Timeline for Explanations of Buddhist "thought-provoking dissonance" in dialectics?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 18, 2015 at 13:43 | comment | added | ChrisW Mod |
IMO a key clause from Andrei's answer (which this question was quoting) was, if a Zen master notices that his student lost his fundamental sanity and has "gotten drunk on the shravaka wine" to use Dogen's parable. Texts returned by a Google search for e.g. Dogen sravaka wine suggest the context in which that type of speech was used (i.e. the context to which that speech might be an antidote). Given that context it might be obvious that's it's likely to be more effective if and because it's from a teacher.
|
|
| Sep 18, 2015 at 13:26 | history | edited | Andriy VolkovMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Sep 18, 2015 at 13:24 | comment | added | Robin111 | There is an interesting question here in that Zen tradition sometimes holds 10 precepts, multiple of which concern right speech and one concerning anger and yet the responses of Zen teachers can seem harsh or provocative and seemingly not in keeping with the precepts to outsiders. It was my assumption that this is where the question was leading. But maybe it's too broad as written? | |
| Sep 18, 2015 at 12:42 | comment | added | Andriy Volkov Mod | You're right, I'm not too keen on it and I'm trying to be polite. | |
| Sep 18, 2015 at 12:05 | comment | added | ChrisW Mod |
a) Re-reading the original version of the OP, the whole possibly by creating thought-provoking dissonance etc. clause seems a discursive aside i.e. inessential and could be dropped without changing the literal questions which follow. b) I agree that "source of a quote or a specific idea" is the usual use of reference-request (that's why I looked at the tag wiki to see whether it was meant to have "general request on a subject area" as a secondary use). That could be a separate meta-topic, I guess. Re this specific question, in summary I think you're not keen on it nor on any variety of it.
|
|
| Sep 18, 2015 at 11:59 | comment | added | Andriy Volkov Mod | For me reference-request is different, that's asking for the source of a quote or a specific idea... I don't think it should be used for general requests for broad areas. | |
| Sep 18, 2015 at 11:55 | comment | added | ChrisW Mod |
The tag wiki for reference-request says, "A question asking for a single text or a set of texts. This can be from a general request on a subject area or (etc.)": so, recommending resources might be on-topic (I don't remember that's it's actually ever been used for a "general request"; or actually I do, sometimes Yuttadhammo used to allow such a question as 'community wiki', which implied they were on-topic, though I think that this topic is so narrow/specialized that it shouldn't be CW, i.e. this question would be lucky to get even one or two good answers).
|
|
| Sep 18, 2015 at 11:49 | comment | added | Andriy Volkov Mod | Perhaps when editing questions we should boil them down to a single point, instead of exploding? Could mess up the OP intent though... | |
| Sep 18, 2015 at 11:40 | comment | added | ChrisW Mod | The first of those questions is a result of my rephrasing the original post, to re-cast some speculation (it said, "... progress, possibly by creating thought-provoking dissonance etc.") as a question. Might it be answerable if the first question (i.e. the first list item) were removed, or if my edit were reversed? | |
| Sep 18, 2015 at 11:39 | history | edited | Andriy VolkovMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 770 characters in body
|
| Sep 18, 2015 at 11:11 | history | answered | Andriy VolkovMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |