There is a gret deal of discussion of the responsibility of the student to the teacher, but also the teacher has a responsibility to the student. In the formal sense, a teacher must adhere to sila, lay or monastic; must adhere to her bodhisattva vows, and similarly has obligations and responsibilities as a vajra acharya to his students. Beyond this the teacher must also have a number of requisite skills. A student must never forget this when selecting her teacher. I agree that if one selects such masters as mentioned, that one will have little to fear in the way of being exploited, Penor Rinpoche being one of my most precious masters.
If Surya, etc., are samaya-breaking people, we should remember that great masters like Atisha reported that they broke samayas just like the monsoon rain falling. Equally, as Patrul Rinpoche points out, samayas, like a tin pot, are relatively easy to pound back into shape, with a little effort. If these masters confess to broken samayas, how much more we? So we must investigate ourselves very carefully before offering condemnations.
Let us also be kind to those we think ignorant-- as Max Erhmann put it in his Desiderata:
"Speak your truth quietly and clearly, and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story."
In passing I would like to remind everyone of the story of Mara's generating the thought of enlightenment in the Samdhinirmocana sutra, and also that our Lord Buddha first generated the thought of enlightenment uncountable eons ago during the time of a previous Shakyamuni Buddha, when he was in the hell realms.
So even Surya will inevitably realize his innate Buddhahood-- not as fast as some, and faster than many.
In a word people...relax.
Malcolm Smith
It is not stated anywhere in the Damtsig website that the Tantric Guru does not have responsibilities. Indeed, the responsibilities of the Tantric Guru are ultimate. It is obviously important that anyone in the position of teaching others be fully capable of holding that position according to Dharma. However, that doesn't give anyone the right to judge the Tantric Guru according to their own limited perception. The Mahayana teacher, or Kalyanamitra, can be judged according to the pertinent criteria, but concerning those who have entered Tantric relationship... the Tantric Guru cannot be judged according to criteria cooked up by their disciples. That is the nature of Tantric relationship. It is also inappropriate for Buddhists to comment on the behavior of Lamas with whom they do not study. There is a lot of talk at the moment about creating legislation to control the teacher - as if the teacher were just another "service industry" that needed to be regulated by a consumer-friendly society. In truth, it is the responsibility of the student seeking a relationship with the Tantric Guru to learn what is required. Every Lama that I have ever studied under has given grave warning about Tantra and insisted on establishing a solid foundation before venturing further. Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche gave many such warnings in his books, so no one can be unaware of the need to examine the teacher, examine the teachings, and examine themselves.
"Too much" has not been said about the responsibility of the student. On the contrary, this issue cannot be - and has not been - sufficiently emphasized and re-emphasized. We have yet to hear about the Lamas who have been consistently abused by a shocking number of their students since they first agreed to teach Western people. There is probably very little said about this because no Lama I know would complain about how they have been treated. Malcolm Smith, however, is keen on forgiveness ... he writes:
If Surya, etc., are samaya-breaking people, we should remember that great masters like Atisha reported that they broke samayas just like the monsoon rain falling. Equally, as Patrul Rinpoche points out, samayas, like a tin pot, are relatively easy to pound back into shape, with a little effort. If these masters confess to broken samayas, how much more we? So we must investigate ourselves very carefully before offering condemnations.Hmmm... a few thoughts:
Surely, Malcolm Smith is not comparing Atisha and Patrul Rinpoche with Surya Das in terms of vow breakage ... ? Or is he saying that if Atisha and Patrul Rinpoche cannot do it then how can dumb suckers like us keep samaya? Investigating ourselves very carefully before offering condemnation is wise advice. I myself am a poor quality practitioner with no pretensions to maintaining good samaya. I continually fail to live up to the Tantric Vows. I am lax in my practice and find it extremely hard to have pure vision. But I have investigated myself enough to avoid slandering my teachers. I have not knowingly and deliberately betrayed my teachers. I am not attempting to found a new religion loosely based on Buddhism. I have not told audiences, as Surya Das did in Ann Arbor, that "people at this present time who follow only one religion are Neanderthals." I may not be a good practitioner, but I try to keep my samaya, and I do not to deliberately break it; and on the basis of this, I feel it is fair to make comment on people who are distorting Dharma to suit their own purposes. These are not innocent lambs who have lost their way. Malcolm Smith writes: "Let us also be kind to those we think ignorant." Certainly. I could not agree more; but I do not think that the Western Buddhist Teachers are so ignorant that they do not understand anything in the books they have read - and if they are so ignorant, how can they be teachers? What, if they are so ignorant, do they teach? Malcolm Smith then quotes Max Erhmann's "Desiderata":
Speak your truth quietly and clearly, and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story.
But they didn't have email back then, and they didn't have to deal with media hype from a full-blown propaganda machine like the network of Western Buddhist Teachers who want to rewrite Buddhism on their own terms. In any case, it is not "my truth" that I speak, or that the other Damtsig writers speak: it is simply the core statement of a Dharma which is actually quite well understood. And what of "listening to others"? Who should we listen to? Do we listen to everyone, no matter what they say? Do we listen to those who advocate pedophilia? Do we listen to racial discrimination? This kind of plea to quietude is just a platitude posing as wisdom. Malcolm Smith concludes:
In passing I would like to remind everyone of the story of Mara's generating the thought of enlightenment in the Samdhinirmocana sutra, and also that our Lord Buddha first generated the thought of enlightenment uncountable eons ago during the time of a previous Shakyamuni Buddha, when he was in the hell realms.So even Surya will inevitably realize his innate Buddhahood not as fast as some, and faster than many.
In a word people ... relax.
The logical extension of this philosophy is that the rapist is simply following his own unusual path, that Hitler was learning a hard lesson... I could go on. And no, Mr. Smith, I have no intention of relaxing. Not if relaxing means following an "everything is nice" philosophy. It is easy and glib to take this kind of "ultimate" stance, but it's just this kind of logic that betrays all principles and all positions. 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. You might as well just say, "God is working his purpose out."