dwai
-
Content count
8,286 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
70
Everything posted by dwai
-
What I'm suggesting aren't mean to be formal rules, but civil agreements between individuals, in good faith. Is that too much to ask for?
-
I agree that your reaction to my post was that - a reaction due to a different interaction on a different thread. Was my post influenced by that and many earlier discussions, yes? I've even prefaced the OP with the following statement -- Was it motivated by malice or spite? No. Thats where the advice about ad hominem attacks should be applicable. I genuinely want to see what Bums have to say about following certain rules of engagement during discussions. See, we're already getting some good interactions between Jeff, Jonny and myself.
-
I could post more material on this if needed. But I think this should suffice as we're belaboring the point now. http://www.dorjeshugden.com/forum/index.php?topic=2294.0
-
I've actually stated that you were right about it. I'm doing so again now here. One clearly emerges from Dao. Haha...I see where you're going with this. One was an inference. I should have asked "Are you suggesting that I have the ability to influence people and make them follow rules of discourse?". That would have been a clarifying question in light of your comment.
-
The timing of your move seemed too coincidental, in light of your clarifying post thereafter, where you and Karen accused me trying to establish a hierarchy.
-
These rules of discussion are applicable across darshanas, including Buddhism, Jainism, etc. WRT a PM, I could turn it around and ask you - why didn't you send me a PM before unceremoniously moving the post to a different sub-forum than where it was originally posted? If you look at the chronology of events, my response was to Karen's accusation to me, and an observation rather than a counter-accusation. From my side, I don't have any animosity towards you or anyone else on the forum. I think we are all here for a reason and that reason is to share, learn and grow with each other. It is a satsang, even when sometimes we have disagreements.
-
huh? All I was saying is "our interaction vis-a-vis TTC and AV helped me better understand AV". Any debate has ground rules. Otherwise it will devolve into ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments. Do you think that if someone unknowingly buys into straw man arguments (because someone else has said so), then they are absolved of the responsibility to remedy that when brought to their attention? In spiritual discussions, the authority is the scripture. For Advaita Vedanta it is the Upanishads and recognized commentaries thereof. Sankaracharya, Gaudapada, etc. When debating AV, one should always fall back on the scriptures as final authority. These are things that have been tested over 1000s of years and withstood the test of time. For instance, if you say that "AV doesn't allow for Brahman to be embodied in any sense", then I'll counter and say "That's not correct. Look at Mandukya Upanishad...it, along with Gaudapāda's Māndukya Kārikā clearly articulates that the universe is the physical body of Brahman, the universal mind is its subtle body and God (ishwara) is its causal body". There is no question of debate there. That IS the position according to AV. Now one may choose to agree with that position or not. That is there prerogative and I have no issues with people doing that. Or for that matter, when someone says "KS says there are infinite Nondual Shivas", that is clearly wrong. KS is clear on the Nonduality of Shiva, as being one without a second. How can we know? By referring to scriptures and trusted commentary (Such as Shiva Sutras by Swami Lakshmanjoo, etc). That is the reason why people quote from texts and scriptures right? It gets murky when we see straw man arguments being prefaced in said commentaries about another tradition. Like Shiva Sutras says certain clearly incorrect things about AV. That could be the source of the straw man arguments being proposed by some innocent student, who's only read Shiva Sutras and not really spent the time understanding AV. When someone who knows AV comes and corrects those misconceptions, it can lead to jalpa, if the student who quoted those straw man arguments didn't actually want to take the trouble to understand where the AV person was coming from. That's where a structured discourse can help. It goes like this - "You have every right to critique whatever you want, but for the sake of making sure we are actually discussing the right subject, why don't you articulate my position first, so I can confirm that we are on the same page, so to speak?" I don't see how that analogy fits. I don't have the ability or capacity to prevent anyone from entering any discussion here. Just because I write something doesn't mean others will follow (or even care for it).
-
Agreed that it could be the case. Would it not be prudent then to course correct and acknowledge that it might be possible that they’re wrong?
-
Well not entirely. If you put down another tradition by misrepresenting it’s tenets then it is of dubious credibility, and jalpa or vitanda. How frequently do trolls get banned from this forum? Trolls usually start with jalpa and end up with vitanda as an instrument of instigation... Moreover, these four categories are conversation starters. Food for thought Yes but I don’t put down your perspective or make up fake stuff about your views. I’ve always been open to seeing what you mean. Only that I am not convinced with your perspective on the matter entirely For that matter our interactions vis-a-vis TTC and AV have made me understand AV better. And help illuminate where there was murkiness. I’ve never ever felt that our mutual exchanges have ever been anything but vada. Sometimes even Samvada as you’ve taught me many things too. Do you think I’d have ventured to work with you if didn’t respect you and your views?
