Essentialist and postmodern feminisms are often regarded as incompatible. I propose that Buddhist theories of subjectivity change the nature of the tension between them as presently construed because Buddhist traditions describe a mind not wholly governed by language, and a subjective mental dimension that is entirely integrated with the body and its sensations. A corollary is the compatibility Buddhists perceive between conditioned subjective states (akin to postmodern feminisms) and the unconditioned (akin to essentialist feminisms).

The wisdom of meditation requires the movement of energy. This energy is the mount or steed of consciousness and experientially all but indistinguishable from knowing itself. These energies must be part of what we consider when we look into the living practices of Buddhist communities. Using this bodily dynamism or energy as an organizing principle, the author points out three things. First, this often overlooked or under‐analyzed category is important for a fuller picture of Buddhist religious life. Second, its importance (...) by no means undermines, and in fact extends, the significance of the philosophical import of Buddhist literature. Third, the significance of “energy” is not limited to esoteric Buddhism. To aid this discussion, the author introduces and explores the new term “energetic sensibility” as a way of referring to the cluster of important Buddhist terms associated with the viscerally energetic or dynamic dimension of persons and their practices. (shrink)

: Noting that academic writing typically falls in the category of work, this piece considers the relationship such writing might have with love. Animated by its observation that love's affinity with wholeness distinguishes it from work's tendency to divide a subject from herself, the essay playfully develops this contrast by telling a story of writing and wholeness. This story attempts to embody the contrasts of which it speaks, and in the process, to discover a counterpoint to the work of writing.

Noting that academic writing typically falls in the category of work, this piece considers the relationship such writing might have with lowe. Animated by its observation that lowe's affinity with wholeness distinguishes it from work's tendency to divide a subject from herself, the essay playfully develops this contrast by telling a story of writing and wholeness. This story attempts to embody the contrasts of which it speaks, and in the process, to discover a counterpoint to the work of writing.