tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post3209379625482806764..comments2024-02-14T08:44:41.513+00:00Comments on Progressive Buddhism: Buddhism and the Silence of the InternetMyeong Jin Eunsahn http://www.blogger.com/profile/10324409234993116264noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-19221844010445652252014-10-11T13:19:50.137+01:002014-10-11T13:19:50.137+01:00The most recent five years have not been thoughtfu...The most recent five years have not been thoughtful to the lodging business. Moreover, there have been numerous reports about the land business sector being not doing so great.<br /><a href="http://www.autogas-scotland.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.autogas-scotland.com</a> | <br><br /><a href="http://www.autowhizal1.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.autowhizal1.com</a> | <br><br /><a href="http://www.banditcustomauto.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.banditcustomauto.com</a> | <br><br /><a href="http://www.belfastphototours.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.belfastphototours.com</a> | <br><br /><a href="http://www.bim-technologies.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.bim-technologies.com</a> | <br><br />jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04160321148710420968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-77252852829181434432012-12-18T22:02:09.170+00:002012-12-18T22:02:09.170+00:00This was in the NYTimes today:
A global study of ...This was <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/world/pew-study-finds-one-in-6-follows-no-religion.html" rel="nofollow">in the NYTimes</a> today:<br /><br />A global study of religious adherence released on Tuesday by the Pew Research Center found that about one of every six people worldwide has no religious affiliation....<br /><br />The study also found a wide disparity in the median age of religious populations, with Muslims and Hindus the youngest, and Buddhists and Jews the oldest. The median age of the youngest group, Muslims, was 23, while the median for Jews was 36. [A graphic with the article showed Buddhists being 7% of the population of the world (which is approx half a billion people), with a median age of 34. The median age of all those polled was 28.]...<br /><br />The study, “<a href="http://www.pewforum.org/global-religious-landscape.aspx" rel="nofollow">The Global Religious Landscape</a>,” is a snapshot of the size and distribution of religious groups as of 2010, and does not show trends over time.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13718601770472939313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-67365119029415924072012-12-10T11:43:38.878+00:002012-12-10T11:43:38.878+00:00Actually that correlation isn't nearly so dire...Actually that correlation isn't nearly so direct when the scale is right:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore#q=buddhism%2C%20mindfulness&cmpt=q" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore#q=buddhism%2C%20mindfulness&cmpt=q</a>Shoninhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03635409886545725801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-51044269860408069302012-12-10T11:39:33.815+00:002012-12-10T11:39:33.815+00:00Google search trends clearly supports the notion t...Google search trends clearly supports the notion that popular interest in Buddhism has been falling since at least 2004. That fall appears to be plateauing out. So rather than a general decline I would suggest that in the years and decades prior to that, there was a surge in popular interest that didn't last and has now dwindled somewhat.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore#q=buddhism&cmpt=q" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore#q=buddhism&cmpt=q</a><br /><br />We should be cautious of seeing causation when there is only proof of (inverse) correlation, however it's interesting to see that the graph shape of searches for "mindfulness" are nearly a mirror image of the one for "Buddhism".<br /><br /><a href="http://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore#q=mindfulness&cmpt=q" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore#q=mindfulness&cmpt=q</a>Shoninhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03635409886545725801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-43148765876080885852012-12-10T11:16:17.196+00:002012-12-10T11:16:17.196+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Shoninhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03635409886545725801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-18275943005703317262012-12-07T01:14:28.353+00:002012-12-07T01:14:28.353+00:00Ah, yes, I missed that the first time around. Ah, yes, I missed that the first time around. Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13920234350446745482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-90583463032243324542012-12-03T21:02:36.286+00:002012-12-03T21:02:36.286+00:00Eisel, I CERTAINLY appreciate [especially so afte...Eisel, I CERTAINLY appreciate [especially so after having read your blogpost] that you are doing in-depth thinking on this matter.<br /><br />I guess the central arena where I differ with you is in with the idea of "flourishing." Whether or not Buddhism is expanding, Buddhism can be (and I think it is) flourishing.<br /><br />In 1997, I think it was, two Buddhist movies hit the screens [7 Years in Tibet & Kundun], and from that many thought Buddhism's Big Move into the heart and minds of the English-speaking world was afoot. And maybe so. Maybe Buddhist did gain more casual (and keen?] adherents. When D.H. Suzuki's works hit the stores THAT make for a big Buddhism push. When Siddhartha was first popular THAT caused a big push. Kerouac caused heightened interest in Buddhism from several of his book. These instigators of interest in Buddhist are, in many ways, disappointing. Hunky Brad Pitt makes a movie and makes people have the hots for Buddhism? How lasting an interest is likely to come from that?<br /><br />But if interest in Buddha is tepid (in a sense) nowadays, maybe that is just fine. The dharma is simply not going to disappear; I think Buddha promised that, for what little that's worth.<br /><br />Interest in Buddhism is what it is. Maybe the buddho-blogs that there are are getting an enormous number of hits, in comparison to readership past. Fewer blogs, but more reading. At least from what's available today, you can scarcely miss knowing about Buddhism if something relating to it is of interest to you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13718601770472939313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-51177757542038792402012-12-03T20:35:46.215+00:002012-12-03T20:35:46.215+00:00Keep in mind that I'm only talking about what&...Keep in mind that I'm only talking about what's on the internet as an indirect indication of what is off the internet. I can offer you anecdotes (from years of research) about how terrible the situation is for Buddhism in Laos, Cambodia, Yunnan, etc., but I can't summon up a bar-chart to display that change. By definition, an abstraction provides you with much less information than the things it is abstracting from; however, charts such as the declining use of the word "Theravada" (shown through Google Ngram) do provide us with a tangible referent to center these discussions.<br /><br />Some further thoughts on the issue were posted today, here:<br />http://a-bas-le-ciel.blogspot.ca/2012/12/gaps-on-the-map-silence-of-the-internet.htmlEisel Mazardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06898869744926590471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-72651602191196333342012-12-03T20:10:11.824+00:002012-12-03T20:10:11.824+00:00Nathan: we entirely agree, but you've misread ...Nathan: we entirely agree, but you've misread me, and you don't realize that we agree.<br /><br />My point is precisely that (1) blogging in general is not in decline, but (2) blogging about Buddhism (in English) in particular is in decline. I think you've mistaken my intent on point #2.<br /><br />I was relating this to the decline in publications on Buddhism in other media (including paper), etc.Eisel Mazardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06898869744926590471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-4243250241250461172012-12-03T20:08:30.524+00:002012-12-03T20:08:30.524+00:00Eisel, I wasn't meaning to imply that Buddhist...Eisel, I wasn't meaning to imply that Buddhist jabber/jousts/journalizing was a constant mass (that just moves around) or was like having sex with<a href="http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/literature/brave-new-world/character-analysis/lenina.html" rel="nofollow">Lenina</a>.<br /><br />I do think what happens on the Internet is more difficult to measure than you suppose. But whatever is happening it's probably pretty close to what's appropriate and there isn't anything to worry about. Maybe Buddhists are invading Starbucks and jabbering over Caramel Frappuccinos.<br /><br />If there is something to worry about, it may be that things are becoming too professionalized and those who are mega-degreed with all matter of certificates in high-order philosophy are taking over and the hoi palloi Buddhists are left in the gutter to suck their toes [the poor tortured contortionist Buddhists].<br /><br />To my mind, if the Internet just, wholly becomes another Market Street, paved in electrons, we are all the worst off for it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13718601770472939313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-84219662530821881702012-12-03T18:21:53.601+00:002012-12-03T18:21:53.601+00:00Eisel,
