I’ve found in my dabbling with eBuddhism over the past several years that the intellectual types often tend to be quite bad at applying Buddhist concepts to other things that aren’t laid out in the texts.
People who have this absurd theory that short term ordination (common in Thai Buddhism) is bad kamma cuz you’re leeching off the laypeople by ordaining without the goal of enlightenment in mind are usually themselves laypeople who have never provided support to the Sangha or donated to/visited a Buddhist temple.
Adamant no-selfers who are incredibly self-righteous, haughty and egotistical in their opinions.
Stuff like should seem paradoxical but are all too common in intellectual Buddhist circles.
seeing consciousness is the same, but what you see is different obviously. But even then, looking at a photo of a vihara online is much different from going to the same vihara. Looking at photos of the 4 holy pilgrimage sites is much different than actually going there.
of course it can. But because all things arise on dependence of other things. What kind of formulations you make about the Dhamma will differ. If you get your Dhamma mostly or entirely on the Internet, your views are, based on what is available on the internet, in the language you speak, which may differ if you speak Russian, vs English, vs German. As well as the type of people you interact with online. A beginner who goes to sutta central or DW first will have a view of Buddhism that is quite warped compared to Theravada, and because humans tend to cling to thier initial views first, they may have an anti-commentary prejudice that is hard to dislodge even tho most Buddhists around the world don’t have such. If they came here first they probably wouldnt have that.
If you get your Dhamma in person, your formulations will depend on what group you attending and practicing with and that can vary. But the focus will usually be on stuff that is helpful for improving thier lives or next life.
In eBuddhism, you will mostly be exposed to topics that are easy to discuss/tend to attract debate.
The objects are different but when we break down seeing and visible object each moment arises and falls away.
Visible object in the ultimate sense is merely color, seeing is always seeing - they both have the nature of arising and passing. Yes each moment of seeing now is a different moment than a second ago but the function is the same - it simply sees.
In May I visited Sarnath and then Bodhgaya and in November Lumbini. And of course it is nice to go (and yes being on site does tend to encourage rememberance of the triple Gem) but I would say the one who studies Abhidhamma and relates it to the present moment will begin to understand that what we call life is just moments, the ayatanas, the six sense bases. It is the same now in front of my computer or then.
The mind door and sense door processes are happening, always.
I think that kamma and also past accumulations (pubbekata punnata) will greatly affect what interests one regarding Dhamma. There are many Buddhist places/groups/teachers in ‘real life’ that I would say are misleading the followers. And of course the same happens in ‘eBuddhism’.
Both are good, but surely visiting a place or a Buddhist site is best. I’m taking an MA program which mixes online and physical classes. It is for sure a much better experience to be in person.
As for temporary ordination: I’m a big supporter of this and I have done 2 temporary ordinations in Florida. I will do again. The locals who support the monks are totally happy with this and happy to support. “Being leaches” is just the view of Westerners who are too chicken to try… they might just like it. But I probably wouldn’t ordain such people with that attitude anyway. Catch 22 that pushes them and reinforces them as haters.
I’m glad we have this website myself. Now there is an alternative. In the 90’s Eastern Philosophy was a half of a bookshelf mixed in with all schools of Buddhism, Hinduism, zen and Taoism. Theravada was the last place I found in a long journey. So I have faith that people will come. I’m happy with the idea that sutta central does not identify as “Theravada” and at best, they are “Thai Forest Tradition”. People can then be less confused about Theravada which is orthodox by nature.
In the end, many of the lay people cannot drop out and meet up at temples, so this is an alternative. But I agree, it should not be a replacement for in-person visits. I feel strongly about this.
When I was leaving Florida, one lady wanted to send me a few things with another lady (in place of herself). I told her that I would not accept unless she brought them herself. She came over, made the effort and was happy she allocated the time. Because of that, I knew I did the right thing. She could have just dropped things off and left, but when you travel 40 minutes to visit, you visit. It was good for her.
Yes possibly. I do appreciate what you are saying but still this is just the way of the world, people are going to get information from the internet - and often very misleading things when it comes to Dhamma. All we can do is help to explain what we know and of course gradually develop our own understanding.
yeah i think thats actually related. Just as kamma influences the circumstances of ones birth, it influences the circumstances in which you would be drawn to the Dhamma as well as what type.
yes right. Take the case of Venerable Dabba Mallaputta. He was allocator of lodgings (senāsana paññāpaka) to bhikkhus. Dabba
Dabba assigned dwellings to the monks according to their character. He assigned dwellings in the same place to those monks who were discourse experts, thinking, “They’ll recite the discourses together.” And he did likewise for the experts on monastic law, thinking, “They’ll deliberate on the monastic law;” for the teachers, thinking, “They’ll discuss the Teaching;” for the meditators, thinking, “They won’t disturb each other;”
and for the gossips and the body-builders, thinking, “In this way even these venerables will be happy.”
We should also acknowledge that the internet has some advantages for those learning Buddhism. In my day back in the early 1980s (similar to what ven. Subhuti mentions) it was not easy to find information.
Yes there are many weird and wonderful interpretations on forums like dhammawheel, but at least there are also some attempts to correct those wrong ideas, sometimes.
If one joined a group in ‘real life’ back in the day any correction was sporadic, if at all. When I went to Thailand in 1985 the editor at the World fellowship of Buddhists tried to convince me to study with a famous bhikkhu I now know to have very controversial ideas.
It is only by conversing with people that one can really know their views.
Some of the talks I attended by monks was really just the monk talking and the laypeople listening without any real discussion. In some cases it was merely a guided meditation! A western monk -who was actually pretty good in understanding - once told me he thinks Anapanasati is very difficult but that he gives it as a meditation to laypeople as it least it stops them asking questions
We could be part of a amenable Buddhist group where members hold all sorts of wrong views, are never challenged on any of them (and possibly don’t even mention them). And some popular groups are merely promoting a technique.
At least on a discussion forum there is some questioning.
Aṅguttara Nikāya 4.192, Ṭhāna Sutta (Book of Fours, Sutta 192)
‘You can get to know a person’s wisdom by discussion. But only after a long time, not casually; only when attentive, not when inattentive; and only by the wise, not the witless.’ That’s what I said, but why did I say it? Take a person who is discussing with someone else. They come to know: ‘Judging by this venerable’s approach, by what they’re getting at, and by how they discuss a question, they’re witless, not wise. Why is that? This venerable does not bring up a deep and meaningful saying that is peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute. When this venerable speaks on Dhamma they’re not able to explain the meaning, either briefly or in detail. They can’t teach it, assert it, establish it, clarify it, analyze it, or reveal it. This venerable is witless, not wise.’
Take another person who is discussing with someone else. They come to know: ‘Judging by this venerable’s approach, by what they’re getting at, and by how they discuss a question, they’re wise, not witless. Why is that? This venerable brings up a deep and meaningful saying that is peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute. When this venerable speaks on Dhamma they’re able to explain the meaning, either briefly or in detail. They teach it, assert it, establish it, clarify it, analyze it, and reveal it. This venerable is wise, not witless.’
’
That’s why I said that you can get to know a person’s wisdom by discussion. But only after a long time, not casually; only when attentive, not when inattentive; and only by the wise, not the witless.
Of course if one can find a real life group/teacher where questions and discussion are actively encouraged and the participants are sufficiently wise than that is so much the better.
Oh yeah. Don’t get me wrong. eBuddhism certainly has its benefits. I’ve learned a great breadth of things because of it. I wouldnt have continued with Buddhist forums otherwise.
I was more getting to the point that, just like any corner of the Internet, it can lead to very skewed points of view, and because of hte nature of the internet people can falsely think that something rampant online is the majority when it isnt (Example - Biden had virtually no support in online political circles here in the US in 2020 but won the democratic primary easily - if one was to take online support as even remotely representative than either Yang, Sanders or Buttigieg would have won the nomination). Also, because of how online algorithms work, and this tendency of online activity to give ppl a false impression of how big a group is, this is how radicalization happens.
Just like political radicalization, something relatively fringe like EBT rises to prominence much easier because of hte Internet. If you throw out the majority of Theravada texts as forgeries, you’d be hard pressed to find another person who studies Buddhism and does such. but in online circles you can find this and because behavior breeds behavior this becomes reinforcing, causing you to double down and more people to join in.
Another issue with eBuddhism is it tends to focus on study and not practice as, that is really what hte Internet is for. As a result it skews toward discussing and learning about texts but not really practicing, thus making the benefits of hte Dhamma quite limited. Although this is true with any kind of intellectual Buddhism, whether its eBuddhism or Buddhist book clubs etc.
And just like there are drawbacks (and benefits) with eBuddhism, there are of course drawbacks to in-person Buddhism as well. Such as it largely being a lottery whether or not you encounter a good/bad community or not, and your options being limited based on where you live, and it being easy for you to be misled on the Dhamma based on who you are listening to without the option of being able to cross reference the sources like with eBuddhism.
