Being Politic

Chhi’mèd Rig’dzin Rinpoche once told me that I was ‘ . . . one big diplomat’. This was not a complimentary statement on his part. How he came to say this requires a lengthy anecdote – but suffice it to say that I had replied: I don’t know, Rinpoche in answer to a question Chhi’mèd Rig’dzin Rinpoche had asked as to whether plants were sentient or not. I had politely declined to have an opinion – as I do not like to express opinions on subjects concerning which I have no direct knowledge. Rinpoche followed my reply quite swiftly by requiring me to express my opinion – which I did. He said You Tantra man – who must have opinion! I gave my opinion. He then asked me to substantiate my opinion – which I did. Fortunately my exposition met with his satisfaction and we laughed a great deal about the outcome.

Politics has been called ‘the art of the possible’ – but Khandro Déchen and I tend to relate to it as ‘the artlessness of the impossible’. We are happy to say that within our sangha a broad variety of political persuasions co-exist. We have always maintained that politics can only ever aspire to adjust samsara for the common good – and therefore there is no political philosophy which suits Dharma more than any other. We are obviously proscribing inhuman forms of totalitarianism. We feel that apprentices should be free to engage politically either by voting, or by abstaining. We have no preference. We hold to the dictum of anarchism, which holds that whatever way you vote – a government is elected.

We view politicians as we view all people: if their intentions are good—and if they are sincere and honest—then they are worthy of honour. We also view politicians – whatever their persuasion—as being engaged in the art of the impossible. We understand this because we have to engage in that art ourselves. Any Lama who engages with their sangha practically in terms of decision-making, has to make choices on behalf of others and those choices are not always overwhelmingly popular. When we are asked for a decision with regard to activities or plans, we have to attempt to be circumspect with regard to the entire spectrum of interest and needs of the sangha. This is the art of the impossible. If we were to discuss Dharma there would be no issue – but the life of a sangha is not entirely the application of Dharma. There are other considerations. There are priorities, and there are varied opinions and feelings with respect to those priorities.

Fortunately for our students, they are not trapped in the country of the origin of the teachings – and therefore not subject to a theocracy. We live in a world where religion and state are separate. We would all be wise never to abandon this marvellous situation. To understand what a marvellous situation we have – we need only read the history of Tibet from the time of the inception of the second spread of the teachings. The reason Tibetan people are not free today is entirely due to the institution of theocracy – and the sectarianism which arose as a default of its existence.

Vajrayana cannot function authentically within a theocracy – unless certain difficult caveats exist. A hierarchy of Lamas necessarily implies a hierarchy of realisation. If there is a hierarchy of realisation then it can only be the head of the hierarchy who can give transmission. To receive transmission one has to regard the empowering Lama as an enlightened being – as only an enlightened being can give transmission. If one’s Lama has to be understood as being part of a hierarchy then how does one understand his or her function as an empowering Lama? Naturally every Lama who has students gives those students transmission – and so there is no practical problem, merely a theoretical one. The problem with having a theory and practice which do not exactly coincide, is that it causes confusion – and confusion—at worst—can lead to aggression.

To combine theocracy and Vajrayana is a political problem and therefore partakes of the art of the impossible. We are addressing this subject because our students have been disturbed by Tibetan politics. The question of protectors and the question of the two Karmapa candidates are but two political issues which have caused grief in the world of Tibetan Buddhism. We could say—in answer to these issues—that we have no opinion. That would be the safe answer. No one would be too offended by that – but whenever I refuse to have an opinion I am reminded of Chhi’mèd Rig’dzin Rinpoche calling me out as ‘one big diplomat’ – so I feel that I ought to give an answer of some sort to the confusion which exists around Tibetan politics. I do not want to say who is right and who is wrong – that would be too complicated – and I do not know enough to unravel even what I think I know. It would also be too divisive and contentious. I would rather make a fundamental statement that blames no one – whilst remaining a sincere expression of my concern. This is my reply: Theocracy and Vajrayana are incompatible, and as long as Vajrayana is subject to the dictates of theocracy, sectarian strife will never come to an end. On that basis my advice to anyone who asks is this: Look only to your own Lamas and follow their advice. Look no further than your own Lama. Never deride the Lamas of others – or call them into question. These are the words of the ‘one big diplomat’ who has nothing else to say on the subject of politics.