Essential Vajrayana

This essay was originally written for personal students — but Khandro Déchen and Ngak’chang Rinpoche felt that it might be of interest to Facebook friends, particularly those with a keen interest in Vajrayana — and in the clear differentiation of the Buddhist vehicles.

‘We have found that people do not really feel comfortable with ‘Essential Vajrayana’. Some seem to prefer ‘their Buddhism’ codified according to the spiritual materialism of ‘concretised ethics’ - and ‘formulaic structures’ rather than a transformational system of liberation.

Some prefer predictable messages which fit their ideas of ‘pietistic spirituality’ rather than robust time-tested religion. We shall provide 3 examples here of our discoveries in terms of myopic reactions to Essential Vajrayana.

The first example:

A British television presenter asked for our views on ‘envy’ in respect of ‘giving up materialism’ as ‘the Buddhist way of life’.

We wrote back providing our view and were not surprised when no further interest was shown in us as regards appearing in the prospect television programme on Buddhism.

The shocking nature of the view we presented was that we do NOT need to give up the enjoyment material possessions to be free of envy.

We said that—from the point of view of Vajrayana—people SHOULD be desirous on behalf of all beings. This would be full-blooded unwithheld altruistic materialism. We explained that ‘envy’ merely arises out of a painful sense of poverty — however much or little is owned.

So, ‘giving up materialism’ might not necessarily be the greatest help for people. We hazarded the suggestion that ‘appreciation’ was the key to shedding the disease of envy – because when appreciation is awakened, one becomes ‘rich’ — and one’s enjoyment increases exponentially.

One does not have to own phenomena in order to appreciate or enjoy phenomena.
When becoming ‘rich with appreciative enjoyment’, one becomes disinhibited in terms of appreciating the wealth of others.

In appreciating the wealth of others, envy ceases to exist and appreciation becomes boundless. Enjoyment of existence becomes the generous dance of self-liberated materialism.

To self-abnegate—with regard to desire for objects—as a means of ridding oneself of envy — is a primitive psychological mechanism.

This is on par with the primitivistic racial tolerance of ‘the race of tan’. The ‘race of tan’ was an idea which was popular in the 1960s. It espoused the notion that if all people were the same colour – there would be no racism. There was even a song
‘What we need is a great big melting pot, Big enough to take the world and all it’s got, And keep it stirring for a hundred years or more, And turn out coffee coloured people by the score.’

This banal philosophy puts forth the asinine proposal that ‘if we were all the same there would be no prejudice’.

If we all had nothing – there would be nothing to envy. If we were all agreed – there would be no argument.

If we all had the same outlook – there would be no misunderstanding.

This—taken to its logical conclusion—would make the ultimate pinnacle of tolerance a state in which all beings were single cell inhabitants of a primæval sea.

The second example:

A Buddhist Magazine once ran a review of a Buddhist book called ‘Women, Men, and Angels’. We had not read the book so we are not entirely clear why ‘angels’ are mentioned – apart from the fact that we believe the title to be a quote from European literature.

A central theme of the book—according to the review—seemed to concern a hierarchy which is not favourable to women — with angels at the top and women at the bottom. The magazine review reamed the book for its attitude toward women – but did so in terms of feminist psychology.

We wrote a letter to the editor saying that whilst we both enjoyed and appreciated the feminist review of ‘Women, Men, and Angels’, we felt that a Buddhist magazine might have been better served by a Buddhist critique of a Buddhist book. We explained that we were in full agreement with the feminist argument of the published review. We regarded it as a pity however, that the Vajrayana view was not portrayed – being that it offered a cogent critique which would prove interesting to a Buddhist readership.

Our letter to the editor was concise and tactful. It gave a brief synopsis of the Vajrayana view of gender – but it was neither published nor acknowledged.

We wrote a second time offering to present the Vajrayana view in greater depth if required – but received no reply. We wrote a third time . . .

The third example:

Another Buddhist Magazine published an issue entitled ‘Buddhism in Black America’ which we read with interest. Several African-American teachers of Buddhism had contributed and so we wrote to the editor—with whom we had some personal contact—and sent him a copy of our article ‘Pride and Prejudice’.

We asked him if it would be possible either ask the aforementioned teachers whether they would like to receive a copy of our article. We said that we could either send these personally or that we could send them care of the Magazine – which ever was more convenient to the wishes of all concerned. We were exorbitantly polite and furthered our thanks to the editor and to the contributing teachers for the articles.

We received no reply.

We wrote again but received no reply.

We wrote again and received no reply.

We discussed the situation with our friend Hamid Drake (an Afro American Jazz musician who knew one of the teachers who presented in the magazine) and asked him if he could help. He was delighted because the article had originally been written as an answer to his personal question with regard to ‘the perceptual root racism’ from a Buddhist point of view. Hamid Drake sent three copies (in three letters over the period of a year) to the African-American teacher he knew - but received no reply or even an acknowledgement.

Summary:

These are but three examples.

The thread which runs through each example would appear to be either fear or incomprehension with regard to Essential Vajrayana.

We have come up against this so many times that we doubt whether it is a case of paranoid delusion on our part – although we leave the final verdict to others.
It is evident to us, that some people who seem au fait with Buddhism do not tend to be sympathetic to Essential Vajrayana.

We have found that those who adventitiously become students without a history of spiritual interest—Buddhist or otherwise—have far less problem with Essential Vajrayana.
We do not feel that it is necessarily indoctrination that is to blame – but a ‘concretism’ which afflicts those who see themselves as ‘spiritual’. Those who have not seen themselves as Buddhist until recently seem to find Essential Vajrayana ebullient in terms of its liberating perspectives.

Western Buddhists however, can be highly reactionary when confronted with Essential Vajrayana and the subtle view which cuts through spiritual materialism.