Comments on ““Buddhist ethics”: a Tantric critique”

I’m interested in your analysis of Tantra and class. In my experience with Tantra (both in India and in the US), class issues were not as you describe them. I don’t recall, for instance, very many actual “working class” folks following Trungpa. There were a number of folks pretending to be working class just as there were a number of folks in SDS, The Weathermen and the early days of Feminism, etc. pretending to be working class. It was a way of establishing your credentials: “I’m not part of the establishment; I’m not like ‘the Man’“. No hip person wanted to be identified as middle class and nobody wanted to be identified as upper class either; this seems to be an attitude peculiar to Americans. In India (in my experience with tantric practitioners from Sri Lanka and Chennai), the caste system was implicit. The “lower classes” were there to be, essentially, “used” by the higher classes and women, especially, were there to be used by all. The language was egalitarian; the reality was not. One of the problems seems to be the belief that people, by the time they get to the level of Vajrayana, will have arrived at a level of realization that will ensure that their actions will be skillful. I think history has show that this is not an accurate perception of how it plays out.
RoughGarden’s take on the future of Buddhism yesterday seemed sadly accurate to me .

Hi David,
The tantric teachers I mentioned were Hindu. My experience was that they unfortunately affirmed what I had already experienced in Vajrayana. The “claimed principles” are never quite what one encounters. The whole cultural context is important. If there’s an idea of creating something different, we’d better be aware of just how much of the “original” teaching we are referring to is culturally conditioned and, even more importantly, what our own culture has conditioned us to accept as true. Even the idea of transparency or what it means to be open is culturally conditioned. It takes a lot of precision to tease these things out and it takes a real willingness to look at our own culturally conditioned blindspots, not just the obvious heavy hitters like “greed and consumption” or “the marketing of spirituality”. I’m thinking more of the great American myths of individuality and power that get played out over and over again (and in virtually all “liberation” movements here). It’s not abstract. Tantra offers tools, yes, but would you give a blowtorch to a three year old? Seems like that might be already happening in some parts of the country (hey, maybe that’s what’s causing all those wildfires). Then that brings up the same old problem: who decides who’s “ready” for those “advanced teachings” or, if it’s totally “egalitarian”, what state are folks in who are part of your sangha. Maybe it IS better to do it all online…less real in some ways but safer too…smile.

It seems strong to say that tantra was “suppressed” in the 1990s unless you know of some organized efforts that I’ve never heard of.

“such as its sex-negativity, misogyny, and anti-world attitude.”

Is misgyny an aspect of Sutric Buddhism? I think not. It’s akin to saying that Western enlightenment is pro-eugenics, racism, colonialism, imperialism because there were many western thinkers of enlightenment who agreed to those aspects. Many (if not all) founding fathers of the U.S granted slavery, but strongly influenced by western enlightenment as well.

Second, while I fully agree that Buddhism has very little to say about politics or political theory, I think sutric Buddhism is compatible with leftist views in many respects as well as rightist views. For example, Chinese used Buddhism for pacifism propaganda (No war & invasion of china, but peace~) against Tibet in Chinese Tang dynasty period. Buddhism was also used for egalitarian policy propaganda for commoners (since a truly Buddhist King is supposed to have compassion, have to do something to lessen suffering of his subjects).

Of course, Zen was used for nationalistic, pro war propaganda by the imperial Japan ( a well-known story). But it’s arguably much easier to justify pacifism with Buddhist scriptures than pro-war propaganda.

Maybe the only leftist political agenda which sutric Buddhism is in direct conflict with would be ‘pro-abortion’ policy. Even homosexuality has been treated ambivalently within sutric Buddhism, in other words, there are two opposing trends toward homosexuality in Buddhism. All-in-All, I think one can argue that homosexuality should not discriminated because any sex (free from misconduct) is EQUALLY bad from Buddhist point of view. Interestingly, Korean Buddhism has highest ratio in granting homosexuality among 4 groups, (1) Korean Buddhism (2) Korean Protestantism (3) Korean Catholic (4) No religious affiliation, even though Buddhism is usually associated with cultural conservatism (No sex, No drinking, No abortion, pro-tradition tendency) in Korea.

