|
TAKE A LOOK AT THIS (though you may not be comfortable opening it at work, or even, at all): http://suicidegirls.com/news/contributors/brad_warner/
Well, the venue in question is SuicideGirls.com, the site of the modern-day alternapunk softcore porn phenomenon, SuicideGirls. To give you a quick gist of just how big a deal SuicideGirls is: in addition to its deluxe hardcover book of nude punky girls (nearly 20,000 copies sold), they have a DVD and other merchandise, have appeared in music videos, run a traveling burlesque-style show, and have just shy of 612,000 (and counting) MySpace friends. And then there's of course the website itself. It should be said that SG's success and appeal goes beyond their presentation of very different-looking photographic subjects; SG is perceived, by many, as more than just porn: the SuicideGirls are, arguably, allowed a lot of genuine self-expression and often that expression has a quasi-feminist, self-empowered tone. Now, the SG/Buddhism connection isn't totally news: several of the "Girls" have claimed in their online profiles that Warner's Hardcore Zen (the book) and Noah Levine's Dharma Punx are among their favorite reads. (And indeed, SG appear as a friend on the MySpace profiles of several readers of The Horse.) But now there's a Zen teacher actually maintaining a column on this incredibly popular "altporn" [read: alternative porn] site. What could this mean? It might help to put this into perspective: Imagine it's the mid-1970's. Printed porn magazines are in their heyday, and Buddhism is beginning to take root in the culture. Now imagine that Larry Flynt approaches, say, the Zen teacher Suzuki Roshi, and says, "Hey, how about you write a column about what you folks are doing for Hustler magazine?" And Suzuki Roshi goes ahead and does it. The SuicideGirls' Zen column is kinda like that. Is the very idea of such a thing blasphemy? Perhaps, depending on who you are. But if you look at the reader's comments on the Warner/SG column (next to which notably appears an ad for the new show, "One Punk Under God," about the prodigal son of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker), it's clear that SG's readers are welcoming Warner with open arms. Many seem to have read his first book, and many seem to be looking forward to reading more from him. So is Warner putting a revolutionary extra-twist on what "skillful means" for reaching people with the Buddha's message might mean? Or has he gone too far? |
|
|
The Worst Horse isn't interested in telling you what you should think about this. We want to know what you do think! We'll go through your comments and do our best to represent as many of your thoughts as we can here. Let the emails fly. |
|
|
READERS RESPOND: In regards to the whole sexuality issue, a respected Zen teacher by the name of Shunryu Suzuki was asked by a student:
If you only discuss the dharma with other Buddhists on Buddhist websites, that may not be nearly as productive as discussing it with those who might otherwise only see the word "Zen" as something cool to put in a tattoo or on a t-shirt. Both Buddha and Jesus made it a point to always be inclusive. Brad is simply following in some pretty ancient and respected footsteps. Good for him, and for the dharma. ebwrite
I say more power to Brad. I agree with Michael [below] on this issue. We are taught in Buddhism not to attach ourselves to the body but we are also taught to enjoy and appreciate the beauty of the body. If we were not meant to enjoy the naked body and sexuality then why would our bodies look so beautiful and sexuality so pleasurable? It's all about balance I feel. And as long as no one is getting hurt, being exploited or doing something illegal then why not enjoy ourselves a bit now and then?? Sure there are the odd, rare cases of exploitation but if we do not know of exploitation then how can we be responsible for said, specific case of exploitation?? Why should we ban all pornography because of a few "bad apples?" People are exploited all the time in marriage and families but we don't say that the institution of family and marriage should be banned and considered unwholesome or whatever. Or how about the cases of monks sexually abusing other novice monks or lay people? We don't say that monk hood is inherently "bad" because of those rare, specific cases do we? People are still responsible for their own actions whether it involves pornography or not is really irrelevant it seems. The Dharma isn't about living a boring, non-sexual, pleasure-less life but rather living one's life in balance with these things (unless you're a monk and frankly I have some issues with not allowing monks sexual pleasure. Look at all the problems the Catholic church is having with that issue right now). All things are interconnected and that does include pornography and our bodies and their "naughty bits" whether people wish to accept it or not. We are NOT Gods who can accept and reject people because supposedly our perceptions are "right" and theirs "wrong" because they enjoy the beauty of their naked bodies engaging in sexuality. How many "Buddhists" for example would say porn is unacceptable and yet watch movies?? For most movies pretty much involve some "violation" of the 5 mindfulness trainings in one way or another at some point. However, most of us can accept that a movie can indeed involve violence (Blood Diamond) or sexuality and still convey a good message in the end. Speaking of the 5 mindfulness trainings: they were originally just for monks. In regards to the laity they are meant to be guidelines not commandments. Oh and as Jesus said, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks. Just some food for thought.
Give me a fucking break! Warner is one of the most genuine and honest zen teachers that have come around the block in a long time. He offers what some in other traditions have called 'crazy wisdom'. This wisdom breaks down our notions of what a zen master should be and turns on it's head all such mind-made fantasies. Boobies are perfectly lovely and compatible with the dharma. Showing them is completely compatible with the dharma (so long as no one is hurt: and i don't mean some puny ass cry-baby getting 'hurt' over his/her notions of what a zen teacher can write about without being bitchslapped around). Bitching and moaning about a zen master bettering the world through writing is a little dumb. Shut up and sit down.
While I don't think that that pictures of naked women and the contents of Zen Buddhism are irreconcilable, I have serious concerns about a Zen teacher working with a site that has been known to screw over its employees (as in short-changing and mistreating its models), and has featured openly racist (specifically anti-Arab) remarks from its founder/owner, who is presumably a rather overzealous Zionist. While I have no experience with how the SuicideGirls site may have evolved in the last few years, as of 2003 and 2004 there was some major issues with race, gender and unscrupulous business practices. This brings to mind that famous quote from the Buddha: "Not half, but man's entire life is established on friendship, companionship and association with the good." An association with the good could be taken to mean avoiding working with porn entrepreneurs who advocate genocide for Arabs, or perhaps caution when dealing with unfair labor practices. Brad Warner can do what he likes -- it is his spiritual journey, he can stumble on his own path -- but for me, actual Buddhist practice is worth infinitely more.
I'm very interested in where America will take Buddhism and vice versa. Because the eightfold path and the precepts can be very liberally interpreted. And Americans are good at finding loopholes. I'm amazed about this so called new twist and marriage of Buddhism and American porn. I love the SGs and don't think there's anything wrong with women showing their bodies. I think it's a service for many of us who are single and all alone. The Christian right has too much say in our lives right now as it is. I did not become a Buddhist just to continue in a puritanical Christian way of thinking and doing that does not work for me or many others. It's really "soft core" and as long as no one gets hurt or
exploited I see no harm in it. These women seem to be in control of
themselves. I don't think anyone is breaking the Buddhist precepts by
looking at naked women. We should concern ourselves with poverty and
how many people are dying everyday in the Iraq war and not this kind of
thing!
I think this is a huge risk for Warner. He was one of the first Zen writers I read, and frankly I'm a little dissappointed. If you can't see any problems with this partnership, you are a fool. It's a thin line between porno/art, expression/exploitation, and I think Buddhist teachers are better off staying away from it. I would be crushed if my teacher felt the need to associate so closely with Suicide Girls. The Buddha taught freedom from desires and SG is precisely about fulfilling and reinforcing desire through sexual images. It is not empowerment, it is punk rock faux-feminism co-opted by capitalist and male sexual greed. My objection isn't about puritanical prudism, it is about not harming ourselves and others because we cannot overcome our desires. Anyways,
Brad owes us an explanation, he should be clear on where he stands here
out of respect for his Buddhist readers and out of respect for the
Suicide Girls.
I have only read Brad Warner in The Best Buddhist Writing 2004; and now, on the home page of The SuicideGirls. Mr. Warner seems like a sincere trainee. Hence, I don't think that it is particularly important that he posts a blog on a soft porn site. As is expected some people will read his blog and get "it." Others will read his blog and miss "it." Still others will not read it at all.
i recently viewed a documentary on the life of the XVI Karmapa. his first visit to the states in 1974 was organized and arranaged by Chögyam Trungpa. Trungpa Rinpoche was and still is to some degree a controversial figure. his students were the hippys and freaks of the 70's. i've heard of Rinpoche's dabblings in mind altering substances, alchohol, and sexual escapades. in this documentary they explain how the Karmapa viewed Trungpa Rinpoche. Karmapa expressed that a Bodhisattva's activity is to benefit where he would be needed. "be able to blend in to the environment" is how i saw it. so maybe we can view mr.warner's activity as benefiting. reaching out. giving Dharma. to a new environment. no drama. . .just Dharma. caesar
I was down for one of Brad's sesshins [meditation retreats] and he had talked about how suicide girls had approached him about writing for them. I'm really glad that he decided to do it. He wasn't really sure he was going to pursue it.
Inclusiveness at its best . . . or
Worst? (Pun intended.)
For some reason I can't see that article [Editor's note: that link has been restored] but I shudder at the idea. Brad Warner really rubs me the wrong way. . . he comes off as a real pompous ass in writing, and not in a funny self-satirizing way. There's bragadoccio, which I'm all about (Ice T or Lin Chi, take your pick), and then there's bragging. Not to mention the whole fourth precept thing. Nothing against SG -- I almost got Suicide Jolene as singer in my band before we split up -- but it's probably not the healthiest environment. Sure, there may be precedent to spread the dharma in akusala ["karmically unwholesome"] places, but if Brad Warner is Ikkyu or the guy in the 10th oxherding picture, then I'll lick a donkey's ass. Sorry for the rant there, but you did want a comment, right?
And I'm always game to talk about the Dharma. BTW, your site is
great. Really great. Later!
I guess my response would be to look to the dharma and to the precepts for a response. The first precept is not just about not taking life but not harming, living a life based upon loving kindness and respect. The 3rd precept advises to guard against sexual misconduct and to lead a life based around stillness and simplicity. I don't know much about the Suicide Girls and their chosen form of
expression. Is it about empowerment or the objectification of women? Is
it ethical or not? I guess these are decisions that we can only come to
for ourselves. Decisions come down to our own individual judgement and
I am guessing Brad Warner didn't take this decision on a whim. Maybe it
is up to him to explain his thinking. . .
why is this an issue? |
|
theworsthorse.net | "happy to be the worst" | 2006, 2007, 2008 | credits and gratitude
|
DHARMA-BURGER ARCHIVE 
