Frequently Asked Questions by Charles Carreon - 3
Q. Just as everything is about to go down the toilet, Rigden Rundra Chakrin of Shambhala is going to jump out with his armies, and save all good Buddhist boys & girls. When I see people fret about the future of this planet, I can't help but wonder if they really believe these things.
A. Nobody really believes in miracles, because no one would take this bet: If magical things do not in fact occur, then all of your earthly wealth will disappear and you will be sitting naked in Africa.
Nobody will take that bet if the consequence could actually be effectuated. (Of course this is in itself a magical scenario I have conjured up to make a point.) And the point is that people should put their mouth where their money is.
Q. You are simply engaged in samsaric politics, regardless of whether you think you are trying to do something good for Dharma or not. My advice to you is to "leave it and go." Real practitioners don't waste time on politics.
A. You are trying to sift the political sand out of the religious sand. Tibetan Buddhism is a political religion -- a theocracy just like the Vatican. The doctrines vitalize and inform the politics. Religion is the best instrument of social control -- and all religions exist to control human minds.
Religious beliefs satisfy powerful needs. The needs of Tibetan medievals are vastly different from the needs of modern apartment dwellers and cubicle slaves. Vast chunks of irrelevance dilute the spiritual essence of the teachings.
Whether I believe in those teachings or not is irrelevant. The question is whether, looking from the viewpoint of an objective person unblinded by the hope of salvation, it even looks likely that a modern American could hope to achieve much at all on the Vajrayana path. To hear the lamas, nobody is getting anywhere. We're all a joke. The siddhas don't even look in our direction. I suggest you accept this negative prognosis. This is not going to work. You are going to become very well informed about something that is slightly more useful than Etruscan grammar.
Q. To attack and blame everything on others is the way some people hide their problems.
A. However, when people complain about the smell of garbage, only fools say "oh, that's just your karma." It really does stink.
Dharma is not intended to help you remake the stink of garbage into the smell of lotus flowers, but that is how most people seem to use it.
Then, people who complain of the stink are called samaya breakers. Actually, they are just like the little boy who cried, "The emperor has no clothes!"
Someday people will understand this. (Superior sigh...)
Q. Perhaps Buddhism in America will be able to help guarantee the viability of the democratic government our forefathers created.
A. Perhaps just as Zen brought aesthetics into play, American Buddhists can introduce the radical concept of equality between teacher and student into Buddhism. Just introducing the ability for a student to talk back and question the teacher's assertions would be a big step in some circles.
Q. The desire to be equal with one's Guru stems from egotism or a misplaced sense of egalitarianism, nothing more.
A. So what spiritual defect feeds the desire to appear superior to other students? An innate talent for toadying up to the authorities? Or a misplaced love of aristocracy?
Q. In the movie "Himalaya," the monk made a profound statement when he said: "when the path becomes divided, always choose the harder path."
A. Actually, when I see two paths, I wonder which one is going to be harder. Then, I try and pick the easier one. But it always seems to turn out to be harder, actually. But then I meet people who took the other road, and they tell me I made the easy choice. Of course, then I figure maybe "the grass is always greener on the other side." So maybe each road is just as easy, or difficult, but you will always perceive the road you chose as the most difficult. And maybe, just maybe, they are actually the same road, which because I don't have a map, they may very well be. So then it doesn't matter what you choose.
Which reminds me of the song by Procol Harum, "Shine on Brightly," in which the lead singer actually asks the Dalai Lama what is the "meaning of life." To which HHDL replies, "Well, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"
Q. From a western nihilistic perspective . . .
A. If the west were all nihilistic, then people would worship at the First Church of Christ Nihilist, but they don't. Westerners are usually eternalistic if they're "spiritual" at all.
If you're a nurse, you rely on concrete things -- so many cc's, so many degrees fahrenheit, so many sutures, etc. That's empirical knowledge. When you want to rely on information, you want it to be empirical, verifiable by resort to commonly-understood experiences.
I suggest everyone put their faith where their professional reliance is -- on the verifiable.
Q. All of our experiences as practitioners are just ordinary psychological states.
A. Of course they are. The Buddha was also an ordinary person, who achieved his original potential of clear understanding. Because he achieved it, we can, too. This is why we can benefit from emulating him, correct? Enlightenment is ordinary, but rare. Why? Because the right conditions are not present. Thus, snow is ordinary, but rare in San Francisco. In Alaska, it is also ordinary, but common. Thus, among meditators, enlightenment may occur more commonly than among non-meditators. But who knows? We need to test and verify.
