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.
They seem nice enough, but like you say, a bit serious. I think it would do some of them good to explore the wider Buddhist world a little, maybe open up horizons somewhat.
@federica said:
but frankly, if this is how they run the site, it will gradually peter out to nothing, without proper administration...
To be fair, I sometimes let applicants sit for several days too. It's extremely hard to remember every day, especially when you're talking about months and years, not a few weeks. It's not like there's positive feedback for reading those "reasons for joining" every day of your life. :-/
@federica said:
Yes, but I believe we get close to between 10 - 30 applicants per day (I could be off with that estimate, it's only something I saw in the past....) and a few obvious spammers, spam-bots and time-wasters into the bargain...Linc does a very good job at keeping them in check, all things considered...
We've actually got it smoothed out to about 2-10 applicants per day, 95% legit. Our filters are getting better.
@DhammaDragon said:
And there's not much room for jokes or chilling in the Dhamma over there.
It's far harder to choose and set a community tone than most people (forum owners included) realize. Installing software does not make you good at managing a community.
The early life of a forum is particularly critical for establishing what is acceptable and what is not. When you participate on an established community like this one, folks still quibble over all the gray areas, not realizing the area of disagreement is 1% the size of the very large, established culture.
And I mentioned that there are not a lot of posts over there. But, perhaps that is understandable since they (supposedly) restrain their perspective to one school of Buddhism, where we here take it all in.
@vinlyn said:
And I mentioned that there are not a lot of posts over there. But, perhaps that is understandable since they (supposedly) restrain their perspective to one school of Buddhism, where we here take it all in.
It took 2-3 years for this site to hit critical mass. It's not a quick process.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@vinlyn said:
And I mentioned that there are not a lot of posts over there. But, perhaps that is understandable since they (supposedly) restrain their perspective to one school of Buddhism, where we here take it all in.
You've hit the nail on the head (in this post and a couple others). I found myself thinking about this while doing something else, and it hit me how incredibly difficult it is -- for whatEVER reason, it is human nature -- to form a 'new' group with relatively unexamined, unexplored conceptual ideologies as goal posts.
What I mean by that is . . what in the HELL does 'secular' mean anyway?? No one here is scratching their head when 'secular' is discussed but it goes a helluva lot deeper into experience than that.
I see that 'difficulty' as what makes it a little stiff and a little quieter over there. Granted this is probably pretty obvious and I'm just now catching on lol. I sense over there folks are totally sincere, there is so LITTLE egotism among that 'leaders' that this itself has dampened the kindling LOL.
@Hamsaka. The last sentence of your post was so very insightful.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I read @SpinyNorman thread there on what made them choose secular Buddhism and I found the answers less than encouraging to be honest.
I saw a discussion about theism co-existing with natural selection but we've had that one here too.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited August 2014
@Hamsaka One of the mods/members over there kept saying "from a naturalistic perspective" or something like that. It's as good a way as any to say "Buddhism without accepting supernatural causation". I think that's what secular is coming to mean for them... naturalistic Buddhism, which also means minimalistic because it concentrates on the knowable and on practice. That's the picture I'm getting, and it's okay. I'm just not that into the forum.
What I mean by that is . . what in the HELL does 'secular' mean anyway?? No one here is scratching their head when 'secular' is discussed but it goes a helluva lot deeper into experience than that
I think they are still trying to work out some kind of broad consensus on that. I sense it won't be easy because a group like that tends to attract people who don't like any kind of orthodoxy, tradition or received wisdom. So inevitably there will be a strong element of individualism, people who are determined to do things exactly how they want to do them - which will make a consensus quite difficult to achieve!
I'm sure they'll work it out, and in time will develop their own orthodoxy.
I think that's what secular is coming to mean for them... naturalistic Buddhism, which also means minimalistic because it concentrates on the knowable and on practice. That's the picture I'm getting, and it's okay. I'm just not that into the forum.
Though as I pointed out, there are established traditions in Theravada and Zen that do that pretty well already. But I guess we humans do have a need to continually re-invent the wheel.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
@SpinyNorman Their replies about why they didn't go with established traditions seemed respectable enough. They seem to have done the same thing I have, which is to find your own way in the absence of a teacher. Many people do this, but people who don't take things on blind faith (those who are more apt to be agnostics or atheists than theists) will tend to ignore a lot more (due to unknowability) than those who would be theists. There's a divide that boils down to the amount of skepticism you apply to claims, and people fall on different sides to greater and lesser extents.