Hi David, I’m enjoying all these posts. I didn’t understand your comments about class, for example ‘Working class people, and upper class people, exhibit unrestrained desire and enjoyment—which middle class people find off-putting.’ Are these commments being from a north American position?

Hi David, probably you omitted tag “ethics” from this post by mistake. (I’m just organizing the ethics series for myself for offline reading, and I just saw that this post is not among those if I select by tag.)

The following is meant as a general comment on this whole series, not just this post. It’s a selection from an interview with B. Allan Wallace, “Tibetan Buddhism in the West: Is it working here? An Interview with Alan Wallace”, by Brian Hodel. Published in Tricycle: The Buddhist Review, Summer 2001.
http://www.alanwallace.org/Tricycle%20Interview.pdf

Q: In the monastic setting, teachings follow a coherent order. What’s the effect of teaching outside this format?
A: In the West, it is very common that a lama will pass through a city and give a tantric Buddhist initiation and a weekend of esoteric teachings on visualization practices or ways of experiencing a state of pure awareness. What’s missing here in the vast majority of cases is the profound context: the theoretical context, the context of faith, the context of a mature spiritual community. The teachings themselves, though perfectly traditional, are being introduced in a radically non-traditional context. And this, I think, has on numerous occasions led to terrible misunderstandings and a great deal of unnecessary conflict, unrest, confusion and suffering.
Q: Such as?
A: Back in the late 1970s some very fine lamas came to this country and gave a number of advanced teachings. A lot of the Westerners in attendance, young men and young women, got very enthused by these lamas who were teaching in concert, and a number of them, right off the bat, were ordained right then and there with no context whatsoever, with no monastery, no abbot, and no proctor to teach them the vows and help them to assimilate and apply the vows in daily life. I think the vast majority, if not every single one of that group, eventually returned their vows, because there was no context for them and they entered into it with little understanding of the step that they were taking.

Q: Why not just stick to basic, foundational teachings? Why are these high teachings even given as introductions?
A: I think the simple answer is: if lamas confined themselves to teaching topics such as ethical discipline, renunciation, and the cultivation of loving kindness and compassion few people would come. Before going on tour, lamas often ask what kind of teachings Westerners would like, and the response is often a request for advanced teachings, say on Dzogchen or Mahamudra, which are concerned with exploring the nature of pure, conceptually unstructured awareness, or one’s own inner Buddha-nature. Out of compassion and the wish to fulfill others’ wishes, many lamas comply. Perhaps their rationale is that people will probably get more benefit hearing something they are really interested in, than in hearing valuable teachings in which they have no interest—in which case they probably wouldn’t show up at all anyway.

“A: I think the simple answer is: if lamas confined themselves to teaching topics such as ethical discipline, renunciation, and the cultivation of loving kindness and compassion few people would come.”
Wallace’s critique is that the Lamas teach Dzogchen and tantra because that’s what Westerner’s want to hear. They don’t want to be bothered with ‘ethical discipline’, renunciation and loving kindness.” That’s boring “beginner” teachings for losers and pussies. That whole Western attitude has been broadcast loud and clear on this blog.

Secondly, or really firstly, many of these high level tantric teachings are completely out of context in a Western setting. The result is that tantra itself gets watered down into a programmatic pablum of marketable mush for mass Western consumption. The result is a Disneyfied “Magic Kingdom” that is purveyed specifically for middle class western consumption. It has all the rituals and deities, all the “bells and whistles,” but none of the real spiritual guts of tantric practice. It becomes just another social club of eccentrics wearing funny hats.

B. Allan Wallace: Westerners want the Fast Track to Awakeing, Drive Through Enlightenment;
Q: Isn’t there a problem here of appealing to the ego? I may request the highest teachings because I want to attain realization as quickly as possible. But of what value are the higher teachings if I haven’t absorbed the basics? Isn’t that like throwing seed on stones?