Q. Are you going to save me?
A. Not in the salvation business, just giving away alarm clocks as a hobby, to provide a warning cry that the implements of mind manipulation are being deployed by sanghas and lamas. This seems beyond dispute. See the case of Catharine Burroughs and Sogyal "Rinpoche."
Q. Does that mean I have to go back to being the anxious and depressed person I was before I took refuge in the Triple Gems?
A. Hey, whatever floats yer boat! What's different now? Would you lose it if you lost your Dhammapada or your Kunzang Lamay Shalung, or your Jewel Ornament of Liberation?
Q. Do I have to give up all the boundless joy I find in my practice and my vajra community?
A. Hey, if it's boundless you better get a big container to fit it in! And if you've got boundless joy in your vajra community, you must be part of the inner circle already. You're one of the winners in this game! Up your stake!
Q. Do I have to go to some motel and be deprogrammed?
A. You can deprogram right at home with simple items found in your own kitchen or bathroom.
Q. Am I forbidden from loving my lamas who are as close to my heart as my own mother and father?
A. I suggest you give your loving lamas a little test before you get them that close. Remember, they've got relatives in India and Tibet who are far more important to them than you will ever be. Your parents will pay your rent, give you food, and tend you till you breathe your last breath. Get a lama to hang around a sick person for more than 30 minutes and I'll send you a secret decoder ring.
Q. Why are you Lama-bashing? Are you a racist?
A. No, not racist. Just realistic. It's OK to realize that blood ties make a difference. Back to the dictionary for a second:
Main Entry: kind
Etymology: Middle English kinde, from Old English cynd; akin to Old English cynn kin Date: before 12th century
1 NATURE : FAMILY, LINEAGE
4 a : a group united by common traits or interests
The word kind thus stems from the word for family. Mahayana teaches that we should try to feel towards strangers as we naturally do towards our own family members. Marpa totally fell apart when his son's head was busted open like a melon, but had shown no pity to Milarepa's great suffering. That's just life. Everyone loves their mother.
It is not blasphemy to suggest that modern day representatives of Buddhism in the West have familial impulses to be more kind to their own people than to rich Americans who are also johnny-come-lately's to the faith. Just as it is not blasphemy to suggest that Roman cardinals have sexual impulses, which they might (oh shudder) even give in to on occasion. Even by molesting people.
Well, maybe that is blasphemy, but if so, quite necessary blasphemy. Shoot me.
(Written before big scandal came out.)
Q. Your attempts to "reform" Buddhism are deluded. Buddhism doesn't need reformation.
A. Yes, after 2,500 years and god knows how many permutations that have split the original family tree into thousands of dogmas, doctrines and disciplines, Buddhism is now in full flower, like a cherry tree on fire with spring. But the American Buddha heresy must never flower!!! A strategic blow against the incipient bud, guided by a traditionalist's all-seeing eye, will prevent the blossoming of what would otherwise deface the elegant uniformity of Buddhist belief. Bravo! Apocalypse avoided.
Q. Those who understand Buddhism understand the unity of all Buddhist schools. Those who do not understand Buddhism see differences.
A. Nutritious dog food, but not a sophisticated meal. A rule this absolute and simplistic is guaranteed to be wrong. But it sounded so good when you said it. That's what's important about getting your opposite number into play. You were talking nonsense, and you didn't even know it. Now it's much clearer.
Q. When I first joined the Pentecostal church, I started slow but was finally baptized thinking I was on to something. But those teachings didn't hold a candle to Buddha's wisdom (although there were plenty of candles at times). In the end, when it was time to leave, we just left. Culture is functional. When it doesn't function for you anymore, then you drop it.
A. When it grows into you, then you have to extract yourself. Sometimes you need help to do that. And watching the stiff, rigid minds of people doing the conceptual mummy-walk, or watching the frenzied epicycle-weaving of a person trying to keep the earth flat and the stars in their places, is a real tonic.
Q. Why should Tibetan Buddhists have to defend Buddhism from failed ex-Buddhist wannabe reformers? Is it any wonder why some Lamas in India don't want to come here to teach? America - ain't it great?
A. No, most lamas want to come to learn English, get a wife, get a car, a house, and meet Steven Segal. There's plenty of Dharma teachers already.
America - ain't it great? Not as great as it's gonna be. George W and John Ashcroft will soon get [[Wikipedia:Christianity|Christianity]] so unified with the State and the media and commerce, and freedom of religion will become a thing of the past. As our country cozies up to China, our newly empowered secret police will put the finger on all the Tibetan terrorists, freeze the monastery assets, and chuck your clerical behind in jail. The INS will revoke all those "teacher" visas -- gotta keep peace with our "trading partners!"
Yeah, you'll love it. Or leave it! But there's always dear old mother India to go back to. If you need work, you can do tech support there for several dollars a day if you speak English. Or you can just check into one of the monasteries and do mantras for cash when the American students need help magically removing obstacles. Either way, you'll do great! Post something to us when you get there.
Q. Why are some mantras ok for anyone to use, while others need an empowerment from a lama?
A. Regular, rhythmic reply of the heart to its own song. Call it mantra, call it song of the blood, call it breath, as you will, we cannot do without this precious sustenance.
Q. Talking about god is futile.
A. Tell that to Jimmy Swaggart. Talking about god can be very satisfying. I've seen lots of people enjoy it tremendously. Talking to god is said to be better; however, the silence talking back to you has turned some people into agnostics.
Q. Some mantras have been chanted since before Vedic (light or knowledge) times.
A. How does the accumulation of force over the course of the ages comport with the statement that "One lamp dispels the darkness of a hundred years?" Answer #1: the light derives from the stored energy in the lamp oil. Answer #2: You still have to light the lamp.
Q. Some mantras have been used by sages to attain divine union (yoga) and receive a personal experience with the source of Supreme Consciousness (God). Other mantras get people enlightened.
A. How does this comport with the idea that all sounds are merely arbitrary and have meanings assigned to them by the language-shaping capacity of the mind? Do sounds have "inherent" meanings?
Q. When you chant mantras you do not stand alone, but on the shoulders of all those who have gone before you. In the chanting you realize how every moment since the beginning of time has led up to your being where you are and chanting that chant. You realize intense gratitude, compassion and wonder.
A. This sense of solidarity with past spiritual practitioners is interesting. A little bit of team spirit? Go, Gurus? 2B1Ask1?
Q. Traditionally, the posture is very important when you chant. The chant comes through your navel and rises upwards.
A. The quest for samadhi, for cessation of thought, for a total mirroring of the mind's own activity in stillness, can be a form of narcissism. I speak of my own experience. Perhaps to lose oneself utterly is the hardest practice.
Q. Ngawang Chotok, ex-monk , and student of Lama Yeshe , now sober and a counselor, writes : Addiction in general is a perfect metaphor for samsara.
A. Yes, and old mechanics probably think samsara is just like a broke down old machine that just needs some attention. Using analogies and metaphors can make everything familiar and graspable. Addiction is something different for everyone, but once we metaphorize it to samsara, then we can conclude: I should just "twelve-step" my way out of samsara; alternatively, I could just sit my way out of addiction. The only thing this accomplishes is a broader field of employment for counselors and monks. But since some monks still like to drink, and not all counselors can stop drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes, it might get kinda smoky in the gonpa, kinda uptight in the encounter session. But what the heck, let's go there!
Q. The reason Trungpa disrobed it because it was the best way to reach the people during the 60's. His son (who now runs the show) chooses to remain in his robes for the same reason.
A. What do you really know about the Sawang, his son? Is it not possible that he does things, like do something different from his father because he is a different person and might have different thoughts, plans and intentions than his father. Or have you found the Book of Tulku Motivations and there discerned that they are all motivated by the exact same impulses even when they're doing totally different things? Or perhaps you're just very sure of your very facile concepts and they're really not very well thought out at all.
Q. How ought those who are mocked behave towards those that mock at them?
A. Well, the first thing is, never yield an inch.*** Let them sneer. If they can sneer you out of your religion, you have not got any worth having. *** Why be ashamed? "They called me a saint." I remember once a person calling me a saint in the street. All I thought was, "I wish he could prove it."
- "Oh! but they will point at you." Cannot you bear to be pointed at? "But they will chaff you." Chaff—let them chaff you. Can that hurt a man that is a man? If you are a molluscous creature that has no backbone, you may be afraid of jokes, and jeers, and jests; but if God has made you upright, stand upright and be a man.
Moreover, there is one thing you should always do when you are ashamed—pray. *** The best refuge for a believer in times of persecution is his secret resort to God. Let him fall on his knee and say, "My Lord, I have been counted worthy to be spoken ill of for thy name's sake. Help me to bear it. Now is my time of trial. Strengthen me to bear this reproach. Grant that it may be no heavy burden to me, but may I rather rejoice in it for thy name's sake." God will help you, beloved.
Then next to that, pray always, most for those who treat you worst. Make them the constant subjects of your prayer."
