SuttaCentral
You better watch out, because I heard there’s a really tough gang of metta practitioners on this forum. They’ve been known to suffuse a guy or two - especially rebirth deniers - with a mind of loving-kindness, and then dwelling having suffused the whole world with a mind of loving kindness that is far-reaching, widespread, immeasurable, without enmity, without malevolence.
So because a few people are contemptuous of those who reject rebirth, that gives you the go ahead to act in the same way? That is an excuse that belongs on the children’s playground.
It’s exactly these sort of vitriolic, really venomous, broad generalizations that are so repulsive. You’re really good at writing these venomous diatribes, but it’s not a good skill to have and one you’d be better off not continuing to improve with paragraphs like the above. You admit that you’re averse to how other people use their minds, so why make that aversion stronger by giving words to them and airing them publicly?
No one else on this forum who has problems with rebirth goes to these rhetorical lengths to disparage others who believe in it. Doug Smith (dougsmith) sets a good example of how to skillfully have doubts about rebirth without disparaging others. You’d do well taking a page from his book.
My mistake.
@aminah that’s not fair. I wrote the OP for this thread and asked that people share what they think. What they think. I don’t want the thread hijacked into another discussion of textual exegesis, of which there is surely no shortage at Sutta Central. I’m sorry if I was curt, but have been treated the same way when my participation in a thread was found not to be on the topic the thread creator had indicated.
What you are calling a friendly atmosphere is only friendly for some. For others, the atmosphere is a pervasive culture of psychological intimidation and exclusion, where skeptically-minded people are routinely cowed into silence and submission by the voices of authority and orthodoxy, and where only some attitudes about what is true or false in Buddhist texts, culture and tradition are valued.
I gather at least some of the people here seem to appreciate the questions I have raised, and my willingness to critically challenge some orthodox outlooks. It is never going to be exactly pleasant when challenging questions are raised, and where people are asked to think critically about their current religious beliefs. And frankly, most people don’t have the stomach to deal with the predictable angry blowback that comes from outraged doctrinal conservatives whenever their psychological red lines are crossed. So the conservatives are empowered to hold sway, and the dissenters retreat into submissive lurking.
I made a mistake in retreating and retiring before, because I got too easily frightened off when some people began attacking and digging into the financial reports of a bunch of good and nice people I know.
I apologies for any unfairness.
There are two separate issues here: 1) mode of expression 2) ideological content (for want of a better phrase). The friendliness I am interested in very strictly only concerns the first point, and excuse my frankness but in my opinion you have been dishing out a continuous flow of rudeness (although, I want to be quick to note, not only that - you’ve made many beautiful contributions, too) since you rejoined.
I think there’s a lots of space for your views to be accommodated and appreciated here. I myself have expressed directly to you that I’ve all the time for receiving your views while disagreeing with them (and I think others have, too). I have no time, however, for your many, many low-grade unkindnesses.
The saddest thing about it, is that you don’t seem remotely willing to consider the fact that you might play even a teeny-tiny role in the dissatisfaction you find in discussion here, or inclined to consider that dropping thinly (or not at all) veiled scorn might be more conducive to rich, mature intellectual exploration; or that suspending the caricaturisation (or downright misrepresentation) of people’s views so they fit some gross, binary narrative for the purpose of railing against might free up the airspace for a better quality of conversation that better serves your own interests.
I’m truly sorry you don’t feel this is a friendly environment for you at the moment and very much hope this changes. The only thing I can think to recommend is that giving up the hostility and may lead to this place being less hostile for you.
I had to read the paragraph by @DKervick twice before I started to understand why one might describe them as vitriolic, really venomous, broad generalizations that are so repulsive.
For (1) I would recommend a rewrite to
I confess I respond with strong aversion to all forms of cultishness: I get triggered when I judge that people …
This shifts the emphasis of the inference to the person doing the judging/making the inference. Thus putting the emphasis on the thinking of the person who is trying to think for him/her self.
And yet in either form the sentences seems to me to express motherhood-and-apple-pie (to use an US expression) ideals; to say that it’s not good to “surrender our intellects and capacity for independent critical judgment over to authority figures in order to win the approval of a teacher or a master”.
On it’s own I’m thinking that you wouldn’t have a strong reaction to [1]. Yes? No?
…
For (2) I removed one phrase. I’m wondering how you find (2) now?
In broad terms I agree with where I think you were trying to go with your comments.
