In my mind, it's also about building dungeons in the earth; but either way--castles or dungeons--I'm not particularly "irked" so much as curious as to how others deal with (the apparently paradoxical nature of) pragmatic truth within the Buddha Dhamma and Sasana.daverupa wrote:Certain disagreements are over altogether useless matters, so at first blush I wonder which sorts of disagreements in particular are being found irksome. At the current level of generality, there is a danger of building castles in the sky.
Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
Could you provide at least a couple of real life examples of how disunity is useful?SamKR wrote:Disunity is unavoidable, and in fact could be useful.
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
You have a large enough Theravada community to have arguements about the sort of issues I mentioned?danieLion wrote:Not where I live. It's a schism fest here.mikenz66 wrote:Isn't this a bit of an on-line phenomenon?
mikenz66 wrote: I don't often seem to come across people in "real life" arguing that so-and-so is rubbish because he/she has the wrong understanding of mindfulness/anatta/jhana/reality/whatever or is too traditional/not traditional enough/too much of a fence-sitter...
Mike
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
Hi Daniel,
Mike
It allows people to seek out groups that they are comfortable with. And if they fall out with one group they can join a different one...danieLion wrote:Could you provide at least a couple of real life examples of how disunity is useful?SamKR wrote:Disunity is unavoidable, and in fact could be useful.
Mike
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
I strive to do so thusly:danieLion wrote:how others deal with (the apparently paradoxical nature of) pragmatic truth within the Buddha Dhamma and Sasana.
MN 95 wrote:"If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.'
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
Dave, Daniel, etc,
Hearing different opinions can be helpful and stimulating. Hearing that anyone who disagrees with some particular opinion is wrong is not usually helpful. It tends to turn a discussion into pointless gain-saying that is not only no less productive than this famous TV sketch from Monty Python but is much less enjoyable...
Mike
Well said! To me, disagreement is not a problem, problems arise from insisting that a particular opinion is the only possibly correct one.daverupa wrote: I strive to do so thusly:MN 95 wrote:"If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.'
Hearing different opinions can be helpful and stimulating. Hearing that anyone who disagrees with some particular opinion is wrong is not usually helpful. It tends to turn a discussion into pointless gain-saying that is not only no less productive than this famous TV sketch from Monty Python but is much less enjoyable...
Mike
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
And libraries are specious free?BubbaBuddhist wrote:...specious sources like Wikipedia...
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
Fleck's historical philosophy and sociology of science seems like an elaborate ad hoc explanation to me.daverupa wrote:The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an entry for Fleck:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fleck/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
See also Feyerabend's (and I suppose Kuhn's, if you must) views on science as constructivist, and especially Feyerabend's use of Mill's "marketplace of ideas" as support for his view of science as a collectivist "reality maker." See also Robert Anton Wilson's notion of "reality tunnels" in Prometheus Rising and his rants against So-Called-Scientific-Experts in Cosmic Trigger III--and attribution theory in social psychology.
Still, all these just seem like differerent ways of painting the same bowl of fruit--very ad hoc-ish.
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
Please continue...go on...elaborate.... Please.Ñāṇa wrote:Consensus isn't necessary, and should definitely not be desired.
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
I know of no way to measure this, and am not sure what you mean by "large," but the drama here is ridiculously thick.mikenz66 wrote:You have a large enough Theravada community to have arguements about the sort of issues I mentioned?
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
BUT what?danieLion wrote:Expansion on "did not intend strict uniformity": he didn't teach a one-size-fits-all practice, BUT...
There are two reasons (both reasonably common) for disagreement, "taking things personally" and "people being frustrating*" for one reason or another. The Buddha didn't teach a "one size fits all" but he also didn't teach "all is one" it is the same "thing" tailored to the circumstances; almost like a jigsaw it is the same picture just a different part which wont fit elsewhere.
We all explain things from a personal perspective with many influencing factors.
*- by frustrating I mean either deliberate or accidental red-herring arguments. either through misunderstanding what is said or trying to be a smart arse.
What is Wrong with Buddha Nature (download link)I don't get the "under-stand" reference.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
How many factions have formed here?danieLion wrote:Not where I live. It's a schism fest here.mikenz66 wrote:Isn't this a bit of an on-line phenomenon?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
Mike, Dave, etc...,
And are we saying that avoiding conflict (not to be confused with constructive prevention) at all costs comes with its own pains, but so does engaging conflict, especially without conflict resolution skills to minimize clinging?
So, are we saying that clinging to views contributes to unskillfully handled disputes and destructively resolved conflicts, not disputes or conflicts per se? And are we saying taht skillfully handled disputes and constructively resolved conflicts involve not clinging to views?mikenz66 wrote:To me, disagreement is not a problem, problems arise from insisting that a particular opinion is the only possibly correct one.
Hearing different opinions can be helpful and stimulating. Hearing that anyone who disagrees with some particular opinion is wrong is not usually helpful. It tends to turn a discussion into pointless gain-saying.
And are we saying that avoiding conflict (not to be confused with constructive prevention) at all costs comes with its own pains, but so does engaging conflict, especially without conflict resolution skills to minimize clinging?
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
Cittasanto wrote:BUT what?danieLion wrote:Expansion on "did not intend strict uniformity": he didn't teach a one-size-fits-all practice, BUT...
danieLion wrote:Expansion on "validated by the nature of their absoluteness" e.g., as this Access to Insight glossary entry puts it:ariya-sacca: Noble Truth. The word "ariya" (noble) can also mean ideal or standard, and in this context means "objective" or "universal" truth. There are four: stress, the origin of stress, the disbanding of stress, and the path of practice leading to the disbanding of stress. [MORE]
danieLion wrote:I don't get the "under-stand" reference.
Ahh...now I...Cittasanto wrote:What is Wrong with Buddha Nature
UNDER-
STAND.
Re: Why Can't We Agree on ANYTHING?
What do you mean by "here"?Cittasanto wrote:How many factions have formed here?danieLion wrote:Not where I live. It's a schism fest here.mikenz66 wrote:Isn't this a bit of an on-line phenomenon?