The discourses that are literary works, the work of outsiders,

Thanks Vstakan.

That’s a good point. I guess my concern is that these kind of posts could possibly contribute to confusion, especially for new users? Your thoughts?


Not only these posts but the so many pointless topics and debates we usually have here.

Maybe I am an idealist but I reckon that if this forum is to be linked to the name of we better at certain point in time clean it of all the weird noise we usually find here and maybe revert it to and enforce it to be a place for people to discuss translations and to a limited extent doctrinal implications or curiosities of the words being translated.

If SC’s D&D is to become just another internet forum, with its usual amount of harsh speech, polemics and advocacy-based debates, I thing it would be better to detach it from the beautiful project of

Well, this is just my view and to avoid further polemics I already acknowledge I am wrong and defeated! :sweat_smile:


I think 80% of the pists on these forums can contribute to confusion of new users. The post itself is merely a citation of a Sutta, which is actually a good thing and can help people find out what Dhamma theories are actually too weird to be true (I think you know who I mean). As for the comments, well, tommit cannot even prove that these very words were said by the Buddha, let alone any other words we find in the Nikayas. Besides, his words that NOBODY practices the Dhamma we find in the Suttas, said on the forums where we have so many inspiring and dedicated bhikkhus and bhukkhunis, are utter non-sense unless he can prove he has clairvoyance. His claim that the true Dhamma is corrupted by other participants of these forums is also weird: He may know what the true Dhamma is only if he himself is at least a stream-enterer, which I think any new user can figure out for themselves in a matter of a few minutes.

I mean, there are posts by, say, Ven. Dhammanando, Sujato and Brahmali and those by tommit. I think, even if I were a new user I would be able to know for myself what sounds more plausible. Besides, well, calling people out on their… erm… malarkey can also work pretty well. So long what tommit said sounds about as plausible as me claiming nobody before me, Ilya Zhezlov, knew what the true Christianity means and I have a direct hotline with Jesus (pretty much what Joseph Smith did).

Finally, who knows, maybe tommit will show that his allegations are not groundless, maybe he will present a cogent and highly convincing argument why he is right. If not, then his words are just air shaking. If he does, I think any reasonable person can decide whether it makes any sense or not.

I mean, sure, studying EBTs is important, but if we as a community can help debunking myths and wacky theories around EBTs, it would be even better.


Generally, things do not arise without a cause. The Buddha did not teach causelessness (AN 3.61).

I suppose if a well-intended thread is started and people reply with “ha…ha…ha”, name-calling & other forms of derogatory worldly behaviour, one may come to the conclusions here.

Imo, such behaviour is not indicative of Sutta Central but of cultural behaviour of a non-Buddhist origin which seems common among some Internet Buddhists & fundamentalists (as often observed with Xtian fundamentalists, who believe they will be saved by faith rather than by deeds).


1 Like

Well said Vstakan. I’m happy to let it stay here if that’s what you guys want. As a mod I feel my responsibility is to represent what this community wants, along with the mod’s ideas of what the forum needs to stay welcoming and safe.

So, happy to leave it for now and rely on all of your (the communities) contributions to indicate your opinions and the direction you want. :anjal:


All well-said and done but were the responses to this other thread “welcoming & safe”?

Maybe they weren’t exactly welcoming and safe and maybe the right course of action would have been answering with a quote from the Culavedalla sutta about the Nibbana as a final goal of the spiritual practice, but there is a huge difference between calling people out on making unskilful comments and on them being complete Dhamma amateurs corrupting the True Teaching. Even Ven. Sariputta made unskilful comments, and this argument is easy to see and check for everyone. The second one is a much more serious allegation that needs much more serious argumentation.

1 Like

The moderators are usually not able to see every single post on this forum.

If you see posts that concern you on this forum, to the degree that you think they are really inappropriate, we ask users to flag them as per the Flagging Guidelines so you can bring our attention to them.

