Who gets to comment on what? Why should I listen?

[zAnt]

I'm going to let Jikan speak about this, zAnt, but my reading of what he's saying is exactly the opposite. He's encouraging people in "closed groups" to be open to, receptive to, voices from outside the group. I am sure of this.

I'm not offended, man (or woman! I dunno!) --no worries. I've been called worse things!

Well in this case, I was totally wrong! If he was saying the opposite of what I thought, then that was a massive misinterpretation on my behalf! Apologies.

[shel]

I'm going to let Jikan speak about this, zAnt, but my reading of what he's saying is exactly the opposite. He's encouraging people in "closed groups" to be open to, receptive to, voices from outside the group. I am sure of this.

I'm not offended, man (or woman! I dunno!) --no worries. I've been called worse things!

Well in this case, I was totally wrong! If he was saying the opposite of what I thought, then that was a massive misinterpretation on my behalf! Apologies.

Note the willingness to hear you out. Oh, was this a test?

[zAnt]

I'm going to let Jikan speak about this, zAnt, but my reading of what he's saying is exactly the opposite. He's encouraging people in "closed groups" to be open to, receptive to, voices from outside the group. I am sure of this.

I'm not offended, man (or woman! I dunno!) --no worries. I've been called worse things!

Well in this case, I was totally wrong! If he was saying the opposite of what I thought, then that was a massive misinterpretation on my behalf! Apologies.

Note the willingness to hear you out. Oh, was this a test?

No no no, I had a huge misunderstanding going on, and it is my fault for it.

[Jikan]

Hi zAnt,

I think there's a lot more common ground between you and I than it might seem at first blush. My point in the first post and in subsequent comments (some of which I did not word very skillfully) was to encourage civil discourse among everyone with a stake in this. I think Buddhists should listen to non-Buddhists. I think Vajrayana people should listen to Zen people. Students of X master should be willing to listen to students of Y master, and vice versa. I'm trying to advocate for pluralism, and against sectarianism and arrogance and attachment to views. Whether I've done this effectively nor not is totally debatable. Judging by the content of the thread, I'd say I've not done such a good job of it so far.

I'm also trying to weed out the leftover sectarianism and snobbishness I find in myself.

That's all. I'm not insisting that anyone listen to me personally, or to anyone else in particular. I just want people to take each other's perspectives seriously, regardless of what tradition they seem (to you) to represent.

I wish you great friendship and great happiness in your practice.

[zAnt]

Hi zAnt,

I think there's a lot more common ground between you and I than it might seem at first blush. My point in the first post and in subsequent comments (some of which I did not word very skillfully) was to encourage civil discourse among everyone with a stake in this. I think Buddhists should listen to non-Buddhists. I think Vajrayana people should listen to Zen people. Students of X master should be willing to listen to students of Y master, and vice versa. I'm trying to advocate for pluralism, and against sectarianism and arrogance and attachment to views. Whether I've done this effectively nor not is totally debatable. Judging by the content of the thread, I'd say I've not done such a good job of it so far.

I'm also trying to weed out the leftover sectarianism and snobbishness I find in myself.

That's all. I'm not insisting that anyone listen to me personally, or to anyone else in particular. I just want people to take each other's perspectives seriously, regardless of what tradition they seem (to you) to represent.

I wish you great friendship and great happiness in your practice.

I greatly appreciate this, and you. I was obviously lost when I read your open. I'm sorry. Sincerely

[Jikan]

no probalo mate

[Simon E.]

Well that has done my heart good.

[conebeckham]

Me, too!

And for the record--yeah, I was a bit snippy with the "Seriously?" comment. My apologies, zAnt....I could have handled that better.

[zAnt]

I could have to, I feel as a fool for what I have said.

[Jikan]

You're not a fool zAnt.

We're all human here...

[Shii]

Jikan~

Ah, well I will not presume to tell you how you feel. They are, after all, your emotions. However they do play an important role in what you are trying to get across. As someone once said, who was more familiar with politics, and therefore experienced in the art of communication, A spoonful of honey will catch more flies than a gallon of vinegar.

When Buddha Shakyamuni observed these things it was direct criticism. It was voiced with compassion, with the intent to help others help themselves. He was motivated not out of anger but of a deep compassion, love and a great grief. When you see the cause of suffering in someone from a place of stillness you may feel anger but when you look deeper you will find it is really love and a wish that the person could do better. Then if you look deeper into that you will find that if that person knew how to do better they would. All beings do the best they know how to do with all of there greed, anger, and delusion. So no I do not think it was any sort of bullying. I am also saying criticism is not a bad thing. However, it is important in the way one uses it and for what purpose.

Ananda was asking advise of his spiritual teacher. A teacher instructing a student with the perfect tool for the job at the time does not give license for everyone to criticize each other. Especially when the person doing the criticizing is not the teacher of the one being criticized.

Uan~

Lol! yes


Conebackham~

Oh no it's not impossible to see from a different perspective, to walk in another's shoes. You do need an open mind though.

So you are saying that I said belief = truth. No I apologize I meant truth = belief. Is it not possible that perhaps it is actually true that you can not understand something in the group without being part of it? Meaning the truth of what they believe can not be known unless you are within the group to know. Now this above is under the assumption that this truth is real and not twisted in some way. But, if the truth is more of a "truth" then you are right. They should look at it and think on it deeply. However as I said if anyone wants to gain any real ground and make any progress in a good direction at all it needs to be handled with care.

Personally I think I do understand what right speech means and what it means to me. I can also tell when someone is angry, and when they are refraining from anger. This may or may not be true for others. As far as measuring others, well, even masters mess that up lol!

shel~

I am so glad you explained this interesting corner of the human mind. This is why in Zen they have the three treasures, the Buddha, The Dharma, and the Sanga (which helps keep you connected to the world and breaks up this sort of thinking, so one can sit with it and wonder if it really is such a good idea to be doing/believing such and such.) Very nice. It is appreciated.

[Sara H]

Consider the Surangama Sutra. (we're in the Zen forum, so this text is particularly well-warranted.) The early chapters of this text are devoted to specific and lengthy criticisms of Ananda's approach to spiritual practice. You're an old man, Ananda, and you still don't get it?! What have you been doing with your time... Should Ananda turn away from this criticism, retreat into himself or some fantasy world of sweetness and light, and blame the Buddha for this instruction?

Yes, let us consider the Shurangama Sutra.

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 are comparing yourself to the Buddha, and them to Ananda, the Buddha's desciple.

Your relationship to them, the people in question is neither, nor are you qualified to be giving them advice, nor have they asked for it, as Ananda was of his Teacher.

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.

You are simply saying it, to be saying it. Idle chatter.

I don't see that as Wisdom Jikan, nor do I see you as Shakyamuni Buddha.

Or them, your desciple.

You are being Proud of yourself, (thinking youself above them) and blaming others. (Not interested in helping them for their actions)

That isn't wisdom.

It's actually, breaking a Zen Precept.

If, they had asked you for advice, that'd be different.

If, you were their Teacher, that'd be different.

If, they knew you and trusted you, and asked you for your help, that'd be different.

If you knew them well enough to give them good advice, that'd be different.

If, you were talking to them directly, trying to help them, rather than spread arround blame behind their backs, that'd be different.

But you arn't.

You're doing, and arn't none of those things.

And that's the big difference between you, and what Shakyamuni Buddha was to Ananda in that context.

In Gassho,

Sara H.

[Yudron]

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.

[muni]

Judging- excluding others, looks like judging-excluding that what is a danger/negative for ones own 'self clinging protection', the wish to getting rid of our projections formed by our fear, hope, and so frustrations, irritations...

Some of my own formed projections-of others in thoughts are friends, some not. Those who are like me are not a danger for me.

Concept Buddhism can be used for painful rightenesses or for the genuine honest love for our own being and so all beings to see what is samsara.

Boundless love, compassion, joy in equanimity is not easy.

[conebeckham]

Conebackham~

Oh no it's not impossible to see from a different perspective, to walk in another's shoes. You do need an open mind though.

So you are saying that I said belief = truth. No I apologize I meant truth = belief. Is it not possible that perhaps it is actually true that you can not understand something in the group without being part of it? Meaning the truth of what they believe can not be known unless you are within the group to know. Now this above is under the assumption that this truth is real and not twisted in some way. But, if the truth is more of a "truth" then you are right. They should look at it and think on it deeply. However as I said if anyone wants to gain any real ground and make any progress in a good direction at all it needs to be handled with care.

Personally I think I do understand what right speech means and what it means to me. I can also tell when someone is angry, and when they are refraining from anger. This may or may not be true for others. As far as measuring others, well, even masters mess that up lol!

I agree that it's possible to see from a different perspective, and in fact it is often those from outside our comfort zone, our "group," that can help us to see or understand things in a different light. But I do not believe one can really "see" from another individual's perspective, completely and truly, unless one has special powers, quite truly. Each individual's experience is largely his or her own, but all our experience is informed by the communication we engage in. If, on a given issue, we only communicate with those who share our value system, or conditioning, we are less apt to grow, less apt to recognize the limitations of our own selves, and our own "groups." This seems to be a major point of Jikan's original post, in fact.

Regarding "truth" and "belief," my point was not that "belief equals truth," or vice versa. Frankly, there's only one "Truth," and then there are myriad beliefs, which often get codified as "truths" within groups. All religious systems, for example, are expedient means, and even codes of ethics are relative truths. Forgetting or dispensing with this for the moment, and dealing only with levels of relative truth and belief, I said:

Your statement is interesting, though, because it equates "telling the truth" with their BELIEF that the object of critique cannot be understood outside their norms. I do think that "insiders" DO believe they are telling the truth when they say that critique is invalid from outside. But it's precisely this "truth" they should be examining. I think it's a good rule of thumb, that when someone feels threatened by critique, to the point that they feel the need to defend the object of criticism with such a defense ("You can't understand OUR relation to the object of criticism from outside our norms"), that it's time for an examination of their "Truth" and their belief.

What I'm saying is that "Insiders" often believe in the absolute nature of their relative objects of critique, or they feel that the object cannot even be properly understood from the outside. My point was that "Insiders" who feel this way shold be examining their own "truths," relative truths, when they find themselves using these sorts of "defenses against critique." A Truth, even a relative truth, should be able to withstand relative analysis. If it cannot, how can it be a truth? You know what I'm saying, basically? Question your beliefs! It may be that a given critique may be wrong, or may misinterpret or misunderstand it's object, but not even considering the critique, by insulating oneself against it with the "You're Outside" defense, does no one any good.

I think Jikan already said his initial communication may have been a bit "harsh," but I'd be careful to read too much into "emotional tone" on the internet. regarding "Right Speech," I don't believe it means that no one should enter into discussions including criticism. I don't believe criticism should be solely the property of the master. After all, what would discussion, in any form, be without the ability to critique views and objects?

We can all learn much from each other, even across "boundaries" of traditions, cultures, and beliefs. But we must be open to the discussion, willing to examine our cherished "truths," even with tools and critiques from outside our boundaries.

[shel]

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.

Defiantly overdoing the dramatic pause.

[dzogchungpa]

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.

Defiantly overdoing the dramatic pause.

It's a "Zen" thing.

[Simon E.]

Every post a sutra
loaded

with portent.
And deep, deep,
significance.

[dzogchungpa]

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.

Yudron, maybe you are overly conditioned by your exposure to Christianized formatting?

[futerko]

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.

Yudron, maybe you are overly conditioned by your exposure to Christianized formatting?

R

O

T

F

L