Basic training on the Buddhist path involves working with our whole being—body, speech, and mind. Nothing is left out. Our training in life covers the same territory.
— Rebel Buddha, p. 64
The intention of rebelbuddha.com is to provide a space for dialogue about our personal experience of the path of awakening, as well as issues relevant to the Buddhist spiritual journey in modern-day, Westernized cultures. It’s a place for spiritual inquiry, for questioning our assumptions and preconceived ideas in an environment of mutual respect, tolerance, and empathy. It’s a place to take off our glasses and inspect the lens itself, the filter through which we’ve been looking at ourselves, each other, and the world at large.
What’s “buddha” about “rebel”?
Perhaps here is the place to mention that “rebel buddha” is not a person. As explained in Dzogchen Ponlop’s book, rebel buddha is the active, awakened intelligence of each and every mind. It is the quality of awareness within us as individuals that breaks through states of mind—thoughts, emotions, fears—that keep us trapped in unhappiness and suffering. Rebel buddha is that part of us that urges us to resist a life of illusion and seek our own inner truth. Understanding our own mind also helps us to help others, to work with the confusion, conflict, and injustices that are widespread in our world. When we are in touch with our own discriminating intelligence and listening to its voice, then we are bringing together the power of our awakened mind and our intention to use that power consciously and wisely. Instead of perpetually fighting with ourself and others, we learn to pacify aggression within and without, through knowledge, understanding, and compassion.
Commenting: I’m right, therefore you’re wrong.
We’re here to share our experiences and exchange ideas through a series of blog posts and comments. This back and forth talk can open up communications or shut it down, as most of us know. So what do we do in our discussions when conflict arises because we have different opinions? We can usually see what divides us more clearly than what connects us, but unless we stop to look at both, we’re unlikely to get past partisan sound bites (which can lead to name-calling, blaming, and self-righteousness). Then where has our intelligence gone? “Rebelling” in this case means to oppose those tendencies toward incivility, unkindness, and harmful speech. It’s much harder and often takes more courage to say something positive—to give voice to our generosity, to act with a sense of discipline and patience—but these are the qualities and conduct taught by the Buddha (and other spiritual teachers) to be powerful means for restoring balance, peace, and harmony within and without.
Rules of the Road
It’s not in the “rebel” spirit for the editors of this web site to be “censors” of views, and that is not our intention—but it is our responsibility, right, and intention to publish only blogs and comments that further sincere and constructive discussion.
This means that we will not publish blogs or comments that are intended to (or would in effect) cause harm to any individual or group. This website is not a platform for political agitation or for spreading gossip. It’s not a place to push an agenda, dominate a conversation, or win an argument. What does this mean specifically?
We will not publish posts or comments that:
- spread or invite gossip
- abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others
- are libelous or knowingly false
- call out individuals or communities by name in a way that encourage ad hominem attacks on them
- promote personal or political campaigns
- violate an obligation of confidentiality
- violate the privacy of others
- intentionally or unwittingly do harm
Our definitions of unacceptable content are not limited to this list. We reserve the right to delete any comment we deem offensive, inaccurate, or misleading.
It’s a family gathering.
An online community is a family of sorts, where there will always be different points of view, and it’s certainly fine to be passionate about those points of view. As Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche says, it is just this meeting of differences that can spark our intelligence and lead to new insights.
Family gatherings are full of sparks—from those at your house to those
played out on the national stage and documented by CNN and Entertainment
Weekly. But when the sparks from this rubbing together of opposites
ignite in an atmosphere of openness, it makes all the difference.
Then, instead of pure friction, we get a lively dance that generates a very
creative energy. (Rebel Buddha, p.16)
We invite you to bring your sincere questions to the discussions on RebelBuddha.com. There will be hot button issues, and although they’re challenging to talk about, they may be the ones we learn the most from. This is especially true if we can explore and share ideas in a respectful and constructive way, one that takes us beyond prejudice and into the realm of wisdom.
Yours on the road,
The Editors
Comments
True professionalism! So glad and relieved. Now I want to stay and learn more, since this is obviously an educational forum. Thank you.
While I fully support the idea of an editorial policy, and the need to protect a community forum from the potentials of abuse, the site’s policy would have had much more creditability if the editors had invited public input in the drafting of it, before removing posts. I suspect you would have ended up with a similar set of guidelines while demonstrating faith in your community and a genuine commitment to “this site serve not only as a place to learn about Western Buddhism, but also as a place to build a spiritual community, a community that has a voice, a say-so.”
Perhaps your invitation for comments is also an invitation for participation in the continued development of that policy.
Of continuing concern to me is the blanket statement: “Our definitions of unacceptable content are not limited to this list. We reserve the right to delete any comment we deem offensive, inaccurate, or misleading.”
