An open letter to the editor of TRICYCLE
Samuel Bercholz
December 14, 1998
Dear Helen,
Because we've been close friends for a long time, this letter is
difficult
to write, and extremely painful. Little by little and then all at
once,
I find that I can't let my old worldly sympathies stop me from
responding
any longer when I see a Lama being publicly insulted, particularly when
the Lama is my teacher, which is why I'm writing in this way, and why
it's my intention to make this letter public. We may have a history of
friendship, but this isn't a friendly disagreement
We've known each other since around the time that His Holiness Dudjom
Rinpoche first came to New York twenty-three years ago. We both took
Refuge with him then, and we both subsequently became students of his
son,
Thinley Norbu Rinpoche. It's because of this long connection with
these
extraordinary Lamas that I'm particularly upset and offended by the
direction Tricycle has taken, and since you're the boss, you're the one
I
have to take it up with.
In the early days, Tricycle had a certain sweetness of intention, it
suggested a standard of non-sectarian equanimity, and if it came in
time
to often resemble a directory of New Age goods and services, it was at
least harmless. This is no longer true.
I was really repelled by your 'disclosures' regarding Kalu Rinpoche a
couple
of years ago. (You might remember that we talked about that so-called
story at the time, before and after you ran it.) Since then, the early
promise of Tricycle has hardened into increasingly political and
divisive
agendas, with a rather blatant and toxic view of Tibetan Buddhism, which
has gone from casual disparagement to a real and systematic malevolence.
I wasn't aware either that the Dharma required muckraking, or that you
were qualified to do it. I've never felt that it was appropriate for a
Buddhist magazine to be provocative, let alone "controversial". It's
becoming more and more some kind of sanctimonious journal of sexual
politics, and shockingly opportunistic. That this is being done at all
is
upsetting; that it's being done by a friend is much worse. It's
flagrant
disrespect towards great teachers, and I think that this is serious. I
take all of this very seriously now. I wouldn't be writing to you
otherwise.
Obviously, I'm talking specifically about the Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
interview, and my real concern with it; with the vulgar and mindless
editorial that accompanied it, with the abrasive and distasteful
questions
you addressed to him, with the decision you made, "in fairness to your
readers", to edit and reduce that interview, (you also justified this
on
the grounds that Rinpoche attacked you personally in the interview,
although I have to say that I don't think Lamas get personal, ever; only
very particular) not to mention the sleazy layout - those police-style
photographs of Rinpoche, cropped so that the top of his head is cut off
-
and the general anti-Guru drift of the whole enterprise, of the magazine
itself. But what finally made it impossible not to write to you was
that stacked deck of letters in response to the interview, that you've
published in the current issue - five-to-one supporting your viewpoint,
which is so unabashedly hostile to Tibetan Buddhism in general and the
Vajrayana in particular - all under the unbelievably coarse heading of
Lama Drama - to say nothing of the quality of those letters, which I can
only characterize as infantile, faithless, and, as I think you knew when
you chose them, ignorant.
Putting aside for the moment any consideration of Dharma, and purely
in
terms of the social and aesthetic standards and assumptions we both grew
up with, the old cherished, lamented liberal-humanist view of the world
as a possible repository for elegance and truth, I find that Tricycle
has
become as embarrassing and silly as the fabulous Buddhabus itself, The
Shopper's Special, Spiritual Materialism-On-Three-Wheels, no driver,
going
absolutely nowhere fast. It's turned into a half-baked, nihilist
compound
of the worst kind of discursive and contentious journalism,
cosmeticized
by pretty pictures and hollow reflexive pieties. It could all almost
pass for tasteful, if it weren't about the Dharma. Purely in terms of
intellectual display, it's merely undistinguished. As a Buddhist
Review,
an authentic forum for discussing Dharma, even 'American Dharma', it's
become a disaster. If a Buddhist magazine hasn't got equanimity, even in
its secular version, it hasn't got anything at all.
Of course intellect has always been seen by the great teachers as an
obstacle to Dharma, since it so often leads to intellectualism, and
intellectualism without intelligence is one of the most unfortunate
combinations imaginable. Even without Buddhism as the object of this
intellectualism, purely in terms of Western tradition, it is a kind of
violence against reason and moderation. But there's more, and worse:
the
Dharma is not an Equal Opportunity Employer, nor is it a democratic
institution, nor is it an arena for affirmative action. It's about
karma,
not consensus, and as a Buddhist, you presumably believe in karma. If
you
don't any longer believe in Wisdom Lineage and the sanctity of lineage
holders, there's still the matter of samaya.
There were vows we made more than twenty years ago in all ignorance and
innocence, right off the street and exposed to the highest teachings,
because (my projection) Dudjom Rinpoche knew that the clock was ticking,
the belt was moving, and Americans were in urgent extreme difficulties,
parched and sick yet somehow not unworthy of his compassion and wisdom.
