The Buddhism proposal was closed in committment and reopened less than 24 hours later as a new proposal.

This is good. It means someone is paying attention. With that said, what do we need to do to keep this proposal hot and move it forward to the beta phase?

Proposal: Buddhism

  • 2
    A very good question. How does one keep a proposal hot... Commented Oct 8, 2012 at 1:41
  • I guess that right now we need more questions with a 10 score. Commented Mar 29, 2013 at 14:08

3 Answers 3


"What needs to be done to prevent this proposal from stagnating?"

I'm not going to mince words -- the description practically guarantees that it will stagnate!

The major problem is the phrase "committed Buddhists". Here are a couple of specific issues with it: how do you define "committed Buddhist? How do you define just plain "Buddhist"? Why exclude someone who is not yet a "committed Buddhist" (in whatever sense you like) but is considering becoming one, and is using the SE area to help make that decision; Etc.

Apart from these specifics, aren't there people who have a lot to contribute, especially in terms of questions, but are not themselves committed Buddhists in any sense of the term? I believe that SE thrives because it's open to and attracts people on the basis of the quality of their contributions, not on who they are in "real life". You don't have to be a committed mathematician, philosopher, whatever to ask good questions or give good answers on the corresponding SE area.

The other problem is the blatant typo in the description, which belies the care, energy and commitment needed to execute a successful proposal.

Until these problems are addressed, I am personally reluctant to devote any more energy to the proposal than this post. Well, I will renew my suggestion for a better description, namely...

"For student and practitioners, present and potential, of any type of Buddhism, for questions about Buddhist philosophy, teaching, practice, history and relation to the modern world."

Apologies if I am indirectly criticizing the author of this proposal, but having failed once, at least in part because of an inadvisable description (the emphasis on monks, IMHO), I think another failure would be fatal, if the patient is not already dead.


  • Ok, shall we wait a few days to see if people agree with the description change by either upvoting or downvoting this or commenting? I will fix the typo now though... done!
    – jmort253
    Commented Oct 21, 2012 at 20:38

There is some pretty good Buddhism-related content over at Philosophy beta: e.g. Was Aristotle aware of Buddha's teachings?

So one thing I would like to understand about this proposal is how its charter would differ from other StackExchange projects' or proposals' such as Philosophy beta, Meditation, etc.

A second item: there a substantially distinct views within Buddhism (from a Western perspective e.g. Theravada Buddhist teachings from Gil Fronsdal, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, or Bhante Gunaratana vs. Mahayana Buddhist teachings from the Dalai Lama or Pema Chödrön), so I'd also like to understand how the charter would account for that (assuming that the proposal is intended both for practitioners and for academic concerns about Buddhist history and philosophy).

So I think what's needed is a good founding charter of a few paragraphs that folks could use to decide on their participation.

  • 8
    I'd say all forms of Buddhism should be allowed. United we stand divided we fall. Plus, it would give the community more dimensions; it wouldn't be so one sided, flat, or one-dimensional.... it would be boring if everyone had the same background and opinions.
    – jmort253
    Commented Oct 11, 2012 at 2:00
  • @jmort253 yes, I agree.
    – Drux
    Commented Oct 11, 2012 at 18:41
  • 4
    The diversity of Buddhism would be a strength, not a weakness, for an SE area. Commented Oct 21, 2012 at 18:17
  • @Drux I don't think Pema Chödron is of the Mahayana tradition. Commented Oct 24, 2012 at 2:34
  • 1
    @BenjaLim thanks for your reply. It seems to me that by virtue of being a Tibetan Buddhist she clearly belongs to the broader Mahayana tradition. We should have a Q&A site to perhaps discuss this further :)
    – Drux
    Commented Oct 24, 2012 at 20:28
  • I took the liberty of also proposing this as an example question.
    – Drux
    Commented Oct 24, 2012 at 20:32

For any commitment (? correct word?) to this Q&A I'll need the feeling of much "seriosity" and little "talkativity" in the conversations. I've visited the previously proposed site several times, but after reading a bit in the Q&A I always lost the idea to involve myself into the question/answers/discussion, getting deeply tired of it or even a bit "sour" inside. It reminded me much of the usenet discussions on buddhism, which I've followed several years with much engagement, but lately with reserve...

It's difficult to discern the very subtle reason for this (is it only one reason?), so this answer might be seen not helpful yet. But writing it down it might show, that I'm still willing to support something like this in principle anyway - and comments/discussions may perhaps lead then to some ideas about how I could indeed share with (and be helpful for) the site...

  • Don't forget, you might also learn something yourself. Commented Jan 9, 2014 at 1:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .