Wholehearted Agreement

Dear Mr Cox,

I was pleased to receive your letter via Damtsig in response to my recent article. I have re-read my words with your comments in mind. Firstly, I would like to say that you were absolutely correct to comment that my emotionally charged description of the event being 'the most egregious insult to Buddha, Dharma and Sangha that I have ever had the misfortune to encounter' was over the top, and for that I apologise. I will make a point of exercising a little more restraint in the future, should I write any further articles for this excellent online publication. On that point, and to try perhaps to defend the indefensible, I would like to remind you that the statement was qualified with the descriptor that this was the worst insult that I personally have ever encountered. My excitable nature aside, I would stand by that comment, as I personally have not (fortunately) come across so much misguided writing in one place as I did amongst the subjects for discussion at the open Forums at the Naropa conference.

However I believe you and I are somewhat alike, Mr. Cox, as you too seem to have become a little emotional in your response. You appear to have read into my article the idea that I was accusing every speaker, facilitator, and organiser at the event of being a 'Western Buddhist' (and thus one of a reprehensible group of individuals). I had hoped when writing the original piece that I had made clear this was not the case. I referred to, for example, Sogyal Rinpoche's talk as 'refreshing'. Indeed after describing his talk thus I wrote a little on the value of the teachings he would be giving; he was (for me) to have been the highlight of the conference, and in fact I have learned from friends who attended that he did not after all attend - a great shame no doubt for many who were present. I also added as my conclusion that 'I sincerely hope. . . that honest seekers after Dharma. . . who innocently find themselves attending this benighted conference, manage to avoid the central theme and gain some benefit from attending one or two of the many accidentally-provided authentic presentations - such as that of Sangye Khandro.' I can understand your concern that my attack on Western Buddhism could be considered a general attack on all aspects of the event, the Naropa institute itself, and by association I could thus be deemed to be disapproving of Rig'dzin Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche. I assure you this was not my intent nor my approach, and urge you to re-read my words. My logic was thus: initially upon reading the conference brochure, the theme of the proceedings was not absolutely clear. I sought therefore to find a theme, and whilst I could not do so amongst the keynote speakers, eventually I found it in the subjects for 'Open Forum Discussions'. Upon examination I felt that the subject headings were anti-vajra master in their nature, and thereafter I criticised this position.

In fact I note we both agree that only aspects of the event were of dubious value, as you commented that 'It is true that some of the advertised areas of discussion were ones which might be turned into vehicles for the promotion of 'Western Buddhism'. But you go on to say the fact that 'the facilitator for both of the sessions which Mr Quentte highlights is. . . a student of Trungpa Rinpoche, which suggests that if the "Western Buddhists" did dominate the proceedings they did so by force of numbers rather than by the intention of the organisers.' I am afraid sir that there might be something lost in 'transatlantic translation' here. My understanding of the rôle of the facilitator of a discussion or meeting is based on my own experience and training in my workplace, which I have used also at conferences. The facilitator's rôle is to enable all those present at the event to have the opportunity to voice their views - to facilitate open debate and discussion. I as a facilitator have been trained to be unbiased in my approach to an audience; the facilitator should not support a given cause or agenda, save the agenda defined by the chair of the event, or as defined by the objectives or nature of the discussion topic. As I understand the rôle, whoever facilitated those Open Forums would be bound by the title of the Forum in question - a good, neutral facilitator (such as I assume you are stating a Naropa representative would be) would be guided in that way. It was the title and nature of the discussion topic that I was concerned with, not the venue or the personal background of the administrative aspects of the conference.

That explanation of my original pre-conference views aside, I would suggest you read Traktung Rinpoche's article on the Damtsig site titled 'Buddha and Marcuse' for a comment upon the facilitation at the event. Admittedly I was not present, however the conference booklet claimed that 'the forum theme is a setting supported by an expert facilitator. We offer these sessions with an intent toward creative dialogue, honest exchange and innovative enquiry.' I would suggest that the glib answer Traktung Rinpoche was given by Surya Das to a very open and direct question was not merely inadequate but inappropriate, and an 'expert facilitator' would have ensured the point be really addressed rather than brushed aside.

However, your comments upon Trungpa Rinpoche's work are all well made and are worth quoting in full as I agree with them almost in entirety, save the accusation that I ascribe base intentions to Trungpa Rinpoche's work on developing forms of 'enlightened society'.

The Vidyhadhara Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche worked ceaselessly for the development of forms of "enlightened society" in which human beings could experience basic human sanity and actually begin to be able to hear and practise the dharma.

No field of human endeavour was exempt from his interest, including art, music, poetry, cinema, theatre, politics, business, family life and so on. Naropa University is one of the products of this activity. Of course that doesn't mean that the current leaders of Naropa University will necessarily always live up to the aspirations of its founder.

However, to ascribe to them base intentions that run completely contrary to Trungpa Rinpoche's vision as Mr Quentte seeks to do on the basis of his subjective interpretation of a conference schedule seems seriously unbalanced.

Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche presented to the world the wonderful fact of non-duality; the joyous revelation that all of life's circumstances are seeded with the opportunity for realisation; that one need not drop out of work, need not abandon family life, nor give up one's passion for music and the arts. Although I was not blessed with the opportunity to meet and study with him, I concur absolutely that his was one of the most remarkable masters of the 20th century, and the perfect example of living the view. With respect, however, I do not believe Trungpa Rinpoche ever suggested that Dharma should be re-interpreted from the perspective of the businessman, the housewife, the actor, or politician. He simply (and that is a poor descriptor indeed for such a great act) showed that the opportunity to engage with Dharma was present in all spheres of human activity and thus human society.

My main concern upon reading your words is that I have failed to communicate a subtlety on the subject of encouraging 'enlightened society'. I agree absolutely that Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche's work was a vital, beautiful, amazing transmission, and that it is beyond criticism by a practitioner of limited scope such as myself. My intention was not to suggest the creation of enlightened society is a base or reprehensible act. However I believe the titles of the Open Forum simply do not support Trungpa Rinpoche's vision - they would appear to miss the point. The key point is that Dharma can be used to enlighten society, but society must not be used to make Dharma socially acceptable. The titles suggest that the latter is a possibility, and it is that suggestion that I vehemently refute and find an egregious insult. For example, one of the questions for discussion on Community and Hierarchy reads:

What forms of hierarchy have we imported from Asian traditions and how do they fit into American Buddhist communities? How do traditions of wisdom leadership interface with the American anti-hierarchical impulse? What forms of leadership and community decision-making do we aspire to? Where is wisdom-leadership essential? Where is grass-roots leadership essential? How can we blend these two?

I simply do not understand how any practitioner of Vajrayana could be in any doubt as to the correct answer to these questions. To even have these items as questions proves that the person asking it cannot understand the very essence of that which they would claim to practise. Asian traditions do not have to 'fit in to' American Buddhist Communities. If you are a tantrika, the hierarchy is clear. The tantrika must by virtue of their vows do what their teacher instructs. There is no decision-making process to aspire to. The decision is already made - once vajra commitment is taken, once an individual is truly practicing tantra, democracy ends; group decision making ends; it is a one man, one vote society in which the vajra master is the only person allowed to vote.

Note that I deliberately underplay the dialogue inherent in the student-teacher relationship, e.g. the duty of the student to engage in discussion with the teacher when instructions require clarification, or when the context for the student's action has not yet been made fully known to the teacher. I do so because my point must be made absolutely clear: there is no 'interface' between the wisdom leadership of the vajra master and the 'American anti-hierarchical impulse'. If you don't want hierarchy you cannot practise Vajrayana. There is no opportunity for the student to decide where innovation is possible in terms of dharma transmissions. The student contributes their openness and their devotion - enlightened innovation regarding the giving of transmission is the realm of the vajra master, and they alone.

I understand your concern that my emotional approach might allow certain individuals to write-off Damtsig as extremist nonsense. Well, if I write nonsense then for that I apologise. However Vajrayana is as 'extremist' as it is 'elitist'. Sutra is the only path with an experientially common base. Vajrayana is not open to everyone; it is therefore not democratic. Indeed it is dangerous - this is repeated time and again by vajra masters everywhere. The core problem as I see it with 'Western Buddhism' is not that they practise something I do not recognise as Dharma. It is not that they really seek to innovate new styles of practise, without acknowledging that this can only be done from the basis of enlightenment. It is that they damn the 'elitism' of tantra, because it is beyond either their means or their willingness to make the leap of devotion to practise it. It is the action of an upset child, who jealously attempts to destroy the possessions of a sibling because if the child cannot have it, the sibling must not be allowed to either. To be written off as extremist by such a group of individuals is almost a breath of fresh air, for nothing would cause me more dismay than to find myself having concurred with such grubby individuals.

I apologise if in anyway this failure of communication on my part caused concerned, offence or upset, and I wish you and Damtsig well in your efforts to support authentic Vajrayana.