Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I think it appropriate that I post here a PM which I sent to Federica today:
Fede, my dear,
Having spent a little time reflecting on the current NB situation, I think that any immediate, knee-jerk reaction will only make the situation worse for a while. It is not lack of rules - or, even, of a mission statement, that has created the trouble: it is personalities.
We have become a forum for what I imagine is a long argument between "AE" and ZM which seems to have started elsewhere and elsewhen.
Your point about how hard it is to moderate when there are no written guidelines is important. It emphasises how skillfully you (yes, YOU, dear Federica) have handled the boards. It is also one reason why this has been such an attractive place to post: the Law kills, the Spirit gives life.
I am not sure exactly what Brian has in mind. Deleting posts is a pretty extreme action, particularly when it is done unilaterally. And you must feel somewhat adrift as a result.
Of course, Noble Eighfold Path sets us goals and guidelines for the interpersonal (as well as the intrapersonal). The problem is that we have new members who are oe interested in polemic and controversy than in finding common ground. They appear to have learned nothing from the example of Christians with their "text proofing". And I fear that ZM is being sucked back into some old stuff which has nothing to do with theses fora. There is, however, a NINTH fold to the Path which the Tathagata left for each of us to find: Noble Silence.
IMHO, the best way to deal with flamers is to ignore them - send them to Coventry.
On one board that I moderate, we have a system of voting people 'out' for a time if they offend the community, which is more important than breaking rules. You are very welcome to share these poor thoughts with Brian (and Jason/Elohim, perhaps, as he is close to Brian) if you think they may help.
It is worth noticing that HMG has lost the Bill on "religious hatred" because the House, quite rightly, does not want to put such chains on free speech.
In the most troubling times, do remember that we are here for you as well and that you have my support all through this stony patch on the path.
Simon, if you honestly think that this was just an old personal argument between myself and AE, I fear you've completely misunderstood both what was written, why it was written, and the history of AE and his group. And this has everything to do with the forum. Otherwise I wouldn't have confronted what was being said but simply ignored AE as most do. My concern was (and still is) that what has happened elsewhere was going to happen here. And part of the reason that it's happened in the past is precisely because those who could do something didn't, when Ae and his cronies were confronted and shown to be fundamentally dishonest, it was dismissed as 'personal' until far too late, and those who both knew and wanted to deal with the situation appropriately were prevented from doing so, or for whatever reason were not in a position to do so. This is exactly what AE relies on in order to repeat what he has done elsewhere. And for the record, I think that if someone is a moderator, they should be allowed to actually moderate, and that AE should simply be banned. It's a no brainer.
I've posted several replies to the thread suggesting some sort of rules. And my experience with other forums over the last 5 or more years shows me that ZM's suggestion that AE be banned is totally appropriate. ZM's replies to AE were necessary because AE spoke publicly against ZM's character. I found myself doubting ZM's credentials based on what was said and feeling disappointed. But, when ZM replied, the answers to AE's accusations were succint and necessary and my doubts were aleviated. I would have never been placed in a position to think about ZM or wonder about the accuracy of the information he'd given about himself. But since AE was allowed to malign him, I found myself thinking about this subject which otherwise was none of my business and not of benefit to me in any way.
This is what happens when people are allowed to go without rules. A person's character is maligned and they are forced to defend. Though the personal assault is not the topic at hand, we all must witness the defense if we are allowed to witness the assault. It's unfair to criticize an honorable person for defending themself publicly if someone is allowed to insult and criticize them publicly.
So, if in the future we would like to avoid such personal attacks and the necessary defense thereof, there should be rules to prevent the initial attack.
Wickwoman, thank you for that. It's not a bad thing of course that someone asks whether or not I am what I say I am. I think that's perfectly fine and should be encouraged. I certainly have no problems at all with that. I do agree with your post in that to not counter what was said would perhaps have done more harm than good. My reputation is not the issue, even though, yes on a personal basis I found the tactics used both ignorant and unecessary. I have a bad reputation as is with some and I can live with that quite happily. I am also well aware that I can be bloody minded, obstreporous and arrogant.
My major concern was that this forum not go the way other forums have gone, and AE's tactics are the same wherever he surfaces - to denigrate and dishonestly undermine anyone who confronts him who he feels is a threat in any way, so as to have more of a clear field for what he does. So, for that reason I felt it appropriate to set the record straight and restore some measure of honesty to what was happening. Thank you for speaking as you have. It is very much appreciated. Whilst it may appear that this is a purely personal matter, it's not. It is about the Dharma and how it's practiced, which is nothing to do with my opinion or AE's. My hope is that one day AE will remember what spiritual practice, whether Hindu, Buddhist or whatever, is about and I'm still an optimist on that score in the long term.
Simon, if you honestly think that this was just an old personal argument between myself and AE, I fear you've completely misunderstood both what was written and the history of AE and his group. And this has everything to do with the forum. Otherwise I wouldn't have confronted what was being said. And for the record, I think that if someone is a moderator, they should be allowed to moderate and AE should simply be banned.
Genryu,
No, I do not think that 'history' is all this is about.
There seems to be far more going on than that.
The outbreak of what Christians call "text proofing" is significant. Experience suggests that disagreement over the meaning of texts rarely results in agreement. This is true in literature and even more so with scriptural or consecrated texts in our own language but add the factors of translation and context, and bingo! A perfect recipe for discord. As a translator and interpreter, I know that Eris's apple, which started the war of Troy, really said: "To the best translator".
In acknowledging any board owner's right to exclude any unwelcome guest, I have no hesitation in stating my deep dislike for the practice of banning. My own practice is to ask, by PM or email, the offenders to leave. If they do not, I ask them again, publicly, on an open forum, which submits my request to everyone in the house. Only if they continue to refuse to go and fail to amend their way of posting do I ban. Every time I have had to do so, I have had to confront the whole problem of "freedom of speech"/Right Speech.
I am still not clear why "AE and his group" should be banned. I have seen some personal insults which I found offensive but I don't place my right not to be offended above another's right to speak offensively. I have seen your views misrepresented and I have found that offensive. At the same time, I have more evidence that you are trustworthy than for the others. Whilst I am sure that 'they' (whichever new members are meant) have studied long, thought hard and practised, so far I don't know them.
Of course it is unpleasant to be attacked and this bitching is nasty but it may also be a necessary part of the growing-up of any group.
Addressing myself to "AE and his group": I have done what you are doing. I have jumped into groups and strutted my intellectual, academic and spiritual stuff. I have practised courtesy and good manners in 'real' life whilst allowing the vain and decitful peacock all his display in the 'unreal' world of the boards. But then, I began to make a few friends, rather special people who do not seem to mind my occasional lapses into jargon or obscureness. And I realised that there can be no difference between our practice in the two arenas. Use whatever words you like, karma is still karma: where you abuse, threaten, bully, make fun of people is irrelevant.
The New Buddhidt forum has been, in my estimation, a place where we meet with people of many different points of view as if in sanctuary. This is precious. A brief respite in the uphill struggle (or, in my case, downhill slide). You hold views which are very dear to you; so do others.
Many here are 'recovering' from some form of childhood indoctrination attempts, particularly by various Christian groups. Apologetics and "Dharma duels" re-open old wounds. If you want to teach us, let us teach you something in return. Let us teach you how we can genuinely practice Right Respect.
I can understand to some extent where you're coming from Simon. I do disagree and certainly wouldn't say that this is really about 'text proofing'. Deliberately misrepresenting and twisting Buddhist teaching for an underhand agenda is, to me at least, far more than that. I do though respect that you are speaking as you feel and with honesty and I appreciate that too.
I've been on a few sites where this has happened. People get disgusted with the behaviour of other contributors, they complain, nothing is done, they leave.
I don't understand what pleasure some people get from ruining other people's fun - it's the same twisted mentality of hackers and virus creators. What I do know is that once people are allowed to get away with murder (or character assassination) it doesn't stop until they leave - either ignored to death or asked to go.
I've already said my piece about it ruining this forum so I'll just say that I can't bear to see people being hurtful for their own pleasure - it isn't big and it isn't clever, it's just sickmaking.
And, just for the record, I judge people by my own priciples - not the blathering and muckslinging of others. I make my own mind up and I know exactly who is and who isn't worth my time and effort here.
