The danger of intolerance

[pink_trike]

Also, keep in mind that the point of this thread is the question of tolerance and intolerance towards religion, not the critique of religion.

How can they realistically be separated?

[tiltbillings]

I think one can discuss the dangers of intolerance towards religion without entering into a full blown attack on religion.

[pink_trike]

I think one can discuss the dangers of intolerance towards religion without entering into a full blown attack on religion.

There are both religious and non-religious Buddhists. How would you frame a dialogue between the two groups, specifically about the religious element of Buddhism, so that no one feels attacked? It seems that it is a touchy subject so let's discuss how the topic can productively discussed without reactivity.

[edited not knowing that it was being replied to as I edited].

[tiltbillings]

I think one can discuss the dangers of intolerance towards religion without entering into a full blown attack on religion.

There are both religious and non-religious Buddhists. How would you frame a dialogue between the two groups, specifically about the religious element of Buddhism, so that no one feels attacked?

That is the challenge.

[clw_uk]

Jechbi and others

I agree that intolerance of religion is bad just as intolerance of most things is negative however thats not what was happening on this site. For example No doubt you dont believe in osiris because of your rationality and logic has lead you to conclude that he most likely doesnt exsist and belief in him or practice of the religion he is assoctiated with is irrational and not needed. You did this without being intolerant you just examined it, thats all im doing but including the modern day religions as well (and non-theistic ones as well as theistic)

Now i am sorry if i upset you or anyone else thats not my intent but i do feel its an important discussion to have


Metta

[tiltbillings]

Jechbi and others

I agree that intolerance of religion is bad just as intolerance of most things is negative however thats not what was happening on this site.

Except if others feel that it is happening, you cannot say that it is not.

[clw_uk]

Hey tilt

Except if others feel that it is happening, you cannot say that it is not.

No doubt people here have felt that i have been intolerant but as i said with the Osiris similie that isnt the case at all. Was some of the wording i used not to good and taken the wrong way, sure maybe so but my intent wasnt to cause harm or to come accross as intolerant and i apologize again if i have done so




Metta

[Aloka]

Regarding the thread with comments about Tibetan Buddhism, I posted what I thought was a very polite response expressing my sadness to see these remarks, as I am a practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism myself. However the whole thread disappeared soon afterwards.

Dazzle

[tiltbillings]

No doubt people here have felt that i have been intolerant but as i said with the Osiris similie that isnt the case at all.

Your intention may have been one thing, but via probale unskillfullness some may have felt otherwise, and that is their perception, in effect, their reality. There needs to be a bit more of a nuanced appreciation of what is being said, how it said, and the consequences of that.

[pink_trike]

No doubt people here have felt that i have been intolerant but as i said with the Osiris similie that isnt the case at all.

Your intention may have been one thing, but via probale unskillfullness some may have felt otherwise, and that is their perception, in effect, their reality. There needs to be a bit more of a nuanced appreciation of what is being said, how it said, and the consequences of that.

...in writing and reading, from everyone involved in the discussion no matter what their belief.

[clw_uk]

No doubt people here have felt that i have been intolerant but as i said with the Osiris similie that isnt the case at all.

Your intention may have been one thing, but via probale unskillfullness some may have felt otherwise, and that is their perception, in effect, their reality. There needs to be a bit more of a nuanced appreciation of what is being said, how it said, and the consequences of that.

I agree we all need to do this


Metta

[tiltbillings]

Regarding the thread with comments about Tibetan Buddhism, I posted what I thought was a very polite response expressing my sadness to see these remarks, as I am a practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism myself. However the whole thread disappeared soon afterwards.

Dazzle

It was disappeared because it was seen to be becoming hurtful to some and it was going in a tail biting circle of negativity. If you wish, it can be brought back. We moderators are not (yet) perfect, so it may be that we do not always handle tough situations in the best manner. We try, however.

[tiltbillings]

...from all sides of the discussion.

Certainly.

[pink_trike]

Regarding the thread with comments about Tibetan Buddhism, I posted what I thought was a very polite response expressing my sadness to see these remarks, as I am a practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism myself. However the whole thread disappeared soon afterwards.

Dazzle

It was disappeared because it was seen to be becoming hurtful to some and it was going in a tail biting circle of negativity. If you wish, it can be brought back. We moderators are not (yet) perfect, so it may be that we do not always handle tough situations in the best manner. We try, however.

And you guys do a darned good job.

[Ben]

Hi all

A couple of comments. I've said privately to some members that i doubted whether Dhamma Wheel was an appropriate forum for the kinds of discussions that have been happening of late. To date, I maintain what i said in that I haven't seen any valid criticism, or any real criticism in the true sense of the word. Instead, we have comments being made that are at times have been quite inflamatory and provocative. And given that this is a Buddhist forum devoted to the Theravada, such comments have the effect of 'playing to the crowd'. Most of us are Buddhist of some denomination and many of us probably have less than ideal experiences of living in Christian dominated cultures. So what invariably happens is that threads that purport to 'critique' Mahayana, Vajrayana, Christianity or Islam become a vehicle for the expression of personal prejudices and predelictons. As people get involved and contribute to such a discussion there is the triggering of kilesas and when the next person expresses their point of view (however well-informed it may appear to be), the process continues. Little real learning goes on as we're just all swimming in the collective mental cesspit. (apologies for the image). Until we become ariyan, we all suffer from conceit and our view is seriously polluted and distorted by our own negativities. I believe we should all be extremely vigilant, there is no limit to the variations of the manifestations of our own defilements.

