The Winter 2001 issue of Tricycle magazine is both remarkable and unremarkable. It is unremarkable in its content, which is in keeping with what we have come to expect - and remarkable in that, for the first time since its inception ten years ago, American Buddhism's mouthpiece has a new Editor-In-Chief. To mark the occasion, I'd like to talk a little bit about The Tworkov Years.
Let me begin with David Patt's article, Who's in Charge Anyway?. In its own quiet way, this article is representative of The Tworkov Years - and in that capacity, it is a suitable and timely focus. On some level, the article is harmless - much as Tricycle itself is "harmless" on one level. Many also feel that Surya Das - is "harmless," but we cannot quite agree with this.
David Patt's article is harmless in the same way that a mild-mannered psychotherapist who advocates "exploring your issues" might be harmless. Indeed, the lead-in to the article reads, "David Patt explores the issues." This is definitely not a critique of psychotherapy. But it is a critique of the idea that spirituality needs to be processed by the machinery of "Western thought" - and that that machinery must function as a relentless engine of homogenization. The insidious danger of this approach is not the danger presented by a demagogue: we need not fear the crazed and cultish followers of American Buddhism. Rather, it is the constant return to the pedal point drone of democratic insistence on equal validity of all approaches which characterizes this insipid "Buddhist Review."
In Who's in Charge Anyway?, David Patt gives us a sound-bite snapshot of a dozen players on the Buddhist scene. He dispassionately reports the words of Bonnie Myotai Treace, ("How do you trust? What do you trust? Who are you? Who is anybody else?"); Sogyal Rinpoche ("bestselling author of The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying"); Ken Mcleod, ("Meditation Consultant"); Joseph Goldstein ("Western Buddhism...unique to our cultural conditioning"); John Daido Loorish Roshi ("I think we just need to be patient."); Sangye Khandro ("Don't you think it is illogical to reject Asian teachers...?"); Traktung Rinpoche ("In a piece called 'Buddha and Marcuse' (www.damtsig.org"); "Lama" Surya Das ("Who leads 'silent, vegetarian, brahmacharya (celibate) Buddhist meditation retreats.'"); Stephen Bachelor ("One side believes they are preserving the dharma by keeping it alive in a language and a form that works in our times, while the other believes they are preserving the dharma by keeping it unchanged in the forms that they've inherited. It's really just a different strategy."); the Dalai Lama ("If we put some urine in their mouths, I think they will not enjoy it."); and Jose Cabezon, professor of Tibetan Buddhism ("The emergence of new scriptural material and the reinterpretation of already extant texts is a sign of the vitality of a tradition.")
If the foregoing strikes you as somewhat simplistic, then you will understand that expanding the subject to fill six pages does little to bring it any depth. The piece reads like a term paper for a survey class in "Contemporary American Buddhist Forms" - and on some level it is. Rather than providing meaningful insight from a Buddhist perspective, the author prefers to make his case as a juxtaposition of disparate elements then draws vague sociological conclusions on the basis of the vague coherence of his own organization. The problem with this article is indicative of the problem with Tricycle magazine, but in order to explain the nature of this problem, I need to talk a bit about Editorial Standards.
Perhaps there was a time in history when the general reading population took what it read at face value. Certainly in the past there have been fewer viewpoints expressed - and in that sense, one could be more certain of knowing where written material was "coming from." But whatever the situation may once have been, we now live in a world in which it would be impossible to read without the skill of filtering. We are deluged with written information - from the New York Times, to People, to The National Enquirer. Now we even have the internet - where any crackpot can hang up a shingle. Many would characterize Damtsig as a crackpot's shingle.
It is almost too obvious to bother pointing out that when reading a publication we need to gain some understanding of why it exists and what its editorial perspective is. Generally speaking, this is not too difficult. In terms of the news media, there is a fairly clear set of axes along which a publication can be located. There is the commercial axis, the ideological axis, and perhaps the "notoriety" axis. Maybe I have not broken that up quite right, and certainly these three are intertwined, but the point remains: different publications serve different purposes, and we cannot necessarily understand the significance of what we read in a given publication without some understanding of its context - in terms of the larger issue of the publication's agenda.
As an example of what I am talking about, let's look at Damtsig. What is Damtsig's purpose? It should not take much detective work to discover that Damtsig exists for the sole purpose of articulating the central role of the vajra master within the practice of Vajrayana Buddhism. As a reader, you may agree or disagree with our style - or our assessment of any given case - but you can be confident that we will frame the discourse in terms of this very specific concern. When we criticize, we do so on the basis of the failure to acknowledge - or the attempt to distort - this primary role. We may be criticized for a severe lack of courtesy in promulgating the terms of our mandate, but the substance of our message is consistent and unequivocal.
That having been said, what can we say about Tricycle? What purpose does it serve, and what is its agenda - hidden or otherwise? The magazine's subtitle is "The Buddhist Review," and this name gives a fairly good idea of the potential ambiguities. Is this just a stock moniker for a periodical wishing to assert its affiliation with a world religion - ala "The Christian Quarterly" - or is it a proclamation of editorial intention, intention to "review Buddhism"? I would argue that although a cursory evaluation might suggest the former, a prolonged examination indicates the latter.
To demonstrate what I mean, let me return to David Patt's article. Ostensibly, this article provides a summary of the various viewpoints held by a handful of noteworthy Buddhism-related talking heads. It purports to address the question "Who's in Charge?" - or stated more directly in the introductory paragraph, "Who is the boss of dharma practice? Is it the guru or the disciple?" The author proceeds from this inquisitive beginning to "explore the issues" by endlessly quoting conflicting snippets from the aforementioned talking heads. I mean no particular disrespect to any of the individuals quoted here. I refer to them in this manner only to underscore the blatant appropriation of individual expression as the raw material of a repackaged and remixed commodity - since this phenomenon is typical of Tricycle's approach.
Tricycle has always thrived on manufactured conflict - which is strange considering how much real conflict exists. For a prime example of this phenomenon, see Vol VI, No. 1, Fall 1996, p. 101, The Roundtable. This article is a brilliant example of the precise brand of manipulative journalism in which Tricycle specializes. The topic (psychedelic usage) is hardly important - it is the presentation that is noteworthy. The article takes the form of an interview, interspersing comments made by the Tricycle interviewer, with those of Ram Dass, Joan Halifax, Robert Aitken, and Richard Baker. Only if one carefully reads the lead-in does one realize (and it is so odd - that it took me a while to piece it together) that the four were not actually present together. Rather, "Whether or not psychedelics have any usefulness to someone on a Buddhist path was the subject of four recent interviews, conducted by Allan Hunt Badiner and combined into the following roundtable discussion." [emphasis added] I wonder why it was necessary to combine these interviews into one. It is certainly misleading, and it certainly stretches the meaning of "roundtable discussion." What is important to notice is that Tricycle sees the words and views of those it publishes as film clips to be retouched, spliced, or left on the cutting-room floor as needed. "Does anybody have a shot of the Dalai Lama playing soccer?"
This editorial liberty might not be such a big deal if it were always clearly articulated - but by its nature it cannot be. As readers, we get only what an editor chooses to show us - and we know that Tricycle is not above twisting peoples' words to suit their own ends. Although in the above example, the manipulation is left publically visible, it is not always so. Sometimes, as with the now well-known interview with Dungsé Thrinley Norbu Rinpoche, no mention is made of the editorial liberties taken.
The problem with this transparent re-working of material is that it allows the political agenda of the editorial staff to remain shrouded under the guise of "aesthetic" or "journalistic" considerations. Tricycle's explicit stance is both intellectually dishonest and fundamentally anti-Buddhist - but in such a way as not to register with most Americans because it aligns with our cultural conditioning.
Recently, a non-Buddhist friend noticed a copy of Tricycle in my posession. "I met the editors of that magazine once," he commented, "at a publishing party in New York. It was very strange. They aren't Buddhists; they're just 'New York people.' They aren't even nice." This unsolicited outside observation agrees with our own "insider" observations. Tricycle magazine represents an attempt to apply the most insipid principles of American Journalism to the vaguely specified subject of "Buddhism," in order to gain some measure of credibility in the world - and to attempt to foster a climate in which Buddhism can be made into something other than what it is.
It is true that the methods encompassed by the word "Buddhism" are diverse and even apparently contradictory. No one could reasonably dispute this. There are also many who would hasten to point out that the apparent contradictions between methods exist because of the very real differences between those who are benefited by them; and that insofar as teachings are authentic they represent the non-contradictory union of wisdom and method. This is all fairly understandable. Seen from its own perspective, any particular strand of Buddhism provides a complete and cogent explanation for how it fits in with other forms of practice. It is only when these divergent-yet-complementary methods are "cut and pasted" into artifical roundtables and used as support for the platitudes of academic Comparative Religion and post-modern piffle that they appear contradictory in a way that is problematic.
Tricycle magazine is a media-hype machine, and that is why their issues have titles like, "MEAT: TO EAT IT OR NOT," "ANTI-ABORTION/PRO-CHOICE: TAKING BOTH SIDES," and "IS YOUR GURU YOUR THERAPIST?". By consistently presenting the view that Buddhism is in need of review, and that the practitioner's job is to constantly seek politically correct applications of dharma, they gradually erode what should be a fundamental and unquestionable reality for anyone who considers themself Buddhist - that the teachings actually work without modification, when taken on their own terms. After all, acceptance of this fact as a working reality is the fundamental principle underlying refuge in any Buddhist tradition. However, rather than acknowledge this in its editorial stance, Tricycle prefers to play the post-modern ingenue. As a result, its issues end up reading like a cross between a pamphlet you might find at the public library ("So you're thinking about becoming a Buddhist") and a Cosmo special ("Ten things every girl should know about Buddhism").
