Judging people......

betaboy

Consider Chogyam Trungpa as an example - people often judge him by pointing to his ... adventures. But there is a major flaw in such line of thinking. Our desires and actions are not always in sync.

I may, for instance, have the desire to fly (like a bird). I lack the capacity to fly - I don't have wings. But that doesn't mean my desire for flight is any less authentic. I may have the desire to do the highest good - but because I lack the capacity I may end up doing the greatest evil. That doesn't mean my desire for the greatest good is a lie.

Point being, it is risky to judge people by their actions, since actions may not always reflect one's true nature.

lobster

Indeed.

There is a Sufi saying: 'the gift of the scorpion is its sting'.

If your mind is a nest of stingers, seek good companions and stop indulging your own assessment. Well that is my plan . . .

I judge you @Betaboy as having a good heart, good intentions and a useful sting. I also judge you to be a scorpion who might wish to be less of an unintentional downer? Can you do it? Grumpy cat asks, 'why bother?' . . .

vinlyn

betaboy said:

Consider Chogyam Trungpa as an example - people often judge him by pointing to his ... adventures. But there is a major flaw in such line of thinking. Our desires and actions are not always in sync.

I may, for instance, have the desire to fly (like a bird). I lack the capacity to fly - I don't have wings. But that doesn't mean my desire for flight is any less authentic. I may have the desire to do the highest good - but because I lack the capacity I may end up doing the greatest evil. That doesn't mean my desire for the greatest good is a lie.

Point being, it is risky to judge people by their actions, since actions may not always reflect one's true nature.

Do you mean like yesterday when you generalized saying that Persians are...what was it...rude and obnoxious (or something like that)? That's judging people and stereotyping them.

how

@betaboy
Interesting! I have long preferred to judge folks by their wake because their words so often reflect a mentality disconnected from truth of their actions.
It's not much more complex an idea than a clever mind can tell you whatever you want to hear but if those words are not lived with action then it's time to be careful that you've not just joined a spiritual sounding circle jerk.

lobster

betaboy said:

I lack the capacity I may end up doing the greatest evil. That doesn't mean my desire for the greatest good is a lie.

True. This is why we struggle/practice

Success and failure has consequences. I contend that your intention is good, as you say it is marred by your capacity. That is true of all of us. Everybody here wishes you well, I hope. However the capacity to change comes from our implementation. Some improve because they are rock bottom. Some have it harder, born to be a prince, they renounce the dukkha of too much of a good thing . . .
I also know the neuro plasticity of the persona AND more importantly its basis in non existence.

robot

vinlyn said:

betaboy said:

Consider Chogyam Trungpa as an example - people often judge him by pointing to his ... adventures. But there is a major flaw in such line of thinking. Our desires and actions are not always in sync.

I may, for instance, have the desire to fly (like a bird). I lack the capacity to fly - I don't have wings. But that doesn't mean my desire for flight is any less authentic. I may have the desire to do the highest good - but because I lack the capacity I may end up doing the greatest evil. That doesn't mean my desire for the greatest good is a lie.

Point being, it is risky to judge people by their actions, since actions may not always reflect one's true nature.

Do you mean like yesterday when you generalized saying that Persians are...what was it...rude and obnoxious (or something like that)? That's judging people and stereotyping them.

That was just the women. The men are exotic, and irresistible to white girls.

AllbuddhaBound

Of course, there is also the tendency we have of carrying hot coals as well. There are actions presently, and there are actions in the past. If we hold onto the actions from the past, it is us who chooses to suffer.

Further using the Chogyam Trungpa analogy, who has the right to destroy any of the good he has done? We may not approve of his shortcomings and mistakes, but who would be the first to deny someone the Buddhist Path because they don't approve of their guru? We can postulate that the path is based on having been misguided, but never the less, it is still the path. Hopefully, being faithful to the middle way, means that the good one does is still redemptive. If not, all of us are destined to be no more than the most evil we have ever done.

DairyLama

betaboy said:

Point being, it is risky to judge people by their actions, since actions may not always reflect one's true nature.

And do we apply the same principle to ourselves?

MaryAnne

Chugyam who??

:coffee:

seeker242

betaboy said:

Consider Chogyam Trungpa as an example - people often judge him by pointing to his ... adventures. But there is a major flaw in such line of thinking. Our desires and actions are not always in sync.

I may, for instance, have the desire to fly (like a bird). I lack the capacity to fly - I don't have wings. But that doesn't mean my desire for flight is any less authentic. I may have the desire to do the highest good - but because I lack the capacity I may end up doing the greatest evil. That doesn't mean my desire for the greatest good is a lie.

Point being, it is risky to judge people by their actions, since actions may not always reflect one's true nature.

Actions don't reflect ones true nature because ones true nature is Buddha nature! But a person is judged wise or unwise not by their words, but by their actions.

The Dhammapada talks about this in Chapeter 19, Dhammatthavagga: The Judge

258-259
Simply talking a lot doesn't mean one is wise. Whoever's secure — no hostility, no fear — is said to be wise.
Simply talking a lot doesn't maintain the Dhamma. Whoever — although he's heard next to nothing — sees Dhamma through his body, is not heedless of Dhamma: he's one who maintains the Dhamma.

260-261
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness, self-control — he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.

268-269
Not by silence does someone confused & unknowing turn into a sage. But whoever — wise, as if holding the scales, taking the excellent — rejects evil deeds: he is a sage, that's how he's a sage. Whoever can weigh both sides of the world: that's how he's called a sage.

The whole jist of the chapter is that a person action's are the only reliable measure of wisdom.

betaboy

robot said:

vinlyn said:

betaboy said:

Consider Chogyam Trungpa as an example - people often judge him by pointing to his ... adventures. But there is a major flaw in such line of thinking. Our desires and actions are not always in sync.

I may, for instance, have the desire to fly (like a bird). I lack the capacity to fly - I don't have wings. But that doesn't mean my desire for flight is any less authentic. I may have the desire to do the highest good - but because I lack the capacity I may end up doing the greatest evil. That doesn't mean my desire for the greatest good is a lie.

Point being, it is risky to judge people by their actions, since actions may not always reflect one's true nature.

Do you mean like yesterday when you generalized saying that Persians are...what was it...rude and obnoxious (or something like that)? That's judging people and stereotyping them.

That was just the women. The men are exotic, and irresistible to white girls.

Robot, you're so funny. Happy New Year!!!!!

betaboy

seeker242 said:

betaboy said:

Consider Chogyam Trungpa as an example - people often judge him by pointing to his ... adventures. But there is a major flaw in such line of thinking. Our desires and actions are not always in sync.

I may, for instance, have the desire to fly (like a bird). I lack the capacity to fly - I don't have wings. But that doesn't mean my desire for flight is any less authentic. I may have the desire to do the highest good - but because I lack the capacity I may end up doing the greatest evil. That doesn't mean my desire for the greatest good is a lie.

Point being, it is risky to judge people by their actions, since actions may not always reflect one's true nature.

Actions don't reflect ones true nature because ones true nature is Buddha nature! But a person is judged wise or unwise not by their words, but by their actions.

The Dhammapada talks about this in Chapeter 19, Dhammatthavagga: The Judge

258-259
Simply talking a lot doesn't mean one is wise. Whoever's secure — no hostility, no fear — is said to be wise.
Simply talking a lot doesn't maintain the Dhamma. Whoever — although he's heard next to nothing — sees Dhamma through his body, is not heedless of Dhamma: he's one who maintains the Dhamma.

260-261
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness, self-control — he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.

268-269
Not by silence does someone confused & unknowing turn into a sage. But whoever — wise, as if holding the scales, taking the excellent — rejects evil deeds: he is a sage, that's how he's a sage. Whoever can weigh both sides of the world: that's how he's called a sage.

The whole jist of the chapter is that a person action's are the only reliable measure of wisdom.



I am sorry, but I disagree. Circumstances determine our actions, which is why even enlightened people like Trungpa could act in unexpected ways. Our essential nature does not change.

poptart

betaboy said:

Circumstances determine our actions

I disagree. Circumstances may test us, but we always choose how to act.

federica

betaboy said:

Point being, it is risky to judge people by their actions, since actions may not always reflect one's true nature.

Actually, that's wholly incorrect. hence the saying "Actions speak louder than words".

A million well-meaning orators are exposed as liars by what they subsequently do.

(These people are commonly referred to as 'politicians' or 'Bankers'.

I rest my case.)

Citta

seeker242 said:

betaboy said:

Consider Chogyam Trungpa as an example - people often judge him by pointing to his ... adventures. But there is a major flaw in such line of thinking. Our desires and actions are not always in sync.

I may, for instance, have the desire to fly (like a bird). I lack the capacity to fly - I don't have wings. But that doesn't mean my desire for flight is any less authentic. I may have the desire to do the highest good - but because I lack the capacity I may end up doing the greatest evil. That doesn't mean my desire for the greatest good is a lie.

Point being, it is risky to judge people by their actions, since actions may not always reflect one's true nature.

Actions don't reflect ones true nature because ones true nature is Buddha nature! But a person is judged wise or unwise not by their words, but by their actions.

The Dhammapada talks about this in Chapeter 19, Dhammatthavagga: The Judge

258-259
Simply talking a lot doesn't mean one is wise. Whoever's secure — no hostility, no fear — is said to be wise.
Simply talking a lot doesn't maintain the Dhamma. Whoever — although he's heard next to nothing — sees Dhamma through his body, is not heedless of Dhamma: he's one who maintains the Dhamma.

260-261
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness, self-control — he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.

268-269
Not by silence does someone confused & unknowing turn into a sage. But whoever — wise, as if holding the scales, taking the excellent — rejects evil deeds: he is a sage, that's how he's a sage. Whoever can weigh both sides of the world: that's how he's called a sage.

The whole jist of the chapter is that a person action's are the only reliable measure of wisdom.

betaboy said:

seeker242 said:

betaboy said:

Consider Chogyam Trungpa as an example - people often judge him by pointing to his ... adventures. But there is a major flaw in such line of thinking. Our desires and actions are not always in sync.

I may, for instance, have the desire to fly (like a bird). I lack the capacity to fly - I don't have wings. But that doesn't mean my desire for flight is any less authentic. I may have the desire to do the highest good - but because I lack the capacity I may end up doing the greatest evil. That doesn't mean my desire for the greatest good is a lie.

Point being, it is risky to judge people by their actions, since actions may not always reflect one's true nature.

Actions don't reflect ones true nature because ones true nature is Buddha nature! But a person is judged wise or unwise not by their words, but by their actions.

The Dhammapada talks about this in Chapeter 19, Dhammatthavagga: The Judge

258-259
Simply talking a lot doesn't mean one is wise. Whoever's secure — no hostility, no fear — is said to be wise.
Simply talking a lot doesn't maintain the Dhamma. Whoever — although he's heard next to nothing — sees Dhamma through his body, is not heedless of Dhamma: he's one who maintains the Dhamma.

260-261
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness, self-control — he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.

268-269
Not by silence does someone confused & unknowing turn into a sage. But whoever — wise, as if holding the scales, taking the excellent — rejects evil deeds: he is a sage, that's how he's a sage. Whoever can weigh both sides of the world: that's how he's called a sage.

The whole jist of the chapter is that a person action's are the only reliable measure of wisdom.

I am sorry, but I disagree. Circumstances determine our actions, which is why even enlightened people like Trungpa could act in unexpected ways. Our essential nature does not change.

I guarantee that if Trungpa was still around he would tell you that neither he nor you nor anyone has an essential nature. That's rather the point

Hamsaka

betaboy said:

Point being, it is risky to judge people by their actions, since actions may not always reflect one's true nature.

It is impossible not to "judge" (ie, assess, discern). Our brains function on this as a baseline. Therefore, it's important to be nice n skillful doing what we can't NOT do thanks to our neurology.

When you use the word 'judge', it's important to know what you mean, exactly, because 'to judge' commonly means to put someone down. Is that what you mean by judging?

