Hmm. I have to say that I lean toward not suing. I worry the site will be taken down. I would hate to see the site taken down because there are so many who do benefit from the site who don't have problems with the moderators. I wish that they would resolve their problems with the Soto Zen leaders but I just feel that a lawsuit is a bit too much.
Al Billings
· 1 year ago
Who is it really useful to when the site is so biased against groups and people and its staff behaves so badly? No one in the lineage that I work within can claim ordination there and I, for example, was permanently banned for complaining too much about it and moderator behavior. It is run by a dictatorial junta.
Wm. Bainbridge
· 1 year ago
This is pretty fascinating. If the thing gets filed in Singapore, it would be interesting to get a copy of the complaint, or whatever they have there. I'm not sure there's much of a basis in the U.S. unless they're alleging libel, which wouldn't be an easy thing to show. "Discrimination" isn't usually actionable in a private setting like that. It's obvious that somewhere along the line, promoting peace, harmony and happiness went down a little in the priorities, but then, suing people isn't likely to promote them much either. I used to work in the law, and pursuing a lawsuit or two is going to take a huge bite out of people's practice time. I guess I'd personally be more inclined to sit there and ask myself who it is who's so pissed off he wants to sue somebody.
Jundo Cohen
· 1 year ago
Hello Mr. Bainbridge,
I agree with you that a lawsuit is not the way we wished to go here. It makes me so very disappointed (the Buddha did teach that life is disappointing). The present course was selected only after long consideration of the issues involved and the true meaning of "Right Action" and the Precepts. It is not being done out of anger and, hopefully, not ego ... but out of a belief that some things are worth standing up for.
I believe that all people, not only Buddhists, should work out their disagreements through deep listening and opening their hearts. But, when the issues involve questions of religious freedom, discrimination, sect bashing and the like ... and when the other party refuses all discourse on these matters, and merely silences and cuts off critics as in this case ... there is little choice except, perhaps, to take no action at all (or maybe start a blog).
I am now a retired lawyer, so this is now the one case that has my attention at the moment. Truly, I do not believe in most any other kind of lawsuit, and I believe that very little in life is worth fighting about ... but when it comes to matters of free speech, racial or religious discrimination, sect defamation and the like, well, that is a different story and goes right to the heart of what is still worth defending in our society ... even by Buddhists. In this post-911 age, people do not believe in standing up for religious equality and freedom from discrimination, but some of us say it is still important. In fact, it may be the most important philosophy to uphold for many of us, right up there with Buddhism itself.
I must also disagree with you on the basis for legal claims in states such as Illinois and Massachusetts. They do have case law and statutes in place with regard to these issues which offer substantial protections outside employment situations.
Gassho, Jundo
W. Smoke
· 1 year ago
Crazy stuff. It sounds like a slippery slope because E-Sangha isn't some official site of any specific group, but a privately owned forum by a few individuals. I agree it is cult-ish in moderation, but why is it legally obligated to admit/approve of any opinions but those of the owners? Would a satisfactory settlement be that E-Sangha provide a disclaimer as to moderation policy?
Wm. Bainbridge
· 1 year ago
Hey Jundo Roshi,
I've never been on E-Sangha, so I don't know the situation there. Except for Al's stuff, I don't do e-Buddhism. I can say, though, that any Buddhists I've ever talked with who know anything about Zen have a very high opinion of Soto Zen, as do I. It's a little weird that this online group seems to have a problem with it, but hopefully that won't affect the respect that Soto practitioners enjoy in the, well, non-virtual self-arising world. I hope it all works out well for everyone!
W.B.
Jiun
· 1 year ago
I would think that here in the US the biggest legal issue would be the comments made by moderators that are also "religious leaders" of any sort (one could argue that they are de facto religious leaders simply by being moderators of the "largest online Buddhist community EVAR!") regarding other religious leaders - ie, Rev. Jundo, Nonin, etc.
According to my "Ministry and the Law: What you Need to Know" text, Clergy are held to a higher standard when it comes to libel/slander - especially against other clergy.
Now - to be fair, I haven't ever seent that play out like that "in real life" where it seems some clergy can have some pretty nasty things to say about other clergy folks... but hey, that's what the book said.
