Fruitzilla wrote:If you stick around the forums for some time you get to know the habits of the posters to some extent. One of Simons habits is that he starts making suggestion posts when something has upset him (I'm quite sure he's aware of that himself) . Nothing to take personally IMHO.Urgyen Dorje wrote:It was my understanding that he owned the thing.
But you've clarified that, as has somebody in PM.
Norwegian wrote:Urgyen Dorje,
Simon E. is not an administrator nor a moderator on this forum. He's just a user, like you and I. And what he has posted here is just a suggestion to the management. That's what this subsection is for, suggesting things to the management. Not everything suggested goes through though.
Acknowledging Our Teachers.
-
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:44 pm
Re: Acknowledging Our Teachers.
I've actually got nothing against Simon. It's strange though, he's been trying to grind his axe on me since I started posting. It's odd, as I think we largely agree about most things, at least things of substance.
Re: Acknowledging Our Teachers.
Fruitzilla wrote:If you stick around the forums for some time you get to know the habits of the posters to some extent. One of Simons habits is that he starts making suggestion posts when something has upset him (I'm quite sure he's aware of that himself) . Nothing to take personally IMHO.Urgyen Dorje wrote:It was my understanding that he owned the thing.
But you've clarified that, as has somebody in PM.
Norwegian wrote:Urgyen Dorje,
Simon E. is not an administrator nor a moderator on this forum. He's just a user, like you and I. And what he has posted here is just a suggestion to the management. That's what this subsection is for, suggesting things to the management. Not everything suggested goes through though.
Thats interesting. I have just checked back and the only other Suggestion Post I can find from me is the one I junked myself..
In good faith I posted a request for a polite acknowledgement and attribution to our teachers...That was all.
Clearly I was being unreasonable...
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Re: Acknowledging Our Teachers.
Although I understand the point, that it is too vague to quote a saying of my teacher without mentioning his name, this suggestion as a rule would bring me in a quandary:
If I tell his name:
- my identity could be found out more easily, (and this I find unconvenient),
- I could embarrass him, if my recollection and thus the quote were wrong.
On the other hand it could be positive for him to spread his name.
If I refrain from quoting him at all:
- the board would miss some very good sayings.
I could try to find his saying in the scriptures, because it must be findable there. All he does is to explain the Dharma like it is recorded in tradition. But it is not likely that I'll find that quotes and that I have the time.
So, this as a rule would bring me in a very uncomfortable situation. Best solution for me would be to stopp talking about him. The reasons, why I want to stay anonymious, are too personal to unfold them here.
If I tell his name:
- my identity could be found out more easily, (and this I find unconvenient),
- I could embarrass him, if my recollection and thus the quote were wrong.
On the other hand it could be positive for him to spread his name.
If I refrain from quoting him at all:
- the board would miss some very good sayings.
I could try to find his saying in the scriptures, because it must be findable there. All he does is to explain the Dharma like it is recorded in tradition. But it is not likely that I'll find that quotes and that I have the time.
So, this as a rule would bring me in a very uncomfortable situation. Best solution for me would be to stopp talking about him. The reasons, why I want to stay anonymious, are too personal to unfold them here.
-
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:44 pm
Re: Acknowledging Our Teachers.
Yes. This.
Ayu wrote:The reasons, why I want to stay anonymous, are too personal to unfold them here.
Re: Acknowledging Our Teachers.
Yes, agreed. Same here.Ayu wrote:The reasons, why I want to stay anonymous, are too personal to unfold them here.
I think it goes without saying that if somebody tries to back up a thesis of his with an argumentum ad auctoritatem by saying "My teacher has said...", but is not willing to share the name of his teacher the whole point of an authority argument is completely lost. Whoever behaves in this irrational way will have to learn to deal with the fact that his so-called argument does not convince anybody. But that doesn't justify putting people under pressure that they should give their teacher's name if they don't want to.
"I struggled with some demons, They were middle class and tame..." L. Cohen
Re: Acknowledging Our Teachers.
Fruitzilla said:
I think this is the key. Based on your own understanding (limited or otherwise) after a while you form a view about how much weight you give to what other individuals are saying (although it's also good to allow for them to surprise you occasionally). You can then either read or ignore their posts accordingly. Chapter, verse or teacher citations, although sometimes helpful, don't necessarily add to that.If you stick around the forums for some time you get to know the habits of the posters to some extent.
We abide nowhere. We possess nothing.
~Chatral Rinpoche
~Chatral Rinpoche
-
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:44 pm
Re: Acknowledging Our Teachers.
Personally, I think leaving teacher's names out of our discussions, unless there is a very good reason, eliminates the possibility of resorting to argumentum ad auctoritatem. In a previous post I said that "my teacher" said there was not one dharma for women and another for men. Only by mentioning that teacher, Garchen Rinpoche, can I argue in the direction of authority. Without mentioning that teacher, I'm just a guy that learned something. Maybe right, maybe wrong-- but it's on me.
emaho wrote:I think it goes without saying that if somebody tries to back up a thesis of his with an argumentum ad auctoritatem by saying "My teacher has said...", but is not willing to share the name of his teacher the whole point of an authority argument is completely lost. Whoever behaves in this irrational way will have to learn to deal with the fact that his so-called argument does not convince anybody. But that doesn't justify putting people under pressure that they should give their teacher's name if they don't want to.
Re: Acknowledging Our Teachers.
Yes, that's a good point. It entirely depends on the context and on the personal preference if you want to draw your teacher's name into the discussion (and, in the heated, sometimes toxic atmosphere of an internet forum, possibly into the dirt), or if you rather leave the teacher's name out and speak for yourself. I also often leave the name of the teacher out, especially when I'm quoting out of memory, because I wouldn't want to ascribe my own misunderstandings to one of my teachers.Urgyen Dorje wrote:Personally, I think leaving teacher's names out of our discussions, unless there is a very good reason, eliminates the possibility of resorting to argumentum ad auctoritatem. In a previous post I said that "my teacher" said there was not one dharma for women and another for men. Only by mentioning that teacher, Garchen Rinpoche, can I argue in the direction of authority. Without mentioning that teacher, I'm just a guy that learned something. Maybe right, maybe wrong-- but it's on me.
Generally though I don't think there's anything wrong with authority arguments in Buddhism, especially in the context of Vajrayana. But if you make them, you have to make them right and lay your cards on the table. I think not so long ago there was a discussion between Simon and another member of this forum (not you, U.D.) who tried to make some authority argument without saying who his teacher is, and when Simon confronted him he still stubbornly refused to name his teacher, which led to some excitement about the matter or maybe not, I don't know, I didn't read all the posts. Maybe that was the inspiration for this thread. But anyway, I think it's an overgeneralization and people shouldn't be put under pressure to give their teacher's name if they don't want to.
"I struggled with some demons, They were middle class and tame..." L. Cohen
Re: Acknowledging Our Teachers.
emaho wrote:Yes, agreed. Same here.Ayu wrote:The reasons, why I want to stay anonymous, are too personal to unfold them here.
I think it goes without saying that if somebody tries to back up a thesis of his with an argumentum ad auctoritatem by saying "My teacher has said...", but is not willing to share the name of his teacher the whole point of an authority argument is completely lost. Whoever behaves in this irrational way will have to learn to deal with the fact that his so-called argument does not convince anybody. But that doesn't justify putting people under pressure that they should give their teacher's name if they don't want to.
Which is exactly what happened . And I was not suggesting pressure or TOS or enforcement squads.
I was suggesting that if one should only call upon the teachers authority to validate a point if one is prepared to name the teacher.
Otherwise use some other means..or none.
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Re: Acknowledging Our Teachers.
bump Because I know there can be a tendency to bypass the OP ..here it is again.Simon E. wrote:It has long been the convention on Buddhist forums to point to chapter and verse when quoting Sutras or commentaries on those Sutras.
I think that the reasons for this are self explanatory..
In the same way I think it expedient and polite when quoting one's teacher to attribute the observations and instructions to that teacher by name.
In the event of there being reasons why this is not expedient it might be best to leave them out of it completely.
Why it should have provoked semi hysteria in some quarters is a puzzle.
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
-
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:44 pm
Re: Acknowledging Our Teachers.
these two proposals, eliminating anonymity and mandatory acknowledgement of teachers, provoked "hysteria" from me because a) i thought you were the owner of the board and this was just going to happen, and b) my ability to participate in any capacity is predicated on some reasonable sense of anonymity.
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17092
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Acknowledging Our Teachers.
Not a practical rule, for a variety of reasons. The simplest of which comes to mind, many people have teachers who teach small-scale, haven't written books etc. Unless the person quoting actually feels like naming the teacher, the content of the quote is the point, and itd be a bit weird...maybe even presumptive to automatically quote everyone. Personally would tell anyone who my teachers are if they as, but I don't feel obligated to plaster my teacher's names all over, and there are plenty of places where doing so is inappropriate.Simon E. wrote:It has long been the convention on Buddhist forums to point to chapter and verse when quoting Sutras or commentaries on those Sutras.
I think that the reasons for this are self explanatory..
In the same way I think it expedient and polite when quoting one's teacher to attribute the observations and instructions to that teacher by name.
In the event of there being reasons why this is not expedient it might be best to leave them out of it completely.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: Acknowledging Our Teachers.
Well, originally in the other thread you had suggested it should be made part of the TOS that naming the teacher should be mandatory:Simon E. wrote:emaho wrote:Yes, agreed. Same here.Ayu wrote:The reasons, why I want to stay anonymous, are too personal to unfold them here.
I think it goes without saying that if somebody tries to back up a thesis of his with an argumentum ad auctoritatem by saying "My teacher has said...", but is not willing to share the name of his teacher the whole point of an authority argument is completely lost. Whoever behaves in this irrational way will have to learn to deal with the fact that his so-called argument does not convince anybody. But that doesn't justify putting people under pressure that they should give their teacher's name if they don't want to.
Which is exactly what happened . And I was not suggesting pressure or TOS or enforcement squads.
So it's not entirely absurd for people to think this could be your position. But OK, you've changed your proposal from demanding it should be made mandatory to a general appeal to reason. But still your point is not entirely clear:Simon E. wrote:Also if members identify a teaching or interpretation as having come from their teacher I think it should be mandatory that they should name that teacher.
Here you speak about calling upon the teachers authority to validate a point. That an argument from authority is convincing only if one names the teacher whose authority it appeals to is almost analytic, so not much of a discussion there - at least not among rational people. But this is not the same point you're making in this post:Simon E. wrote:I was suggesting that if one should only call upon the teachers authority to validate a point if one is prepared to name the teacher.
Otherwise use some other means..or none.
Here you speak about quoting one's teacher, which is a much more general statement, and I think many members here have contributed good reasons why it can be legitimate to not mention the teacher's name in some contexts. So it seems to me that what is left from your original proposal is a general appeal to people to use arguments from authority properly. Which is of course not going to change the erratic behaviour of some people around here.Simon E. wrote:In the same way I think it expedient and polite when quoting one's teacher to attribute the observations and instructions to that teacher by name.
In the event of there being reasons why this is not expedient it might be best to leave them out of it completely.
Last edited by emaho on Wed Jul 01, 2015 12:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I struggled with some demons, They were middle class and tame..." L. Cohen
Re: Acknowledging Our Teachers.
Maybe this video from The West Wing can lighten the discussion up a little bit (at least for those who watch the video):
"I struggled with some demons, They were middle class and tame..." L. Cohen
- dzogchungpa
- Posts: 6333
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm
Re: Acknowledging Our Teachers.
Dr. Ellis never watches the video.emaho wrote:Maybe this video from The West Wing can lighten the discussion up a little bit (at least for those who watch the video) ...
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
Re: Acknowledging Our Teachers.
emaho wrote:Maybe this video from The West Wing can lighten the discussion up a little bit (at least for those who watch the video):
Dzogchungpa is correct, He never does, so could you summarise its points emaho ?
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Re: Acknowledging Our Teachers.
Yes, agreed. Same here.
I think it goes without saying that if somebody tries to back up a thesis of his with an argumentum ad auctoritatem by saying "My teacher has said...", but is not willing to share the name of his teacher the whole point of an authority argument is completely lost. Whoever behaves in this irrational way will have to learn to deal with the fact that his so-called argument does not convince anybody. But that doesn't justify putting people under pressure that they should give their teacher's name if they don't want to.[/quote]
Which is exactly what happened . And I was not suggesting pressure or TOS or enforcement squads. [/quote]
Well, originally in the other thread you had suggested it should be made part of the TOS that naming the teacher should be mandatory:
Yes you are absolutely correct. What is left of my ill conceived and impulsive original proposal is a general appeal to use authority correctly..and what prompted that was a particular post which claimed authority by referencing their teacher... that they then refused to name.
I think it goes without saying that if somebody tries to back up a thesis of his with an argumentum ad auctoritatem by saying "My teacher has said...", but is not willing to share the name of his teacher the whole point of an authority argument is completely lost. Whoever behaves in this irrational way will have to learn to deal with the fact that his so-called argument does not convince anybody. But that doesn't justify putting people under pressure that they should give their teacher's name if they don't want to.[/quote]
Which is exactly what happened . And I was not suggesting pressure or TOS or enforcement squads. [/quote]
Well, originally in the other thread you had suggested it should be made part of the TOS that naming the teacher should be mandatory:
So it's not entirely absurd for people to think this could be your position. But OK, you've changed your proposal from demanding it should be made mandatory to a general appeal to reason. But still your point is not entirely clear:Simon E. wrote:Also if members identify a teaching or interpretation as having come from their teacher I think it should be mandatory that they should name that teacher.
Here you speak about calling upon the teachers authority to validate a point. That an argument from authority is convincing only if one names the teacher whose authority it appeals to is almost analytic, so not much of a discussion there - at least not among rational people. But this is not the same point you're making in this post:Simon E. wrote:I was suggesting that if one should only call upon the teachers authority to validate a point if one is prepared to name the teacher.
Otherwise use some other means..or none.
Here you speak about quoting one's teacher, which is a much more general statement, and I think many members here have contributed good reasons why it can be legitimate to not mention the teacher's name in some contexts. So it seems to me that what is left from your original proposal is a general appeal to people to use arguments from authority properly. Which is of course not going to change the erratic behaviour of some people around here. [/quote]Simon E. wrote:In the same way I think it expedient and polite when quoting one's teacher to attribute the observations and instructions to that teacher by name.
In the event of there being reasons why this is not expedient it might be best to leave them out of it completely.
Yes you are absolutely correct. What is left of my ill conceived and impulsive original proposal is a general appeal to use authority correctly..and what prompted that was a particular post which claimed authority by referencing their teacher... that they then refused to name.
Last edited by Simon E. on Wed Jul 01, 2015 7:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Re: Acknowledging Our Teachers.
Johnny Dangerous wrote:Not a practical rule, for a variety of reasons. The simplest of which comes to mind, many people have teachers who teach small-scale, haven't written books etc. Unless the person quoting actually feels like naming the teacher, the content of the quote is the point, and itd be a bit weird...maybe even presumptive to automatically quote everyone. Personally would tell anyone who my teachers are if they as, but I don't feel obligated to plaster my teacher's names all over, and there are plenty of places where doing so is inappropriate.Simon E. wrote:It has long been the convention on Buddhist forums to point to chapter and verse when quoting Sutras or commentaries on those Sutras.
I think that the reasons for this are self explanatory..
In the same way I think it expedient and polite when quoting one's teacher to attribute the observations and instructions to that teacher by name.
In the event of there being reasons why this is not expedient it might be best to leave them out of it completely.
This was very specific Johnny. A poster was challenging a post by another user ( not me btw ) and claiming authority to do so by reference to something their teacher said in a similar context..the poster then refused when requested politely to name said teacher.
That was it. No inquisition needed. No flights of defensiveness..it was quite simple.
If anyone wants to continue this never ending feast of overreaction ( including my own ) perhaps they would like to pm me. I can also point them to the post in question.
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Re: Acknowledging Our Teachers.
I knowdzogchungpa wrote:Dr. Ellis never watches the video.emaho wrote:Maybe this video from The West Wing can lighten the discussion up a little bit (at least for those who watch the video) ...
"I struggled with some demons, They were middle class and tame..." L. Cohen
Re: Acknowledging Our Teachers.
Nope; cannot and will not. It's an offer. Just take it or leave it. The purpose of this link is not to make a point, but to lighten the discussion up a little bit as I said. And it's not only for you, but for the general forum public. Just to give you a hint at what you're missing: White House Deputy Chief of Staff Josh Lyman discovers that he has a fan site and thinks it is a good idea to register at the forum and join an internet discussion. Then the fun beginsSimon E. wrote:Dzogchungpa is correct, He never does, so could you summarise its points emaho ?
If you prefer to read the script you can find the entire episode at
http://www.westwingtranscripts.com/sear ... ript&id=61
"I struggled with some demons, They were middle class and tame..." L. Cohen