Identifying ordained users

Hi

Could ordained and quasi-ordained users be highlighted in some way, so as to make their status immediately apparent?

I would certainly like to guard my words a little more in discussions with a Venerable.

I did per example not know until recently that Snowbird and Sunyo were ordained - or that Sabbamitta was a kind of Venerable.

4 Likes

What if they donā€™t want to be readily identified? :slight_smile:

Although, thereā€™s a wheel symbol now next to Bhante Sujato, Brahmali, etc. So perhaps thatā€™s an option available to monastics. And if theyā€™re not making their ordination obvious, then it stands to reason theyā€™re fine being treated like any other poster (within the realm of etiquette, of course). Of course, I canā€™t speak for everyone. :slight_smile:

1 Like

How about using polite language, no matter whether someone is ordained or not?

19 Likes

I agree with both answers whole heartedly.

3 Likes

We all know how it is ā€¦

1 Like

So those that everybody already knows as famous Venerables are highlighted, but others not? Does that make sense?

Yes, because again, some donā€™t want to appear as Sangha. Everyone has to have a choice of their preferences

I understand that the wheel (like the mod shield) is something users can turn on and off themselves, not something appointed, is that right?

The Mod Shield is apppointed to identify us as mods. We chose to be mods and need to be somehow identified when we ā€œdo our jobā€ :slightly_smiling_face:

3 Likes

Lol no, I understand that. I mean the wheel symbol that Bhante Sujato, Brahmali seem to have now - is that something available to all monastics that they can choose to display or not ? :slight_smile:

1 Like

Is a Venerable allowed to conceal their status in real life? If not, why here? Could I argue that the concealment could expose others to bad Kamma when they commit acts that are a problem with a Bhikkhu, but not with a fellow lay followe?

Hi Dogen, yes I thought so. I just needed to by some time :rofl: to get the right answer from one of the other mods because honestly, I donā€™t know the answer.

So I asked now another mod and it looks like itā€™s by choice. Please, Sangha, correct me if Iā€™m wrong. Thank you :smiley:

2 Likes

Hi Malunkyaputta,

probably best to wait for replies from the Sangha :slightly_smiling_face:

No. This is something that has been applied to only 2 users by technical admin :person_shrugging: . Not a decision of the management committee or the monastic members of the forum.

5 Likes

OK, maybe also look in the Vinaya?

Crafty! :rofl:

I think thereā€™s a subtle difference between ā€œconcealingā€ and ā€œnot revealingā€.

Seeing how intentions make the difference, if you behave in a way thatā€™s acceptable to behave with a householder but not with a monastic; if you werenā€™t privy to them being a monastic, thereā€™s no real fault.

Although Iā€™m wondering what those behaviours could be on an online forum. Probably just failing to say ā€œVenerableā€ (or perhaps trying to flirt in DMs? :sweat_smile: ). As @sabbamitta said, if youā€™re just cordial with people regardless of their ordination, I doubt thereā€™s going to be any problem.

In my experience, I did also figure out some posters were monastics only after the fact. Iā€™d called them ā€œfriendā€ earlier as I do anyone online. None of them seemed to think it was inappropirate.

I donā€™t think thereā€™s a single rule in pātimokkha about revealing/concealing the status of ordination (though, of course one shouldnā€™t lie when asked).

1 Like

For example I complimented Sabbamitta about the calmness of her eyes a while ago. I did not mean to flirt, it was just something that impressed me. But I would not have said this had I known that she was a Venerable.

1 Like

Does seem like something that the management committee should have been involved with. Bhante @sujato ?

As an English speaker, I have always had a negative reaction to people doing that in any online context. It seems overly intimate for such an impersonal medium. Although I get that the very point of using it is to increase connection. But in general I find the practice strange.

In Buddhist forums, though, when you know nothing about the person you are talking with it is probably a bad idea.

That said, a monastic can hardly take offense if someone doesnā€™t address them as such if they are not publicly identified as a monastic.

Forms of address are very culturally specific. For example, using a monasticā€™s name to address them, even paired with an honorific can be considered rude in Sri Lanka. So you canā€™t escape etiquette breaches.

I find that unless you already have an intimate relationship with someone, never ever comment on someoneā€™s body in any way. Itā€™s just to dangerous for a variety of reasons. And creepy, even with good intentions.

So basically, if you treat everyone with the same respect you would treat a monastic, then you canā€™t go wrong.

7 Likes

Interesting! In Turkish culture, people almost never address each other by their proper name - itā€™s always a term of familiarity or an honorific, and calling others by their name is usually a sign of aggression. So Iā€™ve carried that habit of being uneasy calling people their usernames online. And since I donā€™t know strangers online well enough to pick a suitable honorific (Sir/Madam? Brother? Uncle? Auntie?), Iā€™d just go with generic ā€œfriendā€.

I guess words have a cultural baggage - and etiquette is certainly tricky! And if a personā€™s chosen a moniker, I guess itā€™s fine to call them that. :slight_smile:

Thanks for the perspective Bhante.

It is indeed interesting. In English addressing someone as ā€œyouā€ is completely fine. In German there are two forms, so it gets complicated. In Sinhala there are around six (including one for monastics) and itā€™s extremely complicated. Fortunately Sinhala is a super-drop language so the easiest route is to just not use anything at all.

When talking to someone directly in English, I donā€™t see any need to use anything at all other than ā€œyouā€. Thatā€™s why people griping over having to remember pronouns has always seemed strange to me. Unless you are referring to someone in the third person (when we should use correct pronouns), there is no need to use anything but ā€œyouā€, which in English is ungendered. Itā€™s really un-anythinged. One of the few places where English lets us off easy, :smiling_face:

As far as Vinaya, itā€™s hard to find a parallel to online communication. Maybe sending a message to someone by runner? Otherwise I donā€™t see how someone could even communicate anonomously outside of written communication.

1 Like