I've posted several replies to the thread suggesting some sort of rules. And my experience with other forums over the last 5 or more years shows me that ZM's suggestion that AE be banned is totally appropriate. ZM's replies to AE were necessary because AE spoke publicly against ZM's character. I found myself doubting ZM's credentials based on what was said and feeling disappointed. But, when ZM replied, the answers to AE's accusations were succint and necessary and my doubts were aleviated. I would have never been placed in a position to think about ZM or wonder about the accuracy of the information he'd given about himself. But since AE was allowed to malign him, I found myself thinking about this subject which otherwise was none of my business and not of benefit to me in any way.
This is what happens when people are allowed to go without rules. A person's character is maligned and they are forced to defend. Though the personal assault is not the topic at hand, we all must witness the defense if we are allowed to witness the assault. It's unfair to criticize an honorable person for defending themself publicly if someone is allowed to insult and criticize them publicly.
So, if in the future we would like to avoid such personal attacks and the necessary defense thereof, there should be rules to prevent the initial attack.
I think that you raise a very important point, WW. But I wonder if the conclusion is that we need rules.
As you say, it was uncomfortable to be challenged in our trust in Genryu. It raised all sorts of questions about our e-relationships that we prefer not to address.
I have said, elsewhere, that our behaviour on the Net and in the 'real' world can be completely different. We all know the stereotypes: the middle-aged paedophile posing as a teenager, the overweight adolescent transformed into Adonis/Aphrodite and all by the magic of the Net. We don't like to be reminded that we have no solid evidence that anyone is who they say they are. But is it any different out there, in the 'real' world? I read, just the other day, about a doctor who had been working, for years, in a hospital but had never qualified. He lied his way in, did a good job and stayed!
To me, whether Genryu is who he says he is or not is, now, irrelevant: I know him as an erudite, funny, witty, compassionate, passionate, infuriating, delightful correspondent. Nothing "AE and his group" can say could change that so their remarks only serve to get me to look at them. To date, they have sometimes stimulated me, often annoyed me but I know no real harm in them other than as gadflies. Perhaps they are more than that.
Genryu has given us fair warning that these people have been disruptive elsewhere. Are we so malleable and unfixed in our own opinions that we must, inevitably, be disrupted? That hasn't been my experience of this group.
I can only say, Simon, that I recently left a board I posted at for 4 or more years because of such personal attacks. And it wasn't just by one person. The boards that do not have rules are soon overrun by the "trollers" and the "flamers." Because they want somewhere to do their flaming and their trolling.
The board I left had degenerated so much, that the personal photos and avatars (mine, most often) of those who posted well documented and honest posts were altered (by the trollers who had no real intellectual argument) with ridiculing devil horns and mustaches. I visited there recently and saw that a friend of mine's avatar had been dressed up with makeup. This particular friend had been "accused" of being gay. (On that board, that had become an insult of the highest sort, unfortunately.)
I have been followed from thread to thread by such individuals. I've even received threatening personal messages. And threads of mine which I believed were interesting and meant to provoke thoughtful discussion soon degenerated into name calling and mudslinging. So much so, that I would go for days not posting. All the while, my friends would kindly ask me to return and post more threads, saying I shouldn't let the trolls take over the place. The problem was there were no rules, the rules were at the whim of the webmaster.
I think Brian was justified in deleting the off topic posts, yet I also understand that such decisions should not be made under duress and on a whim. There should be standards in place so that deletions are uniform and fair.
These boards aren't worth that sort of conflict. And having just come from such a place, to see it happen here where I thought I had finally given up that sort of torture, was very diheartening. Though it did not include me I saw history repeating itself. If we inadvertently allow this place to be a haven for "trolls" word will soon get out and they will "take over the place." Sorry, I know that sounds dramatic.
"Zenmar: An evolving Cyber Sangha is good for Buddhism. But not because it is providing practitioners with a lot of texts. It is good for Buddhism because, as Buddhists, we can exchange our ideas with other Buddhists, seeing which ideas make more sense and which ideas are mature or contradictory. I have found that what comes across best are solid ideas. A post well conceived and well written has a strong impact. On the other hand, blather gets nowhere. Nor does the typical flippant zenic "one word" response, as when some yokel writes "Kwatz." In the end, these people have to leave because their ideas are inadequate. I have to admit that a lot of garbage is posted. But every once in a while good stuff appears. Those who take a little time to say something of interest; who have something valuable to share with others and work at it, help the Cyber Sangha overall. One more thing. Recently, I have noticed an important development in the Cyber Sangha and in particular Buddhism AOL. It is a sense of community. Other media, like television, just focus on one person with a narrow-minded core of opinions. Contrary to this, on the BBS, there is a living community with no one single individual dominating the dialogue. It is open and free. Ideas, I must say, thrive in such an environment."
The Zenmar Interview
In the electronic sangha of America Online the voice of Zenmar is distinctive and his knowledge is honored. It is unusual for him to visit a Buddhist chatroom, but when he does attention turns to him as an arbiter of theory and practice...
This hypocrisy from a man who has been banned from several forums and had many posts deleted here.
I'm sorry to see people upset here. And I hope you won't lose sight of what you have - together - created.
I'm relatively new to Buddhism, and to this forum, though I've spent far more time passively "on" it than my meagre postings might suggest. I've found it an extraordinarily helpful place, and I owe a debt of gratitude to many contributors who will never know how helpful they've been to me. All of that is down to Brian for starting this forum and in no small measure to Federica for the light touch with which she has moderated. I've also been on e-sangha and my excitement at finding that forum died on the first post I read when a Moderator came crashing in throwing his certainties about and trampling everyone else underfoot; the atmosphere "here" is very different. Thank you.
As for whether rules and bannings are necessary, Freedom of Speech is important, but few freedoms are absolute. My freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. And I'm not even sure it's a Freedom of Speech issue; if Brian were to decide to ban someone then they are free to carry on, on their own site. One shouldn't confuse Freedom of Speech with an Obligation to Listen.
As for this case, I didn't set the apparently personal attack on ZMG that has been referred to, so I can't comment on it, though, given the respect / affection in which I'm guessing most users of this site (myself for one) hold ZMG, I suspect the attacker harmed only himself.
If those who moderate feel they need bannings or rules to help them, I don't see that anyone could complain. One final thought, though; it has been suggested that banning or rules might be needed to protect "new" Buddhists like me. Certainly, I haven't found e.g. Mujaku's posts helpful. I don't suppose Mujaku will mind my saying that one bit, since I don't imagine he's aiming his comments at me or anyone like me. But I don't mind them for myself, and that wouldn't be a reason for banning anyone, because I'm going to direct my control panel to ignore him. Bye Mujaku, may you be well.
There are people here who have differences and who have the forethought to reply in calm and concise tones while still respecting other members. Even when they disagree, there is the mutual respect contained within their posts.
There are others here, who 98% of the time, poison their posts with sarcasm, cruelty, condescending tones, belittlement and acid. They pontificate like their opinion is the only one that makes this world turn round.
You know who you are. You contribute little or nothing and, in my opinion, do nothing but make others feel uncomfortable.
Since I can't make you go away - I just ignore you. Your spoutings contain nothing of the basic teachings of Buddha - yet you wish for us to wade into "deep waters" with you concerning your own deep teachings.
So - whoever "you" may be - I refuse to take what you offer to this sangha and leave it with you. I hope you enjoy it.
Do I need someone to tell me what to do or how to act? I don't believe so. I can use Buddha's teachings to help me discern what I should and should not be participating in. Isn't that part of the learning? Choosing what we wish to partake of?
Brian does make a good point... if you can't view these various threads without it causing you distress - throw them on your "ignore" list.
As for the other members, both new and old, I'm glad to participate in this forum with you.
These boards aren't worth that sort of conflict. And having just come from such a place, to see it happen here where I thought I had finally given up that sort of torture, was very diheartening. Though it did not include me I saw history repeating itself. If we inadvertently allow this place to be a haven for "trolls" word will soon get out and they will "take over the place." Sorry, I know that sounds dramatic.
WW - you make some great points and I'm glad that no one has taken to stalking here - because that is just spooky. I've had someone do stuff like this to me in the past and it is just downright SPOOKY.
But, on the other hand, I do honestly believe that it is a perfect opportunity for "Right ..." teachings.
This can be a little lesson for us here to learn compassion. To learn long-suffering. Not that we have to partake of various rantings or abuse, but that we can learn to not let it affect us and rob us of feelings and help for our fellow beings.
