Page 3 of 3

Re: Wrong vs disagree

Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2019 7:08 pm
by binocular
Dan74 wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:00 pm
After a brief reflection I realised I didn't do binocular's posts justice. She was aiming for community and I just mentioned 'a pleasant environment'.
To be clear, I wasn't aiming for community in just any sense of the word. The word "community" tends to be popular nowadays and it is often used to refer to almost any accumulation of people, and in an apparent effort to replace the much-baggaged word "society" (and both have a vague, ambivalent meaning).

The word "team" has more of a meaning I'm refering to, although a team is usually smaller than a "community".
Community is really something wonderful and precious for Dhamma practice but I guess I've lowered my sights over the years.
But perhaps a "Dhamma team" and a "Dhamma community" are theoretical impossibilities to begin with ... Or possible only within Mahayana and Vajrayana (with their emphasis on lineage and initiation into one), but not in Theravada?

Dan74 wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:49 pm
It also should go without saying that our interpretations of the tone and the intention of the posters are extremely prone to error. At the very least, we hardly ever scratch the surface, i.e. understand what's really behind the words, the unique individual history. That's also something I try to keep in mind.
When it's apparent that someone just hasn't got any clue of communication studies and hasn't thought or read up on communication styles, that's one thing.
But what is one supposed to do with people who clearly demonstrate to have the requisite vocabulary of communication studies, who manifest knowledge of a wide range of communication topics and problems -- but who seem to ignore all that and speak like the people who haven't got a clue about those things??
What else can one conclude other than that they are deliberate in this ignoring, or that they are deliberately using those insights from communication studies for the reason to obtain power?

Re: Wrong vs disagree

Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2019 7:31 pm
by binocular
Hold on.

Has this thread always been in the suggestion box, or has it been moved there?

I've been replying to it as if it would be in General Discussion, or other subforum.

Re: Wrong vs disagree

Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2019 8:27 pm
by retrofuturist
Greetings binocular,
binocular wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 6:43 pm
You gravely underestimate social bonds and the things that can be accomplished in terms of spiritual practice only when particular social bonds are in place.

Admirable friendship, insofar as it pertains to friendship with particular people can facilitate an understanding and practice of the Dhamma the way isolated, solitary attempts don't.
You might over-estimate what I under-estimate, but none of what you have said (here at least) is any way contradictory to my accurate statement that...
retrofuturist wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:11 pm
In actuality, a "community" is simply an aggregate of individuals and their interactions with other individuals.
Furthermore, the Buddha spoke of criteria by which to determine whether someone is suitable as a friend... and that evaluation is made as an individual, assessing the merit of interactions with other individuals. We can go into those criteria elsewhere if you could be bothered.
Has this thread always been in the suggestion box, or has it been moved there?

I've been replying to it as if it would be in General Discussion, or other subforum.
It's always been here. The OP made it as a "suggestion" for members.

Metta,
Paul. :)

Re: Wrong vs disagree

Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2019 8:28 pm
by Dan74
I think it was always in the Suggestion Box.

I don't have any specific knowledge of communication studies, except maybe what I had to sit through as part of my teaching degree. But since my German was really poor at the time, I think little had rubbed off. You probably meant someone else.

I don't know about other people's intentions. My experience on the fora has led me to surmise that most people have similar intentions here. Consciously, we are here to learn, share and for mutual support. And most member engage to some extent in such activities, some even overwhelmingly so. Unconsciously, we are also here for validation and protection of their egoic needs, i.e. a self of being someone superior, special or at least OK, someone who's got it, as opposed to someone who is clueless, someone who is a good and interesting person, etc etc. But this is only a theory and like I said, I don't really know.

In general though, the balance, that is, how much of the former (share, learn and support) and how much of the latter (egoic needs), would vary, and hopefully correlate with how much and how strong one's Dhamma practice is. Early on in Dhamma practice, we tend to be pretty unself-aware, i.e. in the dark about our unconscious motivators. After a while, they sort of float to the surface and begin to lose their grip on us. Or so it seems..

