Rev. Danny Fisher

Since you’re reading a Buddhist blog, I would assume that by now you’re probably aware that there’s a little bit of upset in the Buddhoblogosphere right now about an article in the latest issue of Tricycle:  The Buddhist Review entitled “Dharma Wars”. 

Written by Zenshin Michael Haederle, the piece essentially laments what the author sees as the typical childish behavior displayed on the internet pervading the Buddhoblogosphere.  He looks at everything from snarky blog comment threads to what is really the centerpiece of the article:  the controversy over Dogo Barry Graham’s authority to teach that ultimately “played out before an online audience.”  The generalizations offered by the author could be summed up in the following paragraphs:

In the era of Internet blogging and online forums with their unfiltered, rapidfire exchanges, disagreements among Buddhist teachers and practitioners seem to erupt out of nowhere.

It’s hardly news that Buddhists sometimes disagree— there is a long and colorful history of Buddhist teachers debating one another, often quite forcefully, over their understanding of the dharma. And American Buddhism has weathered its share of internecine conflicts, including sex scandals, financial shenanigans, and power abuses. What has changed in the past few years is that some Buddhists are now accustomed to casual online mudslinging and name-calling—in short, behaving just as badly as everyone else on the Internet.

[...]

In cyberspace, we can craft whatever persona we choose and call our blog whatever we want, and Buddhist bloggers often inflate their experience and understanding.

Responses were swift.  First, I think, was NellaLou at Enlightenment Ward, who wrote a lengthy, point-by-point critique.  In addition to expressing concerns about how to piece might contribute to promoting a culture of silence (“the big message seems to be sit down and shut up”), she also articulates what she sees as “journalistic errors and sensationalism.”  Among other things, she raises provocative questions about how exactly Haederle arrived at statements like “Buddhist bloggers often inflate their experience and understanding” given how many Buddhist bloggers (modestly) describe themselves in their “About”/”Bio” pages.

A follow-up by NellaLou included an open letter to Tricycle in which she asked to have her blog removed from the blogroll of the Tricycle Editors’ Blog.

James Ure at The Buddhist Blog, which was a subject of examination in the article (though James was not contacted by Haederle), felt misrepresented, writing:

[I've] not purported to be a teacher. I go to great lengths to say this in many of my posts as people who regularly read my blog know. I can’t be responsible if people consider me an authority because I don’t claim such a title. I simply put forth what I’m thinking about on issues involving Buddhism. As well as how my practice is going, etc. “If ego is wrapped in opinion” which it might be to a degree then aren’t you just as guilty as you claim some of us bloggers are? We’re not Bodhisattvas in the Buddhosblogosphere — we’re just average folks trying to figure out the Dharma in our day to day lives. We don’t always represent the Dharma best but then again neither do many who write in your magazine and other Buddhist magazines. We all just try to do our best.

Another early response came from Brad Warner, who was interviewed for the piece:

As to the notion that the disputes among Buddhists should not be exposed on-line… All’s I can say is that’s just not gonna happen. It’s out there. This kind of stuff did not start on the Internet. But the Internet has amplified it. And until the Internet goes away, the exposure of disputes among Buddhists on the Internet isn’t going away either.

Another interviewee for the piece, our online pal and past interviewee James Ishmael Ford, responded to “Dharma Wars” at his blog Monkey Mind, writing:

Mr. Haederle’s thesis is that there is a significant amount of misinformation as well as harsh and harmful speech within the Buddhist blogosphere.

I agree.

Sadly, I believe Mr. Haederle, a professional journalist as well as a long time Zen practitioner, and surprisingly to me, used ill chosen examples for his illustrations, distracting readers from his larger point.

He led off with the story of allegations that a Zen teacher had fabricated his authorizations. I thought this an example of what is good about the Buddhist blogosphere. Real issues were raised, important ones for people seeking real Zen teachers.

But Michael Haederle used this as an example of incivility, at least as I read it, and that missed the whole point, again, as I saw it.

In a thorough comment at the Tricycle Editors’ Blog, Jaime McLeod argued that Haederle’s framing of the Graham matter was a “mischaracterization,” writing:

Sometimes, for the good of all involved, difficult things need to be said. Let’s not mistake cowardice for “right speech.” Holding back when something important needs to be said benefits no one.

There have been many other responses (most of them caught and linked to by the eagle-eyed NellaLou), but, I’d to look at the one by our main man Justin Whitaker at American Buddhist Perspective last.  While Jamie pointed to situations that deserve a more serious treatment, Justin put certain aspects into perspective:

After describing a comment section dialog over at James Ure’s blog, the author claimed:

“[Commenter] Twisted Branch had a point, though. In cyberspace, we can craft whatever persona we choose and call our blog whatever we want, and Buddhist bloggers often inflate their experience and understanding.”

The funny thing to me was that Twisted Branch apologized for his comments and everyone, to my knowledge, moved on – except for the article writer.

So, what do I think about all of this?  Well, first of all, I should say that it’s complicated for me.  Full disclosure:  As regular readers know, Venerable Kobutsu Malone, who is mentioned in both “Dharma Wars” and many of the responses, is both a past interviewee and a friend.  In addition, I have written for Tricycle twice (for their Spring 2008 issue and for their upcoming Spring 2009 issue), and feel that this blog has benefited greatly from some early links by Phil Ryan at the Tricycle Editors’ Blog.  I find all the folks there that I’ve worked with and/or gotten to know to be absolutely wonderful, and I feel very grateful to them.

All of that said, I like the way James Ford articulated things in his response to “Dharma Wars”:  Yes, there’s harsh and harmful speech out there in the Buddhoblogosphere, but many of the things Haederle writes about (particularly the situation that he begins with) don’t help him make his point.  I also agree with Jaime that “Holding back when something important needs to be said benefits no one”–there’s a huge difference between not holding back in these cases and online bullying, and that needs to be very, very clear.

Additionally, I’d like to say something about one aspect of the response from the Buddhoblogosphere.  I’m a little concerned by this talk of no longer subscribing to, buying, and/or reading Tricycle.  Obviously, folks are upset.  But why not use this situation as an occasion for dialogue and understanding?  Why does this piece have to be a dealbreaker of epic proportions where we refuse to read anything published under the banner of Tricycle henceforth?  My wish is that we can all grow from this conflict instead of holding grudges.  How can all of us do better?  How can we help?