Prohibiting Debates -- A Sneaky Form Of Moralizing

[Gabriel Antonio]

Prohibiting Debates -- A Sneaky Form of Moralizing

Recently, it has been prohibited to engage in debates on different approaches to non-duality. You may say, “Oh… but this is necessary to prevent the forum to turn into chaos.” But what if people are in different stages of their journeys, and they need to get through this debating phase? Ok, the truth will not come from debating, but why prohibit it? Isn’t that like saying, “This forum should be high conscious”?

I know that I am going against the grain here, that I might get banned, that I might be judged. But who cares? What kind of high consciousness forum does not allow users to express themselves freely? If a topic annoying, just ignore it. There might be people who can profit from them.

I know practice is much harder than theory. Reaching a state of no rules require a certain level consciousness; otherwise, things can be turn into chaos. Is our level of consciousness so low that we need to start banning people who are newbies?

I can sense a strong of criticism coming at me. That’s ok because sometimes someone has to sacrifice himself for something new to rise.

Edited January 5, 2017 by Gabriel Antonio
title didn't go through

[Extreme Z7]

@Gabriel Antonio  You are projecting your own ideas as to how higher-consciousness is actually like. I've never been to a Buddhist monastery before but I suspect that there is good reason why you are , for example, not allowed to speak up against the Zen master or question the practices. I don't think it's for the same reason why you are not allowed to speak up when being indoctrinated by a religious group.

There's just a little more nuance that is found when you go deep and examine non-duality vs dogma. They may look similar in the surface but the small details and connections can show a world of difference.

Also, take into account the fact that only low-consciousness loves to argue.

Edited January 5, 2017 by Extreme Z7

[Guest Annetta]

Question: What is the line between exhibiting healthy skepticism and engaging in pointless debate?

[eskwire]

Let the teacher teach you. And control the classroom. 

Is it good practice for a teacher to allow for bad habits in the students, knowing how difficult they are to undo?

Does debate more frequently open the mind or entrench one's preconceived position? 

This is just how I see it. Most likely nobody's upset with you, btw. That's projection. <3

 

[Leo Gura]

The only people who get banned are those who start mudslinging contests or have an axe to grind.

Genuine dialogue -- conducted in a civil and intellectually charitable manner -- is allowed.

Don't turn yourself into a martyr, as if this place is North Korea.

If you're seeking a place with no rules, good luck finding that anywhere on planet Earth.

[Acharya]

4 hours ago, Extreme Z7 said:

Also, take into account the fact that only low-consciousness loves to argue.

Who said it?

[Acharya]

3 hours ago, Babybat said:

Question: What is the line between exhibiting healthy skepticism and engaging in pointless debate?

IMO, one shoud watch if by debating is protecting some of his beliefs or is genuinely (aka unconditionally) giving his point of view. Of course awareness demarcates the line in between.

[Martin123]

8 hours ago, Gabriel Antonio said:

I can sense a strong of criticism coming at me. That’s ok because sometimes someone has to sacrifice himself for something new to rise.

You condemned yourself before anyone else did.
Ma dude, no good can come out of emotional fights between one another.