Why are you in this forum?

[Sam Vara]

to periodically refute foolish people with the Dhamma

There seems to be a lot of that going on here.

Indeed! One might almost think that the true purpose of the Dhamma is to give the Ariya an argumentative edge on the internet...

[User1249x]

to periodically refute foolish people with the Dhamma

There seems to be a lot of that going on here.

Indeed! One might almost think that the true purpose of the Dhamma is to give the Ariya an argumentative edge on the internet...

Purpose of Dhamma is welfare and liberation of the many, it is not about giving people argumentative edge. It is however to be preserved by periodically refuting foolish and worthless men and their evil suppositions.

"Don't misrepresent the Blessed One. It's not good to misrepresent the Blessed One[...]'"

A dispute about livelihood or about the disciplinary rules would be trifling. But should a dispute arise in the monastic community about the path and the way, such a dispute would be for the harm and unhappiness of many, for the loss, harm, and suffering of gods and humans.”

[The Blessed One said:] "Well done, householder. Well done. That is how you should periodically refute those foolish men with the Dhamma.

Some people are like a cesspool, difficult to make clean or worse yet incurable and will suffer in hell for a long, long time. Not knowing they say i know, not seeing they say i see and confuse others, their actions unchecked lead to long term suffering of the many.

"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.

An Ariya capable of showing the way, having gained a footing in the Discipline is a precious gem for they practice for the welfare of the many.

"Those who realized the Noble Truths well taught by him who is profound in wisdom (the Buddha), even though they may be exceedingly heedless, they will not take an eighth existence (in the realm of sense spheres).[6] This precious jewel is the Sangha. By this (asseveration of the) truth may there be happiness.

[Sam Vara]

Indeed! One might almost think that the true purpose of the Dhamma is to give the Ariya an argumentative edge on the internet...

Purpose of Dhamma is welfare and liberation of the many, it is not about giving people argumentative edge.

Indeed! That's why I said "One might almost think..."

Some people are like a cesspool, difficult to make clean or worse yet incurable and will suffer in hell for a long, long time. Not knowing they say i know, not seeing they say i see and confuse others, their actions unchecked lead to long term suffering of the many.

An Ariya capable of showing the way, having gained a footing in the Discipline is a precious gem for they practice for the welfare of the many.

Again, indeed! If only we all had some indisputable method for differentiating the cesspools from the precious gems, we would be far better off!

[User1249x]

Again, indeed! If only we all had some indisputable method for differentiating the cesspools from the precious gems, we would be far better off!

This is as far as i know the closest thing to an instruction to tell the difference;

"There is the case, Bharadvaja, where a monk lives in dependence on a certain village or town. Then a householder or householder's son goes to him and observes him with regard to three mental qualities — qualities based on greed, qualities based on aversion, qualities based on delusion: 'Are there in this venerable one any such qualities based on greed that, with his mind overcome by these qualities, he might say, "I know," while not knowing, or say, "I see," while not seeing; or that he might urge another to act in a way that was for his/her long-term harm & pain?' As he observes him, he comes to know, 'There are in this venerable one no such qualities based on greed... His bodily behavior & verbal behavior are those of one not greedy. And the Dhamma he teaches is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. This Dhamma can't easily be taught by a person who's greedy.

It is not a magic wand but it should be quite possible to identify some red flags.

[Sam Vara]

Again, indeed! If only we all had some indisputable method for differentiating the cesspools from the precious gems, we would be far better off!

This is as far as i know the closest thing to an instruction to tell the difference;

"There is the case, Bharadvaja, where a monk lives in dependence on a certain village or town. Then a householder or householder's son goes to him and observes him with regard to three mental qualities — qualities based on greed, qualities based on aversion, qualities based on delusion: 'Are there in this venerable one any such qualities based on greed that, with his mind overcome by these qualities, he might say, "I know," while not knowing, or say, "I see," while not seeing; or that he might urge another to act in a way that was for his/her long-term harm & pain?' As he observes him, he comes to know, 'There are in this venerable one no such qualities based on greed... His bodily behavior & verbal behavior are those of one not greedy. And the Dhamma he teaches is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. This Dhamma can't easily be taught by a person who's greedy.

It is not a magic wand but it should be quite possible to identify some red flags.

These would certainly be important qualities, but the problem remains that on the internet, we can't discern these qualities with the same certainty as in real life. But as a general rule of thumb, I tend to think that anyone who gives way to anger and behaves in a condescending or abusive manner to fellow members might know something of the suttas, but is not worth paying much attention to. The "sutta-expert" who gets into protracted or rancorous arguments with others is, I think, worth watching, but not following.

[User1249x]

Again, indeed! If only we all had some indisputable method for differentiating the cesspools from the precious gems, we would be far better off!

This is as far as i know the closest thing to an instruction to tell the difference;

"There is the case, Bharadvaja, where a monk lives in dependence on a certain village or town. Then a householder or householder's son goes to him and observes him with regard to three mental qualities — qualities based on greed, qualities based on aversion, qualities based on delusion: 'Are there in this venerable one any such qualities based on greed that, with his mind overcome by these qualities, he might say, "I know," while not knowing, or say, "I see," while not seeing; or that he might urge another to act in a way that was for his/her long-term harm & pain?' As he observes him, he comes to know, 'There are in this venerable one no such qualities based on greed... His bodily behavior & verbal behavior are those of one not greedy. And the Dhamma he teaches is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. This Dhamma can't easily be taught by a person who's greedy.

It is not a magic wand but it should be quite possible to identify some red flags.

These would certainly be important qualities, but the problem remains that on the internet, we can't discern these qualities with the same certainty as in real life. But as a general rule of thumb, I tend to think that anyone who gives way to anger and behaves in a condescending or abusive manner to fellow members might know something of the suttas, but is not worth paying much attention to. The "sutta-expert" who gets into protracted or rancorous arguments with others is, I think, worth watching, but not following.

each to their own.

If i knew of a "sutta-expert" id follow him in regards to Sutta but if he was displaying anger etc i would disregard that. If i knew someone i believed to be my superior in the Dhamma i would follow him and let him train me but if he was displaying anger i would disregard some of the things he says and would obviously not hold him to be an Anagami or Arahant.

[Sam Vara]

each to their own

Your tolerance does you credit!

[Spiny Norman]

The "sutta-expert" who gets into protracted or rancorous arguments with others is, I think, worth watching, but not following.

Good point.

https://xkcd.com/386/

[mettafuture]

To "learn and share", for the most part. I want to learn more about the dhamma, and share what I've learned.