However, the sentence above seems to me to illustrate one pattern of communication you rightly want to avoid.
Developing the skill of clean, productive communication takes a considerable amount of practice. It’s a lot easier if done with supportive friends. Which, in addition to learning more about the EBT’s, is one of my goals here.
Yes, I think you’re quite right. Thank you. 
Just as you say it is a skill to develop, I’ve always been very happy to be open about my great fallibility and great distance from perfecting good speech. It is a training and we can but try our best.
I sincerely apologize for any hurt I have inflicted. That goes for you, @aminah, and @mcoll, @Erika_ODonnell and any others I might have injured or offended with my words.
Yes, I have become aware that I am finding a lot more anger arising in me lately. Let me tell you about one thing I have been going through.
For several years, Buddhism made me feel better better about my life, and more optimistic and hopeful. It gave me a real sense of purpose and devotion. I attended moon day pujas at least once a month, and usually twice. I often chanted the dhamma request, which I found very moving. It was a vivid poetic reminder of how fortunate people were to have the path of liberation that the Buddha taught. I also loved the Invitation to the Devas, which again had rich poetic and symbolic significance for me, even though I didn’t think it was likely that there were actual ancient Indian divinities hovering around. Buddhism seemed to me like a real force for good in the world.
It never occurred to me that many people would think that I was a bad and wrong Buddhist because I didn’t literally believe that there was a Brahma Sahampati had knelt before the Buddha. I knew some people probably did believe that, and other people probably didn’t, but it didn’t matter. We gathered, we chanted together, we meditated together, and we listened to a dhamma talk - usually focused on the means of liberating the heart through meditation and kind living, and blessedly short on ancient doctrinal heaviness or insistent scriptural literalism.
The stories and discourses and chants were for me the expressions of a poetic world of symbols and meanings, like the Greek myths, but pointing to something higher and less worldly. I drew meaning from the stories about the wandering in samsara. I always loved, for example, the story of Ubbiri and her daughter Jiva. The Buddha told her, “84,000 daughters, all named Jiva, have been burned in that charnel ground. For which of them do you grieve?” Were those young girls one Jiva being reborn 84,000 times, or 84,000 different Jivas? Why did it matter? They were all daughters. There were 84,000 grieving mothers. It’s all humanity wandering.
But ever since Bhante Sujato unleashed his diatribe, I can’t face my sangha and my old friends. Because now I can’t avoid reflecting on what they probably think about people like me: shallow, suffering from various “psychological lacks” and “existential lacks”, soullessly unable to ascend to the exalted spiritual plane from which the Buddha, and I guess Bhante Sujato, survey the cosmos and count up their lives, and commune with the spirits. I still meditate every night, and try to read and remind myself of the core teachings that are most meaningful to me. But I feel all alone now. This experience has nearly broken my heart.
Some of the things I have recently seen transpire here have shocked and alarmed me. I don’t want to say which things, because the very fact that I am shocked and alarmed by them will probably offend some people. I believe I really have tried to engage many times in rich, mature intellectual, discussion - as you put it. But my overall impression is that most of the time this is not at all appreciated, because many people are trying to maintain a fairly orthodox faith community in which potentially disturbing intellectual discussion, beyond the limited area of scriptural interpretation, is kept to a bare minimum. So I feel like the proverbial skunk at the garden party.
I should just keep my ideas to myself, perhaps. But my moral conflict comes in when I encounter aspects of of the more orthodox approaches to the teachings that might be causing harm to people - by exploiting them, or by saddling them with guilt, shame or worries that are based on little evidence, or by stunting their intellects, or by inculcating an excessive and dangerous submission to authority and authority figures, or by training them to think of themselves as inferior, dirty or unworthy. Surely, many of us can accept that Buddhism has had a fair share of problems in those areas in recent years.
As I said, “many beautiful contributions”.
To me personally what you write here is all the more touching, because I relate to it very much. I’m too tired to write sensibly about much, but briefly: I found such unexpected joy encountering the Dhamma. That that happened was peculiar enough in itself, but it was quite beyond belief that someone of my interrogating nature could fall so deeply in love with some silly story about Sakka descending from the heavens and bid his attendant strum the Buddha a tune on his lute, and yet I did.
