huli

I found this interesting thought on a Taoist thing - makes me wonder.

The reason that god must be

absolute and this means oneness, omnipotence, omniscience, and

omnipresence. Naturally, anything separate and distinct would not

satisfy this criteria. If there was a god and a world that god created,

then there wold be two things - and god could not be considered

absolute. If there were an absolute god, there could not be anything

separate from god.

Everything is god. We are also god. However, we fail to realize this.

Why? Because we look for god outside of ourselves. We make the mistake

of taking ourselves as the viewer and then seek god as the object of our

examinations. Unfortunately, everything we perceive is tainted by our

subjectivity, and anything that we define ad god “out there”cannot be

god because it is not absolute. All you’ve found is something that

exists in relation to your perceptions.

You are god. The only way to confirm this is to remove the barrier of

subjectivity that prevents you from realizing your essential oneness

with all things.

The reason that god must be

absolute and this means oneness, omnipotence, omniscience, and

omnipresence. Naturally, anything separate and distinct would not

satisfy this criteria. If there was a god and a world that god created,

then there wold be two things - and god could not be considered

absolute. If there were an absolute god, there could not be anything

separate from god.

Everything is god. We are also god. However, we fail to realize this.

Why? Because we look for god outside of ourselves. We make the mistake

of taking ourselves as the viewer and then seek god as the object of our

examinations. Unfortunately, everything we perceive is tainted by our

subjectivity, and anything that we define ad god “out there”cannot be

god because it is not absolute. All you’ve found is something that

exists in relation to your perceptions.

You are god. The only way to confirm this is to remove the barrier of

subjectivity that prevents you from realizing your essential oneness

with all things.

whether there is no god, and no you

or you are one with God

or you are God

it's the same thing, really

all 3 views describe a non-dualistic reality

which is key

Think this should be in Real Estate, Housing or General

I put it in this forum as it concerns the first precept, to me at least. I attempt to kill no living creatures, even the most foul

this is a Buddhist Forum, not a Jain Forum

Lol. Yes, another of the great unmentionables. I have other questions that get frowned on too. Ah well. I don't mind the posture, it gives relief to my aching knees to change around from half lotus fter a while, I just can't find any precedent for it. I thought it might be swastika pose but no. Mysteries of Thai Buddhism.

+1

I screwed my left knee up in the gym many years ago and struggle with sitting on the floor statioinary for any length of time. I meditate sitting on a chair which I know doesn't conform but IMO meditation is about the act not looking the part.....

My right knee is damaged and I gave up on sitting half-lotus to sit on a chair also. However, I can put my left leg up on the chair very comfortably, keeping my right foot on the floor. It gives the added tripod feeling without the pain in the right knee. It's more stable than plain chair-sitting IMO.

Depends on what you need - if you only need plans drawn according to your ideas any architect will do - they all charge differently though. I at the end went with the local OrBorDor's office architect who charged me less than half of what other architects asked - he was very slow though. And the nice thing is they are also the ones who issue your building permit - which came together with the final plan.

Every OrBorDor office has an architect in charge of building permits surely none of them will turn down the opportunity to make some extra income on the side - of course you don't go there as a Farang - sent a Thai to do the negotiating for the price first - it saved me more than 40.000 Baht..

That's what my wife and I did. We almost went to an advertized architect, but then we asked a neighbor what he did building his almost new house, and he referred us to the government gentleman who issues the permits. We had a fairly detailed sketch of what we wanted to end up with to give him. We had about 3 meetings with him, he addressed all our concerns and came up with the blueprints to submit to basically himself and/or the contractor. The total cost was 30K baht, paid for in installments as he did the work. It was all done straight away within a few weeks and all the approvals by like 7 guys were included in the price. No waiting for approvals, they all seem to work together on side-jobs! We were nothing but pleased with the deal and how it worked out. The contractor was not very good at reading the blueprints, however, got to keep on top of that.

Several.You mentioned in a post,that you "do intend to quit (again)" Smoking,that is.Bear with me,when I will tell you how I managed to do it after thousands of failed attemt.Perhaps it also will shed some light over my previous posts.My father got fed up beeing beaten and left home 13 year old.Started work in a factory.When he was 35,he was in an accident and lost his right leg above the knee.Couple of years later,his young wife,my mother,died of cancer,and he was left with 3 small children,which he singelhanded cared for.All the time,and all his life,he never missed a day in his workplace and he never,ever complained.He made it all seem so easy...Now to my point; I asked him once,how he could manage all this and he told me,that already when he left his home,he started to train his thoughts.Sometimes he tried to keep the same thought for a long time,sometimes the opposite,to keep his brain "emty",with no thoughts at all.So,everytime some bad,unwellcome thoughts entered his brain,he just dismissed them;didn`t let them take root. With this in mind,one day,when again I wanted to quit smoking,I used this method,and to my amazement,it worked! It is now 35 years ago,and I never,even once,missed it (the smoking)I am not saying,that this is for everybody,but this method,of controlling your thoughts,has helped me in many difficult situations.Perhaps this story can inspire somebody.

I had a similar experience. I couldn't quit smoking. I tried every evening to quit, but sooner or later I smoked the next day, then told myself I would quit again "tomorrow". Anyways, I was reading Freedom From the Known by Krishnamurti and he described a dying to memories, and I got the idea of dying to smoking. I imagined myself dying to the urge to smoke, and I didn't let this urge become established, even if it popped into my mind.

After the mental and physical habit portion was overcome, in a couple of weeks, I had to develop a permanent hating of smoking in order to make quitting permanent.

I will never forget the quote in this book by Krishnamurti "Freedom from the known is death, and then you are living." It wasn't this quote that inspired me, but the discussion just prior to it.

For what it's worth...I'm not sure the moderator wants this to turn into a stop smoking forum...but I wanted to add my experience to the prior post, and I am of the opinion that Krishnamurti was Buddha-like, at the least

Much (maybe all) of physics is based on the big bang theory as being the point of creation and understanding the unfolding thereof will give greater knowledge of the nature of the universe. But isn't the creation one of the questions that should not be asked by monks? Or am I mistaken? Is it not a problem to hear a scientific explaination as long as we don't ponder it too long? What do you think.

Ah, the Acintita Sutta. One of my favourites! I don't know if only by monks though. As a layperson pondering over things like this sent my mind out of balance, so-to-speak.

I never heard that Buddha said those things in the Acinitita Sutta. As one example, there has been a lot of discussion on this Forum about exactly how karma works if there is actually no self. The search for this answer causes "madness and vexation". haha

By all means, don't ask about where the world came from either! (Unless you are a scientist, but even then the answer will just be descriptive)

We probably ought to remember this Sutta more often.

In the Acintita Sutta the Buddha is focused on "conjecture", i.e. "speculation" regarding something that can't be verified. People who don't like theory and exhort us to focus on practice may be attracted to this sutta as a proof-text, and with some justification, as the Buddha was quite hostile to the sterile and highly speculative conjecture some brahmins of his time engaged in.

However, the pursuit of a theory of existence (ontology and cosmology) is hardly contrary to the practice of dhamma. The theory of kamma, if you take it just a bit beyond the "actions have consequences" level and link it to a proposition that one's kamma must be worked out over lives, is a powerful ontology and moral philosophy that simply begs so many questions that not to explore them reduces the Buddhadhamma to a kind of self-help, personal development regime.

When I studied "Systematic Theology" as a unit in my theology degree, I was confronted with what I think the Buddha would regard as conjecture, and I'd agree with him. People write whole books on whether God can suffer or whether God is entirely transcendent or also immanent, etc, all of which is mere conjecture (unless you have a prior belief that the scriptures reveal God's word on this, which I certainly didn't). However, to analyse the theory underpinning the Buddha's teaching, as the Abhidhammists did and the Madhyamaka and Yogacara philosophers did, is not only inevitable, it acknowledges that the Buddha was not just a kind of ancient Antony Robbins or Wayne Dyer, but a teacher grounded in a view of the cosmos and human life that gave direction to his teaching. As soon as the Buddha opened his mouth and gave his first sermon at Isipathana he made ontological claims (in respect to the eightfold path - "right" thought, "right" action and so on) that he developed later and which led to anicca (impermanence) and anatta (no-self) that simply cry out for examination.

It's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. One can turn one's back on investigation (one may have a disposition against that sort of thing anyway), but to do so diminishes one's credibility in any discussion on anything other than the purely practical (if there is such a thing).

It is an honor to have you reply to my post Xangsamhua

if you wouldn't mind, could I make the following comments in the spirit of dialogue?

I am surprised to hear you say that the pursuit of a theory of existence is not contrary to the practice of dhamma. Any theory of existence will forever be debatable, it seems to me. Also, no such theory was presented by Buddha, who held nothing back, it is said. Therefore, any such theory or discussion can not claim to be Buddhist.

I did look up the meaning of ontological, and, by my reading, it means statements made about "being", which would not necessarily involve theories of existence, though of course they could. Buddha's teaching on Right action, was ontological in nature, true, but was without any reference to a theory of existence, having a concrete definition.

Buddhism has always been seen as short on including a complete theory of existence, having no answer for where the universe came from, for example. However, it seems to me that one can examine impermanence, or no-self as universal characteristics without such a theory. I don't find that calling Buddhism a self-help, personal development regime, a philosophy, or merely practical, diminishes it.

I can imagine that such a seasoned and agile mind such as yours would be eager for more than what Buddha taught, but he had his reasons, and his recorded words in the Acintita Sutta are pretty much to the point, it seems to me.

I can not say I am convinced that speculative conjecture has changed all that much since Buddha's time.

thanks again

with all due respect

Huli

I'm defeated by this phraseology, the OP mentions the word nun, Huli says they don't exist, can someone clarify?

The word nun is probably more than anything just borrowed from the Catholics as a rough translation by farangs. However, it is useful for us, if not exact.

Huli did not say nuns do not exist, he said he did not think there were any nuns on this Forum, and since none have responded, he may be right.

Thanks for that, what would be the correct term for a nun? Are they held in the same esteem as Catholic nuns? Is their role effectively the same as Catholic nuns?

Hi Blether,

Some of the other comments above explain specifically about these Buddhist women in white. I wouldn't know how to compare them actually to Catholic nuns, except they are religious women who wear a distinguishing uniform of sorts. I would imagine the esteem given them or nuns is all over the board, so hard to answer that question. I don't think their role can be called similar to nuns, but you can draw your own conclusions from the posts above.

In retrospect, it may have been a mistake to call them nuns.

I'm defeated by this phraseology, the OP mentions the word nun, Huli says they don't exist, can someone clarify?

The word nun is probably more than anything just borrowed from the Catholics as a rough translation by farangs. However, it is useful for us, if not exact.

Huli did not say nuns do not exist, he said he did not think there were any nuns on this Forum, and since none have responded, he may be right.

Much (maybe all) of physics is based on the big bang theory as being the point of creation and understanding the unfolding thereof will give greater knowledge of the nature of the universe. But isn't the creation one of the questions that should not be asked by monks? Or am I mistaken? Is it not a problem to hear a scientific explaination as long as we don't ponder it too long? What do you think.

Ah, the Acintita Sutta. One of my favourites! I don't know if only by monks though. As a layperson pondering over things like this sent my mind out of balance, so-to-speak.

I never heard that Buddha said those things in the Acinitita Sutta. As one example, there has been a lot of discussion on this Forum about exactly how karma works if there is actually no self. The search for this answer causes "madness and vexation". haha

By all means, don't ask about where the world came from either! (Unless you are a scientist, but even then the answer will just be descriptive)

We probably ought to remember this Sutta more often.

These jokes about the Buddha being fat of course refer to the "laughing Buddha," who isn't a Buddha at all. There was one on the series Finder the other night, something like: "You're an over-achiever. Unfortunately, like the Buddha, you're an over-eater too." It's kind of weird that many in the West think the Buddha is a grinning fat guy with beads round his neck.

yesterday I was at a Japanese restaurant in Chiang Mai. They had the Buddha shrine with both a Thai Buddha image and one of the fat, laughing fellow. The Thai Buddha image was towards the back in the middle with the other one more to the front on the side. They were both gold color. The Thai one was slightly higher. My wife and I both noticed the inclusion of the fat fellow. I have also seen them on temple grounds, I think because of a hefty donation by perhaps a Japanese or Chinese. My wife says the fat Buddha originates in China, named "Pasankajai". Like many of the Mahayana inventions, I don't care for him. They ought to charge those guys for disrespecting Buddhism.

There's been some discussion recently in the education media about the importance of self-esteem. Over the past 40 years, much teaching practice has been driven, at least in part, by a belief that teachers must be sensitive to children's self-esteem. They mustn't do anything that threatens a child's self-esteem and sense of value in the community. Well, as you could see coming, there's now a growing acknowledgement that this has all gone overboard.

Many children have not been sufficiently challenged, have not been required to self-examine, have not been accountable for their performance or behaviour, have not been taught that there are standards that they must learn to abide by. The study of self-esteem among criminals in fact revealed that many have an excess of it, to the extent that they believe they are entitled to much more of the world's goods than they have and are prepared to satisfy this sense of entitlement by criminal and violent behaviour. A realistic understanding of their status and entitlements from an early age, reinforced at school, may have kept them to more reasonable modus operandi in life.

It is very interesting to read your comments on self-esteem. I think that the importance of self-esteem as discussed in the west is in sharp contrast to Buddhist principals. The place of self-esteem vis-a-vis the conditioning that Rocky wrote about in his OP would probably be fertile ground for discussion also.

The typical western view is that getting what we desire is the ultimate in a happy life. It could be that high self-esteem is part of this getting what we want. However, and as you mention with criminals, high self-esteem can drive desire and selfishness to excess and pathology. Rather than being the basis of a healthy personality, high self-esteem is not necessarily so.

.

Western Psychology posits that, if nothing else, we are someone, and necessarily have a self-image, and we won't be happy if we have a lousy image of ourself, so we should have a good one. I really can't find too much fault with that, unless we are Enlightened maybe. If we are moral, and generous, and compassionate, we will get a joy out of it, and feel good about ourselves, i.e. high self-esteem. I note that all of those qualities are practiced in the social milieu. This is in contrast to selfish desire. As far as I know, Western Psychology does not make this distinction, nor do Western religions reject high self-esteem that is founded on getting what you want. Donald Trump has a high self-esteem because he got all kind of stuff he wanted. Good for him. That is one problem he doesn't have, low self-esteem.

The Buddhist position, that emphasis on the self is bad, is in stark contrast to the glorification of the self which is the theme in the West. I have often wondered about self-esteem. Somehow, it just seems like a phony veneer, but as long as we have an image about ourself, might as well have a good one, I suppose.

Mr. RealDeal,

IMO, Buddha's teachings and modern physics have in common, as I noted in my OP, that there are discrete time or mind moments, and there is no indivisible, separate human self. It seems to me that both of these concepts are difficult to understand and communicate, in both paradigms.

We both seem to have a keen interest in Modern Physics. However, if I may say so, I don't think this Buddhist Forum is the place for purely physics discussions. The members want to read about Buddhist stuff. I am not a moderator, or anybody's boss, but I did write the OP and you did address me directly in one of your posts, so I want to say that.

Do you agree that Buddha's teachings and observations in his prescientific era seem to resonate with many of the theories in modern physics?

regards

Huli

There certainly seem to be a lot of occasions where rough or unpleasant speech seems acceptable in society. Parents, military officers, and Buddhist abbots (as previously mentioned) make their points unpleasantly and emphatically, but it is acceptable to all concerned, largely because of the superior role of the speaker. In all of these cases, the speaker has a right to expect some action of the listener.

In normal conversation, we don't have any right to expect another to follow our lead, even if we think they would be better off to do so. We can only say what is true and useful in a pleasant way, and they will do what they will do.

The situation of a married couple, or common-law situation, I think, falls somewhere in between. Certainly a husband or wife has some right to expect standards of behavior of the other. Should such expectations be spoken nicely, and then not effective, typically it is repeated in a loud voice for emphasis, and then may be taken as offensive/unpleasant on that account by the other. It boils down to, do you have the right to tell me what to do?

I find right speech to be a deep subject to consider. In the first post something was said about speaking was for the benefit of the listener, but as I am fighting an uphill struggle (not always successfully) to maintain right speech it requires mindfulness and knowledge, the aquisition of which are beneficial to me.

Also there is difficulty with speaking pleasantly and truthfully at the same time. Living in a small monastery exposes one to others who can be immature, selfish and socially myopic. The quiet word won't cross the language barrier and saying nothing will not improve matters for either party.

And there is a major conundrum for me when a senior monk is making totally inaccurate assumptions and advising action completely against the teachings. How do you tell him he is wrong?

Right speech, therefore, is a work that will only be perfected with enlightenment as was said in another post. But it is a work we cannot neglect regardless. It must come from right thought, right view and right effort. Ours IS to reason why and to do or die.

I hope I said that right.

Well said, and I think you have described the main difficulty with Right Speech quite well. It is not that difficult to limit ourselves to true and useful speech, at least in our perception of what is true and useful. But to say only what is pleasant to hear?

I think that perhaps it is good to consider that if the listener finds our speech to be unpleasant, or very unpleasant especially, they are not usually going to listen to what we have to say. And why bother with speech that creates only antagonism, and then nothing useful?

There are a lot of selfish people out there, but that is part of this life to figure out how to deal with them and not disturb our own tranquility.

So, basically, we have no choice but to try to figure out how to get our point across sweetly. It is interesting that this kind of communication is embedded in Thai culture and, who knows, maybe it has it's roots in Buddha's admonition about Right Speech.

If we can't do it sweetly, I would suggest we might as well look at the problem as unsolvable.

There is also the fact that sometimes we feel a strong urge to tell someone off. Until, I suppose we are enlightened, as you say.

I commend you for living in a monastery. I hope you can find a way to overcome or cope with the problems you describe. I see you haven't made many posts. I hope you will keep posting. I enjoyed your post.

Hi Rocky,

You really got me thinking.

As I understand your statement, it follows that, since we all have different conditioning, we will always have some different opinions.

However, it seems apparent to me that much discourse, such as this forum, is intended to change another's opinion, in spite of their conditioning.

I think that there are such things as correct views or opinions, and incorrect views or opinions. Further, it is possible to correct one's opinions if they are incorrect. This personal transformation could result from a logical dialogue, or self-examination, but would be impossible in either case if the attachment to the incorrect conditioned views or opinions is too strong.

Opinions can not be just the result of different conditioning, they are subject to other factors also. But I do agree with you that much opinion is just conditioning.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

I've been examining conditioning quite a bit.

I do quite a lot of observation of others and their life interactions.

Our conditioning is probably partly environmental and partly genetic.

Perhaps even influenced by the fruits of Kharma.

Things I've noted:

• Most people have already made up their minds and do not listen in an open manner.
  
• Rather than be open, discussion is directed towards convincing the other of their view.
  
• The depth and type of Conditioning controls ones level of inflexibility.
  

My personal "opinion " is that ones ability to overcome conditioning relates directly to ones ability to succeed in practicing Dharma successfully in this life.

Our obstacles are our conditioning.

Our conditioning for most is inescapable.

First obstacle is awareness of your conditioning.

Second obstacle is being able to escape from its control.

Most aren't aware and therefore cannot even contemplate escaping.

I used to think about "determinism", the idea that people are destined to follow their conditioning, and that is all.

However, if that is true, there is no such thing as free will, or insight, no Path leading to improvement in a person, or any qualitative difference in people. So, I reject Determinism.

But, I agree with you, for many people, that is all there is.

I would hope, not us....

Individuals conditioning will always lead to differences of opinion.

Hi Rocky,

You really got me thinking.

As I understand your statement, it follows that, since we all have different conditioning, we will always have some different opinions.

However, it seems apparent to me that much discourse, such as this forum, is intended to change another's opinion, in spite of their conditioning.

I think that there are such things as correct views or opinions, and incorrect views or opinions. Further, it is possible to correct one's opinions if they are incorrect. This personal transformation could result from a logical dialogue, or self-examination, but would be impossible in either case if the attachment to the incorrect conditioned views or opinions is too strong.

Opinions can not be just the result of different conditioning, they are subject to other factors also. But I do agree with you that much opinion is just conditioning.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

CMT,

I really appreciate you keeping me informed about special nights at BBBar.

If you can, post a little earlier would you?

thanks

Huli

I go to either Backstreet Books near Tha Pae Gate, previously mentioned, or to a fine little bookstore called Lost Books, on the north side of Rachamanka, the one way going east street in central CM. It's about a block from the east moat. Both stores are owned by the same guy, who I have had a cordial relationship with. Backstreet is much bigger, but I have been impressed with the selection at Lost also. Both are clean, well-organized, staff helpful, and give 50% on return. We are really lucky to have these english bookstores in CM, the best place for farang in Thailand.

Yes, thank you.

I understand the "banter" part well. English is not my usual language, so I googled it and got the meaning :-)

Thanks to chat forum & you, I learnt a new word.

I don't agree with you totally that people discussed Buddhism here for "fun". Are they really here for fun ? From everyone's contents, it don't appear so. If people discuss Buddhism here for "fun", then you offended "Buddhism". Pardon me if I got you wrong.

What I meant on the "selfishness" part is more so for most people when they speak, not so much for the Buddha, we all know he was different and did it to get the answers on sufferings to benefit mankind, that's why he was the Buddha and we are not(yet).

Whether a person speak for just "fun" or for the sake of "helping others"(in the case of offering answers or opinions), "selfishness" is involved.

a) If I feel good to provide answers to others - I am selfish.

If I enjoy the fun in my speeches or words - I am selfish

c) If I offer charity or help others because I feel good for having done a good deed - I am selfish. Why people of a certain religion do charity only do others of the same religion ? Why some people only help those of the same race ?

All human acts actually have some "selfishness" involved but different people have a different views over it, that makes the difference; just like different listeners take the speaker's words differently as I mentioned earlier but the speaker's words and intentions are same and unchanged.

I do not agree with your assertion that all behavior is selfish. It seems that I have rebutted this claim repeatedly, without convincing you.

It might be interesting for you to consider the difference between selfish behavior and the selfish desire that causes suffering. Is it selfish to bathe, or get dressed? Or to breathe? Taken further, to be generous? Is not the 8 Fold Path intended for self-improvement, and so selfish by definition, have the goal of overcoming selfish desire? It can be clearly seen, it seems to me, that selfish behavior is unavoidable, but that selfish desire is the only problem.

I admit that the word "fun" for this forum sounds childish at first, but what I mean is adult fun, stimulating conversation about something so interesting, Buddhism. Some of the superior members of this forum are able to speak dharma-like with the ring of truth explained, and they could be considered teachers. But for the rest of us, I don't think we are teachers, we are just having a dialogue. Yes, it is selfish to enjoy this, but if there is no craving or attachment, I don't see any violation of Buddhist principals.

Maybe we are conversing at different levels. I gather that from yr last post you are refering to "only" Buddhism. I am not. My reference to "selfisness" may not be what Buddhism meant. Whether it is selfish behaviour or selfish desire, both are act of selfishness, otherwise it won't be described as selfish. Don't you agree ?

On your "teachers and teaching" part, I don't quite agree that others who know Buddhism more are better teachers and we are not. I have seen people who claimed to be Buddhist but knows less about the right way of life as well as Buddhism.

Although this is forum is titled "Buddhism", let's not be so small as to confined our knowledge to Buddhism as it was 2500 years ago or as it is today. Buddhism is a way of life and in times to come when everyone understands and accept it, it will no longer be named Buddhism.

Let's get more advanced or be more broadminded, shall we ?

Yes, I admit I am selfish because I wish my knowledge to be known by more people as I feel happy to have contributed it.

I agree with you that we seem to be conversing at different levels.

I am surprised to hear that you say that you are not talking about Buddhism. After all, this is a Buddhist Forum.

I do not consider that having a dialogue about Buddhism is "small" or not "advanced".

I see that you consider yourself a prophet and a teacher. I don't believe in prophesy, and I do believe in humility.

That said, I wish you well.

Yes, thank you.

I understand the "banter" part well. English is not my usual language, so I googled it and got the meaning :-)

Thanks to chat forum & you, I learnt a new word.

I don't agree with you totally that people discussed Buddhism here for "fun". Are they really here for fun ? From everyone's contents, it don't appear so. If people discuss Buddhism here for "fun", then you offended "Buddhism". Pardon me if I got you wrong.

What I meant on the "selfishness" part is more so for most people when they speak, not so much for the Buddha, we all know he was different and did it to get the answers on sufferings to benefit mankind, that's why he was the Buddha and we are not(yet).

Whether a person speak for just "fun" or for the sake of "helping others"(in the case of offering answers or opinions), "selfishness" is involved.

a) If I feel good to provide answers to others - I am selfish.

If I enjoy the fun in my speeches or words - I am selfish

c) If I offer charity or help others because I feel good for having done a good deed - I am selfish. Why people of a certain religion do charity only do others of the same religion ? Why some people only help those of the same race ?

All human acts actually have some "selfishness" involved but different people have a different views over it, that makes the difference; just like different listeners take the speaker's words differently as I mentioned earlier but the speaker's words and intentions are same and unchanged.

I do not agree with your assertion that all behavior is selfish. It seems that I have rebutted this claim repeatedly, without convincing you.

It might be interesting for you to consider the difference between selfish behavior and the selfish desire that causes suffering. Is it selfish to bathe, or get dressed? Or to breathe? Taken further, to be generous? Is not the 8 Fold Path intended for self-improvement, and so selfish by definition, have the goal of overcoming selfish desire? It can be clearly seen, it seems to me, that selfish behavior is unavoidable, but that selfish desire is the only problem.

I admit that the word "fun" for this forum sounds childish at first, but what I mean is adult fun, stimulating conversation about something so interesting, Buddhism. Some of the superior members of this forum are able to speak dharma-like with the ring of truth explained, and they could be considered teachers. But for the rest of us, I don't think we are teachers, we are just having a dialogue. Yes, it is selfish to enjoy this, but if there is no craving or attachment, I don't see any violation of Buddhist principals.

huli,

Thanks for highlighting my typo mistake.

Your last para in your OP and my 1st reply already summed it all.

Certainly the "speaker" care for his own before the "listener", especially so in a forum chat when the the 'speaker" is not paid to do so. Don't you think so ?

It boils down to the fact that peole are "selfish", regardless of their background, profession, character; or any purpose in doing so, even in charity. When a speaker start to speak, he certainly care for himself first before the listener. Just like any OP starter here, won't you agree ?

You are right about some banters in speech. Even that is a selfish act, as the speaker enjoyed it.

There are different characters; and styles & ways in communications and speeches but as I mentioned earlier, people are selfish and it is up to the "listener" how and what to take or gain out of it depending on his own character, attitude, maturity and intelligence level.

As for me(in a chat forum especiallyt), I seldom pay attention to the "bantering" or "offensive" part of the speech that may reflects the speeker's character. I will only accept the "usefulness" part of the speech like new knowledge, for example.

You already written well in your OP, shall a speech be true, useful or wlecome and pleasant to the listener and you think the Buddha covered all 3 areas area. All 3 areas are related to some degrees of selfishness. The 1st is medium, the 2nd is lightest, the 3rd is the most, what do you think ?

I think parents and teachers will will do better on the first 2(especially 1st), lawyers and estate agents on 2nd, while salesmen and businessman do better in the 3rd especially in a business talk.

As for friends and casual chats, it depends......I made myself quite clear in post #2.

Thank you for starting such an interesting and fresh topic. I wonder why this forum has been quiet recently. Please start more topics

Hi HCT,

I thank you for your reply. Indeed, it would be depressing to post something and not have any replies. I think that people on this forum share a common interest in Buddhism, and the interchange of ideas herein is mainly for fun, in this case a mental stimulation, and pondering.

My OP was intended to point out that Buddha spoke totally for the benefit of the listener. You correctly, I think, observed that only a Buddha can do that. However, I think that people often do speak for the benefit of the listener only, as when giving information that is requested, for example. When a person asks another for help with a problem, the reply seems to me free of any selfish motive. I do not see, as you suggest, that giving true, helpful, and welcome information is selfish, quite the contrary.

I believe that people would be well-served to consider, like Buddha, the effect of their words on the listener, before speaking. Seems like Buddha had a lot to say about selfish desires and the havok they reap, and the motivation for speech is a prime example.

BTW, concerning the word "banter", I may have caused some misunderstanding there, I meant it as an exchange of light, playful, good natured conversation, nothing offensive.

Although people seem to be usually selfish, it's not 100%, and if we believe Buddha, overcoming this is the ultimate challenge, so lets not define ourselves or others as only selfish.