In any case, I almost wouldn't mind if e-sangha was shut down. I don't think it's actually that great of a resource or service to folks, even without the junta. You have folks with varying levels of interest, knowledge, and experience asking questions of others in the same boat as they are, and because of the screen names you might not realize that the person giving you an answer or advice is actually a 17 year old that just started reading about Buddhism a year ago and secretly thinks he's really an undiscovered "tulku."
Unfortunately, this is more often than not the case - in general, if not specific detail. I would much rather see an "ask the teacher" forum with a panel of experienced teachers from many schools and traditions responding to questions from visitors. Sort of a Buddhist "Dear Abby" (Dear Abbot?)
THAT would be a far greater service to the Buddhist community - especially if most or all Buddhist schools were represented and allowed to answer from their own experience, understanding - and most importantly - tradition, without fear of censorship or oppression if those things don't happen to be in agreement with the experience, understanding, or tradition of the others.
Anyway, I think I'm rambling here...
Lisa Mann
· 1 year ago
It's a private organization, and not one in a fuzzy category like the Boy Scouts. I don't think you can prove damages, my Soto brother. At least not in the US, but Singapore, who knows?
I also think you run the risk of a counterclaim that may be stronger than your own case.
Dropping opposition in this case may be the best course. E-sangha is really not THAT important anyway.
enchentez
· 1 year ago
Lisa Mann, are you still a moderator at E-Sangha, and if not, why7?
bukowski.
· 1 year ago
Hi all. Some of you here will know me as bukowski from e-sangha. I have thought long and hard about posting a comment here, but i feel it is important to put accross a different perspective to the one currently beeing presented. I want to make it clear that i am no longer an e-sangha moderator, that i speak for myself alone and that i have no problem at all with rev. jundo. Indeed, i have sat with him via the net on a number of occassions, and i respect both his practice and his knowledge. At the time of many of the incidents that are beeing discused openly around the net i was a chan/zen Buddhist moderator at e-sangha. I was also the only soto zen practitioner amongst the admin team, although i consider myself a complete beginer in this respect and hold no credentials of any sort. This is the important bit. I wish to make it very, very clear that i saw no prejudicial behaviour of any sort in the zen and specifically the soto zen forum. I hate prejudice in all it's forms, and i assure anyone who reads this post that i would have acted imediately against anyone, including other moderators who i felt were discriminating other members. It is true that some members of the forum have strong opinions about the nature of the zen clergy, and of the soto school itself. However, these are opinions, and from my perspective other members were entitled to hold the exact oposit opinion. All internet sites of the size and diversity of e-sangha have disagreements as a staple of their daily trafic. Can e-sangha be a difficult place? Yes, without doubt. Can it get a little heated over there? Yes, without doubt. Are people discriminated against because of their religious views. I do not believe so, and this is why. E-sangha is a private site and the terms of service are easily accessable. All members needed to sign up to them to join, and i moderated in accordance with the rules of the site, as any good mod should. If you dontlike the rules, no need to post. Just like if you dont like having to wear shoes to get into a club you should go somewhere else. I don't think you can say that you are being discriminated against when you are refused entry to club that has shoes as an explicit door requirement for entry. At the time i stated that i saw no discrimination, and i state the same thing today. The rules are the rules. No one has to agree with them, but then no one is forcing anyone to join or post there. It comes down to a personal choice. If you want to do things differently then the best thing to do is start a site up yourself, which jundo has done, and a very nice community it is to. I have said to jundo, and to the mod team at e-sangha that i have no issue with eithert party. I just wanted to make it cristal clear that i did not, and do not believe that anyone was discriminated against in this instance. To say otherwise is to say that i turned a blind eye or that i agreed with the discrimination, and i can't accept that people will consider this possition a fact.
That's all. Take care. Metta, bukowski.
enchentez
· 1 year ago
Gee, bukowski, that'[s a pretty succinct re-statement of the Party Line, and nothing else.Pretty specious argumentation, considering the effort and money your masters have spent advertising themselves as "The Buddhism Portal", Which implies that it represents ALL of Buddhism, which it clearly does not. If you were to advertise yourselves as "The Vajra-Gestapo Portal", that might be a little closer to the truth and also serve to warn unknowing and unwary visitors what kind of snake pit they were wandering into.
