Sweet & sour orthodoxy
Ngak’chang Rinpoche & Khandro Déchen
interviewed by Lama Shardröl, 31 December 1997
This is the second
half of an interview originally published in vision magazine in
1998 (issue 11). The first half is ‘Mature and
immature tolerance’.
Lama Shardröl You mentioned that there
are no Popes involved in Buddhism. You said last week that Dudjom
Rinpoche never issued edicts but that his teachings were taken to
heart by every Nyingma Lama with whom you studied.
Ngak’chang Rinpoche Yes.
LS Well, it seems to me that [mature
tolerance] is the same principle – I mean, when you’re
dealing with the nature of experience, then edicts don’t have to
be made. Lamas are respected for their realisation, and the teachings
they give come from that realisation; so there’s no need to
impose anything – it’s all self-imposed on itself and by
itself, if you see what I mean.
Khandro Déchen You couldn’t have
said it better yourself [laughs]. Yes, you’re absolutely
right.
LS [laughs] So in terms of
orthodoxy . . . it’s applied by being
non-applied, because it’s ‘as it is’. I mean,
there’d be no point in arguing about whether it was Wednesday or
not, because we all know it’s Wednesday – like it might
not have been Wednesday on Mars, but we’re not there.
KD Sure. It’s always a matter
of principle and function. That is why Dudjom Rinpoche advised those
people that if they had confidence in their Lama, that they should
rely on their Lama’s guidance as to whether they practiced
Tantric ngöndro or not [rather than his; see ‘Running
the Gantlet’,
vision 9, Spring 1998].
LS Right . . . so would you
say it’s a matter of principle and function in what a Lama says,
rather than statements of faith?
NR Absolutely. Lamas tend to avoid giving
comment which is too specific – particularly concerning Inner Tantra. You see . . . each lineage of Inner
Tantra has its own functional parameters, and so it’s only
possible to give specific advice according to specific practices.
LS I see
that . . . That’s obviously why different advice
can be given to different people, and why the idea of
‘traditional’ and ‘untraditional’ is so
difficult to use without making things confusing. Last week, I said
that many people consider you and Ngak’chang Rinpoche to be
quite untraditional . . .
KD & NR [pretend to cry]
LS [laughs] . . . and
then we went on to discussing how other people viewed you as
‘too traditional’.
KD & NR [pretend to cry again]
LS . . . and
[laughs] . . . and how that was a paradoxical
situation . . . What I’m wondering is whether
this is not simply an outcome of your being
unusual . . . [the interview dissolves into a
protracted period of laughter at this point] What I mean is, like,
people expect something to be a certain way, and when it’s not
they get all bent out of shape about it.
NR Yes.
LS So, if you’re traditional,
you’re expected to be traditional in the same way as everyone
else who’s traditional.
NR Yes.
LS And if you are untraditional you are
supposed to leave the tradition completely behind.
KD Yes . . .
LS So . . . I’m not
sure if this is a question or not, but what would you say to that?
KD [pause] That’s how it seems to be,
doesn’t it. There are those who need to conform and those who
need to rebel.
NR And those who want us to conform, and
those who want us to rebel. And maybe the problem is that we
disappoint both.
LS Like the way I was offensively
disappointed once when you began to destroy my vision of you as
‘eccentrics’ – when you started talking about garden
furniture, and families; and stuff I considered to be bourgeois?
LS, KD, & NR [protracted laughter]
LS You were saying, last week, that the
Tibetan tradition of Vajrayana and the essential or a-cultural
tradition of Vajrayana were not necessarily the same thing.
NR Not necessarily always the same
thing.
LS Right, I guess there’s a big
difference.
NR Yes, there is a big difference. We
weren’t even saying that there’s substantial variance. We
would not like to say much more than to point out that every country
has its own approach to Buddhism. One could possibly learn something,
for example, from the distinctions in Vajrayana practice between Tibet
and Bhutan.
LS And you said that the Indian tradition
of Vajrayana was different.
NR Yes.
KD You can see clear differences when you
look at the Indian Vajrayana of the Mahasiddhas, and at Tibetan
Buddhist Vajrayana.
LS I wanted to ask you last week how you
thought a Western Vajrayana would evolve. I mean, what that might
look like. I know you said you aren’t trying to create that,
but I was wondering if you had any ideas.
NR Yes . . . but to talk
about them in an interview for a magazine would make it sound as if we
thought these ideas were worth reading about [laughs]. It would be
far more profitable to look at what Trungpa Rinpoche was evolving.
LS Still, I think it would be useful to
know what your ideas are on this subject,
because . . . well, because we’re all involved in
the way things are evolving, and it might be useful to know how you
see it.
KD Useful in what way?
LS Well, on the basis that I and others
practise according to the teachings you give, and so your view is
valuable because of that. I mean, your critique of a movie would also
be valuable from that perspective.
NR [to KD] Looks like we might be forced to
answer this, doesn’t it?
KD It does look like that, doesn’t
it.
We have obviously talked about this a lot together, and it is
obvious that we do have certain ideas. Well . . . we
feel that the language will become increasingly refined and that we
will finally settle to a way of communicating the teachings that will
be broadly understood. We fell also that monasticism will die out as
the major trend of Buddhism in the West, because there is no cultural
basis for it. Other than that, there may be an increasingly strong
connection with psychology and science – but who knows where
that will lead. What would you say, Rinpoche?
NR Sure – yes to all that. And then
maybe Western culture, to surround the Vajrayana which evolves here,
will need to be very slow to develop – if it’s to be a
real development. It will need to develop through Western Vajrayana
masters who are actually living Vajrayana in the West. You see, even
in India, where naked religious itinerants can stroll through New
Delhi on their way to the Himalayan pilgrimage sites, there still
exists some sort of convention. For example, the naked sadhu would
probably not be riding a heavily chromed Harley motorcycle. His Gucci
panniers would not be resplendent with chilled Moet, salmon &
cucumber sandwiches, and a hip flask of Calvados.
LS But there would be nothing intrinsically
wrong with that, would there?
NR No . . . but it could
appear unconventional to the populace, and they might possibly doubt
the authenticity of the sadhu.
LS But isn’t there a contradiction
here? I mean, it seems as if the sadhu’s behaviour is just
another box or cultural mode. If the sadhu is not free to ride a
Harley . . . isn’t that just another
orthodoxy?
NR Sure. Although we do not know the
bounds of what is culturally permitted in India in terms of the
appearance of sadhus. It may be limitless. But even if there is a
convention or some sort of orthodoxy, it doesn’t necessarily
mean it is a trap.
LS I don’t think I understand –
could you say more?
KD Well – I think you can have sweet
and sour orthodoxy.
LS [laughs] What?
KD I think it really depends on whether the
orthodoxy is there as a medium, or as a restriction. If it’s
there as a medium, it acts as a ‘sign’ by which the
teaching can be seen. If it’s there as a restriction, then
it’s merely a convention – and that would be a trap, as
you say.
NR It’s a subtle distinction, and not
one that can be made as a broad generalisation. Whether a naked ashen
sadhu manifests freedom through that appearance or not is an
individual question – rather than a group identity question. Do
you follow that?
LS . . . yes.
NR So, orthodoxy can be the manifestation
of compassionate activity, or it can be stultification.
KD It can be sweet or sour orthodoxy. Sour
orthodoxy is the totalitarian demand for conformity to set criteria.
But sweet orthodoxy in the sense of ‘coherence’ can be an
opening to what is possible through a recognisable form.
LS But then . . . how is
this different from what happened in Tibet?
NR It isn’t. It’s just the
same from that point of view.
LS But . . .. I thought you
were saying that the Indian Vajrayana was more essential, and that
Indian culture wasn’t afraid of wisdom
eccentrics . . .
KD We were. Rinpoche is making two
parallel statements.
NR Yes . . . I’m
saying that whatever is normally accepted becomes normal. I am also
saying that what is normal in two different countries can be compared.
It’s true that Khandro Déchen and I do look to the tradition of
the Mahasiddhas for examples of a more a-cultural Vajrayana –
that holds. But that does not mean we’re saying it didn’t
have its stereotypical religious formats. Nor does it mean that Tibet
didn’t have its free-range yogis & yoginis. It’s not as
black & white as that. The most important thing, as far as
we’re concerned, is (a) to question cultural orthodoxy, and (b)
to ask whether it represents essential Vajrayana.
If we’re to address the question of how we see the future, we
need to explore some very tenuous socio-political aspects of religious
history. Otherwise whatever we say about cultural Vajrayana and
essential Vajrayana would be vacuous speculation.
LS So would you give an example of
essential Vajrayana, or an example of something which would exist at
the level of essential Vajrayana?
KD What would you say was essential,
Shardröl?
LS The Vajra Master?
KD You got it in one, and in fact –
he or she is the most essential aspect of Vajrayana.
NR That is why we discuss the role of the
Vajra Master in so much detail, and why we are so concerned to
preserve and protect the role.
LS So that is an aspect of
‘sweet’ orthodoxy then?
KD [laughs] Well . . .
‘sweet’ depends, doesn’t it.
LS On what?
NR On what it says in the dictionary.
KD Try looking it up.
LS [consults dictionary] Well, that’s
interesting . . . The first definition concerns sugar;
number 2 is ’agreeable to the senses or mind’; number 3
‘having pleasant manners’ and
‘gentle’ . . . Then it goes on to talk
about food, in terms of not being decayed or
rancid . . . free of unpleasant
odours . . . sweet air . . . fond of,
or infatuated with . . . smooth, precise, perfectly
executed . . . Oh . . . that’s
very interesting, it has a Sanskrit root: persuasive or suave.
NR That’s interesting, isn’t
it. It would appear that orthodoxy should be suave – persuasive
through its wholesomeness. In terms of the Vajra Master, one’s
perception of his or her ‘sweetness’ depends on
one’s appreciation. The Vajra Master has to be ‘agreeable
to the senses and the Mind’, which means that the relationship
has to be harmonious with regard to reality. One has to have pleasant
manners and gentility with regard to the Vajra
Master . . . I guess these are old-fashioned words, but
some sort of ’noble behaviour’ would appear to be
required. Both the Vajra Master and the disciple need to manifest
courtesy. The Vajra Master’s courtesy is of a persuasive type,
and the disciple’s courtesy is open to the ‘sweet’
persuasion.
Courtesy means ‘behaviour suitable to the court’, that
is to say, the court of the King or Queen. This applies to the
mandala principle in terms of one’s relationship with the Lama
and one’s vajra brothers & sisters. This is the real essence of
orthodoxy.
|