serial criticiser', and especially not one with a special focus on one particular member.
I am seeking views on this from both @IdleChater and other members of our community.

For some time now, to my mind, you have been far too often critical and harsh, towards several members, but apparently with a special focus on Jeroen. To my mind, Jeroen has been nothing but gracious and kind to you. I would have called you out far sooner than Jeroen, but even his calling you out was gracious and kind. Had he not called you out, I would have done so.

Trying to silence me?

For now, looking to hear what others think, and if they mostly agree that you've meandered into harrasment territory according to our ToS, looking for you to remedy your future postings on these boards a.k.a. limit the ad hominem personal attacks based on this or that perceived fault.

As the second most disagreeable member of the forum, I'll stand up for the importance of challenging people's opinions and stand against pitchfork mobs running people off.

I will, however, point out that part of Buddhism's right speech includes stating things in an agreeable manner and with a good intention. Perfection isn't what's important, or I'd be out on my ass, its the understanding and willingness to try.

Truthful speech: Speaking honestly and truthfully.
Kind speech: Using words that are friendly, benevolent, gentle, and endearing.
Beneficial speech: Speaking in a way that is useful and promotes well-being.
Timely speech: Speaking at the right time, considering whether the words will be helpful and whether it's the appropriate moment to say them.
Speech with goodwill: Speaking with a kind and benevolent intention, hoping for the best for all involved.
Noble silence: If one cannot speak in a way that is truthful, beneficial, and kind, it is better to remain silent.

@IdleChater said:
A real place - not some made-up metaphor. Is it found in the brain, the heart, the liver. Where does the self reside, and how do we find that place.

For something that’s less than real to look in a real place seems like a fool’s errand.
Metaphors and fingers pointing to the moon are all that is available in this search.

IdleChaser tell me, how is it that you show so little consideration? For a Buddhist your pattern of speech is decidedly unusual.

@Tavs said:
From a Buddhist point of view, what actually is The Higher Self? I know some Buddhists compare it to Buddha nature but I find that answer unsatisfactory or some might say its what lies beyond ego but to me this answer is vague and too abstract. People talk about it as if it's a little silent unseen deity which somehow lives in our heads. Does it exist at all?

Mmm Higher Self...
Here's some food for thought to lose your self in... aka Anatta :

Awareness is fundamentally non-conceptual before thinking splits experience into subject and object. It is empty and so can contain everything, including thought. It is boundless. And amazingly it is intrinsically knowing.