Buddhist communities are sometimes visited by people who aren't worthy to be talked to. What does it look like, in practice, in terms of Dhamma propagation, to "kill" those people?
You're intentionally being disruptive/polemical... and partially quoting a sutta, out of its context.
Here is the second part of the sutta:
[...] [In reference to Kesi killing a horse if it doesn't want to be trained]
"But it's not proper for our Blessed One to take life! And yet the Blessed One just said, 'I kill him, Kesi.'"
"It is true, Kesi, that it's not proper for a Tathagata to take life. But if a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then the Tathagata doesn't regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing. His knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing. This is what it means to be totally destroyed in the Doctrine & Discipline, when the Tathagata doesn't regard one as being worth speaking to or admonishing, and one's knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard one as being worth speaking to or admonishing."
(Essentially... that missing out on an opportunity to be instructed by the Buddha himself is the same/worse than death/being killed.)
Last edited by samseva on Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Buddhist communities are sometimes visited by people who aren't worthy to be talked to. What does it look like, in practice, in terms of Dhamma propagation, to "kill" those people?
That's not really a relevant question, as nobody has ever suggested that "Buddhist communities" should kill, either in fact or metaphorically. That's something that the Buddha said, as a striking figure of speech, in a specific context.
If you treated Matthew 5.29 in a similar way, you wouldn't be binocular any more.
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:17 pmIf you treated Matthew 5.29 in a similar way, you wouldn't be binocular any more.
How is that relevant? It only makes sense that communities get rid of the misfits, and the communities certainly don't experience this is as giving up something valuable.
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:17 pmIf you treated Matthew 5.29 in a similar way, you wouldn't be binocular any more.
How is that relevant? It only makes sense that communities get rid of the misfits, and the communities certainly don't experience this is as giving up something valuable.
It is relevant because it is an extravagant figure of speech, not to be taken literally.
binocular wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 4:13 pm
I mean, what do Buddhist communities do with people who "just don't seem to get it", but who nevertheless visit those Buddhist communities?
On Buddhist forums, such people are sometimes called trolls and banned. What about IRL groups?
Online, I've only ever known people get called trolls for persistent trolling, and banned for flagrant breaches of ToS. But my experience is only of DW. Could you give examples of "IRL groups"? I've known the local monastery call the police when crimes were committed, but there is a sense in which we all "just don't get it". Lack of understanding is tolerated - why would it not be?
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 4:33 pmLack of understanding is tolerated - why would it not be?
Blimey, I didn't get that impression.
I guess it depends on the group, but in the groups I have known (recently, these all seem to be on Zoom or Skype!) people have always been extremely tolerant. Nobody is required to understand anything - except perhaps a few behavioural ground-rules. Perhaps people also tend to self-deselect if they feel things are not going to work out.
binocular wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:38 pmBuddhist communities are sometimes visited by people who aren't worthy to be talked to. What does it look like, in practice, in terms of Dhamma propagation, to "kill" those people?
The sutta is a description, not a prescription. It's not giving directions as to what Buddhist communities should do, but rather describing what the Buddha and "wise fellow brahmacarīs" (viññū sabrahmacarī) do do. And since viññū sabrahmacarī refers to a monk's fellow monks, the sutta has to do with a monastic community's in-house treatment of monastics who prove unteachable. It has nothing to do with their treatment of lay visitors to their monastery.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.
In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
Buddhist communities are sometimes visited by people who aren't worthy to be talked to. What does it look like, in practice, in terms of Dhamma propagation, to "kill" those people?
The problem is when those with brutal Dunning-Krüger take it upon themselves to similarly kill others they argue with, as several I'm sure have done to you.
Leaving aside the comments about Dunning and his wicked friend Krüger, in practice, here, it looks like when Ceisiwr told Pascal2 that he isn't communicating with Pascal2 when he responds to him, and instead addesses the larger community only when quoting him. It looks like when Ven Pesala "killed" retrofuturist in the monastics and social engagement thread.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.