Why would you put anything on elephant journal anyways? No one's going to get paid there until all the subscribers finish paying off Waylon's mortgage for him. And he has a finicky censorship policy regarding comments that seems to depend upon how hysterical he feels that day. (Yeah I'm currently banned-again.)
And I commented that
While I wouldn't know about Mr. Lewis's mortgage, and haven't written for the publication, I do question the very idea of a "guide to what [they] like to call ‘the mindful life’: yoga, organics, sustainability, genuine spirituality, conscious consumerism, fair fashion, the contemplative arts…anything that helps us to live a good life that also happens to be good for others, and our planet."
Especially when they don't pay for content and by default claim to retain the rights to publication, photos, etc. "unless previously arranged in writing."
Frankly, if they're getting money from other people's content and the other people aren't being compensated somehow, that's hardly "good for others and good for the planet."
Which seems to be the case, in my opinion: they want a contractual obligation, and other than exposure on their "Journal" there does not seem to be any kind of a quid pro quo. It also might mean that any claims they have on rights to publication are worth the paper they're not printed on, which is another way of saying those "rights" might be unenforceable. Anyone who's ever watched The Paper Chase knows that "Every contract has to have a quid pro quo." That is, X does Y for Z and X then gets B from Z for doing Y.
Now I fully understand how difficult it is to get a business going and continuing, especially in these times. But the very idea that they will "retain rights" is not what I would consider an ethical business practice - it is hardly what I would consider "genuine spirituality." On second thought, maybe it is, because I do think "spirituality" is a word that connotes that someone isn't actually doing or being in any way working to relieve themselves and others from dukkha, it's a word that connotes that those "being spiritual" are thinking and acting like they're actually doing or being in any way working to relieve themselves and others from dukkha.
There's a difference; do you see that?
It's why I question the whole premise of Elephant Journal, actually. Is this publication just making "the mindful life" just another Thing to Be Consumed?
It's telling - to me at any rate - that Mr. Lewis, they guy running the Elephant Journal show, has some 'net show called "The Walk the Talk" show.
I almost think Genpo Roshi might have more integrity at this point. But don't worry, I really don't.
If I had a net show, it would be called "The Fall Down Seven Times and Get up Eight Times" show.
That would be more realistic, because if you're not aware of where you're failing, you're hardly walking anything at all - you're stuck.
I guess all of that means I'm not going to be feature interviewed anywhere soon in the Buddhist media.
Oh well. So it goes.