Just a few more ideas to throw out there, take 'em for what they're worth, whatever that is.

Buddha said... when talking about others, mention only their good points, but when talking about ourselves mention only our bad points....

Nowadays the reverse is often true....bragging about oneself whilst finding fault with others.

You are right but Buddha also said nothing is permanent; and let's not forget what Buddha said is 2500 years ago, at that time, people's intelligence level is totally different. Today, people are more intelligent, quick and sharp. Sometimes, you need to hit their mind to wake them up.

I think there is no harm in bragging as long as it don't hurt others, but then also depends on how one defines "bragging" or "hurting".

I think "finding faults" on others is really nothing bad but good for them to improve.

IMO when Buddha said that nothing is permanent he was referring to conditioned things, mainly physical and mental states. That does not mean that truths are impermanent. For example, the Noble Truths.

A case can be made that people are more confused today than in the past because of the complexity of the world. In any case, it is impossible for us to know how sharp, quick, or intelligent people used to be.

It is not a person's responsibility to "wake up" another person or to find faults with them. We are only responsible for ourselves.

I do however agree that there is no harm to others done by bragging, it just makes a person universally disliked as self-centered.

This I got to disagree with you. You read my message all wrong.

I never think the Noble Truth is impermanent. I meant nothing is impermanent and this "thing" includes human's physical and mental stated as well. I think the Buddha meant that too, only that at that time, the word "evolution" don't exists yet.

Being "nothing bad" and "good" do not mean it's a responsibility. Please don't misquote me. 2ndly(based on yours) "not a person's responsibilty" don't mean that we can't do it. Isn't it rather too selfish not to help others at all ?

True that the world is more complex now and due to that, people also tend to be more selfish or self-centered but there are exceptions or exceptional ones.

Being a chat forum, our words should more "helpful" or "teachful" rather than to "please".

Hi HCT,

I appreciate your reply, and think I understand you better now. It seems to me that in daily life it often takes feedback and corrections back and forth to get the intended message across. This is the course of normal communication.

I assume that is a typo where you say "nothing is impermanent", since what we are discussing is that all conditioned things are impermanent. Just to correct that rather glaring slip.

I think your ideas on the role of speech are very interesting. I certainly agree that speech is properly used to help people, and this is fully acceptable, being useful speech, one of Buddha's requirements, as previously discussed. People commonly speak of their problems to their friends, for example, and to me that usually prompts some suggestion on what might help with the problem. Keep in mind that this is after a friend brings the problem, however, asking for help implicitly.

If a person decides on his own that another person should do something or other, and tells them so, that is very shaky ground. While it might be true, and useful, to the other person, there is the big question if the person would find the advise welcome, and therein lies the rub. If the advise is not given in such a way that it is pleasing to hear, it may well be rejected, and the purpose of the communication therefore thwarted.

There is definite food for thought in your comments on the purpose of the communication in this forum. I don't think it can be fully characterized without considering the enjoyment of banter with like-minded individuals. It is certainly not just to please the reader as it's purpose.

Thank you for the interesting dialogue.

Buddha said... when talking about others, mention only their good points, but when talking about ourselves mention only our bad points....

Nowadays the reverse is often true....bragging about oneself whilst finding fault with others.

You are right but Buddha also said nothing is permanent; and let's not forget what Buddha said is 2500 years ago, at that time, people's intelligence level is totally different. Today, people are more intelligent, quick and sharp. Sometimes, you need to hit their mind to wake them up.

I think there is no harm in bragging as long as it don't hurt others, but then also depends on how one defines "bragging" or "hurting".

I think "finding faults" on others is really nothing bad but good for them to improve.

IMO when Buddha said that nothing is permanent he was referring to conditioned things, mainly physical and mental states. That does not mean that truths are impermanent. For example, the Noble Truths.

A case can be made that people are more confused today than in the past because of the complexity of the world. In any case, it is impossible for us to know how sharp, quick, or intelligent people used to be.

It is not a person's responsibility to "wake up" another person or to find faults with them. We are only responsible for ourselves.

I do however agree that there is no harm to others done by bragging, it just makes a person universally disliked as self-centered.

check out "Mr. Bag-Fix" on Hang Dong road across from Tesco-Lotus