Sweet & sour orthodoxy

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.