Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Maybe you're right. In that case he could have explained his point - being friendly and helpful and all - instead of calling people stupid&opiniated for possibly disagreeing with him.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that that never happened. What he said was this:
"Whether one agrees or not, is often quite irrelevant... Why so? Self-deception is often quite rigid, stupid & opinionated!"
Which is a far cry from calling anyone anything. "Self-deception is often quite rigid, stupid and opinionated." Why take that personally? Who doesn't engage in self deception? Is it not often as he said it is? Maybe he has a valid point.
You didn't go out on a limb, you climbed an entirely different branch. His point wasn't the issue but the way he so "skillfully" expressed it.
Maybe you're right. In that case he could have explained his point - being friendly and helpful and all - instead of calling people stupid&opiniated for possibly disagreeing with him.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that that never happened. What he said was this:
"Whether one agrees or not, is often quite irrelevant... Why so? Self-deception is often quite rigid, stupid & opinionated!"
Which is a far cry from calling anyone anything. "Self-deception is often quite rigid, stupid and opinionated." Why take that personally? Who doesn't engage in self deception? Is it not often as he said it is? Maybe he has a valid point.
You didn't go out on a limb, you climbed an entirely different branch. His point wasn't the issue but the way he so "skillfully" expressed it.
In fact, his point was the issue. Zenff said:
"Maybe you're right. In that case he could have explained his point "
Maybe you're right. In that case he could have explained his point - being friendly and helpful and all - instead of calling people stupid&opiniated for possibly disagreeing with him.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that that never happened. What he said was this:
"Whether one agrees or not, is often quite irrelevant... Why so? Self-deception is often quite rigid, stupid & opinionated!"
Which is a far cry from calling anyone anything. "Self-deception is often quite rigid, stupid and opinionated." Why take that personally? Who doesn't engage in self deception? Is it not often as he said it is? Maybe he has a valid point.
You didn't go out on a limb, you climbed an entirely different branch. His point wasn't the issue but the way he so "skillfully" expressed it.
In fact, his point was the issue. Zenff said:
"Maybe you're right. In that case he could have explained his point "
Maybe you're right. In that case he could have explained his point - being friendly and helpful and all - instead of calling people stupid&opiniated for possibly disagreeing with him.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that that never happened. What he said was this:
"Whether one agrees or not, is often quite irrelevant... Why so? Self-deception is often quite rigid, stupid & opinionated!"
Which is a far cry from calling anyone anything. "Self-deception is often quite rigid, stupid and opinionated." Why take that personally? Who doesn't engage in self deception? Is it not often as he said it is? Maybe he has a valid point.
You didn't go out on a limb, you climbed an entirely different branch. His point wasn't the issue but the way he so "skillfully" expressed it.
In fact, his point was the issue. Zenff said:
"Maybe you're right. In that case he could have explained his point "
I'm saying that he did explain his point.
You're too funny, robot. You must have forgotten to include the rest of the sentence. But don't worry, I'll repost it here: "... he could have explained his point - being friendly and helpful and all - instead of calling people stupid & opinionated for possibly disagreeing with him."
I understand that this is not an issue for you, many Westerners have guru worship for anyone with an Eastern title and accept anything they might do as some sort of "expedient means" or whatever.
The OP started out with a statement I tend to agree with: "All Adultery, Incest, and Paedophilia is Harmful Sexual Abuse!" In fact, I replied, "I knew this long before I became a Buddhist."
In a later post, the OP said: "ANY Craving and Urge for any sense pleasure ALWAYS causes more Suffering than enjoyment!" To which I responded, "I don't agree with that."
The OP's response included: "Whether one agrees or not, is often quite irrelevant" , "Self-deception is often quite rigid, stupid & opinionated!", apparently referring to me as an "outsiders", since he was responding to my post, and talking about "Hedonistic views and habits".
And then still later the OP said, in response to a simple post of mine that said not all of us believe in rebirth: "there goes the non-believers down the barbecue drain ever again. Knowing they have been told otherwise makes their perpetual screaming like barbwire-gagged pigs in a bonfire somewhat pathetic..."
I would suggest that the hysterical responses I ultimately got were more about someone disagreeing with the original poster and self-proclaimed teacher, and all because I was thinking about little 12 year old Dickie who masturbates for 3 minutes on December 7, 2013, who isn't going to suffer any because he had a lustful thought.
I would suggest that the OP is a close cousin to the fundamentalist Christian preachers who enjoy telling people their fire and brimstone stories.
And as to Robot's comments that I caused all hell to break loose, I would suggest that making statements such as, "there goes the non-believers down the barbecue drain ever again. Knowing they have been told otherwise makes their perpetual screaming like barbwire-gagged pigs in a bonfire somewhat pathetic..." is actually all hell breaking loose.
And, in fact, if Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell were saying essentially the same thing as the OP, the reaction on this forum would be quite different...but no bald head and no saffron robe.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
"ANY Craving and Urge for any sense pleasure ALWAYS causes more Suffering than enjoyment!"
I don't agree with that.
This is the quote that Samahita was referring to, as you know. Vinlyn was disagreeing with the second noble truth, according to Samahita. So because Samahita apparently takes the 4nt literally, he said what he said. Maybe that is a narrow minded view. But would you expect that a guy who gave up everything to spend his life meditating in a Theravedan monestary to compromise on the most fundamental teaching?
There comes a point where this becomes contradictory if we forget the middle way. As the example I gave earlier about warming up for the lack of freezing to death suggests.
To warm up is to give into sensual craving and so is the desire to put an end to suffering. If we take the 2nd Noble Truth too far and cling too hard to it, we could have Buddha himself going against it.
There comes a time to let go of letting go.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Maybe you're right. In that case he could have explained his point - being friendly and helpful and all - instead of calling people stupid&opiniated for possibly disagreeing with him.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that that never happened. What he said was this:
"Whether one agrees or not, is often quite irrelevant... Why so? Self-deception is often quite rigid, stupid & opinionated!"
Which is a far cry from calling anyone anything. "Self-deception is often quite rigid, stupid and opinionated." Why take that personally? Who doesn't engage in self deception? Is it not often as he said it is? Maybe he has a valid point.
So what's the problem if it gets turned on himself?
The OP started out with a statement I tend to agree with: "All Adultery, Incest, and Paedophilia is Harmful Sexual Abuse!" In fact, I replied, "I knew this long before I became a Buddhist."
In a later post, the OP said: "ANY Craving and Urge for any sense pleasure ALWAYS causes more Suffering than enjoyment!" To which I responded, "I don't agree with that."
The OP's response included: "Whether one agrees or not, is often quite irrelevant" , "Self-deception is often quite rigid, stupid & opinionated!", apparently referring to me as an "outsiders", since he was responding to my post, and talking about "Hedonistic views and habits".
And then still later the OP said, in response to a simple post of mine that said not all of us believe in rebirth: "there goes the non-believers down the barbecue drain ever again. Knowing they have been told otherwise makes their perpetual screaming like barbwire-gagged pigs in a bonfire somewhat pathetic..."
I would suggest that the hysterical responses I ultimately got were more about someone disagreeing with the original poster and self-proclaimed teacher, and all because I was thinking about little 12 year old Dickie who masturbates for 3 minutes on December 7, 2013, who isn't going to suffer any because he had a lustful thought.
I would suggest that the OP is a close cousin to the fundamentalist Christian preachers who enjoy telling people their fire and brimstone stories.
And as to Robot's comments that I caused all hell to break loose, I would suggest that making statements such as, "there goes the non-believers down the barbecue drain ever again. Knowing they have been told otherwise makes their perpetual screaming like barbwire-gagged pigs in a bonfire somewhat pathetic..." is actually all hell breaking loose.
I agree, but lets remember he is human and forgive him. He does have a lot of knowledge. I would like to continue to hear his dhama drops (or whatever). Probably he never understood a lot of us 'at home' who are not monastics. It can be a learning opportunity for all of us and I'm afraid that the OP turned off some of us householders. Like the moon coming from behind a cloud... (is the misdeed corrected).
I agree, but lets remember he is human and forgive him. He does have a lot of knowledge. I would like to continue to hear his dhama drops (or whatever). Probably he never understood a lot of us 'at home' who are not monastics. It can be a learning opportunity for all of us and I'm afraid that the OP turned off some of us householders. Like the moon coming from behind a cloud... (is the misdeed corrected).
I wasn't aware that he was seeking forgiveness. As far as I can see, his comments stand.
I watched the video. Not much to disagree with... I get what they are saying. It's not a particularly difficult idea to grasp. I understand what religious Buddhists are saying they believe...
Now, how does it all relate to the ... uproar... (for lack of a better term) in the thread regarding what Samahita said here, to some of us - and most importantly - HOW he said it?
I agree, but lets remember he is human and forgive him. He does have a lot of knowledge. I would like to continue to hear his dhama drops (or whatever). Probably he never understood a lot of us 'at home' who are not monastics. It can be a learning opportunity for all of us and I'm afraid that the OP turned off some of us householders. Like the moon coming from behind a cloud... (is the misdeed corrected).
I wasn't aware that he was seeking forgiveness. As far as I can see, his comments stand.
Good, point he didn't ask for forgiveness. I was more thinking about how we can benefit for forgiving him nonetheless.
I have no need to forgive him. I am not 'angry'. I just think it would be nice to be able to question a learned monk about something (or make a statement of our own perceptions) without being scoffed at and also without being 'reminded' by others (here) that I'm out of line simply because he IS a learned monk.
But I'm not angry, just somewhat disappointed. I had expectations, I guess.... about those who are named as Holy Men. Having those expectations is my fault, I suppose. So he's got nothing to apologize for, AFAIC.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Forgiveness isn't a problem but that doesn't mean we shouldn't challenge any seeming contradictions
I have no need to forgive him. I am not 'angry'. I just think it would be nice to be able to question a learned monk about something (or make a statement of our own perceptions) without being scoffed at and also without being 'reminded' by others (here) that I'm out of line simply because he IS a learned monk.
But I'm not angry, just somewhat disappointed. I had expectations, I guess.... about those who are named as Holy Men. Having those expectations is my fault, I suppose. So he's got nothing to apologize for, AFAIC.
Monks can be wrong @MaryAnne. It's alright making bold statements, but at some point there has to be some kind of engagement or is buddhism really that sterile.
Can this thread be allowed to die now, or must it continue being the subject of abuse.
You bumped it. I'm trying to think of a way to revitalize it, but I'm drawing a blank. I suppose I could engage @nevermind . That's usually good for some back and forth.
I'd like to play devil's advocate here (can you do that in Buddhism?).
Let's say I have an illness and go to a doctor. He rebukes me for my lifestyle and choices that caused the illness, insults my intelligence, and writes me a prescription for a medicine that will solve the problem. Will I fill the Rx?
Now let's say I go to a different doctor, who clearly cares about my wellbeing and sincerely wants to help me. He writes me a prescription -- the SAME medicine!
If I don't fill the Rx from the first doctor, isn't the problem me, and my attitude?
On the other hand, I could say that the first doctor is a failure (and I would in fact say that in this case). Why? Because if he causes me to not take the medicine because of his approach or personality, then he hasn't fulfilled his mission to fight disease, lessen suffering, etc.
To be successful (in my opinion) a monk needs to achieve three things: 1. To have (or acquire) actual wisdom 2. Communicate that wisdom in an accessible way 3. Have that wisdom received and used
The first two are clearly the responsibility of the monk, and I submit that the third is, too.
Comments
"Maybe you're right. In that case he could have explained his point "
I'm saying that he did explain his point.
"Maybe you're right. In that case he could have explained his point "
I'm saying that he did explain his point.
I understand that this is not an issue for you, many Westerners have guru worship for anyone with an Eastern title and accept anything they might do as some sort of "expedient means" or whatever.
