February 29 2004
"This is the best kind of Dharma book: one that is based on personal experience rather than theory..." - from the jacketBy following a formula now well-trodden by other writers, Joseph Goldstein's One Dharma: The Emerging Western Buddhism manages to sound a lot like a number of "Western Buddhist" writings to emerge in the last couple of years:
While to some this familiarity might appear to be confirmation that in fact a new "Western Buddhism" is truly appearing organically, I found this similarity disturbing. It smacks of the kind of market-research driven "lite" dogma propagated by a number of large religious franchises these days. These organizations poll household after household, asking what turns them off about church, what keeps them away, and what they like. The resulting data is used to construct a dogma that leaves out all the offensive bits as defined by the target demographic; the results seem closer to a nice family revue at Branson than inspired religious instruction, with the collection plate taking the place of a two-drink-minimum. While Goldstein's presentation may be beholden to the current marketing formulae of the Buddhist-niche publishing world, his message is far more insidious than at first it may appear.
There is in these feel-good, featherbed, freshens-and-sanitizes-in-one approaches to religion a self-serving dishonesty, a kind of passive-aggressive voice that states all is well, that our sensibilities are best left unoffended, that comfort equals value. The danger is that having apprehended a new faith or path and felt really good about it, we can mistake the confident comfort of "no threat" for objectivity, and relax in our unexamined belief that we reside in truth. Having sampled truth, we can proceed with confidence to compare, contrast, and critique-perhaps even combine, extracting useful strands of religio-DNA to form a new living creature with all of the beneficial chromosomes known to science.
Most of us in the West approach Buddhism at a distinct disadvantage. Having grown up within the era of science and technology, post "Age of Reason," post "Enlightenment," we believe in the existence of objective truth, and that as science advances we inch ever closer to that pure, valid position. Since Galileo was proved more correct than the Pope in matters of astronomy, religion for many of us in the West has traversed the ether in uneasy consort with science, running hard to keep up with quantifiable discoveries and their resulting appearance in the consumer electronics marketplace. The representation that our religious beliefs, whoever we might be, represent truth is common. This confidence in the validity of modern thought extends into philosophy and political theory as well. We hold these truths to be self-evident.
Like the difference between Newton and Einstein, however, this belief is only part of The Big Picture. Einstein's relativity is, in my dimly-lit view of the science, much closer to the Buddhist view of reality and truth. Truth looks a certain way from a certain point of view, but the point of view itself affects the view from that point; all statements of truth are relative, dependent on that point and its assembled characteristics for any small validity that may be said to exist.
As has happened many times in this "New Age" of religion, One Dharma attempts the great leap of religious synthesis, a leap of faith in the validity beyond its own domain of a point of view, a leap of confident extrapolation, towards a "unified theory of Dharma" (p 4). Mr. Goldstein's long history with Buddhist practice with various teachers in the Theravada school shows through every page of his writing. Clearly, he has embraced and examined this venerable and comprehensive way of Buddhist life. This is at once admirable, wonderful, and the essence of the trouble with this disturbing book. I find Mr. Goldstein entirely palatable as an inspired advocate of the mindfulness practice in which he has engaged for many years. His problem, and ours as readers and especially as Buddhist neophytes, is his attempt to spread wide the jaws of his own experience and engulf all other schools and traditions within the gaping maw of principles in which he believes, then attempts to apply universally.
This unified field theory of Dharma, with concisely defined characteristics, is however schizophrenically offered lip service in the politically correct terminology of the New Age:
Today we are coming full circle and there is again a great cross-fertilization across traditions. ... Western Buddhism will inevitably be a synthesis of these great wisdom traditions. ... This need not be a watering down or a mixing up of different teachings. We can practice each of them in its own integrity and come to a genuine depth of understanding. But when we see them all as skillful means for awakening, rather than as absolute statements of truth, we stay free of the sectarian divide that has plagued so many spiritual traditions and come to the essential points common to all of them. (p 26)
What is One Dharma? One Dharma is just this: experiencing the essential point common to all the teachings. But with so many different traditions and schools and ways of practice, how do we go about finding this common essence?
The second means of realizing One Dharma, which applies even as we are practicing any one particular method, is an attitude of openness to diverse views and a willingness to learn from different perspectives.
... [Different styles of practice result in] a wealth of skillful means that allows each of us not only to find the particular method that suits our temperament and aspirations, but also to draw on the richness and depth of many traditions. After we have become established in one tradition we can then learn from others, understanding that at the heart of them all there is a common ground that supports our journey to freedom. (pp 12-13)
Goldstein over-extends his genuine appreciation of one Dharma - i.e. one of the numerous explanations of Dharma, one of the Dharma-methods - in an attempt make it into the One Dharma, a coined phrase, capitalized in case we missed it. A verified objective Truth, self-evident. Like a chemist determining and extracting the active ingredient in the living dynamic of a jungle plant, Goldstein attempts to do the same to Buddhism.
This does not seem to bother him too much. Throughout the book he declares openly that his formulation of the One Buddhism wonder supplement emerges from his own experience. That seems to be good enough, though:
The criteria for reference and inclusion are simply the particular passions of my own spiritual journey: a long familiarity with Theravada teachings, the profound inspiration of a few remarkable Tibetan masters, and my great appreciation of Zen Buddhism's direct pointing to the enlightened mind. (p 4)
... we are willing to take what is useful and beneficial from different traditions and add it to our own practice experience. (p 1)
The problem, one that students have always faced, is this in a nutshell: Who defines "useful and beneficial?" By what criteria is an aspect of a Dharma tradition or method determined to be useless and without benefit? We risk becoming spiritual consumers, or rather increasing our tendency to spiritual consumerism, defining Dharma by our parameters, shopping brands according to the whims of comfort, fashion, marketing, which even as deluded beings we know we cannot trust. Where, then, does refuge begin and end, if indeed we need refuge at all? How will we know the difference between our comfort zones and genuine growth and value?
These questions have been answered many times throughout Buddhism's long history, answered by way of the manifestation of different methods, different explanations of Dharma. In his earthly lifetime, the Sangha could consult the Buddha himself; his teachings and explanations were accepted as the bottom line. Later, the Sutras, Vinaya and Abhidharma were written down, and many today regard them as reliable, authoritative, and complete. Still later, new interpretations of the Sutras emerged as the Mahayana, with many now regarding these teachings as definitive, and maligning previous teachings as Hinayana, "the lesser vehicle." Further down the road, Vajrayana emerged into view and became available. All this is to say that the expression of Buddhism can and does and must change, according to the needs of those deluded beings in contact with it in any given time and place. This is the natural expression of compassion on the part of realized beings. It is for this very reason that there can be no One definitive Dharma, that the active ingredient cannot be extracted from those earlier expressions of Dharma and synthesized as a pure essential compund. The system itself is the method, the view presented as a whole, a world.
There is one dharma, not many. Distinctions arise from the needs of the ignorant. - Zen ancestor Seng Ts'an, quoted on page 9
We are the ignorant, and distinctions arise in the method because we have need for them. It could be argued that there is in the presentation of the Buddha "One Dharma," one essential nexus expressed within every other teaching: "form is emptiness; emptiness is form." This statement from the Heart Sutra may be sufficient in and of itself as a teaching for some fortunate disciples, but for the rest of us further explanation, elaboration, method-support is necessary.
One Dharma's jacket mentions a "visionary synthesis." "Visionary" is an interesting choice of words in the larger Buddhist context, as an entire realm of visionary practice and method is absent from his analysis, namely that of Vajrayana/Tantra. In fact the whole of Mr. Goldstein's analysis is amazingly renunciate, given that he attempts to embrace the all-inclusive vision of Dzogchen with the dove white wing of his vision. He has given birth not to a synthesis but rather an induced reductionism. My Random House dictionary defines "reduction" as "to lessen in size, to act destructively upon," and offers several synonyms: decrease, diminish, degrade, demote. None of these to my mind sound like a good thing in terms of the vastness of Buddhist method. Certainly no individual can ever hope to master every Buddhist text, each and every method; each of us needs to "reduce" the Buddhist canon to a method or set of methods, a lineage, the instructions of a teacher. But to consciously tinker with the structure of Dharma, to "synthesize" a new method, requires profound realization. Even the great masters of the eclectic Ri-mé (ris med) movement in 19th century Tibet completely mastered their own traditions before embarking on the study, from the beginning, of other schools.
As Damtsig is concerned with the Vajra Master and current efforts to curtail and marginalize that role, that issue in particular should be mentioned here. It should be mentioned as Mr. Goldstein does not do so. Vajrayana is mentioned in barest passing, with only a tentative toe-dipping into Dzogchen and none at all into Tantra. This neatly avoids the Vajra Master issue, or rather makes a statement without having to offend any sensibilities by stating anything specific. The issue of a working relationship with the Vajra Master in Dzogchen is not addressed, other than to say transmission and authorized introduction are necessary. This avoids the issue of devotion and of the Role of Vajra Master in Western Buddhism at all.
Who or what constitutes ultimate spiritual authority? Is it a person at the top of a religious hierarchy or one's own teacher? Is it the remembered words of the spiritual founder? Is it a democratic group process that decides what is true? Or is it left to each individual? (p 22)
... in the West ... there is usually some mixture of wisdom and ignorance in those who are teaching.... So there may be some value in relying on the group wisdom as well. (pp 22-3)
I find it frankly astonishing that a book claiming to synthesize the essence of all Buddhism into a sort of Leatherman multi-tool path can fail even to mention the Lama, the Vajra Master, can fail to address yidam practice/deity yoga/guru yoga. It is difficult to imagine anyone in the West curious about Buddhism today who is unaware of yidam practice, the visionary mainstay of many schools of Vajrayana /Tantra, much less a person of Mr. Goldstein's experience and travels. The question then becomes, "Why is it not mentioned at all?" Why is not the slightest mention made of this vast and widely practiced type of method, within a presentation claiming to be comprehensively inclusive?
There are I think two possible answers: one, that he does not consider Tantra to be genuinely Buddhist, and two, that he simply cannot find a way to encompass the Tantric vision and so leaves it out. It muddles the package, confuses the customer. And of many disturbing things about One Dharma, this is what I find most disturbing of all: what can only be an attempt to manipulate the perception of its readers in the most insidious way. The first possibility, while still debated, is not without historical precedent. It is still common within many Theravada schools to consider Tantra to be an anathema. These schools would also, however, argue for the exclusion of Mahayana and certainly Dzogchen from the sphere of valid Buddhist teachings as well. Why has Mr. Goldstein chosen this selective exclusion? I find the question of this omission important enough that it taints the integrity of the rest of his book; at the very least it calls into question any claim to a comprehensive survey of Dharma.
On page three, Mr. Goldstein asks:
What do you do when two of your most respected teachers say opposite things about that which is most important to you? Is there a path to liberation that embraces them all?
On page 11, Mr. Goldstein 11 relates his eventual realization that these ways of speaking are different methods, skillful means rather than "as the statements of absolute truth I was taking them to be," but then responds to this by attempting to formulate a new definition of Buddhist truth as universally essential method that encompasses his schism.
The answer to his question is, assuming one's spiritual grazing is done with integrity is: "seek clarification and instruction." To "embrace them all," the path must be so wide that it is no longer a path, it is the horizon, it is the vastness of all diversity, and to call it "a path" is a nonsensical reduction, a paradox without meaning, an attempt at pounding the square pegs of diversity into the single round hole of monism. Within the vastness of the Buddhist horizon there are many paths, tested tried and each true within the parameters of its own map. In the incalculable enormity of Buddhist vision there is room for many more. Surely more will appear in time, perhaps even within our own lifetimes. But we need not destroy the delightfully useful distinctions of any of these great paths by paving them over with the featureless generic asphalt of "One Dharma." That neatly marketable sound bite/service mark is dropped in at regular intervals lest we forget what franchise we've entered. Goldstein appears not so subtly to remind us to remember his capitalized brand name, holding his box with the label showing.
Nothing could be better than a genuine appreciation for the diversity of spiritual traditions and methods. We have available to us today what may be the widest variety of these methods the world has ever known. Instead of trying to synthesize these valuable and diverse methods into a single amalgam, let us authentically appreciate each for what it is. Otherwise we run the risk of creating one relatively inclusive - but ultimately ineffectual dharma.