Once there is involvement with Buddhism, it is just a matter of how far the person wants to dig. It does take time, but, to paraphrase Ajahn Nyanamoli, a person who is serious about finding out what is least likely to be wrong when it comes to what the Buddha taught, is eventually going to make their way to Pali Canon one way or the other. If a person gets snagged on a whimsical, bubbly and utterly superficial Buddhist perspective, and that leads to a less productive practice in terms of development towards liberation, that isnāt necessarily because of the whimsical perspective they were so enamored with; it could just be that the person wasnāt looking for the highest goal of the practice in the first place.
Buddhism is not immune to attempts to soften the message, but without that softened exterior, people would be very hesitant to approach it, and that isnāt a good thing either. There are some beautiful and wonderful aspects that do coincide with dispassion and liberation, so there is no need to bill the Dhamma with what would be very overwhelming for the average person. All in all, I donāt think it is something to be very concerned about. If a person feels that urgency and disenchantment they arenāt going to stop at what they hear on mainstream channels - theyāre going take the prompts and dig further.
In a sense, thereās more willingness from Mahayana to have megatemples compared to Theravada. Thereās a lot more Megatemples which are Mahayana based. Dhammakaya is one of the rare Theravada mega temples.
With megatemples, thereās a lot of money flowing around, with money, a lot of things can be made to happen. A lot of staff, TV stations which specializes in Buddhism. Output Buddhist movies, cartoons etc.
Iāve seen pictures of IMPRESSIVE Theravada temples in Asian countries.
At least as far as the US goes, I think the immigrant communities that support the building of Theravada temples are small, so you arenāt going to see large Theravada temples there.
Certainly Fo Guang Shan is impressive, and here (and presumably elsewhere) has great political connections. The Mayor, local members of Parliament, Police Chief, and so on turn up to the Buddhaās Birthday celebrations. And the fact that they do charity work (they ran excellent support services providing food and shelter after various disasters over the last decade or so) gives a good impression. [A Sri Lankan monk who used to live here sometimes complained that his group (and the Thai community) would rather build monuments than help the community - of course FGS does both.]
My observation about branches, though, is that there is a lot of financial support from Thailand that made out local Wat viable (itās a branch of a Bangkok Wat that has only a few branches - another is in California).
Some food for thought, if the true dhamma leads to dispassion, then why would those who are truly dispassionate even bother with technology or electronics? Thatās my pet theory why the Indus valley civilization basically went intentionally extinct while Mesopotamia grew.
The true dhamma goes against the grain of existence and the common man. The Buddha said it was very subtle and hard to see. We can even assume that traditional theravada doesnāt quite express it as it was originally taught.
So that is my opinion: the truer the dhamma, the harder to see.
I think thatās a good thing, over-promotion would lead to the ridicule of Theravada and the popularity of mainstream media or social media would lead to a lot of fake/hoax ways of cheating people for their money. For example, imagine Theravada NFT buying up Nibbana or Nibbana coins, etc. Being mainstream is not always good.
Because the true dhamma also has an element of compassion and kindness, and those who gain insight into the truth also want to show others this truth. Technology is a useful way of teaching and of passing on the dharma. Buddhists have been on the forefront of printing technology throughout history, the first printed book was a Buddhist book (the chinese Vajracchedika Prajnapramita sutra). The largest ābookā in the world is a Buddhist book.
I for one think that the people who have been working tirelessly and diligently to make suttacentral a reality are people who have some insight into the dharma, and yet here they are, toiling away on technology.
I need to agree, as long as there is audio/video and a proper way to transmit Dhamma learn and study, etc. but media (like social media) is a little different spin.
While Buddhist internet tools like this one definitely have their benefits, they are still in the domain of Mara and serve as a distraction for whatās needed to see the true dhamma until its end. The Buddha even scolded Ananda for over socializing, and thatās just from talking to other monks, the Buddha was definitely being compassionate when he told Ananda to stop his behaviour because it was blocking him from seeing the dhamma, and in those days you didnāt have easy access to instant gratification like you do today with technology.
So if a monk today did go out into the woods and spent his life meditating and attained something extraordinary, what are the odds of him going online to teach everyone what he learned? maybe heād go back to his monastery and teach a handful of other monks, but I donāt see him logging into YouTube in the name of compassion.
In recent times I saw some (new to the meadia) teachers getting popular among international circles. Interestingly, they are said to be somewhat traditional at the same time open minded. Yet, I couldnāt still have a look at many of their videos.
And their channel and zoom lectures are also getting highly popular than others thought within some International Theravada circles.
I donāt know the real reason, and may be due to the open-minded attitude of the teachers.
If this was what enlightened people were really like the Buddha would not have spent half of his life traveling throughout India, talking with all sorts of people, going into all sorts of towns and villages and spreading the dharma.
Media deals with the public sphere and have a particular understanding of themselves in relation to public interest. They also rely upon conflict, and are supposed to take a critical-investigative perspective. They donāt do PR, even though we know they do, and that most of their stories are generated off some media release provided to, usually, some editor, because journalists themselves have to get permission from their editors to work on particular stories.
If you want representation, better off to solicit documentary production, submit a written feature, etc.
Iāve forgotten the name of the broadcaster, but there is (at least) one North American broadcaster (it matters to Canadians who? because of our public media production funding structures) that specializes in spirituality. Youād probably have to come up with a successful pitch, for any independent type of production you wish media to take up in whatever way. And at least in Canada, depending upon the broadcaster youāre dealing with, for instance CBC our national broadcaster, you have to sign away copyright in your submission of a pitch. Meaning they can refuse you and take your content and use it how they like.
To be clear, media is not supposed to be disseminating propaganda. If you want to do that produce it on your own.
Speaking of Thailand, there is an independent film maker there who incorporates Buddhism into his works. Apichatpong Weerasethakul. Heās one of the most highly respected filmmakers in the world. And he gets a lot of academic attention. If you havenāt seen Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives, you should make sure to watch it.
