Author Topic: Buddhism as Goodism vs "Not".  (Read 345 times)

Offline The Artis Magistra

  • Member
  • Posts: 455
    • View Profile
Buddhism as Goodism vs "Not".
« on: July 18, 2017, 09:28:10 pm »
What are your opinions on the idea of Buddhism being Goodism as compared to "Not"?

Buddhism as Goodism would be the idea that Buddhism in such a sense would be concerned with being good and doing good or "right", goodness towards all where possible, even through justice but tempered with mercy.

The other option here is Buddhism as "Not", which is the idea that Buddhism is not about doing "good" or ethical concerns or achieving benefit or prosperity or enlightenment through nobility and good deeds, but about rejecting everything and not helping others, and going off and away forever, to simply say "not" to everyone and everything until one achieves a stable state of eternal "Not" or "Not-hood".

The type of Buddhism I am into can be called "Goodism", its all about being nice, being noble, being generous, spreading good things, and becoming perpetual in excellent conduct endlessly if possible. The idea includes things like doing good not only leading to potential immediate and later good for oneself and others, but also mystical or supernatural seeming good and ultimate good overall. So "Goodism" ends up being an almost or entirely superstitious sort of "do good/do-gooder" religion, where no matter what reasoning or no reasoning, one simply does good as far as they are able and can understand, again and again, even stupidly so, even at their own expense somewhat, just helplessly good. They see a fly in water they save it, they see an ant looking for food they lead food by the colony, they see a beggar in need or a person in pain and they try to help, they give and they try to do nice things even if people are mean in response, even if doing such good is used by others to cause harm before the one was aware of this, that fear of such does not inhibit the good one.

The other type is "Not", to reject "Goodism" and to be focused on saying "Not, Not, Not" to everything, negation to the extreme, where one sees a fly struggling in water and does Not save it, does Not take action, and does Not want to help or help people, does Not want anything, so much that they think they too will become Not, and do Not have to answer for anything in any way or get any such reaction.

In "Goodism", the idea is that there are forces which do respond to good, and that people do have to "answer" for what they do and don't just "get away" with everything by dying.

So are you interested in "Goodism" or "Not"? What type of Buddhism do you gravitate towards more?

I can never accept "Not" or to see a fly struggling and not save it from water, and I'm not sure if I ever really even want to be Non-Responsive, moving to save. This sort of Buddhism that I am talking about is likely to have become the primary and most widespread Buddhism that spread across the world, and most people were somewhat familiar with Goodism as Buddhism and Buddhism as Goodism. As for "Not", which might have the message that "attainment" is to "Not" respond or react when a fly is struggling in water, never really caught on, except with maybe Psychopaths, people who lacked empathy anyway or had other mental issues.

Goodism is a rather Universal philosophy that rears its head everywhere constantly, it is basically a desire to eliminate trouble, sadness, suffering, evil, harm, anxiety, and to spread beauty, peace, wellness, perpetual happiness, comfort, and to do good, to save, to do right, not loving that harm exists so that good can be done, but rather doing good because of the flinching of the heart to want to help and to do what seems right and best and most good and better.

Offline loopix

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: Buddhism as Goodism vs "Not".
« Reply #1 on: July 19, 2017, 02:02:34 am »
goodism all the way, bro.

Offline The Artis Magistra

  • Member
  • Posts: 455
    • View Profile
Re: Buddhism as Goodism vs "Not".
« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2017, 02:39:52 am »
Goodism for me too. I wouldn't mind the other ideas being proposed either just for some things to consider though.

Offline VisuddhiRaptor

  • Member
  • Posts: 381
    • View Profile
Re: Buddhism as Goodism vs "Not".
« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2017, 02:47:05 am »
What are your opinions on the idea of Buddhism being Goodism as compared to "Not"?

More non-sense. 

Quote
Buddhism as Goodism would be the idea that Buddhism in such a sense would be concerned with being good and doing good or "right", goodness towards all where possible, even through justice but tempered with mercy.

This sounds like Jesus.

Quote
The other option here is Buddhism as "Not", which is the idea that Buddhism is not about doing "good" or ethical concerns or achieving benefit or prosperity or enlightenment through nobility and good deeds, but about rejecting everything and not helping others, and going off and away forever, to simply say "not" to everyone and everything until one achieves a stable state of eternal "Not" or "Not-hood".

Buddhism distinguishes between "good " & "noble" where as you are using these two words to mean the same thing.

Quote
The type of Buddhism I am into can be called "Goodism"

Buddhism teaches this is defiled & deluded, despite being good. Buddhism teaches Goodism cannot end suffering.

Quote
The other type is "Not", to reject "Goodism" and to be focused on saying "Not, Not, Not" to everything, negation to the extreme

This is wrong because your post is only offering two alternatives: (1) your "idiot compassion" and (2) not caring. The reality is there are other alternatives to your immature & worldly outlook.

Quote
So are you interested in "Goodism" or "Not"? What type of Buddhism do you gravitate towards more?

Neither of these two alternatives you offer are Buddhism.

Quote
Goodism is a rather Universal philosophy that rears its head everywhere constantly, it is basically a desire to eliminate trouble, sadness, suffering, evil, harm, anxiety, and to spread beauty, peace, wellness, perpetual happiness, comfort, and to do good, to save, to do right, not loving that harm exists so that good can be done, but rather doing good because of the flinching of the heart to want to help and to do what seems right and best and most good and better.

Goodism cannot eliminate trouble, sadness, suffering, evil & anxiety. But Buddhism can.

Your posts are creating confusion here.  :namaste:

Offline The Artis Magistra

  • Member
  • Posts: 455
    • View Profile
Re: Buddhism as Goodism vs "Not".
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2017, 12:24:20 pm »
Figuring out the real ways to truly end suffering is Goodism. Now you're even deciding what is and is not Goodism? Can you not see what the issue with you might really be? This is what you do, repeatedly. Why?

Offline IdleChater

  • Member
  • Posts: 587
    • View Profile
Re: Buddhism as Goodism vs "Not".
« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2017, 05:12:57 pm »
What are your opinions on the idea of Buddhism being Goodism as compared to "Not"?

Buddhism as Goodism would be the idea that Buddhism in such a sense would be concerned with being good and doing good or "right", goodness towards all where possible, even through justice but tempered with mercy.

The other option here is Buddhism as "Not", which is the idea that Buddhism is not about doing "good" or ethical concerns or achieving benefit or prosperity or enlightenment through nobility and good deeds, but about rejecting everything and not helping others, and going off and away forever, to simply say "not" to everyone and everything until one achieves a stable state of eternal "Not" or "Not-hood".

The type of Buddhism I am into can be called "Goodism", its all about being nice, being noble, being generous, spreading good things, and becoming perpetual in excellent conduct endlessly if possible. The idea includes things like doing good not only leading to potential immediate and later good for oneself and others, but also mystical or supernatural seeming good and ultimate good overall. So "Goodism" ends up being an almost or entirely superstitious sort of "do good/do-gooder" religion, where no matter what reasoning or no reasoning, one simply does good as far as they are able and can understand, again and again, even stupidly so, even at their own expense somewhat, just helplessly good. They see a fly in water they save it, they see an ant looking for food they lead food by the colony, they see a beggar in need or a person in pain and they try to help, they give and they try to do nice things even if people are mean in response, even if doing such good is used by others to cause harm before the one was aware of this, that fear of such does not inhibit the good one.

The other type is "Not", to reject "Goodism" and to be focused on saying "Not, Not, Not" to everything, negation to the extreme, where one sees a fly struggling in water and does Not save it, does Not take action, and does Not want to help or help people, does Not want anything, so much that they think they too will become Not, and do Not have to answer for anything in any way or get any such reaction.

In "Goodism", the idea is that there are forces which do respond to good, and that people do have to "answer" for what they do and don't just "get away" with everything by dying.

So are you interested in "Goodism" or "Not"? What type of Buddhism do you gravitate towards more?

I can never accept "Not" or to see a fly struggling and not save it from water, and I'm not sure if I ever really even want to be Non-Responsive, moving to save. This sort of Buddhism that I am talking about is likely to have become the primary and most widespread Buddhism that spread across the world, and most people were somewhat familiar with Goodism as Buddhism and Buddhism as Goodism. As for "Not", which might have the message that "attainment" is to "Not" respond or react when a fly is struggling in water, never really caught on, except with maybe Psychopaths, people who lacked empathy anyway or had other mental issues.

Goodism is a rather Universal philosophy that rears its head everywhere constantly, it is basically a desire to eliminate trouble, sadness, suffering, evil, harm, anxiety, and to spread beauty, peace, wellness, perpetual happiness, comfort, and to do good, to save, to do right, not loving that harm exists so that good can be done, but rather doing good because of the flinching of the heart to want to help and to do what seems right and best and most good and better.


Sounds a bit like Trungpa Rinpoche's teaching on what he called "Basic Goodness.  It's been dicussed in terms like ultimate bodhichatta, primordial, self-existing nature and goodness, and Buddha Nature.

You can find good info @

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_goodness
https://www.lionsroar.com/the-ground-of-basic-goodness/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sakyong-mipham-rinpoche/manifesto-on-basic-goodness_b_3156131.html

So I think what you talk about makes a lot of sense in a Buddhist context.  Goodism isn't far from Trungpa's Basic Goodness.

As far as the "Nots" are concerned, who cares?

Offline The Artis Magistra

  • Member
  • Posts: 455
    • View Profile
Re: Buddhism as Goodism vs "Not".
« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2017, 05:23:57 pm »
Haha, exactly, and thank you SO much for providing those links and references, anything else you can provide and share here is much appreciated, those will be really helpful and exciting for all of us, thank you so much!

Offline Rahul

  • Member
  • Posts: 172
    • View Profile
Re: Buddhism as Goodism vs "Not".
« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2017, 07:31:49 pm »

The other option here is Buddhism as "Not", which is the idea that Buddhism is not about doing "good" or ethical concerns or achieving benefit or prosperity or enlightenment through nobility and good deeds, but about rejecting everything and not helping others, and going off and away forever, to simply say "not" to everyone and everything until one achieves a stable state of eternal "Not" or "Not-hood".


Enlightenment can't be achieved by 'good' deeds alone. I think by 'good deed' you imply the popular meaning: helping others, doing beneficial things, refraining from harming others etc. Buddhism on the other hand was never concerned with 'prosperity', teaching ways of being prosperous etc.

Buddhism is not about rejecting and not helping people either. And as far as I know there is no state of 'Not' or 'Not-hood'.

Both the concepts 'Goodism' and 'Not-Goodism' that you gave are not Buddhism at all.

Offline The Artis Magistra

  • Member
  • Posts: 455
    • View Profile
Re: Buddhism as Goodism vs "Not".
« Reply #8 on: July 19, 2017, 08:00:52 pm »

The other option here is Buddhism as "Not", which is the idea that Buddhism is not about doing "good" or ethical concerns or achieving benefit or prosperity or enlightenment through nobility and good deeds, but about rejecting everything and not helping others, and going off and away forever, to simply say "not" to everyone and everything until one achieves a stable state of eternal "Not" or "Not-hood".


Enlightenment can't be achieved by 'good' deeds alone. I think by 'good deed' you imply the popular meaning: helping others, doing beneficial things, refraining from harming others etc. Buddhism on the other hand was never concerned with 'prosperity', teaching ways of being prosperous etc.

Buddhism is not about rejecting and not helping people either. And as far as I know there is no state of 'Not' or 'Not-hood'.

Both the concepts 'Goodism' and 'Not-Goodism' that you gave are not Buddhism at all.

Well you are saying "Not" to it, that is what I meant by "Notism", so tell me what is Buddhism? In full detail, since you don't like that Buddhism should be focused on doing good at first or at all, what then is it you consider Buddhism to be and Buddhism to be in practice? Are you a Buddhist? What is that? You're not a Goodist though, right?

Offline Rahul

  • Member
  • Posts: 172
    • View Profile
Re: Buddhism as Goodism vs "Not".
« Reply #9 on: July 19, 2017, 11:47:38 pm »

The other option here is Buddhism as "Not", which is the idea that Buddhism is not about doing "good" or ethical concerns or achieving benefit or prosperity or enlightenment through nobility and good deeds, but about rejecting everything and not helping others, and going off and away forever, to simply say "not" to everyone and everything until one achieves a stable state of eternal "Not" or "Not-hood".


Enlightenment can't be achieved by 'good' deeds alone. I think by 'good deed' you imply the popular meaning: helping others, doing beneficial things, refraining from harming others etc. Buddhism on the other hand was never concerned with 'prosperity', teaching ways of being prosperous etc.

Buddhism is not about rejecting and not helping people either. And as far as I know there is no state of 'Not' or 'Not-hood'.

Both the concepts 'Goodism' and 'Not-Goodism' that you gave are not Buddhism at all.

Well you are saying "Not" to it, that is what I meant by "Notism", so tell me what is Buddhism? In full detail, since you don't like that Buddhism should be focused on doing good at first or at all, what then is it you consider Buddhism to be and Buddhism to be in practice? Are you a Buddhist? What is that? You're not a Goodist though, right?

The Artis Magistra, it is not my aim to evaluate myself against a set of practices (-ism) and gain a label (-ist) myself or from others. It's a waste of time. I don't care if I qualify to be a Buddhist or not. Nor have I ever thought 'am I a Buddhist?'!

What is Buddhism? The answer to this cannot be given in 'full detail' in a forum-post as you are requesting. Full details would mean a book of a couple of hundred pages perhaps. You may want to refer to Tipitaka which were supposedly composed by the immediate disciples of Buddha, and hence to me it is more reliable than any other Buddhist literature.

Offline The Artis Magistra

  • Member
  • Posts: 455
    • View Profile
Re: Buddhism as Goodism vs "Not".
« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2017, 02:29:32 am »

The other option here is Buddhism as "Not", which is the idea that Buddhism is not about doing "good" or ethical concerns or achieving benefit or prosperity or enlightenment through nobility and good deeds, but about rejecting everything and not helping others, and going off and away forever, to simply say "not" to everyone and everything until one achieves a stable state of eternal "Not" or "Not-hood".


Enlightenment can't be achieved by 'good' deeds alone. I think by 'good deed' you imply the popular meaning: helping others, doing beneficial things, refraining from harming others etc. Buddhism on the other hand was never concerned with 'prosperity', teaching ways of being prosperous etc.

Buddhism is not about rejecting and not helping people either. And as far as I know there is no state of 'Not' or 'Not-hood'.

Both the concepts 'Goodism' and 'Not-Goodism' that you gave are not Buddhism at all.

Well you are saying "Not" to it, that is what I meant by "Notism", so tell me what is Buddhism? In full detail, since you don't like that Buddhism should be focused on doing good at first or at all, what then is it you consider Buddhism to be and Buddhism to be in practice? Are you a Buddhist? What is that? You're not a Goodist though, right?

The Artis Magistra, it is not my aim to evaluate myself against a set of practices (-ism) and gain a label (-ist) myself or from others. It's a waste of time. I don't care if I qualify to be a Buddhist or not. Nor have I ever thought 'am I a Buddhist?'!

What is Buddhism? The answer to this cannot be given in 'full detail' in a forum-post as you are requesting. Full details would mean a book of a couple of hundred pages perhaps. You may want to refer to Tipitaka which were supposedly composed by the immediate disciples of Buddha, and hence to me it is more reliable than any other Buddhist literature.

Is there any reason why you are held back from total departure from this world, and is there any reason for you not to simply leave this world now and skip all the troubles, you'll bypass "isms" and worse things too. Do you have an explanation of that? The Buddhism I am familiar with (maybe you would like to call it Foolism or Stupidism), can be explained in no words, one word, or less, other words, or words from here and there, such as those you like and perhaps even those you don't like.

Offline IdleChater

  • Member
  • Posts: 587
    • View Profile
Re: Buddhism as Goodism vs "Not".
« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2017, 06:47:47 pm »

Enlightenment can't be achieved by 'good' deeds alone.


Funny you should mention that now.  There are many - both here and on other boards - who would lead us to believe that good deeds can, in fact lead to enlightenment.  They go on and on about willfull adherence to the N8FP, and the Precepts as if that was all there was to Buddhism.

Quote
Both the concepts 'Goodism' and 'Not-Goodism' that you gave are not Buddhism at all.

Well, as I pointed out, he's very close to Trungpa's Shambhala teachings on Basic Goodness, and that's not really Methodist, so, I'd say your assessment is misinformed..

Offline The Artis Magistra

  • Member
  • Posts: 455
    • View Profile
Re: Buddhism as Goodism vs "Not".
« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2017, 12:45:11 am »
Thank you so much for your assistance and support in mentioning what you have and any examples. I tested some of these efforts on Dharma Wheel the Mahayan Buddhist forum and was attacked extremely harshly there, told to leave the website, and all my writing is being blocked suppresed deleted and belligerent comments are sent to me in private and openly there where I am not allowed to reply and I really have only been saying friendly things I had hoped migh5 interest or inspire people. I have received ridicule here and there but there they are not even letting me post now because anything I write they delete and send me insults in reply and call me things like troll and tell me to go away. They keep saying to me I have no credentials so that I am not allowed to type or talk about the Dharma in any way because I reject sectarianism and divisiveness and obstructions they keep insisting I should pursue and support.

Here are some examples of recent blocked material there, so one can see extremist attitudes by colonialists there as well as here towards a Buddhist attempting to talk about Buddhism (this is being posted mainly for the purposes of showing the current state of online forum discourse among Buddhists and how many people become complicit in it and join in on the gang-like bashing activities):

"Someone on this website is disapproving and deleting practically all my writing. I responded a great deal to the questions asked of me but these were all suppressed. I have just written more response which are likely also to be suppressed.

This is what I most recently wrote after being told by whoever this radical moderator is to basically leave the website. My topics are also being blocked as well and they are not allowing me to write anything and I am not breaking any rules but writing friendly or curious things. I have brought up qualities in some of these people which they may benefit from working on. Please tell me if this message reaches you and my email is theartismagistra@gmail.com. What they are doing or asking for is certainly the modern plague of Buddhism which has allowed it to decay and inhibited it from the people. I will copy paste my latest response as well as all the older responses they suppressed in that thread so far as I was able to collect them since I think you at least may also enjoy them as I did and gain from them as I did. Their blocking and removing all my words intended for good are also trying to block other people from benefit, so overall this whole thing appears rather evil seeming. They might even secretly spy on messages here or try to block these as well. Their concern is unwarranted, I am intended on good and the Dharma can not be harmed, they in their fear seemto be the ones doing all the harm and suppression of good.

" I responded with many things to the comments which I thought may be of benefit but these were all disapproved of. I was also told in the disapproval messages basically to go away. Now one of my purposes was to test the community to see how they respond to efforts of anyone trying to talk about Buddhism. This response is very interesting and certainly has frightened me as well.

So are the people on this public forum suggesting that one is not free to discuss what they may enjoy concerning Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism without submitting to some sect or sectarian division and operating under a certain hierarchy and having some sort of paperwork?

Would such requirements not be a total suppression of freely "talking about Buddhism" and the Dharma?

That is alright. I may find people who will be interested in such a report, and some may think it is good to keep discussion suppressed in this way, whereas others may not.

This sends a kind of unhappy and un-free message regarding Buddhism and an idea that it is not free but stifling and highly restrictive. Any religion which will become like that will not be able to spread its message too happily.

This is important as a message, please allow this to be posted and stop disapproving the numerous things I am writing, they are well intended and intended to make people think and do good.

Thank you. As for all those posts disapproved, I luckily managed to collect at least some of these recent ones which were likely to inspire some people were they allowed to be posted. "

""Tell me what credentials you require or would satisfy you besides my having good intentions and a good heart and a desire to encourage you and everyone and myself in goodness? Tell me what papers or historical accounts verify a good heart and goid intentions or a desire to edify and help? Tell me why such an effort should be impeded or blocked by bureaucracy and paperwork? Might you simply deal with what is said, and if what is said is the opposite of good, then it has still brought to your mind good by seeing the opposite of it, and it becomes easy to simply flip it if that will better satisfy you.

"Your lineage or school
Your teachers
Your ordination or teaching credentials"

I thought I had explained myself already, but perhaps not or you hadn't seen it or the post was relived or in private or something.

I lack all of what you seek or will be satisfied by, will you thus shun a person from attempting to speak about the Dharma?

The Buddha might have been asked what qualifications he has to dare speak to Brahmins or dare to think that he is worthy to ever open his mouth due to his lack of having any established sect or forbidding him the use of common terminology.

Is that the sort of person you might enjoy being? Have you any doubt that such an attitude may have stifled the Dharma from being comfortably spread or causing people to scoff at the attempts of people to share and say something which you may directly benefit from or benefit from its reversal, thus still benefitting from what might be said?

I consider you all qualified teachers of your Buddhist and Mahayana affections, but it appears you have made a distinction in the suggestion that some of what people say you disregard while others you consider legitimate based on your requirements. Do you think that it would really be of benefit to anyone were I to have what you wished for? Perhaps if we listened to vagabonds more and treated them with as much veneration as we do a lawyer of religious texts, we might learn things we can't find in books or hear more of the Dharma through rotten teeth and foul appearances?

I do not find the suggestion that one should not have free access to the Dharma and should instead support and subscribe to divisive sectarianism and other means which limit and obstruct the free flow of the Dharma or access to taking freely from and spreading the Dharma to be a beneficial idea or implication. So I would have to reject such as even an objective for anyone who intends upon noble and beneficent dispersal of the Dharma and absolute access to things even beyond what anyone might consider "Buddhist or Buddhist enough" for this purpose.

So we're talking about Buddhism by talking about what inhibits people from talking about Buddhism. I subscribe only to the idea that the Dharma is Universal and Free, and that the Dharma can be spread through any means by anyone, so long as we remain attentive or respectful, then we might not ask a sewer or a bubbling brook about what school it wants to be in and who taught it the Dharma. Any diplomas and paperwork given to the bubbling brook or sewer seems to become wet and soggy and flows away.

If I took a dog as my teacher, or the reality of things, would a man be more qualified in permitting me to speak than life in a heart intended on good?
So even if I had what you wanted, giving it to you, I don't think that would help you much. Really it would promote an unfavorable idea which may stifle the Dharma and lead to loss and disrespect and neglect through what you end up focusing on and disregarding thus.""

"All my writing is being deleted and all my responses even to questions are being suppressed very harshly. I am being thoroughly mistreated on this website within moments of joining and rude and sarcastic remarks are being allowed while my friendly and rule following responses are being insulted in the disapproval messages and in those messages I was told to go away as well. The majority of my writing efforts have been suppressed or deleted despite their having good intentions and messages I hoped people might benefit from considering or thinking about. I sent this message to Soma999 in case they might like to see, but I hope you might enjoy it at least. I did. Its just very hard for me to save all this on my phone and be so obstructed with every post. Their efforts are to make it nigh impossible to post and run me off. I requested their at least copy pasting my writing back to me to make it easier to save but they would not do that either. So its worth thinking about. Worth speaking out about as well, as you did so far, which was really very kind of you, thank you so much. It is very difficult for me to post and link and nearly impossible to copy paste on this device and then to see it blocked or wiped out repeatedly is also very hurtful."

"Just in case they won't allow my latest response, I will send it to you in case you might enjoy it:

"Why not judge based on what a person says and then freely dispute it or reverse it if a person says something which appears bad or wrong to you? If a Dharma teacher made of paperwork were to say a wrong thing, would you just believe it?

So withno matter what you might see or experience, why not judge it based on the content and then fix it where you find trouble rather than suppressing it so thoroughly?

Why not simply judge and think about what is said and see if you can use it well or not. You can use also the opportunity or event of seeing something you deem wrong, to say something you deem right or better, which you may not have at that moment otherwise, thus even what you fear as bad may lead to good. So please stop this total suppression of my efforts to discuss Mahayana Buddhism on a Mahayana Buddhism Forum.

I am really not breaking any rules or doing anything bad. I have not stated I am this or that teacher, just allow me to speak,
judge what I say, take what good from it you might, if it is bad in your view then respond to it with good but keep both the examples available and let people decide. Does that not sound simple and reasonable to you? ""

"In your wonderful comment you mentioned how an informal discussion among peers and friendly people can be just the right ticket at some times. I really agree and enjoyed that comment and so attempted to make an Informal Topic thread in the lounge where I wrote:

Title: Informal Discussion on Buddhist topics free dialogue.

" This thread should be allowed for informal discussion regarding Buddhist topics in the "anything goes" lounge at least.

Here you can bring any sort of Buddhist topic to be informally discussed. I may also use this thread to talk about practically anything at all in relation to Buddhism in some way.

Please allow this thread to potentially flourish and please do not suppress my writing or responses here, this is the lounge where "anything goes" and I am not trying to attract any students, nor am I proclaiming that anything I say is necessarily going to help, just take from it what good you may be able or if it is bad flip it around to what is good or respond with things you find better or information you think may help.

There is no reason to be overly concerned with one individual in the lounge talking about Buddhism freely and responding to things here. Nothing about Buddhism is "off-topic" here, bring whatever you may like to talk about and I may do so as well. This is what some people may need or want or enjoy and potentially even be inspired by directly or in reversing something which is said or brought up here.

Furthermore, if you believe in authorities then seek authorities on matters, this is just informal happy discussion. Alright? You can disregard everything I write, deriving no benefit from it at all. Please just allow it to be written and posted and visible though, thank you very much, and correct anything you feel is good or best to correct in your responses but please leave the original that you are responding to. Allow me to write here in the "anything goes" lounge informally please.

Anyone can begin by bringing up any Buddhist topic and stimulating informal discussion. Thank you. I may bring up things here as well but I am just establishing this topic now, please allow it, please. "

I also wrote this response in my thread "Can you tell me some stories about the great harm events that have been vaguely or abstractly referred to? There are so many nice sects to choose from, you guys are really pressuring me to make choices I don't want to make. What sect do you think I am from or would fit best with what you barely allow me to say and block from being posted incessantly?"

Sorry to bother you with these, its just that I can't reach the forum and you are thus the only available communication of the forum apparently. Reaching one person is better than reaching none I guess."

""Topic disapproved:
"Informal Discussion on Buddhist topics free dialogue."
Forum: Lounge
Reason: The reported message is off topic. It's not your business how we moderate the forum, your tone and content is generally disruptive to the forum. You appear to be uninterested in what most people have to say to you, and to simply be here to lecture or talk over people. You can bet there is no way we will allow it. So, your choice is either to adjust how you are interact, or you simply won't be interacting often here.."

