Alexander Berzin's Relating to a Spiritual Teacher; Building a Healthy Relationship takes a reasonable approach to the teacher-student relationship, and his aim of clarifying misconceptions seems a good one. Certainly such misconceptions abound, and if the spiritual aspirant leaves them uncorrected, they carry consequences ranging from confusion and irritation to personal and spiritual disaster. Indeed, it is the widespread misunderstanding of the role of the vajra master which has prompted the creation of Damtsig - in the hopes that education may help to avert such problems. Given the importance of this matter, and the author's impressive credentials, I was quite excited by the possibility of a thoughtful and authoritative treatment of the subject. As a long-time Tibetan Buddhist student, translator, and lecturer, Mr. Berzin seems uniquely qualified to advise a Western audience. His accumulated insights might help to dispel the religious, cultural, and intellectual biases that often obscure a genuine understanding of Vajrayana. We can gain an insight into Mr. Berzin's approach by looking at his target audience:
The intended audience for this book includes both people already practicing Buddhism and potential students who wish to avoid the problems that others have previously encountered. Practitioners who have been abused by their teachers or who have been disenchanted or confused by their behavior may find it particularly helpful. In addition, those who are fervently devoted to their teachers may find useful points for helping to stabilize their emotions in the relationships. (p.21)
Building a Healthy Relationship is not aimed at the seasoned practitioner with a stable, reliable understanding, but at the neophytes, the victims, and the hysterical. Consequently, I expected that Mr. Berzin's presentation would be straightforward. I thought he would focus on presenting the essence of the teacher-student relationship without undue academic exposition. I was therefore a bit surprised - although also somewhat fascinated - by his approach to the subject. He begins by calling for a "rectification of terms." Because the existing terms are a source of confusion, he wants to create a new set of terms which more specifically describe the functions of various types of spiritual teachers. His discussion of the etymology of the terms "Lama" and "Guru" is quite interesting - as are his descriptions of the variety of persons to which the terms are sometimes applied. His intentions are evident: he wishes to clarify the parameters of vajra relationship so that students do not feel inappropriately obligated to a teacher who is not - for them - functioning as the vajra master.
To this end, he coins a plenitude of designations: Buddhism professors, Dharma instructors, meditation or ritual trainers, spiritual mentors, refuge or vow preceptors, Mahayana masters, tantric masters, and root gurus. Eight categories seems a lot if the goal is to present a simple explanation, but perhaps the complexity of the subject demands it? At this point, it is worth noting that he defines the term "spiritual mentor" as encompassing "three types of spiritual mentor ... derive[d] from ... three sets of vows a disciple takes in the mentor's presence: pratimoksha, bodhisattva, or tantric vows." (p.72) In other words, the term "mentor" applies equally to a teacher of Hinayana, Mahayana, or Vajrayana - so long as the student has formed a specific formal relationship with the teacher. Although there is nothing wrong with this per se, such conflation of vehicles is potentially confusing. I think the clearest explanation would involve drawing a sharp distinction between the teacher's function in the Sutric and Tantric vehicles - as spiritual friend (kalayanamitra / dGe wa'i shen yen) and vajra master (vajracharya / rDo rJe bLo dPon).
It seems, however, that Mr. Berzin has something more than a simple clarification in mind. In his own words, "The student-teacher relationship as understood and developed in the West needs re-examination and perhaps revision." (p.19) Certainly this is true insofar as it refers to the correction of a cultural misunderstanding, but he is shooting for something more. He goes on - in the section titled The Approach Suggested for Revising the Student-Teacher Relationship - to state the following:
The first place to look for guidelines is within the Buddhist teachings themselves, as did Tsongkapa, the founder of the Gelug tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, who substantiated all his reforms with textual evidence. ... In the present book I have attempted to follow Tsongkapa's lead. (pp.19-20)
This important section makes clear that the author intends to use textual evidence to reform the student-teacher relationship in a manner comparable to Tsongkapa's formation of the Gelug school. He then goes on to outline the guiding principle for his reform:
Any attempt at restructuring the student-teacher relationship needs to avoid two extremes. The first is justifying the deification of the teacher to the point that it encourages a cult-mentality and whitewashes abuse. The second is justifying the demonization of the teacher to the point that paranoia and distrust prevent the benefits to be gained from a healthy disciple-mentor relationship. In trying to prevent the first extreme, we need great care not to fall to the second. (p.20)
This passage would sound reasonable to the unguarded reader: open-minded, but firm. Closer analysis however, reveals the fundamental flaw in this reform plan. By describing the two poles of the "problem" as he does, Mr. Berzin generates the illusion that the questions of "cult-mentality and ... abuse" are prevalent and central to the functioning of the teacher-student , relationship. These pitfalls must therefore, on the grounds of this presentation, be carefully balanced against "paranoia and distrust." It may not be immediately obvious, but it is Mr Berzin's very presentation which creates the ground for "paranoia and distrust". How many novice readers would have had any notion of "cult-mentality and ... abuse" unless Mr Berzin had introduces the existence of such phenomena - as if there were general agreement that these phenomenon were widespread. This sort of manipulative reasoning is a central aspect of political conditioning.
It is not unlike the formulation of the labels "pro-choice" and "pro-life" to describe the pro-abortion and anti-abortion political stances. By casting the debate in this manner, the participants guarantee a level of incoherence. After all, if these terms really applied as the decisive considerations, there would be no need of conflict. A person could be both "anti-choice" and "anti-life:" in favor of mandatory abortions for everyone. By casting the issue as he does, Mr. Berzin equivalently allows himself to "solve" the "problem" by adopting an anti-anti stance. He can avoid both abuse and paranoia by simply neutering the vajra master. By reducing the vajra master to a technicality, as it appears is his intention, Mr. Berzin can succeed in navigating the twin dangers he expresses. However, his proposed sterilization of Vajrayana is both tedious in its exposition and invalid in its final presentation.
As far as many committed Vajrayana practitioners are concerned, the authentic teacher-student relationship is not beset by "cult-mentality", "abuse", "paranoia", or "distrust". Certainly these problems exist in human situations, but if they are significantly present in a relationship, then one cannot accurately describe that as a Vajrayana teacher-student relationship. If Alexander Berzin had stuck to explaining this point, he might have written a valuable - if significantly slimmer - handbook (for those without linguistic or cultural knowledge of Tibetan Buddhism). As it stands, he took on the loftier challenge of reform - having created the conceptual platform from which reform appears to be necessary. The problem with this approach is that there are no circumstances whatsoever under which the role vajra master can be reformed - while remaining true to the Vajrayana description of a vajra master. From the perspective of duality, the vajra master is incorrigibly recalcitrant.
The assumption that there is a generally accepted problem of rampant "sexual, financial, and power abuse" (p. 18) underpins Relating to a Spiritual Teacher - but as Ngak'chang Rinpoche and Khandro Déchen observed in their Damtsig article Conference Dharma - abuse is a fashionable concern at this time, and people tend to accept that there must be a problem with regard to abuse as soon as the word is mentioned. I will quote briefly from their article:
Spokespersons who employ 'empty issues' are advantaged by the naïve public reaction they create, and a feedback loop is formed in which hysterical reaction becomes an accepted norm. The old fashioned word for purveying misinformation is 'propaganda' but 'empty issues' are somewhat more insidious than propaganda. With propaganda, one can detect the source, but this is not necessarily so with 'empty issues'. Once an 'empty issue' has been assiduously coaxed into existence, other persons (otherwise unconnected with the initial falsification) take it up as a legitimate cause. These other persons are then believed because they are known to be sincere, and are otherwise not given to propagandising.
Through the ploy of stating that abuse is accepted as a "widespread problem" - the author justifies himself in attempting to whittle the role of the vajra master away to nil. I bring this up because in doing so, Mr. Berzin invites another danger. By encouraging an understanding of vajra relationship that is "safe and healthy," he may indeed prevent certain misunderstandings from occurring. However, he also lays the groundwork for a much greater misunderstanding. Entering into a Tantric relationship without full appreciation of the real dangers, and the necessity of implicit reliance on one's root teacher would be foolhardy. Sadly, adoption of the view presented in this book would allow the clever reader to rationalize any violation of vows with seeming impunity. The substance of this health-conscious reform is to "empower" the reader with a culturally-biased carte blanche which, unfortunately, constitutes the ultimate hedge. Mr. Berzin would have us believe that genuine devotion requires a linguistic twist.
In this sense, our tantric masters are Buddhas - although, of course, not inherently or ultimately Buddhas. (p. 158)
In this statement, we see the whole of Alexander Berzin's grand reform. We will examine it again in due course, but first let us turn to the structure surrounding this potentially innocuous-sounding remark - dressed as it is in reasonable academic language.
