Guru e Estudante no Vajrayana
Autor: OM AH HUM | Publicado: 2017-08-15T22:11:00-03:00




Guru and Student in the Vajrayana by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse


 I have written the following in response to a number of requests, 
including some from the press, for my take on the present situation in 
the Rigpa Sangha over Sogyal Rinpoche’s behaviour.  I have not 
responded to any of the questions put to me by the press before now, 
because what I want to say can’t be edited or altered in anyway. 
Unfortunately, journalists always cut up texts, then pick and choose the
 bits and pieces that fit in with their own preconceived ideas. If you 
don’t believe me, just spend five minutes looking at CNN, Fox News, 
al-Jazeera, The New York Times, The Guardian newspaper or Breitbart News
 Network. You’ll soon see what the nature of ‘freedom of speech’ is like
 in our modern society. Sadly, most ‘Buddhist’ magazines and bulletins 
are no different. So here’s what I want to say, uncut and unedited. 
Please summon up all your patience and read the whole thing from 
beginning to end; this text is meant to be read all the way through, not
 in bits. First, though, I feel I must point out that what I want to
 say concerns the relationship between a guru and a student that is 
specific to the Vajrayana. As this kind of guru-student relationship is a
 Vajrayana phenomenon, I wish I could say that if you are not a 
Vajrayana student, you don’t need to worry or care about any of what 
follows. But I can’t. Why? Because like it or not, the Vajrayana is 
associated with Buddhism, and so in the process of addressing a 
Vajrayana situation, I can’t avoid talking about Buddhism and its 
future.  Having said that, I’m sure that the Theravada and Mahayana 
Buddhists who have been dragged into this public debate by mere 
association, must be pulling their hair out with frustration. I 
empathize; if I were in your shoes, I would feel the same. But there
 is one thing we must all be clear about. There is a clear difference 
between Sogyal Rinpoche’s role as a Vajrayana master and his role as a 
very public Buddhist teacher and head of a non-profit organization. 
Vajrayana masters are not necessarily public figures. Many aren’t even 
known to be Buddhist teachers – in the past, some Vajrayana masters 
earned their livings as prostitutes and fishermen. But unlike the 
teacher-student relationship in other traditions, in the Vajrayana, the 
connection between the guru and the student is sometimes more personal 
and constant than family.  More often than not, the opposite is true
 for teachers who present Buddhism more generally. These teachers are 
often public figures. In many cases, they have a many followers, and 
they and their teachings are widely available. They may also be at the 
helm of any number of monasteries or non-profit organizations.  So 
‘Vajrayana guru’ and ‘Buddhist teacher’ are, in fact, totally different 
roles – even when both roles are fulfilled by one person. What I want to
 discuss here is the role of Vajrayana master generally and Sogyal 
Rinpoche’s role as Vajrayana master in particular, not Sogyal Rinpoche’s
 role as spiritual director of Rigpa and public Buddhist teacher.

 This distinction is important because many Buddhists students are 
wondering how to explain this kind of scandal to their friends and loved
 ones. How can you talk about it with your little sister who goes to a 
Christian high school? Or to your new non-Buddhist boyfriend, who you 
really want to impress but who already thinks your eagerness to do 
anything this guru asks of you is really strange. So this is an issue 
that should be contemplated and addressed separately, especially in 
light of the increased media coverage Sogyal Rinpoche’s behaviour is 
bound to elicit.  None of what I have to say here about the 
Vajrayana in particular is easy to explain. In fact, I am a bit 
concerned that I might end up raising more questions than answers. And 
I’m also sure that my words will be misinterpreted. But I have decided 
to try to write this piece anyway, because there are many genuine 
Vajrayana practitioners out there who are struggling with how to view 
the present situation and who might want to consider the issues I wish 
to raise.

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
 The Guru-Disciple Relationship

 Nalanda University in India was one of the oldest universities in the 
world. It was at Nalanda that one thousand four hundred years ago, 
scholars confirmed that there is no such thing as an atom, or a 
‘smallest particle’, or a god that inherently exists; and these scholars
 would have laughed heartily at today’s theories about the Big Bang and 
democracy. My point here is that at Nalanda University there was 
absolutely no room for sentiment or blind devotion or blind belief. 
 Naropa was Dean of that great university. His scholarly achievements 
were remarkable, but left him unsatisfied. So he relinquished his 
prestigious position and set out to find a teacher whose wisdom 
transcended his own great scholarship and all he knew. Eventually, he 
met Tilopa, a fisherman, and that meeting marked the beginning of an 
adventurous and highly unpredictable journey.  Among many other 
inexplicable tasks, Tilopa told Naropa to pinch a princess’s bottom in 
public and to steal some soup, as the result of which Naropa was badly 
beaten. Yet Naropa – a fully trained sceptic – wholeheartedly did 
everything Tilopa asked of him without asking a single question. His 
reward was the teaching on Mahamudra, which he passed on to his own 
students, who also passed it on. Over the centuries, Naropa’s lineage of
 Mahamudra teachings went on to liberate countless human beings.  
People who treasure Mahamudra are not stupid; they are neither 
sycophants, nor are they prone to cultism. Naropa’s Mahamudra lineage 
has spread far and wide – not just to jobless hippies, dropouts, social 
misfits and rebels, but to some of the world’s greatest emperors. And 
the story of how Tilopa taught Naropa has been cited again and again. 
Not as some kind of legend, but as a teaching and an example – an 
example that most budding Vajrayana practitioners long to emulate.  
Naropa’s Mahamudra lineage continues to the present day thanks to great 
Mahamudra merchants from the Far East, like Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, 
who even transported it to the wild west of America.  More than 
thirty years ago, Trungpa Rinpoche commanded his students, including 
successful lawyers and dentists from Boulder, Colorado, to move to the 
gloomiest place on the planet: Halifax, Nova Scotia. And they did. In 
modern times, such a command is the equivalent of ordering Naropa to 
steal soup. Amazingly, decades after Trungpa Rinpoche’s passing, those 
obedient dentists and lawyers are still living in Halifax, and have gone
 on to spawn a third generation of practitioners.  By the way, if 
you’re ever surrounded by a few of these practitioners, they’ll talk 
about the glories of Trungpa Rinpoche until your ears fall off!   
This kind of story – from the time of Naropa to Trungpa Rinpoche in the 
20th century – exemplifies the guru-disciple relationship on which the 
Mahamudra transmission entirely depends.
 Did Sogyal Rinpoche Do ‘Wrong’?

 Recently, it was alleged by some of Sogyal Rinpoche’s students, who 
also consider themselves to be practitioners in the Vajrayana tradition,
 that Sogyal Rinpoche regarded abusive behaviour as the ‘skilful means’ 
of ‘wrathful compassion’ in the tradition of ‘crazy wisdom.’ However
 you describe Sogyal Rinpoche’s style of teaching, the key point here is
 that if his students had received a Vajrayana initiation, if at the 
time they received it they were fully aware that it was a Vajrayana 
initiation, and if Sogyal Rinpoche had made sure that all the necessary 
prerequisites has been adhered to and fulfilled, then from the Vajrayana
 point of view, there is nothing wrong with Sogyal Rinpoche’s subsequent
 actions. (By the way, ‘initiation’ includes the pointing out 
instruction which is the highest Vajrayana initiation, known as the 
fourth abhisheka.) Frankly, for a student of Sogyal Rinpoche who has
 consciously received abhisheka and therefore entered or stepped onto 
the Vajrayana path, to think of labelling Sogyal Rinpoche’s actions as 
‘abusive’, or to criticize a Vajrayana master even privately, let alone 
publicly and in print, or simply to reveal that such methods exist, is a
 breakage of samaya.  This is not to say, as has been suggested, 
that tantra provides teachers with a list of ways they can abuse 
students sexually, emotionally and financially – you will not find such a
 list in any of the tantras. At the same time, a Vajrayana guru will use
 anything he can to challenge and go against each individual student’s 
ego, pride, self-cherishing and dualistic mind, and might well end up 
telling a sexually voracious, horny man to become a monk.  I’m 
sorry, but we can’t bend the rules on this point. When both the giver 
and receiver of a Vajrayana initiation are fully aware and clear about 
what has happened, they must then both accept that pure perception is 
the main view and practice on the Vajrayana path. There is no room 
whatsoever for even a glimmer of an impure perception.   But what is
 ‘pure perception’? Ultimately, according to the Vajrayana, the practice
 of pure perception doesn’t mean just seeing the guru as a god, or even 
as a tantric deity. Although the Vajrayana does famously include 
techniques for visualizing not only the guru but every being on this 
planet and in the universe as a deity, the main point of pure perception
 is to go beyond dualistic perception altogether and realize the union 
of emptiness and appearance. To put it simply, pure perception is 
the highest form of mind training – dag nang byang in Tibetan. Dag means
 ‘pure’; nang means ‘perception’, and byang means ‘train’ or ‘get used 
to.’  So, how does pure perception work? As a Vajrayana student, if 
you look at Sogyal Rinpoche and think he’s overweight, that is an impure
 perception. To try to correct your impure perception you might then try
 visualizing him with the body of Tom Cruise, but that is still not pure
 perception. One of the Vajrayana’s infinite number of skilful methods 
that are used to deconstruct and dismantle impure perception, is to 
visualize Sogyal Rinpoche with a horse’s head, a thousand arms and four 
legs. But even this technique must ultimately be transcended in order 
fully to realize pure perception.  Basically, while the student’s 
perception remains impure, the guru they see will be a projection based 
on their own impure projection, and so it can only ever be imperfect. 
The only way we can change our impure perception and see the guru as an 
enlightened being is by training our minds, using the visualization 
practises provided by the Vajrayana path. No Vajrayana teaching or 
qualified Vajrayana teacher would ever expect a student’s perceptions to
 be completely pure from the moment they step onto the Vajrayana path. 
This is why the techniques we apply are called ‘training’ – and even the
 English word ‘training’ implies that mistakes are inevitable. But 
there’s a very simple way of checking your progress with this practice. 
In the Vajrayana, you are supposed to see not only the guru but yourself
 as a deity. So if, having just been taught that you are a deity, you 
skip lunch and feel hungry, it means your training is not complete. You 
will only be perfectly trained in pure perception once you have finally 
actualized the union of appearance and emptiness. So if a student of
 Sogyal Rinpoche were to see him floundering in the middle of a lake and
 based on their impure perception, project onto him the idea that he 
seems to be drowning, it would probably not be a good idea for that 
student to think, “Rinpoche is an enlightened being and should be able 
to walk on water.” A much better thought would be, “This is my impure 
perception! Rinpoche is manifesting as a drowning man so that I can 
accumulate the merit of rescuing him.”  As your practise improves, 
your perception of the guru will no longer be bound or limited by the 
causes, conditions and effects that once made you think he was drowning.
