1 edit
@CalJust
I would like to ponder some more questions concerning the concept of "being at peace".
We have probably already established that it is not a permanent state, but one entered into on specific occasions, and under specific circumstances.
My question(s) would be:
1. What exactly do we mean by "peace"? Is it merely an "unflappableness" in the face of otherwise disturbing elements, or what the dictionary calls "equanimity"?
2. Or is it a mental and/or spiritual inclination that some people have more of than others to start off with (e.g. Type A or Type B personalities) but can be cultivated in order to be strengthened?
3. Lastly, is it actually a desirable trait, and isn't all progress achieved by people that are more likely to be inherently restless and dissatisfied at heart?
Just wondering...
@caljust saidJohn 1:21
Matthew 17, 10 - 13
And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
John the Baptist said he was not Elijah.
So what does Matthew 17:10-13 mean? Consider the context. Read the chapter from the beginning. I know you won't. So just go right on ahead and keep thinking it's talking about reincarnation.
@caljust saidLastly, is it actually a desirable trait, and isn't all progress achieved by people that are more likely to be inherently restless and dissatisfied at heart?
@CalJust
I would like to ponder some more questions concerning the concept of "being at peace".
We have probably already established that it is not a permanent state, but one entered into on specific occasions, and under specific circumstances.
My question(s) would be:
1. What exactly do we mean by "peace"? Is it merely an "unflappableness" in the face of otherwis ...[text shortened]... ople that are more likely to be inherently restless and dissatisfied at heart?
Just wondering...
Many seem to believe that ""being at peace" is very important if not the ultimate. It isn't.
Ultimately, what is of importance is living in truth.
@fmf saidIt's not, necessarily. You've drifted from the line of thought and are out of context.
How is living on a coast "materialistic"?
In divegeester's first post in reply to the OP he said, "About 2 weeks after recently giving up work and relocating to the coast. Pretty much every day is bliss now."
I took it that divegeester meant that living on the coast is 'peace' for him.
I had attempted to contribute an alternative perspective as to both what 'peace' means and its source in the posts I made, but it seems my attempts were in vain.
Anyone can claim to have peace from just about anything. To my way of thinking, true peace doesn't come from a geographical location, but instead from the author of peace.
Flies in the face of conventional atheistic thought.
@caljust saidGood questions.
@CalJust
I would like to ponder some more questions concerning the concept of "being at peace".
We have probably already established that it is not a permanent state, but one entered into on specific occasions, and under specific circumstances.
My question(s) would be:
1. What exactly do we mean by "peace"? Is it merely an "unflappableness" in the face of otherwis ...[text shortened]... ople that are more likely to be inherently restless and dissatisfied at heart?
Just wondering...
I think peace can mean either or both of the two definitions you gave. In addition, I wish I was better at the whole "unflappableness" thing! It's not so easy.
I do think some people have stronger peaceful tendencies than others. Definitely. Sometimes I read stuff about Buddhism, and realize that some of the behaviors are routinely done by non-Buddhists. Sometimes it feels like Buddhism is for people who aren't so great at handling things naturally on their own [e.g., me].
The Serenity Prayer comes to mind in response to point 3. "May I realize the Serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." Yes, it is not practical for a person to be so peaceful and laid back that they are incapable of effecting change. But neither is the other extreme desirable - always being restless, always discontent with the state of the world. As a Buddhist author said, "Your mind is like a tool. Put it away when you're done." I think we get so captivated by our own mental capabilities that sometimes we never want to stop using them, even in situations that aren't well suited.
Finally, why can't taking action be associated with peace? A diplomat does exactly that, for example. Someone breaking up a fight is promoting peace through action.