The estimable Arch Stanton and Bill Carson asked me to respond to a letter Damtsig received in response to What You Mean, "We," White Man? - which was my response to Tara Carreon's estimation of the future of Tibetan Buddhism in the West. This grows complex. However - Tom Armstrong found my words to be "reprehensible" and "hateful," and their publishers "irresponsible," because I made "that obscene charge that Tara Carreon is a racist in the midst of a dispute that is in regard to cultural differences." For the record, I said the article was racist. It's rather an important difference, since Damtsig is attempting to focus on understanding the Vajrayana dharma rather than on persons and their emotional conditions. That said, I wonder in this case whether saying, "We're talking about culture, not race," makes much difference here. My dictionary defines racism as, "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities, and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." Try substituting "culture" for "race" in the dictionary definition. The result is "a belief that culture is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that cultural differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular culture." That sums up Carreon's attitude fairly neatly. She doesn't just point out cultural aspects of Tibetan Buddhist teachings. She blasts the entire Tibetan culture as ignorant, backward, "medieval," etc. She stops just short of saying that they deserved to be taken over by the Chinese.
She also holds out American culture as inherently superior. These words speak for themselves. Bigotry is bigotry. As I am the beneficiary of the depth and complexity and joyfulness of Tibetan culture, I could not in good conscience engage Carreon's article without pointing this out. Vajrayana Buddhism does not hold the belief that culture is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities. Vajrayana has as its base the assumption that humans, along with the rest of beings, are beginninglessly enlightened. It is beyond culture. I refer you to Ngakma Shardröl's interview with Ngak'chang Rinpoche and Khandro Déchen in Damtsig for more in this direction. Armstrong goes on to suggest that I be "more moderate," and that Damtsig "consider whether it is appropriate for such a piece to appear at your website." Tom, have you read this site? Believe me, I'm Nora Nice Guy.
Moving on, a friend has brought to my attention the fact that Carreon has been quite the presence on the Tricycle message boards for the last few days. She is shocked that I have called her a samaya-breaker, and she demands "a public apology." At the beginning of her essay, Carreon states that during her 20-some years as a Vajrayana practitioner, she received all Nyingma teachings including Dzogchen trekchöd and togal. As I understand it, no legitimate Nyingma lama would teach these practices unless he or she was in samaya relationship with the student. So there was samaya. Now, however, Carreon is roundly trashing Tibetan Lamas, teachings, and fellow students. The first three vows in tantric samaya are not to denigrate Lama, teachings, or fellow students. So, there is samaya-breakage. This seems fairly straightforward.
What surprises me is that Carreon seems to care so much about having this pointed out. She has made it abundantly clear that she no longer practices the Vajrayana. Samaya-breakage is only meaningful in the context of a Vajrayana practitioner. Outside of that context, it matters not at all. If a fundamentalist Christian told me I was a sinner and was going to hell, it would have little meaning for me since I don't practice those methods. I certainly wouldn't demand that the person apologize. What for? My analysis of Carreon's words was for the audience of Damtsig, which does consist of Vajrayana practitioners. We are interested in the practice of damtsig, and as cultural newcomers to the practice, it is useful for us to understand the difference between ordinary human confusion and samaya breakage. Carreon provided a useful case in point. If this fact bothers her, then perhaps the context of the Vajrayana is not entirely behind her.