Should be Required Reading for Internet Discussion, ...

• An Eternal Now

  31 Dec 07, 01:42

  "Should be Required Reading for Internet Discussion, the Buddha on Discussion"
  
  Here's something an E-Sangha moderator posted which I found quite useful as a guideline for engaging in any internet discussions.. this is a good read.
  
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.067.than.html
  
  Kathavatthu Sutta
  Topics for Discussion
  Translated from the Pali by
  Thanissaro Bhikkhu
  
  "Monks, there are these three topics for discussion. Which three?
  
  "One may talk about the past, saying, 'Thus it was in the past.' One may talk about the future, saying, 'Thus it will be in the future.' Or one may talk about now in the present, saying, 'Thus it is now in the present.'
  
  "Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, doesn't give a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer, doesn't give an analytical (qualified) answer to a question deserving an analytical answer, doesn't give a counter-question to a question deserving a counter-question, doesn't put aside a question deserving to be put aside, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, gives a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer, gives an analytical answer to a question deserving an analytical answer, gives a counter-question to a question deserving a counter-question, and puts aside a question deserving to be put aside, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.
  
  "Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, doesn't stand by what is possible and impossible, doesn't stand by agreed-upon assumptions, doesn't stand by teachings known to be true,1 doesn't stand by standard procedure, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, stands by what is possible and impossible, stands by agreed-upon assumptions, stands by teachings known to be true, stands by standard procedure, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.
  
  "Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, wanders from one thing to another, pulls the discussion off the topic, shows anger & aversion and sulks, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn't wander from one thing to another, doesn't pull the discussion off the topic, doesn't show anger or aversion or sulk, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.
  
  "Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, puts down [the questioner], crushes him, ridicules him, grasps at his little mistakes, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn't put down [the questioner], doesn't crush him, doesn't ridicule him, doesn't grasp at his little mistakes, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.
  
  "Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as drawing near or not drawing near. One who lends ear draws near; one who doesn't lend ear doesn't draw near. Drawing near, one clearly knows one quality, comprehends one quality, abandons one quality, and realizes one quality.2 Clearly knowing one quality, comprehending one quality, abandoning one quality, and realizing one quality, one touches right release. For that's the purpose of discussion, that's the purpose of counsel, that's the purpose of drawing near, that's the purpose of lending ear: i.e., the liberation of the mind through no clinging.
  
  Those who discuss
  when angered, dogmatic, arrogant,
  following what's not the noble ones' way,
  seeking to expose each other's faults,
  delight in each other's misspoken word,
  slip, stumble, defeat.
  Noble ones
  don't speak in that way.
  
  If wise people, knowing the right time,
  want to speak,
  then, words connected with justice,
  following the ways of the noble ones:
  That's what the enlightened ones speak,
  without anger or arrogance,
  with a mind not boiling over,
  without vehemence, without spite.
  Without envy
  they speak from right knowledge.
  They would delight in what's well-said
  and not disparage what's not.
  They don't study to find fault,
  don't grasp at little mistakes.
  don't put down, don't crush,
  don't speak random words.
  
  For the purpose of knowledge,
  for the purpose of [inspiring] clear confidence,
  counsel that's true:
  That's how noble ones give counsel,
  That's the noble ones' counsel.
  Knowing this, the wise
  should give counsel without arrogance."
• bohiruci

  31 Dec 07, 07:24

  Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
  "Should be Required Reading for Internet Discussion, the Buddha on Discussion"
  
  Here's something an E-Sangha moderator posted which I found quite useful as a guideline for engaging in any internet discussions.. this is a good read.
  
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.067.than.html
  
  [b]Kathavatthu Sutta
  Topics for Discussion
  Translated from the Pali by
  Thanissaro Bhikkhu
  
  "Monks, there are these three topics for discussion. Which three?
  
  "One may talk about the past, saying, 'Thus it was in the past.' One may talk about the future, saying, 'Thus it will be in the future.' Or one may talk about now in the present, saying, 'Thus it is now in the present.'
  
  "Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, doesn't give a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer, doesn't give an analytical (qualified) answer to a question deserving an analytical answer, doesn't give a counter-question to a question deserving a counter-question, doesn't put aside a question deserving to be put aside, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, gives a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer, gives an analytical answer to a question deserving an analytical answer, gives a counter-question to a question deserving a counter-question, and puts aside a question deserving to be put aside, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.
  
  "Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, doesn't stand by what is possible and impossible, doesn't stand by agreed-upon assumptions, doesn't stand by teachings known to be true,1 doesn't stand by standard procedure, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, stands by what is possible and impossible, stands by agreed-upon assumptions, stands by teachings known to be true, stands by standard procedure, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.
  
  "Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, wanders from one thing to another, pulls the discussion off the topic, shows anger & aversion and sulks, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn't wander from one thing to another, doesn't pull the discussion off the topic, doesn't show anger or aversion or sulk, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.
  
  "Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, puts down [the questioner], crushes him, ridicules him, grasps at his little mistakes, then — that being the case — he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn't put down [the questioner], doesn't crush him, doesn't ridicule him, doesn't grasp at his little mistakes, then — that being the case — he is a person fit to talk with.
  
  "Monks, it's through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as drawing near or not drawing near. One who lends ear draws near; one who doesn't lend ear doesn't draw near. Drawing near, one clearly knows one quality, comprehends one quality, abandons one quality, and realizes one quality.2 Clearly knowing one quality, comprehending one quality, abandoning one quality, and realizing one quality, one touches right release. For that's the purpose of discussion, that's the purpose of counsel, that's the purpose of drawing near, that's the purpose of lending ear: i.e., the liberation of the mind through no clinging.
  
  Those who discuss
  when angered, dogmatic, arrogant,
  following what's not the noble ones' way,
  seeking to expose each other's faults,
  delight in each other's misspoken word,
  slip, stumble, defeat.
  Noble ones
  don't speak in that way.
  
  If wise people, knowing the right time,
  want to speak,
  then, words connected with justice,
  following the ways of the noble ones:
  That's what the enlightened ones speak,
  without anger or arrogance,
  with a mind not boiling over,
  without vehemence, without spite.
  Without envy
  they speak from right knowledge.
  They would delight in what's well-said
  and not disparage what's not.
  They don't study to find fault,
  don't grasp at little mistakes.
  don't put down, don't crush,
  don't speak random words.
  
  For the purpose of knowledge,
  for the purpose of [inspiring] clear confidence,
  counsel that's true:
  That's how noble ones give counsel,
  That's the noble ones' counsel.
  Knowing this, the wise
  should give counsel without arrogance."[/b]

  that is theravada guidelines
  have nothing to do with mahayana guidelines
  
  go and read on the Peaceful Practice Chapter on Lotus Sutra
  
  
• bohiruci

  31 Dec 07, 07:30

  
  The Lotus Sutra
  Translated by Burton Watson
  
  Chapter Fourteen: Peaceful Practices
  
  At that time Manjushri, Dharma prince, bodhisattva and mahasattva, said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, these bodhisattvas undertake something that is very difficult. Because they revere and obey the Buddha, they have taken a great vow that in the evil age hereafter they will guard, uphold, read, recite and preach this Lotus Sutra. World-Honored One, in the evil age hereafter, how should these bodhisattvas, mahasattvas go about preaching this sutra?"
  
  The Buddha said to Manjushri: "If these bodhisattvas and mahasattvas in the evil age hereafter wish to preach this sutra they should abide by four rules. First they should abide by the practices and associations proper for bodhisattvas so that they can expound this sutra for the sake of living beings. Manjushri, what do I mean by the practices of a bodhisattva or mahasattva? If a bodhisattva or mahasattva takes his stand on perseverance, is gentle and compliant, never violent, and never alarmed in mind; and if with regard to phenomena he takes no action but observes the true entity of phenomena without acting or making any distinction, then this one might call the practices of a bodhisattva and mahasattva.
• bohiruci

  31 Dec 07, 07:31

  "As for the associations proper for them, bodhisattvas and mahasattvas should not associate closely with rulers, princes, high ministers or heads of offices. They should not associate closely with non-Buddhists, Brahmans or Jains, or with those who compose works of secular literature or books extolling the heretics, nor should they be closely associated with Lokayatas or anti-Lokayatas 4. They should not be closely associated with hazardous amusement, boxing or wrestling, or with actors or others engaging in various kinds of illusionary entertainment, or with the chandalas, persons engaging in raising pigs, engaged in raising pigs, sheep, chickens or dogs, or those who engage in hunting or fishing or other evil activities. If such persons at times come to one, then one may preach the Law for them, but one should expect nothing from it. Again one should not associate with monks, nuns, laymen or laywomen who seek to become voice-hearers, nor should one question or visit them. One should not stay with them in the same room, or in the place where one exercises, or in the lecture hall. One should not join them in their activities. If at times they come to one, one should preach the Law in accordance with what is appropriate, but should expect nothing from it.
  
  "Manjushri, the bodhisattva or mahasattva should not, when preaching the Law to women, do so in a manner that could arouse thoughts of desire in them, nor should he delight in seeing them. If he enters the house of another person, he should not engage in talk with the young girls, unmarried women or widows. Nor should he go near the five types of unmanly men or have any close dealings with them 5. He should not enter another person's house alone. If for some reason it is imperative to enter alone, he should concentrate his full mind on thoughts of the Buddha. If he should preach the Law for a woman, he should not bear his teeth in laughter or let his chest become exposed. He should not have any intimate dealings with her even for the sake of the Law, much less for any other purpose.
  
  
• bohiruci

  31 Dec 07, 07:32

  "He should not delight in nurturing underage disciples, shramaneras or children, and should not delight in sharing the same teacher with them. He should constantly take pleasure in sitting in meditation, being in quiet surroundings and learning to still his mind. Manjushri, these are what I call the things he should first of all associate himself with.
  
  "Next, the bodhisattva or mahasattva should view all phenomena as empty, that being their true entity. They do not turn upside down, do not move, do not regress, do not revolve. They are like empty space, without innate nature, beyond the reach of all words. They are not born, do not emerge, do not arise. They are without name, without form, without true being. They are without volume, without limits, without hindrance, without barriers. It is only through causes and conditions that they exist, and come to be taken upside down, to be born. Therefore I say that one should constantly delight in viewing the form of phenomena as this. This is what I call the second thing that the bodhisattva or mahasattva should associate himself with."
  
  At that time the World-Honored One, wishing to state his meaning once more, spoke in verse form, saying:
• bohiruci

  31 Dec 07, 07:33

  If there are bodhisattvas
  who in the evil age hereafter
  wish with fearless hearts
  to preach this sutra,
  these are the places they should enter
  and the persons they should closely associate with.
  At all times shun rulers
  and the princes of kingdoms,
  high ministers, heads of offices,
  those engaged in hazardous amusements
  as well as chandalas,
  non-Buddhists and Brahmans.
  One should not associate
  with persons of overbearing arrogance
  or those who stubbornly adhere to the Lesser Vehicle
  and are learned in its three storehouses.
  Monks who violate the precepts,
  arhats who are so in name only,
  nuns who are fond
  of jesting and laughter,
  or women lay believers
  who are profoundly attached to the five desires
  or who seek immediate entry into extinction -
  all these one should not associate with.
  If there are persons
  who come with good hearts
  to the place of the bodhisattva
  in order to hear the Buddha way,
  then the bodhisattva
  with a fearless heart
  but without harboring expectations
  should preach the Law for them.
  But widows and unmarried women
  and the different kinds of unmanly men -
  all these he should not associate with
  or treat with intimacy.
  Also he must not associate with
  slaughterers or flesh-carvers,
  those who hunt animals or catch fish,
  or kill to do harm for profit.
  Those who peddle meat for a living
  or display women and sell their favors -
  all persons such as this
  one should never associate with
• bohiruci

  31 Dec 07, 07:34

  Those engaged in hazardous sports,
  wrestling, or other kinds of amusements,
  women of lascivious nature -
  never associate with any of these.
  Never go alone into an enclosed place
  to preach the Law to a woman.
  When you preach the Law,
  let there be no jesting or laughter.
  When you enter a village to beg for food,
  take another monk with you;
  if there is no other monk around,
  with a single mind concentrate on the Buddha.
  These are what I call
  proper practices and associations.
  By being careful about these two,
  one can preach in a peaceful manner.
  One should not speak in terms of
  superior medial or inferior doctrines,
  of doctrines of the conditioned or unconditioned,
  or the real or the not real.
  Again one should not make distinctions
  by saying "This is a man," "This is a woman."
  Do not try to apprehend phenomena,
  to understand or to see them.
  These are what I call
  the practices of the bodhisattva.
  All phenomena
  are empty, without being,
  without any constant abiding,
  without arising or extinction.
  This I call the position
  the wise person associates himself with.
  From upside-down-ness come distinctions,
  that phenomena exist, do not exist,
  are real, or not real,
  are born, are not born.
  Place yourself in quiet surroundings,
  learn to still your mind,
  remain tranquil, and unmoving,
  like Mount Sumeru.
  Look upon all phenomena
  as having no existence,
  like empty space,
  as without firmness or hardness,
  not born, not emerging,
  not moving, and regressing,
  constantly abiding in a single form -
  this I call the place to draw near to.
  If after I have entered extinction
  there are monks
  who take up these practices
  and these associations,
  then when they preach this sutra
  they will be free of quailing and timidity.
  If a bodhisattva will at times
  enter a quiet room
  and with the correct mental attitude
  will view phenomena according to the doctrine,
  and then, rising from his meditation,
  will for the sake of the ruler,
  the princes, ministers and people,
  the Brahmans and others,
  unfold, propagate, expound
  and preach this sutra,
  then his mind will be tranquil,
  free of quailing and timidity.
  Manjushri,
  these I call the first set of rules
  for the bodhisattva to abide by
  to enable him in later ages
  to preach the Lotus Sutra.
  
• bohiruci

  31 Dec 07, 07:34

  "Furthermore, Manjushri, after the Thus Come One has passed into extinction, in the Latter Day of the Law, if one wishes to preach this sutra, you should abide by these peaceful practices. When he opens his mouth to expound or when he reads the sutra, he should not delight in speaking of the faults of other people or scriptures. He should not display contempt for other teachers of the Law or speak of other people's tastes or shortcomings. With regard to the voice-hearers he should not refer to them by name and describe their faults, or name them and praise their good points. Also he should not allow his mind to become filled with resentment or hatred. Because he is good at cultivating this kind of peaceful mind, his listeners will not oppose his ideas. If he is asked difficult questions, he should not reply in terms of the Law of a Lesser Vehicle. He should explain things solely in terms of the Great Vehicle so that people will be able to acquire wisdom embracing all species."
  
  
• An Eternal Now

  31 Dec 07, 11:15

  Hi, I think the Pali sutta is universal and works for every Buddhist and in fact everyone -- even for purposes like discussions on politics, social, economical, factors and so on.
  
  But the Lotus Sutra is a good read.. thanks for sharing.