And, as one member there seems to suggest, you could just have the courage to post on all of your pages the banner one of your moderators came up with banner to reflects your stance:
I resigned from E-Sangha some time ago. A user with a Tibetan name was making some quite heavy pronouncements on my rather liberal interpretation of the Dharma. I was told that my interpretation of the nidanas was "harming the Dharma" even though I was able to show that my view was in line with the Pāli canon, if not the later traditions. I referred to this person as holding "fundamentalist views" b y which I meant that he was interpreting (later) traditions in a quite literal way, and was referred to the terms of reference for E-Sangha. There it states that one is not allowed to use the term "fundamentalist" to describe another user. But this person was taking a highly literal approach to texts and using that to write oppressive statements about me for disagreeing with him. Like he was terribly afraid of what might happen if we thought for ourselves...
I also noticed amongst the terms of reference that one was required to believe in a number of core beliefs which were claimed to represent Buddhist orthodoxy. I no longer recall all of them, but it was clear that my doubtful agnosticism on the issue of rebirth meant that I was effectively not entitled to participate on E-Sangha. This is a kind of implicit fundamentalism - you either believe these things or you are not one of us. Stated in quite black and white terms with no room for doubt or discussion. I can see why they might have adopted this approach - to keep out trolls. But it has the effect of stifling genuine discussion: rebirth (yes or no?) is a live issue for most Western Buddhists. It stands as an unprovable axiom of traditional Buddhism, and we had enough of that shit from the Christians. Insisting on a belief in rebirth as a criteria for being a Buddhist is nonsensical.
What got my goat however was the ban on the New Kadampa Tradition. No member of E-Sangha is allowed to link to a website by or about the NKT. I may disagree with the NKT on many points but I have no wish to silence them, nor to participate in the silencing of them. I rather admire the US stand on free speech where this kind of thing is concerned - one of the few things I do admire about the US legal system.
My experience on E-Sangha was quite mixed. I was delighted to find practitioners interested in and informed about East Asian Tantra (as opposed to Tibetan Tantra) - it's one of the reasons for being interested in this blog too! Also on the plus side when someone plundered an image from my mantra website the admin removed it for me. However I did not like the heavy fundamentalism of some of the participants, nor the implicitly fundamentalist rules of conduct which everyone must sign up to (and thereby endorse). I decided that I did not wish to participate any longer. I hate the idea of Buddhist fundamentalism which seems like an oxymoron but that doesn't stop it existing. However people are full of bias and prejudice and expecting the unenlightened to be any other way seems a bit naive really.
It seems like a waste of time and resources to sue them though. Just start a website of your own - everyone can have their say. Hell, start your own discussion group, it's a lot cheaper than a lawsuit - by several 10,000's of currency units in any country.
I'm quite doubtful of internet campaigns as well though. Having been the target of an internet hate campaign both individually and institutionally I know how the truth can be distorted, how one person's experience can be translated into a mountain of criticism, how people love to jump on the band wagon. If you throw enough shit, some of it will stick, no matter how clean the target. I know that things said and done from good motives can be turned around and used against you (I am a lot less revealing about my personal life these days for instance!).
Most of the people conducting negative campaigns against groups or individuals appear to me to be acting from negative mental states themselves. I'm currently translating and studying Dhammapada 3-4: he abused me, he beat me, he overcame me, he took from me: for they who bear these grudges hatred does not subside. I find this a compelling and challenging message to live up to.
Best Wishes Jayarava
wbainbridge
· 1 year ago
Jayarava sez:
"I also noticed amongst the terms of reference that one was required to believe in a number of core beliefs which were claimed to represent Buddhist orthodoxy."
Not having been on E-Sangha, I'm reacting to the proposition of "core beliefs" rather than the web forum. But, one of the remarkable things about Buddhism is that it's founder told people they need to take responsibility for their own path to realization, and "believing in" something, whatever that might mean, because someone tells you you should is horribly subversive of taking that responsibility. It's a tricky navigation, because there are a lot of places in the Buddhist path where we need to trust in teachers' guidance because we don't yet have the understanding to know how to get to where we want to go. But "core beliefs" are clearly over that line. If Shakyamuni had remained true to somebody's core beliefs, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
W.B.
Caramba
· 1 year ago
I'm sorry Jundo Cohen, but it seems to me that your deleted post was kind of harshly worded and disrespectful of those Buddhists who may disagree with you on reincarnation (that's most Buddhists). Don't you think its a bit much to call them "primitive", and to call the people who wrote the sutras "primitive"? You came across as the intolerant one. Millions of people worldwide believe in rebirth and for a small bunch of western Soto Zen practitioners to call them all "primitive" and "superstitious" and question their intelligence borders on racism. I think it can be reasonable demonstrated that your posts had a bad effect on Soto Zen practitioners in Singapore.
Jundo
· 1 year ago
Hello Caramba,
I would never call any person or religious believer "primitive". Please print here the posting in full, and the full discussion (including as a response to Mr. Namdrol 's teachings on what Buddhism is and is not) to allow the context to be seen.
I have said that everyone is entitled to believe what they believe, and who am I to be the final judge of what is true? I have said that, over the centuries, Buddhism has gathered into itself various primitive beliefs, myths, hocus-pocus, superstitions, magical systems and the like ... and I do not think that that is necessary to Buddhism (at least as I teach it). But I have said that that is only my belief, and how I teach. Buddhism is a big tent, wide enough to hold everyone. I have also said that the Buddha was a man of his times, some 2500 years ago, and may have had some quaint beliefs in that regard ... seeing the universe from a primarily Hindu world-view for example.
But to each his own. I never say that I am "right" while others in their beliefs are "wrong" I have never called anybody "primitive".
Gassho, Jundo
Patrick
· 1 year ago
I chanced upon this controversy between Jundo Cohen and E-sangha, because I was having problems logging into the later's chat site. I began to wonder if I had been banned for some of my unconventional views. It could have been the storm. Maybe, the Chinese had crashed it. Perhaps, it is in response to Mr. Cohen's suit. It would be sad. I have come to love the site and the characters who come and go. The Buddhists rarely, if ever, started religious wars. However, It is now practiced by people who have a long tradition of slaughtering each other over religion. Is the curse now entering Buddhism? Please, be very mindful of your actions, Jundo.
James
· 1 year ago
What can be even more frustrating is that Buddhism is the spiritual tool that places most focus on the ilusion of contradictions and misunderstandings... We know that we've got to let go to overcome such ilusions but in the end practice fails us...
Everyone talking from direct experience is saying the truth, each through it's own lens... No one ever able to speak and express pure and pristine living dharma and - simoultaneously - always doing it...
Question is, who is listening?
dorjepizza
· 1 year ago
Today after many days of Attack against Bon .I replied to Mister malcom.. but not for Bon . I express some doubt about his statement on namkhai norbu Rinpoche and I was suspended In all these year I see Mister malcom to make many affirmation about Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche thazt are incosistent . I am Bon practioner but one of my man master is namkhai norbu Rinpoche . and I am surprise how i Namkhai norbu is distorted by him . Also many of his affirmition in Dzogchen are inconsitent and they does not correspond to idea of namkhai Norbu Rinpoche and many other Dzogchen . When we ask to show proof ,he never showed and it is quite autoreferential. He is a translator but he never attended a College but only some courses of a Sakyapa Dharma Center. So the onli advise is to pay attention about his affirmation
Anyway we are in freedom place so his idea or fhis Dzogchen fabrication is not a problem . E-sangha is not the only place where people can meet and discuss.But I want to make understand that malcom is not a Dzogchen master recognised by namkhai Norbu Rinpoche . So I think to put attention to his Dzogchen idea because I think thta they are very personal.
Yours Dorje Pizza
carp face
· 1 year ago
This is interesting. I didn't know about this until today. I've had my fair share of problems with e-sangha and have been banned before (who hasn't really). I'm not surprised that they are being sued. Hopefully something good comes out of it.
Pixy
· 1 year ago
Funny how many consider Buddhism to be an orthodox religion with set rules and beliefs to be followed. The fact is Buddhism is an ongoing ever evolving practice that can't be pinned down from one moment to the next. It is something different for each practitioner.
drew.
· 1 year ago
Hi folks. You don't know 'who' I am, or my background, so ..Yes, I have noticed on e-sangha a certain elitist attitude with an ear lent to speakers, void of compassion and wisdom. It appears that e-sangha moderators are on an "Look At Me ! I Am A Teacher" type bullshitter, never a maxi-student, these types self promote their delusion of ''sitting in some up-there hierarchy'' of their own invention of mini-me-masters. Some have sat in monastic-colleges in some exotic land and think they are special, and reside in some delusional self aggrandizing hierarchy, having done such. Then, they create a group, and cling to the hub so they can control the wheel, as neurotic control freaks do, in their conditioned, neurotic insecurities. Too often, the unhealthy-neurotics try to, and do, take over groups and part or whole Orders because of this bed wetting, nail biting and incontinence induced conditioned fear they have. Someone must kick their arses ( I love you Lin Chi !! I love you Yun Men !!)) and stamp out these neurotics feigning some calm-moderate fronts, when they are really revealed as unfit to ''rule' - period. Little wonder the sanity of Soto-Zen is out to chew these buttheads...compassionately, of course.
drew.
· 1 year ago
Come come now..forgoodness sake. These "Moderators" are clearly charlatans on the E-sangha posing as some kind of buddhist authority and are people unheard of.. Their come-uppance is due. It is obvious that these charlatans posing as 'masters' and all sorts with claims of some exotic schooling, are on the typical charlatans' ego trips. Of course they will cut you off when the heat is on, and feign a mass of irrelevant and twisted answers to callers on the e-sangha site. Wisdom and Compassion does not mean you have to be a completely naieve sucker and fall for all the crap these self appointed self aggrandizing, moderator charlatans pose themselves to be and claim. Wake Up ! Time now for refreshments.
Mark Rogow
· 1 year ago
Dear All:
To be praised by fools is the greatest dishonor while to be vilified by them is the greatest honor. If one is praised by Shakyamuni Buddha and the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of the universe, there are no regrets.
All Comments
I agree with you that a lawsuit is not the way we wished to go here. It makes me so very disappointed (the Buddha did teach that life is disappointing). The present course was selected only after long consideration of the issues involved and the true meaning of "Right Action" and the Precepts. It is not being done out of anger and, hopefully, not ego ... but out of a belief that some things are worth standing up for.
I believe that all people, not only Buddhists, should work out their disagreements through deep listening and opening their hearts. But, when the issues involve questions of religious freedom, discrimination, sect bashing and the like ... and when the other party refuses all discourse on these matters, and merely silences and cuts off critics as in this case ... there is little choice except, perhaps, to take no action at all (or maybe start a blog).
I am now a retired lawyer, so this is now the one case that has my attention at the moment. Truly, I do not believe in most any other kind of lawsuit, and I believe that very little in life is worth fighting about ... but when it comes to matters of free speech, racial or religious discrimination, sect defamation and the like, well, that is a different story and goes right to the heart of what is still worth defending in our society ... even by Buddhists. In this post-911 age, people do not believe in standing up for religious equality and freedom from discrimination, but some of us say it is still important. In fact, it may be the most important philosophy to uphold for many of us, right up there with Buddhism itself.
I must also disagree with you on the basis for legal claims in states such as Illinois and Massachusetts. They do have case law and statutes in place with regard to these issues which offer substantial protections outside employment situations.
Gassho, Jundo
I've never been on E-Sangha, so I don't know the situation there. Except for Al's stuff, I don't do e-Buddhism. I can say, though, that any Buddhists I've ever talked with who know anything about Zen have a very high opinion of Soto Zen, as do I. It's a little weird that this online group seems to have a problem with it, but hopefully that won't affect the respect that Soto practitioners enjoy in the, well, non-virtual self-arising world. I hope it all works out well for everyone!
W.B.
According to my "Ministry and the Law: What you Need to Know" text, Clergy are held to a higher standard when it comes to libel/slander - especially against other clergy.
Now - to be fair, I haven't ever seent that play out like that "in real life" where it seems some clergy can have some pretty nasty things to say about other clergy folks... but hey, that's what the book said.
In any case, I almost wouldn't mind if e-sangha was shut down. I don't think it's actually that great of a resource or service to folks, even without the junta. You have folks with varying levels of interest, knowledge, and experience asking questions of others in the same boat as they are, and because of the screen names you might not realize that the person giving you an answer or advice is actually a 17 year old that just started reading about Buddhism a year ago and secretly thinks he's really an undiscovered "tulku."
Unfortunately, this is more often than not the case - in general, if not specific detail. I would much rather see an "ask the teacher" forum with a panel of experienced teachers from many schools and traditions responding to questions from visitors. Sort of a Buddhist "Dear Abby" (Dear Abbot?)
THAT would be a far greater service to the Buddhist community - especially if most or all Buddhist schools were represented and allowed to answer from their own experience, understanding - and most importantly - tradition, without fear of censorship or oppression if those things don't happen to be in agreement with the experience, understanding, or tradition of the others.
Anyway, I think I'm rambling here...
I also think you run the risk of a counterclaim that may be stronger than your own case.
Dropping opposition in this case may be the best course. E-sangha is really not THAT important anyway.
At the time of many of the incidents that are beeing discused openly around the net i was a chan/zen Buddhist moderator at e-sangha. I was also the only soto zen practitioner amongst the admin team, although i consider myself a complete beginer in this respect and hold no credentials of any sort.
This is the important bit. I wish to make it very, very clear that i saw no prejudicial behaviour of any sort in the zen and specifically the soto zen forum. I hate prejudice in all it's forms, and i assure anyone who reads this post that i would have acted imediately against anyone, including other moderators who i felt were discriminating other members. It is true that some members of the forum have strong opinions about the nature of the zen clergy, and of the soto school itself. However, these are opinions, and from my perspective other members were entitled to hold the exact oposit opinion. All internet sites of the size and diversity of e-sangha have disagreements as a staple of their daily trafic. Can e-sangha be a difficult place? Yes, without doubt. Can it get a little heated over there? Yes, without doubt. Are people discriminated against because of their religious views. I do not believe so, and this is why. E-sangha is a private site and the terms of service are easily accessable. All members needed to sign up to them to join, and i moderated in accordance with the rules of the site, as any good mod should. If you dontlike the rules, no need to post. Just like if you dont like having to wear shoes to get into a club you should go somewhere else. I don't think you can say that you are being discriminated against when you are refused entry to club that has shoes as an explicit door requirement for entry.
At the time i stated that i saw no discrimination, and i state the same thing today. The rules are the rules. No one has to agree with them, but then no one is forcing anyone to join or post there. It comes down to a personal choice. If you want to do things differently then the best thing to do is start a site up yourself, which jundo has done, and a very nice community it is to. I have said to jundo, and to the mod team at e-sangha that i have no issue with eithert party. I just wanted to make it cristal clear that i did not, and do not believe that anyone was discriminated against in this instance. To say otherwise is to say that i turned a blind eye or that i agreed with the discrimination, and i can't accept that people will consider this possition a fact.
That's all. Take care. Metta, bukowski.
And, as one member there seems to suggest, you could just have the courage to post on all of your pages the banner one of your moderators came up with banner to reflects your stance:
<img src="http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/uploads/1183663048/gallery_414_82_1185044080.jpg">
I also noticed amongst the terms of reference that one was required to believe in a number of core beliefs which were claimed to represent Buddhist orthodoxy. I no longer recall all of them, but it was clear that my doubtful agnosticism on the issue of rebirth meant that I was effectively not entitled to participate on E-Sangha. This is a kind of implicit fundamentalism - you either believe these things or you are not one of us. Stated in quite black and white terms with no room for doubt or discussion. I can see why they might have adopted this approach - to keep out trolls. But it has the effect of stifling genuine discussion: rebirth (yes or no?) is a live issue for most Western Buddhists. It stands as an unprovable axiom of traditional Buddhism, and we had enough of that shit from the Christians. Insisting on a belief in rebirth as a criteria for being a Buddhist is nonsensical.
What got my goat however was the ban on the New Kadampa Tradition. No member of E-Sangha is allowed to link to a website by or about the NKT. I may disagree with the NKT on many points but I have no wish to silence them, nor to participate in the silencing of them. I rather admire the US stand on free speech where this kind of thing is concerned - one of the few things I do admire about the US legal system.
