a generic reply by Joseph Wales
January 23, 2001
Karma Yeshe Zangmo wrote to say: "Yes... I took your bait." I am sorry to say that the hook on which our bait is proffered has a logical barb, and the fish who see our website as bait are landed, gutted, and filleted.
The Damtsig website is not an internet forum, and what appears here is not bait. We do not set out to be provocative - and therefore those who are provoked are not our target audience in terms of feedback or discussion. We have no wish to offend - but, while we appreciate the time people put into their letters to Damtsig, we would like to appeal to those who wish to write to address their points concisely and according to Buddhist logic, making reference to the actual words with which they take issue. Correspondents should provide quotations from Damtsig articles and dissect them with Buddhist logic. We will then publish such letters extant. We will respond to such letters respectfully and admit fault where fault was found through the application of a Buddhist critique. Appeals to emotional criteria have their value - but they do not fall within the remit of the Damtsig website. Having made these points, I will quote from Karma Yeshe Zangmo's letter.
One of the issues Karma Yeshe Zangmo brought to our attention was the length and complexity of writing on the Damtsig website. "Americans," she informed us "generally like to cut to the chase as we really don't have time to fool around." As almost all the Damtsig contributors are American - we would politely state that this site does not suit those who are more accustomed to email forum discussion. We would also suggest that those who have no patience to read carefully constructed prose would also have considerable difficulties with Vajrayana texts - and as we are primarily dealing with Vajrayana and the role of the vajra master, lengthy consideration is required.
Ms. Wangmo is defensive of Robert Thurman, with whom she has "a slight personal acquaintance." She describes him as "...proud and learned but publicly secretive about his personal practice. However, if you were to pick up his 'Mountain' tome, around page 281 you are given definite hints as to very restricted practices. In fact, various other sections of the book are filled with Yamantaka practice, which are also traditionally restricted practices. This particular book does not bear the Dalai Lama's express approval but, I assume that implicitly... " she goes on to say that "I am fairly certain that Bob is aware of the important role that the Vajra Master or Mistress plays... [and] strongly suspect, also has attainments."
This is all very well, and we have no particular doubt as to other marvellous qualities which she attributes to Mr Thurman. We have no arguments with anyone's personal appreciation of anyone. The problem with Ms. Zangmo's argument is that like many others - it is not an argument and has little connection with the Damtsig article Feast on Fæces" by Nora Cameron.
Ms. Zangmo is defensive of Tricycle Magazine and tells us that she has "every single one ever published." So we will treat her as an authority on the subject.
She says that "...it is true that it can be a celebrity-laced periodical ... it is published in the media capital of the world [and] there are people who are famous for all the right reasons," but fails to give any indication as to the nature of these reasons from a Buddhist perspective.
Ms Zangmo informs us that "The United States is a media saturated country, and in a media soaked country attention is the paramount thing; attention is courted and envied. So this is the landscape, the mandala that this magazine focuses on." She does not elucidate however, as to the purpose Tricycle has in mind when it focuses thus.
She finds "...Tricycle both entertaining and educationally functional." But again gives no evidence for this assertion.
She does not believe "that Ms. Tworkov intentionally twisted the article to make Trinley [sic] look bad... I found the article to be both hardhitting [sic] and probable." Again, no reasoning is given. Opinion is a worthless commodity in an argument unless backed up by cogent reasoning, and here we are provided with nothing - merely the writer's personal feeling on the subject. She takes no issue with the evidence provided in the Damtsig articles, yet challenges us to publish her letter. Although she evidently has respect for Thrinley Norbu Rinpoche inasmuch as she regards him as not requiring our protection, I find it bizarre that she refers to him by his first name - as if he were a personal acquaintance such as "Bob Thurman." She tells us that Thrinley Norbu Rinpoche's words are "self protected," and of this I have no doubt - but our criticism of Helen Tworkov's misrepresentation of her interview with Thrinley Norbu Rinpoche was not based on any shortcoming in the realized writings of Thrinley Norbu Rinpoche. Our concern is for the naïveté of the public. I will state again, just for the record, that the deliberate juxtaposition of serene Vajrayana images of Padmasambhava with journalistic expose style snapshots of Thrinley Norbu Rinpoche is a ploy which would be transparent to any graphic designer - but which might easily deceive the public. This, if I may make a logical point, is the purpose of Tricycle. I will quote our correspondent to underline what I mean: " ... in a media soaked country attention is the paramount thing; attention is courted and envied. So this is the landscape, the mandala that this magazine focuses on." I need say no more on this subject.
Ms Zangmo says, "I am personally disappointed with the Yuppification of Buddhism... the disdainful trippiness [sic]." With this I would entirely agree - but again there are no references which validate her point.
With Ngak'chang Rinpoche's approval, and to give some indication that we are not self-protecting in terms of our editing, I would like to quote the following as an example, typical of the confusion we find rampant. Ms Zangmo relates the following: "I have also taken initiation from Ngakpa Chogyam [sic] in NYC back in 1993 and 1994; his angry and sarcastic comments as presented here [see Who by conference ] explain a lot. I felt great love and kinship that were rewarded with nothing but pain from him and his then wife-to-be. Apparently his bad intentions and dislike of American students poisoned all of his Dharma... isn't that the real reason that he was 'ignored' in Dharamsala?" Apart from stating quite categorically that Ngak'chang Rinpoche is well known for his love of America and American culture, let us ignore subjective appraisal and look at what Ms. Zangmo has written simply from the point of view of Vajrayana.
If one receives empowerment from a Lama it is a breakage of vows to disparage that Lama. One may not remain close to every Lama with whom one takes empowerment, but having chosen to take empowerment from a particular Lama, one is obliged by sacred honor not to disparage that Lama. To do so, at the very least, invalidates any point one could make with regard to any subject relating to Vajrayana. I can think of no better way to end this essay.
Joseph Wales