Rev. Danny Fisher

A recent Guardian piece by Naseem Khan is getting a lot of play in the Buddhoblogosphere right now. Give it a read if you haven’t already. I really appreciated one paragraph in particular, in which the author reflects on Joseph Goldstein‘s thoughts about “authenticity” and Buddhism’s changing as it continues to develop globally:

Change – vital as it is – of course carries dangers that have been well voiced in this blog: the danger of mash-mash, a pick’n'mix approach resulting in a dilution that ends up being so weak that it is of no use to man or mouse. Goldstein’s approach to questioners is both sensible and profound. A grounding in one tradition is vital, he argued, before opening out and at that stage the challenge of a new tradition can be extraordinarily productive. Goldstein himself had followed the austere Burmese tradition of insight meditation for around 25 years when a friend introduced him to Tibetan Buddhism, the antithesis of his own practice. He was immediately overwhelmed and confounded. How could the two interpretations both be true? After gnawing on this insoluble koan for some time he had finally seen two things: firstly that “all teachings are not ultimate, but a skilful means of liberating the heart from clinging” and secondly – he smiled benignly and opened his arms to shrug – “Who knows?”

In light of all the news coming out of restive regions in China (most recently Xinjiang), the Washington Post offers a useful introductory guide to China’s ethnic groups. Take a look.

Here’s the latest on Burma: