Talk:Triratna Buddhist Community/Archive 2

message: The previous dispute went on to up this page to 43k so I purged the page.  Please go to history sction if you wish to find out what were previously discussed. FWBOarticle 10:10, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

message: Let me just repost a couple of your comments here, because I do believe we are getting somewhere. This is clearly not just another view, this is your view. And yes actually I do believe that this discussion is relevant!
And about your offer for me to perticipate in contributing to the article.  Firstly, my section is a contribution. There is no obligation for anyone to perticipate in other sections. Secondly, I understand that lot of past and present problems of FWBO are discussed within the organisation.  However I highly doubt that you are willing to acknowlege these problems in Wikepedia when even your own organisation is yet to come to term with it. Some of the bad things I read about FWBO is not just S and senior order menbers' sexual exploits.  What about S's name falsely translated as "Protector of Sangha", him pretending to be a monk in front of indians, hyping his orthodox buddhist training in the east when he didn't really get anywhere.  What about allegation about S's idea that homosexual relationship to be superior to hetorosexual one, or about alleged misoginy against female members, and all those polemic S and FWBO directed against other Buddhist groups (and Chritianity). And are you willing to discuss the ongoing failiure of FWBO's to publically condem S and senior order members' sexual exploit not to mention it's failure to name names. FWBOarticle 00:01, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right about many of these things. S's name I think is a very minor point. I think it can be taken to mean "protector of the Sangha", but so far as I'm aware no one has ever insisted on that, and it's primary meaning is "protected *by* the Sangha". But these compound Sanskrit names are open to interpretation. S is a poet, so expect a little poetry from time to time.
As for S's retaining his identity as a monk in India, yep that is a problematic issue. It was a deliberate deception. I think it was plain wrong to do so, but then again I do have some sympathy with why he might have chosen such a deception. Anything I say is going to sound like a rationalisation I suppose. 
The homo/hetero thing is a bit of a non issue. Actually S says that the highest form of sexuality is celebacy. I'm not even sure it was him that suggested that homo was superior, although there were a number of people who advanced the idea. In any case anyone making such a clain these days would be laughed of the stage. There are a lot of gay men in the FWBO - traditional Buddhism is a bit anti, viz the Dalai Lama's comments a few years back. And yep there was some mysogeny as well. Lots of women felt marginalised, some still do, although record numbers are joining the order at present, so something must be going right.
I don't think anyone is willing to "denounce" Sangharakshita because they don't see him as having acted in a way that requires such a drastic step. Most of the people I know have an abiding gratitude to the old man. It's not a black and white issue, and I can see that you might see it as black. I don't necessarily see it as white, but against black I suppose I look pretty pale.
So yes there are problems. But these are things that can be addressed in the article. Gotta dash at the mo, but will be back. I think there's another paragraph in what you wrote yesterday which is the germ of a new addition to the article - after that it will make more sense to link to a couple of cult-watch sites. Regards mahābāla 08:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, firstly, I'm not interested in debating these issue.  Almost everything which can be said are in Newsgroup. And I don't really expect FWBO to be capable to condem S or name names of senior members. Just telling you that the public may have different POV from you.  Anyone with access to an internet (i.e. people who read Wikipedia) can find FWBOfile whether it is up here or not.  And your article is likely to alarm people about FWBO than promote it because your attitude toward these issues is apparent in the article. I recomend rewrite.  FWBOarticle 09:39, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: OK. Here is the germ of what you wish to add to the article. You might want to check some of those facts because I think they are inaccurate - especially the financial ones which have been tidied up considerably in the last ten years. But this is your view point: that the FWBO has a cultish aspect to it. These issues are quite valid ones that need to be addressed. So expand on this, and post it in the article. How hard can that be?
You write: But the failiure of FWBO to publically condem S and senior members' sexual experimentation or to name names is a ongoing failiure and will be regarded by the public and these sites as a sign of leader worship and dysfunctional nature of the organisation. 
Well I guess we have to agree to differ. I can see how making some sort of public denouncement would play the the zeitgeist in the west: we're very hot on denouncements and condemnation just now ain't we. And demnouncing the denouncers even. But that's not something I'd do to a friend who has been nothing but kind and geneorus to me. I remain open to dialogue, and would be interested to know why you choose to believe what's on the internet and whether you have any personal experience of the FWBO at all. My email is on my website, drop me a line. mahābāla 12:19, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Main Article

message: Mahaabaala - FWBOarticle threatening to "call in help from various sources" and I just don't want to get involved in that kind of unpleasentness!
That statement was made by me in response to 
"Hay, you just can't win tonight can you? Still you're very persistent :-) Nobody 19:33, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Apology

message: I know very little about this organization (I came to this page by accident), but there seems to be quite a bit of assumption about motives and other POV laced throughout the article. The following is just one example of many (in which I've highlighted the questionable statement in boldface):
:"The FWBO post Sangharakshita
:In the 1990s Sangharakshita began handing over spiritual and administrative responsibility for the FWBO and WBO to a group of senior men and women disciples. This transfer was completed by 2000. Since then Sangharakshita's health has declined, but thanks to his foresight the movement continues to thrive..."
Does anyone else see the difficulties with this sort of thing in an encyclopaedia? Fire Star 17:23, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is written by a FWBO member as a promotional piece for the organisation. It took me more than a page of discussion, and edit/delete war to just insert external links critical of FWBO.  If you want to edit it, be prepared to deal with the members of this organisation.FWBOarticle 00:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was afraid of that. From reading the talk page, I can see what you mean. Oh well, I'll do what I can. Fire Star 01:20, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: POV problems

message: I've removed the NPOV sticker, as there has been no discussion of the article on this talk page for a while. The article seems factual and well balanced, at least to me. If anyone objects, please state why before putting it back so that we may work on it. Fire Star 02:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV