What can be done to stop Buddhist Discussion turning to flame

[Jetsun]

With some I think its a case of the Dharma only penetrating into a small part of the frontal cortex of the brain, you can cram decades worth of book concepts and intellectual positions there if you want to, just look at all the cold scholars who talk about Buddhism. But really it is a shame if the Dharma doesn't penetrate any other areas of the body such as the gut or heart. My hope is that there is some sort of overflow and eventually with enough time it will seep into other areas where it can bloom into something beautiful, rather than remain in the dry arid land of the conceptual mind.

[Stosh]

Socrates filters... words to live by. The variation I generally quote is true, kind, useful.

 

Because that is the point of Buddhist cultivation.

The view and practices, the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, all of it means nothing whatsoever if we aren't actively attempting to express what they stand for in our daily lives.

 

It certainly is not necessary for anyone participating in the Buddhist forum to be Buddhists or even to practice Buddhism.

Folks are certainly welcome to simply discuss philosophy.

On the other hand, the forum does present an opportunity to practice and for those serious about the practice it is important to take advantage of every opportunity possible because of the fleeting nature of life.

This is the reason for expressing goodness, support, kindness, and acceptance - not simply because puppies are so adorable...

Fair enough, but if a person is one of those types who are expressive of certain values they can still do that too right?

It takes two to tango, and if those who frequent that subforum wish to quell the troubled waters , one of 'their own' is the best person to do it by such an example. Support kindness puppies are nice things , no doubt. Maybe a cloister fosters a settled spirit , I dont know , a zoo certainly doesnt , perhaps a balance is best.

[Simple_Jack]

The same goes for people who identify themselves as practitioners of buddhadharma, but who nonetheless, may be unfamiliar with its tenets or who differ on the nature of its tenets.

With some I think its a case of the Dharma only penetrating into a small part of the frontal cortex of the brain, you can cram decades worth of book concepts and intellectual positions there if you want to, just look at all the cold scholars who talk about Buddhism. But really it is a shame if the Dharma doesn't penetrate any other areas of the body such as the gut or heart. My hope is that there is some sort of overflow and eventually with enough time it will seep into other areas where it can bloom into something beautiful, rather than remain in the dry arid land of the conceptual mind.

 

Case in point. Its best to just not discuss Buddhist tenets and praxis in depth on this forum unless people are receptive to how the teachings are taught in a living tradition.

[Stosh]

Buddhist tenets are a touchy subject on this forum so it's best to just not discuss them in depth. The shit show only begins, when people who are trained in non-Buddhist tenet systems or come from backgrounds other than in Buddhism, start to disagree with its tenets. Dogmatism has to be kept to a minimum from both parties in order to avoid the topic from devolving into a shit show.

Maybe , its valid to say the issue is with non-believers versus believers , duking it out, but I know that when I stopped by and tried to ask a simple unpointed question - not make a statement , umm I was told basically to 'go read a book '. I took the hint.

Thats fine , its a subsection for them to do their thing, I just accepted that if they say something interesting its just a dead end, and I should just go somewhere else.

[C T]

Guided by Compassion ~ Mingyur Rinpoche

Most conflicts between people stem from a misunderstanding of one another’s motives. We all have our reasons for doing what we do and saying what we say. The more we allow ourselves to be guided by compassion – to pause for a moment and try to see where another person is coming from – the less likely we are to engage in conflict.

Mingyur Rinpoche

[Simple_Jack]

Thats fine , its a subsection for them to do their thing, I just accepted that if they say something interesting its just a dead end, and I should just go somewhere else.

 

Yes, this is how this should be handled on this forum. Otherwise, both parties should desist from the discussion before the mods have to get involved.

[yabyum24]

I just accepted that if they say something interesting its just a dead end, and I should just go somewhere else.

It doesn't need to be like that. I'm sorry that was your experience. I'm glad I started my investigation into Buddhism long before internet Buddhism & forums appeared. I loved what I found and the people I met. If I was a newbie now, trawling online, having read some forums etc. I would have probably been put off and never taken refuge.

 

As it happened, I had the luxury of studying under some great teachers. I spent two years intensively going through the tenets and did some in-depth study on the two truths before taking tantric empowerments and receiving in-depth teachings on them. All this without the internet.

 

Unfortunately, you can be berated by anyone online who chooses, on the slightest of pretexts. And you can't know the background or mental state of the individuals you meet online. It's not an issue if you are established in your practice but it's dire for newcomers to experience that.

Edited March 21, 2014 by yabyum24

[Jetsun]

Case in point. Its best to just not discuss Buddhist tenets and praxis in depth on this forum unless people are receptive to how the teachings are taught in a living tradition.

 

I don't really see how it is a case in point. I am not a Buddhist and never said I was but I am open and receptive to living traditions. I'm just not sure if you and Malcolm are at the level where I can equate your own personal views with being some sort of official Buddhist view or being representative of any tradition.

 

You can use the intellectual positions and traditional debates within Buddhism in many ways, the intent behind it is the crucial factor. Some common positions you see used by internet Buddhists are using Buddhist concepts to stand on an intellectual pedistool above others, as a form of elitism, or using them to denigrate other traditions or even other branches of Buddhism, all justified in the name of trying to teach the Buddhadharma in an accurate way. Really all they are doing is perverting the Buddhadharma by using it to try to solidify their own sense of individual self in opposition or in denigration of others. We have seen many of these things go on on this site quite a lot over the years.

 

Last week I attended the teachings of Ato Rinpoche who is considered a master of a number of Tibetan lineages and he was talking about the way Buddhism is taught in many places, even in modern day Dharmasla, where it is used to create division and people talk about empowerments like badges to compare the number they have with each other, which is the direct opposite of the genuine intent of Buddhism, so if its corrupted there I guess we can't expect much better online.

[idiot_stimpy]

Was the Buddha a Buddhist?

[Simple_Jack]

Otherwise, both parties should desist from the discussion before the mods have to get involved.

Unfortunately, you can be berated by anyone online who chooses, on the slightest of pretexts. And you can't know the background or mental state of the individuals you meet online.

I don't really see how it is a case in point. I am not a Buddhist and never said I was but I am open and receptive to living traditions. I'm just not sure if you and Malcolm are at the level where I can equate your own personal views with being some sort of official Buddhist view or being representative of any tradition.

 

You can use the intellectual positions and traditional debates within Buddhism in many ways, the intent behind it is the crucial factor. Some common positions you see used by internet Buddhists are using Buddhist concepts to stand on an intellectual pedistool above others, as a form of elitism, or using them to denigrate other traditions or even other branches of Buddhism, all justified in the name of trying to teach the Buddhadharma in an accurate way. Really all they are doing is perverting the Buddhadharma by using it to try to solidify their own sense of individual self in opposition or in denigration of others. We have seen many of these things go on on this site quite a lot over the years.

 

Last week I attended the teachings of Ato Rinpoche who is considered a master of a number of Tibetan lineages and he was talking about the way Buddhism is taught in many places, even in modern day Dharmasla, where it is used to create division and people talk about empowerments like badges to compare the number they have with each other, which is the direct opposite of the genuine intent of Buddhism, so if its corrupted there I guess we can't expect much better online.

 

No, one's demanding that you automatically accept Malcolm's or my posts. Everyone should be relying foremost on the teachings within the sutras/tantras, (tantric) shastras, and the teachings and instructions from venerables and teachers within,each respective tradition. Unfortunately, the use of Buddhist tenets to deter non-Buddhist views is common on certain internet forums and causes strife rather than an environment of appreciation for the teachings. This needs to desist on this forum if people want a harmonious environment. Another thing that needs to desist on this forum is passive-aggressiveness in place of overt aggressiveness. All of us need to exert discipline/sila when reading posts that tests our capacity for compassion and equanimity. This applies on the mental level before you begin to put your fingers on the keys of the keyboard to type.

