Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

danieLion wrote:Expansion on "did not intend strict uniformity": he didn't teach a one-size-fits-all practice, BUT...

BUT what?
There are two reasons (both reasonably common) for disagreement, "taking things personally" and "people being frustrating*" for one reason or another. The Buddha didn't teach a "one size fits all" but he also didn't teach "all is one" it is the same "thing" tailored to the circumstances; almost like a jigsaw it is the same picture just a different part which wont fit elsewhere.
We all explain things from a personal perspective with many influencing factors.

*- by frustrating I mean either deliberate or accidental red-herring arguments. either through misunderstanding what is said or trying to be a smart arse.

I don't get the "under-stand" reference.

What is Wrong with Buddha Nature (download link)

danieLion wrote:

mikenz66 wrote:Isn't this a bit of an on-line phenomenon?

Not where I live. It's a schism fest here.

How many factions have formed here?

Mike, Dave, etc...,

mikenz66 wrote:To me, disagreement is not a problem, problems arise from insisting that a particular opinion is the only possibly correct one.

Hearing different opinions can be helpful and stimulating. Hearing that anyone who disagrees with some particular opinion is wrong is not usually helpful. It tends to turn a discussion into pointless gain-saying.

So, are we saying that clinging to views contributes to unskillfully handled disputes and destructively resolved conflicts, not disputes or conflicts per se? And are we saying taht skillfully handled disputes and constructively resolved conflicts involve not clinging to views?

And are we saying that avoiding conflict (not to be confused with constructive prevention) at all costs comes with its own pains, but so does engaging conflict, especially without conflict resolution skills to minimize clinging?

Cittasanto wrote:

danieLion wrote:Expansion on "did not intend strict uniformity": he didn't teach a one-size-fits-all practice, BUT...

BUT what?

danieLion wrote:Expansion on "validated by the nature of their absoluteness" e.g., as this Access to Insight glossary entry puts it:

ariya-sacca: Noble Truth. The word "ariya" (noble) can also mean ideal or standard, and in this context means "objective" or "universal" truth. There are four: stress, the origin of stress, the disbanding of stress, and the path of practice leading to the disbanding of stress. [MORE]

danieLion wrote:I don't get the "under-stand" reference.

Cittasanto wrote:What is Wrong with Buddha Nature

Ahh...now I...
UNDER-
STAND.

Cittasanto wrote:

danieLion wrote:

mikenz66 wrote:Isn't this a bit of an on-line phenomenon?

Not where I live. It's a schism fest here.

How many factions have formed here?

What do you mean by "here"?

its a good talk also

danieLion wrote:

Cittasanto wrote:

danieLion wrote: Not where I live. It's a schism fest here.

How many factions have formed here?

What do you mean by "here"?

well you say it is a schism fest but apart from the sutta & commentary preferences which was there before Dhammawheel existed what new schisms have happened?
I don't think anyone believes (except for those who are non-theravadin/buddhist members here) anyone isn't Theravadin/Buddhist based solely on that persons understanding.

This topic shown the importance of abhidhammpitaka.

Because people who read only sutta without tipitaka access tradition, learning tradition, will be doubt like this topic's author.

Suttas especially taught for someone, at somewhere, in some state, and more fixed situation.
They taught only a part of phenomena, to made target person be ariya.

Abhidhamma taught for explain suttas, seem to be dictionary, or commentary.
They taught all part of phenomena.

You should read commentary more to understand the situation and environment of each sutta. You shouldn't pack all sutta words in the same meaning, even though they are the same words, because they may be only homophone words.

danieLion wrote:

BubbaBuddhist wrote:...specious sources like Wikipedia...

And libraries are specious free?

ANYBODY can write on Wik. Douglas Hofstadter (of GEB fame) has tried to edit his own biography on Wik for years and the editors keep correcting it. He's finally developed a sense of humor about it. The vetting process for reference books is usually much more stringent. I've written five non-fiction books and worked with editors, and it's maddening; a good one will check and double-check your work, against numerous authorities, and have you verify everything. Then the editor's work is checked. I've tried to correct falsified information on Wik about my own profession; for example, many of the entries about show business people are total fabrications. One example: Derren Brown never performed hypnosis shows in college. He was a creation of BBC writers. Three of my friends were approached to portray the character the BBC created before one of them suggested him, and two of them helped train him and write the scripts. He was a middlin-fair card trick guy before the BBC recreated him. Another: James Randi was convicted of pedophilia in New Jersey 1972 for soliciting teenaged boys; he's tried to first deny this, then explain it as a sting with the New Jersey Police. He was also once arrested for harboring several illegal alien Haitian teenage boys in his house. Anytime this has been brought up on the Internet, Randi's cult mobilized to have the court records and answering machine tapes removed. His disciples defended him for years as a man of impeccable honor, even though his books are full of misrepresentations and misquotes. Now that he's been charges with aiding and abetting in identity theft and fraud, things seem a little different, but there will still be people who defend him because of the huge amount of followers he's gained over the years. He's the Osho of uncritical skeptic wanderers looking for a guru.

Point: It's too easy to manipulate information on the Internet. And too easy to get so caught up in cyber-life you mistake it for real life.

I know it's far easier to cocoon and never leave the house and live life precariously over the Internet. I ride the bus and kids are plugged into various I-devices and never look at the world or people around them. Or are texting furiously instead of having an actual conversation. I'm probably starting to sound like a relic from an archaic generation, which I feel more and more like each year.

Never mind

BB

danieLion wrote:

Ñāṇa wrote:Consensus isn't necessary, and should definitely not be desired.

Please continue...go on...elaborate.... Please.

It doesn't really matter what other people say or do. It's your thoughts, words, and deeds that are important for your development.

I suggest reading a few verses from the Suttanipāta, the Dhammapada, the Theragāthā, or the Therīgāthā every day to inspire and orient the mind. Then engage in a regular meditation practice for 20-30 years. That's probably a pretty decent start.

danieLion wrote:Mike, Dave, etc...,

mikenz66 wrote:To me, disagreement is not a problem, problems arise from insisting that a particular opinion is the only possibly correct one.

Hearing different opinions can be helpful and stimulating. Hearing that anyone who disagrees with some particular opinion is wrong is not usually helpful. It tends to turn a discussion into pointless gain-saying.

So, are we saying that clinging to views contributes to unskillfully handled disputes and destructively resolved conflicts, not disputes or conflicts per se? And are we saying taht skillfully handled disputes and constructively resolved conflicts involve not clinging to views?

It is possible to discuss different points of view without it being a "conflict". And that's generally what I see in "real life" with moderately skilful monks and lay people. They key to minimizing conflict is to reduce the clinging to "only this is true; anything else is worthless", something I see repeatedly played out in on-line discussions, such as this forum:

Jhana is essential/jhana is a waste of effort/the suttas teach to develop concentration and insight together/the suttas teach jhana first, then insight/abhidhamma is the only way to properly understand Dhamma/abhidhamma is not Buddha-vacana and is a load of nonsense/the commentaries are rubbish/Dhamma cannot be properly understood without the commentaries and this silly historical analysis approach you are following is laughable...

"And how does one engage with people in quarrelsome debate? There is the case where a certain person is a fomenter of this kind of debate: 'You understand this doctrine & discipline? I'm the one who understands this doctrine & discipline. How could you understand this doctrine & discipline? You're practicing wrongly. I'm practicing rightly. What should be said first you said last. What should be said last you said first. I'm being consistent. You're not. What you took so long to think out has been refuted. Your doctrine has been overthrown. You're defeated. Go and try to salvage your doctrine, or extricate yourself if you can!' This is how one engages with people in quarrelsome debate.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mike

BubbaBuddhist wrote:

danieLion wrote:

BubbaBuddhist wrote:...specious sources like Wikipedia...

And libraries are specious free?

ANYBODY can write on Wik.

ANYBODY can write a book. You're committing the fallacy of arguing from tradition.
Are you familiar with MIlls's notion of free exchange in a marketplace of ideas, or discourse ethics, or epistemology, or the history of science, etc...?

BubbaBuddhist wrote:Point: It's too easy to manipulate information on the Internet. And too easy to get so caught up in cyber-life you mistake it for real life.

It's easy to manipulate information in general.

Partitioning cyber-space off from the rest of "reality" seems like a false dichotomy to me.

It is a good talk. I've heard it several times, and can't believe I forgot the reference.

Cittasanto wrote:well you say it is a schism fest but apart from the sutta & commentary preferences which was there before Dhammawheel existed what new schisms have happened?
I don't think anyone believes (except for those who are non-theravadin/buddhist members here) anyone isn't Theravadin/Buddhist based solely on that persons understanding.

My bad. I failed to clarify that by "here" I meant Portland, Oregon.

Ñāṇa wrote:

danieLion wrote:

Ñāṇa wrote:Consensus isn't necessary, and should definitely not be desired.

Please continue...go on...elaborate.... Please.

It doesn't really matter what other people say or do. It's your thoughts, words, and deeds that are important for your development.

I suggest reading a few verses from the Suttanipāta, the Dhammapada, the Theragāthā, or the Therīgāthā every day to inspire and orient the mind. Then engage in a regular meditation practice for 20-30 years. That's probably a pretty decent start.

Thanks for elaborating.

Ñāṇa wrote:I suggest reading a few verses from the Suttanipāta, the Dhammapada, the Theragāthā, or the Therīgāthā every day to inspire and orient the mind. Then engage in a regular meditation practice for 20-30 years. That's probably a pretty decent start.

Wait. Are you suggesting this to me personally, or just in general?