Page 5 of 7

Re: being nicer on here

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 10:28 am
by Cittasanto
Hi Jack,
Couple of questions for you if you don't mind.
When did "directly to the point" equate to "curt" "snappy" or "irate"?
and
how is being "direct to the point" being a "dick"?

Re: being nicer on here

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:22 pm
by yawares
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote: Now, what would happen during a Dhamma talk (Satsang) if someone drifts by playing his MP3 player, stands at the back listening a bit, and then blurts out a question while the teacher is speaking? Perhaps the disciples or the teacher might be annoyed by this rude interruption, and tell the interloper to switch off his MP3 player, sit down, and listen a bit before asking a question later when its more appropriate.
-------------
Dear Bhikkhu Pesala
Since You talked about MP3
May I ask you a silly question?
What made a monk email a song to me?
As a gift? Or just want to share a song with me?

As for me... whenever I attached songs to my posts
Because I love beautiful/sweet written songs
Most songs I posted were my birthday gifts
From my brother/sisters/hubby/my kid
All my songs were such big hits!

Curious mind?
yawares :thinking:

Re: being nicer on here

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 1:01 pm
by Bhikkhu Pesala
yawares wrote: Dear Bhikkhu Pesala
Since You talked about MP3
May I ask you a silly question?
What made a monk email a song to me?
As a gift? Or just want to share a song with me?
Better ask the monk who sent it. I suppose that he knows that you are very fond of listening to songs.

There are very few songs that don't arouse unwholesome mind states like emotional attachment. The Buddha admonished the monks not to recite the Dhamma with a musical intonation like singers do.

Lay people can perform devotional songs like this metta chant, but monks should be striving to make a pleasing sound. A Cover Version by a female Burmese vocalist, Soe Sandar Htun, with a voice over and captions in Burmese translation of the Pāli.

Re: being nicer on here

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 1:30 pm
by yawares
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:
yawares wrote: Dear Bhikkhu Pesala
Since You talked about MP3
May I ask you a silly question?
What made a monk email a song to me?
As a gift? Or just want to share a song with me?
Better ask the monk who sent it. I suppose that he knows that you are very fond of listening to songs.

There are very few songs that don't arouse unwholesome mind states like emotional attachment. The Buddha admonished the monks not to recite the Dhamma with a musical intonation like singers do.

Lay people can perform devotional songs like this metta chant, but monks should be striving to make a pleasing sound. Another Version by a Burmese vocalist, with a voice over and captions in Burmese translation of the Pāli.
---------------
Dear Bhikkhu Pesala,

Is it against vinaya for a monk to email me a love song? What should I tell him? Can I email him SIN SIN SIN/or Thanks ???

Curious mind??
yawares :anjali:

Re: being nicer on here

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 1:47 pm
by kirk5a
yawares wrote: Can I email him SIN SIN SIN/or Thanks ???
:rofl:

Re: being nicer on here

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 1:55 pm
by Bhikkhu Pesala
If you distrust his motives, then avoid further contact with him. Only the monk himself can know his own motivations, or whether he broke any Vinaya rule, but I cannot think of a valid reason for emailing a love song to a female lay supporter.

Mettā is good, but it can easily turn to rāga if one is not careful.

The Buddha did not approve of monks chanting in a way that would distract the listeners from the meaning and get attached to the sound. Some ladies might also get lustfully attracted to monks who have a soft and pleasing voice.

Re: being nicer on here

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 2:12 pm
by yawares
Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:If you distrust his motives, then avoid further contact with him. Only the monk himself can know his own motivations, or whether he broke any Vinaya rule, but I cannot think of a valid reason for emailing a love song to a female lay supporter.

Mettā is good, but it can easily turn to rāga if one is not careful.

The Buddha did not approve of monks chanting in a way that would distract the listeners from the meaning and get attached to the sound. Some ladies might also get lustfully attracted to monks who have a soft and pleasing voice.

-------------
Dear Bhikkhu Pesala,

Oh ..I'm not one of those some ladies...never fall in love with a monk...oh no....sin sin sin..no can do !!!

With respect,
yawares :anjali:

Re: being nicer on here

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 2:17 pm
by BlackBird
Cittasanto wrote:Hi Jack,
Couple of questions for you if you don't mind.
When did "directly to the point" equate to "curt" "snappy" or "irate"?
and
how is being "direct to the point" being a "dick"?
What I was speaking out against in my original post was responses that were curt and snappy, that was the point I was addressing and that was the post Alan responded to. I did not equate the two, I merely quoted his post and continued on with arguing my point.

In fact I state in the post itself that:
There's a difference between speaking frankly and doing so in a way that blatantly disregards the feelings of others.
I most certainly did not equate being direct to the point with being a dick. I simply said that my post was an example of how to disagree with someone without being a dick about it. So where you get this idea from, I do not know. But please do not take my words and inject your own meanings into them.

What I said about being direct to the point was this:
Speaking directly to the point might help in many circumstances, but in others it just hurts people's feelings and leaves them dejected.
My mentions of the words irate curt and snappy were this:
That not being irate and snappy at people all will somehow result in the extreme of an East Asian society.
So you tell me Cittasanto, when did "directly to the point" equate to "curt" "snappy" or "irate"? Because it certainly wasn't on my watch.

metta
Jack

Re: being nicer on here

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 2:44 pm
by Dan74
A point that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is that our mental image of the poster will colour the words in a very significant way. So for instance if I have a positive image of a poster as a kindly wise older person, those short replies will sound like having been spoken with a gentle wink and come across is a positive well-intentioned manner. But if the image is of an arrogant and superior snob, the same words may sound sarcastic and rude.

Even someone new to the forum will hold images depending on their expectations.

This is all in addition to cultural variations in what is acceptable friendly forthrightness and what is unceremonious and rude.

Re: being nicer on here

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:03 pm
by Ben
Dan74 wrote:A point that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is that our mental image of the poster will colour the words in a very significant way. So for instance if I have a positive image of a poster as a kindly wise older person, those short replies will sound like having been spoken with a gentle wink and come across is a positive well-intentioned manner. But if the image is of an arrogant and superior snob, the same words may sound sarcastic and rude.

Even someone new to the forum will hold images depending on their expectations.

This is all in addition to cultural variations in what is acceptable friendly forthrightness and what is unceremonious and rude.
Well said, Dan!

Re: being nicer on here

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 5:57 pm
by Cittasanto
Hi Jack,
I am sorry but your initial sentence did indicate some form of connection being implied in the first half (which is where you use curt and not irate). Although yes you do say something in the second that does not agree so there was a lack of clarity in what I was reading. Hence asking questions instead of arguing a point, as I could not see how you were arguing against being direct and to the point (as opposed to pointed).

I also could not see how alan was responding directly to you in his first and only response in the thread.

Re: being nicer on here

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 6:19 pm
by Cittasanto
Dan74 wrote:...our mental image of the poster will colour the words in a very significant way....
very true

but something worth bearing in mind is something Christopher Hitchen said
http://youtu.be/IcJxN1VlcuA?t=9m
Who's going to decide, to whom do you give all of the right to decide which speeches are harmful, or who is the harmful speaker; Or to determinate in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be, that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job?

Re: being nicer on here

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 7:02 pm
by binocular
porpoise wrote:
binocular wrote:There's a point from where on being amicable about disagreement becomes blatant heedlessness.
I don't agree. It seems to me that rudeness is blatant heedlessness.
Who's talking about rudeness?

Suppose you don't drink alcohol, but you have an acquaintance who does. The two of you strongly disagree on the point of drinking alcohol. Do you really think it is wholesome to amicably persist in association with someone - with the emphasis on persist - with whom you are in some fundamental disagreement?

Re: being nicer on here

Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:35 pm
by BlackBird
Dan74 wrote:A point that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is that our mental image of the poster will colour the words in a very significant way. So for instance if I have a positive image of a poster as a kindly wise older person, those short replies will sound like having been spoken with a gentle wink and come across is a positive well-intentioned manner. But if the image is of an arrogant and superior snob, the same words may sound sarcastic and rude.

Even someone new to the forum will hold images depending on their expectations.

This is all in addition to cultural variations in what is acceptable friendly forthrightness and what is unceremonious and rude.
This is very true in many cases, but there are some cases I have witnessed which are beyond all doubt due to the nature of the phrasing.
Cittasanto wrote:Hi Jack,
I am sorry but your initial sentence did indicate some form of connection being implied in the first half (which is where you use curt and not irate). Although yes you do say something in the second that does not agree so there was a lack of clarity in what I was reading. Hence asking questions instead of arguing a point, as I could not see how you were arguing against being direct and to the point (as opposed to pointed).

I also could not see how alan was responding directly to you in his first and only response in the thread.
No harm done man :)

metta
Jack

Re: being nicer on here

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:49 am
by Nyorai
“Let us rise up and be thankful, for if we didn't learn a lot at least we learned a little, and if we didn't learn a little, at least we didn't get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didn't die; so, let us all be thankful.”

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

“As rain falls equally on the just and the unjust, do not burden your heart with judgements but rain your kindness equally on all. ”
― Gautama Buddha
:toast: