Why was E-Sangha controversial?

Anything goes (almost).

Re: Why was E-Sangha controversial?

Postby Thrasymachus » Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:49 am

What I have found is that on forums if what you write, or you yourself are not liked by many of the forumers, especially the people in power, you will be suspended and banned period, no matter how you behave or don't. Also the corollary holds: you can break rules and be nasty, but make sure you have got a good relationship to those in power. I also notice that forums that over-moderate to produce an anti-septic environment tend to have some of the worst conditions despite all touted benefits of moderation. Personally I never noticed over-moderation on e-sangha, but then I never participated heavily there. I actually notice much more moderation actions over here(not that I participate here heavily either). Maybe that is because I am not much of a Buddhist fundamentalist or that deep into that rabbit hole, and maybe that led to over-moderation on the one forum and but leads to moderation here.

The following is a deep explanation about the nature of organizations and human systems and how people linguistically idealize them and use that as their point of departure:
emile wrote:Anarchistnews comment: Both Harvey and the reviewer
...

An organization such as a ‘tightly-coupled system’ that jumpstarts out of the rational actions of a group of humans not ‘real’, it is idealization; i.e. it is ‘linguistic idealization’, something we can talk about as if it were real, because everyone understands ‘the language’ used to construct it, language that also endows absolute local, independent, behaviour-jumpstarting subjecthood to humans.

As general systems pioneers such as Russell Ackoff have pointed out, every ‘system’ is included in a ‘suprasystem’ so that while we use analytical reasoning to talk about ‘the system’ as if it were a ‘thing-in-itself’, it is NOT a ‘thing-in-itself’, but is included within a more comprehensive dynamic.

The continually transforming relational-spatial suprasystem of nature is the source of humans and humans have not always been emergent features within it, and many conclude they won’t always be emergent features within it, because of their blindness to their being ‘part of something larger than themselves’.

...

As Ernst Mach put it;

“The dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants.”

So, fine, scientists can ‘dream up’ a nuclear power plant scenario in terms of; ‘if we do such-and-such, then such-and-such will be the result’. This view of a nuclear power plant is ‘linguistic idealization’. The physical reality is what is going on in the suprasystem that is producing humans who then infuse belief-based programs into their minds to direct their behaviour. When they talk about what they are doing, whether they say they are extracting petroleum from tar sands or bringing radioactive materials into critical-mass producing proximity to produce electrical power, ... that is not ‘the real physical dynamic’, ... to understand the real physical dynamic, one has to acknowledge what McLuhan and Mach are saying, that THE PHYSICAL DYNAMICS OF THE NATURAL WORLD WE LIVE IN DO NOT START FROM WHAT HUMANS INITIATE. The medium [the transforming relational space we are included in] is the message.

...


One of the mods here insinuated that all forums have rules and all moderators here and elsewhere try to implement them, but that is the type of linguistic idealization critiqued above, arguing in terms of the "thing in itself". It is especially very funny that a self proclaimed anarchist wrote that, lol. In the real world you have rules -- called laws. If you don't like those rules, should you move to a country where you like the rules and imagine that it matters? You have cops, and you have alleged methods to complain about the laws and cops. But does that matter? No -- because things don't exist onto themselves isolated from other phenomena -- or independent arising. If you have power that is what matters or if you lack power that is what matters. Ultimately most cops(like moderators), find the ways to use the system against those with the least power voicing or expressing what they know their masters don't want to be circulated and to protect those with the most power. In other words the behavior of the policed tends to matter little compared to their position within the social structure. Arguing that it is rule and fairness based, is linguistic idealization based on the "thing in itself".
User avatar
Thrasymachus
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Dover, NJ

Re: Why was E-Sangha controversial?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:00 am

Thrasymachus wrote:What I have found is that on forums if what you write, or you yourself are not liked by many of the forumers, especially the people in power, you will be suspended and banned period, no matter how you behave or don't.
Not necessarily true. Here at DW we try to allow people to express their view as long as they act within the boundaries of the Terms of Service. Personality plays a role, of course, in all relationships within all social structures (internet or "meat world"). So if you are overbearing, brusque, nasty, etc... you tend to get banned (ostracised). This applies to both internet forums and meat world social structures. Now the ban is not necessarily on the basis of your personality characteristics per se, but on the basis of the fact that these characteristics will cause frictions and conflict amongst the members of the social group. Bringing it back to the forum: since association with this board is voluntary and a privilege conferred by those that own and run the board, it is to be expected that those who cause friction and conflict will be banned, in order to maintain an environment that allows the greatest majority of members to enjoy the service this forum provides. If you go to a night club and pick fights with patrons a couple of burly blokes will pick you up by the scruff of your collar and toss you out, right? Why? Because the majority of the patrons associate voluntarily, via the medium of the night club, in order to share a common pleasant and relaxing experience. If you want to fight, you should go to a boxing club, if you want relaxation and music...

It's the same situation here.
Also the corollary holds: you can break rules and be nasty, but make sure you have got a good relationship to those in power.
Not true of this forum as far as I have seen. Unless you have some specific examples you want to point to?
I actually notice much more moderation actions over here(not that I participate here heavily either). Maybe that is because I am not much of a Buddhist fundamentalist or that deep into that rabbit hole...
Has it ever occured to you that it's not due to your views (ie if you are "Buddhist fundamentalist" or not) but the way you express your views (ie calling people "Buddhist fundamentalists"). Anyway, it never ceases to amaze me how people that come (voluntarily) to a Buddhist forum complain that it is too Buddhist. I mean, what the f*ck do you expect it to be??? :shrug:
One of the mods here insinuated that all forums have rules and all moderators here and elsewhere try to implement them, but that is the type of linguistic idealization critiqued above, arguing in terms of the "thing in itself".
Can you give me an example of a single (human) social interaction that does not contain rules and laws (either stated or implied)?
It is especially very funny that a self proclaimed anarchist wrote that, lol.
That's because many politically immature individuals equate Anarchism with chaos, ie they have no idea what Anarchism is actually about. There are two major strands of Anarchist theory: social/communal and individualist.
In the real world you have rules -- called laws. If you don't like those rules, should you move to a country where you like the rules and imagine that it matters?
First of all internet forums are part of the real world. Real people interacting through a digital medium. Secondly, our association with forums is voluntary, this means that you do not have to interact if you do not want to. A forums interactive framework is pre-defined and you choose whether you wish to abide by this framework or not. If you do not like it, you leave. But some people are such drama queens, that they prefer to be kicked out. Anyway, going from one forum to another is not as drastic as moving from one country to another (this I know, as it is something I have done three times in my life and will possibly be doing again soon, because of the social/economic/political situation here in Greece). Unfortunately some people are sooooooo egocentric that they feel that a forum has to bend to their personal "wants" rather then just accomodating themselves to an existing structure.

Ego centric drama queens.
You have cops, and you have alleged methods to complain about the laws and cops. But does that matter? No -- because things don't exist onto themselves isolated from other phenomena -- or independent arising. If you have power that is what matters or if you lack power that is what matters. Ultimately most cops(like moderators), find the ways to use the system against those with the least power voicing or expressing what they know their masters don't want to be circulated and to protect those with the most power. In other words the behavior of the policed tends to matter little compared to their position within the social structure. Arguing that it is rule and fairness based, is linguistic idealization based on the "thing in itself".
Welcome to samsara. You want a bed of roses? You gotta plant them. Don't be surprised if they all die though, or the neighbours goat comes over and eats them.

I've always wondered why all those that come to forums, and bitch and complain, don't just go off and start their own forums 100% suited to their personal preferences? Probably because they do not want hundreds of egocentric drama queens busting their chops!!! Who can blame them? ;)
:namaste:
PS This is not an Anarchist site, so why you expect it to operate based on Anarchist principles is way beyond me.
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9514
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Why was E-Sangha controversial?

Postby Thrasymachus » Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:22 pm

Again you still don't understand the distinction of the "thing in itself", based on and evaluated by its own hermetic, inbred axioms, which is a puff of air, and what we can term the "thing in reality", or observations made outside of those hermetic axioms meant to approximate something actually closer to reality. Now if most forums were honest they would have this rule:
1. If we don't like you or your views we will treat unfairly or even ban you.
And the second most popular rule on all forums:
2. Those who make the rules can break the rules, and that is likely not you.

If we were extend this honesty to real life, we could say, murder is murder if you are poor, but if you are rich you it will likely make you a captain of industry, a hero or valued leader. Instead you insist that the rules speak some actual truth about how this forum and other forums operate!

A case in point:
gregkavarnos wrote:Not true of this forum as far as I have seen. Unless you have some specific examples you want to point to?


See this is what I am talking about! Before you even deleted a whole post and warned me for criticizing the TOS, now you actually invite to give you specific examples of all the biased stuff I notice, which is quite a bit for someone who maintains such low participation. In this very thread, there is one ad-hominen post and a second one. I have had a whole post deleted for making a "personal comment" based on previous info revealed in the same thread, then warned and banned, yet two people who are known to be much closer to the power structure can make pure ad-hominens based on what they believe some poster here said and did related to another forum, years and years ago and not get their comments even deleted. So is that the "thing in itself" that you argue, that the moderation here is based on TOS and rules solely, or is it the "thing in reality" or how it actually operates, which is we don't like you, deal with it, or we like you, here are your privileges. Honestly I have no idea what can or cannot be said on this forum, and I doubt I am alone. The reality is forumers learn this from the personality, temperament and example of the individual mods, and here are there are too many with too many different temperaments to ever know that.

gregkavarnos wrote:Anyway, it never ceases to amaze me how people that come (voluntarily) to a Buddhist forum complain that it is too Buddhist. I mean, what the f*ck do you expect it to be???

I used to have a higher estimation of Buddhists and Buddhism, but seeing the dissonance between the lofty claims and the bitter reality has jaded me. The philosopher Ivan Illich has showed that every institution that makes a claim, actually produces the opposite effect of what it claims. In alot of the bad mouthing of past forums some members mentioned some amazing things, far worse than most forums I have ever been on. Also from participation here it is clear that Western Buddhists are likely the problem, maybe even Buddhists in general. The "thing in itself" that claims to lead to non-judgement, calm and enlightenment is having the opposite effect. Alot of it seems to me because people of the fundamentalist variety cannot let things go and feel the need to create and defend a turf against trespassers. It seems like it leads often to taking the worst of Western society and melding it with the worst of Buddhism or Eastern society.

About anarchism, if we are to define it as the "thing in reality" it would be a lifestyle subculture little different than that of say skateboarders or metalheads, who form identity based on subscribing to a utopian vision of how the future will be better after an imagined anarchist revolution that will never come, and how they are different because of holding these theoretical views which cannot be implemented. So in the end it is actually worse than identifying as say a punk rocker, because you make lofty claims that are a fart in the wind, while the punk admits he is just looking for a group and something to waste idle time doing. I am not arguing that this forum or even any should be based on anarchist principles, I could care less about most of their imaginary utopian, group constructs. Again you hint about drama queens who come to forums and complain, as if the rules mattered, and that forumers could tell by reading a mere page of rules what environment they jumped into, until they are already deep in it already. Do you read every EULA(End User License Agreement), do you read up most the laws of the countries you have lived in, do you read the fine print? If those myths about how we should act were true, modern people would spend more of their lives reading useless agreements, laws and contracts, than actually living. Infact I actually don't think there would be spare time if you did all the things you ought to in that regard. If anarchism meant more than a utopian, fantasy orientation or a fetishization of certain tactics like insurrectionism, maybe I could hold your law and order attitude against your alleged convictions.

In closing how forums function have more to do with the personality of the admins and moderators, how tolerant they are or are not, and very little to do with the actual rules, which are mostly technicalities that are sacrificed or put into play based on personality and ad-hoc interpretations, if at all. Also most people just don't care enough to start a forum or real life institution or group venue. I never cared enough about an issue or subject to make a forum around it. It does not mean such people as myself want to get abused or told what they see happening is not happening, because the stickler for the rules types in their "thing in itself" paradigm cannot account for it within the circular system they cannot extricate themselves from.
Last edited by Thrasymachus on Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:43 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Thrasymachus
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Dover, NJ

Re: Why was E-Sangha controversial?

Postby retrofuturist » Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:29 pm

Greetings,

Thrasymachus wrote:In closing how forums function have more to do with the personality of the admins and moderators, how tolerant they are or are not, and very little to do with the actual rules, which are technicalities mostly that are sacrificed or put into play based on personality and ad-hoc interpretations, if at all.

I just wanted to jump in briefly at this point, to point out that this is one of the things I'm adamant about preventing (to the best of my ability) both here and at Dhamma Wheel.... because what you say was often true of E-Sangha.

Maitri,
Retro. :)
Live in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, blending like milk and water, viewing each other with kindly eyes

Dhamma Wheel (Theravada forum) * Here Comes Trouble
User avatar
retrofuturist
Founding Member
 
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:54 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Why was E-Sangha controversial?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:38 pm

Thrasymachus wrote:1. If we don't like you or your views we will treat unfairly or even ban you.
This is not a rule, this is an axiom of social reality. Forums are peopled by people, and people tend to react in certain ways to certain personality traits.
2. Those who make the rules can break the rules, and that is likely not you.
Again, given the type of social structures that we are socialised into, why would you expect a different type of behaviour on an internet forum? I mean really?

In any social group, if you have a disagreeable personality, chances are your opinions (especially if they run contrary to those of the group) will land you in hot water. If you are liked (have a likeable personality), then even your sh*t does not stink. It is that simple. Of course if the power structures in the group are authoritarian, then your proximity to the source of authority counts for a lot more, but even then your personality may play a role in reagrds to proximity.
If we were extend this honesty to real life, we could say, murder is murder if you are poor, but if you are rich you it will likely make you a captain of industry, a hero or valued leader. Instead you insist that the rules speak some actual truth about how this forum and other forums operate!
Rules are guidelines for behaviour. They are open to interpretation and (of course) abuse. How would a forum or a society without any rules function? Quite simply, it wouldn't.

Anarchist groups have rules too (but not laws and a legal structure). They need them in order to ensure smooth functioning. The rules though are formulated through a system of direct democracy of the participants. But even this is no guarantee, especially when you consider the amount of socialisation each individual brings to the group. There is no such thing as tabula rasa (especially in Buddhism where each individual carries the habits of previous lifetimes with them too).
See this is what I am talking about! Before you even deleted a whole post and warned me for criticizing the TOS, now you actually invite to give you specific examples of all the biased stuff I notice, which is quite a bit for someone who maintains such low participation.
You are making excuses before you have even started.
In this very thread, there is one ad-hominen post and a second one. I have had a whole post deleted for making a "personal comment" based on previous info revealed in the same thread, then warned and banned, yet two people who are known to be much closer to the power structure can make pure ad-hominens based on what they believe some poster here said and did related to another forum, years and years ago and not get their comments even deleted.
This forum has a report function, have you ever used it? Moderators (who are volunteers) cannot be expected to read every single post in every single thread. It is up to the members too to ensure that contraventions of the Terms of Service are dealt with.
The reality is forumers learn this from the personality, temperament and example of the individual mods, and here are there are too many with too many different temperaments to ever know that.
Too many moderators??? I beg to differ! If you were aware of the workload you would not say this. Work which is being done for free.
I used to have a higher estimation of Buddhists and Buddhism, but seeing the dissonance between the lofty claims and the bitter reality has jaded me.
Join the club!
The philosopher Ivan Illich has showed that every institution that makes a claim, actually produces the opposite effect of what it claims.
Hogwash. If you do not make a claim then no matter what effect you produce you can just fob it off and say: "I never made a claim." Claims are useful because then you can hold people accountable, otherwise...
In alot of the bad mouthing of past forums some members mentioned some amazing things, far worse than most forums I have ever been on. Also from participation here it is clear that Western Buddhists are likely the problem, maybe even Buddhists in general. The "thing in itself" that claims to lead to non-judgement, calm and enlightenment is having the opposite effect. Alot of it seems to me because people of the fundamentalist variety cannot let things go and feel the need to create and defend a turf against trespassers. It seems like it leads often to taking the worst of Western society and melding it with the worst of Buddhism or Eastern society.
Everybody is entitled to their opinion and judgement. I would venture though that Western Buddhists (and Buddhists in general) like everybody else in this world are people. So, like all people they will be hypocrites, liars, back stabbers, agressive, annoying, etc... (and these are their positive qualities :smile: ) The question that arises in my mind is: who are you to judge everybody else instead of sitting down and judging yourself?
About anarchism, if we are to define it as the "thing in reality" it would be a lifestyle subculture little different than that of say skateboarders or metalheads, who form identity based on subscribing to a utopian vision of how the future will be better after an imagined anarchist revolution that will never come, and how they are different because of holding these theoretical views which cannot be implemented.
I agree that in many cases, especially here in the "west" that is what it has become. I would tell you to go read up on the International Workers of the World (Wobblies) to see what Anarchism was.
So in the end it is actually worse than identifying as say a punk rocker, because you make lofty claims that are a fart in the wind, while the punk admits he is just looking for a group and something to waste idle time doing.
No they don't! Quite the contrary for most punks.
In closing how forums function have more to do with the personality of the admins and moderators, how tolerant they are or are not, and very little to do with the actual rules, which are mostly technicalities that are sacrificed or put into play based on personality and ad-hoc interpretations, if at all.
I agree, except that you over looked a minor detail: the staff are the ones that make the rules.
Also most people just don't care enough to start a forum or real life institution or group venue. I never cared enough about an issue or subject to make a forum around it. It does not mean such people as myself want to get abused or told what they see happening is not happening, because the stickler for the rules types in their "thing in itself" paradigm cannot account for it within the circular system they cannot extricate themselves from.
So basically you are saying that you just want to whine, juge and complain and do absolutely nothing constructive? I mean, that's what it sounds like from here. Why not just go extriate yourself, and once you are finished come back and extricate us too. I'm being serious here. I know that I am a hypocritical f*ck up (but I try my hardest), do you?
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9514
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Why was E-Sangha controversial?

Postby JKhedrup » Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:44 pm

To be honest I know DW has its faults.

But when you compare us to other Buddhist forums, you see there is a fair bit of activity here. To me, that indicates that people feel that this board must have at least SOME positive qualities.
In order to ensure my mind never comes under the power of the self-cherishing attitude,
I must obtain control over my own mind.
Therefore, amongst all empowerments, the empowerment that gives me control over my mind is the best,
and I have received the most profound empowerment with this teaching.
-Atisha Dipamkara
brtsal ba'i bkhra drin
JKhedrup
 
Posts: 2324
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:28 am
Location: the Netherlands and India

Re: Why was E-Sangha controversial?

Postby Yudron » Thu Jan 31, 2013 8:34 pm

Thrasymachus, just for the record, I do not not consider my post that you linked to to be a personal attack. I didn't say he was a bad person, I just pointed to past conduct. However, I welcome feedback from others about more appropriate ways to react when I see people turn up who myself (and many others) have perceived as aggressive trolls--who take their agenda into real life as well-- on other forums. I am totally open to people changing over the years, but I feel it is stupid not bring attention to them... just in case.