A: In my experience, lamas who are willing to give these very advanced teachings will strongly emphasize the importance of the foundational teachings and practices, such as those concerning the cultivation of renunciation and compassion. One of my teachers, Gyatrul Rinpoche, has often given advanced teachings on Mahamudra and Dzogchen, but he hammers home the message time and time again: “Yes, these are profound teachings. Yes, it can be very helpful for you to do the practice. At the same time, do not overlook the foundational teachings, because these are the ones that, in the foreseeable future, are much more likely to really bring about evident transformation for the better in your own minds and in your own lives.” Gyatrul Rinpoche has taught for more than two decades in this country. He still emphasizes the foundational teachings, but at times students complain that they have already heard these teachings and don’t want to hear them anymore. In many cases, even though these students have not realized the foundational teachings through practice, they’ve heard them and more or less understood them intellectually. But out of familiarity they have lost interest in these teachings, no longer wishing to practice them, and yearn instead for something new, something profound, something that promises to bring about the kind of spiritual transformation they haven’t gained so far.

As Gyatrul Rinpoche has often commented, it’s not that the lamas don’t want us to hear or practice these higher teachings. They just don’t want us to do them instead of the foundational teachings, because then we’ll wind up following the more advanced practices without benefiting from them, while shunning the more basic practices and therefore getting no practical benefit at all. The advice I’ve heard and embrace is that we need to keep our feet planted in the ground of the foundational teachings and reach to the sky with the more advanced teachings.

Q: If many Western students are getting the higher teachings towards the beginning but then have to go back to the foundational teachings, isn’t this counterproductive?
A: It certainly can be!
Q: That doesn’t sound very efficient.

A: Overall, I don’t think there is much efficiency in the way that teachings are taught or practiced in the West, even though we, being a consumer society, a business-oriented society, prioritize efficiency. Also in the West various lamas of all the different orders of Tibetan Buddhism are passing through town for weekend events. And this means you have the possibility of being exposed to a hodgepodge of weekend teachings and initiations and your exposure to Buddhism becomes random. It’s like going to a buffet. You pick up whatever is coming through, but there’s no order to it, no continuity, no progressive development, and so again: it’s very inefficient. This can turn a lot of people into dilettantes, as they acquire a “taste of the town” of Buddhism, dabbling in one flavor after another, without gaining proficiency in anything.

This lack of continuity is due, in part, to a lack of patience. As a consumer society we want snappy results. That’s part of what we consider to be efficient. If we go to a teaching we want to see results in a weekend, or at least in a week! And some teachers are willing to cater to that type of mentality. I’ve even seen advertisements for Tibetan Buddhist events that sound like Madison Avenue hype.

Still enjoying the series! It will be interesting to see how you pull it all together/conclude it.

I still think you have the potential to hit the wall of people’s interpretation based on their stage development. Someone who is not ready for tantra is going to interpret tantra practices with a sutra mind – they are going to looking for the concrete “facts” of practice and are going to follow those dogmatically. Hoping that won’t happen, though! Looking forward to the next posts.

I’m also hoping you will speak to the paradox of “tantric ritual/practice” - why would a practitioner who has the foundation of emptiness (which also requires an embrace of full experience) need a prescribed ritual? That’s the part that has always hung me up when looking at the Aro tradition. It’s full of really smart people and dedicated meditators/practitioners… but why do they all have to dress up like cowboys/cowgirls and shoot guns or arrows? I’m not asking the experiential why (it’s obviously fun), I’m asking the formulaic why, i.e., why does the costume party have one theme? What makes for a quality tantric ritual? Why not just go to the nightclub and fully experience that heaven and hell, so to speak?

Obviously these short end-of-article comments are too short for nuance, so I apologize in advance for questioning so bluntly!