This can be a little lesson for us here to learn compassion. To learn long-suffering. Not that we have to partake of various rantings or abuse, but that we can learn to not let it affect us and rob us of feelings and help for our fellow beings.
That's true, BF. Unfortunately, I usually turn it into an opportunity to become a martyr which I GREATLY enjoy. It's my dirty little secret. Whoops! Not anymore!:D
I would however say that sometimes the appropriate and compassionate thing is not to suffer in silence, nor to allow someone to continue doing something negative, but to say NO! and to stop them if necessary.
I mean, most of the Buddhist stories or teachings I have read is one of pacifism and compassion.
Not pacifism to the point of allowing others to be hurt - but to truly act with compassion, or at the other end of the spectrum - to ignore. Buddha even decided not to partake of people's ranting and insults - and doing so, left them with what they offered.
Because really... this is just an internet site and these are just words. Should be become so afflicted at the simple words of someone? Should we let these words rob us of our peace? And what will saying "No" do to someone who is no more of a practicing Buddhist than.... Charles Manson?
Nothing. It just feeds their fire which burns all the more brightly.
What to do when a new member comes onboard with an agenda that clearly has nothing to do with Brian's intentions for his site and starts trouble by using tactics that are also clearly not Buddhist;
(1) Can we come to a consensus that this new member has nothing of value to offer other than an opportunity to practice and to embrace change by shaking us out of complacency which our lives give us in abundance, already, everyday?
(2) Can we come to a consensus not to ban this new member nor delete their posts nor to institute new rules which would set a precedent some members do not want to set?
(3) Can we come to a consensus to alert the community when this happens and to leave it up to the discretion of each individual member whether or not to use the "ignore" option or to engage in fruitless debate with this new member which would encourage them?
I believe the "ignore" option is there for a good reason and should be used in situations of this kind. It is civil disobedience except instead of going limp we are doing exactly what Buddhafoot reminded us the Buddha did when faced with abuse; listen and then simply leave that offering with the person who offered it. It's simple, clean, and takes no more time and energy than what is required to come to a community agreement as to the value of the offering and then to click on a button. That's all.
If we can't come to an agreement on the value of the offering there will be no community alert and the members will still have the option of ignoring or engaging the person in question.
I've enjoyed reading everyone's posts here and I would like to add something that I wrote to Fede in a PM in October 2005 when NB first began to grow and encorporate a noticably wider base of members:
Do what you feel is right. While this member's comment may seem annoying and attention seeking - isn't he/she the type of person we really need to help?
It would be truly uncompassionate of us to ban a person because they pissed us off! Surely this is the type of person who could benefit from the teachings of the Tathgata.
Sure - he/she could be here to flaunt a big 'e' ego but a reason led him/her to a buddhist site. That might mean that deep down he/she knows that this is the place to be (for help).
How about a probation period?
Just thoughts really.
DO what you feel is right Fede - you're a superb judge (unfortunate word!) of character.
Dear Mu: This is advising you that our mob has decided that you're upsetting them with your ideas which fly in the face of their prejudices. I am sorry to inform you, but I must give you a lethal cyber injection so you will never harm these oversensitive creatures again who have very little tolerance for the truth.
I have to admit, you are a lightning rod; and I almost gave up nihilism, accepting rebirth and the chance that I could actually awaken to the Buddha Mind and be reborn in Brahmaloka! However, my depression again got the best of me. Yes, I have been hitting the sake pretty hard.
This is not going to hurt Mu, I promise. Just roll up the sleeves of your robe that came from Hui-Neng's temple in China. See, it is painless to go into Skinner extinction (zero stimulus). Soon you will be no more. Then we can all go back to being self-willed little children making up our own Buddhism.
Hello all,
Going back awhile I started a thread about Pudgalavadins. Now I made the BIGGEST mistake I could make in that I hadn't fully read the material that I had posted and that I didn't put down who the original author was. It was really bad stuff, I know not smart!!!!!!!! I still cringe over this one!!!!!:eek2:
Some here were upset at me and rightly so, others just ignored it and some thought it was okay. The point is ALL OF YOU were great. I learnt my lesson and you allowed me to come back and start a fresh. You didn't ban me or what I posted, you allowed the group here to have their say and I applaud this.
I just wanted to put down that I'm proud to be apart of this cybersanga and I really enjoy "talking" to you all.:thumbsup:
Hello all,
Going back awhile I started a thread about Pudgalavadins. Now I made the BIGGEST mistake I could make in that I hadn't fully read the material that I had posted and that I didn't put down who the original author was. It was really bad stuff, I know not smart!!!!!!!! I still cringe over this one!!!!!:eek2:
Some here were upset at me and rightly so, others just ignored it and some thought it was okay. The point is ALL OF YOU were great. I learnt my lesson and you allowed me to come back and start a fresh. You didn't ban me or what I posted, you allowed the group here to have their say and I applaud this.
I just wanted to put down that I'm proud to be apart of this cybersanga and I really enjoy "talking" to you all.:thumbsup:
It takes a man of Great dignity to post this and I applaud you.
We have become a forum for what I imagine is a long argument between "AE" and ZM which seems to have started elsewhere and elsewhen.
There is nothing wrong with argumentation. Only those who have huge egos fear losing them in an argument who are extremely attached to their prejudices which they can't defend with evidence.
One of the classical arguments NB discussants here should be familiar with took place in the middle part of 15th century between the last Platonist, Gemistos Plethon, who represented the Orthodox Church, and Scholarios who represented the Catholic Church.
Plethon's responses to Scholarios were cutting. it would make an oversensitive NB faint. There were no at length personal attacks, in the example of, "Mujaku is so-in-so who is an evil person--ergo he needs to be kicked out." These disputants didn't act like self-willed brats. They clashed tooth-an-nail, but more often with ideas and evidence.
Here are just two responses by Plethon to Scholarios from the dispute which may serve to exemplify the tone of the argument.
"We shall continue to maintain our argument, though not at your interminable length, and to expose your errors. As for the rest of 'your empty boasting about yourself and your abuse of ourselves, which leave us cold, it shall be left to other to treat them with derision'."
"Why then make such a fool of yourself by placing Aristotle above Plato? 'All philosophers agree that Aristotle is extremely perceptive over minor, trivial details, like a bat in the dark, but when confronted with major ideas of the most brilliant kinds he is, to use the same simile, as totally blind as that creature in daylight.'"
Anyone can read this argument in C.M. Woodhouse's book, George Gemistos Plethon: The Last of the Hellenes (1986). It is instructive for anyone wishing to grasp the boundaries of a good dispute which, in some cases, can get downright nasty. But these men believed in their ideas and were willing to defend them to the hilt in open debate.
The tone of their dispute is a far cry from what goes on in a typical Buddhist forum which some wish to be run like an asylum for the oversensitive who have lost their privilege and power in a changing society and hope to regain it in a Buddhist discussion forum as censors.
Hello all,
Going back awhile I started a thread about Pudgalavadins. Now I made the BIGGEST mistake I could make in that I hadn't fully read the material that I had posted and that I didn't put down who the original author was. It was really bad stuff, I know not smart!!!!!!!! I still cringe over this one!!!!!:eek2:
Some here were upset at me and rightly so, others just ignored it and some thought it was okay. The point is ALL OF YOU were great. I learnt my lesson and you allowed me to come back and start a fresh. You didn't ban me or what I posted, you allowed the group here to have their say and I applaud this.
I just wanted to put down that I'm proud to be apart of this cybersanga and I really enjoy "talking" to you all.:thumbsup:
Likewise Esau, and my apologies for being so abrupt with you. I think I misjudged you.
That's okay that you disagree with me - as I was just posting what "I" thought - which is by no means what other people should think.
Disagreement isn't a bad thing. There are many teachings where people have disagreements. I believe the Bible even has a passage of "let us reason together".
I don't believe that anyone has a problem with disagreements. In fact, I had one with ZenMonk yesterday. I either didn't agree with what he was saying or felt that I needed clarification - and I told him so.
What I didn't do was say: "ZenMonk, how can someone so full of shit manage to use a keyboard without messing up the keyboard? You think you know everything, but you don't. I laugh at your posts and the inane teachings of those who's writings I wipe my bottom with. You are stupid."
I don't think this type of behavior serves any purpose and is directly against the teachings of Buddha.
