Spiritual Arrogance

[Thomas Knierim]

This is a another report about my journeys to various communities in cyberspace. After having lasted for mere days on the fundamaterialist forum of Prof. Richard Dawkins (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3685), I picked a community that is dedicated to Buddhism, the E-Sangha forum. A nice contrast to the atheist forum, where intellectual arrogance sets the tone... so I thought... well, I was disabused not before long.

My very first post was in response to a woman who experienced sleep paralysis and vibrations at nighttime and who was frightened by it. I mentioned that these are likely to be the precursors of an out-of-body experience and that there is no danger in it. I also encouraged her to not to suppress the vibrations and go ahead with the out-of-body experience, as it is a spiritually enriching experience. This post was instantly deleted, because it was purportedly promoting "new-age" views. The admin explained that out-of-body experiences are not taught by Buddhism and that someone had complained about this divergence.

Since I didn't want to throw in the towel early, I made a number of fairly non-controversial posts on various Buddhist issues. After that, the admins probably understood that I wasn't out to start a doctrinal trench warfare in their forum. Their printed terms of usage are among the most restricted I have ever come across on the Internet, but I was trying to contribute within that framework. The next controversial post I launched was about the fascinating question whether the Buddha was a Buddhist. This question was intended to direct attention to the issue of orthodoxy. Most contributors were quite sure that the Buddha was indeed a Buddhist and one administrator even marked the question as silly.

When we came to discuss other issues, such as Buddhism and science, or whether science contradicts the fables in the Jatakas and supernatural accounts in the Pali canon, the opinions differed. One member actually said that everything in the Pali canon is literal truth. When I suggested that the literal interpretation leads to believing a bunch of nonsense, I was reminded that it is necessary to be respectful towards the scriptures. On another occasion, a Chinese Buddhist nun expressed her dissatisfaction with my unorthodox views and proposed that I might be misled by new age thinking. She suggested chanting and temple activities as an antidote. This was the same person who got enraged and complained in writing when another member forgot to address her with the proper respectful term "Venerable".

Finally, I found a post with 13 questions of a Christian apologetic to Buddhism. This particular thread was closed by one of the admins with the comment: "this is a waste of time" before I had a chance to reply. Thus I replied in a new thread with answers to these questions, which brought me a warning by another admin. At this time, I did not find it useful anymore to continue my participation in this forum. To be fair, I must say that people on E-Sangha are overall much less given to ridicule and the kind of intellectual ego-trips one sees on Prof. Dawkins' forum. Actually, most members are quite reasonable and kind. A few, however, including some monastics and some administrators seem to think of themselves as defenders of the Buddhist doctrine and are rather quick with judgement.

Overall, I have seen plenty of what I would call "spiritual arrogance" on E-Sangha. This is a peculiar mixture of righteousness, dogmatism, and the apparent desire to silence dissenting voices. I am certainly cured from the belief that Buddhism is somehow free of this. The worst thing is that those people who exhibit this type of arrogance are the ones who consider themselves "true" Buddhists. Hipocricy is always a sign. The same oh-so-buddhist people who sign each post with wishes of loving kindness, suddenly become much less than kind when their ego is challenged. In summary, it was another "enlightening" and sobering experience.

Cheers, Thomas

[abaris]

Yeah. Most places, secular or religious, are not as tolerant of differing views as theBigView is. And I'm not being sarcastic or anything. I mean that.

[schrodinger]

I think it is “Internet Forum Arrogance” rather than spiritual because it pervades all types of forums, including those dedicated to mathematics and physics. I’m no expert on this because I have posted on only a few forums, but generally I see arrogance everywhere and the bigger the forum, the bigger the arrogance. Some time ago I was given a “warning” and was booted out of a thread because I questioned a poster who claimed that “infinite energy” could be generated by two particles accelerating towards one another in a closed gravitational system! I provided a mathematical proof showing he was wrong, but since TWO of the moderators agreed with the original poster, I received my warning and the thread was locked. If people can be arrogant about mathematics, even in the face of incontrovertible proof, I can only shudder at what can happen in a discussion about religion, or politics! TBV is now the only forum I bother with because of the general lack of arrogance here.

[Thomas Knierim]

I see arrogance everywhere and the bigger the forum, the bigger the arrogance.

