Locked threads

[Chula]

Why do we have threads that are locked for everyone except for a few? Doesn't it defeat the purpose of a forum?

[DNS]

Threads sometimes get locked for any number of reasons. It might be a discussion that goes in circles, devolving into wrong speech, it might be that the question raised was answered and / or often times it is at the request of the OP (person who started the thread). We prefer to not lock threads but it is a nice alternative to completely removing the thread as some forums do. This way, it can still be read, even if it is controversial, avoiding duplication of threads.

[SDC]

Why do we have threads that are locked for everyone except for a few?

(added emphasis)

If you ever see an additional post added to locked thread it may have been done by a mod or administrator just to give further information on why it was closed.

As far as having threads that are locked for everyone except for certain members, that is not something I have ever seen. If there is a specific case please point it out and we will explain.

[Chula]

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=24760

tilt has explained that this is locked for all except ancientbuddhism, I see it right at the top of "Discovering Theravada" like a pinned thread.

[Chula]

Threads sometimes get locked for any number of reasons. It might be a discussion that goes in circles, devolving into wrong speech, it might be that the question raised was answered and / or often times it is at the request of the OP (person who started the thread). We prefer to not lock threads but it is a nice alternative to completely removing the thread as some forums do. This way, it can still be read, even if it is controversial, avoiding duplication of threads.

I fully understand the need to lock some threads because they are getting out of hand/off-topic. My question was specifically about threads where it is locked to start off with only a few people able to post.

[SDC]

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=24760

tilt has explained that this is locked for all except ancientbuddhism, I see it right at the top of "Discovering Theravada" like a pinned thread.

Ah, that one. That is (maybe "was" at this point) an ongoing resource thread. It was locked and pinned in "Discovering Theravada" and not meant to have any associated discussion. Perhaps the OP did not make that clear. As far as I know that is the only thread like that.

[Chula]

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=24760

tilt has explained that this is locked for all except ancientbuddhism, I see it right at the top of "Discovering Theravada" like a pinned thread.

Ah, that one. That is (maybe "was" at this point) an ongoing resource thread. It was locked and pinned in "Discovering Theravada" and not meant to have any associated discussion. Perhaps the OP did not make that clear. As far as I know that is the only thread like that.

If it is meant to be a resource thread, why can't it just be pinned instead of locked? I don't see how it is helpful/promotes healthy discussion when an opinion on Anatta is in a locked thread with no chance of dialogue.

[tiltbillings]

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=24760

tilt has explained that this is locked for all except ancientbuddhism, I see it right at the top of "Discovering Theravada" like a pinned thread.

Ah, that one. That is (maybe "was" at this point) an ongoing resource thread. It was locked and pinned in "Discovering Theravada" and not meant to have any associated discussion. Perhaps the OP did not make that clear. As far as I know that is the only thread like that.

If it is meant to be a resource thread, why can't it just be pinned instead of locked? I don't see how it is helpful/promotes healthy discussion when an opinion on Anatta is in a locked thread with no chance of dialogue.

First it is a resource thread for the "Discovering Theravada" sub-forum. Do read the guidelines for this sub-forum. The idea of having this thread was to give basic information about the Theravada teaching of anatta without getting sidetracked in what can sometimes become endless wranglings with varying opinion about what anatta is supposed to mean.

What this thread gives us is a basic and standard Theravada presentation of anatta, which is appropriate to the "Discovering Theravada" section, which we have very recently seen here is not always accepted as being the way things should be understood in regards anatta. Now, if you want to discuss what is said in that thread, it is easy enough to do by linking to the particular msg, or highlighting and pasting the bits you want to discuss in whatever other sub-forum without bogging down the original thread in ways have seen happen elsewhere here. Anyway, that was the original idea, which I think is of value, but others may not.

[Chula]

I respect the amount of work that was put into that thread (especially the comparisons with the Upanishads), but in some places it seems to give an opinion by criticizing other interpretations without proper research. For instance:

"The Ānanda Sutta (SN. 44.10), has been the basis for a number of specious claims (Grimm - 1958, Harvey - 1995, Ṭhānissaro – 1996) that the Tathāgata never denied the ‘Self’ because when directly asked “…is there a Self?” (kiṃ … atthattā), “…is there no Self?” (kiṃ … natthattā), he was silent.

^ This states that Thanissaro Bhikkhu has made specious claims based on this sutta, and lacks the actual nuance of his thoughts as is stated here (starting from the 6th paragraph):
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

I realize there are different interpretations of the reasons why the Buddha did not answer Vacchagotta, but since the thread is supposed to be an introduction should it not point out that it is actually controversial?

If Theravada in that forum is understood to be how the commentaries interpret the suttas and they interpret the sutta similarly, I would understand, but in that case, why is the thread not part of the announcements section, since it is obviously not a topic that is open to discussion?

It is somewhat confusing that you suggest that I should quote what I want to discuss and create a different thread - what exactly is the harm of using the existing thread itself? I checked all other sub-forums and the only threads that I see locked and pinned are "Guidelines" threads, and this thread looks to be unique in that it is locked and pinned (albeit not in the Announcements section) while giving interpretations of other views without proper research.

[mikenz66]

Hi Chula,

I realize there are different interpretations of the reasons why the Buddha did not answer Vacchagotta, but since the thread is supposed to be an introduction should it not point out that it is actually controversial?

On the other hand, many here would say that it is Ven Thanissaro's interpretations about a number of topics that are controversial. Whether you agree with them or not, they are certainly hotly contested on a number of threads, and that sort of discussion is well outside the remit of the Discovering Theravada Forum.

What we have in that thread http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=24760 is a resource that presents a detailed description of a fairly standard Theravada interpretation. That seemed useful, since it allows newcomers to see the reasoning in detail. There are plenty of other places where people can, and do, put forward other interpretations.



Mike

[Chula]

Hi Chula,

I realize there are different interpretations of the reasons why the Buddha did not answer Vacchagotta, but since the thread is supposed to be an introduction should it not point out that it is actually controversial?

On the other hand, many here would say that it is Ven Thanissaro's interpretations about a number of topics that are controversial. Whether you agree with them or not, they are certainly hotly contested on a number of threads, and that sort of discussion is well outside the remit of the Discovering Theravada Forum.

What we have in that thread http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=24760 is a resource that presents a detailed description of a fairly standard Theravada interpretation. That seemed useful, since it allows newcomers to see the reasoning in detail. There are plenty of other places where people can, and do, put forward other interpretations.



Mike

I can agree with this point of view that Thanissaro Bhikkhu's interpretation is not standard Theravada, but shouldn't it be clarified what standard Theravada entails? If it is based on the commentaries, shouldn't the commentaries be quoted when giving an introduction instead of "this person said something that I consider to be Theravada, this person does not"? It opens a slippery slope where there is no clarity on where standard Theravada separates from modern interpretations.

Also, shouldn't that thread be in the Announcements section? Why is it at the top of Topics while being locked?

[tiltbillings]

Also, shouldn't that thread be in the Announcements section? Why is it at the top of Topics while being locked?

Because that is just how it worked out.