I got into this a little bit on the "We were going to change the world"..... thread. What is the reason you want to change the world? Is it because that you see it's fucked up and you want to fix it? Or is it for ego gratification? So you can say "look how I changed the world." That was one of the failings of "The Movement". You had people that sincerely wanted to change the world because it was fucked up. Then you had a bigger percentage that wanted to say "Look what we did." The problem is that changing the world is a lot of work. In the wise words of Dennis Hopper "It takes more than going down to your local video store and renting Easy Rider to be a rebel. And there is not a lot of glory in being a broke revolutionary. I can take what I've learned growing up as a child of hippies and apply it to my presant world. I can help others and love my freedom and unapologetically be myself. Smoke a little reefer while realising that it is an accessory not a necessity. I don't have much but I enjoy what I have. I help others as a profession (how fucking cool is that). Yes I enjoy "Sex, Drugs, and Rock n' Roll" all responsibly. For example I don't go to work stoned. And I can come here and talk about what it all means. Peace Out, Rev J
I don't get what you are getting at. I don't know if Rev is particularly Buddhistic but I understood what he was saying as representing Right Livelihood, one of the Eightfold Paths of Dharma. And one of the three paths of Ethical Conduct (Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood). Right Livelihood is what I have endeavored to do most of my life, working with developmentally and physically disabled ppl or those in nursing homes or hospitals.
Just the way he worded it made me think that he considers it remarkable for him in particular, as though if represents a path out of character. Or is it cool because it is something he wanted to emulate and is experiencing success. There are few of us who will not help another if we feel that it is in our benefit to do so. Wouldn't right livelihood be that livelihood that suits us. For instance, a warriors' right livelihood would be to be a soldier. A soldier could be said to be serving his fellows.
Actually I moved into the San Francisco Bay Area to study with a Buddhist Monk. Unfotunately i only got to study with him for a brief time before life got in the way. There are some professions that pay well but benifit from harming others then there are some that almost require one to be a slave. As a part of balancing the budget in California right now they are talking about reducing the pay rate for care givers from $11.50 an hour to minimum wage. They are also talking about changing the criteria as to who gets help and who doesn't. They want to get more disabled peopleout of their homes and into nursing homes. Besides my usual work routines this weekend I have been attending a sleep in protest (Granted I'm too much of a comfort creature to sleep out at this point) both helping my client and as an attendant half worried about his paycheck. If anybody reading this is in the Berkeley area the protest is at the corner of Adeline and Russell on the traffic Island by Berkeley Bowl. If you are a California resident call your local congress person and tell them that this isn't cool. I'm sorry if I got a little off topic. But I think I got back to the original post a little. Pax often asks why no one is protesting. So I jumped back on my soapbox. I'm off now. Peace OUt, Rev J
If that is his path, I guess it would be his right livelihood. Sikhs come to mind when thinking of noble warriors - those who add to the greater good by fighting to protect others. Altho killing other ppl goes away from the Buddhist precept of "I undertake to abstain from taking life."
Same here in Florida - the state is cutting back on services to developmentally disabled ppl, along with others. We didn't lose too much this legislative session due to our paid lobbyists but eventually, like next year if the economy doesn't turn around we will be losing even more. But rest assured the legislators will still receive their built in pay raises and perks.
Yeah, the terms of right action seem to be wedded to that which is helpful, which in turn is a matter of circumstance or timing, these in turn could lead to conflicts of interpretation.
Fortunately, the real economy of helpfulness is personal investment. Legislature needn't be a factor.
I really like this thread, a lot, and respect jc and pax mans opinions. I never thought of the hippie as just an drug infested, rock and roll and clothes. Dont get me wrong I love wearing tie-dye and such. but that is just it, it isnt about being an hippie by how you look. It how you react to the world around you, the mindset you have, that is an true hippie to me. I go to protests, I try to get petitions to be made into law. I spend a lot of my time, online helping my fellow man, i was an suicide hotline worker for quite awhile. I think it is what you do in this world that makes you an hippy not the clothes you wear or the music you listen to. It is the positive outlook you can have on life, the way you treat others, the way you try to change things, not for yourself and your own gratification, but for others. just my 2 cents. for what it is worth.
Why? I find the youth on these forums to be incredibly sophisticated regarding many issues. I wish had I known some of these in my youth. To be disappointed is to have, appointed incorrectly. Perhaps you might benefit from taking a fresh look at life.
It seems to depend per person. Who cares, you can sometimes find the same criteria in nonhippies. Does that makes them hippie in your eyes? It's kind of an obsolete way to perceive people if you ask me (not saying there aren't people with hippie mindsets anymore, but does it really matter to you if they won't indentify themselves with a 50 year old counterculture?)
While I appreciate this sentiment I have a saying I like to use "Don't try to feed the world on an empty stomach." That doesn't mean to root and snort and glut yourself like a pig. That means you are worthless to others coming to work starved, cold, and sleep deprived. I have 2 really stupid things that I love to do. One is eating. The other is sleeping indoors. Legislature shouldn't be a factor but unfortunately is. I've been the guy who get's hired after bad attendants who berate and steal from their clients. So on top of taking care of their personal needs, and being some type of companion I also have to convince them that I'm not going to be ripping them off in the process. By reducing the wages for care providors you are reducing the quality of care being provided. By cutting wages you are also weeding out good attendants because we are not making enough to live on. That makes the disabled person more likeley to have to hire the guy who make up the wage difference by stealing from their client. It happens already but it will become more common with reduced wages. Peace Out, Rev J
Actually it is your, as you say stupid things you love to do, eat and sleep inside, and the equation of these things with wages, that make this an issue for you. Those who display kindness are soon deserving of trust. You identify a system that encourages us to be neglectful of real need. There is a saying that we cannot serve two masters. What others do is always for others to do. What we do ourselves is where our power to effect lies. That power to effect is directly proportional to focus, how we intend ourselves at any given moment.
And there are others who display kindness and earn that trust while filling their pockets with the patients goods. I love what I do. I like being paid to do what I do. I am a believer in this grand scheme interconnectedness. If I can't take care of myself I can't take care of others. In the case of my job I eat and sleep indoors so I can go help him in return I get paid on his behalf to help him. He depends on me to live a productive life. I depend on him for my livelyhood. I'd rather do that than say be a Pawnbroker or a Repo man where I'd be paid for someone elses misery. To me there is no conflict. I serve the client but get paid by the government. In a couple of weeks I am going to be working 7 days a week with 3 different clients. I like helping but I also have expences to cover. I treat my clients with dignity and respect. For the most part they treat me with dignity and respect. I still have to make a living and have some time for myself. If my pay gets cut from $11.50 an hour to $8.50 an hour that is pretty drastic and not only does that effect any type of lifestyle (which isn't much to start with) that I have it also effects the lifestyle of the clients that I have. Peace Out, Rev J
Don't get me wrong, I think it is grand that you find the synchronicity of helping others and getting paid for it. If you could not get paid would you be as inclined to help or would making a living get in the way? I am not talking about hypocrisy, I'm talking about the "trade offs" we are personally forced to consider.
WTF!?? With this question you apparently have taken philosophizing over the deep end. You can't very well help anyone else if you are starving and sleeping in a doorway, can you?
No you can't. I'm trying to get a handle on specifically for him what is "cool" about getting paid for helping others. Is it cool because it is coincidental. Further, I understand your considerations. I personally have not experienced cause for concern over this issue. I have been physically incapacitated yet still had the capacity to be helpful. And again how do we measure need.
