Interviewer I recently heard you say that Herbert Marcuse was one of your favorite western philosophers. You said that Marcuse is the quintessential radical philosopher, and that your recent criticisms of certain trends in the "Western Buddhist Movement" have been inspired by his writings. Yet those who have criticized your writings on the Damtsig website have accused you of being politically conservative. Could you clarify this?
Traktung Rinpoche My personal politics are really beside the point. Marcuse's genius was for understanding the ways in which modern culture enforces domination and oppression through the mechanics of conformity, which numb people to any and all radical critique - societal or individual. My critique of the "Western Buddhist Movement," and most especially Surya Das and Helen Tworkov (editor of Tricycle Magazine), are rooted not in conservatism but in the fact that they are what Marcuse called "tools of the mechanics of conformity." They work, perhaps unconsciously, to destroy the radical and liberating nature of the Buddhadharma. My view of them stems from Marcuse's philosophical investigation of domination within "technological society" in his book One Dimensional Man.
Q I find it interesting that you consistently base your critique of the "Western Buddhist Movement" in Western philosophical and historical traditions rather than in Buddhism itself. Why is that?
TR It is because their distortions of the Buddhadharma arise from the western cultural, historical, and philosophical context. There is no battle between eastern and western Buddhism. The very notion is merely a cover for the racist and imperialistic tendencies of the "Western Buddhist Movement." What Surya Das, Tworkov, and others are doing, concerns the nature of domination in our culture - with how one establishes territory. It has nothing to do with the philosophical tenets of Buddhism, and has very little to do with cultural differences. What we are really looking at here is how our cultural assumptions, history, and philosophical stances affect our ability to encounter the radically liberating critique of the Buddhadharma - and to recognize when it is being distorted. How does viewing the dharma through the lens of these assumptions and stances distort the teachings and rob them of their effectiveness?
My overall critique of the "Western Buddhist Movement" is rooted in Marcuse's philosophy. My strong distaste for its founders is based on knowledge of their personal tendencies to abuse power, and to be racist and duplicitous. I noticed that in a recent Tricycle interview, Tworkov and Surya Das continued their efforts to shape the perception of this debate along cultural, or perhaps racial, lines. The interviewer said: "Certain Tibetan teachers and some of their students attack you -" This question implies that it is only Tibetans and those who are influenced by them, the pawns of their authoritarian structures, who take issue with Surya Das. I myself have never been asked by any Tibetan teacher to engage in this debate, and I personally find this presumption patronizing and racist. Ms. Tworkov and Mr. Das do not represent "the west" - as if they were the Pope representing Catholicism - in some attempt to save us from the nefarious Asians. They certainly don't represent me. There is no homogenized megalithic "western" view and so the idea of a "Western Buddhism" is absurd - as is the idea of an Eastern Buddhism. They are attempting to mold Buddhism into a "Western" harmonious pluralism where dissent can be discounted as the infiltration of unneeded "foreign influences." This is grotesque to say the least. It is also exactly the style of effort Marcuse said would be made by those working to castrate authentic radical critique in technological society. 1.
Q I am sad to say I have never read Marcuse and so do not really understand what you are referring to.
TR Marcuse was concerned with how we might live happier and freer lives. He was, at heart, a philosopher - but one who combined psychological, sociological, and political analysis. His roots are in Hegelian dialectics and in the existential phenomenology of the likes of Heidegger and Husserl. Like them, he had insights into the trends in technological society which robbed people of freedom and individuality. Marcuse deeply analyzed the fashion in which societal forces of oppression and domination strove to eliminate the possibility of "radical critique." This is accomplished by shaping the perceived needs of its populace through an amalgamation of consumerism, mass culture, ideology, advertising and constructed sentimentality. This force, which displays itself in obsessive consumerism, offers much greater satisfaction, in physical terms, to those who maintain the status quo. Surya Das exhibits this tendency in the way he "markets" Buddhism, changing it to make it more palatable to his intended market. He removes what might be considered to be radical or uncomfortable about it. He seems to think that his understanding supersedes the Buddha and Padmasambhava, because he throws out aspects of dharma that they viewed as critical to its effectiveness, such as pure view, faith, the vajra master, the non-existence of self.
In his book, One Dimensional Man, Marcuse explores the oppressive, alienating and dominating forces of "technological culture" which create a society of such conformity that all genuinely radical critique is subsumed in the integration of opposites. The result is "One dimensional man-" a culture where critical thinking is numbed and change is only allowed within the parameters of the culture itself. The "Western Buddhist Movement" is a movement whose goal is to subvert the radical nature of Buddhism, to absorb it into the culture within the parameters of the culture itself. In other words, they will allow Buddhism, but only a Buddhism castrated and robbed of anything "alien" which might act as a basis, outside of commercialized values, for radical social and personal transformation. Through strategic assimilation, the power of change is stripped while the façade is celebrated. Surya Das promotes Dzogchen with pith commercial jingoism - "Dzogchen, it's more fun!" By transforming the mirror of Dzogchen into the mirror of Narcissus, Surya Das effectively and simultaneously castrates and popularizes Buddhadharma. Being popular is then equated with being "democratic." The "Western Buddhist Movement's" emphasis on democratic values is a sham, an Orwellian doublethink, and that is why it can be combined with fantasies of collectivism. It is designed to polarize and to promote fear of the dangerous "Asian system."
At its core Surya Das' actions, like the actions of many within the "Western Buddhist Movement," stem from what he believes to be noble motives. Sadly, because those who have created the "Western Buddhist Movement" are unconscious victims of the very forces of oppression that they serve, they corrupt, co-opt, defuse, and castrate the radical critique of Buddhadharma while maintaining that they are serving it. In order to serve their new and improved, societally acceptable, neutered Buddhadharma, they can justify deceptive and duplicitous behavior as beneficial to their noble cause. Marcuse commented on the great "counter-revolutionary" force of consumerism alienated from radical critique and its power to destroy radical critique through absorption. As my grandmother said many times, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
Marcuse coined the phrase "The Great Refusal." The Great Refusal is the refusal to sell short our potential for liberation for the paltry comforts of consumerism. In Golok, in Tibet, they say that the desire for comfort is the death of honor and truth. My denunciation of the "Western Buddhist Movement" stems not from political conservatism but from my embrace of Marcuse's Great Refusal; the refusal to trade freedom and happiness for cheap consolation. Surya Das - the Barnum and Bailey of the dharma, Helen Tworkov - the propagandist, Stephen Batchelor - the anaemic intellectual, and Thich Nhat Han - the token Asian, are merely foot soldiers in service of a megalithic delusion which shapes and controls our culture. They are sheep in lion's clothing. Marcuse wrote about their movement when he said, "The new totalitarianism manifests itself precisely in a harmonizing pluralism, where the most contradictory works and truths peacefully coexist in indifference." In the context of the struggle of the Great Refusal, I really cannot find words strong enough to express my revulsion for these peoples' activities and my disgust for their behavior.
Q That is a strong statement. It makes me think of another criticism I have read of your writing which is that you are not nice and that what you are doing is contrary to the compassionate roots of kindness at the heart of Buddhism.
TR Yes, it seems that to be "nice" one must cease and desist from all critical dissent and debate. To be nice, one must say things obliquely rather than directly, or better yet, say nothing at all. One should try to focus on points of agreement and smooth over differences in a fog of blandness. This emphasis on being nice is a form of oppression. Feminists pointed this out in the 70's and encouraged us not to teach our daughters to be "nice" because it was disempowering to them. Now we just want our Buddhists to be nice. This niceness which is being referred to is what Trungpa Rinpoche called "idiot compassion." It seems that it is fine for the Western Buddhist Movement to castrate the power of the Buddhadharma, but if anyone says "Hey, wait a minute, you are distorting the teachings of liberation," then they are branded with the scarlet letter - "not nice."
This supposed niceness is in fact merely a tool for the suppression of radical critique that often takes its form in disagreement, debate and critical discussion - all forms of interaction which are historically central to Buddhism. Are we, as Western practitioners of Buddhism, so scared of our internal rage that we imagine any serious disagreement might turn into violence? I found it interesting at the American Buddhism Conference that, while pretending to offer an "atmosphere of serious discussion and the possibility of strong disagreement," great lengths were taken to insure that there was no face to face interaction of any real depth between opposing viewpoints. The entire event was structured to protect the environment and its participants from heated debate or serious disagreement. In this fashion, we allowed ourselves the luxury and comfort of being avant-garde while saving ourselves from the discomfort of Buddha's radical critique. In other words we become, and turn Buddhism into, exactly what Marcuse predicted - tools for the mechanics of conformity (while maintaining our veneer of spiritual specialness). In short, the stance that we should not disagree or denounce is merely the command, by dominating forces, that we should conform.
This vision of being "nice and compassionate" is different from the Buddhist vision. Compassion and kindness demand strong dissension and response in the face of harmful delusion. It is, of course, a matter of motivation. The precious Buddhadharma teaches me that all people have been at one time my mother, my lover, my child, and my best friend. One day my friend becomes my enemy, and then later my friend again. When we contemplate Buddhadharma we come to a stance of vast equanimity in the midst of debate, but this equanimity does not deny the need for valid, well-reasoned response. I understand that each of these people I have mentioned, like all of us, only wants happiness. Sadly, they are ignorant as to the causes of happiness. They are excellent examples of the manner in which those who are deeply oppressed and alienated are often completely ignorant as to the existence and source of their alienation. In fact, they confuse the sources of suffering with the cessation of suffering, and so they are like moths drawn to the flame.
Is it kinder to let the moth burn alive or to point out to the moth that the object of it's obsession is, any moment, going to become the source of its greatest suffering. What is compassion? The prefix "com" means "with" and the body of the word passion, from the root pathos, means suffering. Compassion is to be with the suffering of others; not to turn a blind eye to the suffering of all sentient beings. In the Buddhist sense, compassion means to actively remove the causes of suffering as a function of love. It is not kind, loving or compassionate to see the causes of suffering and not try and remove them. The great Buddhist teacher Atisha said we should drive all blame into one. I am not saying that that the "one" is Surya Das or Helen Tworkov. It is, of course, ignorance. Compassion and kindness for all beings demands that we respond when, out of ignorance, someone is acting in ways which cause suffering; especially if that ignorance is dressed in the garments of the liberating wisdom tradition of Buddhadharma. Surya Das and Tworkov are seducing people who have a genuine spiritual longing into their sphere and then offering them a teaching which will never liberate them but only increase their ignorance and suffering - and presenting it as the precious Buddhadharma. I am reminded of an ancient Persian story:
Once, in the beginning of the world, when the archetypes lived in the heavens and the planets were young, the essential forms of beauty and ugliness decided to spend a day on earth. While picnicking next to a pond on a hot summer day, ugliness devised a cunning practical joke. She coyly suggested to beauty that, in order to cool off, they go skinny dipping in the pond. While beauty was lost in oblivious enjoyment of the water, ugliness snuck out, put on beauty's clothes and ran away. It is said that since that day, human beings have been mistaking ugliness for beauty and beauty for ugliness.
A failure to address the causes of suffering embedded in the Western Buddhist Movements" aggressively marketed vision is not kind, nor is it compassionate. So much of what Marcuse described in One Dimensional Man describes the oppressive vector of the Western Buddhist Movement. It can be seen in their cultivation of indifference in the midst of vapid harmonized pluralism or the way in which image makers such as Helen Tworkov suppress intellectual freedom by shaping public opinion so that it is hostile to or immune to oppositional thought. In order to be "Nice" to Surya Das one must cease to care about the suffering of sentient beings. That does not seem very nice to me. Surya Das has suggested to me that I take all of this too seriously. How can it be taken too seriously?
Q Oh, I didn't realize you two had met. What was the context of that comment?
TR I went to the Conference on American Buddhism in Boulder because I remembered some good advice that my father had given me. He told me once that one should never criticize another if one were not willing to meet that person face to face - human being to human being. Otherwise, he said, one's critique would be tinged with cowardice and a lack of honor. So I went to the conference in order to meet my adversary, human being to human being.
I attended a talk by Surya Das, a truly uninspired presentation on the ways in which Buddhadharma was becoming "mainstream." It was a guide map to the assimilation and castration of the radical power of Buddhadharma by commercialized culture. During the question and answer time, I asked Surya Das about the implications of some of his statements and writings. His response was to laugh and say, "Why do you take it all seriously? I don't really even know what is on my web site." Everyone laughed and the microphone never came my direction again, and so I was unable to respond publicly.
Q And what would your response have been?
TR I would like to point out that Surya Das' answer was fundamentally a manipulation of power in order to silence dissension. I have heard from several people that this form of power play - mocking, or embarrassing the questioner, is frequently used by Surya Das. It is the public forum version of Helen Tworkov's abuses of power in Tricycle magazine. In light of the common tendency to project ones own flaws onto others, it is not very surprising that Tworkov and Surya Das both fixate on the alleged abuse of power amongst Buddhist masters.
If I had been allowed a response, I would have said that I take it all so seriously because we are talking about the potential to end suffering for all beings. We are talking about liberation from delusion and the structures of delusion in society, which have caused untold horrors across the world and throughout time. What could possibly be more serious than that? Personally, the blatant callousness and smugness of Surya Das' response shocked me. Sadly, I had hoped that there might be more substance to Surya Das in person than there is to his writings. At least his writings make a pretence of caring about sentient beings and Buddhadharma. In person, his concern was limited to the market penetration of neutered commercialized pseudo dharma.
Well-reasoned dissent and debate are not unkind. I do not believe that it is unkind to criticize people for duplicity and abuse of power. It seems that Surya Das feels that it is unfair to criticize him based on what he writes, says or does. He resorts to the abuse of power to control dialogue, the denial of responsibility for his own words or simple whining about being unfairly persecuted. This last and most tedious stance reminds me a bit of a certain ox.
In addition I would have suggested that the construct of study in Dzogchen - view, meditation and action - make the careful inspection of our view very important. Dzogchen is not a mollifying force of social oppression or a marketable commodity. It requires careful and precise understanding as its foundation. Without this foundation, the view, Dzogchen practice tends to stray into forms of extremism rather than liberation. It seems from my small encounter with Surya Das that what is important to him is the analysis of market penetration and therefore analysis of "view" does not need to be taken seriously. In fact, the suggestion that it should be considered turns out to be laughable. I am not amused by the oppressive posturing of panel leaders who squelch dissent, or by the callous destruction of the most liberating system of philosophy and meditation ever offered for the ending of all suffering.
Q I am interested in your implication, earlier in this interview, that Buddhadharma is a "radical critique" along the lines of what Marcuse was talking about. Could you elaborate a bit?
TR Marcuse looked for solutions to the problems of alienation and oppression in the structures of society, but the Buddha discovered the roots of the human existential problem in the structures of consciousness itself. By discovering the cause of suffering he also discovered the end of suffering and the path to that end. The Buddha's teachings are an argument against the habitual structures of suffering. They are a radical critique of what it means to be human and to live in human society. This ancient and precious teaching is the most all-encompassing and disturbing analysis of alienation ever offered to humanity, and if we listen to its argument we will be changed forever. If we are liberated from the lie of suffering then we also cease to be the pawns of shallow and temporary consolations sold to us by the dominating and oppressive powers of delusion. This is why the most revolting act of all is to take this revolutionary teaching and transform it into little more than a Madison Avenue sound bite - "Dzogchen, it's more fun!" To turn Buddhadharma into a consumer product, just more window dressing of samsara - well - that's something even Langdarma didn't consider.
1. For an interesting story on the early racist tendencies of Helen Tworkov, please see the transcripts of the final panel on diversity from the Naropa Institute American Buddhism Conference 2000 in Estes park. Available through Sounds True audio.
It is not so much that I think that Helen Tworkov is self-consciously racist against Asians (though this may be my own naïveté) nor do I think Surya Das is self-consciously driven by imperialistic motives. I believe that their actions derive more from a need to remove "alien" aspects of Buddhadharma to ease the acculturation of Buddhism on a broad scale. In this effort to acculturate, they throw the Buddha out with the bath water and end up being nothing more than "tools for the mechanics of conformity" of a protestantized Buddhadharma with which we can feel comfortable. The stripping of the "alien" aspect or "otherness" of the spiritual dimension, which is at the heart of much of humanism, is also at the heart of reducing radical critique to narcissistic pseudo philosophy or religion.