Why e-sangha is starting to get on my nerves

[alfa]

Comments like this that make sweeping generalisations are misguided at best.

Although Buddhist 'rituals' may appear to be superficial and mindlesss to the outside observer, they actually have a depth and profundity that is inconceivable to most. Those who know the purpose of such things do not dismiss them as mindless.

 

Isn't it boring as hell to sit down and do something over and over?

 

In regard to meditation, it's not that it is 'mindless' per se rather, it is dependent on how much effort and concentration an individual is applying which wil determine whether they are mindless, mindfull or somewhere in between.

Meditation as a practice is useful in order to gradually arrive at a way of being where ultimately one has complete mindfullnesss at all times entirely free of all delusion in views and thought, with complete understanding, wisdom and compassion.

 

Meditation is so mechanical, sitting down and watching oneself is so boring and repetitive. It's mindless in the sense that we start functioning like machines. If we force ourselves to become enlightened, is it worth it? Could it be real? Shouldn't understanding or enlightenment happen spontaneously?

[Pero]

But that is the traditional view and not really Namdrol's. Examples of hatred towards other religions are seen abundantly in Vajrayanic Tantras and iconography. It is generally not studied as most ignore the study of the core Vajrayana Tantras in Sanskrit or the ones who do like to skip aspects they do not like and project aspects of prajna and karuna etc. But this attitude of incompatibility is very much a part of core concept of Vajrayana and cannot be conveniently ignored to present Buddhism as all stars and peace.

 

Hm well Harsha I never said I don't agree about incompatibility. But saying that they're incompatible or that only Vajrayana leads to supreme enlightenment, does not neccessarily mean you don't respect other religions to me. Although maybe it depends on what kind of practitioner you are. For myself it's better to respect.

 

The following is an excerpt from Indian Buddhist Iconography. One can see the reflection of the Christian hatred towards the Pagans here.

 

I posted some such references from other core Vajrayana Tantras earlier:

 

Ok will read later, am at work.

 

No, that's not what my problem with e-sangha is. I don't expect to go to a christian church and hear the priest talk about other religions. I'd just like him not to vilify them, or to claim that Christianity has an exclusive copyright on truth. But that's what has been happening on e-sangha, and it isn't in the spirit of Buddhism.

 

Actually yes it is, that is what Buddhism claims. Buddhism is a supramundane vehicle, the rest are mundane.

 

 

There is a difference between making false claims about what the Buddha taught, and questioning what the Buddha actually taught.

 

I agree.

[markern]

But that is the traditional view and not really Namdrol's. Examples of hatred towards other religions are seen abundantly in Vajrayanic Tantras and iconography. It is generally not studied as most ignore the study of the core Vajrayana Tantras in Sanskrit or the ones who do like to skip aspects they do not like and project aspects of prajna and karuna etc. But this attitude of incompatibility is very much a part of core concept of Vajrayana and cannot be conveniently ignored to present Buddhism as all stars and peace. The following is an excerpt from Indian Buddhist Iconography. One can see the reflection of the Christian hatred towards the Pagans here.

I posted some such references from other core Vajrayana Tantras earlier:

Having seen closely the practices of Vajrayana, these mythical stories are held as true by even several of those in the inner circle of the Dalai Lama (not sure about him though) and are actively taught to students. Also, the iconography with the said descriptions have been retained more or less with no change. While the Hindu deities are seen battling demons most often, it is not true with Buddhist deities. We can come up with flowery explanations, symbolic allegories, details of how yidam is a manifestation of shunyata and so on, but the historical hostility towards other religions is evident in the core scriptures of Vajrayana. Bickering with Jainism is equally well documented by historians. I chose here the concept of deities as my area of study is comparative iconography and also because the violent attitude here is visual and pronounced than in some of the Suttas. So, Namdrol is not to be blamed here really. Many other popular Buddhist Vajrayana practitioners remain quiet about their beliefs while Namdrol speaks out loud. But all he is doing is reiterating what these supposedly 'revealed' scriptures state!

 

So hatred of other religions is thus a required part of being a budhist?????? The Dalai Lama as the head of Tibetan Budhism should cary some weight and he is extreemly clear on this issue. Other religions should be respected and are valuable.

.

No, that's not what my problem with e-sangha is. I don't expect to go to a christian church and hear the priest talk about other religions. I'd just like him not to vilify them, or to claim that Christianity has an exclusive copyright on truth. But that's what has been happening on e-sangha, and it isn't in the spirit of Buddhism.

 

There is a lot of b.s. on e-sangha, like the claim that the Kalama Sutta wasn't intended for Buddhists, only for the Kalamas, as if the Buddha would say one thing to a Buddhist, and another to a non-Buddhist. Or the statement on the front page of their web site that Buddhism has a completely spotless history "un-marred by any political or religious fervours which so many other traditions have suffered from in the past." I think the families of the people killed in the decades long civil war in Sri Lanka would beg to differ with that assertion.

 

E-sangha isn't completely bad. There are a lot of members who have such a depth of knowledge of Buddhism that would prove priceless to sincere seekers. And it provides a virtual community for solitary practitioners who live 50 miles from the nearest Buddhist center. But I think the administrators and moderators are becoming overly protective of what they think is "authentic" Dharma, which is just another attachment.

 

There are too many "Barnes and Noble" Buddhists who think that Buddhism is whatever it means to you. Some of these misguided Buddhists have gone onto e-sangha to claim that the Buddha taught rebirth as a metaphor, when he clearly did not. But I think in their zeal to stamp out this problem, e-sangha has gone too far. You should be able to question the Buddha's teachings, even criticize them. If the Buddha had truly let go of his ego, you could say to his face that you think rebirth is hooey, and he would not be offended in the slightest. There is a difference between making false claims about what the Buddha taught, and questioning what the Buddha actually taught.

 

Spotless history ha ha. Tibetan monastaries were waging war against each others like crazy over the most minute details of dogma for centuries. Even during the Buddhas time some of his monastaries or groups of monks got into heated conflicts that the Buddha could not resolve and ended in the splitting up of monastic communities. If this Namdrol guy does not know this he speaks with no weihgt. If he does know then his statement makes him a lier.

 

The Buddha was explicit on the fact that you did not need to belive in reincarnation to follow his teaching and that it did not impact how one lives ones life so I dont see what the fuzz is about.

 

ESangha is the most unwelcoming forum I have ever attended.

[Pero]

The Buddha was explicit on the fact that you did not need to belive in reincarnation to follow his teaching and that it did not impact how one lives ones life so I dont see what the fuzz is about.

 

He was? Where?

 

Not believing in rebirth pretty much makes one a nihilist. If there's nothing after death, then why not just end your life right now, you will have complete peace in death.

You could say that the point of Buddhism is to stop rebirth, if there's no rebirth what is the point of Buddhism?

[Pero]

Having seen closely the practices of Vajrayana, these mythical stories are held as true by even several of those in the inner circle of the Dalai Lama (not sure about him though) and are actively taught to students.

 

Well I can't speak for others, but for myself they're just stories. If you don't take them to be exact depiction of things that happened it doesn't change one's practice IMO.

Personally I like to think that Hindu gods were actually aliens.

 

Also, the iconography with the said descriptions have been retained more or less with no change. While the Hindu deities are seen battling demons most often, it is not true with Buddhist deities. We can come up with flowery explanations, symbolic allegories, details of how yidam is a manifestation of shunyata and so on, but the historical hostility towards other religions is evident in the core scriptures of Vajrayana.

 

How is it evident if you say "We can come up with flowery explanations, symbolic allegories, details of how yidam is a manifestation of shunyata and so on"?

[Vajrahridaya]

Isn't it boring as hell to sit down and do something over and over?

Meditation is so mechanical, sitting down and watching oneself is so boring and repetitive. It's mindless in the sense that we start functioning like machines. If we force ourselves to become enlightened, is it worth it? Could it be real? Shouldn't understanding or enlightenment happen spontaneously?

