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.
People certainly are free to do whatever they want. I choose not to associate myself with any form of negativity.
That's a nice thing to say to people who are being negative, if it works. But it probably won't, because they'll probably think that you're negatively evaluating them.
Now, as to a Buddhist forum (online "Buddhist" Forum) "if someone will discuss in a civil manner," you will discuss, "but if anyone involved is anything less respectful in any discussion, politics or otherwise," you choose not to involve yourself. Fine.
Dear Sir, just know that what's past is past and you really need to let it go. "I can't believe this sort of thing goes on on a Buddhist Forum," is the message I seem to be getting from you, not one of mere disapproval. Disapproval is sometimes a very good thing to voice, but we just cannot control other people.
I agree with you. Negativity is a poison. But politics, [what is in the air] "in the city" is also poisonous, for the simple reason that the people are always greedy for something more, something new. Hence, they're griping. Caesar grants everyone in Rome 100 pieces of gold one month and the next month they say about him, "Yes, but what has he done lately?"
I agree that past is past. I simply hope all viewpoints can express themselves without negativity from here on out, not just here but in all the world, so as to increase happiness and decrease negativity in the world. That's all that needs to be said. Metta to all.
I'll probably get scolded for continuing to digress from masturbation, but I believe you are asking the impossible, Sir. Negativity is as much a part of politics as yeast is of leavened bread. THE PEOPLE will never be satisfied with the status quo. Politics is inexorably bound to strife, and the coin of politics is not made of roses and tulips. It's a blood-sport, really, and people will get hot under the collar and say things both unkind and untrue.
Unrealistic expectations, though perhaps morally and aesthetically pure, will do more harm than good, in the long run. This is true because people are demoralized in having to deal with the demands these expectations impose on themselves and others.
Did anyone else see the title of this thread on the forum main page, with the meditation thread title under it, and misread it as "Am I masturbating correctly?" ?:eek:
I'll probably get scolded for continuing to digress from masturbation, but I believe you are asking the impossible, Sir. Negativity is as much a part of politics as yeast is of leavened bread. THE PEOPLE will never be satisfied with the status quo. Politics is inexorably bound to strife, and the coin of politics is not made of roses and tulips. It's a blood-sport, really, and people will get hot under the collar and say things both unkind and untrue.
Unrealistic expectations, though perhaps morally and aesthetically pure, will do more harm than good, in the long run. This is true because people are demoralized in having to deal with the demands these expectations impose on themselves and others.
I have no expectations. I can't control anyone but myself. All I can do is not contribute to the negative things in this world, and do my best to make this world a better place. When I hear negativity it makes me negative. I'm not judging when I avoid it, i'm simply doing what I can to make this world a better place by making sure that even if I can't stop anyone else from making the world a negative place, at least I can stop myself from doing it.
Everybody has expectations. The important thing is to know which ones are defensible and which ones are probably not realizable.
The world will not be made a better place by insisting on our own way.
This "not engaging with negativity" seems to me like just another slogan that can only result in obfuscating or distorting reality. I see a lot of violence in movies; but I would know the difference, I assure you, in real life. Political discourse is on the same level as the movies —abstract and removed from the organic. As such, different rules apply. As I said above, it's more like a blood-sport being observed from a crowd. But it's not truly real to anyone but the actual candidates, upon whom the real pain falls.
However, there are issues raised in politics that resonate with people in very strong terms. Some of these issue are real, others really disingenuous, although unreflective people with silly superstitions or suspicions will latch onto them, anyway. Some issues, such as a teenager's right to masturbate in his or her own bed, might best be kept out of the political discourse if we are to retain a sound sense of an individual's right to pursue happiness on this blue-green earth.
But when people take a moral stand against something as socially harmless (perhaps even productive of harmony, in that it provides an alternate outlet to someone who might otherwise force nonconsensual sex on another) as masturbation and then later runs for high office, the people are justified to oppose her candidacy very negatively.
There has been no display of hatred evident on this thread to me. Now, as to strong statements condemning the views of others, I even see preachers do that on TV. So then, apparently, only if you're right, can you do so unless??
You're a Buddhist?
So then, in conclusion, everybody else can be free and Buddhists have to wear straight-jackets and muzzles?
