the 'wisdom' of Deepak Chopra

Jeffrey

There are Buddhist dictionaries but different sects define words differently to fit with their view.

Dennis1

betaboy said:

vinlyn said:

betaboy said:

MaryAnne said:

betaboy said:

vinlyn said:

betaboy said:

I don't get this. Are we not allowed to be critical at all? Must we never question anyone?

The diff. is, Jesus or Buddha did not make money out of spirituality. So when the likes of Chopra do, it is not a mere disagreement - it becomes a matter of ethics, so tempers may run high. Please try to see both PoVs.

Aaaah, so it's the money you're jealous about.
Ok, at least you're honest about it. Or are you?

Do you think it's ethical to make money out of spirituality?

I agree on making money out of religion or even living high and preaching. I live well and I might not have so much if I didn't have a wife and dogs and home I love, so I justify my comforts in the face of suffering in the world. But I don't make any money off religion or politics. Any work I do in those fields I do for love. That doesn't make wealth or opulence wrong. Right livelihood doesn't preclude success. If a doctor loves his work and cares for his patients and is charitable doing pro bono work when needed I am happy to see his success and even his wealth. I don't mind at all if he is also a Buddhist. That's fine. If I were a monk I think I would do my rounds and visit every house and not just the rich man at the end. But I wouldn't skip the rich man. The wealthy have needs and aspirations and I am happy to help them when the opportunity rises. Of course, they don't need much financial help but there are other needs-like friendship and advise and maybe a little cajoling upon occasion. So?

Yes. Even religious men and women need to eat, buy clothing, have shelter, and so forth.

Yes, we all need money for essential things, without which we won't survive, agreed. But a spiritual person going on and on about love, compassion, etc. and living in a million-dollar mansion ... you think that's a necessity?

Dennis1

Jeffrey said:

There are Buddhist dictionaries but different sects define words differently to fit with their view.

Exactly the point and rightly so. But in America we are a Republic and we have one law for all men. We have a common language. We should use a common dictionary.
We should not be using words to fit our view, regardless of the honest agreements on those words. Racism is a great example: I think Racism is: the opinion that the races are different and should be treated differently because the state should insure equality of outcome and some races are just not up to competing as equals under the law.
I say, we are equals under the law and the law should not do more or less for one race than for any other. Some people would call me a racist for saying that. Well the 14th amendment says we are equal under the law. So who is the racist? I think the man who looks down on another with contempt and pity and says well yeah your green, we shouldn't ask you to act like a blue person, is a racist. Does that opinion make me a racist? I think the dictionary bears me out. The guy full of contempt doesn't care about the dictionary or the 14th amendment.

I am happy we Buddhists can agree and disagree and remain together as Buddhists.
I think the Heart is in some ways the seat of thought. I think the brain is too-in different ways. Different schools see things differently. That is fine and I think that makes us strong. I don't see destruction of our first amendment right as a matter of judgment or lineage. So I am speaking up because when we misuse our language intentionally we do harm to our nation as a common people. For me Buddhists are
a common people under the teachings of the Buddha. All lineages should be true to that. I'm happy to be here in this group with many differences and one common love.

federica

And on that note.....