Marilyn Monroe Should Have Married Jeffrey Miller

by Arch Stanton

Tricycle magazine interviewed Surya Das in their Fall 2000 issue (Old Wine in New Bottles, p. 48). I have perhaps chosen an unusual title, but it is intended to reflect the "Buddhist" celebrity culture which Tricycle has made its own since its inception. Tricycle always been happy to publish interviews with anyone, as long as they were famous: Jack Kerouac - even though he renounced Buddhism in later life; a member of the Beastie Boys with a passing interest in Buddhism. Dan Bern's song, "Marilyn Monroe should have married Henry Miller" concerns the happier life Marilyn Monroe might have had if she had married a different Mr. Miller. As Surya Das' original name is Jeffrey Miller, it occurred to me that he might have had a happier life if he had married Marilyn Monroe. Maybe he would not have felt such a need for fame, as Marilyn would have provided it for him. Maybe then he could have settled for being less well known. Maybe then the lure of playing to the lowest common denominator would have been easier to resist. The following excerpts indicate the contradictory positions that Surya Das attempts to maintain with regard to the vajra master. On the one hand, he is unequivocal in his claim that the vajra master is an anachronism inappropriate to "Western" practice. On the other, he intimates that he himself may be a suitable vajra master for certain students. Every time Surya Das comes out with another public expression, sincere Vajrayana practitioners cannot help but formulate a question: "Which way is it going to be, Mr. Das?"

[In the following quotations, words in bold are those of the Tricycle interviewer. Quoted words in plain text are those of Surya Das. The remaining comments are my own.]

Is there any distinction between Jeffrey Miller and Surya Das?

No. But we all have different roles in life. When I visit my mother on Long Island, I'm Jeffrey Miller. If I'm giving a public talk, I'm Lama Surya Das. In the end, we just become more ourselves. As a Zen teaching goes: "When you become you, then Zen becomes Zen, Buddha becomes Buddha."

If "we just become more ourselves," and "when you become you, then ... Buddha becomes Buddha," and this is an answer to the question, then it seems clear that Surya Das/Jeffrey Miller has moved beyond particular designations and has "become Buddha." This is not impossible. Neither is it an unorthodox formulation. Indeed, this is the fruit of reliance on the vajra master. I would venture that this pronouncement has a bit of a self-aggrandizing ring to it since it comes in answer to a personal question and not a question relating to Dharma per se. However, it is certainly "in bounds" for a Lama who has realized his own enlightenment. In point of fact, there is no difference between personal matters and Dharma for such a person.

You were trained by Tibetan teachers who themselves had received traditional monastic training in Tibet. Are you training any of your students the way you were trained?

Remember, my teachers were in exile [...] - so they were already doing things differently. [...] Like my own teachers, I lead several intensive, silent meditation retreats each year, and give refuge and bodhisattva vows, but I also have lots of weekly classes, seminars, lectures, and workshops, an online "Ask the Lama" column, and do teleconferences. [...] The extended question-and-answer period, for example, is a distinctly Western development. Such new forms are less hierarchical and more egalitarian and democratic.

Of course a realized teacher may create new forms to fit changing circumstances, but what is meant by "less hierarchical and more egalitarian and democratic?" From the language he uses, it sounds like Surya Das is pushing the anti-vajra master sentiment that relies on harnessing the American anti-authoritarian impulse. Still, it is possible - from what he says here - that Surya Das is acting from an authentic position, and that the "new forms" he refers to are genuinely representative of Dharma.

And the form of guru devotion?

The emphasis in the Vajrayana is definitely on the teacher. The Tibetan Buddhist refuge is not in just the Three Jewels - the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. It's also in the Three Roots - the Lama, the Yidam (or the meditational archetype), and the dharmapalas and dakinis, the internal energies. [...]

Do you pass this emphasis on the guru to your own students?

No. Americans will know about Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha without a personal guru or teacher. They don't live in a rural, agrarian, pre-industrial, oral culture, where only the priests have much knowledge and learning; they inhabit the post-modern Information Age and a literate society.

Now I'm talking here of seeing the guru not from a spiritual point of view but from a cultural and historical point of view. In all religions, learning in ancient times was transmitted through the priesthood. When Gutenberg published the Bible, it was no longer just the priests who had medical knowledge, who were literate and knew about history, religion, astrology, and astronomy. As a result, there was a Protestant revolution. The priests' position became less important, lay ministers came along, and eventually we had public education and new forms of social culture.

At this point, it is clear that Surya Das is in fact pushing the "Western Buddhist" agenda. There was never much doubt, but the tone and character of his early answers indicate that he wishes to promote the image of himself as "having a traditional bent." I apologize if attempting to take this seriously was either too forgiving or too rhetorical for some readers. In either case, the attempt must now be relinquished. Surya Das does not have a traditional bent.

Surya Das' answers to the previous question clearly indicate that he does not believe "Tibetan Buddhism" is applicable to Americans. If he did, he would not state that "the Tibetan Buddhist refuge is ... also in the Three Roots - the Lama, the Yidam .., and the dharmapalas and dakinis" then go on to say that "American will know about Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha without a personal guru or teacher." To say this is to say that understanding "Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha" is the goal, and that "Lama, ... Yidam, ... dharmapalas and dakinis" is a dispensable means of accomplishing that. Furthermore, he implies, it is a means unnecessary for Americans because they lack the Tibetan handicap of living "in a rural, agrarian, pre-industrial, oral culture, where only the priests have much knowledge and learning." I find this puzzling since it implies that the Sutric view is superior to the Tantric - and that knowledgelable, literate people will naturally prefer it. This is a strange statement coming from a man with Vajrayana pretensions.

Surya Das' claim that he is "talking here of seeing the guru not from a spiritual point of view but from a cultural and historical point of view" is irrelevant. The role of the vajra master is a matter of primary doctrinal importance, so if he wishes to criticize Vajrayana on "cultural and historical" grounds, he must do so as a "cultural observer" and "historian" - not as a representative of Buddhism. Certainly he cannot make this criticism as a practitioner of Vajrayana Buddhism (Tibetan or otherwise).

What about aspects of the tradition that depend on the enlightened qualities of the guru? Can that emphasis be maintained?

When I look at my own gurus, like the Karmapa or Khyentse Rinpoche, I don't feel that my spiritual realization matches theirs. I'm more of a player-coach or wise friend than a master-guru or absolute authority. [...] I see myself as what Buddha called kalyana-mitra in referring to teachers, which means "spiritual friend-benefactor."

[...] Students make a teacher. I get together with people. [...] Whether or not they consider me as a guru in the traditional sense or as a spiritual friend - that is sort of up to them.

The humility Surya Das expresses here is a curious one. It is a well-known convention for Lamas to make protestations to the effect that they lack realization. Any Lama will also naturally have the deepest respect for the insurpassability of his or her own teacher's experience. For anyone to claim that their realization does match their teachers' would be tantamount to claiming to be enlightened. In light of this, Surya Das' statement that he "[doesn't] feel that [his] spiritual realization matches theirs" - is highly suspect. He manages to express a seemingly humble position in highly arrogant terms. It's as though he wishes to imply that perhaps his momentary feelings are mistaken. He's thought a lot about this, and although he's not quite sure, he doesn't feel he's quite in their league. You be the judge.

Of course the deck is stacked, since he states openly that his students choose whether or not to view him as a Guru. Either his claims of not being qualified to serve as the vajra master are some sort of vajra-tomfoolery, or he holds a deeply casual attitude toward the devotion and commitment some of his students may show him. Which is it?

You've been criticized by some Tibetans and some of their Western students for calling your center Dzogchen Foundation. What is their problem with your use of that term?

Dzogchen has always been considered the highest or the ultimate teaching of Tibetan Buddhism, a kind of secret teaching for initiates only. [...] In fact it was after a Tibetan used a dzogchen term to name his organization that various lamas said, "That holy, secret word is now on newsletters and newspapers that are under the feet of people in the subway. It's bad karma. How could this be? It's a degeneration of the dharma." And his students had to explain: "This is a new time and place, and new skillful means must be utilized."

So it's not so much of a Tibetan-Western issue as a past versus present dilemma?

In this case, yes.

In other cases?

Several lamas have said to me that they wished I was more careful with "their" precious lineage. This is where we get into trouble. I say yes, of course, and we're working to uphold this lineage. We've built centers and done everything to bring this lineage to this country, and now this is "our" lineage too.

Now Mr. Das has renounced his claim that he functions simply as the kalyanamitra. Perhaps we should learn to take his claims with a grain of salt. If we are to take him seriously, then we must believe that he completely misunderstands the contradiction inherent in his stance. One cannot distance oneself from the role of vajra master while simultaneously claiming to hold a dzogchen lineage. The proposition is absurd, and the language Mr. Das uses is insulting. By attempting to characterize as backward and sectarian those who have voiced concerns with his facile marketing of profound teachings, Mr. Das once again takes up his position as an "Enlightened Western" teacher plagued by "rural, agrarian ... priests."

And if a shift is made away from "their" model of guru devotion, is that still "our" lineage? Is that still old wine?

Yes. I cannot in good faith tell people that they should see me as a Buddha, as it says in many Tibetan texts. But my own devotion to my teachers inspires certain people - those who have a devotional character, and who can thus benefit from devotional practices - to do the same with their teacher, whoever [sic] that may be. [...] What I'm really interested in personally is the practicing devotional traditions, and I think that the practices of guru yoga will continue, but not the guru tradition, which can be corrupted by feudal patriarchy. [...]

If someone sees you as a spiritual friend, is that different than a spiritual teacher?

