The Last Master

The Buddhist Channel has an article about Joshu Sasaki Roshi by Andrea Bennett of the "Daily Bulletin."  The title of the article is interesting: "Last master of Rinzai school of Zen Buddhism shares insights at age 101," as if to say Sasaki Roshi is the last master of the entire Rinzai school of Zen.  Obviously, a mistake has been made.  For those of you who don't know, the Rinzai school is a Japanese form of Zen, called Lin Chi in Chinese.  Sasaki Roshi is one of the last Japanese masters who brought this form of Zen to the West, but he's certainly not the last master of the entire tradition.  Most of the rest of the Japanese masters have passed away, except perhaps for Eido Tai Shimano Roshi.

Many of those masters named several Dharma heirs, fully empowering them to pass on the tradition to the next generation.  In some cases, there are now Zen teachers in the U.S. that are two or three generations removed from their Japanese forbearers.  There are also now Dharma heirs to Seung Sahn, a Korean Seon (Zen) master, and perhaps also Samu Sunim the first two Koreans to bring the Korean Jogye order to Western practitioners.

It is interesting to note that the Tibetan tradition still doesn't have any fully qualified Western teachers, aside perhaps from a couple of Westerners recognized as reincarnations of previous Tibetan masters (called Tulku).  What I mean by fully qualified is that if the Tibetan masters suddenly disappeared off the face of the planet, would the tradition be able to continue, with all the empowerments and such, in the West?  The answer is no.

I think the problem is that Tibetan Buddhism isn't really being transmitted to the West.  Sure, there are some Americans, and presumably some Europeans with the title "Lama," but they generally don't give empowerments.  While many Westerners do enter the three year retreat, they tend to do so at the beginning of their practice and not after many years of study and practice as preparation.  Therefore, they aren't fully qualified at the end of the three year retreat. 

It has been suggested to me by more than one person that the Tibetans are only here for our money and have no intention of really passing on the fullness of the Tibetan tradition.  I'm not sure I entirely agree with that sentiment, but I can see why some might come to that conclusion.  If Westerners no longer require Tibetan teachers to fully pursue the practice, then the Tibetans might be afraid that all the resources coming from the West will dry up.  In the long run, however, if the Tibetan masters really want to secure support from the West, they need to let go of that control.  Western teachers will be able to build stronger and frankly larger communities of practitioners and will be better able to train them than Tibetans passing through for a few days at a time.  Those larger communities will be more stable capable of generating a great deal more material support for the Tibetan cause.

Money is probably only part of the equation, but the effects of this reticence from Tibetan teachers to really train their disciples to completely take over may already be surfacing.  I have heard from some Westerners who were interested in ordaining in the Tibetan tradition who looked around and saw that they would not be properly trained and educated and so they simply went elsewhere.  As the Dharma develops in the West and people look around and see that they can study under American or French or Brazilian teachers in some lineages, but that there are almost no fully qualified teachers in the Tibetan traditions, I'm afraid more people will choose to leave the Tibetan tradition or skip Tibetan Buddhism all together.

Those of you who read regularly know that I'm going to South Korea largely for the reasons cited above.  It's a shame, though....  The Tibetan tradition has wonderful meditation techniques and a rich philosophical tradition.  I just couldn't find a way to fully pursue it.  I looked at going to India but realized it would take me seven to ten years to save the money to go for a decade or more (given my earning potential), the least amount of time I would need to go to really learn the language, study hard and do retreat.  I looked around and saw that I had a choice: waste the next ten years working some job with the hope that maybe someday I would have the opportunity to really go for it, or stop wasting time and go to South Korea.

Of course, there are other reasons I became interested in the Jogye order.  Mostly, I really connected with my unsa sunim (vocation master) in a way I never connected with a Tibetan lama.  I think that's partly because he spent two years in India studying Tibetan Buddhism and the fact that he has a Ph.D. from U.W. Madison.  He's also an American citizen and has lived here for a very long time, so he gets where I'm coming from.  And, to be frank, I've come to the conclusion that Tibetan Buddhism is just to complicated for my taste.  The simplicity of the Zen tradition, though there are rituals and whatnot, is what I started with years ago.  The bells and whistles don't really interest me that much anymore.  Most importantly, I just don't think it's my karma to be able to pursue Tibetan Buddhism.  I struggled so long to find a way to make it work, and I couldn't.  But after coming to the University of the West and meeting some Korean venerables and my unsa sunim, it seems that I've found my way.

I almost forgot to mention that I had a conversation about this with an American friend who practices in the Tibetan tradition (Nyingma lineage). He said he wouldn't be surprised if empowerments die out in Tibetan Buddhism in the West simply because only Tibetans (and Ladakhis and Bhutanese, etc....) can give them.  I said I thought there would still be Western students who would seek out empowerments, but that in the future perhaps a tradition of more general Mahayana without the empowerments might evolve from the Tibetan tradition that would include the philosophical tradition and meditation techniques not requiring empowerments.

In any case, I'd love to hear some of your opinions on the issues raised in this post.   

Comments

[Rick Finney]

Gyatso:

I think you're right: it's possible that the most solidly rooted Western traditions may be more generally Mahayana for a while -- though perhaps transmitting Kagyu-specific, Nyingma-specific, Geluk-specific, or Sakya-specific views and interpretations of the scholarly texts. There is at least one Western lama I know of who gives empowerments. This is the English lama Ngakpa Jampa Thaye, who was authorized by his lama Karma Thinley Rinpoche. The Shambhala organization also has a number of senior Western teachers, called acharyas, who transmit refuge and bodhisattva vows along with the permissions for ngondro and other forms of practice. I knew some of these folks back in my Vajradhatu days in the early 1980's, and some of them are extremely capable teachers.

For me,a more interesting question is what really qualifies Western students to receive empowerments. Is it a long experience of sitting practice, or a good understanding of emptiness? Often, empowerments are given (for a fee) to large groups of people of different levels of capacity and understanding. The results of this seem to be pretty uneven.

[Rinchen Gyatso]

Rick,

Empowerments do seem to be bought and sold. It's a shame.

As for Western teachers, there are a number of them, but as you seem to point out, their ability to transmit the tradition is rather restricted.

[Kalsang Dorje]

This really is very dishearting. I mean, just another opportunity to work with feelings regarding this, but on the other hand, I feel as though folks who have developed their minds far beyond my current capability should be able to reach beyond empowerments for cash. Another bothersome idea is that folks who have long since taken their bodhisattva vows are not truly looking to liberate all beings by skillful upaya. Hey, maybe Western culture is already enlightened or perhaps this truly is a very dark age indeed.

This all just makes me want to cry.

[Rinchen Gyatso]

I think the major problem with the sale of empowerments comes from us--the Westerners. I heard once or twice a long time ago that Tibetan Buddhism didn't really start to take off in the U.S. until the lama's starting giving empowerments. The people saw something new and shiney and then...POOF! The marketplace exploded. The reason why they are being bought and sold is because we don't practice generosity enough. If the centers were supported adequately, this kind of capitolism wouldn't be necessary.

Of course, other centers and temples sell spaces at meditation retreats, so it's not just a problem in the Tibetan Buddhist community.

I also have heard that studies show protestant Christians give more than Catholics to their churches. I wonder what the story would be if a study was done on Dharma centers.

[Susan Law]

Yikes yikes - It's late in the evening - and I just read this entry in your blog - I don't have time to reply now except to say - I think, happily, that you are seriously mistaken in your take on the problems with Tibetan Buddhism in the west. No doubt the problems you describe exist - but they are not the whole story. I'll make a point of writing a real response tomorrow - with concrete information to contest your statements.

[JKK]

Well spoken, all parties. I've been in/out of Tibetan practice (all 4 orders)for years feeling something wasn't coming across, even though I carefully waited to finish ngondro before taking full vajyana teachings. But practice support? Nix. E.g., after a 3 day initiation into Hevajra followed by 7 days for the full yogas of Vajrayogini I was handed an incomplete Hevajra sadhana and the short Vajrayogini sadhana; for Vajrapani no sadhana was given nor could be obtained(makes a Vajrapani retreat a bit difficult; I got the mantras from a nun from the sponsoring center written on a napkin so I could at least do the 1.5. million recitation practice. A Nyingma chod empowerment at least had an accompanying $10 CD. Result of this no doubt karmically induced frustration? I've swapped into Soto, Rinzai, US mixed-Zen, Chogye, Tendai going back and forth between different Tibetan schools/lineages. The good news? This seems to have changed now that I've come back again to Tibetan practice, this time with the Drikungpas. Hope is a powerful elixir.

[Susan]

Ok - to respond more fully. I think every one of your criticisms or comments have some validity, but are only part of the story. A couple of other commenters remarked on teachers able to give empowerments. I was able to come up with about 12 or 15 more in the USA - people in established lineages who are giving empowerments now. In addition, there are a number of Kagyu western Lamas who are trained enough to give empowerments, but are not authorized to. So actually, I think we are in pretty good shape. People are being fully trained.

