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.
He did express his frustration with offensive language I give you that.
Perhaps asking him to use a more respectful language would be appropriate.
Interesting interpretation of "right speech", is it from you?
Any details about the manners which one would defend the helpless?
I use Dogen's view on Right Speech as kind speech, which can appear very harsh and even critical, but is based on a compassionate desire to help others. Right does not always mean gentle, and silence can be the loudest of messages.
But, it's not just what you say, it's what you don't say that make up your speech. Isn't it a truism that silence can speak louder than words? If you should be speaking words out of compassion and remain silent, then it is not Right Speech. This is not my own invention.
Traditionally, Right Speech is given these four elements:
1. Abstain from false speech; do not tell lies or deceive.
2. Do not slander others or speak in a way that causes disharmony or enmity.
3. Abstain from rude, impolite or abusive language.
4. Do not indulge in idle talk or gossip.
And that is fine. But suppose you hear someone telling a lie about another person. And you know it's a lie. And those lies can hurt the other person deeply. Well, it's not you saying the lies, so it's none of your business, right? Besides, you aren't comfortable confronting people, so let other people handle it. And the person is hurt deeply by the lies because you did not confront the person using their words to hurt others. You did not use Right Speech.
Look through the postings. A sincere effort was made by several responders to get someone to understand their words were hurtful. Once those are ignored and it is obvious a poster wants only an audience for hateful rants, then you are not helping him by indulging his behavior. A person who throws around words like "Chav bitch" in a Buddhist forum is not looking for words of wisdom.
So Right Speech also means speaking up to help others, even if it means confronting hateful speech. And, I don't for one moment think he cares one bit about my opinion of his own speech. This is for the person surfing around the web who is curious about Buddhism but reads this board and goes away in disgust, thinking Buddhists call people names and want to take their babies away from them. No, we do not. It is only the nature of public forums that we get all sorts of people posting.
There isn't a species on the Earth that controls it's own population, the environment does that. The same is true for humans, eventually the environment will limit our population, it won't be pleasant, but it'll work.
The problem that i found with this is that we don't let this happen.
We have been controlling population indirectly and directly for a long time, which is the reason for overpopulation and today's imbalance with nature.
I believe that the challenge now is to find a way to regain the balance as smoothly and quickly as possible, before something shift and a major and dramatic correction inevitably happen.
And that is fine. But suppose you hear someone telling a lie about another person. And you know it's a lie. And those lies can hurt the other person deeply. Well, it's not you saying the lies, so it's none of your business, right?
Exactly. It's karma's job.
Beside, trying to help by confronting more often then not solidify the other person in a defensive position, hence reduce the chances of the other person to liberate himself from his suffering. among other kind of undesirable emotional reactions that would go against your intention to help.
This is why, if you truly want to help, the manner in which you do is very important.
And the person is hurt deeply by the lies because you did not confront the person using their words to hurt others. You did not use Right Speech
If the person is hurt deeply by the lies i believe it would be because of her karma.
There are many things you can do for this person, like helping him with his karma, telling him your opinion about the situation etc...
Look through the postings. A sincere effort was made by several responders to get someone to understand their words were hurtful. Once those are ignored and it is obvious a poster wants only an audience for hateful rants, then you are not helping him by indulging his behavior.
Hi, Idontlikemylife; if you're interested in studying Buddhism and maybe interested in starting to practice a little, how about starting by toning down the language a little bit? Check out online: "Buddhist precepts", if you haven't already. They're a guide to live by. They're not commandments. It's ok to be angry and frustrated at life (though Buddism is about losing the anger, evantually. This can be easier said than done, so we can cut you some slack, and you're new on the block, anyway), but people are a little upset by some of the language. We're here for you, but could you meet us halfway? It would be a good first step, if you're genuinely interested in trying out Buddhism. Maybe studying what you can find about Buddhism online would help take your mind off of stuff for a little while, at least. Like a little vacation from the stress of life.
the idea of population control scares me. i am immediatly leary of anyone who proposes such a control, including the dalai lama.
ive heard the idea that there are not enough souls for us to keep going, or one poster put it that we are extremly rare. correct me if i am wrong, but according to the cosmology dont we become human after we have lived as insects and animals? perhaps as our species grows and other species shrink and become extinc it is because the souls of the animals have become human? just a thought.
there is no need to worry about population increases and resource shortages. its simple supply and demand.
as the supply of a resource (oil for example) reduces the cost of that resource naturally goes up. at some point that resource is no longer cost effective and a new resource is developed. whale oil, to kerosene, to gasoline, to... solar? electric? something new? china recently announced they will soon be building only cars that run on natural gas.
also the assumption that we are depleting the worlds resources is ignorant. when a company logs a parcel of land, they go back through and plant new trees. twenty years later they log the land again. its a renewable source of energy. did you know you can run a car or any vehicle with wood?
further we have barely begun to scratch the surface of the planet. our mines only go few miles deep while the crust is 25 miles thick on continents, and then there is the mantle.
as we increase our technology, so will we become more efficient at using these resources. cars in the 60's maybe got 10 mpg, while most cars now get 20 or more, and several get 30 or 40. as far as waste goes again it boils down to efficency. recycling technologies will get cheaper and more efficient as will our landfill technology.
saying that most water isnt potable is inane and ignorant. of course almost all water is not potable. humans have needed to boil there water since the dawn of man. we simply do that now on a large scale.
you should really, really do as much research on all of the problems you presented, and look at any other possible solution before you suggest population control.
for the record i have two sons. i am a better person because of them. there is nothing more fullfilling than raising them. they amaze me every day. i have effectifly changed the course of history because of them. they will interact with people all their lives. at some point they will no longer need me and will go out on their own. they will have thier own lives and leave lasting impressions upon other people.
i believe that anyone who does not have children is really missing out on how life really works.
Do you truly believe your post fit these description? (honest question, no sarcasm)
Exactly. It's karma's job.
Beside, trying to help by confronting more often then not solidify the other person in a defensive position, hence reduce the chances of the other person to liberate himself from his suffering. among other kind of undesirable emotional reactions that would go against your intention to help.
This is why, if you truly want to help, the manner in which you do is very important.
Why do you have to confront? Can't you just express a different opinion?
a different point of view?
If the person is hurt deeply by the lies i believe it would be because of her karma.
There are many things you can do for this person, like helping him with his karma, telling him your opinion about the situation etc...
not indulging his behavior, questioning yours.
Yes i agree. like i said before i doubt he had any intention to question his own views in order to help himself. But i'm not 100% certain.
You're asking if my posts could be more skillful? I don't know. They were the best I could do, and not written out of anger but a desire to help. Was it Right Speech? Yes, of course, for the reasons I've already given. Does it seem harsh to you, to confront hateful speech openly? You can't reason quietly and logically with people who aren't willing to listen and don't care who they hurt.
I'm interested in your own comment. Do you really believe the correct thing to do if you see an injustice is nothing, because it's their karma, not yours? I'm interested in how far you would take that. How about if you see someone drowning? That's their karma, also, and not yours. Of course you would help someone you see in distress. Isn't it better to just help others, period, and not have to check on whose karma is responsible?
I'm interested in your own comment. Do you really believe the correct thing to do if you see an injustice is nothing, because it's their karma, not yours? I'm interested in how far you would take that. How about if you see someone drowning? That's their karma, also, and not yours. Of course you would help someone you see in distress. Isn't it better to just help others, period, and not have to check on whose karma is responsible?
First you must differentiate Karma from situations.
Drowning is a situation, not necessarily suffering.
nonetheless, I'll do my best to help with both.
But I try to never forget that not using right speech (including #2 and #3 of the criteria that you listed) and confronting someone that is very likely to close himself up will create bad karma for him and for me.
Isn't it better to just help others, period, and not have to check on whose karma is responsible?
If by "helping" you are not using right speech (like it would seem obvious to me that you have done), then you are not truly helping but hurting. which creates bad karma for that person and for yourself.
