On Fri, 09 May 2008 17:05:16 GMT, lorr <lorr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 May 2008 16:10:05 -0700, Awaken21 wrote:
>
>> On May 8, 9:55 am, "Evelyn Ruut" <evelyn.r...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> "Awaken21" <lukecar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:3f6afd1c-a4ad-4cff-
>a544-9f011be1013f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On May 7, 6:46 am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Awaken21 wrote:
>>> > > How can you tell if you don't know where and what they were like
>>> > > when they began and don't know how it's affecting their daily
life?
>>> > > Just because they get huffy here regularly in this rather harmles
>>> > > medium, doesn't mean that's not much better than what they were
>>> > > like when they started.
>>>
>>> > > Months is probably too short a time to judge the effect of
>>> > > practice. It takes years to build up the ignorance to a frenzy, no
>>> > > reason to believe it might not take years to unravel it.
>>>
>>> > <<Just because they get huffy here regularly in this rather harmles
>>> > medium, doesn't mean that's not much better than what they were like
>>> > when they started.>>
>>>
>>> > Right. This medium called Usenet is harmless. It only deals with
mere
>>> > words on the screen.
>>>
>>> "Mere words" is quite misleading. People live and die by words, and
>>> words have emotional psychological impact. Which makes your whole
>>> argument intellectually and factually disengenuine even before we get
>>> down to the subject of Buddhism. This medium is harmless because even
>>> if we're pissed off we can't just reach out and throttle someone who
so
>>> richly deserves it, not because the words themselves have no effect
>>> whatsoever.
>>>
>>> But moving on to Buddhism... so powerful are words that they are a key
>>> area mindfulness in daily activity. If you're walking the path
you're
>>> not only mindful of how words effect yourself, you're mindful of how
>>> they effect others. If one is sincerely walking the path words are
>>> never "merely words".
>>>
>>> > The people who use it cannot be harmed by mere words on the screen,
>>> > unless they want it. People who want to break cannot be stopped, and
>>> > people who don't want to break cannot be broken by mere words on the
>>> > screen. People who want to preserve themselves know how to and do,
>>> > and people who want to break know how to and do. In this rather
>>> > harmless medium everything is free and everything is voluntary. We
>>> > are all adults and we are all responsible for ourselves.
>>>
>>> > These boards are not kindergartens for babies.
>>>
>>> > People who are fragile or loose upstairs should not be here, surely
>>> > not without supervision, if only because they can break themselves,
>>> > from their own side, using these boards as mere excuse. The people
>>> > who get hurt hurt
>>> > themselves, in closed circle. The people who burn themselves out
burn
>>> > themselves out with their own energy, in closed circle. This medium
>>> > merely serves as enabler, in that in its impersonal dynamics it
>>> > fortifies and exacerbates their wishes and desires to their logical
>>> > end. It merely helps them dispatch themselves.
>>>
>>> Evelyn posted the whole list of how to consider Right Speech and
>>> conveniently at the very top are the words of the Buddha on right
>>> speech that I think are particularly aimed at your particular style of
>>> bull**** rationalizations for your own insistence on unskillful
speech.
>>>
>>> 1. In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
>>> untrue,
>>> unbeneficial (or not connected with the goal), unendearing and
>>> disagreeable
>>> to others, he does not say them.
>>>
>>> 2. In the case of the words that the Tathagata knows to be factual,
>>> true,
>>> unbeneficial, unendearing and disagreeable to others, he does not say
>>> them.
>>>
>>> Quit blaming the other person for being hurt when you use unskillful
>>> words, it's a waste of your precious time, as you so rightly point
out,
>>> Buddhist practice is always directed inwards towards self examination,
>>> start minding your words because they are im****tant to your own
>>> enlightenment and be less concerned about who belongs here and who
>>> doesn't.
>>>
>>> The Buddha chose his words carefully, and so should anyone who is
>>> sincere about walking his path.
>>>
>>> Hi Luke,
>>>
>>> Yes, that is true....that addresses the intention of the speaker. I
>>> also think there is more to it.
>>>
>>> I think that analogy of the second arrow someone mentioned yesterday
>>> might apply here. Words in and of themselves are harmless, all the
>>> words are in the dictionary and they harm no one as they are there.
>>>
>>> Someone can speak words with intent to harm, but then it is what we do
>>> with them in our heads. We allow them to attack ourselves and our
>>> ego...... "How DARE they say THAT to ME!"
>>>
>>> Posting on usenet is a great lesson. Millions and millions of words
>>> (like the dictionary), but it is the thoughts they engender and what
we
>>> do with those thoughts that counts. If you think the person is
>>> talking about you, and your ego is threatened, it can hurt. But if
>>> you realize that they don't really know you and they are not talking
>>> about you, but some image they have in their mind they think is you,
it
>>> is a little different.
>>>
>>>
>> A poor excuse to hide behind in order to engage in unskillful speech,
>> and expecting other's to see it that way, however true it may be,
>> redirects one's attention from analysis of self, to judgement of others
>> which is not very Buddhist at all. As Tang himself seems to understand
>> when it comes to other subjects.
>
>That's your fantasy of what Buddha's about.
>
>What could possibly be more judgmental than,
>"If you don't buy my bull**** you're doomed to eternal hell"
>
>The central tenant of all religion.
>
>Buddha, a two-bit traveling con-artist and circus.
>**** him and anyone who looks like him.
>
If you meet the Buddha on the road, **** him.
Naw. I like the other way better.
|