:lol: Lucky we are small.

Some time ago I was given a “warning” and was booted out of a thread because I questioned a poster who claimed that “infinite energy” could be generated by two particles accelerating towards one another in a closed gravitational system! I provided a mathematical proof showing he was wrong, but since TWO of the moderators agreed with the original poster, I received my warning and the thread was locked.

That appears pretty extreme! Would you mind naming the forum?

If people can be arrogant about mathematics, even in the face of incontrovertible proof, I can only shudder at what can happen in a discussion about religion, or politics!

I really had a good laugh when reading this. You see, in a Buddhist forum arrogance should be virtually non-existent if people really took the Buddhist teachings seriously and actually practiced them, rather than just claiming to. So, I am not sure what is more peculiar: mathematical arrogance or Buddhist arrogance. It really makes you wonder what's going on in all the other forums. Maybe you are correct about the universality of this phenomenon. Perhaps Internet forums are indeed a waste of time. :uhoh: Uhoh, I am afraid this view is not perfectly consistent with operating a forum myself.

There is one forum that can be considered 'peak performance' in terms of arrogance, which I don't want to withhold from you. It is aptly named the 'Genius Forum' and its orientation is primarily philosophical. The forum is operated by Kevin Solway and two other people from Australia, all three of whom claimed enlightenment on account of having realised the (Buddhist) concept of interconnectedness. Some of their core tenets are (1) that all things -material and conceptual- are defined by their boundaries and that they are dependent on other things, (2) that God is synonymous with the totality of existence; (3) that enlightenment is achieved through logical thinking; (4) that "mental" females are inferior because they lack the capacity for logical thought; and (5) that there is a 'Nietzschean split' in society which divides people into a few thinkers and the unthinking mass, or the 'herd'. They make no bones about the fact that they consider themselves to be at the very peak of the first category. Their alleged mission is to educate people to become thinkers. For obvious reasons, I am not participating in this forum anymore.

Cheers, Thomas

[spiritual_emergency]

Interesting. I had a run-in with the E-Sangha forum a few months ago as well. Ref: http://spiritualrecoveries.blogspot.com/2008/10/shame-of-buddha.html

~ Namaste

[schrodinger]

I really had a good laugh when reading this. You see, in a Buddhist forum arrogance should be virtually non-existent if people really took the Buddhist teachings seriously and actually practiced them, rather than just claiming to. So, I am not sure what is more peculiar: mathematical arrogance or Buddhist arrogance. It really makes you wonder what's going on in all the other forums. Maybe you are correct about the universality of this phenomenon. Perhaps Internet forums are indeed a waste of time. :uhoh: Uhoh, I am afraid this view is not perfectly consistent with operating a forum myself.


Cheers, Thomas

That is a really good question. If memory serves me right, it was discussed here before in another thread, a long time ago. But I am too lazy to go looking for it right now. It does seem bizarre to be discussing whether Internet forums are a waste of time, and having the discussion on an Internet forum, but it is probably a natural consequence. :)
I have had both good and bad experiences, right here on TBV but I am certain that almost all bad experiences were caused by myself. Even those few that were caused by others, I could have easily avoided by simply not responding. So in that sense, all my bad experiences were self caused and it seems probable that is true for everyone else as well. I think it takes a while to know when and where to disengage from a thread to avoid becoming frustrated or angry. Once that is learned, there is much good that can come from participating in forum discussions, but even then it is best to do so with self moderation. It is certainly not healthy to be so addicted to any forum that a person is neglecting more important things, such as family, work, eating and sleeping!:o
I am not saying that all controversial discussions are to be avoided, far from it! A case in point is Malinson’s current thread about the shortcomings of Buddhism. I find the discussion interesting even though I am not quite sure what his motivation is or what he hopes to accomplish, but he has raised some questions which I had not considered before. Also, the answers provided by the “defenders” of Buddhism are also very revealing. Personally, I don’t expect any religion to be able to answer the questions of dependent arising and/or first cause because if we knew the answer to that, we would not have any need for religion in the first place! Religions, all of them, exist to fill a hole that logic and science cannot fill. Some accomplish this through strict fire and brimstone that comes directly down from God (supposedly) and Buddhism does it with subtle mysteries handed down by The Buddha (also supposedly). To use logic to argue against a religion is itself illogical, especially when the logic cannot be backed up with facts; but it does make for an interesting discussion. :lol:
The point is; don’t take anything said on an Internet forum too seriously. Get whatever value out of it that you can, and express your honest opinion, as I am doing now, and you can participate without losing any sleep at night. If that doesn’t work, then maybe non-participation is best.