If by "helping" you are not using right speech (like it would seem obvious to me that you have done), then you are not truly helping but hurting. which creates bad karma for that person and for yourself.
Really? In what way was I causing disharmony or using abusive or rude language? Funny how you only began complaining when I called out hate speech for what it was. You're confusing what I posted with some sort of flame war, a shouting match.
Your answer, do nothing because it's not your problem, is unacceptable. Buddhism does not mean to be passive. Help all beings. Nothing more or less.
If you'd like a better idea of my motivation, I have a bit of a challenge for you. Somewhere out there, there is a young pregnant woman who is barely getting by with the government's help. She's reading this thread and there's a man telling her that she doesn't deserve to have children, in fact she should have her baby taken away from her and she's just a bitch and everyone like her is trash. Explain to her why being a good Buddhist means you're not allowed to tell this man to stop putting such hateful, stupid words as she's reading on a Buddhist board.
How about Mind control first...If people start working with less delusion and more wisdom and logic we wouldnt have to worry about such situations threatening our species in the first place as people would act naturally out of kindness and consideration for others. Everyone creates their problems out of self cherishing one could stamp and shout, Beat, kick, abuse, threaten, castrate, subjegate, humiliate, ostracise others etc. but it would be non other then applying a fresh coat of paint to an already crumbling wall it is far better to start work on the root of all our problems by training the mind now.
People cant be threatend into doing anything out of their own will such a course of action does not have good results.
If you'd like a better idea of my motivation, I have a bit of a challenge for you. Somewhere out there, there is a young pregnant woman who is barely getting by with the government's help. She's reading this thread and there's a man telling her that she doesn't deserve to have children, in fact she should have her baby taken away from her and she's just a bitch and everyone like her is trash. Explain to her why being a good Buddhist means you're not allowed to tell this man to stop putting such hateful, stupid words as she's reading on a Buddhist board.
Take the broader view of what's going on with the OP, Cino, rather than focussing narrowly on the obvious. Did you see his "Are Buddhists Allowed To Commit Suicide" thread? You could start there; it might give you a different perspective.
Squabbling in front of this young person who has turned to us for guidance--it's embarrassing.
Yes, I participated in that thread. Let me repeat and make it clear, I want to help this young man as much as I can. I have nothing at all against him. I hope he continues to post in a responsible way. But, you do him no good by indulging and excusing his hateful rant as something we should let happen without comment. This is not the place for that sort of thing if it's going to be a place where Buddhism is explored and discussed.
Words matter. Hateful words have the power to do real damage, even through the internet. We have a lot of fun playing around with words on a board like this, and sometimes we might be able to help people understand a Buddhist concept or two, but real people out there can get hurt if you allow someone here to begin putting vile, hateful words in their posts.
Help all beings. Even when that help is telling someone, you are not supposed to hurt other people, no matter how angry you are at the world.
OK, Cino. Maybe a lighter touch, if I may opine. I did ask him earlier to be mindful of his language. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone on the west side of the Pond.
I know. I apologize for the emotion behind my words, and I'm very much aware I came down too forcefully in the end. I mean the apology, and I really do mean it, when I say it would be nice to have a conversation with the man, finding out where he got his views from and where his anger comes from.
I get part of the anger. He's young, and he's already in a dead-end job. He's seen his loved ones struggle all their life in what appears to be a bit of a cesspool. But there are ways out of cesspools. One must have hope. I feel he's lost hope. Maybe we can help him find some.
Words matter, and hatred and bigotry should not be tolerated in the name of "being open" or tolerance. If someone like Idontlikemylife comes on a public forum advertised as a place to talk about and share Buddhism, and uses words like "Chav bitch" (and it seems chav is equivalent to American saying "white trash") and rant about how these people disgust him and deserve to have their babies taken away from them, then it is your duty to speak up. Right speach doesn't just mean be kind in what you say about others. It means defend those who are being unjustly attacked.
After an attempt to have a discussion, when it becomes obvious all someone wants to do is throw hateful words out, you defend the helpless.
I will go away, however, I find that you are purposely taking what I say out of context to make what I say sound bad.
Like when after my first post, you came out with a load of stuff about policing the population and having licences, when what I said was about not spending money of people who want kids.
Talking to Yanks about chavs and things over here is difficult, because you don't know what they are.
Bigotry?
You have never had your house burgled or your car stolen by chavs, they have never walked through your flat building at 3am drunk and shouting and singing and peeing and writing on your door and if you call the police then he will just get his mates to come and beat the crap out you, you don't know the kind of people that I am talking about, and why I'm very keen for me to not be paying for them to breed 4-6 times in their life time, not only spawning newer versions of themselves, but adding massively to the population.
They have never mugged you or threatened to rape your girlfriend if you don't give them what they want, and if you call the cops they will send some people round to smash your head in with pick axe handles.
The defenceless? I'm the defenceless mother fucker!
Don't think of them as innocents who have had money troubles, think of them as people who can't get a job because their criminal records would make anybody turn them away.
I know I can expect the whole "Well, they should have the chance to turn their lives around".
But they don't want to!
They want to be on the dole, and use that money and any other money they gain from theft, drugs, or mugging for alcohol and weed.
I wish I could introduce you to some, try teach them buddhism, but that would be harsh, because about 5 minutes of you saying anything like that, then you would be teaching some ambulance doctors buddhism instead.
Oh, and yeah I can insult this class of people because its my class too, I have grown up along side these people and I live with them and I have every right to talk about them like that without it being considered bigotry.
You are right, I'm not a buddhist, but before I left with lack of anything to say about buddhism I just wanted to give my 2 cents from my experience lol.
But I don't expect you to read this or answer anything because you are the archetypal leftist and you will probably continue to to go on with a load of paradoxic hatred toward me because of my hatred for the chavs that make my life hell on a daily basis.
But I don't blame you because you probably grew up upper or middle class and have no idea about the kind of people I'm talking about.
In this country we pay people to have kids.
My parents couldn't have had me and my sisters if it wasn't for child benefits, and if child benefits didn't exist then we wouldn't have been born.
And that goes for a lot of people in this country, stop paying them and people will stop having them.
I know in Africa its different, but we have better facillites for birth control and abortion over here.
And..... hmmmmmm..... what can I use to replace the word chav so I don't get a strawman argument thrown back in my face???
"Vahcs" always take advantage of the system and teen pregnancy is at an all time high and getting higher and the teenage vahcs don't mind because they get benefits and houses and they are better off by having a kid and in the first world people who have good facilities would be more careful when it comes to contraception or more inclined to have an abortion if its too late.
No, it's what actually will happen if you give your government the authority to decide who can and can't have children. It's what government does, because once you give them a mission and permission to do whatever they want, there are no boundaries to what a government agency will do to enforce their rules. That's a lesson people keep having to relearn over and over. This is the social cost of real population control. Oh, and only the poor will actually have to suffer the cost of controlling a population.
Please contemplate the real world consequences of what you want and are willing to allow.
I'm not taking anybodies right to have children away, you think I'm saying that because you want to think I'm saying that.
Read carefully.
In my ideal government, I'm not taking any reproductive rights away.
I'm just taking child benefits away, I'm making it more libertarian by removing the government from your lives, if you want a kid then work for it, if you do work, then go to college and get a better job so you can support a family, stop relying on the government to pay for you and your babies living, using the money of the people who don't owe you one.
This is the part that your leftist views wont let you read properly....
If you can't support the child, but have one anyway, and that baby can't eat or live in a humane way, then you aren't fit to look after one, and that baby shouldn't be living with you, we will take it away, kinda..... well pretty much exactly how it works now....
You think that I want to create a police force to take them away, but when you actually read what I'm writing, all I'm saying is bring in social services that we have now already, to do the exact same job they are doing now.
When people can't or don't take care of their kids, then they are taken away.
I have no idea how you managed to make what I said sound like fascism, but I suppose you lefties are only good at that anyway when it comes to politics, I have never seen a liberal or a commie come out with a decent argument, every time a leftist disagrees, all they do if twist and strawman the other side to try and make them look bad.
But once again, unlike me, you probably grew up in a million dollar house in middle America and have that typical suburban, middle class, liberal attitude, and as soon as I mentioned anything about kids being taken away you were ready to paint a picket and march right?
Let me guess, you are a feminist too, right? lol.
Even though women have it better in this world, you hear words like "pay gap" and go absolutely mental.
I know your type. A word about abstinence.
Would never happen, men think about sex once every 6 seconds, and you expect them to live without it?
Women might not think about it as often as men, but I know that women like a shag just as much as men do.
Glad to see you're still with us, IDLML. I think you're right; there's lots of cool stuff one can do if one isn't tied down with a family and kids. I think you've got that figured out, unlike some of your peers, as you describe. So congrats to you. You also figured out that young people who feel they have no future (I assume education hasn't been a possibility or an interest for them) tend to have babies young. The UN and the World Bank and international aid organizations figured out years ago that the best way to cut population growth is to offer education to women, and especially higher education. When women have a future, they take care to protect the opportunities offered them, and childbirth is postponed. I think the same probably holds true for men, though it hasn't been studied, that I'm aware of.
So, speaking of education, do you have any options in that regard? On the other side of the Pond from you, there are 2-year higher ed institutions called "Community Colleges" that are virtually free of charge. One doesn't need to enroll full-time; one can take one or 2 classes at a time, if one is working. Is there anything like that where you are? You might contact the nearest higher ed institution in your area, talk to an admissions counselor, and see what your options are in terms of public and private financial aid, what types of programs or institutes might accept you, etc. I think you're pretty smart, underneath the obvious frustration and anger. You already have a few things figured out. If you could channel that frustration energy into formal learning, you could improve your life over time, and you may well discover a field of endeavor that turns you on. It takes time; patience is key. One can't change a life in just a year. Maybe some of our Brit members might have suggestions for you.
Anyone who doesn't like IDLML's rants can opt out of participating here. No one's twisting your arm. Those interested in an opportunity to practice compassion and loving-kindness, to show IDLML how Buddhist tenets are put into practice, is welcome to stay, IMHO.
Yeah, and if we weren't too busy or broke paying for people to support kids they cant afford, then maybe those millions could be put into giving people more chance at an education.
I don't know if its about not having a good future, other than 80% of the people in my flat building who have 2-4 kids and are just using them to get benefits and free money, other people are so brainwashed by the media thinking that even if you are ultra successful in becoming a doctor or whatever, that having kids is the best thing you can ever do, and that it should be done or you aren't complete as a person.
Its like its expected of you.
I will be in bootcamp for the infantry next year and hopefully going to Afghanistan shortly afterwards.
Then after, if I survive of course, then hopefully I can work towards the job I want, but I don't really want to say what it is in public.
Thanks for the support man.
I find the anger and frustration they are showing towards me funny because I was showing anger and frustration.
Hi, Idontlikemylife; if you're interested in studying Buddhism and maybe interested in starting to practice a little, how about starting by toning down the language a little bit? Check out online: "Buddhist precepts", if you haven't already. They're a guide to live by. They're not commandments. It's ok to be angry and frustrated at life (though Buddism is about losing the anger, evantually. This can be easier said than done, so we can cut you some slack, and you're new on the block, anyway), but people are a little upset by some of the language. We're here for you, but could you meet us halfway? It would be a good first step, if you're genuinely interested in trying out Buddhism. Maybe studying what you can find about Buddhism online would help take your mind off of stuff for a little while, at least. Like a little vacation from the stress of life.
I will tone it down a bit after I have made my point, no problem. :cool:
Although, I do agree with Cinorjer in a way that he/she doesn't need to be nice when (Cinorjer what is your damn gender?) we disagree, and just because I don't like my life (ba dum tiss) doesn't mean I should be treat with sympathy.
I have valid reasons to feel this way and I'm not mentally ill or anything, so if people disagree, you don't need to sugar coat it or anything, nothing like that will make me more depressed or anything.
Perhaps we have now spent enough time criticising the way in which Idontlikemylife expressed his views and it is time to consider the content, and to do so within the philosophical context of a Buddhist pov.
A vital aspect of our practice is that it causes us to examine our prejudgments and prejudices in order to come, progressively, closer to a view of things as they are. To some extent this will also include our assumptions about the socio-economic world around us. In many ways, as many here have pointed out in many threads, the process is similar to scientific method, sifting verifiable fact from assumed fantasy.
Are there, then, fantasies within IDLML's expressed views? I believe that there are. For example, the sytem of family allowance and tax credits which he criticises applies to the UK and, in the UK, there has been no increase in the birthrate since the War. I do not see how this supports a view that these financial supports cause the least privileged to have more children. Where are these children?
We can appreciate and be horrified by his description of conditions in his area. Even though we may hope that these abuses may be exceptional across the whole country, nothing detracts from the scandal. Neither local nor national government action appear to have improved the condition of the poor. Local communities, too, do not seem to be able to find solutions.
A wise and compassionate approach would mean taking the enormous risk of 'embedding' oneself within such communities, bringing them the example of the Wish-fulfilling Triple Jewel. This is the sort of work (as I understand it) that our brother Palzang was undertaking in Mongolia, but we don't need to go that far to find need.
The general tenor of IDLML's suggestions is scathingly critical of a group within society which he names " chavs" (*). There is a problem when a diffuse socio-economic group is described by a terms generally deemed derogatory. As Buddhists we have a duty to underline that such a term is not only outwith the norms of Right Speech, as has been said, and, at the same time, expose the emptiness of the concept.
(*) the Wikipedia etymology:
"Chav probably has its origins in the Romani word "chavi", meaning "child"<sup id="cite_ref-BBC-20050608_2-0" class="reference">[3]</sup> (or "chavo", meaning "boy",<sup id="cite_ref-wotm_3-0" class="reference">[4]</sup> or "chavvy", meaning "youth"<sup id="cite_ref-Telegraph-20080724_4-0" class="reference">[5]</sup>). This theory is supported by etymologist Michael Quinion.<sup id="cite_ref-wwwchav_5-0" class="reference">[6]</sup> This word may have entered the English language through the Geordie dialect word charva, meaning a rough child.<sup id="cite_ref-wiktionary_6-0" class="reference">[7]</sup> This is similar to the colloquial Spanish word chaval, meaning "kid" or "guy".<sup id="cite_ref-wotm_3-1" class="reference">[4]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-Telegraph-20050810_7-0" class="reference">[8]</sup>In Italy, chavs are termed as coatto, which basically means "working class" and vulgar. The derivative Chavette has been used to refer to females.<sup class="Template-Fact" title="This claim needs references to reliable sources from September 2010" style="white-space: nowrap;">I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I</sup>
The Oxford University Press has said that the word is "generally thought to come from Chatham girls",<sup id="cite_ref-wotm_3-2" class="reference">[4]</sup> and Michael Quinion says that that is "where the term is best known and probably originated".<sup id="cite_ref-wwwchav_5-1" class="reference">[6]</sup>
Many urban legends have sprung up around the etymology of the word. These include the backronym "Council Housed And Violent" or "Council House Associated Vermin",<sup id="cite_ref-webchat_0-1" class="reference">[1]</sup> and the suggestion that pupils at Cheltenham Ladies' College and Cheltenham College used the word to describe the young men of the town ("Cheltenham Average").<sup id="cite_ref-cheltenhamladies_8-0" class="reference">[9]</sup> However, Michael Quinion has said that "we must treat supposed acronymic origins with the greatest suspicion; these examples are definitely recent after-the-event inventions as attempts to explain the word, though very widely known and believed."<sup id="cite_ref-wwwchav_5-2" class="reference">[6]</sup>
By 2005, media references to 'chavs' had spread the word throughout Britain."
I will go away, however, I find that you are purposely taking what I say out of context to make what I say sound bad.
Like when after my first post, you came out with a load of stuff about policing the population and having licences, when what I said was about not spending money of people who want kids.
Talking to Yanks about chavs and things over here is difficult, because you don't know what they are.
Bigotry?
You have never had your house burgled or your car stolen by chavs, they have never walked through your flat building at 3am drunk and shouting and singing and peeing and writing on your door and if you call the police then he will just get his mates to come and beat the crap out you, you don't know the kind of people that I am talking about, and why I'm very keen for me to not be paying for them to breed 4-6 times in their life time, not only spawning newer versions of themselves, but adding massively to the population.
They have never mugged you or threatened to rape your girlfriend if you don't give them what they want, and if you call the cops they will send some people round to smash your head in with pick axe handles.
The defenceless? I'm the defenceless mother fucker!
Don't think of them as innocents who have had money troubles, think of them as people who can't get a job because their criminal records would make anybody turn them away.
I know I can expect the whole "Well, they should have the chance to turn their lives around".
But they don't want to!
They want to be on the dole, and use that money and any other money they gain from theft, drugs, or mugging for alcohol and weed.
I wish I could introduce you to some, try teach them buddhism, but that would be harsh, because about 5 minutes of you saying anything like that, then you would be teaching some ambulance doctors buddhism instead.
Oh, and yeah I can insult this class of people because its my class too, I have grown up along side these people and I live with them and I have every right to talk about them like that without it being considered bigotry.
You are right, I'm not a buddhist, but before I left with lack of anything to say about buddhism I just wanted to give my 2 cents from my experience lol.
But I don't expect you to read this or answer anything because you are the archetypal leftist and you will probably continue to to go on with a load of paradoxic hatred toward me because of my hatred for the chavs that make my life hell on a daily basis.
But I don't blame you because you probably grew up upper or middle class and have no idea about the kind of people I'm talking about.
In this country we pay people to have kids.
My parents couldn't have had me and my sisters if it wasn't for child benefits, and if child benefits didn't exist then we wouldn't have been born.
And that goes for a lot of people in this country, stop paying them and people will stop having them.
I know in Africa its different, but we have better facillites for birth control and abortion over here.
And..... hmmmmmm..... what can I use to replace the word chav so I don't get a strawman argument thrown back in my face???
"Vahcs" always take advantage of the system and teen pregnancy is at an all time high and getting higher and the teenage vahcs don't mind because they get benefits and houses and they are better off by having a kid and in the first world people who have good facilities would be more careful when it comes to contraception or more inclined to have an abortion if its too late.
I'm not taking anybodies right to have children away, you think I'm saying that because you want to think I'm saying that.
Read carefully.
In my ideal government, I'm not taking any reproductive rights away.
I'm just taking child benefits away, I'm making it more libertarian by removing the government from your lives, if you want a kid then work for it, if you do work, then go to college and get a better job so you can support a family, stop relying on the government to pay for you and your babies living, using the money of the people who don't owe you one.
This is the part that your leftist views wont let you read properly....
If you can't support the child, but have one anyway, and that baby can't eat or live in a humane way, then you aren't fit to look after one, and that baby shouldn't be living with you, we will take it away, kinda..... well pretty much exactly how it works now....
You think that I want to create a police force to take them away, but when you actually read what I'm writing, all I'm saying is bring in social services that we have now already, to do the exact same job they are doing now.
When people can't or don't take care of their kids, then they are taken away.
I have no idea how you managed to make what I said sound like fascism, but I suppose you lefties are only good at that anyway when it comes to politics, I have never seen a liberal or a commie come out with a decent argument, every time a leftist disagrees, all they do if twist and strawman the other side to try and make them look bad.
But once again, unlike me, you probably grew up in a million dollar house in middle America and have that typical suburban, middle class, liberal attitude, and as soon as I mentioned anything about kids being taken away you were ready to paint a picket and march right?
Let me guess, you are a feminist too, right? lol.
Even though women have it better in this world, you hear words like "pay gap" and go absolutely mental.
I know your type. A word about abstinence.
Would never happen, men think about sex once every 6 seconds, and you expect them to live without it?
Women might not think about it as often as men, but I know that women like a shag just as much as men do.
Yeah, and if we weren't too busy or broke paying for people to support kids they cant afford, then maybe those millions could be put into giving people more chance at an education.
I don't know if its about not having a good future, other than 80% of the people in my flat building who have 2-4 kids and are just using them to get benefits and free money, other people are so brainwashed by the media thinking that even if you are ultra successful in becoming a doctor or whatever, that having kids is the best thing you can ever do, and that it should be done or you aren't complete as a person.
Its like its expected of you.
I will be in bootcamp for the infantry next year and hopefully going to Afghanistan shortly afterwards.
Then after, if I survive of course, then hopefully I can work towards the job I want, but I don't really want to say what it is in public.
Thanks for the support man.
I find the anger and frustration they are showing towards me funny because I was showing anger and frustration.
I will tone it down a bit after I have made my point, no problem. :cool:
Although, I do agree with Cinorjer in a way that he/she doesn't need to be nice when (Cinorjer what is your damn gender?) we disagree, and just because I don't like my life (ba dum tiss) doesn't mean I should be treat with sympathy.
I have valid reasons to feel this way and I'm not mentally ill or anything, so if people disagree, you don't need to sugar coat it or anything, nothing like that will make me more depressed or anything.
But thank you for your concern.
I'm a cranky old Grandpa, if you're curious.
And while growing old doesn't automatically instill someone with special wisdom, it does give people time to see the patterns of life.
The mistake you're making is an almost univeral mistake of thinking the resources and money spent on something or someone else would be used to make your life and the life of the people you know better, if only you got rid of the unwanted expense. That isn't the way our societies work. If you rounded up all the lower class and shoved them in a big hole, all that would happen is, a few rich people would get richer with tax cuts and some big companies would have more money and some wars would receive new weapons. And there would soon be another group of people to fill that bottom rung role in society. Poor, unskilled and uneducated people are a result of our social structures, built into the system, not the problem with the system.
Buddhism doesn't much address social problems. It's a message of personal elimination from suffering.
To say that is to ignore the fact that people like the Octamom exist. There's welfare moms who do use their children as a way to receive money from the government. They don't work, they're just brood mares for the state. It's a terrible thing to say, but there are women who do violate the system that was set in place to help the less fortunate. It's also important to remember however that they make up the minority of cases. Way more people are just down on their luck with this recession.
If people start working with less delusion and more wisdom and logic we wouldnt have to worry about such situations threatening our species in the first place as people would act naturally out of kindness and consideration for others.
Population control is in fact birth control or having control over birth, it requires understanding, appreciation and practice for the well being of mankind and its environment
The first type of chi, called the "nurturing chi," is what you rely on to be alive. When we practice pranayama, we usually practice this type of chi. You can find out more about this and other types of chi in the Peter Senge-Nan Huai-Chin Anapana Chi Conversations, which are truly excellent.
If you can stop your breathing, you can enter into the cultivation of the second type of chi. The second type of chi, called the "reward chi" in the Damo Zen Sutra and "karmic" chi in Esoteric Buddhism, is the chi that arises when ordinary breathing stops. This "hsi," (Xi) if you cultivate it, is what a fetus uses to grow inside a mother's womb (when external breathing is not required) and when you cultivate it after birth, you can use it to cure sickness, extend the lifespan and stay healthy. If you are able to recognize and cultivate this level of chi, you can have longevity and can reverse the process of aging and will become young. Forget the anti-aging supplements -- this is far better. You can cultivate that chi to get samadhi but it's not the highest stage possible. However, this is the chi you should be cultivating if you want to reverse aging, or if you are fatigued and wish to rejuvenate yourself. Set up a practice schedule every day for an hour or so and it'll do more for you than hours of forceful pranayama techniques from the Hatha Yoga Pradipika.