The particular details of why in my story negotiating the world of institutional Buddhism became increasingly heavy and complicated and compromising of that gleeful love differ from yours, but all the same it did. I don’t think you’re alone in feeling broken hearted, nor in feeling like the proverbial skunk at the garden party; at the very least I can at least note that I share those feelings.
I for one hope you don’t keep your ideas to yourself, because as is displayed here, they can go some way to helping people feel a smidgen less… skunky.
Night-night.
Please find the courage to go back to your sangha and old friends! It’s unfair to them, and yourself, to assume because one person has expressed certain sentiments that others feel the same. You know the value of your relationship with your community. Isn’t it worth cultivating?
I concur with Nadine. I hope you can return to your sangha.
I think the questions regarding rebirth and Kamma are non-binary. I personally have tried to walk the middle ground discussing them, because I understand it’s a difficult topic. One that can isolate people due to either end of the spectrum being argued too forcefully.
My personal view is one based on a multi-life view, but I don’t expect everyone to share this. We are all discovering the Buddha’s teachings for ourselves. To do that we require an open heart. Sometimes having an open heart leaves us vulnerable, but I’ve found vulnerability is a great tool for training in the Brahmaviharas.
It is natural for some here to express a strong view on rebirth. It is also natural that secularists will counter this view. What I feel is important is that we don’t take it too personally. Whether we are one-lifers or multi-lifers anatta still holds true as a principle Dhamma.
My hope is that both here and our analog community we can share in that which opens the heart.
Maybe I’m all too idealistic and kumbaya, or maybe this is right-intention.
Your rewrite of (1) makes it better by itself. But it is combined with (2). They are one paragraph. In (2), he is referring to Buddhists as cultists who have, in (1) “surrendered their intellects and capacity for independent critical judgment over to authority figures in order to win the approval of a teacher or a master, and have succumbed to passive-aggressive, and deceptively coercive, mind manipulation.” And the preceding paragraphs, i.e. the context, are talking about Buddhists on this forum. It’s clear who the target of this disparagement is.
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t expressing critical judgement mean that one must be prepared for counter-arguments -and the unpleasantness when one’s arguments are seen to be rejected by the opposing (adversarial) side of the argument? This is hardly Right speech- its just two sides arguing, hoping to dominate the other side. Why cant we discuss things in a reasoned manner? Leaving the other side to their understanding and agreeing to disagree is a valid wholesome option too.
with metta,
My apologies as well.
While I liked that Ven. Sujato was taking a firm stand, I did not like the way it was so personalized in its delivery. There were some disparaging and hurtful words in there, things that made people feel bad as you’ve bravely said of yourself. I find it just as distasteful as some of the comments I’ve pointed out above, but because he was arguing for “my side,” I haven’t said anything. But there was divisive speech in there, no doubt.
Abandoning divisive speech he abstains from divisive speech. What he has heard here he does not tell there to break those people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he does not tell here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus reconciling those who have broken apart or cementing those who are united, he loves concord, delights in concord, enjoys concord, speaks things that create concord.
AN 10.176
I think it’s unequivocal that there is more division between more “traditional” Buddhists and more “secular” Buddhists because of the delivery of his essay. Could he have been as firm in taking a stand without being divisive? I’d like to think so, in more of a “flexible, but firm” manner. Damage has been done, but it’s never too late for an apology IMO. Communication is a skill we can always improve upon.
Just to clarify, in expressing my worries about upsurges of cult-like behavior, I was not referring to Buddhists as a collective group.
The word critical has at least two major definitions.
I recommend running this search: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/search?q=critical
So to the question. The answer is maybe and no.
No if critical judgement is used in the same sense as critical thinking or a what I assume is meant by a critical edition of the Pali cannon.
the unpleasantness when one’s arguments are seen to be rejected by the opposing (adversarial) side of the argument?
It can be quite illuminating if one follows up the “rejection” by the other side by questioning guided by curiosity and a desire to learn something not known before. It’s my guess that the Buddha did a bit of this kind of questioning.
Thus "you seem to reject my reasoning. Can you help me to understand why? Where do you think I went wrong?:
When I hear such questioning it’s nature still sometimes feels odd or awkward to me. In the least it often requires more words than required in ‘normal’ conversation. It’s the type of communication I associate with therapists, mediators, philosophers, and anthropologists. So I would expect that such subtleties might not get picked up and recalled in the (summarized?) recollections of the Buddha’s hearers.
