4 ms·

- Consciously work to regret more things [0] - If something isn't quite a regret but feels off, or like it's not working the way it's advertised: Make plans to

- Consciously work to regret more things [0] - If something isn't quite a regret but feels off, or like it's not working the way it's advertised: Make plans to try alternative(s) in earnest by a specific, calendared date in the future if things haven't changed (I did this with the religion into which I was born; sticking to the calendared decision was one of the best decisions I ever made and I ended up walking out) - Think about the crazy ideas that never work for anybody, and start trying them NOW in little baby steps before you hate yourself later for being too closed-minded - Spend more time and money on little daily comforts, the practically insubstantial, vain little anti-buddhisms that nevertheless can create a compounding comfort-debt over time (book 1, chapter 1, verse 1: Maybe go buy some new shoes that you like and then use them to walk to an ice cream parlor) - Be more active in planning medical care, yeah you may get cancer but even in that case, it's better to schedule check-ups earlier than later Those are just a few that come to mind... 0. https://www.friendlyskies.net/maybe/regrets-a-powerful-planning-and-energy-restoring-tool https://www.friendlyskies.net/maybe/regrets-a-powerful-plann...

rg111 5y ago
> vain little anti-buddhisms Really? Buddha legit allowed one to have small pleasures and advised to spend according to one's income- not be lavish nor meagre. He promoted the middle-path (majjhima pantha) more than anything else- to not be too stringent nor be too lavish. He even allowed monks to have communal properties. I agree with your point, though. Wholeheartedly. With inflation, and for some economies, continued currency devaluation, it is not worth it to save a lot by denying yourself small pleasures. I bought a more-than-expensive chair, and a high-end mechanical keyboard. I absolutely enjoy those. And, no, I did not go down a steep curve of spending that destroyed my finances.
- themodelplumber 5y ago
  Buddha the him-self is probably different from what I think of as "buddhism" with a small 'b'. Culturally-understood, outside-in, or maybe bookstore-quotes-buddhism, as opposed to the deeper, subjective, experiential, you-don't-know-enough-buddhism--which does harbor many, many contradictions on top of all the great lessons in there too. Like any belief system, religious or not. I definitely don't remember the sectarian buddhists spending much time telling me to enjoy small pleasures! I think the closest analog to that in substance of belief would be more like "attend to your sensory interface to life." Ah? Much different in important ways. One of those approaches worked fine without buddhism in the picture. The other didn't, or so I was told. Funny memories.
  - rg111 5y ago
    That makes sense. But, Buddhism is anti-faith. You are supposed to experiment and verify. Want to read a very short book? Try "What The Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula. No BS, carefully explained guide to Buddha's own teachings. If you limit yourself to Buddha's own teachings, there are little to no contradictions.
    - themodelplumber 5y ago
      You lost me at > Buddhism is This is where beliefs usually cross into no-true-(scotsman)-believer, or worse, victim-blaming. You see? This is because _I_ misunderstood. The way it _really_ works is... I studied all kinds of dichotomies in buddhism, from Batchelor to Nichiren etc. and spent hundreds of hours studying and writing about buddhism in general. I even baptized many lifelong buddhists into the home brand of religion I brought with me before I left that faith myself. I believe I know many of the Top Sales Secrets for migrating buddhists between religions or to a religion of your choice. But...I accompanied some of them on the way out, and buddhism as a single thing, as a belief that works like X...that's done for me except in general analogy, sorry. Plus there need to be contradictions IMO, they are really important for contextualizing religion vs. sect. If you don't have contradictions you can't have internal structure. You'll never be able to add 1 + 1 and make anything new. You don't have to _call_ it a contradiction though...you can say there are these "mysteries"... ;-)
      - rg111 5y ago
        Whoa, my bad. You clearly know more than me about Buddhism. For me, I limit myself to Theraveda Buddhism and especially to Buddha's teachings only. Long before I grew an interest on Buddhism, I realized that very few people actually understand great people and their teachings. Normal people dilute, misunderstand, and misinterpret what great people taught and communicated. Years before I started studying about Buddhism, I always read original sources- Russoe, Voltaire, Tagore, Smith, Lenin, Bose, and so on. My understanding stood correct. Very few of the people who talk about great people actually undestand them. So, when I started with Buddhism, I told myself that I will limit myself to Buddha's direct teachings only. It's not that I will not touch Great Vehicle stuff, but I will never go deep into it. But reading never hurts. Tibetan Buddhism is interesting, colorful, and exotic. But not for me! There are people who understand the great people that came before them- but filtering them out is a lengthy and tiring process. But I remain genuinely interested to study deep into Dingnaga and Nagarjuna, and their philosophy ajd works.

rg111 5y ago

> vain little anti-buddhisms Really? Buddha legit allowed one to have small pleasures and advised to spend according to one's income- not be lavish nor meagre. He promoted the middle-path (majjhima pantha) more than anything else- to not be too stringent nor be too lavish. He even allowed monks to have communal properties. I agree with your point, though. Wholeheartedly. With inflation, and for some economies, continued currency devaluation, it is not worth it to save a lot by denying yourself small pleasures. I bought a more-than-expensive chair, and a high-end mechanical keyboard. I absolutely enjoy those. And, no, I did not go down a steep curve of spending that destroyed my finances.

themodelplumber 5y ago
Buddha the him-self is probably different from what I think of as "buddhism" with a small 'b'. Culturally-understood, outside-in, or maybe bookstore-quotes-buddhism, as opposed to the deeper, subjective, experiential, you-don't-know-enough-buddhism--which does harbor many, many contradictions on top of all the great lessons in there too. Like any belief system, religious or not. I definitely don't remember the sectarian buddhists spending much time telling me to enjoy small pleasures! I think the closest analog to that in substance of belief would be more like "attend to your sensory interface to life." Ah? Much different in important ways. One of those approaches worked fine without buddhism in the picture. The other didn't, or so I was told. Funny memories.
- rg111 5y ago
  That makes sense. But, Buddhism is anti-faith. You are supposed to experiment and verify. Want to read a very short book? Try "What The Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula. No BS, carefully explained guide to Buddha's own teachings. If you limit yourself to Buddha's own teachings, there are little to no contradictions.
  - themodelplumber 5y ago
    You lost me at > Buddhism is This is where beliefs usually cross into no-true-(scotsman)-believer, or worse, victim-blaming. You see? This is because _I_ misunderstood. The way it _really_ works is... I studied all kinds of dichotomies in buddhism, from Batchelor to Nichiren etc. and spent hundreds of hours studying and writing about buddhism in general. I even baptized many lifelong buddhists into the home brand of religion I brought with me before I left that faith myself. I believe I know many of the Top Sales Secrets for migrating buddhists between religions or to a religion of your choice. But...I accompanied some of them on the way out, and buddhism as a single thing, as a belief that works like X...that's done for me except in general analogy, sorry. Plus there need to be contradictions IMO, they are really important for contextualizing religion vs. sect. If you don't have contradictions you can't have internal structure. You'll never be able to add 1 + 1 and make anything new. You don't have to _call_ it a contradiction though...you can say there are these "mysteries"... ;-)
    - rg111 5y ago
      Whoa, my bad. You clearly know more than me about Buddhism. For me, I limit myself to Theraveda Buddhism and especially to Buddha's teachings only. Long before I grew an interest on Buddhism, I realized that very few people actually understand great people and their teachings. Normal people dilute, misunderstand, and misinterpret what great people taught and communicated. Years before I started studying about Buddhism, I always read original sources- Russoe, Voltaire, Tagore, Smith, Lenin, Bose, and so on. My understanding stood correct. Very few of the people who talk about great people actually undestand them. So, when I started with Buddhism, I told myself that I will limit myself to Buddha's direct teachings only. It's not that I will not touch Great Vehicle stuff, but I will never go deep into it. But reading never hurts. Tibetan Buddhism is interesting, colorful, and exotic. But not for me! There are people who understand the great people that came before them- but filtering them out is a lengthy and tiring process. But I remain genuinely interested to study deep into Dingnaga and Nagarjuna, and their philosophy ajd works.