 

Because you find it boring shows that you haven't experienced meditation.

 

Meditation and these "ritual's" challenge your restless mind attached to "doing" and "getting done."

 

"I" and "mine".

 

"I" and "feel".

[Vajrahridaya]

The Buddha did say that other paths or traditions lead to higher re-birth, but not liberation from Samsara. The Buddha was a fundimentalist in as much as if one can recognize dependent origination through another tradition, then one is experiencing Buddhahood in that tradition. But, that's pretty unclear as most traditions think within the spectrum of alpha and omega and buddhist goes into beginninglessness. There is no source to existence, rather just a constant recycling of causes and conditions that are all inherently empty of any self substence, which is different from all other traditions, even metaphorically.

 

Namdrol did also say this same thing. Not that other traditions aren't good in a sense, but that they are not complete.

 

Interpreting Namdrol's statement about "not respecting other traditions" as some sort of hate towards other traditions is probably a bit off base. I've experienced him in person and he is not that "demon", everyone makes him out to be. People's feelings are hurt by a challenging view, and people pull statements out of context is what seems to happen. Namdrol has actually said that Hinduism is quite beautiful, but that inherently flawed in it's perspective on existence in grasping a fixed source.

 

I respect humans, but I don't respect all their thoughts and interpretations. Or, rather, I don't think that they are all correct cognitions of existence though they are all a part of existence.

 

Edited July 7, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Apech]

A lot of the issues which people are pointing out here and debating are about the exclusivity or otherwise of teachings. Buddhism can appear quite laid back and easy going from the outside, which I suppose it is in a way as it is a very well meaning path, but once one is initiated into practices like vajrayana you begin to see that it is as exclusive as any religion, as it believes that it is the one way to enlightenment. People practising a particular path or school or tradition also feel protective when it comes under assault from our world, which is one of the reasons to keep certain practises secret. It is a general pattern to allow free discussion of things like rebirth and karma in beginner groups but to close down on debate once people move on to more advanced practise.

 

Buddhist do believe in the existence of gods but that they are not beings worthy of refuge. They are seen as earthly powers or part of the cycle of samsara and suffer from the fault of pride. This is the reason that vajrayana yidams may be seen attacking hindu gods such as vishnu or indra because the yidam is destroying the attachment of pride. The problem is that historically this has been understood as meaning that one should hate the Hindu gods and presumably Hindus themselves. This being yet another example of how misunderstood symbolism may confuse people into harmful acts. The same can be seen when Jews, Christians and Muslims set about one another each in the name of the one true God, conveniently forgetting that for the religions of the Book it is the same God!

 

When Jesus says that only through him can one come to the Kingdom of Heaven, the priest manipulators like to take this as a statement of exclusivity. While actually if you understand this statement to be about the Christ's nature as the Word made flesh i.e. the Logos and you understand the Logos to be the formal aspect or structure of reality (of which the Father is the power and the Holy Spirit the flow of energy between them) then what Jesus means is that through knowing the Logos you will know God... you will achieve union with the absolute. Is this any different to saying that the Lord Buddha's mind, the dharma-kaya is identical to ultimate reality? No not really. However if you tried to mix Christian Mysticism and Buddhism you would get very confused because there are specific and important differences in the view adopted at all stages except the highest. At the highest view all teachings are one. They have to be because reality is real.

 

So I think the people at e-sangha are right to try to protect their teachings from descending into a kind of New Age mish mash which ends up benefiting no one, but on the other hand we should avoid the historical mistakes and confusions between religions which have produced suffering and war through the ages.

[JustARandomPanda]

Thought I'd point to this > Open Source Buddhism

Edited July 7, 2009 by SereneBlue

[Sunya]

yes I remember quite well reading a post by Namdrol where he said he respects all religions, especially Hinduism. but respect doesn't mean you take on this religions views, and doesn't necessarily mean that you equal their goal with your own. I don't see this hateful at all, it's just realistic.. and following the teachings of the Buddha. respecting all religions is progressive and necessary for all people, but following one path in a conservative manner and not lumping all religious views/practices into one big stew is also necessary i believe.

