Hanzze said: It needs a time, but from a different view it is better than to put it back into the circle, isn't it?
Hanzze wrote:yes, exactly: akusala. Negative effects, not for the benefit of one self and mostly also not for others.
Hanzze wrote:So what is your intention when you buy a packed food (just if you by it mindful)?
So what is your intention when you buy something from far away?
Hanzze wrote:what is your intention when you buy it or let it pack?
Hanzze wrote:It is so dangerous to life two lives and is is so needed to make it understandable that there is a truth that works in every case.
retrofuturist wrote:Generally, I think attempts to integrate environmentalism with Theravada Buddhism are well-meaning, but unproductive... they work on such different schemas that there's no logical way to superimpose the two - best to regard them as two separate frameworks rather than smoosh them into one.
Hanzze wrote:I also know that I have no knowledge about the suttas
Hanzze wrote:What benefit has an religion or a philosophy if it is not usable in daily life?
Hanzze wrote:Or is this the part, where we need to decide for science as the Buddha had told?
Hanzze wrote:Let me claim for the right effort, there is no need to separate live in two parts.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest