Friday, January 25, 2013

The Buddha, on admonishment

"Someone who is about to admonish another must realize within himself five qualities before doing so [that he may be able to say], thus:

In due season will I speak, not out of season. In truth will I speak, not in falsehood. Gently will I speak, not harshly. To his profit will I speak, not to his loss. With kindly intent will I speak, not in anger."

Siddhartha Gautama, from the Vinaya Pitaka

27 comments:

  1. My sincerest apologies. "Anonymous" was a mistake.

    In due season will I speak, not out of season. FAG (Tis' the season)

    In truth will I speak, not in falsehood. FAG (Am I wrong?)

    Gently will I speak, not harshly. FAG (said in a mincing lisp)

    To his profit will I speak, not to his loss. FAG (Don't be FAG anymore)

    With kindly intent will I speak, not in anger. FAG (I am more disappointed than angry).

    You start attending a 'piscy fake "mass" and start quoting some Injin heathen?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vjekoslav, it's enough you don't agree with Thom, but humiliating him publicly is way too much and you should apologize for that.

      Delete
    2. At least you have made your true feelings known, which I've suspected all along, Vjekoslav.

      Peace.

      Delete
  2. I was blind drunk when I posted that. I am sorry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When people say or write something and later claim "It was the alcohol talking," it wasn't the alcohol. The alcohol only let them say what inhibitions or social graces wouldn't allow otherwise. So really - what's your damage? What in what Thom posted got under your skin so much that you responded with anger and fear? If you know anything at all about Buddhism, those are the emotions that lead to suffering and hate. (No. Yoda didn't make that up himself.) What you wrote says nothing at all about Thom, but quite a bit about you.

      I wish you peace, and hope you can figure that out. What you wrote was pretty reprehensible, but maybe this comment shows the beginnings of a bit of remorse. It's a good first step.

      Delete
  3. Wow, I will have to try to commit that to memory. Wonderful reflections on this blog, btw.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Perhaps you should not reply to anything when you are blind drunk. That was rather hateful and needless of you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. When I saw his epithet, I predicted that you would not delete it--like you do with other personal insults--and happily invoke it in future posts against orthodox Catholics. Well. You certainly were eager to take full advantage ASAP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shame on me for being hurt. It's unthinkable.

      Delete
    2. I also think you'll notice that I RARELY delete comments- and usually only when someone is attacking another commenter here.

      Delete
    3. James, are you really surprised? Such an opportunity for Thom couldn't go unnoticed.

      If anything, rarely can anyone notice a comment you don't agree with, or you can't use against someone/something.

      Delete
    4. If you'd like me to start deleting offensive comments, Peter, you'd rarely have anything that stays. I can do that, if you'd like.

      Delete
    5. And you've just proved my point, Thom. It's your blog and you can do whatever you want, but it's quite telling how you treat entries like the one discussed - no scandal can't be wasted, right? You could feel hurt, but the way you utilized it, is problematic to me.

      Delete
    6. Mentioning it once.. how scandalous. I'm definitely getting mileage out of a mention.

      Delete
    7. And on one point we agree: it is my blog.

      Delete
    8. Conveniently woven into an entry on gays suffering from those bad and nasty Catholics. Not to mention, that you keep it to gain more sympathy and more scorn for people like Vjekoslav, those "good Catholics", of course.

      Delete
    9. Yes, I secretly hoped I'd be called a fag so I could use it to write a post. You're so deluded.

      Delete
    10. Are You serious, Thom? I didn't write anything implying you wrote it to be called a fag, but it's obvious you took advantage of this situation.

      Delete
    11. Of course I used it. I write about my life and my thoughts. There are millions of things to read out there if you don't like what I write. You're not required to be here.

      Delete
    12. Thanks for the reminder, because I might forget about it..

      You want to talk about exclusion of gays and their place in the Church? Then let's talk about it, but don't heat up the discussion, because the temperature is already high. This attack was uncalled for, but the way you try to spin it, isn't helpful either.

      Delete
    13. I maintain that mentioning it isn't "spinning" it. It certainly needs no spinning.

      Delete
    14. So, I think that there's even less of a common ground than I thought. This, and "Christianism", and many other things contribute to an even greater hostility. It will only grow...

      Delete
    15. As I mentioned, you have options.

      Delete
    16. And so do you, Thom. You may join the Episcopalian Church, but, I guess, you'll still be upset with the Catholics and the Catholic Church. From what you wrote recently, it is pretty clear where you're going anyway.

      Delete

Comments will be moderated at my discretion.