Surya Das seems like a nice fellow, a big rugged lug like my Uncle Jerry, a sturdy friend of the people, embracing Buddhist democracy and inclusive equality. He is the kind of amiable guy who is hard not to like - and his words invite us all, arms open wide, to an egalitarian Buddhism replete with "collective wisdom of the Sangha" as governing body. Mr. Surya Das is without a doubt the charismatic center of the "Western Buddhist Movement." His is a comfortable message in well-crafted words, excellent web design, nice graphics and good download times, plus a big hearty smile. It is so tempting to assume that since we like the man, we must also like his ideas. But I think it is important that we inspect those ideas carefully rather than be held in the sway of his charisma, for the ideas promoted in his web site and published writings are antithetical to both Buddhism and democracy. The central question is: What do the French Revolution, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the "Western Buddhist Movement" have in common? More than you might think.
Sometimes it can be hard to determine what is true, untrue, or even being said in this postmodern egalitarian Western Buddhism whose belief structure sees a world where there are no Buddhist beliefs; and in fact, really no Buddhism. In "Ten Trends", Mr. Surya Das makes two very interesting statements. "Like him [Mr. Batchelor] I know that there really is no such thing as Buddhism," and "I see contemporary Dharma as basically a Buddhism without beliefs." Mr. Surya Das is therefore, a Buddhist "with no Buddhist beliefs" in a world where there "really is no Buddhism." This should perhaps cause anyone who would learn Buddhism from Mr. Surya Das to stop and ponder. The Western Buddhist Movement makes great use of catch phrases and slogans, language designed to influence popular sentiment - "egalitarian," "postmodern," "democratic," "collective wisdom of the Sangha," "Buddhism without beliefs." The last of these, the notion of a "Buddhism without beliefs" is a concept of such psychological naïveté its very premise would be laughable - except that its effect is to induct adherents whose loyalty is bought with bad faith and uncritical, unquestioned acquiescence to supposed postmodernity.
The idea of "Buddhism without belief" in a world where there is no Buddhism, only "Buddhists," is crucial to perpetrating the sham of the Western Buddhist Movement. It is only in a climate of such absurdist thought and belief that heresy can pass for orthodoxy and destruction can pass for reform. Once we all realize that there are no "Buddhist beliefs" or "Buddhism" then we need not be bothered by trivialities such as heresy. We will not object to the reformulation of a religion in order to resurrect an inherently flawed philosophy and social agenda of bad faith from the grave of miserable historical failure. I would suggest that, in this circumstance, heresy is a generous assessment indeed - as it implies a breaking away from basic tenets while attempting to remain within the belief structure as a whole. Here we have a wholesale casting off of structure, and of basic structural tenets, while proceeding toward an absence of any framework of tenets at all. No beliefs, no Buddhism, only Buddhists. Among heresies, this one has to be king.
Outside the musty halls of academia, such statements - such an endeavor - might seem patently absurd, but it seems to sell well on the New Age book circuit. In "Ten Trends," Mr. Das says he sees "a Buddhism without beliefs, a Dharma that is less doctrinaire, dogmatic and belief based." Of course, any but the most simplistic thinker or contorted postmodernist would instantly see that the very notion of the superiority of "Buddhism without beliefs" is itself a belief. Only hard-core adherents of an academic socialist left whose corrosive cynicism denies all truth, relative or absolute, could suggest such a notion. Mr. Das' entire "Ten Trends" is, in fact, a manifesto of dogma. It is a series of propositions, which echo the views of egalitarian and collectivist visionaries of the past. The propositions, which Mr. Das offers, are disguised as "trends." They are presented as the obvious and observable evolution of Buddhist destiny in America. Like his predecessors, Mr. Marx and Mr. Hegel, Mr. Surya Das contends that he has the power to ascertain historical trends.
Mr. Das' Buddhism is perhaps Buddhism without Buddhist beliefs, but it is certainly not "without beliefs." Though he would have us accept that the "Ten Trends" are historical evolution, they are, in fact, nothing of the sort. Even he becomes aware of this in trend #4, where he shifts from supposedly descriptive to proscriptive language. "Western Buddhism needs to become." This is not the language of observed historical trend, but of subjective opinion. In truth, the entirety of "Ten Trends" is nothing more than a description of unquestioned beliefs and judgments stated as normative proscription.
The Western Buddhist Movement is a "Buddhism without beliefs" in a world where there "really is no Buddhism." It is an empty husk. But what is the function and purpose of the husk? To understand that, we have to discover what the ideology of this movement is - and, where it fits in the history of Western thought. As I mentioned, "Ten Trends" is an ideological manifesto rather than a series of historical observations, so we will not have to look very far. In fact, the belief in historical trends as proscriptive norms is part and parcel of a particular school of Western thought in and of itself. It is a trend which embraces egalitarianism and collectivism just as Mr. Das does. It is also a trend which in "postmodern" times embraces nihilistic extreme relativism and can therefore easily accept a Buddhist with "no beliefs" in a world with "no Buddhism." Nihilistic extreme relativism is the current usual bedfellow of eternalistic utopian egalitarian dreams.
Why does this movement cling to the name "Buddhism" while accepting none of the beliefs of a Buddhist? What in the world could it even mean? The benefit is market penetration. The name becomes a front and a decoy - and a very fashionable one in our culture. Certainly heresy is part of this shameless co-opting of a spiritual tradition to further personal or philosophical agendas. Recently, Mr. Das has come closer to being perfectly forthright about this in his book, Awakening to the Sacred, which encourages each spiritual seeker to make up his or her own religion from scratch. Perhaps soon he will have no need of Buddhism at all, but until then he will still make use of our culture's fascination with Buddhism and his self-determined authority as its spokesperson. But in this Buddhism without beliefs, what is the agenda? Perhaps like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz we need turn away from the Buddhist façade of this Western Buddhist Movement and take a look at the beliefs behind the curtain.
The very debate over "Buddhism" here is a sham. It is an attempt to co-opt our society's increasing interest in Buddhism to serve a social agenda. It is about the efforts of a small cotérie of passé academics enacting the destructive and manipulative power game of egalitarianism and collectivism in a reworked, renamed "postmodern" vehicle - Western Buddhism. The self proclaimed "Western Buddhist Movement" is chock full of postmodern leftist ideology - a desperate rewriting of a tragically failed philosophical and socio-political movement which began in the French Parliament of 1789 and was carried through to the egalitarian and collectivist revolutions of modern times. The fact that Mr. Das may be ignorant of the historical and philosophical roots of egalitarianism and collectivism does not alter the fact that these are beliefs within a certain historical dogma. It is certainly not a Buddhist dogma but a dogma far more doctrinaire than anything within the sphere of Buddhism. Given the extreme failure of this philosophy and its social engineering efforts, it is not surprising that the halls of academia are now the only place where anyone still tries to swallow the bitter leftist pill. Postmodernism becomes very important as an aspect of this movement because it encourages us to forget the "modern" failures of egalitarian thought and their tragic consequences. Postmodernism projects a grand Wizard-of-Oz's magnificent Buddha head and implores us to ignore the man behind the curtain. But if we look beyond the Wizard-of-Oz Buddha projected by the Western Buddhist Movement, we will find behind the curtain the nihilism of Nietzsche grafted to Marxism in postmodern Buddhist drag.
