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.
If all things are imperminent then...
If all things are imperminent then why should we worry about an eternal cycle of Samsara. We know it is going to end at some point, right?
(Gotta laugh or you cry)
mat
(Gotta laugh or you cry)
mat
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Actually I imagine they'll tell you it ends with nibbana. Take a few moments before posting your next zinger lest you start yet another condescending Thread about how stupid rebirth belief is ad nauseum and in contradiction of anicca.
Mundus, the fact that you of all people saw the funny side of that has made it all worth it. In fact, I now think there must be a God;)
I thought anicca was one of the three things which you have tried to doubt but cannot?
See! You can outsmart me!
What is the emoticon for eats humble pie?
Mind you, now annica is up for doubt... it all crumbles. If you thought my skepticism was bad before. Yikes!:p
Can I keep anataman?
There we go, that is a philosophical question for you, without need to touch on rebirth: can you have one of the marks without the other two?
mat
Hahahha why should we worry about anything?
We shouldn't.
I'm way past that. I don't even think about rebirth anymore, except in the way that no one can debate: that it at the LEAST does happen with the paradigm shifts of our mental states as we age and learn (consider the elementary school child, the high school junior, the college graduate and the 45-year old with a wife and 3 kids; all from conditions born, but all quite different... and I'm talking about the same man, the same stream of changing aggregates.)
Whatever happens after death can never be truly known by the living. What the Buddha actually taught can be argued back and forth until we're blue in the face. What these arguments ARE are attachments; our beliefs, in support of our non-self which most people don't understand is a construct. It isn't truth, and we're making it more difficult to see that.
Let go of this attachment, not because it isn't worth pursuing, but because it is an unskillful pursuit. It is not conducive to awakening to desire everyone to think as you do, or to know everything and for everything to make sense. It'll sure make a hell of a lot more sense when we're awakened, but we can't be a prize fighter until we've trained and transformed our bodies first; we can't awaken without some work on abandoning our preconceptions and beliefs and changing our minds as well.
Please.
No one who argues their beliefs will ever, and I mean never ever, be satisfied with them... because they are ornaments for the self that blinds us to what we really are. All of this is the non-self grasping, clinging to ideas that are pleasing to it. The goal of unbinding from this self, release from all that supports it, will be denied to us if we don't learn to let go.
These continued threads on rebirth could be considered a microcosm of what Samsara implies; re-becoming of our states of ignorance, of our grasping and clinging. We'll continue creating more threads until we understand that it is our ignorance that leads to these threads being posted. And then, with right view, may these threads cease becoming.
Again, please. Just read these words until they make sense. If they don't make sense, read them again.
Respectfully,
Raven
There's no ghost in the machine. We are neither the self that our minds create nor the mind itself. We are just these five aggregates and the conditions that brought them forth and perpetuate them. It is only this non-self's ignorance and cravings, and our ignorance of this non-self's true nature as merely an aggregate of delusion thoughts (its "self", its cravings which include sense pleasures, existence and non-existence, and the supports in the form of attachments that it has built up around it), that leads to speculative questions. And leads to speculative questions. And leads to speculative questions. To infinity and beyond guys 'n gals.
We are in truth empty. Nothing more than the mind-body complex and conditions.
We should put forth no effort toward speculative questions until we have attained a sense of selflessness; until we have realized this non-self. Then, if we do have such questions we will have a much more pliant and malleable mind that is able to accept their futility and their unskillful nature. It is out of experience that I say these things, because I fell into this trap for a time myself; I only was able to climb out because I had already realized the truth of selflessness.
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their disinclination to do so." (Douglas Adams)
Are we here to seek guidance, to help others, or to satisfy the cravings of this non-self? That question should be foremost on our minds. And with that, I detach myself from this thread. Good night and good luck.
you must lose things,
feel the future dissolve in a moment
like salt in a weakened broth.
What you held in your hand,
what you counted and carefully saved,
all this must go so you know
how desolate the landscape can be
between the regions of kindness.
How you ride and ride
thinking the bus will never stop,
the passengers eating maize and chicken
will stare out the window forever.
Before you learn the tender gravity of kindness,
you must travel where the Indian in a white poncho
lies dead by the side of the road.
You must see how this could be you,
how he too was someone
who journeyed through the night with plans
and the simple breath that kept him alive.
Before you know kindness as the deepest thing inside,
you must know sorrow as the other deepest thing.
You must wake up with sorrow.
You must speak to it till your voice
catches the thread of all sorrows
and you see the size of the cloth.
Then it is only kindness that makes sense anymore,
only kindness that ties your shoes
and sends you out into the day to mail letters and
purchase bread,
only kindness that raises its head
from the crowd of the world to say
it is I you have been looking for,
and then goes with you everywhere
like a shadow or a friend.
A lovely post
Many do.
I haven't seen a debate about rebirth as delusion before. I think it is a new and interesting approach to Buddhism.
Its a shame we are not alowed to discuss it on a Buddhist disussion forum.
I think that the start of awakening is the acknowledging of delusions. This is The Mirror of Dharma. This is not a futile point for discussion and thought.
Your words make sense to me, rebirth does not. Yet we are not allowed to discuss it freely on an internet discussion forum:(
Its a sad day for us "New Buddhists".
I am sure the old Buddhists consider it a victory, good on them.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the moderators understand that not only do these discussions cause the poster grief, but also the many who come afterward to throw in their two cents, whether it be against the poster, with the poster or some other option. It may also be entirely likely that the moderators, say federica for instance, have seen dozens of posts about the same subject... which have never, ever ended well. Have never seemed as if they really helped anyone, and after all that's what the forum is here for: to help people.
Being able to debate isn't a bad thing. But, arguing just for the sake of arguing might get on the mods' nerves. For good reason. These kind of debates are nothing if not a tug-of-war, with each trying to sway the other to their side, causing all parties concerned some measure of dukkha. It never works. People will believe what they are conditioned to believe; it could take years to set up the right conditions to convince someone than a belief they hold, which is heartfelt and difficult to prove or disprove, is somehow wrong. Can we agree on that, if not on the subject at hand?
Nope, there are none that discuss the thesis that the buddha saw rebirth as delusion and specifically and taught this. There just haven't. Nor can I find this in books and commentaries.
I think it is a new theory and we are essentially forbidden from its discussion.
Hold on, I'm working myself up to it, it's difficult. *Pant* *Pant* *Pant* Okay, I think I'm ready. Here it is. Really. It's coming. It's right after this. *Pant* OKAY THIS IS IT: WE CAN NOT BE SURE WHAT THE BUDDHA ACTUALLY SAID! Phew, there, I said it. My heart's racing now. I'm sure I've set up the conditions for a heart attack.
Now, in all seriousness, you of all people should know this truth. You're one of the most skeptic people I've met on these forums. We can not know what the Buddha said, even from secondhand accounts. We can't know what he taught, except that which through practice is realized.
The only things that have been found to be pretty sure are the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path and everything contained within those. The concepts of Kamma, Rebirth and Samsara are all closely inter-related, but we can never really know HOW (let alone if) the Buddha taught them specifically or if they just made enough sense in India at the time to be included later on. If he did teach them, he well could have meant them all to mean applying to a single lifetime; the kamma of our actions that can come back to haunt us, our mental rebirths as we change throughout life dependent upon conditions and our actions, and all of this happening as an endless cycle called samsara.
It may just be that all of the teachings have been tainted, changed, even The Mirror of Dharma that you so often bring up. How then can you cling to any of the suttas, while at the same time being fully skeptical of whether or not they are stating what the Buddha taught?
I do believe that the Buddha taught these things, but at the present I'm only aware of how they apply to this life. If he taught that rebirth is truly, not metaphorically, a process... well, there's absolutely no way to know that. Short of seeing past lives for yourself, if you're the Buddha. But there's no way to say that happened either.
We are picking and choosing what to believe, and it is our non-self that is in charge of all such preferential treatment. That is why I believe that the Buddha did really say something like "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." Even if he didn't say it, it seems like sound advice.
If rebirth does not occur to you as meaningful, or correct, then so be it. Just try not to think that arguing about it is going to help anyone; even yourself. Unless of course you listen to me because I really really really do want to help you.
I did not see why, if everything else is impermanent, there should be any kind of permanent force or what have you that would be reborn as something else. Why should sperm, an egg, *and* a consciousness be required for a human life? Might not the consciousness arise at a later time when the brain develops, and might not the consciousness also cease upon death, being a non-requisite for life?
