dwai

Sam Harris and Rupert Spira

Recommended Posts

I am not a medical doctor, but I have succumb to illness, which to more or less I was able to overcome, adjust to, or accept, with the help from others.

In general one is called to fulfilling their own destiny.

 

Growing up in a Catholic family, as a very young person I was introduced to the concept of purgatory. The unfortunate souls imprisoned in a step or two above hell. Unlike the damned those in purgatory could be redeemed. Either thru good acts, or intentional suffering, by us the living. Mind you it was not an either or as one could suffer while performing good acts.

 

I have come to a sort of understanding that one has earned enough merits to help reduce suffering they are called to certain work or efforts as a means to do so.

 

Jesuits were / are known for their teaching abilities and ability to endure/ cause great suffering.

 

First learned, is hard if not nearly impossible to unlearn...

 

Edit to add the following Disclaimer: my father was fortunate enough to be orphaned, at an early age, and to be adopted by his Mothers sister whom was married to a fellow who truly loved her. They had a daughter, much younger than my dad. They realized the value of education and enrolled both children in parochial schools.

 

My dad attended a Jesuit high school and graduated with an education much wider, and deeper than many with doctoral degrees can claim. He served in the army WW2 returned home and went to night school under GI bill to graduate as a systems analyst.

Edited by natural
clarity
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

Here's a question: for a medical doctor, should one actually treat any patients? Why not leave them to their karma? Maybe by curing them in this life, one is hurting them in the long run? 

 

Perhaps the the medical doctor treating a patient IS a manifestation of their karma and refusal to treat would be the interference.

Certainly there are plenty of folks with no access to doctors or healers, that is their karma.

Perhaps the doctor is crappy and that is the patient's karma...

 

If I step on a bug am I interfering with the Dao or am I the Dao's agent carrying out Her "plan"?

 

I love the teachings of Fr. Anthony Demello, a spiritual teacher, Jesuit, and psychologist from India.

He talked about sometimes being conflicted.

As a psychologist he wanted to ease the client's suffering.

As a spiritual guide he knew he may have to sit back and allow them work through the pain rather than relieve it...

 

Interesting questions

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

Here's a question: for a medical doctor, should one actually treat any patients? Why not leave them to their karma? Maybe by curing them in this life, one is hurting them in the long run? 

 

The fact that you think medical doctors cure anything is quite hilarious :) We don't cure anything - nature is what cures. We do our best to alleviate suffering - this is okay and should always be done to the best of our ability. We can treat two patients equally, one heals the other does not. Why is that? 

 

To compare a normal physician with someone who has entered the stream and is now operating at the "causal" plane of consciousness is a bit foolhardy in my honest opinion. If I could work from within that level of consciousness, I would immediately do so as it would benefit everyone :) 

 

It's not a question of "leaving people to their karma" - this is reading my words wrong, it is about transforming their karma in the most useful way for them to become realized. This can be expedited using "expedient means", as you may know of from the Lotus Sutra. The burning house analogy is quite helpful in illustrating this. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, steve said:

 

Perhaps the the medical doctor treating a patient IS a manifestation of their karma and refusal to treat would be the interference.

Certainly there are plenty of folks with no access to doctors or healers, that is their karma.

Perhaps the doctor is crappy and that is the patient's karma...

 

If I step on a bug am I interfering with the Dao or am I the Dao's agent carrying out Her "plan"?

 

I love the teachings of Fr. Anthony Demello, a spiritual teacher, Jesuit, and psychologist from India.

He talked about sometimes being conflicted. Only sometimes?

As a psychologist he wanted to ease the client's suffering. Which can often be eased by being present.

As a spiritual guide he knew he may have to sit back and allow them work through the pain rather than relieve it...

I agree its almost entirely on the individual to work through their fear / pain. Yet it is almost always nice to have company when exploring ones demons for the first time.

