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/

It's "Brad Warner's Hardcore Zen," a new blog/column by a Zen teacher known for his frequent blogging/writing, much of which is centered around his two main interests: Zen (duh) and punk and subculture. So what's the big deal about him having a new venue?

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!
So send us an email:

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: 
"Roshi, I have a lot of sexual desire. I'm thinking of becoming celibate. Should I try to limit myself in this way?"
"Sex is like brushing your teeth", Suzuki answered. " It's a good thing to do, but not so good to do it all day long."
With a bow,
Jan

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.
James
The Buddhist Blog

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.

Later gators,
Brett

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.

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.

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.

I think its awesome and any buddhists that have a problem with it should go back their christian roots and keep their puritanical interests out of Buddhism.

Peace
Matt

Inclusiveness at its best . . . or Worst?  (Pun intended.)
Danah

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!
Jess G.