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.
Well, anger as I understand the limited word, is something that usually brings negative results. If one is frustrated, that is different than anger, and hatred is in a sense focused anger.
If your child is trying to touch the hot oven, you say "its hot don't touch" He tries again, you get slighty annoyed, and a bit more firm "its HOT don't TOUCH" He tries again, and you get slighty angry now "STOP!!" He tries again and now your anger is stronger, you slap the childs hand "DO NOT TOUCH ITS HOT!!!" the child crys from being scolded. You wipe his tears, out of compassion and explain the dangerous situation of a hot oven.
You just said it right there yourself. The child cries from being scolded. The anger did nothing but incite fear and suffering in the child. Do you think that child really won't touch that stove in the future? If the child is bullheaded enough, they will. And you know what will happen? They will get burnt and then, and only then, will they really learn not to touch a hot stove.
This old argument traces back to the whole Adam and Eve story. God said, "Don't eat the apple-- bad things will happen. I'm warnin' ya...." God was angry at them, too, and tried to strike, well, the fear of God into them about eating fruit from that one tree in the garden. And guess what? They ate it anyway. And they learned their lesson only after the fact when it was too late to do anything about it. All of the anger in the world could not make them see that they were about to inflict so much suffering upon themselves. Anger did no good. As a matter of fact, it just made them even more curious. God tried love, God tried anger, God tried everything he could to make them stay on the right path. They still did what they wanted to do in the end.
And just like with a stubborn child who will not listen to you after 4 pleas of "don't touch the hot stove," getting you to the point of frustration/fear/anger, they are most likely going to do it anyway. Some do it to spite their parents (i.e. "Hey... I'm going to show him and touch that stove anyway! Hmph!"), some may stay away out of fear (i.e. "Mommy is so mean... I don't like her... stupid stove.") but eventually do something else later on to challenge your authority, and some still will touch the stove simply because they have the free will to do so and no amount of anger or fear-mongering is going to stop them. So why bother getting angry in the first place? It never brings about positive change. Even if your anger temporarily stopped the child from doing something out of fear, that (for lack of a better word) "karma" will come back to haunt you, because you are teaching your child that anger is an acceptable form of controlling others.
Good example, though, @kashi. But still... it needs to be taken beyond the moment of the stove and seen in a greater context. Always teach love, patience, and compassion. If you're teaching children anything else, it turns into a slippery-slope of "anger is okay in this instance but not in this instance."
No...this happened to my nephew and I was the one who slaped his hand. Guess what? he never tried to touch the oven again. You said it yourself "If the child is bull headed enough...." In this situation, and the point of the thread is anger can be used as a form of compassion. If you channel your anger in the right direction it becomes useful and can save one from harm. think this is fairly straight forward stuff here.
And "God"...lol...this is a joke to me. god throws ppl in hell. and this is said to be out of compassion...big difference between an eternity in hell and a slap on the wrist
If you channel your anger in the right direction it becomes useful and can save one from harm. think this is fairly straight forward stuff here.
I agree with you, but to a certain point. Again, you need to see it in a broader context. This isn't just about saving a child from getting burnt. He can do that with or without you around to be angry at him. It's also about teaching him how to communicate in a compassionate manner.
I dunno... maybe it's all those child psychology courses I took in grad school... maybe it's all the years I've worked with children with autism and taught 4th graders... but for the life of me, I've never once yelled at a child in anger (at least I don't remember doing so). You can teach a child the stove is dangerous in other ways. Getting angry just shows your impatience as an adult, not their refusal to listen as a child. And I think my method works well, because kids seem to really like me and listen to everything I say. When I babysit other children, the parents always go, "How come she listens to you but not to us (the parents)? Why is she so well-behaved when you watch her?" And I have to teach them how to get the child to listen to them, because parents think anger is what is right. It just isn't. I really don't believe it ever is the answer. All it ever does is set the child up for learning how to react to certain situations with fear and anger. Why teach a child to act like that? Make them learn the "right" way when they are young, so they don't have to come on forums like this when they're older and try desperately to "unlearn" it because they are so depressed from a childhood of anger and abuse.
And "God"...lol...this is a joke to me. god throws ppl in hell. and this is said to be out of compassion...big difference between an eternity in hell and a slap on the wrist
I was just using that as an age-old story which reads exactly like "don't touch the stove." It has nothing to do with God himself, per se.