[rex]

Was the Buddha a Buddhist?

 

No. Some traditions don't call themselves Buddhist either and refer to themselves as Nangpas (insiders):

 

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Nangpa

[idiot_stimpy]

No. Some traditions don't call themselves Buddhist either and refer to themselves as Nangpas (insiders):

 

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Nangpa

 

Great

[Stosh]

It doesn't need to be like that. I'm sorry that was your experience. I'm glad I started my investigation into Buddhism long before internet Buddhism & forums appeared. I loved what I found and the people I met. If I was a newbie now, trawling online, having read some forums etc. I would have probably been put off and never taken refuge.

 

As it happened, I had the luxury of studying under some great teachers. I spent two years intensively going through the tenets and did some in-depth study on the two truths before taking tantric empowerments and receiving in-depth teachings on them. All this without the internet.

 

Unfortunately, you can be berated by anyone online who chooses, on the slightest of pretexts. And you can't know the background or mental state of the individuals you meet online. It's not an issue if you are established in your practice but it's dire for newcomers to experience that.

Ahh its nothing , a mere bagatelle, Ive been at my thing a long time.

but I dont know what you can do for the tender.

A forum of this style is just not a conducive format to shape anybody into an exemplary.. anything.

That is mostly homework , so if they tell me to go read a book instead of dragging the thread back to a more basic level ,, its not exactly off-base even if it ticks me off.

I believe the learner would like to know more about buddhism , as do I , but for me its ancillary to where I am already at , I'm not looking for discipleship.

So , I say live, and let live ,without having to hide.

[doc benway]

Fair enough, but if a person is one of those types who are expressive of certain values they can still do that too right?

Not sure what you are pointing to here, I can be a bit dense, but I suspect I agree with you...

 

It takes two to tango, and if those who frequent that subforum wish to quell the troubled waters , one of 'their own' is the best person to do it by such an example. Support kindness puppies are nice things , no doubt. Maybe a cloister fosters a settled spirit , I dont know , a zoo certainly doesnt , perhaps a balance is best.

I'll take another tack - maybe it also helps if folks from the "outside" come in and set the example as well, as the OP has. Not sure if he'd consider himself one of their own or an outsider... Not sure if it matters...

[Simple_Jack]

No. Some traditions don't call themselves Buddhist either and refer to themselves as Nangpas (insiders):

 

http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Nangpa

Great

 

If you think about it this is really no different than referring to oneself as "Buddhist" or to another as "non-Buddhist". I imagine this term being used in Tibet, to delineate those who followed Buddhist teachings from those who followed Bonpo teachings, but this is just an uninformed opinion.

[Stosh]

Not sure what you are pointing to here, I can be a bit dense, but I suspect I agree with you...

 

I'll take another tack - maybe it also helps if folks from the "outside" come in and set the example as well, as the OP has. Not sure if he'd consider himself one of their own or an outsider... Not sure if it matters...

Yeah I think we are in basic agreement , I was saying that they dont have to perfect buddha examples , you said that one doesnt have to be to post ,but they should be trying for that . Which is a little bit disagreement , but not much , and I was figuring that an insider would be most acceptable , and you said something along the lines that possibly someone from outside could also set a fresh example , and so I end up back at the start where I said I dont really feel that a different example need be set , and just to leave em be becasue it should be up to them how it is they want to be within the basic guidelines of the subforum. Or something along those lines. . but I dont really care one way or the other.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Stosh

[Yascra]

Buddhism is all about skillful means. What's the best way to cut these things off before they escalate?

 

Well, not all potential participants are masters. I'm afraid you'll have to accept that. You can't make someone think more intelligent, act more wise or be more self-reflective than this particular person is capable of.. and finally some westerns starting to call themselves "buddhists" mainly aim at finding a religion which they can be more proud of than the "inherited" Christianity, and whoever takes buddhism as his or her "religion" is yet alone with this declaration far away from common aims of buddhism, namely self-perfection, improving awareness and all those things that require own efforts. Religious persons don't want to cultivate and don't want own efforts, they mainly want to feel comfortable and serve some of their wordly needs and aims abusing religion and/or spirituality for this.

Actually, those particular persons don't give a shit about core-buddhism and it's meanings and in this way are not really "practicing buddhists".

 

You won't ever make religious persons self-responsible, and therefore you shouldn't expect them to behave in certain positive ways. At least that's my conclusion. Not very positive, I'm afraid, but my honest opinion.

 

Another part of the issue: If I'm searching for advise, I don't engage in discussions - I simply ask some person or start a thread and ask. Discussions are usually about ego and about practicing some kind of "violent speech" behaviour. You can have "enlightening discussions", but once again that's more a kind of communication you'll have with a person who educates you or whom you're willing to educate to some degree. Buddhist discussions as I've seen them practised by monks and especially by partially non-practicioners as it's the case on a board like this here are not really meant to be peaceful, they tend to be kind of a fight about spiritual ranks.

Next step would be practically demonstrating siddhis, I think.

 

I think it's simply not realistic to expect that much more from it. But I definitely agree with you that it would be worthwhile if participants who call themselves buddhists would try to reflect about their own behaviour

 

The sad thing about such wishes is that usually those who understand the issue will mainly be those who don't need that kind of "hints" or remarks.

 

All the best anyway

[Simple_Jack]

How come threads like this end up being used to air out one's passive-aggressive judgement's of others? Collectively, each of us are guilty to some degree, of failing to exert ourselves in the practice of the 4 immeasurables.

[themiddleway]

Interesting perspective below, protecting the fidelity of the teachings vis a vis an honest examination of where an individuals development is at.

 

 

THE BLOG

The Importance of Debating Religious Differences

Rajiv Malhotra05/14/11 03:37 PM ET

I want all the cultures of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any. --Gandhi

 

In most liberal circles, discrimination on account of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity and race is rightly denounced. Human diversity is not only widely accepted in these domains but also celebrated. Of course, the journey is by no means complete, and it has been long and tough for those who pioneered it. In my own work, I'm inspired by feminists who courageously challenged masculine paradigms on gender, African-Americans who heralded their unique culture and identity rather than becoming subsumed as subordinates or an exotic addition to a "universal" culture, and leaders of the gay rights movement who undermined the prevailing hegemony on sexual orientation. In each of the examples above, alternate perspectives challenged head-on the dominant discourse, categories and frameworks that were well entrenched as normative and "universal." But in interfaith discussions, we still shy away from making similar bold challenges to the established worldview. Rather, what is frequently espoused is the mere "tolerance" of other religions. In an earlier blog I explained the important distinction between tolerance and mutual respect, and the need to advance from the former to the latter. Mutual respect requires appreciation of what makes other faiths distinct from one's own; anything less is empty rhetoric. Such an approach compels thinkers to uncover differences, take honest risks and reject the politically correct but eventually unproductive stance that "all religions are the same." Indeed, my own experiences with the Jewish community, as recounted in an earlier blog, have shown that many cultural misunderstandings can be resolved through the forthright articulation of religious differences. Many of my writings explore this huge resistance in the public square to uncovering and embracing religious differences. I use the term "difference anxiety" to describe the psychological distress that stems from viewing differences as problematic rather than natural. There are deep-rooted reasons for this anxiety, a topic I explore in detail in my forthcoming book, The Audacity of Difference. Suffice it is to say here that any productive interfaith dialogue must first acknowledge and accept the distinctiveness of the spiritual, cultural and historical matrix of each civilization,and challenge the Western penchant for claiming universalism for itself.

 

China and the Islamic world offer counter-examples to the claim that globalization must mean Westernization. Weming Tu of Harvard makes the point that Chinese civilization has its own paradigm for modernity based on Confucianism, and that this is not contingent on China's Westernization. Islam, too, has its own alternative worldview including a distinct theology, sociology and political framework.

 

A resistance to articulating and understanding differences, religious and otherwise, also comes from many Indians who are remarkably Eurocentric in their views. One hears many modern Indians ask: Aren't we all really "the same"? What's wrong with a "universal" point of view? Isn't it wonderful that millions of Westerners practice yoga, and Indian cuisine has gone global? Additionally, fashionable academic constructs such as "post-modern," "post-racial," "post-religious" and "post-national" seem to announce the arrival of a flat, secularized world that is not differentiated by peoples' histories, identities and religious points of view.

 

My own enthusiasm to this confluence of cultures is balanced by the fact that this fusion does not always preserve diversity and is often inequitable. What remain intact are many structures that support power and that privilege the mythological, historical and religious beliefs of the West.

 

I use the term "digestion" to describe the widespread dismantling, rearrangement and assimilation of a less powerful civilization into a dominant one. Like the food consumed by a host: what is useful gets assimilated into the host while what does not fit the host's structure gets eliminated as waste. The West superimposes its concepts, aesthetics, language, paradigms, historical template and philosophy, positioning these as universal. The corresponding elements of the digested civilization get domesticated into the West, ceasing to exist in their own right. The result is that the consumed tradition, similar to the food, ceases to exist whereas the host gets strengthened. In harvesting the fruits of other civilizations, the West has often destroyed their roots, thereby killing their ability to produce more bountiful harvests. Native Americans and European pagans are among numerous examples of such previous digestions into the modern West.

 

This process is often rationalized as the inevitable "march of civilization," with the West positioned as the center of the world and the engine driving it forward. The non-Western civilizations are considered relevant only as sources "discovered" by the West (as in "our past") or as theaters in which the West operates ("our civilizing mission") or as threats to Western interests ("our frontiers").

 

Every civilization deserves a seat at the table as an equal and as the subject rather than only as the object of inquiry. Every religion and its assumptions, must like all other areas of human knowledge be subject to critique on a level playing field. None, however powerful and well-funded, ought to be exempt from scrutiny or be privileged to set the terms. In the realm of interfaith gatherings, we need forums where non-Christians may challenge the "universal" concepts being applied to all world religions, in the same manner as women, African-Americans and homosexuals have already achieved in their respective domains. I predict that in five years there will be such mainstream inter-religious discourse in which it will no longer be considered too controversial to challenge one another audaciously in the quest for honest understanding.

 

The Audacity of Difference uncovers several profound metaphysical distinctions between dharmic and Western assumptions. This is not about superiority or inferiority but about positioning religious differences as humanity's multifaceted experience and a shared resource.

[silent thunder]

Stop discussing Buddhism.

[Yascra]

As it happened, I had the luxury of studying under some great teachers. I spent two years intensively going through the tenets and did some in-depth study on the two truths before taking tantric empowerments and receiving in-depth teachings on them. All this without the internet.

 

Unfortunately, you can be berated by anyone online who chooses, on the slightest of pretexts. And you can't know the background or mental state of the individuals you meet online. It's not an issue if you are established in your practice but it's dire for newcomers to experience that.

 

Haha! Well, I'm another generation obviously. I would never have taken refuge without the information I found on the internet, simply because there wouldn't have been any connection to the topic.

 

Betrayers and bad persons are outside in the "real world" as well, and it's not only "non-authorized Westerners" who "teach" a shit.

I still have more problems with the lack of more than interest in just a little Siddhi- and magic-stuff amongst most of the real-life buddhists I met. IF there is at least this interest in cultivating so far that something like Siddhis might manifest. Not even to speak about interest in complete and perfect enlightenment.

 

The internet sets a filter on it - and be honest, who would be able to regard someone who uses a worldly thing like the internet as a "real master"? People want "real masters" to be the person who cultivates in the mountains, who looks foreign and a little strange, has good reputation and behaves like they expect him or her to - to some degree of course. He or she should still behave strange enough to always be a little afraid of him or her, and to leave this small hole in which you can put "blind trust" that there is some "true core" that's better than the rest - better than what you see on the outside.

Well, if you'd ask me, a Buddha who is born as a Westerner in the 80ies or later SHOULD be capable of using the internet, it's really quite a helpful tool nowadays.

But let's be honest about it, people don't want Buddhas, they want persons who fit their expectations and who they can put some faith in. And actually there's nothing wrong about that as long as you don't aim at the "great goal".

Mysteries guard themselves Really doesn't depend on the medium on which they present themselves.

 

Just my few cents.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Yascra

[Yascra]

How come threads like this end up being used to air out one's passive-aggressive judgement's of others? Collectively, each of us are guilty to some degree, of failing to exert ourselves in the practice of the 4 immeasurables.

 

Be assured, I don't mean "everybody". I just play the same tactic games as the starter of this thread and avoid writing names, but describing the situation in such a way that most others who are somehow "in the topic" will know whom I'm talking about.

And it's not an offense in any way. You just can't force someone to become a wiser person who doesn't want to be a wiser person. That's simply being realistic.

 

I have to say the tone in here is really great, taking into account that nobody has to pass some kind of tests of character, behaviour or social development who starts writing here. There's quite a good rate of good posters in here. BUT - they are not the ones who turn debates or discussions into flame-wars, and thereby are not really the persons this thread aims at. Persons who cultivate simply have no reason to behave like that.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Yascra

[Simple_Jack]

Be assured, I don't mean "everybody". I just play the same tactic games as the starter of this thread and avoid writing names, but describing the situation in such a way that most others who are somehow "in the topic" will know whom I'm talking about.

And it's not an offense in any way. You just can't force someone to become a wiser person who doesn't want to be a wiser person. That's simply being realistic.

 

I have to say the tone in here is really great, taking into account that nobody has to pass some kind of tests of character, behaviour or social development who starts writing here. There's quite a good rate of good posters in here. BUT - they are not the ones who turn debates or discussions into flame-wars, and thereby are not really the persons this thread aims at. Persons who cultivate simply have no reason to behave like that.

 

Oh, I'm well aware that my behaviour is a major contribution to why this thread must have been started. I'm well aware of my own hypocrisy in failing to adhere to basic Buddhist principles, but what I want to ask is: are the others responding in this thread aware of the hypocrisy they commit when they pass judgement on others? If not by referring to them directly, but in intention?

[Simple_Jack]

Oh, I'm well aware that my behaviour is a major contribution to why this thread must have been started. I'm well aware of my own hypocrisy in failing to adhere to basic Buddhist principles, but what I want to ask is: are the others responding in this thread aware of the hypocrisy they commit when they pass judgement on others? If not by referring to them directly, but in intention?

 

What I mean to say is that all of us are creating causes for the perpetuation of the 3 poisons. Those who pass judgment are creating karma, especially karma of idle speech or wrong speech. By doing this they are engendering further causes for the continuation of the 3 poisons in one's mindstream.

[C T]

Oh, I'm well aware that my behaviour is a major contribution to why this thread must have been started. I'm well aware of my own hypocrisy in failing to adhere to basic Buddhist principles, but what I want to ask is: are the others responding in this thread aware of the hypocrisy they commit when they pass judgement on others? If not by referring to them directly, but in intention?

People expect buddhist practitioners to be without sin. This is the fundamental misunderstanding. "oh, you're suppose to be a buddhist, pouring out love and compassion for all and sunder... how could you be such a dick and say such nasty things? This is so not buddhist." If this kind of thinking does not exist, or if its rectified, then there will be no hypocrisy. Then heated exchanges will simply remain heated exchanges, with no third party judgements. Its only third party observers who can't grasp this idea that Buddhism is not based on guilt, blame and etc. etc.

 

Anger and other emotional outcroppings are not the actual problem. Repeating these again and again, without awareness and due consideration given to the self-power of knowing that its possible to choose a different response, is the real culprit. This is the real disempowering pattern that binds one to states even more languishing than mere hypocrisy.

 

. 2 rupees .

Edited March 21, 2014 by C T