Greetings L.N.,
I'm not trying to "set an example" because I'm not so puffed up on my own self-importance as to think I have any sense by which I must shepherd or lead others to a higher plane. I have too much respect for the autonomy of others to even undertake such grandiosity.
In the meantime, I look forward to venerable Dhammanando's reply.
Metta,
Paul.
Right Speech: Getting Personal
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal
If that is how you choose to frame it, you have completely missed the point.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:00 amI'm not trying to "set an example" because I'm not so puffed up on my own self-importance as to think I have any sense by which I must shepherd or lead others to a higher plane. I have too much respect for the autonomy of others to even undertake such grandiosity.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro
愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro
愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。
Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal
"These two are fools. Which two? The one who doesn't see his/her transgression as a transgression, and the one who doesn't rightfully pardon another who has confessed his/her transgression. These two are fools.
"These two are wise. Which two? The one who sees his/her transgression as a transgression, and the one who rightfully pardons another who has confessed his/her transgression. These two are wise."
— AN 2.21
"It's a cause of growth in the Dhamma and Vinaya of the noble ones when, seeing a transgression as such, one makes amends in accordance with the Dhamma and exercises restraint in the future."
— DN 2
"Reconciliation, Right & Wrong", by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight (BCBS Edition), 18 July 2011, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ation.html.Reconciliation — patisaraniya-kamma — means a return to amicability, and that requires more than forgiveness. It requires the reestablishing of trust. If I deny responsibility for my actions, or maintain that I did no wrong, there's no way we can be reconciled. Similarly, if I insist that your feelings don't matter, or that you have no right to hold me to your standards of right and wrong, you won't trust me not to hurt you again. To regain your trust, I have to show my respect for you and for our mutual standards of what is and is not acceptable behavior; to admit that I hurt you and that I was wrong to do so; and to promise to exercise restraint in the future. At the same time, you have to inspire my trust, too, in the respectful way you conduct the process of reconciliation. Only then can our friendship regain a solid footing.
I do not understand what is so controversial about a Topic on Right Speech which points toward the value of taking personal responsibility. I also look forward to Bhante's response, and I trust it will not include personalized comments.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro
愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro
愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。
Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal
retrofuturist/Paul, I take it that you disagree with your co-administrator on the following:
You have no business calling people "pig-headed" or engaging in the other name-calling or negative personalized commentary which I have seen you do. I understand TOS do not apply to administrators, but they should.DNS wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:43 pmThis is okay, as long as it is explained rationally why one believes the other person may have made a mistake, but the poster should then also realize he opens himself up to a rebuttal by the person he is addressing. There are some instances where a poster gets shocked that the other poster rebuts him. And then the poster gets annoyed that the person he addressed is making a rebuttal and so he continues to post his views again, over and over (argumentum ad nauseum).Here is the source of your confusion. (When you do not believe you are confused.)
. . .
This is just name calling and not appropriate.You are too pig-headed to listen.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro
愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro
愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal
Greetings L.N.,
So... have you finished complaining and moralizing to me and others, or is this your new hobby? And do we have to just endure your new hobby, because anything said that isn't in favour of your moralizing will be twisted by your perception as "personalized", about (you), and thus rejected solely on that basis? That leaves us in quite a pickle then, doesn't it? I don't really see how meaningful conversation can be had when you impose such precious restrictions on what people can and cannot say to you... even imposing such (self)-preserving constraints upon a bhikkhu, from whom you seek guidance!
To be frank, I find drama somewhat boring, especially when it's so (self)-absorbed and (self)-righteous, so if you've got nothing new to say other than to drown us in wave upon wave of judgmentalism, then I might just leave you to it. I wish you joy with it.
Metta,
Paul.
Devoid of context, it's not something that would normally need to be said. That said, do you have any idea of the context behind the conversation, or are you so focused on moralizing that you've got no time left to consider that there might be more to the matter than is made apparent to you? There is a lot you don't have visibility of, including what "business" I was attending to at the time. Nonetheless, you are ever so presumptuous in your cavalier clamouring to judgement, aren't you?!
So... have you finished complaining and moralizing to me and others, or is this your new hobby? And do we have to just endure your new hobby, because anything said that isn't in favour of your moralizing will be twisted by your perception as "personalized", about (you), and thus rejected solely on that basis? That leaves us in quite a pickle then, doesn't it? I don't really see how meaningful conversation can be had when you impose such precious restrictions on what people can and cannot say to you... even imposing such (self)-preserving constraints upon a bhikkhu, from whom you seek guidance!
To be frank, I find drama somewhat boring, especially when it's so (self)-absorbed and (self)-righteous, so if you've got nothing new to say other than to drown us in wave upon wave of judgmentalism, then I might just leave you to it. I wish you joy with it.
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal
When I am blinded in a spat, I'd be happy if someone reminded me of this.
May w'all get along and let the toxicity be.When you know that the other is angry,
You act for the good of both
Yourself and the other,
If you are mindful, and stay calm.
-Thag 6.12
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal
Though it can be helpful to discern when others are at fault for the sake of our own clarity, and it can be helpful to admonish others when appropriate, I find that the spirit of this verse from the Dhammapada to be very helpful for avoiding precisely these kinds of situation.Focus,
not on the rudenesses of others,
not on what they've done
or left undone,
but on what you
have & haven't done
yourself.
- Dhammapada, verse 50
Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal
Blimey, this thread has developed somewhat since I went to bed! In case anyone thinks that I have absented myself from a row which I helped to cause, I'll briefly summarise my position.
This appeared to begin when I said that you were confused over a post I had made; your response seemed to have so little to do with my point, that I thought and still think that you were confused as to my meaning when you responded. You objected to this, and despite my clarifications, you seemed to take enormous relish in taking offence where none was intended. The Ven. Dhammanando outlines my original meaning better than I could, at this point above:
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=30610&start=40#p444966
What followed was an appeal on another thread, and your starting this thread about Right Speech. I set out my views on Right Speech and its relationship to the TOS and people's feelings above. Those views may not be to everyone's taste, but they are what I sincerely believe, and they seem to work here on DW. They are of course a work in progress, and if you or anyone else can suggest improvements that make sense to me, then I'll happily modify them. They are based on the principle that providing I keep within the TOS and am careful about my own intentions, then I won't bother too much about policing the thoughts and responses of others. I'll respond to them, of course, but that's all part of Right Intention. If people want to police my thoughts and language, then I'm perfectly OK with that but (subject to the above) they may get a robust response.
I can't really take your position seriously, L.N., because of its self-contradictory nature. Were you merely delicate, thin-skinned, or paranoid, I would back off from someone who can't take normal debate. Similarly, if you were a bruising zealot who insisted that the world lives up to standards that you yourself embody, I would respect that. But the combination of the two merely results in a de haut en bas prissy self-aggrandisement, and hair-trigger offence-taking which leads to personal outbursts in ways that breach your own impossibly high standards. I don't think it's possible that any ingenuous contributor who deserves to be taken seriously would post like that. The TOS would probably prevent me from saying what I think is really going on here, so, as the man said, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent".
So to keep on topic and not to wander too far into meta-discussion, I apply to your posts my personal standards which I have set out in this post and up-thread; how I negotiate Right Speech, your feelings, and the TOS here. I respect your right to say whatever you like about me, my posts, and your inferences regarding my personality or state of mind. I won't acquiesce in them, though, and will point out their ridiculous aspects as I see fit. You might not like me not taking you seriously, but I'm just not capable of taking you seriously given what you post. You can try to bludgeon me into taking you seriously, of course, but it's unlikely to happen when your weapon looks like a giant inflatable sense of personal resentment. I'm sure this is likely to lead to another bout of incantatory denunciation, but I won't take that seriously, either...
- Modus.Ponens
- Posts: 3853
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
- Location: Gallifrey
Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal
Hello.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:47 pm Greetings,
Agreed - sometimes "the truth" and "the personal" overlap. What gets precedence then?
Metta,
Paul.
I would say that, in most situations, it is more productive and polite to criticize the actions, rather than the person. If, after repeated and justified calls for reasonableness, the person continues to be unreasonable, then maybe it's time to point that out.
Añjali
'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' - Jhana Sutta
- Dhammanando
- Posts: 6492
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
- Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun
Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal
I delayed replying as I wanted to see if Sam Vara would confirm or repudiate my understanding of his words. As he’s confirmed them I don’t there’s anything further for me to add, except perhaps the observation that in polite circles when someone tells you that his words have been misunderstood and that you've taken offence where none was intended, the proper course for a gentleman is to accept this.
“Obstinate” is qualifying “persistence”, by which I meant a course of behaviour, not a state of mind.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal
Nevertheless, the reference to "your confusion" whether intended or not intended to be offensive was a discussion of my personal characteristics/state of mind. If you now wish to discuss whether or not I or Sam Vara is a "gentleman," (yet another personalized comment), then perhaps you wish to address what a "gentleman" does when he speaks words which result in misunderstanding.Dhammanando wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:13 pmI delayed replying as I wanted to see if Sam Vara would confirm or repudiate my understanding of his words. As he’s confirmed them I don’t there’s anything further for me to add, except perhaps the observation that in polite circles when someone tells you that his words have been misunderstood and that you've taken offence where none was intended, the proper course for a gentleman is to accept this.
Yes, and my comments about Sam Vara similarly have been about his behavior, not his state of mind. His comments (and Paul's comments and some of your comments), in contrast, have been about my personal characteristics and/or state of mind.“Obstinate” is qualifying “persistence”, by which I meant a course of behaviour, not a state of mind.
Since you have remained silent regarding the question of whether one should take personal responsibility for the words one speaks, I take this to mean you also disagree with this point, and that when one speaks words which cause misunderstanding or offense (intended or otherwise), your view (like Sam's) is that it is entirely the responsibility of the person spoken to, and the person who made the initial statement bears no personal responsibility. Such an understanding, whoever holds it, is contrary to Dhamma.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... ation.htmlModern sociologists have identified five basic strategies that people use to avoid accepting blame when they've caused harm, and it's noteworthy that the Pali teaching on moral responsibility serves to undercut all five. The strategies are: to deny responsibility, to deny that harm was actually done, to deny the worth of the victim, to attack the accuser, and to claim that they were acting in the service of a higher cause. The Pali responses to these strategies are: (1) We are always responsible for our conscious choices. (2) We should always put ourselves in the other person's place. (3) All beings are worthy of respect. (4) We should regard those who point out our faults as if they were pointing out treasure. (Monks, in fact, are required not to show disrespect to people who criticize them, even if they don't plan to abide by the criticism.) (5) There are no — repeat, no — higher purposes that excuse breaking the basic precepts of ethical behavior.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro
愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro
愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。
Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal
The essay you're quoting talks about a return to amicability, about reestablishing a relationship of trust. What is said there doesn't apply to situations where there was no friendship and no trust to begin with. It also doesn't apply to situations where at least one of the parties involved isn't interested in beginning (or continuing) a friendship.L.N. wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:08 am"Reconciliation, Right & Wrong", by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight (BCBS Edition), 18 July 2011, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ation.html.Reconciliation — patisaraniya-kamma — means a return to amicability, and that requires more than forgiveness. It requires the reestablishing of trust. If I deny responsibility for my actions, or maintain that I did no wrong, there's no way we can be reconciled. Similarly, if I insist that your feelings don't matter, or that you have no right to hold me to your standards of right and wrong, you won't trust me not to hurt you again. To regain your trust, I have to show my respect for you and for our mutual standards of what is and is not acceptable behavior; to admit that I hurt you and that I was wrong to do so; and to promise to exercise restraint in the future. At the same time, you have to inspire my trust, too, in the respectful way you conduct the process of reconciliation. Only then can our friendship regain a solid footing.
I do not understand what is so controversial about a Topic on Right Speech which points toward the value of taking personal responsibility. I also look forward to Bhante's response, and I trust it will not include personalized comments.
It is not possible to mandate niceness, much less that all the people in some kind of group be friends.
The people here are not friends here simply because they are posting at this forum. This forum is not a one big happy family.
This is not to say that some people here are not friends with eachother, or that it is impossible or unwise to try to make friends here. Just that the default here is not that of all-encompassing friendship of everyone with everyone. So different rules of engagement apply.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal
More personalized comments from you.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:36 amDevoid of context, it's not something that would normally need to be said. That said, do you have any idea of the context behind the conversation, or are you so focused on moralizing that you've got no time left to consider that there might be more to the matter than is made apparent to you? There is a lot you don't have visibility of, including what "business" I was attending to at the time. Nonetheless, you are ever so presumptuous in your cavalier clamouring to judgement, aren't you?!