If you mean pure assessment of a person or situation is 'risky' if based upon their actions, what else on Gawd's green Earth do we have to assess them by? Their smell? Possibly Their ethnicity or skin color? Maybe way they sit, cross legged or splayed knees Or god forbid, by the WORDS they use (which @How has already made useful comments upon)?

Lobster gets a "Grumpy Cat" sense from you, Betaboy, which has helped me understand your posts a little better. However, there is also this feeling I get that your thinking leads you into the impossible, which you then mistake for profundity. No offense, we all start somewhere, and besides, you do enjoy the attention. On the bright side, when I get past wanting to bang my head into the laptop after reading your latest, I do get to stretch my tolerance and find glimpses of what I suspect you are really wanting to know.

Gassho

lobster

On the bright side, when I get past wanting to bang my head into the laptop after reading your latest, I do get to stretch my tolerance and find glimpses of what I suspect you are really wanting to know.

Know Thyself . . . through others.
@Betaboy is a waste of space to himself . . . but that does not mean we have to waste the space he occupies. We can learn from what he does not care to or is incapable of. We can interact with others through and around his presence. Just as his nihilism is unworthy of us, so his presence is in essence good if twisted by hindrances. Same for us all.

This is the lesson from 'bad teachers' or rogue lamas or inept practitioners. They really are our most previous jewels. Just a question of realignment of . . . ourself.

Happy New Year

Jeffrey

@Betaboy is a waste of space to himself . . . but that does not mean we have to waste the space he occupies. We can learn from what he does not care to or is incapable of. We can interact with others through and around his presence. Just as his nihilism is unworthy of us, so his presence is in essence good if twisted by hindrances. Same for us all.

@betaboy is a bodhisattva because he stretches us to remain calm rather than much ado about nothing.

Seriously anyone who presents their serious questions is a seeker and what better thing could there be other than a seeker?

Citta

Almost anything Jeffrey. What are we supposed to be seeking ? That's like a fish seeking water.
How could being a seeker be anything other than another false identity ?

seeker242

Traditionally, a bodhisattva is anyone who, motivated by great compassion, has generated bodhicitta, which is a wish to attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings.

If you replace "wish to attain" with "seek", would it be any different?

betaboy said:

I am sorry, but I disagree. Circumstances determine our actions, which is why even enlightened people like Trungpa could act in unexpected ways. Our essential nature does not change.

I agree our essential nature does not change. But also agree that there is a difference between someone who sees their true nature and naturally acts according to it, someone who has seen or glimpsed it but does not act according to it (which means they have more practice to do, even if they can speak eloquently about it and write nice books about it), and someone who has not seen it and does not act according to it.

Citta said:

I guarantee that if Trungpa was still around he would tell you that neither he nor you nor anyone has an essential nature. That's rather the point

Trungpa didn't teach Buddha Nature?

Citta

seeker242 said:

Traditionally, a bodhisattva is anyone who, motivated by great compassion, has generated bodhicitta, which is a wish to attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings.

If you replace "wish to attain" with "seek", would it be any different?

betaboy said:

I am sorry, but I disagree. Circumstances determine our actions, which is why even enlightened people like Trungpa could act in unexpected ways. Our essential nature does not change.

I agree our essential nature does not change. But also agree that there is a difference between someone who sees their true nature and naturally acts according to it, someone who has seen or glimpsed it but does not act according to it (which means they have more practice to do, even if they can speak eloquently about it and write nice books about it), and someone who has not seen it and does not act according to it.

Citta said:

I guarantee that if Trungpa was still around he would tell you that neither he nor you nor anyone has an essential nature. That's rather the point

Trungpa didn't teach Buddha Nature?

He taught that there is Buddhanature, but no one to 'have' Buddhanature.
If we have an essential nature then anatta is incorrect is'nt it ? It would be an atta.



' we see ourselves as enlightened, on a well lit stage, surrounded by adoring acolytes. The problem with that little scenario is that when enlightenment happens 'you' won't be there. '

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche.

lamaramadingdong

We judge others by their actions; we judge ourselves by our intentions.

Citta

lamaramadingdong said:

We judge others by their actions; we judge ourselves by our intentions.

True that.

seeker242

Citta said:

He taught that there is Buddhanature, but no one to 'have' Buddhanature.
If we have an essential nature then anatta is incorrect is'nt it ? It would be an atta.

I think it depends on whether or not you are using the term "we, I, me" as a conventional figure of speech or to mean "some substantial thing". It could be used either way. Shakyamuni said things like "I have attained enlightenment" without contradicting anatta. If you make the word "we, I, me" mean "some substantial thing", then yes that would be wrong. But if you don't attach any arbitrary conception to the word, then it's no problem. Chapter 31 of Diamond Sutra talks about that.

:om:

The lord Buddha continued:

"If any person were to say that the Buddha, in his teachings, has constantly referred to himself, to other selves, to living beings, or to a universal self, what do you think, would that person have understood my meaning?"

Subhuti replied, "No, blessed lord. That person would not have understood the meaning of your teachings. For when you refer to those things, you are not referring to their actual existence, you only use the words as figures of speech, as symbols. Only in that sense can words be used, for conceptions, ideas, limited truths, and spiritual truths have no more reality than have matter or phenomena."

Then the lord Buddha made his meaning even more emphatic by saying:

"Subhuti, when people begin their practice of seeking to attaining total Enlightenment, they ought to see, to perceive, to know, to understand, and to realize that all things and all spiritual truths are no-things, and, therefore, they ought not to conceive within their minds any arbitrary conceptions whatsoever."

Citta

Including I would suggest no arbitrary concepts like that of 'essential nature'. The point of theBuddhas doctrine of anatta was to distinguish his teaching from the Vedic/upanishadic doctrines prevelant in his culture which posited the existence of an atta or unchanging essential self.

seeker242

True self, essential nature, etc, etc. doesn't contradict Anatta.

Citta

Really ? Unpack that?

Jeffrey

Citta said:

Almost anything Jeffrey. What are we supposed to be seeking ? That's like a fish seeking water.
How could being a seeker be anything other than another false identity ?

Two words: aspirational bodhicitta

Citta

A concept not seen as relating to an ontological reality in Dzogchen Jeffrey.

Jeffrey

I didn't understand that @Citta. Perhaps. My teacher said that aspirational Buddhism is not real. But that doesn't mean we cannot practice with it. I am reading Trungpa's book, Training the Mind. In that book he talks about some of the lojong slogans and relates them to both aspirational and ultimate bodhicitta.

Citta

TrAing The mind is not a Dzogchen teaching @Jeffrey.

Citta

CTR taught a number of views.

Jeffrey

@Betaboy is a waste of space to himself . . . but that does not mean we have to waste the space he occupies. We can learn from what he does not care to or is incapable of. We can interact with others through and around his presence. Just as his nihilism is unworthy of us, so his presence is in essence good if twisted by hindrances. Same for us all.


@betaboy is a bodhisattva because he stretches us to remain calm rather than much ado about nothing.

Seriously anyone who presents their serious questions is a seeker and what better thing could there be other than a seeker?

Here is the post where you started talking to me. Now where did I say I was talking about Dzogchen?

Citta

I am not sure who you are addressing here@Jeffrey.

misterCope

betaboy said:

Point being, it is risky to judge people by their actions, since actions may not always reflect one's true nature.

I would agree with that. Someone said, "we are the inheritor of our intentions." Not our actions, or results, or accomplishments, but our intentions. I like that idea.

wangchuey

Always try to give the benefit of "no judgement" first. But people have to judge constantly and everyday. It's survival. It takes wisdom and discernment to make the right choice.

Nevermind

Real Buddhists don't judge people. Just say'n

vinlyn

Nevermind said:

Real Buddhists don't judge people. Just say'n

Really?

"Not associating with fools,
Associating with the wise,
Honoring those worthy of honor;
This is the greatest blessing.
(Mangala Sutta [Sn 2.4])

how

@vinlyn
And yet here we all are?

Judgement imply s a decision that supports the self's own importance of itself,
whereas
discernment is a choice or decision less carved in stone or ego bound.

vinlyn

how said:

@vinlyn
And yet here we all are?

Judgement imply s a decision that supports the self's own importance of itself,
whereas
discernment is a choice or decision less carved in stone or ego bound.

Discernment and judgement are listed as synonyms.

You're arguing over a relatively minor distinction. But, go for it...alone.

MaryAnne

Nevermind said:

Real Buddhists don't judge people. Just say'n

That is really a wonderful sentiment.... on paper. In real life? Hmmm, take a look at any thread regarding secular /faith-based practices, or any "buddhist meditation" thread, or any thread dealing with precepts and monks, etc.
Plenty of judgment going on by plenty of those claiming to be the "real" Buddhists... just sayin'

vinlyn

The problem with judging people isn't in making judgments...it's in making unfair judgments.

For example, along the street in Bangkok you'll find many food vendors. Some of the vendors are personally clean, have clean utensils, and keep meats in an ice chest. Others are physically dirty with grimy hands and filthy clothes. One day one of the latter had a large pot next to his feet where he washed the plates and utensils. He saw a dog pissing in the pot and did nothing.

So I made a judgement about which vendor used a reasonable standard of hygiene, and which vendor not to buy from.

That's totally different than an employer saying, "I don't hire Black people because they're all lazy."

how

vinlyn said:

how said:

@vinlyn
And yet here we all are?

Judgement imply s a decision that supports the self's own importance of itself,
whereas
discernment is a choice or decision less carved in stone or ego bound.

Discernment and judgement are listed as synonyms.

You're arguing over a relatively minor distinction. But, go for it...alone.

@vinlyn
It seems that you easily gloss over the distinctions that don't fit your story line while castigating others for no less. I am not sure it's a plumbers job to correct the school masters English, god knows how tolerant some moderators have been of mine, but..

Discernment may seem like judgment, but the difference between these two approaches to life is significant. The dictionary definitions of the two terms shed some light.

Judgment: “an opinion or estimate, criticism or censure, power of comparing or deciding”. Judgment implies a power differential – I perceive myself to have power over you when I judge you (for example, “you’re a loser!”). Judgment feeds the ego’s deception of being better (or worse) than someone or something else. Judgment assumes that the person judging has the power and right to determine what is good or bad in general, not just from their point of view. It usually comes from a reactive place inside of us, like a knee-jerk when the doctor strikes the mallet on that joint – it’s unconscious. Judgment also has a sense of finality, like a sentence being passed. We know what it’s like to feel judged by someone else: it sticks to you like duct tape, and at times you find yourself feeling the pain of that condemnation days or even years later.

Discernment, however, is a more personal and conscious approach. It’s the cognitive ability of a person to distinguish what is appropriate or inappropriate. With discernment we make good choices for ourselves, and for the good of others. Webster’s dictionary says that to discern is to “separate (a thing) mentally from another or others; recognize as separate or different” and “to perceive or recognize; make out clearly”. Discernment is described as “keen perception; insight; acumen”. Viveka, the Sanskrit word for discernment, is about seeing things as they are. Insight is seeing into something, from our inner self, not from outer rigid standards, opinions, or social pressures. When we use Viveka, we are tapping into something much deeper than our egos passing judgment. We are using the ability to perceive clearly

sova

By having the resplendent and divine motivation to be of maximum benefit to beings, one brings about the maximum benefit of beings. This is the Mahayana route.


Even if an action looks silly or crazy or wild, or even evil, if it is done with the motivation to have better future lives, or to attain liberation, or even better still, to bring all beings to bliss, then the action is in accord with Dharma and is pure. Probably seems like a crazy statement to people who have not delved into the study of the Dharma very much, but there are countless examples where it is the intention that defines the purity of an action. This notion is a deep one. It means that things that look like obvious aberrations in the accepted social code or precepts could actually be pure actions if and only if the motivation is pure.

There is a lovely verse in Words of my Perfect Teacher concerning this,
"If the roots are medicinal, so are the shoots. If the roots are poisonous, no doubt that the shoots will be so as well."

So really, unless you can know someone's motivation, there is no way to judge an action as helpful or not. In fact, you really won't know unless you have practiced diligently and frequently enough to have a deep understanding of the mechanisms of
mind.

So watch your motivation more closely than you watch your fingertips near a door's hinges. More closely than your pockets in Barcelona. More closely than your ass in the prison showers.


It may interest the casual philosopher that Kant also came to the same conclusion.

So what is the greatest most valuable most wonderful motivation one could have and carry and nurture?

perhaps no one here is looking for practice advise; I simply share what I have learned and read and worked at assimilating for a while into the fundamental coursings of this amalgamated habit machine in the hopes that it will benefit beings. But again, talk is one thing, and cultivation of the true heart is another.

"Judge not before you judge yourself" -some guy


...what else...

Be merry and procreate!!

wait wrong forum

um


"girl look at that bodhi... i i i i work out! got passion in my pants and i aint afraid to show it, samadhi and you know it"
-some pop song

Vastmind

".... More closely than your ass in the prison showers. "

:shake:

Regardless of motivation....try not to make that
joke again......for a couple of reasons......

how

@Vastmind.
It's the mis directions, like that innocent bar of soap on the floor, that can really mess you up.

Vastmind

how said:

@Vastmind.
It's the mis directions, like that innocent bar of soap on the floor, that can really mess you up.

Come again?..... I don't understand what you mean....
and the the bar of soap comment I think just added insult
to injury...

lobster

perhaps no one here is looking for practice advise; I simply share what I have learned and read and worked at assimilating for a while into the fundamental coursings of this amalgamated habit machine in the hopes that it will benefit beings. But again, talk is one thing, and cultivation of the true heart is another.

Indeed.
The true heart is Love.

I always value advice. Thanks for sharing. :wave:

how

Oh u is one of dem bad Buddhist girls momma warned me bout.

OK I've just crossed the line..but makes me wonder if in addition to banning folks here. if we at least could get the entertainment value of a weekly NB wall of shame of the posting that got them banned!

Nevermind

how said:

vinlyn said:

how said:

@vinlyn
And yet here we all are?

Judgement imply s a decision that supports the self's own importance of itself,
whereas
discernment is a choice or decision less carved in stone or ego bound.

Discernment and judgement are listed as synonyms.

You're arguing over a relatively minor distinction. But, go for it...alone.

@vinlyn
It seems that you easily gloss over the distinctions that don't fit your story line while castigating others for no less. I am not sure it's a plumbers job to correct the school masters English, god knows how tolerant some moderators have been of mine, but..

Discernment may seem like judgment, but the difference between these two approaches to life is significant. The dictionary definitions of the two terms shed some light.

Judgment: “an opinion or estimate, criticism or censure, power of comparing or deciding”. Judgment implies a power differential – I perceive myself to have power over you when I judge you (for example, “you’re a loser!”). Judgment feeds the ego’s deception of being better (or worse) than someone or something else. Judgment assumes that the person judging has the power and right to determine what is good or bad in general, not just from their point of view. It usually comes from a reactive place inside of us, like a knee-jerk when the doctor strikes the mallet on that joint – it’s unconscious. Judgment also has a sense of finality, like a sentence being passed. We know what it’s like to feel judged by someone else: it sticks to you like duct tape, and at times you find yourself feeling the pain of that condemnation days or even years later.

Discernment, however, is a more personal and conscious approach. It’s the cognitive ability of a person to distinguish what is appropriate or inappropriate. With discernment we make good choices for ourselves, and for the good of others. Webster’s dictionary says that to discern is to “separate (a thing) mentally from another or others; recognize as separate or different” and “to perceive or recognize; make out clearly”. Discernment is described as “keen perception; insight; acumen”. Viveka, the Sanskrit word for discernment, is about seeing things as they are. Insight is seeing into something, from our inner self, not from outer rigid standards, opinions, or social pressures. When we use Viveka, we are tapping into something much deeper than our egos passing judgment. We are using the ability to perceive clearly

In other words, @vinlyn, he's say'n that when our discernment proves faulty, egocentric, or otherwise unBuddhist in some way, then we call it judgement.

how

Aaaarrrgghhhh Oh Damm @Vastmind
Made a fool of myself again,
I didn't realize that your prison comment was actually a quote of a previous posting.
I'll just crawl off now.