Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

I have a loaded question to ask:
If someone commits a severe social taboo faux pas, how long does one have to both metaphorically and realistically submit in the prostrated position of the social masochist before one is truly accepted in such a highly religious group, or will such a person never be fully accepted in such a strict religious social structure where only seniority with robotic-like adherence to all socially acceptable expectations of absolute religious perfection is the only possible prerequisite of paying one’s dues in order to be treated with any kind of respect or perhaps even the slightest sense of human dignity?

How many lashings must one take or does it even matter? Will one ever truly be treated like one of the others or will one in such a predicament always be expected to submit from there on out?

Sounds to me as if "someone" would be well advised to forgive and accept and penetrate his or her own actions and not worry too much about what any revered religious society might think.

Even at the most superficial level, think it through: Let's suppose someone is a murderer. S/he was a murderer at the time of the action. From various standpoints, murder is not an activity to indulge ... and yet everyone must face the murders large and small s/he has committed. No one else can face or condone the act of murder on behalf of the murderer. It simply cannot be done, no matter how much consoling or profound or sweet talk there is. Likewise the act cannot, with accuracy, be condemned by another.

Any damnation or redemption that occurs must occur within the one who has or will commit the act. And it is within that one that the investigation must begin and continue until the matter is clearly resolved. It may take a lifetime or longer ... but I see no other sensible or realistic choice.

Just my two cents.

genkaku wrote:Sounds to me as if "someone" would be well advised to forgive and accept and penetrate his or her own actions and not worry too much about what any revered religious society might think.

Even at the most superficial level, think it through: Let's suppose someone is a murderer. S/he was a murderer at the time of the action. From various standpoints, murder is not an activity to indulge ... and yet everyone must face the murders large and small s/he has committed. No one else can face or condone the act of murder on behalf of the murderer. It simply cannot be done, no matter how much consoling or profound or sweet talk there is. Likewise the act cannot, with accuracy, be condemned by another.

Any damnation or redemption that occurs must occur within the one who has or will commit the act. And it is within that one that the investigation must begin and continue until the matter is clearly resolved. It may take a lifetime or longer ... but I see no other sensible or realistic choice.

Just my two cents.

Now, I said faux pas, NOT murder. A taboo or faux pas is not necessarily a crime or a sin, but is just condemned by the majority of a society based on shared religious attitudes. However, according to your own words, I can see that you too would continue the condemnation of the offending individual perpetually again making the one who committed the faux pas to continue to be in the submitting position. Quite revealing.

If someone commits a severe social taboo faux pas, how long does one have to both metaphorically and realistically submit in the prostrated position of the social masochist before one is truly accepted in such a highly religious group, or will such a person never be fully accepted in such a strict religious social structure where only seniority with robotic-like adherence to all socially acceptable expectations of absolute religious perfection is the only possible prerequisite of paying one’s dues in order to be treated with any kind of respect or perhaps even the slightest sense of human dignity?

I would probably ask the person to consider the following:

Get over it.
It is not all about you.
You are not the centre of the universe.
Let go of your "So-Precious" self.
Perhaps then the person could get on with meditation and study and stop continually drawing attention to themselves by passive-aggressive pseudo-intellectual threads about themselves.

flyingOx wrote:I have a loaded question to ask:
If someone commits a severe social taboo faux pas, how long does one have to both metaphorically and realistically submit in the prostrated position of the social masochist before one is truly accepted in such a highly religious group, or will such a person never be fully accepted in such a strict religious social structure where only seniority with robotic-like adherence to all socially acceptable expectations of absolute religious perfection is the only possible prerequisite of paying one’s dues in order to be treated with any kind of respect or perhaps even the slightest sense of human dignity?

How many lashings must one take or does it even matter? Will one ever truly be treated like one of the others or will one in such a predicament always be expected to submit from there on out?

Link?

One who acts like a fool will always be treated as a fool.
As soon as one stops acting like a fool, one stops being treated as a fool.

I have seen people come to forums, act foolish, suffer the consequences, realize their error, stop acting foolishly, and quickly become a productive member of the forum. Really, it doesn't take much.

flyingOx wrote:However, according to your own words, I can see that you too would continue the condemnation of the offending individual perpetually again making the one who committed the faux pas to continue to be in the submitting position

?????

Peter wrote:One who acts like a fool will always be treated as a fool.
As soon as one stops acting like a fool, one stops being treated as a fool.

I have seen people come to forums, act foolish, suffer the consequences, realize their error, stop acting foolishly, and quickly become a productive member of the forum. Really, it doesn't take much.

I see, in other words they fully submitted to the mass intimidation of the religious society who treated them as if they were a fool because they did not see the need for more traditionalism.

adosa wrote:

flyingOx wrote:I have a loaded question to ask:
If someone commits a severe social taboo faux pas, how long does one have to both metaphorically and realistically submit in the prostrated position of the social masochist before one is truly accepted in such a highly religious group, or will such a person never be fully accepted in such a strict religious social structure where only seniority with robotic-like adherence to all socially acceptable expectations of absolute religious perfection is the only possible prerequisite of paying one’s dues in order to be treated with any kind of respect or perhaps even the slightest sense of human dignity?

How many lashings must one take or does it even matter? Will one ever truly be treated like one of the others or will one in such a predicament always be expected to submit from there on out?

Link?

Link! That's too funny.

Chris wrote:

If someone commits a severe social taboo faux pas, how long does one have to both metaphorically and realistically submit in the prostrated position of the social masochist before one is truly accepted in such a highly religious group, or will such a person never be fully accepted in such a strict religious social structure where only seniority with robotic-like adherence to all socially acceptable expectations of absolute religious perfection is the only possible prerequisite of paying one’s dues in order to be treated with any kind of respect or perhaps even the slightest sense of human dignity?

I would probably ask the person to consider the following:

Get over it.
It is not all about you.
You are not the centre of the universe.
Let go of your "So-Precious" self.
Perhaps then the person could get on with meditation and study and stop continually drawing attention to themselves by passive-aggressive pseudo-intellectual threads about themselves.

Get over it? In other words, why don't you just submit? Not the center of the universe? Let go of self? Drawing attention to oneself? Passive-aggressive? Pseudo Intellectual?

Wow! You must really dislike this particular person quite a bit to list off such accusations against this person who is already forced into the inferior position. Can anyone say, "kick him when he's down? How do you know that these are the reasons why this person is bringin this up?

flyingOx wrote:I have a loaded question to ask:
If someone commits a severe social taboo faux pas, how long does one have to both metaphorically and realistically submit in the prostrated position of the social masochist before one is truly accepted in such a highly religious group, or will such a person never be fully accepted in such a strict religious social structure where only seniority with robotic-like adherence to all socially acceptable expectations of absolute religious perfection is the only possible prerequisite of paying one’s dues in order to be treated with any kind of respect or perhaps even the slightest sense of human dignity?

How many lashings must one take or does it even matter? Will one ever truly be treated like one of the others or will one in such a predicament always be expected to submit from there on out?

It is not about what others think that matter but how or when one is ready to stop "running" and when that time comes one should be able to understand the reason. It might take a very long time but by taking a small step now you will be on the way.

Flyingox -- What seems to be the problem? If you like Buddhism, then practice. If you don't, find something you do like and do that. How many straw men can anyone set up before they realize that straw men have no capacity to bring anyone peace?

Buddhism makes observations (The Four Noble Truths) and it makes suggestions based on those observations (The Eightfold Path). Observations and suggestions are offerings. They are not like some Vatican issuing edicts, oppressing or disapproving of transgressors, or waving some holy flag. Some people find the observations compelling because they seem to square up with experience. Some find them compelling enough to want to put the suggestions to some use.

While it is true that people can dither around -- sometimes for their whole lives -- trying to remake Buddhism in their own image and arguing philosophy and religion until the cows come home, still the fact remains that Buddhism is only as good as anyone consents to make it. Personally. Intimately.

But whether anyone consents or not, still the direction of Buddhism is probably best expressed in words attributed to Gautama: "It is not what others do and do not do that is my concern. It is what I do and do not do -- that is my concern."

So ... if you like chocolate, please have some. If you don't, try some ice cream. No need to complain about what you don't like when there are so many things you might enjoy.

FWIW

Ordinaryperson wrote:

flyingOx wrote:I have a loaded question to ask:
If someone commits a severe social taboo faux pas, how long does one have to both metaphorically and realistically submit in the prostrated position of the social masochist before one is truly accepted in such a highly religious group, or will such a person never be fully accepted in such a strict religious social structure where only seniority with robotic-like adherence to all socially acceptable expectations of absolute religious perfection is the only possible prerequisite of paying one’s dues in order to be treated with any kind of respect or perhaps even the slightest sense of human dignity?

How many lashings must one take or does it even matter? Will one ever truly be treated like one of the others or will one in such a predicament always be expected to submit from there on out?

It is not about what others think that matter but how or when one is ready to stop "running" and when that time comes one should be able to understand the reason. It might take a very long time but by taking a small step now you will be on the way.

Because this person is the one who MUST be in the inferior learning position by necessity until this person’s submission to the acceptable programming is well recognized and established by the entire group, this person will always be seen as running from what is needed to be learned and therefore perpetually inferior to all in the well-behaved group. No one else but this person in any interaction with this person would be seen as needing to learn something as the entire group would be superior to this person until the person’s submission has been actualized. Why WOULDN’T this person RUN or REBEL from such bullying?

genkaku wrote:Flyingox -- What seems to be the problem? If you like Buddhism, then practice. If you don't, find something you do like and do that. How many straw men can anyone set up before they realize that straw men have no capacity to bring anyone peace?

Buddhism makes observations (The Four Noble Truths) and it makes suggestions based on those observations (The Eightfold Path). Observations and suggestions are offerings. They are not like some Vatican issuing edicts, oppressing or disapproving of transgressors, or waving some holy flag. Some people find the observations compelling because they seem to square up with experience. Some find them compelling enough to want to put the suggestions to some use.

While it is true that people can dither around -- sometimes for their whole lives -- trying to remake Buddhism in their own image and arguing philosophy and religion until the cows come home, still the fact remains that Buddhism is only as good as anyone consents to make it. Personally. Intimately.

But whether anyone consents or not, still the direction of Buddhism is probably best expressed in words attributed to Gautama: "It is not what others do and do not do that is my concern. It is what I do and do not do -- that is my concern."

So ... if you like chocolate, please have some. If you don't, try some ice cream. No need to complain about what you don't like when there are so many things you might enjoy.

FWIW

I wish it was that easy, but that’s still a cop out that diverts the attention away from the group actually learning anything productive about its bullying social structure and you know it. If anyone condones, encourages, and practices passive aggressive intimidation techniques, it would be the religious group, itself.

flyingOx wrote:

Ordinaryperson wrote:

flyingOx wrote:
Because this person is the one who MUST be in the inferior learning position by necessity until this person’s submission to the acceptable programming is well recognized and established by the entire group, this person will always be seen as running from what is needed to be learned and therefore perpetually inferior to all in the well-behaved group. No one else but this person in any interaction with this person would be seen as needing to learn something as the entire group would be superior to this person until the person’s submission has been actualized. Why WOULDN’T this person RUN or REBEL from such bullying?

I see.

There is no such thing as programming (if I can understand your analogy - no one is hammering "programmes" into you) in any sense and there should be no one to force you to submit to "bullying". You reason or experience the journey yourself. So why run when no one force you to and why rebel when there is nothing to and when you can simply walk away? Why force yourself to be accepted by others (or force others to accept you) if you feel they are not right for you? Aren't you just making matters more complicated for yourself? Be at ease and relax. Take your time and understand little by little.