u/tejveeer

I have been in conversation with an old friend for some time about the dhamma - at least my understanding of it.

I had spent some time uncovering some views he had tacitly due to the scientific culture we were bought up in. Since they were challenged, he seems more open to consider the possibility of future birth, the weight of which he seems to be realizing to some degree now.

Because of this he showed some interest in HH's teachings, except I had nowhere I could point for starters. The slovenian videos? The sri lankan videos?

Unfortunately, HH's teachings now, even though they seem more targetted towards beginners, feel even more difficult to enter than they were before. It feels almost as if someone needs the context accumulated across all 500 videos and years of trying to make sense of the suttas and their pali to really begin making any sense of the new videos.

I think this is because of the following reasons:

1. The format of the videos. They are conversations between the venerables themselves, in which there is a questioner and answerer. The questioner assumes the place of an abstract viewer, rather than actual live viewers.
2. The content of the videos. The content is often a part of the whole of HH's teachings, where how that part fits into the whole is only sometimes mentioned, or when it is, it is overriden by the multiplicity of topics covered.
3. The lack of hierarchy in the videos. The videos seem like a bunch of topics concatenated together: A B C D E F ..., which is natural since IRL conversations flow without hierarchy; as new questions come up, the topics change. But this is extremely costly on the viewers because, in my estimate, every video has at least 15-20 topics changes. Viewers have to hold context of the discussion, see how it might be related to the multiple changes that previously occurred, process incoming discussions, remember very important bits. The same video may go from talking about sati, to yoniso manasikara, to a sutta, to sense restraint, to avijja, to another sutta, to meditation techniques, etc. This means the very important parts of the video, say topic B, F, H, are lost since the video is so linear.

This may be compared in contrast to a pre-planned video on a subject that has an explicit hierarchy.

Say there is a doctor who is giving an update on the medication plan to their patient over a 20 minute video. They plan that the starting 5 minutes are for introducing the purpose of this new plan; how it fits into the overall plan of recovery. The next 5 are for addressing existing medication. The next 10 are for new medication.

In the new medication, they will have 5 minutes for what the new medication is, why it's needed, and its sides effects. The next 5 for how to use it.

There is a clear hierarchy here. Three top-level topics: context, current medication, new medication. And the 3rd has two sub-topics: Introduction, application.

Compare this to if the doctor made a 1 hour video in conversation with another doctor. They begin by introducing the new medication, then the research paper that supports this, then the research papers that don't support this medication and the issues with them, then the context of the new medication, then some new research papers, then the application of the new medication, then the side effects, then its purpose, etc.

Of course, it is completely up to the venerables on whether this is of any benefit. But I think it would be very beneficial to existing members and to others outside the community willing to learn to have a course-like presentation of the core of the dhamma by HH, that builds from ground up.

The whole of HH's teachings can be divided into positive and negative parts. The positive is concerned with their own views, the negative with addressing views that will obstruct others from understanding/considering HH's positive views.

The positive part is concerned centrally with the HH's aim: to teach for the uprooting not management of suffering. Then this would be split off into two branches that elaborate on this distinction: on management and on uprooting.

In order for newcomers to understand why management is problematic, they must understand how HH understands the actual uprooting of suffering. So it is possible to start off from the uprooting branch and address that as its own topic in a video.

This branch would address what the root of the problem is (craving), what the solution is (removing craving), and how that solution is implemented (i.e., it would introduce the notions of the four noble truths and the five aggregates).

Then it's possible to more easily make sense of what management is (namely, everything that is not addressing the root), and why it's problematic (it doesn't address the root).

Then one could exit the positive branch and address the negative branch. Chiefly, meditation techniques.

The course/series could be divided in 3/4th part to the positive part, and 1/4th to the negative. In the positive, 1/2 is spent on uprooting, 1/2 on management. And the same hierarchical division goes down more and more, and every video would itself be just another hierarchical division.

This would just be one among many ways of presenting HH's central views. But I personally think this would help save much time on both HH's part as well as on the viewers' part due to the clarity it can bring.

