About Breathing

The Dharma teachers and Zen masters always told me to focus on my breathing while meditating.
My yoga instructor has described the kind of breathing I do as jagged, but she wasn't singling me out. This was in a class of some pretty worn out folks.

So tonight I observed my breath as it came naturally and focused on what I was observing.
It was the difference between counting cars as they pass by and trying to drive them all at once.
Don't take my word for it.

Love,
Sean

The Natural Practitioner

I remember in my misspent youth we would often recycle stories about how Buddhist monks were given LSD in lab experiments and that it had no effect on them because they were already "there". I often bring this memory into context when I encounter people at retreats or a Day of Mindfulness that are attracted to the supernatural aspects of Buddhist practices, such as meditation,  that are played up in popular culture's mythology.

There are indeed very kind crystal carrying, aura seeing, astral projectors who don't find what they are looking for from a meditation practice. I see them come in and out of meditation circles and then I never see them again.

I heave heard debates about karma and reincarnation, two supernatural components, where people have gone back and forth on whether or not karma and reincarnation are necessary aspects of Buddhism. After all, many of us, including myself, have set these supernatural aspects aside and have tried to find in Buddhism a sound moral philosophy that truly makes us look as hypocritical as the next practitioner from other religious traditions when we fail to abide by simple principles.

The supernatural debate in Buddhism seems to be engaged around a core theme: are the supernatural aspects didactic, or are they truly foundational to Buddhism? Some argue that without karma and reincarnation, the whole thing just isn't complete. Must I believe in karma and reincarnation to have a sound moral philosophy? The ideas of the self as an illusion and the impermanence of all things are good enough for some of us, even from a scientific perspective, to build upon a compelling argument for compassion, interconnectedness, and impermanence.

Was I aware today? Was I mindful when I was walking in one direction and looking behind me as I rounded a corner and almost ran into coworker who was clearly upset because I was inconsiderate?  No. I can not find remedies to these things in books and retreats. It does take practice.

I now believe that the idea of getting "there" from the days of my youth is simply the present moment with abundant awareness. Those moments are truly amazing. What is even more amazing is that with all of the worry and grief of the past and the future, I still dwell there instead of the amazing place and time of my true home, which is the present. For better or worse it is all I have. 

What say you?

Sean E Flanigan
Charlotte, NC

An Ordinary Being

Lately, I've been perusing some Buddhist books I have already read. Most interesting are the ones I read before I really understood anything about Buddhism in terms of how it relates to life practice. Currently, I'm looking at a little book called The Four Noble Truths by the Dalai Lama. 

I remember this being the first book that helped me understand the core practical tenets of Buddhism, in contrast to regional-cultural flavors of Buddhism or the theoretical-philosophical "World Religions 101" notion of what Buddhism is. It's compact, but thorough and it was way above me the first time I read it. 

Now I understand more, but how far have I really come? In his chapter "The Truth of Suffering", His Holiness illuminates three "realms of suffering". The closer to enlightenment one is, the more formless one becomes and one becomes an Arya being.

In his words, "Anyone who has gained direct intuitive realization of emptiness, or the ultimate nature of reality, is said to be an Arya according to Mahayana and anyone who had not gained that realization is called an ordinary being."

Ordinary, huh? I guess so. In spite my reading and my earnest attempt to apply a Buddhist mindset to my daily life I can't say that I have ever had "direct intuitive realization of emptiness." I get it at an intellectual level. I can see the logic of it, so to speak, but I haven't truly experienced it.

And that makes me ordinary.

At first I was taken aback by the term. It seemed pejorative to me. Now that I've thought about it though. It seems kind of cozy. To be ordinary implies that a person has many people around them who are thinking about and going through the same thing. There is a solidarity in "ordinary" that peels away as a person achieves Arya.

I've suddenly got this image of all of us ordinary beings kind of scrabbling around, doing the work, having the vision. Then every so often one of us pops up like the bubbles in boiling water and poof. At that level, it's not really relevant whether you are the water or the resulting steam.

The World We Have (A Book Review)

A few years ago I moved to Chicago and began my practice with a new sangha , but with same root teacher Thich Nhat Hanh. I kept in touch with one of my old sangha buddies until about two years after I had moved. Every time we talked, she would tell me how depressed she was so during one of our last conversations I simply asked "What are you doing to help yourself?" I didn't hear from her a while and when we spoke again she was enraged that I had asked her that question. When I would not apologize for asking the question and began pontificating, I was told never to call her again a few days later.

The point of this story is that while I thought recognized her suffering, I did not acknowledge her suffering, nor did I truly recognize it. While I was trying to share some liberation from a similar experience, I was not skilful. I realized that I really had no business introducing a bold new vision to her about her well being as mine was in great need of improvement at the time as well.

I was unaware, uninformed, and my actions did not reflect a true compassionate nature. I realized all of this while reading this book by our root teacher and reflecting on this experience since I have since moved back from Chicago.

The message in this book is ancient: care for the environment, live in peace, interconnected with one another and find peace within yourself. However, the message still constitutes a bold vision for the modern world to a reader, such as myself, who sees a pattern in all forms of U.S. media and economic exploitation that reinforce to our peers, our children and our parents that these ideas are too naive, too simple, and just plain bad for our long term welfare. The ideas in this book may appear revolutionary and brand new because they strongly conflict with our near term desires and this desire is exploited by economic interests.

While Chomsky may have made enemies by showing us how the military industrial complex "manufactures consent" in democratic and free societies to go to war through fear and propaganda, the same principles apply to issues such as global warming, energy, biotechnology and so on. So yes, this book is pretty refreshing because it offers hope. 

Additionally, the author really connects with the reader by recognizing the reader's suffering and how it plays into our collective suffering and how our actions abusive against the earth are also forms of abusing our future children and their children and our ancestors both genetically and spiritually.

We are offered simple solutions in a skilful and compassionate way for engaging ourselves and finding a liberation of sorts, so that we can in turn engage others in what constitutes a skillful call to action in a compassionate and mindful way.

Pay the farmer, or pay the doctor. When there are no more farms, there will be no more doctors. We will be left with no one to pay and perhaps we will attend to other matters. Don't take my word for it. I have already admitted my lack of skill in communicating such matters, read the book for yourself and rely on your own experience.  

With Unskilful, But Genuine Love,
Sean E Flanigan
Charlotte, NC

A Zen Poem with Commentary. Original Poem.

[  *    *   *         *  *;  ;  *  *   *      *    *  *   *   *.

    !   *   *.   *     *  *     *    *      *     ,

•   *    *  *   *     .

   *,   *      *    *   *    *,   *  *    *      *  *   *   *    *  *  *   *   *.

•   *    *   *:       ,        ,          *   *       .     *   *   *     

  *

    *,   *   *   *   *, *   *  *     *       * *    *  *.

“       ,      *.  *          *.”] - Zen Poem

Commentary:

The poem is about the nature of difference and the paradox that there is no difference. It presents the Buddha as being able to see everything. The paradox, however in his case, is a layered process of realization. First one sees difference. Then one realizes that the difference is not there. There is no distinction for all the differences of realization happen to be part a single realization. But after the context is put into the words, the difference and the paradox that “one-ness” is a multiplicity. It can only be understood as an infinite amount of “ones.” The Buddha realized this and taught this. 

Crying at a Buddhist Funeral, by Adam Goldberg

In the following guest-post, Adam Goldberg reflects on the meaning of equanimity in the face of one of life's most difficult moments. Adam is spending one year in Asia, exploring how Buddhism is interpreted and understood in the face of conflict and violence and, ultimately, how it is used as a vehicle for building peace. Follow his blog at asolutionwithin.wordpress.com.

Crying at a Buddhist Funeral

The room is a blurry haze; the bright orange of monastic robes saturate her vision and her feet seem to hover as she moves to an open chair. Her mind is distant and she can’t feel a thing but for a sensation of cold emptiness that presses against her chest, growing and growing, threatening to freeze her. She raises her eyes – they are heavy and wet with tears – but the faces of those around her are tranquil; at ease, as if someone has not just died.

*****

Having just finished a two week Vipassana meditation retreat in Burma, I was impressed by the calm, serene and balanced composure of the Sayadaws (teachers). I couldn’t help but wonder, would they cry at a funeral? What keeps equanimity from becoming indifference, or rather, isn’t equanimity indifference?

The mental state of upekkha, equanimity, is essential to attain enlightenment. It enables us to maintain mindfulness (sati) in every situation. We could be eating good food or tasteless food, experiencing immense pain or pleasure, cursed or praised, and upekkha will protect us from being carried away by these experiences. Nonattachment is unbroken in its presence, and Right View is affirmed as we recall that everything breaks down to nama-rupa, or mind-matter phenomena which arises and ceases in each moment. One technique I have come across to generate equanimity is to think of someone’s misfortune or fortune as the reaping of his or her kamma.

Wait. What does that really mean? If a bus is out of control and unable to steer itself away from an oblivious man, should we warn him? If we don’t, is it not because of his kamma that he will be killed and his own fault? This is simplistic, I know, but it gets to the point – if bad fortune is due to that person’s bad kamma, should we feel responsible to help those who are vulnerable? If so, where does that sense of responsibility come from?

In Sayadaw U Pandita’s book, “In This Very Life”, he writes “equanimity is not insensitivity, indifference or apathy. It is simply nonpreferential. Under its influence, one does not push aside the things one dislikes nor grasps at things one prefers. The mind rests in an attitude of balance and acceptance of things as they are.” If not insensitivity, then is equanimity sensitivity? If not indifference and apathy, is it caring? And finally, how can we be “nonpreferential” while exercising another of the sublime mental states (Brahmin Vihara) – compassion? To me, compassion (karuna) necessarily implies a preference, namely that I am unpleased with the current situation and wish to improve it.

In U Pandita’s discourse, he emphasizes the importance of cultivating compassion alongside wisdom, so action is be guided with precise aim to effectuate positive change. Compassion without wisdom can be extremely dangerous; we act with a desire to do good, but in fact cause more harm! We may justify the impact of our actions by proudly standing behind our intentions. But as the saying goes, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Clearly, compassion isn’t enough.

Wisdom (panna) and equanimity go hand-in-hand. One of the three characteristics of existence (tilakkhana) is anatta, or non-self. Anatta is a profound concept and definitions like “devoid of an inherent existence” can be misleadingly vague. I will not elaborate on anatta here, but I encourage you to see link below for an in-depth description. Instead, I’d like to point out the implication of anatta: we are not truly in control of ourselves or the world around us; we cannot stop aging, nor can we control the choices our loved ones make. Some things will not go as planned no matter how hard we try; inevitably yielding results that can be disappointing. And it is undeniable that the more we invest ourselves in effort, the more attached we can become to the result. Anatta reminds us the folly of such investment.

Understanding this aspect of anatta, equanimity is steadfast and strong. Actions are not influenced by attachments but guided by the clarity of wisdom. Neither “success” nor “failure” distracts us from our goal, allowing us to reassess and invest ourselves in the situation free from emotional antagonisms. Fortified by equanimity, compassion takes its noblest form: accurate, effective, and unquestionably selfless.

“What the Buddha Taught” by Walpola Rahula, online & free: https://sites.google.com/site/rahulawhatthebuddha/the-doctrine-of-no-soul

A Trinity of Concepts: Emptiness, Desire and Enlightenment

Greetings readers!

It is quite obvious that I am about to tackle some major concepts within this blog post. I will not apologize for heavy philosophical writing but I will, for the sake of all beings, attempt to make this as simple as possible. Simplicity within Buddhism is a sacred element in my opinion because it is key to the understanding of universality, interactivity and the progression of Compassion.

So how on Earth can I possibly tackle such major themes, which have everything to do with each other all in one post?

Can I go down a check-list of some sort and check mark everything that I need to say about each and just move on to the next one?

I hate the word blasphemy but I think it would be appropriate for such a project. Not only do these have everything to do with each other, I am going to make a case in stating that they are all the same thing.

That is incredibly “unorthodox” of me to state but those of you who are already thinking to yourself, “What? Why? You’re crazy!!!” I beg you to hear me out. You will see that I am not “stretching” things that far and even if I were, so be it, it must happen.

I will begin with Emptiness!

Within my postmodern mindset it is difficult for me to accept a notion of something being contentless. The only form of contentless that I can even imagine is something having so much content that some of it needs to be thrown out. There are a few ways to go about explaining this. The classic question “why is there something instead of nothing” can be turned into “why is there something instead of everything?”

To quickly ponder over those two questions and to simultaneously move to my next point would be to answer in saying that Nothing is not nearly as much chaos as Everything. Everything must be diluted, Nothing is open, potential where as it is Everything that must be deconstructed and made peace with. Something is a flux between the two, Everything and Nothing even though it seems that this Something is Everything at the same time. That’s as far as I will go with that but my major point here is saying that there are things that could use a little bit of diluting, trimming and throwing out of.

Such statements are beginning to sound a little bit Nihilistic....that’s because they are. They are not Nihilistic in the sense that everything is meaningless but rather the contrary, everything has so much meaning that we do in fact need to peal some of it away, throw it away and then take what is good, useful and pragmatic and continue on with that. Nihilistic pragmatism? Yes. I would state that Buddhism has a lot of that very concept embedded in the heart of it.

Okay so finally, Emptiness. What is emptiness?

We live and continue our days, day-by-day, moment by moment. There is nothing new about this statement to Buddhism. What about these moments? Now. What about right Now? As I am writing this post and as you Now are reading this post. It is difficult to say that the future exists at all because it is now here yet but it is also impossible to say that there is anything static within this world as well. We’re stuck saying things are Becoming. Things are constantly becoming and so Now is a constant process of change. This too is nothing new to Buddhism but here is where it gets interesting. Emptiness is not the idea that there is, in fact, nothing that keeps “me” “you” “us” “we” and so forth but rather it is moments. It is not things that are empty but time.

Moments in time from one moment to the next. The flux between when one thing is about to end and when the next moment is about to begin. There is absolutely no way to ever measure such a thing and so we can say a few things here. We can either say that because there is no quantification of such a thing and such a claim to Emptiness would force Emptiness to be attributed to Now, since Now is all we have, and then everything is Emptiness.

But wait!

How can everything be Empty so fundamentally when we have already discussed that things have content to them, they have meaning, potency and potential? Can, with such a view everything be Empty at the same time? Because stating Now is Empty only with time, but always Empty would force the way we view content itself to change.

So no. That’s out!

We’re not forced to say that Emptiness does and should have content, we are blessed to be able to say that. This is where Emptiness meets Desire.

Part II: Desire as Emptiness. Emptiness as Desire.

Desire is believed to be the thing that keeps us within Samsara (at least in Theravada.) Samsara to me is more so a continuation of the breaking of community and the lack of realization of interdependency, interactivity and compassion. That definition would make Samsara a negative aspect of reality.

Traditional logic, and the Four Noble Truths state that with the breaking of Desire, Enlightenment can be attained. This understanding continues to do good when Desire and Enlightenment are properly situationally explained but as a general ontological point, I think it leads us way off the road.

Desire as a more conceptual thought cannot be ridden of and all Buddhists know this. The Dalai Lama always tells people it is not Desire that we’re trying to get rid of, it is “bad” Desire. Desire to do evil things like harming people and animals and such.

Okay so back on course. The statement I made was that Desire and Emptiness are the same thing, neither of which is contentless. That last point is incredibly important and please do not forget that! It. Is. Not. Contentless!!!

As moments continue to arise and fall, constantly changing, it is Desire that continues interactivity and community. It is that process, the Desire for those two things which keep the Cosmos and Everything somewhat stable in place. Because we don’t have any idea as to what sort of Desire that is, the basis of it, the reason behind it, the point in which the Desire is Ultimately Fulfilled (or brought to a close) we must call it Empty.

There is one more reason we must call it Empty. As things come from the past and are thrown into the present and continue on, infinitely into the “future” there is a interactivity between what we call Being and Non-being. Being is Existence, transcendent of itself and constantly changing and Non-being are those moments of Emptiness where there is a flux between what has taken place and what is about to take place. Non-being and the word Creativity can be interchangeable here and they both have the quality of being “Empty.” They’re empty because they’re potentials, neither determined nor isolated from anything else, rather influenced by everything instead. It is that slightest moment when we have an Empty choice to do something Good or Evil that is Empty. The manifestation of the action is the leaving of Non-being and into Being and also then becomes either Enlightenment or a continuation of Samsara.

Desire as Enlightenment.

This is where the unorthodoxy really kicks in guys, so please, hold on!

I have now stated that Emptiness is not contentless but is moments in which Good and Evil are in flux and that choice is made. There is no isolation and no determinism but rather influence. Being and Non-being are dynamical in that Empty/Creative/Desire(ful) moments lead to choices to be made which can be Good or Evil.

Samsara has been defined as a breaking of community and interactivity, an ignorance that everything is interdependent and connected.

Enlightenment must be some form of the opposite of that (with exception, of course. It’s not always the case that if it’s not “A” then it has to be “not A.)

Please excuse the logic lesson there!

So Desire can be Enlightenment only if Desire is essentially viewed as favorable. I am talking about the same Empty Desire that I talked about just a few minutes ago. The way that it can be viewed as favorable and be viewed as Enlightenment is if the understanding of Desire is positive in the first place. Empty moments must somehow more likely lead to Good than Evil for them to be Enlightenment.

Right?

Well....almost. Yes because I am openly an idealist regarding humans and just the world and do believe that most people will make a Good choice as opposed to an Evil one but more so because there is nothing left to call Enlightenment. That sounds like a strange thing to say but I mean it, there is nothing left other than these moments to call Enlightenment.

The “Criteria” for Desire to be Enlightenment generally gets fulfilled.

1)  It is mysterious

2)  It is objectively present but subjectively participated with

3)  It is empty on its own thus requiring context.

4)  It is its realization that can change some people.

5)  For Mahayana, the realization of this for others is more likely to happen than a realization in one’s own mind.

These similarities do not make it necessary that Enlightenment and Desire are the same thing so I will now move on quickly to Enlightenment.

Enlightenment as Apophatic Participation with Everything

Before I begin here I will have to give some terms. This will seem as the largest “break” from what I have written so far in this post yet it will all tie in together again, I promise.

To describe some terms here, apophatic means negation. It is generally used in theological terms but I believe it to be useful when discussing Enlightenment as well. What I mean exactly by negation is saying that we can only say what something is not instead of what something is. I link this sort of term closely with mysticism but not always.

What Enlightenment is not….

Enlightenment is not a state one enters and leaves that is isolated from some and available for others.  Thus Enlightenment cannot be isolated, it must be constant, integrated with everything around it. Attempting to isolate it will go against one of the most important of all Buddhist principles of interconnectivity.

Enlightenment cannot “truthfully realized” via a belief of raw experience.

I mention this statement almost in every post because I honestly believe it is a misconception many Buddhists have, especially in the tradition that I am a part of, Zen.

Through no attempt may a person find a “hidden” or “final” truth about oneself that is completely common, simple and universal to all things. Regardless of whether this “hidden” “Buddhanature” is a positive quality to humanity or not, a raw experience not only is not a way to discover such a religious and subjective term, raw experience itself is not possible. As stated above, the closest we can come to Emptiness is Desire, which is not contentless so no amount of meditation will take a person to a place where “Buddhanature” is discovered.

