Related topic:
Should be Required Reading for Internet Discussion, ...
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]