In particular, let us look at the slant and effect of the "rectification of terms" Mr. Berzin proposes. As I progressed through this book, I was surprised by the degree of revision of common terminology. Certainly I can understand the clarification and exposition of terms like "Lama." Indeed, in a world in which "Lama Surya Das" receives accolades, a little clarification seems appropriate. (Curiously enough, this very "Lama" provides an endorsement for the back of the soft-cover edition I purchased.) All this notwithstanding, my suspicion was distinctly aroused when every important Buddhist term was given a new translation. Specifically, the terms were given a translation which focused on making Dharma compatible with the presumed validity of late-twentieth-century self-help. For example, here is a partial list of Mr. Berzin's non-standard substitutions: refuge becomes safe direction; samaya becomes close bond; spiritual friend becomes constructive friend; and devotion becomes building a healthy relationship.
I am not opposed to looking closely at language and modifying translations where appropriate, but as enacted here, that policy seems misguided. Even if one ignores the evident agenda involved in the contraceptive language introduced, one must recognize the failure of this approach to clarify anything. Clarification is "the term" - but indoctrination is "the agenda." When aggregated, the author's modifications to accepted terminology create a degree of confusion which only thicken the linguistic stew surrounding introductory Dharma. In fact, it is his progressive mutation of language which allows the author to insert his own deliberately misleading interpretations. He connives this on the basis of having "established" the validity of a translation, then leaping from the alternate translation to a new set of meanings wholly disconnected from the original meaning.
By translating the language of Dharma into the language of self-help, Mr. Berzin suggests that the logic of Dharma is, correspondingly, the logic of self-help. This, however, is distinctly not the case. Whereas the self-help enthusiast can find "safe direction" in a "healthy relationship" with "a constructive friend," or even derive benefit from a "close bond," the translation does not work in reverse. The vajra disciple does not retain the option of "moving beyond", "stepping back from", or "growing out of" the relationship with his or her Lama. Sadly, it is just this sort of psychological word-game that Mr. Berzin wishes to play to the detriment of the naïve reader.
I grant that this sounds implausible. How could an established and erudite scholar of Tibetan Buddhism hold such distorted views of the fundamental tenets of Vajrayana? The only answer is that Relating to a Spiritual Teacher is not written from the perspective of Vajrayana. Rather it is written from the perspective of "cultural and academic interpretation." The author's presentation and interpretation of Vajrayana support this view.
Although many esoteric texts are quoted, the author's actual view of Tantra seems remarkably infantile. "Tantra," he tells us, "is an advanced form of meditation entailing visualization of multi-headed, multiarmed Buddha-figures (deities)." (p. 15). He repeatedly refers to the process of "imagining receiving four empowerments" (p. 76), "imagining themselves as Buddha-figures" (p. 96), "imagin[ing] their mentors in the forms of lineage masters" (p. 106). He even manages to squeeze in a little "light-hearted wit" regarding the Guru as "someone heavy or weighty", saying, "this does not mean that gurus are necessarily fat, although many are in fact overweight." (p. 34) If this is what is meant by "healthy," maybe we would do better to remain with "devotion."
As it turns out, Building a Healthy Relationship avoids all but nominal devotion whenever possible. In the two chapters dealing with the subjects of "Seeing a Mentor as a Buddha," and "Advanced Points Concerning Seeing that a Tantric Master is a Buddha," Mr. Berzin finally makes his agenda plain. He attempts to use whatever cultural credibility he has earned, and whatever confusion he has stirred up, to convince his readers of an absurd proposition. Specifically, he suggests that the fundamental practice of pure vision with regard to the Lama is an exercise in logic. According to his presentation, the difficulties practitioners experience in maintaining vajra relationship are not due to any lack of commitment on their part. Rather they stem from the students' failure to understand the simple secret discovered through years of study: the whole thing is merely a mental exercise.
Mr. Berzin goes to great pains to justify this conclusion, but his grasp of logic is analogous to his understanding of Vajrayana - skin deep at best. The primary tool he employs in his justification is "the Madhyamaka distinction between contingent and ultimate existence." This distinction, he would have us believe, lets us off the hook. We don't really need to believe or understand anything. After all, nothing is ultimately true - so if we can wrap our brains around this, nothing is too far-fetched too believe. That is because all of our convictions are simply "contingent." Therefore, we should ignore the obvious fact that our Lamas are not Buddhas - and instead realize that the traditional explanation is misleading. It is meant to be understood as merely a conventional, if inaccurate, designation. In other words, viewing the teacher as a Buddha is neither more nor less valid than viewing him or her as the putz he or she so often is. It just happens to be more useful sometimes - but not always.
