I’ve recently seen some comments along this line:
I just wanted to make sure all have read the beginning of the FAQ that states:
I don’t understand how anyone could consider that D&D is not a Buddhist forum.
15 Likes
But Bhante, I’m pretty sure the person you’ve quoted (who could use this reminder) is so new that they can’t read Lounge posts. Just saying. 
2 Likes
perhaps, but they can and should read the FAQ. I did back in November, that’s what it’s there for. Especially before making declarations about what kind of forum this is or is not, right?
4 Likes
I’m guessing, but I think some people who come here are accustomed to other forums where rules are lax, moderation is marginal and anything not obviously egregious is the norm.
4 Likes
Ven Snowbird was quoting from the FAQs which are upfront and obvious, not from the lounge.
5 Likes
I realise that. I think the said poster was trying to make a distinction, saying:
Perhaps they meant it’s not a blanket buddhist forum because the focus is on EBT and not, say pan-sectarian, etc. ? I don’t know.
My point was that we could’ve learned what distinction @landis was trying to make if this thread wasn’t in Lounge and if there’s indeed a confusion, they could be corrected.
Also, I should note this thread seems to have moved from “Lounge” to “Meta”; I guess you didn’t notice it before the move.
2 Likes
I ended up moving it.
The quote in the OP was just one example.
3 Likes
Let’s also include the very next sentence from the message to our quote:
1 Like
Whenever I have asked what are the Early Buddhist Texts the only answers I have gotten were along the lines of “don’t go there”. My opinion is that the fact on the ground is that this is a Theravada Buddhist forum.
Don’t worry, more Buddhist threads to come, I am thinking about adding another Jhana thread.
Oh incidentally, @Snowbird, I looked into your web presence today and found some of your learning tips very inspiring. Going to adapt my practice.
1 Like
It’s very easy to answer the question “what are the early Buddhist texts.” The question that is problematic, and knowledgeable people generally won’t answer, is “what are the very earliest Buddhist texts among the early Buddhist texts.”
I think the issue there is that it’s very possible to make some distinction between texts that are older and texts that are later. So we can say that the Pali root texts are older than the Pali commentarial texts. The problem arises when you try to drill down and say that specific Pali root texts are older than other Pali root texts.
And some people believe that if you can just find the oldest texts and only follow those then you will have the absolute true Dhamma. This is highly problematic, not least of which because there is know way to know what texts are the absolute oldest.
Theravada (loosely defined) is the only living historical tradition that pays attention to the Pali texts at all. So it is not surprising you would feel that this is a Theravada Buddhist forum. But no matter the specific flavour, it is still a Buddhist forum to the extent that there can be such a thing.
4 Likes
What is the “highly problematic” issue?
I suggest, please do go there: EBTs:
What is NOT considered an Early Buddhist text? - Q & A - Discuss & Discover
1 Like
Or even if we could, what the difference in time is. Say text A is earlier than text B, is that 100 years earlier, 50 years earlier, 10 years earlier, a month earlier? Further more is it sound to reject something because its later? If the Buddha taught text A and Ānanda created text B 10 years after the Buddha died, is one more reliable in terms of the other? That’s before we get into the issue of how you can actually practice Dhamma based off just one text. A single text isn’t much to go on. Even with a single body of texts, you will be missing quite a lot. Besides the Dhamma has never been taught that way. Its never been something totally divorced from a great body of teachings, divorced from the Sangha.
2 Likes
I don’t understand how anyone could consider that D&D is not a Buddhist forum.
FAQ 1: “Discuss & Discover is the formal name of this Forum, created by Venerable Sujato…to discuss their understanding of the Early Buddhist Texts (EBT) as well as their application to Life.”
FAQ 3: “This forum is focused on discussing the meaning, translation, interpretations and historical context of the Early Buddhist Texts. We seek to explore how these teachings evolved and relate to later traditions, and try to understand how their wisdom may be applied to present day modern world issues such as climate, society, political systems, economics etc. Other texts and traditions may be drawn upon for purposes of comparison and elucidation, but are not the prime focus of this forum.”
