We humbly study the teachings of the Buddha in the hopes of finding the wisdom to run our own community in the most beneficial possible way. To this end, and in acknowledgement of the vastness of the challenge and the profundity of the teachings of the Buddha, when a person leaves our community and attacks us, we do not consider that they have suddenly become part of some different group, but rather that the individual or individuals who left are still part of our community, and that, for now, our community is divided.

We had a writer visit us recently at MAPLE, and this writer brought up, in reference to the attacks on us online, the question of whether it is our (MAPLE’s) own projections into the world that are bringing about these attacks.

As evidence, this writer mentioned that, in conversations he had had with AI fellows at MAPLE, that the AI fellows brought up the attacks before he himself brought them up.

The first thing to say is that it’s good that people at MAPLE are listening to critiques. We want to exemplify that, to learn what we can, and so that our critics also can listen to us.

But most important: we are all part of the same community. Our critics aren’t a different group “out there”. They are part of the larger MAPLE sangha. For now, that sangha is divided. We are constantly and intimately aware of the divisions within the Sangha, and it is of grave concern to us. That is not a projection “out” into some separate world, but rather is a reflection of the gravity of divisions within the sangha.

May we find the wisdom to know how to care for all beings, and the compassion to enact that within our community, our lives, and the world.

Clueshin

Over the past week we had the chance to interact with writer Sam Kriss, who requested to visit us at Monastic Academy in order to work on an article about religion and AI. Exact subject and tone unknown to us. Possible hit piece. He was here for 4 days in the week of May 4th.

His visit was not easy for us to manage or execute, and we made many sacrifices in order to host him. We collectively spent dozens of hours in interviews with him, and we changed the whole schedule around for the week in order to give him the best possible chance to try the practice. We were, of course, happy to do all that, but the happiness in our hearts in no way obviates the sacrifices made, which were significant.

There is a secular humanist power structure that has dominated the world for the past several centuries. Sam came as a person with a significant position in that power structure. That power structure has attacked Monastic Academy repeatedly, and to host someone from that power structure was vulnerable.

That same power structure – secular humanism – has recently been attacked by a new power structure – representationism, sometimes referred to as accelerationism. That new power structure is now dominating all the various secular humanist institutions, and the humanist power structure doesn’t seem able to prevent it or to understand why it is happening.

Sam asked us about structures of domination and where they come from. We answered that they arise due to attachment to conceptualization. In response he asked us why we are so opposed to conceptualization, which he called reason, and we answered that we are not at all opposed to conceptualization, we are against attachment. To say “against” here is actually very crude; in truth we simply recognize that attachment causes structures of domination, which cause suffering (and this is far from the only path by which attachment causes suffering), so we relinquish attachment.

In the conversation where Sam asked us about where structures of domination come from, Sam had been giving an impromptu lecture on Marxism. It wasn’t appropriate to be doing that. We had invited him to a workshop on mindfulness, and he had turned it into, first, a lecture by him on Marxism, and then, second, a forum for him to ask the questions that he was most interested in. To do that in a Buddhist community – or any community – is colonialism, and we pointed that out to him.

That’s domination. What is most important is to see that the humanist world order is now being dominated in just the same way by the representationism / accelerationism world order, and we are offering the solution to that. We are not just a sweet community in rural northern Vermont (though we are that), we actually have the answers that humanism is seeking as it is suffocated to death by a new, even more domineering world order than it itself.

Therefore, Sam, and secular humanism more broadly: please, let us work together. We have what you need. We don’t doubt that you can destroy us. It’s not actually in your (Sam’s or humanism’s or anyone else’s) best interests to destroy us.

To be more precise: what you (Sam / humanism) most need is a correct account of the cause of and solution to the problem of structures of domination (this is wisdom), and the strength to care enough to enact that solution at the largest scale (this is compassion). Neither of these come about due to good intentions alone.

In lightness of heart and with genuine helpful intent,

Clueshin