Ya know catty, sometimes I dunno if I am on a Buddhist or rainbow forum in here anymore these days...
catmoon wrote:PS do goats really wince? I'd like to see a picture of that.
catmoon wrote:A more serious point is that well, if one can start with this stuff and end up with such a sterling paragon of slightly goat-whiffy Buddhism as yourself, do you really want to interfere with others who tread the same path you did?
dharmagoat wrote:catmoon wrote:A more serious point is that well, if one can start with this stuff and end up with such a sterling paragon of slightly goat-whiffy Buddhism as yourself, do you really want to interfere with others who tread the same path you did?
No, I wouldn't. But I did drop it as soon as I discovered the original Buddhist source, and find myself recommending others do the same. I would not like to think that this is interference, but am willing to accept that it may appear that way.
I agree more or less. However this little conundrum has popped up. It goes like this:
Everyone agrees that the Dharma is the thing, and that it needs to be advocated or at least defended from time to time. Trouble is, people's ideas of what is and is not Dharma - well- they differ. So if we follow that idea down the road we tend to get highly sectarian moderation. Persecution, even.
In response to this, the current moderator culture at Dharma Wheel has drifted towards the position that moderators are not here to defend the Dharma or to decree what is or is not Dharma. We're here more to keep things civil and more or less organized. Maybe help out with questions here and there if we can do so without offending half the planet.
So what do you see as the moderator's role in a thread like the one we just split from?
KeithBC wrote:It is one of the hazards of Buddhism in the west that it attracts New Age folks because they recognize parts of their beliefs in Buddhism. And why wouldn't they? New Age philosophy is a syncretion of various religions (including Buddhism), with a specifically eastern flavour to it that brings Buddhism to the front of its list of sources. They think they recognize what they see and they make themselves at home.
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with that. After all it might bring a few people to the Dharma.
However, there is danger in allowing the New Age folks to think that what they believe IS Buddhism. It is my opinion that dilution by New Age beliefs is one of the greatest dangers to the preservation of the teachings. The Dharma risks being diluted with extraneous stuff, while essential teachings go neglected because they are too hard. That is why the preservation of intact lineages is important, and why declarations of what is and isn't Buddhism are important. Formulations such as the Three Seals as a means of determining whether a teaching is or isn't Buddhist need to be applied.
The counter-argument that such standards smack of elitism, and that we shouldn't pay so much attention to labels are nothing more than weak, politically-correct rationalizations, and are a characteristic of New Age thought. Someone needs to be telling those folks that, while they are entitled to their beliefs, and while we can have interesting and respectful dialogue with them in a suitable forum (which is not necessarily here), those beliefs that don't meet the traditional standards are not Buddhism.
Om mani padme hum
dharmagoat wrote:catmoon wrote:PS do goats really wince? I'd like to see a picture of that.
It seems that you have never seen a goat eating gorse. They wince as they get their mouths around the thorns, but they manage to bite and chew it okay.
Nighthawk wrote:Well said. I've noticed this new age mentality is much more prevalent in mahayana/vajrayana circles than theravada ones for example dharmawheel compared to dhammawheel. There doesn't appear to be much dilution of the teachings by members on the latter site.
Anything goes (almost).
dharmagoat wrote:When it comes to the appropriateness of subject matter, I believe that the best form of moderation for a site like this is one that follows the consensus of its members. This means that it is the responsibility of each member to maintain the integrity and Buddhist identity of this forum by pointing out when they believe discussions cease to adequately represent the essence of what the Buddha taught. No action need be taken, as long as it remains clear what is considered by most to be authentic Buddhism and what is not.
Users browsing this forum: mutsuk and 12 guests