I think it will be a very long time before there are western Lamas who can give *all* the empowerments that the great Tibetan Lamas did/do - and it may never happen. But those empowerments number in the hundreds or perhaps thousands. The point is often made of many particular practices that each one can bring you to enlightenment - so in fact we don't need thousands of empowerments. What we do need, we already have, and what we have is growing steadily. Personally I have a sense of a threshold about to be reached. My perception is that the number of western students of Tibetan Buddhism will grow almost exponentially in the next few years.

I agree that the Tibetan Lamas who come by once a year or less are not providing the training that will make a difference. However, at least some of these Lamas also have western students who have become qualified as teachers or Lamas who are permanently assigned to their centers, and who are responsible for training. This is a very workable situation.

It is also interesting that in the Tibetan literature Dzogchen is spoken of as flourishing in this very 'degenerate' time. This is one of the traditions that depends least on elaborate ritual and empowerments. Certainly Dzogchen is fashionable in some circles - but it is also very sincerely taught, studied, and practiced in others. So this is another factor.

Those are a few comments - personally, I'm quite optimistic about the way things are going in the Tibetan Buddhist community in the west. It's a bit of a hodge-podge, with excellent teachers and Lamas, and real fakes and everything between - buyer beware is still a good rule. But there is a lot of good happening. That's my perception.

[Christian]

This is a very thoughtful and deep post.

You write that the systemic problems you see in Tibetan buddhism in its current relationship with the West are largely the reason why you decided to move to Korean buddhism. You also cite the connection with your unsa seunim. While I understand the latter, I am puzzled by the former. I understand that it is hard or bothersome for you to keep a more or less interesting job just in order to devote yourself to what matters the most to you, your buddhist practice and study. But if your goal is to reach enlightenment, well, I dare hope that you already found the teachings and practices for reaching that goal. Keep going, why would you expect others to pay for your practice? So, perhaps you have the ambition to become a "fully qualified" teacher yourself? This would better explain your choice, then (as far as I am concerned). But being knowledgeable in the doctrine does not necessarily implies being enlightened, so the main motivation and goal must be kept present in mind at all times.

I wish you good luck in your endeavours!

I also started with the simplicity of Zen, years ago, and took refuge later in the Nyingma tradition. But I don't think that Tibetan buddhism is more complicated than Korean buddhism. Sure, the former has the details of the Indian tradition but the latter is very much the heir of the Chinese hair-splitting. In terms of meditation techniques, as opposed to philosophy, it is true that Seon/Zen offers less variety, but this variety is systemic, not personal. In my case, I have been with the same practice for years and years. (My master tells me that this is the Indian way. Tibetans tend to have several practices at the same time.) There are "simple" and powerful practices in Tibetan buddhism. Consider the ngondro. Most people consider it as a preliminary, but it is also a full-fledged road to enlightenment. People become sophisticated, you know. I may be moving to a dzogchen practice in the future. I read the ngondro of it, and... it looked almost identical to the tantric ngondro! Sure, the main deity is Samantabhadra, the vocabulary is different, the focus slightly different etc. but the similarities are very obvious.

[Rinchen Gyatso]

Christian:

I may not have explained myself clearly. If I am working in the West there are two problems: 1. There is no systematic training or education in the Tibetan tradition equivalent to what the Tibetans receive; and 2. I will have little or no time to do retreat on what little I am able to learn. In the past 6.5 years as a monk I've managed to pull off a whopping total of 7 weeks of retreat simply because I couldn't get time off work. So, I haven't found it possible to fully pursue the Tibetan tradition. I think you can agree that the end result of doing a few hours per week of study and practice and doing it all day, full-time for years on end is likely to be quite different.

You write: "why would you expect others to pay for your practice?" I find that an odd question. I don't "expect" others to pay for my practice, but monks and nuns are supposed to study and practice full-time, so I think we should take that opportunity if it exists. No one would tell a Tibetan studying full-time in a shedra or doing long-term retreat, "Well, why don't you get a job?" Every tradition needs people to throw themselves into it fully. Whether or not I myself will in fact become a fully qualified teacher remains to be seen. My point was that opportunities for full-time study and practice need to be there for those willing to try. You are most likely going to find those people among monastic communities because they don't have the dual responsibility of also maintaining a family or a regular career.

I find the protestant streak among Western Buddist practitioners where monastics are concerned to be rather perplexing. I don't know about your teacher, but most of the Tibetan teachers are themselves monastic (or if they are laypeople they were either raised as monastics and later gave back their robes--Gelek Rinpoche, for example, or they left their families and other obligations for months or years on end and did retreat) and no one would begrudge them the years they spent studying and practicing full-time, these days largely funded by Western and Taiwanese lay people. If they hadn't had that opportunity, they wouldn't be lamas today.

I'd like to point out that the Buddha taught that in order for the Dharma to be present in a land, you must have Bikkhus, Bikkhunis, Lay men and Lay women--all four folds of the "Four Fold Assembly." This does not mean a random smattering of monks and nuns, but well established, stable monastic communities.

You also wrote: "But being knowledgeable in the doctrine does not necessarily implies [sic] being enlightened, so the main motivation and goal must be kept present in mind at all times."

Absolutely!

[Christian]

Gyatso,

I don't think we really disagree, and my wording may be rude at times, I am sorry for that. There is nothing personal as I like to push some arguments as far as I can. (And I lack the subtleties of an educated native English speaker.) Exchanging ideas about such sensitive topic in writing is not the best way to understand each other, but, giving the circumstances, let us make the best of it.

You wrote: "1. There is no systematic training or education in the Tibetan tradition equivalent to what the Tibetans receive;" Yes. But if the purpose is to study buddhist philosophy and related Asian languages, there is the path of academic studies (what you have been doing). In Korea, it is common that when a monk wants to study deeper some philophical aspects of his tradition or of another one, he applies for a scholarship at Dongguk University (Seoul). I suspect that too many monasteries are too busy places. But there are exceptions, of course. (For example, there are two monasteries entirely dedicated to Seon meditation. Some others have impressive libraries etc.) Anyway, university is a nice place for pursuing this intellectual aspect of buddhism.

You wrote: "2. I will have little or no time to do retreat on what little I am able to learn." I think this is due to be living in the wrong country __with respect to your goal__. (No anti-americanism implied.) I read today the figures about paid vacations in the OECD and France has been topping the list for eight years now with a 37 days/year. But the rest of Europe is not that bad either. But USA: 14 days. Korea, if memory serves well, used to rank at the lowest place. (I am not surprised: everybody seems narcoleptic here!)

So I would say that the problems you described could be somehow aleviated without being a monastic or by changing the geography. I am a Frenchman, and there is no Protestant streak in France (there are hardly any protestant, anyway) against monasteries, on the contrary, they are respected and considered part of the culture. But being a monastic __without support from a community,__ this seems to me harder than moving to Paris and study Tibetan buddhism in university, for instance, as a layman.

Otherwise, more systematically, perhaps this approach above could be a workaround until the reasons why the Tibetan clergy behaves the way it does become clear?

My teacher (a Tibetan by culture) was a monastic for many years but is a layman for some years now. He constantly discouraged us to take monastic vows. Only one of us did it and I met this friend after one year in the monastery in Nepal. I asked him what he learnt, and, with a sigh answered: "Mainly rituals." Not even his skills in Tibetan language had improved. (English is used for daily life there.)

(But, of course, what _my_ teacher tells me applies to me only, so I understand that his advice is not a general rule.)

Also, you wrote: "If [these Tibetan teachers] hadn't had that opportunity, they wouldn't be lamas today." I agree. But is it your goal? I know it isn't mine, even if I were a monastic. (I make here a distinction between "lama", who is a teacher, and "monk".)

As a conclusion, I wholly acknowledge the problems about being a buddhist monastic in the West, in particular in the Tibetan tradition. But, because you and I cannot change this situation now, it doesn't mean that there are not other ways than you think. Pragmatism is the key, under hardship. But if wearing a monastic robe is so important, then I understand your choice and I will support you in Korea if you need help. You could be most useful here, in a few years.

[Rinchen Gyatso]

Christian:

I had forgotten you were French. You're English is actually quite good, so I had written off any mistakes as typos.

I'll only say this for now: The academic study of Buddhism in a modern academy is absolutely not the same thing as studying Dharma. In the academy, you look at something from the outside-in, whereas as a practitioner, one generally studies something in support of one's practice. I'd rather do the latter. Besides, I want to focus more on meditation, and even 37 days per year for retreat isn't the same as 6 months per year.

As for wearing robes, that's less the point than holding the vows. However, my original ordination master told me at my ordination to always wear my robes as a reminder of my vows and as a sign for others. Since then, I've jokingly referred to myself as a walking bilboard for Buddhism. More importantly, I have the impulse to pursue this path full-time, so I don't want to waste the opportunity.

Thank you so much for engaging in this conversation with me. It is difficult to gauge tone from the written word sometimes.

I'll be in Korea the end of June, so I'll let you know where I'll be and we'll have to meet.