The third type of chi is called "fundamental" (from Consciousness Only school) or "original" or "primordial" chi. Sometimes it's called "original heaven chi." Taoism talks about this chi, as does Buddhism and Hinduism. If you are able to enter into the cultivation of this type of chi, you can control your birth and death. So when you enter the cultivation of the second type of chi you can become like a baby whereas entering into the cultivation of this third type of chi you can eventually control life and death. This is the stage you want to get to because it corresponds to becoming one with the universe and the original nature. To reach the stage of cultivating this chi is a great accomplishment and all you have to do is practice as I've been teaching you.
This third chi is akin to the chi of the whole universe. When Buddha says there is no self, he means there is no true little self but there is one true BIG SELF, and that is the whole universe, cosmos, the entire Triple Realm, the whole shebang of mind and matter together as One. But this is the chi of that one thing. An Arhat who cultivates this chi can appear or disappear (dissolve) at will into this type of chi, and thus can control their birth and death that way.
To cultivate this chi, you really need to cultivate wisdom. People without enough prajna wisdom will have a difficult time recognizing this chi. They can talk about it all they want but of it they will know nothing. So to get to this stage already takes cultivation practice and letting go, letting go, letting go while remaining aware.
The Buddha Speaks about the Deep Kindness
of Parents and the Difficulty in Repaying it.
"During the tenth month of pregnancy, the body of the fetus is completed and ready to be born. If the child is extremely filial, it will emerge with palms joined together in respect and the birth will be peaceful and auspicious. The mother will remain uninjured by the birth and will not suffer pain. However, if the child is extremely rebellious in nature, to the extent that it is capable of committing the five rebellious acts*, then it will injure its mother's womb, rip apart its mother's heart and liver, or get entangled in its mother's bones. The birth will feel like the slices of a thousand knives or like ten thousand sharp swords stabbing her heart. Those are the agonies involved in the birth of a defiant and rebellious child." To explain more clearly, there are ten types of kindnesses bestowed by the mother on the child:
The first is the kindness of providing protection and care while the child is in the womb.
The second is the kindness of bearing suffering during the birth.
The third is the kindness of forgetting all the pain once the child has been born.
The fourth is the kindness of eating the bitter herself and saving the sweet for the child.
The fifth is the kindness of moving the child to a dry place and lying in the wet herself.
The sixth is the kindness of suckling the child at her breast, nourishing and bringing up the child.
The seventh is the kindness of washing away the unclean.
The eight is the kindness of always thinking of the child when it has traveled far.
The ninth is the kindness of deep care and devotion.
The tenth is the kindness of ultimate pity and sympathy.
Buddhism doesn't much address social problems. It's a message of personal elimination from suffering.
I, too, am a grandfather, although Buddhist practice is a good antidote to crankiness.
The idea that Buddhism doesn't address social problems seems nonsensical to me, unless we take an entirely self-centred view of the ending of suffering. I would agree that this is certainly the view that many non-Buddhists have of us but it is a mistake.
Once we spend time studying the sutras and engaging in meditation, our understanding of and compassion for the suffering in samsara takes us from some sort of dispassionate contemplation and into Right Action, otherwise it is no more than selfish.
Once again, I cite the example of Palzang and his fellows in Mongolia and would add the work of the Shanti movement in the '80s among the pariahs with AIDS on the West Coast of the USA in the '80s.
Of course, there is no long history of social action in the East but, as Buddhism entered Western awareness, it has become engaged with the poor and the disinherited.
Anything else is elitist and aristocratic.
I would add that, were anyone to convince me that social action was outwith the scope of Buddhism, I would find it nigh on impossible to maintain a Buddhist practice. Fortunately, I do not believe it to be so.
I, too, am a grandfather, although Buddhist practice is a good antidote to crankiness.
The idea that Buddhism doesn't address social problems seems nonsensical to me, unless we take an entirely self-centred view of the ending of suffering. I would agree that this is certainly the view that many non-Buddhists have of us but it is a mistake.
Once we spend time studying the sutras and engaging in meditation, our understanding of and compassion for the suffering in samsara takes us from some sort of dispassionate contemplation and into Right Action, otherwise it is no more than selfish.
Once again, I cite the example of Palzang and his fellows in Mongolia and would add the work of the Shanti movement in the '80s among the pariahs with AIDS on the West Coast of the USA in the '80s.
Of course, there is no long history of social action in the East but, as Buddhism entered Western awareness, it has become engaged with the poor and the disinherited.
Anything else is elitist and aristocratic.
I would add that, were anyone to convince me that social action was outwith the scope of Buddhism, I would find it nigh on impossible to maintain a Buddhist practice. Fortunately, I do not believe it to be so.
You're preaching to the choir, in that I firmly believe the biggest change to Buddhism sparked by Western idealism will be the socially engaged direction we take. When I decided that my own path should be summed up from now on in the Bodhisattva's vows, my focus shifted to simply engaging the world and helping others. That is emulating what Buddha did in the end, after all.
But, Buddhism itself has had a terrible history when it comes to making social improvements, even when it is the dominate religion of a culture, as has any religion. In Thailand today, the Buddhist majority is almost in an open civil war against a Muslim minority, since it insists on being the officially sanctioned religion and Muslims are barred from many of the advantages that Buddhists have. The temples remain silent.
In Cambodia, preteen girls are sold by their families to an openly operating sex trade, where the Buddhist girls are told that being a prostitute is their own fault, because they did something bad in a previous life. Where is the Buddhist outcry?
I do hope Buddhism can be invigorated and become a force for social change. While it's a message of personal liberation from suffering, society is made up of people. In all honesty, though, even Buddhists are just people, and my own efforts are no better or worse than a Christian trying to live up to Christ's teachings, or a Muslim trying to live up to the ideals of charity and tolerance that do exist in their teachings.
No, I'm just saying we have a long, hard, uphill climb on our hands.
I keep a copy of the Bodhisattva's vows handy to perk me up. I read, "People are without number, I vow to save them all!" Then I walk out into the world, and want to shout, "OK, now line up and get saved, damn it!" Like herding cats. It would be such an easier job to help people, if they'd just stop being people for a change.
Education means less children. The higher degree of education in a populace, the less children per woman will be born.
Supporting undeveloped societies will bring prosperity and bring down birth rates - and it won't hurt no one..
Overpopulation isn't an issue in industrialized countries - why the topic can't be directed towards those. In 3rd world countries everyday life for the majority is about getting food, clean water and medical supplies - there is no central government to pay taxes to and social security to contribute to. Furthermore there is oft times a permanent fiscal "black hole"
for the record i have two sons. i am a better person because of them. there is nothing more fullfilling than raising them. they amaze me every day. i have effectifly changed the course of history because of them. they will interact with people all their lives. at some point they will no longer need me and will go out on their own. they will have thier own lives and leave lasting impressions upon other people.
i believe that anyone who does not have children is really missing out on how life really works.
I disagree wholeheartedly. You've found that your life is fulfilled by having children and that's great, that's your path. I walk a different path however. My wife and I have chosen to remain childless and our lives are none the poorer for it.
Now, to address the topic of the thread: We can sustain the population we have, it's just a matter of having the will to do so. That is what we lack. We have resources enough. The United States itself could feed pretty much the entire world. Instead we stuff ourselves with massive quantities of food and we take staple foods like corn and turn it into convenience items or put it in our gas tanks so we can have a nice fuzzy feeling inside and delude ourselves into thinking that we're actually helping the environment.
With fewer children, there will be fewer workers, fewer tax-payers, fewer pension contributors and a growing fiscal 'black hole'.
So industrialized nations will have to import workers from developing nations to pay taxes and contribute to the pension fund. This is already happening in some countries, including the US.
It looks like our new friend, IDLML, is gone. So I'll only comment that if governments provided scholarships to students who can't afford higher education, they would probably find in the final analysis that their money was much better spent. They'd be spending less on child support and related subsidies, they'd have a better educated, more skilled populace, and less teen pregnancy.
What is your motivation and intentions for population control?
What is your motivation and intentions for having children?
What is your motivation and intentions for not having children?
If any of that comes from greed for your own personal convience, laziness and disdain for others maybe it's time to have another look at yourself?
Comments
I use Dogen's view on Right Speech as kind speech, which can appear very harsh and even critical, but is based on a compassionate desire to help others. Right does not always mean gentle, and silence can be the loudest of messages.
But, it's not just what you say, it's what you don't say that make up your speech. Isn't it a truism that silence can speak louder than words? If you should be speaking words out of compassion and remain silent, then it is not Right Speech. This is not my own invention.
Traditionally, Right Speech is given these four elements:
1. Abstain from false speech; do not tell lies or deceive.
2. Do not slander others or speak in a way that causes disharmony or enmity.
3. Abstain from rude, impolite or abusive language.
4. Do not indulge in idle talk or gossip.
And that is fine. But suppose you hear someone telling a lie about another person. And you know it's a lie. And those lies can hurt the other person deeply. Well, it's not you saying the lies, so it's none of your business, right? Besides, you aren't comfortable confronting people, so let other people handle it. And the person is hurt deeply by the lies because you did not confront the person using their words to hurt others. You did not use Right Speech.
Look through the postings. A sincere effort was made by several responders to get someone to understand their words were hurtful. Once those are ignored and it is obvious a poster wants only an audience for hateful rants, then you are not helping him by indulging his behavior. A person who throws around words like "Chav bitch" in a Buddhist forum is not looking for words of wisdom.
So Right Speech also means speaking up to help others, even if it means confronting hateful speech. And, I don't for one moment think he cares one bit about my opinion of his own speech. This is for the person surfing around the web who is curious about Buddhism but reads this board and goes away in disgust, thinking Buddhists call people names and want to take their babies away from them. No, we do not. It is only the nature of public forums that we get all sorts of people posting.
We have been controlling population indirectly and directly for a long time, which is the reason for overpopulation and today's imbalance with nature.
I believe that the challenge now is to find a way to regain the balance as smoothly and quickly as possible, before something shift and a major and dramatic correction inevitably happen.
Exactly. It's karma's job.
Beside, trying to help by confronting more often then not solidify the other person in a defensive position, hence reduce the chances of the other person to liberate himself from his suffering. among other kind of undesirable emotional reactions that would go against your intention to help.
This is why, if you truly want to help, the manner in which you do is very important.
Why do you have to confront? Can't you just express a different opinion?
a different point of view?
If the person is hurt deeply by the lies i believe it would be because of her karma.
There are many things you can do for this person, like helping him with his karma, telling him your opinion about the situation etc...
not indulging his behavior, questioning yours.
Yes i agree. like i said before i doubt he had any intention to question his own views in order to help himself. But i'm not 100% certain.
ive heard the idea that there are not enough souls for us to keep going, or one poster put it that we are extremly rare. correct me if i am wrong, but according to the cosmology dont we become human after we have lived as insects and animals? perhaps as our species grows and other species shrink and become extinc it is because the souls of the animals have become human? just a thought.
there is no need to worry about population increases and resource shortages. its simple supply and demand.
as the supply of a resource (oil for example) reduces the cost of that resource naturally goes up. at some point that resource is no longer cost effective and a new resource is developed. whale oil, to kerosene, to gasoline, to... solar? electric? something new? china recently announced they will soon be building only cars that run on natural gas.
also the assumption that we are depleting the worlds resources is ignorant. when a company logs a parcel of land, they go back through and plant new trees. twenty years later they log the land again. its a renewable source of energy. did you know you can run a car or any vehicle with wood?
further we have barely begun to scratch the surface of the planet. our mines only go few miles deep while the crust is 25 miles thick on continents, and then there is the mantle.
as we increase our technology, so will we become more efficient at using these resources. cars in the 60's maybe got 10 mpg, while most cars now get 20 or more, and several get 30 or 40. as far as waste goes again it boils down to efficency. recycling technologies will get cheaper and more efficient as will our landfill technology.
saying that most water isnt potable is inane and ignorant. of course almost all water is not potable. humans have needed to boil there water since the dawn of man. we simply do that now on a large scale.
you should really, really do as much research on all of the problems you presented, and look at any other possible solution before you suggest population control.
i believe that anyone who does not have children is really missing out on how life really works.
You're asking if my posts could be more skillful? I don't know. They were the best I could do, and not written out of anger but a desire to help. Was it Right Speech? Yes, of course, for the reasons I've already given. Does it seem harsh to you, to confront hateful speech openly? You can't reason quietly and logically with people who aren't willing to listen and don't care who they hurt.
I'm interested in your own comment. Do you really believe the correct thing to do if you see an injustice is nothing, because it's their karma, not yours? I'm interested in how far you would take that. How about if you see someone drowning? That's their karma, also, and not yours. Of course you would help someone you see in distress. Isn't it better to just help others, period, and not have to check on whose karma is responsible?
Drowning is a situation, not necessarily suffering.
nonetheless, I'll do my best to help with both.
But I try to never forget that not using right speech (including #2 and #3 of the criteria that you listed) and confronting someone that is very likely to close himself up will create bad karma for him and for me.
Really? In what way was I causing disharmony or using abusive or rude language? Funny how you only began complaining when I called out hate speech for what it was. You're confusing what I posted with some sort of flame war, a shouting match.
Your answer, do nothing because it's not your problem, is unacceptable. Buddhism does not mean to be passive. Help all beings. Nothing more or less.
If you'd like a better idea of my motivation, I have a bit of a challenge for you. Somewhere out there, there is a young pregnant woman who is barely getting by with the government's help. She's reading this thread and there's a man telling her that she doesn't deserve to have children, in fact she should have her baby taken away from her and she's just a bitch and everyone like her is trash. Explain to her why being a good Buddhist means you're not allowed to tell this man to stop putting such hateful, stupid words as she's reading on a Buddhist board.
How about Mind control first...If people start working with less delusion and more wisdom and logic we wouldnt have to worry about such situations threatening our species in the first place as people would act naturally out of kindness and consideration for others. Everyone creates their problems out of self cherishing one could stamp and shout, Beat, kick, abuse, threaten, castrate, subjegate, humiliate, ostracise others etc. but it would be non other then applying a fresh coat of paint to an already crumbling wall it is far better to start work on the root of all our problems by training the mind now.
People cant be threatend into doing anything out of their own will such a course of action does not have good results.
Take the broader view of what's going on with the OP, Cino, rather than focussing narrowly on the obvious. Did you see his "Are Buddhists Allowed To Commit Suicide" thread? You could start there; it might give you a different perspective.
Squabbling in front of this young person who has turned to us for guidance--it's embarrassing.
Words matter. Hateful words have the power to do real damage, even through the internet. We have a lot of fun playing around with words on a board like this, and sometimes we might be able to help people understand a Buddhist concept or two, but real people out there can get hurt if you allow someone here to begin putting vile, hateful words in their posts.
Help all beings. Even when that help is telling someone, you are not supposed to hurt other people, no matter how angry you are at the world.
I get part of the anger. He's young, and he's already in a dead-end job. He's seen his loved ones struggle all their life in what appears to be a bit of a cesspool. But there are ways out of cesspools. One must have hope. I feel he's lost hope. Maybe we can help him find some.
I will go away, however, I find that you are purposely taking what I say out of context to make what I say sound bad.
Like when after my first post, you came out with a load of stuff about policing the population and having licences, when what I said was about not spending money of people who want kids.
Talking to Yanks about chavs and things over here is difficult, because you don't know what they are.
Bigotry?
You have never had your house burgled or your car stolen by chavs, they have never walked through your flat building at 3am drunk and shouting and singing and peeing and writing on your door and if you call the police then he will just get his mates to come and beat the crap out you, you don't know the kind of people that I am talking about, and why I'm very keen for me to not be paying for them to breed 4-6 times in their life time, not only spawning newer versions of themselves, but adding massively to the population.
They have never mugged you or threatened to rape your girlfriend if you don't give them what they want, and if you call the cops they will send some people round to smash your head in with pick axe handles.
The defenceless? I'm the defenceless mother fucker!
Don't think of them as innocents who have had money troubles, think of them as people who can't get a job because their criminal records would make anybody turn them away.
I know I can expect the whole "Well, they should have the chance to turn their lives around".
But they don't want to!
They want to be on the dole, and use that money and any other money they gain from theft, drugs, or mugging for alcohol and weed.
I wish I could introduce you to some, try teach them buddhism, but that would be harsh, because about 5 minutes of you saying anything like that, then you would be teaching some ambulance doctors buddhism instead.
Oh, and yeah I can insult this class of people because its my class too, I have grown up along side these people and I live with them and I have every right to talk about them like that without it being considered bigotry.
You are right, I'm not a buddhist, but before I left with lack of anything to say about buddhism I just wanted to give my 2 cents from my experience lol.
But I don't expect you to read this or answer anything because you are the archetypal leftist and you will probably continue to to go on with a load of paradoxic hatred toward me because of my hatred for the chavs that make my life hell on a daily basis.
But I don't blame you because you probably grew up upper or middle class and have no idea about the kind of people I'm talking about.
In this country we pay people to have kids.
My parents couldn't have had me and my sisters if it wasn't for child benefits, and if child benefits didn't exist then we wouldn't have been born.
And that goes for a lot of people in this country, stop paying them and people will stop having them.
I know in Africa its different, but we have better facillites for birth control and abortion over here.
And..... hmmmmmm..... what can I use to replace the word chav so I don't get a strawman argument thrown back in my face???
"Vahcs" always take advantage of the system and teen pregnancy is at an all time high and getting higher and the teenage vahcs don't mind because they get benefits and houses and they are better off by having a kid and in the first world people who have good facilities would be more careful when it comes to contraception or more inclined to have an abortion if its too late.
I'm not taking anybodies right to have children away, you think I'm saying that because you want to think I'm saying that.
Read carefully.
In my ideal government, I'm not taking any reproductive rights away.
I'm just taking child benefits away, I'm making it more libertarian by removing the government from your lives, if you want a kid then work for it, if you do work, then go to college and get a better job so you can support a family, stop relying on the government to pay for you and your babies living, using the money of the people who don't owe you one.
This is the part that your leftist views wont let you read properly....
If you can't support the child, but have one anyway, and that baby can't eat or live in a humane way, then you aren't fit to look after one, and that baby shouldn't be living with you, we will take it away, kinda..... well pretty much exactly how it works now....
You think that I want to create a police force to take them away, but when you actually read what I'm writing, all I'm saying is bring in social services that we have now already, to do the exact same job they are doing now.
When people can't or don't take care of their kids, then they are taken away.
I have no idea how you managed to make what I said sound like fascism, but I suppose you lefties are only good at that anyway when it comes to politics, I have never seen a liberal or a commie come out with a decent argument, every time a leftist disagrees, all they do if twist and strawman the other side to try and make them look bad.
But once again, unlike me, you probably grew up in a million dollar house in middle America and have that typical suburban, middle class, liberal attitude, and as soon as I mentioned anything about kids being taken away you were ready to paint a picket and march right?
Let me guess, you are a feminist too, right? lol.
Even though women have it better in this world, you hear words like "pay gap" and go absolutely mental.
I know your type.
A word about abstinence.
Would never happen, men think about sex once every 6 seconds, and you expect them to live without it?
Women might not think about it as often as men, but I know that women like a shag just as much as men do.
Yeah, and if we weren't too busy or broke paying for people to support kids they cant afford, then maybe those millions could be put into giving people more chance at an education.
I don't know if its about not having a good future, other than 80% of the people in my flat building who have 2-4 kids and are just using them to get benefits and free money, other people are so brainwashed by the media thinking that even if you are ultra successful in becoming a doctor or whatever, that having kids is the best thing you can ever do, and that it should be done or you aren't complete as a person.
Its like its expected of you.
I will be in bootcamp for the infantry next year and hopefully going to Afghanistan shortly afterwards.
Then after, if I survive of course, then hopefully I can work towards the job I want, but I don't really want to say what it is in public.
Thanks for the support man.
I find the anger and frustration they are showing towards me funny because I was showing anger and frustration.
I will tone it down a bit after I have made my point, no problem. :cool:
Although, I do agree with Cinorjer in a way that he/she doesn't need to be nice when (Cinorjer what is your damn gender?) we disagree, and just because I don't like my life (ba dum tiss) doesn't mean I should be treat with sympathy.
I have valid reasons to feel this way and I'm not mentally ill or anything, so if people disagree, you don't need to sugar coat it or anything, nothing like that will make me more depressed or anything.
But thank you for your concern.
A vital aspect of our practice is that it causes us to examine our prejudgments and prejudices in order to come, progressively, closer to a view of things as they are. To some extent this will also include our assumptions about the socio-economic world around us. In many ways, as many here have pointed out in many threads, the process is similar to scientific method, sifting verifiable fact from assumed fantasy.
Are there, then, fantasies within IDLML's expressed views? I believe that there are. For example, the sytem of family allowance and tax credits which he criticises applies to the UK and, in the UK, there has been no increase in the birthrate since the War. I do not see how this supports a view that these financial supports cause the least privileged to have more children. Where are these children?
We can appreciate and be horrified by his description of conditions in his area. Even though we may hope that these abuses may be exceptional across the whole country, nothing detracts from the scandal. Neither local nor national government action appear to have improved the condition of the poor. Local communities, too, do not seem to be able to find solutions.
A wise and compassionate approach would mean taking the enormous risk of 'embedding' oneself within such communities, bringing them the example of the Wish-fulfilling Triple Jewel. This is the sort of work (as I understand it) that our brother Palzang was undertaking in Mongolia, but we don't need to go that far to find need.
The general tenor of IDLML's suggestions is scathingly critical of a group within society which he names " chavs" (*). There is a problem when a diffuse socio-economic group is described by a terms generally deemed derogatory. As Buddhists we have a duty to underline that such a term is not only outwith the norms of Right Speech, as has been said, and, at the same time, expose the emptiness of the concept.
(*) the Wikipedia etymology:
"Chav probably has its origins in the Romani word "chavi", meaning "child"<sup id="cite_ref-BBC-20050608_2-0" class="reference">[3]</sup> (or "chavo", meaning "boy",<sup id="cite_ref-wotm_3-0" class="reference">[4]</sup> or "chavvy", meaning "youth"<sup id="cite_ref-Telegraph-20080724_4-0" class="reference">[5]</sup>). This theory is supported by etymologist Michael Quinion.<sup id="cite_ref-wwwchav_5-0" class="reference">[6]</sup> This word may have entered the English language through the Geordie dialect word charva, meaning a rough child.<sup id="cite_ref-wiktionary_6-0" class="reference">[7]</sup> This is similar to the colloquial Spanish word chaval, meaning "kid" or "guy".<sup id="cite_ref-wotm_3-1" class="reference">[4]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-Telegraph-20050810_7-0" class="reference">[8]</sup>In Italy, chavs are termed as coatto, which basically means "working class" and vulgar. The derivative Chavette has been used to refer to females.<sup class="Template-Fact" title="This claim needs references to reliable sources from September 2010" style="white-space: nowrap;">I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"]citation needed[/URL][/I</sup>
The Oxford University Press has said that the word is "generally thought to come from Chatham girls",<sup id="cite_ref-wotm_3-2" class="reference">[4]</sup> and Michael Quinion says that that is "where the term is best known and probably originated".<sup id="cite_ref-wwwchav_5-1" class="reference">[6]</sup>
Many urban legends have sprung up around the etymology of the word. These include the backronym "Council Housed And Violent" or "Council House Associated Vermin",<sup id="cite_ref-webchat_0-1" class="reference">[1]</sup> and the suggestion that pupils at Cheltenham Ladies' College and Cheltenham College used the word to describe the young men of the town ("Cheltenham Average").<sup id="cite_ref-cheltenhamladies_8-0" class="reference">[9]</sup> However, Michael Quinion has said that "we must treat supposed acronymic origins with the greatest suspicion; these examples are definitely recent after-the-event inventions as attempts to explain the word, though very widely known and believed."<sup id="cite_ref-wwwchav_5-2" class="reference">[6]</sup>
By 2005, media references to 'chavs' had spread the word throughout Britain."
I'm a cranky old Grandpa, if you're curious.
And while growing old doesn't automatically instill someone with special wisdom, it does give people time to see the patterns of life.
The mistake you're making is an almost univeral mistake of thinking the resources and money spent on something or someone else would be used to make your life and the life of the people you know better, if only you got rid of the unwanted expense. That isn't the way our societies work. If you rounded up all the lower class and shoved them in a big hole, all that would happen is, a few rich people would get richer with tax cuts and some big companies would have more money and some wars would receive new weapons. And there would soon be another group of people to fill that bottom rung role in society. Poor, unskilled and uneducated people are a result of our social structures, built into the system, not the problem with the system.
Buddhism doesn't much address social problems. It's a message of personal elimination from suffering.
<param name="movie" value="{http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/button.swf">
<embed src="http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/button.swf" width="400" height="400" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed>
</pre>
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!! That's brilliant.
If you can stop your breathing, you can enter into the cultivation of the second type of chi. The second type of chi, called the "reward chi" in the Damo Zen Sutra and "karmic" chi in Esoteric Buddhism, is the chi that arises when ordinary breathing stops. This "hsi," (Xi) if you cultivate it, is what a fetus uses to grow inside a mother's womb (when external breathing is not required) and when you cultivate it after birth, you can use it to cure sickness, extend the lifespan and stay healthy. If you are able to recognize and cultivate this level of chi, you can have longevity and can reverse the process of aging and will become young. Forget the anti-aging supplements -- this is far better. You can cultivate that chi to get samadhi but it's not the highest stage possible. However, this is the chi you should be cultivating if you want to reverse aging, or if you are fatigued and wish to rejuvenate yourself. Set up a practice schedule every day for an hour or so and it'll do more for you than hours of forceful pranayama techniques from the Hatha Yoga Pradipika.
The third type of chi is called "fundamental" (from Consciousness Only school) or "original" or "primordial" chi. Sometimes it's called "original heaven chi." Taoism talks about this chi, as does Buddhism and Hinduism. If you are able to enter into the cultivation of this type of chi, you can control your birth and death. So when you enter the cultivation of the second type of chi you can become like a baby whereas entering into the cultivation of this third type of chi you can eventually control life and death. This is the stage you want to get to because it corresponds to becoming one with the universe and the original nature. To reach the stage of cultivating this chi is a great accomplishment and all you have to do is practice as I've been teaching you.
To cultivate this chi, you really need to cultivate wisdom. People without enough prajna wisdom will have a difficult time recognizing this chi. They can talk about it all they want but of it they will know nothing. So to get to this stage already takes cultivation practice and letting go, letting go, letting go while remaining aware.
http://www.meditationexpert.com/zen-buddhism-tao/z_anapanasati_sutra_Buddhist_pranayama.html
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/filial-sutra.htm
of Parents and the Difficulty in Repaying it.
The second is the kindness of bearing suffering during the birth.
The third is the kindness of forgetting all the pain once the child has been born.
The fourth is the kindness of eating the bitter herself and saving the sweet for the child.
The fifth is the kindness of moving the child to a dry place and lying in the wet herself.
The sixth is the kindness of suckling the child at her breast, nourishing and bringing up the child.
The seventh is the kindness of washing away the unclean.
The eight is the kindness of always thinking of the child when it has traveled far.
The ninth is the kindness of deep care and devotion.
The tenth is the kindness of ultimate pity and sympathy.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gk7f9bsRCeLI4kzv74uq1BQ0XFjw?docId=CNG.8a715e6abb8e8888f916a64a424e6b92.15e1
I, too, am a grandfather, although Buddhist practice is a good antidote to crankiness.
The idea that Buddhism doesn't address social problems seems nonsensical to me, unless we take an entirely self-centred view of the ending of suffering. I would agree that this is certainly the view that many non-Buddhists have of us but it is a mistake.
Once we spend time studying the sutras and engaging in meditation, our understanding of and compassion for the suffering in samsara takes us from some sort of dispassionate contemplation and into Right Action, otherwise it is no more than selfish.
Once again, I cite the example of Palzang and his fellows in Mongolia and would add the work of the Shanti movement in the '80s among the pariahs with AIDS on the West Coast of the USA in the '80s.
Of course, there is no long history of social action in the East but, as Buddhism entered Western awareness, it has become engaged with the poor and the disinherited.
Anything else is elitist and aristocratic.
I would add that, were anyone to convince me that social action was outwith the scope of Buddhism, I would find it nigh on impossible to maintain a Buddhist practice. Fortunately, I do not believe it to be so.
You're preaching to the choir, in that I firmly believe the biggest change to Buddhism sparked by Western idealism will be the socially engaged direction we take. When I decided that my own path should be summed up from now on in the Bodhisattva's vows, my focus shifted to simply engaging the world and helping others. That is emulating what Buddha did in the end, after all.
But, Buddhism itself has had a terrible history when it comes to making social improvements, even when it is the dominate religion of a culture, as has any religion. In Thailand today, the Buddhist majority is almost in an open civil war against a Muslim minority, since it insists on being the officially sanctioned religion and Muslims are barred from many of the advantages that Buddhists have. The temples remain silent.
In Cambodia, preteen girls are sold by their families to an openly operating sex trade, where the Buddhist girls are told that being a prostitute is their own fault, because they did something bad in a previous life. Where is the Buddhist outcry?
I do hope Buddhism can be invigorated and become a force for social change. While it's a message of personal liberation from suffering, society is made up of people. In all honesty, though, even Buddhists are just people, and my own efforts are no better or worse than a Christian trying to live up to Christ's teachings, or a Muslim trying to live up to the ideals of charity and tolerance that do exist in their teachings.
No, I'm just saying we have a long, hard, uphill climb on our hands.
I keep a copy of the Bodhisattva's vows handy to perk me up. I read, "People are without number, I vow to save them all!" Then I walk out into the world, and want to shout, "OK, now line up and get saved, damn it!" Like herding cats. It would be such an easier job to help people, if they'd just stop being people for a change.
Supporting undeveloped societies will bring prosperity and bring down birth rates - and it won't hurt no one..
I disagree wholeheartedly. You've found that your life is fulfilled by having children and that's great, that's your path. I walk a different path however. My wife and I have chosen to remain childless and our lives are none the poorer for it.
Now, to address the topic of the thread: We can sustain the population we have, it's just a matter of having the will to do so. That is what we lack. We have resources enough. The United States itself could feed pretty much the entire world. Instead we stuff ourselves with massive quantities of food and we take staple foods like corn and turn it into convenience items or put it in our gas tanks so we can have a nice fuzzy feeling inside and delude ourselves into thinking that we're actually helping the environment.
It looks like our new friend, IDLML, is gone. So I'll only comment that if governments provided scholarships to students who can't afford higher education, they would probably find in the final analysis that their money was much better spent. They'd be spending less on child support and related subsidies, they'd have a better educated, more skilled populace, and less teen pregnancy.
What is your motivation and intentions for having children?
What is your motivation and intentions for not having children?
If any of that comes from greed for your own personal convience, laziness and disdain for others maybe it's time to have another look at yourself?