A fitting response

I have been indignant. And very annoyed. But I am proud of myself that I kept it together.

The past two weeks have been very strange. I was subjected to some angry outbursts from members of the Soto Zen Facebook group. The very first day I was there, I received some extremely inappropriate private messages. You can get a sense of how bad these messages can be from Tutteji Wachtmeister Dai Osho's page. I decided very quickly that I would leave the site, but not without clarifying each and everything that needed to be clarified. I had already gotten into a few discussions. Over the subsequent days, I got into discussions on even more topics: the place of narcotic substances  in Buddhism, Buddhist monism, et cetera.

The trouble with these discussions is that you are often discussing matters which require many years of education. It is impossible to convey the answers to questions that you have arrived after years of study in a two or three sentences. Or even two or three paragraphs (example: quantum tunneling).  The bigger issue was this: there was the constant annoyance of insinuations and allegations. I was accused of trolling the very first day (I was simply questioning concepts like "karma"). What really happened was that as soon as I received the first two messages, I decided to leave the group - but not without quashing the allegation and insinuations that had by then been made. (Another constant was the insinuation that I was actually somebody else. The name "Mary" was thrown around.) I have mentioned elsewhere what I did as soon as I was told about this. I used some fairly vehement language. I told anyone that was not getting it right quite directly that they were wrong. This is not something I have ever done before. But given the vehemence of the responses (many Buddhists believe quite sincerely in karma, for instance), I had to be even more vehement in my replies. Instead of resolving any issues, this simply escalated matters since the people who held these ideas (such as karma) close to their hearts were not going to easily give up said ideas. What's more- within a week, I was also accused of an instance of anti-Semitism by the admin Alasdair Gordon-Finlayson, and this was really the last straw. It crossed the line. This time I decided that I would not simply reply to specific comments, but would actually form a strategy.

This strategy was as follows: (1) I would post a notice stating clearly what steps I would take; (2) I would respond to every allegation, accusation or insinuation; and (3) I would clarify every single issue that may have been laid at my door.

It ended up being a matter of deploying some very aggressive tactics to ensure that I could get out okay. Without such tactics, things would have been worse. But I will tell you this: if you, as an admin, accuse someone of anti-Semitism, you should expect some pretty aggressive tactics in response. So, that's the full story.

That was a fitting response. And I am sure glad I got out of that Facebook group.

Gordon-Finlayson versus Tutteji Wachtmeister Dai Osho

I repeatedly told Gordon-Finlayson to stop the blame game. Now that I have left the Soto Zen Buddhism Facebook group, I would like to make some comments to those of you who may have read that discussion.

 -+-

Hey folks,

I did receive messages of encouragement from many of you, but the venom in one of the messages from a commenter on the forum was so much that I decided that it would be best to leave. I don't have time for all this pointless banter. At the end of the day, it is just a pointless waste of time.

 At the end of the day, as I made it clear to Gordon-Finlayson, I believe in equality for all. The sort of deliberately obtuse reading that Gordon-Finalyson gives my public message which was seen by many people gives the game away. It turns out that Gordon-Finalyson basically does not care for any sort of equality. And after Googling, it turns out that Gordon-Finlayson is some type of middle manager in some political apparatus. Anyway, this whole thing is just a waste of time. Best wishes to all. Don't forget to pay respects to His Holiness Tutteji Wachtmeister Dai Osho. He will shower you with His Bliss.

Best, Anand

-+-
Also read:
1. The one in which Tutteji Wachtmeister Dai Osho says to Gordon-Finlayson & company: "Keep Calm and Ban Everyone" : http://tuttejiorg.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/keep-calm-and-ban-everyone/

2. The one in which Tutteji has for Gordon-Finlayson & company an "Update" : http://tuttejiorg.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/update/

3. The one in which Tutteji speaks about his argument with Soto Zen:
http://tuttejiorg.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/my-arguent-with-soto-zen-or-how-i-learned-to-fear-the-x/

"The Stupidest Man Alive" award goes to Alasdair Gordon-Finlayson

It looks like Brad DeLong has not given the "Stupidest Man Alive" award for a little bit now. Further research is required to ascertain how long it has been since he gave out the award. Apart from the award given out in July, 2013 (this he gave to himself for making an error that is actually quite forgivable), the previous one, as far as I can see, inthe first 10 hits on Google takes it away from Donald Luskin and gives it to Steven Landsburg.

-+-

Yet another gift to our public sphere from Jacob Weisberg and Michael Kinsley… 

Cord Jefferson has the report: 

Steven Landsburg… economics professor at the University of Rochester. Formerly a Slate columnist…. March 20… "Censorship, Environmentalism and Steubenville," the post attempts to compare and contrast potential "psychic harms" associated with pornography, environmentalism, and being raped while you are passed out. If one of those things, prima facie, doesn't sound like the others to you, well, Landsburg would like to understand "what is the key difference among them?"…
After describing a scenario in which a character named "Farnsworth McCrankypants" is mentally traumatized by knowing other people watch porn ("Question 1"), and another in which "Granola McMustardseed" is distressed by the idea of wilderness desecration ("Question 2"), Landsburg poses "Question 3," which references the recently closed Steubenville rape case:
Let's suppose that you, or I, or someone we love, or someone we care about from afar, is raped while unconscious in a way that causes no direct physical harm—no injury, no pregnancy, no disease transmission. (Note: The Steubenville rape victim, according to all the accounts I've read, was not even aware that she'd been sexually assaulted until she learned about it from the Internet some days later.)… Ought the law discourage such acts of rape? Should they be illegal?… I'm having trouble articulating any good reason why Question 3 is substantially different from Questions 1 and 2. As long as I'm safely unconsious and therefore shielded from the costs of an assault, why shouldn't the rest of the world (or more specifically my attackers) be allowed to reap the benefits?…
Every time someone on my street turns on a porch light, trillions of photons penetrate my body… if those… caused me deep psychic distress, the law would continue to ignore them… bodily penetration does not seem to be in some sort of special protected category… 

-+-

Without getting into that particular debate, I would like to point out that the award now has a new contender who, as far as I know, is so far ahead of the pack that there is not a single competitor in sight.