The West has known two modern revolutionary philosophies and movements. Often the debate between the right and the left has been portrayed as the debate between conservatism and revolution. This is not, however, correct. It is a debate between the revolutionary approach of pragmatism found in the doctrines and efforts of those who wrote the American constitution, and the doctrines of the radical egalitarians of the French Revolution which flowered in the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 and the communist movements of Russia, Cambodia, and China amongst others. Staking their place on the left side of the parliament building in 1789 were those who felt that the French revolution's toppling of the monarchy was not enough. They felt the need to "complete" the work of the revolution through the creation of a truly "egalitarian" society. The egalitarians sat on the left and their opponents sat on the right. This gave birth to the "right/left" metaphor in politics ever since. The earlier American Revolution chose the pragmatic representative democracy of the American constitution. One of its main proponents was James Madison, who with his compatriots, wrote about many important aspects of this view in the "Federalist Papers." Madison identifies a central question for all human beings and one which is often addressed in writings of the Western Buddhist Movement as well: How shall we deal with the "mischiefs of faction?" How shall we deal with the fact that free men and women will differ in opinion? The answer to this question is crucial to how we shall live together and govern ourselves. Its answer, as far as the Western Buddhist Movement goes, is clearly given in both statement and attitude through Mr. Das' writing. Madison stated in Federalist Paper #10 that there are two possible methods of dealing with dissent: we shall either deal with the causes or the effects.
Egalitarians and collectivists choose to deal with the causes. The authors of the American constitution and the founders of the American democratic system opted to deal with the effects. Let us take a moment to look at the first option. For the egalitarians and collectivists to accomplish their goals, in order for them to address the causes of faction, they must follow one of two routes - or attempt both. They must either insist that all citizens have the same views and opinions, passions, and wisdom or they must deny the liberty to express those differences. The Western Buddhist Movement's dreams of altering Buddhism by synthesizing the traditions are evidence of the first. Only an heir to the left side of the parliament could ever feel good about a statement like Mr. Das' in "Ten Trends," - "[it is] synthesizing the best of the various traditions into one amalgamated Western Dharma that seems inevitable." This idea of the "inevitability" of "historical trends" is one of the corner stones of Marxian pseudo-religious belief.
"Ten Trends" by Mr. Das tries to seduce us with the fantasy of a "collective wisdom." It implies that an amalgamated Western Dharma where we all share the same wisdom and views - but of course no beliefs - will eliminate the mischiefs of faction by giving all citizens the same views and opinions, passions, and wisdom. In support of this view, one can read an article on Mr. Das' website by Lewis Richmond, who would like us all to stop "bickering." In his article on "Ten Reasons Why Western Dharma May Fail," Mr. Richmond contends that "bickering" amongst Buddhists is one of these reasons. He says, "Maybe we will bicker our way into the pure land, or into enlightened awareness. More likely we will bicker our way into inconclusiveness, weakness and oblivion. What are we arguing about? What is the point? What really matters?"
"Bickering" here is a pejorative word for debate. Western Buddhists would like to do away with the debate over the validity of this versus that view or belief, which has been one of the corner stones of both the Western and the Eastern search for truth. Debate over differences of view may result in inconclusiveness, but this is only a problem if what we desire is a "collective wisdom" without dissent. Why do Mr. Das and Mr. Richmond have such angst over differences of opinion, and such desire for inclusive collective wisdom? Debate and even bickering are part and parcel of human nature. Perhaps in this "amalgamated" Dharma Mr. Lewis and Mr. Das will simply agree to hold to my views, for certainly I am not planning to agree with theirs.
How one deals with the problem of annoying people who will not join in with one's collective vision, one's amalgamated melting pot of Dharma or philosophy, is the thorn in the side of the egalitarians. If only everyone would agree with me, then there would be no unpleasant disagreements - I agree! But people do disagree and the egalitarian response is exactly what Madison described as the second option for dealing with the causes of faction; it is to "deny the liberties of expression of differences." This is why leftist liberal causes have always ended up engaged in illiberal actions. This is why in every place where Marxism has succeeded, a totalitarian system has resulted. This is why "Tricycle Magazine," the media arm of the Western Buddhist Movement, has already engaged in shameful and journalistically corrupt maneuvers in order to manipulate the image of those whom its editorial board does not like. (For more information on this early act of authoritarian corruption in the Western Buddhist Movement, see www.jeweldakini.com.
The sad truth for egalitarians like Mr. Das is that their noble fantasies have always failed when their intellectual ideas are brought into the realm of people's daily reality, and their failure has always come at a terrible cost. The truth is that the collectivists and egalitarians do not, and cannot, maintain their views consistently and also appreciate the diversity and plurality which is the strong point of human culture. They must endlessly fantasize a social state wherein differences are blurred into pre-rational, unthinking, pseudo-wholeness. Unfortunately the failure to create this utopia has been historically proven to lead to the increasing desire to use unwholesome means to achieve noble goals. Egalitarian agendas have left 100 million lives dead at the feet of their beliefs and social agendas. The egalitarian fantasy, with its collectivist melting pot where all distinctions disappear in a soup of amalgamated Dharma, is neither Buddhism nor original untested philosophy. It is a view which has been tested in the historical laboratory, and its failure has left a trail of blood across the modern era. Every country and movement, from Russia to the 1960's radical SDS group, which has tried egalitarian collectivism has failed - and in their failure, more often than not, embraced totalitarianism in a desperate effort to accomplish noble goals. With the fall of the Berlin wall, and the demise of communism, one of the only remaining adherents to this failed agenda of egalitarianism and collectivism is China. The effects of China's modern "beliefs" and policies can be seen on the decimated physical and spiritual landscape of Tibet and the mountains of dead monks and nuns it has left behind in the effort to "liberate" Vajrayana Buddhism from its backward notions. It is the arrogance of the egalitarian desire to re-form humanity, versus the pragmatism of the founding fathers' democratic style, that shines through Mr. Das' "Ten Trends" document again and again. The invitation to "collective wisdom" and egalitarianism in Dharma is in truth an invitation to conformity and to the suppression of open dialogue. Marxism and its postmodern variations, the opium of academia, are a poor substitute for the radically liberating teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha.
"The nightmare is over; the dream lives on."Except for his sympathy with the egalitarian, collectivist, leftist, postmodern academic world, it is hard to imagine why Mr. Das fantasizes about the end of pluralism in Buddhism. Both democracy and Buddhism have flourished in the bubbling cauldron of pluralism. Does he even understand the inherent conflict between egalitarianism, collectivism, and pluralism? One moment he praises the "individual" and the next moment he fantasizes about the "collective" as if these two were not intrinsically in conflict. Why do we need, why would we even want, an "amalgamated" Dharma? Buddhism has always had many diverse paths and styles. The sublime wisdom master Shakyamuni taught a Dharma that meets the needs of every kind of person at every level of intelligence. The flower of Buddha's teaching has continued to open ever more fully for thousands of years in a glorious array of methods. Pluralism is the celebration of this diversity. If we value pluralism, we can disagree over whose beliefs or methods are best or most correct without killing each other. We can address the "mischiefs of faction" through their effects, not their causes.Professor Samuel Bowles, speaking on the egalitarian dream, quoted in the Wall Street Journal.
Quite frankly, the degree of arrogance contained within the Western Buddhist Movement's writings harkens back to the deadly arrogance of China's Cultural Revolution, Cambodia's egalitarian liberation and consequent killing fields, and Stalin's purges in the name of collectivism. Let me be clear: I am not saying that Mr. Das, or those who mold the belief structure of Western Buddhism, are genocidal fiends. I am simply saying that they embrace certain beliefs, openly expressed, which link them to some of the bloodiest revolutions in history. It is no wonder that those who dress this vision up in new words call it a "postmodern" vision. It is crucial for them to distance their egalitarian, socialist, collectivist goals as far as possible from the results of the same philosophy throughout the "modern" era. I for one am unwilling to sacrifice the beliefs and structure of the precious Buddha Dharma for a social agenda that has shown itself to be a miserable failure over and over again. I am unwilling to become part of the "amalgamated" mashed-potato mixture of Western Buddhism's "collective wisdom," and I am unwilling to pretend that this is not what is hiding behind the great Wizard of Oz's "Western Buddhist" curtain.
Egalitarianism and the utopian fantasies of collectivism are in essence new forms of Buddhist heresy which threaten to derail the subtle and delicate process of Buddhist transmission in the West. The passé philosophy of these movements, dressed up in postmodern apparel, is attempting to heist the image of Buddhism - while denying such a thing as Buddhism exists. Egalitarianism is a seductively noble-seeming philosophy based, unlike the Buddha Dharma, in unreal views of human nature and acted on with disastrous results. Its flaws, obvious for over two hundred years of Western philosophy, are grave. In practice, it is a set of beliefs rampant with patriarchal arrogance and patronizing contempt for the "common man," a set of beliefs which has no compunction about sacrificing traditions and culture in order to "save the ignorant" from their superstitious and backward ways.
So many items in "Emerging Trends" are simply ridiculous. Surya Das contends that Western Buddhism will become more lay oriented - as if the 300,000,000 Buddhists worldwide were not already mostly lay practitioners. This "trend" combined with the "trend" towards a Buddhism that has no esoteric or hermetic aspect are a necessary combination for collectivist Western Buddhism. In combination they are an attempt to deny the "truths" (which go the way of beliefs and enlightenment) found in the depths of the spiritual process. It is not that Buddhism will be lay oriented; Buddhism has always been mostly made up of lay members. What is really meant is that Buddhism will have no serious lay or non-lay members. It will have no Buddhist "Masters" whose realization goes beyond that of novice seekers.
We cannot have collective equality if any one person can be considered to be wiser than others are. This is the real thrust behind Western Buddhism's attack on the Vajra Master and Vajrayana. In order to create a Buddhism in which we can all be equal in every dimension, we will need to have a dumbing-down of Buddhism. This will require a Buddhism that does not allow any schools which do not function from a common experiential base. We will have a Buddhism very much like the Iowa State Fair's 4H show last year. Each and every person who entered received an identical ribbon. First, second and third place ribbons were eliminated because they might have caused hurt feelings in the egalitarian sensitivities of those present, and so 3500 identical ribbons were handed out. Those who do not see the mockery of human spirit in this inane gesture might indeed like Mr. Das' non-Buddhism. In a Buddhism which never realizes anything higher than basic pop psychology (and calls it Dzogchen!), the deepest aspects of the human spirit will be lost, and the heights of Buddha nature will have to be sacrificed in order for egalitarian sensibilities to remain unthreatened. The only result possible in an egalitarian Buddhism functioning from collective wisdom is a Buddhism where the freedom to attain, express or teach any degree of realization will eventually have to be denied.
It is humorous to me that Mr. Das would like a Buddhism that is less "doctrinaire." The word "doctrinaire" means "stubbornly trying to apply a theory without considering the circumstances; impractical and stubbornly theoretical." It is egalitarianism and beliefs in "collective wisdom," that, in light of their disastrous historical failure, are doctrinaire - not Buddhism. Luckily 300,000,000 modern Buddhists have discovered that the methods of Buddhism work excellently under infinitely diverse conditions, without any need for the reformation that the Western Buddhist would foist upon the Dharma. Very few of them feel the need for the patronizing, patriarchal, social imperialism of arrogant "Western Saviors" who would sacrifice the Buddhist Dharma and Western democratic values of pluralism and diversity for yet another doctrinaire experiment in inclusive conformity.
Our country has not been lucky. It was decided to carry out this Marxist experiment on us. It has simply pushed us off the path the world's civilized countries have taken.Boris Yeltsin
My words are strong. They are a condemnation and an accusation. I feel that they have to be. What is at stake here is the heart of the Dharma and the integrity of what is offered to those who come to Buddhism seeking the liberation from suffering which is offered by the profound teachings of the Buddha. What is at stake is the lifeblood of Buddha's teachings offered up on the altar of a failed social and political agenda. I realize that the fierce nature of this article and my statements may cause discomfort to some, but what is at stake here is of great value and preciousness on both the religious and political fronts. I do not say these things from any sense of animosity towards Mr. Das but rather from the demands of dignity and honor in relation to the sacred Buddha Dharma. If Mr. Das wishes to make up his own mix of egalitarianism and pieces of this and that religion, he can certainly go right ahead - but it will not be Buddhism, and its social agenda may have serious unintended consequences.
It is important to understand that already, in the short life span of "Western Buddhism," trends that deny the value of open debate have been set in place. Because, at their core, egalitarian collectivist movements are based on flawed and unreal notions about human beings, they are doomed to enact an endless and subtle dance between liberal idealism and authoritarianism. Because of inherent conflicts between the values of freedom and those of "forced equality" (for there is no other kind in the world of relative truth), egalitarian movements choose to sacrifice first open dialogue and then, if they amass the power, actual basic freedoms. It is for this reason that it becomes important for Buddhists to speak out against a style of heresy which undermines not only Buddhism but Western democratic values as well. When we are no longer enamored of the Great Wizard of Western Buddhism's projected head - the glorious program for reforming Buddhism in "postmodern" egalitarian vision - we can draw back the curtain and discover the tired little old man and his failed philosophy of social reform. And when he calls out, "Ignore the man behind the curtain!" ("No beliefs here.") we would do well, like Dorothy, to disregard his protest.
Written at the request of many Dharma friends by the aimless vagrant Ngakpa, Traktung Yeshe Dorje, and his Sang-yum, A'dzom Rinpoche - on the 10th day of the moon April, 2000. Dedicated to the great hero of awakened heart, the Warrior of Dignity, Gesar of Ling. May the victory flag of authentic Dharma fly free in the brilliant skies of western lands.
If you would like to be a practicing Buddhist in a world where there is Buddhism, and you would like to understand the structure and content of Buddhist view and beliefs the books below are only a few of many excellent choices.
Ways of Enlightenment: Dharma Publishing - This is a very good basic introduction to the structure of the beliefs which make up the ground of the Buddhist world view.
Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism: Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche - This is an excellent tour of the possible sidetracks of spiritual life and a "broad outline of the true spiritual path."
Wearing the Body of Visions: Ngakpa Chögyam - This book "describes the path of inner Tantra in a fresh, creative, contemporary language."
The Wish Fulfilling Jewel: Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche - This book by one of Lama Surya Das' root Gurus presents a very different view of Buddhism and the Vajra Master than does the "no beliefs" and "no Buddhism" world in which Mr. Surya Das teaches.
Masters of Meditation and Miracles: Tulku Thondup - This book presents the lives of many great Masters from the tradition of esoteric Vajrayana Buddhism.
The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism: Dudjom Rinpoche - This is a difficult but seminal work on the history, beliefs and methods of the oldest school of Tibetan Buddhism.
White Sail: Crossing the Waves of Ocean Mind to the Serene Continent of the Triple Gems: Thinley Norbu - A wonderful journey through Buddhist teachings.
If you would like to know more about the philosophical and historical problems with egalitarian and collectivist thought - in politics or Buddhism - the writings below are all excellent and available through Amazon.com.
The Dark Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America: Richard Ellis
Bad Faith Politics and Radical Son: David Horowitz
The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism The Road to Serfdom Individualism and Economic Order Law, Legislation and Liberty : The Political Order of a Free People:
Freidrich Hayek (winner of the Nobel Prize in economics 1974)
Walking in the Shade: Doris Lessing
The Closing of the American Mind: Alan Bloom
The Federalist (Everyman Paperback Classics) - From the Back Cover: Between October 1787 and March 1788, three founding fathers anonymously contributed The Federalist papers to journals, hoping to persuade the people of New York to ratify the newly drafted constitution. The 85 essays by these future presidents are presented in chronological order.
Democracy in America: Alexis De Tocqueville - Alexis de Tocqueville considered American democracy to be the greatest political experiment of modern times and, in the 1830's, he wrote what remains the best portrait ever of the American character.
The Open Society and Its Enemies: The High Tide of Prophecy: Hegel, Marx, and the Aftermath (Vol 2): Karl Raimund Popper
Poverty of Historicism: Karl Raimund Popper
The Revolt of the Masses: Jose Ortega Y Gasset