PART 4 OF 6 (Frequently Asked Questions About Tibetan Buddhism)
Q. If you'd like some help in doing the "american buddha" thing with anti-lama stuff, well then I'd recommend contacting the Chinese communists. They have quite a program going to discredit traditional Tibetan Buddhism, and you'd be a great asset to them. They'd love to have their water carried by some intelligent, articulate disenchanted Americans who finally see through the "theocratic spin" of those "refugee aristocrats." You might even network with the Chicom's official Tibetan Buddhist outfit, etc., maybe they'd like to tour the U.S. and you could help put it together. Heck, they may even put together a tour of Tibet, where you could lecture to the locals. The Chinese Dept of Tibetan culture could even arrange a recognition of reincarnation for ya (somebody impressive), if you just play your cards right.
A. As for your insult disguised as an argument, let us analyze it briefly.
1. I criticize Tibetan theocracy.
2. The Chinese communists criticize Tibetan theocracy.
3. Therefore, I am a Chinese communist.
This was the argument leveled against us when we protested the war in Vietnam. Remember the "Hanoi Jane" epithet hurled at Jane Fonda? This is simply unfair ad hominem argument, attacking the originator of the argument, rather than the argument. While turnabout may be fair play, I don't think my original post contained any ad hominem attacks on the Tibetans.
I actively condemn Chinese abuse of any person, including the victims of Tiananmen square. To suggest that I would lend aid to vicious murderers is a slander, which is one of the ten non-virtues. I guess you'll do Vajrasattva to wash that out now. I hope so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interview with Shugden:
Q: Why do you have such a bad rap?
A: I have no idea.
Q: Did you intend to get in the middle of a doctrinal dispute?
A: My handlers take care of these things.
Q: Do you provide any benefits to your devotees?
A: Ask them.
Q: Do you have hostility to the Nyingma?
A: Don't ask me to do your dirty work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. HH Kusum Lingpa
A. Kusum Lingpa had a most engaging way of demanding money for the Dharma, aka, himself. His teachings were repetitious, wandered, and did not keep a coherent logical thread. Of the hundreds of hours of Tibetan Dharma teachings I have listened to, his were some of the least able to keep me awake. After his visit to Ashland in 1994, he came through again a year or so later, and his request to teach at Tashi Choling was denied by official decision approved at top levels. He has never taught again in Ashland or at Tashi Choling, despite several trips to centers north and south of this prime Dharma country. Something happened here.
Kusum Lingpa was ushered into the arms of the waiting West, indeed into the very living rooms of Hollywood, there to provide Oliver Stone with a marker to match Richard Gere's relationship with HHDL. His way was made easy by a simpering horde of pre-tenderized idiots fumbling with their malas and khataks eagerly seeking divinations, blessings, and that most valuable gift: Recognition as a tulku!
If people experienced spiritual illumination in the midst of this engineered frenzy, it was probably similar to what you get if you shine a large flashlight into a mirror. It's not the mirror, man, it's the flashlight! It's you! So why pay somebody else to get you high?
KL doesn't have a red phone, but he'd suggest he can call Yama anytime, and has all the protectors on speed-dial. He heard they liked cowboys in America, and he said, "Shit, I can do that!" I'm not saying he's not a lovable rascal. Or that he didn't belong in Hollywood. Or that those donors would've given their money to charity if they hadn't given it to him -- selfish people as they are, they thought they'd get the best return by giving it to a con man -- nothing new about that. I'm just saying that if, perchance you were seeking spiritual enlightenment, this is sort of the Vegas version and you might want to do a little more seeking. That's probably worth knowing before you start a bake sale to buy him a plane ticket to fly to your Dharma center to give teachings. For a great magician he certainly needed cash more than most.
Let's face it, the medieval elements are ones we respond to positively due to conditioning. Camelot, King Arthur, etc. We're not French, we never decapitated monarchs, we have nostalgia for rejected royalism. I loved the idea of being a patron of the Dharma. And that's okay ! Spiritual life is one of those things you do after the money's in the bank. Just ask the Buddha.
The pursuits of the rich are often at risk of being trivial escapades. Millions frittered away on hors d'ouevres, thousands on a dress worn once. The presence of celebrities gilded with sacredness seems to be the final ornament that the rich begin to desire, the one itch that still needs scratching after the ennui sets in.
The only thing that would be surprising would be if a genuinely sacred event occurred in the presence of the worldly greats. Celebrations, coronations, enthronements, and empowerments. Having many of them is not a sign of wealth. Tell me the price of sugar, eggs, and flour, and I'll tell you how we're doing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Who cares about the case of the charlatan and the imbecile?
A. I note the fallacy implied here, that charlatans only take advantage of imbeciles. Imbeciles take advantage of imbeciles. Charlatans take advantage of smart people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. The interesting case is that of the qualified teacher and the qualified student.
A. And I think we can agree that these two people are as rare as the proverbial star in the daytime sky. (And what the hell is that stupid metaphor about anyway -- the Crab Nebula?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. It's important for the student to surrender the judgment that they aren't comfortable with the guru/disciple hierarchy.
A. Surrender is a seductive concept. Now, in any other area of life, if you surrender you get squat.
Example 1: You are hungry and alone. You surrender. You starve.
Example 2: You are broke and unemployed. You surrender. You become homeless.
Obviously now, the surrender-advocates start crying foul, reductio ad absurdum, that's not what we mean by surrender, etcetera.
So what do you mean by surrender? You really mean continue to strive in a meditative and worldly fashion, but you do it for the Dharma. Real life examples:
1. I surrender my world view. If my teacher says the world is all a funnel of light, or sound, or wind, or whatever, that's what it is. I'll try and see it that way. If it's all a luminous, empty, display, I'll try and cognize that. I think Trungpa Rinpoche was referring to this when he talked about mental gymnastics. It's a contortionist routine -- I try to see the world through "empty-colored glasses."
2. I surrender my control over my time. If my teacher says come roll mantras, or raise funds, or prepare for the next lama visit, I do it. This is no big deal, as I was probably just going to waste the time reading sci fi or drinking beer, anyway.
3. I surrender control over my money. I invest in Dharma-related objects, property, and events. This is actually very constructive, because now my possessions begin to reflect my overarching spiritual goals, which makes ownership a subset of discipleship.
4. I surrender control over my body. Sounds icky, but I never tried it. Women seem to fall into this trap more than men, but that may just be that most gurus are hetero men. I won't comment on this. Outta my league.
As the examples above show, the contemporary version of religious surrender, whether to some old has-been Hindu, or to the most modern incarnation straight outta Golog, is probably not the all-out bondage-pain-humiliation trip that put Kagyu gurus on the map. Rather it is a mundane servitude in which your end will be as tame as that of an old butler who got old along with the master.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. If we were "comfortable" with non-duality we would already be enlightened, right?
A. Why does this seem tautological? Is it because you presume that we are not "already enlightened"? But I thought we were, and the big question is just why don't we know it? Or is that a meaningless hair-splitting distinction?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. The guru-disciple relationship can and often does lead to physical and domestic abuse. However, this is an argument for taking care of your vows and knowing the quality of the relationship before entering into it. It's not really an argument that the guru-disciple relationship can't be a very valuable thing.
A. This seems a poor comparison. Entering into Tantra is for rare individuals, correct, who are supposed to be pre-qualified by virtue of prior practice? That practice, Trungpa Rinpoche would say, has made them sane people. Now what need would such disciples have to enter into a potentially abusive relationship? Indeed, how could naive surrender be an evolutionary step for one who has attained the Bodhisattva stability and dignity that Trungpa Rinpoche describes as "old dog," or "sitting bull" attitude? Such a risky gambit would strike such a person as a foolish and unnecessary wager. Samsara may be tough, but we don't have to panic!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. One of the wonderful things about Tibetan Buddhism is that there are texts which explain in precise detail exactly what experiences one has at what bhumi, based on types of visions as well as internal characteristics connected with nadii, vaayu and bindu.
A. Well, break us off a chunk, bro'. Whatcha waitin' for? What level is Steven Segal on? And Jetsunma has been very open about her inner life in song and fable -- can we diagnose her level of seerhood?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Enlightenment is real freedom, but not the freedom to do whatever you want.
A. My dad always told me that, and how annoying! As usual, he was right. Doing just what you want is an adolescent notion having more to do with sex and sugar than anything else. So now that we know what we're not talking about, what is this precious enlightened freedom? The freedom to sit and watch your breath? To think nothing? To be safe sitting on the fence between good and bad? Surely our expectations can be a little more concrete.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. When a person achieves enlightenment, they have an obligation to the lineage that brought them to that point.
A. Yes, I have often thought that if I could just get the Bodhisattvas to front me the wisdom I need to get out of samsara, I could easily pay them back by saving lots of beings in a relatively short time. I'm willing to mortgage my soul to a beneficent karmic institution!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. From that perspective, you wouldn't see such obligations as hindering your "independence."
A. Of course not. I always respect my banker.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. If one is hankering for independence from the Lama, one is probably running away from facing something unpleasant about oneself.
A. Yeah, he's a money tree, in a karmic sense! Trying to get away from him is just your way of rejecting the generosity of the universe. So don't blame me when you're sleeping in a cardboard box.
I lampoon these idealistic notions because I have personally adopted them in some way or another and at one time or another. I now skewer them for the benefit of all. If a stupid looking shoe fits, don't wear it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. It was HH Pednor Rinpoche who recognized both Segal and Burroughs.
1. Probably never watched Segal's movies.
2. May have judged Burroughs on the size of her flock and their vaunted connections to the seat of political power in D.C.
3. May have seen both of them on really good days.
Gyatrul Rinpoche presided at a feast in his own honor at which these two rapscallions occupied comfy throne-ish chairs inside the temple and received obeisance. Rinpoche stated that we had to presume that Pednor Rinpoche knew what he was doing when he recognized Segal, and therefore Segal must be a tulku whose qualities had not yet begun to appear. He likened Segal's presumed condition as that of a seed that hadn't yet sprouted above the ground. In other words, using his great gift for irony, Rinpoche simultaneously honored HHPR, said that Segal had no qualities, and encouraged Segal to develop some. Still, the aura of the absurd, and Segal's ridiculous affectation of Shangri-La demeanor, tainted the affair. Of course Burroughs simply sat smiling like a cat stuffed with canaries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. No one is compelled to practice Vajrayana, and those who wish to need to be aware of what they are getting into.
A. Which has, sadly, not been done during hundreds of initiations in which commitments are only addressed at the very moment when students are asked to repeat them in Tibetan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Even if you do not choose to skydive or bungee jump, it's not necessary to categorize those who choose to do so as naïve, macho, or stupid.
A. It is not risky activities I oppose, but rather, the notion that one MUST undertake the risk of having your will supplanted by another in order to grow spiritually.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. You cannot use Trungpa Rinpoche's teachings as an argument against Trungpa Rinpoche's teachings. If you want to contradict Trungpa Rinpoche's explanation of the vajra master's role (as requiring total commitment on the student's part), you should probably choose some other authority to cite as evidence.
A. I quote Trungpa Rinpoche because he's my favorite published teacher, and I've read his stuff enough times to recite some of it from memory. He describes the role of the vajra master in a number of talks; however, always with the preface that really nobody in the audience is even approaching the level of experience that qualifies them to take teachings that are "200 %" powerful.
The "inconsistencies" you cite must be reconciled as part of our study. They are there in his body of teaching. But as we know, they all reconcile in the one empty Dharma.
I don't intend to suggest that anyone, personally, should do anything differently in their practice life, and have full respect for whatever is voluntarily undertaken. Like Thomas Paine in his critique of Burke, I find it somewhat humorous when people vigorously contend for the right not to have rights. Paine calls this a "novel" proposition," contrary to experience that shows that people fight to get, not to be deprived of, their freedoms.
Leaving aside whether it makes sense to fight for the right to be subjugated, and presuming such self-subjugation to be legitimate, this still doesn't let the gurus off the hook on a moral level. The student's voluntary self-surrender cannot absolve a teacher from responsibility for the student's welfare. The greater the devotee's "surrender," the more total should be the guru's care of the student. In reality, we see the opposite. The teachers who demand the most in the way of surrender leave behind the largest swath of damaged, exploited souls. And please don't justify that with reference to Naropa's story or Milarepa's. These mythical stories, while deeply instructive, are not hornbook models of current guru-disciple behavior. You show me a guru who can manifest as a dog and turn into a rainbow, and I will lie down in a pool of leeches, throw myself into a fire, and otherwise show extreme devotion. Why am I not worried that someone will take this bet?
I suspect anyone who asks me to surrender before we can deal. All life is a negotiation, and all negotiation is communication. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. But a fool and his money are soon parted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. According to Mahayana doctrine of Bodhisattva stages, until one has reached the seventh bhumi, every time one is reborn one falls back to the level of an ordinary sentient being. When one achieves the seventh bhumi, one becomes a Mahayana never returner, meaning one no longer takes rebirth in the desire realm, but only in the form realm, in Abhashvara heaven, etc. It does not follow that one is necessarily required to regard the tulkus as enlightened until they manifest signs of realizations. Unless of course one's Root Guru insists that such a tulku is enlightened.
A. The question is not what we are required to believe, but rather what we may reasonably conclude from the evidence that HH Pednor Rinpoche lent his name to add lustre to the reputations of Segal and Burroughs.
Most importantly, having decided by implication that you are free to disagree with Pednor Rinpoche with respect to the tulkuhood of people who don't display tulku-like qualities, can you go further? Can you conclude that the evidence is so clear that Pednor Rinpoche was wrong about these tulkus that the endorsements should be retracted? Or is that the sort of thing that just can't happen? Lamas can never admit a mistake. (I'll agree they rarely do, but is there a rule against it?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. It is not possible to say that HH Pednor Rinpoche made a error with regard to any tulku he selected because unless you know that person's mind yourself, as presumably Pednor Rinpoche has the ability to do, you can't contradict what he says based on sound knowledge.
A. Your analysis at this point amounts to that, per Pednor Rinpoche's assessment, these two people were hot shit in a past lifetime, but aren't apparently performing up to past potential, for all that we can see. They may in fact have blown it totally, which is why they're reincarnating as a medium and an action hero has-been and fail to inspire any faith in the rest of us.
This means that the implications of Pednor Rinpoche's insight into their past lives has only retrospective meaning. There is no reason why, based on the recognition, we should show these folks any special deference.
When all these additional facts are added to clarify the meaning of HHPR's recognition of Burroughs and Segal as tulkus, it takes all the zing out of the recognition. Why bother?
If these recognitions are arbitrary political maneuvers, then that should be printed on page one of every silly book deifying the Tibetan clergy as a hereditary chain of wisdom minds passing deep wisdom from one to the next in an orderly and functional fashion. That notion is, based on the evidence we have reviewed here, absolutely exploded. The tulku tradition is at best a threadbare garment to cover the naked human ordinariness of a teaching tradition that should be evaluated after disregarding the hyperbolic self-adulation that Tibetans load into their doctrine like Turks add sugar to their tea (excessively). There will be much in the naked ordinariness to appreciate, admire, and adapt, and much in the old garment to commend it permanently to the scrap heap of feudal history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Something went wrong in your experience.
A. No, not really. Some people retire from the Marines. Others remain lifers. I decided to see a little of the world out of uniform before I got too old.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Maybe the dharma is not democratic. So what? If someone doesn't like it, they can go elsewhere, can't they?
A. Yeah, and Garcia Lorca was killed by fascists. What of it? It's a little late for Lorca, but the rest of us can very well shift our asses, no?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Can you speak about Courage and Fear?
A. It is important to develop courage, a characteristic that comes naturally to a few, but must be mastered by anyone who would be more than a servant in this world of men. Courage is not the absence of fear, but the acceptance of it. Courage is not the sort of confidence one feels when certain of success, but rather the conviction that one will proceed despite the risk of failure. Courage makes it possible to do what others deem impossible, and thus expands the horizon of opportunity for those who possess it. When courage is joined with caution, such that one fears not failure, yet fervently desires success, then strategy, skill and planning all join together like the fingers of a hand that close 'round our objectives, putting great things in our grasp. So, with courage as your foundation, and ambition for greatness your goal, learn how to avoid pitfalls and dangers, and you will achieve your goals and lead others to achieve. Always strive to put your power at the service of goodness, and you will bring honor to your family name and your own memory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q The qualifications necessary to be a vajra master are like any skill: they have requirements that must be fulfilled. In the Tibetan monastic system, there are grades and exams one must take to prove one's competency to be a Vajra master. Even tulkus have to pass these exams.
A. That always sounds so mundane. How can that be true? It seems unlikely that Buddha Shakyamuni would be able to pass these exams without a prep course. Now that I realize the tulku system incorporates such foolproof safeguards against manipulation, I withdraw all my former criticisms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. You are laughing at us, all the way to the ego bank.
A. The rates are really low right now, so it is an excellent time to refinance your karma. You can collect all of those high-interest rate samaya breakages under a single self-equity loan that is effectively a write-off.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Do you really think there shouldn't be qualifications to be a teacher? Or is it that you want to set the standard by which individuals are determined to be masters?
A. No one has the rule book for the true qualifications of a teacher. The authorities cannot agree on who is a legitimate teacher. Most everyone concedes that they cannot say who is enlightened and who is not. What is so extreme about my argument? And no, I want those who claim to set the standard to admit that they are biased toward their own traditions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Buddhists are supposed to drive everything into the eternal present moment.
Answer 1:
Definitely drive everything, forcefully, pushing it all into this moment. Anything tries to stay outside of this moment, club it into submission and drag it into the moment. Anything doesn't fit, grind it to dust and sift in around the rest of the stuff. Once it's all in this moment, it should generate a sufficient gravitational field to pull you in. If not, you're stuck!
Answer 2:
From Tennyson's Ulysses
"Yet all experience is an arch wherethro'
Gleams that untravell'd world whose margin fades
For ever and for ever when I move."
Of course, there is a present, because that is where we are. But when we look into the present, nothing is ever there. We see only the past -- and we see it in the present!
When we hear a song, we do not hear one note at a time. Somehow, to hear the melody, we hear the musical phrases as a whole; however, the first notes of the melody have ceased to sound already. How do we "hear" the portion of the melody that is no longer playing?
The answer must be that we conceive of "wholes" of "things" in our minds, which assembles these "wholes" so we can grasp what is going on in our world. All of this happens on the basis of, and in, the present, but what is observed is necessarily the past.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Are you practicing for so-called payoff?
A. All beings are motivated by desire for their own benefit. Fortunately, people can work together for their mutual benefit. And just because something is good for me doesn't mean it's bad for someone else.
A friend is someone who gets satisfaction from seeing you enjoy your happiness. Parents feel this kindness towards their children as a biological imperative. A mother sleeps better knowing her children are fed.
A friend suffers when their friend suffers. Those of us who have raised children know the torment of having a sick child.
This basic love for others is more than possessiveness -- it is the cohesive force of society, and of the individual.
"Altruism" may be too big a word, and by advertising the unattainable quality of Bodhisattva compassion, we may place our own goodness in too low a position.
To build on what strengths we have, in the confidence that they provide the foundation for future growth, this is a simple, human way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. The teaching of the Buddha has been validated countless times by thousands of enlightened Buddhists in every generation and Buddhist country, who can attest to and bear direct personal witness to the truth of the Buddha's enlightenment.
A. Yeah, I was trampled by a horde of them just the other day. They're a hazard, running around like that, all juiced up on moksha. And in Burma, should they fail to cooperate with providing this truthful testimony, they will be harshly censured.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. The actions any of us are responsible for in any one incarnation are the ones taken in that incarnation. Not the one before, nor the one before that, nor the one x to the nth power previous. Of course actions undertaken in one lifetime affect one's capacities, assets, and circumstances in a next lifetime, but I think it would be more useful to find out how and why, than just to itemize specific earth-life outcomes of specific deeds and intentions.
A. Speculations about the operations of karma in creating "future conditions" seem rather, well, speculative. The karma I am interested in is the karma of mind. If my mind goes off the rails and causes injury to another, due to me falling asleep at the wheel or yelling at someone, I will experience mental waves of unpleasantness. I can take other actions of mind that have the effects of ordering and strengthening my life. This karma seems directly within my grasp, and is inescapable. So when I affect this karma of mind, I harvest the result immediately. Delayed effects are not an issue. Perhaps one can "presentize" everything.
I guess my point is that I have seen no evidence that "past" or "future" lives exist. I asked Zigar Kongtrul Rinpoche (who inspired a lot of confidence that I have never lost) about this. Specifically, I asked him, "I have looked carefully and can remember no time when my mind existed that my living body did not also exist. Can you direct me to anything that I have overlooked that would show me that the mind exists apart from the body?" He conceded he knew of no evidence, but intuited the existence of a "continuity" based upon his meditative experience.
That's the best I've got -- a lama's intuition. And if there are past or future lives, many questions arise.
For example, assume a "soul" begins its "journey of reincarnation." Where was it before it began? When there were no humans on the planet, were "souls" also pre-human? When there were few humans, were there many souls in the waiting room? As more humans appear, does that mean less beings are required to "incarnate" as animals? Do souls split? If I cut an earthworm in half, and both turn into separate earthworms, did I "create" a new soul? If so, did it arise with "new" karma, or did an "old" bag of karma just get slipped into a "new" body?
Perhaps earthworms aren't relevant to our analysis. They're just squirmy things. Whatever.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Clarifying the Buddhist teachings is hardly sectarian. Padmasambhava himself defeated five hundred non-Buddhist panditas in India, Virupa converted many non-Buddhists to Buddhism, Yeshe Tsogyal defeated many Bon practitioners in debate at Samyas, etc. Vasubandhu, Nagarjuna, Bhavviveka, Buddhapalita, Shantarakshita, Shantideva, etc., all went through great pains to distinguish non-Buddhist teachings from Buddhist teachings by the criteria of whether or not they are conducive to liberation.
A. History is written by the victors. Have you ever read the flip side of the history written by Buddhists? "Saraswati's Revenge," or something like that? Didn't I hear that the Chinese claim to have won the Samye debates, and also that Longchenpa argued that they should have?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. The Nyingmapas have long held that Hashang's view was probably superior to that of Kamalshila, and that Hashang was misrepresented.
A. Well, just drop the bomb very quietly, how about it? Without presuming to appropriate your time, can you please provide a little more information on the important Samye debate.
When did it take place?
Who represented the "two sides?"
How was the Hashang view mispresented?
Prior to the debate, did both sides have equal rights of free speech?
Were the losers effectively exiled?
Were there ever suppression campaigns to stamp out the Hashang "heresy"?
Have the modern Gelugpas and Nyingmas papered over this split?
In your opinion, has the doctrinal conflict ever been genuinely resolved, or were the Gelugpas just wrong, and the Nyingmas the victims of unfair oppression?
Could the "rightness" of the Kalamashila position properly justify the suppression of other views by kingly fiat?
Did royal sponsorship invigorate the favored teaching?
Should we hold the debates again, in a neutral place, perhaps, like Saskatchewan?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. The debate took place over a two-year period (792-794) between Kamalashila, the Indian pandit, and Hoshang, a renowned Chinese Buddhist monk. The debate was held at Samye and was presided over by Trisong Detsen. The Chinese Hoshang school maintained that enlightenment was an instantaneous realization that could be attained only through complete mental and physical inactivity. The Indian school maintained that enlightenment was a slow process, requiring an individual's gradual mental and moral development. At the end of the debate the Tibetan king declared Kamalashila the winner and issued a proclamation establishing Buddhism as the state religion of Tibet.
http://www.tibet.com/Status/3kings.html A. Thanks for the link. What you cited above relates to what I found farther down the page, indicating that this "debate" coincided with a period of military aggression from Tibet toward China. Trisong Detsen's suppression of Chinese Buddhism was apparently part of a general war against Chinese influence. How strange this would be considered an intellectual and spiritual victory by later generations of practitioners. Here's the quote:
During Trisong Detsen's reign ... Tibetan and Siamese troops fought side by side against the Chinese in Sichuan. The Tibetan troops remained with the Siamese for eight years and then returned to Tibet when amicable relations were restored between Siam and China.
In the west, Tibetan military forces were making considerable headway. In 790 the Tibetans were able to recapture the four garrison towns in Turkestan from which they bad been driven by the Chinese imperial forces in 694. The Tibetan army advanced westward to the Pamirs and even reached the Oxus River and a lake to the north of the Oxus River, Al-Tubbat, which means the 'little Tibetan lake'. A few years later, the Arabian Caliph, Harun al-Rashid, aware that the Tibetans were becoming too powerful, allied himself with the Chinese in order to keep the Tibetans in check. Attacked by the allied forces of the Chinese and Arabs, the Tibetans succeeded in holding their own without substantial loss of territory, in spite of considerable defeats. The expansionistic dreams of the Tibetans were checked, but as Petech has written, "the very fact that nothing less than the coalition of the two most powerful empires of the early Middle Ages was necessary for checking the expansion of the Tibetan state, is a magnificent witness of the political capacities and military valour of these sturdy mountaineers".
Between the years 785 and 805 the Tibetans were continually launching attacks to the west. Consequently their military attention was diverted from China, whose frontier province suffered less than previously.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Could the "rightness" of the Kalamashila position properly justify the suppression of other views by kingly fiat? Not in America.
A. "Rightness" does not vary from country to country. It is something people from every time and place decide for themselves based on their best moral insights. It was wrong for the Pope to silence Galileo. Wrong from the viewpoint that new views should be encouraged to come to light, not forced to fight coercive government forces to receive a fair hearing. So from that viewpoint, it was wrong, and in no place or time would it be right, to suppress a viewpoint. Even when the suppressor is a Bodhisattva king with expansionist motives. That's okay to say, right? At least from my view, in this day and age, I can be forgiven my effrontery.
We see the outcome of the Samye "debate" for what it was -- a king's decision, for a political purpose.
The question is whether we're going to make up our own minds, or let King Trisong Detsen's decision at Samye rule our decision.
As a practical matter, this may be slicing it way too fine. It is easier, and not likely to lead to error, to simply discard any notion that the decision at Samye has any relevance to current understanding of what constitutes Vajrayana doctrine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Did it not ever occur to you that even if King Trisong Detsen banished Chan, he was an adherent of an even more radical doctrine, Dzogchen.
A. Yes, and I like Dzogchen. But I like Iggy Pop, too, but I don't think we should prevent people from listening to Neil Diamond.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. What about the story of the 100th monkey. There was this monkey that started washing his sweet potato in salt H20 on a remote island. Suddenly monkeys on other islands began doing it as well.
Answer 1:
I received this from David Major who got it from from
gek@netro.com.au.
The Theory of the Hundredth Monkey Debunked
I was amused to see a reference to the myth of the Hundredth Monkey on your home page in the Cosmologies section. The story about the miraculous transfer of new ideas amongst a colony of monkeys has been doing the rounds since 1979, but unfortunately is pure myth.
The origin of the tale is the 1979 Lyall Watson book, Lifetide. Watson has since confirmed he made the story up. In 1989, Watson said "It is a metaphor of my own making, based on very slim evidence and a great deal of hearsay. I have never pretended otherwise."
True, a study of monkeys on Koshima island was undertaken in the 1950's by a group of Japanese anthropologists, and potato washing was one of the behaviours observed. However, there is no evidence that the potato-washing was passed on to other monkeys by anything other than simple observation of other monkeys. No monkeys on other islands learned the trick "spontaneously" or "miraculously" Put simply, it never happened.
In essence, the whole report is folklore, encouraged by both Lyall Watson's book, and Ken Kesey's later 1982 book.
This story is repeated at websites all over the Internet.
But here's a spin I'd forgotten about:
The "Maharishi effect"
Watson may simply have been fictionalizing the "Maharishi effect". TM is a simple meditation and deep relaxation technique refined by Maharishi for Western cultures. I t is one of the most successful new age ventures in history, and I've described TM in other published works as the McDonalds of the new age movement. *** The "Maharishi effect" ... is often used interchangeably with the principle of the hundredth monkey. I n essence it postulates than an elevation in the consciousness of a "critical mass" of individuals in a group or community (approximately the square root of one percent of the population) will have a measurable effect on increasing the health and wellbeing of the entire community, not just those specific individuals who have had their consciousnesses "elevated". An early claim by TM salesmen in the 1970s was that six million regular TM practitioners worldwide could improve the quality of life for the entire planet.
I guess the inverse square law was applied to the principle of the Hundredth Monkey during Lot's ill-fated effort to find ten good people in his hometown of Gomorrah, which would have won the town a reprieve from god's cleansing wrath, if only Lot could have found them. Maybe he should just have started washing sweet potatoes.
Answer 2:
Y'know, I liked the 100th Monkey story. It spoke to me, and I was so disappointed to hear about it being debunked. I can still hear the irritating voice of the guy who told me.
What's interesting to me is, if we take that story away, it's almost like a major structural pillar of New Age thinking disappears, and the whole structure begins to sag. The idea that there is a tip-over point where minds catch fire and "suddenly everyone's doing it" seems more like fertilizer for growing a crop of mass hysteria.
Unity of thought often seems like a good thing when you're young and naive. Then you realize that unity leads to blindness, leads to damage. The USA is a much less dangerous nation when it is fragmented. The nation is indulging in mass homicide right now with a perfectly clear conscience, because the people are united in their belief that vengeance is necessary. If half the people thought that idea was crap, and told the other half, the result would not be civil war, but a meaningful debate.
So the last thing I want is a bunch of fanatics anywhere trying to convert their Hundredth Flunkie. On the other hand, let a hundred such movements bloom -- they'll balance each other out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Fascism
A. You know back when people were wanting to blow up terrorists, did they think that soon they'd be worrying about fascism at home? In order to prevent the causes of fascism from taking root in our society, I would strongly suggest people adopt a rule of trying to do something outrageous every day. That could be anything from wearing a goofy hat to handing out free cookies on your lunch hour.