From an old Christian sermon, "Are You Mocked?" about how to deal with difficult people, I mean, the people we pray for unceasingly.
Q. You are asking for lessons to come to you with this kind of disrespect. No joking. I hope you're ready. Kali Ma also laughs as she's destroying and creating. Ha ha ha haaaa. I don't wish Kali to show up for anyone when they are not prepared.
A. Go sell this crap to someone who thinks you know something. And yeah, go identify with some homicidal goddess whose name justified more than a million murders. Drink blood, smile like an intoxicated sadhu. Imagine yourself meaningful.
Q. You should try doing a real prostration before you really need to do one.
A. Bow, slave, or feel the lash! Get a XXX-ing life!
Q. Don't you find negativity boring and annoying? It's like putting your hand into boiling water and not pulling it out.
A. Mental pain's different. Your hand will be scarred if you burn it, but mind is much more resilient.
We're much more tolerant of conflict than we like to admit. Under the pathology theory of awareness, unpleasantness might damage your mind. I don't think unpleasantness damages the mind. That's one of the things I like about it, the way it comes up bright and clean after the unpleasantness.
So, no, nothing boring about conflict and cross-talk. Indeed, if people aren't fighting about something, they probably don't care about it. Ever fight over someone you were in love with?
Q. If hierarchy did not exist, I could never get my car repaired, because I know nothing about automechanics and my repariman does. If hierarchy did not exist, I would never be able to have the pleasure of a gourmet meal, because I can barely make toast. If hierarchy did not exist, I would never have the opportunity to view a beautiful garden, because I do not have a green thumb. If hierarchy did not exist, there would be no music, no math, no architecture, no Dharma. Three cheers for hierarchy.
A. Make that Four Cheers! According to the Tibetan system, you will need a Fourth Cheer to be the synthesis of the other three cheers. Of course we clarify this by emphasizing that the three cheers are all really One Cheer, and that One Cheer is what is meant by the Fourth Cheer. Notice how the three cheers get slighted here?
No, but seriously friend, why do you see heirarchy where I see only diversity of species and specialization of effort?
There doesn't have to be a heirarchy to be good food. I cook it all the time, and my kids help me, and they learn how to cook it to, and there's no boss. We're just cooking.
Specialization of labor sounds dull, but it produces miracles. And it might sound heirarchical to some egalitarians. For example, ask a knee-jerk egalitarian this question:
Agree or disagree: If there are two jobs to do, making cheese and making bricks, and making cheese is more difficult than making bricks, all members of the labor pool should split their time 50/50 doing bricks and cheese.
Most knee jerk egalitarians agree.
Adam Smith disagrees. He says the people who are best at making cheese should make cheese, and those who make bricks best should stick to that. Then we'll have more cheese and bricks. More houses, and more grilled cheese sandwiches.
Will the brick makers economically dominate the cheesemakers, or vice versa? No one knows, but it doesn't have anything to do with heirarchy. Nor will the production process improve if we try to make relations "equal." The biggest boon simply comes from letting people do what they do best. It's called the exploitation of relative advantage.
Okay, apply it to the religious situation. Old man sits on a hill, gazes into space, has great insights into the nature of mind. He has no tea. Students come visit, bring him tea. We can see where the relative advantages are shaking out here. The students can learn great insights. The old man can have tea. No need for any special veneration. Just good tea, eh?
Q. People in Tibet offer everything they own to the Lama and are so thankful they cry when they meet him.
A. We are totally blocked up inside with material possessions here in America. As if it were tatooed on the inside of our eyelids, dollars and cents march up and down inside our brains.
Q. What does it take to accept the dharma when it's being delivered to your doorstep? This never happened in Tibet!!!!!!
A. Nor did they have Pizza Delivery! Or public libraries! Or newspapers! Same reason -- NO INFRASTRUCTURE!
Q. You seem utterly lost, full of bitterness and resentment, and blaming it all on dhamma and sangha. Even if you continue for another 100 or 1000 years it won't do you any good. It's good that you realize that dhamma is not for you. There are many cases where the buddha encouraged monks and nuns to give back their robes and stay home.
A. Thank you very much for your respectful consideration of our cry for help. Truly we have been disappointed by what passes for Dhamma in this dark aeon. You must be fortunate to have genuine spiritual masters to teach you in your enlightened country. Here we are buried in dollars and consumer items, unable to perceive the light of Dhamma in our benighted state. Please pray for us and regard us with your kindest demeanor. Thanks to receive your communication.
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.
