Is it ethical to have Actualism/Magick in a forum that is named Dharma Overground?

What do you do when the owner of the forum is into that kind of stuff?

Or maybe he's no longer into it, but just wants to expose it. Knowledge is power. Ignorance is weakness.

Is there a reason to limit discussion about things that capture people's interests? Does that make these things go away?

Besides that, who says anyone has to participate in those discussions? You vote with your fingers.

Probably not.

Thankfully there is Dharma Wheel where they take their page name more seriously 

Aahh, yes. And all the religious dogma baggage that comes with it. Just be aware of that tradeoff.

Actualism/Magick is not a problem unless someone makes it a problem. That process (of making it a problem) occurs in the mind of the perceiver! And that action is called kamma.

Quoth the progenitor: "It is volition, bhikkhus, that I declare to be kamma. Having willed, one performs an action by body, speech, or mind." — AN 6.63

How come so few people on this forum understand this? That is the question you should be asking yourselves.

If the owner of the forum is into that kind of stuff, he could change the name of the forum itself. To keep it Dharma Overground and then have other stuff under that name is false advertising.

There could be as many different things to discuss as people have interest in but to put them under the banner of one specific interest that is selling would be false advertising.

So what do you think Ian, is it ethical or unethical to have other stuff under the banner of Dharma Overground?

Interesting choice to frame it that way, a question framed in a way assuming first of all that only one of the two answers you supplied can be correct and assuming second of all that both Actualism and Magick are in any obvious way automatically contrary to right path at all times.  What if I want to use Actualism to observe and know myself better which is a use it is superbly designed for?  What if I wanted to use Magick to help the sick and poor?  Ethical?  Or what if I wanted to experiment with Actualism out of curiosity and what if I wanted to use Magick to open my locked front door.  Seems like neither ethical nor unethical fits those uses that well.  If I hold a  hammer in my hand, is it ethical or unethical?  Perhaps it depends on what I plan to do with that hammer.  The hammer itself is just a tool, neither ethical nor unethical by itself.  It could be part of right path, less skilled path or just being used as a paperweight.  Is it unethical for me to talk about hammers on this forum?  COuld be an argument that it's less relevant or kinda fringe, but there are certainly other labels that could be used besides just ethical or unethical.
-Eva    

If the name of Dharma Overground is changed to Dharma/Actualism/Magick Overground, then everyone who comes on here would know where one is going and that would be perfectly ethical.

But to just state Dharma Overground and then including Actualism/Magick is unethical.

Does calling it Dharma Overground and then adding Actualism/Magick be considered "Right Speech" according to Buddhism?

Change, have you looked up the definition of "Dharma?"  It has many different meanings including, but not limited to: "cosmic law and order," "right way of living," "duties, rules, rites, and rituals," "practice," "phenomena," and "the system of things." You seem to be implying that Actualism and Magick don't fit into that somehow.

In the suttas, "dharma" is most often used to reference a teaching of some kind, from what I've seen.  Monks would ask each other on the road, "What dharma do you follow?"  The word is meant to be cross-disciplinary.

Is it ethical to call tibetan buddhism or zen buddhism dhamma? Yes I think so. Even though Its full of tantra and advaita vedanta porely disguised. I still think so. Becouse it might be worth giving it a try and a discussion to find out if it has any power to liberate us. Becouse seriously, just becouse a theravade sutta says something or does not say something, it is not the end of the discussion. So I think there is good reason to discuss actualism. Even if the founder is a creepy potsmoker. But for me actualism doesn't intresst me so much. Becouse I've havn't even got stream entry. Before that I'm not really intressted becouse I won't have something to compare it with. But I still think we should discuss it under the banner of dharma. For all I know it might be the real arhathood, compared with todays arhats. But I wont know that before i've crossed trained in both systems. Should we even discuss visudimagga? It was probably written by a hindu schoolar achording to Bhant Vimalaramsi. Should we be discussing Bhant Vimalaramsi after he created he's own brand of amarican homemade suttavada. I think so. His liberation might be superior to the mahasi liberation. I don't know, but I want to find out. But most of all I would love to hear people who has master both mahasi arhahathood and suttavada arhathood. Bhante seems to be teaching the powers to advanced student's. And I'm really intressted to hear about it. Buddha might have warned against the powers but he diffenitly tought it. 
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html
But don't listen to me I'm not a pure buddhist. On my altar I have Buddha, Lao tzu, Ramana Maharshi and Dipa Ma. I imagine that having roundtable discussion with all of them would be most intressting.
Live long and prosper.
Gunnar

Actualism states that it is 180 degree opposite to everything that came before it. So no matter what definition you choose for Dharma, Actualism doesn't fit in there. Magick may but not Actualism unless the forum name is "Dharma and 180 degree opposite view Overground"!

The word Dharma may be cross-disciplinary only in the context of views that are somewhat aligned in some ways, not something which is 180 degree opposite.

Tibetan Buddhism and Zen Buddhism still talk about Buddha as a teacher and they don't present their teachings as 180 degree opposite whereas Actualism does.

This isn't supposed to be an angry or confrontational response, its just a subject I'm passionate about.  Just my thoughts:

When I think of the word Dharma (I am not claiming a dictionary definiton), I think of, "the way things work."  Meaning, the brain and mind function in certain ways as they interact with reality, and these interactions can be tailored for certain results.  

Vipassana is a 'seeing separate' that results in a centerless, nondual orientation which greatly reduces stress.  Consciously opening one's chakras or being completely devoted to one's deity would probably have equivalent effects if done for tens of thousands of hours with the right adjustments.  These are just things that can happen, regardless of the way one wants it to be or conceptualizes it.

Likewise, the Actualism method is simply a specialized form of mindfulness which results in a different type of nondual orientation.  When one follows the directions of the method (or their mechanical equivalent, i.e. Kenneth's Direct Mode, other advanced purification practices), something happens to the mind that can be repeated by others.

Magick is just a thing that happens when one spends time soaking in the formless realms and playing with intentionality (Buddhist/Meditative Magick), or when one has excellent concentration on one particular subject for a prolonged period of time with deep faith that it will occur (Mental Science), or when one performs a certain ritual with the right symbols and according to certain direction with faith and concentration (Western Magick).  

Dharma is just the mechanics of the Universe.  Also, it is everyone's responsibility to figure out what works for them and to not get too deeply involved in blind faith or dogmatism, as the front page states anyway.  Meaning, a DHO'er shouldn't be so hell-bent on 'traditional buddhism' (which we can't really define anyway) that he/she is blindsided by the prescense of other traditions and other contemplative outcomes.

Rather than joining the fray here, there's a fork thread tangentially relating, at:
http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5724379

We can fit anything to anything if we just change the definition of a word which you did with your own definition of Dharma and Actualism. The progenitor of Actualism says that it has nothing to do with mindfulness.

I agree.  I think its okay to fit anything to anything.  For me, the litmus test of practice is only the reduction of my own, personal suffering and increase in my own functioning (including ability to benefit others).  So, I guess I don't have a stake in the proper categorization of practices.  

That being said, I think the most ethical thing is to encourage as many people as possible to follow effective stress-reduction practices.  Using the word 'Dharma' in the title seems to be attracting a lot of people; some of them will go on to realize permanent shifts from suffering which may come from Buddhism, Western Magick, or Actualism.  I would argue that this is the core of 'ethics.'

Well, the Buddha said his dharma was 180° opposite when he started preaching anatta to the hindus.  They didn't kick him out of India.

I'm not saying to kick out Actualism either, just saying that the name of the forum doesn't reflect the true 360 degree nature of it.

Some of them may also waste a lot of time on things that may not be that useful. Also, they may be distracted by a lot of noise from the other groups.

Do you have anything to say about right speech on this topic?

I'm not really sure about Right Speech.  I honestly think I'm just unqualified to speak on it.  

In general, I try to speak in an honest way about what I do or don't know and to be explicit when I am positing a theory and not a fact.   I hope these speech habits help myself and others find clarity about what they want from the various traditions and techniques that are pooled here.  

For instance, I would communicate that I am interested in Actualism as a post fourth-path practice and also because I suffer from bipolar disorder, therefore curbing my emotions is appealing to me... emotional nullification would probably be less attractive if I felt extremely mentally healthy.
Finding this clarity can, in turn, help mitigate any dissonance between a title that connotes Buddhism and inner-contents that contrast Buddhism.  

Do you think it is honest to name the forum as Dharma Overground and then have Actualism/Magick included in?

Also, Buddha called his philosophy as Dharma. Your logic would hold if Actualism would have been called Dharma something.

