Arch Stanton recently engaged in a strange correspondence, and I thought some readers might find a brief recapitulation informative. I am taking the time to write this up because Arch's correspondent has certain evident misconceptions about the nature of Damtsig, and it seems important to point these out explicitly - so that Damtsig's scope and purpose can be clearly understood.
Our correspondent had submitted an essay entitled Bad Lamas, which dwelt primarily on the financial wrongs she claims to have suffered at the hands of an unnamed Khenpo. We certainly sympathize with any injustice in the world. However, I find it odd that this personal anecdote should be held forth as evidence supporting an attempt to convince us that fraudulent "Lamas" exist, and that their activity is indeed harmful.
I should think it would require only a modicum of perceptiveness to intuit that we would agree with that position as stated. Damtsig exists for the sole purpose of clarifying the genuine role of the Lama within Vajrayana Buddhism. This is accomplished by attempting to delineate the essential boundaries of this role. We have no desire either to defend specific individuals nor to condemn others. We may use individual example - but only where there is clear cut public presentation which may be held up for analysis according to the dictates of Buddhist epistemology.
But it seems that our correspondent is less concerned with either directly contributing to - or directly discussing points of opposition with - Damtsig's clear agenda. Instead, we have been treated to a flurry of emotional outbursts demonstrating - at best - a severe incomprehension of our purpose. It is in the interest of further clarifying our intention that we publish this slight summary.
Although Arch Stanton would choose not to publish this material, I have prevailed upon him. The correspondent's insistence on redistributing private correspondence in order to wring some final further glee out of the sense of being victimized strikes me as inappropriate, and it removes the qualms I would normally have about reciprocating. As we are unaware of the scope of our correspondent's malicious distribution, we must be content to simply post our side of the story.
I have edited out the details of the correspondent's essay, but include the final paragraphs to indicate the flavor of the work. What follows are the two messages we received subsequent to our response as to the suitability of the text. That response can be found quoted within the missives it inspired.
I apologize for the gross nature of this article, but it seems that when dealing with the "public" one must be prepared to get a little dirty. I trust our discerning readers will appreciate our position and may see how easily the lines between: well-meaning concern; self-righteous indignation; outright outrage; and ultimately... going postal; can be blurred if we are not careful.
Now that the internet is an everyday reality, communication and publication are indeed at the fingertip's of anyone with something to say. Still, there must be accountability, and fact cuts both ways. Our correspondent informs us that, "I've got ten fingers that can type up a storm, and I've got excellent attorneys in New York and Kathmandu. I'm not afraid of anyone, I've got the truth on my side, and I've got the signed legal contracts to prove it."
Perhaps sometimes restraint would be advisable as well. In that spirit, we have honored our correspondent's request to withold his/her name.
From Bad Lamas:
Now, someone out there is going to saddle up their horse at this point, unfurling that big, big banner of Milarepa. Murderers are just fine, and we should be doing prostrations to every inmate at Sing-Sing. But wait a second! Milarepa didn't have students when he was a murderer. He had students after he realized how terrible his actions had been. He didn't blame anyone except himself, and then he got serious about life. That's what made him a saint. Jails in every country are full of murderers. How many of them become like Milarepa?
Tibetan Buddhism won't clean its own house. Fine. But I have two feet, I can walk out on any abusive lama I meet, and I can encourage my friends to do the same. I've got ten fingers that can type up a storm, and I've got excellent attorneys in New York and Kathmandu. I'm not afraid of anyone, I've got the truth on my side, and I've got the signed legal contracts to prove it. If you're in the unenviable position of taking on a corrupt khenpo, this is as good as it gets. What I learned from all of this is that the dharma is pure, and that's where we have to put our efforts. Forget everything else and just practice. The fact that religious leaders are often corrupt just shows that we're all human--most lamas are just guys struggling and lost in samsara like everyone else. Rotten is rotten, and it doesn't matter what their education is, or what robes they wear. Even if you find yourself suing one of them for multiple felonies, just pray that every bad apple gets enlightened ASAP, and let it go at that. That's it from the shores of Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average, and everyone practices the dharma.