What can be done to stop Buddhist Discussion turning to flame

[doc benway]

Yeah I think we are in basic agreement , I was saying that they dont have to perfect buddha examples , you said that one doesnt have to be to post ,but they should be trying for that . Which is a little bit disagreement , but not much , and I was figuring that an insider would be most acceptable , and you said something along the lines that possibly someone from outside could also set a fresh example , and so I end up back at the start where I said I dont really feel that a different example need be set , and just to leave em be becasue it should be up to them how it is they want to be within the basic guidelines of the subforum. Or something along those lines. . but I dont really care one way or the other.

 

Yes, I think we more or less agree.

I also think I need to be careful about how I say things.

I don't want to sound as if people should or shouldn't do something because I see it in a certain way.

I probably do come off like that, however.

 

One of my principles to live by is -

It is not selfish to live my life as I see fit.

Selfishness is when I expect you to live your life as I see fit.

-- Anthony DeMello

[doc benway]

Oh, I'm well aware that my behaviour is a major contribution to why this thread must have been started. I'm well aware of my own hypocrisy in failing to adhere to basic Buddhist principles, but what I want to ask is: are the others responding in this thread aware of the hypocrisy they commit when they pass judgement on others? If not by referring to them directly, but in intention?

Yes

[Simple_Jack]

People expect buddhist practitioners to be without sin. This is the fundamental misunderstanding. "oh, you're suppose to be a buddhist, pouring out love and compassion for all and sunder... how could you be such a dick and say such nasty things? This is so not buddhist." If this kind of thinking does not exist, or if its rectified, then there will be no hypocrisy. Then heated exchanges will simply remain heated exchanges, with no third party judgements. Its only third party observers who can't grasp this idea that Buddhism is not based on guilt, blame and etc. etc.

 

Anger and other emotional outcroppings are not the actual problem. Repeating these again and again, without awareness and due consideration given to the self-power of knowing that its possible to choose a different response, is the real culprit. This is the real disempowering pattern that binds one to states even more languishing than mere hypocrisy.

 

. 2 rupees .

Yes

 

Then we can all agree, that passive-aggressive judgment on others, is not conducive to the cultivation of the 4 immeasurables nor the purification of the 3 poisons in one's mindstream?

[Friend]

1. is it true?

2. is it kind?

3. is it necessary?

It was answered as follow:

 

"Those who know dont speak,

those who dont know speak."

 

Actually I think Socrates told the guy to "Shut up"

as truth, kindness and necessary is relative

and if one consider the duality then it depends on

the one who define what is true, kind and necessary

which may not match what is true, kind and necessary.

 

It becomes argue as concepts from a non dual world

are may come into conflict with duality and duality is then

appearing if a slight different change to actually differ to things

so that one can relate them day and night and in the same

subtle change the day with another day.

 

Actually they guy could have ask Socrate if the question

was true, kind and necessary.....to be so smart a s s

instead of telling him nicely to stop talking.

 

Actually those who argue are those who choose fight over flight.

Flight would make the people disappear from the place of the conflict

while those who fight are stay in the place of conflict.

Argue is like revenge as I think as if one do something on will get "repaid for that"

kindness begets kindness but sometimes.... on wants just be les trolls....

 

Actually if one has compassion then one would expect :

"Forgive them as they not know what they say"

 

As things are so difficult

that "all I know that I know nothing".... so I decide at the moment as far as I know

as far I assume realness in reality.

[rex]

Combining Buddhism with Transactional Analysis (TA) gives a nice way of classifying and possibly understanding posts, their tone and the responses elicited.

 

Responses may be based on the perceived motivation of the initial post. Four possibilties of perceived motivation here (TA then Buddhist equivalent - 'scuse male pronoun):

 

1) I'm OK, You're OK - One who works for the benefit of both himself and others.

2) I'm OK, You're Not OK - One who works for the benefit of himself and the detriment of others.

3) I'm Not OK, You're OK - One who works for the detriment of himself but the benefit of others.

4) I.m Not OK, You're Not OK - One who works for the detriment of both hmself and others.

