An Opponents/Critics section?

[Radix]

but the liberality and tolerance refers to the ToS and the way things are run.

It's not Buddhist, or in the best case scenario, not Buddhist enough.

[Sam Vara]

but the liberality and tolerance refers to the ToS and the way things are run.

It's not Buddhist, or in the best case scenario, not Buddhist enough.

I'm not sure what you mean here. What is "not Buddhist"? Would you like to see other changes to the forum? You could always propose them, and explain why they would make things "more Buddhist", if that's what you mean.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Perhaps responding to one another with words like...

"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering.

What do you think, mendicants? Has this mendicant kindled even a spark of wisdom in this teaching and training?”

... would be "Buddhist enough"?





Metta,
Paul.

[SecretSage]

Greetings,

I don't think the proposal is viable or would add value.

Often simply disagreeing with an interpretation involves explaining what is perceived as the error or weakness in it. Is that being an "opponent" or "critic" or just explaining why you believe what you do?

Metta,
Paul.

I think it would add value and help both Buddhists and non-Buddhists correctly understand the teachings because the more people question, criticize, and scrutinize things the closer we come towards the truth.

It says in DN 1

“Mendicants, if others criticize me, the teaching, or the Saṅgha, don’t make yourselves resentful, bitter, and exasperated. You’ll get angry and upset, which would be an obstacle for you alone. If others were to criticize me, the teaching, or the Saṅgha, and you got angry and upset, would you be able to understand whether they spoke well or poorly?”

“No, sir.”

“If others criticize me, the teaching, or the Saṅgha, you should explain that what is untrue is in fact untrue: ‘This is why that’s untrue, this is why that’s false. There’s no such thing in us, it’s not found among us.’

If others praise me, the teaching, or the Saṅgha, don’t make yourselves thrilled, elated, and excited. You’ll get thrilled, elated, and excited, which would be an obstacle for you alone. If others praise me, the teaching, or the Saṅgha, you should acknowledge that what is true is in fact true: ‘This is why that’s true, this is why that’s correct. There is such a thing in us, it is found among us.’ - DN 1

During The Buddha's time-period and still in modern times The Buddha was one of the only teachers able to debate with opponents and critics...many other teachers simply avoided and ran away from criticism knowing their teachings as wrong or false.

[Radix]

I'm not sure what you mean here.

While I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

[Radix]

I think it would add value and help both Buddhists and non-Buddhists correctly understand the teachings because the more people question, criticize, and scrutinize things the closer we come towards the truth.

What doctrinal support do you have for this claim?


For two, this forum is a bunch of strangers many of whom don't have even minimal respect for others. It certainly isn't a setting suitable to discuss Buddhadhamma.

TEACHING DHAMMA
When his listener is not ill, a bhikkhu should not teach Dhamma if the listener:

has an umbrella in his/her hand.
has a staff in his/her hand.
has a knife in his/her hand.
has a weapon in his/her hand.
is wearing shoes, boots or sandals.
is sitting in a vehicle when the bhikkhu is in a lower vehicle or not in a vehicle at all.
is lying down when the bhikkhu is sitting or standing.
is sitting holding his/her knees.
is wearing a hat or a turban, or has covered his/her head with a scarf or shawl.
is sitting on a seat while the bhikkhu is sitting on the ground.
is sitting on a high seat while the bhikkhu is sitting on a lower seat.
is sitting while the bhikkhu is standing.
is walking ahead of the bhikkhu.
is walking on a path while the bhikkhu is walking beside the path.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... #etiquette

During The Buddha's time-period and still in modern times The Buddha was one of the only teachers able to debate with opponents and critics...

Ah, religious/spiritual people always say such things about their founders/leaders.

many other teachers simply avoided and ran away from criticism knowing their teachings as wrong or false.

I really don't think anyone ever actually did that. But sure, it helps one's ego to think so poorly of others.

[Sam Vara]

I'm not sure what you mean here.

While I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

No, I don't. I made the point that this site is liberal and tolerant. You said that it (DW? The ToS? members?) was

not Buddhist, or in the best case scenario, not Buddhist enough.

That doesn't make much sense to me. You were invited to explain, and this is indeed the Suggestion Box, but I don't really know what you are getting at.

[Radix]

the liberality and tolerance refers to the ToS and the way things are run.

Buddhism isn't whatever you want it to be.

If the ToS and the way things are run are liberal and tolerant as a result of there simply not being enough people with enough time to moderate the content of the forum, that's one thing, and an understandable one at that.

But it's quite another if the liberality and tolerance are an expression of the ideological convictions of the forum's leadership. That's not something that could change within foreseeable time, and certainly not with giving suggestions.

[Sam Vara]

the liberality and tolerance refers to the ToS and the way things are run.

Buddhism isn't whatever you want it to be.

Indeed. It isn't about meditative traditions encouraging monks to smoke in order to give them COPD so they can gain insight into breathing. Nor is it about someone having high status because they are sitting on a chair next to Ajahn Sucitto. Nor about monks thinking that lay supporters are ungrateful fools, misguided and worthless.

But at least if people post such nonsense, more knowledgeable members have the chance to correct them.

There's a place for everyone here, providing they want to talk about Theravadan Buddhism.

[SecretSage]

I think it would add value and help both Buddhists and non-Buddhists correctly understand the teachings because the more people question, criticize, and scrutinize things the closer we come towards the truth.

What doctrinal support do you have for this claim?


For two, this forum is a bunch of strangers many of whom don't have even minimal respect for others. It certainly isn't a setting suitable to discuss Buddhadhamma.

Well there are many suttas but besides that criticism and scrutiny is an important aspect of science because if a statement really is true it will stand up to any amount of criticism.

The more people question, criticize, scrutinize things the closer we arrive towards the truth.

If someone's ways are false they tend to avoid questioning, criticism, and scrutiny like many of the non-Buddhist teachers at the time.

So I'm sure it would be beneficial to both Buddhists and non-Buddhists to clarify teachings and explain things.

Here are some suttas

“Mendicants, a resident mendicant with five qualities is cast down to hell. What five? Without examining or scrutinizing, they praise those deserving of criticism, and they criticize those deserving of praise. They’re stingy and avaricious regarding monasteries. They’re stingy and avaricious regarding families. And they waste a gift given in faith. A resident mendicant with these five qualities is cast down to hell.

A resident mendicant with five qualities is raised up to heaven. What five? After examining and scrutinizing, they criticize those deserving of criticism, and they praise those deserving of praise. They’re not stingy and avaricious regarding monasteries. They’re not stingy and avaricious regarding families. And they don’t waste a gift given in faith. A resident mendicant with these five qualities is raised up to heaven.” - AN 5.237

And what’s the impatient practice? It’s when a mendicant cannot endure cold, heat, hunger, and thirst. They cannot endure the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and reptiles. They cannot endure rude and unwelcome criticism. And they cannot put up with physical pain—sharp, severe, acute, unpleasant, disagreeable, and life-threatening. This is called the impatient practice.

And what’s the patient practice? It’s when a mendicant endures cold, heat, hunger, and thirst. They endure the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and reptiles. They endure rude and unwelcome criticism. And they put up with physical pain—sharp, severe, acute, unpleasant, disagreeable, and life-threatening. This is called the patient practice. - AN 4.165

Why is this? This person doesn’t cause another to suffer under a false pretext—by execution or imprisonment or confiscation or condemnation or banishment—thinking ‘I’m powerful, I want power’. So when someone makes a valid criticism, they admit it and aren’t scornful. When someone makes a baseless criticism, they make an effort to explain, ‘This is why that’s untrue, this is why that’s false.’ That’s why such a person is said to have speech that’s well-timed, true, meaningful, in line with the teaching and training. - AN 3.69

“Lohicca, there are these three sorts of teacher who are worthy of criticism in the world, and when anyone criticizes these sorts of teachers, the criticism is true, factual, righteous, & unblameworthy. Which three? - DN 12

In the same way, a mendicant may be the sweetest of the sweet, the most even-tempered of the even-tempered, the calmest of the calm, so long as they don’t encounter any disagreeable criticism. But it’s when they encounter disagreeable criticism that you’ll know whether they’re really sweet, even-tempered, and calm - MN 21

Also explained that the non-Buddhist teachers of the time avoided criticism

When he had spoken, Saccaka said to him, “It’s incredible, Master Gotama, it’s amazing! How when Master Gotama is repeatedly attacked with inappropriate and intrusive criticism, the complexion of his skin brightens and the color of his face becomes clear, just like a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha!

