Faith and Doubt: Why are we quarreling lately?

Tell us how you think the forum can be improved. We will listen.
User avatar
JamesTheGiant
Posts: 475
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 8:41 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Faith and Doubt: Why are we quarreling lately?

Post by JamesTheGiant » Sun Jun 24, 2018 9:56 pm

denise wrote:
Sun Jun 24, 2018 9:29 pm
Hello James the Giant....did you encounter this type of bluster and ego from other young men when you were in robes? Were there these types just let to run amok? just wondering....thanks!
No, when a young monk started arguing or telling peope they were wrong, the senior monks were quick to tell them to restrain themselves, and wait until they had more seniority. If the young monk had a good point they were listened to, but generally the new monks were often wrong, and the senior monks with their decades of experience were often right.

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Faith and Doubt: Why are we quarreling lately?

Post by rightviewftw » Sun Jun 24, 2018 9:59 pm

It is not by age that one becomes less quarrelsome. It is not by age that one gains the knowledge of destruction of anger and conceit.

User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 5794
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Faith and Doubt: Why are we quarreling lately?

Post by Aloka » Mon Jun 25, 2018 9:50 am

.
...and now for a short intermission...This is an excellent talk I attended a number of years ago at Amaravati Monastery. Its Ajahn Sumedho with "Who Needs Enlightenment When I Have My Opinions?" Well worth listening to and hopefully not the subject of more dissatisfaction and disagreement! To quote Ajahn Sumedho "All opinions are conditions" :)





:anjali:

Laurens
Posts: 483
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:56 pm
Location: Norfolk, England

Re: Faith and Doubt: Why are we quarreling lately?

Post by Laurens » Mon Jun 25, 2018 4:58 pm

I think I probably come across on the doubt side with some aspects of Buddhism.

I don't think having a sceptical mindset is antithetical to the Dhamma. I actually think its important, and I believe it is the mindset that is encouraged in the Kalama sutta. Its worth saying that I don't doubt that the Eightfold Path is a means for reducing suffering because I see advanced practitioners and they seem to have a lightness to them, a sense of humour, and a wisdom that leads me to believe there are fruits to be had when the Buddha's teachings are followed. In that sense I have faith that the bulk of the Buddha's teaching works.

When it comes to rebirth, I really don't know. I'm accepting of the possibility, but I feel it would be dishonest to myself to say I believe it because I have no idea. But I entertain the notion that the Buddha was correct about it, although I tend to not really think of it that often as it rarely relates directly to practise in this lifetime.

With regards to some of the stuff that has come up in topics lately, stuff that in my view seems like deification of the Buddha, stuff about him being omniscient etc. I think this is just the result of Buddhism being a religion. The Buddha said not to idolise him, but we did anyway. Things like this don't affect whether the teachings yield their stated results. It just seems like what people do to religious figures, and I don't think the Buddha was a supernatural being. I think he was a supremely wise person who laid out a philosophy that, if followed, brings about the end of suffering.

Thus I have faith in Buddhism that it works, but I'm not willing to believe that there was anything supernatural about the Buddha. I think those notions are the product of his followers, rather than the Buddha himself. If you want to believe those things about the Buddha then that's fine. That mode of thinking just doesn't work for me, but luckily it doesn't matter...
"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

User avatar
Pseudobabble
Posts: 716
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:11 am
Location: London

Re: Faith and Doubt: Why are we quarreling lately?

Post by Pseudobabble » Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:38 pm

Laurens wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 4:58 pm

With regards to some of the stuff that has come up in topics lately, stuff that in my view seems like deification of the Buddha, stuff about him being omniscient etc. I think this is just the result of Buddhism being a religion. The Buddha said not to idolise him, but we did anyway. Things like this don't affect whether the teachings yield their stated results. It just seems like what people do to religious figures, and I don't think the Buddha was a supernatural being. I think he was a supremely wise person who laid out a philosophy that, if followed, brings about the end of suffering.

Thus I have faith in Buddhism that it works, but I'm not willing to believe that there was anything supernatural about the Buddha. I think those notions are the product of his followers, rather than the Buddha himself. If you want to believe those things about the Buddha then that's fine. That mode of thinking just doesn't work for me, but luckily it doesn't matter...
:goodpost:
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.'" - Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta


'Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return.' - Genesis 3:19

'Some fart freely, some try to hide and silence it. Which one is correct?' - Saegnapha

User avatar
No_Mind
Posts: 1911
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:12 pm
Location: India

Re: Faith and Doubt: Why are we quarreling lately?

Post by No_Mind » Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:14 pm

Wizard in the Forest wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 7:27 am
I feel like Skeptical Buddhists and Devout Buddhists are being disrespectful of each other in many of the various discussions.
Can you define Skeptical Buddhist? I am a Buddhist who believes in soul (which perishes upon Nibbana but survives from birth to birth .. I had proposed this in a thread and no one was able to quote a sutta disproving my hypothesis viewtopic.php?f=16&t=31541)

Am I a Skeptical Buddhist? If so, why? Who decides who is Skeptical and who is Devout (capitalization of adjectives to conform to OP's style).

Is a member who follows all precepts strictly but abuses and curses others on the forum and indulges in sutta throwing at drop of a hat (sutta throwing is the sport of resorting to quoting large chunks of ATI and SC websites when one is at a loss for answers) necessarily a more devout Buddhist than a "skeptical Buddhist" (capable of original thought) like me?

:namaste:
I know one thing: that I know nothing

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4390
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Faith and Doubt: Why are we quarreling lately?

Post by Sam Vara » Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:35 pm

No_Mind wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:14 pm
Am I a Skeptical Buddhist? If so why? Who decides who is Skeptical and who is Devout (capitalization of adjectives to conform to OP's style).

Is a member who follows all precepts strictly but abuses and curses others on the forum and indulges in sutta throwing at drop of a hat (sutta throwing is the sport of resorting to quoting large chunks of ATI and SC websites when one is at a loss for answers) necessarily a more devout Buddhist than a skeptical Buddhist (capable of original thought) like me?

:namaste:
A sceptical Buddhist is presumably one who questions or does not accept some of what are accepted as key tenets of the faith. It's just a label, so I guess anyone can apply that label to another; it's just a question of whether people accept that label as being justly applied. What counts as scepticism It might be that scepticism and devotion are not exclusive or even opposites. A person might be extremely devout in some respects, yet question other aspects of the faith. A person such as you allude to who abuses or curses others is not doing what the Buddha recommended in terms of speech, regardless of their preceptual purity. They might be showing their devotion in a different way (i.e. sutta-quoting) but I think the intention is what is important. Are they quoting suttas in order to help other people understand or give them confidence? Or are they just trying to win arguments and publicly demonstrate their superiority?

binocular
Posts: 5638
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Faith and Doubt: Why are we quarreling lately?

Post by binocular » Sat Jul 14, 2018 6:56 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:35 pm
It might be that scepticism and devotion are not exclusive or even opposites.
In Zen, for example, they aren't. In Zen, they have the trio faith-doubt-determination. An example.
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

TRobinson465
Posts: 494
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: Faith and Doubt: Why are we quarreling lately?

Post by TRobinson465 » Fri Jul 27, 2018 5:49 am

I think it'd be reasonable if the OP of a thread simply signify which perspective he wants. Like, if i ask a question about literal devas, id rather not have someone preach to me about how devas were really some intricate metaphor for real people who live good lives like celebrities and socialites, i just want the question answered or discussed. Its totally cool if you think devas arent literal, just don't distract from the actual conversation by driving it to your athiestic interpretation.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"At Varanasi, in the Deer Park at Isipatana, the Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

"Go forth, monks, for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world, for the welfare, the good and the happiness of gods and men. Let no two of you go in the same direction." - First Khandhaka, Chapter 11, Vinaya.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4390
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Faith and Doubt: Why are we quarreling lately?

Post by Sam Vara » Fri Jul 27, 2018 6:33 am

TRobinson465 wrote:
Fri Jul 27, 2018 5:49 am
I think it'd be reasonable if the OP of a thread simply signify which perspective he wants. Like, if i ask a question about literal devas, id rather not have someone preach to me about how devas were really some intricate metaphor for real people who live good lives like celebrities and socialites, i just want the question answered or discussed. Its totally cool if you think devas arent literal, just don't distract from the actual conversation by driving it to your athiestic interpretation.
Yes, a good point. It's perfectly possible to make this clear in the OP, and if more people did this it would help the mods and there would be less distracting off-topic material in threads.

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Faith and Doubt: Why are we quarreling lately?

Post by rightviewftw » Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:05 am

So if i don't want certain people to post in my threads or comment on my posts i can express it in the OP and expect it to be enforced?

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4390
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Faith and Doubt: Why are we quarreling lately?

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:17 am

rightviewftw wrote:
Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:05 am
So if i don't want certain people to post in my threads or comment on my posts i can express it in the OP and expect it to be enforced?
A simpler solution would be to use the "add foe" facility. I've never used it, but I believe it blocks you seeing that person's posts. Check it and see what happens. And far simpler than that would be simply to ignore them.

You might want to seek a ruling from Retro or David on this, but I personally would not be happy enforcing what you suggest, as it serves no useful purpose and merely involves the moderators in expressing your disdain and hostility for another user.

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Faith and Doubt: Why are we quarreling lately?

Post by rightviewftw » Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:29 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:17 am
rightviewftw wrote:
Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:05 am
So if i don't want certain people to post in my threads or comment on my posts i can express it in the OP and expect it to be enforced?
A simpler solution would be to use the "add foe" facility. I've never used it, but I believe it blocks you seeing that person's posts. Check it and see what happens. And far simpler than that would be simply to ignore them.

You might want to seek a ruling from Retro or David on this, but I personally would not be happy enforcing what you suggest, as it serves no useful purpose and merely involves the moderators in expressing your disdain and hostility for another user.
The add foe function does not work because one still get's notifications.

I want a ruling on this yes.

There have been times where i was asked to stay away from certain members and mutual avoidance has worked well in those cases, No_Mind is an example.

I would definitely like to have the option to impose segregation between myself and certain people as in mutual ignore, to be enforced by mods.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4390
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Faith and Doubt: Why are we quarreling lately?

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:35 am

rightviewftw wrote:
Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:29 am
There have been times where i was asked to stay away from certain members and mutual avoidance has worked well in those cases, No_Mind is an example.
Well, if it worked, then try the same tactic if the same problem arises.
I would definitely like to have the option to impose segregation between myself and certain people as in mutual ignore, to be enforced by mods.
You could try taking responsibility for your own responses, rather than offloading that responsibility onto someone else. I certainly won't be enforcing it.

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Faith and Doubt: Why are we quarreling lately?

Post by rightviewftw » Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:38 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:35 am
rightviewftw wrote:
Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:29 am
There have been times where i was asked to stay away from certain members and mutual avoidance has worked well in those cases, No_Mind is an example.
Well, if it worked, then try the same tactic if the same problem arises.
I would definitely like to have the option to impose segregation between myself and certain people as in mutual ignore, to be enforced by mods.
You could try taking responsibility for your own responses, rather than offloading that responsibility onto someone else. I certainly won't be enforcing it.
What worked was mutual avoidance.

IRL this is a common practice called a restraining order, this is not something unheard of. If someone harasses me, makes unsubstantiated claims etc, why not force segragetion? Let alone harassment and unsubstantiated claims, what if i simply don't want to talk to a person, why should i have to be exposed to their company?

If you dont want moderate perhaps you are unfit to be a moderator.
Last edited by rightviewftw on Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests