chownah wrote:If we are to consider the meaning as you suggest can you talk a bit about "the nature of the condition in which all humans find themselves living" and how it relates to the topic of this thread?
Mr Man wrote:Action vs seclusion is a false dichotomy.
suriyopama wrote:but the mind and the world are not aseptic laboratories where you can put solid labels, laws, and limits to everything.
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:I do a good deal of beta testing for various software. To do my job well I have to find faults and point them out. If they are not fixed, I let the developers know that they're not fixed yet. If they cannot find the fault, I try to explain it better.
However, if they don't agree with me that it's a bug, or don't know how to fix it, or haven't got time to fix it, that's not my problem. I did my duty — let them do theirs.
I am sure you heard the story about the Acrobat and his assistant, but it bears repeating:
An acrobat and his apprentice earned a living by performing tricks on top of a bamboo pole. One day, while performing their usual routine the assistant said to the acrobat, “You look after me, and I will look after you. That way, we will both come down safely from this pole.”
The acrobat replied, “No. You look after yourself, and I will look after myself. That way we will both come down safely from this pole.”
I enjoy trying to improve things. It's satisfying to know that some software I use every day works better because of my efforts. I also understand its limitations much better, and don't expect it to be perfect. Others who use it, often get upset and angry, and often don't accept my advice to calm down, and be polite when reporting problems. That's beyond my control, but if I get angry and upset, that teaches me about my own attachment, which is the cause of my own suffering.
suriyopama wrote:If that were the software that controls the landing systems of the new Airbus A380, and the developer still doesn't want to acknowledge the bugs that you report (e.g. for time or cost restraints) would your attitude be the same?
binocular wrote:suriyopama wrote:If that were the software that controls the landing systems of the new Airbus A380, and the developer still doesn't want to acknowledge the bugs that you report (e.g. for time or cost restraints) would your attitude be the same?
Do you find that when there is more at stake (such as when it comes to the systems that control airplanes), the appropriate response is to allow oneself to be overwhelmed with worry?
"Monks, these two are fools. Which two? The one who takes up a burden that hasn't fallen to him, and the one who doesn't take up a burden that has. These two are fools."
suriyopama wrote:I imagine that, depending on our kamma, some of us are presented with innocuous burdens, and others are presented with more threatening burdens.
My need to open this thread comes from my doubts about how to disentangle oneself from all that responsibilities and burdens without being neglectful.
binocular wrote:suriyopama wrote:My need to open this thread comes from my doubts about how to disentangle oneself from all that responsibilities and burdens without being neglectful.
I think your situation may be quite rare - someone with both great worldly responsibilities that involve the lives of many people, and an interest in Buddhism.
So there are probably few role-models whom one could consult.
You've provided a lot of personal details here which is honest and helpful. In the end though our words on the internet forum can only be of so much help to your situation because only you are the one with boots on the ground. I'm guessing you've tried talking to those closer to you or in the know who sympathize and can give more specific advice. But if not, that's an idea. And if you have, maybe try again with a different approach.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 59 guests