Okay thanksMalcolm wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 2:02 pmHe said that most people in the DC were pretending to be realized. I and others took umbrage at his suggestion.PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 2:01 pmPosing is generally done to create a false impression about oneself upon others, and involves pretending. But pretending, by itself, doesn’t necessarily involve posing. Especially in the context of Buddhist practice, and perhaps greatly in Tibetan Buddhism which provides so many props and activities. it’s easy to pretend to oneself that one is sincerely practicing, without ever even cutting through one layer of mental bullshit, without developing any genuine compassion.
I don’t know if this is what jet.urgyen was suggesting, and admittedly I am not familiar specifically with his previous posts or general tone used when posting. But I would be interested in hearing his (or maybe it’s her) defense of that term.
debating and attitude in the meantime
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9502
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: debating and attitude in the meantime
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
-
- Posts: 2771
- Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:29 am
Re: debating and attitude in the meantime
And you said that ChNN was not a total realized being, that two of his students would probably make good teachers, and then reluctantly corrected to Gurus. How can you distinguish this two probably good Gurus among the hundreds of students if not by judging the realization they have, you just flip a coin? But the main question was yet anothere, unanswered. The question was -just in case you want to answer- ¿is it ChNN's fault that according to you only two people among hundreds have the a qualifications that you yourself simehow noticed on them to be gurus?Malcolm wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 1:54 pmI answered your question. You were not satisfied with the answer. You wanted to know why there were no realized people in the DC, I told you no one can tell from outside who is realized and who is not.jet.urgyen wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 1:49 pm Please fellows, let's stay on topic, on the propper manner.
I already made a respectful debate question to Malcolm and for 3 days it remained unanswered, and then the topic got closed because the discussion produced much agitation.
If you want respect, you have to show respect.
Now, back to topic. How is this disrespectful?
I guess that "that someone" is me. If you review, i never insulted you personally, nor anyone, and the offense you endorse is in no other place but in you. You took it very personal Malcolm.Certainly it is not good, for the sake of the conversation, to reach the level of insults.
Someone should have thought of that before they insulted the Dzogchen Community, someone who apparently now is pleading for civil discourse.
If i say your attitude is childish because the way you answer or by the refuse to answer, that would be insulting as well?
true dharma is inexpressible.
The bodhisattva nourishes from bodhicitta, through whatever method the Buddha has given him. Oh joy.
The bodhisattva nourishes from bodhicitta, through whatever method the Buddha has given him. Oh joy.
Re: debating and attitude in the meantime
We received some reports, because the demand for respectful speech has been contravened.
Topic locked for review - - - > that means, moderation has to read and decide some measures and THEN this topic possibly can be unlocked again.
Meanwhile, eveybody may cool down.
Topic locked for review - - - > that means, moderation has to read and decide some measures and THEN this topic possibly can be unlocked again.
Meanwhile, eveybody may cool down.
Re: debating and attitude in the meantime
If you are missing a post, it must have landed in the tail of posts that I removed. It started with a very blunt and personal criticism on a member. This would be appropriate in private discussion in order to work it out. But here the post served as a public pillory.
The other removed posts were only part of the discussion around that initial post.
Please, if you try to discuss such intimate problems, choose a not public subforum then. The contents here is available at Google - those accusations are not worth to destoy a persons complete reputation.
I agree that some people have to discuss it, but not here. Rather it's a topic for PM.
Furthermore I realise that the topic is not about Tibetan dharmic debate (as I assumed) but invites to meta discussion about our discussion culture on DW.
If that kind of possibly destructive discussion has to take place urgently, please choose a less prominent place. Not available at Google's are all the subfora you do not see as long as you are not logged in.
Topic will be kept locked.
The other removed posts were only part of the discussion around that initial post.
Please, if you try to discuss such intimate problems, choose a not public subforum then. The contents here is available at Google - those accusations are not worth to destoy a persons complete reputation.
I agree that some people have to discuss it, but not here. Rather it's a topic for PM.
Furthermore I realise that the topic is not about Tibetan dharmic debate (as I assumed) but invites to meta discussion about our discussion culture on DW.
If that kind of possibly destructive discussion has to take place urgently, please choose a less prominent place. Not available at Google's are all the subfora you do not see as long as you are not logged in.
Topic will be kept locked.