My first reaction is to ask, who is “we”? Who are the members of the editorial staff and how are editorial decisions made? Are editorial decisions made by consensus, after debate, or is there a “final say” by one person? How diverse are your editors? I notice, for example, of the fourteen blogs you have posted, not a single woman has been invited to author one. Because transparency is key to building a honest and lively interchange with your community, it would be helpful to know whose voices you wish to invite, and who makes the decision on what voices should be heard.
Secondly, because this is a site that is presumably under the direction, or guidance, of a religious figure, the editors should be especially clear to the public what topics it may consider offensive. For example, would this site consider a Buddhist oriented discussion of feminism, gay rights, racial discrimination, abortion, sexual misconduct of monks/clergy, or spiritual materialism – offensive and/or inappropriate? These are issues being hotly debated in other spiritual communities. How will you handle them if and when they arise here?
If the intent of the editors is to confine public comment to the topics selected by the editors as it relates to a discussion of the book, Rebel Buddha, then perhaps this forum is actually a book group discussion, facilitated by a moderator or group of moderators. There is nothing wrong with that, and that can be a very lively exchange as well – but that is not, in my opinion, a community space “for dialogue about our personal experience of the path of awakening”: that is a controlled discussion with its primary focus being the book.
Finding the right balance between control and participation is not easy, and I appreciate the site is moving along a steep learning curve. The basic intent here seems genuine. Good luck.
You know, SvR, I think the editorial policy will be pretty liberal… I think they’re just looking to nix borderline hate speech / harsh speech, slander / libel. I think that’s the responsible thing to do. Nobody wants to see it and I trust the editors will be more than fair.
actually they are censoring more than that, I can assure you
as Mike said below:
“The trick is to do this without being repressive. If you come down on this with a lot of rules then you end up repressing all kinds of expression.”
and it seems they would err on the side of repression, rather than expression
Bodhisattvas!
http://www.modelearth.org/bodhisattvas.html
Bodhisattvas!
May all beings, without an exception, benefit utmost by this action in all ways possible, “spiritually” and “materially” alike, starting with all beings that there are here and now.
One thing in every Bodhisattva’s practice in these days stands out: no matter how much we think that our practice is worth, the conditions for life in this world continue to deteriorate at ever increasing pace.
What can be going wrong? Are we not putting all our effort into our practice for the sole purpose of benefiting optimally all beings without an exception, including, of course, all beings that there are here and now also? Why do not beings that there exist here and now benefit? Why isn’t the quality of life for all beings here and now improving?
No matter what explanations there might be offered, none satisfies, no matter how authoritative those explanations might be.
I would like to offer an explanation that, perhaps, will make sense:
The reason that things in this world are going from bad to worse generally is that Bodhisattvas, perhaps, don’t have a clear idea, a clear thought in their minds of how (as exactly as possible) the affairs in this world should be conducted in order to be considered as offering the optimal conditions for existence for all beings here and now.
Or, perhaps, all Bodhisattvas in this world do have very clear ideas of what the optimal conditions for all life here and now ought to be, but that not a single one of those ideas is identical to other such ideas that other Bodhisattvas might have, since there is no platform to compare our ideas that we might have on the subject, and therefore we all direct our efforts towards sometimes even fundamentally divergent objectives.
Naturally enough–because there is no clearly defined idea of what this world should be like at its optimum, any betterment, any chance of conditions for all life here and now to become ideal is very small.
What needs to be done is that we all agree (by what-so-ever expedient means) on what actually the optimal conditions for all life on Earth should be. Without our harmonizing and unifying of all such ideas of what the ideal state of things in this world should be, we shall continue to see the situation in this world to deteriorate, wondering all the time how come our various practices meant to benefit all beings optimally bear no results.
Bodhisattvas! What kind of a world should the Earth be?
How shall we unify, harmonize all our individual ideas about what this world should be like ideally?
It would be possible to show that any and all sustainable life-styles (as long as those could be proven to be indeed sustainable) could co-exist on Earth, and that there would be enough space for all other species to exist also, but this possibility has to be presented in a suitable form for everybody on Earth to discus and amend. (More to this at “The Ideal Sustainable Earth Model: Proposal.” – http://www.modelearth.org/ideal.html ). This should already be happening, but it still is not. Instead, there are very many disparate indistinct notions presented, causing confusion. No wonder that the vital statistics don’t show any encouragement!
May all differences, all controversies, all conflicts, all complaints that there are in this world among all beings be resolved peacefully by the power of all Bodhisattvas ever merit!
!OmManiPadmeHum!
May humans become fully and truly forever transparently sustainable for their own good and for the benefit of all beings!
Thank you, Mr. Jan Hearthstone – http://www.ModelEarth.Org .
—
Creating Lasting Peace: http://www.modelearth.org/peace.html
If we, the people, were really sincere about having real Peace in the world, we would pursue creating Peace by peaceful means more actively rather than by relying on our military might!
Nice site, keep up the good work!
Hi,
Is the basic point of this policy that you don’t want this blog to become a place where people can use the notion of Rebel Buddha as an excuse to make an exhibition of their pent up aggression? In other words, to say it in more positive terms… you would like people to express their rebelliousness with intelligence, mindfulness and compassion?
Sounds good. The trick is to do this without being repressive. If you come down on this with a lot of rules then you end up repressing all kinds of expression.
Its a balance.
Good luck editors!
Mike
All aboard!
Thank you for your comments!
We’ve followed these with interest. The primary issues and questions raised during the past few days appear to be:
1. Transparency
(Who are we? What is this website?)
2. Topics of Discussion
(What’s acceptable to discuss here? Can we talk about issues like feminism, gay rights, sexual equality, spiritual materialism, and political activism? Or are we limited only to the topics directly mentioned in a blog post?)
3. Purpose of the Site
(Is this a book marketing site or a blog/discussion site?)
Who we are
The Rebel Buddha editorial staff, not Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, is solely responsible for the website’s content. Currently the staff’s editors are students of Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche; however, this could change in the future. There aren’t many of us, and we’re each doing quite a lot, so we may not always be as quick to respond as we might if this website were our only occupation (It isn’t).
It’s important to us that RebelBuddha.com represents a variety of voices. Our staff is fairly diverse, for example. Currently our editorial staff consists of 2 female managing editors and 3 male contributing editors. In addition, our creative team includes people of different ethnic backgrounds, who live in Seattle, California, New York, and points in between. A variety of teachers and writers as well have been invited to guest blog on this website, as it’s our intention to offer space for many views of the Buddhist path. We realize that we started out without adequate representation of women. We tried; it just didn’t work out. But going forward we will continue to make a point of hosting blog discussions with more women. In the next few months we’ll be hearing from Lama Palden, Mitra Lee Worley, and Tanya McGinnity, as well as Rev. Danny Fisher, Shastri Ethan Nichtern, Dzogchen Ponlop and many others.
Topics of discussion
We have no plans to repress points of view, or to enforce an exclusively “make-nice” atmosphere. It’s our intention to represent many voices, and we don’t expect those voices to always sing in perfect harmony. Disagreement is fine. There seems to be continuing concern about our “blanket policy,” however. To be completely transparent, we want to address this directly. Frankly, there’s no way we can list all the permutations of comments that may not be approved on this website. So far, there’s a lot we’ve seen that we never expected to see, and that you, dear reader, would surely be glad to have been spared. But our relationship with you is a new one. We know that we have to earn your trust. You’re telling us that the trick here is to find a balance (not too tight, not too loose). That’s what we’re aiming for. So if you see us straying in either direction – whether it looks like we’re not minding the store, or we’re becoming repressive, tell us about it. The container we seek to create here is one of open dialogue – but also one in which commenters can feel confident we won’t allow them to be “flamed” by “trolls.” This is a new site, and we’re still learning. We’re sincerely interested in knowing what you think and how you practice, and at the same time, we know all of it – our views, yours, and this website – is constantly changing. Like everything else.
If you still have questions, we can only refer you again to our Editorial Policy. If you’re wondering whether your comment is likely to be approved by RebelBuddha.com, before submitting it, ask yourself, “Am I seeking to further meaningful discussion of the points raised in the blog post?” and “Is there anything in my comment that maligns another person or organization?” and “Is my comment likely to cause harm or fear of harm in the reader?” This blog discussion is a fluid process, and we expect it to grow and morph over time, as we hear from you and learn more about the online community of Buddhist practitioners, as well as spiritual seekers unaffiliated with any particular “-ism.”
The purpose of this site
RebelBuddha.com is admittedly doing something that isn’t typically done – that is, to introduce and support the publication of a new book, while hosting a broader discussion that doesn’t center around that book and doesn’t intend to. Our editors are naturally supportive of Rebel Buddha’s clear and practical articulation of the Buddhist path. However, our intention is to foster genuine discussion that we all can learn from, not merely to promote this book. Rebel Buddha was written, in part, as a kind of invitation to a larger discussion about how the Buddha’s teachings might inform our daily lives, in ways that fit our Western lifestyle. We’re looking forward to learning more about other teachers’ and authors’ works that touch on the themes presented by our bloggers on RebelBuddha.com.
We hope you’ll continue to join us in what we expect to be a lively, meaningful discussion of whatever is most relevant in our daily lives, as we seek to understand and practice the Buddha’s teachings.
All the best,
The RebelBuddha.com Editors
Cindy Shelton, Ceci Miller
Dennis Hunter, Shane Manieri
and Tim Walton