You are NOT qualified to critique a Spiritual Tradition if...

[Mudfoot]

10 hours ago, Kar3n said:

 

It needs to be said out loud that this is not in the spirit of the bums.

Isn't the spirit of the (banned) bums to write desperate posts in capital letters and then asking to be banned? 🤪

[Marblehead]

I am not qualified to speak in this thread.

 

[3bob]

we can carefully demonstrate the use of axes now and then, but to continue grinding on them harder and harder is a foolish demonstration.  

Edited September 13, 2018 by 3bob

[Marblehead]

1 minute ago, 3bob said:

we can carefully demonstrate the use axes now and then, but to continue grinding on them harder and harder is a foolish demonstration.  

Yep.  Once I have sharpened and honed my blades I put them back up on display.  To continue to try to make them sharper will likely result in my cutting myself.

 

[Daemon]

Luke 6:42* springs to mind.

Hopefully none of the moderators will decide that's off-topic and unilaterally censor my contribution to an OP's discussion again?

Of course, if the OP considers it to be off-topic, I'll be happy to delete it myself.

Just PM me @dwai if you'd like it removed.

 

*https://biblehub.com/luke/6-42.htm

 

☮️

 

Addendum

Thought it might be useful to add that I spent a decade studying AV and Sanskrit under the supervision of people including Dayananda Saraswati, so @dwai might consider me to be both qualified and competent to comment?

Again, @dwai just PM me (or state openly) that you consider me to be unqualified to comment and I'll happily delete this myself. ☮️

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Daemon

[Kar3n]

2 hours ago, Mudfoot said:

Isn't the spirit of the (banned) bums to write desperate posts in capital letters and then asking to be banned? 🤪

Haha, yeah there are a few "spirits" that have done that.

 

I do not believe this instance is one of those requests.

[dwai]

9 hours ago, Bud Jetsun said:

 

 

 

No one has any of them, they are not possessions. 

 

They are cultivated. But are required to “learn” a spiritual system. I know it is popular to be irreverent about everything these days, but at least people should do enough ground work. 

9 hours ago, Bud Jetsun said:

Wisdom comes from all places.  Examine the aspects of oneself which cares about the critique. 

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

 

Thanks Bud...good reminder  

 

Unlimited love too...

 

dwai 

 

 

 

 

 

[Stosh]

10 hours ago, dwai said:

I don’t mind if you find faults. But leave those straw men alone  

 

 

 

 

The faulty person regarding straw men , is the one who sets them up . And when a person indicates that the way they resolved an intractable and fundamental issue in a particular ..sect was, ,, essentially, to just make believe the problem wasn't there, they have done so .(This is what was said by this person ).  Propping up a straw man argument,  IMO, known to be , and already,    straw  .

And what is compounding-ly worse , is to try to arrange a set of criteria , and linguistic hurdles ,which will immunize against the exposure.  

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Stosh

[Fa Xin]

I feel you Dwai. I gravitate towards mystical Christianity lately... and it’s hard to listen to my Catholic neighbors interpret the scriptures in the opposite ways I think of them. 

 

Its actually a blessing, though, because it allows me to practice non judgement regarding their views, and  helps me to let go of my own stuff. Maybe this is an opportunity for you to benefit from this. 

[dwai]

50 minutes ago, Fa Xin said:

I feel you Dwai. I gravitate towards mystical Christianity lately... and it’s hard to listen to my Catholic neighbors interpret the scriptures in the opposite ways I think of them. 

 

Its actually a blessing, though, because it allows me to practice non judgement regarding their views, and  helps me to let go of my own stuff. Maybe this is an opportunity for you to benefit from this. 

This is where I think I'm failing to express myself properly. I don't have problems with criticism per se.  It is just not fun to see straw men being butchered mercilessly in the name of discourse

 

In so much as I do think I'll benefit from a good discourse in many ways, I'd rather it be with higher levels of accuracy. Maybe it's time for those who are suggesting that I'm reacting egotistically take a good hard look at themselves   

 

It is not about my opinion of AV. There are very specific things that are factual in as much as the texts go (and the authoritative commentaries by recognized masters of the tradition) - eg Mandukya Upanishad, Gaudapāda's Mandukya Kārikā which were summarily dismissed as being "my opinions" in another thread.  They are not. They are the status quo wrt AV. 

