Browse > Home / Buddhism, Spirituality / E-sangha Drama Continues

| Subcribe via RSS

E-sangha Drama Continues

March 17th, 2008 Posted in Buddhism, Spirituality
2528 people have read this post.

Suushi_Mikoshi-nyudo Without a doubt, the entries on this blog that get the most traffic and comments over time are the ones to do with E-sangha. This is without any specific intention on my part but it seems to be where a lot of people arrive here. It may have something to do with the fact that if you search on “E-sangha” on Google, blog posts here are the sixth and seventh entries on the first page.

E-sangha is a web forum that promotes itself as being for all Buddhists of all traditions of practice. It has a large base of users and, in fact, its number of users is large enough, over time, that the very number and amount of activity acts to pull in online Buddhists who hear about the site. In reality, E-sangha is a very unfriendly place for many Buddhists. It is run by a small junta of moderators with a bit of an iron fist (not even with the velvet glove!). This group brooks no disagreement with their beliefs or methods. Members of the forum who don’t toe the line with great alacrity for this collective are quickly and quietly banned from the site.

Members of the moderator junta claim that they do what they do for the sake of Buddhism and the spread of the Dharma. In their opinion, incorrect beliefs or doctrines lead to trouble and confusion so their discussion is not allowed, even to show that they are wrong. At least one Zen priest has been banned, for example, for saying that he did not literally believe in or teach the reality of literal reincarnation as a Buddhist.

In additional to doctrinal control, only members of organizations or lineages of Buddhism recognized as legitimate by the moderators are allowed to state that they are monastics or other clergy (or to even have pictures of themselves in robes). If your organization or lineage is not seen as acceptable by the moderators, you cannot mention your ordination or speak as a monastic or cleric on pain of being banned from E-sangha. In order to prove credentials, E-sangha moderators demand all of the details of ordination from would-be representatives, including contact information. This is then processed and people are contacted, such as the ordaining clergy, in order to prove the bona-fides of the person. Those that don’t meet an acceptable standard or which are from an unrecognized group or lineage, are not allowed to represent themselves as monastics or other clergy.

Who are these moderators who run the site? Well, a list of them is present on the site but there are no details of their personal qualifications or backgrounds. They keep to their own hidden forums for their deliberations and discussions. There is no process to recall or remove a moderator available to site members and new moderators are chosen by the existing ones through a non-public process. Any discussion of moderator decisions is banned on the forums. The net effect of this is that there used to be days when I or others would log into a forum to check out a message thread from the day before only to find the entire thread was gone (and often the original poster as well). No messages would be available. Asking what had happened generally prompted a response of “Moderator actions cannot be publicly questioned.”

As it turns out, even saying in public that you are leaving E-sangha, as I did at one point, is grounds for banning from the site. Malcolm Smith, also known by the Buddhist name of “Namdrol” on E-sangha, is leader of the moderators and administrators of the site. He is a Vajrayana practitioner that (taking him at his word) underwent a three year retreat and is recognized to teach within the Sakya lineage of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been a bit of a lightning rod for criticism posted in comments on my previous entries here. Today, for the first time, he decided to come and engage with people. You can see his comments beginning here on a previous entry.

I give Malcolm a certain amount of credit for actually being willing to show up and challenge what people were saying in the comments on the post but he did a pretty poor job at presenting a case for how wonderful and neat E-sangha really is and how enlightened (pardon the pun) the moderators are on the site. Most of his responses seemed to really avoid any core criticism of the site. I won’t speak to his motivations as I don’t know them, but E-sangha is not well served by his stewardship and that of the current circle of pals there.

Why should anyone care? Well, there are very few decent places for Buddhists to gather online that have enough people to really sustain themselves. E-sangha has the potential to be one of these but not as it is currently operated. We live in a golden age, realistically, for Buddhists in many ways. People of a variety of traditions of practice have the means to communicate with each other in a manner which has not happened for many centuries, if ever. Every surviving tradition of practice can talk to and learn from all of our fellow Sangha members because of the combination of low-cost communication and a more globally connected culture. We should be taking advantage of this opportunity to communicate and not to use it as a mechanism for sectarianism, personal glorification, or politics.

