0

Having come accrss the really strange usual to kill and destroy questions and answers, if they carry a notion not coming from a self-declared Buddhist.

Is neither proper to do such categorical nor is it sure that because of ones teacher, lineage... speaks Dhamma and vici-versa. You do not kill and destroy the 70-90% Adhamma of "Buddhists" as well.

It would be good to consider that in line and conduct taught by the Buddha, using his name and teachings here, yet of course it's your choice your destiny headed to, of whom ever approves such ways, or even acts on such.

It's possible necessary to account that the Buddha gave preference, even in regard of ordination, to believers in Kamma, while those many other preachers here often would not easy gain any footing.

2

Having come accrss the really strange usual to kill and destroy questions and answers, if they carry a notion not coming from a self-declared Buddhist.

I'm not sure where you came across that -- I don't think I'd word it that way.

For a start, people who ask questions aren't required to be Buddhist. There are meta-answers ...

  • buddhism.SE not a sangha

    This is the approach I took in the beginning as a moderator; when we got posts that were too "Buddhist", it seemed we were expected to remind them that this is not a Buddhist site. Or, in the words of this post, "this is a Q&A web site, not a church".

    But, after being on the receiving end of some textual abuse from irate answerers (e.g. being called "passive aggressive"), and doing a bit of digging and a bit of reflecting, I'm not so sure there isn't room for a bit of church-ness here.

  • Not sure if I belong here

    I want to make it clear that this site is not a Buddhist site and its not only for Buddhists. Its both for Buddhists, Non-Buddhists, people interested in Buddhism and the like.

    Just because you are not Buddhist does not mean that you do not belong here. Buddhism is just a conventional word.

  • How to ask questions about different traditions of Buddhism?

    People with little or no knowledge of Buddhism may come to this site for information. The tone set on a site called Buddhism.SE can shape opinions of newcomers to Buddhism. Are we practicing Right Speech? (Granted it's a site about Buddhism, not a Buddhist site; but the majority of active participants in the site indicate in one way or another that they are practicing Buddhists and as such our behavior reflects on how Buddhism is practiced in daily life.)

That said, the question should be about Buddhism -- e.g. a question about Christianity would be deemed "off-topic" and closed.

Similarly, answers on this site should be "about Buddhism":

  • Answers which are explicitly from the perspective of another religion-- e.g. which quote "non-Buddhist" scripture or doctrine -- are likely considered off-topic
  • Answers aren't required to cite references -- though that may be preferable -- even where there isn't an explicit quote, a reader who knows some of the scriptures can usually see (and therefore approve) how an answer paraphrases Buddhist scripture even without referencing it
  • Answer which are only based on personal experience, and which don't appear to be explicitly related to Buddhism somehow, may be challenged by other users -- in which case a user might be asked to clarify how their answer related to Buddhist doctrine -- for example:

In practice, few (i.e. only a small percentage of) posts are closed or deleted for not being Buddhist -- if in doubt I think we usually decide to be permissive rather than exclusive.

If I recall correctly, if (very rarely) a post is deleted for being non-Buddhist, it tends to be "Hindu" (rather than "Christian" or "Islamic" for example). The most recent example was this answer (4 days ago). The previous one was this question (a month previously). An answer which talks about the Self, and maybe Brahman and so on, would tend to be viewed with some suspicion.

I hope that users' (the community's) sorting answers into "Buddhist" and "not Buddhist" might be helpful.


One place where being a "self-declared Buddhist" was in the site's definition of what content is on-topic.

It was decided that this site should accommodate all schools of Buddhism -- and that arguments like ...

  • Zen isn't really Buddhism ... shouldn't be on-topic on this site
  • Vajrayana isn't really Buddhism ...
  • Theravada isn't really Buddhism ...

... aren't what we want. So I think the policy is that any school which is "self-declared" Buddhist -- and so for example Shin Buddhism is on-topic; so is Sokka Gakkai; and, Secular Buddhism. If a question or answer is specific to a particular school then it's often better if that's stated explicitly (in the answer or using a question's "tag").

Using that definition, I don't remember many difficult "edge cases" where it's difficult to decide whether a topic is or isn't Buddhist.


As a "privileged" user (i.e. with a reputation above 2000) you can see all deleted posts -- so you can help to review whether any deleted posts were deleted in accordance with site policy.

Viewing deleted posts

You now have privileged access to posts that have been removed, either by their authors, by users with access to moderator tools, by moderators, or by the system.

Use this privilege wisely:

  • Make sure what is being deleted should have been deleted, and bring unnecessary or harmful deletions to the attention of the community and/or moderator team.
  • Watch for signs of abuse being obscured by deletion.
  • Don't abuse this privilege to stir up trouble when someone has wisely decided to remove a problematic post.

You also have a new search operator available to find your own deleted posts: deleted:1.

As I'm a moderator this search shows me every post that's been deleted.

  • Like mostly Nyom Chris does not use encouragements for reflection or improvements but react in defense. That's quite different in cases where is forms most neutral answers in regard of things he seemingly do not regard as his, yet nourishes on it. – Samana Johann Jun 30 at 9:28
  • "Just because you are not Buddhist does not mean that you do not belong here. Buddhism is just a conventional word.", thats probably one point that matches to the encouragement. Often answers or questions are killed simply because they use a different language, and are suddenly marked as Hindu, or what ever, yet often contain much more wisdom as the most. Such would not happen if one speaks in scientific terms: strange, isn't it... – Samana Johann Jun 30 at 9:33
  • I understood your post as being a question about the site's policy -- policy of what's on- and off-topic. And it seemed to me that perhaps you misunderstood what the policy is, so I thought I might explain it to whatever extent I understood it. Did you not intend your post to be understood like that, i.e. as a question about site policy? Do you intend it to be a suggestion for a new or revised site policy? – ChrisW Jun 30 at 9:33
  • "Often answers or questions are killed simply because they use a different language, and are suddenly marked as Hindu" I can see a list of everything deleted -- and so can you (with a reputation above 2000) -- I don't think anything is deleted "often". If there's anything you think shouldn't be deleted that can be discussed on a case-by-case basis (e.g. as a meta-topic with a specific-question or specific-answer tag). – ChrisW Jun 30 at 9:36
  • My person wouldn't care much about site policies, as the title already mentioned. No need to write much anew, but carefully look at questions and answers whether they do not actually care good things= "not act like a foolish racist" to user sharper words, if wishing for prosperty, both yourself and the site. (that goes not excl. toward Nyom!). – Samana Johann Jun 30 at 9:39
  • "If there's anything you think shouldn't be deleted that can be discussed on a case-by-case basis", my person has not much desire for such and what would be undone then? Again, no demand, just an encoragement to something possible not so seen. – Samana Johann Jun 30 at 9:44
  • @SamanaJohann Thank you for the advice -- I'd like to try to "not act like a foolish racist". I think I've gathered that you have sometimes disagreed with closing questions e.g. as "duplicate", for example. I don't remember any occasion though, (any specific example) where you said that something shouldn't have been deleted, when it was deleted for being "not Buddhist". – ChrisW Jun 30 at 9:49
  • my person has not much desire for such and what would be undone then? Sometimes a moderator might make a mistake or a questionable decision. Usually I agree with other moderators' decisions, but sometimes a moderator is encouraged (by the community or by other moderators) to reverse a decision, perhaps after editing the post which was deleted (to improve it). – ChrisW Jun 30 at 9:55
  • ". I don't remember any occasion though,..", possible because in such cases the action already took place, so less space to keep one from acting not that wholesome. There are less, especially questions, which can not be turned into useful or are not worthy to reflect or answer them. When not in special mood, it does not work that bad usually, just in "other religion" cases it seems to be still improper preoccupied at large. No need to dig out samples. – Samana Johann Jun 30 at 11:16
  • btw: looking for deleted: "Note: only content you own is returned when searching for deleted content." if Nyom might not know it. – Samana Johann Jun 30 at 11:18
  • It is funny to read things like this while some of the so-called "moderators" are clearly expressing cyberbullying, trolling methods, with both using their official profiles and both using the countless of "fake" accounts-LOL. We have some moderators that clearly expressing the "dark personality traits". And who would take these "moderators" seriously, then. I still delay to write all of the details that both happening in this site and outside of this site, but it doesn't mean I would never write it. I just don't like to destroy things. But this site's administration has to stop sleeping LOL – Murathan1 Jun 30 at 13:11
  • @Murathan1 That sounds scandalous (and improbable, if that's any consolation to you); but I don't know and couldn't assess what you were talking about, unless you reference specific posts. – ChrisW Jun 30 at 14:33
  • @ChrisW sure, that's the reason you deleted 2 of my comments about the subject when I wrote it directly, and you didn't answer to the 3rd comment when I wrote it. You are not a person that I take seriously and you're one of the so-called moderators that I mentioned above. But as I said before, I still delay to write the subject but If one day I do it, most likely this site would be immediately cleaned. Note: Lying is against the Buddhist precepts LOL – Murathan1 Jun 30 at 14:38
  • @Murathan1 Ah yes, looking at the history of deleted comments I see I deleted several of your comments (e.g. around May 12 and 13), here on Meta and on the main site, which were similar to the comment above (e.g. about this site being "captured by a troll" but without actionable details). – ChrisW Jun 30 at 14:48
  • @ChrisW I really feel sorry that this site is in the hands of such personalities, you really don't have any "limit" on anything LOL But still this conversation was beneficial for several reasons. First you clearly lied (you said I don't know what you're talking about) and then you "suddenly" remembered what has happened before-which is impossible. So you clearly lied-LOL. The second beneficial thing was you clearly showed your true face, your true personality. – Murathan1 Jun 30 at 14:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .