Comments on: Reinventing Buddhist Tantra

By: Daniel M. Ingram

Daniel M. Ingram — Mon, 02 Dec 2013 06:30:12 +0000

@David and Hokai: you two really need to just get the stuff out there. Whatever obstacles impede the free-flow of a contemporary Vajrayana, vow to smash them.

By: Lama Surya Das

Lama Surya Das — Sun, 06 May 2012 02:35:59 +0000

Dear Hokai,

can you kindly get in touch with me to discuss and explore further the future of Vajrayana in the West, something many of us Dharma teachers are presently discussing among ourselves? I appreciate very much your thoughtful writings and teachings.

Surya

By: David Chapman

David Chapman — Wed, 02 May 2012 19:35:35 +0000

“Many little chauvinist despots, each in their own bubble reality” – how true!

Thank you very much re: email notification.

By: Hokai

Hokai — Wed, 02 May 2012 15:39:25 +0000

@David Any dogmatism can directly be traced to the institutionalization of Buddhist tantra. Primordial Buddha not being just universal teacher, but also absolute ruler, the institutional reflection became spiritual despotism (of benevolent kind, we’ve been asked to believe). What you describe happens when there are many little chauvinist despots, each in their own bubble reality.

Re email notification, it’s a plugin, and I promise to look into it.

By: David Chapman

David Chapman — Wed, 02 May 2012 14:36:34 +0000

Hokai, would you consider turning on email notification of new comments? Probably you are getting them as site author, but others don’t, so we have to check back to see if there’s something new.

I gather that this is an option in WordPress that is off by default, but that you can turn on easily.

By: David Chapman

David Chapman — Wed, 02 May 2012 12:34:04 +0000

“I find an honest conversation between senior practitioners of Buddhist tantra to be a sufficient challenge” – Sadly, this is my observation also. I hope this isn’t something caused by tantric practice itself. Tribal, sectarian infighting, accompanied by political paranoia, secrecy, and unnecessary hostility, is ingrained in Tibetan culture. Westerners seem to pick that up and replicate it in the West.

I’m hoping that having a nobody (me) raise some of the obvious issues may lead to discussions among senior folks that otherwise wouldn’t happen. Putting them out in a public forum might force communications that otherwise would be avoided. Perhaps, first, students will ask awkward new questions of their teachers; and then the teachers will communicate with each other as they try to come up with answers.

@Gate – I agree with all that.

By: Gate

Gate — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 01:07:19 +0000

“And yes, a meta-cultural context is what we’re after, not a mere translation.”

— that’s the heart of the matter, isn’t it? And a formidable difficulty: it requires going back to the Big Questions afresh: what is a human being? what is our purpose? what is the nature of our relationship with the All of It? how do we engage in a way that reflects respectful understanding of these things?

Tantra, and Daoism, and shamanism began as answers-in-practice to these questions; to try to simply reword them to fit the worldview that we inherited robs them of all their power.

By: Hokai

Hokai — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 22:26:37 +0000

@Matthew I find an honest conversation between senior practitioners of Buddhist tantra to be a sufficient challenge. A non-sectarian network would be the logical next step, but there are two many uncertainties at this point. Of course, others could feel inclined to try out something more explicit and adventurous.

By: Matthew O'Connell

Matthew O'Connell — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 21:24:20 +0000

Have taken your advice and read more attentively Dave’s posts and made a few comments of my own. As you said when we spoke last, action is required. Much of what is held in the potential of living ‘spacious passion’ as one’s outlook smacks of potentially shamanic action, which in the form I’ve been practicing it, involves embracing primal forces as an invitation to engage outside of role confirming and stabilizing dynamics.

I do feel that we should have the courage to start owning these paths with or without the consent of the hierarchy in place. Perhaps you’re right though that this would best be achieved through starting afresh so as to avoid unnecessary conflict and divisions. This would imply creating a new path and an institution to give form and a focus for such proceedings, right? Perhaps some informal gatherings of interested parties with a clear intent and space to experiment would be a good place to collectively get the ball rolling?

By: Hokai

Hokai — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 16:49:14 +0000

David, you’re welcome. By naturalization, I primarily mean Buddhist tantra finding a way to express itself in native discourse, which usually starts with language and then proceeds into ways of living and relating to society. Insofar as Buddhist tantra is capable of finding for itself native expressions, it will be alive and animated, not a stuffed animal. The “expressions” include linguistic, artistic, intellectual, cultural, economic, and organizational forms. And yes, a meta-cultural context is what we’re after, not a mere translation. As far as “supernaturalism” is concerned, highly charged symbolic and allegorical structures can be recycled, but superstitions must go. Looking forward to new episodes:)