Help break the spell of authoritarian hypnosis in your free time and work time. Make pointed jokes about concentration camps and then ask innocently what happened to that Middle Eastern guy in photocopying?
Forward emails that make fun of all authorities, and take all of your nieces and nephews out to see John Waters movies. Start a Joan of Arc club in your neighborhood. Plan a Little Theatre production of Man of La Mancha.
If, like Iggy, you just have to have life, then you can take his advice:
"You gotta rock, rock, rock
Rock and roll,
Rock on down 'till it cures your soul,
You gotta rock your way
Right outta the hole,
You gotta rockin' rockin' roll."
Making trouble, making noise, not pushing it too far, but always pushing the envelope, and loving people while you do it, drives fascists crazy. Then they fuss and fume. And everybody laughs at them. Try it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. The discovery of truth is not reached by consensus, which is the rule of the lowest common denominator, aka democracy.
A. It's not the discovery of truth, but rather its testing and verification that requires public scrutiny, or better yet, peer review.
You can discover the truth all by yourself, as Einstein unraveled the theory of general relativity while visualizing himself riding on a light beam. Other scientists were not as good at visualizing, I guess, and thus they insisted on testing his theory by measuring the bending of light rays due to the gravitational force of the sun, a measurement that can only be taken during an eclipse.
So he discovered the truth, but others verified it for themselves. They wouldn't have been good scientists if they had just taken Einstein's word for it. They would've been good serfs, though. And presumably, good Vajrayanists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. The reason why all religious institutions are autocratic is not because they are old and don't know anything about the wonders of American democracy, but because the truth is transmitted only from those who know to those who don't.
A. Is this the case? All religions are autocratic? This is also true of my college computer science class. I really knew nothing. The teacher knew everything. I learned a little. But there was nothing autocratic about it. I just studied the lessons. He demanded no belief, no allegiance that simple mathematics would not command. If he was a tyrant, he was a most gentle one, and a most effective teacher. I think he supported my right to vote, as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. In the spiritual teachings, the cup has to place itself lower than the teacup, if it is to receive any tea.
A. Reasoning one teacup at a time, you will get a big bladder.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. The attitude of a devotional relationship to the teacher (kissing ass, some have called it) goes against the "don't tread on my sacred individuality " attitude of those who worship the democratic ways, but is very important in more advanced Vajrayana teachings.
A. No, actually, kissing ass is what people do to anyone who has power over them, be that boss, girlfriend, police officer, maitre d', or whoever. We create these relationships everywhere. To meditate, it important to keep your spine straight. The humility of the conquered has no beauty. I would rather risk bearing a weapon for no reason than being subdued because I indulged a mistaken sense of security. One who accords all others equal dignity has earned the right to simply be proud.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. The reason for the devotional relation between teacher and student is not to feed the teacher's ego, or to degrade oneself, but because there are subtle centers that the rational mind is too dense to reach that can only be awakened through strong emotional feelings, which a loving personal relationship with the teacher can provide.
A. This sounds like the type of psychological theorizing that, under other circumstances, you might deride as "western buddhism." I hear the hiss of an air pump, fluffing up the doctrine with little bubbles and carrageenan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. The first requirement in order to receive teachings is to humble oneself, which is the opposite of the demand for "rights" and equality.
A. There have been plenty of proud people who paid court to gurus, got teachings, practiced dedicatedly, and remained very proud, very accomplished meditators. Have you actually hung out with any of the older lamas? They are not humble, and probably never were. Sure, they're nice, they may not make a fuss, but they want their tea hot.
And I'm not saying they're bad meditators or fakes. I bet they really know their samadhi, but even Naropa liked his radish curry.
These rules about who's gonna get the blessings because they think just right and pray just so -- give yourself a serious break -- what bunk!
Be sincere, fall on your face. Repeat. Meditate. Smile. Repeat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Rights are not about everyone being the same, or everyone having their say. Historically they were a means for arguing that government power should be limited. In other words, rights were not an argument for entitlements, but for mechanisms of restraint on governmental authority.
A. Oh that sounds rather like saying that water was invented to create a medium in which to dissolve KoolAid. The belief in rights exists whenever someone says, "that's bullshit, I'm not going to be treated that way!" Why they didn't exist in Tibet and don't exist in Burma. Maybe the theocrats were nice dictators, but the problem is that the muscle that protects freedom atrophied.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. The idea that spiritual teachings should be democratically based does not make sense to me.
A. It shouldn't make sense to anyone. Democracy is a way of making decisions. It presumes the existence of a group of people facing common goals with limited resources and differing assumptions.
Religion is a system for adopting explanations that eliminate the need to make decisions. It presumes the existence of a group of people willing to hammer themselves into the same headspace in order to man their expedition to cosmic Valhalla.
Q. Skill is passed on from generation to generation by those knowledgeable to those eager to comprehend the realm of mathematics. The same is true of musicianship, and many other areas of human activity. I think the Dharma also fits this model.
A. And thus we can assume that like mathematics, it can be transmitted without mumbo jumbo, and like music, some people are blessed with an ear for it. And as in all of the arts, pomposity counts for nothing. Virtuosity and feeling are everything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. We cannot do it "our way". Our way is the problem.
A. The Problem = Our Way
Rather monolithic, don't you think?
Possibly simplistic?
A little self-flagellative?
Why can't you do it your way?
Do you think Someone is going to shove psychic fingers inside your head and make you think the right thing?
Or will wisdom be forced on you in a sort of cosmic rape, where you finally submit, ecstatically, to what you have so long rejected?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. I don't understand this hostility towards teachers.
A. The hostility isn't toward teachers, it's toward the institution that entombs teachers and students in a heirarchical, theocratic structure. In time you will see that however valuable the knowledge you seek, there should be no need to bow and scrape to get it, or to pledge eternal fealty to anyone as thanks for the transmission. Buddha didn't do that. He sat under a tree and answered his own questions. He didn't kiss ass to his father, the guru system, or his cronies, the ascetics. He bailed on his kingship, decided the gurus didn't know the essence, and blew off his ascetic vows for a bowl of rice milk before he parked his butt under a fig tree, vowing it was enlightenment or bust. Where's the ass-kissing piety to emulate?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Buddhism started when Indra asked Buddha Shakyamuni to teach for the first time. It was continued by the sangha in unbroken chains of lineage. These are definitely not the kind of chains one wants to break. Look down, and you'll see that. It's quite a drop.
A. So then it comes down to whether you want to emulate the followers or the leader. What's up with the chains? At first it sort of gave a gothic feel to the question, but now I'm wondering about the use of images of bondage as part of an authoritarian argument.
I have great respect for the mind of loyalty, and oaths of fealty. I think that stuff builds social fiber, and makes traditions stable. It builds educational institutions, like monasteries and Buddhist colleges, like the one where Naropa lived.
But when Naropa saw the ugly old hag, he had to split. That old hag was just scary shit, and he hit the road, out lookin' for Tilopa. Left the institution behind, just like Shakyamuni. The way is outta here, not to the back of the line.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. The real leaders are followers.
A. Yes, and WAR IS PEACE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. You are digging yourself a deep hole of bad karma trying to disturb other peoples' practice.
A. Time was, the study of J.S. Mill was considered very edifying. Now that the dorjes have sprouted among us, he is a bad influence.
Time was, fearless Dharma practitioners debated openly with all comers, and won students with the lucidity of their arguments. Now that all is known and written down, questioners have their tongues cut out by the faithful.
"No short-haired, yellow-bellied son of Tricky Dicky gonna mother-hubbard soft soap me with just a pocket full of hope. Money for dope. Money for hope. All I want is the truth. Just gimme some truth." John Lennon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. J.S. Mill said, "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." If an individual is secure in that sovereignty, then he or she will have no problem with Mokchokpa's statement: "To deal with your own mind, and not that of others, is the measure of your decreasing vanity."
A. You mean, will not say one damned thing.
You don't need to agree with Mill to keep your mouth shut. You can agree with GWBush or Goebbels and be a silent spectator of injustice and oppression. And you know what, after the dust clears, you can claim you had nothing to do with it. Or, you can go entertain the Nazis (Red Chinese) in the whorehouse. Cover your bases. Silence is golden, no? See Burma. Quiet there in the monasteries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. The first delusion that needs to be pacified is the mistaken notion that simply relying on our own ideas about reality will solve the existential difficulties we all face.
A. If you can find somebody else's ideas to rely on, LMK.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. The Kalamas sutra, which contains the saying --'Do not be guided by hearsay or by tradition, legendary lore or what has come down in holy scriptures; nor on grounds of reason or logical inference; nor because of preconceived opinions or simple likelihood, nor because of a teacher's authority. Only when you know for yourselves: these things are good and beneficial, are praised by the wise, and taken up and carried out lead to welfare and happiness, then you should make them your own and live in accordance with them' -- contains not a single word of teaching which will lead anyone to liberation.
A. This is like saying that Lincoln's Gettysburg Address has to be viewed in context, that the ringing words "Fourscore and Seven Years Ago," merely prefaced a graveyard dedication speech, at which feelings were conflicted, the nation having suffered such losses of blood over mere political differences. Seen in that light, Lincoln's efforts to overshadow the grim occasion with rousing rhetoric seem to be the pathetic performance of a mere ministerial obligation. Similarly, the Buddha, faced with a village full of stupid people, located too close to too many monasteries, simply tried to still the tumult in their minds with a general cautionary admonition to eschew gullibility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. All Buddhists should cultivate the four immeasureables; however, they are not sufficient in and of themselves as relative bodhicitta, even though they are a preliminary.
A. And wherefore are they called "immeasurable?" What kind of criticism is left in the mind that is steeped in the "four" immeasurables? And if they are genuinely immeasurable, how could there be more than one?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Real communication is possible.
A. Yes, perception is not totally free and unfettered. For example, in a vacuum, light, which is electromagnetic radiation, travels at a fixed speed in every direction, according to every observer. That's heartening news, isn't it? Perception is not totally optional. There appears to be some kind of reality going on here. So we can't get too crazy with our projections. Thank God.