VonNoble
-
Posts
1,388 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by VonNoble
-
-
4 hours ago, cuchulain said:
we all have a responsibility to peacefully determine what is right and wrong and adhere to that decision, at least until and if we are shown a better way. to change our beliefs and principles for others is to abdicate our own decisions in place of theirs, or to martyr our belief in what's right as lesser than theirs.
This is a point - deserving attention.
If someone living across the street avidly believed in fengshui as a spiritual path it is likely unless I know them well - I would not know this.
If I decide to paint my house in some non-harmonizing color to the scheme of life as they understand it to be - knocking their balance all to heck (however inadvertently)....when they come knocking at the door asking me to change the color....how does that play out?
I was under no obligation to check with them.
What i am doing is legal and also in code to the subdivision.
They might be more than offended and annoyed - it might be psychologically harmful to them and causing them a great deal of stress.
If I had the money - would repainting the house be the right thing to do? My path has no assigning of value to colors. Do I defer to them and oblige their beliefs?
If they offered to pay half?
If they offered to completely pay to have it redone as it is that offensive to them...do I let them pick a color that works for them?
All interesting things upon which to ruminate.
von
-
If there were to be a Mt. Olympus sort of place....and the Gods/Goddesses and all the supreme beings
(that actually have a significant following on the planet earth)....this excludes celebrities, politicians, and
any human types......
If they were to gather for a meal at the end of the year (or whatever deities do to socialize)
.....what would the conversation look like (or who would be included in the gathering?
Even though WE have limited knowledge - for example - would there only be one being there by
known by many names......
....would there be more than one
If there was more than one - would they be surprised to find out there are others in existence?
Would the entities gather moan about their fate? Complain about the unruly humans?
What might happen?
It assumed that being Supreme Beings they would not resort to name calling and arguments.von
-
10 minutes ago, mererdog said:
I never made that assertion. I said that you did it, not that you meant to do it. I would wager that most disrespect is unintentional, being caused by differences in what we find important. I don't care about statues, so I don't treat them with respect. To someone who considers statues important, my disrespect is likely to cause offense, because my actions tell them that what they consider important does not matter. I don't consider my disrespect to be wrong, nor do I consider their reaction to it to be wrong. I believe these inevitable disagreements are just proof that we are simply doing the best we can as imperfect beings in an imperfect world.
Understood.
I agree.
thx
von
-
42 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
In the end, what do we have? One passing woman -- who may or may not be Christian -- who took offense at a statue -- or a hat -- or a statue wearing a hat. Or did she take offense when you said "Merry Christmas?". Maybe she simply took offense at you and none of this had anything to do with anything. She finds you offensive? Maybe she doesn't like the color of your house? Or your hat? Or your shoes? Or your after shave? Or your garden?
I think it's time to do the Buddhist thing and release it.
Thanks for the chuckle yet again.
I think releasing it - is a very sound idea.
von
-
4 hours ago, mark 45 said:
not something i would personally do,but i can't knock what they choose.
I agree. It is working for them.
von
-
14 hours ago, mererdog said:
So, the question is whether or not that matters to you. Do you mind upsetting some people? Is it worth it for the sake of a joke?
Do people's feelings only matter if those feelings are based on proper religious doctrine?
Do people's feelings cease to matter if they are members of a minority religion?
If a Halloween decoration makes almost everyone smile, but makes one witch feel persecuted, is it worth it?
There is no way to accomplish much in life without running the risk of upsetting people. While I might well, like most people, try and minimize the stress caused to others - there are moments where people will get stressed in spite of reason or all measure to avoid it.
You keep referring to this as "a joke" .....the humor is true enough - so it was humorous - but not with the intent of getting a laugh at someone's expense. It is a statue. Not a person. That statue would, presumably ONLY be offensive if 1) a person revered that particular image 2) that devotee took offense at a Santa hat. None of that is a given.
It could also merely be the fact that I dared to display a Buddhist statue at all (which had heretofore been inside my home.)
The "religious doctrine" portion was a reply to your assertion that I knowing would disrespect a holy icon of Buddhism. That is very subjective as with any other ritual in any other religion. Some Catholics find rosaries to be holy and some wear them as jewelry. Some people treat any Bible with deference and others less so. So when you asserted that I intentionally offended Buddhists - I was merely responding - even Buddhists would not agree on that point.
If one witch came to my house and knocked on the door and told me I had an offensive yard decoration - I might remove it. (That did not happen in this case)....
von
-
14 hours ago, mererdog said:
Moving forward, however, you know that the action causes upset, so you have to decide whether the action is worth the upset.
Actually I know one person had a reaction....an unspecified reaction.
YOU ARE ASSUMING it was the hat.
It could have merely been the fact I displayed a Buddhist statue. Many people are ignorant re: other religions and who in the world knows what she knows or doesn't know about it.
To put all of this decision making on an unspecified offense (the statue - or the hat on the statue) - not resolved as yet that I can see.
von
-
Even though I do not think these points relevant since they keep reoccurring.
I DO NOT know this woman. As far as I know - she is not a direct neighbor of mine. She passed down my street and made her comment for whatever reason. I don't recognize her but I admit I am not the most observant.
I do not know how to contact her unless I just see her by happenstance as I did this time. Maybe I can hang out by the garbage cans next pick up day and see if I am on her flight path. She is not an immediate neighbor I know within six houses across or aside of me.
Not that knowing or or not knowing her is an issue other than future communications are dependent on me spotting her as I have zero idea her exact location. Obviously it is this area ...but maybe not on my specific street. I'll let you know if I have a chance to visit with her.
von
-
8 hours ago, mererdog said:
If I push someone and they fall over, "You could have chosen to have better balance" seems like a feeble justification. Doesn't it?
One doesn't choose better physical balance. As I get older wobbling is a real problem. Pushing me over is not difficult and not relevant to an emotional response. There are parallels but this isn't one of them.
von
8 hours ago, mererdog said:And, personally speaking, the whole "choosing to be happy" rubs me the wrong way. It belittles the pain of others.
That is your opinion. Others think differently. That too is a matter of choice.
8 hours ago, mererdog said:According to the story, the Buddha did not understand suffering until he experienced it himself. I suspect that if you haven't experienced someone else's suffering, you cannot understand it.
First, you need not experience things first hand to muster compassion. The Buddha did experience suffering and he noted that NO PERSON alive goes without it. If we are going to use the Buddha as a reference point than, by his determination of the First Noble Truth - all humans suffer. Therefore - according to your above posting - all understand it to some degree.
More to the point I think you are making - it is what we do after we realize suffering occurs that is the issue.
von
-
8 hours ago, mererdog said:
Does it mean, for example, that if I call my wife ugly, her getting upset is purely her choice, and not something that I could have prevented?
I would think deliberately insulting someone you could anticipate they might get upset with you. Unintentionally giving offense is again - a very different matter.
8 hours ago, mererdog said:If I were to wave a Nazi flag, aren't the inevitable negative reactions at least partially my fault?
AGAIN....waving a Nazi flag intentionally is not at all in the ballpark of unintentionally giving offense. I do not see any of these examples as tied to the original.
von
-
8 hours ago, mererdog said:
Does that mean that we have no responsibility to take the likely reactions of others into account while making our plans?
We have no responsibility to act (or not act) with likely reactions as the largest contributing factor. There are two distinct scenarios. One is we PLAN for the reaction. The other is we got a reaction we did not plan for....which - is not the same thing as the first scenario. You indicated that you accepted that the INTENT/plan did not include the reaction received.
If you didn't anticipate that reaction ....it wasn't part of the planning - no matter how much forethought you exercise. So this - we apparently agree was not an issue in this scenario.
von
-
33 minutes ago, VonNoble said:
...I had to go look up what spicing is all about.
von
I fidn’t Catch that auto-correct fixed my original boo boo by making an even less understandable one...my apologies....please change spicing to stoicism and the previous posting shound make more sense.
von
-
4 hours ago, cuchulain said:
that sounds very stoic...or stoicism sounds very Buddhist
...I had to go look up what spicing is all about. Which had me thinking I might want to take a philosophy class because I never have taken one. So I thank you for that nudge as well. Certainly the summary I read notes a close proximity of thought in this instance.
von
-
4 hours ago, Brother Kaman said:
Because Indians were hunter gatherers, many feel today that they are closer to the earth and have a greater connection than the rest of us regular folks. The Druids also had an ancient Earth based spiritualism. Go back far enough and we all did at one point. That does not make us or anyone any more special today than the Pope. I do not understand why staying inside a building during the eclipse without electronic devices is honoring nature any more than being outside enjoying the spectacle.
