Enrich Your Life With Virtue

[Stigweard]

[Stigweard]

[thelerner]

I'm generally cautious and sceptical around those who preach and teach about virtue. Too often the word is like a long tonqued lash used to beat other people with. Maybe I see it as the answer to an old fashion riddle. Those who have it hold it as a hidden treasure. Those who don't display it as a garment and club.

 

Stig says ' personally believe that Virtue is the rightful cornerstone of the world and that our only hope for true and lasting world peace and fortuity is a concerted effort toward virtuous livelihood.'

 

I have trouble with the word hope too. For years I wrestled with a koan that said,"Above the doorway to enlightenment there is a sign that says 'Abandon All Hope, Ye who enter here'".

 

So I've come to see hope as something of a two edged sword. Abandon hope, roll up your sleeves, do the work, let the universe decide.

 

 

I suppose the Golden rule comes closest in Western terms to describing virtue; Do onto others as you would have them do to you. A good recipie for staying on the straight and narrow. But its been pointed out we'd like a stranger to stop and give us $100, but I don't think it would be wise to pass them out at random.

 

Maimonides version of the rule goes like this: Do not do to others that which you would not want them to do to you. Hmnn, that solves the $100 paradox, but feels colder, civilized, but not as warming.

 

Its late, hope I can fall asleep.

 

whoops

 

Michael

[Stigweard]

I'm generally cautious and sceptical around those who preach and teach about virtue. Too often the word is like a long tonqued lash used to beat other people with. Maybe I see it as the answer to an old fashion riddle. Those who have it hold it as a hidden treasure. Those who don't display it as a garment and club.

 

I believe you are quite right to be cautious and sceptical. Our world history has seen innumerable cultural distortions created by the artificial manufacturing of social morals and codes of conduct. Such artificing have inevitably been acts of oppression and control. So in order to avoid the snares of enculturation we must be mindful and impartial when encountering the promotion of morals and ethics.

 

Stig says ' personally believe that Virtue is the rightful cornerstone of the world and that our only hope for true and lasting world peace and fortuity is a concerted effort toward virtuous livelihood.'

 

I have trouble with the word hope too. For years I wrestled with a koan that said,"Above the doorway to enlightenment there is a sign that says 'Abandon All Hope, Ye who enter here'".

 

So I've come to see hope as something of a two edged sword. Abandon hope, roll up your sleeves, do the work, let the universe decide.

 

If hope means to wish, expect, or look forward to something then sure enough there is the potential for debate. For instance one might argue that hope is an attachment to outcomes and the future and that such attachment may very well deprive oneself of experiencing the now. Fair enough.

 

But we are all driven by hope of one sort or another. We have hope for ourselves, for our children, for our family and for the world.

 

Perhaps hope is the natural drawing of the soul toward unification with the primordial essence? Perhaps at its deepest essence humanity is led forward by hope?

 

I suppose the Golden rule comes closest in Western terms to describing virtue; Do onto others as you would have them do to you. A good recipie for staying on the straight and narrow. But its been pointed out we'd like a stranger to stop and give us $100, but I don't think it would be wise to pass them out at random.

 

Maimonides version of the rule goes like this: Do not do to others that which you would not want them to do to you. Hmnn, that solves the $100 paradox, but feels colder, civilized, but not as warming.

 

It has been suggested that "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is the common denominator between all religious teachings.

 

Cheers for your comments Michael.

[WhiteTiger]

Thelerner's (Michael's) post as not been snipped in different parts they go all together i comment on different parts of this post.

 

I love this post btw

 

I suppose the Golden rule comes closest in Western terms to describing virtue; Do onto others as you would have them do to you.

 

This tells you so much, if you can choose to be free from desire and Do onto others as you would have them do to you. You will pretty much (if i'm not missing anything) be treated the way you want to be treated.

 

If you wish not to be treated improperly from others following this rule, You will have no quarrels other then the quarrels you have with yourself.

 

A good recipie for staying on the straight and narrow. But its been pointed out we'd like a stranger to stop and give us $100, but I don't think it would be wise to pass them out at random.

 

Maimonides version of the rule goes like this: Do not do to others that which you would not want them to do to you. Hmnn, that solves the $100 paradox, but feels colder, civilized, but not as warming.

 

Michael

 

I've also heard this version. AND AN IMPORTANT POINT... why not follow both more or less?

 

Well i would like to add one thing, then i have a question.

Their is a theory, (not exactly sure where its roots come from) but the theory is very important, have to be opened to give in order for others to have something based onto to allow themselves to receive.

 

It could be a double edged sword though, so I'm guessing this is where Buddhism comes into important play in this.

 

 

Ok for my question...

The Golden Rule, doesn't it have its roots or originated from Buddhism... and if so what type of Buddhism anyone know?

[thelerner]

I've been diving a bit deeper into Buddhism philosophy lately.

 

White Tiger said 'This tells you so much, if you can choose to be free from desire and Do onto others as you would have them do to you. You will pretty much (if i'm not missing anything) be treated the way you want to be treated.'

 

I'm not sure that neccessarily follows, ie if you do good to others you will be treated nicely. Not neccessarily, no guarantees. Matter of fact there are probably examples in all of our lives where good deeds were indeed punished.

 

That gets to the heart of virtue. Its lesser if its done for rewards. Being good may not have a reward, but be good anyway. (I have the book 'Anyway', a poem often attributed to Mother Teresa was a work by an American Author who expanded it into a book).

 

 

Michael

[Stigweard]

[WhiteTiger]

I've been diving a bit deeper into Buddhism philosophy lately.

 

Great I need to dive deeper into it myself. I would love to hear what you have to say express... I seem to be trying to do a bunch of things at once... I can no longer afford... or at least be happy putting all my eggs into one basket.

 

White Tiger said 'This tells you so much, if you can choose to be free from desire and Do onto others as you would have them do to you. You will pretty much (if i'm not missing anything) be treated the way you want to be treated.'

 

Well Your right... There are some missing stages i didn't point out But i'm NOT a master.

Nor should i claim to be an advanced student. I do feel I've gone deep into some practice(s) although deep is only relative to the person saying it. Its subjective... Its my opinion in other words. Comparing it to the Masters I'm practically nothing.

 

My statement leaves out a few things I already am seeming to so far successfully accomplish. Although I've read, no matter how strong ones foundation (Which i'm not saying mine is strong) is desire and passion in the heart can always destroy the strongest of foundation.

 

That gets to the heart of virtue. Its lesser if its done for rewards. Being good may not have a reward, but be good anyway. (I have the book 'Anyway', a poem often attributed to Mother Teresa was a work by an American Author who expanded it into a book).

Michael

 

I'd be very interested into getting to the heart of Virtue.