Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

8274Re: Topics and Misunderstandings (was Re: [Buddhism_101] To Ken and Mike regarding t

Expand Messages
  • steve.ensley@sealedair.com
    Feb 2, 2007
      Good morning everyone! I would like to share with this group that I got
      married Jan 5th. I wanted to share this with you since I find this group
      very enlightening. I would like for everyone to say a small blessing or
      chant for us. Thank You.
      John I would like to express a big Thank You for being so kind. Whenever I
      have posted a question or a comment in this group you have always helped me
      to understand. We should all strive to listen and respect what the other
      has to say. Not everyone will agree with some of our opinions but that's
      alright since this causes us to discuss and think about what has been said.
      This is the way to grow. I hope that everyone has a great day.

      Love and Peace,
      Steven



      "John Pellecchia"
      <pellejf@...
      m> To
      Sent by: Buddhism_101@yahoogroups.com
      Buddhism_101@yaho cc
      ogroups.com
      Subject
      Topics and Misunderstandings (was
      02/01/2007 11:13 Re: [Buddhism_101] To Ken and Mike
      PM regarding t


      Please respond to
      Buddhism_101@yaho
      ogroups.com






      Dear Ken,

      It was only in the spirit of the Pali word "metta" ("caritas" in
      Latin), that I suggested you take a breath and re-read my posting
      rather than my providing a line-by-line explanation of what I assumed
      was obviously stated. As I wrote "Please do not misinterpret this to
      be either patronizing or condescending" but it appears the contrary to
      be the case on your part. Some need more of an explanation than others
      but this is well within the traditional methodology of instruction. I
      apologize since it appears my original post must have been too vague
      or obtuse. I will, therefore, attempt to address each of your concerns
      in turn without anger which would be contrary to the Bodichitta Vows.

      Ken: Thanks for your concern and your suggestion. I understand that
      misunderstandings occur, but frankly I was surprised when Michael
      misunderstood my email and then, after he and I made peace on it,
      surprised again to see the same issue come up again. Perhaps you
      haven't read to the end of that thread yet.

      As I stated, "I've been reading and re-reading the open dialogue...."
      This would mean that I have read and re-read the dialogue in its
      entirety many times. I'm sorry if you missed that point in my reply.
      Yes, this would indicate I read the entire thread; each in turn many
      times.

      Ken: As for suggestions to help avoid misunderstandings, one rather
      effective method is to read what was written, perhaps even a second
      time, without assuming an evil or untoward intent. Thus far, no one
      has cited actual statements I wrote which indicate a personal attack
      or comment of a personal nature. Indeed, in my reply to Michael's
      reply I stated quite explicitly that nothing of a personal nature was
      intended in my first reply, that I was commenting on ideas only and
      not at all on him personally. And, after all, how and why could I-- or
      anyone-- make a comment on Michael as a person-- or on anyone--, not
      knowing him at all and, as far as I can recall, having read only one
      post from him? You must consider me a very immature person to reach
      such a judgment. Thank you for that.

      Firstly, nowhere in my comments neither did I state nor explicitly or
      implicitly imply anyone's (either your or Michael's) maturity or lack
      thereof. I think you are reading too much into the posting. I
      apologize for your misinterpretation and misunderstanding of what was
      stated.

      Secondly, one would naturally assume a response to a tread is directed
      to the person directly above the reply unless otherwise indicated.
      This is where the misunderstanding originated. Since I read your
      profile and note your expertise in the field of computers, I would
      think you could understand Michael's believing it was directed to him.
      Unfortunate? Yes. That is why I made my suggestions to each of you
      (you will note that Michael's name is included in my original posting)
      to be more aware of how you (plural pronoun) make postings in the
      future. When I write a post or reply, I address the individual(s) in
      my salutation. This simple courtesy hopefully alleviates any
      misunderstanding as to whom the post or reply is intended. Others may
      read or respond as they see the need; this is understood in a
      dialogue. However, the salutation or some reference as to whom the
      response is directed is customary.

      Ken: You make much of the fact that I quoted one paragraph written by
      Michael-- in your words, "Michael obviously and understandably did
      believe the reply was directed to his post since it was subsequent and
      a thread to what he wrote." How is this an indication of anything more
      than a conversation? Yes, I was referring to a thought expressed in
      his post, just as you have referred to mine, just as I am now
      referring to yours. Are you recommending that no one on this list make
      reference to another's post...? or that any reference to another's
      post is inherently personal or otherwise undesirable. ..? or that one
      should never disagree with a statement made by another...? or that to
      disagree with another's statement equates to a personal attack? What
      are you saying here? Please explain this a bit because I am frankly
      quite baffled as to what you mean. What is so bad about referring to
      someone else's post...? or even disagreeing with an idea contained
      within it?

      I did not make much of any fact but merely stated the fact that
      initiated the misunderstanding.

      As to your queries: "Are you recommending that no one on this list
      make reference to another's post...? or that any reference to
      another's post is inherently personal or otherwise undesirable. ..? or
      that one should never disagree with a statement made by another...? or
      that to disagree with another's statement equates to a personal
      attack? What are you saying here?"

      I believe I stated very clearly to the contrary. But permit me to
      reiterate, "If a portion of a response is relevant to the current
      thread, it takes little effort to post a reply to that thread and
      then, if a divergent thought is to be expressed, a new post be
      created. If a new post is directed to what someone said or wrote
      previously but not within the current thread, it would only seem
      polite to address the individual(s) to whom it is intended." I do not
      believe this statement to be obtuse or difficult to comprehend. So, I
      guess you misinterpreted once again what I wrote. I apologize if this
      was too vague an explanation but I do believe it's meaning is obvious.

      There is nothing wrong with disagreement nor an intellectual discourse
      as long as it is done without rancor. I am not implying that such was
      the case in this instance although it appeared to approach being the
      case. I have stated the need and acceptance of intellectual
      disagreement in several postings. This is well within the mandate of
      the Buddha to question and disagree on an intellectual level. However
      if as you state "...any reference to another's post is inherently
      personal or otherwise undesirable" prudence and civility would
      indicate a private e-mail to the person or no reply at all. Discretion
      is the better part of valor in such cases.

      Personally I have had disagreements with a variety of people both on
      this board and others on various points of the Dharma and Practice. In
      each case I was very clear as to the intended recipient. In such
      discussions I generally quote from suttras or writings from recognized
      authorities to clarify my point-of-view. Again, discussion is a valid
      and honored tradition in Tibetan Buddhism as long as it is done in the
      spirit to learn and is done with civility. All I stated was just be
      specific as to whom a reply is directed in order to avoid
      misunderstandings to wit: see my comments above.

      Ken: Again (because it continues to be relevant) it merits pointing
      out that no one has pointed to actual statements made which would
      support the contention that any message of a personal nature was
      expressed. This would seem essential to this conversation, yet,
      significantly, the hermeneutics called upon appear to assert the
      phaenotypical over the genotypical. It would be overly idealistic to
      insist on a world where the words one writes and/or speaks are what
      matter and not unfounded interpretations, so I do on occasion, when
      conditions seem auspicious, time permits, and efforts warranted, try
      to alter such situations by unveiling the grounds of
      misinterpretation. In a world of universal responsibility, however,
      it's sometimes more propitious to take refuge, at least in the more
      essential and nascent, than it is to tilt at the windmills of the
      deficient and concretized.

      I prefer to intentionally not respond to this paragraph.

      As to my belief and practice -- it remains intact and inviolate. I
      never pretend to be an authority ("...pretend wisdom for a day...." as
      you state) regarding Buddhism. Rather, I have emphasized my not being
      an authority but merely expressing my understanding of Buddhism in the
      Tibetan tradition. I'm sorry you felt it necessary to demean yourself,
      however, with your comment that I "...make Buddhism into a game."
      Personally, I take this to be an affront -- but bodichitta prohibits
      me from expounding.

      I can only attribute your comments to your statement in an earlier
      posting on 29 January 2007: "John and others, Thanks for being so
      charitable with your characterization of my post. I should have noted
      (if I haven't already) that I'm pretty much a Beginning Buddhist." I
      can, therefore, only attribute your errors to your being a neophyte.

      I leave you with one quote to ponder its relevance to your situation:

      Let a man guard himself against irritability in speech;
      let him be controlled in speech.
      Abandoning verbal misconduct,
      let him practice good conduct in speech.
      (Dhammapada 232)

      May all be at peace.

      John

      --- In Buddhism_101@yahoogroups.com, ken <gebser@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Dear John,
      >
      > Your response saddens me a great deal. For it is, not only
      patronizing and condescending, but also pretentious. I honestly
      expected to hear something genuine and heartfelt from you. Instead
      you make Buddhism into a game. This saddens me even more.
      >
      > It may be possible to successfully pretend wisdom for a day, but
      over time this pretension will become a heavy burden. This saddens me
      most of all.
      >
      >
      > Thank you for your conversation. Be well.
      >
      > hth,
      > ken
      >
      >
      > On 02/01/2007 02:31 PM somebody named John Pellecchia wrote:
      > > Dear Ken,
      > >
      > > Please do not misinterpret this to be either patronizing or
      condescending but I think you need to take a breath, re-read what I
      wrote and your response. I believe you will find the answers to each
      of your questions contained therein.
      > >
      > > May all be at peace.
      > >
      > > John
      > >
      > > --- In Buddhism_101@yahoogroups.com, ken <gebser@> wrote:
      > >>
      > >> John,
      > >>
      > >> Thanks for your concern and your suggestion. I understand that
      > >> misunderstandings occur, but frankly I was surprised when Michael
      > >> misunderstood my email and then, after he and I made peace on it,
      > >> surprised again to see the same issue come up again. Perhaps you
      > >> haven't read to the end of that thread yet.
      > >>
      > >> As for suggestions to help avoid misunderstandings, one rather
      effective
      > >> method is to read what was written, perhaps even a second time,
      without
      > >> assuming an evil or untoward intent. Thus far, no one has cited
      actual
      > >> statements I wrote which indicate a personal attack or comment of a
      > >> personal nature. Indeed, in my reply to Michael's reply I stated
      quite
      > >> explicitly that nothing of a personal nature was intended in my first
      > >> reply, that I was commenting on ideas only and not at all on him
      > >> personally. And, after all, how and why could I-- or anyone-- make a
      > >> comment on Michael as a person-- or on anyone--, not knowing him
      at all
      > >> and, as far as I can recall, having read only one post from him? You
      > >> must consider me a very immature person to reach such a judgment.
      Thank
      > >> you for that.
      > >>
      > >> You make much of the fact that I quoted one paragraph written by
      > >> Michael-- in your words, "Michael obviously and understandably did
      > >> believe the reply was directed to his post since it was
      subsequent and a
      > >> thread to what he wrote." How is this an indication of anything more
      > >> than a conversation? Yes, I was referring to a thought expressed
      in his
      > >> post, just as you have referred to mine, just as I am now
      referring to
      > >> yours. Are you recommending that no one on this list make
      reference to
      > >> another's post...? or that any reference to another's post is
      > >> inherently personal or otherwise undesirable...? or that one should
      > >> never disagree with a statement made by another...? or that to
      disagree
      > >> with another's statement equates to a personal attack? What are you
      > >> saying here? Please explain this a bit because I am frankly quite
      > >> baffled as to what you mean. What is so bad about referring to
      someone
      > >> else's post...? or even disagreeing with an idea contained
      within it?
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> Again (because it continues to be relevant) it merits pointing
      out that
      > >> no one has pointed to actual statements made which would support the
      > >> contention that any message of a personal nature was expressed. This
      > >> would seem essential to this conversation, yet, significantly, the
      > >> hermeneutics called upon appear to assert the phaenotypical over the
      > >> genotypical. It would be overly idealistic to insist on a world
      where
      > >> the words one writes and/or speaks are what matter and not unfounded
      > >> interpretations, so I do on occasion, when conditions seem
      auspicious,
      > >> time permits, and efforts warranted, try to alter such situations by
      > >> unveiling the grounds of misinterpretation. In a world of universal
      > >> responsibility, however, it's sometimes more propitious to take
      refuge,
      > >> at least in the more essential and nascent, than it is to tilt at the
      > >> windmills of the deficient and concretized.
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> hth,
      > >> ken
      > >>
      > >> --
      > >> "Peace hath her victories no less renown'd than war."
      > >> --John Milton
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> On 01/31/2007 03:56 PM somebody named John Pellecchia wrote:
      > >>> Dear Ken and Mike,
      > >>>
      > >>> I've been reading and re-reading the open dialogue between you both
      > >>> posted under the heading "answers good, arcane, and
      self-serving" with
      > >>> more than a little confusion on my part. I understand neither the
      > >>> impetus which preceded and produced the conversation nor its intent.
      > >>> Pardon the consternation on my part but I guess I'm just easily
      > > confused.
      > >>> My suggestions are quite simple for future dialogue in order to
      avoid
      > >>> any misunderstandings.
      > >>>
      > >>> •If a posting is not related as a thread to a current
      topic then
      > > a new
      > >>> topic should be created. This would avoid any confusion as to intent
      > >>> and misunderstandings for the original poster to the reply
      comment. I
      > >>> say this since, as Ken stated, "...I'm sorry if you thought I was
      > >>> talking about you. I wasn't. I was talking about the quality of
      > >>> answers and why someone might prefer a simple and straightforward
      > >>> answer rather than one artificially cloaked in complexity and
      mystery.
      > >>> So please don't take it personally." Michael obviously and
      > >>> understandably did believe the reply was directed to his post
      since it
      > >>> was subsequent and a thread to what he wrote.
      > >>>
      > >>> •If a portion of a response is relevant to the current
      thread, it
      > >>> takes little effort to post a reply to that thread and then, if a
      > >>> divergent thought is to be expressed, a new post be created.
      > >>>
      > >>> •If a new post is directed to what someone said or wrote
      previously
      > >>> but not within the current thread, it would only seem polite to
      > >>> address the individual(s) to whom it is intended.
      > >>>
      > >>> There is always the possibility for misunderstanding with written
      > >>> responses since we don't see the visual expression of the person
      > >>> making the reply; a smile, wink, etc. when a remark is made in
      person
      > >>> frequently breaks the tension and eliminates any misunderstanding of
      > >>> intent (not everyone uses emoticons).
      > >>>
      > >>> I do believe the above guidelines would eliminate a lot of future
      > >>> confusion.
      > >>>
      > >>> May all be at peace.
      > >>>
      > >>> John
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic