I should preface this review by saying that it is somewhat dated. It was written before the inception of Damtsig - and before the point at which it become evident that "Buddhism in the West" and "Western Buddhism" were not merely semantic differences. The Damtsig authors felt that some value remained in my appraisal of this book, and so I offer it now as the naïveté of an infant reviewer. I initially tried to approach this review as a series of fresh impressions which developed as the book progressed, more or less in the style in which one would gain impression of a book - while reading it. I aimed at keeping an open mind while reading, as I did not want my overall impression to influence my experience of presenting the book. In other words, I wrote the review as I progressed through the book. Some tidying up was necessary at the end - but I tried not to let that change my adopted style to a significant degree. I apologize for tiring the reader with this gauche format, but some value is still found in my presentation at this late date.
Early in his preface to Awakening the Buddha Within, Lama Surya Das writes: "Many people have asked me in recent years to explain Buddhism from the ground up, and to speak about what timeless Tibetan wisdom has to contribute to us today." (p.1) I am sure they have - people are prone to ask the most discourteous questions of Buddhist teachers. For those who do not see these questions as discourteous, I will explain.
Firstly - there are well over five hundred books on the subject of Tibetan Buddhism - quite apart from those pertaining to other traditions of Buddhism. Not a small number of theses books are highly accessible - including some written by the most revered Lamas. So to ask for an explanation of Buddhism "from the ground up" is to ask for a simplistic potted version in an easily digestible form.
Secondly - that which contributes is smaller than that to which the contribution is made - something smaller gives something to something greater. For example when a review is contributed to a magazine - the review is obviously smaller than the magazine. It may be because of an undue defensiveness of Buddhism on my part - but the idea that Tibetan Buddhism could contribute something "to us today" puts Tiebtan Buddhism in the position of offering "something extra" - in the way that primitive herbal remedies might offer something to modern medical science. I would have to assume that it was not Lama Surya Das' intention to cast "timeless Tibetan Wisdom" in this light. Perhaps he intended to put readers at their ease. Whatever the case - Lama Surya Das has my immediate sympathy in approaching questions of this character. When the first sentences of a book takes such questions as representing a genuine interest in Dharma, one has to acknowledge that the author is trying his level best to address as many people as possible.
Lama Surya Das names several highly respected Tibetan Lamas as his qualification to act as an authentic representative of Buddhist teachings, but conveys the impression that he walks a tightrope - suspended between the poles of lineal authority and friendly down to earth iconoclasm. This is not an entirely contradictory position - as I have heard several Tibetan Lamas speak in a slightly similar vein. There are however certain incongruities inherent in his stance in terms of the way he appears to stand back from his subject:
In Tibet it is said that your spiritual teacher is more important to you than the Buddha. This is because although you can't easily meet the Buddha, you meet him in your guru who is supposed to be the living personification of enlightenment.. . . Tibetans cultivate respect and gratitude to their teachers as they would to the Buddha in order to develop inspiration and devotion, receive blessings, and progress spiritually. (p.39)
I find myself wondering why Lama Surya Das is speaking as if he were on the outside looking in - "In Tibet it is said..." for example. This reads strangely, because "it has been said" in the West now since the late 1960s. This would be a reasonable statement from an ethnographer documenting Tibetan culture, but it does not make sense for a Lama to apparently disconnect himself by the words: "...your guru who is supposed to be the living personification of enlightenment." For a Vajrayana Buddhist there is no "supposed to be." The Vajrayana Buddhist would say, "who is the living personification of enlightenment." But maybe I am being picky about words. I will read on.
Lama Surya Das speaks of his training:
My own training is as a Tibetan lama. My lineage is called the Rimé, or nonsectarian practicing lineage of Tibet. ... My personal teachers came from all four of the major schools of Tibetan Buddhism (Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu, and Gelug). ... My root gurus were mainly Nyingma-Kagyu; that's where my greatest devotion lies. My particular spiritual lineage is Dzogchen, often called the consummate practice or secret teachings of Tibet.(p.44)
This passage confused me in several respects. I was not aware that those other than tulkus (incarnate Lamas) were given a training specifically as Lamas. For those western people who have spent their lives in study and practice (and who have consequently been authorized as Lamas) - I have never heard their path described as "training" with regard to becoming a Lama. One can practice for many years and engage in long retreat without a word ever being spoken of becoming a Lama. The are many Tibetan yogis and yoginis, for example, who are highly reticent about teaching - even though they have accomplished many years of study, practice, and retreat. The reader is not to know that Lama Surya Das was not particularly chosen for training as a Lama very early in his Buddhist path - so one is left to guess.
The second point which caused me confusion in the paragraph previously quoted was Rimé being described as a lineage. Maybe Lama Surya Das is using the word lineage in the way one would use the word movement, because Rimé means "without boundaries." Rimé is indeed non-sectarian, but not as a path; it is non-sectarian as a result. The great Lamas who were described as Rimé Lamas were so described because consequent to mastering their own lineages, they proceeded to accomplish the practices of other lineages. They then held collections of lineages into which they gave empowerment - but always in the exact style of the lineage from which those practices came. If the Rimé Lama was Kagyüd and gave a Nyingma empowerment - the empowerment would be given precisely in the Nyingma style. So Rimé would be more accurately known as the non-sectarian accomplishment Tradition of Tibet rather than the "nonsectarian practicing lineage of Tibet." Again I appear to be nit-picking... but the further I proceed with this book, the more unavoidable it seems - Lama Surya Das' unlikely choice of words consistently pulls me up short and makes me question. Take the following as an example:
However, it's a mistake to think that Tibet was a Shangri-la ... In fact when we examine it closely through rational humanistic eyes, we can't help seeing that it was a medieval theocracy which democracy, literacy, and modern medical advances had yet to reach. What is essential for us today is to extract gold from that Himalayan ore - to find the unchangeable essence of wisdom teachings in the rocky mountainsides of Asian culture, theology, and anachronistic cosmology. (p.27)
At this point I will have to relinquish use of the term Lama in relation to the author. I think that most students of Vajrayana Buddhism will be aware that Tibet was not a utopia - but there is no utopia anywhere for the samsaric mind. And how utopian is our democracy, literacy, and modern medical advances? Are we in the West happier than Tibetans are or were? I somehow doubt it. Surya Das speaks of the "unbroken chain of teaching, ... living flame of truth" (p.39) represented by lineage, but prefers to relate to devotion in a comfortably neutered form - as a commodity in the marketplace of spiritual credentials. This is nowhere more evident than in his description of Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche as "a brilliant, high-ranking lama with a complex personality,"(p.34) Surya Das writes of him as follows:
He definitely knew how to enjoy himself, perhaps sometimes even to excess. Buddhists, at least in Boulder, were having more fun - but it would not last for long. The shadows of excessive abandon were beginning to gather beneath the surface even then.