1
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@AldrisTorvalds said:
Hamsaka One of the mods/members over there kept saying "from a naturalistic perspective" or something like that. It's as good a way as any to say "Buddhism without accepting supernatural causation". I think that's what secular is coming to mean for them... naturalistic Buddhism, which also means minimalistic because it concentrates on the knowable and on practice. That's the picture I'm getting, and it's okay. I'm just not that into the forum.
EXACTLY. This was 'bugging' me I guess but couldn't articulate it. The 'minimalism' over there is not intentional, but it is inevitable because it is the naturalistic (ha ha) consequence of one's best efforts to exclude NONnaturalistic (ie, supernatural) phenomenon. It's a lot like being in a room that shrinks every time you chuck out an idea that's too 'religious' or 'supernatural'.
Gives good food for thought . . . almost in a mathematical way, where equations are not wishful thinking, they are what they are whether we fancy "Y" being what it is or not.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
@Hamsaka True, but I'd say no one's excluding supernatural phenomena. They're only excluding untestable claims about the existence of supernatural phenomena or causation that are not, essentially, different in nature to the untestable claims of other religions. I understand what they're doing; I do it myself to a large degree. It's not about putting your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen, or covering your eyes and refusing to see, it's about there being nothing there to hear or see. Those things that can be known, like the cessation of suffering, therefore become the focus of thought and practice. I think it's better that way, but I'm a Skeptic so that's my way.
1
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@SpinyNorman said:
I'm sure they'll work it out, and in time will develop their own orthodoxy.
That's inevitable too, unless enough of the forum 'leaders' are consciously aware of their own intentions. Well, it's probably inevitable no matter what. Orthodoxies are not good or bad necessarily. If there were no orthodoxies, the means by which we are here discussing orthodoxies would not exist. Wonder if what we'd be doing instead is a better use of our time? Ooh, that sounds so schoolmarmish . . .
@AldrisTorvalds said:
...I'd say no one's excluding supernatural phenomena. They're only excluding untestable claims about the existence of supernatural phenomena or causation that are not, essentially, different in nature to the untestable claims of other religions. I understand what they're doing; I do it myself to a large degree. It's not about putting your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen, or covering your eyes and refusing to see, it's about there being nothing there to hear or see. Those things that can be known, like the cessation of suffering, therefore become the focus of thought and practice. I think it's better that way, but I'm a Skeptic so that's my way.
Yes. Spend some time in Thailand. Visit the dozens of temples that claim to have Buddha's breast bone buried in a chedi, or even his heart. It's not unusual to find "naturally mummified monks" whose bodies were preserved by magic.
They seem to have done the same thing I have, which is to find your own way in the absence of a teacher.
So is Stephen Batchelor not their teacher? Or is it a secular Buddhist thing that you don't admit to having a teacher, as that sounds a bit too "orthodox"?
You can find out about all sorts of Buddhists teachings and teachers on the internet and in books, so people clearly are making a choice.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited August 2014
@SpinyNorman He seems to be one of the people that they identify as an inspiration (or maybe just as a Secular Buddhist example), probably because he's an author that largely follows a naturalistic approach. I don't think they follow him though like a guru or teacher. I know that I don't follow him or anyone in particular, though I've read some of his books.
I think people are in danger of thinking Secular Buddhism has a leader, much in the way they've mistaken Atheism as having people like Richard Dawkins as a leader (or the other Four Horsemen). These parallels seem obvious to me because I seem to belong to both camps, and have had to deal with the misconceptions about atheism before.
If Secular Buddhism had a leader, that would mean that his word was dogma and disagreement would mean you weren't being a proper Secular Buddhist. It'd be like Catholics not following the Pope about birth control. I don't see that happening; no one has that kind of authority because it's not a real organization; it's a coming together of like-minded people that follow similar methods under the umbrella term "Secular Buddhist", much like "Atheist" means anyone that doesn't believe in gods (though their actual beliefs and politics can vary, and they're still atheists regardless).
@SpinyNorman said:
You can find out about all sorts of Buddhists teachings and teachers on the internet and in books, so people clearly are making a choice.
Stephen Batchelor is not my teacher. Although apparently he is a major -- though appointed -- spokesperson for the movement. To me he's just one voice.
Of course, speaking of the supernatural, I bought a book by Batchelor though Amazon. I began reading it. Got through about 20 pages. And could never find the book again. Trying to tell me something???
:eek2:
2
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
@vinlyn I liked "Alone With Others" and "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist". His better-known book "Buddhism Without Beliefs" was just redundant reading for me, and I didn't necessarily agree with everything he said anyway.
The place seems OK, and I saw DD there, but some of the topics made me laugh. I like the one criticizing Access to Insight for having a shitty search function and not having every sutta translation, suggesting this is meant (in a seemingly conspiratorial way) to discourage any kind of systematic search and comparison of texts, as well as any challenge to Theravadin orthodoxy.
While the site owner is explicit that Access to Insight is "dedicated to providing accurate, reliable, and useful information concerning the practice and study of Theravada Buddhism," and that the "readings assembled here represent just a selection of the Buddha's teachings" that he's found helpful over the years, he admits that "this collection is not meant to be an exhaustive archive of Theravada Buddhist texts." In addition, some of the suttas that are absent may be so because of copy right issues and/or the fact that Thanissaro Bhikkhu hasn't translated them yet, not any kind of religious bias. Also, decent search functions are hard to code (just ask @Linc ).
Then again, we did have a thread about whether Kurt Cobain was a bodhisattva, so pot and kettle and all that... All in all, I find some of the more secular-minded posters insightful and some of them aggressive and just as biased as the religious Buddhists they criticize. But I find the same of 'religious' Buddhists, so I don't hold that against them. I'd join if I wasn't content here and DhammaWheel.
As several of Stephen Batchelor's books have been mentioned I found Living with the Devil to be quite interesting.
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 August 2014
@Jason said:
lol, I meant that you've had experience with it and that it's not as easy as people might assume.
@Jason, I have to say, I have NEVER assumed anything @Linc does, is easy. I never cease to be amazed at his techno-prowess, and even though I'm far more confident in front of a screen and at a keyboard than I was a while ago, I know I'd have to re-live several lifetimes before I even begin to grasp a fraction of what he knows.
I honestly think it has a lot to do with how brains are wired; I would venture to guess that some of the most expert minds in the technology business are of the male gender; and I would think there may be a couple of things I know how to do, better than Linc does.
But the gist of the discussion is not, obviously, the technological comparison and aspect of the sites; it's content, approachability, friendliness and ease of personal use, with regard to exchange and discursive engagement.
And in that, I personally think we're streets ahead of other sites, here.
But the gist of the discussion is not, obviously, the technological comparison and aspect of the sites; it's content, approachability, friendliness and ease of personal use, with regard to exchange and discursive engagement.
And in that, I personally think we're streets ahead of other sites, here.
:bawl: .
It' strudel. (that was meant to say 'it's true' but I think the autocorrect was fortuitous)
Spread the teaching through being rather than being 'right', 'righteous' and a dharmic corrective . . .
@AldrisTorvalds said:
If Secular Buddhism had a leader, that would mean that his word was dogma and disagreement would mean you weren't being a proper Secular Buddhist.
Comments
They seem nice enough, but like you say, a bit serious. I think it would do some of them good to explore the wider Buddhist world a little, maybe open up horizons somewhat.
To be fair, I sometimes let applicants sit for several days too. It's extremely hard to remember every day, especially when you're talking about months and years, not a few weeks. It's not like there's positive feedback for reading those "reasons for joining" every day of your life. :-/
We've actually got it smoothed out to about 2-10 applicants per day, 95% legit. Our filters are getting better.
It's far harder to choose and set a community tone than most people (forum owners included) realize. Installing software does not make you good at managing a community.
The early life of a forum is particularly critical for establishing what is acceptable and what is not. When you participate on an established community like this one, folks still quibble over all the gray areas, not realizing the area of disagreement is 1% the size of the very large, established culture.
And I mentioned that there are not a lot of posts over there. But, perhaps that is understandable since they (supposedly) restrain their perspective to one school of Buddhism, where we here take it all in.
It took 2-3 years for this site to hit critical mass. It's not a quick process.
You've hit the nail on the head (in this post and a couple others). I found myself thinking about this while doing something else, and it hit me how incredibly difficult it is -- for whatEVER reason, it is human nature -- to form a 'new' group with relatively unexamined, unexplored conceptual ideologies as goal posts.
What I mean by that is . . what in the HELL does 'secular' mean anyway?? No one here is scratching their head when 'secular' is discussed but it goes a helluva lot deeper into experience than that.
I see that 'difficulty' as what makes it a little stiff and a little quieter over there. Granted this is probably pretty obvious and I'm just now catching on lol. I sense over there folks are totally sincere, there is so LITTLE egotism among that 'leaders' that this itself has dampened the kindling LOL.
@Hamsaka. The last sentence of your post was so very insightful.
I read @SpinyNorman thread there on what made them choose secular Buddhism and I found the answers less than encouraging to be honest.
I saw a discussion about theism co-existing with natural selection but we've had that one here too.
@Hamsaka One of the mods/members over there kept saying "from a naturalistic perspective" or something like that. It's as good a way as any to say "Buddhism without accepting supernatural causation". I think that's what secular is coming to mean for them... naturalistic Buddhism, which also means minimalistic because it concentrates on the knowable and on practice. That's the picture I'm getting, and it's okay. I'm just not that into the forum.
What I mean by that is . . what in the HELL does 'secular' mean anyway?? No one here is scratching their head when 'secular' is discussed but it goes a helluva lot deeper into experience than that
I think they are still trying to work out some kind of broad consensus on that. I sense it won't be easy because a group like that tends to attract people who don't like any kind of orthodoxy, tradition or received wisdom. So inevitably there will be a strong element of individualism, people who are determined to do things exactly how they want to do them - which will make a consensus quite difficult to achieve!
I'm sure they'll work it out, and in time will develop their own orthodoxy.
I think that's what secular is coming to mean for them... naturalistic Buddhism, which also means minimalistic because it concentrates on the knowable and on practice. That's the picture I'm getting, and it's okay. I'm just not that into the forum.
Though as I pointed out, there are established traditions in Theravada and Zen that do that pretty well already. But I guess we humans do have a need to continually re-invent the wheel.
@SpinyNorman Their replies about why they didn't go with established traditions seemed respectable enough. They seem to have done the same thing I have, which is to find your own way in the absence of a teacher. Many people do this, but people who don't take things on blind faith (those who are more apt to be agnostics or atheists than theists) will tend to ignore a lot more (due to unknowability) than those who would be theists. There's a divide that boils down to the amount of skepticism you apply to claims, and people fall on different sides to greater and lesser extents.
EXACTLY. This was 'bugging' me I guess but couldn't articulate it. The 'minimalism' over there is not intentional, but it is inevitable because it is the naturalistic (ha ha) consequence of one's best efforts to exclude NONnaturalistic (ie, supernatural) phenomenon. It's a lot like being in a room that shrinks every time you chuck out an idea that's too 'religious' or 'supernatural'.
Gives good food for thought . . . almost in a mathematical way, where equations are not wishful thinking, they are what they are whether we fancy "Y" being what it is or not.
@Hamsaka True, but I'd say no one's excluding supernatural phenomena. They're only excluding untestable claims about the existence of supernatural phenomena or causation that are not, essentially, different in nature to the untestable claims of other religions. I understand what they're doing; I do it myself to a large degree. It's not about putting your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen, or covering your eyes and refusing to see, it's about there being nothing there to hear or see. Those things that can be known, like the cessation of suffering, therefore become the focus of thought and practice. I think it's better that way, but I'm a Skeptic so that's my way.
That's inevitable too, unless enough of the forum 'leaders' are consciously aware of their own intentions. Well, it's probably inevitable no matter what. Orthodoxies are not good or bad necessarily. If there were no orthodoxies, the means by which we are here discussing orthodoxies would not exist. Wonder if what we'd be doing instead is a better use of our time? Ooh, that sounds so schoolmarmish . . .
Yes. Spend some time in Thailand. Visit the dozens of temples that claim to have Buddha's breast bone buried in a chedi, or even his heart. It's not unusual to find "naturally mummified monks" whose bodies were preserved by magic.
Orthodoxies are not good or bad necessarily.
Yes, that was sort of my point. People can get so caught up in what they're rejecting that they lose sight of what they're trying to create.
They seem to have done the same thing I have, which is to find your own way in the absence of a teacher.
So is Stephen Batchelor not their teacher? Or is it a secular Buddhist thing that you don't admit to having a teacher, as that sounds a bit too "orthodox"?
You can find out about all sorts of Buddhists teachings and teachers on the internet and in books, so people clearly are making a choice.
@SpinyNorman He seems to be one of the people that they identify as an inspiration (or maybe just as a Secular Buddhist example), probably because he's an author that largely follows a naturalistic approach. I don't think they follow him though like a guru or teacher. I know that I don't follow him or anyone in particular, though I've read some of his books.
I think people are in danger of thinking Secular Buddhism has a leader, much in the way they've mistaken Atheism as having people like Richard Dawkins as a leader (or the other Four Horsemen). These parallels seem obvious to me because I seem to belong to both camps, and have had to deal with the misconceptions about atheism before.
If Secular Buddhism had a leader, that would mean that his word was dogma and disagreement would mean you weren't being a proper Secular Buddhist. It'd be like Catholics not following the Pope about birth control. I don't see that happening; no one has that kind of authority because it's not a real organization; it's a coming together of like-minded people that follow similar methods under the umbrella term "Secular Buddhist", much like "Atheist" means anyone that doesn't believe in gods (though their actual beliefs and politics can vary, and they're still atheists regardless).
Stephen Batchelor is not my teacher. Although apparently he is a major -- though appointed -- spokesperson for the movement. To me he's just one voice.
Of course, speaking of the supernatural, I bought a book by Batchelor though Amazon. I began reading it. Got through about 20 pages. And could never find the book again. Trying to tell me something???
:eek2:
@vinlyn I liked "Alone With Others" and "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist". His better-known book "Buddhism Without Beliefs" was just redundant reading for me, and I didn't necessarily agree with everything he said anyway.
The place seems OK, and I saw DD there, but some of the topics made me laugh. I like the one criticizing Access to Insight for having a shitty search function and not having every sutta translation, suggesting this is meant (in a seemingly conspiratorial way) to discourage any kind of systematic search and comparison of texts, as well as any challenge to Theravadin orthodoxy.
While the site owner is explicit that Access to Insight is "dedicated to providing accurate, reliable, and useful information concerning the practice and study of Theravada Buddhism," and that the "readings assembled here represent just a selection of the Buddha's teachings" that he's found helpful over the years, he admits that "this collection is not meant to be an exhaustive archive of Theravada Buddhist texts." In addition, some of the suttas that are absent may be so because of copy right issues and/or the fact that Thanissaro Bhikkhu hasn't translated them yet, not any kind of religious bias. Also, decent search functions are hard to code (just ask @Linc
).
Then again, we did have a thread about whether Kurt Cobain was a bodhisattva, so pot and kettle and all that... All in all, I find some of the more secular-minded posters insightful and some of them aggressive and just as biased as the religious Buddhists they criticize. But I find the same of 'religious' Buddhists, so I don't hold that against them. I'd join if I wasn't content here and DhammaWheel.
You cut me deep, @Jason
.
lol, I meant that you've had experience with it and that it's not as easy as people might assume.
As several of Stephen Batchelor's books have been mentioned I found Living with the Devil to be quite interesting.
@Jason, I have to say, I have NEVER assumed anything @Linc does, is easy. I never cease to be amazed at his techno-prowess, and even though I'm far more confident in front of a screen and at a keyboard than I was a while ago, I know I'd have to re-live several lifetimes before I even begin to grasp a fraction of what he knows.
I honestly think it has a lot to do with how brains are wired; I would venture to guess that some of the most expert minds in the technology business are of the male gender; and I would think there may be a couple of things I know how to do, better than Linc does.
But the gist of the discussion is not, obviously, the technological comparison and aspect of the sites; it's content, approachability, friendliness and ease of personal use, with regard to exchange and discursive engagement.
And in that, I personally think we're streets ahead of other sites, here.
And in that, I personally think we're streets ahead of other sites, here.
:bawl: .
It' strudel. (that was meant to say 'it's true' but I think the autocorrect was fortuitous)
Spread the teaching through being rather than being 'right', 'righteous' and a dharmic corrective . . .
Anyway that is my apple strudel . . . :buck: .
Bless 'em, it seems rather quaint to me.
Living with the Devil...
Is that some kind of weird tantric practice?