Slandering buddha

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4233
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by Sam Vara » Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:17 am

dylanj wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:08 am

: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
You are of course at liberty to personally ask people to post in different subforums, but there is nothing in the ToS which restricts "secularist sceptics" (whatever they are!) to particular sections. Scepticism might be an appropriate stance to take in any section, depending of course on the ToS and context.

Nobody compels anyone to take up any burden or defend Buddhism. That is a choice for the individual poster.

User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by dylanj » Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:20 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:17 am
dylanj wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:08 am

: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
You are of course at liberty to personally ask people to post in different subforums, but there is nothing in the ToS which restricts "secularist sceptics" (whatever they are!) to particular sections. Scepticism might be an appropriate stance to take in any section, depending of course on the ToS and context.

Nobody compels anyone to take up any burden or defend Buddhism. That is a choice for the individual poster.
yeah, i don't like the ToS
susukhaṁ vata nibbānaṁ,
sammā­sambud­dha­desitaṁ;
asokaṁ virajaṁ khemaṁ,
yattha dukkhaṁ nirujjhatī


Oh! extinction is so very blissful,
As taught by the One Rightly Self-Awakened:
Sorrowless, stainless, secure;
Where suffering all ceases


etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭi nissaggo taṇhakkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṁ

This is peaceful, this is excellent, that is: the stilling of all preparations, the relinquishment of all attachments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, extinction.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4233
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by Sam Vara » Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:22 am

dylanj wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:20 am
yeah, i don't like the ToS
Understood. I'm just providing some reasons as to why they are as they are.

User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by dylanj » Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:25 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:22 am
dylanj wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:20 am
yeah, i don't like the ToS
Understood. I'm just providing some reasons as to why they are as they are.
Well I don't see a good reason for it. I hardly use this forum anymore because it seems the vast majority of posters blatantly reject the Dhamma to some extent or another. & trying to teach the Dhamma & convince others to have faith in it is something I do with a select few people who are close to me, over a very long period of time, as that's the only effective way I know to do it - it's not something I want to do on a Buddhist discussion forum, I want to discuss the Dhamma as it is. But it's too difficult. This forum is just far too dominated by secularists, materialists, & skeptics. & this has been a regular & repeated complaint by many members for a long time now.
susukhaṁ vata nibbānaṁ,
sammā­sambud­dha­desitaṁ;
asokaṁ virajaṁ khemaṁ,
yattha dukkhaṁ nirujjhatī


Oh! extinction is so very blissful,
As taught by the One Rightly Self-Awakened:
Sorrowless, stainless, secure;
Where suffering all ceases


etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭi nissaggo taṇhakkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṁ

This is peaceful, this is excellent, that is: the stilling of all preparations, the relinquishment of all attachments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, extinction.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4233
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by Sam Vara » Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:34 am

dylanj wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:25 am
Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:22 am
dylanj wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:20 am
yeah, i don't like the ToS
Understood. I'm just providing some reasons as to why they are as they are.
Well I don't see a good reason for it. I hardly use this forum anymore because it seems the vast majority of posters blatantly reject the Dhamma to some extent or another. & trying to teach the Dhamma & convince others to have faith in it is something I do with a select few people who are close to me, over a very long period of time, as that's the only effective way I know to do it - it's not something I want to do on a Buddhist discussion forum, I want to discuss the Dhamma as it is. But it's too difficult. This forum is just far too dominated by secularists, materialists, & skeptics. & this has been a regular & repeated complaint by many members for a long time now.
Yes, if you require a setting where there is more uniformity of views, then I can see why a discussion forum such as this would not be ideal.

User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by dylanj » Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:36 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:34 am
dylanj wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:25 am
Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:22 am


Understood. I'm just providing some reasons as to why they are as they are.
Well I don't see a good reason for it. I hardly use this forum anymore because it seems the vast majority of posters blatantly reject the Dhamma to some extent or another. & trying to teach the Dhamma & convince others to have faith in it is something I do with a select few people who are close to me, over a very long period of time, as that's the only effective way I know to do it - it's not something I want to do on a Buddhist discussion forum, I want to discuss the Dhamma as it is. But it's too difficult. This forum is just far too dominated by secularists, materialists, & skeptics. & this has been a regular & repeated complaint by many members for a long time now.
Yes, if you require a setting where there is more uniformity of views, then I can see why a discussion forum such as this would not be ideal.
yeah. i like theravāda facebook groups.
susukhaṁ vata nibbānaṁ,
sammā­sambud­dha­desitaṁ;
asokaṁ virajaṁ khemaṁ,
yattha dukkhaṁ nirujjhatī


Oh! extinction is so very blissful,
As taught by the One Rightly Self-Awakened:
Sorrowless, stainless, secure;
Where suffering all ceases


etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭi nissaggo taṇhakkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṁ

This is peaceful, this is excellent, that is: the stilling of all preparations, the relinquishment of all attachments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, extinction.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4233
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by Sam Vara » Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:39 am

dylanj wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:36 am
Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:34 am
dylanj wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:25 am


Well I don't see a good reason for it. I hardly use this forum anymore because it seems the vast majority of posters blatantly reject the Dhamma to some extent or another. & trying to teach the Dhamma & convince others to have faith in it is something I do with a select few people who are close to me, over a very long period of time, as that's the only effective way I know to do it - it's not something I want to do on a Buddhist discussion forum, I want to discuss the Dhamma as it is. But it's too difficult. This forum is just far too dominated by secularists, materialists, & skeptics. & this has been a regular & repeated complaint by many members for a long time now.
Yes, if you require a setting where there is more uniformity of views, then I can see why a discussion forum such as this would not be ideal.
yeah. i like theravāda facebook groups.
Well, without straying any more off-topic, I wish you all happiness there, and more happiness here on DW, Dylan. :anjali:

Dinsdale
Posts: 5917
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by Dinsdale » Fri Jun 22, 2018 8:21 am

rightviewftw wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:57 pm
Also this thread is about slandering the Tathagata, so it is most natural that it would be pointed out.
What mostly happens on this forum is people disagreeing about how the suttas should be interpreted. I don't think it's about "slander", which sounds rather melodramatic.

And I think generally it is behaviour rather than content that should be moderated.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
budo
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am
Location: The world

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by budo » Fri Jun 22, 2018 8:26 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 8:21 am
rightviewftw wrote:
Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:57 pm
Also this thread is about slandering the Tathagata, so it is most natural that it would be pointed out.
What mostly happens on this forum is people disagreeing about how the suttas should be interpreted. I don't think it's about "slander", which sounds rather melodramatic.

And I think generally it is behaviour rather than content that should be moderated.
:twothumbsup:

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1773
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by rightviewftw » Fri Jun 22, 2018 12:24 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:59 am
rightviewftw 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.
As i understood you "XB" is false because "AX" is false and "AX" is false because "XB" is false but "AX" is true, that does not really make sense but whatever.
It is necessary to point out errors to a certain extent and to that extent it is a condition for maintaining the Dhamma, to that extent it maintains the Dhamma... You may disagree with the extent to which it is necessary to point out errors but there is no logical error.
t's worthless people who arise right here [within the Sangha] who make the true Dhamma disappear.
who do you think are the worthless people, the one pointing out the mistakes or those who teach heresy?
"Worthless man, from whom have you understood that Dhamma taught by me in such a way?
"Worthless man, you will be recognized for your own pernicious viewpoint.
i think that the heretics who defile the Dhamma, those who misrepresent the truth are worthless people and are garbage and if nobody is there to point out errors these worthless people do not arrive at true Dhamma by themselves and will corrupt the teachings.
The unwise who rely on evil views
To malign the teachings of the noble arahants
Who live the Dharma
Produce fruit that destroys themselves,
Like the kathaka reed that dies upon bearing fruit.
Only by the effort of the good people is the Dhamma maintained.

DhP 151
Beautiful king's chariots wear out. And also the body gets old.
But the teaching of the good ones does not get old. The good ones teach it
to each other.
Furthermore should one continiously point out errors if people are quarrelsome and fixed in wrong view, should one ignore them and let them to their own devices or should one expell them?
Answer is one should expell them.
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.
"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."
"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.

"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 stand by what is possible and impossible, doesn't stand by agreed-upon assumptions, doesn't stand by teachings known to be true,[1] doesn't stand by standard procedure, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, stands by what is possible and impossible, stands by agreed-upon assumptions, stands by teachings known to be true, stands by standard procedure, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.

"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, wanders from one thing to another, pulls the discussion off the topic, shows anger & aversion and sulks, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn't wander from one thing to another, doesn't pull the discussion off the topic, doesn't show anger or aversion or sulk, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.

"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, puts down [the questioner], crushes him, ridicules him, grasps at his little mistakes, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn't put down [the questioner], doesn't crush him, doesn't ridicule him, doesn't grasp at his little mistakes, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.
Being a Buddhist forum i hope people take to their senses and follow the highest authority rather than being guided by ideas of liberalism, post-modernism, presumptions of intellectual equality and start taking action expelling the cancer.

Ruud
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:07 am

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by Ruud » Fri Jun 22, 2018 2:19 pm

I find it somewhat ironic people would like to ban supposed heretics and fix a certain orthodoxy so that then they can discuss about it. :shrug:
Dry up what pertains to the past,
do not take up anything to come later.
If you will not grasp in the middle,
you will live at peace.
—Snp.5.11,v.1099 (tr. Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi)

Whatever is will be was. —Ven. Ñānamoli, A Thinkers Notebook, §221

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4233
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by Sam Vara » Fri Jun 22, 2018 3:31 pm

rightviewftw wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 12:24 pm

It is necessary to point out errors to a certain extent and to that extent it is a condition for maintaining the Dhamma, to that extent it maintains the Dhamma... You may disagree with the extent to which it is necessary to point out errors but there is no logical error.
The logical error consists in you trying to deduce a position from what I said regarding the pointing out of error. Of course, if you want to point out error, and take delight in so doing, then there is no logical inconsistency in your viewpoint. If you really believe that
the heretics who defile the Dhamma, those who misrepresent the truth are worthless people and are garbage
then so be it. In wishing to change the ToS or to ban certain views - or whatever illiberal position you are currently advocating - you are asking for other people's cooperation. I won't be giving you that, because I find it possible to coexist with people with very different views. Nor do I have sufficient certainty that I have understood the Buddha's teachings that I feel happy about labelling others as "worthless", "garbage", and a "cancer". I don't mind you doing it, if you want to. But it doesn't look like a very pleasant or happy activity to engage in, so I'll politely decline your kind offer.

I don't want what you are selling, thanks!

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

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by egon » Fri Jun 22, 2018 3:52 pm

rightviewftw wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 12:24 pm

i think that the heretics who defile the Dhamma, those who misrepresent the truth are worthless people and are garbage and if nobody is there to point out errors these worthless people do not arrive at true Dhamma by themselves and will corrupt the teachings.

Being a Buddhist forum i hope people take to their senses and follow the highest authority rather than being guided by ideas of liberalism, post-modernism, presumptions of intellectual equality and start taking action expelling the cancer.
Somebody call an oncologist, I'm here! rightviewftw, I'll be thinking of you when I put on my headphones and follow along with a guided metta meditation tonight.
rightviewftw wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 12:24 pm
"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, puts down [the questioner], crushes him, ridicules him, grasps at his little mistakes, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn't put down [the questioner], doesn't crush him, doesn't ridicule him, doesn't grasp at his little mistakes, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.
So true. If a person considers me to be worthless garbage I reckon they've put me down, but what do I know?

(edited for formatting)

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1773
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by rightviewftw » Fri Jun 22, 2018 3:54 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 3:31 pm
rightviewftw wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 12:24 pm

It is necessary to point out errors to a certain extent and to that extent it is a condition for maintaining the Dhamma, to that extent it maintains the Dhamma... You may disagree with the extent to which it is necessary to point out errors but there is no logical error.
The logical error consists in you trying to deduce a position from what I said regarding the pointing out of error. Of course, if you want to point out error, and take delight in so doing, then there is no logical inconsistency in your viewpoint. If you really believe that
the heretics who defile the Dhamma, those who misrepresent the truth are worthless people and are garbage
then so be it. In wishing to change the ToS or to ban certain views - or whatever illiberal position you are currently advocating - you are asking for other people's cooperation. I won't be giving you that, because I find it possible to coexist with people with very different views. Nor do I have sufficient certainty that I have understood the Buddha's teachings that I feel happy about labelling others as "worthless", "garbage", and a "cancer". I don't mind you doing it, if you want to. But it doesn't look like a very pleasant or happy activity to engage in, so I'll politely decline your kind offer.

I don't want what you are selling, thanks!
According to you there is a logical error... a man who presumes intellectual equality among members of this board. We don't have to talk more.

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1773
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Slandering buddha

Post by rightviewftw » Fri Jun 22, 2018 3:59 pm

ScottPen wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 3:52 pm
rightviewftw wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 12:24 pm

i think that the heretics who defile the Dhamma, those who misrepresent the truth are worthless people and are garbage and if nobody is there to point out errors these worthless people do not arrive at true Dhamma by themselves and will corrupt the teachings.

Being a Buddhist forum i hope people take to their senses and follow the highest authority rather than being guided by ideas of liberalism, post-modernism, presumptions of intellectual equality and start taking action expelling the cancer.
Somebody call an oncologist, I'm here! rightviewftw, I'll be thinking of you when I put on my headphones and follow along with a guided metta meditation tonight.
rightviewftw wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 12:24 pm
"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, puts down [the questioner], crushes him, ridicules him, grasps at his little mistakes, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn't put down [the questioner], doesn't crush him, doesn't ridicule him, doesn't grasp at his little mistakes, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.
So true. If a person considers me to be worthless garbage I reckon they've put me down, but what do I know?

(edited for formatting)
Dhp
Verses 58 - 59: As a sweet-smelling and beautiful lotus flower may grow upon a heap of rubbish thrown on the highway, so also, out of the rubbish heap of beings may appear a disciple of the Buddha, who with his wisdom shines forth far above the blind (ignorant) worldlings.
Some might find the Canonical passages refering to commonfolk as rubbish or those refering to heretics as worthless people to be distasteful but i think it is only proper discernment.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Abiding, auto, Circle5, Google [Bot], Lankamed, robertk, thang and 34 guests