For those interested, my previous entries on E-sangha are:

This entry was posted on Monday, March 17th, 2008 at 7:58 pm and is filed under Buddhism, Spirituality. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Viewing 24 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Hey Al,

    As you know, I was on another list moderated by Namdrol that seems to have shuffled off to a different plane of existence. I got a lot of good and useful information and suggestions from what he posted, but I do tend to look at it all very differently, namely, the way things are is the way things are, which is not the property of any religion or lineage, and what we all, including Shakyamuni Buddha, try to do is realize as much of that as we can in order to make sense of our experience of life and interact constructively with one another. The really good teachers I've had have all said that the ultimate nature of things is inexpressible and that's consistent with my own limited experience on the subject, so when I get home after working for a living all day, I'm a lot more likely to sit down and practice than think about signing on to E-sangha or anything like it.

    The reason I read your blog and not something like E-sangha, besides the fact that we're friends, is that it's more fun, and we all can use some of that.

    All the best!

    W.B.
    • ^
    • v
    Hi Bill,

    Yeah, it is better to focus on practice, by far. I do wish that online communities worked a bit better than they do or that the options were better. E-sangha has the potential to do a lot of good just by the simple number of people on it but monkey politics messes things up.
    • ^
    • v
    "I give Malcolm a certain amount of credit for actually being willing to show up and challenge what people were saying in the comments on the post but he did a pretty poor job at presenting a case for how wonderful and neat E-sangha really is and how enlightened (pardon the pun) the moderators are on the site. Most of his responses seemed to really avoid any core criticism of the site."

    My point is that you are misdirecting criticisms of a culture at a person. I guarantee that if I were to step down, the culture at E-sangha would remain the same, and dissatisfactory to you.

    The reasons that my posts don't address your core criticisms is that frankly, your criticisms are irrelevant to the concerns of the founders of the site, of which I was not one.

    E-Sangha is heavily moderated because of a group of users' experience at the old Tricycle boards.

    You have permitted the basic message of disapproval of E-Sangha to become conflated with certain ex-members personal bitch fest with me. In that respect, you have become unwittingly involved in the personal grudge match of a couple of users.

    In short, you are being used.

    But it is your blog, so if you are happy that people are using you for their own ends, that's your business.
    • ^
    • v
    Well, why don't you step down, Malcolm, and then we'll all find out? That would defuse the conflation of personal criticism of you with that of E-sangha.

    Frankly, I find both to be valid but they are separate issues if you are no longer the main administrator and moderator of E-sangha.

    None of this is going to keep me awake at night, in any case. I wrote off E-sangha a while ago. It isn't like I can't get on it (I have a spare account even now) but I don't bother to try anymore. It is a waste of time and a source of the worst kind of meeting of politics and Buddhism at this point. I simply post about things that come up on my blog from time to time and others seem to comment. I'm not going to stop it or worry about it.
    • ^
    • v
    "It isn’t like I can’t get on it (I have a spare account even now) but I don’t bother to try anymore. It is a waste of time and a source of the worst kind of meeting of politics and Buddhism at this point."

    Of course you have duplicate account, Al-- virtually everyone with any tech savvy can get around our ip blocks and so on.

    But the politics are yours, Al, they are not ours.

    And you are wrong, people won't stop criticizing me just because I am not an admin any longer, they will keep bitching and moaning about me until they are bored or dead. So, when I decide I have truly better things to do than ban a user every once in a while for being a jerk, or modifying users accounts, and so on, then I will step down and not until then.

    One thing that these sorts of threads do, however, is polarize the staff at e-Sangha, and create solidarity amongst them. All Peter, et al's comments have done for the moderating team is confirm for them how right it was to let him go.

    Peter once had friends among the moderating team. I think it is safe to say feelings are not so warm towards him any longer.

    N
    • ^
    • v
    Well, anything to help the us vs. them groupthink between the moderator junta and the members of the site, I guess. I mean, the moderators are really the victims in all of this and their draconian and secret policies and methods are all justified, right?

    For someone with no interest in what I or others are saying, you've sure posted a lot of messages (more than 20) in the last 24 hours here.
    • ^
    • v
    "Well, anything to help the us vs. them groupthink between the moderator junta and the members of the site, I guess. I mean, the moderators are really the victims in all of this and their draconian and secret policies and methods are all justified, right?"


    This is false, al.We don't have secret policies, or secret methods. Your complaints are not being addressed because they are misplaced.


    "For someone with no interest in what I or others are saying, you’ve sure posted a lot of messages (more than 20) in the last 24 hours here."

    As I said, even my tolerance level for lies, misrepresentation and plain old fallacy has been exceeded.
    • ^
    • v
    I suggest meditation, maybe some nice Insight practices. Why don't we meditate on the Four Immeasurables together, Malcolm?

    You're investing an awful lot of time here but I guess you have it to spare.
    • ^
    • v
    He certainly seems obsessed with this Peter doesnt he ?
    • ^
    • v
    "He certainly seems obsessed with this Peter doesnt he ?...."

    Umm actually, no, since I don't have a month's worth of speculative annoyed posts going on and on about him. I would say that you and Peter are the ones with the obsession.

    N
    • ^
    • v
    And you keep coming back for more, Malcolm. I suggest letting go of your attachment to posts here.
    • ^
    • v
    Its like dealing with a child. He cant invisible or ban or suspend so he has to have the last word.
    Every post confirming what many of us came to an view about some time ago...
    I am tempted to post the emails of support I have received. I wont because I suspect the senders would be too identifiable.
    • ^
    • v
    "I suggest letting go of your attachment to posts here."

    I am not particularly attached to the posts here, but since the door is open, people can see for themselves the pettiness, absurdity and lack of substance of the complaints here.

    N
    • ^
    • v
    Oh you are right there . You are exposed Namdrol. You came out from behind the curtain. There you are with all of your weapons beyond reach apart from bluster. In so doing you have made it impossible for you to be taken seriously again. Your facade wont crumble all at once, but crumble it will. It has been brought out into the light and it turns out you are just a big kid.
    • ^
    • v
    "Oh you are right there."

    Yes, I know. Your complaints are petty, absurd, and lack substance.

    I am glad you agree.

    Later.

    N
    • ^
    • v
    "At least one Zen priest has been banned, for example, for saying that he did not literally believe in or teach the reality of literal reincarnation as a Buddhist."

    Anyone who has a real interest in Buddhism and doesn't yet understand the validity of the teachings about reincarnation would spend their time better sitting on the pillow and contemplating on "no-self" than allowing their ego-self to moan about it, as a result of ignorance (which is absence of enlightenment and understanding)...

    Reincarnation is real, though not exactly how most people imagine it. Drop the "me" who reincarnates and the understanding will be attained.

    Love and Light
    • ^
    • v
    James, I'm not sure who you are addressing. Are you suggesting a belief in literal reincarnation as the one and only acceptable interpretation? You are aware, I hope, that a variety of opinions on the matter have been expressed over the last couple of thousand years by a variety of Buddhist teachers.
    • ^
    • v
    Hello Al

    I am adressing no one specifically and anyone who reads my words and doesn't yet understand the teachings about reincarnation. And please understand I am not suggesting belief in anything. On the contrary, the word "belief" to me implies accepting something as true without having direct experience and thorough understanding of something, which the Buddha warned against in the Kalama Sutta. At the cost of sounding arrogant, I am talking based on direct experience and not on the words of others, but please don't take my word for granted since that is precisely what the Buddha warned against. Test it yourself and experience the truth. Have faith but not blind or weak faith, which is belief.

    One of our fundamental flaws resulting from and sustaining our ignorance is trying to understand the teachings of a Buddha while looking at themes separately, in a fragmented way, such as "reincarnation", "no-self", "impermanence", "emptiness", etc. To thoroughly understand Buddha's teachings, we must connect the apparently separate themes and understand them as a single theme. Consequently, and at least based on my experience, we cannot understand "reincarnation", until we understand the meaning of "no-self" through experience, which implies absence of a self-identity that reincarnates.

    There is much to learn beyond understanding "no-self", which is still the first stage of enlightenment. Thorough understanding is fundamental to build a practice that is founded on solid ground of direct experience, rather than purely on intellectual shifting sands that carry delusion and ignorance. Hence why talking, as it is done in E-sangha - and as foolish as it is sometimes (not always) - is necessary as well, because the intellect is still necessary to attain understanding.