At the very least he planted the seed in everyone who met him, nobody's
skin was thick enough to prevent it, and just because some of us may
have
become disaffected or even disappointed, these vows can't just be
walked
away from like some youthful indiscretion. (For one thing, we weren't
that
young, even then.) I happen to believe, since I have good reason from
personal experience to believe it, that if you bring even the least
devotion to Dharma, it is a field of utter equality, of incorruptible
democracy, of affirmations not conceivable in material terms. In other
words, Dharma is not a political organization, whether Vertical or
Horizontal, nor are the Lamas social scientists, psychiatrists, or
community activists. They may be, and in fact I think certainly are,
your friend, but they're not your elected representative, they're not
your
caseworker, and they're not your mama. All they seem to be able to do,
although apparently not fast enough or materially enough to satisfy
Tricycle, is to work day and night for the benefit of all sentient
beings,
including their enemies.
Maybe most upsetting of all, though, is your apparent belief that
the
Dharma seems to be in need of some kind of sexual consciousness-
raising.
You should think about changing the name of your magazine to Obstacle
In the physical world of the five senses, the difference between male
and
female consists of a single chromosome; an amazing chromosome, I'll
admit,
but still only one. In Dharma, certainly in Mahayana and Vajrayana
Buddhism, for which you seem to hold a particularly rancorous disregard,
there is no difference between male and female; since we've all been
both
many times, and will be both again, and Wisdom Dakinis are in no way
lesser deities. Yet you persist in claiming to believe that Tibetan
Buddhism is phallo-centric, patriarchal, misogynistic, politically
incorrect and somehow inimical to women. I understand that many of your
readers are not Buddhists, and under the circumstances it disturbs me
that
so many people will only come to hear of the Dharma at all through your
auspices, via your agenda. But you yourself, as a former student
and
as the editor of a self-styled Buddhist Review, really should either
know
better, or, if you don't, or don't want to, at least cultivate some
measure of respect, or, if you can't manage that, at least the
appearance
of respect. That's what I would call politic.
As for the much-vaunted "collective wisdom of the Sangha", I really
think
this is an idea that belongs strictly on afternoon television. It's
that American, that much steeped in fantasy, in impetuous perverse
stunted
childish self-love of the most deluded kind. Buddhism without Buddha,
guru yoga without a guru, enlightenment without tears, a sharing caring
pseudo-sangha that says we can do it ourselves, our wonderful selves...
As if we all haven't been indulged enough in this culture, spoiled
rotten
and made half- crazy by our minds and the lies it tells us when all the
terms are always strictly material. Virtually every spiritual impulse
in
America is made material in some way; would you prefer that the Dharma
be
utterly materialized too, reduced to the hopeless level of just another
mental distraction? Are you really offering these pathetic secular
empowerments and exhausted feelgood liberations as a way out of our
confusion and suffering? Do you really think the answer is political,
or
are you cynical? Can you really claim to have faith in the power of a
group of teacherless students, with no attainments and less faith,
rather
than in the Guru, that "endangered species", as you so unwholesomely
call
them? I personally don't see any evidence of this endangerment on the
ground in front of me, and only a nihilist could wish it.
We look to the Guru to lift us out of the hapless negativity of our
mental
habits, unless, of course, we don't look to the Guru at all because of
our
sad attachment to those habits, our belief that they're distinguished
and
desirable because they are ours. Anyone who doesn't realize the
principal of attachment-to-suffering hasn't looked very carefully at the
history of our century. I'm fairly familiar with what I'd call the
collective pathology of the sangha, but the only real wisdom I've seen
from sangha has only happened when that sangha is united in devotion to
the teacher, and it's usually far away from any Dharma center. I'm
perfectly aware that "submission" and "surrender" really are dirty words
in the nihilist vocabulary, so I can see where the whole concept of Guru
Yoga, the absolute heart of the Vajrayana, is anathema to the allegedly
sophisticated material mind. Anyone who finds the idea of making
prostrations to a Lama humiliating probably should be looking elsewhere
for spiritual answers. Still, you've known me a long time, and I can't
help but ask you, if a guy like me doesn't find it impossible to vaguely
visualize himself as Vajrayogini for a few minutes every day, what's the
problem for a woman like you? I can only project, and further
conceptualize, to come up with an answer; namely, that you are not a
Buddhist at all, (no blame), but the editor of a "Buddhist Review"
(some
blame, more with every new issue). I realize that you love Tricycle
more
than you love the Dharma, but I don't think this requires or justifies
an
aggravated assault on a stainless reputation. I also realize that the
target of this disrespect, Thinley Norbu Rinpoche, couldn't care less
about any of this, except perhaps that it was perpetrated by a former
student whom he still loves. But as a friend of the target I care very
much. I can't maintain an unconditional friendship with him and with his
enemy at the same time.
Rinpoche is my teacher, or to put it bluntly, my beloved teacher, whom
I
have
feared and/or loved for twenty-two years now, who is the best friend I
ever had, who has never been anything but kind and loyal to me in all
those years, and this in spite of my carelessness. This is not to say
that he's never busted me, only that as far as I'm concerned he can
bust
me all he wants, I'm not afraid of him anymore. You make references to
his "wrathful" style, as if this is some personal temperamental crotchet
of his, a liability, while you pay the slightest lip-service to the
inseparable component of that wrath, his compassion. But consider that
he
has taken us on, Americans, the most sophisticated,
worldly-accomplished,
miserable-material, intelligent, attached, habituated, hungry,
gossip-driven and devious sangha imaginable. Rinpoche wants to show us
our
minds, he must show us our minds, and because Americans generally don't
want to do anything hard, not too many of us want to look. How would
you
handle us, if you were a teacher? How would you subdue those egos? How
would you find the skill and the subtlety and the patience, not to
mention
the compassion, and how would you employ it?
Of course it always all comes down to faith, and I'm certainly in no
position
to throw rocks at anybody for not having it; my own has been shaky
enough, flaccid and distracted, a problem compounded by the obstacle of
good circumstances. Maybe it really is as simple as You Either Have It
Or You Don't, although I don't think so. The first thing they tell you
in
all the Buddhist disciplines, so basic as to be pan-sectarian, is that
we've all got Buddha-nature, it can be cultivated, strengthened and
realized, but never easily. In this culture, we have some reason to be
nervous when anybody talks about faith and blessings, about being
blessed,
secretly suspecting derangement, religious mania. Personally, whatever
faith I happen to have accumulated, and clearly came to me through the
medium of my teachers and their blessings. And you've had the same
blessings, you carry them around with you all the time. The possibility
that you don't know this doesn't change anything.
You've been asking me for eight years now to write something for
Tricycle,
and I've always declined. I've changed my mind. I'm making this letter
an offering, mostly to Rinpoche, for all the reasons I've mentioned and
some that I needn't mention, but also to your readers, who can only
benefit by a view of the teacher that is so very far from your own..
Publish this uncut and unedited as An Open Letter To The Editor, or
anywhere else you like. Put this out there in the public air too,
where
I think it belongs. As I know you're aware by now, I'm not the only
reader, or former reader, of Tricycle who feels this way. If you
really
value dialogue, as you claim, make this a part of it. If you don't
want
to, I'll offer it someplace else. Once you've read it, it's primary
purpose will have been fulfilled anyway. I've tried to make it a
practice
to live without "hope" for many years now, so I'd rather pray than hope
that this letter goes from my heart to your heart without too many
obstacles. The clock hasn't stopped ticking, and the belt is moving
faster than almost anybody can imagine.
Sincerely,
Michael Herr
Edwin Crabbe
> I was really repelled by your 'disclosures' regarding Kalu
>Rinpoche a couple of years ago.
I can't speak about Tricycle - I don't think I've ever seen a copy - but at
least the waves about the Kalu report here on the net made it quite clear
that the allegations are ***highly*** suspect. Only the people who really
want to believe them still do.
Nobody can prove a thing, of course, because nobody was with Rinpoche 24
hours a day 365 days a year, and the allegations were only made public after
his death.
Ed
Michael B.
imbalanced...having spent the summer retreat with TNR at Pema Osel
Ling...that being my first meeting with Rinpoche...most of what I saw on
this list about those teachings and the interview after that was biased
and inaccurate ...one of the posters being one who only went to one or
two evenings teachings and was gunning for Rinpoche before even going;
he was a friend of mine but have lost touch since he gave up Vajrayana.
I geuss Rinpoche intentionally pushes buttons and reveals "spiritually
materialistic" views...I found him to be very kind, amazing and way
beyond definition or pigeon holing of any kind...pulled the rug out from
under me and I thank him for it! Michael
Mary Finnigan
Edwin writes
> but at
>least the waves about the Kalu report here on the net made it quite clear
>that the allegations are ***highly*** suspect. Only the people who really
>want to believe them still do.
account of her relationship with Kalu R. There is also a Tibetan who
knows for sure. Despite the publicity aurrounding June's book and the
Tricycle interview linked with it, he has remained conspicuously silent.
Mary
Chris J Fynn
Michael Herr is of course the author of, among other things,
"Dispatches" - one of the best books to come out of the Vietnam
débacle.
RickFinney
ber and refer to Michael Herr's Vietnam
war book, "Dispatches." Herr is one of
America's very best writers; and although
I disagreed with a lot of what he wrote
in his open letter to Tricycle, I admired
how he wrote it.
One thing he said puzzled me, though,
and I wonder if he or someone who knows
him well could address this. Toward the
end of his open letter, Herr said that
(and I'm paraphrasing here, since I
can't remember his exact words), "The
clock is ticking faster than anyone can
imagine." What is he referring to here?
A coming Dark Age? The "end of the
world"? Nuclear war? Millennium-
related catastrophes? What . . . ?
And, since he appears to attribute
this imminent doom--whatever it
is--to people's readiness to think
and speak critically of the teachings
and behavior of Vajrayana gurus, what
is he proposing that we should do
instead?
- Rick Finney