FAQ 5: “We prefer content that focuses on the EBT.”
I sincerely hope that clears it up for you @Snowbird. Also, why did you post this in Meta rather than The Watercooler? Not criticizing; just curious.
@Dogen: (1) Correct. This is the first I’ve heard of the Lounge. What is it? (2) Thank you and–@Sasha_A–for adding more context to my previous comment, and for understanding and advertising the distinction I was attempting to elucidate.
@Adutiya: Why I joined this forum has nothing to do with my experience with other forums–AFAICR; it was about fifteen years ago when I stopped being active on other forums.
A Buddhist is someone who practices Buddhism, which post-dates the Buddha and likely most of the EBT, and I’ve always avoided identifying with any -isms. I oriented my practice around one style or form of post Buddha and EBT teaching or another for the first fifteen or so of the last twenty-six years, starting with Mahayana oriented practices, then moving on to Theravada oriented practices, and then EBT oriented practices since about 2014.
One of the reasons I joined this forum is because it kept coming up in my internet searches, but the clincher was a post (which I can’t find now) where @Sujato said he was NOT Theravadin (I believe Doug Smith contributed to that post too). Before I joined, though, I studied along with the @Sujato video series on YouTube about EB Meditation, his series on YouTube about Metta Meditation, and the series he did with @Brahmali on dependent origination, all along reading @Sujato’s and other EBT oriented content (although I initiated exposing myself to EBT scholarship as early as 2008ish a la Gombrich, Sue Hamilton, R.A.E. Johansson, et al). IOW, my practice is now is EBT oriented. I joined this forum to supplement that orientation, and my reading of the FAQs led me to feel like it would. So upon encountering a claim that this forum was Buddhist, I felt it necessary to say something to nip the assumption in the bud. Furthermore, I made the comment in the context of my discourse with @rcdaely about source reliability–a main issue in EBT studies–and in response to his intimation that as a Buddhist forum we ought to be ever mindful of the all pervasiveness of anicca. The ironies were, I felt, were about to multiply like bunnies in heat. It was only a good faith reminder of the greater context of our discourse, based upon my interpretation of the FAQ and the spirit of Venerable Sujato’s et al intentions, as I understood them, for this forum. I had no idea it was a controversial thing to say here, and am still a little perplexed as to why @Snowbird felt it warranted a topic of its own. @anon4927160 and I moved on from it, and I’d like this to be then end of it in general. There’s heavy dialogue going on the topic where I made the statement and I want to dig into it. However, if others in this thread still feel I’ve done something in violation of this forum’s policies, or wrong in general (preceptually), I will attend to them per new replies or comments.
With Sincere Respect,
~l
1 Like
Hehe. I like you @landis.
Most people on this forum may identify as “Buddhist” maybe this is the issue? Who knows. But you are right, we moved on
I always tell people, I am completely happy being compost sooner or later, and I don’t need a favorable rebirth, or even care to have one! Maybe this makes me not a buddhist … who knows.
This post may be a waste of wattage. But, even wattage is impermanent … I think?
Not really. I would agreed that this is a Buddhist forum whos main focus is to discuss what are considered to be the early Buddhist texts. But it’s not an academic forum. It’s a Buddhist forum.
From the About the Meta category
Discussion about SuttaCentral and this forum, its organization, how it works, and how we can improve it.
2 Likes
That’s the exact reason I posted about it. This is in fact a Buddhist forum. I’m tired of people asserting that it is not.
I didn’t want to muck up the other thread by raising it there. And it isn’t just you that tries to assert that. Just the latest example.
Edit to add:
I am absolutely not saying that only people who are (or who identify as) Buddhists are welcome here. Far from that.
I would also not say that this is a Theravada Buddhist forum. Someone who wants that would be happier on a forum dedicated to “classical Theravada.”
3 Likes
I like you too. 
If I’ve offended those who ID w/ Buddhist, I apologize. That was not my intent.
1 Like
Nothing to do with being offended. Just concerned that people are claiming that the forum is something that it is not.
2 Likes