Shortly after writing this, I read Andreas Doctor’s Tibetan Treasure Literature. His book confirms what I wrote above.
He suggests that the authentication of termas depended heavily on “political, financial, and religious support extended to the Treasure revealer by the local elite, combined with the revealer’s own ability to magnetize an audience through a charismatic personality.”
He describes the history of arguments about terma authenticity over the past millennium. He demonstrates that there has been almost no change in the types of arguments used. These boil down to “You faked it yourself!” “Did not!” “Did too!” Or, in Doctor’s more academic language,
basically unconvincing arguments, advanced by skeptics and apologists alike, remained surprisingly stagnant over the centuries and, on the whole, failed to effect any significant change of opinion on either side of the religious divide.
He regards it as unfortunate that Westerners have taken sides in debates about terma authenticity. These appear to have more to do with Tibetan power politics than genuinely religious considerations.
(1) Is there a written version of the Terma(?s) valued by Aro?
(2) You description here of the Terma phenomena reminds me of Pentacostalism as a phenomena in Christianity -- that is, scripture and tradition as FIXED revelation which has two methods of flexibility: (a) new interpretations of the FIXED revelation or (b) NEW revelations to supplement, supplant, surpassed, amend, compliment the FIXED revelations.
The idea of believers getting new revelations from God and how to check them is a constant theme in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Terma seems just more of the same. They also face all the same issues you illustrate here: politics, history, opportunism, foolery and much more.
I can't tell by your post what you feel about them. (1) Let history decide (2) If it works, great (3) It is the same as art -- no real truth just aesthetics.
You post seems to me full of healthy cynicism but has a flavor of idealist hopefulness that God (ooops, I mean "the Dharmakaya") is still trying to speak to us through those speaking in tongues (oooops, I mean "the Termas").
Once we buy into a system, we tend to let things slide that we may laugh at (or at least chuckle at) in a group for which we share no history or personal identification.
Reading your comment too confuses me a bit. Aro is based on a Terma (no?), but you are totally cynical about Termas (as am I), right?
(2) Yes. I haven't written about the Buddhist tradition of reinterpreting old scriptures to have new meanings (some of them utterly unrecognizable in the originals without fancy hermeneutics). Also very interesting but not relevant here.
(3) I think it's usually good to avoid extremes of both naïveté and cynicism. On the one hand, I can't make sense of the history of terma without believing that tertons often had personal and political agendas, and often engaged in deliberate deception (well-intentioned or otherwise). On the other hand, I think that terma is a genuine, distinct phenomenon, and that it is enormously valuable as a strategy for enabling innovation.
I wrote somewhere in this series (I can't find it offhand now) that it is common experience to feel that one is "receiving" a creative production, rather than "producing" it. Even I have had that experience, as have countless artists, mathematicians, and so forth. I assume that terma is a related phenomenon. Or, at any rate, that many or most tertons are telling the truth when they say that they have received the work rather than produced it. Obviously, that is not a guarantee of infallibility, as the Tibetans recognize, which is why new supposed-termas are viewed with suspicion, and experts attempt to test them in various ways.
There's a constant tension in Buddhist history between conservatism—preserving the religion as it was in the Glorious Past—and innovation—adapting the religion to new circumstances. I've written about this in "Endangered species" and elsewhere. Terma is a unique strategy for negotiating this difficulty: innovations are retconned into the Glorious Past, so we can have our cake and eat it too. Its relative openness to innovation (through terma) is a distinctive feature of the Nyingma tradition.
Because Tibetan Buddhism is almost certainly going to have to change exceptionally quickly over the next century, terma might be critically important to its survival. The flexibility of the Nyingma might be a highly adaptive trait.
As for my overall judgement... The last part of "What does "valid terma" mean?", and the page "Asking the wrong question", are part of it. There's one page still to be written at this end of this series on terma. It will basically say: the way to evaluate a terma is the same way you evaluate any other religious/spiritual system.
Great explanation and I totally agree with the psychosocial explanation of the function and purpose behind this sort of revelation be it Pentacostals or Nyingma.
But you say these acts are "retconning" so *we* can have our cake and eat it too. But here the "we" seems to be the Traditionalists -- it uses their language, theology, values and such but pushes it a little. So the "we" are traditionalist who are invested in all the imagery. Non-traditionalists would probably rather not have it at all and it actually pushes them away. So lots of "we" don't want the cake. And if Aro's goal is to offer the wisdom of Dzogchen to the West by incarnating it into relationships of folks in everyday life, why keep all that pretense since there are no "traditionalists" to appease. Sure, some Westerners may be Tibetophiles and thus prefer the magic but relatively speaking, I am sure their numbers are relatively small. I would imagine a much larger audience would do far better without it. I know this is a hackneyed conversation for you. You don't have to reply. We have what we have with Aro -- either benefit or don't, right?
And perhaps the térma flexibility you skillfully write about will add a new térma in years to come that does some of what I wrote, perhaps not. Only the complex unfolding of the spin of reality will reveal that.
You also said, "Obviously, that is not a guarantee of infallibility ..." And actually, there is no guarantee of any hind of credibility. The point is, it was created by a person (albeit in a disassociated creative state share by all artists, athlete, mathematicians and such), the point is to test it. Cloaking it in holy nonsense is possibly furthering the silly thinking style that likewise allows people to think viral illnesses and cancer are caused by demons. I am not taking the 'cynical' approach in total. I am doing rightful cynicism at the myths and fabrications but understanding, as you, that these spontaneous, disassociative creations (depending on the genius of the creator -- not some spirit world connection) can create wonderful works of great value -- but ya gotta test them. (as you said) In the end, empiricism matters.
We sound like we are saying the same thing, it is just that I have absolutely no investment in bringing traditionalists along and feel that there may be greater value at trying to understand and be honest about how the human minds work and persuade each other at the expense of loosing that magic feeling. But I understand that at this point, much valuable teaching is still due to the very kind and good graces of teachers who have these investments. So our perspectives are different, perhaps.
Yes, a presentation of Dzogchen that left out all Tibetan cultural elements would undoubtedly have wider appeal. More generally, Aro is just too weird to ever be useful to very many people.
I think everyone in the sangha recognizes this. So why not change things? Several reasons.
The organization is based on a terma, which wasn't deliberately created for a purpose. (You may believe that Ngak’chang Rinpoche created it, but he doesn’t think so. I presume he wouldn’t think he had the right to tinker with it, if he wanted to.) The Aro gTér has no defined purpose specific to the West; it’s just dharma. The purpose of the Aro organization is to make the Aro gTér available.
That's not necessarily the purpose of the individuals in it. Members of the sangha may have quite different reasons for being members, and quite different orientations. The sangha encompasses a spectrum from traditionalists to modernists or postmodernists. (I probably misrepresent Aro slightly because I'm at the postmodern end of that spectrum.) They may also have varying reasons for their teaching activities.
Most Aro folks who give their time to serving the public might say: “This is the lineage I have chosen for my personal practice; so I also help to make it available to others, should they wish to practice it too.” There is no sense that “I teach in this lineage because it is the best / most useful / most accessible one.” It's just the one they chose for themselves.
Likewise, I chose the Aro gTér because it seems the best fit of available options for me. I put a lot of time into Aro communications because I am massively grateful to the lineage for its usefulness to me.
Rinpoche and Khandro Déchen have said that it is much more important to them to propagate the white-skirt tradition, and Dzogchen, than to propagate the Aro gTér. But, they have permanent commitments to the Aro gTér regardless. Besides that, they believe—and I agree—that the Aro gTér is one of the best available vehicles for accomplishing those other goals. It probably isn’t ideal, for the reasons you mentioned, but there are no alternatives that look obviously better to me.
So why not go about creating a better alternative? Because none of us believe we have the capacity.
I have no idea what the limits of the abilities of the Lineage Lamas are; I don’t understand what they do, or how; I certainly can’t do anything similar. But they have said, when I asked questions similar to yours, “we aren’t able to do that; we wouldn’t know where to start; you’d need a Mahasiddha for that.”
As individuals, no one is solely a member of the Aro sangha; and some of us work to make Buddhism available to audiences who would find Aro unappealing. That is why I write Buddhism for Vampires and Meaningness. These are stealth dharma projects: they aren’t explicitly Buddhist, but are are attempts to make certain Buddhish ideas broadly available.
