Slandering buddha

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
befriend
Posts: 1243
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:39 am

Slandering buddha

Post by befriend » Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:10 pm

Dear moderators, after reading the superstition thread, I think we should have a policy in the forum rules guideline that inhibits people from putting false words in shakyamuni Buddhas mouth. Coming up with theories that say "Buddha taught about ghosts because he had to teach to the audience". Things like this are slandering buddha as it is inconsistent with the nikayas, abhidhamma and vinaya. I don't won't to spend time arguing with them about wether Buddha taught about heaven I've done that enough on the Internet. And devout Buddhists shouldn't have to put themselves into spots where they have to defend what Buddha said on a theravadan Buddhist forum.
Take care of mindfulness and mindfulness will take care of you.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 3984
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by Sam Vara » Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:34 pm

befriend wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:10 pm
devout Buddhists shouldn't have to put themselves into spots where they have to defend what Buddha said on a theravadan Buddhist forum.
Agreed. I think they should eradicate from themselves any tendency to get into such arguments. Nobody has to get into these spots, and nobody is forced to defend anything, and devout Buddhists, of all people, should know that. They can just ignore people who they disagree with, or perhaps respectfully correct them.

I think a policy which prevents people from wrongly attributing words or ideas to the Buddha would encounter huge problems of interpretation, and wouldn't achieve any more than the gentle correction of other members.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1380
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by cappuccino » Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:39 pm

No, you should correct wrong views, you should debate outsiders

Perhaps by quoting from the scriptures

User avatar
egon
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 1:15 pm
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by egon » Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:43 pm

befriend wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:10 pm
Dear moderators, after reading the superstition thread, I think we should have a policy in the forum rules guideline that inhibits people from putting false words in shakyamuni Buddhas mouth. Coming up with theories that say "Buddha taught about ghosts because he had to teach to the audience". Things like this are slandering buddha as it is inconsistent with the nikayas, abhidhamma and vinaya. I don't won't to spend time arguing with them about wether Buddha taught about heaven I've done that enough on the Internet. And devout Buddhists shouldn't have to put themselves into spots where they have to defend what Buddha said on a theravadan Buddhist forum.
Why do you keep insisting that this type of idea is silenced? Other folks are capable of voicing that they think the assertion you referenced is nonsense. Still others are capable of ignoring. If you think that voicing these wrong views in this forum causes confusion in the minds of new practitioners, I'd like to present an idea to you: an unchallenged view is inherently weaker than one that is challenged and continues to stand.
If a new theravadan practitioner is reading through this forum and sees the above wrong-view assertion, wouldn't you rather they also see that assertion being enthusiastically and intelligently countered by the practitioners here, rather than somewhere else where this view could take root in their mind?

rightviewftw
Posts: 1573
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by rightviewftw » Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:44 pm

It is a shame that people do not think twice about risking slander of the Tathagata and promoting wrong view, especially views about the Path attainment. I think that with the current ToS there is nothing that can be done about it other than promoting awareness and encouraging caution.

Until most recently i used to challenge wrong views presented on this forum most of the time but i've given up because it is impossible to reason with unreasonable people and some people just do not accept even the most explicit textual authority and might just dismiss such texts as fake or interperet it irrationally.

So lately i just put people i deem as not worth talking to on my ignore list and when they slander or if other people buy into their theories it is really not my problem because people should use their own reasoning and exercise skepticism. The ignore list grew quickly but i think this is the correct approach.

Unfortunately the problem of people clinging to and promoting dangerous views is completely out of control and is not something that is even attempted to be dealt with. A person can literally hold and promote the view that the Buddha was a social construct, that Ariya people are akin to OT levels of scientology and Parinibbana is annihilation of a soul, furthermore stating that Sutta are essentially corrupted and dismissing the commentary tradition entirely, nobody will ban this person. I think that if a person like this is debated repeatedly and is seen eal-wiggling and refusing to renounce his views he should be banned.

I personally am learning to use the ignore function and endure abuse, maybe it is a defeatist attitude but i don't think DW is supposed to be some utopian dhamma learning tool.
Last edited by rightviewftw on Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:38 pm, edited 12 times in total.

befriend
Posts: 1243
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:39 am

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by befriend » Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:01 pm

Good call scottpen.
Take care of mindfulness and mindfulness will take care of you.

User avatar
budo
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am
Location: The world

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by budo » Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:38 pm

You're never going to agree 100% with another person. Even Arahants don't agree with some things among eachother, let alone lay people, as explained here https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebsut061.htm

When I write or talk to someone I expect them to disagree with me, it's simply not realistic for people to always agree. We live in a world where more often than not things are false moreso than they're true, that's because there is only one truth and many falsehoods. By definition almost everyone is ignorant otherwise they wouldn't be born.

So I expect people to disagree with me, no different than I expect the train or bus to arrive late.

Then there''s people who actually do agree with you but because of limitations of communication and language think that they disagree with you.

Having said that, pick your battles wisely. Ask yourself if this is productive or a good use of your time.

2600htz
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 11:37 pm

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by 2600htz » Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:07 pm

Hello:

It wouldn´t work, and pretty much every post would have to be subject to deep analysis and interpretation.

Regards.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1380
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by cappuccino » Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:17 pm

Buddhism is the subject of deep analysis and interpretation

some crazy behavior aside

rightviewftw
Posts: 1573
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by rightviewftw » Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:24 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:34 pm
huge problems of interpretation, and wouldn't achieve any more than the gentle correction of other members.
I would challenge this saying that the complete non-involvement is a strategy of either the complacent or the incompetent, perhaps both. I think this kind of approach of non-involvement and non-action on account of "interpretation difficulty" is an excuse relying on a very broad generalization while it often is actually not that difficult to establish if someone is being irrational and holds heretic views.

If what is Dhamma and what is not the Dhamma can not at all be established then just rename the forum to General Spirituality and Many-Truths Board.

User avatar
Nicolas
Posts: 763
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by Nicolas » Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:40 pm

rightviewftw wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:24 pm
[...]
Also worth considering:
Kinti Sutta (MN 103) wrote: As you train in harmony, appreciating each other, without quarreling, one of the mendicants might commit an offence or transgression. In such a case, you should not be in a hurry to accuse them. The individual should be examined like this: ‘[...] I can draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful.’ If that’s what you think, then it’s appropriate to speak to them.
[...]
But if you think this: ‘I will be troubled and the other individual will be hurt, for they’re angry and hostile. And they hold fast to their views, refusing to let go. I cannot draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful.’ Don’t underestimate the value of equanimity for such a person.

rightviewftw
Posts: 1573
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by rightviewftw » Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:55 pm

Nicolas wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:40 pm
rightviewftw wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:24 pm
[...]
Also worth considering:
Kinti Sutta (MN 103) wrote: As you train in harmony, appreciating each other, without quarreling, one of the mendicants might commit an offence or transgression. In such a case, you should not be in a hurry to accuse them. The individual should be examined like this: ‘[...] I can draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful.’ If that’s what you think, then it’s appropriate to speak to them.
[...]
But if you think this: ‘I will be troubled and the other individual will be hurt, for they’re angry and hostile. And they hold fast to their views, refusing to let go. I cannot draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful.’ Don’t underestimate the value of equanimity for such a person.
Good passages indeed and worth practicing imho. I think that in an enviroment where one is constantly exposed to people of the latter kind action should be taken tho.
"The practice of Dhamma, [1] the practice of continence, [2] mastery of this is said to be best if a person has gone forth from home to the homeless life. But if he is garrulous and, like a brute, delights in hurting others, his life is evil and his impurity increases.

"A quarrelsome bhikkhu shrouded by delusion, does not comprehend the Dhamma taught by the Awakened One when it is revealed. Annoying those practiced in meditation, being led by ignorance, he is not aware that his defiled path leads to Niraya-hell. Falling headlong, passing from womb to womb, from darkness to (greater) darkness, such a bhikkhu undergoes suffering hereafter for certain.

"As a cesspool filled over a number of years is difficult to clean, similarly, whoever is full of impurity is difficult to make pure. Whoever you know to be such, bhikkhus, bent on worldliness, having wrong desires, wrong thoughts, wrong behavior and resort, being completely united avoid him, sweep him out like dirt, remove him like rubbish. Winnow like chaff the non-recluses. Having ejected those of wrong desires, of wrong behavior and resort, be pure and mindful, dwelling with those who are pure. Being united and prudent you will make an end to suffering."
I think constant exposure is problematic

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 3984
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by Sam Vara » Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:01 pm

rightviewftw wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:24 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:34 pm
huge problems of interpretation, and wouldn't achieve any more than the gentle correction of other members.
I would challenge this saying that the complete non-involvement is a strategy of either the complacent or the incompetent, perhaps both. I think this kind of approach of non-involvement and non-action on account of "interpretation difficulty" is an excuse relying on a very broad generalization while it often is actually not that difficult to establish if someone is being irrational and holds heretic views.

If what is Dhamma and what is not the Dhamma can not at all be established then just rename the forum to General Spirituality and Many-Truths Board.
If you could find an argument for "complete non-involvement" or "non-action" then some of your post would be valid.

Similarly, nobody is maintaining that "what is Dhamma and what is not the Dhamma can not at all be established". Clearly, we can say that some things are the Dhamma, and that some things are not. My point is that there are so many claims which do not fall neatly into either of those two categories that moderating on this basis would be either impossible, or arbitrarily authoritarian. For example, if I claim that the Buddha denied the existence of any sort of self; or that he proscribed adultery where all parties consented; or that he said that beings could exist without any sort of physical body: would I be "slandering the Buddha"? I'm sure that you and many other people might come up with categorical statements regarding each of these questions, and plenty of others besides. But I'm equally sure that many would disagree with you. So how should we proceed? I think the best approach is to allow members to discuss such issues, rather than specifying in advance what we want people to say.

rightviewftw
Posts: 1573
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by rightviewftw » Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:23 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:01 pm
rightviewftw wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:24 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:34 pm
huge problems of interpretation, and wouldn't achieve any more than the gentle correction of other members.
I would challenge this saying that the complete non-involvement is a strategy of either the complacent or the incompetent, perhaps both. I think this kind of approach of non-involvement and non-action on account of "interpretation difficulty" is an excuse relying on a very broad generalization while it often is actually not that difficult to establish if someone is being irrational and holds heretic views.

If what is Dhamma and what is not the Dhamma can not at all be established then just rename the forum to General Spirituality and Many-Truths Board.
If you could find an argument for "complete non-involvement" or "non-action" then some of your post would be valid.

Similarly, nobody is maintaining that "what is Dhamma and what is not the Dhamma can not at all be established". Clearly, we can say that some things are the Dhamma, and that some things are not. My point is that there are so many claims which do not fall neatly into either of those two categories that moderating on this basis would be either impossible, or arbitrarily authoritarian. For example, if I claim that the Buddha denied the existence of any sort of self; or that he proscribed adultery where all parties consented; or that he said that beings could exist without any sort of physical body: would I be "slandering the Buddha"? I'm sure that you and many other people might come up with categorical statements regarding each of these questions, and plenty of others besides. But I'm equally sure that many would disagree with you. So how should we proceed? I think the best approach is to allow members to discuss such issues, rather than specifying in advance what we want people to say.
As i see it there are plenty examples of complete non-action and non-involvement in matters of heresy and i think this is most evident.

I personally avoid making categorical statements about what the Tathagata said to the extent that i doubt you will actually find me saying "The Tathagata said X" but many do not, as for generalizing "Buddha did not teach X" well it is up to debate and in both cases it is slander if not true and should in that case be avoided.

As for moderatorship being arbitrarily authoritatian, if you think logic and concepts like reasonable doubt are arbitrary then i guess it would be arbitrary but only to that extent.

Also i did not advocate banning discussion of one's opinions, i advocated taking action against irrationality and heresy where it can be established beyond reasonable doubt, in cases of clinging to and promoting one's undefendable position of heresy in particular.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 3984
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by Sam Vara » Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:41 pm

rightviewftw wrote:
Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:23 pm
As i see it there are plenty examples of complete non-action and non-involvement in matters of heresy and i think this is most evident.
You might do, but there is no advocacy for it in my post.
i advocated taking action against irrationality and heresy where it can be established beyond reasonable doubt.
You might think you did, but those words don't appear in this thread until now.

It's ironic that in a thread about the wrongful attribution of ideas you should pay so little attention to what has been said.

In light of the fact that one person's heresy is another person's self-evident truth, you might like to draw up a list of heretical opinions which you consider to be actionable.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 82 guests