Most human institutions (companies, governments, schools, etc.) still seem to behave like monkeys: forming into tribes that are led by an (possibly elected or inherited) egocentric dictator, or hierarchical layers of dictators, and that fight with each other. I hope that humans will use the steady improvements in Internet- and travel-related technologies to make societies ever-more distributed, representative of, and verified by everyone.
Pursuing either positivity (enjoyment, pleasure, luxury, etc.) or negativity (anger, punishment, vengeance, etc.) causes struggle and stress. Both are very unstable. Neutrality (contentment, balance, selflessness, etc.) seems to be the least stressful, most stable path.
There are many activities where people seem to fetishize (meaning an object of obsession, whether sexual or not) robots. For example: synchronized performances of many kinds (the military, sports, marching bands and drum corps, synchronized dancing, etc.); computer-generated music that no human musician could ever play; weapons that no human could ever resist; make-up to make the body look more like plastic or porceline; people value precise manual labor and cheap prices so much as to be willing to replace human factory workers with machines; increasingly elaborate sex toys; checking human behavior with endless sensors and cameras; etc. People seem to be in a great hurry to replace humanity with machines.
Worldliness and cold-heartedness, insisting that every ridiculously small and ephemeral material detail of life be beautiful and perfectly controlled, give me OCD.
If Buddhist bhikkhu(ni)s are dependent on lay people, how much would they be willing (or need) to change Buddhism to suit the popular views and desires of lay people, in order for the Sangha to survive?
Is this how things like protective chants/icons, Buddha as God, softening or ignoring the Vinaya rules, the Advaita Vedanta-type views in Mahayana, the many nation and ethnicity specific versions of Buddhism, etc. have worked their way into Buddhist traditions over the millenia?
- No matter how low something is on sale, buying nothing is cheaper. The quickest way to save money is not to spend it — to mostly buy what you need, and rarely/barely buy what you want.
- Anything that is likely to depreciate in value over time is probably a bad investment (e.g., cars, electronics, furniture, etc.), and should be minimized.
- Regularly using a credit card, only if you pay it off every month, seems to increase one’s credit rating. Leaving unused credit cards open with a $0 balance also seems to be good for one’s credit rating.
- When considering whether to buy or rent a home, don’t forget to consider the costs of mortgage interest, property taxes, property insurance, condo/HOA fees or maintenance, improvements, and the time required to sell it (could be many months or years). There is often a net loss over time, when investing in a house or condo. Renting a small place may be cheaper than buying.
- At least in the US, the stock market tends to outpace inflation over the long-term. Choosing some funds that invest in mainstream companies, and just letting the money sit there for years, usually beats inflation and offers much better capital appreciation than savings accounts or CDs at banks.
- As Warren Buffett recently showed, usually the way to make the most in the stock market over the long-term is to invest in index funds, but the most profitable index funds require that one values profit over ethics (i.e., include investments in war, oil, animal testing, tobacco, etc.). Socially responsible investment (SRI) funds usually make less, but may be more ethical. Probably the most ethical thing is to continuously do your own research of, and investing in, individual companies, but few people have time for that. I wish there were Buddhist SRI funds available in the US (if you know of any, please let me know).
A few questions for theists: How do you know to whom/what you pray? Even if you feel that some kind of God exists, how do you know He/She/It isn’t a malicious, malevolent being misrepresenting Itself as a kind, benevolent being? If everything is left to faith in traditions, institutions, prophets, etc., how can you confirm the identity, nature, agenda, extent, etc. of what you call “God(s)”? If there is an all-powerful creator God, shouldn’t that being be able to make all humans clearly understand Her/Him/It, and what might it say about God that all humans haven’t been made to clearly understand Her/Him/It (e.g., is God not all-powerful, not always loving, etc.)? If God changes (i.e., takes actions to create or affect this world or people), to what extent can God be eternal?
Buddha images and statues might be the best representation of the early Buddhist notion of nirvana that is possible in this world, namely: existence without causality, where one thing doesn’t become another, nothing changes, “inflows” (physical or sensory input) don’t result in “outflows” (thoughts, words, or deeds) — like eternal statues with minds.