last day (15 days later) » 

3:09 PM
I seems that my question about political correctness is rather controversial one. If someone wants to share their own opinion, please do it here
 
3:41 PM
hi
 
oh, hello @SankhaKulathantille Didn't expect that someone would pop in :)
 
3:56 PM
hehe!
So what part of it is controversial? Bakmoon's answer seems to cover it all.
 
Well, lot's of people commented that doesn't happen often
Baknoon's answer explained right speech but I think the problem with PC is a bit deeper
as you say, if you don't say something, it is just 'no speech'
but if media continuously filter out some news, we obtain the distorted view on current issues around us
so in a way their 'no speech' prevented their audience from learning the actual issues
 
we obtaining a distorted view from different sources is our own fault. Not there's
 
example?
 
Even if one speaks the truth, the listener might understand it in a distorted way
ex: different people interpret the Tipitaka in different ways
But the words are same
 
but let's talk only about media reporting news about events, facts or some studies
media seem to be afraid to admit that some minority causes a vast majority of crimes in a given region
they don't report it in fear of offending this minority
so general public has no idea this is the case
buut i think everyone has a right to know such facts
 
4:05 PM
That maybe the case. But that doesn't go against the right speech
 
exacly, but this is the example of political correctness
that is why i dont think political correctness is only about right speech
 
i mean media keeping silent does not go against right speech
 
but they behave according to policy of political correctness
 
media maybe keeping silent because they are concerned about their ratings
 
and I am interested what is the Buddhist view on this
 
4:07 PM
But at the end of the day, it becomes false speech only if they say something false
whether it's politically correct or not
not saying anything does not break the precept
 
well, what media do is they hide 100 crimes committed by a minority and make a big hype about one crime against this minority
so general public has a distorted view
i would say it is false speech
not giving a whole picture
 
There are 4 types of false speech
untrue speech, vulgar speech, gossip and idle speech
So if someone speaks something with the intention of causing hate in other
others*
It can break the extended version of the precept
 
the role of the media is to deliver true facts that are beneficial for the public
You might not realise that, but I am female
and I would really like to know what is the rape situation in countries
(to give an example)
I rely on the media to find out which areas are safe and which aren't and why
 
I see! So if they tell you that some area is safe even when they know that it isn't, then they are breaking the precept.
 
they may hide this information because some minorities are responsible for most of the rapes
 
4:17 PM
If they don't tell you anything about a particular area, whether it's safe or unsafe, it doesn't break the precept.
 
don't say anything, they just don't report a thing!
but what if the area is particularly dangenous?
wouldn't be a good deed to let our women know?
it would be nice to protect them, right?
 
yes, it would be a good deed
But not doing a good deed is not necessarily doing a bad deed
 
but we rely on the media and we assume they give us a correct view of the world
 
it all depends on the intention of whoever is deciding it
They are not responsible for our assumption in a Karmic sense
But they might have a responsibility imposed by the society
 
but the same applies to governments
 
4:20 PM
example?
 
if they hide some difficult truths, we can't really trust them
governments also hide the statistics about the impact of immigration for example
 
we can't trust them to be telling us everything
 
they hide tha facts that rape rate increased
 
But until they lie, they are not breaking any precepts
If they cover it up by lying, the precept will be broken
 
i think it happens quite often...
 
4:22 PM
If they cover it up by not saying anything, the precept is not broken
But they can create bad Karma regardless of if the precept is broken or not
 
true
 
If the motivation for silent is greed, hatred or ignorance
 
I like the comment of MatthewMartin who suggested that the whole idea of political correctness is devoid of compassion
 
political correctness can mean what words will best serve you to win the next election
That is caused by greed
 
hehe
but few years ago I could tell some sexist joke, nowadays people are scared when i say it loud
sp PC is also around simple people
 
4:27 PM
Sexist jokes can mean vulgar words
 
I really like the idea of laughing at myself
 
That can go against the precept
 
it's rather to shake off stiff ideas
only ego can get offended
 
oh, i would need to dig a bit to remember some joke
sorry
 
4:30 PM
The 10 Akusala include the following
7. Uttering falsehoods or lying
(musāvadā)
8. Slandering (pisunavacha)
9. Harsh speech (parusavachā)
10. Frivolous speech
(sampapphalāpā)
 
I see you practise Theravada
 
sexist or vulgar jokes can often falls under #9 and #10
yes
 
I practise Vajrayana and I often would hear some teachers telling jokes, not vulgar, but still jokes touching sensitive topics
 
if the joke is meant for you to understand something better, it doesn't fall under Frivolous speech
But if it's just to make you laugh, it does fall under #10
 
Im blonde and I take blonde jokes quite well :D
 
4:35 PM
Jokes usually don't break the 4th precept
But they do fall under Frivolous speech
depending on the intention
 
but if people are sensitive they can easily get offended
 
people can get offended even if you tell that the man landed in the moon
 
well, some people almost died after publishing a caricature cartoon
 
But you are blameless if you had no intention of causing unrest or hate
 
but some people might want to kill you...
 
4:37 PM
That's their Karma
not yours
as long as your intentions are not defiled by hate, greed and ignorance
you are blameless
 
but events like that set some standards in a world i live
 
society can set up standards from time to time
 
and I took Bodhisattva vow
 
But the law of Karma never changes
 
so I am concerned about freedoms that people have
we can't just say that it's Karma of those raped girls
 
4:40 PM
Ok, do you fully understand what it means to be a Bodhisatta?
 
if we can change something, it is desirable to do it
of course no
 
Whether we say it or not, it is indeed caused by their Karma
Karma is impartial
 
yes, but we can change the conditions
 
for Karma to ripen we need conditions
 
4:41 PM
for some
 
so if we have safe surroundings, the rape Karma won't ripen
and the girls might purifiy the Karma before the bad happens
 
They have to attain Nibbana and end rebirth if they want to escape Karma for certain
 
well, not from the Vajrayana point of view ;)
Whatever hasn't happened yet, can be changed
 
Saving someone from rape is a very good deed. But that doesn't save them from suffering
 
in Vajrayana we have practices to purify bad KArmic connections
 
4:44 PM
Not if you have done one of the 5 great bad deeds
 
there was a question on SE about confession in Buddhism
yes. the 5 bad deeds are very serious
 
So if you commit one of them in this life, you will definitely go to hell next life
can't change that
 
I absolutely agree
but other deeds can ba purify to some degree
of course it is hard, but in principle it is possible
Milarepa killed 45 people and got enlightened in the same life
 
you can do good deeds to block the opportunities for bad deeds to surface
 
but had lots of hardships on the way
 
4:47 PM
Angulimala killed 999
 
oh, never heard of him!
thank you :)
 
Angulimala is one of the famous characters in Buddhism
 
in Theravada tradition I suppose
 
Hw became an Arahath later
 
for me the killer was always Milarepa :P
 
4:48 PM
He*
Never heard of Milarepa
Angulimala lived in Buddha's time
But attaining enlightenment means ending rebirth
 
interesting, so the Buddhist teachings have a real power to purify :)
 
But even the Arahath Angulimala thero had to physically suffer for his bad deeds
he would return bloody from alms round everyday
he got hit by sticks and stones which were not meant for him
 
Milarepa suffered 12 minor and 12 major 'disasters' before he purified his deeds
 
When you attain enlightenment you remove all the bad karma that can give you rebirth
But Karma can still get you while you are still alive
 
unless you want to be reborn :)
 
4:55 PM
if you want to be reborn, you are not enlightened
 
not from Vajrayana perspective
 
wanting is a desire
 
from Andrei's answer: Bodhisattva (in Mahayana) is an awakened being who vowed to indefinitely stick in Samsara for the sake of others.
 
technically it's impossible for enlightened beings to have clingings
Bodhisatta is not enlightened
 
it is the wish to benefit others that keep them amongst them
in Mahayana he is
 
4:58 PM
That cannot be explained with the Dhamma
except for merely saying he is enlightened
 
1
Q: Buddhas vs bodhisattvas vs arhats vs devas vs brahmas

michauWhat are differences between these entities? I understand they all are entities that they posses some abilities that normal humans don't have. Are there any other similar entities that might be easily confused?

the whole idea of tulku is based on enlightened masters being reborn in order to benefit others
 
Then the Mahayana concept of awakened or enlightened is not Nibbana
It's something else
There are no clingings in Nibbana
 
it is not about clingings
it is about the wish, the motivation to benefit others
a master is being reborn as long as there are people needing his help
 
That is again a wish
The world will never be devoid of beings
The number of beings in the universe is infinite
 
so the Buddhas will be reborn
Being enlightened is beyond time and space
 
5:02 PM
So making such a vow goes against logic
 
it is really hard to talk about time when in comes to enlightened beings
 
Buddhas are never reborn
 
I am just telling you what is the basis of Mahayana
 
Birth itself is suffering
 
yes, they take this suffering because they want to help others
 
5:03 PM
I know! But I'm telling that such a belief of teaching has no technical backing
 
I'm not the right person to convince you what the basics of Mahayana
you may ask a question on Buddhism SE if you wish
 
So we should agree that the enlightenment in Mahayana is different from the Nibbana in Theravada
Even hindus have their own concept of enlightenment
Not the same thing
 
I think at the moment of death you can choose either you are not reborn anymore, or you go back to help others
I'm not the right person to do comparison between tha schools
the*
 
That goes completely against the concept of anatta
There's no 'you' chosing your nexxt life
 
please ask the question then. for me the idea of no rebirth sounds wrong
 
5:06 PM
Rebirth occurs due to causes
 
but it's my personal idea
 
Well, that's why said that the Mahayana concept of enlightenment is different
 
I have my teachers who are from a noble lineage and I just follow them. I shouldn't be concerned about other's beliefs I suppose
probably. I dont think I know enough about Theravada to make any statement here
If all schools had the same teachings, there would be only one school, right ?:)
 
Theravada Buddhism, which is based on the Tipitaka doesn't believe in a complete enlightenment with rebirth
 
we all want happiness after all :)
 
5:09 PM
If you become Sothapanna, you are born for a maximum of 7 lives
Not necessarily happiness
 
what I know is that I won't get enlightened any soon, so I can actually relax and work with my current situation :)
 
Peace is the correct word
No one will get enlightened soon unless they work for it
 
well, not in Mahayana to be honest
I received teachings that inert peace might be harmful for one's development
 
Nibbana is all about peace
Happiness is an emotion
it is caused
 
we want to recognize the nature of mind
 
5:12 PM
what is caused is subjected to suffering
You have to study the Citta section of Abhidhamma to understand this topic better
 
I do not follow Theravada
I study only what my teachers tell me to study
 
That's why the conflict
 
different schools might use different words to explain same things and same words to explain different things
we should follow only one source
the conflict is that we are from different schools, our teachers use different methods
 
peace and happiness are two different things
 
both are just words
in your language they are also different
 
5:15 PM
words expressing meanings
 
enlightenment is beyond concepts
whatever word we attach to it, it wont fully express its greatness
 
in the sense that it is a reality
not a concept
But you can still explain it's attributes
 
but they are merely tags
 
which help you to understand it better
 
i can tell you that swiss chocolate is extremely tasty, but you need to try it yourself to get what exactly i mean
im not enlightened yet, so all i can do is to put some tags on it
 
5:19 PM
but fully enlightened being not being born again is an established fact in theravada Buddhism. And it's a part of the definition itself
 
yes
 
In Mahayana they have a different concept of enlightenment
 
probably you're right
 
It's not tthe same
 
I can't cite any text to prove or disprove it
 
5:20 PM
So there's no point trying to equate 2 different things
we should leave it at that
 
why not :)
It's nice talking to you
but i think i need to go
 
You too!
Have a nice day!
 
the format of Q&A is cool, but sometimes discussion is much needed :)
 
can always discuss in chat
 
exactly :)
see you soon then!
best!
 
5:23 PM
same 2 you!
 

last day (15 days later) »