I have not experienced you as a troll. But, however nice you are in person, I don't get that kind of warmth and compassionate heart in your posts that I generally get from the posts of people who practice the Buddhadharma on a daily basis. So, I tend to bow out of threads where you are a major player, because I participate here based on enjoying the usual atmosphere. Basically, I like making new friends, and I don't see you as coming to the forum with a similar motivation.
Yudron
 
Posts: 1054
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:55 pm
Location: Sunny California

Re: Why was E-Sangha controversial?

Postby Kim O'Hara » Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:22 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:Welcome to samsara. You want a bed of roses? You gotta plant them. Don't be surprised if they all die though, or the neighbours goat comes over and eats them.

:twothumbsup:
I might just print that out and frame it, Greg.

:bow:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
 
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Why was E-Sangha controversial?

Postby Jnana » Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:08 am

Yudron wrote:I don't get that kind of warmth and compassionate heart in your posts that I generally get from the posts of people who practice the Buddhadharma on a daily basis. So, I tend to bow out of threads where you are a major player, because I participate here based on enjoying the usual atmosphere. Basically, I like making new friends, and I don't see you as coming to the forum with a similar motivation.

Plus, this life is too precious and too short to spend it arguing on internet forums!
Jnana
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm

Re: Why was E-Sangha controversial?

Postby Salomon » Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:15 am

Jnana wrote:Plus, this life is too precious and too short to spend it arguing on internet forums!


Except if you can meditate while doing this :D
User avatar
Salomon
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:27 pm

Re: Why was E-Sangha controversial?

Postby Jnana » Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:32 am

Salomon wrote:Except if you can meditate while doing this :D

With an increase in mindfulness and mental composure there can be a decrease in the passion and aggression that lead to useless argumentativeness instead of substantive discussion of the Buddhadharma. There can also be a decrease in the urge to engage in frivolous discussions.
Jnana
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm

Re: Why was E-Sangha controversial?

Postby Jikan » Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:57 am

Jnana wrote:
Salomon wrote:Except if you can meditate while doing this :D

With an increase in mindfulness and mental composure there can be a decrease in the passion and aggression that lead to useless argumentativeness instead of substantive discussion of the Buddhadharma. There can also be a decrease in the urge to engage in frivolous discussions.


:good:
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5073
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Why was E-Sangha controversial?

Postby Salomon » Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:30 am

Jnana wrote:With an increase in mindfulness and mental composure there can be a decrease in the passion and aggression that lead to useless argumentativeness instead of substantive discussion of the Buddhadharma. There can also be a decrease in the urge to engage in frivolous discussions.


Yes, I agree if this is what you mean by arguing. Arguing to me can also be substantive discussion.
Edit: I would like to add also that most people are too much serious, where is the fun? It is possible also to have a lot of fun with a certain degree of practice. A lot! :)

I would like also to be more precise. For me, to even go exchanging words or views in a forum was a waste of time until certain degree of realization.
That's a great sign to me, someone who is able to recognize how life is precious and that we can die to the next moment...
User avatar
Salomon
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:27 pm

Re: Why was E-Sangha controversial?

Postby ram peswani » Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:07 am

[quote="Thrasymachus"]What I have found is that on forums if what you write, or you yourself are not liked by many of the forumers, especially the people in power, you will be suspended and banned period, no matter how you behave or don't. Also the corollary holds: you can break rules and be nasty, but make sure you have got a good relationship to those in power. I also notice that forums that over-moderate to produce an anti-septic environment tend to have some of the worst conditions despite all touted benefits of moderation. Personally I never noticed over-moderation on e-sangha, but then I never participated heavily there. I actually notice much more moderation actions over here(not that I participate here heavily either). Maybe that is because I am not much of a Buddhist fundamentalist or that deep into that rabbit hole, and maybe that led to over-moderation on the one forum and but leads to moderation here.

This is constructive criticism and i agree with it.
But who learns? I see Dharma wheel going the E-Sangha way if those in power do not change.
ram peswani
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:53 am

Re: Why was E-Sangha controversial?

Postby Indrajala » Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:11 am

ram peswani wrote:This is constructive criticism and i agree with it.
But who learns? I see Dharma wheel going the E-Sangha way if those in power do not change.


Actually we've changed a lot. The ToS has evolved. Moderation has actually decreased in some respects.
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog)
Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog)
Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog)
Dharma Depository (Site)

"Hui gives me no assistance. There is nothing that I say in which he does not delight." -Confucius
User avatar
Indrajala
 
Posts: 5914
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: Nepal

Re: Why was E-Sangha controversial?

Postby wisdom » Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:18 am

Moderation means that when I ask a Dharma related question, I get Dharma related answers. It prevents me from having to sift through pages of nonsense. This also means I don't have to defend my statements or views to people who don't even know what I'm talking about, who have their own beliefs that are completely not in accordance with Dharma. I also know that if I have a wrong view and proclaim it as Dharma someone is going to point it out, which is also beneficial for me because then I can realize that I'm holding a wrong view and examine that view and hopefully change it. This is beneficial for everyone who participates on this forum. The main reason for someone to be here is to learn about the Dharma or discuss it. Any other purpose is really not for here, and there are plenty of places on the internet where those purposes can be accomplished.

If Dharmawheel had no moderation, or far less, then it would be a waste of all our time.
User avatar
wisdom
 
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:33 am

Re: Why was E-Sangha controversial?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Feb 02, 2013 8:42 am

ram peswani wrote:This is constructive criticism and i agree with it.
But who learns? I see Dharma wheel going the E-Sangha way if those in power do not change.
How are the Krishna people treating you Ram? Are you content with their degree of acceptance of your theories?
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 9514
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Why was E-Sangha controversial?

Postby Jnana » Sat Feb 02, 2013 8:44 am

wisdom wrote:Moderation means that when I ask a Dharma related question, I get Dharma related answers. It prevents me from having to sift through pages of nonsense. This also means I don't have to defend my statements or views to people who don't even know what I'm talking about, who have their own beliefs that are completely not in accordance with Dharma. I also know that if I have a wrong view and proclaim it as Dharma someone is going to point it out, which is also beneficial for me because then I can realize that I'm holding a wrong view and examine that view and hopefully change it. This is beneficial for everyone who participates on this forum. The main reason for someone to be here is to learn about the Dharma or discuss it. Any other purpose is really not for here, and there are plenty of places on the internet where those purposes can be accomplished.

If Dharmawheel had no moderation, or far less, then it would be a waste of all our time.

Well said.
Jnana
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm

Re: Why was E-Sangha controversial?

Postby plwk » Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:26 am

gregkavarnos wrote:
ram peswani wrote:This is constructive criticism and i agree with it.
But who learns? I see Dharma wheel going the E-Sangha way if those in power do not change.
How are the Krishna people treating you Ram? Are you content with their degree of acceptance of your theories?
Brahma Kumaris...
plwk
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:41 am

Re: Why was E-Sangha controversial?

Postby ram peswani » Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:32 am

gregkavarnos wrote:.
How are the Krishna people treating you Ram? Are you content with their degree of acceptance of your theories?[/quote]

Treating ?

I am truely thankful to you for your ignorant replies to Lotus sutra.
In this last one month I have progressed a lot.
I am a BRAHAMKUMAR with every drop of my blood.
I have donated my portion of my house to Braham kumar Satsang for the benefit of others.
Also i have started sharing my wealth for their benefit.
My meditation is going wonderfully.
My quality of life (health, relationship, peace) is getting better and better.

I do wish that I could share some of this with Buddhist world. But I am feeling sadness for all Bhuddists.
Brahmkumars are Shiva devotees and not Krishna devotees
ram peswani
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:53 am

PreviousNext

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 12 guests

>