Re: Who gets to comment on what? Why should I listen?
Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 8:02 pm
That was a good one, dzogchungpa.
A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
https://www.dharmawheel.net:443/
That's very humorous, but at the same time very insightful and serves to illustrate some of the issues in this thread in perhaps a less sensitive way.dzogchungpa wrote:Yudron, maybe you are overly conditioned by your exposure to Christianized formatting?Yudron wrote:Sara, this post structure that you like--skipping a line after every sentence--makes it hard to read your posts. It has a fingernails-on-a-blackboard effect for me. I can't get beyond it to try to understand what you are trying to communicate.
That's a good and valid point, Uan, but it's beside the point, as I understand it. The topic seems to be about group dynamics and the consequences of not allowing 'outside' opinions or criticisms. There are consequences. Ideally individuals will behave as you advise, however this discussion seems to be primarily about the structure of this forum. Not sure I'm right about that though.uan wrote:One theme of this thread was summed up nicely as "people should be more tolerant of criticism". This is true. But equally as important, perhaps more so, another theme should be "if people aren't tolerant of the criticism I give, what can I change in MYSELF so that they are tolerant?"
Hi Sara,Sara H wrote: ...
Jikan,
The Buddha was Ananda's Master.
He was his agreed-upon, and consented-to, trusted spiritual Teacher. Ananda was his loving and trusting student and desciple.
In the context of the above, in the Shurangama Sutra, Ananda was asking Him for advice. He was opening himself up to criticism from his trusted spiritual advisor, and Someone who had intimate and detailed knowledge of his spiritual practice.
In the context of the thread you were reffering to, when it comes to Sasaki, Baker, Eko, Treeleaf Sangha, and others mentioned;
You, are none of those things.
You are not their Teacher. Nor do you have intimate and detailed knowledge of their spiritual practice, which qualifies you for giving them advice. Nor, are they your students, nor, are they asking you for advice. Nor, do they trust you enough to give it to them.
...
You have made, observations that if I may say so are rather obvious, stating that "there has been some hurt or harm made."
That doesn't give you some supreme or qualified wisdom from which to base your criticisms from.
Nor are you intimately familiar with the people in question, so as to be able to say something, or phrase it in a way in which it might help them with their practice.
All you are doing is spouting off the obvious, of which they, and people arround them are already well aware, which isn't helping the people in question in any way.
Nor are you, and others nessecarily saying it in order to be helpful to the people in question.
...
That isn't wisdom.
It's actually, breaking a Zen Precept.
...
In Gassho,
Sara H.
Neither is she other than her formatting.uan wrote:Sara is not her formatting.
Hi Shel, I believe you are correct, though in the unfolding of this thread over time, it seems to ebb and flow beyond just group dynamics. We actually have layers of overlapping groups going on. There is the specific sangha in question, then there are postings here by members (I think) of that sangha who are also DharmaWheel members, and then there is a DW group or groups here outside of that (representing Zen traditions or Vajrayana, etc.) that wants to discuss it, so then we are both insiders and outsiders at the same time.shel wrote:That's a good and valid point, Uan, but it's beside the point, as I understand it. The topic seems to be about group dynamics and the consequences of not allowing 'outside' opinions or criticisms. There are consequences. Ideally individuals will behave as you advise, however this discussion seems to be primarily about the structure of this forum. Not sure I'm right about that though.uan wrote:One theme of this thread was summed up nicely as "people should be more tolerant of criticism". This is true. But equally as important, perhaps more so, another theme should be "if people aren't tolerant of the criticism I give, what can I change in MYSELF so that they are tolerant?"
I think it's true groups tend to close ranks at time, but I don't think it's a given that they do that, nor that they are being knee jerk in their reaction if they do it response to a specific person. More important, even if they do close ranks, that doesn't mean they can't then open back up. Communication is ongoing, so if one comes across a defensive reaction, rather than go "look a defensive reaction, they are so close minded", another choice would be to try and respond in a way that first relaxes those defenses. If one doesn't do that, then one should question oneself. It's like when you come across a dog, and you raise your hand to play with it and the dog becomes defensive. What do you do? Usually put your hand down, perhaps lower yourself to the dogs level, and reach out in a passive way with your hand. That way the dog feels more secure and can come to you, sniff you, and feel more comfortable.HABIT 5: SEEK FIRST TO UNDERSTAND, THEN TO BE UNDERSTOOD
If you're like most people, you probably seek first to be understood; you want to get your point across. And in doing so, you may ignore the other person completely, pretend that you're listening, selectively hear only certain parts of the conversation or attentively focus on only the words being said, but miss the meaning entirely. So why does this happen? Because most people listen with the intent to reply, not to understand. You listen to yourself as you prepare in your mind what you are going to say, the questions you are going to ask, etc. You filter everything you hear through your life experiences, your frame of reference. You check what you hear against your autobiography and see how it measures up. And consequently, you decide prematurely what the other person means before he/she finishes communicating. Do any of the following sound familiar?
"Oh, I know just how you feel. I felt the same way." "I had that same thing happen to me." "Let me tell you what I did in a similar situation."
Because you so often listen autobiographically, you tend to respond in one of four ways:
Evaluating: You judge and then either agree or disagree.
Probing: You ask questions from your own frame of reference.
Advising: You give counsel, advice, and solutions to problems.
Interpreting: You analyze others' motives and behaviors based on your own experiences.
You might be saying, "Hey, now wait a minute. I'm just trying to relate to the person by drawing on my own experiences. Is that so bad?" In some situations, autobiographical responses may be appropriate, such as when another person specifically asks for help from your point of view or when there is already a very high level of trust in the relationship.
This touches on a lot of issues. I recently tried to explain to some non-Buddhists (or at least dubious ones) that they were criticising a Buddhist on the basis of a humanist concept of self, so I was criticising them on the basis that they did not understand the concept of non-self, and needless to say I was then subjected to a series of ad-hom attacks.conebeckham wrote:To briefly outline several of these: first, there's the "Insider/Outsider" argument--"You don't understand our position, and can't until you're an insider, so your opinion is not valid."
I don't think anyone would argue with what you're saying here, but again I'm not sure we are on the same wavelength about the gravity of a topic like this. As I see it, there's basically a cost/benefit ratio in the forum structure between encouraging or enforcing courtesy and allowing freer dialogue (that may at times include degrees of abrasive criticism). Namdrol, a valuable contributor, leaving the forum is a good example of the costs for having too tolerant a forum. Groupthink and it's resulting problems are the cost of too rigid and 'polite' a forum.uan wrote:Hi Shel, I believe you are correct, though in the unfolding of this thread over time, it seems to ebb and flow beyond just group dynamics. We actually have layers of overlapping groups going on. There is the specific sangha in question, then there are postings here by members (I think) of that sangha who are also DharmaWheel members, and then there is a DW group or groups here outside of that (representing Zen traditions or Vajrayana, etc.) that wants to discuss it, so then we are both insiders and outsiders at the same time.shel wrote:That's a good and valid point, Uan, but it's beside the point, as I understand it. The topic seems to be about group dynamics and the consequences of not allowing 'outside' opinions or criticisms. There are consequences. Ideally individuals will behave as you advise, however this discussion seems to be primarily about the structure of this forum. Not sure I'm right about that though.uan wrote:One theme of this thread was summed up nicely as "people should be more tolerant of criticism". This is true. But equally as important, perhaps more so, another theme should be "if people aren't tolerant of the criticism I give, what can I change in MYSELF so that they are tolerant?"
Not to mention that there seems to be a specific history involved here beyond just the topic that I'm not privy too.
I'm reminded of Chapter 5 of The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People (https://www.stephencovey.com/7habits/7habits-habit5.php
I think it's true groups tend to close ranks at time, but I don't think it's a given that they do that, nor that they are being knee jerk in their reaction if they do it response to a specific person. More important, even if they do close ranks, that doesn't mean they can't then open back up. Communication is ongoing, so if one comes across a defensive reaction, rather than go "look a defensive reaction, they are so close minded", another choice would be to try and respond in a way that first relaxes those defenses. If one doesn't do that, then one should question oneself. It's like when you come across a dog, and you raise your hand to play with it and the dog becomes defensive. What do you do? Usually put your hand down, perhaps lower yourself to the dogs level, and reach out in a passive way with your hand. That way the dog feels more secure and can come to you, sniff you, and feel more comfortable.HABIT 5: SEEK FIRST TO UNDERSTAND, THEN TO BE UNDERSTOOD
If you're like most people, you probably seek first to be understood; you want to get your point across. And in doing so, you may ignore the other person completely, pretend that you're listening, selectively hear only certain parts of the conversation or attentively focus on only the words being said, but miss the meaning entirely. So why does this happen? Because most people listen with the intent to reply, not to understand. You listen to yourself as you prepare in your mind what you are going to say, the questions you are going to ask, etc. You filter everything you hear through your life experiences, your frame of reference. You check what you hear against your autobiography and see how it measures up. And consequently, you decide prematurely what the other person means before he/she finishes communicating. Do any of the following sound familiar?
"Oh, I know just how you feel. I felt the same way." "I had that same thing happen to me." "Let me tell you what I did in a similar situation."
Because you so often listen autobiographically, you tend to respond in one of four ways:
Evaluating: You judge and then either agree or disagree.
Probing: You ask questions from your own frame of reference.
Advising: You give counsel, advice, and solutions to problems.
Interpreting: You analyze others' motives and behaviors based on your own experiences.
You might be saying, "Hey, now wait a minute. I'm just trying to relate to the person by drawing on my own experiences. Is that so bad?" In some situations, autobiographical responses may be appropriate, such as when another person specifically asks for help from your point of view or when there is already a very high level of trust in the relationship.
Or you can call him a dumb dog
I think I'm starting to understand, I'm just a bit slowshel wrote: I don't think anyone would argue with what you're saying here, but again I'm not sure we are on the same wavelength about the gravity of a topic like this. As I see it, there's basically a cost/benefit ratio in the forum structure between encouraging or enforcing courtesy and allowing freer dialogue (that may at times include degrees of abrasive criticism). Namdrol, a valuable contributor, leaving the forum is a good example of the costs for having too tolerant a forum. Groupthink and it's resulting problems are the cost of too rigid and 'polite' a forum.
conebeckham wrote:...
I ask you once again, please define compassion.Sara H wrote:If you want to say whatever and justify it as "freedom of speech", that's your choice, but that's not what the Buddha taught.conebeckham wrote:...
He taught restraint, and compassion with our speech, and right use, and wisdom.
if you can't take that compassion for others off the cushion and put it into speech and thought in everyday actions, including online, then what good is it?
If you can't have compassion for these people when you speak of them, then what good is your speech?
Sara H wrote:
If you can't have compassion for these people when you speak of them, then what good is your speech?
I have no disagreement with any of this.Sara H wrote:conebeckham wrote:...
Friend those "codes" were created by Shakyamuni Buddha, who spent years of his life teaching about Right Speech.
Buddhism does not say that it's ok to say every impulsive thought that pops into your head about something. We practice restraint, and self examination and reflection to see if it really is good to say a thing.
If you want to say whatever and justify it as "freedom of speech", that's your choice, but that's not what the Buddha taught.
He taught restraint, and compassion with our speech, and right use, and wisdom.
Buddhism is not just a philosophy we believe in while we sit at a wall.
It's something we do.
if you can't take that compassion for others off the cushion and put it into speech and thought in everyday actions, including online, then what good is it?
Enlightenment is not something you feel it's something you do.
If you can't have compassion for these people when you speak of them, then what good is your speech?
In Gassho
Sara
Compassion can be through our own mindfulness - openess.Sara H wrote:If you're saying it from the point of view of compassion, and you're empathizing with the person, and trying to help them personally do better, and if they've asked you for your help, then yes.
But if you're pointing fingers behind their back, or jumping on the bandwagon then no. Placing blame is not considered Right Speech.
There's a big difference between placing blame, -and constructive criticism, and helpful critique intended to build the person up into a better person.