| | I'll elaborate a little to make it clearer what I'm after.
Consider three little case studies: First, if one thinks of influential buddhist teachers, Sasaki Roshi comes to mind. He is one of the most senior Rinzai Zen teachers in the US and I think it is safe to say that his popularity and influence stem mostly from this seniority and the fact that he was trained an ordained in Japan and is therefore considered to be more "original" than others. He has not published any books or audio material (at least to my knowledge), he isn't very present in the media, his website doesn't offer much besides most basic information and he doesn't seem to have an academic background.
Compare this to Shinzen Young: He is also a very popular teacher who incorporates many traditions, from Shingon, Zen and (most prominently) Vipassana to Kabbala and Native American traditions. Like Sasaki Roshi, he was trained in Japan and other Asian countries, but doesn't seem to have a formal rank or position in any of the traditions he is involved in. His distribution style is rather innovative: He is very present on the internet, especially on youtube, he offers free and commercial study material on his website, he published extensive audio lectures and he offers personal long-distance teaching based on conference-calls. Also, Shinzen Young frequently refers to western science and its relation to Vipassana practice. He seems to have an academic background in mathematics.
Now let's look at what we find here at the DhO: The most important difference to the other cases seems to be the absence of a central teacher figure. Of course, Daniel Ingram and some of the more senior members regularly offer advice and guidance as teachers would do, bus still there is an explicit commitment to a "spirit of mutual, supportive adventurers on the path rather than rigid student-teacher relationships". As far as traditions are concerned, although the forum is open for everything there is a clear prominence of Vipassana and related practices. The distribution of teachings seems to rely almost exclusively on the internet and, more importantly, everything, especially the MCTB is available for free. Many people on this forum seem to have an academic background and seem to be very familiar with systematic, algorithmic thinking.
What can we learn from this? I'd say that there seems to exist a systematic interrelation between the type of teacher figure, the prominent practices and teachings, and the distribution style.
On the one hand you have Sasaki Roshi, a perfect model of a traditional teacher, who proposes a rather complex style of Zen that is hard to learn without close personal guidance. Fittingly, the distribution of his teachings seems to take place mainly in face-to-face situations, outside of books, websites and other media. On the other end of the continuum you have the DhO, where the absence of explicit teacher is combined with vipassana practice, one of the most accessible meditation styles that can be learned and practiced with a minimum of personal instruction. Distribution seems to take place mainly through the forum itself and through the MCTB. Then you have Shinzen Young who combines both approaches: personal and mediated distribution, more complex and more down-to-earth practices, presence of a central teacher figure, but still a lot of emphasis on algorithmic approaches to meditation that can easily be popularized without intense face-to-face contact.
So, in the light of the three little examples one can maybe say that there is a systematic relation between the personal style of meditation teachers, the kind of teaching / practice they offer, and the means of distribution and communication that are employed. I guess that this is also related to success or popularity in some way.
I'm well aware that this comparison is far from complete or accurate, but I think it still captures an interesting point. If it was done with more "cases" and with more detailed regard of their similarities and differences, I think some interesting insights could emerge. |