Comments on: I think that’s it for me and E-Sangha http://chagchen.org/2009/08/01/i-think-thats-it-for-me-and-e-sangha/ Enlightenment or bust Tue, 07 Sep 2010 23:03:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: MDV http://chagchen.org/2009/08/01/i-think-thats-it-for-me-and-e-sangha/comment-page-1/#comment-838 MDV Fri, 16 Oct 2009 09:41:43 +0000 http://chagchen.org/?p=817#comment-838 E-sangha is not a sangha, it's just an Internet forum with a lot of big egos. I think they (the moderators) actually think they are protecting members from 'bad Buddhism', which is sad, I guess. But it also has a lot of interesting information from the huge archive of posts. Seeing it as just another Internet forum helps me when I get irritated :) And just like any forum it had links to sites containing malware and it has been down for more than a day now. They seem to have a lot of technical problems. Karma? ;) E-sangha is not a sangha, it’s just an Internet forum with a lot of big egos. I think they (the moderators) actually think they are protecting members from ‘bad Buddhism’, which is sad, I guess. But it also has a lot of interesting information from the huge archive of posts. Seeing it as just another Internet forum helps me when I get irritated :)

And just like any forum it had links to sites containing malware and it has been down for more than a day now. They seem to have a lot of technical problems. Karma? ;)

]]> By: mantra practitioner http://chagchen.org/2009/08/01/i-think-thats-it-for-me-and-e-sangha/comment-page-1/#comment-644 mantra practitioner Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:34:22 +0000 http://chagchen.org/?p=817#comment-644 No worries Alex - something else I try to keep in mind is that on the internet, vocal tone gets confused and lost really easily. People write how they think, people write how they talk, people write how they imagine other people think and talk, and people use funny words on top of it all. It's a good furnace for heating people up! Dechen Norbu is from Europe I think. Europeans have really different cultures and customs. I don't even try to figure out what makes them tick. It's tricky enough dealing with different expectations inside north america. I'll keep an eye on how I write things. Peace. No worries Alex – something else I try to keep in mind is that on the internet, vocal tone gets confused and lost really easily. People write how they think, people write how they talk, people write how they imagine other people think and talk, and people use funny words on top of it all. It’s a good furnace for heating people up!

Dechen Norbu is from Europe I think. Europeans have really different cultures and customs. I don’t even try to figure out what makes them tick. It’s tricky enough dealing with different expectations inside north america.

I’ll keep an eye on how I write things. Peace.

]]> By: Alex W http://chagchen.org/2009/08/01/i-think-thats-it-for-me-and-e-sangha/comment-page-1/#comment-642 Alex W Tue, 04 Aug 2009 05:00:52 +0000 http://chagchen.org/?p=817#comment-642 "mantra practitioner", thank you for your comments. You say "One way to find out would’ve been to ask about the original tibetan without having to make the topic somehow controversial (who knows how)". Indeed that's exactly where the difficulty starts. The moderator, Dechen Norbu as he likes to be known, decided to delete my comment and close the thread. How he came upon the idea that my query was "polemical" remains unknown and unexplained. The opportunity to pursue the question of at what stage the mistake was made, should anybody be interested, has been removed. No discussion is allowed. OK, I get it. Only starry-eyed piety is allowed, or so it would seem. "I don’t mean to be patronising.." I'll take your word for that. You are doing it, however! Oh yes, Hayden, thanks for your comment too. It fits with my experience too, that real lamas mean what they say about commitments to perform a certain amount of practice. The class of tantra has no effect on that either - a million is a million, whether it's manis or Cakrasamvara! “mantra practitioner”, thank you for your comments.
You say “One way to find out would’ve been to ask about the original tibetan without having to make the topic somehow controversial (who knows how)”. Indeed that’s exactly where the difficulty starts. The moderator, Dechen Norbu as he likes to be known, decided to delete my comment and close the thread. How he came upon the idea that my query was “polemical” remains unknown and unexplained. The opportunity to pursue the question of at what stage the mistake was made, should anybody be interested, has been removed. No discussion is allowed. OK, I get it. Only starry-eyed piety is allowed, or so it would seem.
“I don’t mean to be patronising..” I’ll take your word for that. You are doing it, however!
Oh yes, Hayden, thanks for your comment too. It fits with my experience too, that real lamas mean what they say about commitments to perform a certain amount of practice. The class of tantra has no effect on that either – a million is a million, whether it’s manis or Cakrasamvara!

]]> By: mantra practitioner http://chagchen.org/2009/08/01/i-think-thats-it-for-me-and-e-sangha/comment-page-1/#comment-641 mantra practitioner Tue, 04 Aug 2009 04:20:24 +0000 http://chagchen.org/?p=817#comment-641 Alex, for sure its possible that there was some mistake in translation. One way to find out would've been to ask about the original tibetan without having to make the topic somehow controversial (who knows how). I think my experience has been the product of taking the time to figure out how to route suggestions and complaints in the way that's preferred, and clearly indicated as policy. I also use emotions for practice. People, and yes, even buddhists, are only human right. Perhaps if you made a complaint in the right way you could accomplish something useful too. I don't mean to be patronising, but in my opinion, complaining on the internet about the internet is about as classy as demanding to see the manager at a restaurant in order to yell at him. It doesn't accomplish much, and at best you end up wasting energy better invested in practice. But good luck with the manager if that's your thing. Alex, for sure its possible that there was some mistake in translation. One way to find out would’ve been to ask about the original tibetan without having to make the topic somehow controversial (who knows how).

I think my experience has been the product of taking the time to figure out how to route suggestions and complaints in the way that’s preferred, and clearly indicated as policy. I also use emotions for practice. People, and yes, even buddhists, are only human right. Perhaps if you made a complaint in the right way you could accomplish something useful too.

I don’t mean to be patronising, but in my opinion, complaining on the internet about the internet is about as classy as demanding to see the manager at a restaurant in order to yell at him. It doesn’t accomplish much, and at best you end up wasting energy better invested in practice. But good luck with the manager if that’s your thing.

]]> By: haydenlaw http://chagchen.org/2009/08/01/i-think-thats-it-for-me-and-e-sangha/comment-page-1/#comment-638 haydenlaw Mon, 03 Aug 2009 04:52:02 +0000 http://chagchen.org/?p=817#comment-638 Hi Alex - Thanks for your post on the e-sangha vast-#'s-of-mantra thread. I appreciated your post there since the numbers sounded strangely high, but I didn't take the time to work it out as you did. If the original poster made a mistake with zeros that is one thing, but your post helped to raise a red flag. And red flag it is - in my experience, real lamas (and monks, khenpos, etc.) are quite precise when they give out such requests/assignments. If they say 100K that what they mean. Even if they say some huge number - real lamas mean what they say - it's not some weird Tibetan koan. The numbers are not metaphorical, or symbolic. And Lamas don't give out larger numbers that any human or group of humans could complete even in an entire lifetime - precisely because there is meaning in doing this practice. E-sangha is becoming very very tiresome because of the way it handles threads like that one. This is a problem that seems to be growing - moderators are becoming more trigger-happy, and far less competent. Too bad there are so few places for reasonable, honest discussion. Hi Alex -
Thanks for your post on the e-sangha vast-#’s-of-mantra thread. I appreciated your post there since the numbers sounded strangely high, but I didn’t take the time to work it out as you did. If the original poster made a mistake with zeros that is one thing, but your post helped to raise a red flag. And red flag it is – in my experience, real lamas (and monks, khenpos, etc.) are quite precise when they give out such requests/assignments. If they say 100K that what they mean. Even if they say some huge number – real lamas mean what they say – it’s not some weird Tibetan koan. The numbers are not metaphorical, or symbolic. And Lamas don’t give out larger numbers that any human or group of humans could complete even in an entire lifetime – precisely because there is meaning in doing this practice.

E-sangha is becoming very very tiresome because of the way it handles threads like that one. This is a problem that seems to be growing – moderators are becoming more trigger-happy, and far less competent.

Too bad there are so few places for reasonable, honest discussion.

]]> By: Alex W http://chagchen.org/2009/08/01/i-think-thats-it-for-me-and-e-sangha/comment-page-1/#comment-637 Alex W Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:39:36 +0000 http://chagchen.org/?p=817#comment-637 "Mantra Practitioner", when you say that "a single Tibetan “bum” is not difficult to accumulate" you are making very much my point. (For those who don't know, a "bum" is the same as the Indian lakh, i.e. 100,000.) That number of manis can be recited in a few days or weeks, depending on available time and commitment; that number of prostrations can be done in some weeks or a year or so, again depending on available time and commitment. But 87 billion <strong><em>times</em></strong> that number is just not doable - even shared amongst a million participants, each has to do 87 thousand <strong><em>times</em></strong> that number. So either the number is a mistake, or it's straight out of fantasy-land. A ten-year old can do this arithmetic. So yes, I prefer the simple and harmless explanation that it's a mistake. Is there really a serious alternative? You also say that "From my experience, E-Sangha policy is pretty straightforward". Good. But your experience is not shared by everyone. Where is the guideline that would have told me that to point out that the number of nearly a quadrillion recitations (I had to look that word up!) could not be serious? That it would be taken as "polemics"? That the messages would be deleted and that I would be berated for having nothing better to do? "If your toes are feeling sensitive about small matters, try consulting Shantideva." You are right. I still find patronising advice irritating! “Mantra Practitioner”, when you say that “a single Tibetan “bum” is not difficult to accumulate” you are making very much my point. (For those who don’t know, a “bum” is the same as the Indian lakh, i.e. 100,000.) That number of manis can be recited in a few days or weeks, depending on available time and commitment; that number of prostrations can be done in some weeks or a year or so, again depending on available time and commitment. But 87 billion times that number is just not doable – even shared amongst a million participants, each has to do 87 thousand times that number. So either the number is a mistake, or it’s straight out of fantasy-land. A ten-year old can do this arithmetic. So yes, I prefer the simple and harmless explanation that it’s a mistake. Is there really a serious alternative?

You also say that “From my experience, E-Sangha policy is pretty straightforward”. Good. But your experience is not shared by everyone. Where is the guideline that would have told me that to point out that the number of nearly a quadrillion recitations (I had to look that word up!) could not be serious? That it would be taken as “polemics”? That the messages would be deleted and that I would be berated for having nothing better to do?

“If your toes are feeling sensitive about small matters, try consulting Shantideva.” You are right. I still find patronising advice irritating!

]]> By: mantra practitioner http://chagchen.org/2009/08/01/i-think-thats-it-for-me-and-e-sangha/comment-page-1/#comment-635 mantra practitioner Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:11:57 +0000 http://chagchen.org/?p=817#comment-635 Hi Linda, I believe that is a teaching given by Dogen. In any case it is just good sense. Alex, a single Tibetan "bum" is not difficult to accumulate. As for the rest, it seems clear that you'd prefer to think that there is a mistake, so, there seems to be no need for further argument. From my experience, E-Sangha policy is pretty straightforward. If your toes are feeling sensitive about small matters, try consulting Shantideva. Good luck. Hi Linda, I believe that is a teaching given by Dogen. In any case it is just good sense.

Alex, a single Tibetan “bum” is not difficult to accumulate. As for the rest, it seems clear that you’d prefer to think that there is a mistake, so, there seems to be no need for further argument. From my experience, E-Sangha policy is pretty straightforward. If your toes are feeling sensitive about small matters, try consulting Shantideva. Good luck.

]]> By: Alex W http://chagchen.org/2009/08/01/i-think-thats-it-for-me-and-e-sangha/comment-page-1/#comment-632 Alex W Sun, 02 Aug 2009 02:04:26 +0000 http://chagchen.org/?p=817#comment-632 So, "mantra practitioner", I have to ask whether, when you did (or will do) ngondro, did you not bother with actually doing 100,000 of each item? Did you just take the numbers as aspirational, without any real intention to do them? And do you yourself feel justified in using numbers that are much bigger than the reality? Would you, for instance, tell your lama that you didn't just do 100,000 prostrations, but that you did a full million, because you thought that was a better aspiration, even though in fact you only did a couple of thousand? Of course not! (At least, I <em>assume</em> not.) Why is it so hard to admit that there may have been a simple mistake made by the lama, translator or copyist? Perhaps the lama doesn't have much grasp of numbers - he could still be a good lama. I'd much prefer to think that there is a mistake, rather than think that this number was really what was intended, as that would suggest that the lama might be trying to put a guilt trip on his followers. What is more, if the number is deliberately meant to be overwhelming, aren't the followers likely to think "f*** that for a lark, I'm off to the pub" once they realize that they literally will not finish in a thousand years? In any case, the numbers are not of great concern to me. Lamas can urge their followers to complete any numbers they like, people can understand them in any way they like. If people want to find an explanation that avoids admitting that someone made a mistake - that's up to them. What <em><strong>was</strong></em> of concern is the way the e-sangha moderators take it on themselves without explanation, without warning and without obvious reason, to shut down any discussion of the matter, to stop the expression of an opinion that is not one of starry-eyed piety, and then to berate me for pointing out that the numbers make no real sense. As an interesting aside, I see from the server logs that people have been arriving at this post from a new thread at e-sangha that has already been deleted! I wonder what that was about. So, “mantra practitioner”, I have to ask whether, when you did (or will do) ngondro, did you not bother with actually doing 100,000 of each item? Did you just take the numbers as aspirational, without any real intention to do them? And do you yourself feel justified in using numbers that are much bigger than the reality? Would you, for instance, tell your lama that you didn’t just do 100,000 prostrations, but that you did a full million, because you thought that was a better aspiration, even though in fact you only did a couple of thousand? Of course not! (At least, I assume not.)
Why is it so hard to admit that there may have been a simple mistake made by the lama, translator or copyist? Perhaps the lama doesn’t have much grasp of numbers – he could still be a good lama.

I’d much prefer to think that there is a mistake, rather than think that this number was really what was intended, as that would suggest that the lama might be trying to put a guilt trip on his followers. What is more, if the number is deliberately meant to be overwhelming, aren’t the followers likely to think “f*** that for a lark, I’m off to the pub” once they realize that they literally will not finish in a thousand years?

In any case, the numbers are not of great concern to me. Lamas can urge their followers to complete any numbers they like, people can understand them in any way they like. If people want to find an explanation that avoids admitting that someone made a mistake – that’s up to them. What was of concern is the way the e-sangha moderators take it on themselves without explanation, without warning and without obvious reason, to shut down any discussion of the matter, to stop the expression of an opinion that is not one of starry-eyed piety, and then to berate me for pointing out that the numbers make no real sense.

As an interesting aside, I see from the server logs that people have been arriving at this post from a new thread at e-sangha that has already been deleted! I wonder what that was about.

]]>