Cittasanto wrote:Could you explain your argument against some occasions of being direct and to the point?
I'm not sure what you mean? If you want me to provide examples, then say "can you please provide examples"
If that's what you mean, my response is no. I'd rather not since the incidents that have caused me to speak up about this happened rather recently. They involved members I do not wish to get further off side with by dragging up something from the past. They chose to make the posts in question unviewable to general members, suggesting to me that they want to bury it and so it's not my place to discuss it publicly.
But you cannot tell me you haven't witnessed occasions where a member has been unnecessarily blunt. I have spoken to a member recently who was on the receiving end of it, and they felt upset.
I asked you to explain, how you do that is up to you, but do explain your specific objections. instead of the second guessing as to what I am requesting, which is allowing for your own description, examples (real or otherwise) and several other possibilities.
However, from what you have said I could guess you are conflating being rude with being direct and to the point, which I have not seen being done by anyone else.
I'll reiterate what I said in my posts before (which for some reason you seem to think had a lack of clarity):
when the first half says
No it's not. Speaking directly to the point might help in many circumstances, but in others it just hurts people's feelings and leaves them dejected.
without any context for what you mean or the aspects you are against it is hard to understand your objection.
and your later sentence does not clarify what you are specifically referring to.
Speaking directly to the point might help in many circumstances, but in others it just hurts people's feelings and leaves them dejected.
The Buddha could do it with compassion, because he knew the mind of the interloper, and he knew that it was the most effective method of teaching him.
None of us have the Buddha's knowledge.
Sometimes speaking directly to the point does not fufill any of the following qualities:
"Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five?
"It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will.
- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
It's really the curt and blunt incidents that I have a problem with, where other's feelings are disregarded, or perhaps more truthfully, not considered in the first place. If we really follow the Buddha's teachings, then we should aim to follow his advice on speech, as quoted above.
Are you a mind reader? do you know the mood I or others are in right now? because without the Buddhas knowledge your friend could have potentially been upset by nothing other than their own perceptions, not what the person was actually doing. But this is only one possibility, and without the context of what was actually said I am simply giving the benefit of the doubt. I remember a thread where anyone who disagreed was accused of harbouring ill-will... but that was just projection, not fact. And unless someone says "your a P71c4" or something similar there maybe some personal work to do on the listener/readers part.
It is also worth noting the Buddha did reprimand people in quite harsh terms at times, so intent... are not always apparent to others, or the listener/reader, and people do the best they can.
I will point you to the Christopher Hitchens Quote earlier for an example of what I mean, and do watch the video from about the 8min mark for equally relevant comments. However, unless someone is blatantly being rude it is unwise to assume people are writing with other than good intent, but again that is not the same as being, or having a style that is, direct and too the point.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill