Large favor I owe cuemaker Chuck Starkey
- Thread starter Dhakala
- Start date
Klopek said:
Sock Puppet was my first thought, too. It looks like AlexB bought a case from Jeff, so Jeff could probably say if he shipped it to Colorado, and/or to someone named David.
Cory
BillPorter said:For those followers of this thread who might be interested in a Buddhist perspective, please allow me to give the definition of "right speech," one of the eight elements of the Buddhist Eight-fold path.
Buddha explained right speech as follows:
1. to abstain from false speech, especially not to tell deliberate lies and not to speak deceitfully,
2. to abstain from slanderous speech and not to use words maliciously against others,
3. to abstain from harsh words that offend or hurt others, and
4. to abstain from idle chatter that lacks purpose or depth.
IMHO, strict adherence to the precept of right speech would not have permitted this thread to exist. Oh, and that includes THIS POST.
No, it doesn't, Bill.
In another thread, Flex echoed the sentiment of #3 above:
As a Catholic, I believe that I may not knowingly say something to someone that will most likely lead them to lose their temper. It's uncharitable, and can be sinful.
I responded, in part:
First, let me dispose of Flex's assertion that one is morally obliged to avoid offending others. It is a delusion promulgated by those who would dominate. Its purpose is only to discourage conflicts among the subdued that might trouble the dominant or distract the subdued from doing as the dominant wish.
"Obliged" is the key word differentiating Catholic dogma from Buddhist guidance. Buddhism does not impose obligations; it provides guidance for any who choose to follow it freely. Its guidance is flexible and conditional, not rigid and imperative. In Buddhism, harsh words are worthy of correction; in Catholicism, damnation. In Buddhism, harsh words are not preferred; in Catholicism, they are forbidden.
The goal of Buddhism is the elimination of suffering. Harsh words that offend or hurt others often result in suffering, i. e., a fist in the nose, divorce, or reincarnation. Buddha advises us to avoid suffering; that is the theme of his Right Speech guidance. But harsh words, or even harsh actions, may be necessary to avoid or quell greater or more persistent suffering.
It is significant that the martial arts are closely associated with Buddhism. Indeed, the Buddha was born and raised in India's warrior caste! Buddhism's earliest developers and proselytizers - the equivalent of Jesus' Apostles and their first few generations of disciples - came from the ranks of warriors. Kublai Khan, grandson of Ghengis, made Buddhism the de facto state religion of an empire forged by some of the greatest violence in history. (Kublai Khan also created the title of "Dalai Lama," which is now synonymous with peace and nonviolence.) The Samurai made Zen their way of life.
How did all of these Buddhists reconcile their practices of peacefulness and pacificism with the cultivation and ferocious use of martial abilities?
Suffering is to be eliminated, says the Buddha. Pacifism avoids creating suffering through violence. But where violence exists already, the martial arts may be used to quell the suffering it causes. Right Speech avoids creating suffering through Incorrect Thinking. Harsh speech can be used to quell existing Incorrect Thinking and the suffering it creates.
One does not eliminate the suffering of Incorrect Thinking by keeping silent in its face in order to maintain Right Speech. One first attempts correction by Right Speech. But if that fails, then harsh speech may succeed.
"Speak softly, but carry a big stick" just in case you aren't heard.
May I point out....
All this having been said, I wish you well in your quest for enlightenment and will refrain from any further dialog within this paraticular thread.
But it is clear that he left that caste and its associated norms behind.Dhakala said:
And your point is? My only point in posting the comments about Buddhist right speech was to show, for anyone interested, that a Buddhist adhering to this precept would be unlikely to have created the posts in this thread. Including this one!Dhakala said:
I think you mean to say that the Samurai made Bushido their way of life. While Bushido was heavily influenced by Zen (and Confucianism), it is simply wrong to equate Bushido and Zen.Dhakala said:
All this having been said, I wish you well in your quest for enlightenment and will refrain from any further dialog within this paraticular thread.
Dhakala said:"Speak softly, but carry a big stick" just in case you aren't heard.
You mean like my asking you in private to stop deliberately provoking the posters here?
Believe me, you are close to being hit with my big stick, because it appears you are not listening.
Mr. Wilson said:
Mr. W,
Well, if you have only one stick, and you are "one with the stick", and if your chi mingles with that of the stick; does that make you a Zen Moderator???
I think so.
P.S. - If a moderator hits a poster with the big stick, is that the same sound as one hand clapping????
Dhakala said:
Oh, but I have.
You have a really bad habit of insisting you get the last word regardless.
Despite instructions to stop, you persist.
Williebetmore said:
Whats the other hand doing?
Last edited:
Mr. Wilson said:
This is the first time that you have mentioned letting someone else have "the last word." I do not recall any "instructions" to stop having it. Can you re-post them, please?Tammie and several others had the last word. Jay, Klopek, Flex, and quite a few more members of my F. A. N. club have enjoyed first, last, and only.
But all of this is beside the points that we discussed privately. Like I said, you can do the right or the expedient thing.
Dhakala said:
.
Sheesh.
A gentle nudge doesn't work with you, does it?
If you were 12 or 14 years old I could better understand the semantics game, but you're over 50.
I have also suggested to you in private not to dare me because it would be a bad bet.
This is my last attempt a making sure you understand me.
I am giving you a week long vaccation from the stresses of dealing with the board. If upon your return you cannot play nice, it will be made permanent, as per our previous discussion.
Dave
Mr. Wilson said:
Man, I am confused...
What are you all so afraid of? Please inform me. I don't understand why this happened. I don't understand it at all. I mean, not one bit of it.
From the book, Think and Grow Rich, Napoleon Hill talks about the six ghost of fear, p. 225:
Self-analysis may disclose weaknesses which one does not like to acknowledge. This form of examination is essential to all who demand of life more than medioocrity and poverty. Remember, as you check yourself point by point, that you are both the court and the jury, the prosecuting attorney and the attorney for the defense, and that you are the plaintiff and the defendant; also, that you are on trial. Face the facts squarely. Ask yourself definite questions and demanded direct replies.
Jeff Livingston
chefjeff said:
Are you asking a question or making a statement?
Dave