 

Interesting questions

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard this story from my Sifu, who is a great devotee of Satya Sai Baba. Now, now, haters (you know who you are), please don’t go off on a tirade about Sai Baba. 
 

Sifu told us about a situation he saw happen right in front of him at Puttaparthi in India. He and some other friends were visiting Baba’s ashram. In the crowd was a mother of a disabled boy, who sat expectantly, over the duration of that visit. Everyday, Baba would come, pick someone from the group and heal them or do something to help them. But he ignored the lady. Finally the lady got really upset and stood up and screamed at Baba, and said, “I’ve been sitting here every day, so many days in a row. Why won’t you help me? I know you can. “


Baba turned to her and told her, ‚Äúlet me show you why I‚Äôm not helping your son‚ÄĚ.

And then he touched her forehead. She fell to the floor weeping. He asked her, ‚Äúdo you think I can heal him now?‚Ä̬†
 

Sifu said, the lady told them after a lot of coaxing what she saw. Apparently she saw that boy‚Äôs past lives, where he‚Äôd been very cruel ‚ÄĒ killed a lot of people, etc. Baba showed her that if he healed him, he would be prolonging his suffering across lifetimes.¬†
 

Now, skeptics can of course choose to believe that it was an elaborate scam, but knowing my Sifu, I know that he won’t fall for such things. 
 

There are numerous other stories about less controversial personalities like Neem Karoli Baba, et al. 

 

BTW an interesting quote from Nisargadatta Maharaj on Karma --

Quote

Karma, or destiny, is an expression of a beneficial law: the universal trend towards balance, harmony and unity. At every moment, whatever happens now, is for the best. It may appear painful and ugly, a suffering bitter and meaningless, yet considering the past and the future it is for the best, as the only way out of a disastrous situation.

(Source: I Am That, 98. Freedom from Self-identification)

 

Edited by dwai
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, dwai said:

In a dream, do you know it all, or only know from the perspective of the "individual" role that you have assumed therein? 

 

Are you suggesting that Brahman is merely the sum total of all sentient beings? 

 

22 hours ago, anshino23 said:

If you are authentically enlightened and fully aligned with Dao, it is not just you - but Divine Providence - that acts through you.

 

I think this is a difference in our world views. I don't see strong evidence of Divine Providence guiding or directing the world. Some do, and that's great. From a Buddhist POV, without a strong central God-like character, all of us sentient beings are stuck in this mess together, and need to help each other out as best we can. From a Buddhist POV, karma is largely intention. And while the workings of karma are clear, the fruition is mysterious. 

 

There is a pretty good story about this from Xin Yun. A scholar and a Chan master are in line for a ferry. The scholar sees the ferryman pushing  a boat through the sand, killing many small creatures. The scholar asks who is responsible for the deaths, the ferryman or the passengers? The Chan master says, "It's your fault!" 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, steve said:

Perhaps the the medical doctor treating a patient IS a manifestation of their karma and refusal to treat would be the interference.

 

Right? We can spin the story in many directions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

Are you suggesting that Brahman is merely the sum total of all sentient beings? 

I’m saying that Brahman is pure unconditioned awareness. All sentient beings (and in fact, all things) are appearances within Brahman. 

 

This is an article by a philosopher-sage whose trajectory crossed mine for a brief period. It covers most of what we've discussed so far --

 

https://www.medhajournal.com/the-unity-and-indivisibility-of-the-self-brahman/

 

Edited by dwai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, forestofemptiness said:

I think this is a difference in our world views. I don't see strong evidence of Divine Providence guiding or directing the world. Some do, and that's great. From a Buddhist POV, without a strong central God-like character, all of us sentient beings are stuck in this mess together, and need to help each other out as best we can. From a Buddhist POV, karma is largely intention. And while the workings of karma are clear, the fruition is mysterious. 

 

There is a pretty good story about this from Xin Yun. A scholar and a Chan master are in line for a ferry. The scholar sees the ferryman pushing  a boat through the sand, killing many small creatures. The scholar asks who is responsible for the deaths, the ferryman or the passengers? The Chan master says, "It's your fault!" 

 

It saddens me that someone who has dedicated their life to the Dharma still remains to see any evidence of divine just Law operating through the universe in all its manifestations. Karma is not simply intention and I have not seen this expressed in any Buddhist texts, nor was this explained this way by Master Nan Huai Chin who was widely considered an enlightened dharma master by many; this is a complete misunderstanding and a vast oversimplification of such a vast subject of cause and effect. 

 

Quote

What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday,

and our present thoughts build our life tomorrow:
our life is the creation of our mind.

 

Mind precedes all states.
Mind is chief; life is the creation of mind.
If one speaks or acts with an impure mind, suffering follows,
if with a pure mind, happiness follows, as one’s shadow 

 

By self is evil done; by self is one defiled.
By self is evil left undone; by self is one purified.
Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one is purified by another.
(Dhammapada).

 

Quote

The world exists because of karma,
all things are produced because of karma,
and all beings are bound by karma,
like a linchpin fixes a fast-moving chariot
.

 

Quote

When my mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, I directed it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, that is, one birth . . . a hundred births . . . a hundred thousand births, many eons of world-contraction, many eons of world-expansion, many eons of expansion and contraction: ‚ÄúThere I was so named, of such clan, with such an appearance . . . and passing away there, I was reborn elsewhere.‚ÄĚ Thus with their aspects and particulars I recollected my manifold past lives . . . I directed my mind to knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings. With the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, I saw beings passing away and being reborn, inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, and I understood how beings fare on according to their actions (karma) thus: ‚ÄúThese beings who behaved wrongly¬†by body, speech, and mind, who held wrong view, and undertook actions based on wrong view, with the breakup of the body, after death, have been reborn in a state of misery, in a bad destination, in the lower world, in hell; but these beings who behaved well . . . who held right view . . . have been reborn in a good destination, in a heavenly world. Thus with the divine eye . . . I understood how beings fare on according to their actions (karma). Thus was the second true knowledge attained by me in the middle watch of the night. (MN 36)

 

There is karma that is experienced in hell, in the animal world, in the world of men, in the heavenly world; this I call karma’s variety . . . Karma may arise in this life-time, in the next birth or in later births; this I call karma’s fruit.

These four acts I have myself comprehended, realized, and made known. There is a dark act with a dark result; a bright act with a bright result; an act that is both dark and bright, with a dark and bright result; and the act that is neither dark nor bright, with a result neither dark nor bright, itself being an act that leads to the termination of acts . . . Who plans planned bodily action joined with harm . . . planned action of speech . . . of thought, joined with harm, is reborn into a world that is harmful. Thus born into a harmful world, harmful contacts touch him and he feels sensation that is harmful, that is sheer pain, as happens in hell. This is called a dark act with a dark result . . . So born into a harmless world, harmless contacts touch him, and he experiences sensation that is harmless, utter bliss, such as do the Ever-radiant Gods.
(AN iii 414, ii 230)

 

Perhaps another author's view will be more edible :) 

 

"THE Universe is guided according to a purpose and a plan. There is a simple law by which the purpose is accomplished and according to which the plan is carried out. That law is universal: it reaches all entities without exception. Gods and the weakest beings are equally powerless against it. It rules this visible world of change, and it affects the worlds and spheres beyond. At present it can be understood by man only as it affects human beings, though it is possible that its operations in animate nature may be seen. It affects human beings according to the responsibility which can be charged to them; and it determines their duty, measured by their responsibility.

This is the law: Every thing existing on the physical plane is an exteriorization of a thought, which must be balanced through the one who issued the thought, and in accordance with that one’s responsibility, at the conjunction of time, condition, and place.