Furthermore, people don't really enjoy being "negative." True, they get some enjoyment out of being ticked off about something and having a scapegoat or a target they'd like to take aim at. But, unless they truly mean to harm or kill, it's not real. I think we all know the difference between thoughts and actions, and that there is a point where we must rein in our thoughts lest we go over the slippery slope that leads to no good end.
As Buddhists, we must first realize that all people everywhere have an innate desire to please and help others. True, through pathologic processes of being abused, &c, many people are completely out of touch with this core element. However, the norm is for 99% of us to be stressed out when the desired good end seems to be under attack or stymied.
That stress can sometimes fold back on us and make us say and do things we really don't mean.
—In other words, just because people are giving out negative vibes, that does not mean that they are out of touch with the very ground of their being, which is Existence, Knowledge, & Bliss, united.
All I'm unsuccessfully trying to convey to you here, my noble friend TheJourney, is that you cannot let people's behavior steal your joy. People are to be loved, not avoided because of their behavior or other quality. A truly holy being would rush to touch the Leper, be he noisy, smelly, or tiresome. There's the story of Muhammed having a piss-pot poured on him frequently on his walks by a certain woman's house in Mecca; but when she became ill he went unto her and gave her a blessing and she recovered and followed him.
I don't think the Buddha ever wished his followers to be passionless. No, that is a bad interpretation. The Lord Buddha (as with all Eastern wisdom teachers) taught that we should not be ruled by our passions. There's a world of difference there. The Lord Jesus even warned his followers about the spiritual danger of being merely lukewarm.
Passions are not to be condemned or categorically dismissed as having a trait that disqualifies them from consideration. Granted, there are times we have headaches or other things calling urgently over the hubub for our attention and need the quiet. It is at those times when we can rightly hope the makers of the din will just go away to the gods know where.
However, at election time (with all the matters of importance hanging in the air) a spirited person might well be expected to say spirited things, sometimes even metaphorically and laced with hyperbole.
This thread, fortunately, seems to be mostly about health issues —whether physical or mental. This is healthy —whether one claims that breathing or masturbation or eating is not. So much better than people voicing a lot of qualms.
However, on another thread there's a list of things that would have you disrobed and summarily dismissed from the monastery. I noticed that masturbation was not on it:
The core of the monastic discipline is a list of rules called the Patimokkha. In the bhikkhu-patimokkha (for the monks) there are 227 rules, while in the bhikkhuni-patimokkha (for the nuns) there are 311 rules.
The four transgressions which incur a Parajika, the penalty of automatic disrobal, are as follows:
1. Engaging in sexual intercourse with another being of either sex.
2. Stealing something of value.
3. Purposely killing a human being or encouraging him or her to commit suicide (this includes inciting another to murder somebody and it also includes convincing a woman to have an abortion.
4. Boasting that one has realised a high spiritual attainment, knowing that one is lying. For example, claiming to be enlightened, to be Maitreya Buddha, to have entered Jhana (deep meditation-ecstasy) or that one can read minds when one knows that one hasn't reached any of these states.
Should any monk or nun do any of these then you may know them as no longer holding the status of Buddhist monk or nun. They must disrobe.
What struck me in this was its mentioning "either sex" and, not knowing the original language, whether the word "intercourse" was just part of the translation. I mean, would that include any sexual contact?
I must say I have neither the proclivity nor patience to research this matter on my own and would also be grateful to hear anything in either the 227 rules for men or the 311,911,411,000 rules for women pertaining to this [hallowed?] subject.
Comments
That's a nice thing to say to people who are being negative, if it works. But it probably won't, because they'll probably think that you're negatively evaluating them.
Now, as to a Buddhist forum (online "Buddhist" Forum) "if someone will discuss in a civil manner," you will discuss, "but if anyone involved is anything less respectful in any discussion, politics or otherwise," you choose not to involve yourself. Fine.
Dear Sir, just know that what's past is past and you really need to let it go. "I can't believe this sort of thing goes on on a Buddhist Forum," is the message I seem to be getting from you, not one of mere disapproval. Disapproval is sometimes a very good thing to voice, but we just cannot control other people.
I agree with you. Negativity is a poison. But politics, [what is in the air] "in the city" is also poisonous, for the simple reason that the people are always greedy for something more, something new. Hence, they're griping. Caesar grants everyone in Rome 100 pieces of gold one month and the next month they say about him, "Yes, but what has he done lately?"
