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.
Perhaps you missed my last post? And the quote "there are no victims in Buddhism" comes directly from my teacher's mouth. So perhaps I should tell her she's "misguided"? Or would you rather?
Perhaps you missed my last post? And the quote "there are no victims in Buddhism" comes directly from my teacher's mouth. So perhaps I should tell her she's "misguided"? Or would you rather?
I did read your last post, but I am not sure that I agree with your assessment of "crazy wisdom". For example, the Buddha never used nor advocated using provocative statements simply to get someone's attention and provoke a response, particularly a negative one. In regard to the criteria for determining whether or not something is worth saying, the three main factors are (i) whether or not a statement is true, (ii) whether or not it is beneficial, and (iii) whether or not it is pleasing to others (MN 58).
Nevertheless, the Buddha did show that one may say something that is disagreeable to others, but only if what one is saying is actually true, beneficial, and the speaker has a sense of the proper time for saying them. The real question comes down to when is telling a survivor of the Holocaust, or other victims, they are not "victims" of unspeakable acts both beneficial and timely. That is a question that I do not have the capacity to answer, and I imagine that most people do not have the capacity either.
Whether or not your teacher is correct, when it comes to public forums where anybody can browse what is being said, I think that it is terribly misguided to make statements about vicitms of the Holocaust being murdered as a direct result of ripening kamma without some sort of additional explanation. As Simon has already pointed out, I think that the major concern is that people need to be very careful about saying there are no victims in Buddhism because it can be heard as uncaring, or even blaming.
Buddha never used nor advocated using provocative statements simply to get someone's attention and provoke a response...
I'm assuming, if that's 100% true, that would be after his enlightenment. (But there had to be an egg before there was a chicken.)
I really don't see where all this argument is going.
It seems to me that there comes a point when you just have to let people express themselves in their own ways and try to see where they're coming from. Seeing things a little more the other person's way. I mean, what's wrong with expressing something like an idea or a paradigm that might make someone see something in a new light?????
As Always, the Pilgrim has been making thoughtful contributions while maintaining an interesting middle road that is wondrously reasonable. I agree that there is no such thing as victimhood in Palzangism and that Elohim is the God-Creator of All.
Thanks to All You Good and High-Spirited Folks. The world is a better place for housing such as you. Ah, what Divinity has wrought this beauteous day?
- - - - - - -
EDIT: With all due respect, I am pretty certain that when people of good will are speaking categorically of things, they are assuming that the audience is not under duress at the time. Also, most reasonable people will insist that the speaker is circumspect and respectful of his or her particular audience. IN LIFE, TIMING (and knowing where you are and to whom you are speaking) IS EVERYTHING. Just as one should not take words out of context, neither should people be entitled to thinking that everything being said refers to them or their situation. That's changing the context of the speaker's subject by taking it in an emotional way rather than in a cognitive way.
In our personal lives we see this all the time. We say something to someone and then, before we are even finished, we remember sad or unpleasant incidents in our interlocutor's life and hope that we have not aroused any of those memories or associations or hurts in them...
I am sorry if you are bothered by these kinds of discussions. For my own part, it is not my intention to upset people. Unfortunately, I am not as skilled as the Buddha when it comes to making my points; however, that does not mean that I will not do my best to express them. I also understand that I am relatively young, and it might appear as if I am heatedly arguing with everyone that I disagree with, but to be honest, the majority of my posts are written very carefully, and with much thought and detail. Even so, no one is obligated to read them, nor are they obligated to treat them as the final word on the matter.
I believe that on this forum, everyone here is free to speak their mind, and everyone here is equally as free to disagree with whatever is said. In any event, I do not think that it is such a surprise that people do not always see eye to eye when it comes to politics, religion, social issues, et cetera, and our discussions here are much more civil than on most other forums. In addition, I believe that we can discuss such topics civilly without pretending that we do not disagree. Basically, what I am trying to say is that we should not let certain topics become taboo, and in effect, immune to such things as critical analysis.
Well put and I agree that seeing eye to eye is not very likely in those subject areas. I support your right to your opinion; your right to express your opinion; and your right to disagree with any other opinions. You have shown the same respect of those rights for others.:uphand:
BTW: You do not appear "relatively young" to me, but then I must appear not to be "relatively old" to some!! :scratch: :tonguec:
Well put and I agree that seeing eye to eye is not very likely in those subject areas. I support your right to your opinion; your right to express your opinion; and your right to disagree with any other opinions. You have shown the same respect of those rights for others.
Thank you. I believe that most of the members here respect those rights as well; sometimes we just get a little carried away.
BTW: You do not appear "relatively young" to me, but then I must appear not to be "relatively old" to some!!
Thank you, I find that reassuring. I sometimes fear that my age gives people the impression that I am young and hot-heated.
Elohim, I was just thinking that objections to Palzang's paradigmic reflections on there being no true victims in Buddhism —particularly your many posts on this— were overly contentious. Just my reading.
No, I am not bothered by these discussions, but I must say that I prefer the Pilgrim's thoughtful, unbiased, penetrating, exalted, and heartfelt approach. At the end of the day we are just using words and few people alive have the right ones always at their command.
But I reiterate, when people object to certain paradigms for emotional reasons rather than cognitive ones, they are stifling freedom of expression. Also, reasonable people must not be made to keep their experience and wisdom hidden under a barrel away from the light of day just because some people may think that what is being said pertains to them most singularly. Sorry, dear Jason, but Language itself is a cloak, a garment, under which we live, work, and play: A Blanket as it were. So say more on Blanket Statements, but I think a lot of that is little more than poppycock when used too often.
Another thing, to say "I Disagree," and to keep saying it is not only egoistical, but also a conversation stifler because of the hostility element it fosters.
But I am just opining. Dismiss me as an irredeemable fool if you like.
However,
I still remain an ardent admirer of Elohim, the One True God Emperor.
Fondly,
Nirvy
EDIT: Oh, and by the way you are not upsetting me. Frankly, I'd ruther hear your own reflections any day than your quoting sutras. That's just because you are more interesting than dose old things.
But I reiterate, when people object to certain paradigms for emotional reasons rather than cognitive ones, they are stifling freedom of expression. Also, reasonable people must not be made to keep their experience and wisdom hidden under a barrel away from the light of day just because some people may think that what is being said pertains to them most singularly. Sorry, dear Jason, but Language itself is a cloak, a garment, under which we live, work, and play: A Blanket as it were. So say more on Blanket Statements, but I think a lot of that is little more than poppycock when used too often.
Another thing, to say "I Disagree," and to keep saying it is not only egoistical, but also a conversation stifler because of the hostility element it fosters.
I'm not quite sure I understand. This discussion here regarding immigration and victim(ness?) has done anything but "stifle freedom of expression." Or for that matter, has anyone been "overly contentious."
When people disagree and they get together, they discuss, argue, and try to prove their point. No one has been agressive. It hasn't gotten personal and there have not been any attacks on anyone's character. Just people arguing about (what I see to be) a very pertitent and important issue.
Another thing, to say "I Disagree," and to keep saying it is not only egoistical, but also a conversation stifler because of the hostility element it fosters.
I DISAGREE!
O Jason, I forgot to say that I'm sorry if I upset you in any way.
what I am trying to say is that we should not let certain topics become taboo, and in effect, immune to such things as critical analysis.
I completely agree with you. Topics should not become taboo. However, I believe that primarily this is an online Sangha and friendly gestures should be held in higher esteem than principles per se. I guess I'm trying to say that, in the spirit of friendship, one should not be so quick to respond negatively to the contributions of another, but should mull things over a bit. Maybe I've lived in the Carolinas too long. Manners are of the utmost here, and manners equal graciousness, and graciousness is making over people as if they're the most important, bright, and good-looking people in the world. Or something along those lines.
Best of Regards, young man.
Nirvy
EDIT: KnightofBuddha: You posted while I was writing the above and I submitted it without knowing your comment.
In line 2 of the post you quoted from I said in bold letters "Just my reading." Did you miss that? Am I being too nuanced?
When people disagree and they get together in bars, they discuss, argue, and try to prove their point. No one not too drunk has been agressive. It hasn't gotten personal and there have not been any attacks on anyone's character. Just people arguing...
Elohim, I was just thinking that objections to Palzang's paradigmic reflections on there being no true victims in Buddhism —particularly your many posts on this— were overly contentious. Just my reading.
But I reiterate, when people object to certain paradigms for emotional reasons rather than cognitive ones, they are stifling freedom of expression. Also, reasonable people must not be made to keep their experience and wisdom hidden under a barrel away from the light of day just because some people may think that what is being said pertains to them most singularly. Sorry, dear Jason, but Language itself is a cloak, a garment, under which we live, work, and play: A Blanket as it were. So say more on Blanket Statements, but I think a lot of that is little more than poppycock when used too often.
Another thing, to say "I Disagree," and to keep saying it is not only egoistical, but also a conversation stifler because of the hostility element it fosters.
I think that perhaps this is a bit of an exaggeration. I made a total of three posts in reference to Palzang's statement that there are no victms in Buddhism. The first post I made simply stated that I disagreed with this particular statement and that I found this view potentially harmful. In addition, this post was made in regard to what appeard to be Palzang's response to my post about the "middle way" of genocide. I merely wanted to express that I did not hold such a view.
The second post that I made in reference to Palzang's statement elaborated upon my reasons for stating my opposition to this view (as well as the view that ripening kamma was 'the' cause for Holocaust victims) in response to Palzang's statement that I should understand nothing happens without a cause. I was attempting to demonstrate that we are unable to discern all of the causes and conditions that go into a given act; and therefore, why I felt the statements misguided.
The third and final post that I made in reference to Palzang's statement was directed towards his question of whether I had missed his last post, which I was not originally going to comment upon even though I disagreed with some of it, as well as his question about calling his teacher misguided. As such, I explained to the best of my ability what I disagreed with in his post, and the reason I viewed such statements to be misguided—one that did not attempt to insult his teacher.
When intent is not plain in anyone's post, perhaps we should ask for clarification, if any other understanding is possible.
This is an issue I've seen at EVERY Internet Forum, reagrdless of the rallying topic for the group. Sports, music, communications, computers and religion.
At least we aren't doing this off cell phone text messaging............ or are we???;) :crazy:
O Jason, I forgot to say that I'm sorry if I upset you in any way.
I am not at all upset. I quite enjoy these lively discussions.
I completely agree with you. Topics should not become taboo. However, I believe that primarily this is an online Sangha and friendly gestures should be held in higher esteem than principles per se. I guess I'm trying to say that, in the spirit of friendship, one should not be so quick to respond negatively to the contributions of another, but should mull things over a bit. Maybe I've lived in the Carolinas too long. Manners are of the utmost here, and manners equal graciousness, and graciousness is making over people as if they're the most important, bright, and good-looking people in the world. Or something along those lines.
That's a good point, and I agree with you for the most part.
Well, Jason, you are just a nice and forbearing young man. I perhaps was more than a bit confrontational in using the word egoist in reference to people adamantly disagreeing over a non-vital matter.
But where I'm from young men are expected to be egoistical (though not egotistical). That's no excuse, though, and I'm sorry for using a hot button.
The ego is the main obstacle to realization and afflicts all of us. I do not mean anything negative by using the word "egoistical." I intend it in a descriptive way, not in a judgmental one.
America was not "discovered" by Columbus. Long before Columbus set sail to discover a safer and quicker route to India — accidentally stumbling upon the Americas — native inhabitants had well-established cultures, histories, languages, religions, and complex social structures. The diversity among native tribes and nations gave the Americas a rich and thriving tapestry of pre-existing human civilizations that long predated Columbus. However, as word spread of this "new" land, more and more European settlers eventually arrived in larger numbers in order to seek their fortunes or to begin new lives free from oppression. It is because of this relatively recent episode in the history of our country that the current immigration situation makes me so angry.
Me too. And also the platitudes. I said this recently in a different thread, but I believe there are too many mean-spirited people who think that people are not worthy of more than they already have.
Specifically, to me, one facet of the Liberal/Conservative divide is a personal attitude that is quite often handed down from the earlier generations. Namely this: Liberals tend to believe that people deserve better than they get whilst conservatives tend to think that people get what they deserve. To me, the latter attitude seems punitive and callous.
Liberals tend to believe that people deserve better than they get whilst conservatives tend to think that people get what they deserve. To me, the latter attitude seems punitive and callous.
I'm not quite sure that's right. Liberals tend to believe that the government owes people more than they have while conservatives tend to believe that people deserve just what they work to achieve.
I personally do not identify myself as either a liberal or conservative.
Comments
Palzang
I did read your last post, but I am not sure that I agree with your assessment of "crazy wisdom". For example, the Buddha never used nor advocated using provocative statements simply to get someone's attention and provoke a response, particularly a negative one. In regard to the criteria for determining whether or not something is worth saying, the three main factors are (i) whether or not a statement is true, (ii) whether or not it is beneficial, and (iii) whether or not it is pleasing to others (MN 58).