Ngak’change Rinpoche is actively working on some stealth dharma projects himself. (I don’t think any are public yet.) These are presentations of key aspects of Vajrayana with no mention of Buddhism at all—much less Tibetan cultural stuff.
But, such projects are fragmentary. If you want a whole system, Aro is the best we have to offer.
I’d love to see someone produce a “modernist Dzogchen” system (whether or not I practiced it myself). Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche’s Shambhala Training was probably the closest thing that has been accomplished so far. Unfortunately, it seems to have been coöpted by traditionalists since he died. He’s widely regarded as a Mahasiddha; he did things perhaps no one else could have done.
Lama Surya Das is the other example that comes to mind. I’d definitely recommend checking out his system if you want a more modernist orientation than Aro. It doesn’t work for me, but he has a large following, so it must be useful to many people.
i don't see this as a problem. it could be if i considered dzogchen, or buddhism as the only truth, or the only method to enlightenement. But i don't. To me it's just one more method, not the only one, nor "The Special One" (like José Mourinho), it's just the one that feets me.
Like i use to say...if you don't like it, don't eat it. Apples are as good as oranges, pick the one it tastes the better for yourself.
And Termas don't appear to appease, they appear to challenge, and it's more challenging to us if it keeps the vajrayana traditional aspect (not tibetan).
personally i think you are looking for something that feats your neurosis (or mine), but that's philosophy, not religion. And vajrayana is religion.
The nature of your mind is traditionalist, it's here since beginningless time, isn't it? is there a more traditional thing?
Like you can see, globally i like everything in life as it is, but i'm the lazyest beeing in the universe, and i use it as an excuse to do nothing. That's why i'm the worst meditator. I needed a teacher like Marpa Lotsawa
this is how i think...at least for now :)
don't take me too serious
Congrats David. I think it's really amazing how easy you give us other references and suggest other paths. It really shows you are not trying to sell us nothing, just presenting it. That's the best way to comunicate. I wish i could relate on that level, it would free myself from a lot of neurosis.
Superbly put, David. Every point of that seemed impeccable. Thank you.
My nature is to let my mind have its play of doubts even while embracing something -- thank you for giving it romping space while it settles itself.
(1) But like all of us, I am a divided creature: I love foreign cultures, learning foreign languages, practice foreign crafts and such. I am totally sure I would enjoy much of Aro's Tibetanous traits for that reason. Yet I have seen people embrace foreignness in a very needy way and if a whole group is like this, I may be a very bad fit. I am thus suspicious of motivations which may only reveal themselves after a long encounter -- I like to expose them (to myself) up front.
(2) I believe strongly in local solutions that are not generalizable. Yet part of my mind uses "generalizability" as a test. When I push and test those limits and see others holding lightly what they nonetheless value dearly, I am more free to engage.
(3) I am always suspicious of groups, period -- since I was very young. I don't like crowds (sport events, concerts and such) -- not a phobia, by any stretch, but just a general distrust of crowd mentality. Such thinking can have its usefulness, but it can have its limitations. And so I test slowly to be sure a crowd is safe.
All three of these are limitations of my mind, I sort of understand that. Your essay helped me to look at them a bit just now. And that is sort of the magic of your writing. But I can't imagine my suspicions and doubts aren't shared by others and thus this essay you generously sketched out probably serves others as it has me. Very well said -- it made me look at my own mind and simultaneously helped me understand this Aro tér a bit better -- which is what this site is all about.
I was also deeply comforted by your words "when I asked questions similar to yours" -- it relieved me to know that brighter minds than mine have the same obvious doubts and weren't hesitant to ask and dig deeply. For me, deep digging untangles my mind a bit -- my web site has helped me in that way a bit on other issues, as has your site.
"Like i use to say...if you don't like it, don't eat it."
I have heard that my whole life. When I doubted the political policies of America my father would respond with the classic traditionalist statement of "Love it or Leave it" -- so I left. On returning to the USA after 12 years gone, I saw that such a dichotomy was false. But I better understood why some people felt this way -- I had seen those types in each country I visited.
When I studied and practiced Homeopathy and doubted it, people said the same. When I studied and practiced Acupuncture I heard the same. I now practice Allopathic Medicine where I am met by traditionalists with similar sentiment: "Look, Sabio, if you have all these doubts, why don't you just do something else." Yet my doubts have help us build new systems in our clinics, re-evaluate our testing procedures and more. It seems this sort of mind, if contained well has some usefulness.
I have found my doubting very helpful in my life. I think I have learned a balance - and I am sure a better balance is always around the corner. I also have learned to solidly ignore folks who say, "Love it of Leave it", yet I understand them and try (depending on the setting) to be a bit more thoughtful and considerate of their feelings than I was in the past when my habit of mind used me more that I used it. But I feel this very nature of this site is to offer a sanctuary for doubts. I don't consider this a temple where I am surrounded by devout believers who I could offend. It is a commented blog-like website, after all.
Finally, I have learned to embrace much to which I am not a perfect fit and the misfit qualities are often ironically deeply helpful -- hell, I am still married! Smile. But it is good to have friends with whom I can share and mutually reflect on doubts and where they give me romping space to play occasionally.
(btw, I love, and am impressed, by the philosophy of women and marriage I have read so far in the Aro material).
I hope that gives you a more rounded picture of how I doubt and question -- we may have different temperaments in this realm.
Well, i don't meant to say that we shouldn't promote change. I'm all about change. But we also must allow ourselves to be changed and challanged. Change must occur on both sides, i guess :)
I agree that "Love it or Leave it" is stupid and if it where like that we wouldn't evolve as democratic countries. Democracy is also challenging to some people. Religion really needs to chalange us, and cut our mind boundaries. Because of that it can sometimes make us unconfortable. I don't know how that can be done if it isn't somehow agressive to our egos.
I can observe that in my patients with personality disorders. They refuse to be challanged, everything must be in accordance to their wishes and style. That's the base for neurotic behavior, isn't it?
Sorry to be slow to reply to this. I was busy, and also have not be sure how to respond.
I think I agree with all Ricardo's points. For something to be a religion, not a hobby, it needs to be bigger than you; and that means you won't like some parts of it, and you won't be able to change them. And that can be a good thing, if they change you in a positive way. (Of course, if they change you in a negative way, it's a bad thing...)
Religions are not democracies; this is particularly true in Vajrayana. "One Lama, one vote"; the sangha is a dictatorship. (Hopefully a benevolent one.)
That doesn't mean all change is impossible. Within Aro, much of the initiative for new projects comes from students, rather than the Lamas. And, sometimes students ask the Lamas "I wonder if it would be possible to change X because Y," and sometimes the answer is "yes, good idea." (Sometimes it is "no, that's a non-negotiable aspect of the system.")
I think I also agree with all Sabio's points. It is good to be skeptical when approaching any religious system. It is good to let go of doubts gradually, as you learn enough to have confidence on particular points.
As an organization, Aro tries to offer a "gradual path" inwards, so that you can gradually become more committed as you learn more. Our public web sites (plus this personal one) are meant for the public, and certainly any amount of questioning is appropriate here.
I'm not sure this reply is helpful. Please let me know if I can clarify further.
David, your comment made me think of WeiQi. WeiQi is an exquisite board game -- one of the best strategy games in the world. A game which engages both sides of the brain in a tension that inevitably results in players having philosophical discussions of the game.
If a player joined a WeiQi club and suggested changing a few rules , the board and certain etiquette, the resistance would rightfully be huge. But over time, small changes may be accepted. And thus in China, Korea and Japan, over centuries we have slight variants, but not enough to interfere with international tournaments.
WeiQi may seem like only a game but accepting its constraints can allow great play of mind. One has to respect its organic evolution or perhaps it is better to play poker or Chess or tic-tac-toe.
Now, one could go too far with this analogy (indeed that is the problem with analogies), for indeed many games are worth questioning. But there must be a hint of equivalent truth there, I would think.
By email subscription
By RSS feed
Follow me on Twitter
Comments
A useful discussion on terma validation
14 May 2008
Shortly after writing this, I read Andreas Doctor’s Tibetan Treasure Literature
. His book confirms what I wrote above.
He suggests that the authentication of termas depended heavily on “political, financial, and religious support extended to the Treasure revealer by the local elite, combined with the revealer’s own ability to magnetize an audience through a charismatic personality.”
