Here's a transcript of comments under this answer:

  • This answer make sutta conflict themselves although the sutta never conflict in this case. If you use "sakko kāyo sakkāyo" in [Sakkāyasutta][6], Sakkāyasutta, which has only sakko, will conflict with Sacca-pabba of [Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ][5], which has both sakko and paro. – Bonn 9 hours ago
  • No. This is unrelated to what i posted. Just because there is external kaya does not mean 'sakkaya ditthi' refers to external kaya. 'Sakkaya' is not found in MN 10 therefore your idea sounds very wrong & mistaken – Dhammadhatu 7 hours ago
  • If you can not compare between Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sakkāyasutta, and MN 10 then mix it together, it means you have not enough skill to describe sakkāya-diṭṭhi. – Bonn 7 hours ago
  • I just read someone refuting your mistakes on Dhammawheel. If you wish to debate, you should post there & not here. On Dhammawheel, i have never observed once your posts not shown to be wrong. – Dhammadhatu 6 hours ago
  • No one refuting me in Dhammawheel, they trying to understand what I am describing. They are not like you, don't decide them like that.dhammawheel.com/… – Bonn 6 hours ago
  • Also, you can debate me. So if you can do, why I can not act like you? – Bonn 6 hours ago
  • This forum is not for debating. – Dhammadhatu 5 hours ago
  • On DW, someone told you sakkaya is not kayanupassana because sakkaya is dhammanupassana, – Dhammadhatu 5 hours ago
  • Even though your quote still be uneducated debate. I wrote "Sutta. Ma. Mū. Sacca-pabba of Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ". Saccapabba is in dhammānupassanā-satipaṭṭhāna, not kāyānupassanā-satipaṭṭhāna. I wrote right, he read wrong, what I can do? – Bonn 5 hours ago
  • Also, Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sakkāyasutta which I comparing to MN10 is talking about sacca-pabba in dhammānupassanāsatipaṭṭhāna. Why he refer to kāyānupassanāsatipaṭṭhāna? – Bonn 5 hours ago
  • So your quote trying to distort my answer. Why? Because you love to debate, not to understand. – Bonn 5 hours ago

I have highlighted:

  • Phrases where someone comments on "you" instead of on the text
  • Phrases which are a reply to a comment about you.


  • Don't you think the discussion would be better without "you"?
  • Could you try to avoid criticising "you" in future, and stick to the text?

Also what should a moderator do with comments like these?

  • Pretend to ignore that it seems partially hostile?
  • Delete everything?
  • Move it all to chat?
  • Edit specific comments and delete others?

It's work but moderators are able to edit comments --

| |
  • Sorry, voted up by mistake. Force of habit. – user13579 Jun 20 '18 at 20:08
  • Voted up by agreement :) – Gottfried Helms Jan 12 '19 at 17:26

I just skimmed it a bit and think you've handled it perfectly by moving it to a different page.

  • Ignoring: no,
  • Editing only some: no, there are two parties in a quarrel (at least),
  • Deleting everything: no.

Plus this, I agree also with:

When editing comments for tone, you should strive to make the smallest edit necessary to correct the problem. You should also generally leave a comment advising the comment's author against such faux pas in the future! Such commentary helps to avoid the appearance of deceit.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

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