Mature and immature tolerance
Ngak’chang Rinpoche & Khandro Déchen
interviewed by Lama Shardröl, 31 December 1997
This is the first
half of an interview originally published in vision magazine in
1998 (issue 11). The second half, ‘Sweet and sour
orthodoxy’, appears on this site starting in October
2008.
Lama Shardröl Ngak’chang Rinpoche
& Khandro Déchen, thank you again for taking the time to give this
interview. I’d like to ask some controversial
questions . . .
KD, NR, & LS [laughter]
Ngak’chang Rinpoche I suppose we
ought to let you know at the outset that we’re slightly
ambivalent about addressing controversy . . .
Khandro Déchen Well . . .
too much controversy anyway [laughs]
NR Yes. We don’t want to retract
from real engagement with people’s questions either. You
see . . . on the one hand, there’s the question
of simply practicing the path and discussing the nature of the
teachings – of dealing simply with the wholesomeness of the
path. We don’t want to give the impression that Dharma is a
minefield of attitudes and bigotry. But we don’t want to get
into denial either. We do not want to pretend that everything is
perfect.
KD We’re aware that issues
exist . . . and we want to be responsible in terms of
helping people make the most of their involvement with the Vajrayana. That is our main concern.
NR To look at problems, or to make critical
comment, can often simply create an atmosphere of futility. That
would be a sad waste of time.
KD But on the other hand issues do exist
and people do have to confront them at some point.
NR So we’re open to looking at
‘controversial subjects’ from the perspective of giving
people tools with which to understand what they’re doing in a
more creative and constructive way.
KD We think you understand that.
LS Yes. I can see why you’re
ambivalent . . . But I think it’s valuable for
people to hear your comments on these things. People get so bogged
down sometimes. I’ve met so many people who need to know how to
handle the atmosphere of negative debate that bubbles up in the
Buddhist world – especially on the Internet.
Last week we discussed issues of ‘traditional’ and
‘non-traditional’ and what those concepts actually meant.
You said then, Rinpoche, that the Nyingma are not a school in
the way that the other schools are ‘schools’, and that the
‘head of the Nyingma’ is not a Pope. You said the
Dala’i Lama wasn’t a Pope either.
NR Yes . . .
LS Could we start from there and look at
authority and orthodoxy from that point of view?
NR Possibly . . . Can I ask
why?
LS Well . . . I’m
interested in these issue because so many Tibetan Buddhists seem to
have a problem about one thing or another with regard to this school
or that school, this teacher or that teacher, and whether something is
a real lineage or not. There seems to be an undercurrent of argument
that never ends . . .
NR Yes . . . that’s
very sad, isn’t it.
KD It’s been going on since Buddha
Shakyamuni’s parinirvana. [I.e. since the death of the
‘historical Buddha’ 2500 years ago – Ed.]
LS So it’s not just Western
people?
KD Good heavens no.
NR Western people are no more intrinsically
diseased than anyone else.
KD And they had to learn their sectarianism
from somewhere. Whatever ‘facts’ they trot out to prove
or disprove something or someone, they have learnt somewhere from
someone.
NR The fancier ones get their
‘facts’ directly from texts. There is a genus of
‘Buddhologists’ now who love nothing better than to argue
about anything and everything. Proving things to be either right or
wrong would appear to be something of a sport with them.
LS What about the argument that it’s
important to be able to distinguish? I mean, being able to define
what is authentic and what is not?
KD We’re not saying that there is no
use at all in intelligent debate, but people do seem to take it all a
little bit too seriously. They seem to forget that Buddha
Shakyamuni’s own words guide us away from establishing
‘ultimate ground’ in any kind of orthodoxy. He said that
his Dharma was empty, that he had never taught it, and that it had
never been heard. The actual quotation is far more eloquent, but the
basic drift points out that we shouldn’t turn the teachings of
the Buddha into a collection of sanctified edicts.
NR The Buddha was not a Pope either.
KD He advised that we should not accept
what he said simply because he said it.
NR But people would seem to have ignored
that advice all the way down the line. And then, if they wanted to
ring the changes on what he had said, they got clever with
interpretations and argued with each other on that basis. It is
useful at one level to have a lively discussion – if you
can’t discuss you end up brain-dead; but, as Khandro Déchen
said, people take it all too seriously. People are actually very
unkind to each other on the basis of textual proofs and reasoning. We
would really like to see a little more genuine kindness and
friendliness in the Buddhist world.
KD We include the Buddhologists in that.
One needs to be kind and friendly to them even though we many not
always admire their enthusiasm for examining ‘this’ in
contradistinction to ‘that’ and finding ‘this’ to
be invalid.
NR And we’d also include the
advocates of celibacy, even though we don’t share their rigorous
ardor for sexual abstention. We need to be more tolerant of each
other in the world. If Buddhists cannot co-exist, then there’s
not much hope, is there?
LS But the same applies to all religions,
doesn’t it? I mean, they all argue amongst themselves too.
NR [in Georgia drawl] Dang right, honey
chile . . . But we’re reckoned to be the dudes as
don’t git riled, ain’t we? We’re the guys
who’re reckoned t’be reasonable, or ain’t we?
Wisdom & compassion, that’s our number, ain’t it?
[Rinpoche shifts into highly proper English] We would prefer, if the
truth were known, not to have to discuss the topic of orthodoxy and
non-orthodoxy at all. We realise, however, at the same
time . . . that it would appear to be important.
KD People seem to need to understand
something about doctrinal dispute and why it exists; because otherwise
they end up feeling dispirited and depressed about Buddhism.
NR . . . and about
themselves.
LS Yes . . . I’ve
noticed that. There seem to be some people who enjoy talking about
controversy, and then others who are frightened by it and want
everything to be so damn nicey-nicey that it’s unreal.
NR Yes . . . So we have to
tread a careful line between being critical of certain trends, whilst
recommending that everyone mind their own business and celebrate their
own unique tradition – whether others consider it valid or not
[laughs]. I do not believe in celibacy but I will defend with my life
a monastic’s right to be celibate!
KD We’re happy to celebrate
diversity.
NR Do you remember the Venerable
Thanavaro?
LS Sure. He was that Italian Theravadin
monk we met at the so-called ‘Conference of Western Buddhist
Teachers’ in Dharamsala. He seemed like a genuinely spiritual
person – like he was totally human and real, but with all the
best qualities of humanness. It was very inspiring for me to meet
him.
NR Such a wonderful
man . . . He was more of a Tantrika than many
who rejoice in the sobriquet. And more pure as an exponent of Sutra, in similar style. He also seemed to have a good
grasp of Dzogchen. You can find good practitioners
everywhere, and you can also find people who use their religion as a
mask for neurosis, narcissism, and anti-social personality disorder.
The same would apply to scholars. We might sometimes question the
value of scholasticism, because people get caught up in it for its own
sake. But we actually value the creative scholarship of some
Westerners, and also the translators who have worked hard to bring
valuable material to the attention of those who cannot access it in
its original language.
KD People need to appreciate each other
– not in some artificial lovey-dovey way, but simply in an
open-hearted manner. We are all different. We have different
approaches and it’s very useful to be able to live and let live.
We have to learn how to allow each other to be different. We have to
learn how to agree to disagree. That seems to be a difficult balance
to cultivate. Rinpoche and I obviously have a style. It’s not
a very ’religious’ style. It’s not a pious style,
and it’s true that we’re not that keen on an atmosphere of
sacredness, sanctity, and awe – but we have no interest in
saying that these things should not exist. We don’t want to ban
anyone else’s style. Other styles are not a problem to us.
NR We can also have some humour about our
differences. Our differences do not have to be a problem. We do not
have to kill each other verbally or physically just because we have
differences in view, or because we’re kosher or not kosher, or
because the Buddha said it or didn’t say it. We’re not
even against heretics really [laughs] as long as they don’t want
to legislate us out of existence. We’re told that there is a
Buddhist psychotherapist who is really upset with us because
we’re Western people who uphold the traditional role of the
Vajra Master. Apparently we’ve betrayed the holy cause or
something. We’re not part of the anti-Vajra Master crusade, and
somehow people find it hard to come to terms with that. But
were’ not offended by that either – if Western people want
to go the way of psychotherapy then we say good luck.
KD It really comes down to ‘live and
let live’. So arguments as to whether the Nyingma have unbroken
lineages or not do not concern us. Or whether térmas are
authentic Buddhist teaching or not, or any one of an endless number of
such . . .
LS . . . pointless, futile
causes of acrimony?
KD Yes – none of them concern us.
Sadly, academic research into these subjects too often appears merely
to provide weapons of those who want to make enemies of others. It
doesn’t actually matter very much whether Padmasambhava
is the second Buddha, as the Nyingmas claim, or a person about whom
Western-style academics can apparently find little evidence.
NR One would imagine that, as Nyingma
practitioners, we would be shocked and outraged to hear that there is
actually precious little evidence for Padmasambhava; but we’re
not really that disturbed by such findings.
LS You doubt the accuracy of the
research?
NR We have no reason to doubt it – it
simply makes no difference. We simply lack the time or interest to
argue; and we have no need to validate the Nyingma tradition by
attempting to prove academics wrong. We can accept what the academics
say, whilst being unaffected in our devotion for the vast gestalt of
what Padmasambhava and Yeshé Tsogyel mean to us as
Nyingmas.
LS That’s a very unusual stance to
take. How . . . do you deal with a contradiction like
that? Isn’t it important to know that he was actually
there?
NR Padmasambhava was certainly
there – it simply cannot be proved how long he was there
or to what extent he influenced the course of events in Tibet. No one
doubts that a person called Padmasambhava came to Tibet for a short
period. What was doubted was the spiritual massiveness with which we
credit him. But the point is, who cares? Quite frankly, I
don’t
give a damn [laughs]. Padmasambhava is a spiritual reality for
us; and as a spiritual reality, Padmasambhava exists in trikaya form. The academic historians can only discuss Nirmanakaya Padmasambhava anyway. Sambhogakaya Padmasambhava is
unavailable to Buddhologists, and Dharmakaya Padmasambhava is utterly
unavailable.
KD Padmasambhava doesn’t have to be a
carbon-dated reality, as far as we’re concerned [laughs].
NR Right [laughs]. We always thought it
was a bit of a mistake to allow the Turin Shroud to be scientifically
tested. There’s something a little too grossly materialistic
about that, and now they’ve proved that it’s not what
it’s claimed to be . . . So now what? Will
people still be cured of illness by seeing it, or not? We hope they
will. We hope that those who venerate the shroud will ignore the
scientific facts and allow it to be what it always has been for
them.
LS People seem to be a little too obsessed
with the idea of validating everything according to time
[interrupted]
KD You see, history can be different things
to different people. History can be approached from the point of view
of knowing exactly how it was, according to objectivity – whatever
that might be. But history is also meaning – it serves a
purpose in terms of providing a meaningful context for the present
moment and how that connects with the future.
LS So, history being ‘accurate’
is just one way of approaching things?
KD Well yes.
LS But isn’t that tricky? I mean,
wouldn’t it be a good idea to know how it really was?
KD Why would it be tricky?
LS Well . . . you might have
built everything on a phantasy.
KD And then?
LS And then . . . well,
I’m thinking about this as chö, Dharma, meaning ‘as it
is’, and if we base something on ‘as it
wasn’t’, then . . .
KD Ah, I see your problem. ‘As it
is’ does not necessarily mean scientific materialism.
NR What we’re saying here is that
whether Padmasambhava is factual or mythical is irrelevant from the
point of view which looks at the effect Padmasambhava has had on those
who are inspired by him. But, to return to your previous point,
Shardröl, you said: “Wouldn’t it be better to know how it
actually was?” We can never actually know how anything
really was. There are as many history as there are people to research
history. The ‘truth’ of the past is in the past, and all
we can know in the present is a fabric of impressions. The question
is whether we want a meaningful impression, or a scientifically
verifiable impression.
KD The scientifically verifiable impression
is always interesting if it allows for greater inspiration; but if it
reduces the human spirit . . . what is its value?
LS So we can make objective statements
about the effect of Padmasambhava, and these will be ‘as it
is’ even though Padmasambhava may not have been reality
according to scientific materialism?
KD Quite.
NR You see, Padmasambhava has existed in
terms of vision for a great many visionary Lamas. Within
Tantra, visionary ‘facts’ are not divided from historical
‘facts’, because what is meaningful and inspiring is more
relevant to spiritual practice than mere information.
KD When I paint thangkas,
for example, I paint Yeshé Tsogyel with blue eyes. This is not
because I believe she had blue eyes – I know that Tibetans
don’t have blue eyes. The colour of her eyes is symbolic of the
sky. She’s also pink in colour, but that’s the mixing of
the red & white thing-lés, not because we think she was Caucasian.
So . . . why does she have this obviously
non-historically accurate appearance? Keith Dowman alludes in his
book Sky Dancer to the
possibility that Yeshé Tsogyel was far from beautiful – but our
image of her is very beautiful. What does that mean?
LS That’s how she manifested in
visionary form according to the térma of Khyungchen Aro Lingma?
KD That’s right. And the Khyungchen
Aro Lingma form is not the only form of Yeshé Tsogyel. There are
other forms of Yeshé Tsogyel. There exists the possibility of
infinite Yeshé Tsogyels and infinite Padmasambhavas.
LS So in that way history is being
recreated all the time according to vision . . .
KD Yes.
NR That is why the history of Padmasambhava
is so extensive.
KD Every Lama who has visions of
Padmasambhava or Yeshé Tsogyel contributes to the burgeoning visionary
history of meaning which exists to inspire practitioners.
LS So why do Buddhists in general seem so
intent on proving things according to non-visionary history?
NR Well . . . that’s
either a matter of
devotion . . . or . . . a matter of lack
of confidence in the nature of visionary reality. You
see . . . It’s kinda
tricky . . .. This is not a nice question [laughs].
I’d say that you have to look at this within the context of a
society in which there were a variety of different forces at work.
Tibetan spiritual culture, like any other spiritual culture, contained
an assortment of agendas. There was debate and controversy because
people had different ways of expressing things. Different styles
arose and contrasts became evident. Now some people can’t
handle ideas contrasting with each other. For the nervous, there has
to be unanimous agreement on ‘how things are’. For the
nervous, there can only be ‘one true way’, and if there is
only one true way . . . then the other ways have to be
‘the work of the devil’, or ’false teachings’,
or ‘broken lineage’, or whatever. Now because of this,
Lamas may, with the very best possible motivations, attempt to calm
things down through a process of historical and textual validation.
The realised Lamas of all schools have never had problems with the
diversity of teachings. The first Panchen Lama, for example. There
is a famous quote of his which states categorically that there is no
problem with the variety of spiritual expressions which existed in
Tibet in his time. Here he makes it very clear that the realisation
of Dzogchen and Chagchen, or Mahamudra, are
identical:
The Chagchen of Gampopa, the Chagchen of Khédrüp Khyungpo,
and that of Jigten Gönpo and Tsangpa Gya-ré; the Changchen of
‘The Four Syllables’, the chöd of Machig Labdrön,
the Dzogchen of Padmasambhava, Jé Tsongkhapa’s guide to
Madhyamaka – Many different names are given; but if their
subject matter is examined, by an experienced Tantrika, their essence
is found to be the same.
This first Panchen Lama was the Root Teacher of the Great Fifth
Dala’i Lama, and he was a conspicuous Dzogchen master. He was
also a tértön. The great Lamas of the Ri-mèd trend of
the 19th Century were also of the same view. Many of these Lamas were
keen to provide validation for the divergent teaching traditions in
order to undermine sectarianism and to counter the criticisms of those
who were addicted to making one thing ‘right’ through
making another thing ‘wrong’.
LS But things don’t actually need to
be validated that way, do they? I mean, you can just validate your
own practice by practising it and finding out for yourself.
KD Well . . . that was
Buddha Shakyamuni’s advice after all . . .
NR Quite. You
see . . . Buddhism is not actually a religion which is
based on one person. Buddhism is not ’the word of God’,
or ‘the word of the son of God’, or ‘the word of the
messenger of God’. The Buddha’s teaching is called
‘Dharma’ – ’chö’ – ‘as it
is’. ‘As it is’ is not ‘as I said it
is’. ‘As it is’ is ‘as it is’.
‘As it is’ is ‘as you discover it to be through
applying the practices which reveal it – as it is’.
That’s it. Buddhism is not Buddhism because it was what the
Buddha taught.
KD What would we call a non-dual teaching, whose path combined wisdom & compassion, and
which denied the four philosophical extremes [the errors of
eternalism, nihilism, monism, and dualism] – if it came from another planet? Would we call that
Buddhism? Or would we have to say: “No that can’t be
Buddhism because the Buddha never went to Planet Dermatitis.” Or
would we have to say: “Yes, this is Buddhism, because
there’s an oblique reference in a text that alludes to the fact
that the Buddha once went to Planet Dermatitis.”
LS Well, that seems pretty clear to me, so
why do people make fuss about what Buddhism is and what it is not?
NR Good question. Maybe it is because when
you don’t really know what Buddhism is, you have to validate it
according to something outside your own experience. And that is
usually a text and a historical reference.
LS But it seems as if the Buddha would have
refuted that approach.
NR & KD [laughter]
NR Sure. I have little doubt about that.
However, I think we have to be careful not to set up some soft of
self-validating Puritanism. We feel that there is space for
everything. There is space for historical academic research, and
there is space for the reverential attribution of teachings to various
personages. There is space for people who want to get as close as
they can to the words of Shakyamuni Buddha and Padmasambhava, and
there is space for people who want to go for the essence, irrespective
of the nearness or distance of its historical origins. Buddhism is a
vast field of wonder for its sincere practitioners, and so many, many,
many different methods are encompassed within its parameters. We feel
that it’s preferable to come from a position of inclusivity
rather than exclusivity.
LS It occurs to me here, and I am sorry to
bring it up, but what is the difference between what you are saying
and the idea that ‘all religions are one’? You’ve
said in the past that this idea is problematic. I know you’re
not talking about ’all religions’ but couldn’t it be
said that this is a similar statement, made from within Buddhism?
NR [laughs] Good question! We are not
saying that every variety of Buddhism is definitely and absolutely
kosher. One couldn’t say that. What we are saying is that we
can be tolerant – we can say that there is space for others in
the world. We can be inquisitive about the differences, rather than
coming from a point of antagonism. We can say: “Whoa! Look at
all these different varieties! Isn’t it amazing how many
different fruits grow on this tree!” The fact that maybe
they’re not all edible is neither here nor there. We
don’t have to eat them all, do we? The results of eating them
will be experienced by those who eat them. We don't need to concern
ourselves with the dietary regimes of others. We do not need to
appoint ourselves as a Buddhist monitoring agency in order to
safeguard others from ‘improper forms of Buddhism’. We
don’t have to manufacture ‘master race’ ideas about
this, do we?
KD There are two kinds of tolerance.
There’s immature tolerance, and there’s mature tolerance.
Immature tolerance accepts everything by making it the same. Mature
tolerance accepts variety without being threatened by it. Mature
tolerance can suspend judgment as to whether a thing is valid or
invalid. Mature tolerance is inquisitive, whereas responding to
difference with suspicion is animal-realm mentality.
|