As preposterous as this sounds, it is precisely the line of reasoning Alexander Berzin suggests:
The confusion here is that the four logical inferences cited in the graded-path texts demonstrate that spiritual mentors function as Buddhas for their disciples, while the scriptural quotations state that they are Buddhas. By the above explanation, the two statements are equivalent, but only in the sense that mentors are contingently Buddhas, not ultimately Buddhas. Westerners who are unaware of the Madhyamaka distinction between contingent and ultimate existence find the entire presentation totally baffling. (p. 152)
Mr. Berzin is evidently advantaged by this bafflement to the extent that it enables him to make a deft logical sidestep. He forgets to mention to the reader that Madhyamaka philosophy belongs to the Sutric vehicle, and the role of the vajra master lies within the Tantric vehicle. Although it is eminently possible to make commentary on the interface between Sutra and Tantra - it is not valid to employ the logic of a lower vehicle to clarify the precepts of a higher vehicle. Mr. Berzin makes clear, in the passage previously quoted, what he believes to be the key understanding without which Vajrayana is incomprehensible. This key understanding, is that when "scriptural quotations" and "logical inferences" contradict one another, it is necessary to apply philosophical arguments to resolve that difference. Now there is nothing wrong with Madhyamaka philosophy, but once one enters the practice of Vajrayana, one must abandon the vestigial refuge in philosophy in favor of pure vision. This is particularly true with respect to one's root Lama. No amount of philosophy can replace that view; and any interpretation of philosophy which contradicts it is by that very fact invalid from the Vajrayana perspective. Although Madhyamaka philosophy is itself unassailable and an important support for Mahayana practice, it cannot be appropriated as a justification for downplaying the importance of the Lama. It is unfortunately clear that this is the author's devious intention.
...labeling a mentor a Buddha does not mean that he or she is ultimately, or even conventionally, a Buddha in the full sense of the word. Disciples would hardly expect that their mentors could multiply into billions of forms or walk through walls. Following this convention of labeling merely affects disciples' attitudes so that they have a greater respect for the seriousness of their studies. (p.153-4)
This is a strange and adolescent approach to spirituality. By establishing super-natural "objective" criteria for Buddhahood, Mr. Berzin feels safe in asserting that our teachers could hardly qualify. But what has this to do with the "safe and healthy approach?" Mr. Berzin disallows our Gurus as Buddhas - but is willing to assure those new to Buddhism that a Buddha "could multiply into billions of forms or walk through walls." One would have thought that the application of logic had little place in the acceptance or rejection of the supernatural qualities of Buddhas - however Mr. Berzin is not employing logic to educate, but to indoctrinate. Having "demonstrated" his premise through highly contingent logic, he goes on to explain the "convention of labeling" as "merely affect[ing] disciples' attitudes" and equates vajra pride with "greater respect for the seriousness of their studies."
As comfortable as this position may be to the Western academic mindset, it sits in direct contradiction to the teachings of Vajrayana. The teachings of Tantra assert that enlightenment can be attained in this life, and the teachings of Dzogchen assert that the state of Buddhahood is beginninglessly present in all beings. In either case, it is only through transmission from a master who has accomplished the meaning of these teachings that such a view can be realized. To locate the qualities of a Buddha in fantastic displays of material transcendence is to distance oneself from the possibility of receiving transmission as we are. In order to communicate that we possess the potential for awakening, teachers manifest in any form whatsoever - but this compassionate manifestation is a reflection of primordial purity. In fact, it is only our own impoverished view that prevents us from directly comprehending our teachers as Buddhas. The most important practice for any Tantrika is that of seeing his or her root Lama as an enlightened being - and equivalently letting go of the habitual perception of the teacher as a restricted being. It is only in this manner that we can eventually release our habitual perception of ourselves as limited beings. But let us see what Mr. Berzin has to say on the subject.
Another way of saying that the perceptions of our tantric masters as ordinary humans and as Buddha-figures are equally valid is to say that the two perceptions, or the two perceived appearances, are inseparable (yermey, dbyer-med). Inseparable, here means that if one validly occurs from one point of view, the other validly occurs from another viewpoint. (p. 160)
It is true that the practice of Vajrayana may entail a perceptual alternation with regard to the quality of one's view. However, this is a statement of the realities of practice for a committed practitioner. It is not a statement of the equal validity of all views. From the perspective of Vajrayana, the view of "tantric masters as ordinary humans" as opposed to realized beings is not a valid perception - whether or not it is entertained.
