3 ms·

> 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.

by 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.
      - themodelplumber 5y ago
        Ah, you have a PURSe, a Personally-Understood Religious Structure. My compliments on the way you've sorted your awarenesses into something that works for you. (And, when you have listeners, co-believers, or followers, may you let yourself watch them both come and go, sensing no flaw in contradiction... --Marc)
        rg111 5y ago
        I am both kinds of athiest (nastika and nirisvara). So, in that sense, I am not religious. Theravedas do not believe in any conversion ceremony unless you are going to be a monk. I have no intention of becoming a monk, as Buddha taught about six-directional duties of a man, and he himself confirmed that thousands of people attained Nirvana while being in a family (was it to Batsagotta? My memory eludes me). And I am not sure I deserve your compliments. I drink occasionally (intoxicating drinks were forbidden by the Buddha), and I keep eating meat and fish. I reached the conclusion of absolute nothingness and human beings being not more than complex biological machines with Science only, and no Buddhism. I started with Buddhism to figure out what to do with the knowledge. So far, I am very glad, and I am finding what I was looking for and beyond. I was completely blown away by the ehipassika (come and see) philosophy, lack of blind faith, and the inherent logical structure of Buddha's teaching. I remain deeply impressed by the same.

by rg111 5y ago

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.
    - themodelplumber 5y ago
      Ah, you have a PURSe, a Personally-Understood Religious Structure. My compliments on the way you've sorted your awarenesses into something that works for you. (And, when you have listeners, co-believers, or followers, may you let yourself watch them both come and go, sensing no flaw in contradiction... --Marc)
      - rg111 5y ago
        I am both kinds of athiest (nastika and nirisvara). So, in that sense, I am not religious. Theravedas do not believe in any conversion ceremony unless you are going to be a monk. I have no intention of becoming a monk, as Buddha taught about six-directional duties of a man, and he himself confirmed that thousands of people attained Nirvana while being in a family (was it to Batsagotta? My memory eludes me). And I am not sure I deserve your compliments. I drink occasionally (intoxicating drinks were forbidden by the Buddha), and I keep eating meat and fish. I reached the conclusion of absolute nothingness and human beings being not more than complex biological machines with Science only, and no Buddhism. I started with Buddhism to figure out what to do with the knowledge. So far, I am very glad, and I am finding what I was looking for and beyond. I was completely blown away by the ehipassika (come and see) philosophy, lack of blind faith, and the inherent logical structure of Buddha's teaching. I remain deeply impressed by the same.