Like I've mentioned before in general, if one is gonna quote- quote it ALL to make sure the whole context is included.
In a later post, the OP said: "ANY Craving and Urge for any sense pleasure ALWAYS
causes more Suffering than enjoyment!" To which I responded, "I don't agree with that."
The OP's response included: "Whether one agrees or not, is often quite irrelevant" , "Self-deception is often quite rigid, stupid & opinionated!", apparently referring to me as an "outsiders", since he was responding to my post, and talking about "Hedonistic views and habits".
And then still later the OP said, in response to a simple post of mine that said not all of us believe in rebirth: "there goes the non-believers down the barbecue drain ever again. Knowing they have been told otherwise makes their perpetual screaming
like barbwire-gagged pigs in a bonfire somewhat pathetic..."
I would suggest that the hysterical responses I ultimately got were more about someone disagreeing with the original poster and self-proclaimed teacher, and all because I was thinking about little 12 year old Dickie who masturbates for 3 minutes on December 7, 2013, who isn't going to suffer any because he had a lustful thought.
I would suggest that the OP is a close cousin to the fundamentalist Christian preachers who enjoy telling people their fire and brimstone stories.
And as to Robot's comments that I caused all hell to break loose, I would suggest that making statements such as, "there goes the non-believers down the barbecue drain ever again. Knowing they have been told otherwise makes their perpetual screaming
like barbwire-gagged pigs in a bonfire somewhat pathetic..." is actually all hell breaking loose.
To warm up is to give into sensual craving and so is the desire to put an end to suffering. If we take the 2nd Noble Truth too far and cling too hard to it, we could have Buddha himself going against it.
There comes a time to let go of letting go.
I'd like to make 20 or 30 more posts about this, but my ride is here. Going diving!
Concept of Heaven and Hell in Buddhism
Now, how does it all relate to the ... uproar... (for lack of a better term) in the thread regarding what Samahita said here, to some of us - and most importantly - HOW he said it?
Or maybe it wasn't meant to?
"This is the Buddha's concept of God in [or and] heaven" -- that's an interesting statement.
As is, "Things never take place according to our belief."
"Natural occurrences take place according to universal law." Whose universal law? All religion?
"If anything happens after our death..." He doesn't say there is rebirth...he says "If".
Why are people's memories of previous births any more proof than the memories of people who are dying who follow the white light and see God?
I just think it would be nice to be able to question a learned monk about something (or make a statement of our own perceptions) without being scoffed at and also without being 'reminded' by others (here) that I'm out of line simply because he IS a learned monk.
But I'm not angry, just somewhat disappointed. I had expectations, I guess.... about those who are named as Holy Men. Having those expectations is my fault, I suppose. So he's got nothing to apologize for, AFAIC.
But it is an open and formal marriage unlike secretive extra-marital affairs.
Can this thread be allowed to die now, or must it continue being the subject of abuse.
I'm trying to think of a way to revitalize it, but I'm drawing a blank. I suppose I could engage @nevermind . That's usually good for some back and forth.
I have 'abused' nothing and no one. I haven't said a thing here in days....
:coffee:
Let's say I have an illness and go to a doctor. He rebukes me for my lifestyle and choices that caused the illness, insults my intelligence, and writes me a prescription for a medicine that will solve the problem. Will I fill the Rx?
Now let's say I go to a different doctor, who clearly cares about my wellbeing and sincerely wants to help me. He writes me a prescription -- the SAME medicine!
If I don't fill the Rx from the first doctor, isn't the problem me, and my attitude?
On the other hand, I could say that the first doctor is a failure (and I would in fact say that in this case). Why? Because if he causes me to not take the medicine because of his approach or personality, then he hasn't fulfilled his mission to fight disease, lessen suffering, etc.
To be successful (in my opinion) a monk needs to achieve three things:
1. To have (or acquire) actual wisdom
2. Communicate that wisdom in an accessible way
3. Have that wisdom received and used
The first two are clearly the responsibility of the monk, and I submit that the third is, too.