The Ten Commandments?

A critique of Ten Emerging Trends of Western Buddhism by Lama Surya Das

by Nick Raucher

There is no mention in any of the sutras, tantras, or commentaries of anyone accomplishing buddhahood without following a lama. It can be seen that no one has attained the noble qualities of the levels and paths by their own creation and conjecture. Similarly, all sentient beings, including ourselves, are very good at following the wrong path.

Patrul Rinpoche, as quoted by Ron Garry in The Teacher Student Relationship

On the website of the Dzogchen Foundation (www.dzogchen.org) appears a presentation entitled Ten Emerging Trends of Western Dharma, by Lama Surya Das. In the preamble, he indicates that although he "observes" many different threads in the tapestry that Buddhism begins to weave in the West, these ten trends in general can be found throughout meditation groups within what he has coined Western Buddhism or American Dharma.

Reading Lama Surya Das' piece, it becomes clear in the introduction, even before reaching the Ten themselves, that this is to be a manifesto, rather than a list of observations in an objective sense. While many passages seem truly to express observations gleaned from the travels of a modern-day spiritual teacher, the line between "observations" and "edicts" is blurred from the very start: "... these are emerging trends and there is still a way to go to fulfill this vision" (from the introduction). By the time I reached the end of the list, I felt I was reading more the platform of a political party than the gathered insights of a well-traveled speaker.

Let me say from the start that this in no way represents a personal attack on anyone, nor an effort to curtail what anyone is doing out there in the accommodating vastness of "The West" or anywhere else. I have nothing against manifestos labeled as such. I merely wish to point out what I see as an attempt to lay down a set of rules for an all-encompassing "politically correct," or perhaps "reformed" Buddhism in the West.

I hope we can allow Buddhism to "re-form" itself naturally, based on contact between the knowledge holders of the various Buddhist traditions and the needs of their Western students. There is no need to rush the deliberate creation of a "Western Dharma," especially one based on keeping sacred the very political, cultural, and psychological habit patterns we need to understand as practitioners. In my view, only harm to the genuine transmission of realization will result from any attempt to do so. We will end up engineering a neutered "New Age" Buddhist creature, comfortable and familiar, yet lacking any real power to transform human suffering and confusion.

Words in italics throughout are those of Lama Surya Das.

Trend #1. Meditation-based and Experientially Oriented

As Westerners, we typically come to Buddhism for meditation and contemplation in an attempt to improve our quality of life. We want to bring more mindfulness to what we do. We are usually attracted to Buddhism not through academia but because we want personal transformation, direct religious experience, and compassion into our daily lives. The Dharma is not just something we believe in, but something we do.

I sense here the beginnings of an attempt to dictate "correct" motivation. It may seem I am reading too much into the space between the lines, but there seems to be a tilt toward "feel-good" Buddhism and away from devotion and damtsig / samaya. Nothing is said re Mahayana motivation at all. These suspicions are reinforced by what appears below.

Trend #2. Lay-Oriented

Although there is certainly room for traditional monasticism - both short - and long-term - Buddhism in the West is obviously much more lay-oriented than it has been historically. Practitioners are now bringing personal issues of relationships, family and work to the Dharma center in an effort to make more sense out of life.

While there are and were, in Buddhist cultures, full-time monastics and non-monastic practitioners, many Asian Buddhists were and are true "lay" persons. Buddhism was/is a part of popular culture much like religious congregations in Western cultures. Many are Christians, Jews, and Muslims, but few are priests, rabbis, imams, monks, nuns. Tibet was perhaps more the exception than the rule, with many boys entering monastic life, though there were social reasons for this, and a vast number of monks held relatively menial positions in the monastic hierarchy, and had little interest in and time for study. Lay Buddhists have always brought personal and family issues to the ordained Sangha: in the form of questions, divinations, ceremonies, medical diagnoses.

My point is that we in the West are perhaps not so different as we may think, or perhaps it is simply too soon in the evolution of Buddhism here to say. Again, I believe there must be no rush to decide the shape of any Western Dharma. We come to Buddhism from a non-Buddhist culture; in fact most of us were either raised atheist/agnostic/materialist, or come to Buddhism seeking an alternative to the religious culture we were born into. We should examine carefully the cultural baggage we bring along to the meditation hall.

The importance of these distinctions may seem obscure, but again Surya Das' comments seem to me subtly prescriptive: setting up a frame called Western Buddhism within which we can find and identify with our own reflection; setting up a distinct demographic; setting up an "Us."

Trend #3. Gender Equal

In an effort to go beyond traditional patriarchal structures and cultures, we have already made great strides in supporting women as well as men in teaching and leadership roles. There are more and more women teachers, and they are providing some of the finest teaching. Gender equality remains an ideal, but one that seems reachable. We all - male and female - have an opportunity to refine our more feminine aspects and practice a Buddhism in which we keep the heart and mind balanced, respectful of both body and soul. We are trying to learn from the past so as not to unwittingly repeat the mistakes of others.

Surya Das' choice of words to represent the male/female paradigm seem strange to me, far more New Age than Buddhist. Buddhism talks about emptiness and form, wisdom and compassion/skillful means as being reflective of the female/male view. We in the West are used to interpreting "heart" as feeling and "mind" as intellect, with corresponding female/male associations. But if heart is expressed as compassionate connection and mind as intrinsic awareness, these conceptual roles can easily be reversed. While I have no argument at all with gender equality, I would say we have at least as much work to do to refine our masculine aspects as our feminine side. Ultimately the two are non-dual.

While there have certainly been tragic mistakes made both in modern Buddhist times and back into antiquity, gender equality by itself will not prevent this from happening again; it will merely change the spectrum of mistakes.

The name of this site is Damtsig, and it is critically important to remember that damtsig/samaya/vow is an integral part of the method of Tantra and Dzogchen. Unwritten but implied by "trying to learn from the past so as not to unwittingly repeat the mistakes of others" is the anti-Vajra Master position sometimes espoused these days as a cure for "past mistakes." There's a practical reason for samaya, just like there's a reason doctors are required to be licensed and soldiers and police officers are required to take an oath. Entry into Tantra is akin to being empowered to perform surgeries on oneself, or carry a gun, under the scrutiny of the Vajra Master. Without the most careful training and preparation, and even sometimes with them, disasters can occur. We are human.

Of course, damtsig to the person of the Lama deliberately invests in him or her much power. This power is necessary to help the disciple in their own desire to move quickly. There is by definition no way to make this relationship "safe," as a safe relationship in terms of the student's dualistic "comfort zone" would be an ineffective one. The only solution is a careful examination of both one's motivation and one's prospective Lama: HH the Dalai Lama has suggested up to 13 years. It is important to remember that the Lama is also "bound" to his or her student.

There is a Buddhist vehicle that does not necessitate the role of Vajra Master, does not offer the student the dangerous sidearm of transformation of their "negative" emotions. Within the Sutric vehicle, encompassing both Theravada and Mahayana, the role of the teacher is that of "Spiritual Friend" (Skt: Kalyanamitra; Tib: Ge wa'i she nyen); the student is not samaya-bound to this teacher. But within Sutra, the comprehensive behavioral code of the Vinaya takes the place of oversight by the Vajra Master. In many ways, the Vinaya rules are like the presence of the Buddha as Vajra Master after his passing into Parinirvana.

Trend #4. Democratic and Egalitarian

Western Buddhism needs to become much less institutionalized, less hierarchical, and more democratic fashion. Almost by definition, personal growth and interests of the individual are going to be stressed more than institutional preservation and growth.

Here clearly is an attempt to direct the course of Buddhism away from more traditional formulations (and grammar). While there is nothing inherently beneficial for us in the West about traditional Asian cultural expressions of Buddhism, it is important to understand what is cultural, and what is essential principle and function within Buddhist methods before casting them aside. Again the role of Vajra Master is clearly implicated here as troublesome.

The danger lies in elevating "personal growth and [the] interests of the individual" and discrediting "institutional preservation and growth." Again, not that there is anything absolute in either, but without the larger entity of "lineage" to offer ourselves to, we run the danger of bailing out of commitment to practice when our "comfort zone" is breached.

This sounds too much like the American Declaration of Independence to let pass unquestioned: "We hold these truths to be self-evident." In other words, we the people decide, unilaterally, what is best for us. The parallel here is that both the Founding Fathers and the proponents of Western Dharma see themselves as basing the new order on bona fide truths, self-evident principles.

Though it is American cultural heresy to say so, there is nothing "self-evident" in the ideals of the Founding Fathers, except to them-selves. Ideas about democracy, that "all men were created equal" etc. have no ultimate claim to "truth;" neither do those of divine sanction, the will of the masses, or any other political ideal. While the presentation of Dharma has changed over time according into the cultures it encountered, we cannot look from our current place in time and say that other cultural manifestations of Buddhism were quaint, uninformed, flawed. Men and women attained realization within these various systems, and that is simply that. We are just the latest freckles on the face of Buddhism.

The history of Buddhism shows both a tremendous flexibility and adaptability, and in places, the most heinous sectarianism and xenophobia. The gift that our current juncture of contemporary cultures and technologies have to offer is not some "correct view," but access to words and images from many many other times and places. We can "have it all" in terms of the vast diversity of Buddhist method. We can have Theravada, we can have Mahayana, Zen, Vajrayana, and each of the variations of these methods. We can check out something of the flavor of hundreds of paths, then seek out a living teacher to breathe it into life for us. Undoubtedly, each of these Lineages will change as they come in contact with the cacophony of the 21st Century. Why should we discredit even one of these rare and precious vehicles, any of which could prove to be the perfect key to liberation for someone, somewhere?

Trend #5. Essentialize, Simplified, and Demystified

For the most part, noticeably absent from Western Buddhism are the complex, esoteric rites and arcane rituals designed for initiates only. Western teachers stress essence more than form, as well as teachings that are tolerant for daily life. It is thus practical and this world oriented, rather than otherworldly and hermetic, with great emphasis on integrating Dharma practice via mindfulness and compassion into daily life.

Here I simply have to say I don't see it the same way. I certainly cannot say that noticeably absent from Western Buddhism are the complex, esoteric rites, and arcane rituals designed for initiates only. Rather, we seem to want as much arcana as possible, simply because it is special, exotic, secret. However, Surya Das is clearly speaking not of Buddhism in the West, but of Western Buddhism, whose founding principles are described here in the Ten Trends. My experience is that we Westerners are quite fascinated by ritual and exotica; we often seem to get excited about the most wrathful empowerments available to us. We do expect, though, to understand intellectually what we experience. For example, I have attended several empowerments, given by Tibetan as well as Western Lamas, where the teacher transmitted the Vajrayana rituals and rites in what appeared to be the traditional fashion - that is, as they were received - but explained them in a way that helped the Westerners in the audience to make contact with the principle and function of the rite. This is the adaptation, not the scrapping of the method itself based on ideas of political correctness. Genuine Dharma will certainly change here in the West, but not by acceding to our mores.

While ritual is not the most appropriate method for everyone, and not for anyone all the time, it is a disease of Western ultimatism and nihilism to deny the value of ritual. One has only to look briefly at our daily existence to see how much of it is imbued with symbolic activity and ritual. Buddhism in its consummate adaptability merely transforms a tendency already in operation within us.

Trend #6. Nonsectarian

Most Westerners seem to have a true appreciation for many different mediation techniques and traditions. We have seen how politics, the quest for power, and sectarian bias have created chaos within various religious communities. We understand it is essential that we strive diligently not to fall into those same traps. As practitioners, we are generally interested in broadening and deepening our experience of the various different Buddhist spiritual practices. I think it is safe to say that there is a true appreciation of the benefits of nonsectarianism, ecumenicism, and cross-fertilization. In fact, many teachers are already synthesizing the best of the various traditions into one amalgamated Western Dharma that seems inevitable. American karma is our great melting pot. We have to live with that and make the most of it.

While there may be a true appreciation of the benefits of non sectarianism or ecumenicism, there is also a basic ignorance of Buddhist view and method, simply because we have not grown up surrounded by it. If we try to jam Buddhism through the sieve of Western religious, political, and philosophical thought, it will be unavoidably mangled in the process. What is wrong with understanding Buddhism, and by this I mean a tradition, a school, a lineage - there is no lifetime long enough to master more than one or two - on its own terms, as it is, before worrying about changing it around? That will happen soon enough, as realized men and women express their realization to new audiences, in new cultural times and places.

There have always been problems wherever and whenever there have been people, ever since Adam blamed Eve, and Cain killed Abel. Adopting an egalitarian or non-sectarian ethos will simply result in battles over who is being properly egalitarian, or truly non-sectarian. Even the great masters of the Ri-me (non-sectarian) movement of Tibetan Buddhism mastered their own Lineages first, then went on to practice other traditions. Ri-med was an expression of fruit, not path. It is also important to understand that these masters practiced the various traditions as they came, no one attempted to extract the best.

Just as the fourth trend harkened back to the Declaration of Independence and American political fundaments, the sixth sounds like "Manifest Destiny," the policy used to justify the headlong march west in the early 19th Century U.S., to "manifest" the fact that Europeans were "destined" by God to control North America from the Atlantic to the Pacific. That some are "...already synthesizing the best of the various traditions into one amalgamated ['inevitable'] Western Dharma" means merely that there is an effort underway to extract the "active ingredients" and then homogenize the various traditions and methods, creating a sort of chewable Buddhist multivitamin.