[Siliconvalley1]

yes I remember quite well reading a post by Namdrol where he said he respects all religions, especially Hinduism. but respect doesn't mean you take on this religions views, and doesn't necessarily mean that you equal their goal with your own. I don't see this hateful at all, it's just realistic.. and following the teachings of the Buddha. respecting all religions is progressive and necessary for all people, but following one path in a conservative manner and not lumping all religious views/practices into one big stew is also necessary i believe.

 

There are obviously better ways of expressing his "realistic, respectful" opinions on others than this: It is better to be a bad Buddhist than a Good Christian

[Siliconvalley1]

Interpreting Namdrol's statement about "not respecting other traditions" as some sort of hate towards other traditions is probably a bit off base. I've experienced him in person and he is not that "demon", everyone makes him out to be. People's feelings are hurt by a challenging view, and people pull statements out of context is what seems to happen. Namdrol has actually said that Hinduism is quite beautiful, but that inherently flawed in it's perspective on existence in grasping a fixed source.

 

People are hurt by things others say and that is why they are called people. A similar reaction is seen here where some jumped to support him, didn't they? So the challenge and contest part is true from the other side of the fence as well.

 

I don't think many people who have issues with Namdrol or E-Sangha are interested in making a demon out of a moron or even in a topic related to Hinduism. It is the fundamentalist attitude that "his opinion is right and other's is wrong and those who disagree with me will be banned, shouted at and humiliated" is what we are talking about. And there is no dearth of examples for such behavior of his. Moreover, this has nothing to do with Hinduism as I believe the Hindus never really cared much for Buddhism and most still don't. That is a social and historical fact. But there were several disparaging remarks made about Zen, how it can only be a beginners practice and so on which were severely contested by the Zen folks. It is this violent argument of Namdrol that it is only his interpretation of Buddhism that is correct that people have hated. If at all he did just that, he would probably be okay (like we are here ) but he lashed the moderator's whip on those who contested his views. No one is trying to make a demon of Namdrol I guess.. only trying to show that he is a human after all and no mahasiddha to be infatuated about and accepted blindly ... And I (a 'biased' Hindu following an incomplete path ) is not even the one saying this, the ones saying these are well-known Buddhists and Academicians ...

Edited July 7, 2009 by Siliconvalley1

[Siliconvalley1]

How is it evident if you say "We can come up with flowery explanations, symbolic allegories, details of how yidam is a manifestation of shunyata and so on"?

 

One can argue as long as one simply wants to, irrespective of whether it makes sense

 

What I meant to say was, in spite of all the flowery attempts to justify the hatred, it is quite evident - through historical accounts, iconography, texts etc. I am sure every religion has similar aspects to it. A fundamental Islamist may do it on a larger scale with jihad, a fundamental Christian may burn Pagan practitioners and a fundamental Buddhist may express this hatred through such literary accounts and iconography. These elements exist in Buddhism as well and there is really no reason for the holier-than-others attitude exhibited by "some" Buddhists. This is especially true from a sociological viewpoint more than a philosophical one. Intolerance is not really disagreement as some here have tried to portray. There may be a difference in the way of expression and degree of intolerance, but there is really no fundamental difference between any of the "isms" in how they view the other religion or treat those who disagree with them - intolerance can be intellectual, physical, verbal and so on ... but when stripped to the bare, it is simply intolerance.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Siliconvalley1

[Siliconvalley1]

Personally I like to think that Hindu gods were actually aliens.

 

Tara, Manjushri and Avalokiteshvara who battled bloody with these 'aliens' are Predators then?

Edited July 7, 2009 by Siliconvalley1

[JustARandomPanda]

When Jesus says that only through him can one come to the Kingdom of Heaven, the priest manipulators like to take this as a statement of exclusivity. While actually if you understand this statement to be about the Christ's nature as the Word made flesh i.e. the Logos and you understand the Logos to be the formal aspect or structure of reality (of which the Father is the power and the Holy Spirit the flow of energy between them) then what Jesus means is that through knowing the Logos you will know God... you will achieve union with the absolute.

 

Hmm....

 

It was my impression that this interpretation was branded heresy by the early church but I admit I could be wrong...

[ZenStatic]

There are obviously better ways of expressing his "realistic, respectful" opinions on others than this: It is better to be a bad Buddhist than a Good Christian

 

I would have to actually say that I agree with that statement. A good christian will thoroughly believe that you, I, and the next guy on this board are going to hell. They will also follow that delusion with the "thought" that anyone who disagrees with what they believe is being fooled by satan, and can truly do no good. And we can't forget that they think everyone thats not a christian needs to be "saved", converted to their belief.

[dwai]

yes I remember quite well reading a post by Namdrol where he said he respects all religions, especially Hinduism. but respect doesn't mean you take on this religions views, and doesn't necessarily mean that you equal their goal with your own. I don't see this hateful at all, it's just realistic.. and following the teachings of the Buddha. respecting all religions is progressive and necessary for all people, but following one path in a conservative manner and not lumping all religious views/practices into one big stew is also necessary i believe.

 

there is a very important difference between "respect" and "tolerance".

What you describe above (and as is made evident with the descriptions of the posts on this thread), it seems like there isn't much respect, but tolerance of other faiths.

 

Well..that is just not good enough! No one has monopoly over Truth. We have discussed this at length on various other threads...stating that "my way is the best way" is a sure-fire sign of either stupidity, or fundamentalism rooted in ignorance.

 

It is very important to realize that Buddhism might be a good (even best) way for Buddhists, but it might not be the way for others. All religions that make exclusivist claims are guilty of intolerance (guised as tolerance, compassion, love, respect) of the highest order (ranging from subtle to crassly blatant).

 

Said my piece...now I'll keep my silence...

[markern]

He was? Where?

 

Not believing in rebirth pretty much makes one a nihilist. If there's nothing after death, then why not just end your life right now, you will have complete peace in death.

You could say that the point of Buddhism is to stop rebirth, if there's no rebirth what is the point of Buddhism?

I dont remember were but I have read, in two or three good books on budhism, a dialogue between the buddha and a student were he adresses this by inquiring with the student how he would live his live if he knew reincarnation to be true and how he would live it if it were not. I dont belive in reincarnation and I am not a nihilist, that conection is meaningless.

[Apech]

Hmm....

 

It was my impression that this interpretation was branded heresy by the early church but I admit I could be wrong...

 

 

"The word "heresy" comes from the Greek αἵρεσις, hairesis (from αἱρέομαι, haireomai, "choose"), which means either a choice of beliefs or a faction of believers, or a school of thought. It was given wide currency by Irenaeus in his tract Contra Haereses (Against Heresies) to describe and discredit his opponents in the early Christian Church. He described his own position as orthodox (from ortho- "straight" + doxa "belief") and his position eventually evolved into the position of the early Christian Church.

 

Used in this way, the term "heresy" has no purely objective meaning: the category exists only from the point of view of speakers within a group that has previously agreed about what counts as "orthodox"."

 

(from Wikipedia)

 

It is the business of orthodox churches be they Roman, Eastern or Protestant to identify certain ideas as heresy in order to outlaw them. This is part of the argument of exclusivity. It captures certain ideas and brands them as acceptable and others as not. Ideas then may be used to control the 'flock' in order to maintain power and to direct activity. For instance the Crusades were based on an 'us and them' view which tried to eliminate all alternative views be they Muslim, Jewish or even other Christians.

 

Christian Mysticism on the other hand is inclusive (borrowed heavily from Classical and Arabic thought) and a genuine attempt to understand and to work spiritually towards transcendent understanding and enlightenment. Mysticism is generally persecuted by orthodox churches and suppressed.

Edited July 8, 2009 by apepch7

[Josh Young]

Inclusion creates exclusion ergo loyalty to an ideal entails rejecting other ideals.

[Pero]

Tara, Manjushri and Avalokiteshvara who battled bloody with these 'aliens' are Predators then?

 

ROFL!!! :lol:

 

 

But no, those are just stories. Hindu alien gods were for real though.

I'm just half joking about this really. From a long time ago I have some vague memory of reading about this. In general the gods from ancient civilations could be aliens. Heck, if we could go back in time with our tech it's not unlikely we wouldn't be considered gods ourselves.

 

BTW, off topic question. Do you have transformation into a diety in any part of Hinduism?

[Pero]

I dont remember were but I have read, in two or three good books on budhism, a dialogue between the buddha and a student were he adresses this by inquiring with the student how he would live his live if he knew reincarnation to be true and how he would live it if it were not.

 

I think the outcome of that conversation was that it's better to believe in rebirth. But then I could be confusing this with something else.

 

I dont belive in reincarnation and I am not a nihilist, that conection is meaningless.

 

We are talking about Buddhism. If someone says he's a Buddhist but doesn't believe in rebirth, that pretty much amounts to nihilism. Because when you die, there is nothing. Even if it weren't nihilism, not believing in rebirth would make parts of Buddhism really strange, like uhm, trying to end rebirth...

 

And if you believe you'll go to heaven or hell, or something else, that is irrelevant, since that's not a Buddhist belief in the first place.

[Unconditioned]

I think the outcome of that conversation was that it's better to believe in rebirth. But then I could be confusing this with something else.

We are talking about Buddhism. If someone says he's a Buddhist but doesn't believe in rebirth, that pretty much amounts to nihilism. Because when you die, there is nothing. Even if it weren't nihilism, not believing in rebirth would make parts of Buddhism really strange, like uhm, trying to end rebirth...

 

 

That depends on your personal interpretation of rebirth. Some consider it litteral as in when my body dies, is eaten by the worms, my spirit/soul/etc will inhabit a new form. Even in that definition there is a lot left up to interpretation.

 

Others take it on a moment to moment basis. As in the sense of "I" is reborn in each moment and the stopping of that birth is liberation here and now.

 

Also, if someone doesn't believe in rebirth we can't safely assume they think there is nothing after death. And especially since "nothing" is left open to interpretation - does that mean no memories? No possessions? No physical form? No spiritual form? etc.

 

So, it's not always so cut and dry and we should take care to dig a little deeper sometimes when it comes to believing anything. I think the Buddha may agree to that approach as well?

 

Edit: Back on topic, e-sangha was one of my favorite forums before it was 'locked-down'. As others have said, there are many helpful people on the forum but the censorship became too much for me when I couldn't talk openly about Truth unless it was in the context of buddhism and I found TTB. I prefer an open dialogue not bounded by a specific tradition. To each their own conditioning

Edited July 8, 2009 by Unconditioned

[Pero]

That depends on your personal interpretation of rebirth. Some consider it litteral as in when my body dies, is eaten by the worms, my spirit/soul/etc will inhabit a new form. Even in that definition there is a lot left up to interpretation.

 

Others take it on a moment to moment basis. As in the sense of "I" is reborn in each moment and the stopping of that birth is liberation here and now.

 

Also, if someone doesn't believe in rebirth we can't safely assume they think there is nothing after death. And especially since "nothing" is left open to interpretation - does that mean no memories? No possessions? No physical form? No spiritual form? etc.

 

So, it's not always so cut and dry and we should take care to dig a little deeper sometimes when it comes to believing anything. I think the Buddha may agree to that approach as well?

 

I don't think those are Buddhist ideas.

[Apech]

I am struggling to understand how a Buddhist could not believe in rebirth. It goes hand in hand with karma and the begininglessness of samsara and more importantly the continuity of consciousness. I think some of the arguments against are about reincarnation which is the Hindu concept.

 

If you practice Soto Zen that makes you citta-matra (yes/no) and so on death there is a continuity of consciousness (?). Could someone explain the alternate view.

 

Thnks.

 

A.