Not to say im an expert on these things, but I think theres a big difference between teaching and parenting. I have no kids, but I helped raise my nephew. Anyone who has kids, or has helped raise kids would most likely tell you they have been in this situation
If your child is trying to touch the hot oven, you say "its hot don't touch" He tries again, you get slighty annoyed, and a bit more firm "its HOT don't TOUCH" He tries again, and you get slighty angry now "STOP!!" He tries again and now your anger is stronger, you slap the childs hand "DO NOT TOUCH ITS HOT!!!" the child crys from being scolded. You wipe his tears, out of compassion and explain the dangerous situation of a hot oven.
This can be done without anger. One must be firm, but this is not to be confused with anger-- otherwise that child or person is merely getting under your skin, and you're allowing that person to control your emotions. (I used to work in a home for the elderly and had a few stubborn, not-quite-there residents to deal with on occasion! And have dealt with irate patients in the ER too) Anger gives the illusion of power, but in actuality you're allowing your strings to be pulled by others-- giving in to anger a sign of a weak will, not a strong one Anger is an added element to the action, it does not need to be central to the action itself.
FWIW, even anger for the samurai is frowned upon in Bushido. It interferes with their effectiveness.
I also have support from a very solid, authoritative source:
Perhaps as someone else mentioned, you (others) are thinking in terms of hatred or putting them on the same scale without realising it. Theres a big difference between the 2. sometimes we hear the word anger and automatically think in terms of its highest degree
Not to say im an expert on these things, but I think theres a big difference between teaching and parenting. I have no kids, but I helped raise my nephew. Anyone who has kids, or has helped raise kids would most likely tell you they have been in this situation
I don't have children of my own either, and I'm not claiming to be *the* expert on parenting, but I do know that my methods-- which are methods grounded in the simple ideas of love, compassion, patience, and "do unto others"-- work, and they work well.
And I'm not saying that parents need to be perfect and always super patient with their children. Even the most loving, sweetest, kindest parent is going to blow up at their children every once in a while and have a bad day. But why? Why teach a child how to be angry? Why are you so insistent that teaching anger by example is a good thing? Can't you think back to when you were younger and put yourself in your nephew's shoes? How would you want an adult to reprimand you about the stove? Honestly. And don't b.s. me by saying "Yeah, I want them to hit me and yell at me so I don't get burnt." Because if that's your answer, then I don't know what else to say to you about the topic of anger and just give up at this point.
2
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
If your child is trying to touch the hot oven, you say "its hot don't touch" He tries again, you get slighty annoyed, and a bit more firm "its HOT don't TOUCH" He tries again, and you get slighty angry now "STOP!!" He tries again and now your anger is stronger, you slap the childs hand "DO NOT TOUCH ITS HOT!!!" the child crys from being scolded. You wipe his tears, out of compassion and explain the dangerous situation of a hot oven.
It's hard to add to anything @SillyPutty said on this but you can certainly be firm with someone and take a strong stance if that is what you think will best help a situation without getting angry.
If you get angry at a child to control their behavior, even if for their own good, they don't learn that the stove will burn them if they touch it all they learn is that the person they love and look up to will get mad at them and maybe hurt them if they don't do what they say.
IMO its better to do your best to teach children that the stove will burn, then if they do end up touching it anyway be there to love and comfort them, give them a hug and treat their burn.
" so they don't have to come on forums like this when they're older and try desperately to "unlearn" it because they are so depressed from a childhood of anger and abuse"
not that this was aimed at me, but just fyi my mom was and is one of the most loving compassionate and caring people you could meet and she raised me with a tremendous amount of these qualities.
Wanted to add, I remember sitting in one of my classes and our professor told us how we should never give children "time-out's." Instead, she said, we should give ourselves time-outs when we feel ourselves starting to become angry with a child (or anyone for that matter). You tell the child in a peaceful manner, "Hold on, Bobby... I need to go sit down and collect myself," and you remove yourself from the issue. This usually opens up an excellent dialogue with the child right away. If not, eventually the child calms down and comes over to you to ask, "What's wrong?" And then you talk. But always teach a child how to not give into anger, and to remain calm, and to model the exact behavior you hope they eventually grow up to emulate.
