Clarifying this whole 'becoming' thing

cmarti: "What these folks are claiming is offered up as an almost inevitable extension of the path. I'm not so sure. I really don't know. So I maintain a reasonable skepticism. If proven wrong, I will gladly, ecstatically, admit my error."

At this point I don't know either. I suspect this is the case, but maybe not. It might just be a matter of - wait and see as all of our practices develop.

Here are a few examples of what I'm trying to convey:

If in many replies over time to the description of experiences by others the PCE is repeatedly brought up, again and again, that in my mind is evangelizing. If in reply to any description of practice that does not match that which certain folks prefer and then their version is brought up over and over again, that is evangelizing. When every discussion that is not a practice thread ends up featuring a certain type of practice that is consistent across threads and is being offered by only a few people, that is evangelizing. If the feeling I get from reading many of the threads here is that I cannot get away from the discussion of certain practices because they appear in replies to just about every conversation, that is evangelizing. Maybe I should all it "monopolizing" to make it more clear.

This is not a perfect science, beoman. Let's both see how it goes using our common sense and best judgment.

" If the feeling I get from reading many of the threads here is that I cannot get away from the discussion of certain practices because they appear in replies to just about every conversation, that is evangelizing. Maybe I should [c]all it "monopolizing" to make it more clear.


"

I think this is very succinctly put, very helpful clarification--- plus, "monopolizing" is very factual, it points to a style of posting that constantly turns the topic of discussion in one direction again and again, which is in itself (regardless of the respectfulness of the posts in question) perhaps disrespectful, in some way.

"Evangelizing" connotes something about the poster's intention which gets into a vague territory and perhaps contributes to the talking past each other, and the polemical tone we want to avoid.

So I really think this clarifying distinction is very helpful Chris-- thanks!

I'll use that term from now on, Jake. Thanks for the feedback.

"

Everyone is welcome here as long as those very simple, straightforward rules are followed.

"

Thanks, Chris.
I appreciate the clarification and your welcoming attitude.
I thought about starting another thread inquiring into AF, but to do so, I would have to break at least one of the rules.
This one I would break right away:
- do not call people names or engage in the exercise of describing their person, personality or personal attributes

Not that I need to call people names, but I would like to say things like: When made this particular comment, you seemed reactive to me, like you really did not think about it. It gave me the impression of anger, even though you say you don't experience anger.
Or-
When you made these comments, I got the impression of someone working very hard to make up for the lack of empathy. In other words, you appeared to struggle to understand things I get very easily through empathy. Do you notice any interpersonal problems resulting from the lack of empathy?

Things like that. Perhaps if I or someone else started a thread in which the AF claimant volunteered to participate in that kind of personal inquiry, you might allow it. But otherwise I don't know how to start the conversation I want to have without breaking that rule.

Gary

Gary, while I don't see anything wrong about asking a poster if they were in fact angry when they posted something I do think it best to stay away from topics devoted to Actual Freedom.

Thanks four understanding.

Oh, ok.

I didn't know that I was being taken that way. Fair enough. To clarify, I definitely do not believe in sarcasm or snarkiness.. I am being sincere when I make comments. Which is not to say that I am afraid of confronting a view or position. I don't believe in personal attacks, be they directly or indirectly, as sarcasm etc would suggest.

Good to know what others are thinking.

I agree with what Nick said. However, there is something additional that I think needs to be emphasized.

All things considered, whether we all agree or disagree on all points of the dharma, our goals are strikingly similar compared to the majority of people. Most people don't grok the kinds of things we do in any way. They couldn't imagine what the value of sitting and contemplating one's mind for 30 minutes would be, let alone fathom the reasons we put so many hours, year after year, into practice. The methods of our practice are broadly similar. Our attitudes towards practice are broadly similar. We are all much more alike than different. We should be supporting each other (and trying to understand each other, when appropriate). Whether or not we disagree with each others' views, whether or not we think we ought to let people know about alternative views, as far as I can see, the extent to which we allow other people to hold their views is the degree to which we are able to offer each other mutual support.

So, although this moment has the potential to be quite politicized, I would like to ask everyone involved to approach it in the opposite way, and reflect on the value of producing or maintaining divisions in our culture.

Kenneth has done a lot to benefit many of us (and that includes me), his contributions to the pragmatic dharma scene are worthy of deep respect, and I see no reason why we can't all use common sense insofar as possible regarding what we talk about here and what we don't. When in doubt, it is easy to abstain. Observing this fosters mutual respect and improves our community. To the extent that discussion about certain topics is worth having, it can easily be had elsewhere with little difficulty.

(cont)

I will continue to hang out here and stick my two cents in, when appropriate. (There is more to being part of a community than being able to state your beliefs and perspectives whenever you like.) And, for other types of conversation, you all know where to go.

EndInSight, this is not political at all and let's not minimize the problem, okay? Because, see, it was a problem. If you stay you're welcome as long as you remain within the rules I outlined. Please do not monopolize the discussions.

By "political" I meant an issue arising between two or more (apparent) camps.

Broadly speaking, the intent of my last post was to agree that this is Kenneth's site, Kenneth's opinions with respect to what goes on here are worthy of being respected, and respect for each other (as we do have a rather unique and valuable community) ought to trump concerns with promoting views that one thinks is correct. I am sorry if you took that to be minimizing any of the involved issues (which I did not intend to do, as I recognize quite clearly why you have found these discussions to be problematic, and agree with your reasoning).

I should have qualified my final statement with "...in appropriate ways" but somehow used "...when appropriate" instead.

I see that I shouldn't have used the word "political" (or "politicized"), as it conveys something I didn't mean at all. What I meant was, insofar as this is a moment that could quite easily highlight the apparent existence of different camps, I think there is a different and better way to approach it.

My bad.

Okay.