-2

In relation to a question lately ask in regard of usuals in practicing body gestures (ones appearing) as a part of training as well as a certain voidnes of such gestures on internet as support and help, aside of the use of emos, in how far might it be of use or of distruction to receive and perceive not only words but also signs as teaching?

What is the disadvantage of being taught the Dhamma without relay on body or form, remebering here that certain existences do not allow understanding the Dhamma?

Is a dismay of certain form and signs and preference to relay on certain perceptions, if possessing them, (e.g. avoding ugly and beauty in regard of eye contact), not working on it, a way to get Dhamma rightly?

To add a sample: times ago my person used to give a * schmunzel *, something between * smile * and * smirk * within text, given that there are usually no emos exressing that well. Now, althought text, some people go attached, some very annoyed, some untouched, according to their preoccupations on forums. Now, following the way to give even lesser changes to find achors for unskilful socialising, by appearing merely unmoved, not giving certain signs, people got likewise attached, very annoyed, some untouched, according to their preoccupations and kind of attention.

Yet, as for a monk (even formal for Bhikkhus), showing signs of emotions is regarded as improper conduct, such as showing teeth by smiling, moving arms, using body to express. Such kind of behaviour, giving certain favor and socialize improper way, has leaded right practicing monks in troubles once. Now people are often very lost if not finding pleasant things within the senses, no way to identify and tend to it.

Where to draw the border between "giving" beauty and ugly, neutrality and being touched with signs and bodily gesture useful for every one? What if perfect or void of such contacts to learn how to distinguish and approach?

Is it a case to case issue or should it be regarded as natural "chaos" not worthy to but, make merits on it?

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

Improve this question
2
  • I have used Morse Code to communicate by radio. People understood what I was saying and feeling. So, no: signs are not required. But that doesn't make them inherently wrong.
    – user2341
    Dec 18, 2017 at 15:10
  • Even Morse has some emoticon-like words (i.e. abbreviations to convey emotion), doesn't it? Like "hi" for a joke, "dr" for dear ... I suspect they're important for chat (on the internet too), important for signalling jokes ... and I thought that ¯_(ツ)_/¯ added useful/helpful/informative context to the comment under my answer. I'm not convinced it's important for this site, though; it isn't commonplace here so it's unconventional.
    – ChrisW ♦
    Dec 18, 2017 at 15:41

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

Although I hope I understand a lot of what you write, I don't understand everything; but I understand it more easily when you write in English (text) than when you write phrases or equations using emoticons.

I don't really understand (the definitions of) individual emoticons, nor understand groups of them.

And you are able to write some (in my opinion) excellent answers; in my opinion you needn't feel it's necessary to use emoticons instead of (or as well as) text.

Incidentally I tend to edit answers on this site, sometimes, to give them a regular format (if they have an irregular format). For example sometimes people don't use block quote-formatting when they quote, or they format the whole answer using bold text ... which I think makes an answer harder to read. I'd rather read the content (of an answer) than be distracted by its format.

Sometimes pictures are or have been an important part of teaching dharma (for example some people have used a picture of the Wheel of Life as the basis for a dhamma talk). And in the last paragraph of this answer Andrei mentioned teachers' using gestures for communication.

Anyway there's a lot more to teaching than just text. But maybe not on this site, though, which is principally a text-based, English-language, question-and-answer site.

Improve this answer
6
  • Sadhu for the effort. Maybe to much on certain case answered. How could it be answered so that someone not personal involved, not preoccupied by certain remembering, could get the message as well and not grasp a gone case? May Nyom Chris likes to give a modification or addition, distingtion in this regard within the answer. Something he is usually talented. The topic is somehow like "attached" to precepts, thinking everything is fine if beyond.
    – user11235
    Dec 6, 2017 at 2:32
  • On meta-level: my person did not had the irion that SE is just a textual meant place, given that it holds even relation to image content providers.
    – user11235
    Dec 6, 2017 at 2:37
  • If you need to clarify an emotion, perhaps to soften or brighten some text-based message, it is conventional (elsewhere at least) to use a very few text-based emoticons e.g. :-) ("happy smile") or ;-) ("wink, I'm telling a joke"), which an experienced internet user will understand. I can't easily read graphical emojis (partly because they're so small I can't see them well). I don't usually use any other emoticons than these two. Sometimes I think "wai" _/\_ but I don't type that in case it's "affected" (pretentious, ostentatious).
    – ChrisW ♦
    Dec 6, 2017 at 12:00
  • 1
    ¯_(ツ)_/¯ well that would be another language to learn...
    – user11235
    Dec 6, 2017 at 12:37
  • Yes I suppose it would. And if this were a social forum (e.g. Facebook) then I could understand why people might want to express (share) a range of emotions. But (according to my imperfect memory) the only kind of time I remember seeing any emoticon on this site is when an OP expresses a problem: and the answer includes some agreement that, yes, that aspect of life is problematic. :-)
    – ChrisW ♦
    Dec 6, 2017 at 12:55

You must log in to answer this question.