1 Like

Sure. I certainly do not agree with the other/secondary reaction. But the practise of the persecutor (victimiser) claiming to be the persecuted (victim) is not Buddhist.

OK. No problem. Thanks Cara. :seedling:


Okay, let’s differentiate between ridiculing other people’s opinion and defeating it in a rational discussion, why not. And well, this behaviour may have been over the top (even though I though the first comment by Chansik was hilarious and quite to the point :slight_smile:), but sure, hopefully we will be able to do better than that in the future :pray:


Under Buddha-Dhamma, that is possible:

Yes… a transgression overcame you in that you were so foolish, so muddle-headed, and so unskilled… But because you see your transgression as such and make amends in accordance with the Dhamma, we accept your confession. For it is a cause of growth in the Dhamma & Discipline of the noble ones when, seeing a transgression as such, one makes amends in accordance with the Dhamma and exercises restraint in the future."

:innocent: :slight_smile:


I’m mixed. I can see both @Gabriel_L’s and @Vstakan points. Personally the more discusions I read like this one @tommit started, the more I limit what I read on the forum, and I already do limit quite a bit. I don’t go to other internet forums or social media as I’m just not interested. And here my interest is certainly more what @Gabriel_L suggests:

That being said, I also know there are others who enjoy a wider range of topics and discussions.

Actually, I almost just stopped reading this discussion and certainly wasn’t going to comment until I saw @Cara’s post reaching out to see what others in the communnity think. I really appreciate you @Cara and the other moderators for your care in moderation and all you do!

So my two cents: Yes, I think it has an impact on people who are new to SC discourse (and/or on decisions some new people might make as to whether to get involved at all, especially as they maybe aren’t going to take the time to sift through everything and find those worth reading). In this case, the comment I think is very inappropriate and definitely against the guidelines is this one of @tommit’s:


I really can’t comment on the post by @tommit because I have no idea what it means.

But in general, I prefer not to get into the business of deleting posts whenever somebody might be “triggered” by one. That’s a slippery slope. It’s pretty easy to ignore threads one doesn’t want to read.


Not following closely, excuse me.

Explain this please. Company means the creators of “Discourse” on github.
If you mean COMPANY then that would be duly noted.



The question is in the ability to understand or not the Dhamma, If you understand it you can fill in any discussion quotes and also explain them. The “sin” of my first intervention was to explain the Buddha’s use of the rice and the curd that he had to break the fast. It is obvious that the Buddha did not know about nutrition and many other things (he did not know how to read or write, let’s not forget) and it is clear that he did not know what is the use of tryptophan and its use in meditation jhanas. It is also clear that if we put the limit on unillustrated knowledge, the suttas will serve no purpose. And it will be what I put in my post: black dhamma.

The fastest and stupidest way to lose a game is to play against the referee.

I do not mind putting the date. And, by the way, I can not suffer. Do you suffer?

The problem here is that the player is trying to be a referee.


While the tone has been a tad overly harsh here (the tendency on the internet for sila and right speech to go by the wayside), a point was made that has some validity, IMO, and which I’ve been searching for a skillful way to bring up here… somewhere…

Namely to question what balance is proper here between pariyatti (philology, if you will) and patipatti (or even pativedha)?

Several discussion have been hijacked into debates of philological minutiae, and even the opinion expressed that practice considerations (“personal” experience or anecdotal stuff) are irrelevant (dismissed out of hand). (I could cite instances, but rather keep it general.)

Does focus on EBT imply just textual-/context-critical, philological matters?

At times in such debates I’ve been tempted to bring up the issue of what the significance might be looking at word and grammatical interpretations in terms of the implication for meaning in practice. The tenor of discussion, however, suggests such would likely be not welcome.

Not to go down the slippery slope of proliferating personal experiences (there are dharma forums already for that), but to explore the balance of possible word interpretations against implications (and experienced realities) in the practice of the dhamma presumably intended to be communicated in the words.