Many apologies @daverupa. That last sentence in the quote by me that you posted was supposed to have a winky-smiley-face attached to it thus:
For all they know it might be a great thing, for example ushering in a new era of beings who have a better propensity to understand dhamma.
I can see how that would’ve misled you from my intention. My bad!
But while I’m here … 
…
Firstly, I never mentioned either belief in ghosts or belief in rebirth in that post. I thought that it was clear from the context that I was talking about just those beings that are subject to evolution by way of natural selection - i.e. those that are commonly known as animals and humans. I’m sorry to have misled you. Many apologies for that also.
Secondly, I think that we (humans) know what to do about anthropogenic climate change and we are doing it. OK, so there is a slight hiccup with Trump in the states, but I believe that we are still on target for China to peak with greenhouse gas emissions around 2025-2030, and we are on target for the world to avoid global warming of more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels. According to the IPCC, a 2°C pathway requires annual greenhouse gas cuts of 40-70% by 2050, compared with levels in 2010 – and to zero or below by 2100. Pretty much everyone is signed up to this and it seems we are on target. Mind you, I’m a year or so behind since I last researched it.
But anthropogenic climate change is largely a human problem, not a problem for life in general on the planet, given the length of time life has inhabited the planet.
As I say, I’m not talking about ghosts here. About 90% of animals on the planet were wiped out in the Permian mass extinction about 250 million years ago. That was with a rise of temperature of somewhere between 8°C an 11°C, which is way above any of our current climate change models, as I understand it. And of course from the remaining 10% of animals we eventually arrived at humans. The planet and life in general will very likely be fine in the long term.
The IPCC predicts that increases in global mean temperature of less than 1°C to 3°C above 1990 levels will produce beneficial impacts in some regions and harmful ones in others. It’s win for some and loose for others. Although the overall forecast looks very negative for biodiversity and biomass in the short term, and that, of course, includes humans, and the net cost of CC is likely to be high.
So what should we do about this? Well there are personal things that we can do. So - don’t have children, don’t own a car, limit the number of shiny devices , don’t eat meat, don’t travel around the planet unless absolutely necessary (I’m talking escaping from war, famine, etc…), limit the mileage our goods have to travel - shop for locally produced veggies only, better still, grow your own - you get the picture. It’s all pretty straight forward. Other than this, I think that we should be welcoming and caring of those beings (humans and animals only) that are currently being displaced by anthropogenic climate change.
That’s all I’ve got. Many apologies again for misleading you.
I had something like this in mind:
Right speech:
X: ‘how can I believe that rebirth exists? It’s just a concept to me.
Y: Well you don’t have to- the Buddha and many of his disciples have seen it and I personally believe them at their word as they seem to be people who are not being deceptive.
X: I still cannot believe it until I have seen it for myself.
Y: that’s cool
X: I’m going to meditate. 
In other instances it becomes adversarial when we speak through our defilements:
Conceit: how can I believe rebirth exists (these cultish idiots…)?
Ego: it’s stupid to believe rebirth (‘you must all eventually believe what I believe in’)
Lack of metta: (there are no people on the other side of these words on the screen, let me fire away)
With metta
Thank you very much for your honesty and courage to openly share your feelings, Dan!
This is indeed very beautiful! You seem to be a person with a very strong intellectual side, and I find it wonderful that you found something that can give you a balance and add something more emotional. To me, both these sides - the intellectual and the emotional - are equally important in my approach to Buddhism (it started out with more emphasis on the emotional side, and by the time the other side too is gaining more strength; many other people I know had rather the opposite journey).
Fine! And now that changed after
?
First: Can you please help me out: What article exactly are you referring to as “diatribe”?
Second: Why did all this change after hearing some critical comments about people who don’t believe in rebirth? Why is it that one person’s opinion is so decisive for you that it changes all your outlook and influences your way of communicating with others in a way that often makes them feel offended and treated disrespectfully? Why does it stop you from enjoying the company of your sangha and your old friends?
As for me: I consider Bhante Sujato as my teacher, and at the same time I don’t expect him to be perfect in every respect, and maybe sometimes I see him behave in a way I wouldn’t 100 % approve of. That isn’t a problem in and of itself to me. But to you it seems to be…
I probably disagree with you about your outlook on rebirth, but this isn’t important at all when writing these lines. What I find most important is the way we relate to each other, no matter what belief or disbelief we have.
Just a few flowers for you: 
I think it was first called “Why Secular Buddhism is False.”