Slandering buddha

[Sam Vara]

"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

The pali word is abbhacikkhati, and can also be rendered less legalistically as "misrepresents".

also this

Neyyatha Sutta: A Meaning to be Inferred

"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."

Indeed. That's why I said the term could be found in other suttas. It's still abbhacikkhati, as far as I know.

Now for the difficult bit. Could you provide a definitive list of those discourses whose meanings need to be inferred, and those whose meaning has already been fully drawn out? It would help if you could show your reasoning in each case.

[User1249x]

What i said about the strategy of non-involvement was in regards to non-involvement in matters of Slander of the Tathagata and Heresy, not in regards to moderation in general. I think it was wrong to say that there is a strategy on non-involvement, the correct statement would be that there is no strategy of involvement because of the perceived difficulties it would present.

Even your corrected version is incorrect, in that lots of "slanderous" comments would in fact be disallowed under the ToS. But your desire to express yourself more clearly is appreciated.

I do not think it is good for those whom i would ban, as i see it there is an offense of wrong-doing everytime they post and i see no reason to turn a blind eye to them making actions that destroys themself and leads to a bad destinations, certainly we are talking about people possibly falling headfirst to hell here.

The key phrase here is "as i see it" (sic). You might be mistaken as to whether there is an offence of wrong-doing, and you might be mistaken as to whether their destination is hell. If those people you consider hell-bound can get the Buddha's teaching wrong, then so, mutatis mutandis, can you.

Right speech is better than free-speech in certain cases.

Agreed. It's knowing in which cases that the difficulty lies. And if we allow free speech, we might just gain another insight or two into Right Speech...

Also for me being outgunned, i do not understand what you mean

I mean that you count as one, and no more. To impose your will in this you would have to prevail over every other individual that you would ban, plus advocates of free speech such as J S Mill, John Locke, and their followers.

i think that there are crazy people with a lot of stamina and remarkable ability to live in denial

Sure, and if any of them were to return your compliment and say that you yourself are in that category, who am I to judge between you?

I am perfectly well aware that everything is considered a legitimate difference of opinion under the current ToS because administration does not get involved in matters of Slander and Heresy[interpretation].

A slight refinement to your summary, if I may. Administration does get involved in matters of slander, heresy, and interpretation if they violate the ToS. Otherwise, we leave it to any members who have an interest in such topics, whether they be admin, mods, or whatever.

There is a big difference in being outnumbered and outgunned. I did not advocate banning on basis of non-allignment and disagrement so you should not frame me to be advocating that.

(a) One member could take the Abhidhamma and Commentaries to be definitive, and would consider anything that deviated from them to be heresy; (b) Another could consider the Abhidhamma and Commentaries to be misguided speculation and, in part, heresy. Which one would you like us to ban?

I think that neither of these should be banned but both should be questioned on the matter and particulars of their positions. In case that they turn out to be deadlocked in their interpretation when presented with points of controversy and reasonable alternative interpretations to their positions, failing to disprove the alternative and/or are beyond reasonable doubt established as being wrong, in that case i would consider banning both.

Even your corrected version is incorrect, in that lots of "slanderous" comments would in fact be disallowed under the ToS.

Can you give some examples apart from claiming Buddhahood? Furthermore even if there are some cases where "slanderous" comments would be disallowed, it does not make my concerns a fallacy of reason. I outlined the extent of the problem here;

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.

Do you disagree with this not violating the ToS?

Now for the difficult bit. Could you provide a definitive list of those discourses whose meanings need to be inferred, and those whose meaning has already been fully drawn out? It would help if you could show your reasoning in each case.

I am going to set your questions aside for now because it is not immediately relevant as i see it as it seems you are misinterperating what i am advocating, refer to the colored example i posted above and also this;

My preference would be for members to conduct themselves the way, for example Bhikkhu Analayo or Bhikkhu Bodhi do when making statements, e.g. "It's my opinion that X should be interpreted as Y, but that doesn't mean that interpretation Z is not useful for some." However, given the various personalities that turn up here, I'm not hopeful about this happening any time soon...

I think that this would solve most of the problems and i wish there was found a way to encourage this.

as i've previously stated;

i advocated taking action against irrationality and heresy where it can be established beyond reasonable doubt.

Also id use the guidelines outlined in the Kathavattu Sutta;

"Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, doesn't give a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer, doesn't give an analytical (qualified) answer to a question deserving an analytical answer, doesn't give a counter-question to a question deserving a counter-question, doesn't put aside a question deserving to be put aside, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, gives a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer, gives an analytical answer to a question deserving an analytical answer, gives a counter-question to a question deserving a counter-question, and puts aside a question deserving to be put aside, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.
...

I hope it is clear now

[egon]

"slander"
verb
make false and damaging statements about (someone).
synonyms: defame (someone's character), blacken someone's name, tell lies about, speak ill/evil of, sully someone's reputation, libel, smear, cast aspersions on, spread scandal about, besmirch, tarnish, taint
_________________________________________________________

OK so... I don't even think the OP's original reference should be considered "slander" in the first place. Did the person lie? Lying implies that the speaker intends to mislead. Otherwise they're just wrong. Did the person defame the Buddha's character, sully their reputation? I don't think so.

I completely agree with everything you say here, but would point out that the term is used by many people with this and similar suttas in mind:

"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

The pali word is abbhacikkhati, and can also be rendered less legalistically as "misrepresents".

OK so now I'm confused again. I would, to a certain degree, understand a little defensiveness from some practitioners who think that the Buddha is being "slandered" by the definition that I found (although the Buddha clearly stated that one shouldn't). Feelings come and go, and maybe people who feel that should pause before reacting. It reminds me of one child saying to another, "don't you talk about my mama!!" I don't know about you, but my mama doesn't need me to puff my chest up or put my fingers in my ears when someone says something unpleasant about her. She is who she is with or without my defense of her "honor." And so is the Buddha, and so is the Dhamma.
However, if someone "misrepresents," why on earth would anyone get upset? What good would it do? Righteous indignation serves no purpose, especially when a person's intent is innocuous.
Besides, doesn't anatman suggest that defending the Buddha is pointless since there's nothing to defend?

I ask these questions because I'm trying to understand. I really would like an answer, and I'm open to any explanation. I have an open mind and welcome any corrections to my point of view.

[User1249x]

I ask these questions because I'm trying to understand. I really would like an answer, and I'm open to any explanation. I have an open mind and welcome any corrections to my point of view.

Some people are just outright irrational, fixed in views, abusive, disruptive and toxic for lack of a better word and It is best not to get angry, ignore the person for the most part and remain equanimous but i would personally expell them if it was up to me.

Other than that i think it is good to promote this kind of attitudes;
mikenz66 wrote: ↑

My preference would be for members to conduct themselves the way, for example Bhikkhu Analayo or Bhikkhu Bodhi do when making statements, e.g. "It's my opinion that X should be interpreted as Y, but that doesn't mean that interpretation Z is not useful for some." However, given the various personalities that turn up here, I'm not hopeful about this happening any time soon...

It is just good to promote it because it is good for everyone and will bring about positive results.

[Sam Vara]

There is a big difference in being outnumbered and outgunned.

Indeed. The former is merely quantitative, and the latter qualitative. You would need arguments better than those advanced by other people, including J S Mill.

Can you give some examples apart from claiming Buddhahood?

Anything that violates the ToS.

Do you disagree with this not violating the ToS?

I don't know if I have understood them, but none of the things you list seems to violate the ToS.

[User1249x]

There is a big difference in being outnumbered and outgunned.

Indeed. The former is merely quantitative, and the latter qualitative. You would need arguments better than those advanced by other people, including J S Mill.

are you refering to some particular position of mine where i am in opposition to this J S Mill?

[Sam Vara]

"slander"
verb
make false and damaging statements about (someone).
synonyms: defame (someone's character), blacken someone's name, tell lies about, speak ill/evil of, sully someone's reputation, libel, smear, cast aspersions on, spread scandal about, besmirch, tarnish, taint
_________________________________________________________

OK so... I don't even think the OP's original reference should be considered "slander" in the first place. Did the person lie? Lying implies that the speaker intends to mislead. Otherwise they're just wrong. Did the person defame the Buddha's character, sully their reputation? I don't think so.

I completely agree with everything you say here, but would point out that the term is used by many people with this and similar suttas in mind:

"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

The pali word is abbhacikkhati, and can also be rendered less legalistically as "misrepresents".

OK so now I'm confused again. I would, to a certain degree, understand a little defensiveness from some practitioners who think that the Buddha is being "slandered" by the definition that I found (although the Buddha clearly stated that one shouldn't). Feelings come and go, and maybe people who feel that should pause before reacting. It reminds me of one child saying to another, "don't you talk about my mama!!" I don't know about you, but my mama doesn't need me to puff my chest up or put my fingers in my ears when someone says something unpleasant about her. She is who she is with or without my defense of her "honor." And so is the Buddha, and so is the Dhamma.
However, if someone "misrepresents," why on earth would anyone get upset? What good would it do? Righteous indignation serves no purpose, especially when a person's intent is innocuous.
Besides, doesn't anatman suggest that defending the Buddha is pointless since there's nothing to defend?

I ask these questions because I'm trying to understand. I really would like an answer, and I'm open to any explanation. I have an open mind and welcome any corrections to my point of view.

I tend to share your perplexity. As I said in my first post in this thread, nobody is forcing anyone to read anything, or to feel that they have to correct other people's views. How other people see the world is their own responsibility. Those who attempt to correct the understanding of others might well be motivated by a concern for their well-being, in that "misrepresenting" the Buddha's words can lead to others going astray. But my sense is that there can also be a good deal of intolerance involved, and that people sometimes need a formal authoritative framework in order to feel comfortable. Claiming that someone is "slandering the Buddha" is, I think, an attempt to define them into an heretical position. My problem with that is that it is still only a view, something which often has no definitive answer and which is still legitimately contestable.

[Sam Vara]

There is a big difference in being outnumbered and outgunned.

Indeed. The former is merely quantitative, and the latter qualitative. You would need arguments better than those advanced by other people, including J S Mill.

are you refering to some particular position of mine where i am in opposition to this J S Mill?

Yes, the position that people adhering to certain views should be banned.

[egon]

I tend to share your perplexity. As I said in my first post in this thread, nobody is forcing anyone to read anything, or to feel that they have to correct other people's views. How other people see the world is their own responsibility. Those who attempt to correct the understanding of others might well be motivated by a concern for their well-being, in that "misrepresenting" the Buddha's words can lead to others going astray. But my sense is that there can also be a good deal of intolerance involved, and that people sometimes need a formal authoritative framework in order to feel comfortable. Claiming that someone is "slandering the Buddha" is, I think, an attempt to define them into an heretical position. My problem with that is that it is still only a view, something which often has no definitive answer and which is still legitimately contestable.

Fair enough. I think I'm gonna see myself outta this thread. I'm pretty sure I don't have any further value to add to it. Thanks!

[User1249x]

Indeed. The former is merely quantitative, and the latter qualitative. You would need arguments better than those advanced by other people, including J S Mill.

are you refering to some particular position of mine where i am in opposition to this J S Mill?

Yes, the position that people adhering to certain views should be banned.

as i pointed out already i do not hold that people adhering to certain views should be banned. On other hand i think there are individuals who should be taken action against for reasons mentioned above.

[Sam Vara]

as i pointed out already i do not hold that people adhering to certain views should be banned.

Apart from the following views, presumably?

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.

[User1249x]

as i pointed out already i do not hold that people adhering to certain views should be banned.

Apart from the following views, presumably?

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.

"eel-wriggling* as outlined in the Brahmajala Sutta
you should not ignore the underlined part and also keep in mind

In case that they turn out to be deadlocked in their interpretation when presented with points of controversy and reasonable alternative interpretations to their positions, failing to disprove the alternative and/or are beyond reasonable doubt established as being wrong, in that case i would consider banning both.

instead of taking things out of context... I am not clarifying myself for nothing.

[Sam Vara]

as i pointed out already i do not hold that people adhering to certain views should be banned.

Apart from the following views, presumably?

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.

you should not ignore the underlined part and also keep in mind

In case that they turn out to be deadlocked in their interpretation when presented with points of controversy and reasonable alternative interpretations to their positions, failing to disprove the alternative and/or are beyond reasonable doubt established as being wrong, in that case i would consider banning both.

instead of taking things out of context... I am not clarifying myself for nothing.

It would still be an illiberal and arbitrary position. A person who believed that the suttas are essentially corrupted, and refused to give up that position after a debate should be banned? A person disagreeing with another and found to be "deadlocked" should also be banned?

No thanks! I don't see any benefit in that.

[User1249x]

Apart from the following views, presumably?

you should not ignore the underlined part and also keep in mind

In case that they turn out to be deadlocked in their interpretation when presented with points of controversy and reasonable alternative interpretations to their positions, failing to disprove the alternative and/or are beyond reasonable doubt established as being wrong, in that case i would consider banning both.

instead of taking things out of context... I am not clarifying myself for nothing.

It would still be an illiberal and arbitrary position. A person who believed that the suttas are essentially corrupted, and refused to give up that position after a debate should be banned? A person disagreeing with another and found to be "deadlocked" should also be banned?

No thanks! I don't see any benefit in that.

1. After a debate where beyond reasonable doubt is established to be wrong
2. Should be considered to be banned.
In example if it pertains to views regarding the path attainment and methods of attaining the path it is a very big deal and is very bad for many if he is allowed to continue propagating wrong views.

"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."

It is my opinion anyway, you don't have to agree and can have your own opinion based on values like free speech and liberalism if that is what you want.

[Sam Vara]

1. After a debate where beyond reasonable doubt is established to be wrong

Who gets to decide what "reasonable doubt" is, and whether someone is wrong? You? What happens if people don't agree with you?

2. Should be considered to be banned.

Consider all you want. It's the actual banning where the illiberalism starts. Either they are banned for wrong views, etc., or they are not.

In example if it pertains to views regarding the path attainment and methods of attaining the path it is a very big deal and is very bad for many if he is allowed to continue propagating wrong views.

Again, who gets to decide what are the right views? I have seen such matters interminably debated here. There is no universal agreement.

The sutta you quoted seems to be about expelling monks from the Sangha, rather than telling them what they can't say on a modern internet forum. I don't think that

bent on worldliness, having wrong desires, wrong thoughts, wrong behavior and resort

would be discernible, would it?

In any case, who is to say whether miscreants are in that category? You again?