 

Examples:

 

1) "As a practitioner [or non-practitioner, apply as required] I really enjoy listening and learning from everyones perspective, even if I don't always understand or agree with them, I value the opportunity to clarify my own understanding." (I'm OK, You're OK)

 

2) "I don't need a teacher, as I get all I require from books and my extensive study of other spiritual disciplines. I tried Buddhism out but I considered the teacher false and a corruptor of teachings that sould be free. Oh yeah, the sangha were a bunch of rich losers too. All these internet 'Buddhists' are following a path unsuited for modern Western society and can't handle my rational, well expressed and considered evaluations - good luck in your deluded paths." (I'm OK, You're Not OK).

 

3) "We all don't know shit so what's the point in all this useless pontificating? Real spiritual practitioners wouldn't touch this site with a barge pole. Those who don't know speak, right!!!???" (I'm Not OK, You're Not OK).

 

Responses can come from three places:

 

1) Parent: the high ideal to live up to, the controller, preserver and adminstrator of the high ideals

2) Adult: rationality and objectivity

3) Child: sheer emotion

 

Examples (context and who is doing the speaking is everything so there could be different attributions based on the same declaration:

 

"Practitioners shouldn't react to provocations" (Parent to Child).

 

"Yes there are many apparent contradictions in what the different schools teach. Are any knowledgeable and expereinced representaives here from each school that could describe and clarify their position? (Adult to Adult).

 

"Never mind emptiness, I piss myself everytime I read what you write. Your mind is vacuous, knobhead " (Child to Child).

 

There are many possibilties and combinations. I might start including classifications in my replies, for example:

 

I'm OK, You're OK, Adult to Adult

 

Funnily enough this classification may be the ideal that all posts on all forums should be. (Parent to Adult ).

 

edit: tpyos & cocrretoins

Edited March 22, 2014 by rex

[doc benway]

Then we can all agree, that passive-aggressive judgment on others, is not conducive to the cultivation of the 4 immeasurables nor the purification of the 3 poisons in one's mindstream?

I agree with that statement.

There are many things that are not conducive to cultivating the four immeasurables or purifying the three poisons.

Are those activities that are important to you?

[Simple_Jack]

There are many things that are not conducive to cultivating the four immeasurables or purifying the three poisons.

Are those activities that are important to you?

 

I would like to say they are, but I'm just a fallible human being.

[rex]

If you think about it this is really no different than referring to oneself as "Buddhist" or to another as "non-Buddhist". I imagine this term being used in Tibet, to delineate those who followed Buddhist teachings from those who followed Bonpo teachings, but this is just an uninformed opinion.

 

[Evaluation: I'm Ok, You're Ok; Adult to Adult

 

Elicited Response: I'm Ok, You're Ok; Adult to Adult]

 

Come to think of it there probably was a sectarian backdrop to this. However when I was introduced to the term it was in the context of looking within rather without for an ism to provide truth. Although in practice one in all probability is following the ism of Buddha, there is the theorectical possibilty of an ism that has the same methods and goals of Buddhism but doesn't call itself Buddhist. The justification in this is that if a school of thought has the Four Seals present, then it is a Buddhist school irrespective of what it or others call it.

[GrandmasterP]

I'm always baffled when discussions within one of the most peaceful philosophies turn nasty. How can we change that here on the bums? I don't want this thread to devolve into name calling or finger pointing. Rather what can be done to end this strangeness.

 

I understand all sides are passionate and come here from different traditions. Still what can be done to end sniping, trolling and insults here.

 

1. Burying the hatchet. Don't carry old grievances into new discussions.

2. Be honest and polite before being offensive. ie Please don't ... or could you please discuss that in a new thread.

 

Buddhism is all about skillful means. What's the best way to cut these things off before they escalate?

 

 

If you think it's bad on here try Dharma Wheel the main Mahayana forum.

Man it is 'dog eat dog' over there.

Trouble with Buddhism seems to be the number of 'warring' sects and traditions within it.