While I agree with you that blogging in g...Eisel, <br /><br />While I agree with you that blogging in general is not in decline, it would be questionable to assume that translates into the Buddhist blogosphere. At least in English. Where I'm not seeing the kinds of professionalization or monetizing that ave occurred with bloggers of other topics. There was also a time not too long ago when new Buddhist blogs appeared regularly in my feed, being recommended by other bloggers. Where the rolls on shared blogs would sometimes double overnight. Where I, myself, frequently offered posts introducing new blogs I had found. None of this is happening anymore. Some of the better or more well known Buddhist writers have developed more professional looking sites to promote books and articles, and others of us have continued along. And new blogs trickle in now and then. But I'm not at all convinced that the general upward tick and professionalization of blogging is happening in the Buddhoblogosphere. <br /><br />I'm with you about editing and basic writing standards. The internet has the capacity to offer creative ways to approach all of this, but folks need to put some time and effort into coming up with those creative solutions. I'm not sure simply trying to apply paper editing and standards is the right way to do things. There's a tension between those of us who have some allegiance with the "old ways" and those who either don't know those methods, or simply are disregarding them in favor of a wide open, democratic playing field. A field where anyone can write anything and get taken seriously, if they figure out how to spread the work. Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13920234350446745482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-28025270178500943702012-12-03T05:50:07.686+00:002012-12-03T05:50:07.686+00:00The internet isn't pneumatic: we can't ass...The internet isn't pneumatic: we can't assume that downward pressure in one place is going to result in upward pressure somewhere else.<br /><br />The assumption (in many of these comments) that the decline in Buddhism-related-content reflects a universal decline in the use of either (1) blogs or (2) e-mail groups is simply not true. You can find statistics on both through online services like Technorati (etc.) that professionally track the (growing) use of these subsets of internet media. They are growing, partly because authors and companies have (increasingly) figured out how to make money out of a medium that started off as the domain hobbyists.<br /><br />Similarly, it would be counterproductive to have a "pneumatic" assumption about the decline of (on-paper) print media for Buddhist Studies: you can't assume that the same quality or quantity of writing will appear on the internet, simply because it disappears from paper newsletters/journals. There's real reason to be concerned when you're looking at a decline in a particular "place" (i.e., medium) --and it's false to assume an unseen equivalence materializes "elsewhere".<br /><br />Blogs in general aren't in decline; if anything, they've become a more reliable source of revenue-generation, and have become more professionalized, with explicit links to sources of funding, and traditional media (such as newspapers), and so on, in many different genres (as happened, also, with the semi-professionalization of youtube, as that made the shift from hobby to having some potential for creators to "break even").<br /><br />Buddhist studies has not professionalized in any medium in the same period of time: IMO, it has continued to degenerate.<br /><br />In my recent comments on Bhikkhu Bodhi's work (which has also made the transition to Youtube, BTW) I commented that everyone's work could benefit from an editor, and everyone's work could benefit from formal (written) criticism. These are aspects that generally disappeared with the switch from paper to electronic media --and I could only imagine that standards will be lower still if discourse is now retreating from the "public forum" of the list-serv and the blog to the entirely private forum of the Facebook group (or the circle of Twitter followers, etc.).<br /><br />http://a-bas-le-ciel.blogspot.ca/2012/10/Buddhist-Philosophy-Fascicle-03.html<br /><br />http://a-bas-le-ciel.blogspot.ca/2012/10/Buddhist-Philosophy-Fascicle-04.html<br /><br />I can tell you one thing that Bhikkhu Bodhi and I have in common: we both go to print without any proper editing, and without any proper scrutiny or debate from other scholars. Part of the motivation for posting articles publicly is precisely to invite debate of that kind (that can be sorely lacking in formal academic contexts, or even when Bodhi is performing a lecture in front of a Youtube camera, etc.).Eisel Mazardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06898869744926590471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-60765401148509137962012-12-02T21:07:17.061+00:002012-12-02T21:07:17.061+00:00Interesting topic. Some discussions are occurring ...Interesting topic. Some discussions are occurring on forums. The two that I'm aware of are www.zenforuminternational.org and www.dhammawheel.com. I can't comment on general trends, but they both seem to have a healthy level of activity.Shoninhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03635409886545725801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-88381394746802797342012-12-02T19:29:40.266+00:002012-12-02T19:29:40.266+00:00Thanks Mumon, Tom, and Nathan for your thoughtful ...Thanks Mumon, Tom, and Nathan for your thoughtful comments. I agree that this may just indicate a shift in *where* Buddhism is being discussed on the web, but I couldn't find much evidence of this. Perhaps I don't understand the search function in facebook or it is being irritatingly playful with me, but when I search for "Pali" the first result is for Sarah Palin. The second is for a a woman dressed in underwear... I have 'liked' the Digital Pali Reader site on fb, but that isn't exactly a hotbed of discussion (though it deserves to be, as it is a fantastic resource). The Ngrams show a much broader decline (though their data ends at 2008).<br /> <br />So where are these discussions happening, if the decline in Yahoo groups is just a general trend? <br /><br />Perhaps it is just happening person-to-person on facebook, G+, and so on, leaving little (or no?) trace for us to attempt to measure... <br /><br />Anyhow - great to see the three of you here at least, along with a few other blogging fuddy-duddies. <br />Buddhist_philosopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14246929532585980356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-3392053348659895602012-12-02T18:49:46.484+00:002012-12-02T18:49:46.484+00:00I agree with the others about Yahoo. And also abou...I agree with the others about Yahoo. And also about the ever-moving nature of discussion. The seemingly endless array of options online makes it hard to keep track of everyone. <br /><br />A few things about blogging. My blog readership has plateaued. And yet, I am getting more and more invites to share my writing elsewhere, which makes me think that numbers on a single blog alone might not really be a great measure of either readership or impact. <br /><br />Secondly, there's a lot of natural attrition in blogland. Simply put, it's not easy to maintain a regular blog over a long period of time. Dangerous Harvests is almost 4 years old now. Certainly, bloggers like James and yourself Justin have been at it longer than me, but for every one of you, there are dozens who excitedly wrote for six months or a year, and then disappeared. Some ran out of things to say. Others decided it was easier to just offer comments whenever they felt like it. The well maintained blog requires discipline, and a love of writing at some level at the very least. Even for someone like myself, who has both of those, and piles of interests, I still struggle sometimes to offer a post or two every week or two. <br /><br />Third, for the most part, the only folks who keep Buddhist blogs going over an extended period of time are those who - in whatever shape and form it takes - are serious about practice. It's easy enough to have a loose interest and curiosity in it all, or to dive into Buddhism for your current short term fix, and jabber on for a year or two about the insights you are (or think you are) having, and/or the latest scandals and whatnot. However, when the something new comes along to tickle those folks spiritual fancy, or the debates about Genpo or whomever get old, those bloggers say good bye. <br /><br />Finally, I think Tom's correct that the blogosphere isn't the "hot thing" it once was. And that's fine. But I don't think it's disappearing either. Just shifting and changing some, as things tend to do. <br />Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13920234350446745482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-71057878010270819372012-12-02T14:24:22.044+00:002012-12-02T14:24:22.044+00:00Right, Mumon. Buddhists are still writing stuff a...Right, Mumon. Buddhists are still writing stuff and arguing and carrying on, it is just that WHERE we do all this nonsense moves around. <br /><br />It used to be that the blogosphere was the hot thing; now Facebook is in its heyday. I wouldn't buy its stock, though. Soon we will move like a herd of elephants to the next New Thing.<br /><br />Podcasts! YouTube! 3D Buddhist cartoons! We are insatiable! But not to jabber in texty ways, but to experience The New. If you're standing still, you're dead. And if you're constantly on the move, you're standing still.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13718601770472939313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5043003269935490917.post-10028394715670863232012-12-02T14:08:35.017+00:002012-12-02T14:08:35.017+00:00Is it time to play spot the logical fallacy? *Yah...Is it time to play spot the logical fallacy? *Yahoo Groups* have been in decline, and this parallels exactly the rise of social networks. Yahoo and everything Yahoo has been in decline since about 2007. So it would stand to reason that *any* selected groups of Yahoo Groups have been in decline as well. Similarly anything Usenet's going to have been in decline as well.<br /><br />Does anyone remember Usenet?<br /><br />Me, I never used those groups at all. While I don't use Facebook or Google + to promote my blog or its ideas, ...it's not all that important.Mumon Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01116967568502451788noreply@blogger.com