0

This answer is more generic advice than Buddhist specific advice, as it was originally written. In the comments the OP ties hard to rationalise by making an analogy (similar to writing an essay about a fly when asked about a fish, citing that flies come a fish market) after the the post was make.

I feel it should:

  • rewritten from a Buddhist perspective or POV
  • if the above does not happen, deleted

Having a Buddhist POV does not necessitate citation though this will be good, but should be that a beginner reading will see relationship with this and a Buddhist Concept. A reader should feel, "Yes. This is a Buddhist answer.". If a reader feels this is a Buddhist answer then it should be "on topic" (related to Buddhism, about Buddhism, from a Buddhist POV or perspective). Again this has nothing to do with being: strict or not, having quotation of not, citations or not, providing or not providing links. It is more how it is presented. E.g. (this may not the the perfect examples and hope it does not lead to more diversions from the issue at hand) It is like layman's terms and technical terms. (This does not again imply content should be full of technical terms, there should be enough parallel to relate this to a Buddhist concept.)

Put it another answers should not be like something put together through general knowledge, or other form of domain knowledge, alone, i.e., not expert answer. What I mean here as expert is someone with some domain knowledge vs not domain knowledge on relative basis than someone with little domain knowledge vs deep domain knowledge. (Aside from this: when leaving comments some demonstrable research may be warranted as update additional information will require attention and effort. Also people may lose faith in the site when trivial or things taken for grant is asked.)

1

Something like "guarding the sense door" was one of the motives I had in mind when I was writing the answer, especially as detailed in this previous answer.

Even if the OP can't control thoughts, maybe they can control what they physically do and see.

Isn't that useful and practical? Even if, in this answer, I don't try to tie it to theories like 12 nidanas?

In their question the OP wrote,

I have read many related answers from all time favourite “Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena“, but regarding this answer all answers sounds very theoretical

So in this specific answer I tried to avoid theory (e.g. referencing suttas) and to give a more experiential answer. Do you think that makes the answer off-topic on this site?


I'll add that I think that other users are not averse to "practical" topics being considered on topic. E.g. Andrei liked "challenges one faces in one's practice", and Lanka wrote "my approach has always been founded in the practical/insight-meditational aspect of Buddhism and not in the scholarly/intellectual aspect".

I'm not claiming mine is a good answer or as good as theirs would be, but I think it is within the bounds of what might be considered on-topic for this site.

Also since other users are able to give expert answers, I try to be helpful by giving less-expert answers (and this one was especially anti-theoretical, to try to match the OP's question).

Because it proved useful to the OP (and upvoted), though I don't want to cause trouble I'm reluctant to delete it only because you consider it too generic or too "blatant" etc. I don't think I'd delete it if another user had written it (I'm think I'm quite timid, and permissive about not deleting other users' answers).

  • Any person with some common sense can say it. It is not presented in a Buddhist perspective. It does not show the link to Buddhist concepts, which is left for interpretations and speculation. – Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena Feb 15 '17 at 4:10
  • Also the comments imply you are searching for justification after writing it from what I see. – Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena Feb 15 '17 at 4:17
  • When I wrote it, as I was writing it, I thought it was an edge-case (i.e. nearly off-topic) but justified. What you're seeing now after I wrote it, is a subsequent discussion (because you maybe want to discuss it, instead of being silent about it). – ChrisW Feb 15 '17 at 4:21
  • Not every one see the justification as on topic. Also anyone can claim their content is justified. Justified according to what? – Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena Feb 15 '17 at 4:30
  • "Justified" (adj.): within (not far beyond) general bounds of what can be considered acceptable according to (my view of) the site's norms and policy; answering the specific question; and understandable by (potentially helpful to) the OP. Also, not immoral or harmful or untrue. Possibly "expedient" (i.e. if it bends the site rules, if it's on the boundary of what's normal, that's OK in this specific rare circumstance, where the OP seemed to be asking for something less theoretical). – ChrisW Feb 15 '17 at 4:39
  • Buddhism has theory (pariyatti), practice (patipatti), and realisation (pativedha). Practise should be on topic. practical/insight-meditational aspect of Buddhism and not in the scholarly/intellectual aspect. How it is presented though you trying to find twisted justification as it is presented now does not have a proper link to meditation aspect or the theory. A common sense practice is not necessary a Buddhist meditative practice. As of now it has 2 down votes as well as the other post of yours. – Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena Feb 15 '17 at 4:48
  • You seem to have a clear idea of how you should answer the OP's question. I thought maybe this OP might benefit from a different way to grasp the problem (e.g. by controlling their physical environment and activity, rather than their mental ideation). – ChrisW Feb 15 '17 at 4:53
  • This is great but not a Buddhist answer. This is Buddhism.SE not SelfHelp.SE. – Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena Feb 15 '17 at 4:59
  • Well guarding "the sense door" is a Buddhist practice, which "might mean different things to different people, i.e. that different people at various levels of development might use different techniques" -- and I think that what I suggested is an example of that (analogous to hiding your eyes from the world), even if I didn't try to justify the answer when I wrote it by explicitly inserting that kind of theory into the answer. So, as far as know, it's not entirely a non-Buddhist answer. – ChrisW Feb 15 '17 at 5:07
  • Scrambling for justification again! It does not demonstrate this link in the answer. Again this is supposed to be an Expert site not to post ameture answers. So answer should demonstrate some expertise in the topic answered, than being just generic. – Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena Feb 15 '17 at 5:15
  • It does not demonstrate this link in the answer. Yes, that is so. And I deliberately didn't (don't?) want to demonstrate this link, in this answer, because the OP had said in their question that they had read "many related answers" and found them to be "very theoretical" ... so I thought the circumstance (the question) justified (for once) a different kind of answer. – ChrisW Feb 15 '17 at 5:16
  • This is supposed to be and expert site and content should reflect this. – Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena Feb 15 '17 at 5:19
  • Ven. Yuttadhammo expected this to be a site where "questions are asked looking for expert or well-cited answers", and has left. I don't think I have the authority to be stricter about enforcing/demanding expertise in every answer. "Expert" is what Stack Exchange advertises, but in practice users are a mix of expert, practitioner, and elementary. If I tried to be stricter in the past, maybe people pushed back (against being strict), saying that this site don't have enough traffic and ought to be more permissive/welcoming, and not more strict. – ChrisW Feb 15 '17 at 5:34
  • I think that in What about providing sources? the community definitely decided that references (to sources) cannot be required -- it's not trivial for a moderator (me) to judge whether an answer is sufficiently expert. So, cast your vote (upvote or downvote) on specific answers but please don't be too cross if I don't always agree with you about whether the border-line is ... the border is a bit fuzzy. I do agree that this specific answer was marginal. – ChrisW Feb 15 '17 at 5:36
  • I have written a comment to the answer. I think the answer is great and should remain on the site. Although a buddhist approach should be added as well. See my comment on the answer. – Lanka Feb 15 '17 at 11:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .