Buddhist
Discussion Mail Lists: Reflections on Prior Developments and a Proposal for the
Creation of a New Kind of Buddhism Discussion List
ˇ@
Charles
Muller
January
19, 2002
Introduction
Although
it has now been over a decade since the appearance of the first public e-mail
discussion lists that dealt with Buddhism, the advancement in the number and
sophistication of such lists over this period has not been that significant,
especially as compared with developments on the HTML side of the Internet.
Indeed, among Buddhism-oriented studies e-mail lists, there have been far more
failures than successes.
That
many lists have already come and gone can be attributed mainly to the fact that
those who first took it upon themselves to establish Buddhist studies related
mail lists were working in uncharted territory. The field of Buddhist Studies
had its own special complexities in terms of list membership and posting
content, since the problems inherent in the disparity between expert and
non-expert, which face any academic list, were compounded by the opposing
tensions to be seen between practitioners, whose basic perspective is that of
faith, and scholars, whose orientation, especially in the modern West, is
largely positivistic and critical.
The
First Models: BUDDHIST and BUDDHA-L
The
only real field-wide list for scholars of Buddhism for most of the past decade
has been BUDDHA-L, administered by Richard Hayes of McGill University.
Originating during the early nineties, it continues to serve a valuable function
today, with a membership of over 800 persons. In response to my request in
connection with the composition of the present essay, Prof. Hayes kindly took
the time to write a brief history of that list, which goes as follows:
BUDDHA-L
was founded in October 1991 as a spin-off of the BUDDHIST forum, the original
address of which was buddhist@jpntohok. The BUDDHIST forum, I have heard,
was originally founded in the 1980's as a means of enabling Japanese scholars
who were working on the Lotus Sutra to communicate while working on a
joint project. When the Lotus Sutra project was finished, the forum was
opened up to a wider academic public. By the early 1990s, most of the
subscribers were in the United States, with only a minority of them being
scholars specializing in Buddhist studies. The BUDDHIST list was unmoderated and
was not well maintained, so the quality of discussion was uneven, and the list
unpredictably went down from time to time.
In
September of 1991, a series of computer mishaps at its original host institution
led to the list closing for about six weeks. During the time the BUDDHIST list
was down, several of its subscribers got in touch with one another and began
discussing the possibility of founding a new list. After some discussion it was
decided that the new list would be primarily for academic specialists in
Buddhist studies and that it would be moderated [This list was named BUDDHA-L].[1]
Jim
Cocks of the computer center at University of Louisville took care of the
technical details of founding the list, and Richard Hayes of McGill University
took responsibility for recruiting members and moderating the discussions. Cocks
and Hayes have been co-owners and moderators of the list ever since it was
founded. It was originally assumed that the membership would level at around 30
subscribers. To everyone's surprise, the number of subscribers rose rapidly to
over 600 and remained at that level for many years. In recent years it has grown
slowly to its present size of just over 800 subscribers.
Although
the original mandate of BUDDHA-L was to be a forum for the discussion of the
academic teaching and research of Buddhism, it has never been limited to purely
academic discussion. While most of the early discussants were academics in
Buddhist studies, discussions tended to be much wider than the originally
announced intention of keeping focused on matters of curriculum and graduate
thesis supervision. Many scholars who were on the original subscription list
were also practicing Buddhists who evidently wished to work out their own
relationship to and understanding of Buddhism as much as they wished to discuss
how to teach Buddhism in the classroom.
Spirited
debates among "scholar-practitioners" and between academics and
non-academic Buddhist practitioners were common in the early years of BUDDHA-L.
Only in recent years have the discussions tended to keep within the original
description of the list as announced at the beginning. The list is still more
discussion oriented than information oriented, but discussions have tended to be
much tamer and less intense and drawn out than in the early years.[2]
Many
English speakers in the field of Buddhist studies who have been on the Internet
for a while have subscribed to BUDDHA-L at one time or another.