The new winner of the award is (envelope please): Alasdair Gordon-Finlayson of the University of Northampton. Here were my previous comments on this matter.

-+-

I think Alasdair Gordon-Finalyson by virtue of his statement regarding my supposed anti-Semitism and subsequent refusal to issue an apology has simply gone beyond all parameters of reasonable discussion. The very idea of insulting people like this is revolting.  And I'm sorry, there are no two ways about this.
As for me, I'm glad that I got out of the Soto Zen Buddhism forum within days of having joined it. The Internet is a very strange place.

-+-

 What led to Alasdair Gordon-Finlayson to call me out on supposed anti-Semitism was, I believe, a reference in a sentence to "the Nobel Prize Awards Ceremony, or as I like to call it, the World Jewish People Appreciation Day". This statement was somehow anti-Semitic to Gordon-Finlayson. This statement obviously implied pride/achievement for the Jewish people (in winning so many Nobel Prizes). Nothing negative. Not only was reading this statement as anti-Semitism a very bizarre reading, at the time I posted this comment, another person did say that he understood this sentence in the way I intended it once I brought this matter to the attention of the forum. So, there is absolutely no question there. Absolutely none at all.

-+-
Sorry. There are no other contenders. No one even close.

A vote for Tuttejiorg

I moved over to this blog a whole bunch of posts from my other blog "Ask the Delphic Oracle". I had to write a number of posts on this topic very quickly - many of them not even spell checked correctly. I was trying, at various times, to be ironic or humorous or oddball or some other thing, but at the same time, was trying to be, at least, scientifically accurate. Everything you read here is correct, except that one or two posts could be improved. It is quite possible that I did not quite succeed with some of them.

I am just moving this stuff all here to give you an idea of what is going on on the Internet with religious groups. Also, I don't want to clutter my main blog with all this nonsense. This Soto Zen Facebook group was something I stumbled into but the problems being pointed out are symptomatic of a much bigger phenomenon - viz., that of cults on the Internet and that of the sociology of religion on discussion forums.

I think Tutteji Wachtmeister Dai Osho's website is much funnier (I think I may have called him Tutte Jiorg before- I thought that was his name then). Just go there. It is at : tuttejiorg.wordpress.com. You will get more out of reading that than reading this not-quite-fully-baked blog.

Meme du jour

For the record - what to do if you are called a troll

For the record, I was not banned from the group. I Googled for more information on the group within a day or two of joining it. I didn't like what I saw. I told them that I was leaving. As mentioned in my previous post, here is what I did in response. It was quite effective.

-+-

I put a process in place there on said forum. My advice to people: if you are accused of trolling, the first thing you should do is tell others what you plan to do next. Clearly, state that : (1) you are going to leave the group any way. (2) You are in the meantime going to resolutely respond to any and all pointless accusations; (3) You are going to use truth as an absolute defense against all insinuations, allegations and accusations.

And that is exactly what I did. I posted a message like the one above over on their Facebook. Then I proceeded to do exactly what I said I would do. Trasparency is the only way to make people accountable.

Hindu-Buddhist Studies Post 13 : Keep Calm and ban everyone

A repost of a post on Tuttejiorg.wordpress.com.

-+-

Two other friends of mine, Arne Chosfer (cultural critic and bon vivant extraordinaire) and Galley Trot (an accomplished Buddhist scholar and expert in the treatment of Post-Buddhist Stress Disorder) recently joined the Soto Zen Facebookgroup, offering their perspectives. Hardly surprising, both were banned within a few hours.

Galley Trot
I just joined this site. I havt say: beschizzlefoschizzle, bitches! Good shit. This Tutteji dude and this Erica Sagn are not the site admin in disguise. I mean, everything else here is lame and platitudinous by comparison. Yawww!

Lana Berrington (admin)
Galley – yup.. lame and boring and without drama… that’s what this place is all about. Some people won’t like that.. but you can’t please everyone. ps: please watch your language,

Galley Trot
Oh, forgive me Mother Lana Berrington. “Dude” = “Gentleman”

That final comment apparently made Mother Superior jump the gun, and Galley Trot was swiftly banned from the group. Let’s see what happened with Arne Chosfer:

x-buddhist 1
Like most failed comedians, this “gentleman” [Tutte Wachtmeister Dai Osho] wants to make it about the audience. It’s not. His act flopped on it’s own merits.

Another Voice of Sanity
Your absolutely right Number 1, Whoever posts a thread that does not receive the desired response that the contributor intended, then that group member should be banned.

Another Voice of Sanity 
Whoops! Please strike my last post from the record. I accidently used sarcasm AKA lying. Hopefully I don’t receive an infraction or get banned.

x-buddhist 2
Ah, c’mon now lads! Wouldja ever ‘man’ up at all, for Christ’s sake? Ye’re all acting like a bunch of petty-minded schoolkids!

Another Voice of Sanity
Number 2,With all the cursing and name calling you’ve opportunistically added to Tutte’s thread my first impression was that you were the troll everyone was talking about in the deleted threads of his. Then I thought you were his little buddy just joking around with him. When I realized that you were a part of the opposition against him is when I started to not see his threads as trolling. I’m serious. Your comments were the most offensive part of this whole thing. Talk about school kid mentality.

x-buddhist 2
AVoS, I’m neither for nor against anyone, anything, or any one view.
That is clearly confusing for one such as you, which is presumably why you were struggling to work out whose ‘side’ I was on.

But that’s what gives me the freedom to comment as I do. If you feel offended by my neutral comments then I guess you feel offended. Feel free to sit with your offense if you can. :)

Arne Chosfer 
So, Number 2, as a good little Soto Zen altar boy, you’re “neither for nor against anyone, anything, or any one view.”

Still, you don’t hesitate to tell someone: “Now fuck off and take your pathetic attempts at trolling someplace else! Ya … twat, ye!” and “My ’associates’ are currently tracking down the ID and physical location of ‘Tutte’ and his supporters.”

What does this say about your character?

x-buddhist 1
AVoS, my friend, here’s how it should go: whoever attempts comedy and fails should be called out for bad material or bad delivery. If they then compare themselves to Lenny Bruce, i.e. a “misunderstood” genius, they should be banned from polite company.

Arne Chosfer 
Listen now, Billy boy [x-buddhist 1], and I’ll tell you how it is. First, the ”comedy” worked just fine, and the fact that you and [two other x-buddhists] don’t get this and keep posting your irrelevant (but highy revealing) nonsense, makes it better and better. As for Tutte’s tounge-in-cheek comparison with Lenny Bruce, it was an explicit reference to Bruce’s *late* performances – another point which you completely missed.

x-buddhist 1
Yes, Arne, me wee lad, I did not read the gentleman’s explanation; just as, when I dislike a performance, I don’t buy a ticket for the next. I’m sure it was all quite “tongue-in-cheek” and, for some, may have been hilarious.

Arne Chosfer
I see, you didn’t read, you just quoted. Great performance, Billy boy!

x-buddhist 2
Arses should be firmly and regularly placed on cushions.
They serve no purpose on FB.

Arne Chosfer
May I suggest you go crawl back from under your zafu. And keep your “neutral” comments to yourself

x-buddhist 2
Suggest what you like Arne. I wasn’t talking to you!

Lana Berrington (admin)
Arne and Number 2, will you both just knock it off… !

Arne Chosfer
And now Billy boy’s comments are disappearing, Spooky!

Arne Chosfer 
Not with a ban but a whimper.

Hindu-Buddhist Studies Post 12: Buddhism versus Social Science

#SociologyOfBuddhism

Another post on the same topic. Any time the commissars  admins on a Buddhism board have a sign (in the case of the Soto Zen Facebook group, right at the very top) that reads that they want people to engage in Right Speech, you can be sure that since your main freedom is significantly abridged, you are completely under the control of the commissars admin. What is Right Speech? Any act of speech or writing that could be potentially taken to be sarcastic or satirical, or any act of speech or writing even using a particular word such as "nonsense" (that was the magic word that they objected to in my case). So, basically anything.

The best test of an idea is to see if it will stand for ridicule. If the good people at the Soto Zen Facebook group (who, incidentally, count James Ishmael Ford and Stephen Batchelor among their membership) can't take a few satirical posts on Buddhism, then how good are the ideas of Soto Zen Buddhism really? It is often assumed that the controversies we hear surrounding Zen Buddhism have to do with a few bad eggs going against true Dharma. However, the fact is that there are deeper structural problem at hand.

Reposting below a repost of a piece by Tom Pepper. Read on.

-+-

Below is a repost of a piece by Tom Pepper. He recently published it on his blog, The Faithful Buddhist. I asked him if I could repost it here because I thought that the larger non-buddhist readership would be interested in what he is saying. Comments are open. Be sure to see the comments on his blog, too.

From the beginning, I have viewed Speculative Non-Buddhism as a means to ignite a robust critique of x-buddhsm. The x-buddhist image of thought is so closed off to genuinely creative innovation, and its practitioners so complacently tradition bound, that nothing short of an explosion could force open a critique. As most readers of non-buddhist blogs understand, we believe that critique is a necessary companion to constructive change.

Tom Pepper played a vital role in this initial blast. I’m not going to eulogize him, though, because he’s not finished working with x-buddhist materials.

Hindu-Buddhist Studies Post 11 : more non-Buddhism

Continuing our series on the sociology of Buddhism. Let us now head over to this post by Glenn Wallis.

-+-
YOU ARE BANNED.

[UPDATE: Ted Meissner immediately wrote me to say that it's a technical problem. I wish I could give him the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, the post still stands as a general reflection on a real phenomenon in the x-buddhist internet world, including the Secular Buddhist Association. I stand by the post. Also, I want to make it clear that I did NOT receive the usual message you get when a site has trouble loading, the one about technical difficulties. The message I got read:]

YOU ARE BANNED.

