I do not presume to speak on behalf of all the Damtsig authors, since I do not officially represent them. I am merely speaking in the spirit of our common aim.
Since I answered a particular letter concerning articles on the Damtsig sites, there have been a number of rejoinders which have been critical of my position and the position of Damtsig in general. Some of these letters have been relatively carefully written, and some have been merely the outpourings of petulant personas presenting themselves as if they were proceeding from positions of humility and a good heart. Such petulant letters have naturally questioned the humility and good heart of the Damtsig authors. Fortunately, Damtsig is not an "internet forum," and thus is not obliged to post all offerings - even those which have been carefully written. Damtsig has considered publishing all well-written letters and replying to them all in detail - but this would take a great deal of time, quite apart from proving tedious to those who approach the Damtsig site for what we are offering. What we offer is a cutting edge, or possibly - in my case - a knife-edge critique of propaganda issued under the name of "Western Buddhism" and "American Buddhism."
For this reason, and because most of these letters seem to have been inspired by my "short shrift" commentary, I have decided to take on the task of addressing the points made in these letters - in general. Therefore, I will not be attributing names to quotations. Those who wrote letters will recognize their words. I must apologize at this point, for the fact that I see no further purpose in discussion, and will therefore not be available for feedback regarding those whom I quote here.
The reason I take this stance is that the Damtsig site does not exist to act as apologist - or to defend a position which is self-defended to anyone who understands Vajrayana Buddhism in its traditional form. Basically, most people who have written in response to my refutation of repeated erroneous points of logic are of "the well meaning liberal trend." They represent the view that it is a primary sin to criticize the writings of spiritual teachers under any circumstances - on the basis that the workings of Dharma are too mysterious to fathom. This is basically theism dressed up as Buddhism - "God moves in mysterious ways, his wonder to perform."
At some point in the future, Damtsig will be presenting an analysis of the "well-meaning liberal mindset," as we have had a great many responses of this kind, and they build a coherent picture of a philosophy which appears to "run alongside side" Buddhism - the holders of which never actually reach the point of taking refuge. This may seem a little unkind from the position of the "well-meaning liberal mindset" because, who am I to say that genuine well-meaning people who have tried their best to practice Buddhism for a number of years have not actually taken refuge? Bill Carson is a bad man with a bad mind - I am sure you all agree. Otherwise he would agree that we should all be nice, and no one should make a fuss. But how can someone who practices Guru Yoga say the following? "I have avoided the more dangerous (I do not mean this judgmentally, only descriptively from my point of view) forms of Vajrayana and simply practice Chenrezig, mindfullness, and Guru Yoga, as I understand them, because I do not consider myself advanced enough otherwise." For a person to make any public comment after such an admission is tricky. What could such a person be thinking about with regard to communicating their ideas? Anyone who seriously practises Guru Yoga should know that Surya Das's ideology is directly antithetical to the Guru. To say of Surya Das. "I do not know that he has broken his samaya either ... " is to have read neither his books nor his website. I would ask you to read his material carefully and to examine carefully what we have quoted. We have merely looked at his published works and commented upon them in the light of Vajrayana Buddhism. It is not possible for any Vajrayana practitioner to say that they do not know whether Surya Das has broken his samaya in saying that one should take refuge in the collective wisdom of the sangha rather than the Guru. He has also disparaged his root Guru in agreeing with the deranged sexual fantasies of June Campbell. The same correspondent writes: "June Campbell, too should be allowed her point of view." But what on earth does that mean? Her statements are either true or false - and they have been proved to be false by a variety of reliable, first hand witnesses. Is a person who entitles bookshops talks, "I was a Tantric Sex Slave" to be trusted? Would the correspondent even take her weekly shopping-list seriously? And what of Damtsig? Are we to be allowed our point of view? Maybe not. Maybe any point of view is fine, as long as it does not hold critics of Dharma up to question.
The correspondent who does not consider their position advanced enough for Vajrayana tells us: "I have also met Surya Das and consider him a teacher of great merit." Very well. I have no doubt that, with many years of study and practice, an individual could be helpful - and I have no wish to discuss the merits and demerits of any specific personality. What I wish to call into question here is how a person who does not consider themselves advanced can come to offer their consideration of a teacher's merit for public edification? It is not that I would even argue with the correspondent's experience, but "great merit?" What great merit is there in breaking the first and second Tantric Root vows?
This is not malicious slander, by the way; all one has to do is read the Surya Das website. It is all there to be found, and you can find it by the same method you found Damtsig.
Another correspondent cautions us "to be humble before making pointed accusations against other practitioners." Why yes, we could not agree more. However, none of the Damtsig authors have made accusations. All that has been written has been addressed to the "self-accusations" which are "self-existent" in the writings of Surya Das, Stephen Batchelor, and Helen Tworkov. All that has been offered is commentary. If one does not wish for critical commentary on the basis of Dharma, one should not publish material worthy of criticism on the basis of Dharma. We have nowhere impugned anyone's character on the basis of anything apart from their written words in relation to the nature of Dharma.
The same correspondent, having advised humility - then proceeds to inform us that if we "have confidence in Dzogchen teachings, there is no need to be concerned with the petty squabbles about who broke what samaya, etc. All that one ought to be concerned with at that point is how to benefit others directly rather than wasting valuable time being self righteous." I found this an intriguing logical somersault - particularly as the writer accuses me, on various occasions, of "imputation" with regard to his initial letter. Nowhere in Damtsig has any writer discussed "petty squabbles about who broke what samaya." Even with the best will in the world, it is difficult to see such a remark as more than a trivialization of a serious subject. It is certainly true that there have been samaya difficulties throughout the history of Vajrayana, and my own samaya is admittedly questionable. I make no claim to being pure - but as I wrote previously, I have never broken the two root vows previously mentioned and publicized the fact through a website which sets out to undermine the role of the vajra master within Vajrayana Buddhism. This is absolutely clear, and clever attempts to obfuscate the issue will find no further space on Damtsig. To bolster the sanction of Dzogchen in the writer's argument, he goes on to point out that "Dzogchen goes beyond Buddhism. Buddhism is concerned with limitations, Dzogchen is concerned with freeing us from limitations." Really? It would appear that the writer is not a Buddhist... One has to wonder why a person who has such low regard for Buddhism would want to write to a Buddhist website. Well... his main aim seems to be the wish to show off that he knows a little terminology; he concludes his letter as follows: "There is only one samaya in Dzogchen--rigpa. There is only one way to experience that rang gyis rig pa'i ye shes [self aware primordial wisdom], relaxation. So I say to you again--relax." All I can conclude is that my command of the English language is poor. I never knew that the words "say" or "relax" were imperative verbs.
In conclusion, I offer some rhetorical questions:
People seem to have the courage to write to Damtsig because we have been willing to devote time to answering them seriously. But are these "concerned liberals" serious Vajrayana practitioners, or otherwise? The position we criticize is simply that which wishes to dillute and amalgamate the teachings of Vajrayana - so we are not sure what to make of those who rush in to defend the recipients of our commentary. Perhaps the correspondents in question value freedom of speech above Dharma.
If this essay appears irascible, it is because it is, and I am. I make no attempt to hide my feelings behind divisive "passive-aggressive, pseudo-Buddhist" stances. So I have no intention of "relaxing," even when "ordered" to do so through camouflaged invective and the pseudo-ultimatism of a person whose relaxation extends neither to dissolving his feelings for the Damtsig website, nor to his determined desire to argue. There is much anger which hides in "humility" and "reasonableness."
The passive aggression within a certain segment of those who profess to adhere to the Buddha-Dharma is another subject I would like to explore - as those who object to speaking out have been hiding behind their "easy-going masks" for too long. I make no pretenses concerning relaxation or rigpa; all I can claim is devotion to the three roots (Guru, Deva, and Dakini), and to the Vajrayana - of which Dzogchen is the ultimate vehicle. I have many faults, but I am honest enough to own my own resentment of fatuous flippancy, and not disguise it by misappropriating references to rigpa.
I take refuge in the Lama, without whom there is no Buddha, Dharma, or Sangha. I therefore commit my life to defending the Lama from harm.