[spiritual_emergency]

Thomas: There is one forum that can be considered 'peak performance' in terms of arrogance, which I don't want to withhold from you. It is aptly named the 'Genius Forum' and its orientation is primarily philosophical. The forum is operated by Kevin Solway and two other people from Australia, all three of whom claimed enlightenment ...

I recall coming across this wonderful line in an article I read right around the time of my brief participation at the Genius Forum. It has served me well since then.



There are no enlightened people,
there is only enlightened activity.

~ Suzuki Roshi

Source: Enlightenment: The Guru's Trap (http://www.energygrid.com/spirit/2002/09ap-enlightenment.html)




.

[kris]

I experienced arrogance "on behalf of Buddhism" right here on this forum, ironically on a thread about karma.

[Thomas Knierim]

SpiritualEmergency,

Thank you for the links. I enjoyed Andrew's article about enlightenment. He has some interesting insights to share on the topic.

Funny that you made a nearly identical experience at e-sangha.net. I can say that this is the most over-moderated forum I have come across in the last 15 years, perhaps with exception of very few pre-moderated forums. Some of the volunteer admins at e-sangha seem to love exercising authority. My crime was that I replied to a thread that was closed with the lapidary comment "this is a waste of time" by an admin named conebeckham. The closing appeared arbitrary with no recognisable relation to the terms of service. I then received a warning from an admin named KeithBC that I might be "subject to disciplinary action" if I kept replying to threads that the admins considered unsuitable for Buddhist consumption.

It's probably a meaningless trifle, but I noticed that the poor choice of language and the heavy-handed exercise of control are in stark contrast to what people pretend to practice there.

Cheers, Thomas

[spiritual_emergency]

Thomas: Thank you for the links. I enjoyed Andrew's article about enlightenment. He has some interesting insights to share on the topic.

It's very balanced, I think. And I like how that one statement in particular levels the playing field. I may be wrong but it is my opinion that "enlightenment" is not something that can ever be possessed by an individual. Meantime, here is another link that you (or others) may enjoy: Evaluating Spiritual and Utopian Groups (http://www.deikman.com/eval.html). I may have shared that here before.

I can say that this is the most over-moderated forum I have come across in the last 15 years...

In my own case, I have to give that award to schizophrenia.com (http://spiritualrecoveries.blogspot.com/2008/01/schizophreniacom.html)

Otherwise, I'm going to have to agree with schrodinger's observations: be willing to consider where you play a role in events -- moderator abuse can be prolific on the net but participants can contribute to that. If you don't feel comfortable participating at a specific place, leave; a better fit can often be found elsewhere.

~ Namaste

.

[francis]

I experienced arrogance "on behalf of Buddhism" right here on this forum, ironically on a thread about karma.

Hey kris, spiritual arrogance goes both ways. Just because someone disagrees with you, does not necessarily mean they were intentionally trying to be arrogant, especially when they have gone out of their way to apologise. Suggest you let it go, and get on with life.

[kris]

..... Just because someone disagrees with you, does not necessarily mean they were intentionally trying to be arrogant, especially when they have gone out of their way to apologise. Suggest you let it go, and get on with life.Francis, only you know what you were trying to be; I just felt the arrogance in your posts in that thread. And I also felt it was totally uncalled for.

As for apology, all I saw there was a glib attempt to place the blame on me for not being clear.However, as far as general communication goes, I do expect people to state things clearly. If a person wants to get their ideas across, then the onus is on that person to make their presentation easy to understand, not the reader.At least you could have stated where I was not clear. I definitely think I was very clear with my words. No one else had difficulty understanding me. Besides, if someone is not clear, there is always a very wise option of asking for clarification.

[sonrisa]

Schrodinger--I see arrogance everywhere and the bigger the forum, the bigger the arrogance.