That’s the message I get when I try to access the Secular Buddhist site (links at bottom). I checked: it’s a blanket IP ban.  You may wonder: what does it take to get banned from a Buddhist site? I wonder the same thing. After all, aren’t x-buddhists always telling us how they embody compassion, mindfulness, and equanimity? These values, you would think, serve even the most discordant conversations. Couldn’t banning someone just be an admission that your claims to (ostensibly) pro-social dispositions like “non-reactivity” and “non-judgmentalism” are a bit shabby?

Ted Meissner, the founder of the Secular Buddhist Association and its Facebook page, generously sprinkles his sites with words that, I suppose, are designed to signal serious thought and a willingness to engage others with dialogical vigor, words like critical (critical thinking, critical eye, critical examination, etc.) naturalism, pragmatism, science, secularism, evidence, and so forth. Meissner adds to such good habits of thought a rigorous ethics of engagement. We can glean his ethics from such recent Facebook nuggets as the following (Meissner signs all of his sayings “TSB.” TSB = The Secular Buddhist = Ted Meissner. Why does he use quotation marks to quote himself? Does it makes what he says appear more important?):

“I would rather be shown wrong and have the opportunity to correct my understanding, than maintain a comforting delusion.”

“Our practice is neither avoidance nor suppression of suffering, but direct and sincere engagement.”

“Today — respond with a heart of friendliness, rather than react with a knee of jerkiness.”

*Today* — Decide to be an enthusiastic participant in this moment, every moment.

“Only a weak faith is intolerant of questioning. A strong faith encourages it, sincerely, without an underlying requirement that you find their own answers.”

*Today* — That lightness of heart you may have after meditation? Bring that with you as you encounter the very next person.

“To question is to demonstrate a desire to find the truth. And that quest can only strengthen *us*, however much it may weaken our cherished *views*.”

Meissner does not practice what he is preaching here. He is in fact very quick to cut off critical discussion. He does in fact react to “questioning” “with a knee of jerkiness.” I don’t know why. Is he really unaware of the gulf between what he says and what he does? Is he insecure? Paranoid–a for/against mentality? Is he protecting his readers? Or is it a case of blatant hypocrisy–of purposefully saying the “right” thing but just as purposefully doing the opposite? It often looks to me like hypocrisy. But maybe I am wrong. Perhaps the problem is even more serious than I believe it is. Maybe Meissner genuinely believes that he is engaging others in the way he says he is. Maybe it’s really an issue of tolerance. Is it possible that he just cannot tolerate the degree of robustness, vigor, and critical dialogue that some of us bring to the table? If that is the case, his failing is not hypocrisy. It is egoism. Egoism is “the habit of valuing everything only in reference to one’s personal interest.” The logic of egoism is straight-forward: if being “shown wrong” risks your personal interest, just hit the YOU ARE BANNED button. Just shut out the self-interest-conflicting voices. Now, you are once again free to bask in your comforting post-meditation delusion–you know, “that lightness of heart.”

Ted Meissner is not alone in this failure. It is endemic to the entire group of current x-buddhist internet gurus. I mean people like Vincent Horn and his Buddhist Geeks, Kenneth Folk, Ken McLeod, Stephen Schettini, Brad Warner, Lodro Rinzler, and Noah Levine. God knows I could mention so many more. At the core of their egoism is the fact that they have product to sell, whether literally, for good ol’ Amerikkkan $$$, or figuratively, for community building or a seat at the Feast of Latter Day Buddhism.

But these individuals, too, are not alone in their ego-driven quest. In fact, they are just the most recent players in the great American x-buddhist I-help-you-help-yourself game. Contrary to their claims of innovation and post-traditionalism, every single one of them is locked onto the tracks forged by the x-buddhist thaumaturges of old. The failure, in short, is structural. Self-serving egoism is at the core of the contemporary x-buddhist system. Anyone who comes even close to pointing out that fact will be banned from the discussion. But please don’t take my word for this. I am speaking from my own experience. Visit their sites, ask your hard questions, make your pointed criticism, point out the contradictions you see, be irreverent, and watch what happens.

Hindu-Buddhist Studies Post 10 : The Karma Cola reference

#SociologyOfBuddhism

The Karma Cola reference is to the book by Gita Mehta.

Beginning in the late '60s, hundreds of thousands of Westerners descended upon India, disciples of a cultural revolution that proclaimed that the magic and mystery missing from their lives was to be found in the East. An Indian writer who has also lived in England and the United States, Gita Mehta was ideally placed to observe the spectacle of European and American "pilgrims" interacting with their hosts. When she finally recorded her razor sharp observations in Karma Cola, the book became an instant classic for describing, in merciless detail, what happens when the traditions of an ancient and longlived society are turned into commodities and sold to those who don't understand them. 

In the dazzling prose that has become her trademark, Mehta skewers the entire Spectrum of seekers: The Beatles, homeless students, Hollywood rich kids in detox, British guilt-trippers, and more. In doing so, she also reveals the devastating byproducts that the Westerners brought to the villages of rural lndia -- high anxiety and drug addiction among them. 

Brilliantly irreverent, Karma Cola displays Gita Mehta's gift for weaving old and new, common and bizarre, history and current events into a seamless and colorful narrative that is at once witty, shocking, and poignant.

Also, see the following definition below of non-Buddhism.

