From the 1970s to 1990s, Shambhala Training explained itself as “a secular path of meditation.” It was:
- explicitly non-Buddhist
- not a religion; without dogmatic beliefs; compatible with atheism and secular humanism
- compatible with any religion, including Christianity
Secular mindfulness meditation is commonplace now, but this was radical then. Shambhala was an opportunity to learn advanced Buddhist meditation techniques without having to buy into Buddhist beliefs and institutions. For me, and tens of thousands of others, that was hugely valuable.
Officially, Shambhala Training synthesized several spiritual traditions from around the world. In reality, its founder, Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche, drew mainly on the specific, unusual Vajrayana system he learned in Tibet. The introductory Training “levels” presented basic Buddhist meditation from an implicitly Vajrayana perspective; advanced levels were increasingly overtly tantric. The whole path was devoid of Sutrayana: no Buddha, no Noble Truths, no renunciation, no paramitas, no Neverland Nirvana.
Shambhala Training was the clearest example of modern Vajrayana to date. I’ll explain below how it met most of the criteria for “modernity” I listed in my previous post.
Continue reading “Shambhala Training was secular Vajrayana”
“Modern Buddhist tantra” unites the two threads of this blog: modern Buddhism, and Buddhist tantra. But what would that even mean? And is it even possible?
“Modern Buddhism” may be:
- Science-compatible: atheist, rational, empirical, free of spooks and supernatural superstitions
- Secular: not religious or dogmatic; teaching practices, not beliefs
- Culturally engaged: teaching creativity and the arts
- Socially engaged: including practical compassionate action
- Naturally engaged: with curiosity and awe at the beauty, vastness, and intricacy of the physical and biological world
- Psychologically and ethically sophisticated: incorporating Western insights into the self, emotions, and relationships
- Universal: a path suitable for everyone, everywhere
- Sober: sensible, restrained, free from self-indulgent emotionalism
- Authentic: based on the original teaching of the human founder, not made-up gods
- Exoteric: free from rituals, incense, and mumbo-jumbo in ancient languages
- Egalitarian: free from priests, robes, and hierarchy
Continue reading “What would “modern Buddhist tantra” even mean?”
Some spiritual facts are now obvious:
- Experiences of awe and wonder, in appreciation of nature or of human arts, can be profoundly religious and transformative.
- Creative work, making useful and beautiful things to aid and delight others, is a noble and fulfilling spiritual activity.
- Romantic love and sex—although sometimes sources of great suffering—may be the most valuable spiritual aspects of our lives.
- Fully experiencing emotions transforms them from a source of trouble into a source of wisdom.
- Women are at least as naturally religious as men.
These facts must be central principles of any religion that hopes to function in this century.
Continue reading “Reinventing Buddhist tantra badly”
Western Buddhists commonly equate “Vajrayana” with “Tibetan Buddhism.” This is wrong for two reasons:
- Most of Vajrayana is not Tibetan
- Most of Tibetan Buddhism is not Vajrayana
This is not controversial. Every scholar, Tibetan and Western, agrees. Still, it’s a widespread confusion.
This matters for what Buddhism can be in the 21st century. In the 1970s, Tibetan pioneers like Tarthang Tulku, Lama Yeshé, and Chögyam Trungpa developed modern presentations of Vajrayana. Around 1990, the Tibetan power structure put a stop to that.
Tibetans may legitimately choose to block modernization of Tibetan Buddhism—especially when that is attempted by non-Tibetans. It is their religion, and cultural appropriation can be harmful.
Tibetans have no right, and (I hope) no motivation or ability, to block modernization of Vajrayana. It was never their property.
Continue reading “Vajrayana is not Tibetan Buddhism (and vice versa)”
“Revulsion for the world” and “renunciation of all pleasure” are not familiar topics for Western Buddhists. They sound like old-fashioned fire-and-brimstone Christianity. Not very nice; so probably they couldn’t have much to do with Buddhism?
But according to the table I presented recently, revulsion and renunciation are the prerequisite and essential method—the ignition key and engine—of non-tantric Buddhism.
If that is right, maybe there’s a problem. Consensus Buddhism—the current American Buddhist mainstream—rejects revulsion and renunciation. How is that supposed to work? If you pull out the engine, what makes the vehicle go?
Continue reading “Renunciation is the engine for most of Buddhism”
This is my second post about Michael Roach and Christie McNally, who tried to teach Buddhist tantra and made a mess instead.
It is about gender-bending, violence, and black magic in Buddhist tantra. It’s about manic pixie dream girls and eating your shadow—and pussy-dripping goddesses with chainsaws. Understanding how Roach and McNally got these things wrong can help understand how to do tantra right.
Continue reading “Pussy-dripping goddesses with chainsaws”
Power is a main goal of Buddhist tantra. That’s unique and valuable among Buddhisms.
Power comes from skillful use of energy—personal energy, and also the energy of situations and other people. (See my page on “unclogging energy” for more.)
Tantra develops confidence, mastery, and charisma. These are keys to power.
The two faces of power
Power is awkward. Most people—certainly most Western Buddhists—have strong, mixed feelings about it.
On the one hand, power is the ability to get things done. Without power, it is impossible to accomplish anything. Power makes it possible to benefit others, and to change the world for the better. The bodhisattva vows are goody-goody weaksauce without the power of tantra. Benevolence has little value without the ability to act.
On the other hand, power corrupts. Power is, at best, morally neutral. It can be used for evil as easily as for good. Throughout history, power elites have brutally oppressed and exploited the majority. “Mastery” includes the powers of domination and coercion.
Power is inherently, inescapably political. Power inevitably raises strong emotions, both desire and hate.
Power is not nice. Power is not polite. Power is not a comfortable subject to discuss.
Power is a central issue for Consensus Buddhism, and for Tibetan Buddhism.
Continue reading “Power”