Agreed.
But is it wisdom? Or are you, as I asked @Ophiolite , just fooling yourself with short-term apparent gains that aren't going to last?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I do try, but everyone must understand it from their own life experience.
I can suggest to someone "try X - this is a better way than Y, because X is grounded in wisdom & knowledge, then observe the results for yourself"
The Path is reasonable, and produces long-term, lasting results, in my own experience.Agreed.
But is it wisdom? Or are you, as I asked @Ophiolite , just fooling yourself with short-term apparent gains that aren't going to last?
The Path is reasonable, and produces long-term, lasting results, in my own experience.
I agree, which is why a personal mentorship or teacher-student relationship is extremely important from a Buddhist perspective, and is regarded as a core part of the path, because the potential disciple observes his mentor for himself, and can see the results of the mentor's practice. Nothing is to be taken on faith alone.Shall I be blunt? That sounds like a shaking the dust off your shoes response.
Were we close friends with deep shared experience, such a statement would have meaning. Coming from a stranger on the Internet, it doesn't mean anything.
I agree, which is why a personal mentorship or teacher-student relationship is extremely important from a Buddhist perspective, and is regarded as a core part of the path, because the potential disciple observes his mentor for himself, and can see the results of the mentor's practice. Nothing is to be taken on faith alone.
In my tradition, teachers do not acquire students; attentive, discerning students acquire teachers (AN 4.192, etc.).How does a teacher acquire students? I ask because the Lutheran church advocates the same thing (per Titus 2). My church provides mentoring and pastoral counseling for all the different stages and events of life. But few students start willingly. Whether it's the pressure of a parent or the painful experiences of life, something has to push people from their comfort zone before they will actually engage.
In my tradition, teachers do not acquire students; attentive, discerning students acquire teachers (AN 4.192, etc.).
Those that are unwise and unobservant are mired in a cloud of delusion, and must alternatively first learn through the law of kamma (cause & effect) until they are wise enough to seek a teacher. For the most part, those who attempt to "save" such individuals & interrupt the law of kamma for them do them an unwise disservice.
We understand that setting a more perfect example is the best way to lead others, not by preaching to or pushing them. If we can model & exemplify the qualities that addresses our ultimate concerns (regarding suffering, peace, and contentment), then wise, observant individuals will naturally gravitate towards such a teacher to learn from him or her.
I disagree. The perspective is based on the fact that we can't force others to gain wisdom. People must be willing to understand & accept knowledge in order for such wisdom to really touch the deepest core of their being, because willingness is one of the most important factors that actually transforms us from within. An individual resisting knowledge does not transform from within. I agree that this might be at odds with some Christian principles, however.This descends into a "survival of the fittest" and/or "not my problem" philosophy that is at odds with some basic Christian principles.
I enjoy learning from others through discussion and debate; much in line with Proverbs 27:17.I do have to ask though, what about this forum interests you? Your statement above, couched in Christian language, is heavily criticized by unbelievers on this forum.
I agree that words have power, but I was criticizing preaching (to the unwilling), which I differentiate from teaching (to the willing).Preaching is not all Christians do. If that's your only experience, you have many more experiences to gain. We do believe words have power, and specifically the Word (the Logos) has spiritual power. But that is not the only "means of grace" as Lutherans would term it.
As I said, mentoring and being an example is important. So, that is not the characteristic that distinguishes your world view - your ultimate concern - from mine.
I disagree. The perspective is based on the fact that we can't force others to gain wisdom.
I don't disagree with you, in terms of lesser subjects & mundane knowledge like mathematics, literature, etc.. Those things cannot be taught through kamma, and must be instilled to some extent in the student.Your phrasing implies you're only thinking of the ethereal, but there is much more to learning than that. I'm already agreeing with you that teaching the unwilling yields much less fruit, but there is a benefit to a little forced rote instruction.
It can teach the benefits of disciplining your desires. Though I love mathematics, I will never enjoy basic arithmetic. I hated memorizing math tables, but I now appreciate that someone made me do it when I was unwilling, and I've seen what happens to people who don't realize it's importance until late in life when learning such things is more difficult.
It can also cause a prodigal son reaction. Your son may run away because he thinks he knows better, but when the inevitable pain of life happens - when he's ready to learn - the likely place he'll turn is the little bit of wisdom he remembers that now makes sense (Proverbs 22:6 ... as long as we're trading proverbs).
In respect to the ultimate concern, however, such teachings cannot be forced.
