retrofuturist wrote:Simply put, tolerance means being tolerant of something. It doesn't necessarily mean liking it, or even accepting it... merely that you tolerate it, you put up with it, you endure it... you allow it to be. Tolerance is good practice... only when you're not wanting to change things are you content with how things are.
Mawkish1983 wrote:Is there a "here we go again" smiley?
appicchato wrote:tiltbillings wrote:Sometime we should not be content with how this are. There are things that should not be tolerated.
tiltbillings wrote:Sometime we should not be content with how this are. There are things that should not be tolerated.
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,tiltbillings wrote:Sometime we should not be content with how this are. There are things that should not be tolerated.
By what criteria would these be determined?
tiltbillings wrote:Actualy, see what you can do with your copy machine and I am sure one of the computer wizards here can turn it into a smilie type thingie for us to use with just with your face rather than one of those annoying (but having no choice I have tolerate them) stupid yellow things we see on the right side of the screen that people put into their msgs thinking it all so clever of them to use.
gabrielbranbury wrote:Hi all,
I thought I would start this thread to address some things I was trying to discuss in the closed thread. There are some teachings within religious tradition which seem to me are clearly causing the world a great deal of strife.
1)Telling people they will burn in eternal hell fire for not engaging in certain rights and rituals.
2)Teaching people that the ethnicity one is born into can make you so impure that to even touch you brings evil and curses on you and your family
3)Teaching that acts of murderous aggression in the name of a creator god can bring you eternal happiness
I think there are many more but these three alone are prominent enough to have direct and detrimental influence on the daily lives of hundreds of millions if not billions of people.
I think if we pay attention with kindness we can not but feel that it is critically important to look for any effective opportunity to lessen peoples confidence in such beliefs. Is it really all that appropriate to simply say that such and such religion is just different than your own not better or worse when there are teachings which seem so obviously not in peoples best interest?
christopher::: wrote:But how are you feeling about that, how are you thinking about it? If you find yourself constantly spinning thoughts and emotions related to these crazy things, the dukkha of others, that dukkha now becomes your dukkha as well.
tiltbillings wrote:A Mawkish1983 smilie would be great. Eight year olds using smilies is a thing of goodness.
Now, I got that out of my system, I feel better.
Ben wrote:Hi Christopher,christopher::: wrote:But how are you feeling about that, how are you thinking about it? If you find yourself constantly spinning thoughts and emotions related to these crazy things, the dukkha of others, that dukkha now becomes your dukkha as well.
The pedantic wretch in me says: Technically... no! One's own dukkha is born from one's own kamma.
Having said that, I don't mean we should do nothing when some horror is unleashed upon ourselves or others.
I do know what you mean. Equanimity is a path factor for a very good reason.
Manapa wrote:There is tollerance and then there is not trying to understand where the beliefs come from and how they are held and what can be done so that these beliefs don't inpact negatively on anyone.
as in all likelihood no-one who holds such beliefs will be members here how would discussing and speculating help?
It's not a matter of "should" or "should not." It's a matter of seeing things as they are and recognizing our own reaction to that. Reacting with contentment and judging that mindstate as "good," hoping it will last, is dukkha. Reacting with discontentment is dukkha. Reacting to dukkha itself with more discontentment is even more dukkha. Retro hit the nail on the head with his post.
Technically speaking, it doesn't matter with regard to practice. To what extent can any of us control another, and how much effort should we exert trying to do so? Those questions need to be answered on a case-by-case basis, and the answer we come up with will always be our own kamma. We always have the same localized basis for practice, here and now. But we can look to mudita to have a better understanding of this "illusion" of self versus others.christopher::: wrote:Hi Ben! Technically speaking, given that the "self" is an illusion of sorts, isn't there also a collective element to karma and dukkha, in that its born of our interactions, reactions, responses, etc?