When mulling over which tradition (theravada or mahayana) is best to use as a starting point, I find this to be instructive:

"Few among men are they who cross to the further shore. The others merely run up and down the bank on this side." Dhammapada, no.85

What this reveals to me is that it is damn well hard enough to save myself, much less all sentient beings. How many among even those devoted to Buddhism can be said to have achieved the goal? It seems that all efforts must be directed to working on reforming our own being. The mahayana schools seem generally to be a concession to those persons (the majority of mankind) who really don't have a chance of achieving enlightenment anytime soon. This opens the way to prayer, worship, ritual and all other types of distraction. The western buddhist would seem naturally to be attracted to the Theravada tradition.

You might want to send a word of encouragement to the good people at the Buddhist News Network. This website has been the best available for English-language news and feature articles on Buddhism. The replacement site is scheduled to launch next week at: http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/

Dharmacrank. Why dharmacrank?

crank = ill-tempered, grouchy person, and
crank = a device you turn to get something going

I like the double-meaning (he says smugly).

Speaking of crankiness, you've probably run into your share of really awful buddhist blogs (this one excluded of course). Are there any good parodies out there (how about a blog called "gentle droppings"?). Lots of bad poetry, personal stories, endless ramblings that surely no one will ever read. Of course, that covers pretty much the whole universe of blogging. I hope the laws of impermanence apply here!

This one is not bad, however: http://www.woodmoorvillage.org/zendo/

I love the idea of Robert Thurman, but confess that I find his books impenetrable. Some of his writing I find downright strange. In "Inner Revolution," he claims that the European renaissance may have come about because of the good spiritual vibrations emanating from Tibet. In "Circling the Sacred Mountain," he and his co-author compare the sacred Mountain of Kailash not once, but twice, to a "cum-covered" phallus. Now maybe that's some sort of tantric thing, but I think it is weird.

Many in the west love the romantic idea of Tibetan buddhism, but the study of the actual teachings and practices leaves one with the conclusion that this is not really what we want in our buddhist searchings. It is all too supernatural, tied down to gods, personalities, realms and cosmology.

I have not yet read any histories of Tibetan society before the Chinese invasion, but when I do so how disillusioned while I be?

PBS has an interesting website up, "The Question of God." Lots of pro and con prattling on about whether God exists, etc. They thankfully put up a section offering some differing perspectives, and here is the link to Suzuki's thought:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/voices/suzuki.html

This really cuts through all the clutter piled up by those caught up in the monotheistic view of the world.