I've come to hate the designations "Buddhist blog" and "Zen blog."
What makes a blog Buddhist, Zen or non-denominational, anyway?
I subscribe to several blogs linked to Zen or Buddhism either through self-description or by inclusion in "roundup blogs" that post weekly or monthly synopses of blogs deemed Zen or Buddhist in nature.
On some of these blogs, all that's done is a lot of bickering over what's perceived as good or bad in terms of personal practice, teachings, what he said or she said and so on.
Fine. People bicker.
If I don't like it, I tune out.
If I like it, I keep reading.
I can be awfully argumentative and judgmental myself.
Some of the bickering on these blogs seems to come from the heart of whomever is trying to make the point.
But a lot of it seems to come, in my opinion, from unbridled ego, a need to be heard above the din (sometimes just for the sake of being heard), posturing and the desire to be authoritative. (Heck, you can find all of these things, except for the bickering thus far, in one convenient place: my blog.)
I wonder if the fact that I and others describe my blog as Buddhist (at least in intent) is a liability.
Maybe it should be a disclaimer.
The way I see it, if a blog discusses being alive, being in each moment as it comes, explores the human condition, and tries to accept and interpret things and circumstances as neither good nor bad but just as they are, then they're a hell of a lot more Buddhist than any self-proclaimed, tongue-wagging "Buddhist blog" ever could be.
I would be honored if people considered this blog a "human blog," chronicling a life in all its imperfect, idealistic, egotistical, selfless, boring, compelling, agonizing, ecstatic, messy glory.
And if it happens to have an undercurrent of Buddhism or Sufism or Islam or Christianity or Judaism or whatever, great.
Promise not to paint me one color, and I'll promise you the same.
Now, I must go and remove the coat of paint I foolishly applied to myself.