I enjoyed the fairly interesting points expressed in Malcolm Smith's letter, "In a word people....relax." I also read with interest the reply by Bill Carson. However, as a student of Vajrayana and of the Venerable Khenpos Palden Sherab Rinpoche and Tsewang Dongyal Rinpoche, I feel the need to question what appears to me to be an unfair characterization of Mr. Smith's position as expressed in the letter.
Bill Carson concluded, "I am sure that in his own way Malcolm Smith means well, but he too needs to take responsibility for his unquestioning adoption of an eternalistic Western mindset." Why is Malcolm Smith being accused of unquestioningly adopting an eternalistic Western mindset? Just because he quotes Desiderata?? This appears to me to be an unwarranted assumption regarding his actual stance.
Furthermore, if "It is also inappropriate for Buddhists to comment on the behavior of Lamas with whom they do not study," then how appropriate is it to comment on the behavior of Lama Surya Das?
Todd Chambers
Todd Chambers' questions of what appears to him as "an unfair characterization of Mr. Smith's position" are unusual, given that the text of Mr. Smith's letter is there for all to read - and Mr. Chambers has obviously done so. Anyone else may also read Mr. Smith's argument and form their own conclusions. As for my conclusions, I didn't accuse Malcolm Smith of unquestioningly adopting an eternalistic Western mindset because he quoted "Desiderata." My criticism of Mr. Smith's eternalistic Western mindset remains - and is based on his use of the aforementioned text (along with other assertions) as evidence for the position of "truth within everything," and the eventual liberation of all beings, almost regardless of how they proceed in terms of view, mediation, and action. This is eternalism according to Buddhism. "Desiderata" is not eternalistic merely because it is Western in origin; it is eternalistic according to basic Buddhist principles. It may be a helpful piece of writing in many ways, and it may inspire people - but that does not in itself make it concordant with Buddhist teachings.
Todd Chamber goes on to say:
... if "It is also inappropriate for Buddhists to comment on the behavior of Lamas with whom they do not study," then how appropriate is it to comment on the behavior of Lama Surya Das?
My answer to this is relatively simply: I do not comment, have never commented, and never will comment, on the behavior of Surya Das. I merely comment, as do others, on his written statements. What he has written is a matter of public record - as is the commentary appearing in Damtsig. Is there some rule I don't know about concerning what it is ethical to criticize? Tell me this: if it is ethical to criticize writings in support of pedophilia (which purport to be humanitarian), why isn't it acceptable to criticize the writings of Buddhists when they patently deviate from the core tenets of Buddhism?
Bill Carson
Todd,
Mr. Smith reminds us that many great realizers have also broken samaya or compromised their highest aspirations and then conveniently locates Surya Das in their extraordinary company. It is an optimistic folly to lump all who have broken samaya together as if one could draw any inference from this. As if simply being an initiate is sufficient (see John 3:16) and will invariably lead to awakening in the end, in spite of oneself. We could also include the example of Rudra and Devadatta among those who have broken samaya. The Vajrayana is not a one way street which leads invariably to enlightenment but depends completely on one's heart response. To quote John Kay --
Let's stick our heads into the sand
Just pretend that all is grand
And hope that everything turns out okay......
Malcolm seems to think that there is a need to convince someone that LSD's purported errors are neither serious nor meaningful enough (in relation to this path) to warrant such criticism. This species of eternalism holds onto the notion of basic goodness in the persistence of entities, believing that there is something positive about mere survival, continuity, and the promise of a (positive) future world of possibilities, in spite of what appear to be serious fetters in the present. Malcolm quotes Desiderata -- "Let us also be kind to those we think ignorant," and while I agree with this sentiment, I do not find any of the considerations presented here (Damtsig) to be unkind; on the contrary, this discussion has come forth as a result of true love and concern for the welfare of sentient beings, and a deep respect for the means of their release. In the interests of clear communication, particularly regarding such serious and subtle subjects as Vajrayana transmission, there must be fine discrimination as to the meaning of the particular words and manners employed by both teachers and students. As for the "inappropriateness of commenting on the behavior of Lamas with whom one does not study," would this also apply to statements which are geared and posted for public consumption, replete with detailed opinions which seem to contravene the notion of samaya as traditionally described? What is a practitioner to do when perceiving such words being posted as representative of one's tradition? Squawk articulately.
Shugchang