I saw no problem with this explanation, and because that's what made sense to me, I argued in favor of it. Yet, after several back-and-forth posts with others, I did begin to perceive that I had been wrong about a lot of things in my life prior to my realization experience. There wasn't really a shred of evidence, if you could accept the texts might be either imperfect or have been changed, to show whether rebirth might *not* be true.
Now, you might think this is easy, but I've been extremely stubborn about there being no God, no soul, all religious people being, shall we say, not-too-bright... for all of my life. That is, until after my realization experience. I feel very confident than the realization of selflessness, non-self, allows me to come to the truth of things much more quickly and without the usual clinging to my own stubborn ideas.
I was an idiot, a major idiot. I'll be the first to tell you that. I just didn't want to have these hang-ups anymore of thinking I was right and everyone was wrong, let alone the fact that I didn't really know for sure and that hurt... that really hurt. All my life I've been going back to re-examine the questions about life, the universe and everything that so plague us all. It was in my mind to know the truth eventually or to die trying, and that has been *the* most important thing in my life. Not relationships or having a good job or getting married and having kids: the truth.
I've been lucky in that regard, or rather, well-conditioned. I think your best bet is to meditate on Impermanence, Selflessness (which is an extension of Impermanence) and Dependent Arising. I can't know if it will help you, but at this point I would stake my existence on the fact that if you were to realize Non-Self this issue about rebirth would resolve itself. You'd be able to say "I don't know", and actually mean it internally, for the first time, just like I was eventually able to (after some input from others and thought).
I agree, 100%. So we share the same starting position:)
Yep:) Again, 100% And the ABSOLUTLY AWESOME thing about dharma is that we know the Truths are true. We cannot doubt them, we can try, but cant get far.
This is where we diverge radically:) I am saying, and can show in many ways, that rebirth and samsara are not Dharmic ideas. This is the the point.
This is the point that troubled me as a younger man when I was truing to make sense of The Second Noble Truth and that after years of trying to find the answer none is there save for the "look deeper to find or stop looking" kinds of answers..
Absolutely. I am happy to doubt that. Happy to doubt the Kalama Suttra too.
As said for months, I am fine with being without suttras in totallity. Dharma does not need suttras to be dharma.
When we start from first principles like the buddha did, without any doctrine or suttra we still have the same reasons to belive in The Four Noble Truths.
But why rebirth?
Ask yourself, if you lost all knowledge or all things right now and had to start again from scratch why would you believe that there is more to life than this life?
Why would you choose rebirth over heaven and hell?
Dharma is self evident.
Rebirth is not.
Do you agree with those two claims?
Again, we can pass the same question back to the Buddha. Why would the Buddha have taught rebirth, essentially the same as reincarnation that he had shown was so unsatisfactory?
I am not:) I am happy to believe nothing and start from first principles. I have done this myself, and tried to do it here.
Let us reject all buddhism and see what is the truth of suffering? We will end up in buddha dharma. But again, what reason would there be to belive rebirth?
Me too, 100%:) But then we are back with rebirth and asking, is a belief in rebirth "common sense" or "WISHFUL THINKING"? And if it is the latter, especially when we see the evidence against the idea (science/reason/culture and experience) then is it not at least fair to ask if it is a delusion?
I thank you for discussing this with me as an open adult. Its good to talk:)
Much metta
Mat
Now, we can't know if that happened, or if it was just added. So where does that leave us? Because we can not know the Buddha's experiences, and we can't know what he taught for sure, we can not know that these did not occur.
They may seem miraculous, unscientific, and unnecessary to us. They may not accord with what we think we know of the Dhamma. Still, that does not preclude them from being possible. That's all I'm saying. And if they are possible, and we can not prove to someone that they are not (and you can not, no matter what you say, prove something like this... no more than you can prove the existence of a God that isn't around to be pointed at), then we should not believe wholeheartedly that they are impossible.
By the same reasoning, neither should be believe the opposite. People like to say the Middle Way specifically means avoiding self-mortification and indulgence, or nihilism and eternalism, but I would rather think the Buddha meant it to be applied anywhere it is applicable. We should avoid the extremes of belief and of disbelief on speculative issues. We should definitely avoid discussing them on any grounds except to preclude them from discussion based on that reasoning.
