Owl precepts Q&A part 4 - falsehood

Question Rinpoche, in terms of avoiding contentious speech . . . how does debate function in a Buddhist school where they actively debate, trying to get to the truth of something, and deliberately try to think of things that would contradict someone . . . ?

Ngak’chang Rinpoche There are two things I could say here. In the Nyingma School we do not go in for debate. However, it has a use as a training which takes place within a set time and place. It is a practice, and the hostility one manifests is mock hostility – it is amusing. The person who is being challenged adopts a beleaguered sitting position, holding their arm up to protect themselves from ‘assault’. The person asking the question draws a teng’ar up their arm and as they come to the final word they clap their hands violently together. When the other person answers they stand up and act in a similar vein. It’s like a battle – and fun to watch.

Q Did you ever practice that, Rinpoche?

R Once. I took part in demonstration. I was teaching at Bristol Art College, in the Department of Related Studies. There was a woman who was quite interested in Buddhism, and wanted to interview Geshé Damchö the Gélug Lama at the Lam Rim Buddhist Centre in Raglan. She asked him a lot of questions. He answered; but there was not a lot of information forthcoming, until she showed him a picture of debate. Then he became animated and talked a lot. He said that if she came back next week, he would have a debate with me. I thought: ‘That will be fun . . . I wonder what he will ask me here.’ I had not practised debate in this style although I had gone through the motions in India with the monks from Gyüdtö – so I knew the postures. There is however a classical style in which questions are asked and answered. It is all based on quotation, and of course I knew no Sutrayana quotations by heart. On the specified day we arrived for the debate and I took the seated position and Geshé Damchö stood in the position of the debating assailant. I waited for the question and he asked: “How you grow your beard?” I then leapt to my feet whist he assumed the seated position. I answered “Same way you do not grow yours!” We both burst out laughing; and that was the end of my one and only classical Gélug debate.

Q Could ‘letters to the editor’ and ‘book reviews’ be a version of this?

R I talked with Stephen Batchelor about this a fair few years ago when I had only recently begun to teach. He was still a Buddhist at that time. He was of the opinion at one time that the ‘cut-and-thrust critique’ business was healthy. A couple of years later, he changed his mind – he felt it was damaging, and that people should be supportive to each other. Maybe people had begun to slam his books – I do not know. I have remained slightly half-and-half on the issue myself.

Q Could you say more about that Rinpoche?

R Well . . . if one says nothing in response to the erroneous, misleading, or biased – then whatever is said or written stands in public view as if it were the final word. Then the view of whomsoever writes or speaks the most holds sway. Often the people who are the most vocal become the most influential. Maybe something needs to said or written on occasion in order to give some sense of balance – or to counter evident corruption. I look at what Tricycle perpetrated recently with Dung-sé Thrin-lé Norbu Rinpoche’s interview and I am not happy with that. In fact – I am quite upset about that. Tricycle deliberately distorted the interview in order to suit their anti-vajra master purposes. Because of this I felt that I ought to write a letter.

Q Did you Rinpoche?

R Yes I did – but it was not published. It was a deliberately mildly worded letter which simply asked a few questions regarding their use of photographs – angry looking photographs of Dung-sé Thrin-lé Norbu Rinpoche in heavy black outlining against serene Tibetan images of Padmasambhava. I simply asked why they had chosen to present this imagery in this way – being that I had been an art student and therefore aware of communication through design. I thought I had written a short well reasoned letter which had not endangered its chances of publication by employing heavy handed rhetoric.

Q So it was a waste of your time.

R No – not at all. I learnt something valuable. I learnt that Tricycle was a corrupt organisation which censors freedom of speech whilst promoting the illusion of being an open forum. It was useful to know that – because Khandro Déchen and I were encouraged to bring out an edition of ‘vision’ dedicated to presenting the alternative point of view. It was a contentious edition and people were upset by it – but it was needful. When entering into debate, one has to question whether any good will come out of it. Often that is not the case, and people are merely pushing their own views. That is just a waste of time. One should not debate for the sake of debate. One either has to perceive an openness in the other person—and be open oneself to their point of view—or one has to feel that there is a strong need to speak out. It is important sometimes to speak out as a tantrika or one breaks the tenth Root Vow of never failing to act in a potentially disastrous situation. Khandro Déchen and I considered the actions of Tricycle and the polemic of the proponents of ‘Western Buddhism’ to be potentially disastrous with respect to authentic understanding Vajrayana amongst Western people.

Q2 Do the nuns in Tibet also debate?

R I do not know. I do not believe I have ever seen any direct reference to that or any pictures – but it is not something I have researched. There is no particular reason why they should not. I have heard that the Western nuns engage in it in McLeod Ganj.

Q2 I guess my feeling is that the process of debate is something that men enjoy more than women do – generally speaking.

R Maybe – but that would not be relevant in terms of Dharma. Be that as it may, debate is a mechanical phenomenon. I enjoy mechanical things – but I would rather play with my National Tricone or my Colt revolver than debate. Debate does not interest me – I prefer my mechanisms to be made of metal.

Q3 As far as debating or criticism between friends, when they are just talking about movies and things – is there any problem with my arguing with a friend? ‘Oh this movie was bad, and this is why.’

R As long as you are playful and spacious. It is always a matter of whether it is playful or not; and whether you are sensitive to giving offence.

Q3 This does not put any restriction on a form of dialogue?

R No, as long as it is kindly and good natured. We see a lot of that on apprentice retreats: people disagree, and laugh about it, people agree, and laugh about it. That is as it should be with subjectivity.

Q4 It sounds like the precept is about avoiding building a persona out of conflicting speech – creating a false identity.

R Yes – certainly. Avoiding falsehood can be rephrased as not taking one’s own subjectivity as objectivity. My subjective view is that trainers (sneakers) are an abomination when worn as street shoes. I see them as sports shoes which should be taken off when the sporting activity is over. Somebody else may tell me that they love their trainers, and then we should be able to laugh about that. There is not anything objective about that. One can play with that idea and have fun with it. That is different from a blancmange approach where we have to say: ‘All forms of footwear are fine.’ That would be the politically correct way. Or you can use fairly strong expressions playfully – because you know that your subjective view is empty. The more you understand how empty your subjective view is – the stronger your expressions can be. I can tell you that your trainers are nauseating and you can tell me only a buffoon would wear shoes like mine – but neither of us have to be offended. We can proceed to wear what we enjoy wearing. There is no problem. There is no lie involved. The lie is when you turn subjectivity into objectivity. If I turn my subjectivity into objectivity, I have to force you to agree with me – and if you do not, then I have to hit you. Then you have to hit me. Then our individual gangs or countries have to have a war and shoot each other or bomb each other. It becomes ludicrous. It becomes insane. It becomes terrible.

Q4 Does the converse hold? You might say to me: “What do you think about shoes?” but instead of saying “Sneakers suck.” that I say “They’re just fine.” because it doesn’t really matter about shoes . . . If you deny your subjectivity – are you giving undue importance to some kind of artificial objectivity by saying: ‘I don’t want to offend this person by talking about shoes’?

R Yes. The precept speaks to being direct. From the point of view of Vajrayana making bland all-accepting statements is merely the refusal to engage with somebody.

Q4 So the important thing here is recognising that there are all kinds of subjectivities, and that those are all empty?

R They are all delightfully empty.

Q . . . and that they can butt up against each other and play with each other without a real threat?

R Certainly. If you regard your subjectivities as empty there is never a problem. The only objectivity for a tantrika is his or her damtsig – his or her samaya.

Q4 So the lie is to believe . . .

R . . . in your own subjectivity over the subjectivity of another person – or to deny their subjectivity. The Sutric approach would be to deny the subjectivity and say: “All forms of footwear are the same therefore I shall not enter into judgement.”

Q There is no judgment, because the Sutric view is towards emptiness?

R Quite so. Whilst we are obsessed with our subjectivity—whilst we regard our subjectivity as concrete—we have to undermine it with emptiness. The Tantric approach is to know it is empty. When we know that our subjectivity is empty we can play with our subjectivity and the subjectivity of others – who also know that their subjectivities are empty. This is why tantrikas are able to play with each other. That is why there can be so much laughter. We can express strong views – which are empty. The more profound the realisation of emptiness, the stronger the subjectivity that can be expressed – and the more hysterical our interactions can be. It can be extremely amusing – because samsara is extremely amusing.

Q5 And what about people that you have difficulty interacting with so agreeably?

R You see the situation as it is. If you see that someone has objectified their subjectivity, you simply bear that in mind and take no offence. Why should I take offence? If you believe in conspiracy theory – why should I be upset? I neither have to agree or disagree.

Q5 Wouldn’t that be a refusal to engage though?

R Yes, in a manner of speaking – although I would describe it as the recognition that engagement was inadvisable. It is only a refusal to engage if you have not ascertained that the person is too objectified in relation to their subjectivity to be playful.

Q6 We were talking about kyil’khors and about how we interact with people; and how people are part of your kyil’khor if you feel strongly about them and do not like them . . . How do you work with that situation to diminish the grasp or the influence of that negative personality?

R You try to understand the nature of their perception. You have to understand their neurotic principle and function. You have to enquire into how this person sees their world and their situation. You have to attempt to understand why they do what they do – how it makes sense to them. If you have some inkling of their motivation and intention, then immediately it is not such a problem. What they are doing may still be problematic—you may not like it—but you do not have to feel threatened. If you realise that such-and-such is not doing it deliberately just to inconvenience me – then you do not have to feel as upset. We mainly feel badly towards people because we believe that they are doing what they are doing on purpose, and in the full knowledge of its effects on us.

Q6 But, Rinpoche . . . what if sometimes they are?

R Well . . . sometimes they are – yes. Sometimes they are doing it on purpose; but only because it makes sense to them in terms of their paranoid view of reality. It does not make sense to me to do it – but that is why I am not doing it. What I am doing however, makes sense to me. In that way we are the same. We are both acting on the basis of what makes sense to us individually. We need to understand that sense-making process if we are to live peaceably or if we are to think of playing. It makes sense for a tiger to rip you to pieces and eat you – but maybe if I were to spring on you and start clawing at you, it would be a different thing.

Q Right – like we don’t go around hating wild animals because they kill and eat stuff – that’s their nature.

R Quite so.

Q So, with a human beings it’s more difficult, because we’re the same species. We have to think: ‘This is a different species here. This is not my conceptual species; so it will act in its own way. This species acts like this; and I cannot blame this species for acting like this. If I were this species, I would act like that, too.’

R Exactly.

Q5 How do you distinguish that from objectifying and diminishing other people by rationalising their behaviour?

R You do not need to diminish them.

Q4 You just recognise it.

R Yes. You simply recognise – and of course your motivation is not a judgemental motivation. It is simply the desire to understand in order not to become a fight or flight animal.

Q5 But if you are saying: ‘This person did something I don’t like because they’ve got a . . .’ You are actually saying that there is a problem with them . . .

R There may be a problem with them. There might be a problem with you. In a certain sense it is irrelevant which it is. It is a question of seeing the conflicting subjectivities – you do not have to have the superior subjectivity.

Q4 Is it based on the fact that you feel badly – and the question is how you stop feeling badly by not going around analysing people and putting them in boxes. If you have a problem with it . . . then this is something you use to work with your aversion.

R Yes. It is method. And if someone is affecting you strongly, then that means you need to have some understanding that undermines that affect.

Q2 So it may not do anything to improve anything?

R Sad to say – it may not.