Nevertheless, the Buddha did show that one may say something that is disagreeable to others, but only if what one is saying is actually true, beneficial, and the speaker has a sense of the proper time for saying them. The real question comes down to when is telling a survivor of the Holocaust, or other victims, they are not "victims" of unspeakable acts both beneficial and timely. That is a question that I do not have the capacity to answer, and I imagine that most people do not have the capacity either.
Whether or not your teacher is correct, when it comes to public forums where anybody can browse what is being said, I think that it is terribly misguided to make statements about vicitms of the Holocaust being murdered as a direct result of ripening kamma without some sort of additional explanation. As Simon has already pointed out, I think that the major concern is that people need to be very careful about saying there are no victims in Buddhism because it can be heard as uncaring, or even blaming.
Jason
I'm assuming, if that's 100% true, that would be after his enlightenment. (But there had to be an egg before there was a chicken.)
I really don't see where all this argument is going.
It seems to me that there comes a point when you just have to let people express themselves in their own ways and try to see where they're coming from. Seeing things a little more the other person's way. I mean, what's wrong with expressing something like an idea or a paradigm that might make someone see something in a new light?????
As Always, the Pilgrim has been making thoughtful contributions while maintaining an interesting middle road that is wondrously reasonable. I agree that there is no such thing as victimhood in Palzangism and that Elohim is the God-Creator of All.
Thanks to All You Good and High-Spirited Folks. The world is a better place for housing such as you. Ah, what Divinity has wrought this beauteous day?
EDIT: With all due respect, I am pretty certain that when people of good will are speaking categorically of things, they are assuming that the audience is not under duress at the time. Also, most reasonable people will insist that the speaker is circumspect and respectful of his or her particular audience. IN LIFE, TIMING (and knowing where you are and to whom you are speaking) IS EVERYTHING. Just as one should not take words out of context, neither should people be entitled to thinking that everything being said refers to them or their situation. That's changing the context of the speaker's subject by taking it in an emotional way rather than in a cognitive way.
In our personal lives we see this all the time. We say something to someone and then, before we are even finished, we remember sad or unpleasant incidents in our interlocutor's life and hope that we have not aroused any of those memories or associations or hurts in them...
I am sorry if you are bothered by these kinds of discussions. For my own part, it is not my intention to upset people. Unfortunately, I am not as skilled as the Buddha when it comes to making my points; however, that does not mean that I will not do my best to express them. I also understand that I am relatively young, and it might appear as if I am heatedly arguing with everyone that I disagree with, but to be honest, the majority of my posts are written very carefully, and with much thought and detail. Even so, no one is obligated to read them, nor are they obligated to treat them as the final word on the matter.
I believe that on this forum, everyone here is free to speak their mind, and everyone here is equally as free to disagree with whatever is said. In any event, I do not think that it is such a surprise that people do not always see eye to eye when it comes to politics, religion, social issues, et cetera, and our discussions here are much more civil than on most other forums. In addition, I believe that we can discuss such topics civilly without pretending that we do not disagree. Basically, what I am trying to say is that we should not let certain topics become taboo, and in effect, immune to such things as critical analysis.
Jason
Well put and I agree that seeing eye to eye is not very likely in those subject areas. I support your right to your opinion; your right to express your opinion; and your right to disagree with any other opinions. You have shown the same respect of those rights for others.:uphand:
BTW: You do not appear "relatively young" to me, but then I must appear not to be "relatively old" to some!! :scratch: :tonguec:
Thank you. I believe that most of the members here respect those rights as well; sometimes we just get a little carried away.
Thank you, I find that reassuring. I sometimes fear that my age gives people the impression that I am young and hot-heated.
Jason
No, I am not bothered by these discussions, but I must say that I prefer the Pilgrim's thoughtful, unbiased, penetrating, exalted, and heartfelt approach. At the end of the day we are just using words and few people alive have the right ones always at their command.
But I reiterate, when people object to certain paradigms for emotional reasons rather than cognitive ones, they are stifling freedom of expression. Also, reasonable people must not be made to keep their experience and wisdom hidden under a barrel away from the light of day just because some people may think that what is being said pertains to them most singularly. Sorry, dear Jason, but Language itself is a cloak, a garment, under which we live, work, and play: A Blanket as it were. So say more on Blanket Statements, but I think a lot of that is little more than poppycock when used too often.
Another thing, to say "I Disagree," and to keep saying it is not only egoistical, but also a conversation stifler because of the hostility element it fosters.
But I am just opining. Dismiss me as an irredeemable fool if you like.
However,
I still remain an ardent admirer of Elohim, the One True God Emperor.
Fondly,
Nirvy
EDIT: Oh, and by the way you are not upsetting me. Frankly, I'd ruther hear your own reflections any day than your quoting sutras. That's just because you are more interesting than dose old things.
I'm not quite sure I understand. This discussion here regarding immigration and victim(ness?) has done anything but "stifle freedom of expression." Or for that matter, has anyone been "overly contentious."
When people disagree and they get together, they discuss, argue, and try to prove their point. No one has been agressive. It hasn't gotten personal and there have not been any attacks on anyone's character. Just people arguing about (what I see to be) a very pertitent and important issue.
I DISAGREE!
O Jason, I forgot to say that I'm sorry if I upset you in any way.
I completely agree with you. Topics should not become taboo. However, I believe that primarily this is an online Sangha and friendly gestures should be held in higher esteem than principles per se. I guess I'm trying to say that, in the spirit of friendship, one should not be so quick to respond negatively to the contributions of another, but should mull things over a bit. Maybe I've lived in the Carolinas too long. Manners are of the utmost here, and manners equal graciousness, and graciousness is making over people as if they're the most important, bright, and good-looking people in the world. Or something along those lines.
Best of Regards, young man.
Nirvy
EDIT: KnightofBuddha: You posted while I was writing the above and I submitted it without knowing your comment.
In line 2 of the post you quoted from I said in bold letters "Just my reading." Did you miss that? Am I being too nuanced?
When people disagree and they get together in bars, they discuss, argue, and try to prove their point. No one not too drunk has been agressive. It hasn't gotten personal and there have not been any attacks on anyone's character. Just people arguing...
I think that perhaps this is a bit of an exaggeration. I made a total of three posts in reference to Palzang's statement that there are no victms in Buddhism. The first post I made simply stated that I disagreed with this particular statement and that I found this view potentially harmful. In addition, this post was made in regard to what appeard to be Palzang's response to my post about the "middle way" of genocide. I merely wanted to express that I did not hold such a view.
The second post that I made in reference to Palzang's statement elaborated upon my reasons for stating my opposition to this view (as well as the view that ripening kamma was 'the' cause for Holocaust victims) in response to Palzang's statement that I should understand nothing happens without a cause. I was attempting to demonstrate that we are unable to discern all of the causes and conditions that go into a given act; and therefore, why I felt the statements misguided.
The third and final post that I made in reference to Palzang's statement was directed towards his question of whether I had missed his last post, which I was not originally going to comment upon even though I disagreed with some of it, as well as his question about calling his teacher misguided. As such, I explained to the best of my ability what I disagreed with in his post, and the reason I viewed such statements to be misguided—one that did not attempt to insult his teacher.
Jason
This is an issue I've seen at EVERY Internet Forum, reagrdless of the rallying topic for the group. Sports, music, communications, computers and religion.
At least we aren't doing this off cell phone text messaging............ or are we???;) :crazy:
I am not at all upset. I quite enjoy these lively discussions.
That's a good point, and I agree with you for the most part.
Jason
But where I'm from young men are expected to be egoistical (though not egotistical). That's no excuse, though, and I'm sorry for using a hot button.
The ego is the main obstacle to realization and afflicts all of us. I do not mean anything negative by using the word "egoistical." I intend it in a descriptive way, not in a judgmental one.
Me too. And also the platitudes. I said this recently in a different thread, but I believe there are too many mean-spirited people who think that people are not worthy of more than they already have.
Specifically, to me, one facet of the Liberal/Conservative divide is a personal attitude that is quite often handed down from the earlier generations. Namely this: Liberals tend to believe that people deserve better than they get whilst conservatives tend to think that people get what they deserve. To me, the latter attitude seems punitive and callous.
I'm not quite sure that's right. Liberals tend to believe that the government owes people more than they have while conservatives tend to believe that people deserve just what they work to achieve.
I personally do not identify myself as either a liberal or conservative.