-- I don't post on very many forums either (just don't have the time) but I do occasionally post at a couple of "big" sites in that they attract alot of visitors. They used to be open forums, but then the moderaters had to start screening the posts cuz they were getting too many trolls who were being disruptive & downright abusive, even to the point of making threats. The moderaters said they didn't like having to do this, but it was necessary to keep the discussions at some level of civility & coherence. The sites I'm talking about still allow a range of pov's, however.

Thomas-- Perhaps Internet forums are indeed a waste of time.

-- for what it's worth I don't consider TBV a waste of time. I think it's cool to be able to converse with people all over the planet. You allow everybody here to express ourselves & only take disciplinary action when it's absolutely necessary

ps, as for The Genius Forum, please keep in mind that Kevin will be running either The Fashion Forum or The Cooking Forum in his next life. Probably both :devilish:

[francis]

Hi kris, humble apologies. I didn’t mean to hurt you feelings. I was being smart. You are an excellent writer.

[spiritual_emergency]

Thomas: I can say that this is the most over-moderated forum I have come across in the last 15 years...

s_e: In my own case, I have to give that award to schizophrenia.com (http://spiritualrecoveries.blogspot.com/2008/01/schizophreniacom.html)

As based on my experiences today, I'll have to reissue that award to the same site. Meantime Thomas, I believe a more appropriate label for your experience of the E-Sangha forum would be hypocrisy -- a close kissing cousin to arrogance.

Meantime, if psychiatry were a religion (and some say it is right down to the holy dogma of the DSM), then it is the height of hypocrisy to silence people who can speak knowledgeably of recovery just as it is the height of hypocrisy to not extend compassion, loving-kindness and regard to those in a Buddhist forum.

See also: Speaking of Controversial (http://forums.psychcentral.com/showthread.php?t=104892)

~ Namaste

.

[vicente]

"spiritual arrogance" ?

Interesting subject,...although from my point of view there is no such thing. Neither spirit nor authentic spirituality is ever arrogant. Perhaps I would have used spiritual ignorance. The majority of people on the planet today are ignorant regarding what spiritual is.

As in most things, it is easier to discuss what things are not, than what they are. Spiritual has nothing to do with religion, or sets of belief. Belief is an obstruction or barrier to the spiritual.

Religious folks have all kinds of delusions about spirituality. Fundamentally, spirituality begins where religion, andhumanism, leave off. Those who crave to live through their dream of humanism haven't a clue as to the nature of spirit.

Spirit is beyond the characteristics of the Five Skandhas. Spirit is not "followed" through thinking, senses, beliefs, or feelings.

A fellow named John davies once said, "follow spirit without hesitation, or you'll end up following hesitation without spirit." Most follow hesitation. Most are tethered to the Long Path.

http://wisdomsgoldenrod.org/notebooks/23/1

Vicente

[MRJ]

I have regularly visited three philosophy forums: the cleverly named "philosophy forum" at http://forums.philosophyforums.com/; the Academy and Galilean Library (after Galileo) at http://academy.galilean-library.org/index.php; and the philosophy forums of the Online Philosophy Club at http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=13720#13720 have all been more or less good. Well, you know, some discussions are better than others and some posters are more thoughtful than others. These three forums have been quite democratic in accepting divergent views, perhaps because the owners/managers/whoever-they-are don't have a highly partisan agenda.

Of the forums I have seen, this one has the most active moderator, which is OK by me, so far anyway.

What I find most annoying are presumably pro-atheism posters who set up a religious straw man as a target then direct deadly fire at their sketchy version of this or that faith system and think they have wielded devastating arguments. (Or maybe they are just very uninformed about the actual content of various religious systems.)

[brother alan]

Apt, schrodinger. And quite a departure from the pithy one-or-two liners I've mostly spotted under your byline here.
I would just add that great teachers like the Buddha are almost always despised during their lifetimes by religious people. I feel sure this is a clue. :examine:

[VossistArts]

After reading all this I am compelled beyond my ability to reason or resist going to e Sangha to stir up shit. (Sounds like bad intentions huh.Its not) I don't care what anyone says or believes about Buddhism or anything else; It is clear that attachment leads to suffering. Likewise attachment to concepts, any concepts is counterproductive and as far as I'm concerned is anti-Buddhist, in a way at least.

I went to the E Sangha site last night and registered and read thru their ...list of controls masquerading as righteous reason under the tenants of or observances for taking refuge (or whatever). It totally made me think of what Rome did with the creation of the NT. Doctrine based on otherwise good teaching and practices and ideas etc that has been manipulated in such a way that dis-empowers and thus controls its followers to the ends of the re-creators or compilers of the doctrine or philosophy or practice.

So, I have to go. I intend to avoid wasting too much time replying to certain things, so Ill probably re-post things Ive posted here with some editing. Personally, at this point in my life, I believe conflict and confrontation, or I should probably say civil debate with people not of like mind holds far more potential for growth and learning than sharing ideas with like minded people. The latter of course is pleasant, and its nice to feel as though your thoughts and beliefs are somewhat validated by others who share those beliefs but.... where does that really get you?

:)

Ill probably report back here on it, if this doesn't seem childish or inappropriate to you all. I like this site. I always have. I have deep deep respect for Thomas, and his way of approaching communication and am somewhat in awe of how educated the man is. And of course not just Thomas but all of you here. No matter how contrary some of are, or ornery, I respect and enjoy communication with you all very much.

Peace,

August

[VossistArts]

Apt, schrodinger. And quite a departure from the pithy one-or-two liners I've mostly spotted under your byline here.


That's funny. I had to look up pithy. It sounded insulting. But its totally a compliment heh :)

[abaris]

Vincente:

"spiritual arrogance" ?

Interesting subject,...although from my point of view there is no such thing. Neither spirit nor authentic spirituality is ever arrogant. Perhaps I would have used spiritual ignorance. The majority of people on the planet today are ignorant regarding what spiritual is.


Your very statement exemplifies the meaning of "Spiritual Arrogance". You see, statements such us "The Majority of People on the Planet today are Ignorant" just reek of arrogance. Have you met the "Majority of People on the Planet"? How Do you know what "they" are ignorant of? Why do you feel the need to separate, or rather elevate yourself from "The Majority of People"?
May have something to do with arrogance don't you think?


MRJ:

What I find most annoying are presumably pro-atheism posters who set up a religious straw man as a target then direct deadly fire at their sketchy version of this or that faith system and think they have wielded devastating arguments. (Or maybe they are just very uninformed about the actual content of various religious systems.)


What I find most annoying are proponents of deism, they create a straw-man, whom they call God and then accuse those who attack their straw-man of employing "Straw-man" arguments.

Why don't you, O divinely Enlightened One, Inform us Ignorant wrenches what your God is all about?


VossistArts:

I don't care what anyone says or believes about Buddhism or anything else;


No one here on theBigView has the slightest idea about Buddhism. Just face it, all you got here is a bizarre concoction of western interpretations of Asian philosophies.

[VossistArts]

btw i didnt write that about the pro-atheism posters.

[VossistArts]

No one here on theBigView has the slightest idea about Buddhism. Just face it, all you got here is a bizarre concoction of western interpretations of Asian philosophies.


mm Do you have right ideas about Buddhism in contrast?

[abaris]

VossistArts

btw i didnt write that about the pro-atheism posters.


My sincere apologies. I corrected my mistake.


VossistArts

mm Do you have right ideas about Buddhism in contrast?


No I do not. I do not exclude myself here, I Interpret Buddhism within my own cultural context and apparently that's what everybody else does. Now the picture of Buddhism that you find here doesn't really match the attitudes of Asians who have a Buddhist background.

I came to know many Asians (Chinese, Cambodians, Koreans, Vietnamese, Indians, Laotians, Thai) and they really don't strike me as the Unattached Spiritual type. Generalizations do have their limitations, of course, but the Asians I know are better described as utterly Materialistic Pragmatic Optimists strongly Attached to family and traditions and very fond of material pleasures. They sure as hell don't perceive life as suffering.

[VossistArts]

yeah you know.. Ive never been to Asia but Ive met and talked to some from Asia and others with Asian heritage that considered themselves Buddhist and I think all of them have been as you described. I guess being born into a religion that you were expected to accept would shape your experience of it very differently from someone examining it by free choice.

Anyway, I think that its a fact that everyone interprets any religion within the context of their own person experience, into their own world view construct necessarily. And rightly so. We all have to find our own way. No matter what.

[MRJ]

"Quote:
MRJ:

What I find most annoying are presumably pro-atheism posters who set up a religious straw man as a target then direct deadly fire at their sketchy version of this or that faith system and think they have wielded devastating arguments. (Or maybe they are just very uninformed about the actual content of various religious systems.)

Abaris says: What I find most annoying are proponents of deism, they create a straw-man, whom they call God and then accuse those who attack their straw-man of employing "Straw-man" arguments. Why don't you, O divinely Enlightened One, Inform us Ignorant wrenches what your God is all about?"

Hmm - must have touch a nerve or something.

Actually, I find deist straw men as unsatisfactory as atheist straw men. Further, I didn't make a claim here to either being a believer, or to having a copy of god almighty's mission statement.

I was only voicing frustration with many of the statements atheists make about religion. Religions are a long enterprise (few human enterprises have millennia-long continuity) and serve multiple and complex purposes in human culture. Atheists and agnostics, deists and theists alike can give very short and impatient shrift to the complexity of the means by which people try to find meaning in their lives in this world.

Sorry if I offended you. I am only making a plea for more complex thinking on the topic, which shouldn't be too big a problem in a philosophy discussion group.

[lolipop]

Something that I have learned that the spiritual arrogance does not come from the religion, but rather the people who practice it. As my father said, "The religion is perfect, but the people are not. That's why religion is there in the first place."

The way I see it is that people are given blessings from their religion and see bad things happen to those who they deem "unrighteous", whether the person is within their same religion or not. I think that a good idea one should keep, regardless of their religious affiliation, is that religion lifts your spirit, not your status. No one is more important than the other, and no one is any less important.

[abaris]

VossistArts

Anyway, I think that its a fact that everyone interprets any religion within the context of their own person experience, into their own world view construct necessarily. And rightly so. We all have to find our own way. No matter what.


I agree. And perhaps that's why it irritates me to hear that I can't understand Buddhism with my Western mindset, especially when such statements are made by westerners.


MRJ

Sorry if I offended you. I am only making a plea for more complex thinking on the topic, which shouldn't be too big a problem in a philosophy discussion group.


No you have not offended me. It rather appears that I owe you an apology for having misjudged your intentions.


MRJ

I was only voicing frustration with many of the statements atheists make about religion. Religions are a long enterprise (few human enterprises have millennia-long continuity) and serve multiple and complex purposes in human culture. Atheists and agnostics, deists and theists alike can give very short and impatient shrift to the complexity of the means by which people try to find meaning in their lives in this world.


You sure make a valid point here. Religion does serve a purpose, if it didn't we wouldn't have so much of it. I do consider myself an atheist and yet I'll do not deny that Atheism fails to address some very elemental Human needs. At the end, every culture is rooted in cult. And it is not so much the principles that matter but the collective experience and the sense of belonging the cult provides to its practitioners.

Take an atheist materialistic ideology such Communism for example, it frowns upon the worship of Gods and saints but on the other hand it introduces the worship of comrade Marx and Lenin. The big parades under the Image of Karl Marx, the pilgrimages to Lenin's mausoleum. That's nothing but a substitute for religion, and poor substitute like that.



lolipop

Something that I have learned that the spiritual arrogance does not come from the religion, but rather the people who practice it. As my father said, "The religion is perfect, but the people are not. That's why religion is there in the first place."


By the same logic, I could argue that the Ideology of National Socialism didn't kill anyone. The National Socialists did. And trust me Hitlers writings are far less explicit then the Bible or the Quran. So why blame National Socialism for the for the crimes of the Nazis?

[lolipop]

By the same logic, I could argue that the Ideology of National Socialism didn't kill anyone. The National Socialists did. And trust me Hitlers writings are far less explicit then the Bible or the Quran. So why blame National Socialism for the for the crimes of the Nazis?

I guess you could say that. Though I would say that National Socialism is more the ideas of men than a higher power. So, with that in mind, I would also say that the Ideology behing National Socialism is flawed, and those flaws are therefore what influenced the crimes of the Nazis. Though I could be offbase. I've never really looked at the ideas that the Nazis had, just their actions.

But now that I think about it, maybe the National Socialism is not the problem. I guess one could say that the only reason that National Socialism looks bad is because the Nazis made it look bad. Again, I'm not too sure, but it sort of makes sense to me. We only think of something as bad once someone gives us the wrong impression. And the Nazi crimes definitely give the wrong impression.