...Thank you very much.... I understand now. I would wonder the same as you on that point. Too I find I do not often “get” the point of many rituals...
thx again ... von
-
11 hours ago, Brother Kaman said:
The Indians I hang out with are happy to view a once in a lifetime eclipse. Mostly Catholic, Protestant and agnostic. I see your experience much like an encounter with white man Druids and the such.
Thx for your response. I’ mot sure I quite follow the white man Druids reference tho?
von
-
Thanks to all for the input.
After connecting with a monk in Houston.... the conversation ended with an observation. People choose their reactions. They can choose happy. They can choose not happy. All people have a choice.
So I am going to think on that for awhile.
von
-
2 hours ago, mererdog said:
It seems odd to ignore the objection of your neighbor but bow to the opinion of someone who will probably never see it. Its like you are trying to get permission.
You made light of a heavy subject. You used religious symbology in a disrespectful manner. Because you found it funny. This is the same, emotionally speaking, as making a joke about someone's mother. It doesn't matter how many people do or don't mind people cracking on their mamas. Becauase it only takes one angry guy to ruin your day, and if you poke enough people you will eventually get smacked... or get someone else smacked...
But Yo Mama jokes are funny. And what is life if it isn't fun?
I think your conclusions on this topic are invalid....at least at this moment. There are some jumps in the conclusions not the least of which that there was ANY decision to pick the statue because it was religious. It merely was the one that fit the little hat. It is that simple. It was cheery. That is a far cry from deliberately poking fun.
Things can be funny simply because they are unexpected.
I appreciate being sensitive. I also appreciate some are overly and unreasonably sensitive. That is not a reason to ignore them. Nor it is a justification to change the world to revolve around each person's opinion.
I also find it interesting that you do not seem to have any issue with the hat on the other statue.
If the writings of Buddhists are authentic - Buddha did NOT WANT images of him - it would appear he did not think such images were a good idea to begin with ...and certainly he did not want to be made into object of worship or even reverence - he stated many times he was just a man. That's all. If he didn't want special titles or special treatment when alive I have no reason to think that he (or millions of his followers) would be concerned in the slightest. That is a leap of judgment...wherein either point of view (or several dozen more between them) would be equally valid.
ONLY SOME Buddhist find statues to be reverent. Many do not see any difference between the two statues in my yard.
I think giving it more thought before reacting is the wiser approach. i will carefully consider your position. I have always respected your counsel. This is no exception.
I thought contacting the most trusted expert I know to weigh in on this was responsible... to validate (or negate) my own opinion of it. It is not so much permission but raising my own awareness if I am wrong. I am never opposed to learning. I think it prudent to ask, reflect - then do - when I have an option. Ready, aim, fire is likely more effective than ready, fire, aim.
von
-
26 minutes ago, mererdog said:
The Dali Lama is to Buddhists what the Pope is to Christians, in that most Christians don't act like the Pope and don't care about the Pope's opinions. To speak of whethet or not "the Buddhists" would be offended ignores the wide diversity amongst Buddhists. Some Buddhists would be offended and some would not, just as some Christians would be offended and some would not.
Thanks for that...it is helpful and a nice quick overview.
i went online as well and saw a story about “ Laughing Buddha”....not too far off the mark of the statue in our yard -so i am thinking the mere addition of a Santa hat is not much of a change from the folklore
of course if any Buddhist would note it as a problem I would apologize and remove it... however if a non-Buddhist who just wants to make an “upset” for the delight of making trouble .... then I think Buddha likes being included.... Happy Buddha is really in the Spirit of the holiday (although I admit that was dumb luck that it coincides)
Just to double check- I have a call into a level headed Buddhist monk in Houston.
She always tells the truth... if it flags for her at all - I will remove it.
thx
von
-
27 minutes ago, mark 45 said:
relax von,even the dali lama would have found it funny.a statue of the buddha is not like a statue of a saint(actually it is but i'm not going to get into a discussion about that).it's use besides decoration is maybe a focal point.as i said before buddhists can and do celebrate any holiday they choose,just not(usually)the traditions that go with it.
if someone doesn't like it,smile and walk away.
thanks mark 45
.... the fact Buddha is not a god... does lend itself to not being sacraligious ...at least in my mind
Wonder if there are any Greek in the neighborhood about to protest out putting a Santa hat on that statue.....
Again thx for the reassurance!
I am feeling a wee bit less criminal now
von
-
1 hour ago, cuchulain said:
i would say that if it doesn't cause actual harm, the yard stick is wherever YOU think it should be.
That seems reasonable and logical.
what are we overlooking in coming to that conclusion?
thx
von
-
3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
If the woman had said WHAT was offensive, or WHY it was offensive, we might have have something to examine. She simply expected you to know that it was offensive. In the absence of anything more tangible, this suggests that she was Christian rather than Buddhist. It's an attitude. Christians own the culture. Their feelings matter. Anyone who does not care is making "War on Christmas".
Support, such as it is, is that she thought it was offensive "especially at Christmas time". Again, the rest of us are supposed to be on hyper alert lest we tread on Christian sensitivities.
Well, if she wanted you to understand, she would have told you. I do despise cultural bullies.
Merry Christmas.
I agree. But at times I feel I am just out of sync these days.
thx for at least reasoning to the same conclusion I was leaning into.
von
-
5 minutes ago, mererdog said:
Irreverence and blasphemy are funny. They also make people angry. That is part of why they are funny.
....true enough....sometimes I am obtuse.....so exactly when does something cross the line? What is the yardstick ? Surely one person taking offense is not a suitable yardstick. Since I have seen photos of the Dali Lama smiling and laughing wearing anything from cowboy hats to oddball visors...the Buddhist's are not likely offended....
How do we gauge when our sense of humor is out of step (since it is painless to take it down) (then again - maybe it is her sense of propriety that is askew) - how does one determines it?
There are days I just remain befuddled at the world as it is today. Old people are particularly sensitive to not keeping up with the times.....it is not intentional....sometimes we just are unaware of the standards shifting.
von
-
Now that I have returned to the Western part of the USA.....I am more frequently able to interact with Native Americans. It came to my attention earlier today that during the recent eclipse many citizens raced to see the "once in a lifetime" event. However cultural norms, of course differ. The Native Americans of the area did just the opposite.
It is considered a sacred moment...if I understood it correctly - it is a four -hour event of the sun and moon in communications like no other time. The tribal members not only avoided seeing the eclipse they remained inside and sat quietly for the entire four hours (no eating or drinking, using electronics, or other busy work) - it was strictly quiet, meditative, prayerful time for the entire family. Tribal schools were closed. Those attending university that could not get home - did not go to class but rather sat quietly in their dorm room.
I was not aware of this practice but it struck me as very much in keeping with a way to honor and pay respect to the natural order.
Your thoughts?
von
-
We do very little by way of holiday decorating in our senior citizen years. When there were kids around we did plenty. But there is no sense to being on ladders and such now.
So we hauled a few totes to the thrift store and put up exactly four decorations. Two sockings on the front courtyard wall. A Santa hat on the Greek statue next to the driveway. And we hauled a Buddha staute from the house outside and put it on the wall by the stockings. The statue I’d maybe a foot tall. We happened to find a small child size Santa hat in our collection of odds and ends...and that fit the Buddha statue. We thought it was funny.... so we put it out by the decorative stockings.
We were amused and assumed others would be too. Eh.... not so much. As I was retrieving the trash can ysterday a woman stopped me. She was passing by and told me putting out a Buddha like that was offensive.... especially at Christmas time.
i am assuming she thought it offensive to Christians. Perhaps she thought it offensive to Buddhists? I didn't Have an immediate thought about it.... so I just said....well “Merry Christmas! “ Smiled and waited. She walked away. That was the end of it.
Now I am wondering if we have a warped sense if whimsey? Does anyone else see a Buddha wearing a Santa hat as an offensive item?
von
What are they thinking (the deities) .....
in Philosophy & Theory
Posted
I Googled deity
....it was indicated as being a component of being a deity.....which also lists equal opportunity by way of gender ( god or goddess) even though I have never been sure about god-God-hides actually needing a gender..?
i guess that hinges on the power to create life without gender being an issue (or not)
von