" so they don't have to come on forums like this when they're older and try desperately to "unlearn" it because they are so depressed from a childhood of anger and abuse"
not that this was aimed at me, but just fyi my mom was and is one of the most loving compassionate and caring people you could meet and she raised me with a tremendous amount of these qualities.
Okay, @kashi, once again, you're making my jovial comments all about you again. (And you conveniently omitted the " " I ended that sentence with, which made it kind of clear it was said in jest and not intended to be cruel.) Actually, when I wrote that, I was thinking about me. I grew up with a very angry mother... made 'Mommy Dearest' look nice. So you need to stop this. That is why I stopped talking to you before and refused to respond to you. But I wanted to give you another chance and keep peace on the board. But I will say this, and I'm saying it out of love, so don't be confused: if you keep thinking I'm out to harm you with my comments, I will have no choice but to permanently ignore you, because it's really not good for you, me, or the forum when you keep thinking everything I'm saying is a direct attack on you. Okay?
In the ER, I have managed to calm down upset patients and family members that cops could not because the cops figured being angry "works" (no physical contact involved in these incidents). The cops would just make matters worse, exacerbating the situation (and these weren't even very important situations-- the cops around here like to make mountains out of molehills). And I'm just clerical.
I just shake my head and laugh at these situations because the cops are so blind to what they are doing. But they have a gun so that makes them "somebody." They don't see how easily a little 65-year old weak man has yanked their chain. Its pathetic really.
Wanted to add, I remember sitting in one of my classes and our professor told us how we should never give children "time-out's." Instead, she said, we should give ourselves time-outs when we feel ourselves starting to become angry with a child (or anyone for that matter). You tell the child in a peaceful manner, "Hold on, Bobby... I need to go sit down and collect myself," and you remove yourself from the issue. This usually opens up an excellent dialogue with the child right away. If not, eventually the child calms down and comes over to you to ask, "What's wrong?" And then you talk. But always teach a child how to not give into anger, and to remain calm, and to model the exact behavior you hope they eventually grow up to emulate.
thats why I said " not that this was aimed at me" I just wanted to show, in the context of my point about the stove situation in general that my mom raised me with compassion I got slaped on the hand a few times.
@SillyPutty i didnt omit that on purpose,..and the only reason i responded about my mom was because smile face or not, others who are reading this might have actually thought you were "attacking" me, who can read your mind? you didnt mention your own childhood drama until i made my FYI comment.
Heres something, if the buddha, taught so many different ways because everyone learns differently, is it not far fetched to think that some people are so bull headed the only way for them to learn is by getting angry with them?
others who are reading this might have actually thought you were "attacking" me, who can read your mind?
Whoa whoa whoa... stop the clock there, buddy.
Did anyone honestly think I was referring to kashi? If so, please let me know. Honestly. If so, I will apologize because I don't see the glaring insinuation here as kashi seems to be seeing....
And in terms of "reading minds," dude-- you keep doing that yourself! Stop assuming and stop trying to read my mind. Let go of the ego. Stop thinking everything I say is about you. And even if it is-- guess what? You shouldn't care! What I say should not have any bearing on your happiness. And trust me, as I've already proven in this thread already, if I have something to say to you, I will say it. No doubt about it. I don't dance around the issues, m'dear. I will either take the time to tell you, or I will not waste my energy anymore and just ignore you. That's how I roll. Simple as that.
I was spanked twice as a child. The first time I have no recollection of-- my mother claims she did (and regrets it). When I was 12 though, I skipped school one day with a friend. We lived just outside Baton Rouge at the time, and my "back yard" was practically fields and fields and fields.
So me and my friend skipped school and spent the whole day roaming the fields. Come 3:30, we both went back to our respective homes, as if we had just gotten off the bus. What neither of us realised is that the school called when there was an absence. My parents (and my friends' parents) were afraid we had gotten abducted or who knows what. I won't say my parents were not angry -- and after some deliberation between my parents, my dad took me to the back bedroom and spanked me ten times with his belt.
Before and after this, it was explained to me precisely WHY. WIthout this explanation, it would've been pointless. The point was not that THEY were upset with me-- rather it was that I could very well have been abducted (or killed or injured or who knows what) wandering those fields all day long AND NO ONE WOULD EVER KNOW what happened -- I would be just another statistic, another missing kid on a milk carton.
But truly--and looking back I see this now--my parents DID NOT want to do this. There is the old cliche, "this is going to hurt me more than it is going to hurt you" but in this instance it was true (they were both in tears about spanking me). But my parents wanted to make DAMN SURE I would never EVER pull a stunt like that again, because of the dangers to me (dangers which I naievely wasn't aware of at that age). But the important thing was it was not done IN ANGER.
Punishment of any kind MUST be coupled with an explanation or it will not stick, it will be meaningless. But the explanation is the important part. I could be a trouble-maker, but usually it wasn't too bad and I would be put on restriction with a clear explanation as to WHY I was being punished.
So be it. Lets get back on topic. I dont dance around and b.s. people or use underlining messages either. If I talk about you or anyone else i dont cowardly do so with code language and other s***. And i despise people who do. Perhaps its the very strict martial artist in me. lets get back on topic if your cool with that.
Heres something, if the buddha, taught so many different ways because everyone learns differently, is it not far fetched to think that some people are so bull headed the only way for them to learn is by getting angry with them?
So be it. Lets get back on topic. I dont dance around and b.s. people or use underlining messages either. If I talk about you or anyone else i dont cowardly do so with code language and other s***. And i despise people who do. Perhaps its the very strict martial artist in me.
Well, I got my black belt in Tae Kwon Do when I was 10... but I could care less about such things. Maybe you do jujitsu?...
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Heres something, if the buddha, taught so many different ways because everyone learns differently, is it not far fetched to think that some people are so bull headed the only way for them to learn is by getting angry with them?
In TB there are deities that are wrathful. They express a sort of anger and fear in order to push people along the path when more peaceful means won't work. The important point though is they aren't angry, they are compassionate and caring they are just acting or presenting anger to modify behavior.
My point is there is a difference between acting angry and being angry.
nice. i took a bit of tae kwon do..not much...a bit of karate, aikido and japanese swordsmanship. (and to go off topic on purpose, on my part, why dont you care about your martial arts anymore??
nice. i took a bit of tae kwon do..not much...a bit of karate, aikido and japanese swordsmanship. (and to go off topic on purpose, on my part, why dont you care about your martial arts anymore??
Well, I don't care about martial arts anymore simply because I don't, but that wasn't why I said that. I was making, once again, a corny joke. The "I could care less about such things" comment was aimed at not caring about people and their b.s. (what you spoke about above; those whom you "despise"). So I was basically joking that, "Hey, I did TKD as a child and I don't seem to care about all that b.s. people do... maybe it's because I did TKD and not some other form of martial arts (i.e. jujitsu)."
Ha ha. Get it? :orange:
Hey, it was funny in my head while I was typing it.... :coffee:
actually @person thats a topic I have been interested in for awhile. Is there a good link with lots of details about these deities and with pictures? Ive always been fascinated by the statues, but did not want to purchase any before I had an understanding of the symbolism behind them.
That way I can just attach it to the end of every corny joke I tell and people will know, "Ahh, okay... SillyPutty has attempted another joke. Good for her!"
My point is there is a difference between acting angry and being angry.
Yes, one can put a kind of authoritative fear in someone without actually *being* angry inside. It merely functions as a way of getting someone's attention in order to keep the other focused.
Actually now that i think about it... even if these deities are not angry, they use "wrathful" means..therefore instilling fear, is that not just a candy coated way of causing suffering? If your all saying that anger is so pointless and useless why is it ok for deities to use this method? just because they themselves are not actually angry? what about the one who is afraid? being afraid is a form of suffering.
That way I can just attach it to the end of every corny joke I tell and people will know, "Ahh, okay... SillyPutty has attempted another joke. Good for her!"
others who are reading this might have actually thought you were "attacking" me, who can read your mind?
Whoa whoa whoa... stop the clock there, buddy.
Did anyone honestly think I was referring to kashi? If so, please let me know. Honestly.
Since you ask, it wasn't clear if you were referring to Kashi, but it was positioned and phrased in such a way as to appear that might be. It gives that initial impression or feeling. You might consider the possibility that it was a somewhat unconscious expression.
Since you ask, it wasn't clear if you were referring to Kashi, but it was positioned and phrased in such a way as to appear that might be. It gives that initial impression or feeling. You might consider the possibility that it was a somewhat unconscious expression.
This thought never occurred to me when I read it. And I still don't see it. ????