 

This law of thought is destiny. It has aspects which have been expressed by such terms as kismet, nemesis, karma, fate, fortune, foreordination, predestination, Providence, the Will of God, the law of cause and effect, the law of causation, retribution, punishment and reward, hell and heaven. The law of thought includes all that is in these terms, but it means more than all of them; it means, essentially, that thinking is the basic factor in shaping human destiny.

 

The law of thought is present everywhere and rules everywhere; and is the law to which all other human laws are subservient. There is no deviation from, no exception to, this universal law of thought. It adjusts the mutually interdependent thoughts and plans and acts of the billions of men and women who have died and lived and who will continue to live and die on this earth. Happenings beyond number, some apparently accounted for, some apparently inexplicable, are marshalled to fit into the limiting framework of time and place and causation; facts innumerable, near and far, apposite and contradictory, related and unrelated, are worked into one whole harmonious pattern. It is only by the operation of this law that people exist together on the earth. Not only physical acts and their results are thus ordered; the invisible world in which thoughts originate is likewise adjusted. All this adjustment and universal harmony out of selfish discord is brought about by the action of universal forces operating under the law.

 

The mechanical part of the operation of this law in the physical world may not be apparent. Yet, every stone, every plant, every animal, every human, and every event has a place in the great machinery for the working out of the law of thought, as destiny; each performs a function in the machine, whether as a gear, a gauge, a pin, or a transmission. However insignificant a part a man may seem to play, he starts the machinery of the law when he starts to think; and by his thinking he contributes to its continued operation. The machinery of the law is nature.

 

Nature is a machine composed of the totality of unintelligent units; units which are conscious as their function only. The nature machine is a machine composed of laws, through the worlds; it is perpetuated and operated by intelligent and immortal Ones, complete Triune Selves, who administer the laws from their individual university machines through which as unintelligent nature units they have passed; and as intelligent units in the Realm of Permanence, they have qualified as Governors, in The Government of the world.

 

The universe machines are perfect physical bodies composed of balanced nature units; all units are related in and organized into the four systems of the perfect body and are coordinated as one entire and perfect whole mechanism; each unit is conscious as its function only, and each function in the university machine is a law of nature through the worlds.

 

Only the phenomena of the machinery are seen; the nature machine itself is not seen by mortal eyes; neither are the forces which work it. The Intelligences and complete Triune Selves who direct the operation cannot be seen by the human. Hence come the many theories about the creation of the human world, and about the nature and powers of gods and the origin and nature and destiny of the human. Such theories are furnished by various systems of religion.

 

Religions center about a God or gods. These deities are credited with universal powers to account for the operation of universal forces. Gods and forces alike, however, are subject to the Intelligences and the complete Triune Selves, who rule this world according to the law of thought. It is due to the operation of this law as destiny that events occur on the physical plane in the harmonious manner which makes certain the continuance of the law’s operation so that the plan of the Universe may be carried out and its purpose accomplished.

 

Religions have been substitutes for what a knowledge of the law of thought should be, and for what it eventually will be to man, when the human is able to stand more Light. Among such substitutes is a belief in a God who is supposed to be all-wise, all-powerful, ever-present; but whose alleged actions are arbitrary and capricious and show jealousy, vindictiveness, and cruelty. Such religions have held the minds of men in bondage. In this bondage they have received fragmentary and distorted information about the law of thought; what they received was all they could stand at the time. In every age one of the Gods was represented as a ruler, and as the giver of a law of justice; but his own acts did not seem just. A solution of this difficulty was sometimes found in an after death adjustment in a heaven or a hell; at other times the matter was left open. As the human becomes more enlightened he will find in the clear and precise understanding of the law of thought that which will satisfy his sense and reason; and he will accordingly outgrow the need for belief in the doctrine, or of fear and faith in the decrees of a personal God."

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, anshino23 said:

It saddens me that someone who has dedicated their life to the Dharma still remains to see any evidence of divine just Law operating through the universe in all its manifestations. Karma is not simply intention and I have not seen this expressed in any Buddhist texts, nor was this explained this way by Master Nan Huai Chin who was widely considered an enlightened dharma master by many; this is a complete misunderstanding and a vast oversimplification of such a vast subject of cause and effect. 

 

Have you considered that your knowledge of Buddhism may be... idiosyncratic? 

 

I didn't say simply intention, but largely intention. Per the Tibetan teachers, it typically involves multiple factors, but intention is always the most important. This is Buddhism 101:

 

"Intention (cetana), I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect." AN 6.63

https://web.archive.org/web/20140813042845/http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html

 

Karma, then, is an instance of the general law of causality. What makes karma unique is that it involves intentional action, and therefore an agent. The natural causal processes operating in the world cannot be termed karmic where there is no agent involved. In order for a causal process to be a karmic one, it must involve an individual whose intention would lead to a particular action. It is this specific type of causal mechanism which is known as karma.

HHDL, The Four Noble truths, pp.74-75

 

For the Buddha, though it literally means action, the meaning of karma is intention, or intentionality. He equates karma with intention. 

Gil Fronsdale, teacher/translator

https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/transcribed-talks/karma-and-intention/

 

Kamma, actually, just means action. In the India of the Buddha, that's how it was understood. In order to make people aware of what it really implies, the Buddha said: "Kamma, oh monks, I declare, is intention," which arises first in our thoughts, then generates speech and action. This was the new interpretation that the Buddha gave to kamma, because it was largely misunderstood and used as predetermined destiny.

Ayya Khema, https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/khema/herenow.html#ch6

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just understand it differently than you do - which is fine :) 

 

"Kamma, oh monks, I declare, is intention," which arises first in our thoughts, then generates speech and action"

 

When I read this for instance what I translate it as is - the root of all cause is Mind. Thus, the seed/cause exists in the mind. This then manifests on the more coarse levels of manifestation such as our physical world of action. But this doesn't mean that if you  kill hundreds of people even if you had a good intention that that will necessarily lead to good karma. There are consequences that exists - and those causal relationships are not always readily seen. I could clarify further and say that my main contention is the understanding of intention which often in Western view becomes sort of "as long as I have good intentions, my actions don't matter". That's not the root level - that's branch and usually dictated by a very egotistical sort of rationalization based on the acquired mind's preferences. 

 

The Buddha didn't consider the workings of karma as one of the "four unthinkables" for no reason. It's because it's som complex and far-reaching that it is not easily computable and utterly inconceiveable. Thus to say "he equates karma with intention" is really making light of things IMHO. It is not so simple. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

Are you suggesting that Brahman is merely the sum total of all sentient beings? 

 

You're wasting your time. He's entrenched in a set of contradictory dualistic beliefs and holding onto them for dear life as a sort of security blanket.

Greg's the man that he needs to help him out of that trap, not Rupert, because Rupert's similarly stuck, as you seem to have spotted.

 

‚ėģ

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Daemon said:

 

You're wasting your time. He's entrenched in a set of contradictory dualistic beliefs and holding onto them for dear life as a sort of security blanket.

Greg's the man that he needs to help him out of that trap, not Rupert, because Rupert's similarly stuck, as you seem to have spotted.

 

‚ėģ

 


Daemon, if the above is indeed a character analysis of another member of this forum (as it is presently reading to me), it is unwelcome here. Please refrain from posting such character assessments and dismissals in the future.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to be someone who¬†helps other people when I can.¬† Is it possible that in relieving suffering I¬īve interfered with someone¬īs karma?¬† I guess.¬† But I don¬īt think it¬īs my karma to understand karma¬†and I don¬īt try.¬† Helping people in a simple way feels good enough to me.¬†

Edited by liminal_luke
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, liminal_luke said:

I want to be someone who¬†helps other people when I can.¬† Is it possible that in relieving suffering I¬īve interfered with someone¬īs karma?¬† I guess.¬† But I don¬īt think it¬īs my karma to understand karma¬†and I don¬īt try.¬† Helping people in a simple way feels good enough to me.¬†

We can only do the best to help if/when we can. If we can't help. at least we must not meddle. My Sifu told me that we should only help (if we can) those who explicitly ask for help -- unsolicited help (especially in spiritual matters) is not a good idea. 

 

I've seen some strange incidences of causal action, very spooky. One time, my friend and I were meditating, when I noticed a woman was attached to him energetically. Now, this friend has had a terrible last decade or so on the professional front. Spiritually, he's gone from strength to strength. 


I knew a lot about him at that point as he's a close friend,  and so when I saw this entity attached, I asked him if we could try to disengage her from him -- felt it was a person from his recent past. He agreed, so we sort of "cut the cord" energetically, if you may (I can't explain how it works, only that it does). Now the friend was struggling to find a job for months at that point. The day after we "cut the cord" (so to speak), there were 4 job interviews that lined up, two of which he pursued, and both bore fruit and he was made offers, of which one he took up.

 

Could it be coincidental? Maybe. But there was a definitive sense of a weight being lifted off him (psychologically it was apparent as he told me that he felt "lighter") and clarity that followed soon after that attachment was severed.  

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, dwai said:

We can only do the best to help if/when we can. If we can't help. at least we must not meddle. My Sifu told me that we should only help (if we can) those who explicitly ask for help -- unsolicited help (especially in spiritual matters) is not a good idea. 

 

 

What¬īs helpful?¬† Oftentimes people who intend to be helpful aren¬īt.¬† For instance, I occasionally see people on the board trying to be "helpful" to other Bums by detailing personality deficits.¬† This is rarely helpful.¬† In general, I think your Sifu¬īs guideline is a good one but I wouldn¬īt take it as an absolute rule.¬† Occasionally people are unable to ask for help but can nevertheless benefit.

 

My sense is that true helpfulness emerges from emptiness.¬† That¬īs not a word I use very often because I¬īm not very versed in the philosophical traditions where it appears, but I¬īll try to explain what I mean.¬† If I "want" to be helpful my actions usually won¬īt be, at least not in the purest sense.¬† The very act of wanting is an impediment to helpfulness, a contaminant that distorts.¬† Truly helpful action emerges spontaneously out of selflessness.¬† It¬īs natural and unadorned and no brownie points are sought or given.¬† When I am fully myself, in the wisest sense of the phrase, I¬īm available to be of help.¬† I¬īm no Sifu but if I had to make a guideline about helping I¬īd say don¬īt help when you¬īre emotionally entangled. (Though that might be setting the bar impossibly high.)

Edited by liminal_luke
  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

If I "want" to be helpful my actions usually won¬īt be, at least not in the purest sense.¬† The very act of wanting is an impediment to helpfulness, a contaminant that distorts.¬† Truly helpful action emerges spontaneously out of selflessness.¬† It¬īs natural and unadorned and no brownie points are sought or given.¬† When I am fully myself, in the wisest sense of the phrase, I¬īm available to be of help.

That's pretty bang-on! :) 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

What¬īs helpful?¬† Oftentimes people who intend to be helpful aren¬īt.¬† For instance, I occasionally see people on the board trying to be "helpful" to other Bums by detailing personality deficits.¬† This is rarely helpful.¬† In general, I think your Sifu¬īs guideline is a good one but I wouldn¬īt take it as an absolute rule.¬† Occasionally people are unable to ask for help but can nevertheless benefit.

 

My sense is that true helpfulness emerges from emptiness.¬† That¬īs not a word I use very often because I¬īm not very versed in the philosophical traditions where it appears, but I¬īll try to explain what I mean.¬† If I "want" to be helpful my actions usually won¬īt be, at least not in the purest sense.¬† The very act of wanting is an impediment to helpfulness, a contaminant that distorts.¬† Truly helpful action emerges spontaneously out of selflessness.¬† It¬īs natural and unadorned and no brownie points are sought or given.¬† When I am fully myself, in the wisest sense of the phrase, I¬īm available to be of help.¬† I¬īm no Sifu but if I had to make a guideline about helping I¬īd say don¬īt help when you¬īre emotionally entangled. (Though that might be setting the bar impossibly high.)

 

Wow!  Excellent!!!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

What¬īs helpful?¬† Oftentimes people who intend to be helpful aren¬īt.¬† For instance, I occasionally see people on the board trying to be "helpful" to other Bums by detailing personality deficits.¬† This is rarely helpful.¬† In general, I think your Sifu¬īs guideline is a good one but I wouldn¬īt take it as an absolute rule.¬† Occasionally people are unable to ask for help but can nevertheless benefit.

 

My sense is that true helpfulness emerges from emptiness.¬† That¬īs not a word I use very often because I¬īm not very versed in the philosophical traditions where it appears, but I¬īll try to explain what I mean.¬† If I "want" to be helpful my actions usually won¬īt be, at least not in the purest sense.¬† The very act of wanting is an impediment to helpfulness, a contaminant that distorts.¬† Truly helpful action emerges spontaneously out of selflessness.¬† It¬īs natural and unadorned and no brownie points are sought or given.¬† When I am fully myself, in the wisest sense of the phrase, I¬īm available to be of help.¬† I¬īm no Sifu but if I had to make a guideline about helping I¬īd say don¬īt help when you¬īre emotionally entangled. (Though that might be setting the bar impossibly high.)

Well said.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beautifully said Luke!

It is not uncommon to try to help people by giving them what WE think that they need or want.

True help is to be quiet and open enough to listen to what THEY want, whether or not we agree with that.

It can certainly be challenging to be truly helpful!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/02/2021 at 3:34 PM, ilumairen said:


Daemon, if the above is indeed a character analysis of another member of this forum (as it is presently reading to me), it is unwelcome here. Please refrain from posting such character assessments and dismissals in the future.

 

It’s not a character analysis, it’s merely an observation about a dynamic that the member of the forum to whom you appear to refer (Dwai) took no personal offence. In fact, @dwai found it amusing, as you can see from the fact that he responded to it with a laughter emoji.

 

‚ėģ

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Daemon said:

 

It’s not a character analysis, it’s merely an observation about a dynamic that the member of the forum to whom you appear to refer (Dwai) took no personal offence. In fact, @dwai found it amusing, as you can see from the fact that he responded to it with a laughter emoji.

 

‚ėģ

 

I found it amusing that someone would venture to analyze my character and draw such ridiculous conclusions as you did. My emoji reaction doesn't imply that I condone your action, or that it should be construed as tacit approval of similar action (by anyone). 

 

Edited by dwai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

(Though that might be setting the bar impossibly high.)

 

I think it is. It is an invitation to disengage--- from the world, from politics, from mundane suffering. It is not uncommon especially in the Western Buddhist community to delay helping until one is wiser, more enlightened, etc. I personally think disengagement is a mistake-- it can be a form of spiritual bypassing, just on an external scale. It is a bit of the "hooray for me, and [email protected]$& you" ethic that is so dominant in modern American culture.¬†

 

One of my teachers always admonished us to "do our best." Wisdom develops with time, but I see no reason to NOT help where you can, even if the ego is involved, because ego will be involved for a long, long time. Help can come in many ways: small donations, a bit of kindness, a vote. To paraphrase Shunryu Suzuki said, you may not be able to save the world, but you can take care of your little corner. 

 

Edited by forestofemptiness
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Daemon said:

 

It’s not a character analysis, it’s merely an observation about a dynamic that the member of the forum to whom you appear to refer (Dwai) took no personal offence. In fact, @dwai found it amusing, as you can see from the fact that he responded to it with a laughter emoji.

 

‚ėģ

 


Whatever you wish to call it, it isn’t welcome here.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

but I see no reason to help where you can, even if the ego is involved,

I think you meant "no reason NOT to help where you can"? :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites