Damtsig received a florid, if untidily-worded, letter from Laurence O. McKinney, director of "The American Institute for Mindfulness." From reading this letter, we surmised that letter-writing was not included within the remit of this institute's concerns. Arch Stanton being otherwise occupied, I decided to address various parts of the letter which I believe touch on some central misunderstandings. A repeated theme in Mr. McKinney letter, is that anyone who takes issue with the advocates of "American Buddhism" is attempting to become culturally Tibetan, rather than having a serious interest in Dharma. It is a little odd therefore that he greets us at the opening of his letter with "Tashi Delek," and signs off with "Namaste." Mr. McKinney is maybe not aware that "Namaste" is a Nepalese Hindu greeting - but since a fair smattering of "American Buddhist" teachers are liberal in their reliance on both Buddhist and Hindu sources, this is not surprising. To make comment on the centrality of the vajra master within Vajrayana Buddhism and to point out the error of removing vital parts of the engine of the indestructible vehicle, has no connection with mistaking culture for Dharma. The confusion of Tibetan culture with Dharma is an area which requires careful attention. Trungpa Rinpoche addressed this very subject, and there is no doubt that other Lamas will continue to address issues of spiritual materialism. I have no problem with the fact that outer forms of Dharma will change as successive generations of teachers work with their students - and discover the ways in which Dharma can be converted into a prosaic hobby.
I was surprised by several aspects of Mr. Mckinney's letter - and not least by the fact that he seems as dismissive of Surya Das as he is of Damtsig. He writes:
Having rubbed shoulders with the fellow I call "Rabbi Surya Das, the Reincarnated Lubavicher from New Joisey" I am not surprised that you don't like him stealing the world's attention rather than the orthodox Tibetanish Buddhists who seem to be the main refuge for those who want something like Orthodox Judaism without the Torah.
The criticism here, seems to be that jealousy exists with regard to Surya Das' fame. It should be noted that Damtsig is not concerned with fame as an issue. Fame and high profile publicity may be employed as a method by any teacher who has the altruistic intention of helping beings through this aspect of Western culture. Buddhism is not an evangelical religion, and therefore no Lama would be concerned with how famous Surya Das became. The sole issue with regard to Surya Das is concern in terms of his undermining of the role of the vajra master. Were he to reassess his position on this issue, no one would say another word about the putative existence of his superstardom.
Mr. McKinney is evidently riled by a variety of subjects and persons. He continues:
Last night I listened to Sam Bercholtz, a wise and sagacious fellow, excoriate Mr. Das at Harvard Divinity School and dump heaps on the Tricycle Trust for trying to Westernize Dharma. Oh boy are you folks behind.
We are glad that he found Mr. Samuel Bercholz to be wise and sagacious - because Damtsig now carries a piece of his excellent writing with regard to Tricycle magazine. But in terms of being behind... "Behind" what, may we ask? Is it being suggested that what is new is necessarily better? Are we being presented here with something as juvenile as an "ever upward and onward theory?" One cannot "Westernize" Dharma - one can only Westernize outer forms. Dharma is not confined by cultural norms, and therefore does not need to be changed. Where its outer forms become problematic with regard to mismatches in the cultural interface - teachers such as Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche have addressed such issues. The process of adaptation is not new. Neither is it controversial, because teachers of all Buddhist Schools have worked quietly and with great circumspection in this field for the better apart of thirty years. The work of such teachers has not been broadcast or advertised because such teachers are both tentative and humble in their approach. Mr. McKinney then suprises us by stating:
My real, honest to goodness Root Guru is the Dalai Lama, and his own geshes say that the Dharma is constantly coming up in its own way . . . why must you folk cling to such archaic and peculiar versions of the Dharma?
One wonders at this point, just what kind of Institute it is of which Mr. McKinney is the director. He states that he is the "co-founder of the second oldest incorporated Buddhist organization in Mass." We are all amazement. One wonders whether it was Tricycle which provided him with his junior high school fantasy of "high-speed streetwise cutting-edge geshes" who legitimize anything as Dharma, as long as it's new and hip to what people want. In the face of such wisdom, Mr. McKinney continues:
I suppose there isn't any way to argue with orthodoxy - but that's what happens when you can't step away from your own belief system - and that's what the Heart Sutra was all about . . . Take what works, not the rituals.
An unusual line of logic admittedly - but not one which addresses anything discussed on the Damtsig website. The use of the word orthodoxy is misleading because orthodoxy is not the issue. Neither is ritual. It is not an orthodox position to describe Vajrayana according to its functional parameters. Ritual is not actually under discussion at all, and mentioning it merely serves to obfuscate what is being clarified through Damtsig. Ritual is its own question and quite separate from the discussion of the role of the vajra master. There are several Lamas who are highly minimalist in terms of the practice they teach, and they are completely traditional in their approach. It would appear that statements such as these arise mainly from ignorance of the wealth and diversity of Buddhist Vajrayana. Mr. McKinney expresses his concern that those who attempt to maintain the integrity of essential Vajrayana will
end up like the Lubavichers... a backwater of historical practice with ritual and charms which cannot pass for theology and wisdom . . . It's sort of sad watching adults clutching for security in orthodoxy when the Dharma tells you that change is good.
It does not occur to Mr. McKinney that serious practitioners of Dharma are not concerned with the fears he outlines in his somewhat racist rhetoric. Much as I am appalled by Tricycle, I am not homophobic and therefore unimpressed when Mr. McKinney tells us: "I think that Tricycle has been taken over by gays anyway..." I leave him to his pseudo master race ideology. Anyone who utilizes gross generalization with regard to human beings within an argument is not worthy of serious consideration. I merely comment on this letter in order to characterize an unpleasant element within the "American Buddhist" mindset. In saying this, I recognize that there are more level and gentle-minded persons who take a contrary position to the one we represent. We are open to discussing their position in polite and civilized manner (see question with regard to anger), but the uncouth expression of ignorance is not worthy of such consideration. Mr. McKinney finishes with a challenge which is as incomprehensible as it is banal:
I'll be glad to be interviewed if you ever have the honesty and the nerve to face the nature of your first two lineage holders.
I am sure that Mr. McKinney would relish the opportunity to be interviewed by Damtsig or even by Guns and Ammo - but why would either establishment wish to allow such a person to take up their time on ill-considered and unrelated topics? Mr. McKinney seems to labor under the misapprehension that Damtsig is connected with two unspecified lineage holders. We presume this is because we have quoted Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche. I would like to point out, in conclusion, that we have quoted Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche because his use of the English language is the clearest and most concise on the subject of the vajra master - not because the founders of Damtsig were students of Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche. The founders of Damtsig are the students of Lamas of all schools, and as news of our work spreads, we are appreciatively approached by students of a growing number of different Lamas - as well as by students within the Zen and Theravadin traditions. We do not consider ourselves to be orthodox - especially those of us with teachers who are themselves sometimes regarded as having unorthodox perspectives. Far from representing a "backwater," those who are sincerely committed to Dharma are still the mainstream of Buddhist practice - the quiet majority. We are vocal on their behalves, and in that we are a minority. The actual backwater, in the final analysis, will be the new age backwater of shallow experimentation, naive reasoning, uniformed analysis, and post-modern posturing.