My experience on E-Sangha was quite mixed. I was delighted to find practitioners interested in and informed about East Asian Tantra (as opposed to Tibetan Tantra) - it's one of the reasons for being interested in this blog too! Also on the plus side when someone plundered an image from my mantra website the admin removed it for me. However I did not like the heavy fundamentalism of some of the participants, nor the implicitly fundamentalist rules of conduct which everyone must sign up to (and thereby endorse). I decided that I did not wish to participate any longer. I hate the idea of Buddhist fundamentalism which seems like an oxymoron but that doesn't stop it existing. However people are full of bias and prejudice and expecting the unenlightened to be any other way seems a bit naive really.
It seems like a waste of time and resources to sue them though. Just start a website of your own - everyone can have their say. Hell, start your own discussion group, it's a lot cheaper than a lawsuit - by several 10,000's of currency units in any country.
I'm quite doubtful of internet campaigns as well though. Having been the target of an internet hate campaign both individually and institutionally I know how the truth can be distorted, how one person's experience can be translated into a mountain of criticism, how people love to jump on the band wagon. If you throw enough shit, some of it will stick, no matter how clean the target. I know that things said and done from good motives can be turned around and used against you (I am a lot less revealing about my personal life these days for instance!).
Most of the people conducting negative campaigns against groups or individuals appear to me to be acting from negative mental states themselves. I'm currently translating and studying Dhammapada 3-4: he abused me, he beat me, he overcame me, he took from me: for they who bear these grudges hatred does not subside. I find this a compelling and challenging message to live up to.
Best Wishes
Jayarava
"I also noticed amongst the terms of reference that one was required to believe in a number of core beliefs which were claimed to represent Buddhist orthodoxy."
Not having been on E-Sangha, I'm reacting to the proposition of "core beliefs" rather than the web forum. But, one of the remarkable things about Buddhism is that it's founder told people they need to take responsibility for their own path to realization, and "believing in" something, whatever that might mean, because someone tells you you should is horribly subversive of taking that responsibility. It's a tricky navigation, because there are a lot of places in the Buddhist path where we need to trust in teachers' guidance because we don't yet have the understanding to know how to get to where we want to go. But "core beliefs" are clearly over that line. If Shakyamuni had remained true to somebody's core beliefs, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
W.B.
I would never call any person or religious believer "primitive". Please print here the posting in full, and the full discussion (including as a response to Mr. Namdrol 's teachings on what Buddhism is and is not) to allow the context to be seen.
I have said that everyone is entitled to believe what they believe, and who am I to be the final judge of what is true? I have said that, over the centuries, Buddhism has gathered into itself various primitive beliefs, myths, hocus-pocus, superstitions, magical systems and the like ... and I do not think that that is necessary to Buddhism (at least as I teach it). But I have said that that is only my belief, and how I teach. Buddhism is a big tent, wide enough to hold everyone. I have also said that the Buddha was a man of his times, some 2500 years ago, and may have had some quaint beliefs in that regard ... seeing the universe from a primarily Hindu world-view for example.
But to each his own. I never say that I am "right" while others in their beliefs are "wrong" I have never called anybody "primitive".
Gassho, Jundo
Everyone talking from direct experience is saying the truth, each through it's own lens... No one ever able to speak and express pure and pristine living dharma and - simoultaneously - always doing it...
Question is, who is listening?
but not for Bon .
I express some doubt about his statement on namkhai norbu Rinpoche and I was suspended
In all these year I see Mister malcom to make many affirmation about Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche thazt are incosistent .
I am Bon practioner but one of my man master is namkhai norbu Rinpoche .
and I am surprise how i Namkhai norbu is distorted by him .
Also many of his affirmition in Dzogchen are inconsitent and they does not correspond to idea of namkhai Norbu Rinpoche and many other Dzogchen .
When we ask to show proof ,he never showed and it is quite autoreferential.
He is a translator but he never attended a College but only some courses of a Sakyapa Dharma Center.
So the onli advise is to pay attention about his affirmation
Anyway we are in freedom place so his idea or fhis Dzogchen fabrication is not a problem .
E-sangha is not the only place where people can meet and discuss.But I want to make understand that malcom is not a Dzogchen master recognised by namkhai Norbu Rinpoche .
So I think to put attention to his Dzogchen idea because I think thta they are very personal.
Yours
Dorje Pizza
To be praised by fools is the greatest dishonor while to be vilified by them is the greatest honor. If one is praised by Shakyamuni Buddha and the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of the universe, there are no regrets.