u/toothless-tiger

You've got to remember that everything we have from the Buddha is filtered through his students, and their students, and so on. Yasodhara, the Buddha's wife, became his student, and achieved awakening. Whenever you read the suttas, you have to keep in mind the possibility of stuff being added that the Buddha did not actually teach.

So, practically speaking, what does that article communicate to you?

What does spirituality mean?

About the only place where I feel there is an intersection of science and "spirituality" are scientific studies on meditation. I'm afraid articles like these make conceptual jumps between science and metaphysics in a way that is, shall we say, very unscientific.

True, but that is not the case here.

Having read a little about the abbey. Considering her training, the abbess of the monastery is Gelug trained, and Chagdud Rinpoche is Nyingma.

Considering that Thubten Chodron trained under the Dalai Lama, among others, I wouldn't imagine you should consider the Dorje Shugden thing an issue here.

It is also worthwhile trying several different traditions. As much as you enjoy what you are doing now, you may find another tradition suits you better, or at minimum the different perspective will illuminate what you have already been practicing.

I would be very cautious of any Buddhist group that tries to actively dissuade you from trying another school. That's a bit culty.

Speaking truthfully is not the same as speaking the whole truth. I think part of right speech is not speaking unless it serves a useful purpose.

To be honest, I would say you should pursue the path that feels right to you. If you go ahead and dive in deep, and examine your experience through meditation, and really grok impermanence, I don't know, maybe you will find that you have no need to change anything. Maybe there is something you need to do that will become clear.

When you look at a Buddhist monk or nun, really, they dress the same, they look pretty damn near the same. I'd say, ideally speaking, gender becomes kind of irrelevant.

No matter what, I think it is worthwhile doing some introspection, determine how negative an impact gender dysphoria is having on you, talk frankly with people who have made the transition to determine if making the transition is what you want and need, and whether the consequences are worth the benefits.

Thanks, but not many people with PhDs in physics are doing physics these days. Somewhat too many of us. :(

I am a senior SRE. No CompSci, but I have a Ph.D. in Physics.

WTF? Tomatoes in cast iron?

Hmmm. About the same. Have a look at what some Buddhists are doing in Burma, and the excesses of some monks in Thailand.

If all Christians actually adhered to "Love they neighbor as thyself", what would the world look like?

You and just about everyone else who isn't a psychopath. A need for external validation. Doesn't matter where it comes from, it's common enough.

What I found for myself was that being aware of something, and noting it when it came up in my everyday interactions, was enough to change things.

Compassion does not mean being a doormat. Here is an example to consider. I have about as much compassion for my children as one human being can have for another. Yet I have rules for them, and enforce boundaries every single time they are violated.

You just have to remember, standing your ground comes from a different place when you are acting out of compassion. If you are acting out of compassion, rather than bolstering your ego, yeah, there is some stuff you will let slide, but just giving way all the time is not compassion.

And remember, when you are being compassionate, you need to have the same amount of compassion for yourself as you do for others.

If they have heirs, the heirs can choose to continue paying the mortgage, or sell the house, and pay off the mortgage, pocketing the equity.

And at that age, they really should have a will, indicating who gets what of whatever is left.

It all depends on who is doing the considering. :-)

From a logical perspective, rebirth is unfalsifiable. We can neither prove nor disprove it's a thing.

There are those that insist you cannot really call yourself a Buddhist unless you believe in literal rebirth. There are those that interpret rebirth to mean something other than "you" "living" multiple lives. There is no Pope of Buddhism to declare what you must have faith in to be considered a Buddhist.

So call yourself what you want.

There is also the consideration that Buddhism is a lot more about practice than it is about belief. The beliefs are part of the raft that you leave behind on the other shore.

My own thoughts on this: While the Buddha apparently taught about rebirth, he is rather silent on what it is that is reborn. If everything is not-self, what is there to be reborn?

And then, there are the teachings on karma, and ending dukkha. If there is no rebirth, dukkha is, tragically, very easy to end. And teachings on karma and rebirth can be a powerful motivation for ethical behavior on the part of laypeople who do not have the ability and motivation to meditate and study the dharma deeply.

Also, if there is no rebirth, that pretty much eliminates the idea of justice in the world. And while that may be true, that there is no justice but what humans create, it is incredibly unsatisfying to most people.

Finally, if you are working to be liberated in this lifetime, it's kind of moot, and you will have your answer to this question in your personal experience.

There is a difference between practicing compassion, right speech, and equanimity versus being a doormat.

So, to your examples. When someone cuts in front of you in line, what would you do if you weren't practicing Buddhist principals? Unless you would have been willing to engage in a physical altercation, the only difference might be the tone of voice in which you let them know that they are cutting the line.

When a friend "takes their time repaying a loan", seriously, has no one ever told you what a bad thing this is? Come on, since at least Shakespeare's time that has been common knowledge.

Being a Buddhist doesn't mean you can't say no.

crossing the street while texting

So, here's the problem with this idea. dukkha, which is translated as suffering, also encompasses dissatisfaction and stress. Would you kill yourself over a little dissatisfaction?

So, no, I don't think the Buddha would advocate suicide. But, also, this is a problem that secular Buddhists have not addressed for me. The Buddha specifically disavowed nihilism along with eternalism, nihilism meaning, in this context, that there is nothing that continues after death.

The number of "Italians" in the U.S. this is true for are not so many. I wouldn't even hold that one out for children after the first born. My younger brother makes a painful mockery of Italian. My youngest brother is barely above mute in Italian. It may have been true for the big waves that came in the first half of the last century. They ended up colonizing whole neighborhoods, before their kids up and moved away to the suburbs and became fully integrated.

When someone asks, I'm American. If the context is right, I may tell them where my parents are from.

If you don't practice, you certainly won't ever get comfortable in those positions.

No matter what position you meditate in, you will either become incredibly distracted by discomfort, or you will fall asleep. Eventually, you may get to a point where that distraction, that discomfort, stops mattering to you. This happens with practiced meditators.

Look for stretching exercises for lotus position. Do the exercises. And sit and meditate. When you can't stand it any more, do it for a minute longer.

You can meditate sitting upright in a chair, but it takes more discipline to maintain a good meditation posture.

seriously, you telling he that man couldn't just pull the nails right out?

Short answer: there isn't a big enough TV audience for that kind of show.

As others have pointed out, sufferering is an inadequate translation of dukkha. Dukkha is that dissatisfaction/stress/suffering that we ourselves create. It arises from not groking the fundamental impermanence of all experiences. Yearning for pleasant experiences to continue, fearing that unpleasant experiences won't end, those are forms of suffering we ourselves create.

Through correct engagement with our experience, understanding everything's impermanence, that it will not satisfy, that it is not self, that's how we end that self-created suffering.

It rather depends on if you told them where you were going. What I have seen is that when someone leaves for a direct competitor, they are usually immediately locked out of everything, and security accompanies them to clean out their desk and escort them out the door.

Once you have given them notice, they have no leverage to assure your good behavior, and they can't really make plans based on two weeks of work. Escorting you out immediately is the sensible thing.

Exactly what I was thinking of. :-)

John Peacock is my favorite.

As a former scientist who is currently over 50, I never heard any of my professors or my supervisor curse, and my peers and I didn't curse in front of them, but amongst ourselves it got pretty salty.