A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of TheravÄda Buddhism
https://www.dhammawheel.com/
In that context, yes, it is similar. When I saw the title of the thread, I thought it was about the typical usage of the term "yes man" of saying yes to everything your boss says, no matter how inept it might be. In that sense, it would be considered being untruthful, not coming out with your true feelings and thoughts just to please your boss. A good boss will accept some constructive criticism.purple planet wrote:What about this simlarity with buddhism - in buddhism you should "watch" and not react based on feelings (more or less) and it resembles saying yes to everything without judging - to accept everything as it comes without denying it
Actually, reflecting on it more, I do remember when the book first came out, I vowed to say YES to all social invitations, parties, dinners, etc. My social life went very well for some time after that... I went to some parties I didn't enjoy, many that I did enjoy, and I did sleep with more women than I would have otherwise.purple planet wrote:Smart not smart - and how it resembles buddhism ? what points does it have in common with buddhism ?
Do not read Nietzsche.convivium wrote: read nietzsche.
His Ubermensch in Thus Spoke Zarathustra does seem to be rather unlike the Arahant. Still, I think reading Nietzsche is interesting. I would recommend it (even if only to see how wrong view leads to wrong release).James the Giant wrote:Do not read Nietzsche.convivium wrote: read nietzsche.
Possibly the most unwholesome European philosopher. Ever.
oh to be 18 again!convivium wrote:i am studying nietzsche at berkeley and enjoying it a lot. he's misinterpreted (by nazis, by 13 year olds, etc). you have to study schopenhauer to get nietzsche. and you have to know kant to get schopenhauer.
He is misinterpreted quite often, but I would still consider his philosophy as antithetical to buddhist practice/philosophy. For one, Nietzsche's moral philosophy rejects the notion that the skillful/wholesome and the unskillful/unwholesome is or can be the same for all and one for a variety of reasons. Second, the eternal recurrence has rather obvious implications that make the buddhist path rather silly to undertake. Third, he considered buddhist practice life denying.convivium wrote:i am studying nietzsche at berkeley and enjoying it a lot. he's misinterpreted (by nazis, by 13 year olds, etc). you have to study schopenhauer to get nietzsche. and you have to know kant to get schopenhauer.
i don't have time to write an essay here. you have to read nietzsche with a lot of context in mind; you have to try understand and relate to him like you would a friend. the first point has to take into account common sense. the second point doesn't seem in any way anathema to buddhist practice if you don't construe it metaphysically. and the third point: the goal of the deathless qua escape from the cycle of rebirths is life denying.Nietzsche's moral philosophy rejects the notion that the skillful/wholesome and the unskillful/unwholesome is or can be the same for all and one for a variety of reasons. Second, the eternal recurrence has rather obvious implications that make the buddhist path rather silly to undertake. Third, he considered buddhist practice life denying.