Please do not ever post personal health information, numbers like social security numbers (or other country's equivalents) or similar identification numbers or other health specifics about people: this is a line that will be firmly enforced here. Violations will result in no warning and instant termination from the DhO. This a specific response to recent posts on a thread about Richard the AF guy, but in general applies to all and every discussion.

I find personal attacks and disparaging others annoying at best but will tolerate it a little on the Dharma Battleground if people can demonstrate why they help practice and don't cross standard lines that should be very obvious (to any normally functioning adult) like those noted here.

The FAQ area under what is inappropriate has been updated with the following guidelines:

"Additionally: don't post personal information about people that they wouldn't want posted, and don't violate basic laws (e.g. posting private health data, committing libel, telling malicious lies or even needless malicious truths that don't further the goal of promoting skillful practice). Not only should you not do unto others as you wouldn't have them do unto you, but also don't do unto them as they wouldn't want done to themselves regardless of whether or not you care if it was done to you."

For the first 20 years of the Buddha's teachings there were no monastic rules, and in the last 25 years they accumulated about 227 of them for monks and 337 or so for nuns, all due to people doing particularly stupid things. Let's try to avoid repeating this here.

Thanks,

Daniel Ingram
Founder, Owner and Supreme Overlord of the DhO

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Founder, Owner and Supreme Overlord of the DhO

Greetings, O Master

AHHHHH!!!!! don't feed it! we don't want him tipping over to the dark side!!!

**bows down to palm sized handmade clay statue of Dr Ingram's bust simultaneously with right hand placed over a bundle of yellow tatty printed pages of MCTB**

Namo Ingramji! Namo Ingramji! Namo Ingramji!

Announcement: $50.00 per clay bust of our Supreme Overlord all handmade by post-pathers. Today's special: buy 3 busts and take away free a large poster sized framed Naña/Jhana chart for easy self-diagnosis. PM me for details.

Stop the exploitation of workers in sweatshops! Just because we have no selves doesn't mean we aren't people!

I like this part:


nothing to add to it.

Your Lordship the FOSO of the DhO,

With appreciation: may the pie-hole flappeth* ongēan and ongēan.**



Curtsy,

Her Lady of the Blahblahblahblah



(postscript: for the avoidance of doubt, I enjoy these two sentences again and again: they have helped me keep a sense of humor about my long-winded nature...pie-hole is simply unsurpassable.)


**ye olde english: again.


[To maintain the focus of the initial post topic, perhaps a "Roast the FOSO" thread needs to be broken off for the same?]

Me too. So, how does this fit it in with the purpose of this thread? Maybe Richard does have a few issues. If he does, shouldn't that be pointed out for his own good and everyone else's good? Why would Richard care if he doesn't have a self to care? He lives in a place beyond such dramas.

And let's say an attack is personal and malicious, intended purely to hurt. (I don't do this, but just say someone did). Wouldn't that be a good thing for the 'victim'? To have all that baggage torn off and to be exposed as a 'nothing', a 'non-entity'? Isn't that what everyone claims to be seeking here? Or is Dho a place where we can stroke each others egos, rather than tear them down?

in my experience having my ego insulted by malicious or angry or whatever words does just as much to strengthen it as praise. it's just in that case "i" am based in sorrow+anger rather than pride and gratefuleness

C C C


Hi C C C,

My impression is that because the "Richard of the AFT" (presumably a real person Down Under) is not blogging here, there is no one to call on their stuff[1]. Yet, my initial DhO thread spent many weeks scrutinizing the language and criticizing the conclusions of AF; no one stopped that thread or ever hinted at stopping it. At the time, I was very critical of the words and implications of AF. I lost interest in attacking the very fallible conclusions of the writings and took an interesting in looking for PCE. Both activities were useful to me. The only writings I recall being stopped were those that just entered the thread to declare, "hey, he's wrong!" - that's not constructive crit, it's not practice according to the DhO guidelines.

Now that there is a batch of people who've tested PCEs and apperception for numerous months, more commentary on the practice/outcome is coming out, not all of it gung ho, not all of it aligned with AF/Richard. Some of it observes that Richard's writings indicates he was mistaken about buddhist stages, such as nibbana and nirodh.

[in other words, poking at Richard is not so useful and lacks an experiential basis, whereas examining the actualist practice (which has some big benefits, in my experience) does have a personal, experiential basis - aligned with the pragmatic goals of this forum.]

Anyway, that's my take.

This part I don't entirely understand. Are you saying that where a person faces a verbal attack, they may gain an opportunity to see the nothingness of the material of the attack and have such verbal attack's power over them evaporate? [I.e., "sticks and stones may break the bones but words will never hurt me" kind of thing?]

[1] and everyone who's ever declared their AF status here does seem to get challenged!]


[edited: in brackets, many typo edits...]
[blue for brief-take]

The point is not that there should not be critical thinking, reality testing, skillful debate, and the like, but when people go posting people's case number and an address with the Australian VA where you can pull Richard's case files and the like, which is what happened, that is going too far.

Imagine if someone posted your social security number here, with say birthday and driver's license number, as well as your health records and credit card information, as well as perhaps the psychiatrist's notes from your last visit (I am not saying you specifically are under psychiatric care but merely being hypothetical)... how would you regard that? Is it presumptuous to presume that you would find this suboptimal or perhaps even heinous? I don't think so.