More personalized comments from you. I have not rejected anything. You are superimposing your personal opinions of me onto this.So... have you finished complaining and moralizing to me and others, or is this your new hobby? And do we have to just endure your new hobby, because anything said that isn't in favour of your moralizing will be twisted by your perception as "personalized", about (you), and thus rejected solely on that basis?
If you are trying to discuss anatta, then please be explicit.That leaves us in quite a pickle then, doesn't it? I don't really see how meaningful conversation can be had when you impose such precious restrictions on what people can and cannot say to you... even imposing such (self)-preserving constraints upon a bhikkhu, from whom you seek guidance!
More personalized comments from you.To be frank, I find drama somewhat boring, especially when it's so (self)-absorbed and (self)-righteous, so if you've got nothing new to say other than to drown us in wave upon wave of judgmentalism, then I might just leave you to it. I wish you joy with it.
Ironic that this entire Topic is supposed to be about the nature of personalized comments, how they can be prone to misunderstanding, and how one should take personal responsibility if one makes a personalized comment about another which comes across in an unintended manner (or if the personal comment is intended negatively). I don't see what is so controversial about this.
I response, you and others have make increasingly personalized comments about me. Your comments in particular have violated your own TOS on numerous occasions. Note I am speaking of you actions, not your personal characteristics. This is a very big difference between your comments and Sam Vara's comments compared with my comments. You have gone out of your way to criticize my perceived personal characteristics and state of mind. Every time you make another personalized statement, you are making my point for me.
This topic is about Right Speech. Somehow you have twisted it into what you term "judgmentalism." You refuse to acknowledge anything legitimate in what I have written and instead seek out only to amplify what you perceive as negative, and to personalize it and make it about me.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... ation.htmlIn setting out these standards, the Buddha created a context of values that encourages both parties entering into a reconciliation to employ right speech and to engage in the honest, responsible self-reflection basic to all Dhamma practice. In this way, standards of right and wrong behavior, instead of being oppressive or petty, engender deep and long-lasting trust. In addition to creating the external harmony conducive to Dhamma practice, the process of reconciliation thus also becomes an opportunity for inner growth.
I understand you entirely reject the above.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro
愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro
愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。
Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal
I see your point but I think there are very applicable lessons in the essay. From my perspective, there always has been friendship and trust, which is perhaps why I am so surprised by the responses above from retrofuturist/Paul and some others.binocular wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:53 pmThe essay you're quoting talks about a return to amicability, about reestablishing a relationship of trust. What is said there doesn't apply to situations where there was no friendship and no trust to begin with. It also doesn't apply to situations where at least one of the parties involved isn't interested in beginning (or continuing) a friendship.
Of course we cannot mandate niceness. One would hope that all involved in a Buddhist discussion forum devoted to Dhamma would engage with one another in friendship and trust. You are correct that this does not always occur, as this Topic illustrates.It is not possible to mandate niceness, much less that all the people in some kind of group be friends.
The people here are not friends here simply because they are posting at this forum. This forum is not a one big happy family.
This is not to say that some people here are not friends with eachother, or that it is impossible or unwise to try to make friends here. Just that the default here is not that of all-encompassing friendship of everyone with everyone. So different rules of engagement apply.
We do damage to the perception Buddhism when we engage in bickering and disparaging others on a Buddhist discussion forum devoted to discussing the Dhamma. That is my viewpoint, and I understand it is controversial to express it here, as there is a great desire among some Members to be able to disparage others freely and without constraints, as illustrated above elsewhere in this Topic.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro
愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro
愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。
Re: Right Speech: Getting Personal
I took no relish whatever. I was surprised when you continued with your personalized commentary about me after I politely asked you to stop.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:51 amBlimey, this thread has developed somewhat since I went to bed! In case anyone thinks that I have absented myself from a row which I helped to cause, I'll briefly summarise my position.
This appeared to begin when I said that you were confused over a post I had made; your response seemed to have so little to do with my point, that I thought and still think that you were confused as to my meaning when you responded. You objected to this, and despite my clarifications, you seemed to take enormous relish in taking offence where none was intended.
Well that is what this Topic was intended for, a kind suggestion not directed personally at you, but to all of us (myself included) that we can be more mindful of personalized comments, what they are, how they can be prone to misunderstanding, and why we should try to take personal responsibility when we speak such words which may have an unintended effect on another.The Ven. Dhammanando outlines my original meaning better than I could, at this point above:
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=30610&start=40#p444966
What followed was an appeal on another thread, and your starting this thread about Right Speech. I set out my views on Right Speech and its relationship to the TOS and people's feelings above. Those views may not be to everyone's taste, but they are what I sincerely believe, and they seem to work here on DW. They are of course a work in progress, and if you or anyone else can suggest improvements that make sense to me, then I'll happily modify them.
I am somewhat reluctant to say positive things, but I enjoy 99 percent of your posts and I was very surprised by your reaction when I asked you to please stop making personalized comments about me. I need to adjust my expectations. Honestly, I was not particularly outraged, just surprised, and it seemed to me that the broader issue would be worth fleshing out in a separate Topic. I had no idea the Topic would be so controversial.They are based on the principle that providing I keep within the TOS and am careful about my own intentions, then I won't bother too much about policing the thoughts and responses of others. I'll respond to them, of course, but that's all part of Right Intention. If people want to police my thoughts and language, then I'm perfectly OK with that but (subject to the above) they may get a robust response.
I am sure you recognize that these are personalized comments. What you term "outbursts" have been, in each instance, measured responses. I understand you can't take my position seriously, but I think it may be because you have taken my position personally and not really examining it. My position has been that if I or anyone makes a personalized comment, we should be mindful that we have done so, and we should take personal responsibility for the effect our words might have on others. I apply this to myself. To the extent I have made personalized comments in an inappropriate manner, this also is something I should take personal responsibility for. The fact that I may be flawed does not obviate the general message. Turning the tables and making this about me (as has been done in this Topic) is a form of whataboutism.I can't really take your position seriously, L.N., because of its self-contradictory nature. Were you merely delicate, thin-skinned, or paranoid, I would back off from someone who can't take normal debate. Similarly, if you were a bruising zealot who insisted that the world lives up to standards that you yourself embody, I would respect that. But the combination of the two merely results in a de haut en bas prissy self-aggrandisement, and hair-trigger offence-taking which leads to personal outbursts in ways that breach your own impossibly high standards.
I don't know what you are referring to specifically.I don't think it's possible that any ingenuous contributor who deserves to be taken seriously would post like that.
I have focused on your actions and words, not on your personality, state of mind, or other personal characteristics. There is a difference.The TOS would probably prevent me from saying what I think is really going on here, so, as the man said, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent".
So to keep on topic and not to wander too far into meta-discussion, I apply to your posts my personal standards which I have set out in this post and up-thread; how I negotiate Right Speech, your feelings, and the TOS here. I respect your right to say whatever you like about me, my posts, and your inferences regarding my personality or state of mind.
It doesn't matter to me whether you take me seriously. This Topic was supposed to be about Right Speech. It was never supposed to be about me, my judgments of others, or whether people take me seriously.I won't acquiesce in them, though, and will point out their ridiculous aspects as I see fit. You might not like me not taking you seriously, but I'm just not capable of taking you seriously given what you post.
More personalized comments.You can try to bludgeon me into taking you seriously, of course, but it's unlikely to happen when your weapon looks like a giant inflatable sense of personal resentment.
Sam Vara, I respect you and each person who has posted here. I have not tried to judge you or make personalized comments about you. Rather, I have discussed your actions and words. In response, I have been subject to an ongoing slew of personalized comments directed at me.I'm sure this is likely to lead to another bout of incantatory denunciation, but I won't take that seriously, either...
If we could get back on topic at some point, that would be great. The point being that (1) we all might make comments which could reasonably be taken personally by someone else, and (2) when we do so, Dhamma teaches that we should take personal responsibility for the words we have spoken/written. That is all. I don't know why this is so controversial.
Sire patitthitā Buddhā
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro
愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。
Dhammo ca tava locane
Sangho patitthitō tuiham
uresabba gunākaro
愿众佛坐在我的头顶, 佛法在我的眼中, 僧伽,功德的根源, 端坐在我的肩上。