By no one other than you it seems.
Are you OK?
Metta,
Paul.
By no one other than you it seems.
If nobody brings any criticism to an idea, that idea will grow. Even on suttacentral where there is much more awareness and criticism of this, there are still some existentialist buddhist over there, quite a lot I would say giving the opposition it has from resident monks on that forum that people generally tend to follow. On DW, there has been some long criticism in the past, 20+ pag topics, but that was years ago. If people don't see an idea criticized, they will never have a chance to drop it if it is wrong. If the idea is correct, then it should not be afraid of criticism. Criticism brought to it will only strengthen it. I do not see a reason for Nanananda criticism to be censored.SDC wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:54 pm Do you realize the primacy you grant these ideas by constantly trying to criticize them? You and you alone gave them the name "existential Buddhist". All that was ever said in the slogan for Path Press is "an existential approach...". You started calling it a sect when barely anyone follows these ideas. You make it so much more than it is. You are a card player: you are overplaying your hand. It is almost as if you are an undercover supporter of these ideas and you go around pretending to "debunk" them so you can advertise their availability. Has that ever occurred to you that you are marketing these ideas and keeping them relevant? You keep it in the spotlight.
If all you do is repeat yourself, people are going to stop listening.
Dude, you dilligently sent us everything you wrote on sutta central, so you don't have to try an convince me about what you think was happening over there.Circle5 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:07 pmSDC wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:54 pm Do you realize the primacy you grant these ideas by constantly trying to criticize them? You and you alone gave them the name "existential Buddhist". All that was ever said in the slogan for Path Press is "an existential approach...". You started calling it a sect when barely anyone follows these ideas. You make it so much more than it is. You are a card player: you are overplaying your hand. It is almost as if you are an undercover supporter of these ideas and you go around pretending to "debunk" them so you can advertise their availability. Has that ever occurred to you that you are marketing these ideas and keeping them relevant? You keep it in the spotlight.
If all you do is repeat yourself, people are going to stop listening.
If nobody brings any criticism to an idea, that idea will grow. Even on suttacentral where there is much more awareness and criticism of this, there are still some existentialist buddhist over there. On DW, there has been some long criticism in the past, 20+ pag topics, but that was years ago. If people don't see an idea criticized, they will never have a chance to drop it if it is wrong. If the idea is correct, then it should not be afraid of criticism. Criticism brought to it will only strengthen it.
Why are you acting like I focused too much on this ? I focused just as much on Mahasi and a little less on abbhidhabama and vissudimagga but I will come back to that. There will be a long and well argumented topic of mine about criticism to momentariness in the near future. It's just that discussion last 3 days has been mostly about existentialism buddhism.
Or, if the incessant urge to be argumentative can be briefly curtailed, existing topics can be read. Like this one for example...
I have no idea what DWM or NV means and I am sure whoever they are, they are not claiming these ideas are based on the suttas. So they are not my problem.The only "real" fight you are going to get is from the main nerve and you know that Nv is not the main nerve. If you want a fight, become a Mahayanist and go argue with the pillars on DWM. They are a force. They'll give you a thrill.
Dude you can do whatever you want. I just want you to know how you look when you keep repeating the same thing over and over. Just letting you know that you are watering down your own arguments. Carry on, buddy...Circle5 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:25 pm Why the need for a revolution ? People criticize different ideas on buddhist forums all the time, people debate things all the time. There is no need for any revolution. It's just the normal stuff that has been going on since forever. It just so happens that for the last 3 days, I happened to criticize these ideas. It might look like a revolution for you if you are not used to getting your views criticized, but it's just normal debating happening on buddhist forums.
Why are you asking me to stop criticizing Nanananda ? People criticize all different things on buddhist forums. It just so happens that the views you are holding got more criticized than usual these last 3 days. Chill out.
DWM= Dharmawheel
Jesuz Christ that's where you're sending me ? I have no idea about mahayana sects but still I know about those guys. There exists a redit critical of buddhist forums censorship and the Dzogchen guys from the sister site are pretty famous there. Probably most famous in the online buddhist world. I think they are the same guys who also ruled e-shanga.Or, if the incessant urge to be argumentative can be briefly curtailed, existing topics can be read. Like this one for example...
Is anyone actually doing this?
Maybe you have not read the topic too well. It is SDC that sent it offtopic with this message: viewtopic.php?f=16&p=442491#p442479I mean, you've even sent your own topic off-topic with your conceptual proliferation! I'd normally tell people to get back on topic at this point, but if you want to derail your own topics, that's another matter altogether...
Yes it was me.Circle5 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:35 pm Maybe you have not read the topic too well. It is SDC that sent it offtopic with this message: viewtopic.php?f=16&p=442491#p442479
Moving the discussion from existentialism and solipsism to why am I criticizing existentialism and weather I want to start a revolution or something, starting to discuss me instead of discussing the topic.
Your only response was the usual twisting of the SN 12:15 sutta, a problem adressed countless times by me including in this topic. I am still waiting for B.Dhammamundo reply cause he is the only other person who made an effort to give me an opinion about the test.It has been demonstrated by different people, via different means, that the test fails. It has even been explained to you in quite comprehensive detail why it fails.
Debunking your frequent stated misconceptions may help you identify the cause of failure and improve your broken test.
He already addressed SN 12.15 etc. here...Circle5 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:41 pmYour only response what the usual twisting of the SN 12:15 sutta, a problem adressed countless times by me including in this topic. I am still waiting for B.Dhammamundo reply cause he is the only other person who made an effort to give me an opinion about the test.It has been demonstrated by different people, via different means, that the test fails. It has even been explained to you in quite comprehensive detail why it fails.
Debunking your frequent stated misconceptions may help you identify the cause of failure and improve your broken test.
Follow his link.Dhammanando wrote: ↑Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:17 pm Since it seems you are only allowing "yes", "no" or "don't know" as admissible answers, clearly the test is useless. All three of these answers will show that the person is not a solipsist:
"Yes" = My family do exist now and will continue to exist after I die.
"No" = My family do exist now but will cease to exist after I die.
"Don't know" = "My family do exist now, but I don't know whether they will continue to exist after I die.
Might we then say that a solipsist is anyone who declines to give one of these three answers?
Unfortunately no, for there are other possible grounds for rejecting the question than solipsistic ones.
Doesn't this whole charade go against multiple points of the TOS?DhammaWheel TOS wrote: 2.
d. Unsubstantiated allegations against individuals or traditions - including psychoanalyzing other members, and predictions or threats of kammic retribution
e. Disruptive meta-discussion (i.e. discussion about discussion)
f. Ad-hominem attacks, including the vilification of individuals based on any attributes - whether related to their personal attributes (e.g. gender, nationality, sexuality, race, age) or their approach to the Dhamma (e.g. their practices, level of experience, or chosen tradition)