Zaike's dialect

Thank you for your question.
I am very happy to have respect for the Three Treasures.
Now, if there's anything you want to know in detail or aren't satisfied with, I think it's a good idea to have a thorough conversation with the family temple or a close monk. However, email and social media are not recommended. It's best to meet and talk in person. Hasunoha's ZOOM individual consultation would also be nice. If it's far away, you can call us. However, in emails and SNS, it is difficult to write what you want to convey into short sentences, and it is difficult to decipher everything from the sentence written by the other party to the line between them, etc., so misunderstandings cause misunderstandings, and conversations escalate, and it's easy to get into fights. On SNS, it's better to go through things you're not satisfied with. You only need to say it in your heart (you think so, I don't think so).

It is OK for lay believers to criticize or refute monks.
However, I think it's better to enjoy discussions peacefully without getting angry.
A fight that makes people fight is not equal to fighting.
There are also politicians who are on good terms with each other in private, even if they have different political parties (political beliefs).
Everyone (even monks) have worries such as greed, anger, laziness, pride, etc., so there is a possibility that they will become emotional or that responses will be bothersome, so that is unavoidable, but in discussions between Buddhists, they should probably avoid getting into fights.

It received quite harshly criticism, wasn't it?
Of course, if you're not satisfied, you can ask for “questions.”

There must be no lack of respect for people who value each other's faith in that way of asking questions, right? I'm not sure which way of saying it was the problem this time. However, respect is difficult to convey on SNS, and since it is delivered straight through, it is easy for heat up to occur. In fact, there are many (hot) monks who like to talk.

Of course, you don't need to swallow it. If you have any objections, go ahead.
It probably means that your words also have context before and after. How is that conveyed? How will the other party receive it?

Because it's an important question, I want to carefully deliver “words,” “taste,” and “evangelism.”

Hello.

I think it's good to refute it in a bold manner.

This is “monks, what are monks?” That's probably the problem. Monks = Sangha, originally a group of monks. Since it is the same in the sense of “a person who walks towards enlightenment,” I think there is a balance between respecting monks and expressing one's own thoughts.

Of course, that also means that it doesn't guarantee the opponent's monk's correctness, and your correctness is also not guaranteed. This is because they are thinking and talking as ordinary people who are troubled by each other.

Therefore, there are opinions that seem “I see,” and there are also opinions that don't. It's OK to keep a distance from people you just don't fit in with. There is a line in the comic called “Assassination Classroom” to the effect that “if you think you won't go down, even adults can jump over it,” and I value it too.

However, when I read various consultations here at hasunoha, I myself sometimes feel uncomfortable with the questioner.

At that time, before defeating my opponent, I try to look at my own plane, saying, “Why did I get caught in this question?”

Why do things that seem obvious to the questioner look different to me? If you were angry, why were you angry? There, I can see my own machine... probably my worries too.

To know one's own instincts is to know the Buddhism one walks. And I think trying to know the moment in depth is also trying to know the law in depth. You know the term “counter machine theory”, right?

So I don't think we shouldn't argue. You can say what you have to say in a pompous manner.

However, it doesn't end with “my opponent is wrong,” and I also look into my own black box, saying, “Well, why did I get stuck here?”

That is training for me, and it is probably one of the reasons I continue to answer in this way. I'm thinking about it that way.