Like I said:
Radix wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:02 pmThe operative term is pharisaic:
"emphasizing or observing the letter but not the spirit of religious law"
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... /pharisaic
Like I said:
Radix wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:02 pmThe operative term is pharisaic:
"emphasizing or observing the letter but not the spirit of religious law"
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... /pharisaic
What is the religious law I’ve broken?Radix wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 4:52 pmLike I said:Radix wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:02 pmThe operative term is pharisaic:
"emphasizing or observing the letter but not the spirit of religious law"
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... /pharisaic
Again:
Don’t know, you said that you kill fish
Yes, I kill fish for food.
Buddha gave the dhamma, this is not a law but a practice. The laws of nature/karma operate within. What you are describing are belief structures or religion. I am not religious. I am not buddhist. I simply observe this mind body phenomenon and have gained wisdom in that performing certain actions do not feel good and in fact cause me to feel bad. So I try to act in a way that feels morally correct. It allows me to sleep peacefully.Radix wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 8:15 pmAgain:
pharisaic:
"emphasizing or observing the letter but not the spirit of religious law"
Probably one the most well-known stories about pharisaism is the one with rescuing sheep on the Sabbath. The Sabbath is the day when one isn't supposed to work, and since rescuing a sheep is work, doing so on the Sabbath would be breaking the law.
"He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?"
https://biblehub.com/matthew/12-11.htm
The same phenomenon ob observing the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law can be observed elsewhere.
For example, Buddhists can this way justify smoking tobacco because tobacco is not on the official list of intoxicants. Or they interpret the precept against intoxication to mean it's not wrong to drink alcohol, it's just wrong to drink so much of it that one becomes drunk. Or the way one clever and fairly popular monk found a way to justify abortion.
Similary, the doctrines on kamma and equanimity can be read in a way that justifies aloofness toward other people, and a disregard for social bonds and civilized society.
Indeed, such a person might not have broken any laws, religious or secular, but they are, well, a jerk.
Karmic safety is not necessarily compatible with normal life
Freedom from fear is the final goal, karmic safety sounds a bit like hiding in fear.cappuccino wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 9:44 pmKarmic safety is not necessarily compatible with normal life
You should be afraid of hell
Yes. So be mindful of what you say, and how you say it.
But this requires your consent, correct?Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:09 amYes. So be mindful of what you say, and how you say it.
According to the Buddha there is factual harsh speech. How that is received depends on the listener, yes, but if the speaker has even a shred of wisdom they would know that certain words could be ill-received and would speak carefully. Indeed there was the one arahant who spoke down to the other monks, but those admonishments were likely well-suited for those monks even if they were not receptive to them. You, on the other hand, are attempting to bear zero responsibility either way, so it just seems as though your methods lack both wisdom and consideration. Too bad you don’t read the suttas or you would’ve known this.thepea wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:23 amBut this requires your consent, correct?Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:09 amYes. So be mindful of what you say, and how you say it.
Obviously I must be mindful of my speech and intention, but it’s your responsibility if you interpret sound waves as hurtful.
How am I trying to beat zero responsibility “both” ways?SDC wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 11:50 amAccording to the Buddha there is factual harsh speech. How that is received depends on the listener, yes, but if the speaker has even a shred of wisdom they would know that certain words could be ill-received and would speak carefully. Indeed there was the one arahant who spoke down to the other monks, but those admonishments were likely well-suited for those monks even if they were not receptive to them. You, on the other hand, are attempting to bear zero responsibility either way, so it just seems as though your methods lack both wisdom and consideration. Too bad you don’t read the suttas or you would’ve known this.thepea wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:23 amBut this requires your consent, correct?Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:09 am
Yes. So be mindful of what you say, and how you say it.
Obviously I must be mindful of my speech and intention, but it’s your responsibility if you interpret sound waves as hurtful.