Let me be completely explicit: Tricycle's editorial policy compels it to present Buddhism as though it is in need of review. Based on this policy, they proceed to publish articles pitting this bit against that bit. The problem with this approach is that it is founded on a false premise - and the result is that, unless the premise is rejected, the resulting conclusions will inevitably be flawed.
So far, I have discussed Tricycle's methodology, but not their motivation. Unfortunately - and obviously this is why I am publishing this here - the net result of the presentation detailed above, is a sustained argument against the validity of the Vajrayana. The whole premise that Buddhism can be understood through journalistic juxtaposition is antithetical to a proper understanding. The only way to understand the relationship between the various schools and levels of Buddhist teachings is to understand the structure of dharma. This can be understood by studying or receiving teachings which address the question directly, or by independently examining the individual traditions in question. However; the approach that favors direct comparison of disparate elements is too crude to fall under the heading of Buddhism at all. Rather, it is a spiritually materialistic approach that obscures any understanding of the subtleties of the path - and instead flattens all expressions of dharma into "that which can be discussed by committee."
Although even Sutra does not properly fall into this category, it comes the closest - and as a result of the bias inherent in the observational style, the teachings of Sutra emerge as most coherent and credible. The reason this is so is that the teachings of Sutra do not presuppose any particular level of experience. Rather they are based on ordinary experience and ordinary logic. For this reason, the mindset which seeks validation and explanation at the level of "why should I want this?" will naturally be reflected in the Sutric teachings, which deal directly with these issues. When placed on a makeshift "panel of experts" and questioned as to particulars, the teachings of Vajrayana may well yawn and pass. But this emphatically does not mean that they have nothing of value to offer. It is just that what Vajrayana offers cannot be appreciated when seen through the lens of "speculative inquiry." When viewed from this perspective, Vajrayana is inscrutable and opaque.
If one is asking the question Who's In Charge Here Anyway? with respect to the teacher-student relationship then one is de facto not relating with Vajrayana - at all. Therefore, to include explicit references to Vajrayana, and to use its language by referring to the "guru or the disciple" is, fundamentally, to mislead. There is simply nothing to discuss. By asking the question and then pretending to answer it by not answering it, Tricycle manages to create the illusion that the answer is somehow debatable. But this controversy is like the rest - manufactured.
Tricycle prides itself on asking "hard questions." Because Helen Tworkov has chosen to present herself, month after month, as an earnest and diligent Buddhist, she has been able to get away with calling her yellow journalism "honesty." She has tried, again and again, to frame her accusations of controversy as "journalist concern" and even seems "saddened and apologetic" that such things exist. Her particular project of undermining and discrediting Tibetan teachers could never have passed so quietly if she were not afforded the cover of overtly claiming to be a part of the traditions at which she takes potshots from the hidden vantage point of invisible editorial control.
But if we look at what is actually published, we see the real story. Because Tricycle does indeed publish the words of the representatives of many traditions, the bias is not immediately obvious. By looking instead at the political center from which editorial decisions are made, we see the basic assumption that the Vajrayana is an unsound methodology and that the lineage holders of Vajrayana are untrustworthy. These sentiments are portrayed through the characterization of Vajrayana as an area in which individual predilection can play an important role; by encouraging a spirit of inquiry as to whether the role of the vajra master is appropriate (as though this were open to question); and an untoward willingness to publish "scandalous" material - even though in "objective" terms or through the voice of a "confused seeker." The result of all this is to give the Tricycle reader the impression that these all represent valid means of evaluating the Vajrayana - when in fact they are utterly spurious tangents.
Anyone can write about anything if they so choose. It is up to the editor of a publication to determine what is and is not suitable for publication. Helen Tworkov cannot disclaim responsibility for the net effect of her editorial decisions - and indeed she must be proud of it, because she has to a large degree achieved what she wanted. She has helped to foster a climate in which the American Buddhist anti-vajra master anti-Tibetan cultural revolution can thrive and come into its own. She has incubated the burgeoning leaders of this self-created lineage, and we now live in a world in which the likes of Surya Das, Stephen Batchelor, Jack Kornfield, and the rest can call themselves Buddhist teachers in public - and no one is the wiser for the incongruity of the claim.
Although there is much more to be said on this subject, little more needs to be. If you are in any doubt as to the accuracy of this assessment, please look over the back issues of Tricycle. We have now collected ten years worth of evidence, so there is ample opportunity to validate these remarks. Notice the consistency with which Tricycle mixes in articles founded on fundamentally rascist, anti-Vajrayana (and truth be told anti-discipline and therefore anti-Buddhist) principles. Look past the surface of her breezy presentation on page four to the carefully crafted siege on traditional lineage, lovingly built up and pushed further and further - as each issue established the Editor's position as the "reality of American Buddhism" more concretely.
Now that Ms. Tworkov has retired from her duties as Editor-in-Chief, and James Shaheen has found his home on page six, let us hope that a new figure at the helm may lend a new direction to this wayward "Review" - which, whether we like it or not - is believed by the American reading population to represent Buddhism. Wouldn't that be something if it really did?