Personal
Observations on BUDDHA-L
I
signed on to BUDDHA-L in 1995, remaining on the list until 1998. Although
appreciating the need for this kind of list, and admiring Hayes' unstinting
efforts in both stimulating and moderating discussion, I began to realize that
BUDDHA-L did not really provide what I was personally looking for in a scholarly
e-mail forum. I was seeking access to the largest possible number of people
teaching and doing research on Buddhism at universities and research institutes.
This was especially important to me as a developer of on-line research oriented
resourcesˇXboth to receive and transmit information. Although BUDDHA-L was
clearly a list with scholarly orientation, the percentage of my colleagues in
the field who subscribed to this list was actually quite low.
Over
time I also began to grow weary of the character of the discussions themselves.[3]
The
main reasons for this were:
Eventually
I came to the conclusion that the time I was spending dealing with the messages
from BUDDHA-L was not worth it, and I unsubscribed. But once again, to duly
credit Prof. Hayes, there are several hundred people out there who have
continued to find this list quite satisfactory for their needs. Indeed, at
present, there is no real substitute for those who seek to engage in academic
discussion of Buddhist issues.
My
Turn as Moderator: ZenBuddhism
During
approximately the same period that I was on BUDDHA-L, I became involved with the
ZenBuddhism list, which was founded and owned by Matthew Ciolek of Australian
National University. Dr. Ciolek, a Zen practitioner whose area of expertise lies
outside of Buddhist studies, started this list with the intention of creating a
scholarly alternative to the plethora of practice-oriented Zen lists on the
Internet that were, to put it bluntly, totally off the wall. Although
ZenBuddhism was intended to be academic in nature, there were no specific
criteria for subscribing, and so the list was populated by a wide range of
people. Among these were a handful of accredited scholars, a number of mature,
balanced Zen teachers, and a sizeable contingent of sincere and humble
individuals who were looking to learn something about Zen.
Unfortunately,
the list also became infested by a number of individuals who apparently
considered themselves to be enlightened, or at least far closer to enlightenment
than the rest of us, and who felt it was their duty to disrupt our discussions
in order to show us what Zen really was. When a rich intellectual discussion of
a seminal point would begin to develop, some self-designated imitator of Linji
would invariably shout a koan at us, to make the point that intellectual
discussion of Zen was a heretical activity.
Ciolek,
as the moderator, was uneven in his handling of these posts. Sometimes he would
forward them to the list, and sometimes he would reject them, and from time to
time he would kick people off the list without explanation. I began to intercede
here and there, pleading for a "middle path" approach on the part of
both the listowner and the subscribers. In time, Matthew asked me to assume the
list's moderatorship.
Taking
this as an opportunity to see what kind of sober-minded discourse about Zen
might be created in such an environment, I took up this task in earnest,
initiating a "Zen Studies" series, wherein once or twice a week I
would introduce a basic Buddhist concept, and guide the discussions that
developed. This series became extremely popular with the subscriber base, and I
received a steady stream of messages of appreciation from practitioners, Zen
teachers, and scholars around the globe. I moderated this list with two main
assumptions as grounding principles:
In
view of the fact that our medium of communication was an e-mail discussion list,
rather than the confines of a Zendo, there was, as far as I could see, no other
way to create edifying discussion. The majority of list members were delighted
with this approach, and the generally high quality of discourse seen on that
list for the next year or so is something that I look back on with some
satisfaction.
However,
this attempt at creating an environment for sober-minded discussion of Zen
issues horrified many Zennists, who began to shout insulting remarks to the list
and myself via e-mail (for the first time, I got a real feel for what American
Zen truly is!). Since I had no control over subscriptions, there was no way to
get rid of these people. Matthew, for his part, began to be uncomfortable with
the heightened of traffic on the list. Realizing that this was, in the end, his
list, and that it would be impossible to push it in the direction I wanted
without full control, I bailed out, letting go of the moderatorship and
terminating my membership in the list. [4]
Interim
Reflections
I
ended my involvement in BUDDHA-L and ZenBuddhism at about the same time. During
the same period I also terminated my subscriptions with a number of other lists
of similar character, including the Chinese Philosophy list, the Daoism list,
and one or two other dharma-type lists on which I had been lurking. It was not
that I believed that philosophy/religion mail lists were inherently flawed; I
just couldn't find one that was run the way I wanted.
I
also belonged to a couple of technical lists, and scholarly lists that covered
area studies, history, and so forth. These lists, even when disagreement
occurred, were never plagued by the kind of raving, nonsense, emotion, and
irrationality that were part and parcel of the Buddhism lists. Moderators of
Buddhism-related lists (and certain other religion lists) with their sliding
range of practitioners and scholars, were faced with an extra set of problems
beyond those that would be seen on, say, a computer-related list, or an area
studies list.[5]
I
also learned valuable lessons from such lists as Chinese Philosophy and Daoism,
which were born, grew into great activity, and almost overnight, collapsed. On
the Daoism list, no one ever really took up the mantle to stimulate or temper
discussion. The Chinese Philosophy list (an unmoderated list) became quite
active for a period of time, but after one particularly nasty episode, wherein,
for a few days running, one articulate American scholar heaped rude insults on a
German academic who was clearly at a linguistic handicap, the list died.
I
concluded from these observations that no list in our field could ever have a
chance of success without strict and careful moderation. I also came to believe
that scholars who subscribed to these philosophy/religion lists could be divided
into a few basic types: (1) those who enjoyed, if not at the level of personal
engagement, at least as spectators, spirited discussion of issues; (2) those
whose purpose for subscribing to such lists was purely for access to
information, to have a means of being in contact with their peers, and who had
no interest in joining or observing online debates and discussions; (3) an
in-between type of scholar who might tolerate, and perhaps even participate in
online debate if it were carried out in a rigorous and disciplined format. My
assumption was that the virtually all scholars in my field sought information
and peer contact, regardless of whether or not they were interested in
discussion. Therefore, if one wanted to create a network that would gather the
largest amount of scholars possible, one would have to start with a strictly
information-oriented list, where discussion would be kept to minimum.
Making
Budschol
During
the year or so after my exit from all Buddhism and philosophy/religion lists, I
continued to work hard at the development of my online dictionary of Buddhist
terms, along with becoming deeply involved with the administrators of a number
of digital Buddhist projects through the Electronic Buddhist Text Initiative. I
had compiled, over time, a list of the e-mail addresses of 60 or so of my closer
colleagues: mostly East Asianists and people who were interested in digital
resources. I would send this group regular announcements regarding my
dictionaries, or other important developments in digital resources for Buddhist
Studies. As my posts became more frequent, I began to consider the idea of
trying to automate the process. The do-it-yourself online e-mail list had begun
to appear, wherein one could create his/her own mail list in a moment. I created
such a list, named Budschol ("Buddhist Scholars") on the OneList
service, and on May 14, 1999, sent the following message out to sixty
colleagues:
Dear
Colleague:
I
am writing today to invite you to join a mail list devoted solely to the
communication of information between accredited scholars of Buddhism.
The
Buddhist Scholars Information Network (Budschol) has been created to serve as a
medium for the exchange of information regarding resources, events, projects,
publications, job listings, and so forth, among the worldwide Buddhist scholarly
community. The primary purpose of the list is to serve as a means for accredited
scholars to keep in touch with each other regarding the most recent
developments, without getting a mountain of e-mail every day. Therefore, it is
not a "discussion" list, but is instead, a bulletin board oriented
information service. Membership is restricted, being limited to those who hold
an advanced degree in Buddhist studies, or who are currently enrolled in an
advanced degree program. You can subscribe by....
The
following day, fifty-eight people had subscribed, and the remaining two signed
up the day after. Encouraged by this, I spent a few weeks actively seeking out
and inviting other Buddhologists, and within a month, the list had approximately
150 subscribers.
In
order to establish the right atmosphere for Budschol, I expended a considerable
amount of energy at the beginning in searching out and supplying various kinds
of information related to jobs, conferences, newly published books and journals,
etc. Soon, to my delight, a few other list members began to help by contributing
the same type of information. Budschol had taken off.
At
first, some subscribers were not prepared for the kind of austere atmosphere I
sought for the list, and suggested that I broaden its scope to include more
discussion, humor, and so forth. But the majority of members had apparently
found the concise character of Budschol to be exactly what they were looking
for, and a steady flow of messages of appreciation and encouragement helped me
to stay the course.
Though
the task of moderating became heavier in terms of volume, it did not take long
before there were very few posts that had to be rejected for content problems.
More and more people began to contribute information and pose serious and useful
queries. The reputation of the list spread without active promotion on my part,
and the subscriber base continued to grow. Editors from quality publishers of
Buddhist studies related books, such as the University of Hawaii Press, SUNY
Press, Wisdom, and Curzon posted announcements to the list, thus solidly
supplementing the quality of our content.
As
the list grew, it became difficult for me to handle all the administrative tasks
along with the growing number of messages, so I asked for help in the task of
moderating. Three capable volunteers came forth who understood Budschol's raison
d'etre[6]
In
May of 2001, two years after its inception, Budschol had approximately 400
members. What is remarkable about this statistic is that except for about ten
special cases (representatives from publishing houses and independent scholars),
every one of these members are holders of advanced degrees in a field related to
Buddhist Studies, or currently enrolled in advanced degree programs. Over almost
three years, there have not even been ten unsubscribes from the list, a
statistic that I think would astound most listserv owners.
Principles
for the Operation of the List
Thus,
Budschol can be seen, I think, as an eminently successful mail list, given the
difficulties inherent in trying to keep several hundred Buddhologists on line in
one group. But the keys are fairly simple. Most important is the strict
regulation of membership. The level of discourse of e-mail lists inevitably fall
to the level of the least common denominator. If you want to have
specialist-level discourse, the list has to be limited to specialists, period. [7]
The
second main component for the success of the list is a strict moderating policy.[8]
Posts
on the list are limited to information regarding academic resources, new
research projects, scholarly publications, university job listings, and so
forth, for specialists in Buddhist Studies who are currently affiliated with
academic institutions. General discussions of issues regarding Buddhism as a
religion, philosophy, practice, or lifestyle are not initiated. Disagreements
over the facticity of a statement made by another list member may be stated, and
such objections may again be countered one time by any discussant. But extended
debates are recommended to be pursued offline. Having established this as the
list's atmosphere, almost all members understand and are happy to abide by
thisˇXto the extent that the moderators are occasionally chastised by list
members when they slip up on maintaining these principles.
Dumping
Yahoo's Commercials and the Move to H-Net
Budschol
originally started up with a small list hosting company called OneList, which
gave us pretty good human service, with a minimum of advertisement and little
forced submission of personal information. OneList was soon bought out by
EGroups, which was in turn absorbed into Yahoo. With each move, service got
worse (actually, with Yahoo, support became non-existent), and the commercialism
increased, such that our web site was filled with ugly banner ads, and list
members who wished to search the archives were forced to submit an unreasonable
amount of personal information to the Yahoo customer database.
I
was initially planning to remedy this problem by setting up a private listserv
program on my university server. But having been a subscriber to H-Net lists for
a number of years, I decided to take a look at what they had to offer. After
some investigation, I came to the conclusion that H-Net was the perfect host for
our list. H-Net's aims of establishing a solid, professional, academic,
peer-reviewed information network were exactly fitting to those of Budschol.
H-Net offered well-tested listserv functionality, attractive web site creation,
and a solid training and support system for list editors. What attracted me the
most, however, was the H-Net book review system.
Book
reviews are something that I always felt would be an optimum object for the
e-mail medium, and I had made a number of attempts to generate some interest in
producing book reviews on Budschol, but to no avail. Without an office to handle
and distribute the books and reviews, and without the list having some kind of
pre-established status as a book review organ, it was difficult to initiate such
a system. H-Net had been doing it for years, providing an office, means of
distribution, and even copyediting. So given the many positive aspects of H-Net,
I applied for the creation of a list under their auspices. In August of 2001,
Budschol moved to its new host, renamed as H-Buddhism.
The
move to H-Net brought our list a new level of visibility, and so we experienced
a sharp increase in our membership (now approximately 490). But this new level
of visibility also exacerbated the problem of requests for membership from
non-specialists. During the first month, for every application accepted, I had
to turn down three or four. Many of these people, often PhD holders from other
fields, were mature, educated persons with deep personal experience in Buddhist
practice, and were shocked at being rejected (despite my best attempts at
writing a polite letter of explanation), and I received many bitter complaints.
The
need to exclude intelligent and sincere persons with a strong interest in
learning about Buddhism has disturbed me since the earliest days of Budschol,
since, if possible, I would like to provide access to information to
non-specialists as well. Indeed, my previous work on the ZenBuddhism list was
almost completely opposite in character from that seen on H-Buddhism, as it was
intended to promote discussion of Buddhist topics in an informed, edifying
manner with discussion, debate, question and answer, open to all who sincerely
wanted to learn.
The
creation of Budschol/H-Buddhism did not represent an abandonment of that dream.
I just came to the conclusion that no significant accomplishment for Buddhist
Studies in the e-mail medium could be obtained without first gathering a solid
body of experts. My larger vision, from the start, has been the eventual
creation of two related, but different kinds of lists: one that is
information-oriented, populated almost exclusively by scholars, with restricted
membership and posting policies; the other list would be discussion oriented,
have open membership, and promote extensive, yet clearly directed discussion.
Proposal
for a New Buddhist Discussion List
The
creation of a strictly information-oriented list for scholars, although
requiring work, was not unduly complicated, once its parameters were defined.
The prospect of creating a Buddhist Studies discussion list that has a large
number of specialist scholars is something far more complex.
Nonetheless, I am convinced that it can be done, as long as the right guidelines
are established from the start. First, regarding the basic parameters for
discussion itself:
The
above four principles are the general principles to govern the character of the
discussion. In terms of the specific format for a new type of Buddhist
discussion list, I envision the following structure:
The
key needs for this list are (1) a fine-tuned listserv setup with an easy-to-use
web interface to facilitate mail/nomail switches. For the list members, the ease
of use of this interface has to be equivalent that of turning one's TV on and
off. Given the unusual number of subscribers who would be coming in and out, the
list's staff cannot afford to be bogged down in subscription related work. (2) a
team of dedicated and knowledgeable staffˇXprimarily moderatorsˇXwho
understand the goals of the project and know how to handle a wide range of input
from list members. Enough people should be gathered so that they could work in
shifts, perhaps serving as moderator during one discussion session, and then
resting for two or three. Of course, to provide for these kinds of needs, some
sort of institutional support would be extremely helpful. I am convinced that
this type of list is not only viable, but that given the rapidly rising interest
in Buddhism in the West, that it could turn into an incredible success.
APPENDIX
I: Original BUDDHA-L Announcement (sent out in November 1991)
NEW
DISCUSSION GROUP FOR SCHOLARS OF BUDDHISM: An electronic discussion group called
BUDDHA-L has recently been formed towards the end of providing a means for those
interested in Buddhist Studies to exchange information and views. It is hoped
that the group will function as an open forum for scholarly discussion of topics
relating to the history, literature and languages, fine arts, philosophy, and
institutions of all forms of Buddhism. It may also serve as a forum for
discussion of issues connected to the teaching of Buddhist studies at the
university level, and as a place for posting notices of employment opportunities.
The
primary purpose of this list is to provide a forum for serious academic
discussion. It is open to all persons inside and outside the academic context
who wish to engage in substantial discussion of topics relating to Buddhism and
Buddhist studies. BUDDHA-L is not to be used for proselytizing for or against
Buddhism in general, any particular form of Buddhism, or any other religion or
philosophy, nor is it to be used as a forum for making unsubstantiable
confessions of personal conviction.
The
discussion on the list is to be moderated, not in order to suppress or censor
controversies on any topic, but rather to limit irrelevant discussions and idle
chatter, and to redirect or return messages sent to the list by accident.
Content or style will never be altered by the moderator, whose only
responsibility will be to forward all appropriate postings to the list.
APPENDIX
2. STATEMENT OF INTENT OF BUDDHIST@LISTS.MCGILL.CA (sent out in April 1998)
BUDDHIST
is a mailing list for the purpose of friendly discussion about Buddhism, its
ideas, practice, development, and application. Posts should be directed to the
list topic. Lively debate is welcome, but we aim for a deep concern both for the
matter being discussed (for truth, if you like) and for those participating in
the conversation. With this in mind, contributors to the list are expected to
aim for quality rather than quantity of discourse, limiting the number of
messages they post in any one day.
Subscribers
are expected to use their public, legal names in their subscription. But there
are no requirements of orthodoxy or accomplishment in order to participate.
Therefore, what you read on BUDDHIST carries no warranty of truth, intelligence,
or kindness. Judge for yourself what is well said, useful, and wholesome.
Should you
have a problem with another subscriber's posts to the list, remember that you
have a number of alternatives: you may reflect on your attitude and how their
words affect you; you may discuss your concerns privately with the other
subscriber, or publicly on the list; you may decide to stop reading posts by
that subscriber; and you may contact the listowners, stating the problem as you
see it.
The
listowners are responsible for all facets of list administration, and may
terminate or deny any subscription.
Paul
Bellan-Boyer (pbb@fw.gs.com)
Christopher Fynn (cfynn@dircon.co.uk)
ˇ@
Notes
2. Received by e-mail from Prof. Hayes on July 25,
2001. Hayes adds: "The BUDDHIST list, incidentally, still exists. It has
now moved to McGill University, where it is maintained by Chris Fynn and Paul
Bellan-Boyer, with technical help from Richard Hayes Its subscription list has
steadily remained at around 250 members since 1990, although of the subscribers
who were on the list in 1990, probably no more than five are still subscribers
today." (BUDDHIST's statement of intent is included in Appendix II). return
3. My explanation of these points is intended in no
way as a disparagement of the policies of BUDDHA-L, but merely as an indication
of my own peculiar needs and interests. Also, the complaints that I air here are
generally reflective of most discussion lists in this area, and not unique to
BUDDHA-L. return
4. The ZenBuddhism list, I am told, continued on for
another year or so, but was shut down some time in 2000. return
5. I found an interesting example in the
Confucianism list, where list members demonstrated a natural air of civility and
rationality, making the position of list moderator almost unnecessary. I have
always taken this as an indication of an influence of the topic materials of
their research. return
6. The first three moderators on Budschol were Scott
Hurley, Michelle Spuler, and Franz Metcalf. Later on, when the list transformed
to H-Buddhism, Scott and Michelle moved on to devote their energies to other
projects, but Franz is still doing his regular stint at the moderator's helm.
The other slots have since been filled by Monika Dix and Shaul Katzenstein. return
7. I have been repeatedly and severely disparaged in
personal mail and on other e-mail forums as being the promoter of a form of
Buddhological elitism. Indeed, I regularly receive requests for subscriptions
from persons who are obviously educated, sensitive, and often steeped in a deep
practical knowledge of the Buddhist tradition. It has been quite painful for me
to turn these people away, but it is my conviction that a line has to be drawn
somewhere, and I just don't know where else to draw it. I am convinced that if
non-specialist, non-academics begin to join the list, they will eventually begin
to say or ask things that are off-topic or too basic. The specialists, seeing
this, will begin to exit the list. The suggestion has occasionally been made to
grant membership to non-specialists on a non-posting basis. I have also rejected
these requests for two reasons: (1) the creation of a second category of
membership would complicate subscription handling, and (2) it is quite likely
that these people, being unable to post to the list, would begin to write to
scholar list members privately, asking for further information, and so forth.
Thus, we have continued to hold the line on membership policy. The charge of
elitism may seem to fit here, but those who understand my full intentions know
that it does not apply, since the creation of this list has been for me, only
one stage in larger plan to provide information on Buddhism to a much broader
base of people. return
8. The Moderator's Guidelines for H-Buddhism are
available on request for those who are interested. They are a bit too lengthy to
attach here as an appendix. return