Just a quote to share

'The only reason we don't open our hearts and minds to other people is that they trigger confusion in us that we don't feel brave enough or sane enough to deal with. To the degree that we look clearly and compassionately at ourselves, we feel confident and fearless about looking into someone else's eyes.'

Pema Chodron

Originally posted by Taoman
'The only reason we don't open our hearts and minds to other people is that they trigger confusion in us that we don't feel brave enough or sane enough to deal with. To the degree that we look clearly and compassionately at ourselves, we feel confident and fearless about looking into someone else's eyes.'

Pema Chodron

The reason is that we jump blindly to conclusions, for one. Also we dismiss things that sound dodgy on the surface without really getting to the crux of the point.
It is borne of fear.

A lot of times I see problems presented to me that may seem dogmatic to others (ie drug use), where the reality isn't so bad and if the addict/user ( in this case), were just to break it down into simple manageable parts, they would find that nothing is really that hard if you put mind to it.
Sensationalist dogma from the media doesn't help much either

Dont believe the hype, I mean after all how in the hell would I know there was cheap heroin in Sydney? The 6 o'clock news told me so.
Also my social worker told me that there was a lot of good heroin getting around and that I should watch myself. Sell, sell, sell.
WTF???? I didn't know any of these things until these so-called authority figures pointed them out to me. In fact I mite head down the street corner and pick up a nice taste now that I know it's there 😛

Originally posted by Taoman
'The only reason we don't open our hearts and minds to other people is that they trigger confusion in us that we don't feel brave enough or sane enough to deal with. To the degree that we look clearly and compassionately at ourselves, we feel confident and fearless about looking into someone else's eyes.'

Pema Chodron

What do you make of the criticism at:

http://www.spiritualcritiques.com/author-criticisms/pema-chodron/?gclid=CL2M1MTN0rACFegbQgod3lNf1g

Basically the criticism is threefold: her emphasis on no-self, the ethical implications of this, and the availability of better spiritual approaches. I find the alleged ethical implications to be the troubling criticism. Given that she has children and grandchildren who are apparently important to her, I doubt that the criticism is on the mark, with respect to her willingness to "give away" her close relatives, so I would appreciate other insights. The quote you give here seems very much to take selfhood for granted; at least as a semantic convenience (i.e., references to we, other people, they, us, ourselves, and someone else's eyes).

Originally posted by karoly aczel
The reason is that we jump blindly to conclusions, for one. Also we dismiss things that sound dodgy on the surface without really getting to the crux of the point.
It is borne of fear.

A lot of times I see problems presented to me that may seem dogmatic to others (ie drug use), where the reality isn't so bad and if the addict/user ( in this case), w ...[text shortened]... I mite head down the street corner and pick up a nice taste now that I know it's there 😛

Do you think your social worker intended you to reacts the way you do here? Or are you being ironic?

Originally posted by JS357
What do you make of the criticism at:

http://www.spiritualcritiques.com/author-criticisms/pema-chodron/?gclid=CL2M1MTN0rACFegbQgod3lNf1g

Basically the criticism is threefold: her emphasis on no-self, the ethical implications of this, and the availability of better spiritual approaches. I find the alleged ethical implications to be the troubling criticism enience (i.e., references to we, other people, they, us, ourselves, and someone else's eyes).

Thanks for the pointer to a solid critique. I came across the quote and shared it without exploring the background of the writer.
I come out essentially on the side of the critique.
My understanding is more a metaphysical understanding that the concept of self of any 'entity' or thing is very fluid because of the interdependence. It is simply not accurate philosophically to say there is no self-experience at all, nor is it correct to me to say there is a totally independent self either.

I have got entangled with too definite a take on no-self in the past but it left me with questions that eventually I worked through to see that it is as unhelpful to be definite about no-self as it is to be definite about a self. It is called the Middle Path for a reason. There is a lot of doctrinal variation in Buddhist schools, it must be remembered.

This self-no self dichotomy is echoed in the state of sub atomic particles in the quantum realm and I like the analogy, and won't get into century long scientific debate about the final nature of quantum "existence/nature" of particle/waves. Whatever the outcome of that, it remains a fitting analogy at least for me, as does the analogy of holotropic phenomenon (cf Bohm).
As to the moral implications in the article I pull back from the ascetic and to me ungrounded approach suggested in those ancient stories, from a very different, isolated mountain monk-led community. I am essentially a situational ethicist and see much moral systems as an expression of the particular society/group in which the particular moral rules arise.

With sufficient conceptualising flights many acts of sheer stupidity and extreme cruelty and slaughter can be justified and one can point to the Aztecs with religious human sacrifice, or to the mad Pol Pot delusions and many others. We humans can get really carried away with ideas and charismatic leaders, which unfortunately are sometimes quite out of touch with grounded reality.

Ethics to me, is ultimately a decision made on rational grounds as best we can, as much as working out what is the best option on any problematic issue. Nevertheless, maintaining a lack of egoistic rigidity, and situational openness that follows from lighter hold on conceptualizing that I commented on elsewhere does appear to help make better decisions and ensuent effective actions.

The image of Boddhistavas/Buddhas enduring tortures/mutilation/giving up families without pain or out of self-giving love and compassion is like other religions iconic portrayal of saints as form of religious idealisation. Some of it even sounds a tad cultish.

Excessive no-self doctrines do indeed lead to moral conundrums when thought through, as the writer in the critique points out. One is - what does it matter what we do if we and others have no self and it's all illusion? The horror stories of life, holocausts and all that, not real, so don't get too het up. Nah! While the final nature of any 'now' or 'self' has furry edges, a slightly "furry" tiger will still rip you to pieces and it won't be nice! I really think I like Stoic and Taoist earthy grounding when it comes to these flights of religious ideation.

Originally posted by Taoman
Thanks for the pointer to a solid critique. I came across the quote and shared it without exploring the background of the writer.
I come out essentially on the side of the critique.
My understanding is more a metaphysical understanding that the concept of self of any 'entity' or thing is very fluid because of the interdependence. It is simply not accurate ...[text shortened]... and Taoist earthy grounding when it comes to these flights of religious ideation.

Thanks for the comments. I will mull them over and reply if anything seems to need reply.

Originally posted by JS357
Do you think your social worker intended you to reacts the way you do here? Or are you being ironic?

I dont know.
It's like those organizations that are supposed to find you work.
If they do their job right then they would be out of a job, right?