The work of François Laruelle has given impetus to my specific formulation of “non-buddhism.” Think of my notion of “non-buddhism” (and of Laruelle’s “non-philosophy”) as somewhat akin to non-Euclidean geometry. The difference between Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry lies, of course, in the behavior of a line. Euclid’s fifth postulate assumes parallelism. In upholding this postulate, along with the other four, Euclideans radically limit the field of possible forms. Rejecting this postulate (though preserving the other four), non-Euclidean geometry envisions, so to speak, radical new possibilities; namely, it permits elliptical and hyperbolic curvature.

This image is instructive. “Non-buddhism,” as I conceive it, makes no decision about (1) what postulates properly constitute “Buddhism,” or (2) the value, truth, or relevance of any of the claims made in the name of “Buddhism.” Such non-decision enables a speculative, and perhaps even applied, curving toward or away from the ostensible teachings of Buddhism, as the case may be.

I don't agree with this methodology of understanding the world at all. Whereas Gita Mehta's work is, properly understood, both a work of literature and a piece of ethnographic research, non-Buddhism does not fit the latter of definition at all. For this reason, I will highlight specific portions of the critique(s) from the blog "Speculative non-Buddhism" that are relevant to someone approaching this matter as a social scientist. #SociologyOfBuddhism

Hindu Studies Post 9 : Karma Cola on the Internet

#SociologyOfBuddhism #SociologyOfCults

More comments on the Soto Zen Facebook group. More "Karma Cola" on the Internet.

I think Alasdair Gordon-Finalyson by virtue of his statement regarding my supposed anti-Semitism and subsequent refusal to issue an apology has simply gone beyond all parameters of reasonable discussion. The very idea of insulting people like this is revolting.  And I'm sorry, there are no two ways about this.

As for me, I'm glad that I got out of the Soto Zen Buddhism forum within days of having joined it. The Internet is a very strange place.

Update (8:31 AM): Updated the original post quite a bit. Much of the initial stuff has been removed.

#SociologyOfBuddhism

By the way, I interacted with Lana Berrington as well. I also, like Bjarne Rydhielm, don't understand why my posts were deleted. This is not how it should be done. See Bjarne's comment on Tutte's posts being deleted below stating the same thing.

Faced with this situation, here's what I did. I put a process in place there on said forum. My advice to people: if you are accused of trolling, the first thing you should do is tell others what you plan to do next. Clearly, state that : (1) you are going to leave the group any way. (2) You are in the meantime going to resolutely respond to any and all pointless accusations; (3) You are going to use truth as an absolute defense against all insinuations, allegations and accusations.

And that is exactly what I did. I posted a message like the one above over on their Facebook. Then I proceeded to do exactly what I said I would do. Trasparency is the only way to make people accountable.

Bjarne Rydhielm Actually, Lana Berrington,why don’t you tell us why Tutte’s posts were deleted and – especially – why he  was banned from this group. 

Update (9:24 AM): I have had the chance to discuss this with Prof. Manikutty. We spoke over Skype earlier today. We both agree that this was the right thing to do.

In many ways, I am fortunate in that my father is a professor of management of repute, and continues to teach, so I can always call him in case of issues like this. We have the Indian Institute of Management to back us up. It would be an easy matter for us to show that there is no scientific evidence behind tenets of Buddhism such as karma. No evidence whatsoever. This update is in the interest of science. Here's to Science. To Truth.

And this tells me that the market may be ripe for another online reputation management service, at least for companies, as well as (perhaps) for people. This is especially important for those who don't have access to a university, institute or other such institution in case of disputes .... Interesting times ahead.

Update (9:31 AM): Tutte Jiorg has made a much better case against the group than I have in the words above (as well as in my last two posts on this topic below). He appears quite knowledgeable about this whole Soto Zen thing, so please go through what he has to say. The Facebook group has close to 5000 members and is monitored by seven political commissars Truth Czars.

The three politruks involved in my case were: Lana Berrington, Jamie McLeod and Alasdair Gordon-Finlayson. Alasdair Gordon-Finlayson is the person described as "some kind of middle manager in the lineage of our favorite Zen huckster, Genpo Merzel "Roshi"." below. Politruks Lana and Jamie also make an appearance in the part of the discussion I had extracted into my post "Oops! Oops! More on the Soto Zen Facebook group".

From Tuttejiorg.wordpress.com:

I was recently kicked out from a Buddhist discussion board, this time a Soto Zen groupon Facebook. It’s a fairly large group, with close to 5000 members, monitored by sevenpolitical commissars admininstrators. Although the group itself is not affiliated with any particular Soto Zen cult sangha, one of these politruks, a self-described ”Zen chick and computer geek” is also a ”nun” in the infamous AZI organization, and another one is some kind of middle manager in the lineage of our favorite Zen huckster, Genpo Merzel ”Roshi”.

Update (10:32 AM): What led to Alasdair Gordon-Finlayson to call me out on supposed anti-Semitism was, I believe, a reference in a sentence to "the Nobel Prize Awards Ceremony, or as I like to call it, the World Jewish People Appreciation Day". This statement was somehow anti-Semitic to Gordon-Finlayson. This statement obviously implied pride/achievement for the Jewish people (in winning so many Nobel Prizes). Nothing negative. Not only was reading this statement as anti-Semitism a very bizarre reading, at the time I posted this comment, another person did say that he understood this sentence in the way I intended it once I brought this matter to the attention of the forum. So, there is absolutely no question there. Absolutely none at all.

Hindu-Buddhist Studies Post 8 : Buddhism and rationality

#SociologyOfBuddhism #SociologyOfCults

It may be untactful to point out that not all cultures are at the same level of moral understanding. Hinduism and Buddhism are certainly at the sort of level of moral understanding that you may expect from pacifist religions. This does not mean that they are free from criticism.

Both religions are far from perfect. Criticism is important in at least that it holds up a mirror to beliefs people may have that are actually mistaken ones. It is useful to keep in mind that no matter what the religious books may ask people to believe, people may read only a part of the text. Furthermore, since religious texts in both Hinduism and Buddhism are illogical and contradictory in nature, it is really quite impossible for anyone to believe it all in the first place. However, what gives to rise to one of the most major differences between Hinduism and Buddhism is Markets.

As Milton Friedman once observed, there are four ways of spending money, and when you spend money on yourself, you try to get the most utility per dollar spent.




The link above is courtesy Atanu Dey, who himself, by the way, has said in the past that he is a Buddhist. I don't know what his religious beliefs are right now, and I don't really care. I believe that he is an American and that is enough for me. I think the sooner we get out of arbitrary labels like Buddhist-Americans, Indian-Americans, et cetera, the better.

Hindu-Buddhist Studies Post 7: Oops, oops! - more on the Soto Zen Buddhism Facebook Group

#SociologyOfBuddhism #SociologOfCults

I Googled to learn more about what other people have thought about the Soto Zen Buddhism Facebook Group. I was a bit shocked by what I found.

It was by mere chance that I even found this post at tuttejiorg.wordpress.com. Whoever you are, wherever you may live, thank you!

-+-

Hindu-Buddhist Studies Post 6 - what is karma?

#SociologyOfBuddhism

> Karma's originally defined as ones surroundings. You can make 
> this mythical "you get what you deserve" out of it but that's not what it is.
Question for commenter #1: can you provide a citation for this?

With due respect, I don't believe a nation state has "karma". It is important to define terms before we use them, so here goes.

"Karma" means "action". I don't want to get into linguistic debates. I am a bit short on time, and they are usually tiring. I will just say that the current meaning of the term in Hindi and Sanskrit is simply "action". 

Getting into Sanskrit will open a huge can of worms because Sanskrit words sometimes have not just 5 to 6 meanings (in English, a word with 5 different meanings would be rare), but sometimes, something like 20. And even more. "Karma" as a concept in which people are some type of emergent property of their past actions - this part is known to be false. It is ideal when doing social science to avoid the term altogether.

Hindu-Buddhist Studies Post 5 - Religion versus social science : a fresh look at the fourth and fifth precepts of Buddhism

#SociologyOfBuddhism

Some comments based on a Facebook discussion on a Zen Buddhism forum. It is turning out that while some religions (such as Christianity) seem to conflict with science, Buddhism is not without its conflicts. In many ways, Buddhism conflicts with the social sciences. In many ways, Buddhism plus Rationality equals Hinduism.

To see where I am coming from, continue to read below.

-+-

Let us take a different look at the fifth precept of Buddhism and let us read it closely.
5. Not giving or taking intoxicating substances.

Let us look at that in conjunction with the fourth precept.

4. Not lying.

What are we to make of these precepts? If we are to take not lying seriously, we have to be serious about what we say - and represent Truth to the greatest extent possible. And the truth is that while these are not incorrect as principles to follow in life, they tell you very little. I knew this stuff (about not using narcotic substances and not lying) by the time I was about 12.

Now, the Buddha was not aware that virtually everything we eat is a chemical substance in some form. These discoveries came after the Scientific Revolution. At the same time, we do know now that the chemical composition of foods from Ayurveda (from the "Vedic food methodology", if you will) are often
unknown. This is because they are often herbs and the chemical composition of these herbs can vary. And some of these herbs are, in fact, intoxicating substances.

What would this mean for Indians and Americans? Probably that they should avoid putting anything in their systems that could potentially harm them. That includes all substances that may be intoxicating and/or habit-forming. If you are taking any herbal supplments, talk to your doctor. And by all means, get the help you need. Note that this only applies to Indians and Americans. The British can, of course, do anything they want. [Ed note: this was just a small joke aimed at a couple of the British commenters on the forum]

Bottomline (an updated note on the 4th and fifth precepts): Precepts are precepts. These precepts should be interpreted with an understanding of what the problems with some of the earlier Buddhist writings were. The more important thing is to use good decision analysis tools when faced with actual decisions.

-+-

Further reading (another updated note on the 4th and 5th precepts) : just read the Tripitakas in full. Makes for lovely reading. And also, watch this TED video by Chimamanda Adichie -http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.
The way I treat this discussion is that there are going to be multiple perspectives on any topic. This does not bother me in the least. As a minority in America, and even as an intelligent, sentient Being, I know that this is just the way the world works. Please see everyone here as trying to contribute their perspectives in this discussion. An Insight for the day- the British often read written stuff (while reading it in their own minds and processing it) with a British accent. This leads them to misinterpret what Americans say, sometimes. At the same time, they are very polite about disagreements. Another contradiction that can only be termed Zen.

-+-

Further comments and thoughts (another updated note on the 4th and 5th precepts): Having looked through the comments, it is not so much I disagree with the commenters. My concern is that I disagree almost entirely that these decisions (such as when and how to take substances that may be intoxicating substances) should be taken in this fashion at all. What follows is a Decision Analysis perspective on this.

Having read the Tripitakas, I am less than sanguine about any real value that one can get vis-a-vis decision making on intoxicating substances. Of course, I personally avoid them and would recommend for other people to do so as well. But the thinking one gets out of reading the Buddhist texts is that main aim is to avoid any chances of losing Zen serenity and the chances of nirvana. This seems unavoidable as a conclusion. But this reasoning is flawed.

Please see a simplification of this idea of avoiding anything that cloud thoughts in Joel's comment below (Ed Note: Forget about scrolling below to see Joel's comment. I made that statement on the forum because Joel X. had commented regarding this in one of the comments. Joel summarized the precept and simplified the matter in one of the comments on the discussion forum where, basically, he said: "if you take substance X and substance X clouds your thinking, then substance X is not a good thing to take"). But while simplicity is considered important in Zen and this idea of simplicity can be applied in some places (such as product design, for instance), it is a mistake to think that decisions in life are necessarily simple. People use drugs for many reasons, and their decisions are influenced by many factors. They may use intoxicating substances for one or more reasons- because they are bored, because their friends are doing it, because it is the cool thing to do, because they are curious, et cetera. If the reasons for using drugs/intoxicating substances are many, then what reason is there then to think that the decision making around how to proceed vis-a-vis not using intoxicating substances is simple?

The truth of the matter is that one can get a better understanding of this sort of decision making by learning about statistics (P-values, variance and standard deviation measures, and such).

How may this be applied to decision making - for example, consider this. I have a certificate which entitles you to $100 if the toss of a biased coin I hold in my hand comes up heads and nothing if it comes up tails. How much would you pay for it? This exercise may not seem to have much to do with intoxicating substances, but the fact of the matter is that if you are recommended by your doctor to use marijuana or some other intoxicating substances, for instance, thinking about the coin toss question more deeply will indeed lead you down the path of better decision making.

If the main aim is to make better decisions regarding intoxicating substances, then formal decision analytical models are a better guide to this. Of course, we know that it is not good to take intoxicating substances because it clouds reasoning (As I said, I knew this when I was about 12). But there is much more to it since they also have physiological effects. First, they have addictive properties; two, they can cause certain types of damage to the brain such as by causing the brain to adapt to higher doses of dopamine; three, they can have other harmful longer term permanent effects. Decisions such as whether to take an intoxicating substance (such as, say, beer) must be made with an idea of specifically how addictive the substance is, what other effects the substance has and what the pro's and con's of using the substance are.

Decisions are seldom made this way, but that does not mean they should be made any other way. As Stanford's Ron Howard once said, "You can either use this sort of a decision analytical system, or you can use another system which will doubtless prove to be an inferior one."

Hindu-Buddhist Studies Post 4 - An opinion on the Buddha

#SociologyOfBuddhism #SociologyOfCults

Buddhism is all about opinions, so here is an opinion on the Buddha.

My position on the Buddha is that he was not only one of the greatest thinkers from India, he was also one of the greatest thinkers ever born. The Hindu-Buddhist Tolerance Ethic - much more than the Protestant Work Ethic - is responsible for what the world is today. This is because the Hindus and the Buddhists preserved democracy for centuries when it had already died out in the West. It would not be incorrect to term Western democracies Hindu-Buddhist-Western democracies.

Despite this disclaimer, Buddhism is not immune to critique, of course.
-+-
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/vin/sv/bhikkhu-pati.html#pc-part6
-+-
 Should any bhikkhu, without direct knowledge, claim a superior human state, a truly noble knowledge and vision, as present in himself, saying, "Thus do I know; thus do I see," such that regardless of whether or not he is cross-examined on a later occasion, he — being remorseful and desirous of purification — might say, "Friends, not knowing, I said I know; not seeing, I said I see — vainly, falsely, idly," unless it was from over-estimation, he also is defeated and no longer in affiliation.
-+-

Hindu-Buddhist Studies Post 3 - Hinduism trumps Buddhism

#SociologyOfBuddhism #SociologyOfCults

I was in a discussion with Slavoj Zizek a little while ago - a lively discussion it was in the Stanford classroom wherein they were have the meeting. Zizek said that the Buddha was arguing against the Hindu scriptures. I corrected him by saying that he was arguing against Scripture itself per se and was emphasizing Reason over Scripture. Nothing to do with Hinduism itself.

Furthermore, Hinduism itself came up with the idea of dualism as opposed to monism, an idea central to Buddhism but one that has been almost completely undercut with the advent of the Scientific Revolution. And Hinduism itself has been influenced by the Age of Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution enough that it has pretty subsumed the teachings of the Buddha in that while we can appreciate some of the ideas of the Buddha in a modern context, we can also reject those ideas that are now known to be not only misguided but also false.

I am in a discussion over at the Facebook page for "Zen Soto Buddhism". I would like to place some of my comments from that page over here so that Zizek and others can see the full context of the history of Hinduism and Buddhism.

This argument falls out naturally from my paper, which it looks like is going to have be a book, "The End of History and the Last Hindu". Please read that to get the full picture.

-+-

Anand: Given the multiplicity of views on this matter, the best choice in terms of public utility might be to use a federated form of government where different states within a country are allowed to enact their own laws on prostitution. This idea would be particularly applicable to the Buddha's own homeland, India.

Commenter1 : does this increase or decrease suffering?