He describes the history of arguments about terma authenticity over the past millennium. He demonstrates that there has been almost no change in the types of arguments used. These boil down to “You faked it yourself!” “Did not!” “Did too!” Or, in Doctor’s more academic language,
He regards it as unfortunate that Westerners have taken sides in debates about terma authenticity. These appear to have more to do with Tibetan power politics than genuinely religious considerations.
Transcending Termas
9 Dec 2010
(1) Is there a written version of the Terma(?s) valued by Aro?
(2) You description here of the Terma phenomena reminds me of Pentacostalism as a phenomena in Christianity -- that is, scripture and tradition as FIXED revelation which has two methods of flexibility: (a) new interpretations of the FIXED revelation or (b) NEW revelations to supplement, supplant, surpassed, amend, compliment the FIXED revelations.
The idea of believers getting new revelations from God and how to check them is a constant theme in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Terma seems just more of the same. They also face all the same issues you illustrate here: politics, history, opportunism, foolery and much more.
I can't tell by your post what you feel about them. (1) Let history decide (2) If it works, great (3) It is the same as art -- no real truth just aesthetics.
You post seems to me full of healthy cynicism but has a flavor of idealist hopefulness that God (ooops, I mean "the Dharmakaya") is still trying to speak to us through those speaking in tongues (oooops, I mean "the Termas").
Once we buy into a system, we tend to let things slide that we may laugh at (or at least chuckle at) in a group for which we share no history or personal identification.
Reading your comment too confuses me a bit. Aro is based on a Terma (no?), but you are totally cynical about Termas (as am I), right?
Naïveté and cynicism
9 Dec 2010
(1) For this see "Where are the Tibetan texts?".
(2) Yes. I haven't written about the Buddhist tradition of reinterpreting old scriptures to have new meanings (some of them utterly unrecognizable in the originals without fancy hermeneutics). Also very interesting but not relevant here.
(3) I think it's usually good to avoid extremes of both naïveté and cynicism. On the one hand, I can't make sense of the history of terma without believing that tertons often had personal and political agendas, and often engaged in deliberate deception (well-intentioned or otherwise). On the other hand, I think that terma is a genuine, distinct phenomenon, and that it is enormously valuable as a strategy for enabling innovation.
I wrote somewhere in this series (I can't find it offhand now) that it is common experience to feel that one is "receiving" a creative production, rather than "producing" it. Even I have had that experience, as have countless artists, mathematicians, and so forth. I assume that terma is a related phenomenon. Or, at any rate, that many or most tertons are telling the truth when they say that they have received the work rather than produced it. Obviously, that is not a guarantee of infallibility, as the Tibetans recognize, which is why new supposed-termas are viewed with suspicion, and experts attempt to test them in various ways.
There's a constant tension in Buddhist history between conservatism—preserving the religion as it was in the Glorious Past—and innovation—adapting the religion to new circumstances. I've written about this in "Endangered species" and elsewhere. Terma is a unique strategy for negotiating this difficulty: innovations are retconned into the Glorious Past, so we can have our cake and eat it too. Its relative openness to innovation (through terma) is a distinctive feature of the Nyingma tradition.
Because Tibetan Buddhism is almost certainly going to have to change exceptionally quickly over the next century, terma might be critically important to its survival. The flexibility of the Nyingma might be a highly adaptive trait.
As for my overall judgement... The last part of "What does "valid terma" mean?", and the page "Asking the wrong question", are part of it. There's one page still to be written at this end of this series on terma. It will basically say: the way to evaluate a terma is the same way you evaluate any other religious/spiritual system.
Pre-Raphaelites: awareness and mindfulness helps
11 Jan 2011
Looking closer, you will see, that the Pre Raphaelites had been underestimated. Millais had a sense for humor: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bonnetmaker/4478006527/
Best regards from Munich
Goetz
Flexible Freedom vs. Reinforcing Oppressive Thinking
11 Jan 2011
Great explanation and I totally agree with the psychosocial explanation of the function and purpose behind this sort of revelation be it Pentacostals or Nyingma.
But you say these acts are "retconning" so *we* can have our cake and eat it too. But here the "we" seems to be the Traditionalists -- it uses their language, theology, values and such but pushes it a little. So the "we" are traditionalist who are invested in all the imagery. Non-traditionalists would probably rather not have it at all and it actually pushes them away. So lots of "we" don't want the cake. And if Aro's goal is to offer the wisdom of Dzogchen to the West by incarnating it into relationships of folks in everyday life, why keep all that pretense since there are no "traditionalists" to appease. Sure, some Westerners may be Tibetophiles and thus prefer the magic but relatively speaking, I am sure their numbers are relatively small. I would imagine a much larger audience would do far better without it. I know this is a hackneyed conversation for you. You don't have to reply. We have what we have with Aro -- either benefit or don't, right?
And perhaps the térma flexibility you skillfully write about will add a new térma in years to come that does some of what I wrote, perhaps not. Only the complex unfolding of the spin of reality will reveal that.
You also said, "Obviously, that is not a guarantee of infallibility ..." And actually, there is no guarantee of any hind of credibility. The point is, it was created by a person (albeit in a disassociated creative state share by all artists, athlete, mathematicians and such), the point is to test it. Cloaking it in holy nonsense is possibly furthering the silly thinking style that likewise allows people to think viral illnesses and cancer are caused by demons. I am not taking the 'cynical' approach in total. I am doing rightful cynicism at the myths and fabrications but understanding, as you, that these spontaneous, disassociative creations (depending on the genius of the creator -- not some spirit world connection) can create wonderful works of great value -- but ya gotta test them. (as you said) In the end, empiricism matters.
We sound like we are saying the same thing, it is just that I have absolutely no investment in bringing traditionalists along and feel that there may be greater value at trying to understand and be honest about how the human minds work and persuade each other at the expense of loosing that magic feeling. But I understand that at this point, much valuable teaching is still due to the very kind and good graces of teachers who have these investments. So our perspectives are different, perhaps.
Yup, it's what we've got
12 Jan 2011
Yes, a presentation of Dzogchen that left out all Tibetan cultural elements would undoubtedly have wider appeal. More generally, Aro is just too weird to ever be useful to very many people.
I think everyone in the sangha recognizes this. So why not change things? Several reasons.
The organization is based on a terma, which wasn't deliberately created for a purpose. (You may believe that Ngak’chang Rinpoche created it, but he doesn’t think so. I presume he wouldn’t think he had the right to tinker with it, if he wanted to.) The Aro gTér has no defined purpose specific to the West; it’s just dharma. The purpose of the Aro organization is to make the Aro gTér available.
That's not necessarily the purpose of the individuals in it. Members of the sangha may have quite different reasons for being members, and quite different orientations. The sangha encompasses a spectrum from traditionalists to modernists or postmodernists. (I probably misrepresent Aro slightly because I'm at the postmodern end of that spectrum.) They may also have varying reasons for their teaching activities.
Most Aro folks who give their time to serving the public might say: “This is the lineage I have chosen for my personal practice; so I also help to make it available to others, should they wish to practice it too.” There is no sense that “I teach in this lineage because it is the best / most useful / most accessible one.” It's just the one they chose for themselves.
Likewise, I chose the Aro gTér because it seems the best fit of available options for me. I put a lot of time into Aro communications because I am massively grateful to the lineage for its usefulness to me.
Rinpoche and Khandro Déchen have said that it is much more important to them to propagate the white-skirt tradition, and Dzogchen, than to propagate the Aro gTér. But, they have permanent commitments to the Aro gTér regardless. Besides that, they believe—and I agree—that the Aro gTér is one of the best available vehicles for accomplishing those other goals. It probably isn’t ideal, for the reasons you mentioned, but there are no alternatives that look obviously better to me.
So why not go about creating a better alternative? Because none of us believe we have the capacity.
I have no idea what the limits of the abilities of the Lineage Lamas are; I don’t understand what they do, or how; I certainly can’t do anything similar. But they have said, when I asked questions similar to yours, “we aren’t able to do that; we wouldn’t know where to start; you’d need a Mahasiddha for that.”
As individuals, no one is solely a member of the Aro sangha; and some of us work to make Buddhism available to audiences who would find Aro unappealing. That is why I write Buddhism for Vampires and Meaningness. These are stealth dharma projects: they aren’t explicitly Buddhist, but are are attempts to make certain Buddhish ideas broadly available.
Ngak’change Rinpoche is actively working on some stealth dharma projects himself. (I don’t think any are public yet.) These are presentations of key aspects of Vajrayana with no mention of Buddhism at all—much less Tibetan cultural stuff.
But, such projects are fragmentary. If you want a whole system, Aro is the best we have to offer.
I’d love to see someone produce a “modernist Dzogchen” system (whether or not I practiced it myself). Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche’s Shambhala Training was probably the closest thing that has been accomplished so far. Unfortunately, it seems to have been coöpted by traditionalists since he died. He’s widely regarded as a Mahasiddha; he did things perhaps no one else could have done.
Lama Surya Das is the other example that comes to mind. I’d definitely recommend checking out his system if you want a more modernist orientation than Aro. It doesn’t work for me, but he has a large following, so it must be useful to many people.
"So lots of "we" don't want
12 Jan 2011
"So lots of "we" don't want the cake"
i don't see this as a problem. it could be if i considered dzogchen, or buddhism as the only truth, or the only method to enlightenement. But i don't. To me it's just one more method, not the only one, nor "The Special One" (like José Mourinho), it's just the one that feets me.
Like i use to say...if you don't like it, don't eat it. Apples are as good as oranges, pick the one it tastes the better for yourself.
And Termas don't appear to appease, they appear to challenge, and it's more challenging to us if it keeps the vajrayana traditional aspect (not tibetan).
personally i think you are looking for something that feats your neurosis (or mine), but that's philosophy, not religion. And vajrayana is religion.
The nature of your mind is traditionalist, it's here since beginningless time, isn't it? is there a more traditional thing?
Like you can see, globally i like everything in life as it is, but i'm the lazyest beeing in the universe, and i use it as an excuse to do nothing. That's why i'm the worst meditator. I needed a teacher like Marpa Lotsawa
this is how i think...at least for now :)
don't take me too serious
All the Best,
RB
Congrats David. I think it's
12 Jan 2011
Congrats David. I think it's really amazing how easy you give us other references and suggest other paths. It really shows you are not trying to sell us nothing, just presenting it. That's the best way to comunicate. I wish i could relate on that level, it would free myself from a lot of neurosis.
"when I asked questions similar to yours"
12 Jan 2011
Superbly put, David. Every point of that seemed impeccable. Thank you.
My nature is to let my mind have its play of doubts even while embracing something -- thank you for giving it romping space while it settles itself.
(1) But like all of us, I am a divided creature: I love foreign cultures, learning foreign languages, practice foreign crafts and such. I am totally sure I would enjoy much of Aro's Tibetanous traits for that reason. Yet I have seen people embrace foreignness in a very needy way and if a whole group is like this, I may be a very bad fit. I am thus suspicious of motivations which may only reveal themselves after a long encounter -- I like to expose them (to myself) up front.
(2) I believe strongly in local solutions that are not generalizable. Yet part of my mind uses "generalizability" as a test. When I push and test those limits and see others holding lightly what they nonetheless value dearly, I am more free to engage.
(3) I am always suspicious of groups, period -- since I was very young. I don't like crowds (sport events, concerts and such) -- not a phobia, by any stretch, but just a general distrust of crowd mentality. Such thinking can have its usefulness, but it can have its limitations. And so I test slowly to be sure a crowd is safe.
All three of these are limitations of my mind, I sort of understand that. Your essay helped me to look at them a bit just now. And that is sort of the magic of your writing. But I can't imagine my suspicions and doubts aren't shared by others and thus this essay you generously sketched out probably serves others as it has me. Very well said -- it made me look at my own mind and simultaneously helped me understand this Aro tér a bit better -- which is what this site is all about.
I was also deeply comforted by your words "when I asked questions similar to yours" -- it relieved me to know that brighter minds than mine have the same obvious doubts and weren't hesitant to ask and dig deeply. For me, deep digging untangles my mind a bit -- my web site has helped me in that way a bit on other issues, as has your site.
Thank you for your patience.
Eye-Opening
12 Jan 2011
Ricardo: I totally agree with you. David not only communicates well, but the healthy mind behind it is eye-opening.
Ricardo: You said, "Like i
12 Jan 2011
Ricardo:
You said,
I have heard that my whole life. When I doubted the political policies of America my father would respond with the classic traditionalist statement of "Love it or Leave it" -- so I left. On returning to the USA after 12 years gone, I saw that such a dichotomy was false. But I better understood why some people felt this way -- I had seen those types in each country I visited.
When I studied and practiced Homeopathy and doubted it, people said the same. When I studied and practiced Acupuncture I heard the same. I now practice Allopathic Medicine where I am met by traditionalists with similar sentiment: "Look, Sabio, if you have all these doubts, why don't you just do something else." Yet my doubts have help us build new systems in our clinics, re-evaluate our testing procedures and more. It seems this sort of mind, if contained well has some usefulness.
I have found my doubting very helpful in my life. I think I have learned a balance - and I am sure a better balance is always around the corner. I also have learned to solidly ignore folks who say, "Love it of Leave it", yet I understand them and try (depending on the setting) to be a bit more thoughtful and considerate of their feelings than I was in the past when my habit of mind used me more that I used it. But I feel this very nature of this site is to offer a sanctuary for doubts. I don't consider this a temple where I am surrounded by devout believers who I could offend. It is a commented blog-like website, after all.
Finally, I have learned to embrace much to which I am not a perfect fit and the misfit qualities are often ironically deeply helpful -- hell, I am still married! Smile. But it is good to have friends with whom I can share and mutually reflect on doubts and where they give me romping space to play occasionally.
(btw, I love, and am impressed, by the philosophy of women and marriage I have read so far in the Aro material).
I hope that gives you a more rounded picture of how I doubt and question -- we may have different temperaments in this realm.
Hmmmmmm
12 Jan 2011
Hmmmm
Well, i don't meant to say that we shouldn't promote change. I'm all about change. But we also must allow ourselves to be changed and challanged. Change must occur on both sides, i guess :)
I agree that "Love it or Leave it" is stupid and if it where like that we wouldn't evolve as democratic countries. Democracy is also challenging to some people. Religion really needs to chalange us, and cut our mind boundaries. Because of that it can sometimes make us unconfortable. I don't know how that can be done if it isn't somehow agressive to our egos.
I can observe that in my patients with personality disorders. They refuse to be challanged, everything must be in accordance to their wishes and style. That's the base for neurotic behavior, isn't it?
Not sure
David, please clarify me with your opiniion
Ricardo Brito,
Oporto, Portugal
Love it or leave it
17 Jan 2011
Hi Ricardo & Sabio,
Sorry to be slow to reply to this. I was busy, and also have not be sure how to respond.
I think I agree with all Ricardo's points. For something to be a religion, not a hobby, it needs to be bigger than you; and that means you won't like some parts of it, and you won't be able to change them. And that can be a good thing, if they change you in a positive way. (Of course, if they change you in a negative way, it's a bad thing...)
Religions are not democracies; this is particularly true in Vajrayana. "One Lama, one vote"; the sangha is a dictatorship. (Hopefully a benevolent one.)
That doesn't mean all change is impossible. Within Aro, much of the initiative for new projects comes from students, rather than the Lamas. And, sometimes students ask the Lamas "I wonder if it would be possible to change X because Y," and sometimes the answer is "yes, good idea." (Sometimes it is "no, that's a non-negotiable aspect of the system.")
I think I also agree with all Sabio's points. It is good to be skeptical when approaching any religious system. It is good to let go of doubts gradually, as you learn enough to have confidence on particular points.
As an organization, Aro tries to offer a "gradual path" inwards, so that you can gradually become more committed as you learn more. Our public web sites (plus this personal one) are meant for the public, and certainly any amount of questioning is appropriate here.
I'm not sure this reply is helpful. Please let me know if I can clarify further.
David
The Terma Game
18 Jan 2011
David, your comment made me think of WeiQi. WeiQi is an exquisite board game -- one of the best strategy games in the world. A game which engages both sides of the brain in a tension that inevitably results in players having philosophical discussions of the game.
If a player joined a WeiQi club and suggested changing a few rules , the board and certain etiquette, the resistance would rightfully be huge. But over time, small changes may be accepted. And thus in China, Korea and Japan, over centuries we have slight variants, but not enough to interfere with international tournaments.
WeiQi may seem like only a game but accepting its constraints can allow great play of mind. One has to respect its organic evolution or perhaps it is better to play poker or Chess or tic-tac-toe.
Now, one could go too far with this analogy (indeed that is the problem with analogies), for indeed many games are worth questioning. But there must be a hint of equivalent truth there, I would think.
Post new comment