"Dharma Wars" article @ Tricycle.com

I think this article will be entertaining for many of the forum members, since this is an online dharma community that has seen its share of "Dharma Wars" (especially in regards to the not-so-distant interactions at the old Dharma Overground).

You can read it here --> www.tricycle.com/feature/dharma-wars

Here's an excerpt: "It's hardly news that Buddhists sometimes disagree'” there is a long and colorful history of Buddhist teachers debating one another, often quite forcefully, over their understanding of the dharma. And American Buddhism has weathered its share of internecine conflicts, including sex scandals, financial shenanigans, and power abuses. What has changed in the past few years is that some Buddhists are now accustomed to casual online mudslinging and name-calling'”in short, behaving just as badly as everyone else on the Internet..."

Any thoughts?

~Jackson

Thanks, Jackson. Is the piece written by Steve Silberman? I'll go look, of course, but before I do I'll guess that it is and take the chance of looking foolish. Steve is an online friend from The Well and he said about a month ago he was writing a piece for Tricycle and asked a few of us for suggestions. It'll be interesting to see if this is that article.

Foolish it is

That's an interesting article, Jackson. I've always thought that there are two primary aspects of communicating online that lead to more hostility than phone conversations or face to face conversations. The first is anonymity. If no one knows who you are, if you can hide yourself, then it becomes easier to act out. Second, the lack of bandwidth, which means we can't fully understand all the nuance we get when we can see another's face or even just hear their voice. Or... maybe it's just easy to type a few angry words and hit "post."

Then, too, there is definitely a huge element of "me" on message boards, BUddhist or not. "I" need to be right. "I" need to be the expert. And when it's sitting here in text for what could be months and months, to be read by what could be thoasands of people, the pressure is on.

Why would Buddhists be different?

Interesting topic. As you will see reading the following response, the article raises of couple of other issues:-

enlightenmentward.wordpress.com/2009/11/...ight-with-the-truth/

Yep - and I'll ask again: Why would Buddhists be different?

"
Yep - and I'll ask again: Why would Buddhists be different?

"

That's the essential question, Chris.

The article makes it sound as though this type of bickering is unique to online dharma conversations. Truth would have it, this kind of thing has been going on FOREVER, but is usually swept under the rug and kept out of the purview of lay society. This type of secrecy is akin to that of parents on the verge of divorce, by are trying to keep a good appearance so as not to let their kids or their neighbors know about it.

It's one thing to assert that this type of interaction falls outside of what should be considered Buddhadharma (which I think is an unwise view). It's another to acknowledge that disagreements of this sort are a natural part of any spiritual tradition and its adherents, and that perhaps people should agree to work this stuff out in private. I think there's a difference.

That said, I don't think our dharma spats are a bad thing. I've learned a lot from them, even when my reaction to them motivates me to stay clear of the discussion for a while. The reflection that ensues is good for developing spiritual maturity, so long as the debate isn't a petty one.

I'm just sort of ranting about this, so I'd like to hear what others have to say. Are Dharma Battles a good thing? Should online dharma communities have articulated Rules of Warfare?

~Jackson

My answers to your questions are, in order:

- I don't know
- no

The editors in charge of the message boards I used to work for would hope for flame wars. Flame wars are to a message board like fights are to a reality show - that they help to draw an audience. The spats we've had here and on DhO are tame, very tame, compared to other places online. I can remember vividly the day Timothy McVeigh struck in Oklahoma and having to shut the message boards down because it got so bad. So if this author ever had anything to do with his former publication's message boards (I did), he'd know better

Good point Jackson. It is true that in some Buddhist traditions, dharma combat plays a big part. It works better in a real life situation, because of the immediacy of the exchange.

There are a few traditional rules, but I think that the most important one is to avoid ad hominem attacks. The object is the understanding of the dharma, never the behavior or the personality of the opponent.

I always avoided such dharma battles on this forum, but I am used to it. It works well on a 2 men for 1 fight basis, with short posts, like three lines maximum.

One problem that I see on this forum is that it works better within the same tradition. Theravada vs Dzogchen is a perfect example of the problem - one will talk with Abhidhama and the Pali canon as a reference for what is and is not the path, while the other may base his arguments on treaties channeled by disincarnate tantric deities. I am not speaking about debates on this forum, but I had encountered this particular problem while arguing with a lama on a forum a few years ago. I think that this is also the reason why a clear definition of concepts is required.

If some people are interested, we might try to draft the 8 noble rules of Dharma Fight Club.

A look at John Daido Loori's book "Cave of Tigers: the Living Zen Practice of Dharma Combat" might be instructive. Even calling dharma combat a *practice* says a lot.

I have personally read only bits and pieces-- but enough to say that it's not about random discussions, heated or cool, amongst practitioners: it's about the instructive (and potentially terrifying) confrontation with the teacher known as 'dokusan' in the Zen tradition, the purpose of which is to put the student's understanding to the test.

This is not to discourage the forming of a Dharma [Debate]* Club: generating a set of rules of engagement seems like it might be a bracing and clarifying exercise.

*[Yeah, I'm the kind of goody-two-shoes who doesn't want to fight]

-- Kate

Thank you Kate.

