|
Page 4 of 6
If people could put some effort into being
respectful and open-minded, there is so much knowledge available that could
liberate them from all kinds of suffering and confusion. It is only now that I
have come to realize the significance of the great respect that the Tibetan
translators and scholars of the past had toward India, their source of dharma
and wisdom. Instead of being critical or even resentful of their source, they
called it "The Sublime Land of India." This kind of attitude is very different
from the Western shopping mentality that regards the dharma as merchandise and
our own involvement as an investment—only wanting to accept what sits well with
our habitual expectations and rejecting what we don't find immediately
gratifying.
This is not to say that Westerners should not be
critical of the Buddhist teachings. On the contrary, as the Lord Buddha himself
said, "Without melting, beating, weighing and polishing a yellow substance, one
should not take it for gold. Likewise, without analysis one should not accept
the dharma as valid." Logical analysis has always been encouraged in the
Buddhist tradition, and Buddhism has always challenged the promotion of blind
faith.
The difference lies in the attitude you take towards
the criticism. In the process of analyzing that "yellow substance," the analyzer
must not only maintain an open mind, but also acknowledge that he/she may not
have an adequate knowledge of the subject matter. That is the whole point of
analysis. Otherwise we are just seeking confirmation of what we already believe.
Being skeptical and seeking faults are two completely different
things.
Nowhere is the difference between these two attitudes
more obvious and more important than when it comes to criticisms of the guru in
vajrayana Buddhism. Unfortunately, the guru is a must for vajrayana practice.
However, all great masters and teachings repeatedly advise that one should
always be skillful in checking the lama before one takes him as one's master. We
have that option, and we should take advantage of it. It is vital to study the
teachings extensively in order to be prepared to take on a teacher. In fact,
some of the vajrayana scriptures mention that one should check a potential
teacher for twelve years before becoming his student.
However,
I think it is also important to remember that Buddhism is not only vajrayana.
There are other paths such as Theravada, which is the foundation of all Buddhist
paths. This is a straightforward path, which does not spark off all kinds of
mystical expectations. What sometimes seems to happen is that people want to
practice vajrayana because they see it as something exotic, when in fact they
would be better off with the sanity and simplicity of the
Theravada.
In vajrayana, in order to enable the guru to help
us and work on our dualistic ego-centered preoccupations, we are supposed to
think that the guru is no different in wisdom than the Buddha. This is the
highest form of mind training. We are literally making a hero out of someone
who, because he sees our potential, has no qualms about challenging and even
abusing our narrow-minded and habitual patterns. This is a very radical,
difficult and revolutionary method. From a conventional point of view, or from
the point of view of ego-cherishing, the whole notion of the guru-disciple
relationship is something almost criminal. Yet the point to remember is that the
only purpose of the existence of the guru is to function as a skillful means to
combat habits of dualistic conceptualizations, and to combat the tricks and
tenacity of ego-clinging. In this way the guru is a living manifestation of the
teachings.
|