The defining quality of Tantric practice is the determination not to validate such perceptions if they occur. Consequently, the condition of justifying such a validation is known, in a Tantric practitioner, as deliberate vow breakage. Indeed, it is not even possible for a "regular person" who is not a Tantric practitioner to "validly" hold both views. That is because the Tantric view is not available to a "regular person." Anyone whose perceptual structure allows Tantric pure vision to "validly occur" is a de facto Tantrika. Therefore, the statement that there are two contradictory but equally valid modes of viewing the teacher is inaccurate. It is true only in that different views may be valid for different individuals - or for one individual at different stages of development. In any case, the crucial point is that once one has established pure vision as a "valid ... viewpoint" by validly entering the practice of Tantra, no other view can be held as being "equally valid." The inseparability referred to by the term yer-mèd is the inseparability of the apparently ordinary condition from that of the enlightened state. It is not the inseparability of the validity of contradictory views. Contradictory views are resolved by the understanding that the higher yanas supplant the lower. It is said that the "the higher the yana the lower the throne." However, this does not mean that the Ati-yoga Lama is thereby reduced to being an "ordinary person," but rather that the "ordinary state" is seen to contain within it the potential to directly recognize enlightenment.
Given his repeated presentation of flawed interpretations of Buddhist teaching, I found myself asking a question: "How can Mr. Berzin carry on for so long in denying the need for Tantric practitioners to embrace the Tantric view?" We can find some answers in the following section:
The Nonliteral Use of the Label Buddha
Regarding a spiritual mentor as a Buddha has a shared meaning common to sutra and tantra. The sutras and their commentaries instruct disciples to see their mentors as Buddhas when they receive teachings or when they take refuge or bodhisattva vows. The highest tantras instruct disciples to do the same at all times. Chandrakirti taught that highest tantra teachings with a general meaning shared with sutra are to be taken literally only if they accord with the common experience. Because regarding one's teacher as a Buddha does not accord with common experience, it is not to be taken literally. (p.154-5)
Apparently Mr. Berzin falls back on the position that conflicts between Sutra and Tantra - when presented to Sutric practitioners - must be presented in a manner compatible with the Sutric understanding. This is a reasonable precaution. Since within the Gelug school - of which Mr. Berzin is primarily a student - Tantric teachings are generally given in conjunction with Sutric teachings, it is one which he rightly mentions. However, there is a definitive Vajrayana corollary to this injunction, and it is no less important. When Sutric teachings or practices conflict with Tantric vows of View, Tantric practitioners are obligated to maintain their Tantric commitments in preference to the Sutric alternative. The most well-known example of this is the inclusion of both meat and alcohol as indispensable ingredients of the Tantric tsog-khorlo (Sanskrit: gana-chakra). I assert that in this case, it is the Vajrayana view which should be given prevalence. As a form of practice, the method of viewing the teacher as a Buddha is characteristic of Vajrayana - and is not actually an explicitly Sutric practice. In fact, Mr. Berzin later explains this himself, stating that in relation to "a sutra level of guru yoga..." (p. 106)
Later Kadam masters ... extended the meditation to include disciples gaining inspiration from their spiritual mentors by remembering their good qualities and kindness. ... The first Panchen Lama shifted the emphasis in the guru-yoga that Tsongkhapa outlined. ... he stressed that disciples need to see their spiritual mentors as Buddhas. By including the visualization of Vajradhara in the mentor's heart, he clearly indicated the highest tantra orientation of this step. (p. 107)
In other words, the practice of viewing the teacher as a Buddha is essentially Tantric. When it is presented in the context of Sutra, it is "clearly indicated" to have "highest tantra orientation." Therefore, stipulations as to the necessity of "protecting" Sutric practitioners from more advanced views are unnecessary. That is because the presentation of this view is already indicative of the differences between Sutra and Tantra.
As I have repeatedly emphasized, Mr. Berzin's general approach contains one consistent error. In attempting to resolve the differences between various levels of view, he implies that the proper view is that which can be "generally" understood. He then suggests that the "general" view, which he correlates with Sutra, actually encompasses both the successful imagination of the teacher as some sort of deiform superman, and the view of the teacher as just an "ordinary human." This presentation is little more than the self-help doctrine of "positive thinking," which suggests that we can make our world better by imagining it to be so. This is disrespectful to the teachings of both Sutra and Tantra - but for different reasons. According to Sutra, practitioners change themselves and the world through discipline, effort, and compassion. According to Tantra, practitioners transform their perceptions through maintaining the power inherent in transmission. In neither case does one attempt to convince oneself of anything. Contrary to this, Mr. Berzin's entire thesis seems to be that armed with the cognitive tool of "voidness," we can convince ourselves of whatever seems necessary. After all, we only need to succeed for long enough to satisfy the minimum view requirements of whichever vehicle we wish to practice.
While this attitude is incoherent and misrepresentative, it could be construed as falling within acceptable boundaries. This would be permissible in a book purporting to provide cultural advice for those unfamiliar with Tibetans; and which pretended no specific understanding of Tantric teachings. Indeed, by using the term "mentor" to refer to both the spiritual ("constructive") friend and the vajra master, Mr. Berzin confuses the issue almost irreparably. It is very difficult to pick apart just what he is saying, so I would prefer to be forgiving in my assessment. However, in the section entitled "Advanced Points Concerning Seeing that a Tantric Master is a Buddha," he decisively crosses the line. In this chapter, he drops the layers of complication surrounding his strange amalgamation - and stranger resolution - of Sutric and Tantric teachings. Here he simply deals with the Tantric teacher as Tantric teacher.
Regardless of one's feelings concerning the foregoing cultural/philosophical exposition, it would be difficult to misinterpret the attitudes contained within Mr. Berzin's explicit treatment of the "Tantric Master." Indeed, for a practitioner who attempts to maintain Tantric commitments, no lenience can be allowed for the author's slanderous presentation. For example, here is his explanation of why "tantric masters always refrain from abusive behavior:"
Thus, tantric masters may view their own abusive behavior from a resultant level of a fully realized clear light mind and thereby experience no suffering from the action, although their reputation may fall. The victims, however, validly view and experience the abuse from a basis level of an unrealized Buddha-nature and consequently suffer greatly. Therefore, out of compassion, properly qualified tantric masters always refrain from abusive behavior. (p.168)
Mr. Berzin actually seems to believe that realization is some sort of über-morality that exempts its holders from the personal conequences of bad behavior. He certainly does nothing to suggest the possibility that compassionate activity can genuinely take forms that may be offensive or incomprehensible to ordinary "morals." Indeed, the tenacity with which we cling to our own prurient "methods" of samsara often requires the vajra master's unapologetic effrontery. To suggest that the manifestation of Buddha-Karma (Thrinlé) can be the cause of "validly view[ed] abuse" and consequent "great suffering" is outrageous. Lest there remain any doubt that Mr. Berzin expresses the position I ascribe to him, I cite the following paragraph. Bear in mind that this passage appears in a section devoted to "highest tantra" and appears directly before the author's explanation of the nature of empowerment.
...even if our tantric masters act unethically or cause harm, we try to learn a lesson from the situation. The lesson may simply be to hold back from acting destructively like this ourselves. This is the general meaning of the instruction, shared by sutra and tantra practitioners. On a highest tantra level, if we are advanced in our practices, we may use the incident to recognize the structure of one of the five types of deep awareness (Buddha-wisdom) - such as mirror-like or individualizing awareness - underlying the faulty action. ... Learning a lesson from the faulty behavior of one's mentor, however, does not mean denying that the behavior was faulty. After confirming the validity of our perception of the behavior, we may correctly conclude that the conventional appearance of it as faulty is accurate. (p.169)
In other words, Tantric practitioners are justified in judging the behavior of their Lamas, and in definitively "confirming the validity of our perception" and "correctly conclud[ing] that the conventional appearance of it as faulty is accurate." I do not see how these statements can be accredited as representative of the innermost Tantric practices of any school of Vajrayana Buddhism. It is incontrovertibly plain that Mr. Berzin is providing his own interpretation of profound teachings:
For example, highest tantra texts instruct disciples to see their tantric masters in pure forms. Any faults perceived in the master are figments of the imagination. Without differentiating the various meanings of pure, disciples may easily mistake the statement to mean that even if mentors sexually abuse students, their actions are the perfect conduct of enlightened beings.
The intended meaning of the statement, however, is quite different. The impure appearance of a tantric master's abusive behavior as independently existent is a fabrication of a confused mind. The abusive behavior has arisen dependently on many causes and circumstances. Although the deceptive appearance of how the behavior exists is false, the fact that the behavior is abusive is true. (p. 167)
This is pure nonsense. If a disciple is engaged in "highest tantra" practice according to any Buddhist tradition, then any indictment of the Lama's behavior as "abusive" is impossible. It is certainly conceivable that one might believe oneself to be engaged in "advanced practices" under the tutelage of a being whose behavior is far from exemplary. Still, any relationship which comprises actual abuse is - by the most fundamental definition of Vajrayana - inauthentic.
The situation is black and white. If one is actually in vajra relationship then any perception that imputes wrongdoing on the Lama's part must be viewed as a malignant tumor and excised accordingly. If one is indeed involved in an abusive relationship couched in terms of "highest tantra," then one will have been inhabiting a spiritual fantasy world for some time. It is imperative that vajra commitment not be embarked upon until all doubt as to the teacher's authenticity has been addressed. There is no obligation whatsoever to accept any individual as one's Lama - or to attempt the practice of Vajrayana at all. However, having done so - after thoroughly exhausting one's own judgement through the process of examining the teacher - one must be content to rest in that condition. It would be the height of inaccuracy to suppose that one had the slightest liberty to inflict one's own cultural or moral standards on the teacher's behavior. Although I could continue, I leave the further discovery of Mr. Berzin's disgraceful remarks to the reader who has already purchased this book. For those who have not purchased it, or who have no desire to encumber themselves with this "modern thinker's" puerile distortions, no more on the subject need be said.
Instead, I will briefly discuss the ramifications of Mr. Berzin's dismissal of the Lama as the dynamic catalyst of liberation. Specifically, I would like to focus on his conclusions and the recommendations he makes to his Western audience. To begin with, let me explain that Relating to a Spiritual Teacher comes in three sections.
The first, Spiritual Seekers and Spiritual Teachers sets the stage for what is to follow, with the "rectification of terms." The second, The Dynamics of a Healthy Student-Teacher Relationship concludes with the subsection, "Advanced points Concerning Seeing That a Tantric Master is a Buddha," which I have quoted above. If that is the "Healthy ... Relationship," it takes little imagination to guess what is presented in the third section, Unhealthy Relationship with Spiritual Teachers. Nevertheless, I will provide a brief survey. In truth, the table of contents tells the whole story. The subsections are "Overdependence and Rebellion", "Transference and Regression", "Fear in a Disciple-Mentor Relationship", "Blocks in Opening Oneself to a Spiritual Mentor," and "Generational and Life Cycle Issues."
If it sounds as though the author has chosen to advocate psychotherapy as a palliative applicable to a deficient relationship with the teacher, that is because he has. Witness the following:
Success in this step enables them, in Bozsorzmenyi-Nagy's words, "to overcome feeling shortchanged or cheated and to accept payment in a different currency for the acknowledgement to which they are rightly entitled."
Guru-meditation then supplemented with the contextual therapy approach would proceed through the following steps. First, as with the step of rejoicing during the seven-part invocation, we need to acknowledge and feel good about our practices ourselves. Then, if our mentors have not been showing us the type of attention or signs of pleasure with our practices that we would like, we need to admit this consciously. Complaining about the fact, however, and feeling that our mentors need to adopt our ways will only depress or annoy us, rather than uplift us. After all, our expectations were unrealistic. Therefore, we need next to realize that the cultural or personal limitations our mentors possess have arisen from a variety of causes, but do not constitute inherent flaws in the mentors' character. Thus we focus on the voidness of our mentor's shortcomings as existing inherently. (p.200)
And later, our author tells us that:
To avoid the problems of idealization, it may be helpful to adapt the deconstruction methods used in sutra-level guru-meditation regarding a mentor's shortcomings. After gaining a realistic view of a mentor's weak points, we would bring to mind the impression we have of his or her good qualities and try to distinguish between our projection and fact.(p. 235)
Mr. Berzin is actually suggesting adapting the form of Guru yoga practised at the Sutric level - as a preparation for Tantra - to include a consideration of the teacher's "shortcomings." Furthermore, he makes this suggestion on the basis of "contextual therapy." Although this type of indiscriminate syncretism may seem coherent in the context of therapy, it has no place in Buddhism. One cannot introduce fundamentally inappropriate (and admittedly "unrealistic") suppositions into one's practice on the basis that they will be dissolved later. One may as well ask one's Lamas whether they have stopped beating their respective husbands and wives.
Mr. Berzin believes that "time-tested Dharma methods adapted and applied to new situations have provided the solutions to the culturally based problems that inevitably arise," (p. 252) and, "in several cases, additional steps in the meditation have seemed appropriate, but within the context of the traditional method." (p. 253) All of these adaptations are presented so that disciples will have a context for nurturing their private beliefs as to which aspects of the teacher's behavior are acceptable. Mr. Berzin explains that the traditional understanding is insufficiently tolerant of appropriate criticism:
Misunderstanding the concept of guru-devotion and of seeing that the mentor is a Buddha may brainwash disciples into feeling that they must deny the truth. The conflict inevitably leads to anxiety and tension. They may fear criticism from fellow Dharma students if they bring up something about the teachers at their centers that disturbs them or does not seem right. They hold themselves back from speaking about the mistakes they see, for fear of being branded bad disciples and heretics who will burn in hell. (p. 211)
I think that Mr. Berzin is a bit too casual in his dismissal of "hell." Indeed he proceeds, in Building a Healthy Relationship, to attempt at every step to undermine the belief that violation of samaya can lead to ultimate consequences. Although he does not exactly repudiate the concept of vajra hell, he reduces it to "a personal hell that lacks any joy and is difficult to escape." He says that "it may even weaken the immune system and bring on or aggravate a sickness." (p. 210) I leave it to the reader to judge for him or herself whether this statement leaves something to be desired.
I do not think Mr. Berzin's treatment of Vajrayana and the vajra master accords with the teachings he purports to represent. As a translator, Mr. Berzin should be concerned with communicating, as precisely and as accurately as possible, the words he has taken on the responsibility of translating. Instead, he makes ad hoc pronouncements he hopes will deal with what he sees as threats to the cozy world of "Western Vajrayana" he thinks he has helped to found. For example, I would not echo Mr. Berzin's edicts - no matter how politically convenient his position might be. I would not declare that "the issue of Dharma-protectors is not crucial to anyone's practice for attaining enlightenment" (p. 215)
I think Mr. Berzin himself describes the problem well:
When Westerners are involved, imprecise or misleading translation terms frequently worsen the confusion. (p.252)
There are two styles of authentic translation. The Nyingma school of Tibetan Buddhism adopted the "inspirational" approach. According to this approach, texts were translated, by masters with direct understanding of their meaning, into language appropriate to that meaning. The Sarma schools adopted the alternate approach of precise, literal translation. Within this equally valid model, the translator's personality or experience should play the least possible role. Damtsig is unapologetic in quoting Rig'dzin Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche - who was undoubtedly a teacher of Dharma in the Nyingma style: as direct translation according to lived experience.
While Trungpa Rinpoche displayed a command of the modern English language which would shame most native speakers, his teachings were deeply traditional. He was neither American nor Tibetan nor Indian - but Tantric - in his explanation of the teacher's role. Ironically, Alexander Berzin - a Western translator whose sterile prose is, at best, an attempt at literal translation - displays an utter indifference to his responsibility in this endeavor. Instead, he takes it upon himself to adapt both the language and the practices of Buddhism as expressed by the Tibetan Tantric tradition - so that they will be more "comfortable" for Western people. In doing so, he creates an atmosphere in which the possibility of genuine devotion is discredited and tucked away as fantastically inaccessible. Devotion is reduced to an esoteric practice which can only be understood through logical manipulation. This would not be so bad if he did not consistently validate the notion that the vajra disciple is specifically required to exercise moral judgement with regard to the teacher. That is, disciples are not only justified in conceiving of the teacher's activity as abusive - but actually remiss in failing to acknowledge any action that could be construed as inappropriate.
Relating to a Spiritual Teacher is rife with many valuable quotations from great teachers. Because of this, I have tried to avoid criticizing the portions that attempt to justify themselves on the basis of direct scriptural authority. I have likewise avoided quoting any authority as the basis of my own primary argument - for fear of inaugurating an academic debate.
I apologize insofar as my criticism of Mr. Berzin's work has inadvertently touched upon any of the many valid perspectives he has used as stepping stones in pursuit of his "reform" movement. As in the case of a sniper taking aim at a hostage-taker, I have had to weigh the benefits of caution against the detriments of inaction. Regrettably, Mr. Berzin, with his "universal" approach, has incriminated so very many authentic sources and perspectives in his presentation. Because of this, I have been forced to conclude that this is a "multiple hostage" situation. Just as a sniper who takes aim at a hostage-taker must bear the outcome of pulling the trigger, so too will I have to take credit for the consequences of my criticism. I do not take this lightly, but as a person who attempts to maintain samaya, I am aware that sometimes passive restraint is not an option.
I will close by quoting Trungpa Rinpoche - not as a condemnation or refutation of Mr. Berzin's words - but as a reminder to all, myself included, that the consequences of error exist independent of speculation.
I think there are something like 750 vows that have developed in the tantric discipline of samaya, samaya shila, and all of these are based on the guru. If you mistreat the guru, if you have doubt about the guru, if you have a vengeful attitude toward the guru, you might be struck. Before you enter into samaya shila, the guru gives you the water of the samaya oath, and you drink it. Once you have drunk it, this water will either become a saving grace, helping toward the development of basic sanity, or it will turn into an absolute atomic bomb. You could be killed, destroyed in the direst manner one could ever imagine, in vajra hell. (The Lion's Roar; Shambahala, 1993; p. 181)