Before anything else, to everyone on the East Coast, particularly in the NYC area, go to for further info about my upcoming talk there on August 27th. I have two other area gigs which are as follows:

• Bluestockings – New York, NY – Author Event – Sunday August 26, 2007- 7 pm – Contact: Brooke –for info at
• Barnes & Noble – Greenwich Village – Author Event – August 28, 2007 – 7:30 pm

I just got back from the San Diego Comic Convention where, among other things, I had a lovely time at the Suicide Girls booth with lovely Bee Jellyfish and Cake. Bee said that the interview I did on her radio show is one of the most talked about interviews she’s done.

Now I’ve previously said here in this blog that you don’t need to subscribe to Suicide Girls to see my stuff on there. And you don’t. They offer it for free to anyone who wants to look. But you know what? If you like what I write there you should probably think about subscribing to Suicide Girls. And here’s why.

I’ll bet dollars to donuts a whole lot of you out there either subscribe to or buy certain Buddhist magazines on a regular basis. And those mags may tell you great details about the Dalai Lama’s latest comings and goings, who’s been seen out on the town with Thich Nhat Hahn and what the Instant Enlightenment Roshis are selling this month. But they don’t have articles every week by me in them. I guess that sounds obnoxious. But if you’re reading this I assume you’re a fan or at least you love to hate what I write. In either case you might want to support the people who are publishing it.

Bizarrely enough the folks at Suicide Girls actually pay me to write a column there. The money they send me each month has helped defer the costs of running our weekly Zazen classes at the Hill Street Center (I pay for that space) and helped me go out and do talks in far flung places. I wouldn’t have even been able to go some of the places I’ve gone in the past year at all except for spending what I get from SG. I plan to use more of the dosh they send my way to do more Buddhist stuff in the future, including retreats and all kindsa things.

No matter what you think of their business, the people are Suicide Girls are supporting the Dharma. This is an amazing, wonderful and valuable thing. Naked girlie pictures are making it possible for lots of people to hear about Buddhism who would never have been exposed to it in a million, billion years otherwise. I don’t really understand it myself. But these folks are making real Buddhism available in an area that had been heretofore untouched by anything of the sort. This is an incredible and mysterious world we live in.

Look. Even if you subscribe, no one’s gonna make you look at the nudie pictures. That’s up to you. They don’t make me blush. It’s really pretty tame stuff by today’s standards. Then again I spent 11 years in Japan where the attitude towards such things is wholly unlike the Puritan inspired attitudes most Americans hold. When you live for a few years in a place where one of the top kiddie songs is all about tits it kinda makes you more at ease with things like the Suicide Girls. (See You Tube thing below. This is not late-night adult oriented anime. It’s a kid’s show called Zatch Bell)

Besides the nudie pix, if you subscribe to the site you can post comments right there under my articles instead of posting about them here.

No one at SG is telling me or even encouraging me to try and get you folks to subscibe. I don’t get any bonuses for new subscribers. But I’ve just been thinking about it a lot lately and wanted to say this. For $4 a month you get 4 installments of my writing. I put in a lot more than a dollar’s worth of work into those bastard things every week.

Anyway, you don’t have to subscibe to get the articles. That’s true. If you can’t afford it, no problem. Or if you just don’t want to, I’m not gonna try and make you. If it creates a big moral dilemma for you, maybe you should avoid that. Or maybe you shouldn’t. It’s up to you. But if you can I think a few more of you should subscibe.


Sharing is caring! Tweet about this on TwitterShare on TumblrEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookShare on RedditShare on Google+Share on StumbleUponDigg this

59 Responses

Page 2 of 2
  1. Anonymous
    Anonymous August 1, 2007 at 9:33 am |

    ‘Is it possible Nishijima Roshi made a mistake? ‘

    about what?

  2. Mysterion
    Mysterion August 1, 2007 at 9:56 am |

    This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. Anonymous
    Anonymous August 1, 2007 at 9:56 am |

    About pairing his brown slacks with that grey jacket.. big mistake.

  4. Mysterion
    Mysterion August 1, 2007 at 10:42 am |

    This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. vinegar
    vinegar August 2, 2007 at 4:11 am |

    It’s interesting that most of the post assume the SG site is pornography. Even the people who are positive or neutral about Brad’s suggestion to subscribe refer to it as pornography.

    In terms of NT Greek…..

    pornos = adultery, fornication, prostitution

    graphy = writing, letters

    Step outside the Puritan/Judeo-Christian box. Are pictures of naked women bad, sinful, wrong? Is the problem with the pictures of naked women or with your reaction to them. Perhaps the problem is with the viewer and not what is viewed.

    These are not pictures of adults having sex, abusing, or molesting children. They are pictures of grown women without their cloths on.

    How you react or respond to it is your issue. If it is a distraction which arouses your sexual desire so you can’t practice whose problem is that?

    If someone is making money making pictures of nude women available for viewing, I guess I don’t see the issue.

    In another vein, hey there Jared! You rank right up there with Mysterion in the minds of some in terms of posting frequency. Know who this is??

  6. Otto Kerner
    Otto Kerner August 2, 2007 at 10:40 pm |


    I don’t quite follow you. You cannot define everything word by its etymology. If “graphy” means writing, letters than this would mean that no image could ever be pornographic.

    I agree completely that the problem with pornography is not with the image — it should be obvious that no image can itself be “bad” or “immoral”, but in this case, we are talking about images that are not even images of something bad, but rather of something beautiful. The problem with pornography is definitely in the reaction it causes in some viewers. Does this make the problem not a problem?

  7. diarmuid
    diarmuid August 5, 2007 at 7:21 pm |

    I must admit that I’ve become fascinated by this controversy.
    Apparently I’m not alone.

    It seems that at the heart of this dilemma is a discussion of craving and aversion, but in that sense what separates models with their clothes on from models with their clothes off? The extent of the craving and aversion?
    If you don’t like to look at girls, fine.
    But they will always be around and you will always have to deal with it.

    If you want to criticize the behavior of the publishers at SG, fine.
    But if this is the case then you should be willing to scrutinize as well the producers and executives behind the other types of media that you consume (your cable television provider, perhaps?) Also, the clothes that you wear, the food you eat, the music you buy and so forth. It’s no secret that the entertainment industry at large is rampant with all sorts of scaly and fire breathing beings, Godzilla notwithstanding.

    A lot of magazines derive great revenue from tobacco and alcohol advertising, and we know what that is all about… but it is a part of our world, and part of the reason that I like to read what Brad writes is that I feel that he lives in the same world that I do and yet is able to navigate this with a clear head (most of the time!)

    I have considered dropping out of society numerous times, but I haven’t done it. I can appreciate the philosophies of hermits, and even envy their physical detachment, but I’ve yet to take such drastic measures in pursuit of spiritual liberation. Throwing this damned computer off of a cliff, uh, I mean donating it to charity, would probably be my first course of action.

    In light of the simple economics of asking blog readers to subscribe to SG, it looks like your basic cross promotion tactics to me. If you don’t want it, don’t buy it. Some hard sell, eh?

    “Is this a clever play by the enemy? Letting my guard down now won’t accomplish anything!”
    – Chichi Chichi oppai!

  8. Anonymous
    Anonymous May 22, 2009 at 6:19 pm |

    "No matter what you think of their business, the people are Suicide Girls are supporting the Dharma. "

    that's creepy rationalism. The goal outweighs the means to attain it.
    What if the SG's continue the cycle of suffering & desire in many more lives?
    We all gotta make a living. I prostitute myself for bananas everyday. If i were you, i wouldn't take the advice of a monkey like me.

    Here's a great video on the elation of thinking we've got what we want, experiencing brief happiness, then deflating again into the muck of the everyday.
    This is hilarious in and of itself, and shows the cause of suffering and our elusive attempts to solve our suffering, all at the same time.

  9. Anonymous
    Anonymous July 31, 2009 at 8:27 am |

    I don't find the Suicide Girls offensive at all and are in fact guite tame as Brad says. The average "horror" movie like Hostel, Saw and Wolf Creek which depict the torture of women is something to be offended by to me and those are mainstream movies aimed at teenagers. Where are Christopher Lee and Vincent Price when we need them?
    Thanks Brad for your articles and books.

    The things that teach us the most seem to be found where we least expect them. The average Buddhist magazine caters to an elitist, upperclass crowd of the privileged who like to imagine they are enlightened or darn near close to it by thinking about and reading about such "enlightening" things.

Comments are closed.