Please think about your use of language and the fact that language exists for purposes of communication, not as a tool to separate people who think themselves smarter than others from those they condescend to. I am refering to the frequently-occuring points at which Mr. Carson and others feel the need to educate the public as to definitions of words, their use, etc. This issue is just one example of how your mean-spirited, angry, generally snotty website does no favor for anyone and comes quite short of making any significant accomplishments whatsoever.
Jim Orso, Jr.
Jim,
I have thought about it, and I wonder just what your purpose in writing might be. Based on your thesis that "language exists for purposes of communication," (I'll not argue that point.) "not as a tool to separate people," I assume you intend to communicate. Given that the this site is dedicated to clarifying the mistaken understanding of Vajrayana in specific circles, and to the problems caused when these views are taken up by naïve newcomers - I would expect a sincere correspondence to at least wave a hand at these issues. As you do not, it seems you write to educate us in the proper uses of language.
I regret to inform you, but Damtsig does not subscribe to the politically correct movement, and we are consequently unmoved by the pleas of those whose sense of moral outrage extends to issues which they have no evident interest in or understanding of. I hope that had you anything of worth to contribute you would have provided that in place of your determination that Damtsig is a "mean-spirited, angry, generally snotty website [that] does no favor for anyone and comes quite short of making any significant accomplishments whatsoever."
I will leave it to wiser heads to determine whether your comment falls within the range of its own "standards." I am not inclined to allude to irony as a meta-critique, but this is not because such irony does not exist. Rather, it is because the obsession with such rhetorical conceits inevitably leads to that vacuous class of "significant accomplishments" exemplified by your letter.
Readers: Why am I bothering to respond to this letter in particular? Because although he has not directly addressed the issues of concern to Damtsig, Jim Orso Jr. has indirectly demonstrated precisely the mistaken mindset endemic to the Western Buddhist Movement. While on the most superficial level, his letter could be styled an attempt at open-mindedness, he cannot quite make it through three sentences without devolving into crude and unsupported name-calling.
If one wishes to take the position that language does not exist "as a tool to separate people," then one must avoid using divisive language. If one wishes to decry the impulse to "educate the public as to definitions of words, their use, etc.," one should avoid doing the same. In short, if one wishes to criticize someone for being "mean-spirited, angry, and snotty," one should acknowledge the desire to "separate oneself" from the object of criticism and abandon the claim to equanimity of judgement.
The difference between my critique of your letter - and your critique of Damtsig, is that you claim to provide some outside wisdom of presumed relevance that validates you in proferring a criticism to which you are immune. I, on the contrary, am entirely up-front in acknowledging the need to educate and divide. To fail in this is to subscribe to the philosophical extremes of monism and nihilism. To feel righteous in that subscription is to fall prey to the extreme of eternalism. Endlessly rewording a "witty" reply would be to indulge in the extreme of dualism.
Whether or not these extremes are problematic for human society in general, they are inappropriate for those who name themselves Buddhists, and certainly for those who see themselves as Teachers or Founders of a new School of Buddhism. It is because they exhibit advanced-stage symptoms of this terminal social disease that we are pointing out the leaders of the Western Buddhist Movement as tainted sources of transmission. Having sworn off addiction, what might otherwise be termed "recreational use" is known as relapse. What good is the "socially-minded" individual who happens onto an altercation and stands up for the junkie being disabused of his junk? Does the validity of this "intervention" warrant scrutiny, or should the interloper be allowed to settle the matter?
Catherine Elder