At Tricycle, Zenshin Michael Haederle writes about online bickering among Buddhists. In particular, there have been a few online flame wars that involved Buddhist teachers. For example, a couple of Zen teachers used their blogs to challenge each others' teaching credentials. Sad.
[Update: See Jaime McLeod's comment that Haederle misrepresented this specific situation.]
Anyone who has ever participated in online discussions has seen them melt down into nasty personal attacks. Buddhist online discussions seem about as likely to do this as any other, unfortunately. Online culture can be so nasty I think some people throw in insults because they think it's expected.
The About.com Buddhism forum gets flamed from time to time. But when a discussion melts down into pure ego defense -- people simply defending their fixed views any way they can, fairly or unfairly -- I call a halt to the discussion. It is possible to disagree and discuss an issue in a way that is enriching and not enraging. A little dose of what we zennies call "don't know mind" can go a long way.
Zenshin Haederle quotes James Ishmael Ford, a Zen teacher and blogger, who says, "Anybody with a keyboard is instantly allowed to present whatever they've pulled out of their butt as if it were the dharma. There's some ugly stuff out there. There's massive misinformation, and there's an amazing amount of ego wrapped in opinion."
Online flame wars are almost always about ego defending, but there are particular online styles of ego defense. For example, I've seen many people latch on to some narrow point about Buddhism and then go from forum to forum and blog to blog picking fights about it.
Or, they believe they have figured out the trick to "getting it," and they spread this information with missionary zeal (one often wonders if the trick is so good, how come these people never seem to have "got it" themselves?). Or, they're in the "Buddhism is whatever I say it is" school and think that maintaining the integrity of traditions amounts to fundamentalism.
Come to think of it, it's all a variation of sticking to something. Maybe the rule should be "where there's sticking, there's flaming."
Basically Barbara it looks like you’ve simply restated Michael Haederle’s apparent position without much critical thinking about it or knowledge of those who’s reputations he has impugned, including your own as a Buddhist blogger?
I’m not against anyone having an opinion that agrees with someone I disagree with vehemently but I’m just saying Hmmm in this case.
Wow, NellaLou, that was snarky, especially since I was not entirely restating Haederle’s premise. Haederle was focusing on flame wars between teachers, and my brief observations — based on my participation in online discussions going back to USENET days, before there was a Web — are more about online discussions in general.
If Haederle said something about a teacher you don’t think is true, do speak up. But try to be polite next time.
Wow, Barbara that was a little defensive. I do believe I was rather polite in stating what your post appeared to be about. I too was around in USENET days so you realize my comment was not even close to snarky.
I will refrain from any further comment here.
(Sigh) I hate flaming before breakfast.
Does any of this really matter? Let us remind ourselves to stick to practicing the basics (Noble Eightfold Path). We can overcome this type of dialog which is very unproductive and not fuel the flames of conditioned existence. Peace to all.
May I humbly recommend the Noble Eightfold Path? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path
Honestly it’s so disappointing as a practitioner to watch all these so-called teachers and experts display such a lack of compassion. We’re all one, people.
Actually, Maggie, it matters a great deal, because these days the Web is everyone’s prmary source of information about everything. And I doubt “this type of dialog” will ever be “overcome” by pretending it isn’t there. Talking about it is one way to help people see the problem and work to correct it as much as they can.
Haederle has some really good points. I don’t have personal knowledge of his examples of flaming teachers, but I have seen teachers and senior students get caught up in other flame wars, so I know that this stuff does happen.
There is something about electronic communication that can foster anger and misunderstanding. I wish I understood what it is. The worst interactions I have had during the past few years have been via email. I suppose forums can be even worse than email because they take a step back from one-on-one communication and involve public posturing. This happens to be just about the only site in which I ever leave a comment, precisely because as a Buddhist site it has a low percentage of snarkiness (if there is such a word). Perhaps writing comments and publishing instantly for the world to see is a form of communication that falls in a twilight zone between speech and letter writing. When we speak we hear one anothers’ tone; when we write letters we take greater care about what we say. In any case, all this falls under the category of Right Speech. What I would humbly suggest is that, if you feel anger or even annoyance, keep your fingers off that keyboard until you calm down. Barring a “2012″ style meltdown of the earth, the Internet will still be there when you feel better.
@ David – I think “what it is” is that, in print, you’re left to infer tone from the words. There is no inflection to clue people into what someone’s intention may be – sarcastic, angry, sympathetic? Sometimes the meaning is clear from the words, and sometimes our self-defense mechanism fires up before we’ve had time to consider that there may be another possible interpretation. Actually, this happens in “meatspace,” too. It’s just not preserved in print for people to come upon and look at for months or years to come.
@Barbara – Actually, I have real problems with Haederle’s article. I have inside knowledge about the people mentioned in his central example, and believe he twisted the facts and mischaracterized the nature of the statements made by the actual teachers involved. Rather than restate my criticism here, I’ll link to the comments on the Tricycle thread, where I posted yesterday:
http://www.tricycle.com/blog/?p=1623#comments
My comment is #9.
What it comes down to is that there was (and still is) someone posing as an ordained and transmitted Zen teacher, who lied (and continues to lie) about his credentials. This has been confirmed with the Soto Zen Buddhism International Center in San Francisco, the Japanese Soto-shu’s U.S. arm. Haederle accuses Rev. Gomyo Seperic and Ven. Kobutsu Malone of “a flurry of charges and counter charges” resembling a “schoolyard brawl,” when what actually happened was that these two teachers publicly disavowed their previous very public affiliation with someone they had previously trusted. They did this in the interests of protecting people who this man may seek to con in the future.
Whatever else was said on the matter was not said by these two teachers, but primarily by people who weren’t even connected to any of them, except as readers of the blogs where this all took place. Haederle fails to make that distinction, and in the process impugns the names of two teachers who, as far as I’m concerned, did no wrong.
I believe that for real teachers to keep quiet when they know that someone unqualified is posing as a teacher for his/her personal gain does more harm that good – harm to the tradition and harm to seekers who may be lured in by the false teacher. As I said in my Tricycle comment, “Sometimes, for the good of all involved, difficult things need to be said. Let’s not mistake cowardice for “right speech.” Holding back when something important needs to be said benefits no one.”
I think you understand that, too, Barbara. You certainly never hesitate to say hard things that need to be said.
David — Some of the worse flaming I’ve ever seen has been on Buddhist sites, although I think generally the Web is less hostile than USENET used to be.
Also most of the big Buddhist forums are heavily monitored, which sometimes causes other kinds of problems. There was an episode awhile back on another site in which a highly respected Zen teacher was banned from a forum for reasons that remain contentious.
I think you are right that sometimes people take offense because they can’t hear the writers’ “tone.”
Jaime, thanks for your comment. I wish NellaLou had just said the same thing plainly without the personal snark.
I found the article filled with generalizations about online communities, and also leaning towards an idealism about dharma life that is troublesome at best. No matter how long we practice, even the best of us will have moments of struggle, misperception, sloppy speech, and other “messy” behaviors. Maybe many of those moments. And no amount of “be a good Buddhist” talk will address these issues. We really have to dig into the muck to get at the underlying issues, which may be very uncomfortable, and not look like, or always even be, “right speech.”
I totally agree there’s a lot of troubling fighting and nastiness online. There’s a lot of troubling nastiness and fighting in the “real world” as well. Lines like this one from the article “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.” suggest that before the internet, there was some sort of purer state of practice where nastiness and infighting weren’t as ugly. That’s bullshit. It’s always been with us, ans always something we need to work with – the online world is just the most recent place of encountering it for all of us.
I disagree with Brad Warner as much as I agree with him, but his comment about “fantasy Buddhism” strikes a chord for me. There are a lot of fantasy views of our practice out there, including one with a “real life” practice community full of kind, loving people who work together, disagree respectfully, and solve problems using the Buddha’s teachings. My own experience of several years with my current sangha reveals a much more complex picture. We’ve had our share of know it alls who try and dominate conversation. We’ve had strangers walk in and cause disruptions with their desires for something other than the form being practiced. We’ve had not so pleasant fights. We have even had a teacher scandal. And we also have wonderful, kind and loving practitioners who sincerely work hard to express the buddhadharma in their daily lives.
The way I see it, it’s easy to disparage online Buddhism, or whatever you want to call it. To make snarky remarks about people online being unskillful, big liars, and whatever else, while you hold tight to your fantasy about some in the flesh sangha or group of practitioners. It’s easy to do all of that, and some of it might actually be true even, but why not do as you do – or aspire to do in the rest of your life – and treat the internet as another field of practice, no better or worse really than anywhere else, just a different form.
I disagree with Brad Warner as much as I agree with him, but his comment about “fantasy Buddhism” strikes a chord for me.
Whether Warner’s “style” is skillful or not depends, I think, on his audience. I agree there are times when it is appropriate to be outrageous and disabuse people of their fantasies.
The problem with writing online is that you can’t see who is reading you. You can’t see their faces, judge their reactions, get a sense of what’s in their hearts. What we might call Warner’s online presentation of dharma might be skillful for some readers but unskillful for other readers. There’s no way to know.
@ nathan
Exactly. The microcosm reflects the macrocosm, and vice versa. This is nothing new.
Many of us get our Dhamma online- MP3 talks, Sutta study guides, ebooks, and the online community comes with it. Additional discretion is required since we cannot see body language or hear tonal inflections. It is easier to misunderstand and overreact.
Just another part of Samsara-
“Wow, NellaLou, that was snarky…”
“… try to be polite next time”
“I wish NellaLou had just said the same thing plainly without the personal snark.”
Hi Barbara,
I’ve read and re-read NellaLou’s comment here and for the life of me can’t see any ’snark’ or insult.
Dare I suggest that finding insult in her comment is a good example of what you are talking about when you say “people take offense because they can’t hear the writers’ “tone.””
All the best,
Marcus
I had no idea what she was talking about until I read Jaime McLeod’s comment, and then it made sense. But since I had no idea what she was talking about I interpreted NellaLou’s comment to be a slam of my post because it was just a restatement of Michael Haederle’s article, with no original content of my own. So yes, I misinterpreted her, and I wish she had stated plainly what she meant instead of slamming my critical thinking skills and hmmmm-ing.
“May all beings come to rest in the boundless, all-inclusive equanimity that is beyond attachment and aversion.”
This portion of the Divine Abodes chant is apropos of this thread. Snarky remarks, defensiveness, disagreements . . . these are precisely the expressions that could be more skillfully let go.
Online comments, by their very nature, encourage us toward attachment and aversion. Meanwhile, we’ve all heard how silence can give us the spaciousness with which to respond more skillfully. May I respectfully ask whether what we are about to say at any particular moment improve upon the silence?
I have trouble, when threads like this come up, with all of the pat, sanctimonious comments people inevitably reminding others to “just follow the Eightfold Path” or enshrining “silence” as the ultimate good, at the expense of truthful, productive communication. Yes, silence can be good. Yes, there are times when holding one’s tongue may be for the best. But there are times, also, when keeping silent does more harm than good. There comes a time when each of us must rise from the cushion and actually do something in the world. Passivity is not synonymous with Buddhist practice, and it certainly isn’t a virtue. Communication is essential and, as Barbara notes above, Online communication is part of that. We all screw up. We all do or say things that are “unskillful,” to throw out a popular “Buddhistism” that I think too many people use without really understanding, but we can’t stop living or speaking because we may break a precept or fail to practice “right speech.” Dogen said “One mistake after another is also true practice.” That doesn’t mean that we don’t honestly engage with the precepts, or with how to communicate effectively. But maybe we should all just lighten up a bit and give ourselves and the “other” guy (or gal) a little latitude. Shakyamuni and the ancestors left us great tools to work with, but none of us gets it right all the time. Given that fact, perhaps snarkiness and defensiveness can also be true practice?
At Plum Village – Thich Nhat Hahn’s monastery in France – there is a practice around the phone, that monks & nuns & retreatants are encouraged to work with:
Each time a practitioner hears the phone beginning to ring, instead of rushing right away to answer it (the habitual response, for most of us), the practice is to stop whatever one happens to be doing; follow the breath for three complete rounds (noting the inhalations & exhalations); and then “ride” that energy of Mindfulness into the activity of answering the phone, and engaging with the person who is calling in whatever way seems appropriate.
I offer this as just one example of how the energy of practice can be encouraged to penetrate our daily-life activity. Each of us, of course, has to figure out what works for us; and it’s an ongoing process. What is my state of mind, my intention, the quality of my energy, right now, as my fingers move on a key-pad, to type letters-become-words into a box on my screen, and then hit the “send” button?
The phone practice drove me a little bit crazy, the first several days that I practiced it; but I grew to really appreciate it. And later, when I had an occasion to phone Plum Village, and noticed that the phone, inevitably, would ring a good dozen times before being answered – I understood what was happening, and used it as an opportunity also to slow down, breathe and smile; in communion with my friends at the monastery.
This isn’t to say that our actions will always be smiley, feel-good, middle-way-as-“vanilla” sorts of things – just that, however they appear, they can be rooted in an energy of wakefulness, which makes all the difference in the world.
I’d like to draw attention to the exchange between Nella Lou and a guy named Mark Porter on the thread you posted below when Mark says, “Zen is an abomination of Buddhism. Hows that for a debate? Any form of Buddhism that has a sickness related to it is not Buddhism”
I’ll let you read what she said. http://www.tricycle.com/blog/?p=1623#comments
Come on back, Nella Lou.
Jaime, let me restate what I have said here before. Western Buddhists tend to be very smart and as very smart people they came to the dharma from an angle of dissatisfaction. They have since won some realization to one extent or another and now feel that they must defend this at all costs. These are often people who feel that they have had to compromise with fools, probably since they learned to walk. What they fail to see is the fallacy of their own stories. Where is there time for true self reflection when their are battlements to be manned?
Damn, I’ve just written my own biography. I was hoping it would be longer, at least.
You seem like a very nice fellow. I never venture far from this blog so please return to visit us.
Fitz
@Fitz
“Come on back, Nella Lou.”
Sorry Fitz I’ve got fires burning all over the Internet now that the flamethrower is ratcheted up.
“This world is burning. Afflicted by contact, it calls disease a “self,” for by whatever means it construes [anything], that becomes otherwise from that. Becoming otherwise, the world is held by becoming afflicted by becoming and yet delights in that very becoming. Where there’s delight, there is fear. What one fears is stressful. ”
Loka Sutta: (Surveying) the World
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.3.10.than.html
Oh, there’s nothing for you out there, but if you insist…