Help us help Buddhist Discussion

[doc benway]

So how come the Buddhism section gets so much worse than the other sections? Anyone have any ideas?? Why does it become worse off than Taoism? Taoism must have just as much to argue about, hell we never did figure out exactly what qi is, or where the dantien was .

 

So one possible explanation occurred to me this morning while eating breakfast...

In Buddhism, there is the perception that we can attain some relief from our pain and suffering.

It is right there in front of us, all we need to do is follow a few steps, achieve a certain point of view, something tangible... accessible.

In Daoism, not so much. That is much more ethereal, much less accessible. In part because so few people have had any credible training. It's mostly personal study and interpretation. Not so with Buddhism where there are lots of available living teachers and the matter is not so much one of personal interpretation as a result.

 

So then when the process of thought decides that there is the possibility of access to something important, like the answers to all important questions, relief from suffering, total enlightenment, there is a very powerful drive to possess that. And until one actually has a very solid experience of something along those lines, thought vigorously and aggressively goes after this perceived goal buried in all of its conditioned projections and expectations - challenging, defending, projecting, creating - using all of it's wily tricks and tools to try and either get it, or prove that someone else has not gotten it....

 

Once a real glimpse has occurred, there is not so much a need for all of this anymore. There is genuine contact which leads to confidence and all of the back and forth can relax. I think we are simply watching the play of the thought process and ego engaged in its usual activity but focused on something that is so appealing, that it gets a bit out of hand at times.

[Stosh]

This.

For all the Buddhists here, I want to say what I posted was not to berate anyone, but was said out of a genuine concern about the state of discussions of something I hold very dear and sacred.

Unfortunately you cant really speak for all the buddhists here,nor absolve them of what they actively have chosen to do, now can you ? That you or one holds a thing dear or sacred , wasnt given as a viable excuse for using the hostile speech ,( that I read)

its said that it is unfit. Which takes the burden off someone like me to prosecute or you to mitigate - attone for..and places it squarely back on whichever party participated.

The folks who arent really buddhist followers , still,, have heard of this basic entry level paradigm or directive, so either they dont have any respect for the teachings they profess to understand so thoroughly, or they really dont understand a word of what the teachings mean.

Again what teeny little bit of kindergarten buddhism Ive read , doesnt make any exception whatsoever for considering the subject matter sacred.. Now if they just bicker on Dharma wheel or in Sanghas well then I feel Its quite clear that they have lost touch with the originals.

Identitifying with the 'wrongdoers' , calling them brothers making excuses and apologies for them is clearly having a incorrectly biased affinity for a group based on name.

Now I havent looked into it , but I would bet a chunk of change that Gautama wouldnt say one was acting entirely right or in the spirit of the dharma to do all this stuff .

Understand please , yall can go ahead with whatever you want , and keep the thing going as it has been , and I do not hold to ideas of absolute right and wrongs , so I cant hold anyone as wrong really, yall would have to decide if Im off the mark here or not, ( which yall will Im sure anyway ) and Heck I know this here post isnt right speech either ! but Im not a buddhist.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Stosh

[Simple_Jack]

Its mostly neutral until the taunters show up.

 

& then the hyenas would gather around, grinning stupidly at everything in sight.

 

Like this?

"When a controversial poster is on the forums people will rush in to be outraged"

[Simple_Jack]

We know what needs to be done here:

 

[Brian]

But sometimes we agree. Sometimes even Buddhists agree with each other.

 

<snip>

 

Uh-huh...

[soaring crane]

So one possible explanation occurred to me this morning while eating breakfast...

In Buddhism, there is the perception that we can attain some relief from our pain and suffering.

 

 

Perhaps you've hit on something else here as well, i.e the personalities that feel attracted to the one or another view of the world?

[BaguaKicksAss]

Sometimes people just need to be corrected when they're wrong on the internet.

 

 

If I corrected the folks who spew random dangerous ideas they just made up last month, on the magic forums, it would be a 24x7 job. I gave up a decade back lol.

[Brian]

 

If I corrected the folks who spew random dangerous ideas they just made up last month, on the magic forums, it would be a 24x7 job. I gave up a decade back lol.

Not to mention this:

TheTaoBums' Three Foundations: Eclectic, Egalitarian, Civil.

 

[BaguaKicksAss]

Not to mention this:

TheTaoBums' Three Foundations: Eclectic, Egalitarian, Civil.

 

 

Yeah I know, we let armchair practitioners have equal say here... However I actually prefer that over one person, or politics deciding who is right and who is wrong. I think it's a good thing Sean came up with that early, since the forum has gotten to large to really do it any other way .

[Brian]

The point being that the perceived merit of a person's opinion or belief should be irrelevant with regards to another's behavior towards that first person.

 

If I think someone is sharing incorrect information, I can share what I think is correct information. Perhaps that person will see the errors (from my perspective) of his or her ways, or perhaps other readers will recognize the difference -- or perhaps not. (EDIT: BTW, if we are using our awareness, we might actually learn something from the interaction...)

 

In any event, though, incivility is inacceptable on this forum. If one can interact (in general or in a particular thread or sub-forum, or with a particular individual, or on a particular topic) in a cogent and respectful manner then one is encouraged to participate. If one cannot refrain from insult, innuendo and snark-thinly-veiled-as-pseudo-intellectualism (among other breaches, transgressions or personality flaws) then one should refrain from engaging.

 

One's expression of disagreement should not resemble an assault.

 

 

I see myself in this mirror, BTW.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Brian
After-thought in second paragraph...

[GrandmasterP]

Innuendo?

Yes please.

Make mine a large one.

Edited August 19, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[BaguaKicksAss]

and talk about the person's opinion or teachings they are referencing that you find incorrect, instead of making it about the person. This is one of the first things we were taught for being really efficient in communication. Do not every make it about the person.

[Simple_Jack]

Not to mention this:

TheTaoBums' Three Foundations: Eclectic, Egalitarian, Civil.

 

 

In an odd way, out of all the sub-forums, the Buddhist sub-forum is the most egalitarian because the majority of forummers, by and large, has gotten away with posting things that would be considered worthy of censure in the other sub-forums.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Brian]

Too often in a French Revolution sort of way, I think...

[soaring crane]

Too often in a French Revolution sort of way, I think...

 

aber egal

[doc benway]

The point being that the perceived merit of a person's opinion or belief should be irrelevant with regards to another's behavior towards that first person.

 

If I think someone is sharing incorrect information, I can share what I think is correct information. Perhaps that person will see the errors (from my perspective) of his or her ways, or perhaps other readers will recognize the difference -- or perhaps not. (EDIT: BTW, if we are using our awareness, we might actually learn something from the interaction...)

 

In any event, though, incivility is inacceptable on this forum. If one can interact (in general or in a particular thread or sub-forum, or with a particular individual, or on a particular topic) in a cogent and respectful manner then one is encouraged to participate. If one cannot refrain from insult, innuendo and snark-thinly-veiled-as-pseudo-intellectualism (among other breaches, transgressions or personality flaws) then one should refrain from engaging.

 

One's expression of disagreement should not resemble an assault.

 

 

I see myself in this mirror, BTW.

 

Excellent post - so what is done when folks don't follow this simple, effective advice?

[Apech]

The point being that the perceived merit of a person's opinion or belief should be irrelevant with regards to another's behavior towards that first person.

 

If I think someone is sharing incorrect information, I can share what I think is correct information. Perhaps that person will see the errors (from my perspective) of his or her ways, or perhaps other readers will recognize the difference -- or perhaps not. (EDIT: BTW, if we are using our awareness, we might actually learn something from the interaction...)

 

In any event, though, incivility is inacceptable on this forum. If one can interact (in general or in a particular thread or sub-forum, or with a particular individual, or on a particular topic) in a cogent and respectful manner then one is encouraged to participate. If one cannot refrain from insult, innuendo and snark-thinly-veiled-as-pseudo-intellectualism (among other breaches, transgressions or personality flaws) then one should refrain from engaging.

 

One's expression of disagreement should not resemble an assault.

 

 

I see myself in this mirror, BTW.

 

"snark-thinly-veiled-as-pseudo-intellectualism"

 

well said.

[dawei]

~~~ ADMIN MESSAGE ~~~

 

Simple_Jack is suspended for 2 days as we consider further action or not.

 

He posted a rather crude/rude pic when we are trying to ask people for a discussion on improving this section.

 

~~~ / ADMIN OUT ~~~

[silent thunder]

2

 

As high defines low,

difficult defines easy,

sound requires silence.

 

Relative to self,

mind creates a position,

perceptions arise.

 

Mind as perception,

exists in fields of conflict,

self against other.

 

Having and losing

are forever together

always rise with fall.

 

Always opposites,

reflecting in their other;

the truth within form.

 

Beyond perception,

opposites experienced,

as unified bliss.

[Marblehead]

I told you we need to get rid of our mind. The darned thing causes all kinds of problems. It's the creator of dualities and therefore all arguements.

[dawei]

Have you ever looked up or counted the number of pitted posts from the General discussion and compared? Or even looked at the subjects of pitted posts? I'll bet there are more mo pai pitted posts than any others.

 

This is a reasonable issue to flesh out. School wars occur in Taoist Discussion for sure and get pitted and closed, etc.

 

But the fact is that the other areas have more oversight and participation of the staff.

 

It seems to be a historical preference to ignore the Buddhist drama and wait for a Report; and it seems that the Buddhist circle has gotten used to the crude slugfest of words and insults and we only get the really suspect posts.

 

So in the Buddhist forum we are more like, wait-and-react to reports but in most of the other forums we are proactive.

 

 

Oh, and the reason why moderating the Buddhist forum is so hard is because you have to know something about Buddhism. For example, calling something eternalistic or nihilistic is considered an insult in Buddah-talk. But if you don't know what those words mean, you can't tell that someone has just been insulted. Probably the worst insult is to be called a neo-advaitan.. LOL!

 

I generally disagree if it is just school/lineage insult but this would be fleshed out in our normal review process.

[dawei]

The two-edged sword to this issue is:

1. Who do we want to attract to post in the Buddhist sub-forum

2. Who are we scaring away if left as-is?

 

Ultimately, TTB is a discussion forum, not a clique of warring schools or ideologies.

 

If you can't even discuss without personal insults or posting rude pictures or being an elitist.. then TTB is just not the place for some members.

[Marblehead]

But let's not be too constrictive. Different people have different ways of expressing themselves. Buddhists are no different, really.

[3bob]

If the historic Buddha taught the simple but deep saying of, "May all beings be happy" then it follows that common ground has been encouraged instead of being harmed or discarded, for when common ground is harmed or discarded then suffering in one way or another will be encouraged along with any of the so called complex, advanced or secret type teachings being more or less negated

[Stosh]

^{The guys we have been reading already, are often brilliant , they have a lot to contribute, hopefully they dont get scared off at all.}

^{But they should be encouraged , to abide by rules of civil conduct just as in the other forums , If they want to handle it ' themselves..'}

^{I kind of like that idea... BUT with that grace afforded , they should hold themselves to the code of right speech that buddhism promotes,}

^{and not allow themselves to continue to be led by bad example which may indeed be rampant elsewhere,}

^{I dont think thats very much to expect and they might find they like it themselves , if they didnt feel as if they had to continually fend off attacks .}

^{When pushed, folks fight back , and do what they wouldnt have done otherwise, but no one benefits from perpetual infighting.}