[movedx]

I've been studying a lot of Buddhism as of late. One thing it has taught me in the Middle Way. In short, it means do nothing in excess, which includes doing nothing at all.

This balanced view leads to me to believe you, Paul, and "hustle culture" that's all over YouTube are both right and wrong. I've come to live by a simple system...

Try to do fulfilling work that's meaningful to future generations, whilst also putting back into society as much positive value as you can versus what you consume.

So far, this has led me to the model of, "Learn a skill, give a skill". The term "give" can be exchanged for "sell" depending on the receiver. This has led me to learn complex skills and problem solving (consuming from society), and then giving back in the form of books, videos, mentoring, and more (putting back) so that others can learn from my experience.

At the end of the day though, who really knows? :-)

[sheepscreek]

Reading this, I had an epiphany just now.

What you’ve shared is essentially Dharma. Or giving back from a sense of duty, or as a matter of principle.

Interestingly, Karma preaches: if you give to those in need, you will receive in return when you’re in need.

Although the motivations are different in both teachings (Buddhism vs. Hinduism, with carrot vs. stick if you will), they have the same effect - to reach an equilibrium in society.

Edited: For clarity

[yoble]

I see this simple version of Karma talked about quite often in the general public and it's pretty far from my understanding of Karma in Buddhism.

Karma is a consequence of Dependent Origination - basically that things arise dependent on other things, and there is nothing that's outside of the law of cause and effet (hence no eternal, unchanging, eternally happy Self, which is the type of Self, or soul/atta(pali)/atman(sanskrit) the Buddha was talking about).

Karma means your intentional thoughts and actions all have consequences.

If you give to those in need, that ripples through the world and yeah, you're more likely to get good things because you're building a good life. There's no need for a "cosmic justice" that will weigh what you did and give you the exact same amount when you're in a similar situation. You have more probability of receiving help (cause you've got friends now), but you might still be unlucky and don't receive any help.

That's on the material level but it goes further than that - by acting and thinking wholesomely, less based on your own craving and delusion, you're cultivating a mind that's less likely to act based on craving and delusion. It's simple cause and effect again, and it depends much less on external conditions since it's internal.

(Now the word Karma is used differently in different tradition, so the general idea of "cosmic retribution" might be what it refers too in some of those. When I understood more this version of Karma it made a whole lot more sense, so I'm sharing that here.)

I found this article by Culadasa really enlightening on the topic: https://s3.amazonaws.com/dharmatreasure/20130322--what-the-b...

[movedx]

That's right. For me, it's essentially living a Bodhisattva life.

[namaria]

I agree with the sentiment and that of grandparent. But I take issue with the notion of fulfillment. I think we ought to strive to do things that drain us. You can't fulfill yourself continuously. You can't learn if your head is full. We have this 'my heart if full' turn of phrase that makes the next sentence confusing, but you can't love if your heart is full (of things you hold on to).

Same thing with trying to leave a legacy, or trying to make an impact. If you decide some thing or another is a goal, with the best altruistic reasoning, you're still first choosing something to hold on to, and then putting effort into attaching more and more to that.

We need to perform life because we are living beings. We go through the acts of nourishment and socialization because we are at that stage, being people on Earth. But seeking any personally chosen result or goal is self delusion. Letting go of what I think is the right thing, and pouring myself into my life, as I interact with others and gain opportunities to listen to them, work alongside them, decide together what to do and do it. I am alive because the universe pours into me. I need to pour forth. That's how things flow through their natural progression.

[jiggywiggy]

You speak mostly of not getting attached. Which is mostly a method not to build negative karma in Buddhism and build positive karma. But positive karma is not a goal in itself in Buddhism, realization is.

The Madhyamaka way, translated to the great middle way, mostly refers to combining freedom & meaning from emptiness. Meaning things are neither real, nor or they an illusion. Therefore the middle.

This is because understanding emptiness often leads to nihilism: "nothing really matters". The opposite seeing things as real, instead of acknowledging everything is changing, often leads to suffering: if laptop breaks, relationships end etc. Both are true and both are false.

The goal of madhymaka is to explain middle way between those and also practical how that leads to freedom, joy and meaning in every moment of life.

In the end the goal of Buddhism is not to change outer conditions but to get to a state were hapiness is experienced regardless of outer experiences.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka

[movedx]

> In the end the goal of Buddhism is not to change outer conditions but to get to a state were hapiness is experienced regardless of outer experiences.

I would argue not trying to change the outer conditions is an extreme view, which is a notion rejected in Buddhism ;-)

Some things can be changed, like keeping your environment clean. You can, of course, simply find happiness regardless of the state it's in - clean or filthy - but you're kidding yourself, and only yourself, if you believe you won't be happier if it is clean(er). Therefore, you can find (more) happiness by changing the environment you're _but_ also excepting that it will get dirty again, requiring you to clean it again.

All this being said, neither of us is right or wrong. That's sort of the point.

[yarekt]

Interesting that Aristotle's Ethics also speaks about this. Good and bad are not at the ends of a scale, but good is in the middle, and bad either side. From what I understand it, excess of anything, even something normally regarded as "good" would result in bad things. Yea, I'm not very eloquent here, but you get the idea