Trend #7. Psychologically Astute

There is a growing appreciation for explaining Buddhist principles within the idiom of transformational psychology. Faith and devotion are important and useful for some, but the larger appeal is to the individual's spiritual development and psychological and emotional well-being. Dharma students are encouraged to bring spirituality into their lives as opposed to using spirituality as a way of avoiding personal issues. We are working on ourselves, and there are any number of interdisciplinary tools and methods. Psychotherapy and Buddhism are most often taken as complementary.

Here I have to agree with Surya Das, namely that faith and devotion may be important "for some" - namely anyone practicing within Tantra or Dzogchen. Since these vehicles rely upon the guidance of the Vajra Master to navigate the uncharted seas of transformation and self-liberation, faith in the Lama and devotion in terms of maintaining Tantric samaya are indispensable aspects of the path in these vehicles. Within Sutra, the path of renunciation, the scriptures and Vinaya function as reliable guides together with the non-binding advice of the Spiritual Friend.

Dharma can and does express itself through many different means. It is common these days, for example, for Tantric teachings to be expressed in the style of Sutra. Buddhism can and does express itself through the means of both Abhidharma (the psychological aspect of the "Tripitaka," or three baskets of Sutra, Vinaya, and Abhidharma) and Western psychological language. There is a difference though between expressing Buddhism in the language of psychology and dividing one's refuge between the two, in order to satisfy the larger appeal.

Trend #8. Exploratory

In line with our scientific and skeptical upbringing, questioning and inquiry are encouraged. We are striving to be dynamic and forward-looking instead of mere preservationists. I see contemporary Dharma as basically a Buddhism without beliefs, a Dharma that is less doctrinaire, dogmatic, and belief-based while being much more inquiring, skeptical, rational, and devoted to testing and finding out for ourselves. Western Dharma is trying to stretch beyond dogma, insularity, and fundamentalist thinking.

Since the time when what we call Buddhism grew from the teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha, questioning and inquiry have been a cornerstone of personal practice. Buddhism and scientific inquiry, however, have different principles and different functions. To insist that either conform to the rules of the other is to miss the point. Science discovers the nature of things, according to the way things appear within this karmically-patterned human realm. We have become incredibly skilled at understanding the patterns of matter and physical energy, and making use of these patterns. Buddhism expresses means of realizing non-duality. "Dharma" means "as it is." This refers to the truth of non-dual realized experience, not the fantastic variety of Buddhist methods, which in fact often contradict each other, let alone science. Taking Buddhist method to be "truth" in the sense that science understands "truth" is fundamentally confused.

Preserving the methods of one's own lineage has nothing to do with "preservationism" as long as the hot blood of realization still flows through those methods. It is an act of the most selfless compassion to maintain these traditions for the benefit of those unknown souls who come after us. It is, on the other hand, the height of either arrogance or ignorance to dismiss them as arcane rituals designed for initiates only without experience of their benefit based on personal practice.

There is no Buddhism without beliefs from the student's point of view. From the realized perspective, there are no beliefs, only method. What is being proposed here sounds like "Lite Buddhism:" less religious, less threatening, less foreign, less complicated, no pesky restrictions or vows to interfere with our "personal growth and [the] interests of the individual."

Trend #9. Community Oriented

Through our shared spiritual, ethical, and educational interests, we are strengthened and building our spiritual community as well as our connections to each other. There is a great emphasis on the needs of the Sangha in the sense of the larger community instead of individual priests and leaders. One day Ananda asked the Buddha, "Is it true that the Sangha, the community of spiritual friends, is half of the holy life?" Buddha answered, "No, Ananda, the Sangha community is the whole of holy life." Spiritual friends, spiritual friendships and simple friendliness - this is the holy life. Here in the West where more and more people are expressing their personal needs for spiritual growth, it is the challenge of the Sangha today to provide spiritual encouragement for generations to come.

While it is indeed the challenge of the Sangha today to provide spiritual encouragement for generations to come, this will only happen if there are truly realized women and men to transmit the spark of inspiration.

If the needs of the Sangha in the sense of the larger community are allowed to override anything else, we have no refuge, we have no way out of our own sense of self-preservation, whether individual or collective.

Trend #10. Socially and Ecologically Conscious

Gandhi once said, "Those who say the religion has nothing to do with politics do not understand religion."

I would also say that those who seek to make Buddhism conform to the rules and regulations of democratic egalitarianism and other contemporary ideals do not have refuge in Buddhism, but rather in these ideas. This is not to say that Buddhism cannot manifest as democratic, nor that it cannot be different than it was in another society, just that it cannot be legislated into a new form by consensus, by the "collective wisdom of the Sangha." Formulations that do not proceed directly from realization will always leave us a fire exit back to the dualistic patterns that it is the function of practice to undermine.

Even to talk about a singular 'Western" or "American society" is to disregard the unprecedented diversity of cultures and values present in Western societies. The friction between realization and the needs of distracted beings creates the change in Buddhism over time, not "synthesizing the best of the various traditions into one amalgamated ... Dharma."

(#10 continued)

Increasingly as Buddhists we are attempting to extend our sense of social and moral responsibility to include others, particularly those who are suffering from various injustices and deprivations. We are also searching for ways to express our deep concern for the natural world. The contemporary lay Sangha is like an interdisciplinary "Lobby for Wisdom and Compassion." This differs dramatically from the image of the traditional reclusive monk, who is often isolated and out of touch with the problems of the world.

I feel sure many thousands of monks and nuns, especially from any of the Mahayana schools, would take great exception with this particular passage. Active compassion can be expressed in many different ways, from acts of service to prayer to living as an example and role model. Often practitioners manifest all three.

(#10 continued)

The Dharma is very suited to a Western way of life. It need not be complicated, mysterious, or fancy. Buddha Dharma is ordinary life including everything from meditation to relationship yoga and parenting practice.

While Dharma is not other than ordinary life, it also manifests as extraordinary life. We can and even must go beyond our own limitations in terms of our view of ourselves; the Lama can be indispensable in this effort. While Dharma can certainly manifest as relationship yoga and parenting practice, Dharma is also: retreat, empowerment, yidam practice, mantra accumulation, and the tsa-lung practice, etc. Why throw these profound methods away if there are people interested in teaching them, practicing them, gaining benefit from them? Why define a new Buddhism that excludes so much of what has proven to be beneficial?

(#10 continued)

Among other things, it involves itself with the body-mind connection, which might well include suggestions like eating right, exercising right, and having a sense of humor. One of my teachers, the late Dudjom Rinpoche, once said, "The Dharma is not fancy. It's like blue jeans: good for every occasion, every day. It's good for work, It's good for school. You can wear blue jeans to a wedding, to ride horses, anytime."

I do not read in his words that HH Dudjom Rinpoche was advocating blue jeans to the exclusion of other forms of dress - even if these actually were the words of HH Dudjom Rinpoche. I find myself questioning the supposed syntax, at the very least. HH Dudjom Rinpoche advised other disciples to meticulously maintain and promulgate their traditions. Why not make available the crisp tuxedo of Dharma, along with the blue jeans, the traditional robes, the sarong, the Bermuda shorts? The naked body of Buddhism can and should wear whatever clothes it finds most appropriate to offer benefit in a particular climate.

Buddhism cannot exist in a vacuum; it is a basket of methods for use by people who in their particular conjunction of karma and conditions need a way to approach non-duality. The great gift of our time and place is access to this diversity - books, printing, art film, the Web. We have the prosperity to sponsor teachers of hundreds of Lineages and schools to travel around the world, to come to us and present their methods, and the means to fly around the world to see them as well. These realized persons will, in their compassion, present to us in the West that which seems to them to benefit us the most. They will respond to our questions and concerns, our requests for teaching, for clarification, for methods that enable us to grow, starting always where we are. There is room at the table for everyone. Why try to obliterate this diversity with an Osterized mélange of elements from not only Buddhism but political theory, psychology, feminist theory, and New Age cosmology? In an attempt to serve up a palatable Buddhism from the blender of Western Dharma, we could end up making merely a bland gray nutritious paste that, though it contains its components' original nutrients, fails to inspire anyone to pass on the recipe.

...[M]any teachers are already synthesizing the best of the various traditions into one amalgamated Western Dharma that seems inevitable.

I certainly do not believe it inevitable; rather I pray that the natural evolution of all the Buddhist Lineages will continue as the depth and breadth of their multifarious methods unfold, rather than a conveniently microwaveable Lite Buddhism, sewn together like Frankenstein's monster, a dysfunctional assemblage of the "finest available parts."

Feedback

• Brilliant, but...