I remember when Brigid and I were having a discussion about issues that, obviously, affect both of us. It actually took a turn that I wasn't prepared for and, unfortunately, I found out that my statements - while not meaning to intend harm - did in fact cause harm.
Elohim posted a passage from a sutta (because, Jason is our Sutta-Boy ) which really made me think about how I was interacting with this other person.
It hurt. Bugged my ego that Jason was butting into a conversation with more of his sutta stuff - but the more I thought about it - the more I found it was true. While not my intention to harm, I should have used more Right Mindfulness, Right Intention, Right Speech and compassion. While I really didn't think that I was doing something that he was comparing to a sutta - since it did bug my frail little "ego" - I probably did need to review my actions.
I believe if we actually decide to use the teachings of Buddha, recognize our "self" and our "ego" - there is no need to ban anyone. I believe the teachings we're using will help us in what we need to do.
Or at least that's what I'm trying to do.
Okay - enough rambling. I can't even remember where I was going with this. Where's my coffee???
Buddhafoot, I wasn't disagreeing with you at all--just that one sentence, "You know who you are." Many people do lack insight into their behaviour (I know I'm one of them, at times.).
I've been deleting my previous messages in this thread (all 3 of them), because I didn't feel I had sufficient chatgroup experience (5 weeks) to be competent to make a judgment. But I will reiterate (and this time not erase what I've written): Angry and/or unhappy people don't often truly "know" they are that way, and the "knowledge" they have makes them think that they're "in the right." And, with their being rigidly "right-thinking," as it were, can there really be any dia-logue with them????
I would NOT categorize you or any of the NB standbys as angry or unhappy, but I do wonder what's wrong with anyone who doesn't just love you all. I make a beeline to any post by, say, Pilgrim just to be enlightened again on something really wonderful and well-said.
Look I've written some stuff that I wish I could take back, but you know-I'm going to let them sit-stuff it! if someone does not agree or argues against your post (and I've had my share) forget it-move on.
let the truth stand for how you see it-it is after all-your own post.
Look I've written some stuff that I wish I could take back, but you know-I'm going to let them sit-stuff it! if someone does not agree or argues against your post (and I've had my share) forget it-move on.
let the truth stand for how you see it-it is after all-your own post.
Xrayman, I delete my posts mainly for the reason that THEY EMBARRASS ME. That said, I often have found myself wondering WHY I posted, and so decided to delete my entry within 1-12 hours or so. On one thread, I would have deleted several posts had someone not QUOTED me. It got a bit snippy, but I felt that I could not retract after having been quoted. I put the guy on my ignore list for about 2 weeks, although he was conciliatory. But I hate the fact that those posts remain, because I want this site to be a constructive site for building up the dharma, not tearing down the sangha and ripping up the dharma; and I don't want to be putting my foot in my mouth to the degree that I won't be able to communicate with the wonderful standbys here.
I am one of 9 children, and 8 of us can be real horses arses at times. Not attractive, but true. I like to take myself with a huge lump of salt. It's not so bad for me, though, because I can laugh at myself, rather than at other people. That is the real heart of a genuine sense of humour, not taking oneself too seriously.
I love this Site, and as time goes on, I guess I'll delete about half of the posts I make. I wouldn't even be posting if I had to use my GIVEN name. My parents inculcated in us that "Fools' names and fools' faces always appear in public places." I guess I'll always be a wallflower, because of my parents' psychological training. Or a "Hidden Imam," if I'm really a Muslim...
Ah, but you're at the wheel, Captain, the Wheel of Dharma!
I envy that!
If This World Was Not Made for Thee, My Son, For Whom Was It Made?
Let the Path Ahead of Thee Be Peaceful, Thy Ways Strewn With Rays and Breezes, Bliss-Drenched, And the Road Behind Thee Littered With Potent Seeds of Joy. Let Thy Very Name Be Bliss!
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Xrayman, I delete my posts mainly for the reason that THEY EMBARRASS ME. That said, I often have found myself wondering WHY I posted, and so decided to delete my entry within 1-12 hours or so. On one thread, I would have deleted several posts had someone not QUOTED me. It got a bit snippy, but I felt that I could not retract after having been quoted. I put the guy on my ignore list for about 2 weeks, although he was conciliatory. But I hate the fact that those posts remain, because I want this site to be a constructive site for building up the dharma, not tearing down the sangha and ripping up the dharma; and I don't want to be putting my foot in my mouth to the degree that I won't be able to communicate with the wonderful standbys here.
I so know what you are talking about here. After posting at the site I mentioned previously that had become such a haven for trolls I found myself degenerating into this awful person so full of anger. I would be embarassed for anyone here to know how bad I got or what was said. And if I could go and take them back, there would be many I would retract. Not because they weren't true, but because they were not what I want to be. But in some ways I am learning that however I am at the moment is fine. Not that I don't strive to be the good person I know I am, but that when I find myself sliding down that slippery slope, I know that's O.K. too.
After I left there, people on other sites would say, I read your posts at ________. I realized that this stuff is out there for everyone to see. And people actually remember you from place to place sometimes. It was quite an ego boost at first but then sobering because I realized that I was on display for all the world to see.
"Even the Emperor's swiftest army on horseback can never retrieve the Careless Word, once spoken."
Ah, the rare luxury of the Edit/Delete button.....
Wouldn't that be great if we had the "preview post" option in our everyday exchanges? And then take it back if we changed our mind?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited February 2006
This is a portion of a PM I sent to a friend recently.....
....."Have you any idea how many people - complete strangers, from all walks of life, of all persuasions, proper or perverted - read these posts? 'You', (in the generic term, rather than personal) succumb to the knee-jerk reaction, provoked by the words and actions of others, and you address your posts to what you perceive is a limited group of on-line friends - people you feel you 'know' well and interact with on a daily basis.
Not so.
Think again......
People - everyone - do not give themselves the space to think. To stop. To consider what their words will do. What ripples will spread to become Tsunamis - what effect, long- or short-term, their raw, bare, exposed, emotive monologues will have. The written word is a powerful thing. Were it not so, we would have no books, no literature, no poetry, no newspapers.... Words convey and communicate. Skillful words skillfully, and careless words carelessly. You cannot alter this.
The one factor - without exception - that people forget when they expose their vulnerability and bare their Soul to the world - is DIGNITY.
I always, ALWAYS use the Eightfold Path with which to monitor my words. Capped off with -
"Is this Dignified?"
.....Because if even the tiniest grain of doubt creeps in, even after reading and re-reading, and I have even the mildest, most subtle misgiving about the dignity of the content (both from the viewpoint of what it will do to others, and the viewpoint of what it will do to my reputation) and the effect it will have overall - I WILL NOT POST.
NewBuddhist has gone through some trying times in the past couple of months. I have refrained from commenting in many situations, because much has happened to destabilise and threaten the peace and Friendliness of the mean equillibrium of the Forum.
In short, it is wise to always question whether one should dignify a situation by commenting......
At times, there is far more Dignity in silence, that in even the most carefully worded, well though-out appropriate statement."
One of the biggest hurdles in Buddhism in getting over the pride/conceit (mâna) of "I am" (asmin) as it relates to our psycho-physical body. There is a lot of resistance packed into this asmimana. People are hesitant to dump this. There are usually only four reasons for resisting change:
1) personal agenda is attacked
2) belief system is being forced to change too quickly
Buddhafoot, I wasn't disagreeing with you at all--just that one sentence, "You know who you are." Many people do lack insight into their behaviour (I know I'm one of them, at times.).
I've been deleting my previous messages in this thread (all 3 of them), because I didn't feel I had sufficient chatgroup experience (5 weeks) to be competent to make a judgment. But I will reiterate (and this time not erase what I've written): Angry and/or unhappy people don't often truly "know" they are that way, and the "knowledge" they have makes them think that they're "in the right." And, with their being rigidly "right-thinking," as it were, can there really be any dia-logue with them????
I would NOT categorize you or any of the NB standbys as angry or unhappy, but I do wonder what's wrong with anyone who doesn't just love you all. I make a beeline to any post by, say, Pilgrim just to be enlightened again on something really wonderful and well-said.
You standbys are rules to yourselves.
Love,
Nirvana
I didn't think that there was any real "disagreement" (if I can remember this thread correctly cuz I'm too lazy to go back and check) - just a different thought. Which is fine
And us "standbys" are rules to ourselves?
I don't know if you're including me in that statement - but I probably have more to learn here than everyone else put together.
One of the biggest hurdles in Buddhism in getting over the pride/conceit (mâna) of "I am" (asmin) as it relates to our psycho-physical body. There is a lot of resistance packed into this asmimana. People are hesitant to dump this. There are usually only four reasons for resisting change:
1) personal agenda is attacked
2) belief system is being forced to change too quickly
3) attachment to self-image
4) highly reactant attitude
I have to say that I agree with you 100%, Mujaku. I have much work to do.
Xrayman, I delete my posts mainly for the reason that THEY EMBARRASS ME. That said, I often have found myself wondering WHY I posted, and so decided to delete my entry within 1-12 hours or so.
Every time you delete a post, you're strengthening your neurosis.
This is a portion of a PM I sent to a friend recently.....
....."Have you any idea how many people - complete strangers, from all walks of life, of all persuasions, proper or perverted - read these posts? 'You', (in the generic term, rather than personal) succumb to the knee-jerk reaction, provoked by the words and actions of others, and you address your posts to what you perceive is a limited group of on-line friends - people you feel you 'know' well and interact with on a daily basis.
Not so.
Think again......
People - everyone - do not give themselves the space to think. To stop. To consider what their words will do. What ripples will spread to become Tsunamis - what effect, long- or short-term, their raw, bare, exposed, emotive monologues will have. The written word is a powerful thing. Were it not so, we would have no books, no literature, no poetry, no newspapers.... Words convey and communicate. Skillful words skillfully, and careless words carelessly. You cannot alter this.
The one factor - without exception - that people forget when they expose their vulnerability and bare their Soul to the world - is DIGNITY.
I always, ALWAYS use the Eightfold Path with which to monitor my words. Capped off with -
"Is this Dignified?"
.....Because if even the tiniest grain of doubt creeps in, even after reading and re-reading, and I have even the mildest, most subtle misgiving about the dignity of the content (both from the viewpoint of what it will do to others, and the viewpoint of what it will do to my reputation) and the effect it will have overall - I WILL NOT POST.
NewBuddhist has gone through some trying times in the past couple of months. I have refrained from commenting in many situations, because much has happened to destabilise and threaten the peace and Friendliness of the mean equillibrium of the Forum.
In short, it is wise to always question whether one should dignify a situation by commenting......
At times, there is far more Dignity in silence, that in even the most carefully worded, well though-out appropriate statement."
This is exactly how I feel. Some statements are not worthy of a response and the dignity that confers.
I just sat here and read this whole thread. My head is spinning a bit.
Being one of the newbies, I can reason for myself. One thing that is helpful is that when I don't understand something is the ability to ask for assistance. I am lucky that I have a temple to go to and a teacher to ask in the "real" world. But sometimes, context is important also. So I would ask a fellow board member. I can tell by the way that someone posts whether they know what they are talking about or wanting to get "their" poin across as I've done it on a few other boards and had to publicly apologize because I couldn't live with myself other wise.
Like Brigid, I've decided the best thing for me to do is use the ignore button. I've found that some posts have brought confusion to me and I don't need that at this point. I'm also adult enough to do something about it for myself. There is a part of me that is really against banning a person because one doesn't agree with their opinions. I do think people should have to prove their point, just like in debate, if it's called for. This can serve a couple of purposes.
1. It will force the author to have to think about their point and why they believe it and will strengthen them in their beief system.
2. It will teach us newbies different ways to look at the Dharma. One of the things I love about this board is that there are different schools of thought represented. I feel like I'm getting a better exposure to the Dharma that way. It also prevents Fundyism!
3. It will give people something to discuss and defend, not their character. I never doubted Rev. Genryu. I can relate to some of his personality quirks as I have some of them. I also have some of Mujaku's. I don't wish either ill will. But I'm going to listen to the one I think makes the most sense, in my opinion. Doesn't mean that one is better than the other, because they are fellow sufferers trying to walk on the path as they see best to do so. But I have to say I really dislike name calling. I don't know how many times Bibliolaters have said to me that "You couldn't have been a Born Again Christian if you don't follow it anymore". That's a judgement of me personally, not my reasoning skills. I guess what I'm trying to say is even if you don't agree with someone, be respectful.
Jer, The problem is not so much religion but those who use religion to carry out their wicked deeds. I can show you a lot in Christianity that surely must have been borrowed from Buddhism. The problem is the Babble thumpers. These knuckle-draggers don't understand their religion. Take for example their belief that 'Jesus died for our sins'. Well, in the original Greek it doesn't say that. This is what it really says.
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died (apethanen) because (huper) of our sins according to the writings (kata tas graphas)... — I Corinthians 15:3
As you can see, to admit this, Christians would have to admit that their evil actions caused the death of the Christ within them. As a consequence, they never see what part of them is saved and liberated (anastasis).
When a true Christian sins no more (sin meaning "to lose one's way") Christ is manifest in them so that they are annointed of the Holy Spirit. This of course is Mahayana Buddhism in which we are annointed by the Dharmakaya Buddha.
But why be a Christian when you have the real thing and become a Buddhist?
I can explain all of Christianity because I am a Buddhist. I can understand Judaism because I am a Buddhist. And I can understand the God of Islam because I am a Buddhist, viz., that all beings should bow to that which gives them life.
Eventually Maitreya will return (it can mean motherly in Sanskrit). All beings will be introducted to the very spirit which animates their day to day life. They will never fear death again (Mara the Evil One). Everything will preach perfect Dharma.
It was mentioned in an earlier post the site started getting attention towards the end of 2005. I am not sure how people have found their way here, I linked via an a sponsored on Google. Yes this website advertises via paid ads. This is bound to attract all comers of various degrees of interest or challenge. In fact it invites anyone to attend and participate. To then get all ruffled when this happens seems odd to me. It's interesting that complaints and problems listed in his thread mirror the problems of society at large. The first being numbers or quantity. As we encounter larger numbers of things we need to put in place rules and systems to cope with these. A good example is traffic lights or perhaps eggs. A farmer produces eggs in an increasing larger amount to supply a growing village. It soon becomes impractical to distribute them in wicker baskets due to breakage and the loss of baskets. He then moves on to egg boxes but gets complaints that some eggs are too small. He then has to start grading eggs by size and so on. We then have achieving order. When many people are involved we need to introduce rules. Go ahead and do this, people are quite used to being told what to do. In fact most people actively seek instruction in everyday life and get very confused if the rules are not there. Fasten your seat belt, walk - don't walk, go to lunch between 1 and 2, watch your soap at 5pm. Rules are not so bad and are essential for order and safety when larger quantities are involved. Try and use a 20 litre bottle of shampoo in the shower? Then there is freedom of speech, this is a complete fallacy. Have you ever tied to organize a riot. You can apply for a permit and as long you adhere to the times and stay between the orange markers you are FREE to demonstrate, and of course don't break any bylaws. Freedom itself is a ridiculous notion, there is no freedom. Buddhist realise that that we by most are prisoners of ourselves as individuals. Demonstrate how free you really are and remove that instrument of corporate control the television from your life, perhaps rather just exercise your constitutional right and keep on watching. Modern governments / corporations have found that it is easier is to control the population by rewarding them into submission than using the rod of rule. I will not insult you with a lecture on consumerism. This bring me to the final pivotal point. When you bring numbers of people together they will stratify. The most obvious being the haves and the have not's usually based on wealth. This forum displays the same characteristic. That being those with advanced knowledge of the dharma and Buddhist practise and others just starting out. There has been frustration from both camps voiced, those that feel overwhelmed and others that feel held back.The major difference, and the thing that makes it special and precious is that in society gangsters are able to quickly leap between strata. For those involved in Buddhist practise and learning there is no short-cut. As always the vociferous few stand out and a few bad things can eclipse many goods things. Cast your mind back to when "prisonerofjoy" joined the forum or go and reread that thread. Only fix what is broke.
I have tried to apply the 8FP to what I have just written and can only remember seven of them and can only really expand in any detail on four of them - just being honest.
Even a five-year-old could understand this, somebody bring me a five-year-old! - gaucho marx
ZM,
What about when you realize you have said something that you have thought better of? As a terminal smart aleck, I reread every post before I hit "Post Quick Reply". I do this less often now, but it was a way for me to think about what I've said and is it going to edify or not. Sometimes people need it blunt, which is usually where I fault at. So, I wouldn't say it's strengthening one's neurosis, it also can be a healthy thing.
Comments
This is what happens when people are allowed to go without rules. A person's character is maligned and they are forced to defend. Though the personal assault is not the topic at hand, we all must witness the defense if we are allowed to witness the assault. It's unfair to criticize an honorable person for defending themself publicly if someone is allowed to insult and criticize them publicly.
So, if in the future we would like to avoid such personal attacks and the necessary defense thereof, there should be rules to prevent the initial attack.
My major concern was that this forum not go the way other forums have gone, and AE's tactics are the same wherever he surfaces - to denigrate and dishonestly undermine anyone who confronts him who he feels is a threat in any way, so as to have more of a clear field for what he does. So, for that reason I felt it appropriate to set the record straight and restore some measure of honesty to what was happening. Thank you for speaking as you have. It is very much appreciated. Whilst it may appear that this is a purely personal matter, it's not. It is about the Dharma and how it's practiced, which is nothing to do with my opinion or AE's. My hope is that one day AE will remember what spiritual practice, whether Hindu, Buddhist or whatever, is about and I'm still an optimist on that score in the long term.
Genryu,
No, I do not think that 'history' is all this is about.
There seems to be far more going on than that.
The outbreak of what Christians call "text proofing" is significant. Experience suggests that disagreement over the meaning of texts rarely results in agreement. This is true in literature and even more so with scriptural or consecrated texts in our own language but add the factors of translation and context, and bingo! A perfect recipe for discord. As a translator and interpreter, I know that Eris's apple, which started the war of Troy, really said: "To the best translator".
In acknowledging any board owner's right to exclude any unwelcome guest, I have no hesitation in stating my deep dislike for the practice of banning. My own practice is to ask, by PM or email, the offenders to leave. If they do not, I ask them again, publicly, on an open forum, which submits my request to everyone in the house. Only if they continue to refuse to go and fail to amend their way of posting do I ban. Every time I have had to do so, I have had to confront the whole problem of "freedom of speech"/Right Speech.
I am still not clear why "AE and his group" should be banned. I have seen some personal insults which I found offensive but I don't place my right not to be offended above another's right to speak offensively. I have seen your views misrepresented and I have found that offensive. At the same time, I have more evidence that you are trustworthy than for the others. Whilst I am sure that 'they' (whichever new members are meant) have studied long, thought hard and practised, so far I don't know them.
Of course it is unpleasant to be attacked and this bitching is nasty but it may also be a necessary part of the growing-up of any group.
Addressing myself to "AE and his group": I have done what you are doing. I have jumped into groups and strutted my intellectual, academic and spiritual stuff. I have practised courtesy and good manners in 'real' life whilst allowing the vain and decitful peacock all his display in the 'unreal' world of the boards. But then, I began to make a few friends, rather special people who do not seem to mind my occasional lapses into jargon or obscureness. And I realised that there can be no difference between our practice in the two arenas. Use whatever words you like, karma is still karma: where you abuse, threaten, bully, make fun of people is irrelevant.
The New Buddhidt forum has been, in my estimation, a place where we meet with people of many different points of view as if in sanctuary. This is precious. A brief respite in the uphill struggle (or, in my case, downhill slide). You hold views which are very dear to you; so do others.
Many here are 'recovering' from some form of childhood indoctrination attempts, particularly by various Christian groups. Apologetics and "Dharma duels" re-open old wounds. If you want to teach us, let us teach you something in return. Let us teach you how we can genuinely practice Right Respect.
Can one change permissions to read only for fractious members? (You can start with me...;) )
I don't understand what pleasure some people get from ruining other people's fun - it's the same twisted mentality of hackers and virus creators. What I do know is that once people are allowed to get away with murder (or character assassination) it doesn't stop until they leave - either ignored to death or asked to go.
I've already said my piece about it ruining this forum so I'll just say that I can't bear to see people being hurtful for their own pleasure - it isn't big and it isn't clever, it's just sickmaking.
And, just for the record, I judge people by my own priciples - not the blathering and muckslinging of others. I make my own mind up and I know exactly who is and who isn't worth my time and effort here.
I think that you raise a very important point, WW. But I wonder if the conclusion is that we need rules.
As you say, it was uncomfortable to be challenged in our trust in Genryu. It raised all sorts of questions about our e-relationships that we prefer not to address.
I have said, elsewhere, that our behaviour on the Net and in the 'real' world can be completely different. We all know the stereotypes: the middle-aged paedophile posing as a teenager, the overweight adolescent transformed into Adonis/Aphrodite and all by the magic of the Net. We don't like to be reminded that we have no solid evidence that anyone is who they say they are. But is it any different out there, in the 'real' world? I read, just the other day, about a doctor who had been working, for years, in a hospital but had never qualified. He lied his way in, did a good job and stayed!
To me, whether Genryu is who he says he is or not is, now, irrelevant: I know him as an erudite, funny, witty, compassionate, passionate, infuriating, delightful correspondent. Nothing "AE and his group" can say could change that so their remarks only serve to get me to look at them. To date, they have sometimes stimulated me, often annoyed me but I know no real harm in them other than as gadflies. Perhaps they are more than that.
Genryu has given us fair warning that these people have been disruptive elsewhere. Are we so malleable and unfixed in our own opinions that we must, inevitably, be disrupted? That hasn't been my experience of this group.
The board I left had degenerated so much, that the personal photos and avatars (mine, most often) of those who posted well documented and honest posts were altered (by the trollers who had no real intellectual argument) with ridiculing devil horns and mustaches. I visited there recently and saw that a friend of mine's avatar had been dressed up with makeup. This particular friend had been "accused" of being gay. (On that board, that had become an insult of the highest sort, unfortunately.)
I have been followed from thread to thread by such individuals. I've even received threatening personal messages. And threads of mine which I believed were interesting and meant to provoke thoughtful discussion soon degenerated into name calling and mudslinging. So much so, that I would go for days not posting. All the while, my friends would kindly ask me to return and post more threads, saying I shouldn't let the trolls take over the place. The problem was there were no rules, the rules were at the whim of the webmaster.
I think Brian was justified in deleting the off topic posts, yet I also understand that such decisions should not be made under duress and on a whim. There should be standards in place so that deletions are uniform and fair.
These boards aren't worth that sort of conflict. And having just come from such a place, to see it happen here where I thought I had finally given up that sort of torture, was very diheartening. Though it did not include me I saw history repeating itself. If we inadvertently allow this place to be a haven for "trolls" word will soon get out and they will "take over the place." Sorry, I know that sounds dramatic.
The Zenmar Interview
In the electronic sangha of America Online the voice of Zenmar is distinctive and his knowledge is honored. It is unusual for him to visit a Buddhist chatroom, but when he does attention turns to him as an arbiter of theory and practice...
This hypocrisy from a man who has been banned from several forums and had many posts deleted here.
I'm relatively new to Buddhism, and to this forum, though I've spent far more time passively "on" it than my meagre postings might suggest. I've found it an extraordinarily helpful place, and I owe a debt of gratitude to many contributors who will never know how helpful they've been to me. All of that is down to Brian for starting this forum and in no small measure to Federica for the light touch with which she has moderated. I've also been on e-sangha and my excitement at finding that forum died on the first post I read when a Moderator came crashing in throwing his certainties about and trampling everyone else underfoot; the atmosphere "here" is very different. Thank you.
As for whether rules and bannings are necessary, Freedom of Speech is important, but few freedoms are absolute. My freedom to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. And I'm not even sure it's a Freedom of Speech issue; if Brian were to decide to ban someone then they are free to carry on, on their own site. One shouldn't confuse Freedom of Speech with an Obligation to Listen.
As for this case, I didn't set the apparently personal attack on ZMG that has been referred to, so I can't comment on it, though, given the respect / affection in which I'm guessing most users of this site (myself for one) hold ZMG, I suspect the attacker harmed only himself.
If those who moderate feel they need bannings or rules to help them, I don't see that anyone could complain. One final thought, though; it has been suggested that banning or rules might be needed to protect "new" Buddhists like me. Certainly, I haven't found e.g. Mujaku's posts helpful. I don't suppose Mujaku will mind my saying that one bit, since I don't imagine he's aiming his comments at me or anyone like me. But I don't mind them for myself, and that wouldn't be a reason for banning anyone, because I'm going to direct my control panel to ignore him. Bye Mujaku, may you be well.
Martin
There are people here who have differences and who have the forethought to reply in calm and concise tones while still respecting other members. Even when they disagree, there is the mutual respect contained within their posts.
There are others here, who 98% of the time, poison their posts with sarcasm, cruelty, condescending tones, belittlement and acid. They pontificate like their opinion is the only one that makes this world turn round.
You know who you are. You contribute little or nothing and, in my opinion, do nothing but make others feel uncomfortable.
Since I can't make you go away - I just ignore you. Your spoutings contain nothing of the basic teachings of Buddha - yet you wish for us to wade into "deep waters" with you concerning your own deep teachings.
So - whoever "you" may be - I refuse to take what you offer to this sangha and leave it with you. I hope you enjoy it.
Do I need someone to tell me what to do or how to act? I don't believe so. I can use Buddha's teachings to help me discern what I should and should not be participating in. Isn't that part of the learning? Choosing what we wish to partake of?
Brian does make a good point... if you can't view these various threads without it causing you distress - throw them on your "ignore" list.
As for the other members, both new and old, I'm glad to participate in this forum with you.
-bf
WW - you make some great points and I'm glad that no one has taken to stalking here - because that is just spooky. I've had someone do stuff like this to me in the past and it is just downright SPOOKY.
But, on the other hand, I do honestly believe that it is a perfect opportunity for "Right ..." teachings.
This can be a little lesson for us here to learn compassion. To learn long-suffering. Not that we have to partake of various rantings or abuse, but that we can learn to not let it affect us and rob us of feelings and help for our fellow beings.
I got your back if you've got mine
-bf
That's true, BF. Unfortunately, I usually turn it into an opportunity to become a martyr which I GREATLY enjoy. It's my dirty little secret. Whoops! Not anymore!:D
Consider your back gotten.
Is that really true?
I mean, most of the Buddhist stories or teachings I have read is one of pacifism and compassion.
Not pacifism to the point of allowing others to be hurt - but to truly act with compassion, or at the other end of the spectrum - to ignore. Buddha even decided not to partake of people's ranting and insults - and doing so, left them with what they offered.
Because really... this is just an internet site and these are just words. Should be become so afflicted at the simple words of someone? Should we let these words rob us of our peace? And what will saying "No" do to someone who is no more of a practicing Buddhist than.... Charles Manson?
Nothing. It just feeds their fire which burns all the more brightly.
What do you think?
-bf
What to do when a new member comes onboard with an agenda that clearly has nothing to do with Brian's intentions for his site and starts trouble by using tactics that are also clearly not Buddhist;
(1) Can we come to a consensus that this new member has nothing of value to offer other than an opportunity to practice and to embrace change by shaking us out of complacency which our lives give us in abundance, already, everyday?
(2) Can we come to a consensus not to ban this new member nor delete their posts nor to institute new rules which would set a precedent some members do not want to set?
(3) Can we come to a consensus to alert the community when this happens and to leave it up to the discretion of each individual member whether or not to use the "ignore" option or to engage in fruitless debate with this new member which would encourage them?
I believe the "ignore" option is there for a good reason and should be used in situations of this kind. It is civil disobedience except instead of going limp we are doing exactly what Buddhafoot reminded us the Buddha did when faced with abuse; listen and then simply leave that offering with the person who offered it. It's simple, clean, and takes no more time and energy than what is required to come to a community agreement as to the value of the offering and then to click on a button. That's all.
If we can't come to an agreement on the value of the offering there will be no community alert and the members will still have the option of ignoring or engaging the person in question.
What do you all think?
When thoughts are quieted down, fire itself is cool and refreshing.
I have to admit, you are a lightning rod; and I almost gave up nihilism, accepting rebirth and the chance that I could actually awaken to the Buddha Mind and be reborn in Brahmaloka! However, my depression again got the best of me. Yes, I have been hitting the sake pretty hard.
This is not going to hurt Mu, I promise. Just roll up the sleeves of your robe that came from Hui-Neng's temple in China. See, it is painless to go into Skinner extinction (zero stimulus). Soon you will be no more. Then we can all go back to being self-willed little children making up our own Buddhism.
:cheer:
Going back awhile I started a thread about Pudgalavadins. Now I made the BIGGEST mistake I could make in that I hadn't fully read the material that I had posted and that I didn't put down who the original author was. It was really bad stuff, I know not smart!!!!!!!! I still cringe over this one!!!!!:eek2:
Some here were upset at me and rightly so, others just ignored it and some thought it was okay. The point is ALL OF YOU were great. I learnt my lesson and you allowed me to come back and start a fresh. You didn't ban me or what I posted, you allowed the group here to have their say and I applaud this.
I just wanted to put down that I'm proud to be apart of this cybersanga and I really enjoy "talking" to you all.:thumbsup:
It takes a man of Great dignity to post this and I applaud you.
There is nothing wrong with argumentation. Only those who have huge egos fear losing them in an argument who are extremely attached to their prejudices which they can't defend with evidence.
One of the classical arguments NB discussants here should be familiar with took place in the middle part of 15th century between the last Platonist, Gemistos Plethon, who represented the Orthodox Church, and Scholarios who represented the Catholic Church.
Plethon's responses to Scholarios were cutting. it would make an oversensitive NB faint. There were no at length personal attacks, in the example of, "Mujaku is so-in-so who is an evil person--ergo he needs to be kicked out." These disputants didn't act like self-willed brats. They clashed tooth-an-nail, but more often with ideas and evidence.
Here are just two responses by Plethon to Scholarios from the dispute which may serve to exemplify the tone of the argument.
"We shall continue to maintain our argument, though not at your interminable length, and to expose your errors. As for the rest of 'your empty boasting about yourself and your abuse of ourselves, which leave us cold, it shall be left to other to treat them with derision'."
"Why then make such a fool of yourself by placing Aristotle above Plato? 'All philosophers agree that Aristotle is extremely perceptive over minor, trivial details, like a bat in the dark, but when confronted with major ideas of the most brilliant kinds he is, to use the same simile, as totally blind as that creature in daylight.'"
Anyone can read this argument in C.M. Woodhouse's book, George Gemistos Plethon: The Last of the Hellenes (1986). It is instructive for anyone wishing to grasp the boundaries of a good dispute which, in some cases, can get downright nasty. But these men believed in their ideas and were willing to defend them to the hilt in open debate.
The tone of their dispute is a far cry from what goes on in a typical Buddhist forum which some wish to be run like an asylum for the oversensitive who have lost their privilege and power in a changing society and hope to regain it in a Buddhist discussion forum as censors.
Likewise Esau, and my apologies for being so abrupt with you. I think I misjudged you.
I read your post anyway
That's okay that you disagree with me - as I was just posting what "I" thought - which is by no means what other people should think.
Disagreement isn't a bad thing. There are many teachings where people have disagreements. I believe the Bible even has a passage of "let us reason together".
I don't believe that anyone has a problem with disagreements. In fact, I had one with ZenMonk yesterday. I either didn't agree with what he was saying or felt that I needed clarification - and I told him so.
What I didn't do was say: "ZenMonk, how can someone so full of shit manage to use a keyboard without messing up the keyboard? You think you know everything, but you don't. I laugh at your posts and the inane teachings of those who's writings I wipe my bottom with. You are stupid."
I don't think this type of behavior serves any purpose and is directly against the teachings of Buddha.
I remember when Brigid and I were having a discussion about issues that, obviously, affect both of us. It actually took a turn that I wasn't prepared for and, unfortunately, I found out that my statements - while not meaning to intend harm - did in fact cause harm.
Elohim posted a passage from a sutta (because, Jason is our Sutta-Boy
It hurt. Bugged my ego that Jason was butting into a conversation with more of his sutta stuff - but the more I thought about it - the more I found it was true. While not my intention to harm, I should have used more Right Mindfulness, Right Intention, Right Speech and compassion. While I really didn't think that I was doing something that he was comparing to a sutta - since it did bug my frail little "ego" - I probably did need to review my actions.
I believe if we actually decide to use the teachings of Buddha, recognize our "self" and our "ego" - there is no need to ban anyone. I believe the teachings we're using will help us in what we need to do.
Or at least that's what I'm trying to do.
Okay - enough rambling. I can't even remember where I was going with this. Where's my coffee???
-bf
HH
-bf
I wasn't disagreeing with you at all--just that one sentence, "You know who you are." Many people do lack insight into their behaviour (I know I'm one of them, at times.).
I've been deleting my previous messages in this thread (all 3 of them), because I didn't feel I had sufficient chatgroup experience (5 weeks) to be competent to make a judgment. But I will reiterate (and this time not erase what I've written): Angry and/or unhappy people don't often truly "know" they are that way, and the "knowledge" they have makes them think that they're "in the right." And, with their being rigidly "right-thinking," as it were, can there really be any dia-logue with them????
I would NOT categorize you or any of the NB standbys as angry or unhappy, but I do wonder what's wrong with anyone who doesn't just love you all. I make a beeline to any post by, say, Pilgrim just to be enlightened again on something really wonderful and well-said.
You standbys are rules to yourselves.
Love,
Nirvana
Look I've written some stuff that I wish I could take back, but you know-I'm going to let them sit-stuff it! if someone does not agree or argues against your post (and I've had my share) forget it-move on.
let the truth stand for how you see it-it is after all-your own post.
cheers.
I am one of 9 children, and 8 of us can be real horses arses at times. Not attractive, but true. I like to take myself with a huge lump of salt. It's not so bad for me, though, because I can laugh at myself, rather than at other people. That is the real heart of a genuine sense of humour, not taking oneself too seriously.
I love this Site, and as time goes on, I guess I'll delete about half of the posts I make. I wouldn't even be posting if I had to use my GIVEN name. My parents inculcated in us that "Fools' names and fools' faces always appear in public places." I guess I'll always be a wallflower, because of my parents' psychological training. Or a "Hidden Imam," if I'm really a Muslim...
Embarrassment is me, Nirvana.
peace.
I envy that!
For Whom Was It Made?
Let the Path Ahead of Thee Be Peaceful,
Thy Ways Strewn With Rays and Breezes, Bliss-Drenched,
And the Road Behind Thee Littered With Potent Seeds of Joy.
Let Thy Very Name Be Bliss!
Chinese proverb:
"Even the Emperor's swiftest army on horseback can never retrieve the Careless Word, once spoken."
Ah, the rare luxury of the Edit/Delete button.....
I so know what you are talking about here. After posting at the site I mentioned previously that had become such a haven for trolls I found myself degenerating into this awful person so full of anger. I would be embarassed for anyone here to know how bad I got or what was said. And if I could go and take them back, there would be many I would retract. Not because they weren't true, but because they were not what I want to be. But in some ways I am learning that however I am at the moment is fine. Not that I don't strive to be the good person I know I am, but that when I find myself sliding down that slippery slope, I know that's O.K. too.
After I left there, people on other sites would say, I read your posts at ________. I realized that this stuff is out there for everyone to see. And people actually remember you from place to place sometimes. It was quite an ego boost at first but then sobering because I realized that I was on display for all the world to see.
Wouldn't that be great if we had the "preview post" option in our everyday exchanges? And then take it back if we changed our mind?
....."Have you any idea how many people - complete strangers, from all walks of life, of all persuasions, proper or perverted - read these posts? 'You', (in the generic term, rather than personal) succumb to the knee-jerk reaction, provoked by the words and actions of others, and you address your posts to what you perceive is a limited group of on-line friends - people you feel you 'know' well and interact with on a daily basis.
Not so.
Think again......
People - everyone - do not give themselves the space to think. To stop. To consider what their words will do. What ripples will spread to become Tsunamis - what effect, long- or short-term, their raw, bare, exposed, emotive monologues will have. The written word is a powerful thing. Were it not so, we would have no books, no literature, no poetry, no newspapers.... Words convey and communicate. Skillful words skillfully, and careless words carelessly. You cannot alter this.
The one factor - without exception - that people forget when they expose their vulnerability and bare their Soul to the world - is DIGNITY.
I always, ALWAYS use the Eightfold Path with which to monitor my words. Capped off with -
"Is this Dignified?"
.....Because if even the tiniest grain of doubt creeps in, even after reading and re-reading, and I have even the mildest, most subtle misgiving about the dignity of the content (both from the viewpoint of what it will do to others, and the viewpoint of what it will do to my reputation) and the effect it will have overall - I WILL NOT POST.
NewBuddhist has gone through some trying times in the past couple of months. I have refrained from commenting in many situations, because much has happened to destabilise and threaten the peace and Friendliness of the mean equillibrium of the Forum.
In short, it is wise to always question whether one should dignify a situation by commenting......
At times, there is far more Dignity in silence, that in even the most carefully worded, well though-out appropriate statement."
1) personal agenda is attacked
2) belief system is being forced to change too quickly
3) attachment to self-image
4) highly reactant attitude
and they bought it?
I didn't think that there was any real "disagreement" (if I can remember this thread correctly cuz I'm too lazy to go back and check) - just a different thought. Which is fine
And us "standbys" are rules to ourselves?
I don't know if you're including me in that statement - but I probably have more to learn here than everyone else put together.
There are no "standbys", my friend.
-bf
I have to say that I agree with you 100%, Mujaku. I have much work to do.
-bf
Every time you delete a post, you're strengthening your neurosis.
This is exactly how I feel. Some statements are not worthy of a response and the dignity that confers.
Being one of the newbies, I can reason for myself. One thing that is helpful is that when I don't understand something is the ability to ask for assistance. I am lucky that I have a temple to go to and a teacher to ask in the "real" world. But sometimes, context is important also. So I would ask a fellow board member. I can tell by the way that someone posts whether they know what they are talking about or wanting to get "their" poin across as I've done it on a few other boards and had to publicly apologize because I couldn't live with myself other wise.
Like Brigid, I've decided the best thing for me to do is use the ignore button. I've found that some posts have brought confusion to me and I don't need that at this point. I'm also adult enough to do something about it for myself. There is a part of me that is really against banning a person because one doesn't agree with their opinions. I do think people should have to prove their point, just like in debate, if it's called for. This can serve a couple of purposes.
1. It will force the author to have to think about their point and why they believe it and will strengthen them in their beief system.
2. It will teach us newbies different ways to look at the Dharma. One of the things I love about this board is that there are different schools of thought represented. I feel like I'm getting a better exposure to the Dharma that way. It also prevents Fundyism!
3. It will give people something to discuss and defend, not their character. I never doubted Rev. Genryu. I can relate to some of his personality quirks as I have some of them. I also have some of Mujaku's. I don't wish either ill will. But I'm going to listen to the one I think makes the most sense, in my opinion. Doesn't mean that one is better than the other, because they are fellow sufferers trying to walk on the path as they see best to do so. But I have to say I really dislike name calling. I don't know how many times Bibliolaters have said to me that "You couldn't have been a Born Again Christian if you don't follow it anymore". That's a judgement of me personally, not my reasoning skills. I guess what I'm trying to say is even if you don't agree with someone, be respectful.
My two cents worth.
As you can see, to admit this, Christians would have to admit that their evil actions caused the death of the Christ within them. As a consequence, they never see what part of them is saved and liberated (anastasis).
When a true Christian sins no more (sin meaning "to lose one's way") Christ is manifest in them so that they are annointed of the Holy Spirit. This of course is Mahayana Buddhism in which we are annointed by the Dharmakaya Buddha.
But why be a Christian when you have the real thing and become a Buddhist?
I can explain all of Christianity because I am a Buddhist. I can understand Judaism because I am a Buddhist. And I can understand the God of Islam because I am a Buddhist, viz., that all beings should bow to that which gives them life.
Eventually Maitreya will return (it can mean motherly in Sanskrit). All beings will be introducted to the very spirit which animates their day to day life. They will never fear death again (Mara the Evil One). Everything will preach perfect Dharma.
I have tried to apply the 8FP to what I have just written and can only remember seven of them and can only really expand in any detail on four of them - just being honest.
Even a five-year-old could understand this, somebody bring me a five-year-old! - gaucho marx
What about when you realize you have said something that you have thought better of? As a terminal smart aleck, I reread every post before I hit "Post Quick Reply". I do this less often now, but it was a way for me to think about what I've said and is it going to edify or not. Sometimes people need it blunt, which is usually where I fault at. So, I wouldn't say it's strengthening one's neurosis, it also can be a healthy thing.