Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

depends which monastery or retreat you go to.

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,



This ad-hominem red herring that those who aren't interested in brothelizing the Dhamma (and Vinaya) are somehow dour-faced, is wearing a bit thin now.



Metta,
Retro.

That was meant to be a joke, retro... Sorry, my bad. I even tried to put a smiley at the end of it, but...

tiltbillings wrote:So, when teaching, no funny stories, and no lightness in one's personal interactions?

polarbuddha101 wrote:I wouldn't go that far, the Buddha was known to poke fun and use wit himself on occasion.

Funny stories and wit maybe useful if they help to make listeners understand Dhamma and arouse wholesome states of mind.
But I am not sure about how far a Dhamma-teacher should go about using them. I believe a good teacher knows how to use them appropriately.

manas wrote:...

I agree, manas.

Dan74 wrote: ... dour faces ...

No one is advocating dour face but bright and serene face.

polarbuddha101 wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:So, when teaching, no funny stories, and no lightness in one's personal interactions?

I wouldn't go that far, the Buddha was known to poke fun and use wit himself on occasion.

Edit: However, the Buddha used his wit to teach dhamma not just for the sake of being funny.

Sure, and he used poking fun to great effect.

Dan74 wrote:

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,



This ad-hominem red herring that those who aren't interested in brothelizing the Dhamma (and Vinaya) are somehow dour-faced, is wearing a bit thin now.



Metta,
Retro.

That was meant to be a joke, retro... Sorry, my bad. I even tried to put a smiley at the end of it, but...

It was a good and plainly obvious joke; humor can be touchy thing, obviously.

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:

Aloka wrote:Sorry but I'm a bit confused, Bhikkhu Pesala. If I'm having fun playing with and talking in silly girlie voices to a friend's dog, is that childish or child - like ?

Pay attention to your own mental states when playing with your friend's dog. You will then know whether you're being childish or just innocent and child-like.

Bhante, so, if it is not an another's judgment that really matters, which we can then probably ignore if the humor is not really directed at anyone, it is one's own judgment that really matters whether or not what we post in the lounge, for example, is being childish or childlike, which is a distinction that Benedictine nuns that taught me in grade school used to harp upon.

Greetings,

tiltbillings wrote:It was a good and plainly obvious joke; humor can be touchy thing, obviously.

... and here we go again.



Metta,
Retro.

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

tiltbillings wrote:It was a good and plainly obvious joke; humor can be touchy thing, obviously.

... and here we go again.



Metta,
Retro.

I was just making an observation, and you now make my point that that humor can, indeed, be a touchy thing and very individual. That is simply a matter of fact which is neither good nor bad. As for the "red herring":

SamKR wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:So, when teaching, no funny stories, and no lightness in one's personal interactions?

polarbuddha101 wrote:I wouldn't go that far, the Buddha was known to poke fun and use wit himself on occasion.

Funny stories and wit maybe useful if they help to make listeners understand Dhamma and arouse wholesome states of mind.
But I am not sure about how far a Dhamma-teacher should go about using them. I believe a good teacher knows how to use them appropriately.

There are tons of recordings by tons of different Dhamma teachers out there, among all of that I am sure you can find teachers who do use humor rather well. I am not talking about doing stand-up comic routines, but I am talking about seeing that life can be an occasion for lightness of spirit.

Greetings,

= "Red herring is an English-language idiom that commonly refers to a logical fallacy that misleads or detracts from the actual issue. It is also a literary device employed by writers that leads readers or characters towards a false conclusion, often used in mystery or detective fiction." (Wikipedia)

Metta,
Retro.

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

= "Red herring is an English-language idiom that commonly refers to a logical fallacy that misleads or detracts from the actual issue. It is also a literary device employed by writers that leads readers or characters towards a false conclusion, often used in mystery or detective fiction." (Wikipedia)

Metta,
Retro.

Well, that is definition, and it certainly looks that you are not using it correctly.

Greetings,

Yes I am.

A false premise is being established that those who aren't interested in brothelizing the Dhamma (and Vinaya) are somehow dour-faced puritans, incapable of "fun" (i.e. false conclusion)... and this is distracting from the question of whether it is possible for practising Buddhists to have fun, because it is inferring logical arguments that have unsound and unjustified assumptions.... thus obfuscating genuine attempts to address the question (i.e. detracts from the actual issue).



Metta,
Retro.

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

Yes I am.

A false premise is being established that those who aren't interested in brothelizing the Dhamma (and Vinaya) are somehow dour-faced puritans, incapable of "fun" (i.e. false conclusion

Yes, well, Dan's post, in my opinion, was not saying that at all. He was, I would say, just poking fun at the idea of "dour-faced." He was not saying that anyone was such, but then you'll have to ask him what his intent was.

tiltbillings wrote:

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

Yes I am.

A false premise is being established that those who aren't interested in brothelizing the Dhamma (and Vinaya) are somehow dour-faced puritans, incapable of "fun" (i.e. false conclusion

Yes, well, Dan's post, in my opinion, was not saying that at all. He was, I would say, just poking fun at the idea of "dour-faced." He was not saying that anyone was such, but then you'll have to ask him what his intent was.

And SamKR's post wasn't saying what you thought either. But that didn't stop you taking it as implying lack of humour. And neither was anyone who had this applied to them in the other topic yet you and others thought it appropriate

My intent was just to have fun, possibly of the silly kind (I was never too good as discerning the demarcation line). Even my kids sometimes tell me to stop being silly, so, I guess I am...

As for "brothelizing" (great word!), I think implying that people who disagree with you are "brothelizing the Dhamma", is possible less than charitable. After all we are Dhamma brothers, aren't we, or perhaps Brothelizing Brothers, or Bothersome Brothelizing Brothers? Just call us, BBB, for short!