correct me, please

[genkaku]

I have had the experience elsewhere of being being told in various ways that I was mistaken for offering my point of view where it was not wanted. I don't want to upset anyone's apple cart, so I am asking for guidance.

For example, I know little or nothing about the Theravada approach to Buddhism. This doesn't mean I am unwilling to accept or respect it, it just means I don't know much. Nevertheless, when I see a topic in a Theravada discussion that excites my interest, naturally I would like to dip my oar in the waters. But my interest is in human beings and when I see a topic that touches human beings, whether they are stock brokers or Theravada Buddhists -- then I try to respond from a human-being point of view. It strikes me as relevant, but I can imagine that others might not feel the same.

As I say, I don't want to stick my nose in where it's not wanted. I don't want to interrupt anyone's smooth flow of discussion. So how shall I approach this in order to preserve the harmony of Dhamma Wheel? Is there some yardstick I can apply that will help me see that it would be better not to comment ... or to understand that a comment is OK.

I'm not pulling a watch-me-be-so-humble schtick here. I really would appreciate some direction.

Thanks.

[appicchato]

No need for correction G, you'll do fine with your 'humanist' angle...

Especially now that there's puking smilies with guns to contend with...

(Continue to) Be well friend...

[Cittasanto]

Well feel free to stick your oar in any of my posts another angle is welcome from me at least I can't speak for others obviously, but I like different perspectives.
but if it is correcting you want? how about you use far to many z's in your posts

[thecap]

Hi genkaku

Your views are most welcome here, friend.

I've also had the experience that unrequested advise is perceived as if pointing at one's personal errors, while requested advise is perceived as if pointing at solutions.

Thus the real issue, I think, is not sharing your excellent experience with others, but the fact that people sometimes stick to their views and identify with them, advise-givers and advise-takers alike.

It might be helpful to ask oneself, "do I give this and that advise in order to reassure my position as an advise-giver [not saying that you are doing so, but everyone can get into that situation], or in order to help someone?". The context (speaking at the right time) is often more important than the words, however wise they may be.

So how shall I approach this in order to preserve the harmony of Dhamma Wheel?

And "how do I preserve my own harmony"?. Equanimity. It never hurt and has a calming effect on both, the advise-giver and advise-taker.

I hope this wasn't too much advise at once.

Gassho!

[Fede]

Genkaku, never, for goodness' sake, in the name of all that is sacred, never, ever stop posting.

You are never not wanted, your posts are always illuminating, interesting and a worthwhile read. OK?

Topics go off-topic. I seem to remember starting several topics myself, and seeing them blither on regardless, in every direction, like a sailboat with no-one at the tiller.
I dun the same meself. taken a subject so far off-topic, that I've had to check the OP and say to myself:
"Ooooh! What did the Buddha say about Anger?! Right! No wonder I'm talking about my new bedroom slippers!"

I am the Mistress of the Meander!

I would actually request that Moderators not be too harsh on the odd occasional OT post. A gentle nudge and reminder is kinder than personal censure and infractions. And besides, in discussion, round a table, or in a lounge with friends, topics meander and drift.... that's what discussion entails sometimes.... broadening the talk to cover all the bases.

Keep going Genkaku.
If you will, I will.

[Dhammanando]

Hi Genkaku,

I'm just writing to let you know that I composed a reply to your query, but I didn't want to post it publicly until I'd run it by the other moderators to ensure we're of one mind on this. Ben and Retro are both in Oz, so it might be a few hours till they wake up, and David's in Las Vegas, so he might be awake, but in any case he's not online at the moment.

In the meantime please just keep posting. There's no need to walk on eggshells.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando Bhikkhu

[Individual]

I have had the experience elsewhere of being being told in various ways that I was mistaken for offering my point of view where it was not wanted. I don't want to upset anyone's apple cart, so I am asking for guidance.

For example, I know little or nothing about the Theravada approach to Buddhism. This doesn't mean I am unwilling to accept or respect it, it just means I don't know much. Nevertheless, when I see a topic in a Theravada discussion that excites my interest, naturally I would like to dip my oar in the waters. But my interest is in human beings and when I see a topic that touches human beings, whether they are stock brokers or Theravada Buddhists -- then I try to respond from a human-being point of view. It strikes me as relevant, but I can imagine that others might not feel the same.

As I say, I don't want to stick my nose in where it's not wanted. I don't want to interrupt anyone's smooth flow of discussion. So how shall I approach this in order to preserve the harmony of Dhamma Wheel? Is there some yardstick I can apply that will help me see that it would be better not to comment ... or to understand that a comment is OK.

I'm not pulling a watch-me-be-so-humble schtick here. I really would appreciate some direction.

Thanks.

I don't know, Genkaku, what advice I can give. But the above advice is probably good and, with the above intent and thoughtfulness, I think things would be better here with you around.

[piper]

Hi Genkaku,

Just be yourself, there's nothing to ruin... uh, I mean there's nothing to correct.

[Peter]

genkaku,

Your question is a little vague so forgive me if my answer is not relevant.

If someone posts a question in a Theravada forum it is likely because they want an answer grounded in the Theravada teachings. If you don't know if you're answer is grounded in those teachings then you might a] not answer or perhaps b] answer and be ready to be told your answer conflicts with the teachings.

If someone posts a question in a General forum (or Personal Experience or Coffee Lounge type place) then they likely are open to answers from a broader spectrum of teachings.

Theravada tends to be very particular about tying everything back to the scriptures. Personal answers or anecdotes or similar type responses are fine as long as they can clearly be linked back to scripture. I know this can seem odd to a Zen practitioner, but if you are sincere about not "upsetting apple carts" then it is worthwhile to keep in mind.

I hope this is helpful.

[Cittasanto]

Hi Peter

Theravada tends to be very particular about tying everything back to the scriptures. Personal answers or anecdotes or similar type responses are fine as long as they can clearly be linked back to scripture. I know this can seem odd to a Zen practitioner, but if you are sincere about not "upsetting apple carts" then it is worthwhile to keep in mind..

I suppose that depends on who you ask, I believe Ajahn Chah would of sooner an answer from personal experiance rather from Sutta!

[jcsuperstar]

thats what i was gonna say,
ajahn chah, buddhadasa, brahm and some others all have that "read your heart not the book" attitude which should be very familar to the world of zen youre used to genkaku

[genkaku]

genkaku,

Theravada tends to be very particular about tying everything back to the scriptures. Personal answers or anecdotes or similar type responses are fine as long as they can clearly be linked back to scripture. I know this can seem odd to a Zen practitioner, but if you are sincere about not "upsetting apple carts" then it is worthwhile to keep in mind.

I hope this is helpful.

Dear Peter -- This is indeed helpful since it expresses better than I could/did the arena for possible upset. If Therevada is "very particular about tying everything back to scriptures" and if my approach is along the lines of "scriptures are only as good and only as useful and only as interesting as the people who implement them," then I can imagine some crankiness evolving. I'm not trying to sell the teaching-outside-the-scriptures approach sometimes attributed to good Zen instruction, but I guess I can be as insistent about the humanity that gives Buddhism its no-kidding life and liveliness as someone else might be about their give-me-a-scriptural-citation-before-you-open-your-mouth approach.

Anyway, I will try to be respectful and if I go off track, I trust that those with some experience will kick me where I deserve it.

Thanks to you and all other respondents. I'm still a bit confused, but that's nothing new.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Adam,

Venerable Dhammanando had this in mind...

Hi Adam,

Our aim is to moderate in as light a manner as is consistent with ensuring that threads stay on topic and remain unblemished by the four kinds of unwholesome speech — false, divisive, harsh or useless. Though I suppose there’s bound to be some useless speech in the Lounge Forum.

I don’t envisage your posts responding “from a human-being point of view”, as you term it, will fall foul of this policy.

One exception, though, is the Classical Forum. Discussion here will have the aim of understanding the teachings of the Tipitaka with especial reference to the Mahavihara commentarial understanding of these. Inevitably this means that discussion will be primarily text-based, so the “human-being point of view” —members’ personal takes on things— won’t be treated as of much interest.

... and we agree with this.

Our Terms Of Service are pretty minimal but give a feel for how we wish to conduct things at Dhamma Wheel...

Terms Of Service
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2

... which currently read...

1. Everyone is responsible for their own Right Speech

The views presented here are not necessarily the views of the administrators, moderators and so on. If you find anything objectionable, let the admin or mods know and we'll look into it.

2. Do not be disruptive

Respect that this is intended to be a forum for Theravadin Buddhists to discuss Theravada Buddhism. Special forums have been created for special areas of interest so please respect these boundaries. Any subject matter that may be off-topic or is intended only to cause disruption or harm to others may be removed without notice. This includes the badmouthing of other Buddhist discussion forums. Trolling and proselytizing are not cool.

3. Like the Vinaya, the TOS may be added to over time

The Sangha didn't need many rules to start with. More were created over time as issues arose within the community. We reserve the right to add, amend or delete rules as deemed necessary.

The gist of which is that we have different forums with different functions, and so long as the purpose or reason for that forum is respected, your contributions will be fine. Likewise, as venerable Dhammanando said earlier, no need to feel like you're walking on eggshells... we know your intentions are good.

Metta,
Retro.

[genkaku]

we know your intentions are good.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I wish I were as sure as you seem to be.

Seriously, thanks for the response, which struck me as reasonable and open. I will do my best to comply with what I understand. And if, for some reason, I don't ... please feel free to kick my butt.

Thanks again.

[Fede]

I think we should all be mindful of keeping our butts positioned in such a way as to permit those who can, to give us all a swift kick....now and then.....

[Element]

But my interest is in human beings and when I see a topic that touches human beings, whether they are stock brokers or Theravada Buddhists -- then I try to respond from a human-being point of view.

So how shall I approach this in order to preserve the harmony of Dhamma Wheel?

Genkaku,

In Christianity, St Paul spoke of the 'human nature' and the 'spiritual nature'. The human nature here is inherently flawed. Many people hold to this kind of reasoning. For example, when a person makes a mistake or has a problem, they use the phrase: "He is only human".

In Theravada, the word 'human' comes from the word 'manusaya', which literally means 'high minded'. Thus, in Theravada, it is held humans have the capacity to learn from their mis-steps and move towards wisdom & enlightenment.

Apart from that, Theravada is quite grounded and Theravada practitioners are not offended easily. Therefore, Genkaku, I trust you will not cause any harm to this site and further Theravada may have something to offer to your humanistic approach.

The Theravadan teaching, whilst systematic in nature, addresses all aspects of life, from the worldy or mundane to the supramundane or spiritual.

Kind regards,

Element