In my own experience, as I began to commit myself more to a teacher, I began to have different kinds of questions. The teacher also began to offer different kinds of answers. The teacher started to get to know me better, and then was in a better position to push my buttons. The more you invest in the teacher-student relationship, the more you can get out of it and the more a teacher can transmit to you, or push you, teach you, and provoke you.

But what's this? The role of the kalyanamitra doesn't depend upon the teacher's ability to provoke the student - such methods are the exclusive province of Tantra.

In this regard, Westerners do not seem to cut Western teachers the same slack as they do the Asian teachers. Can you use pushing people's buttons as a teaching?

I try to. But I'm careful about it. You can discourage students that way. [...] You know, a thousand years ago Naropa's guru was Tilopa, a crazy, bloodshot-eyed, drunken yogi living under a bridge in Calcutta as a beggar, eating the foul offal thrown away by the fishermen. [...] Then how did Naropa get enlightened? Tilopa hit him in the face with a filthy old sandal. There wasn't any fancy presentation of Mahamudra teachings; but somehow the bubble burst and Naropa realized nondualism [...].

Tilopa was the Mahasiddha who inspired a line of devotion that led to the foundation of the Kagyüd school. His relationship with Naropa is one of Tibetan Buddhism's most extreme examples of outrageous behavior. If Surya Das does not believe in the importance of the "guru tradition," why does he invoke this image as a model for his teaching style?

If you did that in America you'd get sued for abuse.

Right, so I don't do that. [...]

As a teacher, you're always carefully checking your attention and your motivation, then at some point you become confident that whatever you do will be helpful rather than harmful. I'm much more loose with my own students who are, again, in that safe container, where they're asking to pushed or provoked. It's a safe container because we already have an agreement of trust and commitment. In that situation I'll say outrageous things to them.

It sounds like Surya Das is attempting to describe vajra relationship. He certainly implies that the reason he doesn't adopt Tilopa's teaching style is that such behavior might result in a law suit. Fair enough, but this is not the statement of the spiritual friend. This is the voice of an aspiring vajra master. However; in order to emulate Tilopa's manifestation, one would need Tilopa's realization, and Surya Das' coy innuendo is wearing a bit thin.

Such as?

Such as I might ask a personal student, if they continually approach me seeking counsel about their love life: "You always have these strained relationships with the opposite sex, have you tried practicing celibacy for a while, or exploring gay relations?"

[...] It's just a way of pushing the envelope, and seeing what comes up.

And here is where Surya Das' formula breaks down. The behavior he describes is so fatuous, one must wonder if he is serious. I will stipulate that such advice might be appropriate when dispensed by the vajra master to a personal student, but only if the reader will stipulate that such advice cannot be seen as appropriate from any other perspective.

Are there any advantages to being a Western teacher?

Many students say that they're inspired by Western teachers because they can communicate direcly with us and see how we actually live and deal with problems that everyone faces. [...]

But that familiarity itself must have its own difficulties.

That's true but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The Tibetan lamas have certain discreet, old-fashioned, clerical-style customs [...].

In the first five or ten years it was difficult for me to see what was going on behind the scenes with my lama. I only saw the lama in his perfect role as the tantric teacher and old master. I had to learn to separate in my mind the Tibetan man from the perfect Tibetan guru, and not keep confusing the pure, liberating, noble dharma teachings with the local culture or the human noblemen who were representing it. I loved my teachers dearly and feel a tremendous debt of gratitude to them. But if we really take refuge in the Dharma, we're taking refuge not in a person but in the teachings. The Buddha himself said, "Don't be devoted to the teacher, be devoted to the teaching. Don't be devoted to the letter of the law, be devoted to the spirit and practice of the dharma."

In this interview, Surya Das has vacillated between describing himself as an explicitly Sutric teacher (kalyanamitra), and describing his activities in Tantric terms. This in itself is no problem, as Vajrayana is often presented from within the framework of Sutra. However, Vajrayana is not compatible with the attitudes Surya Das expresses in closing. To quote "the Buddha" as an aid to the attempted refutation of the vajra master's authority is to unequivocally renounce any allegiance to Vajrayana.

What then are we to make of Surya Das? He decries Vajrayana as problematic yet calls himself a Lama. He calls himself the kalyanamitra, but waxes lyrical about "pushing buttons" and hints that he can function as the vajra master. He renounces the "guru tradition," yet claims that dzogchen is "our lineage." He pretends devotion while invalidating the primacy of the Lama. I could go on, but why?

Surya Das does not live up to the dynamically paradoxical image he attempts to project. Rather, he is a politician with no qualms about playing both sides of an issue. His glib presentation may appease those listening for sound bites, but any careful reading of his words leads to the same conclusion: Surya Das will say anything to buy himself fifteen more minutes of fame. This is a shame, because his frivolous misrepresentation of Dharma is confusing to those with little experience - and those with a bit more are tediously obliged to sift through it in an ongoing effort to keep an eye on him.