1

These two recent questions appear to be phrased as a challenge:

I say that because:

  • The OP says so explicitly:

    Good Luck theorist/s...(if there is anything like luck in this case)! Please feel yourself challenged to get to the details.

  • The OP seems to talk as if they know the "right answer", or at least able to know a "wrong answer" -- posting comments like this one in reply to an answer:

    Nope, you thinking in wrong direction.

    ... and ...

    You just spammed this question, shoo away.

There was also this comment ...

These 2 questions are a challenge and greatest contribution to buddhists/truth-seekers, till now on internet. Good luck(if luck exists)!.

... which reminds me of the saying that, "Any sufficiently advanced troll is indistinguishable from a genuine kook."


My question is, are these questions welcome and/or should they be closed?

Are they a new category unwelcome question to be moderated -- a combination of "hostile", "seeded", and "preachy"?

Or is hosting questions like these one of the desired/beneficial use-cases for the site?

| |
  • I think it's junk, nice catch – Ruslan Jan 18 at 4:55
  • Can you formulate what's wrong with it? Is the intent, of posting something as a challenge (or something else)? How would it have to be edited, to make it welcome, or how is it unsalvageable? – ChrisW Jan 18 at 9:08
  • I was going to post an answer but i assumed that op wouldn't be satisfied with a simple scriptural answer. He listed so many criteria like "Need every minute details" for the answer to contain that he kind of made it unanswerable lest one wrote him a really long text explaining what was wrong with his request, formulation and expectations as i saw it. I therefore assumed that it was inappropriate to answer given how the question wss posed so thinking; 'im sure the community will deal with this or mods will refer him to an old topic dealing with sexual dedisire' i didn't post. – Ruslan Jan 18 at 14:00
  • Seeing in hindsight that he was making it a challenge i think it is inappropriate because he basically posted a simple question like 'how to keep sexual desire away according to the scripture' but wouldn't be satisfied with the scriptural 'develop perception of unattractiness'. One would need to explain to him what it is and how to develop it in great detail which is a different question altogether imo. – Ruslan Jan 18 at 14:11
  • @sigh I think the OP was looking for proof or evidence that the person answering had meditated (so as to "know for themselves") -- and so, you're right, that the OP wouldn't have been content with a scriptural reference -- hence the line about challenging theorists. Yet I think it's OK in general to ask about Buddhist practice (like it's also OK to ask about theory using a reference-request tag). There's something though that makes these questions unwelcome -- they're now downvoted -- I'm not sure I can articulate what that is though, i.e. why they're unwelcome. – ChrisW Jan 18 at 14:15
  • Maybe i am lazy of course – Ruslan Jan 18 at 14:24
  • Well that's a reason. A lot of questions can theoretically be answered with a line or a paragraph or two, and maybe a reference. I think the site's Questions policy was that even very broad questions are OK, but that you might expect a shallow/superficial answer in reply. unanswerable lest one wrote him a really long text explaining what was wrong with his request, formulation and expectations I'd better not make the same mistake then -- of asking you to do all that. I suppose it's hard to summarise. – ChrisW Jan 18 at 14:32
  • 2
    He was asking for a whole lot and i guess his conduct made people downvote it – Ruslan Jan 18 at 14:32
1

I think it's disruptive -- and should therefore possibly be moderated.

Moderators are human exception handlers, there to deal with those exceptional conditions that could otherwise disrupt the community.

Perhaps it's intended to be "disruptive" -- hence to OP's user name, i.e. "Ego Breaker".

| |
1

I think these posts fall into the old, questionable camp of spiritual combat, and so are not mere trolling. I've run across spiritual combatants before; they claim that it's important to push hard on others they perceive as teachers in order to expose inconsistencies and misunderstandings; they justify it by claiming they are trying to weed out bad concepts and discredit poor sources, in order to protect innocent beginners from corrupted texts. It's of a part with ancient Greek Cynicism, which practiced intentional impudence: constantly questioning and uprooting the norms of society in order to force people to see the 'truth' of humanity.

It's a deep, deep attachment to a noble idea. That is an intractable combination; there's nothing is more difficult to unwind than a zealot.

The compassionate thing to do, I suppose, would be to sit down and have a talk with him: see if we can tease out a capacity for self-reflection that might mellow his approach. But I can't see a door into that kind of conversation yet. Right now these questions are just a game of king-of-the-hill, where he gets to define what the hill is and start with himself as king. Stepping into that kind of conversation means accepting his terms of combat, and, you know... Meh. But moderating him will merely reinforce his idée fixe: that we are all a bunch of corrupt Buddhist trying to suppress his clear vision.

It's a pickle, and I don't have much of an answer to it, but it's worth pointing out that he's probably earnest.

| |
  • Right now these questions are just a game of king-of-the-hill, where he gets to define what the hill is and start with himself as king. That's how it seemed. his _idée fixe_: that we are all a bunch of corrupt Buddhist trying to suppress his clear vision. My theory was that I recognise it as having been written by another existing user -- who, might think that other users (not wanting to mention names but including me) argue with each other -- and the intent then might be to, for some reason, demonstrate that we are not the king of some hill. Like causing a scene when other people argue. – ChrisW Jan 18 at 16:41
  • 1
    Oh, that may be true, but whether or not it's true, it's the kind of speculation that will ultimately make you crazy. Best to just take it at face value. – Ted Wrigley Jan 18 at 18:33
  • Well we heard from the OP now. And I started a new follow-on Meta-topic -- Unnecessary arguing -- in case that is a concern that you would kindly like to spend a little time to address (though it's a chore and I could imagine why you might not want to). – ChrisW Jan 19 at 11:02
1

I think the motivation of the poster is paramount.

Unfortunately, for those of us who are not enlightened it is not possible to know with 100% certainty what the motivation is.

However, I do feel that asking questions on this site that one already feels they know the answer to should be against the rules of the site. This is essentially giving out unsolicited advice and can often be harmful to others. Now, were an enlightened person to try and use the site to help another out of pure compassion and kindness by asking a question they already know the answer to... well by all means I would want them to do that!

Again, us lowly unenlightened folk can’t know who is enlightened and what others motivation is so I think the general rule should be against people asking questions they feel they already know the answer to and that mods should use their wisdom and common sense to try and moderate any infractions by closing the question or voting it down. And should reiterate that these questions go against the rules of the site.

So pretty much what is already being done :)

| |
  • Thank you for answering. The OP posted an answer so, you can kind of infer their motivation now from that. I posted a follow-on topic -- Unnecessary arguing -- in case that's a wider concern, which you might see a way to address, or to decide to leave as-is (i.e. as "is already being done"). – ChrisW Jan 19 at 11:07
0

The OP ("Ego Breaker.") posted on the main site as follows -- I'm moving that answer to here.


Vandami Authority(samyak sam buddha),

My last visit on this site, 100% sure.

So, it seems that @TedWrigly could understand me a little-little-- I am not some geeky--, a hard-coded, determined, strong student of dhamma, follower of only Samyak Sam Buddha.

challenge:: (With strong happiness)Ha! Not just challenge, feel yourself tortured, tortured by your own feelings, tortured by thoughts, tortured by life, tortured by outsight, tortured by defiled behaviour pattern. Then, remember my questions, quests and then feel yourself as challenged to get rid of dukkha.

Enviornment for coldness:: It's not meant to be decreased suddenly, rather enviornment is such that, "uptill now when meditator would feel the need to wear woolen clothes". What to do and how should meditator meditate to start tackling that, surely, after some point, h/s-he will feel it to be useless or to be diverted to power so, now focus will only be towards ... enlightenment?

::::::::::::::::: Being said above, feel free to edit questions to make seemingly-pleasent-to-senses(!).

:::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::
Before, I wanted to post my experience as an answer and then was thinking to some-how, mix-up, come-up, by working with others for generalized strategy with minute details for everyone.

One other concern was also to stop you all from unnecessary arguing with each other. It made me sad as how some educated people are fighting, is it for some publicity?? Buddha would have called you-lot 'mogh-zeerna'-- aging without any merit.
Place where I live, Buddhists are called as demons and vice-versa, that hurts me.

And after seeing you-lot's behaviour, I don't know where to go other than to remain a lone-freak-meditating-animal in this sexual world.

::::::::::::::::

:::::::::::::::::
But now, you-lot are on your own, I am on my own. Be happy. As nowdays, I am planning to restart my household life to earn money, after wandering in meditation as independent ascetic for ≈3.5 years, so I won't be able to entertain educated-sensual-pleasing-tradition-bounded-idiots.

::::::::::::::::

:::::::::::::::::
And don't worry, I am not breaking percept of "not-to-steal" by hiding my identity(if you could analyse&understand how is this percept broken), customer care of stack exchange know me, my another account is @Alex, even @chrisW knows me(if h/s-he can analyse) through my account before @Alex, not only this, one old-geezer buddhist :), also knows me over here--internet.

::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::
Regarding quest part::

Few things to consider are::

1.) Preparation since a long time through thinking(in both quests)... by maintaining 5 percepts at bodily level only.

2.) Outsight :: ability to analyse outer enviornment and it's effects on my 'unchanged' behaviour(or daily life).

3.) Insight :: Ability to analyse, "there is something wrong within my body", and start analysing, understanding, revising, observing, calming, retracing, freezing, seeing-side-effects, changing, getting changed, establishing, teaching(phew! That's a looooong road, pals, long road).

4.) Doing above 3 in random manner.

5.) Analysing percets(5) at body, speech, mind. Analysing other percepts. Figuring out what can be broken, why are they necessary(in terms of outsight), why are they necessary(in terms of insight)... what would be the limits, what could be next thing?

6.) Establishing self on one planet, within a particular area, practicing!

7.) •••

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Wrong direction::
Thinking about out-sight only; going only for insight without even knowing the percepts required, determination required, preparation required, ••• , without child-like-innocency... and so on(2 have been mentioned)... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Do english yourself.

ओह! मैं तो छुट्टा सांड ही सही, पता नहीं किन गधों के तबेले में आ गया|

(Posted here as couldn't find answer tab on meta link given as comment under cloded question)

Blessings,
Sayo-Na-Ra, Hasta-La-Vaasta, bye!
Namastey(only to buddha, not you-reader!)

| |
  • If only there was a way to have just one account per user – Erik Jan 19 at 10:23
  • This meta-topic is further to (a response or reply to) the answer above -- Unnecessary arguing – ChrisW Jan 19 at 10:40
  • @Erik Yes if only. But multiple accounts is permitted by the software and by SE policy. One of the supposedly "legitimate" uses on the network is to post an anonymous question not associated with your main or "better-known" account. It's meant to be generally harmless since (e.g. according to the Code of Conduct) as users we're supposed to focus on the content posted and not the person posting, though I admit that as humans we might be inclined to suppose that we get to know and to recognise people. – ChrisW Jan 19 at 10:48
  • The post quoted appears to be gobbledlygook. Perhaps if demonstrates just how difficult it is to live up to the poster's name. – user14119 Jan 27 at 13:23
0

I added a new close reason -- "Too open ended" -- to the Moderation policies for Questions

And then closed How to tackle cold? for that reason.

The other question was closed too, earlier, for a different reason:

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's not really a question: it's a vehicle for [the author] to position himself as an instructor. He should write a blog rather than ask leading questions.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

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