He may say that it is 180 degrees opposite but we often on here do not agree it is 180 degrees opposite.  I have yet to see what is so opposite about it other than some fancy use of alternative definitions. 
-Eva

Even if you think that Actualism is not 180 degree opposite to Buddhism, it still doesn't fit under the name of the forum, Dharma Overground.

Your opinion but not mine.  I think the main action of Actualism is to learn to know yourself and your emotions better and better.  End result is supposed to be a state of mind similar to a peak consciousness type experience.  All that sounds very 'right path'/dharma to me. 
-Eva

re: Noah S (5/6/15 1:42 AM as a reply to Change A..)

After that excellent survey of "specialized form of mindfulness"…

"Dharma is just the mechanics of the Universe.  Also, it is everyone's responsibility to figure out what works for them…"

The second sentence seems to implies it, and I would suggest qualifying the first sentence along the lines: "A Dharma is just the mechanics of the Universe, interpreted according to a particular way of viewing it."

There are passages in the suttas that U Jagara talked about a couple of times, where G.Buddha said something like: in the last analysis, each takes refuge in him/herself, not focusing on becoming a 'self' per se, but in effect focusing on one's own intentions, actions. The mind itself, one could say the practice itself, is the refuge. A sense of 'right view' is seeing the consequences of action, which enables the possibility of cultivation.

In the Samyutta Nikaya (Bbodhitranslation p 882) "… dwell with yourselves as an island, with yourselves as a refuge, with no other refuge; with the Dhamma as an island, with the Dhamma as a refuge, with no other refuge…" And in the Dhammapada(157-166), working with and on oneself as the vehicle of thepractice.

A canonical basis, if you will, for pragmatic Buddhism.

If it comes from Actualism, then it is Actualism, not Dharma.

If you are following the main action of Actualism, then the result is produced by following that action and trying to fit it into Buddhism with the play of words is disingenous.

Yes, a canonical basis for pragmatic Buddhism but not for Actualism.

Actualism as far as I know is just a methodology or technique that Richard felt might provide a short cut to actual freedom - he wasn't sure if it would work or not as it was not his own path or practice. Anyone following that practice is engaged in an experiment. If Buddha had not engaged in experimentation, we would not be here having this discussion.

I like the name Dharma Overground. It’s just a name. As for AF, Daniel was not the only one that wanted it to be part of the discussion, I and a number of others also wanted this. Personally, I was struck by how similar Richards experience was to my own - not only his current experience but how that evolved over the years up to that point - though I found that speaking about that created more commotion than it was worth. If you investigate how Richard describes Buddhism you will find that what he is so intensely opposed to is a very distorted view of Buddhism. In other words, he is strongly opposed to the view of Buddhism he holds in his own mind. I once posted an imaginary dialog between Richard and Ajahn Chah (using quotes from each) to point this out - I still have it around if anyone is interested.

I'm interested in the dialogue that you have.

The name of the forum should be representative of what it stands for and the current name doesn't represent it. I think it would be fair to have a name that represents what the forum has in store for the visitors. That way if in the future something more needs to be added to it, it would still be representative of it. That would be right speech, ethical, and full disclosure without any deceit.

If we keep the current name, then we are not even following the path of the Dharma. Maybe this is what is causing cycling and the dark nights?

Change A, would you prefer this be called the "Dogmatic Overground?"

Change A

I am truly and utterly dissatisfied with this topic. You made as much as fifteen posts and failed to mention even once that Daniel should also change name of the book to MCTDI. I am like WTF Change A, could there be anything more obvious than that? Don't you feel rage when you see this deceptive "Mastering the Core Teaching of the Buddha" title?

Disgusted,
Paweł K.

As far as I can tell from reading actualist they mostly are not even knowing what Richard meant and concentrate on some emotions and other insignificant bullshit, instead of doing what he said which is Consistently enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive is what the actualism method is.

I guess experiment failed because people like it is typical for this species cling to what they know which is passions, even to trying to not have passions which is still passion, and they should go beyond their emotions, make them less important and concentrate on how beautiful and satisfactory world already is when not trying to change it (which desire to change is caused by passions)

But my understanding might be biased because of my own practice. Maybe Richard by appreciating this moment of being alive really meant for people to dwell in emotions instead of appreciate everything inside and around them ;-)

Dharma (truth) is everywhere, even in a heaping pile of dog shit. Dharma shit
2 cents: Dharma doesn't belong to Buddha, and Actualists aren't immune
There are many expressions of Buddhism, like all religions, IMO some of those offshoots have much more 'dharma' than others
The real question is, why do you care?
Dharma is a big word, like Art, Life, God, Aloha(haha)
Do you think someone coming here looking for Buddhism or Truth (Dharma) will accidentally get hooked on Actualism and lose their opportunity for emancipation?
Actualism has some Dharma, so does Buddhism, Christianity and Atheism - no one has the market
My opinion of course, I prefer the broad definition - there are plenty of forums that take a more strict view. Anyway (as we all know) Dhrama Queen Overground sometimes seems the most fitting title here

Well Chang A!

I think actualism is here to stay, no matter what you or I think about it. I'm not especielly intressted in it myself. Found Mr Richard webpage pritty loathsome myself. He seems to be kind of stuck in his aversion to religion. Which I in many ways can understand and probably suffer from my self to some degree. But I think his method might have some intressting results. Especially becouse he says that its 180 opposit of enlightenment. Isn't that something we must look into if we're honestly looking for the truth or liberation. Althought suspect that he missunderstands enlightenment. Or maybe his enlightenment wasn't the same as buddhist enlightenment. There seems to be many difffrent kinds. Some people say that the dhamma has to be saved from Buddhism. I think there is a lot to it.
But with actualism, I think it has to be saved from it's founder.

Gunnar 

I don't think i've ever been in any established group that has not self populated with a large percentage of people with stubborn rules and opinions that they learned from others and seldom question, combined with an us and them mentality against other groups, that mentality usually also coupled with only a weak understanding of the other groups from whom they wish to distinguish themselves.  In fact, often they will even be adverse to learning much about the other groups.  A tribal mindset seems to come naturally to many people.  Buddhism is not immune to it and neither is Actualism. 
-Eva

I'm not saying that Actualism should not stay here. I'm just saying that Dharma Overground is a wrong and deceptive title for a forum which has Actualism/Magick in it.

I would tend to agree. I brought this up with Daniel at some point, which is why I suggested changing "the same basic principles of empowering, helpful, engaged dharma" to "the same basic principles of empowering, helpful, engaged knowledge".

He said that dharma wasn't a Buddhist term per se, it's a Sanskrit term, and that he uses it to mean something that encompasses the truth of experience and also as those truths that help end suffering. With that definition, stripped of any context, Actualism and Magick would both more or less fit.

However, I've looked it up and it is a term undeniably linked to eastern spirituality. Wikipedia says "Dharma is a key concept with multiple meanings in the Indian religions Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism." Thelemapedia says "Dharma is a sanskrit word and a concept of eastern religions. [...] The word dharma [...] is used in most or all philosophies and religions of Indian origin, the dharmic faiths, namely Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma), Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism."

And I would wager that when most people hear "Dharma" they think "Eastern Spirituality".

That being said, "The Dharma Overground" is the name of this place and what it is known as. I don't know if rebranding it would be such a good idea. It has come to be known as an open place where things such as Actualism and Magick are welcome. A newcomer would quickly recognize this. I don't see it as deceptive per se, in the sense of intentionally misleading.

I agree that dharma is not a Buddhist word per se but as you have found out that it is undeniably linked to Eastern spirituality and it shouldn't be used in a way in which one has to twist its meaning so that it can fit where you want it to which is basically what Daniel is doing.

If one knows how a word is generally understood by most people and you don't use it in that conventional sense but in a special sense of your own, then I think that it is intentionally misleading.

Dear Change A,

Well, you are welcome to start a forum that fits more with your vision of a proper forum and title.

The name of the forum stays, as does what is welcome here.

I think of the word dharma as having the broader meaning, as Claudiu said.

How does this actually impact your practice? That is the question I find most interesting.

BTW: the Buddha clearly practiced and taught magick, even while occasionally decrying it. There are vastly more stories of him using magick than of him saying it was a bad idea.

As to Actualism: most of Richard's ideas of Buddhism are about some strange version of Buddhism that doesn't seem to actually exist anywhere but does draw from some of the worst of the elements of it, sort of a patchwork straw man argument, really.

I have found that, regardless of anyone's dogmatic considerations, actually practicing something Actualism-esque produced useful effects, and, in the pragmatic spirit that I believe the Buddha embodied, consider useful effects useful.

Be well and practice well, and try to keep this forum about things that will make some practical difference if possible,

Daniel

re:Chuck Kasmire (5/7/15 2:37 PM as a reply to Change A..)
"I once posted an imaginary dialog between Richard and Ajahn Chah (using quotes from each) to point this out - I still have it around if anyone is interested."
OT but brief:
Very interested, Chuck, having recently read Kornfield's "The Wise Heart", much of which keys off his experiences with Ajahn Chah; and having looked up, listened to a lot about and by (youtube) Ajahn Chah.

Well, you are welcome to keep the name of the forum as also what is welcome here knowing fully well that you are using the word dharma with a meaning that is intentionally misleading and that is against the spirit of what Buddha embodied and taught.

I sent you a PM

I would actually be interested in reading this too =).

Except that G. Buddha never used the word 'dharma'. It's pretty much Western modernism that has conflated Pali 'dhamma' with the Sanskrit (perhaps more accurately, new-age lingo derived therefrom) 'dharma'.

So true.

Did I say that G. Buddha used the word 'dharma'? I agreed with Claudiu that dharma is not a Buddhist word per se and it is undeniably linked with Eastern spirituality.

So, it has nothing to do with Actualism/Magick.

Sanskrit dharma has the same meaning as Pali dhamma. It is just the pronounciation that is different in Pali than Sankrit with the 'r' missing and an additional 'm'. So there is no conflation involved here.

The way Daniel is using the word dharma is not what most would consider to be right speech as taught by Buddha. It is not even ethical in the conventional sense.

From: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html (words in bold for emphasis)

dhamma [Skt. dharma]:
(1) Event; a phenomenon in and of itself; (2) mental quality; (3) doctrine, teaching; (4) nibbāna. Also, principles of behavior that human beings ought to follow so as to fit in with the right natural order of things; qualities of mind they should develop so as to realize the inherent quality of the mind in and of itself. By extension, "Dhamma" (usu. capitalized) is used also to denote any doctrine that teaches such things. Thus the Dhamma of the Buddha denotes both his teachings and the direct experience of nibbāna, the quality at which those teachings are aimed.
Dhamma-vinaya:
"doctrine (dhamma) and discipline (vinaya)." The Buddha's own name for the religion he founded.

re: Change A. (5/10/15 8:25 AM as a reply to Chris J Macie.)

"…the word 'dharma'? I agreed with Claudiu that dharma is not a Buddhist word per se and it is undeniably linked with Eastern spirituality."
The problem here probably has more to do with 'dharma' linked with Western "spirituality".

"So, it has nothing to do with Actualism/Magick."
Obviously this seems so in the POVframework you are using here. Maybe you could go into some depth describing this framework (without simply repeating, again and again, the points you've brought up here)? Perhaps in a new thread where the focus is other than incessantly back-biting on DhO; your contributions have been generally interesting, but it seems you've gotten a bit stuck in this thread.

When 'dharma' is used in a broader sense, as was the case 2500 years ago in India, and also today and in the West – for instance: one 'spiritual' type meets another on the road, "Dude! What's your dharma?" (Who's your teacher? What are you into these days?).* In this case, Actualism or Magick would be exactly the kind of thing one might expect to come up, in addition to perhaps Buddha, Jain (Nagantha), Vedic or whatnot.

"Sanskrit dharma has the same meaning as Pali dhamma. It is just the pronounciation that is different in Pali than Sankrit with the 'r' missing and an additional 'm'."
Yes, the two words are in some sense equivalent to each other, same root across dialects. In another sense, 'dhamma,' as Pali, belongs exclusively to Buddhism. Pali is an artificial language created for transmitting Buddhist texts across cultures with differing languages, like Latin in the world of Roman Catholicism. So 'dhamma' is different in that it carries, in theory, ONLY Buddhist meanings, whereas as 'dharma' is used for any indic or new-age related spiritual belief system.

Notice I wrote 'Buddhist meanings' (plural). Here's a link to a place in my "practice log" where a long footnote is copied from Ven. Nanamoli's translation of the Visudhimagga, in which he surveys in depth the uses and meanings of 'dhamma', both in the Vism and across the Pali Canon (and thanks, Change A., for the reference to the AccessToInsight definition, which I cross-reference from there also):
http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/view_message/5722903#_19_message_5726402

* OT but a laugh: Alan Watts relates a Zen saying: "When two Zen masters meet [as strangers] on the road, they need no introduction. One thief recognizes another thief instantly!"

Actualism has nothing to do with either Eastern or Western spirituality. The problem here seems more to do with trying to link Actualism to spirituality. It seems to me that you have very little knowledge about Actualism? If yes, then maybe you should read about it at the AFT website.

On the home page itself, it says: A New and Non-Spiritual Down-to-Earth Freedom (http://actualfreedom.com.au/default.htm)

On ethics: At worst, one could call it "misleading advertising" but even that is overstating the case. There are a lot of Buddhist practices in China (primarily historical at this point, Mao saw to that with the Cultural Revolution), Burma, Thailand and elsewhere that, from the Western point of view, don't look much like what we in the West would call dharma. Buddhism has always been a "Big Tent".

On Actualism: I don't know much about it, but from what I've read here, it looks like there are overlaps with the goals of Western vipsasana practice. I know nothing about the actual practices so I cannot comment. On the other hand, some of the people posting on actualism have been persistent and have a style that I would characterize as "obnoxious", though I would not accuse them of trolling. This has actually turned me off from investigating it further.

On magick: Well, there I actually have some experience so I can comment. My experience is that somehow, when one is deep into concentration in a retreat, it does seem like magick is possible. But about a month after the retreat, there is never any evidence that the intentions generated in the retreat have had any effect on the material world whatsoever. Somehow, concentration alters one's perception of causality in a way that makes the physically impossible seem possible. The Buddha did, in fact, talk about topics that one could consider as magick, though I don't believe they were central to his teaching. And he was careful to prohibit monks from displaying the siddhis. My opinion (and it is just that) based on my experience is that the Buddha recognized that information derived from the siddhis was unreliable and therefore not to be trusted. Again an opinion, but I think that the stories about the siddhis were blown out of proportion over the centuries as the stories were repeated orally before the suttas were written down, in a kind of haeographical effect. So I think magick is an appropriate topic, but would rather see a more nuanced discussion than has been the case in the past. That said, I should probably open a thread on it if I want to see that kind of discussion.

Pali (Pāḷi) is a Middle Indo-Aryan language that is in the Prakrit language group[citation needed] and is native to the Indian subcontinent. It is a dead language that is widely studied because it is the language of many of the earliest extantBuddhist scriptures as collected in the Pāḷi Canon, or Tipiṭaka, and it is the liturgical language of Theravada Buddhism.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pali

re: Change A. (5/13/15 2:09 PM as a reply to Chris J Macie.)
"… It seems to me that you have very little knowledge about Actualism? If yes, then maybe you should read about it at the AFT website."

I've spent a fair amount of time reading in that website – the expositions of the belief system, methodology, the testimonials, etc. Ambiguous, paradoxical impressions: sometimes interestingly challenging (as a variant of 'awakening'); other times a feeling I recognize from having been around 'born-again' Christians. Likewise here in DhO: some highly respectible past or current followers of AF, and a couple of overly prominent, obnoxious (to second svmonk) trolls, who have exemplified a fundamentalist tendency that seems to associate with AF. (I would, however, say 'trolling', as seemingly innocently hanging out with moderately reasonable contributions, then suddenly lashing out, lunging at one or more targets, insulting, tenacious;. then, equally suddenly, stepping back, pretending detachment and superiority.)

"A New and Non-Spiritual Down-to-Earth Freedom"
That I interpret as sales-hype, market positioning.

So Pali is not an artificial language created for transmitting Buddhist texts.

But that would be interpreting antonym as synonym by stating it as sales-hype, market positioning because you are trying to include Actualism as something spiritual whereas it unambiguously states itself as non-spiritual.

You are stuck in your position so much that you have started to interpret things as such and trying to portray dharma and dhamma as having somewhat different meanings. You even said that Pali is an artificial language created for transmitting Buddhist texts which it is not.

You have said that I've gotten a bit stuck in this thread but I'm only trying to say that the words used should be of standard meaning and because of my position, I don't have to interpret things differently than what is normally the case.

Now you're going at it again and again, like a troll. What are you looking for here?

Precisely. I can't believe this "discussion" hasn't burned out yet. You've expressed your opinion, you've made your point. If you really think Daniel or anyone else is being unethical, and if said unethical behavior is a relentless thorn in your flesh, then find another forum.

Yadayadayada, The End

I would like to point out that the the problem can be addressed slightly differently. If you think someone is a troll or if you just disagree with them and want a thread to die, one option quite useful is to stop participating. This way it is much easier for a moderater to judge that there is mearly an endless angry rant occuring vs a back and forth discussion that might be in some way be useful to the participants.
Thank you,
~D

I was pointing out the mistakes that you have made in trying to prove your point. A troll would be the one who comes up with something false to prove the point that they are making and in this thread, it is you who has made false statement, like Pali being an artificial language. You also made the false point that Western modernism has conflated Pali 'dhamma' with Sanskrit 'dharma'.

If everything that you had said was true, I wouldn't have anything to counter it with. But you chose to come up with things based on your own false assumptions. Here I would also like to point it out that nobody in the west would ask somebody walking on the street as to "dude, what is your dharma?" They might ask as to what kind of spirituality are you into. If they ask as to what is your dharma, they would be expecting some form of Buddhism as the answer.

Yes, it is definitely ethical to have Actualism and Magick in a forum that is named Dharma Overground.  Why should there not be allowed discussions about different subjects?  

People have all types of discussions about all types of subjects on websites named  Yahoo and Google.  Names are just names.

But, really, why not be able to discuss different topics, and approaches in training?  How else can people learn new things?  Learn to compare and contrast different Dharmas?  Actual Freedom is a Dharma, Magick is a Dharma.

It is actually pretty cool to be able to discuss different subjects all under one roof, with open minded people from all over the world.  Even if we do not always have the same views and opinions.

So, no, I do not think it is unethical or anything of any such sort.

Plus, it is all clearly divided up into sections and whatnot, and anyone can lead off a topic and create their own subject heading as to whatever Dharma or Phenomenon they are proposing to discuss.

I do also see the point you are trying to make, but iisn't that some sort of proliferation view, in other words a view that everything is not Dharma.  From a Buddhist view everything is Dharma, examing other types of teachings is still enveloped by Dharma.  For instance, Actualism and Magick is still subject to the Four Foundations of Mindfulness and the Three Characteristics, so , in a fashion can still be studied as Dharma.  

That is just my view, I do not know what else I could add to the discussion.

Psi

It all hinges on the fact as to what 'dharma' means.

The Dhamma, the truth taught by the Buddha, is uncovered gradually through sustained practice. (from: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/)

Dhamma is a Pali word and Dharma is a Sanskrit word which mean exactly the same. Hence, I don't have to come up with my own definition to suit my needs. I use standard definitions and if we use that, then it is unethical to have Actualism/Magick in a forum named Dharma Overground.

If Yahoo and Google were words used to denote something different and then somebody came up and started using Google in a forum named Yahoo or vice versa, then your example would be similar to the situation we are discussing here.

Curious the amount of attention paid to hyper-critically dissecting my particular interpretations here, and so little similarly detailed response to the many well-reasoned responses from others, which also express disagreement with the accusations ("unethical", "not Right Speech", etc.). Must be I'm way off-base here, so will just clarify a couple of points and then bow out.

Change A. (5/15/15 7:46 PM as a reply to Change A..)
(Wikipedia) "Pali (Pāḷi) is a Middle Indo-Aryan language that is in the Prakrit language group [citation needed] and is native to the Indian subcontinent. It is a dead language that is widely studied because it is the language of many of the earliest extant Buddhist scriptures as collected in the Pāḷi Canon, or Tipiṭaka,and it is the liturgical language of Theravada Buddhism."

"So Pali is not an artificial language created for transmitting Buddhist texts."

Pali is said to be possibly related to (but not exactly) the native dialect (Magadhi) that the Buddha is thought to have spoken, though he was likely fluent in multiple dialects, as he was pretty smart, and travelled around, taught where other dialects were used (and he is said to have used magick to communicate with some audiences). I use "artificial" in the sense of being a "dead language",artificially maintained in usage, just like Latin, as literary (and also oral and liturgical) common ground across millennia and nationalities. Could have been more explicit about that.

Change A. (5/15/15 7:59 PM as a reply to Chris J Macie.)
AF: "A New and Non-Spiritual Down-to-Earth Freedom"
CJM: "That I interpret as sales-hype, market positioning."
CA: "But that would be interpreting antonym as synonym by stating it as sales-hype, market positioning because you are trying to include Actualism as something spiritual whereas it unambiguously states itself as non-spiritual."
"New" (latest and greatest),"Non-Spiritual" (even better than non-religious),"Down-to-Earth" (i.e. pragmatic, IRL) – I stand by taking the usage of these terms here as basically catchy slogans. And it has been suggested that the AF progenitor is prone to straw-dog characterisations.

"You are stuck in your position so much that you have started to interpret things as such and trying to portray dharma and dhamma as having somewhat different meanings. You even said that Pali is an artificial language created for transmitting Buddhist texts which it is not. "
(Note, here as above and below, the repetitive points.)

"You have said that I've gotten a bit stuck in this thread but I'm only trying to say that the words used should be of standard meaning and because of my position, I don't have to interpret things differently than what is normally the case."
Defining, claiming to know what's "standard" or "what is normally the case" – that's not interpretive? Whereas your "position" is privy to "the truth"?

Change A. (5/16/15 1:02 PM as a reply to Chris J Macie.)
"I was pointing out the mistakes that you have made in trying to prove your point. A troll would be the one who comes up with something false to prove the point that they are making and in this thread, it is you who has made false statement, like Pali being an artificial language. You also made the false point that Western modernism has conflated Pali 'dhamma' with Sanskrit 'dharma'."
and earlier: "Sanskrit dharma has the same meaning as Pali dhamma…. So there is no conflation involved here."
CJM: "It's pretty much Western modernism that has conflated Pali 'dhamma' with the Sanskrit (perhaps more accurately, new-age lingo derived therefrom) 'dharma'."
From what I've seen, common, popular usage conflates 'dharma' with a range of belief systems, and by no means all "Eastern". Putting it that way originally might have been better. I do find reason to believe people using 'dhamma' would more likely mean something more specifically Buddhist, i.e.Theravadan.

"If everything that you had said was true, I wouldn't have anything to counter it with."
Happy to have provided the opportunity to hold forth; you clearly weren't gaining much traction trying to convince others here of your main points.

"But you chose to come up with things based on your own false assumptions. Here I would also like to point it out that nobody in the west would ask somebody walking on the street as to "dude, what is your dharma?" They might ask as to what kind of spirituality are you into. If they ask as to what is your dharma, they would be expecting some form of Buddhism as the answer."

Paraphrasing Not Tao (5/5/15 9:18 PM as a reply to Change A..) Monks would ask each other on the road, "What dharma do you follow?", I used a s/w cute current idiom. "Dude! What's your dharma?" (Who's your teacher? What are you into these days?)". Can you be so sure someone, given the current fad, for instance in a setting like the Vipassana.Inc crowd, wouldn't use such an idiom? What's the big deal, afterall?

Also, prior to joining an Insight-Meditation group some 7-8 years ago, I attended a "sangha" devoted to 'Kriya Yoga', from a lineage through Parmahansa Yogananda going back to Patanjali. They routinely used the term 'dharma talk' to refer to the weekly 'sermon' by the leader. No one there was "expecting some form of Buddhism".

Clearly my experience and perspectives differ from yours. By what standard does that make them "false"?
-----------------

Dream Walker  (5/16/15 11:34 AM as a reply to Chris J Macie.)
"If you think someone is a troll or if you just disagree with them and want a thread to die, one option quite useful is to stop participating…"

By association with previous episodes here in DhO, I've come to think of trolling as also related to:
"No on-and-on repetitious, angry rants that marshal no supporting evidence, target an interlocutor,  and have the effect of intimidating the interlocutor."
And then there's the obvious ad hominem focus...
(btw, 'troll' isn't mentioned on theDhO home-page; is it defined elsewhere on the website?)

Not necessarily wanting the thread to die (though others mentioned that), but was wishing a turn for the better.

Otherwise, point well taken.

Aufwiedersehen, folks, hopefully in more useful (kusala) threads.

Yeah, it all hinges on what Dharma, Dhamma means.

DHAMMA, thing, nature, natural thing: all things, mental and physical, conditioned and unconditioned, are dhammas.

DHAMMA, Truth, Nature, Law, Natural Truth, Duty, Order, "the way things are": this impossible to translate word has many meanings, the most important of which are Nature, the Law of Nature, our Duty according to Natural Law, and the Fruits of doing that Duty correctly according to Natural Law. (See paticca-samuppada.)

http://www.suanmokkh.org/archive/gloss1.htm

So, it is fine to have a website called Dharma Overground and discuss all things, and it is indeed ethical. 

Does that then answer your question?     

Psi