Anand: That's a Good way to phrase the question. Let us be really thoughtful and insightful about this rather than jump to conclusions. It would be good to be Insightful about this because, as the Buddha said, it is Reason that we must privilege above Scripture. Whereas upon initial analysis, it might seem to be somewhat counter-intuitive as a stance, we can see that it is actually in accordance with Buddha's ideal of Reason over Scripture. 

This economic arrangement, if properly implemented (and that is not inordinately difficult to do), is Pareto-optimal. As economists, we call something Pareto-optimal if, of course, some people are made better off and nobody is made worse off. So, this arrangement ought to decrease Suffering (Dukkha (Pali)). (Again, from a Western Judaeo-Christian Scriptural point of view, this may seem counter-intuitive. But one must cultivate Compassion for those who disagree with us as well.) In fact, that is exactly what we observe in Western democracies where it has been implemented.

As a person on this board said in a different context. The Buddha often told his disciples the following: "The most difficult hindrance to developing Truth in one's mind is adhering to the letters of the scriptures. The merit of millions of years of scriptural study is inferior to that of a single day's cultivation of mind. Abandon the scriptures, instead, cultivate your mind."

Commenter2 : which scriptures was he warning people against then?

Anand: He was warning them against the scriptures that he knew about - the scriptures of India. However, he was not a sociologist. Since these scriptures were all that he had to go with, he warned people against these scriptures. If he had the Torah before him, he would have warned against that as well. 

Some people would answer your question as : the Hindu scriptures. but this is a less than accurate answer because Hinduism was not even defined at the time at the time.

Please also see my entry on "Who are the Hindus" in The Hinduism FAQ:http://thehinduismfaq.blogspot.com/.../hinduism-basics...

P.S. If the Buddha had been a comparative sociologist looking at the scriptures of all religions: (1) what would he say about killing people in the name of religion? (2) what would he say about modern monotheism? (3) what would he say about modern polytheism? It is reasonable to say that we can guess at what the answers would be - even if we can't be fully sure.

Commenter2 : 

The Buddha did say that if there was another field of desire as strong as sex that enlightenment would be impossible. 

Anand: > Actually, the Buddha did say that if there was another field of desire 

> as strong as sex that enlightenment would be impossible. 
Unfortunately, with the number of addictive substances now available, the number of fields of desire has multiplied immensely. [Editor's Note: this means that I am saying that the Buddha was simply under-informed in even raising the question of whether there was "another field of desire as strong as sex"]
<stuff deleted>

I should also mention that the Buddha himself said that if there was something that he said we did not feel was right, then we should reject it.

As far as sexual desire is concerned, I, for one, believe that Freud was right. (Jewish guy! :))

Anand: 

The fact is that various forms of Desire can lead to addiction. Even Facebook satisfies various brain centers in ways similar to additive substances such as cocaine and Ecstasy. None of this was known to the Buddha. But curbing Desire is surely important. <feeling happy>

Commenter2 : 

Anand, with all due respect, we have always had drugs and many fields of desire. Nothing has changed with humans at all. Desire is suffering. It proceeds from the mistaken belief that I am a separate being. Modern psychologists are groping in the dark by comparison to the pristine clarity of the Buddha and the many geniuses who have added to the sutras since his time. I say this as someone who has worked in mental health and has a great respect for the profession. Modern psychology is very limited indeed at this point - hopefully it will open up eventually.

Anand: 

> Anand, with all due respect, we have always had drugs and many 
> fields of desire. 
Yes, but if you see my point on Facebook, surely you can note: first, that this specific form of addiction (to online social networks) is new and different; and second, therefore, it follows that the treatment for this form of addiction could potentially be different. It is certainly possible that what the Buddha said could potentially be applicable here. That is one hypothesis. Call it H1. The other hypothesis is that what the Buddha said is -not- applicable to deaddiction from Facebook. Let us call this hypothesis H2. How can you prove to me, beyond reasonable doubt, that H1 is the right hypothesis to go with? I can certainly see the other possibility- viz., that there may be specific strategies that may be applicable to getting deaddicted from Facebook that may not even be Buddhist in nature at all.

> Nothing has changed with humans at all. 
No, people are now exposed to a very different set of stimuli than they were at the time of the Buddha. To argue otherwise would be daft. The addiction to Internet pornography, for instance, is a new phenomenon. The question of the "misuse of sex", therefore, comes up in that context.

However, it is clear that hypotheses H1 and H2 are just as applicable here as well. Thus, we are being asked to think more critically about whether the teachings of the Buddha are applicable -necessarily- to deaddiction from Internet pornography. Maybe it won't help.

> Desire 
> is suffering. It proceeds from the mistaken belief that I am a 
>separate being. 

@Tom, with due respect, whether one believes that one is a separate being from others or not is not important to many questions related to the "misuse of sex", which is the topic under discussion. I, for one, think the monism preached by the Buddha has been almost throughly rejected by all modern scientists. We must, therefore, reject this idea of the Buddha just as he asked us to. (The Buddha said that if there was something that we found incorrect in his teaching, we should reject it.) I think it is time that we simply rejected any idea of monism - such as the idea that I am not a separate being. No matter how charming the idea itself may be. This is partly what prompted the great Hindu thinker Madhvacharya to argue for dualism. Madhvaharya defeated many, many others in debates, and it is a testament to the greatness of the Hindu religion that they considered Buddhism (or Buddhisms) also to be under its umbrella as possible approaches.

And I think we can all agree that Madhva was right. P.S. The Hindus simply can't defeated in debates. <feeling mischievous>

-+-