Chhi’mèd Rig’dzin
Rinpoche once told me that I was ‘ . . . one big diplomat’. This
was not a complimentary statement on his part. How he came to say this
requires a lengthy anecdote – but suffice it to say that I had replied:
I don’t know, Rinpoche
in answer to a question Chhi’mèd Rig’dzin
Rinpoche had asked as to whether plants were sentient or not. I had
politely declined to have an opinion – as I do not like to express
opinions on subjects concerning which I have no direct knowledge.
Rinpoche followed my reply quite swiftly by requiring me to express my
opinion – which I did. He said
You Tantra man – who must have opinion!
I gave my opinion. He then
asked me to substantiate my opinion – which I did. Fortunately my
exposition met with his satisfaction and we laughed a great deal about
the outcome.
Politics has been
called ‘the art of the possible’ – but Khandro Déchen and I tend to
relate to it as ‘the artlessness of the impossible’. We are happy to say
that within our sangha a broad variety of political persuasions
co-exist. We have always maintained that politics can only ever aspire
to adjust samsara for the common good – and therefore there is no
political philosophy which suits Dharma more than any other. We are
obviously proscribing inhuman forms of totalitarianism. We feel that
apprentices should be free to engage politically either by voting, or by
abstaining. We have no preference. We hold to the dictum of anarchism,
which holds that whatever way you vote – a government is elected.
We view
politicians as we view all people: if their intentions are good—and if
they are sincere and honest—then they are worthy of honour. We also view
politicians – whatever their
persuasion—as being engaged in the art of the impossible. We understand
this because we have to engage in that art ourselves. Any Lama who
engages with their sangha practically in terms of decision-making, has
to make choices on behalf of others and those choices are not always
overwhelmingly popular. When we are asked for a decision with regard to
activities or plans, we have to attempt to be circumspect with regard to
the entire spectrum of interest and needs of the sangha. This is the art
of the impossible. If we were to discuss Dharma there would be no issue
– but the life of a sangha is not entirely the application of Dharma.
There are other considerations. There are priorities, and there are
varied opinions and feelings with respect to those priorities.
Fortunately for
our students, they are not trapped in the country of the origin of the
teachings – and therefore not subject to a theocracy. We live in a world
where religion and state are separate. We would all be wise never to
abandon this marvellous situation. To understand what a marvellous
situation we have – we need only read the history of Tibet from the time
of the inception of the second spread of the teachings. The reason
Tibetan people are not free today is entirely due to the institution of
theocracy – and the sectarianism which arose as a default of its
existence.
Vajrayana cannot
function authentically within a theocracy – unless certain difficult
caveats exist. A hierarchy of Lamas necessarily implies a hierarchy of
realisation. If there is a hierarchy of realisation then it can only be
the head of the hierarchy who can give transmission. To receive
transmission one has to regard the empowering Lama as an enlightened
being – as only an enlightened being can give transmission. If one’s
Lama has to be understood as being part of a hierarchy then how does one
understand his or her function as an empowering Lama? Naturally every
Lama who has students gives those students transmission – and so there
is no practical problem, merely a theoretical one. The problem with
having a theory and practice which do not exactly coincide, is that it
causes confusion – and confusion—at worst—can lead to aggression.
To combine
theocracy and Vajrayana is a political problem and therefore partakes of
the art of the impossible. We are addressing this subject because our
students have been disturbed by Tibetan politics. The question of
protectors and the question of the two Karmapa candidates are but two
political issues which have caused grief in the world of Tibetan
Buddhism. We could say—in answer to these issues—that we have no
opinion. That would be the safe answer. No one would be too offended by
that – but whenever I refuse to have an opinion I am reminded of
Chhi’mèd Rig’dzin Rinpoche calling me out as ‘one big diplomat’ – so I
feel that I ought to give an answer of some sort to the confusion which
exists around Tibetan politics. I do not want to say who is right and
who is wrong – that would be too complicated – and I do not know enough
to unravel even what I think I know. It would also be too divisive and
contentious. I would rather make a fundamental statement that blames no
one – whilst remaining a sincere expression of my concern. This is my
reply: Theocracy and Vajrayana are incompatible, and as long as
Vajrayana is subject to the dictates of theocracy, sectarian strife will
never come to an end. On that basis my advice to anyone who asks is
this: Look only to your own Lamas and follow their advice. Look no
further than your own Lama. Never deride the Lamas of others – or call
them into question. These are the words of the ‘one big diplomat’ who
has nothing else to say on the subject of politics.
