Is this wrong perception?

[polo]

Recently I stopped ironing my trouser. Why? Because I became aware ironing my trouser serves no purpose. Who is going to look at my trouser?
And when it comes to my cooking I stop buying garlic, onions etc., because if I am really hungry i don't need any onions I will just fry the fish and eat it. I don't need to remind myself to buy sugar because I don't take sugar anymore. Salt yes, I cannot do without salt.
Somehow I think if I reduce life to the very basic I save time, I am healthy and also my mind is at peace. Consumerism is not conducive to Buddhist way of life.
Anybody out there agree with me?

[Alīno]

While we buy something we bring destruction in some other part of the earh... The action of buying is the action of destruction (resources, energy...) So before taking something from the Earth, we need to be sure that we NEED it, not just WANT it... Often we buy new items, new clothes because they are "old"... They are not broken we can use them, they fulfill their function... But we buy a new one... Often we want to buy something, we dont know what we need to buy, but we need to buy something... It's a dukkha...

When some choice arise i try to ask myself if i NEED it or just WANT it

[pegembara]

The Buddha himself will agree with you.

"And how is physical food to be regarded? Suppose a couple, husband & wife, taking meager provisions, were to travel through a desert. With them would be their only baby son, dear & appealing. Then the meager provisions of the couple going through the desert would be used up & depleted while there was still a stretch of the desert yet to be crossed. The thought would occur to them, 'Our meager provisions are used up & depleted while there is still a stretch of this desert yet to be crossed. What if we were to kill this only baby son of ours, dear & appealing, and make dried meat & jerky. That way — chewing on the flesh of our son — at least the two of us would make it through this desert. Otherwise, all three of us would perish.' So they would kill their only baby son, loved & endearing, and make dried meat & jerky. Chewing on the flesh of their son, they would make it through the desert. While eating the flesh of their only son, they would beat their breasts, [crying,] 'Where have you gone, our only baby son? Where have you gone, our only baby son?' Now what do you think, monks: Would that couple eat that food playfully or for intoxication, or for putting on bulk, or for beautification?"

"No, lord."

"Wouldn't they eat that food simply for the sake of making it through that desert?"

"Yes, lord."

"In the same way, I tell you, is the nutriment of physical food to be regarded. When physical food is comprehended, passion for the five strings of sensuality is comprehended. When passion for the five strings of sensuality is comprehended, there is no fetter bound by which a disciple of the noble ones would come back again to this world.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

The problem is this. If you are still living in the conventional world, you still need to look presentable and in some ways conform to the norms of the society you live in. You need to have a stable income to survive and stay healthy etc. There is no running away from that as lay people.

[Aloka]

The problem is this. If you are still living in the conventional world, you still need to look presentable and in some ways conform to the norms of the society you live in. You need to have a stable income to survive and stay healthy etc. There is no running away from that as lay people.

Exactly. We're not living in Iron Age India 2,500 years ago. Lay people can't go to work in city offices wearing loin cloths or a bed-sheet, and chew on legs of raw meat for lunch.




.

[seeker242]

Wrong, not really. But if you are going for a job interview or something, you should probably iron your trousers.

[SarathW]

The problem is this. If you are still living in the conventional world, you still need to look presentable and in some ways conform to the norms of the society you live in. You need to have a stable income to survive and stay healthy etc. There is no running away from that as lay people.

Exactly. We're not living in Iron Age India 2,500 years ago. Lay people can't go to work in city offices wearing loin cloths or a bed-sheet, and chew on legs of raw meat for lunch.




.

Agree.
A minimalist life is Ok only if there is no anyone around you.
If this is the case Buddha would have recommended the naked ascetic practice to monks.

But there will be a day very soon that we all live in loincloths and chew on the legs of raw meat for lunch. It is OK to do so at that time.
If France and England go naked we all go naked. Because fashions start there.

[Cittasanto]

It all depends what you are looking for.
If you are looking for nutrition, then dropping the onions... May not be the best idea, or the best idea.
Being satisfied with what you have is commendable. I use additives for nutritional purposes, and calorie density.

So long as you are getting the nutrients it is right for you. That is all that matters

Kind regards
Cittasanto

[Bundokji]

It all depends what you are looking for.

I agree.

There is some reasoning behind associating Buddhism with minimalism, but the question of intention will always be there.

Such ideas can result in speculating on "how the ideal Buddhist should behave or look like". Some have gone to the extent of mocking monks who looked overweight.

[Sam Vara]

It's also worth noting that the increasing consumption of affluent people across the world has lifted many millions of poorer producers out of very severe poverty. In some ways (pollution, energy use, etc.) excessive consumption is unsustainable; but in other ways it is a lifeline for others by creating a demand for products they make and services they provide.

[Alīno]

Anyway it's too late to be ecologist... We have only 10 or 20 years before us.

The problem is that ecological system (Earth) reacts 30-40 years later, so today's problems is 70-80th kamma result... So while Earth will react on 90-2000th kamma...it will be hard for us to live as we live today... And even if we stop ALL humain activity (if humanity disappear actualy) tomorrow, degradation of ecological system will continue for 30-40 years... So its too late... So the only we can do, as Buddhists, is strive for Freedom of conditions and achieve fruit before we die... But we will die anyway, and everybody on this earth will die one day, so it's ok

[polo]

Anyway it's too late to be ecologist... We have only 10 or 20 years before us.

The problem is that ecological system (Earth) reacts 30-40 years later, so today's problems is 70-80th kamma result... So while Earth will react on 90-2000th kamma...it will be hard for us to live as we live today... And even if we stop ALL humain activity (if humanity disappear actualy) tomorrow, degradation of ecological system will continue for 30-40 years... So its too late... So the only we can do, as Buddhists, is strive for Freedom of conditions and achieve fruit before we die... But we will die anyway, and everybody on this earth will die one day, so it's ok

Hello, hello, I could hardly understand what you wrote. I am sure I am not the only one who doesn't get what you are saying. Would you be kind enough to re -write in more simple logical ways so we could understand you.
I don't think we have only 10 or 20 years before us like you mentioned. I think perhaps we will not be able to live healthy life in the future because of chemical pollution. In other words we will suffer more in the future.

[Alīno]

Hello, hello, I could hardly understand what you wrote. I am sure I am not the only one who doesn't get what you are saying. Would you be kind enough to re -write in more simple logical ways so we could understand you.
I don't think we have only 10 or 20 years before us like you mentioned. I think perhaps we will not be able to live healthy life in the future because of chemical pollution. In other words we will suffer more in the future.

Hello Polo

I suggest for those who are interested to watch videos of MIT member Medows and his book "limit to growth"

What I've said is that there is 30-40 years if time gap between the act of pollution and the result of that action. So today's environmental problems is a result of actions done in 1970-1980 years So if we stop ALL tomorrow, environmental problems will increase for the next 30-40 years...

So even today's environmental problems are so important and deep, that system falls down by it's own like a tree that was cut too deeply. So even if we stop breathing tomorow is will continue the movement of disintegration...

For exemple while 1 animal kind disapears (a bees for exeple) there is other animals and vegetables who disappears with bees, as condition to their existance, and with disappearance of those animals and vegetables other living beings begun to disappear too... So it's a chain reaction, and a whole system falls down.

Today 40-60 vertebral biomass is dead, 70% of insects are dead, my numbers can be wrong but the idea is that it's too late... The falling down of a tree is already begun...

But I suggest to read Limit To Growth it's a scientific work of MIT members lead by Medows

I hope it's clearer

[polo]

Hello, hello, I could hardly understand what you wrote. I am sure I am not the only one who doesn't get what you are saying. Would you be kind enough to re -write in more simple logical ways so we could understand you.
I don't think we have only 10 or 20 years before us like you mentioned. I think perhaps we will not be able to live healthy life in the future because of chemical pollution. In other words we will suffer more in the future.

Hello Polo

I suggest for those who are interested to watch videos of MIT member Medows and his book "limit to growth"

What I've said is that there is 30-40 years if time gap between the act of pollution and the result of that action. So today's environmental problems is a result of actions done in 1970-1980 years So if we stop ALL tomorrow, environmental problems will increase for the next 30-40 years...

So even today's environmental problems are so important and deep, that system falls down by it's own like a tree that was cut too deeply. So even if we stop breathing tomorow is will continue the movement of disintegration...

For exemple while 1 animal kind disapears (a bees for exeple) there is other animals and vegetables who disappears with bees, as condition to their existance, and with disappearance of those animals and vegetables other living beings begun to disappear too... So it's a chain reaction, and a whole system falls down.

Today 40-60 vertebral biomass is dead, 70% of insects are dead, my numbers can be wrong but the idea is that it's too late... The falling down of a tree is already begun...

But I suggest to read Limit To Growth it's a scientific work of MIT members lead by Medows

I hope it's clearer

Yes, it is much clearer now that you explain in ways that could be easily understood. The big industries are responsible for all the damage. They are after profits. In many 3rd world countries the big industries will work together with the government through corruption and the government looks the other way pretending nothing really happens.

[Dan74]

Hello, hello, I could hardly understand what you wrote. I am sure I am not the only one who doesn't get what you are saying. Would you be kind enough to re -write in more simple logical ways so we could understand you.
I don't think we have only 10 or 20 years before us like you mentioned. I think perhaps we will not be able to live healthy life in the future because of chemical pollution. In other words we will suffer more in the future.

Hello Polo

I suggest for those who are interested to watch videos of MIT member Medows and his book "limit to growth"

What I've said is that there is 30-40 years if time gap between the act of pollution and the result of that action. So today's environmental problems is a result of actions done in 1970-1980 years So if we stop ALL tomorrow, environmental problems will increase for the next 30-40 years...

So even today's environmental problems are so important and deep, that system falls down by it's own like a tree that was cut too deeply. So even if we stop breathing tomorow is will continue the movement of disintegration...

For exemple while 1 animal kind disapears (a bees for exeple) there is other animals and vegetables who disappears with bees, as condition to their existance, and with disappearance of those animals and vegetables other living beings begun to disappear too... So it's a chain reaction, and a whole system falls down.

Today 40-60 vertebral biomass is dead, 70% of insects are dead, my numbers can be wrong but the idea is that it's too late... The falling down of a tree is already begun...

But I suggest to read Limit To Growth it's a scientific work of MIT members lead by Medows

I hope it's clearer

The Limits to Growth predicted a complete economic collapse by the end of the 20th century. There are lots of problems with that report and the models they use.

[SarathW]

As I said in my previous post, minimalist living idea has to come from the fashion designers in New York, Paris, and London. The models should be waring leaf branches from the tree as their dress and put mud in their faces as make-ups.