What *NOT* to do as an Online Buddhist
Posted: Fri May 24, 2013 8:43 pm
A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of Theravāda Buddhism
https://www.dhammawheel.com/
It's from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... stions.pdfPEOPLE WORTH TALKING TO (& NOT)
§ 117. “Let an observant person come, one neither fraudulent nor deceitful, one of straightforward nature. I instruct him, I teach him the Dhamma. Practicing as instructed, he in no long time rightly knows, rightly sees, ‘So this, it appears, is liberation from the bond, i.e., the bond of ignorance.’” — MN 80
§ 118. “Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, doesn’t give a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer, doesn’t give an analytical answer to a question deserving an analytical answer, doesn’t cross-question a question deserving cross-questioning, doesn’t put aside a question deserving to be put aside, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, gives a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer, gives an analytical answer to a question deserving an analytical answer, cross-questions a question deserving cross-questioning, and puts aside a question deserving to be put aside, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with.
“Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, doesn’t stand by what is possible and impossible, doesn’t stand by agreed-upon assumptions, doesn’t stand by teachings known to be true,1 doesn’t stand by standard procedure, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit to
talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, stands by what is possible and impossible, stands by agreed-upon assumptions, stands by teachings known to be true, stands by standard procedure, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with.
“Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, wanders from one thing to another, pulls the discussion off the topic, shows anger & aversion and sulks, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn’t wander from one thing to another, doesn’t pull the discussion off the topic, doesn’t show anger or aversion or sulk, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with.
“Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, puts down [the questioner], crushes him, ridicules him, grasps at his little mistakes, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn’t put down [the questioner], doesn’t crush him, doesn’t ridicule him, doesn’t grasp at his little mistakes, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with.
“Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as drawing near or not drawing near. One who lends ear draws near; one who doesn’t lend ear doesn’t draw near. Drawing near, one clearly knows one quality, comprehends one quality, abandons one quality, and realizes one quality.2 Clearly knowing one quality, comprehending one quality, abandoning one quality, and realizing one quality, one touches right release. For that’s the purpose of discussion, that’s the purpose of counsel, that’s the purpose of drawing near, that’s the purpose of lending ear: i.e., the liberation of the mind through no clinging.
Those who discuss when angered, dogmatic, arrogant, following what’s not the noble ones’ way,
seeking to expose each other’s faults, delight in each other’s misspoken word,
slip, stumble, defeat.
Noble ones don’t speak in that way.
If wise people, knowing the right time, want to speak,
then, words connected with justice, following the ways of the noble ones:
That’s what the enlightened ones speak, without anger or arrogance,
with a mind not boiling over, without vehemence, without spite.
Without envy, they speak from right knowledge. They would delight in what’s well-said and not disparage what’s not. They don’t study to find fault, don’t grasp at little mistakes, don’t put down, don’t crush, don’t speak random words.
For the purpose of knowledge, for the purpose of [inspiring] clear confidence,
counsel that’s true: That’s how noble ones give counsel, That’s the noble ones’ counsel.
Knowing this, the wise should give counsel without arrogance. — AN 3:68
NOTES
1. Reading aññ›tav›da with the Burmese edition. An alternate translation would be, “the teachings of those who know.”
2. According to the Commentary, these qualities are, respectively, the noble truth of the path, the noble truth of stress, the noble truth of the origination of stress, and the noble truth of the cessation of stress.
I can't remember more than 3 things at once.Jhana4 wrote:15 Things Not To Do If You're An Online Buddhist
That is an excellent off topic point. People who write articles on the internet love lists and always have something like "5,000 simple things to help with ____". People can only keep so many tips active in their minds at once and not all tips are as valuable as others. Much better would be "a short list of things for ______ that I tried, that produce the most results"Spiny Norman wrote:I can't remember more than 3 things at once.Jhana4 wrote:15 Things Not To Do If You're An Online Buddhist
I'd add another thing not to do:Jhana4 wrote:15 Things Not To Do If You're An Online Buddhist
I have done that a lot. Sorry.Monkey Mind wrote:#17 Blame online Buddhists for the poor quality of the discussion.
Abso-diddly-lutely!daverupa wrote:Sound advice. One additional point might be "use this list to assess your own behavior, and not the behavior of others."
You mean talk to real people?!Monkey Mind wrote:#18 Disconnect from the Internet and drive to the nearest Dhamma/ Dharma center for some lovely discussion over tea.
They have expressive faces, vocal inflections, and body language. And so you do not have to used these dumb things:Spiny Norman wrote:You mean talk to real people?!Monkey Mind wrote:#18 Disconnect from the Internet and drive to the nearest Dhamma/ Dharma center for some lovely discussion over tea.
Yes, but what about all the germs?tiltbillings wrote:They have expressive faces, vocal inflections, and body language.Spiny Norman wrote:You mean talk to real people?!Monkey Mind wrote:#18 Disconnect from the Internet and drive to the nearest Dhamma/ Dharma center for some lovely discussion over tea.
What about them?Spiny Norman wrote:
Yes, but what about all the germs?