ARGHHHHHH!
Unrealistic expectations, though perhaps morally and aesthetically pure, will do more harm than good, in the long run. This is true because people are demoralized in having to deal with the demands these expectations impose on themselves and others.
I have no expectations. I can't control anyone but myself. All I can do is not contribute to the negative things in this world, and do my best to make this world a better place. When I hear negativity it makes me negative. I'm not judging when I avoid it, i'm simply doing what I can to make this world a better place by making sure that even if I can't stop anyone else from making the world a negative place, at least I can stop myself from doing it.
Everybody has expectations. The important thing is to know which ones are defensible and which ones are probably not realizable.
The world will not be made a better place by insisting on our own way.
This "not engaging with negativity" seems to me like just another slogan that can only result in obfuscating or distorting reality. I see a lot of violence in movies; but I would know the difference, I assure you, in real life. Political discourse is on the same level as the movies —abstract and removed from the organic. As such, different rules apply. As I said above, it's more like a blood-sport being observed from a crowd. But it's not truly real to anyone but the actual candidates, upon whom the real pain falls.
However, there are issues raised in politics that resonate with people in very strong terms. Some of these issue are real, others really disingenuous, although unreflective people with silly superstitions or suspicions will latch onto them, anyway. Some issues, such as a teenager's right to masturbate in his or her own bed, might best be kept out of the political discourse if we are to retain a sound sense of an individual's right to pursue happiness on this blue-green earth.
But when people take a moral stand against something as socially harmless (perhaps even productive of harmony, in that it provides an alternate outlet to someone who might otherwise force nonconsensual sex on another) as masturbation and then later runs for high office, the people are justified to oppose her candidacy very negatively.
There has been no display of hatred evident on this thread to me. Now, as to strong statements condemning the views of others, I even see preachers do that on TV. So then, apparently, only if you're right, can you do so unless??
You're a Buddhist?
So then, in conclusion, everybody else can be free and Buddhists have to wear straight-jackets and muzzles?
As Buddhists, we must first realize that all people everywhere have an innate desire to please and help others. True, through pathologic processes of being abused, &c, many people are completely out of touch with this core element. However, the norm is for 99% of us to be stressed out when the desired good end seems to be under attack or stymied.
That stress can sometimes fold back on us and make us say and do things we really don't mean.
—In other words, just because people are giving out negative vibes, that does not mean that they are out of touch with the very ground of their being, which is Existence, Knowledge, & Bliss, united.
All I'm unsuccessfully trying to convey to you here, my noble friend TheJourney, is that you cannot let people's behavior steal your joy. People are to be loved, not avoided because of their behavior or other quality. A truly holy being would rush to touch the Leper, be he noisy, smelly, or tiresome. There's the story of Muhammed having a piss-pot poured on him frequently on his walks by a certain woman's house in Mecca; but when she became ill he went unto her and gave her a blessing and she recovered and followed him.
I don't think the Buddha ever wished his followers to be passionless. No, that is a bad interpretation. The Lord Buddha (as with all Eastern wisdom teachers) taught that we should not be ruled by our passions. There's a world of difference there. The Lord Jesus even warned his followers about the spiritual danger of being merely lukewarm.
Passions are not to be condemned or categorically dismissed as having a trait that disqualifies them from consideration. Granted, there are times we have headaches or other things calling urgently over the hubub for our attention and need the quiet. It is at those times when we can rightly hope the makers of the din will just go away to the gods know where.
However, at election time (with all the matters of importance hanging in the air) a spirited person might well be expected to say spirited things, sometimes even metaphorically and laced with hyperbole.
All Right by me and Buddha Bless!
_____________________
However, on another thread there's a list of things that would have you disrobed and summarily dismissed from the monastery. I noticed that masturbation was not on it:
What struck me in this was its mentioning "either sex" and, not knowing the original language, whether the word "intercourse" was just part of the translation. I mean, would that include any sexual contact?
I must say I have neither the proclivity nor patience to research this matter on my own and would also be grateful to hear anything in either the 227 rules for men or the 311,911,411,000 rules for women pertaining to this [hallowed?] subject.
Thanks