I agree that children require parental guidance, as - in my experience - children are naturally predisposed towards willingly learning from their parents or parental figures.No, but my point was that the fundamental building blocks of a world view are acquired early. My focus in history is the intersection of church, culture, and education. Education as it is in the U.S. has only been that way for a short time, relatively speaking. People seem to think that the 1st amendment means schools have only ever been secular, but actually the opposite is true. Until the 14th amendment (and even for some time after), political theory in the U.S. allowed church influence at the state and local level.
The church concern over education was not merely pedantic in nature, but our forebears had a much better appreciation for the cultural impact of schools.
As part of my hobby in filmmaking, I recently worked on the crew of an independent film written and directed by a Hispanic individual. The theme of the film was "You don't understand the struggle." It was ironic in a way, given the crew was very diverse. I am Caucasian; there were also African-Americans and Asian-Americans on the crew. I agree with the director's theme - I don't understand his struggle as a Hispanic, but he shouldn't assume I have no struggles of my own.
Getting what Christianity means is easiest if learned early, and that requires some parental "guidance".
I agree that children require parental guidance, as - in my experience - children are naturally predisposed towards willingly learning from their parents or parental figures.
The main touchstone should be one's personal & direct experience. A path is only valuable to the extent that it brings us to our intended destination, and that we can verify it for ourselves. If we see personal progress towards our intended destination, then that is all the reinforcement we should seek or desire. (As a side note, it is also the reason why Right View is the first part of the Noble Eightfold Path: we must have the right destination in mind, first and foremost).Returning to the theme of the thread regarding ultimate concerns, and that to some extent we agree about how people gain spiritual wisdom, how do you address the charge of unbelievers that what we really do is create a group-think situation. For example, by waiting for the student to find the teacher, you're only taking on students who are going to reinforce your worldview and vice-versa. You'll never be challenged to learn whether or not you're misinformed.
You may not have meant to imply that I was being selfless, but that was an inevitable conclusion from your unqualified statement. I remind you of what you said:I didn't mean to imply you're being selfless. I don't recall using that word. I was pointing out that you would not reap the direct benefits of your actions. "It makes me feel good," is an understandable justification.
That seems to me a neat and accurate description of selfless behaviour, so - taking you at your words - I inferred that is what you meant.Will you allow me to note what I think is a common thread in these? They all mention a benefit you will not personally experience - a person who can't help you in return, a future you will never see, etc.
Two points emerge from this. One is just what is often dismissed as a mere semantic argument: you did imply my actions were selfless.I didn't mean to imply you're being selfless. I don't recall using that word. I was pointing out that you would not reap the direct benefits of your actions. "It makes me feel good," is an understandable justification.
I don't follow your logic here. I know that many of my actions have helped people, in a multiplicity of ways. I know this from careful observation and from considered remarks from those helped.I believe you've implied you think it stems from a survival benefit: helping people aids survival - feeling good about helping people drives that beneficial behavior. Do you think you're tricking yourself then? i.e. you get the good feeling by fooling yourself that you're helping people when it's not really producing a tangible benefit?
I don't follow your logic here. I know that many of my actions have helped people, in a multiplicity of ways. I know this from careful observation and from considered remarks from those helped.
Have all of my actions intended to help, succeeded? Of course not. I would not expect them to. Would you? But the overall effect of such actions is to provide the intended benefits to some people, some of the time. That's tangible enough for me.
And I repeat, perhaps with more clarity, I have multiple examples wherein I know that my actions have produced long term gain, not pain, and many others where short term benefits (not necessarily pleasure) have had no long term effect other than contributing to general welfare. What is more important than that is that one can observe these effects through the actions of others.OK. My point may not be worth much as it is supposition only; I'm pointing out that what people consider helpful may only be a short-term pleasure that in reality causes long-term pain - but it's something we can never know.
Ultimacy doesn't seem like it would be nearly as pertinent to an atheist except as they incidentally agree with theists in regards to absolutes rather than objective notions that are coherent and make sense.Do atheists have issues of ultimate concern? If so, what are they?
The only thing I would give up my life for is my wife and child, a number of my close friends or a larger number of strangers (if that is what this question means).Do atheists have issues of ultimate concern? If so, what are they?
You sound a top bloke.Or I can let you imagine the list by noting that I am, by nature and choice, a sceptical, left wing, tree hugging, agnostic, social leaning, animal respecting, scientifically inclined regular guy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?