At some point, you have to draw the line, and that was where it made sense to draw it, so it got drawn.

Do you see how you can have healthy and important debate about all sorts of things that should be debated but also refrain from posting what we in the medical world call protected health information or similar specific record numbers, etc., in a public forum?

That is the essential point, and finding that line may be tricky at times, but we can work with that.

Daniel

Daniel I'm fine with that.

Katy, being subject to any belittling event is an opportunity to bring conscious awareness to automatic emotional reactions. Non judgmental observation is relatively easy with neutral or pleasant emotions, much harder when the self is under attack. Tolle and Castaneda both regard this as good practice: being able to stay present as the self is shrunk. It's always painful/frightening, in my experience. I enjoy it about as much as anyone else!

Do you also 'enjoy' taking on the role of aggressor and verbal attacker? If so, perhaps you should look into why?

No I don't, I'd much rather read quality posts and not feel the need to say anything at all.

I felt slightly guilty about the forcefulness of my posts on bruno's thread a while back, but it was with good intentions. With a bit of luck he might be out-socializing the best of them right now as we speak, having a great time, getting laid and dancing the night away.... all with a peaceful mind.

I know he gets mighty sick of me, but I quite like him.

What makes you think he wasn't out socializing having a great time before your posts?

When I visited Bruno for a week a few months ago (before your post) he seemed to be having a great time.

Did you ever consider the possibility that your impression of Bruno's life and behaviour is based upon your own projections and very little information?

So I got this email from George:

"On Dec 17, 2011, at 7:01 AM, George Campbell <george.00c@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi
" Daniel M. Ingram"

Do not threaten me or bully me for that is a grave offense. I have not broken any rule for what I have posted on your forum is a matter of public record and it was in a particular context. What you should think really is that you are endorsing and advocating for a man who is not only been tried for fraud in court of law, and for abdicating his sworn duties, but a man who is committing grave wrong by deception.

I have no interest in part of any spiritual practice which is knowingly and willfully harming people. So, rest assured I will not participate in your forum, which evidently does not tolerate or encourage any dissent or rational argument.
Further correspondence in this matter will be tantamount to you harassing me. And, In future if you have anything to write or debate with me, kindly do it publicly and not through these bullying tactics in private emails.

best wishes and good luck"

And this is my reply:

Dear George,

That you would consider any email reply harraasment is perhaps a bit reactionary,so, by your request, here it is in public:

If you will note: I have said it online and will say it again: I am no fan of Richard's online persona at all, though have never met him in person, so will reserve judgement beyond stating that, as similar critiques are leveled at me all the time based on misinterpretations of my online postings and videos, etc., so this has nothing to do with him personally or defense of him particularly, and my response was a blanket rule against posting things that in this country would be considered private. He is perfectly capable of defending himself and needs no help from me that I am aware of.

Dissent and rational argument occur constantly and are encouraged an any cursory perusal of the DhO will indicate, and the point again is to keep it practical and about your practice and what works or doesn't when possible. Again, we are on the same side here. The DhO was founded to promote that, and if you wish to participate in that, please do so.

As a US licensed physician who owns the DhO, I must make sure that what happens there is legal, and would appreciate some sensitivity to that.

In this country, one breech of the sort of information you posted gets people fired on the spot and they can be fined staggering sums. I refer you here:

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/solutions-managing-your-practice/coding-billing-insurance/hipaahealth-insurance-portability-accountability-act/hipaa-violations-enforcement.page

so you don't think I am making this up or being arbitrary in your case. Numerous other links there will clarify what information is covered under HIPAA. Thus, it will not be tolerated at all, as I am sure you can now understand if you bother to go there and look up what we are talking about and the clear and unambiguous legal standards here in the US on this matter.

I am sorry that you don't see the difference and the line that differentiates one from the other. You will note that all the rest of your critiques remain, as do numerous other threads debating Richard, both pro and con and in-between, which would argue against your point about this all having to do with Richard, which it absolutely doesn't.

I would still advocate for your own practice to focus on your own practice and not so much on any one person, Richard or otherwise, but obviously if Richard is that important to you then that is your right, obviously. However, fixation on particular personas gets so old so quickly here and has caused much that is damaging and unhelpful on previous occasions that I would again recommend considering trying something else to see if it might work for you. If you have some set of practices, techniques or conceptual frameworks that have improved your practice and allowed you to plunge into some interesting territory, that is the stuff that is generally appreciated most.

Be well,

Daniel

On Dec 17, 2011, at 7:01 AM, George Campbell <george.00c@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi
" Daniel M. Ingram"

Do not threaten me or bully me for that is a grave offense. I have not broken any rule for what I have posted on your forum is a matter of public record and it was in a particular context. What you should think really is that you are endorsing and advocating for a man who is not only been tried for fraud in court of law, and for abdicating his sworn duties, but a man who is committing grave wrong by deception.

I have no interest in part of any spiritual practice which is knowingly and willfully harming people. So, rest assured I will not participate in your forum, which evidently does not tolerate or encourage any dissent or rational argument.
Further correspondence in this matter will be tantamount to you harassing me. And, In future if you have anything to write or debate with me, kindly do it publicly and not through these bullying tactics in private emails.

best wishes and good luck