Dharma Wheel posters are mainly western converts and, whilst converts to any faith path tend to be more zealous than those born into it; there's a real viciousness over there sometimes that you tend not to find here on TTB.

Makes for a fun forum in one way but in another way it's a bit sad.

[Apech]

If you think it's bad on here try Dharma Wheel the main Mahayana forum. Man it is 'dog eat dog' over there. Trouble with Buddhism seems to be the number of 'warring' sects and traditions within it. Dharma Wheel posters are mainly western converts and, whilst converts to any faith path tend to be more zealous than those born into it; there's a real viciousness over there sometimes that you tend not to find here on TTB. Makes for a fun forum in one way but in another way it's a bit sad.

 

 

I'll have to go over there are watch the dogs eat each other.

 

I can't but admit that although I practice dharma there's an awful lot of nonsense flying around the ether ... especially on internet forums. Shame really. But just because people adopt a label like 'buddhist' doesn't mean anything at all.

 

Nice to see you posts GrandP haven't seen you around for a while.

[GrandmasterP]

I hibernate in winter.

:-)

[Jeff]

I have heard it said....

 

 

ânanda said, "but among us there are bad-natured bhikùus. While you have been in the world, youve managed them, Buddha. What should we do about them when you are gone?"

 

During the time of the Buddha there were six bhikùus who were very rambunctious. They constantly interfered with others cultivation. If people were maintaining the precepts and rules, those bhikùus tried to hinder them. Although those six bhikùus did not follow the rules, not one of them was as disobedient as todays average bhikùu.

 

"What should we do about evil natured bhikùus?", asked ânanda.

 

"Oh, that, said the Buddha, is very easy. You should be silent and they will go away. Dont talk to them. After all, arent they bad? Arent they boisterous and disobedient? Ignore them. Dont speak to them. Theyll become bored and leave on their own."

 

Best wishes

Edited March 22, 2014 by Jeff

[Yascra]

 

Then we can all agree, that passive-aggressive judgment on others, is not conducive to the cultivation of the 4 immeasurables nor the purification of the 3 poisons in one's mindstream?

We can simply agree that someone like you is not a buddhist in practice. From this point on there's nothing to discuss, and I don't see why it should in any way be a "sin" to just state what's obvious.

Quite the opposite, I consider it dishonest to not stick to things as they are.

 

The problem is not bad behaviour alone. The problem is the firm believe that it's your personal right to stick to bad behaviour, even if it disturbs good thoughts and is thereby in any way harmful to others or to other's good intentions.

You don't have the will or even in any way insight to act in a way of "changing bad behaviour", which would be "avoiding to harm beings" and "avoiding bad company".

Unfortunately it's one of the characteristics of persons like you to always try to blame others, even if pure logic tells you that the fault is yours.

 

It's not passive aggressive if I tell you that my opinion of you is negative. i have my reasons to, and whether you get angry about it I don't care. (Passive aggression means that you're angry but behave in a way to make others run wild. Actually that's more the kind of behaviour that's yours. I don't give a sh*t about you and whether you're angry or not.)

Edited March 22, 2014 by Yascra

[Simple_Jack]

Yascra, Anyone's free to say whatever they want about me, but I've seen this pattern on the forum in general where people will use threads like this to air-out their disapproval of individual's or their actions. I sincerely appreciate you being honest about how you feel towards me and were willing to be upfront about stating it. I hope the best for you in life and practice. Take care.

[Apech]

I have heard it said....

 

 

ânanda said, "but among us there are bad-natured bhikùus. While you have been in the world, youve managed them, Buddha. What should we do about them when you are gone?"

 

During the time of the Buddha there were six bhikùus who were very rambunctious. They constantly interfered with others cultivation. If people were maintaining the precepts and rules, those bhikùus tried to hinder them. Although those six bhikùus did not follow the rules, not one of them was as disobedient as todays average bhikùu.

 

"What should we do about evil natured bhikùus?", asked ânanda.

 

"Oh, that, said the Buddha, is very easy. You should be silent and they will go away. Dont talk to them. After all, arent they bad? Arent they boisterous and disobedient? Ignore them. Dont speak to them. Theyll become bored and leave on their own."

 

Best wishes

 

 

Good to see the Buddha knew about 'don't feed the trolls'.

[rex]

We can simply agree that someone like you is not a buddhist in practice. From this point on there's nothing to discuss, and I don't see why it should in any way be a "sin" to just state what's obvious.

Quite the opposite, I consider it dishonest to not stick to things as they are.

 

......

Evaluation: I'm OK, You're Not Ok, Parent to Adult

Elicited Response: I'm OK, You're OK, Child to Adult

 

Meeeooowww!

 

Yascra, Anyone's free to say whatever they want about me, but I've seen this pattern on the forum in general where people will use threads like this to air-out their disapproval of individual's or their actions. I sincerely appreciate you being honest about how you feel towards me and were willing to be upfront about stating it. I hope the best for you in life and practice. Take care.

Evaluation: I'm OK, You're OK, Parent to Parent

[Yascra]

Evaluation: I'm OK, You're Not Ok, Parent to Adult

Elicited Response: I'm OK, You're OK, Child to Adult

 

Meeeooowww!

 

Evaluation: I'm OK, You're OK, Parent to Parent

 

LoL

 

Evaluating other persons written stuff: (Self-proclaimed) Teacher to Student(s).

"Meeeooowww": Behaving worse than any student in puberty would, thereby lowering any possible level of self-given teacher level as far as possible, thereby lowering student level MUCH more.

 

Other perspective: "Unlike this post" vs. "Like this post" combined with (hidden?) offense for runaways

Edited March 22, 2014 by Yascra

[thelerner]

Case in point. Its best to just not discuss Buddhist tenets and praxis in depth on this forum unless people are receptive to how the teachings are taught in a living tradition.

I wonder if we should have a couple of threads within the subforum labeled- hardcore only apply. Don't post unless you can name the 4 noble truths, quote 5 lines of sutra and the 3 essences of Dharmaas summed up by the Buddha himself.

 

Or would that be flame bait in the making?

[SonOfTheGods]

I'm always baffled when discussions within one of the most peaceful philosophies turn nasty. How can we change that here on the bums? I don't want this thread to devolve into name calling or finger pointing. Rather what can be done to end this strangeness.

 

I understand all sides are passionate and come here from different traditions. Still what can be done to end sniping, trolling and insults here.

 

1. Burying the hatchet. Don't carry old grievances into new discussions.

2. Be honest and polite before being offensive. ie Please don't ... or could you please discuss that in a new thread.

 

Buddhism is all about skillful means. What's the best way to cut these things off before they escalate?

One tool that is useful, is to know when your point has been made, and let it be so it may take root.

Restating said point over and over again, doesn't work.

If it didn't work the first time, restating it ten more times won't work either.

 

Also there are certain people, who seem to live for- being contrary and/or getting attention.

Know who they are, and do not engage them in the attention/approval they so desperately seek.

Edited March 22, 2014 by SonOfTheGods

[silent thunder]

I wonder if we should have a couple of threads within the subforum labeled- hardcore only apply. Don't post unless you can name the 4 noble truths, quote 5 lines of sutra and the 3 essences of Dharmaas summed up by the Buddha himself.

 

Or would that be flame bait in the making?

 

I like the idea of a locked sub-forum, until you fulfill the requirements for entry and learn the secret handshake.

[skydog]

/

Edited March 22, 2014 by skydog

[Apech]

/

 

Have you gone for a slash?

[skydog]

yep cant be bothered to offend people or th wrong people who i didnt mean to, so ill just keep my thoughts to myself

[Simple_Jack]

thelerner, I would consider that as 'rudimentary'....there would possibly still be a flame war, lol.

[Kajenx]

1. is it true?

2. is it kind?

3. is it necessary?

 

(OK so perhaps not quite Buddhist, but still good )

 

Five keys to right speech

"Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five?

"It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will."

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vaca/

 

Seems perfectly Buddhist to me! :3