Experience is not enough, though. It takes a certain self-confidence, a "big ego", if you will, to trust one's experience over and above the comments, instructions, and criticisms of others (in this case, esp. Buddhists). — baker
I'm not sure we're on the same page here.Sometimes people get a bit too cocky about their "experience" to the point where they assume that everyone else is below them (an inferior "other"). — TLCD1996
It seems to me that sometimes this is said to be experienced when what is seen by others is a shrinking away from life and a palpable decrease in liberty.
Anyone who has committed to some goal can be described with such words. For example, a highly successful businessman can be seen by others as shrinking away from life and palpably decreasing in liberty. Such is the nature of pursuing goals: one's options in life shrink. — baker
Yes.So, trying to connect this with your earlier post on trusting experience: are you saying that in a spiritual community, one has to be cocky enough to trust their own experiences so as not to be influenced by the thoughts, opinions, criticisms etc of others? — TLCD1996
As (right-wing) authoritarian mentality.If so, I'm wondering what this might look like, or how it might manifest.
The thing about noble friendship (kalyanamittata) is that it bears very little resemblance to ordinary friendship. There's no (need for) mutual respect and trust. It's all about one person assuming superiority over the other person in terms of the Dharma, and that's pretty much it. "If you don't like it, leave" is the motto.Cockiness to me conveys an attitude of mistrust toward others (based on one's own conceit), which isn't all that healthy in a small spiritual community as far as I know.
No, more basically, and not just in reference to leaders. In religious/spiritual circles, a measure of cockiness and haughtiness is an absolute necessity for day-to-day survival. — baker
I feel like that didn't come off well. What I mean is that, within any spiritual, social, or political circle, that a person would think that, what to me, would be the most vexing code of conduct that a person could possibly adopt, as I am so inclined to be willing to invoke that pride is a cardinal sin, aside from that self-righteousness is just generally infuriating, as somehow requisite to survive within it is just indicative of that it isn't the a set of society that that person should even want to take part in. — thewonder
Rather, it's that one is a weakling, a wimp, if one isn't able to take part in such a society.What I mean is that, within any spiritual, social, or political circle, that a person would think that, what to me, would be the most vexing code of conduct that a person could possibly adopt, as I am so inclined to be willing to invoke that pride is a cardinal sin, aside from that self-righteousness is just generally infuriating, as somehow requisite to survive within it is just indicative of that it isn't the a set of society that that person should even want to take part in. — thewonder
Eh, no.Feminists who spend too much time around intelligent, but chauvinist men usually come to the same conclusions and are often unwilling to listen to the good advice that they should just find some other sets of society to participate in. — thewonder
Early Buddhism is discriminatory against women and favors men, it's doctrinally so. — baker
And I'm not saying that it's Early Buddhism that is misogynistic. It certainly is discriminatory against women. But discrimination and misogyny are two different things. The way some Buddhists (and others, too) have interpreted that discrimination is that they turned it into misogyny; they turned a neutral enough selectiveness into misogyny by assuming said selectiveness is or should be motivated by contempt and hatred.Early Buddhism is discriminatory against women and favors men, it's doctrinally so.
— baker
Although women became part of the Buddhist sangha in the Buddha’s lifetime. Yes, more rules to observe than the men, but even so, hard to make the case for actual misogyny. — Wayfarer
I found it on Google books. I skimmed it. It doesn't seem to be anything special, although I'm sure there was a time in the past when it was.Early Buddhism: A New Approach: The I of the Beholder Sue Hamilton-Blythe — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.