Thanks for the kind response. I was a bit worried that it would be taken the wrong way. I’ve admired the forthright expression of the Aro tradition for a long time… I guess this series has also reminded me how much I’m looking forward to seeing what the next generation of NC’s students create. He created a culture of practice which seems very “his” in its expression, but I don’t have a sense of how that will continue into the future. (I suspect there are students who will want to stay with the basic recipe and there will be students that create their own flavors while acknowledging the founding inspiration…)

I guess that seque into Aro in the midst of a discussion of ethics relates back to the “no truths, only methods” idea. In my mind, we should seek (and teach) ethics that provide the merest of scaffolding to empower opening and extending into the world, to help us meet the rawness of the world as best we are capable. So in that sense, I don’t care if it is bland middle-class ethics or tantric… just as long a people are (nobly) living slightly out of their comfort zone, still growing up, still awakening, still recognizing new resistances and new embraces that were unseen/unknowable just a year ago…

I think most folks underestimate what they are capable of – and underestimate how easy it is to become stagnant – which is why I am really enjoying your putting “nice” ethics in the spotlight and putting tantra out there for a critical look.

@Jamie

Re:

"That’s the part that has always hung me up when looking at the Aro tradition. It’s full of really smart people and dedicated meditators/practitioners… but why do they all have to dress up like cowboys/cowgirls and shoot guns or arrows?"

Ngak’chang Rinpoche teaches on the relationship between dress, art and Vajrayana practice. I hope that he and Khandro Déchen will write something for public consumption about that…but they have many projects.

You probably only see pictures of those apprentices (I’m one of them) that like to adopt dress as practice. Not everyone has the time or the inclination to re-invent themselves so wholeheartedly, and nobody has to. But regarding the way you display yourself in the world as a practice is possible in small, experimental bites, and individual apprentices are sometimes encouraged to feel what it would be like to dress differently. The facial topiary is connected: different styles have associations with particular characters of personality and demeanour.

The Aro gTér lamas are influenced by Chögyam Trungpa’s encouragement of hippie students to break away from conventions of casual dress and anti-establishment view. Tantra pulls the rug from under your feet by challenging your conformity to social and cultural convention. Ritual of behaviour and dress can function in this way: the structure provides leverage out from sheep-like conformity you didn’t previously see.

The style of dress they encourage is any that expresses “tasteful flamboyance and unwitheld appreciation. We have no hippie uniform to shed, but rather, a form of drabness born of ‘comfort’ and ‘staid inconspicuousness.’ “

The style of Western wear that Ngak’chang Rinpoche likes is late 19th century. Like with any art, once you get to know a field well, you appreciate differences in style and detail. That style is quite different to a cowboy/cowgirl look. (I also like the latter - Rinpoche doesn’t.) The practice is one of individual expression, within a fixed period style. I don’t know what pictures you’ve seen, but I guess if you look closely you’ll see different individual styles of appreciation.

"I’m not asking the experiential why (it’s obviously fun), I’m asking the formulaic why, i.e., why does the costume party have one theme?"

It doesn’t, but you probably only see that theme, because it’s obviously different in some way, and that’s how people like to brand us. These are pictures from apprentice gatherings and retreats in Montana. Usually they’re very small. I’ll be going to one next week which will have about ten participants, max. On most apprentice retreats across the world, apprentices wear what they want, within the ‘theme’ of the yogic colours - red, white and blue.

"What makes for a quality tantric ritual?"

This is an important question, there’s loads to say…but probably this isn’t the place as we’d be veering off-topic. I sometimes think about resurrecting my Vajrayana Now blog, to write about such things, but it’s not become top priority yet.

"Why not just go to the nightclub and fully experience that heaven and hell, so to speak?"

We do. Well, some of us, anyway.

"Obviously these short end-of-article comments are too short for nuance, so I apologize in advance for questioning so bluntly!"

I think these are really great questions, I’m glad you asked them.

RiP

@Jamie
I was writing my comment while you posted yours - sorry they crossed over.

I guess that seque into Aro in the midst of a discussion of ethics relates back to the “no truths, only methods” idea. In my mind, we should seek (and teach) ethics that provide the merest of scaffolding to empower opening and extending into the world, to help us meet the rawness of the world as best we are capable. So in that sense, I don’t care if it is bland middle-class ethics or tantric… just as long a people are (nobly) living slightly out of their comfort zone, still growing up, still awakening, still recognizing new resistances and new embraces that were unseen/unknowable just a year ago…

I like how you put this.

RiP

A wonderful piece of writing. It covers a lot of ground fairly succinctly and is quite inspiring. Thank you. I particularly enjoyed the working class/aristocracy comparison. I think it’s well put.

@Jamie:

Speaking of the dress and Aro gTér, I am myself an Aro practitioner and my lama (one of the younger ones, not Ngak’chang Rinpoche), suggested me to start to dress myself like a biker. And so I did.

So not everybody looks like a cowboy either. :)

The suggestion I got was of course a personal one. I am a large bear of a man, and I have an appreciation of extreme metal music. I am also related to Danish/Swedish Vikings - obvious if you would see my face. Biker-like appearance actually suits very naturally to me.

I have been thinking a little about modern cultural developments and their convergence with Vajrayana. As was being discussed above, a lot of people are puzzled about why smart people would perform rituals or dress up in funny clothes. This, however, is just old-people thinking- yup, all of those questions are questions left over from modern and post-modern thinking habits.
The newer era of thought, frequently called Metamodernism, and sometimes by a sub-name for an aspect of this post-postmodern life, Performatism, has returned to ritualism.
Following the logic of: pre-modern thinking took rituals and myths as god-ordained truth; modernism tried to extract the essence or abandon those things altogether to get to the real meaning behind the rituals unclouded by superstition; postmodernism decided that none of them had any meaning in the end and there is no meaning anyway so lets just get f’ed up and play with surface forms. Metamodern times have returned to play with meaning and to rediscover depth, while knowing that they are empty of meaning at the same time.
This is very much like the stages of Buddhist vehicles as they develop from the most earthy up to dzogchen (or zen too), and dzogchen (and zen) in reality being usually practiced within the context of a sadhana (a ritual)- zen is no different in actuality, only with a different ritual structure.
Ritual is used both as a way to transcend ones’ ego as well as a way to maintain awareness while being embodied in form. So, if we know that everything has no ultimate meaning then how are we to act? We can do this by interpreting our actions as performance, or as ritual. In this way we reenchant the world while maintaining an awareness of its ultimate emptiness- instead of retreating into a lethargic, paralyzed, meaning-devoid, nihilistic, surface worshiping stupor.
Adopting deliberate clothing and behaviour is part of this- seeing our world as constructed but embracing it anyway while not losing the punch line.
So as we reembrace ritual we understand it with scientific eyes without letting science dismember it; we reenchant the world and use ritual to help us to realize and embody the otherwise-abstract teachings; and we keep the vision that it is all empty anyway without sliding into nihilism. This is like doing a performance- hence the use of the word Performatism elsewhere. How else can you act and embrace life without making it a self-oriented and grasping experience?

http://www.metamodernism.com/2015/10/21/reconstruction-metamodern-transcendence-and-the-return-of-myth/

“A highlight of my time as a Wiccan Neopagan was the culminating ritual of a week-long retreat. The ceremony evolved by stages into two hundred witches dancing naked around a bonfire for hours after midnight. It was a sublime, transformative experience.”

Now you’re talking.

Could we say that ethics is true as long as it increases the feelings of peace, harmony, concentration, gratitude and spaciousness? I mean, there is no inherent basis for morality but there are impacts of moral behaviour on our human psyche.
If I show gratitude and help and donate to others I feel good and warm.
If I talk to somebody who is going through a “hard” time, I feel concentrated and in harmony with myself.
If I spend the last hours with somebody dying, I feel spaciousness.

On the other hand, if I insult somebody I feel hard and contracted. If I don’t help somebody in need I feel improsined with negative thoughts, etc.

Would this explanation help to understand moral behaviour? At least ancient India apparently lived by this dharma. More details can be found under the subject of Gunas -> Vedanta.