tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965076219235086304.post6546676126152641788..comments2024-02-24T00:41:37.836-08:00Comments on The Buddha Diaries: On MisreadingPeter Clothierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525159413387378704noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965076219235086304.post-40989893912246891242008-02-19T08:44:00.000-08:002008-02-19T08:44:00.000-08:00As usual, you make an interesting point. And the c...As usual, you make an interesting point. And the comments of others reinforce it and add texture. Looking at it from a Buddhist perseptive, it underscores the nature of delusion. <BR/><BR/>All suffering in the world is the result of delusion, that is, we all miss the point. I don't know to whom I can attribute this quote (Kalu Rinphche, is one source I've heard), but it turns up a lot in Dharma talks: "Wherever there is perception, there is deception." Regardless of who said it first, it seems universally true.<BR/><BR/>If nothing else, the purpose of a spiritual life is to understand this and cut throuh the delusions so as to view the world as it really is. And, perhaps, that statement is just evidence of my own delusion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965076219235086304.post-79014014941437463592008-02-18T15:32:00.000-08:002008-02-18T15:32:00.000-08:00Thanks, all, for the good reading, and the respons...Thanks, all, for the good reading, and the responses. Robin, I certainly honor the choice you make: I think your conversation is so rich in its connection with nature, what more or better is there to say. A very interesting response, Mark, and one which brings some useful light on what I was trying to address. Chani, I love the way you "plop it on the table with no frills." The best kind of writing, to my way of thinking. And for Saint Nick, I do appreciate the compliment.Peter Clothierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11525159413387378704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965076219235086304.post-78057808028423308892008-02-18T12:11:00.000-08:002008-02-18T12:11:00.000-08:00This is an excellent post, Peter. Thank you.This is an excellent post, Peter. Thank you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16939152657551690867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965076219235086304.post-88325904755691548632008-02-18T12:07:00.000-08:002008-02-18T12:07:00.000-08:00Mark, I still agree with what you said.. and am tr...Mark, I still agree with what you said.. and am trying to train my thinking differently. Typically, I just plop it on the table with no frills and let people do with it what they will. Agree, disagree, whatever. <BR/><BR/>I always talk about contentious issues and it is hard to imagine not doing that. <BR/><BR/>Small talk is boring and dull. <BR/><BR/>People scan though. That is absolutely the case. <BR/><BR/>Probably for the reasons you stated.thailandchanihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171731740204067889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965076219235086304.post-572126522809513602008-02-18T10:11:00.000-08:002008-02-18T10:11:00.000-08:00Sorry, Peter (and Lindsey). The previous post was...Sorry, Peter (and Lindsey). The previous post wasn't Lindsey, it was Mark. I didn't realize her account was logged onto my computer when I posted. My bad!Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07072259264111848667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965076219235086304.post-59617440136497698282008-02-18T10:10:00.000-08:002008-02-18T10:10:00.000-08:00In one of my classes we're learning about an issue...In one of my classes we're learning about an issue that relates to this post, I think. We're talking about communication methods employed in the West and how it differs from those of the East. Here in the West, we use our language like a phalanx, pushing our points head-first onto the other person for them to try to combat with a phalanx of their own. Whoever has the strongest line of thought wins, but it's all out on the table. It's a very ego-centric way of talking. The strength of my words vs. the strength of your words.<BR/><BR/>The East, on the other hand, speaks in metaphors, references to stories, and other indirect ways. That way, in order to understand the other person's point, you have to think about it and almost internalize it to understand what they're saying. It isn't just about hearing what the other says and finding the weak point in the line to attack; rather, it's about speaking in ways that help the other person understand your line of thought and see whether or not they actually disagree with it.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps some of the people reading your Huffington Post entries were seeing your writings as a phalanx, looking to flank you with a phalanx of their own and thus win the battle instead of engaging in honest dialog, which might force them to think about what they believe and open themselves up for the possibility of being wrong.lindseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01044417896921800172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3965076219235086304.post-14871626502706353622008-02-18T08:45:00.000-08:002008-02-18T08:45:00.000-08:00You have articulated why I don't write about conte...You have articulated why I don't write about contentious issues. I know where I stand, and that is often enough for me. I don't like to engage in discussions that are hot-button issues for people. There's a line from a Simon and Garfunkel song that goes, "People hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest." I think that goes for how they read as well. Still, I admire people who try to grapple with the tough issues.robin andreahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13390482190562312928noreply@blogger.com