-
Jalpa implies that one puts the other one down (strawman/ad hominem). To teach or explain my tradition if I begin by misrepresenting another, then it is jalpa. Agreed on all counts. It helps to avoid jalpa (and acknowledge when we do descend of that level, if not in public, then at least to our own relative selves). Vitanda is another matter. If someone has the wisdom to see that they’re resorting to vitanda, that means they are aware of how their ego is floundering. It can be a learning experience.
-
Agreed Is it really about controlling? Why does it come down to that? Why not, discuss ways to amicably exchange ideas, even when they might be contrary to our beliefs? Thanks Jonny. I’m not particularly interested in forming groups. This thread was for people who might find this topic of value and interest. It might open some eyes and minds...who knows? Or maybe nothing at all. I’m okay either way.
-
The founding principles are high level guidelines. It is perfectly logical and practical to dig a bit deeper than that. But then again, it is the prerogative of powers that rule the roost so to speak (I mean the board of course). Who are mere mortals like me to want to be so presumptuous and impertinent to expect civility AND facts in discussions? Geez...I mean we should be grateful just for the ability to make posts. 😁
-
I didn't ask for an apology. Nor will I give one. It seems like you are hell-bent on silencing my voice. I was merely voicing my opinion. If you didn't like it, why not let the thread alone and it'd die a slow and painful death? Obviously some chord was struck that drove such vehement and passionate responses. I'll be happy to stay quiet if you can explain to me why discussing this topic is wrong or a violation of anything. Are the bums incapable of making up their own minds? Why do you presume they will care for the ramblings of an old fool like myself? If anything, it might be source of some entertainment or indifference for a few minutes (and then will be forgotten).
-
Good night brother. Love and light
-
As a netizen who is a member of long standing, with no special histrionic abilities or infamy of note besides being participant of the Buddhabum wars back in the day, I don't see why I cannot make suggestions about how discourses should be had. Whether people like to follow it or not, whether it carries weight or not should be dependent on the other bums. I don't understand why this should rub you the wrong way. Oh and I forgot, when the Hindu sub-forum was created, I was invited to be a steward. I don't know if stewardships are still in vogue, but I agreed and I do from time to time (very rarely) intervene on the Hindu sub-forum. Beyond that, I've never had any issues with people expressing themselves in any which way. Beautiful and wonderful. Does it say anything there about not discussing ways to engage in discourse? In fact, after reading the founding principles of the forum it seems this topic should be of extra interest to all parties involved. All this thread does is call out some options for civil discourse.
-
There IS no conflict. I never aspired to have the powers of moderation of this forum, nor do I care to "win" or "lose" except point out where I see issues with flagellation of straw men. Strangely I have a soft corner for those poor straw men. I have nothing but love for Siva (and all those who seem to dislike me and my posts). God's honest truth there.
-
-
So let me get this straight. You accused me of interfering on your thread and did a bunch of ad hominem. So I decided to let it alone. I want to see what the rest of the bums think of discourse in general within a structured framework. And now you think I'm trying to "rig the system" in some way? Gee Siva..can you not see how defensive you are getting? Why do you care what I post and write? Did I call you names? Did I insult you? Did I do anything except point out what I consider straw man arguments against AV in the other threads? This topic is not even about AV or KS anymore. This is just to get a gauge of what people think we should do, in order to have amicable discourses. Why does it bother you so much?
-
Or add a type if it suits you. The four types were articulated as a conversation starter
-
It is a free country sir. Neither do I have the powers to influence people in the way you suggest, nor do I have the intention. People are free to read what I post and react in whatever way possible, including the way you have. Only most of them don't have the power to move my posts around like you did...
-
Ad hominem You are ascribing intent when there is none. That is ad hominem too. Calling someone despicable because you don't agree with them.
-
Gee...then all you have to do is ignore my posts. Why exercise your powers of moderation for that?
-
It seems the hierarchy is already at work here Karen. People like you, Siva, etc get to call the shots Why does an insignificant nobody like me rub you guys the wrong way so much?
-
Now it seems you are trying to wield your power as a moderator. While it is about the dharmic way ( not specially Hindu, as Buddhists follow this method too), it is meant to elicit conversation from all, irrespective of tradition. I would request you move it back to the general forum.
-
Beautiful and lucid!