Re: Wrong vs disagree

Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2019 6:50 pm
by binocular
retrofuturist wrote:
Sun Nov 24, 2019 8:27 pm
Furthermore, the Buddha spoke of criteria by which to determine whether someone is suitable as a friend... and that evaluation is made as an individual, assessing the merit of interactions with other individuals. We can go into those criteria elsewhere if you could be bothered.
No, you wasted that chance long ago.

Re: Wrong vs disagree

Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2019 8:06 pm
by retrofuturist
Greetings binocular,

Strange response (or suggestion?) given that the Dhamma is timeless, but OK.

Metta,
Paul. :)

Re: Wrong vs disagree

Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:25 am
by Bunks
Typing “you are wrong” (as someone did recently to a comment I made) is just rude.

It’s just common courtesy not to speak like that.

Carry on...

Re: Wrong vs disagree

Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2019 7:02 am
by Dan74
Bunks wrote:
Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:25 am
Typing “you are wrong” (as someone did recently to a comment I made) is just rude.

It’s just common courtesy not to speak like that.

Carry on...
You are wrong. :D

(well, you are kind of, about it being common. at least online, it isn't. I agree that civility and even better respect, and even better active listening are what we should strive for)

Re: Wrong vs disagree

Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2019 7:47 am
by char101
My initial premise is that if someone is going tell other people they are wrong about their interpretation of dhamma, that person should better be someone who have known the truth by experience (ehipassiko), otherwise how do one know what is true or false. Because it is written in the text? If the other party have also read the text, then it is a case of differing interpretations and not about facts, thus: disagreement.

Of course, if one have known the true meaning of dhamma by practice, then please do tell people that they are right or wrong. That would be a blessing.

Re: Wrong vs disagree

Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:07 pm
by Bunks
char101 wrote:
Tue Dec 10, 2019 7:47 am
My initial premise is that if someone is going tell other people they are wrong about their interpretation of dhamma, that person should better be someone who have known the truth by experience (ehipassiko), otherwise how do one know what is true or false. Because it is written in the text? If the other party have also read the text, then it is a case of differing interpretations and not about facts, thus: disagreement.

Of course, if one have known the true meaning of dhamma by practice, then please do tell people that they are right or wrong. That would be a blessing.
I would suggest the person who made the comment to me was a fair way away from enlightenment.

Just the impression I got from other posts they made in the same thread.

Re: Wrong vs disagree

Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2020 4:08 am
by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
.





A way of politely commenting someone's opinion on DW ... :tongue:






Image

Re: Wrong vs disagree

Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2020 12:47 am
by MettaDevPrac
Please consider
an archive in the absolutist sense of the word: Everything would be allowed; nothing would be destroyed. The sites’ rules are respectful of copyright and other laws, but otherwise do not restrict the content of artwork at all. In fact, they actively forbid complaining about content and instead instruct visitors to use the site’s filtering tools to avoid images they don’t want to see.
This commentary was made about "the 4chan ethos" which was built into a forum for fans of "a cartoon television show about friendship, compassion, and a group of magical horses" which became a haven also for white supremacy and violent hateful imagry mixed in with the children fantasy cartoons.
Self criticism itself was controversial; the "idea of what counts as political and what doesn’t is another thing the fandom took from 4chan—where racial slurs are just jokes but anti-racism makes you a “social justice warrior.”

Can Buddhists consider these issues usefully? How do we moderate our own speech? What moderation do we expect, require or reject, of those appointed to the task?

I am not sure this post might not be taken to violate DW forum rules. But I think examination of these issues might be helpful to Vinaya-Dhama practitioners.

Re: Wrong vs disagree

Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:00 am
by Aloka
Sabbe sankhara anicca
Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya.

:buddha1: