Slandering buddha

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
User avatar
Polar Bear
Posts: 1348
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by Polar Bear »

User1249x wrote: Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:44 pm

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.
We know of the Buddha because he appears in a series of texts descended from an oral tradition. So the Buddha that we know is first and foremost a literary figure. It’s the same thing with levels of enlightenment, we know about them because the texts mention them. And what does the Buddha of the suttas have to say about believing things based on oral tradition and faith, what does he say about whether such traditions are infallible or not:
“Bhāradvāja, first you took your stand on faith, now you speak of oral tradition. There are five things, Bhāradvāja, that may turn out in two different ways here and now. What five? Faith, approval, oral tradition, reasoned cogitation, and reflective acceptance of a view. These five things may turn out in two different ways here and now. Now something may be fully accepted out of faith, yet it may be empty, hollow, and false; but something else may not be fully accepted out of faith, yet it may be factual, true, and unmistaken. Again, something may be fully approved of…well transmitted…well cogitated…well reflected upon, yet it may be empty, hollow, and false; but something else may not be well reflected upon, yet it may be factual, true, and unmistaken. Under these conditions it is not proper for a wise man who preserves truth to come to the definite conclusion: ‘Only this is true, anything else is wrong.’”

https://suttacentral.net/mn95/en/bodhi
It seems that if we take the suttas seriously then we would be foolish to assume that it is absolutely the case that the Buddha existed, that the levels of enlightenment are legitimate, that the suttas have been infallibly passed down, or that the commentaries accurately explicate the original teachings of a historical awakened man.

I think it’s much better to be intellectually honest, to preserve truth, and to practice with full knowledge of the uncertainties involved than to zealously overstate the evidence, ban those we disagree with, and preach hellfire to the unbelievers.

:anjali:
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by Sam Vara »

User1249x wrote: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:29 pm

I am not talking about the sincere, intelligent and well-informed. I am talking about the eel-wriggler who will ignore evidence, make wildly irrational claims, put himself in undefensible position and still act dismissive and pretend like he has won every debate.

I know full well that we can't establish some logic police to oversee every debate...
If you can see that is what some people do, then presumably others can see it too - particularly if you point out the errors - and thereby the true Dhamma is maintained for all to see. In fact, what a blessing these eel-wrigglers and evidence-ignoring irrational types are!
User1249x
Posts: 2749
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by User1249x »

Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:41 pm If you can see that is what some people do, then presumably others can see it too - particularly if you point out the errors - and thereby the true Dhamma is maintained for all to see. In fact, what a blessing these eel-wrigglers and evidence-ignoring irrational types are!
I think what you said there is the only real thing that works now but it requires reasonably capable people who care a whole lot to point out these errors, otherwise this place will be trololo.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by Sam Vara »

User1249x wrote: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:07 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:41 pm If you can see that is what some people do, then presumably others can see it too - particularly if you point out the errors - and thereby the true Dhamma is maintained for all to see. In fact, what a blessing these eel-wrigglers and evidence-ignoring irrational types are!
I think what you said there is the only real thing that works now but it requires reasonably capable people who care a whole lot to point out these errors, otherwise this place will be trololo.
No, it won't. Obvious trolling is picked up by moderators and binned. What moderators won't do is censor posts that don't violate the ToS, even if you or anyone else thinks they are slanderous, heretical, etc. The reason for this is that they may contain truth that you are not able to see; and if they contain falsehood (which you must believe you can see, otherwise there would be no talk of slander) then other people can see it as well.
User1249x
Posts: 2749
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by User1249x »

Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:17 pm No, it won't. Obvious trolling is picked up by moderators and binned.
What i meant by trololo is that it will be full of heresy and non-sense. Obviously;
If you can see that is what some people do, then presumably others can see it too - particularly if you point out the errors - and thereby the true Dhamma is maintained for all to see. In fact, what a blessing these eel-wrigglers and evidence-ignoring irrational types are!
So pointing out errors is a condition for the True Dhamma to be maintained for all to see.
Pointing out true Dhamma obviously requires expertise, and the higher level of expertise the more rare the person is and the experts are few and far between, they are vastly outnumbered.
Therefore;
If errors are not pointed out then the True Dhamma is also not maintained for all to see to the extent that it relied on the errors being pointed out.
Therefore;
Take away pointing out of errors and you are left with a bunch of heresy being passed off as True Dhamma, trololo in my book.
Obvious trolling is a non-issue compared to obvious heresy, perhaps because trolling is relatively easy to do away with.

Trololo definition from internet;
"Trololo" is any bullshit (or other) speech which is completely unfounded in reality, contains absolutely no truthful substance but is spoken in a happy, optimistic way.

The instruction of the Tathagata is not to talk to these ignorant-irrational types according to several Sutta. It is of course taxing to deal with such people so you have only 2 long term strategies;
1. ban them
2. have the place overrun with trololo

2 because continiously relying on pointing out errors is not a viable strategy, experts will stop pointing out errors and withdraw.
Last edited by User1249x on Fri Jun 22, 2018 12:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by Sam Vara »

User1249x wrote: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:40 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:17 pm No, it won't. Obvious trolling is picked up by moderators and binned.
What i meant by trololo is that it will be full of heresy and non-sense. Obviously;
If you can see that is what some people do, then presumably others can see it too - particularly if you point out the errors - and thereby the true Dhamma is maintained for all to see. In fact, what a blessing these eel-wrigglers and evidence-ignoring irrational types are!
So pointing out errors is a condition for the True Dhamma to be maintained for all to see.
Pointing out true Dhamma obviously requires expertise, and the higher level of expertise the more rare the person is and the experts are few and far between, they are vastly outnumbered.
Therefore;
If errors are not pointed out then the True Dhamma is also not maintained for all to see to the extent that it relied on the errors being pointed out.
Therefore;
Take away pointing out of errors and you are left with a bunch of heresy being passed off as True Dhamma, trololo in my book.
This is not correct. I'm not sure whether the term "So" in the phrase "So pointing out errors is a condition for the True Dhamma to be maintained..." is meant as a coordinating conjunctive (akin to "therefore" or thus it follows") to refer back to the my words; or just as a filler. If the former, we have another logic mistake on your part. It is not a requirement that somebody points out errors in order for those errors to be seen and the true Dhamma to be maintained. It might help (that's why I used the term "particularly") but it's not essential.

People are pretty much like you. If you can spot those errors, then so can they. They don't need a person pointing errors out to them, any more than they need errors banning by the mods. Just like you, they can work it out for themselves.
The instruction of the Tathagata is not to talk to these ignorant-irrational types according to several Sutta. It is of course taxing to deal with such people so you have only 2 long term strategies;
1. ban them
2. have the place overrun with trololo
Again, more non sequiturs, I'm afraid. If the instruction of the Tathagata is not to talk to such people, how is that taxing? And why is it that I don't find it taxing? If it's taxing, why are there "only 2" strategies? Why not a third one of ignoring people you disagree with, having humbly acknowledged that one's own knowledge is far from perfect? Why not a fourth one of conversing with such people in an attempt to demonstrate where you think they are wrong, always looking out for one's own blind spots?
User1249x
Posts: 2749
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by User1249x »

Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:59 pm This is not correct. I'm not sure whether the term "So" in the phrase "So pointing out errors is a condition for the True Dhamma to be maintained..." is meant as a coordinating conjunctive (akin to "therefore" or thus it follows") to refer back to the my words; or just as a filler. If the former, we have another logic mistake on your part. It is not a requirement that somebody points out errors in order for those errors to be seen and the true Dhamma to be maintained. It might help (that's why I used the term "particularly") but it's not essential.
It is not a logical error if you read carefully i said "to the extent that it was a condition".
If errors are not pointed out then the True Dhamma is also not maintained for all to see to the extent that it relied on the errors being pointed out.
Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:59 pm People are pretty much like you. If you can spot those errors, then so can they. They don't need a person pointing errors out to them, any more than they need errors banning by the mods. Just like you, they can work it out for themselves.
people are like me and are as capable as me, i do not think this is at all a factual statement. Certainly some people are more or less capable than me one would think... What do you base this on?
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by Sam Vara »

User1249x wrote: Fri Jun 22, 2018 12:06 am It is not a logical error if you read carefully i said "to the extent that it was a condition".
If errors are not pointed out then the True Dhamma is also not maintained for all to see to the extent that it relied on the errors being pointed out.
It certainly is a logical error, as you initially derived the phrase "So pointing out errors is a condition for the True Dhamma to be maintained for all to see." from my words; which is invalid. What follows that is also a derivation ("Therefore...") but again it doesn't follow.
people are like me and are as capable as me, i do not think this is at all a factual statement. What do you base this on?
A presumption of intellectual equality coupled with an absence of evidence to the contrary.

(Apologies: I edited the last bit of my previous post while you were posting.)
User1249x
Posts: 2749
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by User1249x »

Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:59 pm
The instruction of the Tathagata is not to talk to these ignorant-irrational types according to several Sutta. It is of course taxing to deal with such people so you have only 2 long term strategies;
1. ban them
2. have the place overrun with trololo
Again, more non sequiturs, I'm afraid. If the instruction of the Tathagata is not to talk to such people, how is that taxing? And why is it that I don't find it taxing? If it's taxing, why are there "only 2" strategies? Why not a third one of ignoring people you disagree with, having humbly acknowledged that one's own knowledge is far from perfect? Why not a fourth one of conversing with such people in an attempt to demonstrate where you think they are wrong, always looking out for one's own blind spots?
Do not be afraid. I think you are making logical mistake here because the first sentence;
The instruction of the Tathagata is not to talk to these ignorant-irrational types according to several Sutta.
and the second sentence;
It is of course taxing to deal with such people so you have only 2 long term strategies
Are not stated to be related in an obvious way and the second does not assume the following of the instruction, the second sentence is of two parts
It is of course taxing to deal with such people
It is taxing because it requires effort. It is also burdensome to me when people get angry and do not understand what i am trying to explain.
so you have only 2 long term strategies
this is up to debate but i could only see two outcomes in the context of our discussion.

And why is it that I don't find it taxing?
I don't know for sure...
Why not a third one of ignoring people you disagree with, having humbly acknowledged that one's own knowledge is far from perfect?
Because that would be included under #2
Why not a fourth one of conversing with such people in an attempt to demonstrate where you think they are wrong, always looking out for one's own blind spots?
Because i said long term strategies and in the long run the experts are expected to arrive at following the Sutta instruction and get tired of pointing out errors discussing with irrational people.
Last edited by User1249x on Fri Jun 22, 2018 12:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User1249x
Posts: 2749
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by User1249x »

This is the original statement;
particularly if you point out the errors - and thereby the true Dhamma is maintained for all to see.
thereby definition;
adverb: thereby
by that means; as a result of that.

Why then cant i derive;
"So pointing out errors is a condition for the True Dhamma to be maintained for all to see ."

I do not see why i cant say that, please explain
User1249x wrote: Fri Jun 22, 2018 12:06 ampeople are like me and are as capable as me, i do not think this is at all a factual statement. What do you base this on?
Sam Vara wrote: Fri Jun 22, 2018 12:21 amA presumption of intellectual equality coupled with an absence of evidence to the contrary.
Do you deny variance in general intelligence?
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by Sam Vara »

User1249x wrote: Fri Jun 22, 2018 12:31 am this is up to debate but i could only see two outcomes in the context of our discussion.
That's one formulation of the problem; that you don't see any more than those two outcomes. I don't want decisions to be made on the basis of someone else's limitations.
in the long run the experts are expected to arrive at following the Sutta instruction and get tired of pointing out errors discussing with irrational people.
That sounds a bit hypothetical to me. I don't see many posts or PMs from experts complaining about fatigue. If it is the "long run", then we might have to wait for them to appear. But meantime, I wouldn't want to make changes based on non-existent situations.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by Sam Vara »

User1249x wrote: Fri Jun 22, 2018 12:55 am
I do not see why i cant say that, please explain
Because you then go on to use it as follows:
Therefore;
If errors are not pointed out then the True Dhamma is also not maintained for all to see to the extent that it relied on the errors being pointed out.
Therefore;
Take away pointing out of errors and you are left with a bunch of heresy being passed off as True Dhamma
It would only be the case that "Taking away pointing out of errors and you are left with a bunch of heresy..." if the pointing out of errors was a necessary condition for maintaining the true Dhamma. It's not. The true Dhamma can be maintained without the pointing out of errors by a third party. It might be nice to have it, but not necessary. Your error was in conflating the two uses of "condition" to arrive at your "bunch of heresy" conclusion.
Do you deny variance in general intelligence?
Not at all. We do seem to have strayed some way from the issue of slandering the Buddha, though, so it would be useful to link this back to the OP if you want to pursue this point.
User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by salayatananirodha »

Even better than stifling discussion would be the merciless extraction of participants' wrong views!

By the way, I came across this sutta a while back, and it adds perspective to the issue:

"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains a discourse whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out. And he who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred. These are two who slander the Tathagata."
- AN 2.25

I would support some kind of a verified-buddha-quote feature where authentic texts could be highlighted. Though we don't have to worry much about mahāyāna sūtras and other such texts being proffered as buddha word (do we?).
Interpret as we may, at least we should establish as a firm ground what is reasonably attributed to the buddha and what is not.
We've got at least a couple of examples of highly contentious dhamma:
1. six monks each (correctly) interpret the craving-seamstress metaphor
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN6_61.html
2. Two, three, six, eighteen, 36, 108 kinds of feeling
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nypo.html

“For these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world. And of these a Tathāgata makes use indeed, but is not led astray by them.” _Buddha (DN 9.53. tr. Rhys Davids) (May much merit accrue to forum member Vimalayaka for sharing)

"Monks, there is the case where some worthless men study the Dhamma: dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions [the earliest classifications of the Buddha's teachings]. Having studied the Dhamma, they don't ascertain the meaning (or: the purpose) of those Dhammas [5] with their discernment. Not having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they don't come to an agreement through pondering. They study the Dhamma both for attacking others and for defending themselves in debate. They don't reach the goal for which [people] study the Dhamma. Their wrong grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term harm & suffering. Why is that? Because of the wrong-graspedness of the Dhammas.
- MN 22 (simile of the water snake)

Let's help each other out of the thicket of views, let's help each other and not cut one another down, otherwise we are hurting ourselves
I host a sutta discussion via Zoom Sundays at 11AM Chicago time — message me if you are interested
User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by salayatananirodha »

User1249x wrote: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:40 pm ...condensed post...
I'm concerned about your concern. Let's have a look at dhammacakkappavattana sutta:

And when the Blessed One had set the Wheel of Dhamma in motion, the earth devas cried out: "At Varanasi, in the Game Refuge at Isipatana, the Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahman or contemplative, deva, Mara or God or anyone in the cosmos."

Then,

"It's not the earth property that makes the true Dhamma disappear. It's not the water property... the fire property... the wind property that makes the true Dhamma disappear.[2] It's worthless people who arise right here [within the Sangha] who make the true Dhamma disappear. The true Dhamma doesn't disappear the way a boat sinks all at once.
- SN 16.13

The Dhamma is already predicted to decline, but not all at once and only by not living in accordance with it. It's fantastic for you to teach what you know, but you set yourself and others back if you take part in:
"...quarrelling and wounding each other with wordy weapons : — Thou dost not understand this doctrine and discipline; but I do understand it. How shouldst thou understand it ? Thou art in the wrong ; I am in the right ! I am speaking to the point ; thou art not ! Thou sayest last what should be said first, and first what ought to come last! What thou hast so long excogitated is quite upset I Thy challenge is taken up ; thou'rt proved to be wrong ! Begone to get rid of thy opinion, or disentangle thyself if thou canst !"
(pasadika sutta)

I don't mean to single you out; it appears from a distance this is a very contentious thread. But the Dhamma is not defended via anger, if anything it is damaged indirectly. Being :quote: right :quote: includes exhibiting wholesome conduct in speech and in thought. Let's not be enemies, even if we disagree on important matters

"On approaching them I say : "In these things there is no agreement, let us leave them aside. In these things there is agreement : they let the wise take up, cross-question and criticise these matters with the teachers or with their followers, saying : "Of those things that are unskillful 4 and reckoned as such, censurable, to be refrained from, unbefitting a Noble One, black and reckoned as such - who is there who has completely abandoned such things and is free from them : the ascetic Gotama, or some other venerable teachers?"
- mahasihananda sutta (just discovered a new link!! www.purifymind.com/Suttas8.htm)

"Regarding the Dhamma thus shown by me in different ways, if there are those who do not agree with, do not consent to, and do not accept what is rightly said and rightly spoken, it may be expected of them that they will quarrel, and get into arguments and disputes, hurting each other with sharp words.

"Regarding the Dhamma thus shown by me in different ways, if there are those who agree with, consent to, and accept what is rightly said and rightly spoken, it may be expected of them that they will live in concord and amity, without dispute, like milk (that easily mixes) with water, looking at each other with friendly eyes.

- MN 59 (I think I just shared this in another thread; fantastic!)

It may look like I'm just hurling suttas, which is pretty much what I am doing, although I believe I've kept them relevant. This thread could very much benefit from the automatic samatha that may come from reading the real buddha word.
Tranquility, equanimity, unity, joy :heart: :namaste:
I host a sutta discussion via Zoom Sundays at 11AM Chicago time — message me if you are interested
User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by dylanj »

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.
:goodpost: agreed, & this is why we have the discovering theravāda subforum. I definitely think secularist skeptics should be asked to keep their revisionist views there.

it's a matter of efficiency. it is a big burden for those on here who take the buddha's word literally & authoritatively to have to justify it again & again, & as a result this is often more of a forum for defending buddhism than discussing it
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in


Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
Post Reply