Hey, so since losing the internship I previously had, I've been applying to other ones now that more jobs are coming out. Both through my university's board and externally.

I've got an software engineering interview coming up for one next Monday for a local business, which likely won't have a very technical process. I'll be competing with only 3-4 other university students. These students are looking for a job right now and chances are that's because they had no previous experience; most of the students at my unviersity have already found jobs through the program right now and started working.

Given all this, I can infer that I'll likely get accepted for the role since I have actual experience; unless I'm a culture mismatch, like I was for another gaming company. Though I doubt that'll be the case here.

The job description of the business, however, is underwhelming. I'm very sure none of the tasks will challenge me technically speaking. The business also doesn't provide software solutions primarily, so software is a secondary aspect, which means I likely won't be able to move within the business to different areas to grow technically.

But, from the dhamma point of view, this is great. Since the business isn't moving fast, especially technically, it means work life balance will likely be great. The business also seems to be looking for long-term employees given all the people working there have been there for more than 5+ years. The pay is also alright (~60k/year).

But I'm not sure whether I should prioritize the dhamma right now or later? My plan was to get a job that'd pay around 100k yearly, work for 4-5 years to save money for my family, and then ordain since I wouldn't be having this insurmountable feeling of debt to them. Of course, I'd still try my best to keep the precepts (failing right now) and be secluded within this.

If I accept this offer, and don't work on improving myself technically outside of work, it'll be fairly difficult for me to secure a better paying job in the future after graduation. But, if I do well, I can likely get a return offer there and stay for a long time, since that's what the culture there seems like.

Before, I was thinking of altogether not even interviewing for it because of how easy the work sounded and the limited opportunity it provided. But then I asked myself why I was looking for worldly growth so much? And what the limit for that growth should be? And since I wasn't able to answer them, and remembered the sutta where the Buddha was said to be the 'destroyer of worldly growth', I decided to reconsider my views on what I should be doing.

Currently, I'm thinking that if I get the offer, I'll accept it and just do open source work at the side, and study over weekends to eventually get some certifications. This way, I'll have an income with good enough work life balance to afford physical seclusion, whilst also not effectively destroying career.

But on the other hand, I have online assessments for other companies that are far more reputable, that I might be able to pass since I've been practicing for technical interviews. Getting into these would also likely give me far superior technical experience. But I'm not sure what my chances are for actually getting an offer from them right now. So pretty confused with what to do with these in the current situation.

Would appreciate any perspectives on this.

Hey there.

I'm just starting to learn about the judiciary and the law. What kinds of laws do you think every Canadian should know? What should everyone know about the judiciary?

Any papers you'd recommend to familiarize myself with Canadian law?

Thanks.

I believe my own views somewhat approximate to the individuals here, but I'm unsure to what degree.

How would you describe your central views? Central as in, those primitive views from which other views follow.

How would you justify those views? Are there appropriate grounds for them?

Hey there, I'm a cs and philosophy major. I took polisci courses as electives this school year. Specifically, on the conceptual basis for understanding politics (federalism, fiscal federalism, municipalities, courts, constitution, elections, advocacy groups, etc), and on democracy. This was all mostly in a Canadian context, with the latter having more international elements.

I'd like to hone in on the particular aspects of the governments in greater detail. Specifically, how the Canadian parliament actually functions in detail, what the components of the welfare system are, what welfare services are available to us, how the judiciary works, what category of laws everyone should know (labour laws, for example?), etc.

Anything particular that can have concrete utility in daily life.

Does anyone have any suggestions for where I can acquire knowledge of these particulars for the Canadian government? Also, how should the reliability of these sources be assessed?

Thanks.

Hey there. I'm looking for some artists who have a pessimistic aesthetic. Do any here have any in mind?

I've found artists such as Miho Kajioka, Makashi Wakui, and Tarkovsky to be quite resonating.

In general, I tend to prefer aesthetics either without a human subject, or, if one is present, then at a distance. Ideally in a solitary environment (nature, empty cities), with heavy shades, and prevailing blur which signifies a kind of ambiguity.

Would be interested to see other people's preferred aesthetics in general as well.