(On a quick note I am not attempting to make humanity seem as if though it is not in a state of Buddhahood, my explanation for Buddhahood is much different than that and it will be explained more thoroughly in my next post!)

The list can go on and on but I find those to be the most important. With such statements it is possible to justify such intensive history of Buddhist mysticism and monasticism.

Buddhism began as a predominantly monastic faith available to few but as concepts that had to do more and more with everybody arose, the tide shifted into a religion of laity and not of the monks. Buddhism lends itself easily to introspective isolation with such stress on the individual but it is a mistake to assume the individual is, in fact, one single “I.” Realization of anything within Buddhism goes through the motions of discovering the principles that Buddhism presents and one of those is interconnectedness and community. The “I” is only as “we” continue and still personhood is a tricky subject. I will not say much more about this because this will begin the “Self” discussion which is not the purpose of this post.

To Sum Up!

We have now stated that Emptiness is Desire is Enlightenment.

Enlightenment is a mysterious thing, empty in that it is not contentless but rather so mysterious that it is empty. Desire is the progression of each moment in continuation towards community and interdependency, the healthy kind.  Enlightenment is such because it is generally characterized as a realization of the Buddhanature within all things but this suggestion is that the Desire that propels everything and its realization is the Enlightenment that we seek. We respond and participate in such ways that it becomes so subjective, yet recurrent that “Empty” is a word that can be used.

There will be more posts on all of these topics as I go into more depth but that is a nutshell introduction to how I view Buddhist philosophy.

Buddhist Practice & Homeostasis

Change is hard. This could be the fifth Noble Truth. Regardless of the focus or purpose, it is very difficult to effect noticeable and lasting change be it of perspective or behavior.

Psychological "bootstrappers" would have everyone belly up and "just do it". They display self-righteous disdain for the larger part of humanity's limited ability in this regard. Generic New Age enthusiasts might advise us to lovingly embrace our perceived shortcomings. While this is a great feel-good strategy to avoid self-judgment, it can result in avoidance of necessary change all together.

Why is this the case? Why do we resist even those changes we need the most? The answer lies in part with our body's natural tendency toward seeking homeostasis, that is its remarkable ability to generate sameness.

In general, our ability to maintain homeostasis is a good thing. It is what regulates our blood pressure when we move from a seated to a standing position. It is what increases our metabolism when we go swimming in cold water to keep our internal organs warm. There are times, however, when this system gets in our way, such as when we want to lose weight or begin an exercise regimen.

I am a voice rehabilitation professional and trainer by profession. A large part of my work involves helping people make changes in the way their voice operates either to improve or repair vocal function. When I work with people, I impress upon them the fact that the perceptual system has only two modes of operation "normal" and "wrong." I tell them this so they are prepared when their mind tells them they sound horrible, when in fact they sound much better than before.

Our entire physiologic being craves sameness. Ah ha! There they are - craving and attachment - the building blocks of suffering. And it's built in to our core physical functioning. Oh darn. Conveniently, our Buddhist practice prepares us for this realization. Life has suffering. Suffering is caused by attachment and craving. Now we can understand at least in part where that comes from. Homeostasis!

Maintaining awareness of the body's drive for homeostasis allows us to orient our Right View a little differently than we might otherwise. Rather than being a personal failing of control or will, our resistance to change is a physiologic fact we have to partner with in order to be successful. Settling into this view makes it easier for us to release our struggle against it and meet the challenges of change with mindfulness and equanimity.

As we look toward a new year, many will engage in that timeless tradition of selecting a New Year's resolution. I say, go for it! But do keep your "Right View" wits about you and remember to be gentle with yourself if homeostasis rears its ugly head. Change is hard. That's why we practice, practice, practice.

May you have ample opportunities for practice in 2013!

A Snippet on Kuan-Yin

Greetings readers!

This post will be much less theoretical and more of an explanation as to why I think Kuan-Yin is incredibly important to Buddhist thought and to comparative studies/incorporation into other traditions.

Firstly, those who do not know much about Kuan-Yin, I will give a brief introduction to her:

She is a Chinese Goddess of mercy and compassion and is also an incarnation or potentially transgendered God by a different name. There are legends of Kuan-Yin changing into other animals and people in order to help those who were crying or in need of safety. In Mahayana Buddhism (which Zen would fall under) she is regarded as the top Bodhisattva.

I do not believe that there is a need to compare religions for the sake of quality comparison but rather because as an understanding on differences, similarities that go beyond the basic but into the ontological as well. I promised I wouldn’t make this post theoretical however I may have lied.

Please forgive me.

Kuan-Yin would be an embodiment of mercy and compassion? Something that could be looked at in a more Western/Christian way, right?

False.

Although there is potential to see things that way, it would not be very Buddhist because most Buddhism does not have the idea of embodiment. That’s not true in all cases but the basic reasoning behind it is that embodiment of anything would create more potential for there to be a noticeable “self” that is not interdependent, or impermanent.

The correlation between the adjectives that describe “self” and “self” are very important in that statement because most of us do think there is some sort of recurring pattern that we can at least call a “person.” I won’t begin to get into that so we can just leave that one open for discussion. 

Kuan-Yin’s recurring pattern and person would thus be known as Mercy and Compassion. They are not an embodiment because they are plainly within Kuan-Yin. Despite the two, Kuan-Yin’s “person” and those concepts being irreducible, it’s not quite safe enough to go as far as the Platonic notion of embodiment. 

Kuan-Yin shows that it is very natural, very human, very universal to have mercy and compassion and that anybody at all is capable of such practices.

These practices would be practices in the person’s own way.

In the shared experience and world of with whom or what the experience is with.

Would influence the rest of the Cosmos because all is connected and has influence

and would also then influence Compassion, Mercy etc in others.

Is that the same as Embodiment?

It’s damn close but the one other distinction between Christian embodiment and this Buddhist idea is that the “full embodiment” of Being/Love which is found in Christianity is not found in Buddhism. Kuan-Yin’s Mercy and Compassion are virtues that are planted, and mustered along the way through effort and strife making them ever so much more desirable, beautiful, and Zen.

So what then exactly is her importance?

As obvious as it sounds, she’s a woman.

The importance for there to be a religious figure with such importance who is a woman is very important, cannot be forgotten and must be celebrated. I won’t go into this too far but feminism is imperative for a successful globe which is pragmatic, progressive, pluralistic and loving.

Also Kuan-Yin shows us that these giant virtues are there at the palm of your hands in one way or another. One of my favorite statues of her is her holding a tea leaf which is a basic plant in the East yet has become a mystical ceremony. The basic”ness” of Compassion and Mercy are met with the mystical female figure who has reached Sainthood just by living. That’s something we can all strive for!

Buddhism and the Silence of the Internet

Today we're hosting a guest-blog from Eisel Mazard, whose blog may be familiar to many of you (it has been in our Blog Roll for some time). I also explored Jeffrey's post on the decline of Buddhism online at my Patheos blog here back in July. As I said then, it's a complex issue. I was using Google's Ngrams, which only display data up to 2008, and Eisel looks at specific discussion groups. Could the discussion be going on somewhere that we're not looking? Blogs like this one and James Ure's Buddhism Blog continue to grow, and the Buddhist Geeks have been successful enough to hold two large conferences. My own blog over at Patheos just had its best month in terms of visitors (but most of that was due to a post about the 2012 US Elections). What do you think? Do you have a blog? How is it performing in terms of numbers, comments, and/or lively sense of community? --- Justin Whitaker

Buddhism and the Silence of the Internet

The culture of communication is changing: this makes it difficult to measure any kind of cultural change through the lens of any given medium.  In an earlier article, I commented that one of the problems with counting the number of Buddhists in America through a telephone survey is that the culture of the telephone itself has changed in the last 20 years (who will answer an unknown number in the middle of the work-day, etc.).  However, the simple fact that I'm here dealing with is the decline of the discussion of Buddhism in English.  In some ways, the numbers speak for themselves, and in some ways they require quite a lot of talking to.

Jeffrey Kotyk recently drew attention to the sheer decline in the use of the word "Theravada" itself through Google's own statistics; you can compare that chart to what seems to be declining interest in Zen Buddhism, and other key terms (see his article, here).  Although interesting, staring at that chart (below) raises many questions about what type of change the Google Ngram statistic really measures (in relation to changes in the publishing industry specifically, and the culture of communication generally).  By contrast, the more colorful chart above is very simple: it shows the decline in the number of messages sent to an online discussion forum (namely, "Pali: The Pali Collective").

There was a generalized complaint about declining activity from the "Progressive Buddhism" blog a few months ago, too: "…so many of the 'names and faces' of 2007,8,9 and 10 are gone or have simply shifted interest…".  That complaint is evidently applicable to "The Pali Collective" and many other online discussion groups I've recently glanced over; when I look back at the archives of messages from 2007, I can see the names of a few Pali scholars whom I know/knew and respect, who are evidently no longer active in the forum.  However, "The Pali Collective" is still a relative success story: a large number of groups that I looked up have completely ceased to exist.  Others, like the (declaredly) academic forum moderated by Richard Hayes have gone silent, but have not formally shut down.  Circa 10 years ago, that forum was an extremely noisy place.

The Dhammadutas group (as shown above) declined into silence, and was then taken over by Spam.  Clicking through the archives, 2009 seemed to be the last year of real (human-to-human) communication on the forum, but it had already been in decline for some time.

By far the most active discussion forum shown in any of these charts is "Dhammastudygroup", but we nevertheless must observe a decline over the last several years (the level of activity is now roughly half of what it was at its peak).

This discussion forum for Black Buddhists seems to have been a convivial gathering around 2006, but declined soon thereafter, and now has not had a single message posted in 2012.

The broadly inclusive forum named "Sangha" has now declined to a tiny fraction of its former level of activity.  Although I'm showing a (roughly) 10 year period for each of these forums, I would note that "Sangha" was actually founded in 1998.  As such, this is probably one of the longest-running (continuous) discussion forums for Buddhism (in English), although it is not as old as the (now-moribund) forum overseen by Richard Hayes that I mentioned before ("Buddha-L").

I have seen many, many other examples of decline (and, frankly, I do not know of any real exceptions to the rule).  I've presented charts based on Yahoo groups specifically, because they display their own statistics in a manner that is easier to read than Google groups and other competitors (glance over the grid of numbers, e.g., at the bottom of the Buddhadasa group… also in stark decline).

Are we looking at a change in the culture of communication, or are we looking at an indirect indication of a real cultural change?  Before I started a blog of my own (à bas le ciel) I did look through a long list of possible websites that I could have (instead) become a contributor to.  There were no good options.  Although I do still have three articles in peer review, in the last few years I've surveyed my publishing options on paper, again and again; the choices that exist (for an author) are similarly bleak, and many of the publications are in an ongoing state of decline.

Is the growth of my own blog now an exception to the rule?  Although I'm surprised at my own growing number of readers, I also see this small-scale success in the context of the collapse of other modes of publication that should have (or could have) been available to me.  19th century journals really did contain "notices" written as casually as these blog-articles (often more casual still) and a forum of that kind (on paper) is now severely lacking for anyone in the field.  As I mentioned in recent articles, we no longer have the type of "scholarly pamphlet" that the Buddhist Studies Review and the Pali Buddhist Review used to be (as recently as the 1990s).  In looking over the charts above, however, we seem to be witnessing the shrinking of the internet (as a forum for Buddhism in English) especially since 2006.  If you've been actively searching for blogs or new publications on Theravāda Buddhism lately (and, perhaps, this is how some of you discovered my writing in the first place) you will have noticed: I don't have much competition.  As time goes on, I seem to have less and less competition, not more.