Harsh. Well, it looks like they have become completely obsessed with supressing me, so the rest is up to you if you are willing out of compassion. Don't let what is so obviously the work and spirit of Mara in nature to go unwitnessed and un-responded to. You have seen it with your own eyes now what even Buddhists are capable of towards a Buddhist coming as a friend. What the ethnic Buddhists tolerate being done to even other ethnic Buddhists due to their positions of authority or power and maintaining such and what the Western Buddhists do to the ethnic Buddhists in their radical extremism. This is the state of things made manifest."

""Post disapproved:
"Lets talk about Buddhism!"
Reason: The reported message does not fit into any other category, please use the further information field. The only incessant thing going on is you violating the Terms of Service in criticizing moderation on your posts. In answer to your question: just do a google search for "bad buddhist teacher" or something similar. If you were really from a Buddhist culture, you'd know this stuff already. Your trolling is not going unnoticed.."

I am not trolling. They won't let me post anything anywhere. This moderator is terrorizing me and says they are beyond being questioned. These are all shown as great meditations. I hope you benefit from seeing and pondering upon these things, these appearances, I do. They are profound! They have blocked every single friendly effort I am making and calling me troll and telling me to leave, or just short of banning me, making me unable to post or participate or respond at all. Complete and total suppression and oppression. Since you are the only person available to talk to, unless they are somehow blocking these too, it may be enjoyable and pleasing to discuss how you are viewing this. What I am looking for is a heartfelt compassionate sort of reaction to this and not liking or approving of it or supporting it. Nothing pleases me more than people to be compassionate and actively responsive to what they should not be cold towards. Many people seem to have misunderstood Buddhism as coldness and not caring."

"I pm'd what might be the website owner about this:

"I do not know who to speak to about this, but if you review the messages being sent to me as responses to disapproved posts, there is a very extreme effort being made to not allow me to participate on this website or post anything. I am not posting or attempting to post anything controversial nor am I claiming anything false. My writing and efforts are constantly being deleted everywhere. It is my hope that you may be able to remedy this situation and maybe stop this abuse of power and remove the people doing this, such as queequeg and others very openly being abusive towards me. I have some records of some of the writing which was not allowed to be posted in case they have deleted it from your view, so that you might see the content was innocent and friendly and breaking no rules that I am aware of. The attacks have been vicious. If you access my account or however you may be able to see the things written to me via the disapproved message responses, I am being told to go away and my posting is all harshly blocked and viewed with prejudice and special concern and I have been singled out and alienated on the forum and attacked as a target. I am not being allowed to post or respond or discuss anything, and this is basically being banned without being banned, it is blatant abuse and even towards an ethnic Buddhist with genuine good intentions trying to communicate with great difficulty over this device in English and having all my work and writing attacked and being ridiculed. You are my last resort. If you do not help me, there will be no one to remedy this as the abuse is visible and known to the whole of the moderation team who are complicit in it. These things typically occur, and I am interested in seeing how you might deal with such issues as the owner of this website and very important websites. "

Offline Rahul

  • Member
  • Posts: 172
    • View Profile
Re: Buddhism as Goodism vs "Not".
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2017, 02:46:11 am »

... and was attacked extremely harshly there, told to leave the website, and all my writing is being blocked suppresed deleted and belligerent comments are sent to me in private and openly there where I am not allowed to reply and ...


Think again why that happened.

Offline The Artis Magistra

  • Member
  • Posts: 455
    • View Profile
Re: Buddhism as Goodism vs "Not".
« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2017, 02:54:04 am »

... and was attacked extremely harshly there, told to leave the website, and all my writing is being blocked suppresed deleted and belligerent comments are sent to me in private and openly there where I am not allowed to reply and ...


Think again why that happened.

Once is enough not to understand. Twice would be silly not to understand. Why think again? Learning about why I deserve to be harassed is not my cup of tea. I'm more into color. I look at this green colored book on my bed, next to my pillow, and without even opening it I get all sorts of nice ideas about compassion.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal