November 20, 2001
Recently an email arrived informing me that new slanders about AmBu were to be found at Damtsig.org, so I breathlessly made my way there with flying fingers. Jeez-Louise, what a sleaze. Assuming a professional pose, pretending to wield a scalpel instead of his usual hatchet, Arch Stanton has presumed to anatomize me and label me a cancer. While he flaunted his new medical wardrobe, this "patient" experienced merely a disgusting invasion. If Arch Stanton were a doctor, he'd be running a concentration camp infirmary with a love for the final experiment on those too far gone to save. Applying that technique to my case, he autopsied a living being, enjoying the dissecting rather more than is wholesome, all for the benefit of science.
Still, I'll give the Doctor this much -- I'm plenty sick. And he's on the right track when he diagnoses my condition as samaya-sickeness. He's right to worry about veering from the Vajrayana path in even the slightest degree. It's very dangerous. You will experience a lot of suffering if you deviate from the path. You may even kill yourself. You may experience a form of PTSD, like recovering cultists experience every day in America, because my situation is not unique. I share it with people who try to back out of Hindu cults, Christian cults, and multi-level-marketing cults. The survivor websites are out there, by the scores. American-Buddha is part of a trend. Not very classy company, but the truth is tough.
The current brand of "believe or die" Vajrayana is a traditional American extremist vehicle that bolsters its claim to legitimacy by digging into the arcane, gothic traditions of medieval Tibetan clerics. As commonly sold in the marketplace, this Vajrayana trades on its veneer of "genuineness," but uses the same psychological enforcement mechanisms as every other fundamentalist belief-cult. "Commit now and forever hold your peace, lest G*d become wroth and turn his face against you." To Jerry Falwell and Dr. Dodson, homosexuals are sick. To Dr. Stanton, it's people who dare to study Tibetan Buddhism and disagree with him. For both, the real manifestation of sickness is any conduct with which they disagree.
Thousands of Americans wake up daily to experience a crisis of faith. This is because their faiths demand that they adopt doctrines that silence intelligence, deny the obvious, and affirm views contrary to reason. Buddhists try to obliterate dangerous questions by labeling them heresies. The good doktor will cut out this evil growth -- your brain.
Dr. Stanton will show you how sinister this organ is. As the origin of "reasonable doubt," it seems benign, even healthy, but if allowed to overwhelm the organism's restraints, it ripens into the familiar demon -- Rudra. How gothic. Vajrayanists have predilections toward an authoritarian regimen. Choices are starkly drawn and made forever, written in blood. Trouble is all that lies ahead for the "vow breaker." Break out the scare words. Take her to the oncology wards. Her growth is malignant. The treatment cannot be benign. The doctor must amputate. At the neck.
Beware, lest you too end up in this ward, rolling motionless through swinging doors on a gurney. The patient's mistake? Trying to go back, freaking out in free-fall, a nostalgic desire for reason after having opted for the truth of magic. It's sad, but true, says the doktor, studying the charts, blowing a stream of smoke, and smoothing his lab coat -- it's a one way street. Can't go back. But what kind of a truth is this? Maybe it's like cancer and cigarettes -- they just go together.
So on Dr. Stanton's advice, all would-be Vajrayanoids should ask themselves, "Am I ready to commit to success or seppuku? Can I say goodbye to reason forever and make blind faith in robed wise men my only guide? Is it possible I will someday want to do something different? Is it Dewachen or bust?" Because it won't just be shock treatment and thorazine if you change your mind. It's cancer. Of the brain.
Yes, Vajrayana Buddhism has to be handled like fissionable material, because it'll blow you to vajra hell. Too bad the refugee lamas couldn't afford lead coats and clean rooms when they left their mountain installations. They issued suitcase nukes to everyone. And now all the recipients are responsible for their own personally assured destruction. Yep, I've got my own red phone in a psychological bunker. Like Dr. Strangelove, I'm one of the elect. Every cult has its "elect," or it wouldn't be a cult. Nobody joins a cult to be a member of the un-elect. And every fraternity imposes penalties for not playing by the rules, because that gives the whole adventure spice.
Knowledge that comes wrapped in secrecy has a debt of suspicion to dispel. Truths, as the Founding Fathers noted in the Declaration of Independence, have often been thought Self-Evident. Secret rituals, ear-whispered teachings, gold changing hands -- are part of an old system of making something valuable by making it scarce. The beauty of truth that you pay for is that it fulfills all of your desires. It remakes your world in a shape you have requested. With heavens, hells, the elect, the faithful, and the damned.
Remember the bumper sticker? "I have given up the search for reality and am now looking for a good fantasy." While not explicitly declaring the first part, many American Vajra-cult-recruits are working hard on part two of this declaration. Like Dr. Stanton's attending nurse, Nora Cameron, they feel immeasurably enriched by their contact with Tibetan culture -- too thankful for words, really. Nurse Nora feels lucky she can hide in a fantasy dreamed up by people free of the dull impediment of scientific facts. It's a lot easier to believe that people are born from lotuses if you also don't know anything about genetics. Nowadays, things are too well known. Truth is actually so cheap that your parents give it to you free. They feed you, send you to school, teach you that the planet is spherical and the universe is expanding -- ho-hum. So much truth, but "still something missing." What's missing is fantasy, mystery, a good fairy tale.
Enter the cult. Providing the answers, providing the connections. Connections to the truth, the hallowed past, the wisdom of the ancestors, the secrets of the ages. Like those old ads for the Rosicrucians, promising disclosure of the secret mysteries, or the SRF yoga-by-mail arrangement. A lifeline to Lhasa and Shangri La, a chance to hobnob with the wise men from the east. Let's burn frankincense and mhyrr.
Or let's sacrifice some vow breakers in a blood ritual. Imprison them in a triangular box and assault them with a ritual dagger. Clean up the temple and expel the demons. Root out the heretics and purify the faith. Yeah, the old ways! Then we know who's in and who's out, who's faithful and who's in need of an auto da fe. A little session in the dungeon for the good of the soul.
Dr. Stanton's compassion resembles that of a reform school director who requires us, his young charges, to contemplate an electric chair to better our sense of moral values. It might keep us from following evil paths, but then again, it might sour our Cheerios right in our little tummy.
Signed out,
Against Medical Advisement,
Tara Carreon
Tara,
Thank you for writing; it gives me a chance to further clarify Damtsig's stance; it seems that half of our task is explaining our task.
First let me say, on a purely personal note, that I am sorry you feel hurt by the essays we have published on Damtsig. Although our reason for writing is neither to praise nor condemn individuals, it is always sad to know that others are suffering - and that on one level we have contributed to that suffering. I, for one, would be happier if samsara were a simpler affair; and if human beings could live without the real or perceived need to interfere with one another. Alas, it seems that for the time being, we must each persevere in our individual attempts to hold to whatever path we have chosen to follow.
Although I sympathize with your indignation, I feel it is important to address certain of your concerns. To begin with, you refer to my comments as "slander." Although this is an evocative word, I am not sure it is the most appropriate. Webster's defines slander thus:
1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person -- compare LIBEL.
According to this definition, my words constitute slander only if they are both false and defamatory. As to "defamatory," I have no wish to defame you; I wish only to portray the model of reality you propound in the most critical possible terms. Perhaps the difference between the person and the expression is slight - especially when the expression is put forth with such heartfelt enthusiasm, but there is, nevertheless, a difference. In terms of what I have attacked - it is not your person, but rather your ideology and your actions - and in this regard, my statements are not at all "false."
Indeed, as I see it, we are in almost total agreement. We agree that you have forsaken the vows and commitments you made to your spiritual path, and that you are suffering intensely for having done so. The disagreement is only about how this condition should be viewed.
I gather that you believe that what you have done - and are doing - is a noble thing. Or maybe you would object to the high-fallutin' language, but the point remains. You feel good about what you are doing. You have a sense that you are causing great pain, but you have experienced great pain as well, and you know well the dangers of idiot compassion.
Whereas we agree that your actions are in direct contradiction to the principles of Vajrayana, we differ in our judgements of the implications this has. I reject your premise that the method of Vajrayana is defunct and inapplicable - and that your actions are therefore laudable, or at worst, unworthy of mention. I assert, quite to the contrary, that the well-understood principles of Vajrayana are entirely applicable in your case - and that your satisfaction with your own actions is the crowning achievement of the vow-breaker: self-justification.
Indeed, the assertion that the role of the vajra master is as central to Vajrayana now as it has ever (or could ever) be, is the whole of Damtsig's purpose. In this regard we are quite predictable, which makes us easy targets for ridicule. In just the same way that you are an easy mark for our declamatory rhetoric - we are open to censure according to the dictates of your chosen philosophical rubric.
I would point out, however, that your assessment of my criticism is not quite accurate. You suppose that I label you a cancer; that I have administered a cruel and unusual treatment to your still-warm flesh; that I mean to sacrifice, imprison, or assault you. This is not so. You may not appreciate the distinction, but: I label you as victim of a cancer. The treatment I recommend does not apply to you; we both agree you are dead to Vajrayana. My severe analysis is intended for those to whom the application of Vajrayana logic may be useful.
As adults, we can use metaphor without getting lost in it. I hope no one mistakes a discussion of the extreme boundaries of Vajrayana for a statement of general social requirement. Obviously the essays published here relate to the function of the vajra master within a relationship that has been - as it must be - entered into both intelligently and intentionally. Whether or not this applies to you, your words serve as a striking display of what is meant when the word "danger" is used in discussing tantra. None of the Damtsig authors will argue that the outer form of Vajrayana cannot be abused. But we will and do argue that the potential for abuse has no bearing on - and must not be used to limit - the role of the vajra master within authentic vajra relationship.
As you have quite specifically taken up a position contrary to ours, you should not be surprised at our response. Indeed, upon first being shown your website, we believed it was a joke - erected to bait us. Given that we have taken on the task of delineating the aspects of Vajrayana which cannot be compromised, it would not have been possible to let your highly vocal pronouncements pass unchallenged.
I am sorry if you found the medical theme too much, but you need to understand that you are not our target audience. From the perspective of those who wish to maintain samaya, actions and speech such as yours are extremely harmful - because they make it very difficult for those who have not developed complete confidence to hold pure vision. For such good-hearted and well-meaning people, it can be very difficult to understand how someone that one might hope to regard as a vajra sister or brother can behave in a manner that clearly contradicts the root vows of Vajrayana. If this conflict is "resolved" by rationalization and entry into an eternalistic position in which "everything will come out all right in the end" - then the intelligent foundation of one's vows will be weakened.
The purpose of my article was to remind readers - in unequivocal terms - what we must all have heard and read a thousand times before: for a vajra disciple to forsake the sacred vow to the vajra master is a direct cause of spiritual death. If you expected your contrarian rhetoric to meet with congratulations, applause, or even acceptance, I am sorry to disappoint you. Although you suggest that I would like to deprive practitioners of their brains and reduce them to mindless automata, I assure you this is not the case. I hope that exchanges such as this one will provide as much material as possible to stimulate thought and consideration. I hope that sufficient contemplation will discourage those who have not entered into vajra relationship from doing so without extraordinary care and certainty - and that it will encourage those who have already done so to maintain that commitment with fierce integrity. If this makes me a heartless monster when seen through the eyes of "American Buddhism," I can live with that.