    In the wonderful words of Ryokan Taigu:

    "Talk is always easy
    Practice always hard
    It's no wonder people try to make up
    For their lack of hard practice with easy talk
    But the harder they try, the worse things get
    The more they talk, the more wrong they go
    It's like pouring oil to put out a fire
    Just foolishness and nothing else."

    As much as I admire and understand Ryokan Taigu's words, which guided me to Buddhism, I feel there is one misperception in this poem, perhaps resulting from his frustration. With all his wisdom, Ryokan seems to have forgotten when writing this poem that talk (and writing) is also practice. Apologies for pointing this out at the cost of showing my own ignorance, but not so different from what I have observed here... Riokan's last words of "Just foolishness and nothing else" are too extreme a statement to match the Middle Way, which is the only way out of the burning house.

    Thorough understanding is an essential step to a solid practice. Hence why I see the value of E-sangha and talk, with all the flaws and risks that it may carry to have thousands of beings suffering from ignorance and delusion discussing such issues. Still, unless we talk, we can hardly understand, even at the risk of our egos disagreeing sometimes.

    Lest we forget, only a Buddha is not ignorant and deluded and, as far as we know, there is none around. So - please - don't take my words personally for they are not directed to anyone specifically, anymore than they are directed to myself.

    All the best on everyone's path.
    • ^
    • v
    Hello again

    I just wanted to add these words spoken by the Tathagata to my previous comment and add a short comment on my understanding on them:

    "Nirvana comes to thee, Kassapa, when thou understandest thoroughly, and when thou livest according to thy understanding, that all things are of one essence and that there is but one law."
    in One Essence, One Law, One Aim

    In my mind, it is not possible to have two simultaneously conflictive and thoroughly correct opinions on Buddha's teachings. At best, two opposing 'subjective truths' (or opinions) carry a particle of the 'objective truth' each, which is how things really are and how a Buddha perceives things.

    According to the Tathagata, understanding "precedes" practice, and I feel this suggests that the Tathagata sees "solid practice" as practice according to an understanding already attained and - consequently - not merely on faith or belief, which is more like a slippery stepping stone at best.

    So I would say, neither look down on understanding nor on practice, for ultimately they are one and the same. And don't look down on thinking, talking, writing and/or reading, for one of them (at least) is necessary to arrive at attaining understanding and ultimately build a solid practice.

    Love and Light
    James
    • ^
    • v
    Serendipity brought me to this site. I have long thought there should be some free discussion about the strange, parallel world of E-sangha. For my sins I have wasted far too many hours idly browsing its forums over the past year or so. It is a nightmare place, at once utterly repellent and bizarrely alluring. There is something almost irresistible about the sheer weirdness of so many of its threads and the mad, tyrannical fundamentalism of its moderators. As the world’s biggest online Buddhist forum it does for Buddhist PR what suicide bombers have done for Islam, presenting Buddhism as a deeply unattractive, even fanatical religion and its followers as disturbed and quite possibly insane. Yet there is no doubting its entertainment value. After all, it’s not everywhere one can find animated discussions revolving around the belief that early humans lived for 84,000 years, with not one post challenging this claim. A brief trawl through the extraordinary musings of E-sangha members reveals a picture of online Buddhists who fantasise about the imagined bliss of selflessness yet whose egos generate enough heat to power a small city, who are preoccupied with such issues as whether ants create karma and how many bodies a bodhisattva can manifest at once, and who positively froth at the virtual mouth if anyone dares to question the literal existence of hell. The moderation team are nothing less than an Inquisition, scouring the boards day and night for the merest hint of heresy and forever screeching about the evils of wrong view, though as often as not they cannot even agree amongst themselves as to what this is since different traditions hold contrary positions on many matters. A sustained and brutal crackdown on limp, liberal views in recent months has sent most of the more intelligent contributors packing, leaving behind a deranged membership of the cowed and the hysterical. But there are still ‘souls’ to be saved. As one kindly member put it, he logs on to ‘flame’ those who propagate wrong views because a good flaming now is so much to be preferred to the unquenchable fire of Avici. I used not to believe in hell. I do now. It’s called E-sangha.