@nevermind although I understand a bit better Silly Puttys "style" (im not sure if thats the correct termto use) and personality here, I do agree positioning and wording is important because its extremely difficult to "see" the actual individuals response. It would be awesome if there was a way to do all these threads via video only. But I don't think its that easy and/or "comfortable" for some. And very possible the mods would not like the idea.
others who are reading this might have actually thought you were "attacking" me, who can read your mind?
Whoa whoa whoa... stop the clock there, buddy.
Did anyone honestly think I was referring to kashi? If so, please let me know. Honestly.
Since you ask, it wasn't clear if you were referring to Kashi, but it was positioned and phrased in such a way as to appear that might be. It gives that initial impression or feeling. You might consider the possibility that it was a somewhat unconscious expression.
Hmmm... well, even though I know what I meant and it was not intended to come off as derogatory or specifically aimed at one person for that matter, I still am a woman of my word. So, I'm sorry, kashi, if what I said offended you. Strangely enough, there was one other individual on this board who thought I was trying to insult you somehow, even though that wasn't my intention. But I truly think this is the consensus:
This thought never occurred to me when I read it. And I still don't see it. ????
Because even after I went back and re-read it a few times?... I still don't see it, either. But I suppose that's the strange thing about online communication. People tend to project their own thoughts and feelings onto the text on the screen I suppose.
others who are reading this might have actually thought you were "attacking" me, who can read your mind?
Whoa whoa whoa... stop the clock there, buddy.
Did anyone honestly think I was referring to kashi? If so, please let me know. Honestly.
Since you ask, it wasn't clear if you were referring to Kashi, but it was positioned and phrased in such a way as to appear that might be. It gives that initial impression or feeling. You might consider the possibility that it was a somewhat unconscious expression.
Hmmm... well, even though I know what I meant and it was not intended to come off as derogatory or specifically aimed at one person for that matter, I still am a woman of my word.
Unconscious expressions are by nature unintentional and not known. And no one said that it was intentional, yet you apologize...
Did anyone honestly think I was referring to kashi? If so, please let me know. Honestly. If so, I will apologize because I don't see the glaring insinuation here as kashi seems to be seeing....
Seriously, @nevermind-- are you a troll? Because now you're just being obnoxious.
And, yes, that comment I just said was directed towards you, nevermind, and it was a comment about you being rude and trying to incite trouble. No if's and's or but's about it. (*Note the absence of emoticons as well.*)
I dont want to see enemies made here and get yet ANOTHER one of my threads closed...so, I dont think @Nevermind is being a troll, I think he is just doing what everybody else does. Respond to responding..yes no?
God, the advice in that OP video is such a load of warmed-over horse shit. Here I am channeling my anger about it into an activity which might actually do some good, i.e., pointing out that the jerk in the Zen get-up is just regurgitating unactionable advice he probably got from his Dad when he was five years old, and hopefully preventing some of the naifs here who are still fooled by kashi's schtick from falling for this subtle troll.
I dont want to see enemies made here and get yet ANOTHER one of my threads closed...so, I dont think @Nevermind is being a troll, I think he is just doing what everybody else does. Respond to responding..yes no?
I made it quite clear that I would apologize if someone, besides you, stated that they thought I was purposely trying to insult you.
Nevermind then quoted from that exact same post where I said I would apologize if someone agreed with you. And then after I apologize, he insists I apologized because I was deliberately trying to insult you on a subconscious level.
In summary: I apologized like I promised I would, then he twisted it into something provocative.
To me, that is the definition of an internet troll. Case closed.
Comments
Being attached to anger can be bad, though.
http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/anger.htm
http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1756
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/piyatissa/bl068.html
[LINK]
Warning: foul language abounds! haha
He tries again, you get slighty annoyed, and a bit more firm "its HOT don't TOUCH"
He tries again, and you get slighty angry now "STOP!!"
He tries again and now your anger is stronger, you slap the childs hand "DO NOT TOUCH ITS HOT!!!"
the child crys from being scolded. You wipe his tears, out of compassion and explain the dangerous situation of a hot oven.
This old argument traces back to the whole Adam and Eve story. God said, "Don't eat the apple-- bad things will happen. I'm warnin' ya...." God was angry at them, too, and tried to strike, well, the fear of God
And just like with a stubborn child who will not listen to you after 4 pleas of "don't touch the hot stove," getting you to the point of frustration/fear/anger, they are most likely going to do it anyway. Some do it to spite their parents (i.e. "Hey... I'm going to show him and touch that stove anyway! Hmph!"), some may stay away out of fear (i.e. "Mommy is so mean... I don't like her... stupid stove.") but eventually do something else later on to challenge your authority, and some still will touch the stove simply because they have the free will to do so and no amount of anger or fear-mongering is going to stop them. So why bother getting angry in the first place? It never brings about positive change. Even if your anger temporarily stopped the child from doing something out of fear, that (for lack of a better word) "karma" will come back to haunt you, because you are teaching your child that anger is an acceptable form of controlling others.
Good example, though, @kashi. But still... it needs to be taken beyond the moment of the stove and seen in a greater context. Always teach love, patience, and compassion. If you're teaching children anything else, it turns into a slippery-slope of "anger is okay in this instance but not in this instance."
In this situation, and the point of the thread is anger can be used as a form of compassion. If you channel your anger in the right direction it becomes useful and can save one from harm.
think this is fairly straight forward stuff here.
god throws ppl in hell. and this is said to be out of compassion...big difference between an eternity in hell and a slap on the wrist
I dunno... maybe it's all those child psychology courses I took in grad school... maybe it's all the years I've worked with children with autism and taught 4th graders... but for the life of me, I've never once yelled at a child in anger (at least I don't remember doing so). You can teach a child the stove is dangerous in other ways. Getting angry just shows your impatience as an adult, not their refusal to listen as a child. And I think my method works well, because kids seem to really like me and listen to everything I say. When I babysit other children, the parents always go, "How come she listens to you but not to us (the parents)? Why is she so well-behaved when you watch her?" And I have to teach them how to get the child to listen to them, because parents think anger is what is right. It just isn't. I really don't believe it ever is the answer. All it ever does is set the child up for learning how to react to certain situations with fear and anger. Why teach a child to act like that? Make them learn the "right" way when they are young, so they don't have to come on forums like this when they're older and try desperately to "unlearn" it because they are so depressed from a childhood of anger and abuse.
FWIW, even anger for the samurai is frowned upon in Bushido. It interferes with their effectiveness.
I also have support from a very solid, authoritative source:
[LINK]
haha
sometimes we hear the word anger and automatically think in terms of its highest degree
And I'm not saying that parents need to be perfect and always super patient with their children. Even the most loving, sweetest, kindest parent is going to blow up at their children every once in a while and have a bad day. But why? Why teach a child how to be angry? Why are you so insistent that teaching anger by example is a good thing? Can't you think back to when you were younger and put yourself in your nephew's shoes? How would you want an adult to reprimand you about the stove? Honestly. And don't b.s. me by saying "Yeah, I want them to hit me and yell at me so I don't get burnt." Because if that's your answer, then I don't know what else to say to you about the topic of anger and just give up at this point.
If you get angry at a child to control their behavior, even if for their own good, they don't learn that the stove will burn them if they touch it all they learn is that the person they love and look up to will get mad at them and maybe hurt them if they don't do what they say.
IMO its better to do your best to teach children that the stove will burn, then if they do end up touching it anyway be there to love and comfort them, give them a hug and treat their burn.
not that this was aimed at me, but just fyi my mom was and is one of the most loving compassionate and caring people you could meet and she raised me with a tremendous amount of these qualities.
I just shake my head and laugh at these situations because the cops are so blind to what they are doing. But they have a gun so that makes them "somebody." They don't see how easily a little 65-year old weak man has yanked their chain. Its pathetic really.
I just wanted to show, in the context of my point about the stove situation in general that my mom raised me with compassion
I got slaped on the hand a few times.
i didnt omit that on purpose,..and the only reason i responded about my mom was because smile face or not, others who are reading this might have actually thought you were "attacking" me, who can read your mind? you didnt mention your own childhood drama until i made my FYI comment.
moving on....
Did anyone honestly think I was referring to kashi? If so, please let me know. Honestly. If so, I will apologize because I don't see the glaring insinuation here as kashi seems to be seeing....