Now, I think in the four (I think it's four) posts I've put up on this single thread, I've said everything worth saying. I'll never quote texts to you if it's not necessary. I won't say something illogical. I'll just tell you my opinion of the wise course to take. It is, as always, up to you on what to do with such advice. But I tell you this: I've come far. I can't know for sure what's ahead of me, but I do know what's behind me. I can help guide you, but the effort and the understanding are solely of you.
Now, as to this thread, I'm out. As I said, everything I had worth saying has been said. It's actually 4:30am here now, so I'm going to attempt to get some sleep. I wish you well Mat, because you remind me so much of how I used to be. G'night.
I am very intune with those concepts. Your first posit in the thread (The lovelly one!). Relaly i am:)
(Incidentally I dont think anataman is an extention of annica. They are both structural properties that emmerge when you ahve at least two "things", you might like to read my essays on this here)
Well I see something here that is common with thoughtful Buddhists. Its a bit of wanting cake and eating it:) Saying "there is nothing reborn due to anataman" is a solution that should completely destroy the notion of rebirth, but it doenst.
Do you believe this life is "your" last and only life, in all senses?
I was saying I dont know for many years.
Now I am saying I am certain this is my last life:)
Respectfully,
Mat
OK, but he also seems to be teaching us never to accept something because if what someone, including himself, says.
Also, do you not think if he did see his past lives then:
a) This fact would have been mentioned prominently in the first sermons.
b) He wouldn't have been agnostic on rebirth as some think he was.
It leaves us at the start of the path, from where we must doubt everything and be our own light.
Dharma is self evident and indubitable! That is the point. We are not arguing here about how ignorance leads to suffering or why compassionand mindfullness is good or how conciousness is realised in the moment. We never argue about such things!:) Because they are utterly true to all of us.
Its funny, we never argue about Dharma here, just about rebirth. isnt that a clue?
Of course not, but that's not an issue as Dawkins so clearly seals.
We must be weary of confusing:
a) Rebirth is impossible.
b) Rebirth is dharma.
(a) Belongs with "God exists", "Heaven is Real" etc... we can never know for sure. But that's not what I am arguing, I am arguing that rebirth is not dharma .
I think I am on to something with the self-mortification avoidance, it just doesn't make sense. it seems to me far more likley that rather than a specific mystical practice he was referring to the entire mystical pursuit. What do you think about that possibiloity?
I dont think saying this life is my last is extream. Its what most nonreligious people alive today think and it seems very compatible with the awesome natural universe:)
I am happy to be further guided and have enjoyed your thoughts in this thread but I am not new to these ideas and I will need some new reason to show me where I have been going wrong:)
Thanks! Sleep tight:)
Mat
How wonderful to meet, again, the energy of the monomaniac. LOL
Seriously tho', I am grateful that, over the years that I have contributed here, I have never been asked to function as an official moderator. My belief is that Brian, in his wisdom, has understood that I would have difficulty with some decisions. Believing also in collective decision-making and aware that the moderators here take their task seriously, I refrain from public criticism, even when I disagree.
The result has been that I have been allowed to express ideas that are heterodox to many Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, atheists, e tutti quanti. Perhaps the difference between us is that, as I approach the death experience, I lose more and more certainty. At the same time, the more 'mysterious' aspects of Dharma teaching, such as impermanence, non-self, rebirth and sunyatta open to me like wordless flowers, jewels in the lotus.
When the writer of the letter to Jewish Christians says "here we have no abiding city", he (or she) is not simply speaking about bricks and mortar, stone and cement. The writer is aiming at our certainties, our dearest-held beliefs. Interestingly enough, the writer goes on to tell the readers to "keep doing good works and sharing your resources." (from Heb. 13:14-16)
Your appeals to us to adopt your views, opinions or beliefs will carry more weight when you show us that they lead, skillfully, to a lessening of stress, to more of the hungry being fed, the naked clothed, the widowed and orphaned comforted. If your take on ideas leads us to better works and sharing of more resources, show us how. We need such teaching.
If, however, this is no more than sterile mental gymnastics, what use is it? Does it matter? Or are you simply exciting yourself by provocative argument?
How often do you have to be told that, whilst some here will be sucked into your game, this forum may not be the place to outline your new exegesis? Why not start a blog, outline your ideas and see what happens? Then you become the moderator and final arbiter.
Hiya!:p
Just to recap, I am just like this here on this discussion forum where I think its the biggest unresolved issue in Dharma practice:)
The only view I wish anyone to adopt it to be their own lights.
If we can all do this, and it is an approach that is entirely compatible with atheism, Christianity, Buddhism and I imagine many other creeds so long as people refuse indoctrination.
This is the biggest threat we face. From the Mosques of Kabul to my kids watching adverts, indoctrination is delusion.
I have no place or want to tell someone that their faith is wrong, nor do I. I used to me much more antitheietic, now I see, it is utterly pointless. It used to confuse me, HHDL's insistence of tolerance of religions that would seek to threaten Buddhism, but now I get that. Tolerance is the only way.
I dont think it is. I think it is about the very start of the path of dharma, to say it is not important to you is fine, but equally you cannot criticise my view that it is utterly important to me.
Would it matter to you if 2500 years ago Buddha had said that the Hindu idea of Rebirth was the start of all delusions and it must be the first to be declared so and that this message was distorted by time and culture?
If that would matter to you, as a Buddhist, then it would matter.
It would matter to me, for countless reasons, the main one being I can see why the idea of rebirth is delusional and why it leads to dukka. Cant you? Can you at least investigate that possibility in your mind before you deny it?
It is not a game. I am sorry, you are very wrong there.
Dharma is my life as it is yours. I just don't believe in rebirth, and you basically ask me to leave:(
It was neither stated nor implied by Simon. In my judgement you are making serious errors here, since people are taking the time to communicate, and you're getting it wrong. This has serious implications for anything anyone wishes to try and discuss with you.
You have received hundreds of replies, some very well thought out, yet still you persist in your line of questioning. How many posts will it take for some sort of progress to be made, Matt. 1000, 10,000? Are you willing to spend the rest of your life pursuing this in the certainty that this is your only life?
I can only conclude, for a professed thinking man, that there is something deeper going on here. Only a madman would repeatedly bang their head against a wall expecting anything other than a headache. As it stands your methods are resulting in the same outcome every time. That is, your objective or goal is unfulfilled.
Post me one reply that explains how rebirth is compatible with dharma. Just one from the hundreds I have received. That doesn't reply on hearsay or conjecture.
Do that and I will never disucss rebirth here again, even if other do.
My convictions, as you can see, become stronger the more I realise that these serious questions cannot be answered and that it becomes more clear to me. Maybe I am going mad, as you say.
I often have come away from this forum with huge doubts about my understanding of Dharma, and still do about some aspects, but on this matter I have no doubt, I really don't.
I don't know why I am made to feel bad for thinking these things, as if I enjoy the fact this cold hard pointless universe really is so matter of fact. I dont like that any more than you.
Without the indubitable truths of Dharma that emptiness and impermanence is terrifying, with it, its Wonderful. How beautifull is metta to emerge from that stark nothingness? Do you really need magic for that?
I am sorry that rebirth isn't true, it isn't my fault, however.
With metta and peace,
Mat
Why not just go on to another topic?
It is a non secular Buddhist discussion forum for "new Buddhist" aiming to make Buddhism more accessible, which to me is a clear role of my trajectory in Dharma.
Where should I talk freely an openly If I cannot talk here, especially when there are others who like to discuss this here?
Peace
Mat
You could always open your own forum as you suggested, that way you could be admin and you'd never have to worry about being censored/restricted. If I was you, that's what I would do. And I'm not being snarky, it's just a very realistic way (and within your power) of easing the tension that currently exists with these conversations.
Personnaly, id rather there just wasnt this tension, but me wishing that isnt a way to solve it.
In order to receive answers you must first ask the right questions. Your line of questioning seems to have consistently failed, I suggest, partly because of your expectations. Do you know what consciousness is? Do you know if there is a beginning? When does a life become a life? Is a still-born a person? In a room full of identical babies, how do they differ apart from their viewpoint? Can you be another person? If there are two identical copies of 'you' in different places is it the same you? If 'you' were born 2000 years ago, would it be the same person?
As a philosopher, I suppose you are aware that when we use language we must beware of suppositions contained in the content. This makes discussion problematic; unless the medium of communication is standardized; unless the language itself can adequately cover phenomena then answers become impossible.
So, the bottom line.. essentially you're using your line of reasoning as proof when the results come in. All I'm asking here is that you consider that the questioning itself is faulty. Why else would dozens of bright, enthusiastic students fail to hit the mark?
Right speech means avoiding four types of harmful speech: lies (words spoken with the intent of misrepresenting the truth); divisive speech (spoken with the intent of creating rifts between people); harsh speech (spoken with the intent of hurting another person's feelings); and idle chatter (spoken with no purposeful intent at all).
If we were to apply those rules to the forum people would be getting banned left and right. And it would be a good thing.
It would also be very unforgiving to "non-perfect" people. Thankfully, I doubt it will ever happen here.
The fact that policies like this arent carried out here is a reason why this forum is such a mess and so few people post here.
Human habit seems to take over.
The ultimate question we cannot agree on is this: Is there any kind of afterlife?
How is that a wrong question?
Yes. I had a pretty good idea from studying western philosophy of mind, for many years, and far more with an understanding of the Skandhas and Anataman.
No, that is not one of the marks of existance.
I do know that all systems have an end, however.
Life is a vague term and so of course is subject to the heap paradox. But I would say that the standard schoolroom definitions of life are a good starting point.
In terms of sentient, moral, suffering life, well when there are the five shandhas, for starters:)
I don't know, you would need to specify more inforamtion about the question to make sense:)
Umm, their casual and karmic histories are not identical? Not sure:) Great question though.
This is one of the questions in western philosophy I have found the most interesting. There are some great thought experiments in it and some really imaginitve answers to your question.
It blew me away when I was making sense of anataman because it offered a solution to the whole issue, as well as many other conundrums of philosophy.
So I would answer: There is no person, only mental and physical events.
The same with the last, I dont really see these two as meaningfull kinds of questions. With my "pre-dharmic" hat on I would say yes to the first and no to the second.
I tried to do this in the "Thought experiement" thread, we got quite far in terms of defining starting terms and agreeing that yes, all systems are impermiennt. Then the thread was killed.
Were my answer to your above questions those of a Troll who is interested in nothing but arguing?
I will talk with anyone about this in any way. You tell me how I should talk about this, but please dont tell me I should not talk about this on a Buddhist forum.
I hope you answer all of the questions in this email as I have with yourse:)
mat
Where's your compassion and forgiveness?
People do thing's wrong (idle chatter) and your response is: screw em?
People do things wrong, that's life.
The think people would post more if they got kicked for idle chatter?
I would utterly subscribe to that. We would also need to be able to discuss what was Right View openly and freely.
Peace
Mat
No, not "screw 'em". But set up some basic guidelines for a forum and actually hold people to them in order to promote an environment that is conducive to constructive conversation.
I just said I would adhere to right speach and then go and say something that could only be negative!
Life is hard!:)
Mat
I thought those were the basic guidelines for this forum....
Edit: Mat you can delete a post in the edit screen
Edit again Ah crap, sorry shenpen, I read what you said about banning and I connected the wrong dots. Sorry, man.
I know we can never know exactly what buddha taught, but is communication ever 100% accurate anyways? We can never be completely honest with another person, because we can't tell them every thought that pops up into our heads as we're talking to them. Even if we could, the way people interpret our communication can be completely different than what we intended.
My point is that everyone has their own path. What makes sense to you might not make sense to Mat and vice versa. Personally, I'm very hard-headed, and won't take anyone's word on anything unless I experience it personally. That's just how I'm able to understand things. If someone tells me something, I may know it, but might not understand it.
P.S- Stephen, your posts have been really insightful
As far as I can tell this forum has little or no basic guidelines that seem to be implemented. The deluge of constant inflammatory threads by Matsalted and cult groups like the NKT make this an inhospitable environment for genuine Buddhist discussion in my opinion.
Pretty simple, and we should all be able to do it.
When the forum is consistently interrupted by the same individuals and or topics those individuals or topics should be discouraged.
Are they right? What happened?