 

Maybe this will help make things more clear -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purva_paksha

 

Quote

purva paksha is the traditional dharmic approach to rival schools. It is a dialectical approach, taking a thesis by an opponent ('purva pakshin') and then providing its rebuttal ('khandana') so as to establish the protagonist's views ('siddhanta'). The purva paksha tradition required any debater first to argue from the perspective of his opponent in order to test the validity of his understanding of the opposing position, and from there to realize his own shortcomings. Only after perfecting his understanding of opposing views would he be qualified to refute them. Such debates encourage individuals to maintain flexibility of perspective and honesty rather than seek victory egotistically.In this way, the dialectical process ensures a genuine and far-reaching shift in the individual.

imho, following these standards of discourse can elevate the consciousness and knowledge of all participants (active and passive). 

Edited September 13, 2018 by dwai

[Fa Xin]

Whew... good thing I’m not into AV... I would need to prepare for days for a reply ! 😀

[Daemon]

In fact, the only authority is the original text.

All commentary is merely someone's interpretation/opinion.

Isn't everyone equally qualified and entitled to interpret and to opine?

Or is it only these patriarchs who have the right to have their interpretations and their opinions heard?

 

☮️

 

[Kar3n]

It is egotistical and pompous to make demands of people when the stated "means" required for discussion are not apparent and nullified by the very nature of such demands on others.

 

A good leader, practioner or teacher should never ask anything of another they are not willing to do or to act in a way they do not emulate themselves.

[s1va]

3 hours ago, Marblehead said:

I am not qualified to speak in this thread.

 

 

Exactly!  I don't take that simply as a joke only, there is a point and something to learn from that statement.  

-------------------------------------------------

 

Such strongly worded limitations, rules and prior qualifications as set forth in OP will pretty much make everyone here not qualified to speak. Except if you are in agreement with the ideas of maybe 1 or 2, that seem to think they have all the necessary qualifications.

 

From what I have learned so far here at TDB, as a member and staff, this place provides complete freedom to discuss spiritual topics in an egalitarian spirit.  The idea of the people who found this site are commendable in so many ways.  There are very less rules that restrict people's thoughts or freedom of expression in spiritual topics, as long as we don't engage in personal attacks, and stick to discussing the ideas.  Certainly nothing along the lines of what this thread talks about.  It is this open spirit that still makes the site going.

 

Next, what if one sect of Buddhists say inorder to comment or criticize in our section in TDB, you must have mastered the 4 noble truths, the noble eightfold path and a list with another 6 things pertaining only to their sect.  Then Daoist to come up with their list to say, one must have mastery in TTC and list their requisites.  And if we comply to all of this, how many will be left here discussing topics in a week from now?  Just some food for thought!

[dwai]

11 minutes ago, Daemon said:

In fact, the only authority is the original text.

All commentary is merely someone's interpretation/opinion.

Isn't everyone equally qualified and entitled to interpret and to opine?

Or is it only these patriarchs who have the right to have their interpretations and their opinions heard?

 

☮️

 

That's not the way how Dharma works. 

[dwai]

12 minutes ago, Kar3n said:

It is egotistical and pompous to make demands of people when the stated "means" required for discussion are not apparent and nullified by the very nature of such demands on others.

 

A good leader, practioner or teacher should never ask anything of another they are not willing to do or to act in a way they do not emulate themselves.

Exactly Karen. Let us all strive to live up to these standards

[Stosh]

23 minutes ago, dwai said:

Exactly Karen. Let us all strive to live up to these standards

Great , so then you should delete the thread to bring yourself into compliance. 

[3bob]

speaking of schools,  some of us may have been part of or in a school for and 'x' amount of time and reached an 'x' level...

but if we left or were ejected from that school then it does not compute that we can represent them in particular, for at that point we are on our own making our own summations.   (as in whatever variation or quasi type of mix we have arrived at, which I'd say is ok as long that is recognized by ourselves or others during discussions about schools) 

Edited September 13, 2018 by 3bob

[liminal_luke]

1 hour ago, Kar3n said:

It is egotistical and pompous to make demands of people when the stated "means" required for discussion are not apparent and nullified by the very nature of such demands on others.

 

 

I`m not privy to the Dwai`s mindstate and won`t speculate about the state of his ego.  It`s true that the title of this thread initially put me off.  Whenever anybody tells me I`m not qualified to comment on any subject my ego rears up and says "am so!"  So right away the thread put me in a somewhat combative mood.  Perhaps other people felt similarly?