And in terms of "reading minds," dude-- you keep doing that yourself! Stop assuming and stop trying to read my mind. Let go of the ego. Stop thinking everything I say is about you. And even if it is-- guess what? You shouldn't care! What I say should not have any bearing on your happiness. And trust me, as I've already proven in this thread already, if I have something to say to you, I will say it. No doubt about it. I don't dance around the issues, m'dear. I will either take the time to tell you, or I will not waste my energy anymore and just ignore you. That's how I roll. Simple as that.
So me and my friend skipped school and spent the whole day roaming the fields. Come 3:30, we both went back to our respective homes, as if we had just gotten off the bus. What neither of us realised is that the school called when there was an absence. My parents (and my friends' parents) were afraid we had gotten abducted or who knows what. I won't say my parents were not angry -- and after some deliberation between my parents, my dad took me to the back bedroom and spanked me ten times with his belt.
Before and after this, it was explained to me precisely WHY. WIthout this explanation, it would've been pointless. The point was not that THEY were upset with me-- rather it was that I could very well have been abducted (or killed or injured or who knows what) wandering those fields all day long AND NO ONE WOULD EVER KNOW what happened -- I would be just another statistic, another missing kid on a milk carton.
But truly--and looking back I see this now--my parents DID NOT want to do this. There is the old cliche, "this is going to hurt me more than it is going to hurt you" but in this instance it was true (they were both in tears about spanking me). But my parents wanted to make DAMN SURE I would never EVER pull a stunt like that again, because of the dangers to me (dangers which I naievely wasn't aware of at that age). But the important thing was it was not done IN ANGER.
Punishment of any kind MUST be coupled with an explanation or it will not stick, it will be meaningless. But the explanation is the important part. I could be a trouble-maker, but usually it wasn't too bad and I would be put on restriction with a clear explanation as to WHY I was being punished.
lets get back on topic if your cool with that.
Heres something, if the buddha, taught so many different ways because everyone learns differently, is it not far fetched to think that some people are so bull headed the only way for them to learn is by getting angry with them?
My point is there is a difference between acting angry and being angry.
Ha ha. Get it? :orange:
Hey, it was funny in my head while I was typing it.... :coffee:
Ive always been fascinated by the statues, but did not want to purchase any before I had an understanding of the symbolism behind them.
I get it now lol but martial arts can be very beneficial. Its pretty cool you got a black belt at 10 years old
What the site really needs is an audible rimshot button... like this:
http://instantrimshot.com/classic/?sound=rimshot
That way I can just attach it to the end of every corny joke I tell and people will know, "Ahh, okay... SillyPutty has attempted another joke. Good for her!"
Speaking of...
*taps on mic*
...why did the bicycle fall over?
Ready?...
Because...
it was...
TWO-TIRED!
http://instantrimshot.com/classic/?sound=rimshot
:buck:
I'm here all weekend, folks. Don't forget to tip your waitress.
Actually, my brother and dad were both 2nd degree black belts. We all would have gone further, but life happened.
Sorry-- I'll get back on topic now.
even if these deities are not angry, they use "wrathful" means..therefore instilling fear, is that not just a candy coated way of causing suffering? If your all saying that anger is so pointless and useless why is it ok for deities to use this method? just because they themselves are not actually angry?
what about the one who is afraid? being afraid is a form of suffering.
I needed one the other day but I wrote 'Ba Da Boom' instead.
An audible rimshot button is a must. Shall we ask @federica?
http://buddhism.about.com/od/tibetandeities/tp/Dharmapalas.htm
P.S. why does google come up as wrong in spellcheck?
although I understand a bit better Silly Puttys "style" (im not sure if thats the correct termto use) and personality here, I do agree positioning and wording is important because its extremely difficult to "see" the actual individuals response. It would be awesome if there was a way to do all these threads via video only. But I don't think its that easy and/or "comfortable" for some.
And very possible the mods would not like the idea.
Seriously, @nevermind-- are you a troll? Because now you're just being obnoxious.
And, yes, that comment I just said was directed towards you, nevermind, and it was a comment about you being rude and trying to incite trouble. No if's and's or but's about it. (*Note the absence of emoticons as well.*)
...is it working?
P.S. theres no "schtick" friend.
Nevermind then quoted from that exact same post where I said I would apologize if someone agreed with you. And then after I apologize, he insists I apologized because I was deliberately trying to insult you on a subconscious level.
In summary: I apologized like I promised I would, then he twisted it into something provocative.
To me, that is the definition of an internet troll. Case closed.