Sam Vara wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:34 pm
It says pleasant conversation, but you call it polite chit chat. I wonder how you know?
Because "After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies" is a standard phrase. ("Polite chit chat" is a synonym.) First they have an "exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies", and after that they get down to the business of lecturing and being lectured.
Here the passages in question again:
Sam Vara wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 7:39 pm
Radix wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 6:09 pm
thepea wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 1:10 pm
Who says buddha had a sense of his audience?
As a monastic he couldn’t sell tickets to a receptive audience. I think it’s more like he spoke his truth and those drawn to his words stayed and those opposed left.
I agree. Even when he talked with people, those weren't conversations, but lectures, sometimes in the way of the Socratic method (so they have merely the appearance of a conversation).
That doesn't seem to be the case at all:
Then a certain brahman approached the Blessed One. Having approached the Blessed One, he exchanged friendly greetings. After pleasant conversation had passed between them...
Many suttas say something similar.
The "pleasant conversation" part refers to the "exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies", ie. the introduction to their conversation, not to their actual handling of a Dhamma topic.
And Charles defers to his gillie, groom, tailor, security staff and Welsh Language tutor when he needs to. They have as little to tell him about being a king, though, as the Buddha's associates had to tell him about enlightenment.
Exactly, hence they cannot have a conversation about the Dhamma on equal terms.
2. Sure, the Buddha sat and talked with kings and brahmans, and the occasional bigmouth sadhu gone rogue. But mostly the folks of poorer background quietly stood at a polite distance from the Buddha while he talked.
Evidence? The suttas generally have devas standing to one side, and humans seated to one side. To stand while he was talking would have been considered disrespectful. You might well be right, but where are your sources?
My point is about whom the Buddha actually talked with, and whom he didn't, who just quietly listened from a polite distance. (All the keywords I can remember are too common and give too many results.)
As for who got to stand while the Buddha was talking, just search ATI for "stood to one side": it's devas and humans.
As for the etiquette of sitting and standing: it can be both ways. Where I come from, it's rude for an underling to sit down without asking for permission to do so. Often, a power relationship is expressed in the way that the one with more power sits, and the one with less power has to stand. But also, the power relationship can also be expressed by the underling having to sit and the superior standing or walking around the room.
3. There is an etiquette for talking to monks and one's seniors, and this etiquette makes it impossible to have a conversation on equal terms. If you don't respect this etiquette, your seniors will do it for you.
Let's test this one against reality, shall we? I offered you, in your previous incarnation, a zoom meeting with monks and lay supporters where you could ask them questions and discuss things. Easily arranged, as the time difference is not important. I could watch or participate, and we would see if anyone imposed an "etiquette" such as you describe.
Look, I'm not being critical of the monks here. Even though you seem to think I am. I've always advocated for a clear segregation between lays and monastics and for other forms of segregation between lays. I think it would go a long way in saving all involved a lot of time and grief if the unfit aspirants would be eliminated early on.
After I made the offer, you disappeared from the forum for a few months; but the offer is still there, and the Zoom is even better.
1. You overestimate yourself if you think there is a causal relationship between your "offer" and my actions. A monk sent me an invite to a Discourse thingy that is per invite only, and I didn't go there either.
2. I didn't have a computer camera and microphone then and I don't have them now, and have no intention of buying them.
3. "A few months"?
4. I have long since lost all hope of ever having a meaningful conversation on the topic of Dhamma with a Buddhist monk or advanced lay practitioner. It's just gone. I used to be sad about it, but now it's just a plain fact. They are nothing to me, I am nothing to them.
If 20+ years ago I knew what I know now, I would have never gotten involved with Buddhism in any way. If I could somehow put all my knowledge of Buddhism and all my memories of it on a pile and burn it, so that it would all be gone from my mind, I would do it without hesitation. It has taken me a long time to understand that I just don't have what it takes. I think it would be nice if Buddhists would be more explicit about the requirements for practicing Buddhism. But alas, it's their religion and they can, of course, do with it as they please. It's just hard for me to let go, given all the time and effort and money I invested, and I still haven't forgotten my initial optimism about the Dhamma being the solution to the problem of suffering.