Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

Post Reply
10 years ago  ::  Jul 01, 2008 - 5:57PM #1
Posts: 13
When someone claims to be updating the Dharma it is suggested that Buddhists take it under consideration. If all spiritual realms are not respected then Pure Realm cannot exist. If Buddhists do not believe in Buddhism enough to believe that the practices they undertake make changes in this world then Pure Realm and the Buddha(s) cannot believe in Buddhists. A summary of the updates is posted on this site.

Guan Yin (under all given names) is not in any way connected with Tibetan Buddhism or Avalokitesvara. Nor is Guan Yin an aspect of any Buddha(s) connected with Tibetan Buddhism.

Dear BeliefnetPat,

At bottom are three standard definitions* for spam. The first definition is the one you are trying to represent with your rule but I did not send bulk e-mail in an attempt to trick everyone.  I posted six separate posts, individually, one-by-one, of a letter I had written to six separate sections on your website. As you can see, if we abide by your rules we really are not free to speak our minds since you control where I can send any one statement, effectively limiting any discussion or debate to one tiny group of people within a wider religious community.

If you are Buddhist you know that one small fraction of change in the Dharma changes Dharma understandings across the board. If I post to the Tibetan Buddhist section and they do not share that information with the other Buddhist sections on your site or they change that information so that it is more beneficial to their personal plans for what Dharma should achieve in this world then all Buddhists are harmed in their practice. This is why the letters were posted and why I am writing you now. You are inhibiting the teacher-student relationship for Buddhists on this board.

One of the misunderstandings among practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism right now is that the Virgin Mary and Tara, a Tibetan Buddhist goddess, are the same in most respects based on their "compassionate natures." Tibetan Buddhism uses tantra, which would make the Virgin Mary a "consort" of certain advanced male practitioners. This means that nuns meditating on the Blessed Virgin can be accessed by certain advanced practitioners meditating on the Compassionate wisdom consort Tara using certain occult elements active in the Tibetan Buddhist religion for the purpose of "Consorting" - which as you know is a romantic partnership that can be carried to sexual levels with females encouraged to reach orgasm. This has occurred enough times that it has been noticed. If you would like to be the person preventing corrections to and renewal of the Dharma from reaching widespread practitioners who combine practices so that they can correct their own practices to prevent Catholic Nuns from being damned to hell within their own convents and religious practices then give this argument no more thought. Otherwise, I suggest you allow an old man to make a few argumentative posts to your website. If the Buddhists complain, maybe you can post this letter.

When you make up your own definitions for commonplace understandings you create confusion and you threaten freedoms of expression. When you limit access to chat forums and threads so that the only way to include others in discussion is to make multiple postings that you have forbidden invites people to toe a party line not to hold free discussions about their religious beliefs. You cannot really, truthfully, claim that your website promotes religious discussion and harmony when you play Politics with website access.

Rules that do not comply with standard definitions and a site that compartmentalizes and categorizes participants means your website promotes censorship of religious ideas and discussion not open dialogue.

*Any message where its score is equal to or greater than the specified threshold

*Any activity designed to trick the search engines into giving a site a higher ranking.

*Unsolicited e-mail on the internet, a form of bulk mail



----- Original Message ----
From: Beliefnet Community Staff
To: Living Dharma
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 4:39:05 PM
Subject: RE: You have received a warning at Beliefnet Forums

Dear Mr Living Dharma,

According to our Rules of Conduct, our definition for spam is as follows:

14. Spam: You agree not to repeat substantially the same content (including URLs) more than once on Beliefnet Forums.
Quick Reply
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

    Beliefnet On Facebook