Tsem Tulku made a 4-hour video on this subject. Are you going to comment line by line as you have done here, for the entire 4-hour video? Or are you just gonna cherry-pick parts that you can pounce on
If I comment line by line the 4 hours you complain; if I cherry pick parts that I can pounce on you complain. Is there an alternative so that you don't complain?
and twist
Just like anyone else, I may unintentionally misunderstand, and therefore misrepresent a statement. In this case, I would be happy to be corrected.
However, this is not what you said. You said that I have “twisted” a statement. “To twist” means to contort, to distort, to falsify, and to do so intentionally, in bad faith. This is a pretty serious accusation.
Since you chose to offer this serious accusation, you might care to prove it, or else to recognize that you have perpetrated an act of verbal violence, a slander, which is both a lie and a case of harsh speech.
to say something you think is clever
Thank you for your attempt to read what I “think”; however you did not succeed. Indeed, what I think is that what I had to say is sad, extremely sad - that Buddhist practitioners see their Dharma practice as a “small part” of themselves.
and gives you that holier-than-thou impression?
As you say, this is just your own impression, your subjective belief, your mental representation. Therefore you might ponder what makes you project such subjective impression of yours on others, failing to realize that they exist only in your own mind.
I am not even going to debate you on the substance of what you wrote .
If so, you should not have offered such a serious accusation, because an accusation without proof is known as a slander, a verbal violence, which is both a lie and a case of harsh speech.
as there isn't much except conjecture
What I said is that it is “repulsive” to see Buddhist practitioners stating that their Dharma practice is just a “small part” of themselves. Please show were is the “conjecture”.
But it is possible that your “conjecture” theory just aims at evading your responsibility to prove your accusation, that I “twisted” a statement. If so, your trick shows lack of honesty in debate.
I have noticed this about you over time -
As a Buddhist, I try to notice things about myself, rather than about others. Still, I'm always happy when others, in a non-Buddhist way, notice things about myself.
that you criticise anything that is not perfectly in line with your own opinion.
If I understand you well, I should therefore criticize only what is perfectly in line with my opinion, is it?
If you can have opinions, why not anyone else?
I believe that everyone is entitled to have and express their opinions without being slandered, without being accused without proof of “twisting” a statement, which is precisely what you have done.
What makes your opinion right and everyone else wrong?
An opinion is right or wrong if it is proved. I offered my proof. If you think that my proof is not good, then it's your turn to disprove me. But you explicitly refused “to debate the substance of what I wrote”, you chose to evade, using the false pretext that what I wrote was only “conjecture”.
If it was “conjecture”, you had to prove it; just to state is not enough.
In other words, your actual belief is that I am wrong without the need of being proved wrong, and that you are right without the of proving yourself right. This is not an honest attitude.
What is truly repulsive is our own self-serving ego and we should all work on that first and foremost instead of critiquing the works of others,
I didn't say anything about the “works” of anyone. I criticized a statement, and the idea behind this statement, that the Dharma practice received from one's guru is just “a small part” of oneself. If you agree with this statement, and want to prove it correct, do it by all means, but do not twist my own statement, suggesting that I am criticizing the “works” of others.
especially when that critique is full of personal repugnance towards another.
My repugnance was very clearly stated to be against a
statement. If you care to check, I said
“What a repulsive statement”. It's only your false projection which sees “personal repugnance towards another”.
This site's objective is to fight a religious ban borne out of intolerance. Intolerance has no place here
Then why do you engage in intolerance yourself, slandering others, and trying to impose your own views without any proof?
especially when it is directed at a monk who has done no harm to you or anyone.
Then according to you a
statement is “a monk”. I think your projections went way too far.
May I add that this response comes more than two months after your post, not because of neglect or lack of consideration from my side, but because I've been banned from this posting to this website since November 22, 2015 and until January 21, 2016.
When we Shugdenpas talk about “bans” and “intolerance”, we should beware, I believe, not to fall into the same patterns we are supposed to fight.
