Is this a Buddhist forum or is this a Theravadin forum?

Question

As an eclectic universalist one of the things that attracted me to this forum is its apparent embrace of all Buddhist schools and all points of view without discrimination. However, after participating in the forum for some time it has become apparent to me that some Theravadins in this group seem to take upon themselves the notion that only their school is valid and all others are false, and consistently answer questions that are not about Theravada from a Theravadin perspective, and then comment on or otherwise disparage any other point of view as non-Buddhist, when it is simply non-Theravadin.

I am also seeing the same individual or individuals consistently responding to certain posts in a hostile or derogatory way, which makes me wonder if they are also following non-Theravadins with the intention of harassment. Their consistent answer to any questioning or challenge to this form of sectarian dogmatism (prohibited by the Buddha, BTW) is simply to say, "Theravada says this. Anything else is not accepted by Theravada," as though that response were sufficient. I see this as a great danger to the integrity of this forum, since it amounts to a form of verbal guerilla warfare that has the potential to drive non-Theravadins away, which is perhaps the intention, thus converting the forum to a Theravadin forum. What is the policy of this forum toward these individuals?

Answer 1

Is this a Buddhist forum or is this a Theravadin forum?

Let me say this very clearly.

This is a forum about Buddhism meaning that all affiliations are welcome.

Answer 2

Notice that there's the fact of the bias of the user population. Many traditions here are under represented, if at all (e.g. it's a rare thing to see a Zen thread or Shin). Not because at some point in history there was a schism -- actually, there were discussions in the past on how to bring more diversity. However, some individuals that came later from non-theravada traditions did face difficulties.

Then, many are dissatisfied when they come here and realize not all users are so open-minded about different forms of Buddhism. But some users may not even know there are other traditions with teachings that seem strange to them.

Furthermore, one might say that the Buddha rejected dogmatism, but at the same time, there are a number of examples from buddhist scriptures of people being corrected (by the Buddha or his disciples) after showing their understanding was incorrect and being warned to not misrepresent what the Buddha taught. Then, it's not difficult to see how people see this as a tempting authorization to do the same (or even to go out of their ways to do it).

Even though the community has stated that different buddhist traditions are welcomed, these problems seem to be raised from time to time. Though it's not that common (perhaps once a year?), some of them can be an actual problem and off putting to many. Is it something that needs change? Any suggestions?

Answer 3

What is the policy of this forum toward these individuals?

I think the policy has been to tolerate or welcome such a statement.

Consider this interchange from 2015 (in which Sankha is Theravada, and Andrei Mahayana):

• Theravada Buddhists don't really recognize other schools. Mostly historians do that. So it's just Buddhism for us. – Sankha Kulathantille
• And we do recognize other schools, it's all Buddhism for us :) – Andrei Volkov♦

One of the reasons I find it easy to tolerate is that Sankha says such a thing only when he's prompted to, by other people commenting on his answers: e.g. here the 'provocation' is Lanka telling him to say that his answer is "based in Theravada Buddhism", and here it was you saying, "Theravada Buddhism is just one school of Buddhism; it is not Buddhism".

If you're allowed to define what Buddhism is, I think Sankha is too!

Such a comment might easily be seen as hostile, if he were to go out of this way to post it under someone else's answer, but he doesn't: it's an explanation of his own answer.

Actually I find it admirable (and helpful): explaining his own perspective, without attacking other people's answers.

As moderator I will generally sympathise with the author of an answer. If the author of an answer flags a comment (as hostile or not constructive) then I'm inclined to delete the comment. Thus you can post answers, and I'll help to protect your answers and end any unwanted arguments about them. Similarly Sankha is welcome to post answers too.

One of the things that avoids "verbal guerilla warfare" is the emphasis on Q&A, i.e. the emphasis on people writing their own answers. You can ask use comments to ask people to clarify their answers, but comments may be deleted if they don't improve the answer.

Generally it's the author of each answer who's allowed the last word.

consistently answer questions that are not about Theravada from a Theravadin perspective

The convention we've established on this site is to use school-specific tags. For example if you use a school-specific tag (mahayana, zen, vajrayana, tibetan-buddhism, secular-buddhism, etc.) then only answers from that school are on-topic.

Using such a tag might signal that you don't want Theravada answers to your question.

It might be unusual to do that, though, when you're asking a question about Pali texts. Given that you are asking about Pali texts I think it's easy to see how someone might think you were interested in a Theravada perspective.

If you don't use such a tag, that's a signal you're inviting answers from any/all schools.

I hope this meta-answer helps. I suppose that a purpose of using tags is to let people post questions without getting hostile answers, and moderating comments is to let people post answers without getting hostile comments.