Yes as you know, sanzen or dokusan plays in a big part in Zen. It is generally codified, with host / guest roles.
If I used the expression Dharma Fight Club, it was a reference to David Flincher's movie Fight Club, adapted from Chuck Palahniuk's novel But it is only a debate in a friendly setting.

-Alex

It looks like there has always been disagreement about the nature of basic as well as ultimate teachings in the buddhist circles. Perhaps that is why there are so many schisms and traditions. That is not an entirely a bad thing as it provides for incredibly wide range of techniques and understandings to tap into.

The issue I am struggling with is when a fruitful dharma debate become useless secterian bickering. I don't know how to define this point. Intuitively for me, it comes about with ad-hominem attacks, but I don't know where to really draw the line. Once this happens I tend to turn off. It becomes very hard to discern true points of contention and understanding versus small self-vs-small self assertiveness.

Who knows? Maybe it's important for one realized person to destroy reputation of another (less realized?). I cannot find a reason for one to do so, therefore this becomes a HUGE red flag.

From another point of view, there have been countless treatises written in contemporary commentaries (20th century) on possible separation of ultimate realization and emotional/personal development. Just because someone is highly realized, does not mean that they are all of the sudden a bodhisattva of compassion or understanding. So there's that.

I don't know what the ultimate answer is. "Buyer beware!" - when trying to discern truly useful teachings - I guess.

Andrew

"Just because someone is highly realized, does not mean that they are all of the sudden a bodhisattva of compassion or understanding."

Exactly. The extent to which we believe that Buddhists are somehow different is the extent to which this will continue to be a conundrum. Again, whether the argument is about dharma or about guns or about politics, people will be people. We are not special.

"Exactly. The extent to which we believe that Buddhists are somehow different is the extent to which this will continue to be a conundrum. Again, whether the argument is about dharma or about guns or about politics, people will be people. We are not special."

"We are the all singing, all dancing crap of the world."

Funny how Fight Club themes keep popping up. I guess there's some truth to it all.

"Whether the argument is about dharma or about guns or about politics, people will be people. We are not special.

"

Here's where I am trying to make sense "of it all". There seems to be some parallel between the physio-energetic (if that's what we're using as a model) development and moral/emotional development.

Vince Horn (back when he used to hang out on DhO v1.0) made a comment about stream enterers and beyond. Those pesky, selfish personality habits "tend" to be seen more through and so one would also tend to have a larger perspective.

I cannot speak from experience on this as I would not consider myself highly realized. However, with increased time and practice I have come to be more aware of subtle "shadow side" (in Daniel's terms) drives, like visciousness or intention to harm. Now what I do with that could be another story, but the stuff is there plain for (not) me to see.

While the "people are and always be people" meme seems to withstand most reality-testing up to now (see many spiritual teacher antics). I hold out hope that there at least is a TENDENCY to develop along the SILA lines during this process. Wishful thinking maybe, who knows.

Andrew

Hi, Seekr. Tendency, yes. I do think, though, there are many and sundry developments wrapped into what we think of as "one" when it comes down to it, and they don't all progress at the same rate. I think any time we put another human being on a pedestal for any reason we set ourselves up for a fall.

"While the "people are and always be people" meme seems to withstand most reality-testing up to now (see many spiritual teacher antics). I hold out hope that there at least is a TENDENCY to develop along the SILA lines during this process. Wishful thinking maybe, who knows."-Seekr

Hi Andrew,

One of Bill H's great one-liners comes to mind. During one of our weekly Sunday dharma hangouts, he and I were talking about what I could reasonably expect from enlightenment. Bill pointed out that it's possible to sustain yourself in a "god realm" indefinitely through concentration states. But, it's a contrived situation, and odds are that your concentration will eventually lapse and you will fall.

"Maybe you were a god in another life, but this time you're a human," said Bill. "The question is, do you want to be a good human, or a shi__y god?"

We aren't gods. And just as Chris points out, we set ourselves up for a fall when we have unrealistic ideas about ourselves and others. The tendency toward saintly behavior is perfectly counterbalanced by deep insight into the fact that the whole world is just the play of awareness. You said the magic word: reality testing. There really aren't any surprises for those who are willing to look around with a critical eye; there are no gods on this planet.

Here's what you can hope for: you can be happy even though you will never measure up to the standards of even the lowest of gods. Real happiness is not dependent upon conditions. It's possible to see the perfection of this moment even when everything seems to be going to hell. This is what this practice leads to. Trying to be a better person is a given. Everybody should be working at that, enlightened or not. If, through this practice, you become a nicer guy, take it as gravy on top of the real benefits of seeing things as they are. (IMHO)

Here's interesting post related to the role of Tricycle Magazine:
rebloggingbradwarner.blogspot.com/2009/1...e-is-helping-to.html

I remember that Stuart also mentioned that Tricycle didn't correct some data about one master even after he wrote them with the real facts..

"Here's interesting post related to the role of Tricycle Magazine:
rebloggingbradwarner.blogspot.com/2009/1...e-is-helping-to.html

I remember that Stuart also mentioned that Tricycle didn't correct some data about one master even after he wrote them with the real facts..
"

Thanks for the link.

It is rather enlightening to learn how funding sources play a major role in what content is (or is not) published. The teaching of Right Livelihood is of particular relevance here, don't you think?

Jackson