Good Brahman David,
good co-Devas,
{Inappropriate Speech (TOS 2a-2c), part removed because not pleasing} Just a suggestion, of course, no demands at all.
Dhamma as "Inappropriate Speech (TOS 2a-2c)"
Re: Dhamma as "Inappropriate Speech (TOS 2a-2c)"
Are you asking for the following to be removed from the ToS?
a. Nasty speech
b. Badmouthing Buddhist discussion forums
c. Unnecessarily explicit language and imagery
a. Nasty speech
b. Badmouthing Buddhist discussion forums
c. Unnecessarily explicit language and imagery
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Re: Dhamma as "Inappropriate Speech (TOS 2a-2c)"
Are you saying that at this forum, Dhamma can sometimes be considered "inappropriate speech"?
In other words, that there is a conflict between this forum's TOS and the Dhamma?
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
Glenn Wallis
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Dhamma as "Inappropriate Speech (TOS 2a-2c)"
Greetings,
That said, I'm not sure it makes a lot of difference, as this is likely just an oblique grievance.
Johann - feel free to clarify the suggestion, but note that any incessant off-topic rambling will be removed.
Metta,
Paul.
It's unclear whether he's talking about the "reporting reasons", which are bundled up for easy access... or the three individual Terms of Service criteria elements.
That said, I'm not sure it makes a lot of difference, as this is likely just an oblique grievance.
Johann - feel free to clarify the suggestion, but note that any incessant off-topic rambling will be removed.
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Dhamma as "Inappropriate Speech (TOS 2a-2c)"
Yours wouldn't publish of what your kill off under Inappropriate Speech... Yours could be certain that people with some integrity, knowing your ways behind the screen, would suddenly leave in hurry.
Just out of compassion, yet nothing could help yours either, to do not face much missery, even if coming to mind.
Just out of compassion, yet nothing could help yours either, to do not face much missery, even if coming to mind.
Re: Dhamma as "Inappropriate Speech (TOS 2a-2c)"
As the Buddha told, one not fearing to act verbal (by signs) deliberately to hide the truth, is capable for all unskilful deeds.
It's more worst then western media act... systematical simlpy for gain and lead by arrogance.
Imagine that those have access to all, my person can easy imagine the corps around in the back ground, as most are still vulnerable.
Let it again be known that this sphere here, and related are simply cut off, and no visible way out for them.
It's more worst then western media act... systematical simlpy for gain and lead by arrogance.
Imagine that those have access to all, my person can easy imagine the corps around in the back ground, as most are still vulnerable.
Let it again be known that this sphere here, and related are simply cut off, and no visible way out for them.
Re: Dhamma as "Inappropriate Speech (TOS 2a-2c)"
What did you expect?
Why did you expect it?
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
Glenn Wallis
Re: Dhamma as "Inappropriate Speech (TOS 2a-2c)"
There might be, good householder, those who do not expect something when approaching (called fit to approach families, by the Buddha), doing simply out of compassion, giving possibilities. If (s)he likes to take on a binocular on the matter seriously, using such, it's not the frame to talk on something that's perceived as merely imagination by those holding control. To much fear of losing "the real".
In any case, it's done for sick.
Re: Dhamma as "Inappropriate Speech (TOS 2a-2c)"
Okay.Johann wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 1:48 pm There might be, good householder, those who do not expect something when approaching (called fit to approach families, by the Buddha), doing simply out of compassion, giving possibilities. If (s)he likes to take on a binocular on the matter seriously, using such, it's not the frame to talk on something that's perceived as merely imagination by those holding control. To much fear of losing "the real".
In any case, it's done for sick.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
Glenn Wallis
-
- Posts: 373
- Joined: Mon May 09, 2022 12:11 am
Re: Dhamma as "Inappropriate Speech (TOS 2a-2c)"
Maybe you could rephrase? I am curious what you have to share, Johann. Though I understand this is not my house and we have to follow the house rules.Johann wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 1:48 pm There might be, good householder, those who do not expect something when approaching (called fit to approach families, by the Buddha), doing simply out of compassion, giving possibilities. If (s)he likes to take on a binocular on the matter seriously, using such, it's not the frame to talk on something that's perceived as merely imagination by those holding control. To much fear of losing "the real".
In any case, it's done for sick.
Just as a bird, wherever it goes, flies with its wings as its only burden; so too is he content with a set of robes to provide for his body and almsfood to provide for his hunger. Wherever he goes, he takes only his barest necessities along. This is how a monk is content.(DN11)
Re: Dhamma as "Inappropriate Speech (TOS 2a-2c)"
What ever rules one follows, that becomes one's house. What ever one takes as his house, is bond to it's rules.Dhammapardon wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 2:43 amMaybe you could rephrase? I am curious what you have to share, Johann. Though I understand this is not my house and we have to follow the house rules.Johann wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 1:48 pm There might be, good householder, those who do not expect something when approaching (called fit to approach families, by the Buddha), doing simply out of compassion, giving possibilities. If (s)he likes to take on a binocular on the matter seriously, using such, it's not the frame to talk on something that's perceived as merely imagination by those holding control. To much fear of losing "the real".
In any case, it's done for sick.
The wise, abound desires for homes, abond follow corruption and it's rules, shares just to overcome curiousity.
Lightens up, for those able to see, good householder.
Gives a trace to leave home, and follow up toward secure domain.
It's not possible to even come into access areas, as long as holding on house and stand, feeds bonds with group, maintains to try to control over what's subject to decay.
What roles one follows, that becomes, stays ones home, bond, relation, stand.
That being the case, the wise follow just the liberating resolves, abstain from going after lies, from taking what isn't given, don't deprive beings from their existance faculties, don't consume sensuality without proper gain and pay, don't consume what leads to absence of moral and shame.
By that means, having firm refuge into the Gems, one has become a secure person, carry on a safe own home, and island for himself with Dhamma (eg. satipathana) on the path of homelessness.
Couriosity abound, one neither takes on other homes in this world, nor trades in ways getting bond (though faultless).
It's possible, that one who had taken on something not given, occupied, something not his, who had done wrong for long time, sees the fault, confesses, pardons, and by this means, the way out of the corruption in one's home, has been opened up again, or for the first time.
Whether one takes on the wise way, or fearful remains of what one regards as secure, such is up to the individual who possible gained vision by a trace, toward right or wrong release.
Re: Dhamma as "Inappropriate Speech (TOS 2a-2c)"
Johann wrote
You continue
Do you know each and everyone of us to be holding a house?
What is your definition of a "House holder?"
You wrote Gives a trace to leave home, and follow up toward secure domain.
Very poetic, but the meaning gets lost in translation? By the use of the word "trace" do you mean "desire".
Instead of Gives a trace to leave home, did you intend to say "By the desire to leave home?"
Home?, which home are you referring to?
With love
Becoming the house? what do you mean? Do you mean becoming due to attachment which is the correct interpretation of Paticca samuppada?What ever rules one follows, that becomes one's house. What ever one takes as his house, is bond to it's rules.
You continue
I fail to comprehend why you address our friends on DW as "householders"The wise, abound desires for homes, abond follow corruption and it's rules, shares just to overcome curiousity.
Lightens up, for those able to see, good householder.
Do you know each and everyone of us to be holding a house?
- Does not the Pali canon itself describe the word in two different ways?
What is your definition of a "House holder?"
You wrote Gives a trace to leave home, and follow up toward secure domain.
Very poetic, but the meaning gets lost in translation? By the use of the word "trace" do you mean "desire".
Instead of Gives a trace to leave home, did you intend to say "By the desire to leave home?"
Home?, which home are you referring to?
With love