The lie of a free sangha

First of all, excuse the pun.  I decided to join FreeSangha, another one of the typical over moderated Internet Buddhist forums that claims to be different.  They even go so far as to say,

“FreeSangha is supposed to be what it's called: FREE. For now the general rule is that no-one (and I mean no-one!) will be banned without clear evidence of spamming or repetive [sic] trolling. If this freedom is abused, this freedom of yours might be revoked, so use it wisely.”

Wonky Badger really meant to say, nobody but the blogger of The Zennist will be banned because he clearly shows that what is being disseminated by the moderators is not the Buddhism found in the discourses of the Buddha. 

For those of you who remember the now defunct E-Sangha, FreeSangha and other Buddhist Internet forums tried to turn over a new leaf in the aftermath of E-Sangha’s abusive track record.  They all claimed that they didn’t want to repeat E-Sangha’s mistakes.  But they largely failed.  The owners of these forums didn’t understand that Buddhist moderators are never neutral.  In fact, they are extremely biased in their views about what the Buddha taught and did not teach. 

Now, instead of just one E-Sangha, there are several; all more or less run the same way.  Moderators on these forums are actually censors.  They have no real interest in insuring there is an opportunity for the broad discussion of the tenets of Buddhism and current Buddhism.  Instead, what the job of the moderator is as censor is to make sure the ideas of secular Buddhism seem persuasive.  On the other hand, anyone who makes a persuasive case against secular Buddhism is to be eventually banned. 

More specifically, the job of a moderator is to insure that the subject of rebirth, postmortem survival of consciousness, and the transcendent (nirvana) are not fairly discussed.  Above all, a discussion about the self or âtman in Buddhism and that it is the self that realizes nirvana, should be forbidden.  

Any beginner going to a Buddhist forum who wants to learn something about Buddhism is making a huge mistake.  What they will learn is pretty much secular Buddhism which is not Buddhism.  Secular Buddhists are Buddhists in name only; not by way of doctrine or practice. Above all they reject rebirth and nirvana.  In their book of lies, there is only samsara—nothing outside of it.  When you die, that’s it.   

If I have offended anyone, I am truly happy.  If I have made secular Buddhism seem like a fresh pile of doggie doo, I am happy for that.  As for all of the moderators out there, you’ve made some very bad karma.  You could end up in the Niraya Hell.  If you do, the Buddha has promised me a ringside seat to watch you get what you justly deserve. 

Comments

[Thezennist]

David Hickerson:

Just recently one moderator at NewBuddhist who was communicating with another said that in one month he banned 40 people. That's over one a day. I was banned recently from FreeSangha because, from what I can gather, Zenmar is still hated - in this case by an angry little moderator who can't control his rage. And why is Zenmar so disliked? I have no idea - just guesses. Incidentally, Grand master Lu and Zenmar were the two main guys that the now defunct E-Sangha moderators were on the look-out for.

More information just came in. FreeSanga moderators and sychophants are saying that the criticism of this blog is unjustified. One of moderators says:

"No, it wasn't justified, but it told us a lot about Songhill's motivation and intent --- he not only lied to everyone about his true identity, but it sealed his fate when it came to his membership here. Actually, we were made aware of it shortly after it was posted on his blog, that's how we knew he was actually Zenmar."

So it appears that Songhill was really banned from FreeSangha for his "motivation and intent." Daja vu, E-Sangha.

[David Hickerson]

Reading the comments here, I'm saddened to read that it seems to be a common perception that these forums (not just FreeSangha) are biased against the religious side of Buddhist thinking.

That said, I haven't gotten that "secular" vibe from any of these forums, save for one very small one I'm on (with something like 10 members). Even there, I've been pretty well welcomed and never censored / moderated for my more religious approach.

I hope you can choose to let go of any ill-will you may harbor against those who you think have wronged you. Please be well, friend.

[Johann]

"Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them."

;-) Be mindful!

We do not easy see our on dark places.

(Everybody loves his self, some more some lesser, so don't do what you don't like your self: Don't blame censure mechanism if you do your self)

[Kojizen]

An unbiased view:

"However, Zenmar's thesis is that Dark Zen is the principle of all Zen Buddhism, and any particular teacher, school, or tradition of Zen is authentic only insofar as he/she/it actually grasps the principle of Zen and is attempting to express it for the benefit of students.  All else is accessory and subject to suspicion. This is an interesting thesis, because it is thus not that only the teachings of Zenmar are legitimate--any teaching from anyone can be legitimate.  Zenmar is certainly suspicious of any tradition of Zen whose basis is "conventional," meaning you become a teacher by learning to think and talk like and please your teacher rather than by grasping the "dark principle".    Zen after all is about introspection rather than mimesis or worse sangha politics.  This critical approach goes way back and is not merely unique to Zenmar.  The distinction of Zenmar and perhaps his biggest problem in the realm of opinion as to legitimacy is that he does not have that conventional transmission and so his understanding appears by the standards of conventional tradition to be illegitimate--no teacher gave him the seal of approval (nonetheless, one Zen teacher wrote an interesting review of Zenmar's book).  There really is no easy way of saying whether it is or not legitimate short of whether you find it individually helpful or in agreement with your findings (or, often, your teacher's), but fortunately --and this is a big relief-- he hasn't built a cult around his philosophy, and neither have those who have found themselves in sympathy with it.  There is at this point no organization, no membership, no location, and no official process of authorization whereby a "Dark Zen" stamped lineage would be established. 

What other commentary can I give?  I have a positive reading of Dark Zen teaching, but the above really represents my opinion on it.  I can't speak for Zenmar, anybody interested in Dark Zen, or his/their critics.  I can only speak for myself."

[thezennist]

I let this comment pass because I want the reader to see how paranoid and deluded some Buddhists are who pretend to be Buddhists but are really secularists who are trying to undermine true Dharma (saddharma).

And why was Songhill permanently kicked off of FreeSangha, a newer version of E-Sangha? Surprisingly, it was for posting Dr. Donald Hoffman's paper entitled "Conscious Realism and the Mind-Body Problem" which if you have not read it, is about as close to the Lankavatara Sutra as it gets. Apparently, it was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

The topic was scrubbed and Songhill was subsequently banned. Zennists who follow this site know there is a cold war going on in Buddhism between secular Buddhists and true Buddhists. Incidentally, such a war has been going on in Thailand much longer between Theravada self-deniers and Theravadins of the Dhammakaya Foundation who assert that nirvana is the attâ/âtman.

I predict that Buddhism will eventually split into two warring sides and never the twain shall meet—nor should it ever meet because there is just one Buddhism and one path. Buddhism is not for those who assert the preeminence of matter over spirit.