Frankly comments that alude to DW being oppressive are downright unhelpful. My colleagues and I have expended no small effort in ensuring Dhamma Wheel doesn't become yet another group-think ghetto. Please consider for a minute how oppressive some comments may appear to others looking into Dhamma Wheel. People, who maybe christian, vajrayanist, mahayanist or muslim who may have a genuine interest in the Theravada. Can you put yourselves in their shoes? Dhamma Wheel should be a place where anyone irrespective of their religious (or non-religious) affiliation should feel comfortable and welcomed. And from reports that I have received, that hasn't been happening here.

As i said to another, there is so much that is beautiful and wonderful about the Dhamma and worthy of discussion. Why waste our time discussing the perceived faults of another? The real deal, the real game, is right here within our own one-fathom-long frame. We have a wonderful opportunity here at Dhamma Wheel, lets use it for our own liberation, and also for the benefit of the many, for the welfare of all.
Metta

Ben

[zavk]

Regarding the thread with comments about Tibetan Buddhism, I posted what I thought was a very polite response expressing my sadness to see these remarks, as I am a practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism myself. However the whole thread disappeared soon afterwards.

Dazzle

It was disappeared because it was seen to be becoming hurtful to some and it was going in a tail biting circle of negativity. If you wish, it can be brought back. We moderators are not (yet) perfect, so it may be that we do not always handle tough situations in the best manner. We try, however.

Hi Mods,

I didn't have anything to add to that post and I can understand why the discussion was stopped to prevent further negativity. However, if I may ask, why did it have to be totally removed? Was there any reason why it couldn't be locked but left visible? Thanks for considering my question.

-------------------------------------------------------

The tensions in these recent threads have pivoted around the question of what constitutes 'critique' or 'criticism'. Several people of made this point:

...examination isnt bashing, criticism isnt bashing, asking questions isnt bashing

Also, keep in mind that the point of this thread is the question of tolerance and intolerance towards religion, not the critique of religion.

How can they realistically be separated?

To date, I maintain what i said in that I haven't seen any valid criticism, or any real criticism in the true sense of the word.

So if I may offer my two cents (in next post so this one doesn't become too long).....

[zavk]

I like to think of critique or criticism in these ways:

1.) There is the 'common-sense' understanding of criticism where we identify and correct shortcomings in people or whatever (e.g. 'Oh, you shouldn't have done this or that')

2.) There is a narrower understanding of criticism which we can identify in say, literary criticism, in film reviews, etc, where the critic evaluates or judge something according to certain technical, aesthetic or philosophical criteria.

3.) There is a social understanding and function of criticism such as when a political figure, a lobby group (e.g. Amnesty International), a policy expert, a social or cultural expert (e.g. Noam Chomsky) speaks out against certain issues.

4.) And finally, I think there is another mode of criticism which requires more effort. This involves cultivating a critical sensibility in oneself so as to always re-examine ones thoughts and actions. Criticism in this sense is aimed at clarifying the 'ground' of one's self-understanding and behaviour, so as to go beyond the the 'limits' set on ourselves out of habitual conditioning (or in Buddhist terms, avijja).

One prominent French thinker of the 60s/70s said that critique 'consists in seeing what kinds of self-evidences, liberties, acquired and non reflective-modes of thought, [and] the practices we accept rest on.' As I understand it, such a mode of criticism is always turning on itself, such that it always holds open the space for change and transformation. To me, this sits well with the Buddhist aim of 'seeing things clearly as they are'.

I think when we ‘criticize’ we move in and out of the above four, depending on the context. But for me, the one mode that is vital to Buddhist practice is (4.). This form of critical attitude, as the Noble Eightfold Path reminds us, must be cultivated alongside ethical conduct. This means that when, how and what we 'criticize' must be considered through the Buddhist teachings of care and compassion.

Respect to all.

[Aloka]

It was disappeared because it was seen to be becoming hurtful to some and it was going in a tail biting circle of negativity. If you wish, it can be brought back. We moderators are not (yet) perfect, so it may be that we do not always handle tough situations in the best manner. We try, however.

Hi Tilt,

I'm not asking for the thread to be brought back. However, as I have a genuine interest in Theravada and as my last post in the thread wasn't inflammatory and didn't name any names, it would have been quite nice if someone had PM'd me afterwards, because I was left wondering if I'd caused the end of the thread.

Just a though for future consideration.

Kind wishes,

Dazzle

[Ben]

Hi Ed

I was one of the mods who felt that it would be better to have some of the threads completely removed from view. They are still within the DW system so they can be retrieved if the decision is reversed. Its my opinion that comments, whether intentionally or intentionally, provocative, comments which could be perceived as sectarian in nature, are death to a board like ours. And some of the other reasons I cited include a lack of right speech and many of the comments being off-topic. Dazzle, I'm not talking specifically about yours or anyone else's comments.
And look, as Tilt said earlier, the moderators here are not perfect. We do try to get it right and help make DW a great place but sometimes we may get it wrong. And to some extent we rely on the DW community to help us get it right.
Metta

Ben

[mikenz66]

Hi Ben,

As i said to another, there is so much that is beautiful and wonderful about the Dhamma and worthy of discussion. Why waste our time discussing the perceived faults of another? The real deal, the real game, is right here within our own one-fathom-long frame. We have a wonderful opportunity here at Dhamma Wheel, lets use it for our own liberation, and also for the benefit of the many, for the welfare of all.

Thanks for that, and thank you to the moderators for their hard (and often thankless) work...

Liberation will, by definition, involve seriously extending our tolerance...

Metta
Mike