Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

First impressions of this forum, and a taxonomy of posters

cranreuchcranreuch
edited March 2011 in General Banter
I've been reading and occasionally posting for a week or so now. I thought I'd give some first impressions -- see if anyone else can relate.

The overall impression is I am very much getting put off the idea of Buddhism. The reason is that I detect the same kind of deviation from what I imagine are the core points of the original guy, as I saw happening it Christianity.

There seem to be four broad types of non-newbie people on here, arranged on a scale from 1 on the left, to 4 on the right.

Group 1. Very small but loud group of fools. These are the reason for my negative impressions. They've picked up on some kind of Buddhist *sounding* use of words and they spout enigmatic drivel, usually in very short sentences. The impression they like to think they are leaving is that beneath their terse utterances is profundity and deep wisdom. The impression they actually leave is that even if Buddhism is a useful thing, its usefulness is seriously harmed by their ramblings. They are the email spammers of Buddhism.

Group 2. Larger group of people who are open to learn and teach, but haven't spotted that Group 1 are what they are. As a result, the newbies in this group are victims of the Group 1 yahoos, and the more experienced ones fail to call the group 1's on their bollox.

Group 3. Similar in size to Group 3, these *do* see Group 1 for being plonkers. These are the primary saving grace of this forum. I could name a few, but I don't want to play favourites :) One of their characteristics is that they understand that when you're trying to explain something to a newbie, you have to speak as much as possible in the newbies language.

Group 4. Now to be honest, I don't know if there's anyone in this group at all. It is the (probably) small group who genuinely and *deeply* grok this Buddhism thing, actually speak wisely, may actually *be* buddhas, but who sound, to a newbie, exactly like Group 1!

Some suggestions:

a. Group 1 dudes. If you genuinely care about this stuff, shut up, you're hurting people. Speak once you've learned how to speak to newbies, and once you're sure that you're not just full of pseudo-Buddhist inanity.
b. Group 2; your experience must surely tell you the difference between Groups 1 and 4, no? Call the 1's out on their rambling. It'll help newbies like me.
c. Group 3; thanks.
d. Group 4. Hmmm. Well first -- you, you, and ... yes you in the corner. You're not actually *in* this group. Go back to group 1. To the rest -- sigh, I don't know. A tree in a golden forest?

c

Comments

  • nibbutinibbuti
    edited March 2011
    Hi cranreuch. Everybody here is on a different location on their path. It is not easy to apply sensitivity and discern where exactly over the internet. But it can be useful to regard one's perception of others as part of oneself - it takes one to know one, as the saying goes ;) - and that there is a learning process rather than just group hugging, to begin with. Thanks for sharing your impression.

    image
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    Judge ye not that ye be not categorised....
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    The overall impression is I am very much getting put off the idea of Buddhism.
    Buddhism isn't people. Buddhism is Buddhism, just as people are people.
    People discussing Buddhism are not representative of Buddhism.

    learn to differentiate the two.
  • cranreuchcranreuch
    Everybody here is on a different location on their path.
    True. But sometimes people are just stupid, or malicious, or both.
    it can be useful to regard one's perception of others as part of oneself
    True. But sometimes it's not. And it's rarely *purely* subjective.
    it takes one to know one
    True. And sometimes it doesn't. And in fact in the case where "one" is "blithering idiot" it can even be that to know one you must *not* be one.

    So where does that leave us? My main point was that there are Buddhist-sounding charlatans about but that I allow for the fact that some of the wisest could *sound* like charlatans.

    What was *your* point?

    c
  • cranreuchcranreuch
    Judge ye not that ye be not categorised....
    I'm easily categorized. I'm a clueless newb.

    But just because I'm clueless, doesn't mean others aren't.
  • PaccekasattaPaccekasatta
    The supreme way is not difficult,
    If only you don't pick and choose.
    Neither love nor hate,
    And you will clearly understand.
    Be off by a hair,
    And you are as far from it as heaven from earth.
    (Faith in Mind)
  • cranreuchcranreuch
    edited March 2011
    People discussing Buddhism are not representative of Buddhism.
    What, never?

    Siddartha Guatama, Thicht Naht Hahn, the Dalai Lama, etc. When they discuss Buddhism they are not "representative of Buddhism"?
  • cranreuchcranreuch
    The supreme way is not difficult,
    If only you don't pick and choose.
    Neither love nor hate,
    And you will clearly understand.
    Be off by a hair,
    And you are as far from it as heaven from earth.
    (Faith in Mind)
    Many are the paths in the darkness,
    But only if darkness and light are not one
    Truth lies between the outer and the inner,
    On the realization that such is not.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator

    But just because I'm clueless, doesn't mean others aren't.
    That's not for you to say.
    All you can do is to act in accordance with what you see as right, and see to your own behaviour and attitude, form your own perspective.
    No matter what your opinion of others, they have every right to be that way if that's what they feel most comfortable doing.

    "All of us are lying in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars".

    Look to yourself, how your mind, tongue and system moves.


  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited March 2011
    People discussing Buddhism are not representative of Buddhism.
    What, never?

    Siddartha Guatama, Thicht Naht Hahn, the Dalai Lama, etc. When they discuss Buddhism they are not "representative of Buddhism"?
    No, they're not. They follow Buddhism and speak of what they know. But you are free to listen to them, or not, as the case may be.
    I don't agree with everything TNH speaks of, I don't agree with everything the Dalai lama speaks of.
    And even the Buddha himself told us to never take anything he said at face value.

  • cranreuchcranreuch

    But just because I'm clueless, doesn't mean others aren't.
    That's not for you to say.
    I think you need to look again at what I said.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    no, I've looked twice.
    Your opinions of people should be limited to yourself.
    How others conduct themselves is not for you to either judge or criticise.
  • cranreuchcranreuch
    edited March 2011
    ...even the Buddha himself told us to never take anything he said at face value.
    Well then I guess it's OK not to take at face value your own statement:
    People discussing Buddhism are not representative of Buddhism.
  • nibbutinibbuti
    edited March 2011
    I allow for the fact that some of the wisest could *sound* like charlatans.
    Facts usually do not wait for allowance, but in this case, I say that lies in the ear of the beholder.;)
    What was *your* point?
    My point was that one is better off when one stops constantly looking at 'others' and starts practising, sharing real problems and solutions. ;)

    (No worries, we've all been there...)

    Lots of metta
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited March 2011
    There seem to be four broad types of non-newbie people on here, arranged on a scale from 1 on the left, to 4 on the right.
    Come on, you wuss! Name the names in each group.
  • cranreuchcranreuch
    There seem to be four broad types of non-newbie people on here, arranged on a scale from 1 on the left, to 4 on the right.
    Come on, you wuss! Name the names in each group.
    Weeeellll, the trouble is, as I said I can't distinguish between Groups 1 and 4. I think I'm better placed to try for members of Group 3.

    Now, it's early days yet -- I'm only here a week or so. So, I'm going to *tentatively* put Cloud into group 3.

    Others will follow as I decide Who Is Worthy ;)

  • genkakugenkaku Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
    Cranreuch -- One of the nice things about Buddhism is that you are free to try it and free not to. There is no halo for the former and nor horns for the latter.

    But to the extent that there are uncertainties in your life that you might like to clarify and to the extent that Buddhism may strike you as having some good suggestions, then you might also remind yourself that there is no place in this world and no group of people on earth that does not contain its quotient of assholes. And if this is true, then the only thing that really matters is what you plan to do from within a world that contains certifiable assholes. Yup, you can critique it. Yup, you can shun it. Yup you can approach it in any number of ways. But the question remains, have you clarified your own doubts? Have you found a little peace in what can be a stressful world? The ball is entirely in your court.

    Best wishes.
  • cranreuchcranreuch
    ...you might also remind yourself that there is no place in this world and no group of people on earth that does not contain its quotient of assholes.
    I accept that now. I think I had a foolish but unspoken hope that somehow Buddhism may be different in that respect. But people are people no matter what the faith.

  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited March 2011
    Hey don't put me in a group, that's group-ist and it's just wrong. :) I'm either part of all groups or of none, we stand and fall together.

    In my opinion, to judge others means you must already fully know yourself... and yet if you did know yourself, you'd fully know others and would not be judging at all. Tread with care, perhaps put this on the back-burner and just take each post for what it's worth and how it helps you.

    How are we to know who is wise and who is a fool? We judge others most often by how closely their thinking matches our own. We may be a fool judging others to be wise because we agree with their thinking, thus judging ourselves to be wise. :D Best to look each to his or her own mind and walk the Noble Eightfold Path, find and uproot our own ignorance, using teachings that lead us away from self-cherishing, craving and attachment.
  • VincenziVincenzi Veteran
    ...some members are not even buddhist.

    I don't think a "taxonomy" is very helpful, but agree in that some buddhists (or similar) like to sound enigmatic and wise but it ends being non-sensical ramblings.
  • cranreuchcranreuch
    no, I've looked twice.
    Your opinions of people should be limited to yourself.
    How others conduct themselves is not for you to either judge or criticise.
    Sigh. Well look at it again. You told me that following was not for me to say:

    "just because I'm clueless, doesn't mean others aren't"

    Do you understand what that says? It is not an expression of opinion about anyone or their conduct. It is a statement about logic -- about avoiding a non sequitur -- about *not* saying things. It has the same form as:

    "The proposition, 'Lassie is a dog' does not imply the proposition 'Lassie is the only dog'".

    Notice that I'm not saying *anything* about any *other* animals. Maybe they're all dogs. Maybe none of them are. All I'm saying is, you can't imply anything about them from Lassie being a dog.

    Similarly, I'm not saying anything about anyone else's cluelessness or lack thereof. Maybe they're all clueless. Maybe none of them are. All I'm saying is, you can't imply anything about them from the simple fact of me being clueless.
  • cranreuchcranreuch
    Hey don't put me in a group, that's group-ist and it's just wrong. :)
    Sigh, I knew this would happen. :) OK, so I now have a fourth group, Group Mu. This is the group of all people who don't belong to a group.

    Of course within that group I sub-divide into four "Types". Cloud is the first Type 3 member of Group Mu.

    :om:
  • ownerof1000oddsocksownerof1000oddsocks Veteran
    Visiting a forum is going to put you off any subject if you haven't read appropriate articles and/or sought out a teacher. Even if you have it's still your discretion whether or not you decide to heed information written by anomymous members.

    If you haven't read articles or sought a teacher then maybe all you're really doing is rubbing shoulders with other people. I guess at it's heart this is spritual tourism, so are you a tourist, or do you actually want to be a proper buddhist practitioner?

    I ask myself.
  • RogerRoger
    edited March 2011
    Hey Cranreuch. I would have enjoyed your above post much more if you deleted it and instead you did some serious volunteer work in your community and told us your impressions on that.

    That way if you were to again say,

    "[My] overall impression is I am very much getting put off the idea of Buddhism,"

    you would have had a more genuine experience of it to base your emotions and decisions on. :)
  • cranreuchcranreuch
    Hey Cranreuch. I would have enjoyed your above post much more if you did some serious volunteer work in your community and told us your impressions on that instead.
    Well perhaps I already do such work and simply choose, for now, not to talk about it?

  • taiyakitaiyaki Veteran
    welcome to the internet bro
  • zidanguszidangus Veteran
    edited March 2011
    If you are looking to understand the concepts of Buddhism, then I suggest the best place to go would be maybe the links below, or many other great sites which have Buddhist material.

    http://www.buddhanet.net
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/

    The purpose of this forum IMO is for lay Buddhists to discuss topics and share knowledge and views which may be relevant to them and their practice or indeed just general banter. If you are new to Buddhism then I think that members, will try to guide you to relevant information, and maybe share their own views with you. However, this does not mean you have to accept or listen to their views, it's really up to you to do your own research on what Buddhism teaches ( not what some member talks about on a forum) and then decide if it makes sense to you or not. Because at the end of the day you can create whatever group you like and put people into your groups if it helps you, but I think every member, who I might add have different levels of experience in practicing Buddhism, speaks how they feel; whether you think their talking rubbish or not, they have just as much right to their opinion, as you have to make your groups and have your opinion.

    Metta to all sentient beings

  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited March 2011
    ...I can't distinguish between Groups 1 and 4.
    So you really don't know, basically. You think you can identify these groups in our community, but you can't say who's in half the groups? Doesn't make sense.
  • RogerRoger
    Hey Cranreuch. I would have enjoyed your above post much more if you did some serious volunteer work in your community and told us your impressions on that instead.
    Well perhaps I already do such work and simply choose, for now, not to talk about it?

    Perhaps. Thumbs Up

  • cranreuchcranreuch
    ...I can't distinguish between Groups 1 and 4.
    So you really don't know, basically. You think you can identify these groups in our community, but you can't say who's in half the groups? Doesn't make sense.
    I said I *as a newbie* can't distinguish. But I suspect there are more experienced members who can distinguish between the truly wise, and the snake oil salesmen.

  • RogerRoger
    edited March 2011


    I said I *as a newbie* can't distinguish. But I suspect there are more experienced members who can distinguish between the truly wise, and the snake oil salesmen.

    I hate to appear like I'm jumping on you C. I just want to quickly suggest that "newbies" stick around and figure it out for themselves; it's easy to read between the lines. It's half the fun, actually.

    "Newbies" (BTW, I "hate" that word) don't really need more experienced members to analyze and criticize (and cause bad feelings and negativity) other members and make declarations on who's truly wise and who's "snake oil salesmen."

    image..................image......................image

  • SherabDorjeSherabDorje
    edited March 2011
    There are no "snake oil salesmen" in this forum, and if they appear, they get moderated off or even banned if necessary. There are people that are less learned and those who are inclined to "just say stuff".

    We treat people (mostly) with respect here, and if we find what they say incomprehensible or "spoken from their own authority", we tend to call them on it, and that usually works.

    I "get" what you're trying to say, but for a newbie (or even for someone who is not a newbie), the term "snake oil salesmen" or references to those who think "corn flakes are enlightened", this is frowned upon. I don't know of any old-timer who has intimated that another member is a "snake oil salesman", because that would be frowned upon as well.

    If you want to see a nice, urbane, polite discussion of Buddhism on this forum, please don't come in and stir things up by making such remarks.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    @Cranreuch, I would advise you to use ears and mouth in correct proportions.
    Maybe when you've been here a good while longer, you'll be more qualified to pass comments. But thus far? I think this is sufficient.

    many thanks to those who contributed.
This discussion has been closed.