BG Interview of David Chapman

Looking forward to part two.

Of course I'm listening-- or I was, last night: it's IMHO a 'dream team' discussion. I entirely respect both Hokai's and David's intellectual rigor.

David's been busy: there's also this-- https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/constructive-religious-disagreement/

Imagine the comments on Brad Warner's blog, reformed by these principles. Well, maybe not: there's almost nothing there but the dubious 'entertainment value' of rude boys.

Part II is up today...

http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2011/12/bg-240-innovating-new-forms-of-buddhist-tantra/

I love Hokai and I am intrigued by David's work (I'd seen his websites before hearing this interview). But I found both these interviews vaguely dissatisfying, as if there was a lot being hinted at but not said, or generalities being tossed around without bringing the personal to it. I can't quite put a finger on it. Maybe I just wish they had talked for longer, so they could get into more detail.

"I found both these interviews vaguely dissatisfying, as if there was a
lot being hinted at but not said, or generalities being tossed around
without bringing the personal to it."-- I know what you mean; I think it is a compliment to both these thinkers that, conversing for an hour or so, the impression I get is that they've only just begun!

So what is your take, Kate, on the ways in which esoteric practice could be better adapted to appeal to a wider audience in the US? Are there features of these practices that make people uncomfortable? Or are they just not marketed well enough (ie left out of mainstream Buddhist conferences, etc.)?

I'm afraid I may be a nasty old elitist; making something that has always had very limited, self-selected appeal [at best, when the mainstream wasn't trying to expunge it altogether!] into something apparently accessible to all comers, would be to the detriment of the practice and the practitioners. I think that we've already seen it put out there in plain sight by a number of teachers who are read/studied by a few thousand people. Presenting it at a lower-enough common denominator to appeal to an audience of tens or hundreds of thousands of people would be a spectacularly bad idea: it would either be so neutered as to be useless, or it would be capable to leading the confused into great harm.

We're talking about a 'science of mind' equivalent to nuclear physics; not theoretical physics, with all sorts of heated and fascinating arguing of details-- but 'Manhattan Project' physics-in-practice. The discretion built into transmission for the last couple of thousand years hasn't been a perfect safeguard, but it's far better than misguided popularization. My Daoist/Chinese Medicine teacher has pointed out that none of what he teaches is 'generic'; that's a modern, Western pop-culture preference. Very worthy of examining, too, it seems to me: we've all seen versions of the story about what's wrong with people who think they know what they're doing, having a go at unsupervised power practice-- think 'the sorcerer's apprentice' in Mickey Mouse cartoon form.

What traditionally is the prerequisite for Vajrayana [Tantra] is being sufficiently familiarized with the experience of emptiness that you can start there. How many people do you know who are ready? And, of those you think are ready, how many do you think are interested?

-- oops! You 'got me started.'

I think I generally agree with you, Kate. I want to hear more clearly what others are thinking, who are thinking about ways to make this form of teaching/practice more accessible/acceptable. I can't think of ways to do that that don't undermine the kinds of points you make. So if there are ways, what are they?

Before I had a meditation practice I used to be part of a Latin American devotional religious practice in which teachings and "mystical experiences" are given orally and via initiation. Even though I left that because of some of the restrictiveness (and likely also due to a bad dark night, looking back with wiser eyes), I respect and value the way initiation works. It works as a bit of a filter - you need to be dedicated. Initiatory process require patience, humility, surrender to the authority of deity and teacher (risky if your teacher is not a balanced and moral person), and respect. I think it is immensely valuable to learn to receive, to wait, to be silent, to listen. There is no cocky walking in and demanding this or that. The spirits and gods say if and when.

Santeria is not a non-dual tradition, of course, so there is a difference in the emphasis in what is studied and practiced. The focus tends to be on devotion and surrender to ones guardian deity, and petitioning the deities for help with practical concerns (job, family, health, etc.).

Anyway, I'd actually love to talk about this much more, so please feel free to continue if you are in the mood.

I would also be interested in hearing from someone more hopeful of such a project than I, to know if my dour view just reflects a failure of imagination. It's possible-- I'm no scholar, just a person who makes free with her opinion!

I like what you say about initiation; that rings really true to me. And it corrects for the bias toward speculation and 'virtuality' that online interaction favors. Seems to me there are perfectly good reasons for the bias: inchoate subjective experience doesn't offer much to anyone beyond the subject. On the other hand, it's really easy to get beyond one's lived level of integration and spin tales for the interactive fun of it.

Back over to you, and anyone else...

Huh, before I read your candid opinion Kate I probably had some vague notion that it would be great to be more out with that stuff. But you're right. That was one of the most articulate, impactful posts I've read in a long time, and it's really given me pause to reflect.

I think the heart of the point is this:

"What traditionally is the prerequisite for Vajrayana [Tantra] is being sufficiently familiarized with the experience of emptiness that you can start there. How many people do you know who are ready? And, of those you think are ready, how many do you think are interested?"

As well as the "sorcerer's apprentice" point. I mean, it is possible to apply these things from a lack of understanding emptiness, and cultivate powerful energy and charisma with a complete lack of honor/honesty/respect that comes from emptiness. I've never really considered that consciously, although I also haven't practiced those kinds of techniques very much at all, feeling not ready, not having that base continuously evident. Interesting. I've always been interested from a distance you could say.

There are lots of stories from Tibet about practitioners who implement tantric transformation practice without the sunyata base and who basically cultivate huge samsaric states, believing (and convincing others) they're great Lamas. It makes sense. All those wrathful dieties for instance are like enlightened versions of incredibly dangerous, violent, dark energies. Without the empyness piece they're just literally hungry ghosts and demons and violent gods. It sure would suck if Americans started cultivating powerful states of samsaric mind by applying tantric techniques without understanding the sunyata base. Holy crap- yikes. I don't even want to talk about it anymore.

It's not as if there don't seem to be spashy-headline type examples of the potential down-side, from time to time, innit?

Ack! So true. I'm starting to really appreciate Liu Ming's thoughts on discretion.

Hmm: my point was to clarify the ways in which popularization might not be the unqualified 'positive' that we po-mo Westerners like to believe. Anything that becomes absorbed into the poplar culture seems to get significantly distorted-- except in the case of something so simple and unambiguous as to defy distortion. There must be something like that-- Mom? Apple pie?

I think the entry-point to meditation practice is conducive to wide availability, self-discovery, and numbers of competent teachers. And probably, internet interaction is a fine mode, initially. I also think that Tantra, in its most physiologically transformative aspects, requires a great deal more respect and care than the common internet chat is likely to afford it.

Ngakpas who hold vows respecting their practice hold two vows that exert opposing tensions: not to withhold teachings from those who request them; and not to give teachings beyond the capacity of the audience. A ngakpa who failed at the latter injunction would be held responsible for the harm that ensued. [At least, thus I have heard.] In sum, Tantra requires extraordinary insight and responsibility; I mention these things mostly because I think I've been the beneficiary of unusually clear and direct teachings on the subject. If we're going to discuss profound subjects, we have be more adult than to ride the youthwave of enthusiasm of the moment.

If we take the power of insight seriously, if we take human-being seriously, we're going to have to engage in making discriminations about who is qualified to help us, and when we need help. That isn't to disparage those who are offering something different-- unless the something 'different' is psychopathology disguised as 'charisma.'

I was specifically engaged by David and Hokai's discussion regarding the accessibility or lack thereof of esoteric/vajrayana dharma practices. However, perhaps the same general thoughts apply across the board. That would be, can you make wisdom teachings comfortable and accessible enough to be acceptable and engaging for a wide audience without losing their meaning or efficacy?

There is no lack of gentle, relaxing, pleasant yoga, magick, mystical and meditation teaching available in the west, and that is useful to many people. Perhaps it's all they want or need in this lifetime. But I think really transformative and deep practice is by necessity, by its very nature, difficult and challenging. A teacher is very helpful in these later stages. But we all know people who have managed without any outer teacher (perhaps relying on an inner teacher, in whatever form they prefer to conceive of that).

Where does this internet question come into things? Are you saying that if a religious practice should include initiation, then how can it be taught long distance?

I don't see how it applies as an obstacle to any other kind of teaching, though (if we leave aside this specific initiatory issue). You can do very deep work with a teacher over skype. I can rattle off the names of a dozen colleagues who've done it. You've done it. I've done it.

I think the "internet" issue is a bit of a red herring. There are a few main tools the internet provides:

1) access to reading/viewing material (in previous decades this was found by going to a library or bookstore)

2) access to discussion with groups of people (forums, blog comment threads) - without the internet this takes place when one goes to cafes, dharma centers, workshops, conferences, parties, bars, etc.

3) access to personal guidance from a teacher (without the internet this is done by getting to know a particular teacher and then corresponding with them in person, by mail, or over the phone).

The main advantage of the internet in all three categories is it allows you a wider geographical reach than you have without it. So you can get to know and work with a teacher in Croatia or Florida or India; you can read material not readily available in your library system or bookstore; you can watch videos of dharma talks in Australia or California; and you can have coffee-house conversation with people from all over the world on shared topics of interest, rather than being limited to people who live in your town or region.

Having stated the obvious I've run out of steam and need a nap. More later.

wrt 'internet, pro or con': what Ona said.

wrt broad or narrow access to the Vajrayana, a bit of serendipity: http://chronicleproject.com/CTRlibrary/OpenWay.html

Trungpa on the subject, 40 years ago, at the SF Zen Center...

"The technologies available must be accommodated by we dharma folks, our teachers, our sang has, our students, our friends"

But what are the fundamental problems? How is this not happening with great success already?