Chögyam Trungpa was a Buddhist pioneer in the West. Although many have criticized him for his sometimes outrageous behavior and heavy drinking, no one can question his brilliance and his real achievement. He founded an accredited Buddhist university, the first in the West - Naropa Institute in Boulder. He taught thousands of students, and he wrote and published over a dozen books before his death at the age of forty-eight. Wearing Western suits and ties, he was a new kind of spiritual master - outrageous, iconoclastic, provocative, ironic, and artistic, as well as learned and traditionally trained.(p.34)
This passage reflects Surya Das' agenda with regard to writing "for the Western World." He evaluates Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche according to conventional puritanical criteria - from which perspective he attempts to present himself as open minded, i.e. respecting great achievement while dispassionately admitting the Lama's character flaws. From the perspective of Vajrayana this approach is ridiculous. One cannot judge the Lama according to fixed norms, under the guise of "open mindedness." Ironically, this quotation follows directly after Surya Das appropriates his attendance of Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche's first "Crazy Wisdom" seminar at Jackson Hole for his spiritual résumé. It caused me some degree of horror that he could include this announcement in the same passage as his condescending "objective" censure. Surya Das again presents himself as someone outside his subject - and one who straddles an ingenious polarization of his own devising - he is both the "moral critic" and "the one who has enjoyed that which he criticizes." Surya Das tells us that: "In Vajrayana Buddhism, the image of a masterful practitioner is that of a peacock who loves to eat deadly snakes and poisonous plants, which only make his feathers blaze more brilliantly,"(p.212) but somehow this seems completely incongruous with his statements concerning Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche. More pertinent to his attitude is the following: "some yogis have fallen off the path and deviated into sensuality, rather than continuing to develop spiritually congruent with their own intent."(p.212)
By portraying Trungpa Rinpoche's activity as flawed while taking spurious advantage of his erstwhile connection, Surya Das signals a threefold ploy:
Here again I was shocked - or perhaps merely incredulous. How could a person describe themselves, or allow themselves to be described, as "... the most highly trained American lama in the Tibetan tradition"? All I can imagine is that the various other highly trained American Lamas must hail from the Vajrayana traditions of other Himalayan countries - Bhutan for example. If this statement of Surya Das' training had emanated from one of the major Lineage Lamas of the Nyingma or Kagyüd traditions - I would be surprised, but would not question further. As it is however - I find myself left with a question as to the origin of this qualification.
It would seem bizarre for example, that "the most highly trained American lama in the Tibetan tradition." Would write the following:
I know that there is much that is unseen. As I go along on the path and follow the Buddha's Own Operator Manual, I continue to discover - much to my delight, but also much to my chagrin and surprise - that the Dharma teachings are all too true.(p.126)
I am forced to ask how this is feasible. How does a Lama continue to discover much to his delight, but also much to his "chagrin and surprise - that the Dharma teachings are all too true"? To accept the designation of Lama, one should only delight in discovering successively deeper levels of truth in one's practice of Dharma. Even to take refuge one must have recognized the fundamental truth of Dharma at an experientially undeniable level. So why the surprise? And what, more to the point, could be the cause of chagrin? Or maybe I am being too critical. Maybe Surya Das is merely trying to endear himself to the reader. Let us read on.
The day after I graduated from college - alone with only the company of the Eternal Companion who [sic] I was still seeking - I started on my search... (p.6)My questions were the universal questions asked by generations of seekers - scientists seeking truth, mystics looking for direct experience of the divine, the pious seeking God. Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu, Christian, Muslim - it didn't matter - there was a whole world and an entire lineage of spiritual seekers, of whom I was a part. I belonged.(p.9)
This seems a charming unguarded description of an eternalistic/monistic/theistic youth. But then as the mature Buddhist, Surya Das writes:
Often when we think about our lives and our experiences, we feel certain that in some cosmic way it must be making sense... When we first hear about karma, the possibility of rebirth, and the ineluctable laws of cause and effect, these teachings not only make sense, they are reassuring.For Tibetan Buddhists, because karma affects everything, there are no chance occurrences. ... Don't we all want to find spiritual nourishment and healing, renewal and a greater sense of meaning? Don't we all hope to meet God, with his/her myriad faces? Gandhi once said, "I claim to be a passionate seeker after truth, which is but another name for God." As we all search for truth or God, don't we pray that we will find our way, our purpose?(p.11)
Surya Das, appears in this paragraph to adopt the standard New Age style in which it is found irrelevant to differentiate or distinguish between religions. Whether or not those who subscribe to other religions find this problematic is not my direct concern - but Surya Das' position here is contradictory to Buddhist teachings of all traditions. The four philosophical extremes (monism, dualism, nihilism, and eternalism) are specifically proscribed by Sutra and by the root vows of Vajrayana. So how can a Buddhist Lama introduce concepts of God and the fatalistic/eternalistic view of karma prevalent mainly within various strands of Hinduism? An examination of the foundation of such beliefs is useful:
My Indian guru, Neem Karoli Baba, always admonished us to learn from everyone. No one has a corner on the market of truth. "All one" was his favorite maxim. He encouraged me to serve and apprentice myself to all sages, seekers, and saints, no matter what their denomination or belief system, for it is the heart of the matter that counts - the living spirit, not just the letter of the law.(p.42)
There is nothing wrong with this statement as worthy generic positivist advice - the world might be a better place were everyone to abide more closely by such ideas. However, "All one" is a monist statement according to Buddhism, and whether or not "All one" is a valuable teaching - it is not a Buddhist teaching. As Surya Das' book purports to be a Buddhist book, it should present the reader with Buddhism. If Surya Das had written a book about his personal spiritual quest "beyond particular world religions" there would be no problem with his quotation of masters of any religion - but it does not serve the reading public to confuse them with spurious meta-truths. The statement that "all religions are one" is a not a meta-truth common to all religions - and although it seems apparently open-minded it is actually intolerant of the specific tenets of every other religion which does not hold that all religions are one.
When Surya Das refers to his Hindu teacher as his guru, he explains a great deal. That his Hindu guru encouraged him to serve and apprentice himself "to all sages, seekers, and saints, no matter what their denomination or belief system" tells it all. Surya Das "training as a Lama" is a subset of his training with his Hindu guru. It was this very Hindu guru who named him "Surya Das." The fact that he has retained the name Surya Das in preference to the Tibetan Buddhist name which he received on taking refuge makes its own statement. Neem Karoli Baba is his real guru and Hinduism is his real religion. I must make it absolutely plain here that I am not saying that there is anything wrong with Neem Karoli Baba, with Advaita Vedanta, or with Hinduism. By all accounts, Neem Karoli Baba was a great teacher, and Advaita Vedanta is a powerful spiritual tradition - but there are marked differences with Buddhism - according to Buddhism. Maybe according to Advaita Vedanta and Hinduism in general there is no difference, but one can only make that statement from that position. I am not suggesting that Surya Das should have cut all ties to Neem Karoli Baba or his past in terms of owning "Surya Das" among his names - but in his training as a Lama, one would have thought that he would have received new names. Part of an authentic training is to die to the past, and to adopt the names one is given by one's Lamas. Name giving has a profound importance particularly within Vajrayana Buddhism. It is so important that Tibetan doctors will sometimes prescribe "name change" as part of their treatment of a patient. This being the case, one can only wonder what was so unchangeable about "Surya Das."
Surya Das justifies his obliteration of the real distinctions between differing spiritual forms on the basis of the authority vested in him by his first guru telling him that "all is one." Then having established a policy of transcending the letter of the law, he attempts to encapsulate the diverse methods of Buddhism within an overarching framework of unaccountable homogeneity. He then completes the maneuver by declaring the process the exemplification of Dzogchen - mistaking the transcendence of duality for a tortuously justified monism. Surya Das' Buddhist refuge is therefore a misunderstanding - a syntactic complication arising from a self-constructed paradox.
Surya Das himself admits to having been uncertain as to the precise placement of his own "root" refuge. It is typical of Surya Das's circular logic that he tentatively determines the identity of his "primary teacher" retrospectively - based on remembered kindness, according to the advice of another teacher:
Kalu Rinpoche was one of my root gurus . . . I once asked another dear teacher in Darjeeling, Tulku Pema, how one decided which lama was your root guru or primary teacher - especially if, like me and many of my friends, you had studied and practiced under the guidance of many. He told me that one's root guru is the one to whom you are the most grateful. Kalu Rinpoche taught me so much at an early age and I owe him the deepest debt of gratitude for his wisdom, his patience, and his love. (p.38)I first made a formal commitment to Buddhism by taking part in a Refuge Ceremony with Kalu Rinpoche . . . The refuge name he gave me is Karma Dondrub Chopel (which means Accomplishing and Spreading the Highest Dharma Purpose). He said that would be the name that he, my guru, would call when he would guide me through the bardo, or after-death experience, and beckon me toward the light. Our spiritual bond was one extending beyond death.(p.56)
In light of this naming by his "root guru," it might be reasonable to imagine that Surya Das would adopt Karma Dondrub Chopel as part of his work of "Accomplishing and Spreading the Highest Dharma Purpose." But no explanation is offered as to why he continues to use the name Surya Das.
When wearing his Buddhist hat, Surya Das qualifies his comments with standard disclaimers: "I think it's important to understand that Buddhism is not a mystical encounter with God. Enlightenment is not about becoming divine." (p.14)
Yet on the facing page he goes on to relate the story of his visit to a Texas school:
Ryan said that the monk - me - taught them about God and Buddha and the Gong Meditation. ... "He said that if you followed where the sound went, that you might get closer to God and Buddha. ... Well, when I watched and listened to where the sound went, I didn't get closer to God. I was God.... How much we adults have forgotten. ...
They didn't even question their belief, "What is God?" "What is Buddha?" or "Who am I to say I am God, who am I to know these things?" No such self-editing takes place at that age. Just "Oh yeah, God, I am that."(p.15)
Surya Das asks the reader to accept that Buddhism is not about becoming God, it's about being God. It's about getting over the societally ingrained taboo on proclaiming oneself divine. The association of Rigpa with God might be more understandable if he were proposing it as a subtle exploration of the region where religion's may intersect. Instead, it is the predominant text of the section bearing the book's title, "Awakening the Buddha Within." This monist equation of all methods is central to Surya Das' exposition.
Having recognised the suffering of existence; having identified the mystical means for transcending it; and having experienced unity with God; Surya Das is faced with the task of guiding the creation of a new American Buddhism.
Traditionally, there are various kinds of teachers: the guru, the elder, the instructor, the spiritual friend. In the West, other kinds are emerging as well, like the coach, the mentor, the workshop leader, and the facilitator, who often acts as role model for us instead of as an all-powerful, all-knowing guru. Devotional practice has its value, and I myself have benefited from a devotional relationship to my Tibetan gurus, but what Western students often need today is simply someone to midwife their spiritual transformation, rather than to make them into disciples and followers. We don't have to subscribe to a teacher forever. With the practice itself as our teacher, we spiritual seekers can retain our autonomy and responsibility and discover for ourselves a path of infinite possibility. (p.391)
Surya Das' diminution of the Lama as both central and essential to Vajrayana is characteristic of his agenda. By attempting to nullify the dynamic of lineage he claims as authority, he finally "comes out" as a "post-modern nihilist" with the following sentence: "Without the gold standard, money seems to become whatever we believe it to be. We make it up as we go along." (p.250)
If Surya Das believes his own naïve economic assessment, he devalues the currency of lineage and merely impoverishes himself and others. Why he should chose to present such a view rather than one that acknowledges the genuine value of authentic lineage is beyond me.
If this review of Surya Das' book appears to be an "unkind and unwarranted attack," it is because Surya Das has presented himself as something he is not. Surya Das may like to think of himself as a Buddhist Lama - but he is actually a soft-soap Advaita Vedanist who has acquired a Buddhist veneer in order to ring the latest change on the slowly dying New Age market. This must have occurred to him because he goes to specific pains to assure the reader that he is not a New Age workshop leader:
Herbert Guenther, one of the foremost Buddhist scholars of our time, defines Rigpa as ecstatic presence or ecstatic radiance. ... I'm quoting a respected scholar because I don't want readers to think that I'm cobbling together some outlandish New Age Dharma here. (p.105)
Sadly, this is exactly what Surya Das has done, as exemplified in the following:
Why not be cheerful? Why be miserable? Why not pretend to be happy instead? In fact, why not pretend to be happy, free, and complete instead of pretending the contrary is true? (p.159)
Other than to say that that Surya Das cannot really claim to be a Buddhist - the kindest way I can think of describing him is the "Dale Carnegie of Timeless Tibetan Wisdom."