I recall taking on Pūraṇa Kassapa in debate. He dodged the issue, distracting the discussion with irrelevant points, and displaying annoyance, hate, and bitterness. But when Master Gotama is repeatedly attacked with inappropriate and intrusive criticism, the complexion of his skin brightens and the color of his face becomes clear, just like a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha.

I recall taking on the bamboo-staffed ascetic Gosāla, Ajita of the hair blanket, Pakudha Kaccāyana, Sañjaya Belaṭṭhiputta, and the Jain ascetic of the Ñātika clan in debate. They all dodged the issue, distracting the discussion with irrelevant points, and displaying annoyance, hate, and bitterness. But when Master Gotama is repeatedly attacked with inappropriate and intrusive criticism, the complexion of his skin brightens and the color of his face becomes clear, just like a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha. - MN 36

The majority of non-Buddhist religions and teachings don't really allow anyone to question or criticize or debate knowing their ways as false I'm assuming or not knowing how to explain anything.

Buddhism isn't like other religions which are just a collection of vague ideas and stories.

[Radix]

Well there are many suttas but besides that criticism and scrutiny is an important aspect of science because if a statement really is true it will stand up to any amount of criticism.

How will it stand? Words and claims have lives and backbones of their own?

So I'm sure it would be beneficial to both Buddhists and non-Buddhists to clarify teachings and explain things.

As long as such scrutiny, clarification, etc. are done on Buddhism's terms. Not on science's terms, or on some other non-Buddhist terms.

Here are some suttas

Notice how all that examination and scrutiny are self-referential, circular.

[Radix]

Indeed. It isn't about meditative traditions encouraging monks to smoke in order to give them COPD so they can gain insight into breathing. Nor is it about someone having high status because they are sitting on a chair next to Ajahn Sucitto. Nor about monks thinking that lay supporters are ungrateful fools, misguided and worthless.

But at least if people post such nonsense, more knowledgeable members have the chance to correct them.

There's a place for everyone here, providing they want to talk about Theravadan Buddhism.

Perhaps some day you'll learn to cite and quote properly. But perhaps it is Theravada Buddhism not to do so.

[Sam Vara]

Indeed. It isn't about meditative traditions encouraging monks to smoke in order to give them COPD so they can gain insight into breathing. Nor is it about someone having high status because they are sitting on a chair next to Ajahn Sucitto. Nor about monks thinking that lay supporters are ungrateful fools, misguided and worthless.

But at least if people post such nonsense, more knowledgeable members have the chance to correct them.

There's a place for everyone here, providing they want to talk about Theravadan Buddhism.

Perhaps some day you'll learn to cite and quote properly. But perhaps it is Theravada Buddhism not to do so.

I don't need to cite or quote anything. They are just daft things which you have recently said on here, showing that if we had more exacting standards, you would be posting a good deal less.

[SecretSage]

How will it stand? Words and claims have lives and backbones of their own?

I mean if a statement really is true then it will stand up to any amount of criticism, scrutiny, and questioning.

So the more people question, scrutinize, and criticize things the closer we come towards the truth.

As long as such scrutiny, clarification, etc. are done on Buddhism's terms. Not on science's terms, or on some other non-Buddhist terms.

Well science, the scientific method didn't exist back then during The Buddha's time but He still encouraged people to scrutinize and criticize in legitimate ways...especially false arahant claimants, wrong views, and false teachers.

Notice how all that examination and scrutiny are self-referential, circular.

It's not circular. He wanted people to question, criticize, and scrutinize thing to discover that we has telling the truth.

It seems to me that many in modern times are frauds, fakes, and don't want anyone to find out so avoid criticism.

Maybe the world is empty of arahants or there are very few with real attainments so they're afraid of criticism and scrutiny....if someone is the real deal they wouldn't be afraid of criticism and scrutiny and be able to clarify and explain things.

But still even if there were no arahants in the world criticism and scrutiny would still bring us closer towards the truth.

I still think it's a good idea to have an Opponents/Critics section for the welfare and happiness of the world.

[DNS]

I still think it's a good idea to have an Opponents/Critics section for the welfare and happiness of the world.

What parts of the forum are not an Opponents/Critics section? I see people challenging Buddhist beliefs and concepts throughout the forum.

Only Classical Theravada, Abhidhamma sub-forums is this not allowed. In all other sections, you see posts about yolo vs. rebirth, one-life vs. three-life DO, suttas-only vs. Commentaries, etc.