A Would-Be Lynch Mob

by Arch Stanton

It has come to my attention that a number of individuals have been posting various forms of slander on the Tricycle Bulletin Boards recently. This is hardly surprising, considering that this is the rock under which we found Tara "American Buddha" Carreon. However, they have also justified their attempts to discredit the authenticity of several of the authors who have contributed to Damtsig - and have cited Damtsig as the model for that criticism:

In the same way that damtsig.org brings up what i feel are valid issues about the teachings of Surya Das, there is some real concern being expressed in these threads about some aspects of the offerings which have obviously been consciously designed and digitally presented for an international audience. - Drakpa

Why won't arch stanton post some responses,he seems to be quite sure about the authenticity of his gurus traktung and chogyam. - Dorjephurba

In light of these developments, and in order to clarify Damtig's position,I would like to address these issues briefly. First, regarding the comments made by the anonymous poster who has adopted the name of a wrathful yidam as his moniker, I will simply refer back to my only post to that forum:

It seems that I have arrived a bit late at the scene - and that there
is little left to say.  However, given the title of this thread, I
would like to make some comment on the subject of `Damtsig's alleged
partisanship.

`Damtsig' (http://www.damtsig.org/) is not a "front" for anyone.  The
only reason Traktung Rinpoche writes for `Damtsig' is that he is one
of the few western teachers both willing and able to speak out against
those attempting to undermine the role of the vajra master.

While it is true that writings from both Traktung Rinpoche and
Ngak'chang Rinpoche appear on the site, this does not represent a
particular lineal endorsement - beyond the obvious implication that we
agree with their stated views as they have been presented on the site.

Anyone is free to contribute to `Damtsig.'  The site does not
constitute a "showcase" or "promotion" for any single author or
teacher.  If some authors appear more often, it is because they have
generously donated their time and effort to our cause - and we are
indeed grateful for that contribution.  That being said, `Damtsig'
would certainly appreciate and welcome a wider variety of writers from
all schools of Vajrayana Buddhism - in order to demonstrate that
Vajrayana is alive and well in the hands of sincere practitioners of
all schools.

`Damtsig' has chosen to represent a single issue because we see this
issue as being the single point of intersection for all Vajrayana
practitioners.  When the essential function of the Vajrayana comes
under attack - as it has, at the hands of the Western Buddhist
movement - speculations as to individual authenticity dwindle into the
hum of pedestrian quarrel.  `Damtsig' invites any person with the
ability and inclination to speak out against the vociferous detractors
of Vajrayana to do so.  We are happy to publish any article whose
argument is constructed on the principles of Vajrayana Dharma -
regardless of its provenance.  We are equally disinclined to publish
material based on any other agenda.

Regards,
Arch Stanton

To this I add, as a final clarification: Ngakpa Chögyam and Traktung Rinpoche are not "the Gurus of Damtsig" - they are simply two authors who contribute. Any other teacher may equally contribute - irrespective of status. The Damtsig authors all have their own Lamas - as must obviously be the case with Sangye Khandro and Samuel Bercholz.

Regarding the other issue - the (imagined) similarity in spirit between the "discussion" in the Tricycle forum and the material on Damtsig - there is also little to say. Damtsig was formed in order to defend the essence of the Vajrayana as such from those who attack the preeminence of the samaya held personally between a disciple and vajra master.

For this reason, we absolutely refuse to enter into questions of individual authenticity. To accuse a teacher of being "inauthentic" is to attempt to undermine any samaya that teacher may hold with their students. This is just what we wish to avoid. Instead, we offer criticism - sometimes scathing criticism - of the clearly articulated doctrinal/philosophical positions that have been either publicly expounded or submitted to our feedback section for possible publication. It is only in this way that the role of the vajra master can be vigorously and exhaustively defended without compromising the primacy of that very role.

The activity on the Tricycle Bulletin Boards is of an observably different character. The individuals who style themselves "purifiers of the Dharma" are actively engaged in attacking the credentials of certain Lamas while simultaneously goading the students and supporters of said Lamas who have posted comments in their defense. This is a would-be lynch mob that fails to realize how flaccid and flatulent its attempts are.

The only thing that has been conclusively shown is that the participants have no respect for the samaya of those they pretend to debate. The most vocal adherent, a self-titled Dorjephurba, even writes the following, "As Namdrol pointed out to me,I am a Vajra Brother of Ngagpa Chogyam...and I have never ment to say that chogyam has 'broken' his samaya." He then proceeds to attempt to discredit his alleged Vajra Brother at every turn. For example, he explains that his gripe is not with "credentials," but with "the validity of these termas..." "... And the personal integrity of those who assert them to be genuine, and presume to teach them."

Obviously this individual does not have a working understanding of samaya. It is axiomatically impossible to publicly state that one questions the "validity [of the teachings of] ... [and] personal integrity" of one's declared Vajra Brother - unless one wishes to publicly acknowledge that one is in violation of one's own samaya. One might state that samaya had been broken - the Damtsig authors have said as much on occasion - but if one acknowledges that it has not, then one violates the third root vow of Vajrayana - at the very least.

Finally, let me add that various flippant comments about Damtsig's style of presentation have been shuffled in with the rest. We have been accused of using "the Royal We." I hope it is obvious that Damtsig represents the hard work of numerous dedicated individuals - and that I, and the other authors, use the pronoun "we" to convey those points of policy that are common to the group's charter - or that in fact represent a collective opinion. I, and the other authors, also use the pronoun "I" to convey our individual personal opinions. I am surprised this is confusing.

We are also accused of writing in a learned voice - as if literacy is somehow unfashionable. And this from a crew that insists on scholarly documentation to validate samaya. The Damtsig authors are not in the habit of picking on those whose speech is less precise than our own. Nor do we hold ourselves up as a model of grammar, scholasticism, or literary talent. We would, however, like to point out that those who do not trouble to compose their words into proper sentences may need to remind themselves not to be so sloppy with their interpretation of the Tantric Vows.