 

I will say that whenever I`m especially egotistical or pompous it`s usually because I feel hurt.  This forum naturally attracts people who take spiritual practice seriously and hold the teachings of the lineage they follow sacred.  When our perception is that other people are stomping on the traditions that may be the organizing principle of our lives, well, feelings get hurt.  Intuitively, I think we all get this.

 

At the same time, this is an open forum.  People are free to say all sorts of foolish things.  If you`ve been around here for any length of time, you know.  People are also free to object to foolish things being said. 

 

In some ways, the forum isn`t so different from the real world.  We often hope that people will treat us in kind, supportive ways and they often don`t.  Wisely navigating through this sometimes rocky interpersonal domain is the work of a lifetime.  

[Spotless]

I'm reminded of a rock fight i was involved in when i was very young - it was exciting and fun - and resulted in 13 stitches above my right eye. I had a blast and not until i arrived home had any idea i was bleeding all over the place - i was not looking down. 

 

My mother was in panic and then i looked down and realized i was pretty covered in blood and began to cry. (but i still had a great time in the rock fight)

 

Throwing rocks is fun in the sense that it involves real risk - but it is naive - it involves more risk than is healthy or in any way wise.

 

It is senseless abandon - not all senseless abandon is bad and in so many cases it is what is needed within the encasement of a brick like interior/exterior. Religious dogma is often encased in brick - or what appears to be brick. And it can come with such cautionary drama that putting a toe into it feels like breaking good china.

 

The tenor of the original post here feels like a comment on being pelted by rocks that come from nowhere - an this is not a rock fight - it is a sucker punch of sorts. 

 

A sucker punch is not simply a tossed opinion - it is suddenly pissing on the participants with completely unsupported slant and impossible arguments - hence the Straw Man being brought up.

 

Obviously the art director wants messy and clean - refined and unrefined - it is an open forum.  At the same time - rock fights can get out of hand and a sucker punch of the type mentioned above is simply unwarranted and if it is done on a regular basis - then perhaps that person should run for president of the "U"SA.

 

I do not think the original post was actually touting for rules - but as some say in some parts of the world - "there is a lot of lead in the air today".

 

Bullets are not so bad metaphorically - but snipers are not there for the fun or the learning or the expansion of ideas.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Spotless

[Daemon]

2 hours ago, dwai said:

That's not the way how Dharma works. 

 

 

In your opinion.

In the opinion of others it works perfectly well like that.

Isn't duality truly wonderful?

You can have your own opinion and you can even attempt to impose it upon others.

The usual way of doing that is by writing your opinion/interpretation of an original sacred text and appealing to the authority of that original text to give your own interpretation/opinion a second-hand authority.

Interesting, I speculate that's why the Buddha refused to document his own teachings, having seen where that didn't lead or perhaps, he simply wasn't a poet?

It's a great pity that the rishis themselves were too stupid and ignorant to explain their original writings themselves, isn't it?

On the other hand, perhaps they knew full-well that the poetry that they wrote speaks straight to the heart of those who read it with any attempt to match the Love with which their poetry was written. Especially, if you learn to read our out aloud, as you will if you join one of Dayananda Saraswati's study groups for a few years.

Having said that, in doing so you need to be quite careful that you don't fall into the trap of believing that his translation, interpretation and opinion are the original gospel. In fact, there are two different versions of Swamiji's Gita Course, which (thank God) might be enough to give some people pause for thought.

For anyone who's to lazy to learn Sanskrit you can always plagiarise a translation and cut and paste the interptetations/opinions off the internet if you want to try to claim (3rd hand) authority.

 

☮️

 

[3bob]

3 hours ago, Spotless said:

I'm reminded of a rock fight i was involved in when i was very young - it was exciting and fun - and resulted in 13 stitches above my right eye. I had a blast and not until i arrived home had any idea i was bleeding all over the place - i was not looking down. 

 

My mother was in panic and then i looked down and realized i was pretty covered in blood and began to cry. (but i still had a great time in the rock fight)

 

Throwing rocks is fun in the sense that it involves real risk - but it is naive - it involves more risk than is healthy or in any way wise.

 

It is senseless abandon - not all senseless abandon is bad and in so many cases it is what is needed within the encasement of a brick like interior/exterior. Religious dogma is often encased in brick - or what appears to be brick. And it can come with such cautionary drama that putting a toe into it feels like breaking good china.

 

The tenor of the original post here feels like a comment on being pelted by rocks that come from nowhere - an this is not a rock fight - it is a sucker punch of sorts. 

 

A sucker punch is not simply a tossed opinion - it is suddenly pissing on the participants with completely unsupported slant and impossible arguments - hence the Straw Man being brought up.

 

Obviously the art director wants messy and clean - refined and unrefined - it is an open forum.  At the same time - rock fights can get out of hand and a sucker punch of the type mentioned above is simply unwarranted and if it is done on a regular basis - then perhaps that person should run for president of the "U"SA.

 

I do not think the original post was actually touting for rules - but as some say in some parts of the world - "there is a lot of lead in the air today".

 

Bullets are not so bad metaphorically - but snipers are not there for the fun or the learning or the expansion of ideas.

 

 

 

ah, I remember a rock fight that started out with an agreement among all of us neighborhood boys that per team and as individuals we would only throw semi-hardened dirt clods, thus only be able to cause slight pain to one another but still have the thrill of the fight.. (located in a small nearby canyon) well it wasn't long until the dirt clods had bits of rock in them either unintentionally or intentionally, thus the agreement soon changed into throwing only small rocks that still wouldn't cause much harm... (lol and you probably know where this headed) but in the heat of the battle bigger rocks started being thrown and getting in a hit without taking one yourself was what it was all about.   I was doing well and more or less sticking to the small rock agreement when out of nowhere a large rock with lots of speed behind it hit me right in the solar plexus, it hurt like hell and knocked me to the ground.  The other boys didn't take much notice of me and when I looked up I saw the one who threw the rock with a triumphant grin on his face... after that I never got into a dirt clod or rock fight again.  (knowing it could have been far worse if I or someone else got hit in an eye)

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by 3bob

[dwai]

3 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

I`m not privy to the Dwai`s mindstate and won`t speculate about the state of his ego.  It`s true that the title of this thread initially put me off.  Whenever anybody tells me I`m not qualified to comment on any subject my ego rears up and says "am so!"  So right away the thread put me in a somewhat combative mood.  Perhaps other people felt similarly?

 Maybe I should have  posted it as  "What is the right way to do comparative analysis of Spiritual Systems?". 

 

I wonder if that would have a different effect? Would egos have been unruffled? Just typing out loud...

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Daemon said:

 

In your opinion.

In the opinion of others it works perfectly well like that.

Isn't duality truly wonderful?

You can have your own opinion and you can even attempt to impose it upon others.

If it sails your boat...more light to you  

1 hour ago, Daemon said:

 

Having said that, in doing so you need to be quite careful that you don't fall into the trap of believing that his translation, interpretation and opinion are the original gospel. In fact, there are two different versions of Swamiji's Gita Course, which (thank God) might be enough to give some people pause for thought.

For anyone who's to lazy to learn Sanskrit you can always plagiarise a translation and cut and paste the interptetations/opinions off the internet if you want to try to claim (3rd hand) authority.

 

☮️

 

There are some exceptions. When it comes to the words of a jagadguru or his paramguru. Someone like Adi Shankara and Gaudapāda. 

We could discuss the nature of sabdabrahman here, but might be overkill. Maybe another thread. 

 

[Stosh]

5 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

I`m not privy to the Dwai`s mindstate and won`t speculate about the state of his ego.  It`s true that the title of this thread initially put me off.  Whenever anybody tells me I`m not qualified to comment on any subject my ego rears up and says "am so!"  So right away the thread put me in a somewhat combative mood.  Perhaps other people felt similarly?

 

 

Absolutely.

If he wants, he can lord it over his personal practice thread , and wouldn't hear a peep from me. 

But in the open sections he is outlining a selective 'right to speak' which doesn't exclude himself. 

If,,  I think the right to speak should only be for those who can prove they are enlightened , well then he can't speak either. 

And I can justify it that if a person hasn't made it across themselves they they cant say they know the right way to get across. 

You might as well require the whole thread to be in Sanskrit. No English allowed ,

with a justification that it confers an expectation that the person is fluent in the original lingo. 

Never-mind the ignoring of various points which is a disrespect in itself. 

" elevate the consciousness and knowledge of all participants " !!!  Pfft ! 

I repeat , If one cannot explain nor refute the points of even the the inexpert , then that one has no business saying 'boo'.