 This is the point in your spiritual development when you will truly see
 the outer guru as the Buddha and will also be able to see your own 
inner guru. Until then, when your guru chairs a board meeting and it
 becomes obvious that he has no clue about an issue, as a prudent member
 of that board you shouldn’t hesitate to supply him with the information
 he needs. At the same time, as a Vajrayana student, you must skilfully 
remind yourself the guru only looks clueless to you because of your own 
impure perception, and that by appearing to need your assistance the 
guru is actually giving you the chance to accumulate merit.  We all 
have habits, and it’s habit that makes impure perception inevitable. The
 moment we step onto the Vajrayana path, we start breaking ‘samayas’ – 
which are our commitment to maintaining pure perception. This is why the
 assumption that all Vajrayana practitioners will make mistakes is built
 into the Vajrayana path. A practitioner’s path is then to immediately 
confess, expose and fix any impure perceptions the moment they arise, 
and to continually aspire to make fewer and fewer mistakes.  This is
 what is meant by keeping the samaya vows. In fact, Vajrayana practice 
cannot be separated from keeping samaya. There is no such thing as: 
“Let’s keep samaya and then practice.” Ultimately, once we transcend
 all possibility of making errors or breaching samaya, even thinking 
that there is something to confess or such a thing as a confessor is a 
breakage of samaya. In Buddhadharma, not just the Vajrayana, the only 
way any of us can keep all the samayas, is by fully realizing a perfect 
understanding of shunyata.  If an impure perception – such as 
criticism of one’s guru – is made deliberately and consciously, and if 
it then goes on to become a well-organized, choreographed public 
discussion with no room for amendment or correction, it constitutes a 
total breakage of samaya. Once an initiation has been given and 
received, neither the guru nor the student can continue to analyze each 
other – the guru cannot analyze the student and the student cannot 
analyze the guru. Having given someone an initiation, no matter how 
irritating, stubborn, neurotic or even criminal they may be, the guru 
must accept that person as his student and look after him or her as if 
they were his own child – even more so, actually. I know that many of 
you don’t want to hear it, but this is the Vajrayana view and this is 
what is taught in all the tantras.  It’s a big mistake to speculate 
about the possibility of continuing to analyze and criticize the guru 
after having received a major initiation – actually it’s totally wrong. 
We cannot modify Vajrayana’s fundamental view just because it doesn’t 
suit the minds of a few liberal, puritanical, Abrahamic, or 
individualistic activists.  If you find this view doesn’t suit you, 
but you still want to follow the Buddha’s path, you can always try the 
Mahayana and Sravakayana paths instead. If neither of those paths work 
for you – if you are uncomfortable with the non-dual groundlessness of 
Buddhism – you might just as well follow one of the Abrahamic religions.
 These are the religions that follow a clearly grounded dualistic path 
and say things like “don’t eat pork, do eat fish, and women must wear 
burqas”. If the label ‘religion’ is altogether too embarrassing for your
 elitist so-called progressive minds, you might try some kind of 
quasi-atheistic secularism, coated with moralistic ethics and bloated 
with dogmatic liberal self-righteousness. Or you could blindly allow 
yourself to be swallowed up by existentialist angst, then get annoyed 
with those who get blissed out on hope.  And yet, there may be some 
among you who long for tantric teachings because you quickly want to 
gain all the spiritual accomplishments you can, but without suffering 
any of the pain; or because you’re the kind of person who has a strong 
sense of entitlement and love to bypass preliminary practices. Or you 
might be very smart and want to follow the simplest path that gets the 
quickest results, so you might try outwitting the system by cutting 
corners to get at the highest Dzogchen and Mahamudra teachings more 
quickly. Or you might be one of those who whine bitterly when the guru 
says it’s not the right time to give such teachings and then apply 
intense emotional blackmail to get what you want. If you fall into any 
of these categories, the all-or-nothing guru-disciple relationship is 
what you will get. I’m sorry, but that’s the way it is and there’s 
nothing I can do about it.  We can’t change the Vajrayana view or 
invent some ‘moderate’ version of Vajrayana Buddhism just to suit the 
21st century western mind-set. If we did, it would be like saying that 
in these modern times, we should say that certain compounded phenomena 
are permanent and some phenomena do exist inherently – but we can’t do 
that either. The view is fundamental to Buddhadharma and therefore to 
the Vajrayana path.  In Buddhism, the general idea is that we train 
our minds to actualize non-duality. Tantra offers us the most profound 
way of achieving that non-duality through the practice of pure 
perception; and in the Vajrayana we essentialize that practice by 
maintaining a pure perception of the guru. Ultimately, as Vajrayana 
practitioners, we must apply pure perception to everyone and everything 
without exception, which means we must also apply it to Donald Trump and
 even Hitler. But we will only manage to achieve a pure perception of 
everyone and everything if we can first maintain a pure perception of 
our guru. If you try to retain the option of questioning, criticizing 
and analyzing – in other words if you retain some kind of selective 
impure perception as an insurance policy that allows you to question 
your very path – then how will you achieve the cessation of the 
dualistic mind? How will ‘one taste’ be actualized? How will you realize
 the union of samsara and nirvana?   One of Buddhism’s fundamental 
practices is that of working with our own projections. It’s a practice 
that is particularly emphasized in the Vajrayana. I know many of you 
will roll your eyes and accuse me of copping out when I say this, but 
everything Sogyal Rinpoche’s critical students are accusing him of is 
based on their projection. I know it’s hard to accept, I know it seems 
very real, but even so, it is a projection.  The bottom line here 
is: if both student and guru are consciously aware of Vajrayana theory 
and practice, I can’t see anything wrong in what Sogyal Rinpoche then 
does to his so-called Vajrayana students – especially those who have 
been with him for many years. Those students stepped onto the Vajrayana 
path voluntarily; it’s a journey that they chose to make. At least, I 
assume they did.  Do aspects of this journey go against 
commonly-accepted laws? Possibly. Do they contradict the way 21st 
century modern human beings usually think? Yes. From a worldly point of 
view, much of the Vajrayana seems unthinkable, perhaps even criminal. If
 Tilopa were alive today, he would have been locked up long ago. Come to
 think of it, which western country or culture would actually brag in 
its great literature about Marpa beating up Milarepa? Yet the Tibetans 
celebrate this story, holding it up as one of the most glorious examples
 of a true guru-disciple relationship. I also assume that these 
critical close students of Sogyal Rinpoche didn’t originally go to him 
for advice about how to achieve worldly success or for therapy, but to 
find out how to transcend this ordinary world – which necessarily 
involves going beyond all kinds of worldly values like morality, the 
rule of law, accountability, transparency and so on. You can’t leave one
 foot firmly grounded in your worldly comfort zones and ambitions, then 
expect to be able to transcend them. This is the very reason the 
Vajrayana is said to be exclusively for disciples of ‘superior 
faculties’ – which in this context, has nothing to do with being clever 
enough to qualify for a Rhodes scholarship or graduate from Stanford. A 
person with ‘superior faculties’ is totally disgusted with the dualism 
of samsara and nirvana, repulsed by ideas of fundamentalism and 
moderation, revolted by anarchism and morality, and single-minded and 
sincere in their devotion to the transcendence of duality. And this is 
why students are given so many warnings before they receive Vajrayana 
teachings.   Were Sogyal Rinpoche’s Students Warned? Were the Necessary Foundations for Entry into the Vajrayana Laid?
 Anyone with even a modicum of common sense knows that a warning must 
come before, not after the event. So it’s a Vajrayana master’s duty to 
warn aspiring students repeatedly and in advance about what they are 
letting themselves in for. Students must be warned about what they are 
about to undertake – the full picture, not just the highlights.  If 
Sogyal Rinpoche had given these warnings, if he had laid proper 
foundations by teaching the fundamentals of Buddhism, if he had made 
sure his students had established a strong foundation through study and 
practice, and if he had told them before they received initiation and 
teaching about the nature of the Vajrayana path and the consequences 
they would face if they broke samaya, the chances are that this current 
situation would never have arisen.  But I suspect that’s not quite 
what happened. What are my suspicions based on? Partly my knowledge of 
Tibetan teaching habits, and also what little I know of Sogyal 
Rinpoche’s teaching methods.  First of all, many Tibetan teachers 
are still in the habit of teaching non-Tibetans as if they were Tibetan.
 In Tibet, the Vajrayana wasn’t taught nearly as secretly as it was in 
India, where the necessity for maintaining absolute secrecy about the 
nature of the teachings and even the identity of the teacher was 
emphasized again and again. Even initiations were given in secret, often
 in uninhabitable places like cemeteries and mountain tops. This is 
quite the opposite of how Tibetan lamas – who usually sit on huge 
thrones in front of thousands of people – give initiations.  In 
India, our tantric predecessors were already extremely well-informed – 
Naropa, for example, knew exactly what he was getting himself into. That
 was not the case in most of Tibetan Buddhist history. It’s ironic 
that today’s western students are so eager to emulate the Tibetan way of
 doing things – habits which, by and large, really aren’t worth 
cherishing. Two millennia before the European Renaissance brought a new 
culture of inquiry and investigation into the modern world, the Buddha 
had already pointed out and emphasized the vital part analysis plays in 
the discovery of the nature of reality. More than two millennia before 
the downfall of authoritarianism in the west, the Buddha taught, “You 
are your own master. No one else is your master.” Neither of these 
pieces of advice has ever been taken seriously in Tibet. Not taking such
 teachings seriously is a very bad habit and certainly nothing to be 
proud of. Tibetan lamas often use tantric rituals as part of local 
public events, which means that Vajrayana initiations take place 
alongside flag hoisting and ribbon cutting. This use of tantra was 
unheard of among the Tibetans’ Buddhist predecessors in India, where not
 even a trace of sacred Vajrayana transmission or ritual could be seen 
before, during or after its discrete performance. Tibetan lamas also 
openly boast about their gurus, as if they are unveiling a commemorative
 plaque. But I would be extremely surprised to learn that Naropa put any
 effort at all into building up his CV, or that he ever announced 
publicly that his tantric guru was Tilopa. It might be possible to 
give Vajrayana initiations and teachings openly and publicly in places 
where the initiates are completely devoted, largely illiterate and have 
no academic training or custom of analysis. But it’s difficult to find 
that kind of person in a world that’s full to overflowing with 
smart-arses. So nowadays, when Tibetan lamas apply their habit of openly
 giving Vajrayana teachings to non-Tibetans – particularly westerners – 
but forget that they are presenting these disciplines to people who read
 The New York Times, are groomed in critical thinking, trained to 
cherish analysis and contemplation, and applauded for rebelling against 
convention, isn’t it inevitable that things fall apart?  In stark 
contrast to the characteristics that mark out modern western Dharma 
students, the majority of Tibetan disciples were culturally obliged to 
receive initiations and teachings as part of their traditional life. 
Very few Tibetans approached the Vajrayana with any thought of applying 
the proper, recommended analysis, and instead relied on blind devotion. 
To this day, many of us Tibetan lamas, not just Sogyal Rinpoche, stick 
closely to our traditional habits and therefore devote very little time 
to giving students the appropriate warnings and laying the necessary 
foundations prior to giving initiations and teachings.   I know a 
little about Sogyal Rinpoche because I have visited several Rigpa 
centres and have witnessed the Rigpa set-up first hand. To be frank, I 
didn’t see enough evidence to convince me that the appropriate warnings 
had been given, or that adequate foundations had been laid, or that the 
fundamental teachings were properly given. On several occasions it 
seemed to me that some of the students had been Christians until perhaps
 the day before they attended the teaching, then suddenly, 24-hours 
later, they were hearing about guru devotion, receiving pointing out 
instructions and practising Guru Yoga – it was as extreme as that. 
If that’s how it happened – if no proper warnings and no fundamental 
training were given prior to the Vajrayana teachings¬ ¬– then Sogyal 
Rinpoche is even more in the wrong than his critical students. Why? 
Because it is his responsibility to prepare the ground in accordance 
with the Vajrayana’s prescribed and well-established foundation 
teachings and practice. There is no question that the person with the 
greater knowledge, power and therefore responsibility is also more 
culpable when those obligations are not fulfilled.
 How Western Students Respond 

 But there are things about all this that puzzle me. The students 
criticizing Sogyal Rinpoche seem to be highly intelligent. Why, then, 
weren’t they smart enough to examine and analyze the teacher before 
signing up? How did they allow themselves to get so carried away by the 
Rigpa experience, those glossy, well-crafted pamphlets and all the other
 hoo-ha? And I really don’t understand why they waited ten or even 
thirty years before saying anything? How come they didn’t see all these 
problems in the first or second year of their relationship with Sogyal 
Rinpoche? I should also say that my puzzlement is mixed with 
sympathy, because we human beings are not only subject to our 
intellects, we get stirred up by our feelings. I can only speculate, but
 perhaps these students were moved and even awed by everything they 
encountered at Rigpa? Perhaps the glossy pamphlets, the incense, thrones
 and chanting did their job? And of course, Rigpa has hosted many very 
highly respected, illustrious lamas, including the highest of them all, 
which must have cemented the veneration and respect these students felt 
not only for the whole tradition, but for Sogyal Rinpoche himself. As a 
result of the unexpected eruption of pious feelings they then 
experienced, there must have been very little room left in their minds 
for further analysis, because emotionally they just wanted to ‘jump!’ 
From what I have seen in Rigpa, this may well have been what happened. 
 Alas, karma does also seem to play a role in all this, doesn’t it? And 
now that I’ve brought up karma, I’m sure some of you will accuse me 
falling back on another cop-out. Nevertheless, the reality is that 
falling for glossy advertising and Tibetan paraphernalia, feeling 
inspired and touched by Tibetan exoticism and the endangered Tibetan 
species, and everything else that pops into our minds, all arise from 
the causes and conditions that are the essence of karma.  That’s the
 way it is and all I can do is encourage each one of us to accumulate 
more good karma so that we won’t be faced with this kind of situation 
again in our lifetimes. Feelings are karmic. And I am afraid this 
situation won’t be settled until that karma is exhausted.  If a Vajrayana Teacher and Student Fall Out, What are the Consequences?
 If the teacher and student have reached a genuine understanding about 
the path being practised, and if all the necessary and appropriate 
foundations have been laid and a clear idea of possible consequences 
conveyed, but the student still has a wrong view and acts on it by 
slandering and criticizing the teacher, then, according to tantra, that 
student will face grave and unimaginable consequences.  But the same
 also applies to the teacher. In fact, if the teacher hasn’t laid the 
proper foundations, if the teacher takes advantage of a student 
physically, emotionally or financially, and if the teacher gives the 
highest yoga tantric teachings to those who have not established a 
proper foundation and as a result an immature student breaks the most 
fundamental root samayas, then the teacher will also suffer extremely 
grave consequences – consequences even more serious and terrible than 
those faced by the student.   If the proper foundations have been 
laid, but the guru’s actions – physical, verbal, emotional etc. – do not
 bring the student a centimetre closer to enlightenment, and if the 
teacher’s actions are aimed at personal gain, sex, money, power or 
selfish indulgence, it’s clear he doesn’t know what he’s doing. He is 
therefore obviously not a great Vajrayana master, let alone a 
mahasiddha. And he will therefore experience extremely grave 
consequences. When I say ‘grave consequences’, I don’t mean exposure
 in social media, or having his image ruined by scandal, or even that he
 is arrested and imprisoned. That’s nothing! The consequences for the 
teacher are far worse than mere worldly humiliation: he would end up in 
vajra hell. What is vajra hell? It isn’t merely being boiled in molten 
iron or fried by hell guardians – which actually sound quite comfortable
 by comparison. The unbearably awful characteristic of vajra hell is 
that once you’re there, you will not hear a word about the teachings on 
cause and condition, dependent arising, shunyata and the rest, for aeons
 and aeons and aeons. A thousand buddhas might come and go, but in vajra
 hell, you will hear absolutely nothing about them or their teachings.
 If a teacher’s actions ruin the image of the Buddhadharma, or spoil an 
aspiring student’s appetite for the Dharma, or if the seed of 
inspiration that leads just one person to follow Buddhadharma is burnt 
irrevocably, the consequences are so terrible that they are, in fact, 
inexpressible.  Few people seem to know how difficult it is to be a 
Vajrayana student, but almost no one knows that it is far more difficult
 to be a Vajrayana master. I think the widespread woeful ignorance of 
these consequences is why so many people today fall over themselves to 
get a job as a guru – even the non-religious secularists. But given the 
opportunity, these so-called gurus dish out abuse in exactly the same 
way ordinary people do. If people knew how precarious and dangerous a 
guru’s job really is, I doubt anyone would want it.  A guru’s very 
prestige and all the perks he or she appears to enjoy, signify just how 
much greater the guru’s opportunities to deceive and be deceived are, in
 comparison with the student’s opportunities. As Patrul Rinpoche stated 
in The Words of My Perfect Teacher, when a student offers a single penny
 or makes any kind of effort, however small, to show respect for the 
teacher – by standing when the teacher enters a room, or bowing to the 
teacher, or letting the teacher go first – there are consequences; and 
if the so-called Vajrayana master is not enlightened, he or she is not 
above the karmic debts these offerings create.  Of course, ideally, a
 Vajrayana master should be an enlightened being. But the reality is 
that many Vajrayana masters may not be, yet for reasons that have 
nothing to do with personal gain, fame and power, they take on that 
role. Some assume it out of necessity. Or when the teachings need to be 
upheld or the lineage is at risk of being broken, they accept the role 
of Vajrayana master out of love for the teachings themselves. Basically,
 if they find themselves in the position of having no choice but to pass
 on these precious teachings, then very reluctantly, they become 
Vajrayana masters.  So an unenlightened master should be under no 
illusions. He must know in himself that he isn’t enlightened, and he 
should never deceive himself by claiming that he is. As his student, 
though, you must see your Vajrayana master as an enlightened being. This
 is the choice you must make. But doesn’t that contradict the Buddha 
when he said, “You are your own master. No one else is your master”? No,
 it doesn’t, because you are the one who is making that choice. A 
Vajrayana master is definitely not a mahasiddha if he is affected by 
scandal, afraid of being publicly shamed and terrified of being thrown 
into jail. Neither is he a mahasiddha if he worries about losing 
disciples. A genuine mahasiddha, like Marpa or Tilopa, wouldn’t give a 
damn about any of that, nor would he give a second thought to being 
thrown into prison. And a mahasiddha would certainly never feel the need
 to apologize for any of his actions, because everything he does is done
 out of compassion. On the other hand, if your Vajrayana master is 
not a mahasiddha and not only beats up his own students but also random 
people in the street, prefers shit to gourmet food, tears up $100 notes,
 carries around a suitcase full of footballs or sand, gets equally 
turned on by a rock and sexy man or woman, talks gibberish, and doesn’t 
guide you onto a path that has a view, meditation and action, or a 
ground, path and fruition, then he is simply mad and belongs in a 
lunatic asylum. But what if a Vajrayana master is neither a mahasiddha nor mad, what should he do? He should behave ‘decently’.  
 Whether he’s enlightened or not, a Vajrayana master will have studied 
many precious, profound teachings and techniques. Now that he’s a 
teacher, he can share what he’s learned with sincere and devoted 
students. He knows that by using these teachings and the methods his 
masters used to teach him, there is every possibility that his disciples
 will get enlightened before him. So he has very good reason for being 
decent and for not taking advantage of those who have surrendered 
everything to him. Whatever his students have sacrificed and offered – 
time, money, offerings, respect, whatever – he must use it to help them.
 If he lights one candle and puts it in front of a statue of a Buddha 
with genuine aspirations for his students’ enlightenment, that will do.
 Being decent also means that the Vajrayana master must know his 
students’ limits – what they can and can’t take. To do that, he simply 
has to use his common sense and ask himself what his own limits might 
be. What, for example, wouldn’t he have done even if his own Vajrayana 
master had told him to do it? If Sogyal Rinpoche’s Vajrayana master had 
told him to become celibate, would he have?  To always obey the 
guru’s orders is difficult. Fortunately, none of my Vajrayana masters 
ever told me to do anything that I would have found impossible to 
attempt – I’m quite certain they knew that I lacked the capacity to do 
absolutely anything they asked of me.  At the very least, an 
unenlightened Vajrayana master must always consider the consequences of 
his actions. In particular, he should ask himself if his actions might 
turn people away from the Buddhadharma in general and the Vajrayana in 
particular. And an unenlightened but decent Vajrayana master must always
 remind himself to distinguish between the fearlessness of ‘crazy 
wisdom’ and the stupidity of ‘I will never get caught!’ Lost in Translation: Misreading Cultural Cues 
 From my own very limited point of view, and after the experience of 
having western friends for several decades, I would say that only one 
lama has really understood western culture and acted on it 
appropriately, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche.  Most Tibetan lamas, as I 
said earlier, teach non-Tibetans in exactly the same way they teach 
Tibetans. In the process, they try to do the impossible by transforming 
their western students into Tibetans. Believe it or not, I have met 
people who genuinely believe that the only way they can study and 
practice the Dharma is by learning Tibetan, chanting Tibetan-style, 
saying prayers in Tibetan, and even wearing Tibetan traditional dress. 
 I’ve also noticed that Tibetan lamas spend a great deal of time 
teaching their students Tibetan traditions that have nothing at all to 
do with the Dharma. I wouldn’t be surprised if, by so doing, some lamas 
have led their western students to believe that it’s only possible to 
attain enlightenment as a Tibetan.  If Buddhadharma in general and 
Vajrayana in particular are to be passed on and taught to non-Tibetans, 
it is so important that there is a proper cultural understanding between
 teacher and student that allows the genuine Dharma to be transmitted 
properly and accurately. This is really difficult, but absolutely 
necessary.  Culture, after all, is a habit, and habits are the 
fundamental manifestation of ignorance. So it is totally unfair to blame
 the Vajrayana system when lamas and students don’t follow Vajrayana 
procedures because they prefer to rely on their cultural assumptions and
 habits – which I’m afraid most lamas like to do. The Vajrayana 
system itself lays out all the necessary procedures very clearly. Almost
 all major initiations – even the very first of the usual four 
initiations – are preceded by at least six warnings. These warnings 
include instructions about the lama showing the vajra, giving the oath 
water, and more. But how many of us lamas really emphasize these 
warnings?  When Tibetan lamas give initiations to Tibetans and 
Bhutanese, most recipients have no clue about what’s going on, and very 
few even care to know. By and large, Tibetan lamas take for granted that
 western students have the same attitude. These lamas sometimes give 
initiations to thousands of students at a time, but too often students 
don’t know what they received, let alone what the ritual meant, because 
the Vajrayana’s warnings were simply read out loud and left unexplained.
 To be fair, some responsibility must also rest with the western 
students, who are sometimes more interested in looking and speaking like
 Tibetans than actually practising the Dharma. If they are 
Tibetologists, activists who yearn to be the saviours of Tibetan 
culture, then that’s the way to go – and I assume there might be some 
benefit in it.  But here we are talking about Buddhadharma, and 
Buddhadharma is way beyond ‘culture’ and ‘country’. So if you are 
interested in attaining so-called enlightenment, if you want to be 
‘awakened’ and liberated from all defilements and the effects of 
defilements, then obviously you have to go beyond culture altogether – 
even the curry-eating, tsampa-chewing and coffee-drinking cultures. 
 Clear distinctions between Dharma and culture must be made if we are 
ever to sort out the current confusions – which, as I’ve said, will 
probably continue for a while longer. Looking at the next generation of 
lamas and how they are currently manifesting, I must say, I can’t see a 
glimmer of awareness of this issue amongst any of them.  I’ve been 
told that Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche made his students do sitting practice
 – shamatha – for several years. He also made them study the Sravakayana
 and Mahayana teachings in detail, putting them through years of 
preparation before they were granted any Vajrayana initiations or 
pointing out instructions. Trungpa Rinpoche went so far as to create the
 Shambhala phenomenon – Shambhala training and sitting practice – to 
ensure that his students were really well prepared for the Buddhadharma
 All the prescribed preparatory procedures are important. Remember, 
Naropa was already a celebrated scholar and the Dean of Nalanda 
University before he even tried to find his guru – in other words, he 
was fully prepared. 
 Direct Warnings that were Misinterpreted
 
Another factor that adds to the complexity of the current situation is 
that however familiar students are with the advice that they should 
analyze and test the guru before becoming his student – and even when 
they are given direct warnings – part of being human is that there are 
some things we simply don’t want to hear, especially when we have been 
hit by the arrow of inspiration. This means that in practice, on the 
rare occasions when the proper warnings are given, many people simply 
don’t listen. Some don’t even hear the words of the warning. For many of
 us human beings, the skill of being able to listen and actually hear 
isn’t easy to pick up.  Sadly, warning people of potential danger or
 trouble can itself end up causing even more problems. Recently, I was 
very frank with a young woman who was new to the Dharma and suggested 
that she stay away from a particular young lama because of a few things I
 knew about him. My advice was heartfelt and disinterested. I wasn’t 
only concerned for her, but also for the young Rinpoche and for the 
Buddhadharma. But she didn’t take my advice well – actually, she took it
 completely the wrong way. To her I was being controlling, possessive 
and jealous. Of course, many young people have rebellious natures and 
often do the opposite of what you suggest. But in this case, she 
repeated everything that I’d told her confidentially to the young lama, 
and the upshot was that a rift opened up between the lama and me. This 
was very unfortunate.  Something similar happened when a student 
complained to me about how her guru was constantly asking her to buy him
 things – expensive Rolex watches, cars, antiques etc. By the time she 
came to me, she had already bought him many things, but now, she said, 
she couldn’t keep it up because she also had financial obligations to 
her family. I replied that generally speaking, if she, as a student, 
really wanted to make expensive offerings to her teacher, she should 
make as many as she could, for as long as she could. But, if she felt 
the slightest awkwardness about what she was doing, she should express 
her concern directly to her guru instead of to me. So she spoke to her 
teacher. Unfortunately, she also told him that I was the one who had 
told her to address him directly, and from that day to this, he and I 
have not been on speaking terms. Giving advice can be hazardous.  
What if, years ago, I’d warned the Rigpa students who wrote the letter 
critical of Sogyal Rinpoche, to examine and analyze their teacher 
carefully before they became his students. Would they have listened to 
me? I doubt it. At worst, an overt warning could have resulted in major 
misunderstandings and serious conflict – which as a human being I 
certainly want to avoid. I also remember some very defensive reactions 
from Rigpa students after a joke I made about the excessive Tibetan 
paraphernalia I saw in Rigpa centres.  But what if I had taken on 
the role of devil’s advocate? What if I had not only advised these 
students to check and analyze their guru, but gone further and said: 
“Sogyal Rinpoche has introduced you to so many truly great Vajrayana 
teachers. Why did you choose to continue following him rather than one 
of those great masters?” What if I’d raised the question: “Apart 
from what Sogyal Rinpoche himself tells you, what proof do you have that
 he was fully and properly trained? He was only a child when he received
 teachings from Jamyang Khyentse Chökyi Lodrö – did you know that? Did 
you know he was just ten or twelve years old when Khyentse Chökyi Lodrö 
passed away? Did you know that he went to a Catholic school in Kalimpong
 and then to Delhi University? So when did he do his training?” What
 if I’d asked: “Do you see Tibetans flocking to Sogyal Rinpoche for 
teachings? Tibetans are always very polite to each others’ faces, but do
 you know what they really think? Maybe, in spite of the fact they know 
he hasn’t been well-trained, they are polite to Sogyal Rinpoche because 
they are following Tibetan custom.” What if I had raised such 
questions? Would any of the students who are now being so critical have 
listened to me? I’m not just talking about Sogyal Rinpoche here. What if
 I raised such questions about all our present lamas, rinpoches and 
khenpos?     Karma so often undercuts analysis and bypasses 
warnings. And of course, karmic links and karmic debts always play out, 
including the continual misreading of cultural cues – for example, 
whatever they think of each other, Tibetans are always publicly polite 
to each other, which many westerners misinterpret as a confirmation of 
high regard.   The Tibetans and the Bhutanese – and I myself am a 
Tibetan-Bhutanese hybrid – have been thoroughly marinated in umpteen 
cultural habits. I must admit that more often than not, when it comes to
 talking frankly and honestly about these important issues, these habits
 really get in the way. People like me think we should always act humbly
 and often misunderstand the difference between being humble and not 
being upfront. But the habit of humility often serves a purpose, and 
can, for example, prevent unnecessary arguments from breaking out. 
Personally, I would still opt for this approach, partly out of habit and
 partly to stay out of trouble – and as human beings, most of us usually
 try to stay out of trouble if we can.  Of course, lamas often don’t
 say certain things openly because their words have, in the past, been 
misreported, misquoted and cut and edited to mean something else 
entirely –lamas are too often misrepresented in all kinds of ways. So, 
being able to say what they really think can become problematic. 
Basically, as I said earlier, warning people about how to choose their 
guru is one of the most difficult things a lama can do. But if we hold 
back from warning students openly, how can consequences be avoided?
 Different Times, Different Challenges

 I have received abhishekas from about thirty lamas, but I cannot claim 
to have properly analyzed all of them. To be perfectly honest, I’m one 
of those Tibetans who mostly jumps into initiations without taking the 
time to examine the preceptor much at all. But before I decided to 
receive a particular initiation or teaching from a lama, I did usually 
remember to use my common sense.  One method you can use to choose 
which lamas to receive initiations from is very similar to the way you 
can, for example, find out where to get good pasta in Italy. We assume 
that the places local Italians eat will be pretty good, because Italians
 know about pasta. Based on that common sense principle, I have myself 
avoided receiving teachings from certain lamas.   Orgyen Tobgyal 
Rinpoche once told me that when Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche first 
visited France, hardly anyone attended his teachings, but as soon as it 
was known that Sogyal Rinpoche would teach, everyone would go to hear 
him. Of course, I understand why people flock to hear Sogyal Rinpoche; 
he speaks English and is humorous, so students can relate to him ¬– they
 feel connected. We human beings do tend to opt for accessibility when 
we can, so that may also have been a factor.  I have to say that 
none of the gurus from whom I received initiations and teachings ever 
abused me financially, sexually, physically or emotionally. But I must 
admit, I also assumed that they would never do such a thing – which was 
wrong of me. Once you decide to take a teacher as your guru, you are not
 supposed to make any assumptions about whether you will be treated well
 or not, because the point is to have the courage to surrender 
completely before you embark on the completely unknown and unpredictable
 Vajrayana journey. And as a Vajrayana student, I like to aspire that in
 future lifetimes I really will be able to maintain pure perception of 
my guru and have the ability to do whatever he or she asks of me, no 
questions asked. However, the common sense method for choosing a 
guru that I spoke of using the pasta example has its limitations. I am 
quite sure that many people fall for a guru because he or she happens to
 be the student of a great master, or because he or she has been 
publicly lovey-dovey with many other great gurus. My own experience has 
taught me that this approach doesn’t always work.   Kyabje Dilgo 
Khyentse Rinpoche so venerated and respected Jamyang Khyentse Chökyi 
Lodrö, Shechen Gyaltsab and Khandro Tsering Chödrön that anyone 
connected with them also became very precious to him – even their pet 
dogs. I couldn’t see much greatness in several of the people for whom 
Kyabje Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche showed such great affection. When I 
mentioned how I felt to my personal tutor, he replied that Kyabje Dilgo 
Khyentse Rinpoche had perfectly pure perception of everyone and 
everything, especially those connected with his own guru. Then he 
scolded me, “This is something you need to learn.” Now I realize just 
how priceless that advice was.  In a nutshell, for those of us who 
set out on a spiritual journey, judging a guru by his own CV and the 
illustrious masters he knows is not always a reliable method. In fact, 
on this path the very existence of that type of CV is fishy. Naropa 
didn’t go to Tilopa because he had a great CV. On the contrary, Naropa 
had to seek Tilopa out. No one knew Tilopa because he was a common 
fisherman, so just finding him was extremely difficult.  
 Checks and Balances

 To institute checks and balances in the spiritual world isn’t easy. As 
the Buddha himself said a couple of millennia before it was recognized 
in the American constitution, no system is perfect. Buddhism is, 
nevertheless, a system, but a system that itself doesn’t actually 
believe in system; and its ultimate checks and balances are karmic 
causes and conditions. Buddhism also recognizes that only an enlightened
 being can tell if another person is perfect or not.  Some of you 
are currently trying to do everything you can to ensure that lamas who 
misbehave are not left unpunished. Your motivation may well be good: you
 may want to spare more innocent people the suffering caused by that 
kind of bad behaviour, and you may not want to see anyone else driven 
away from the Dharma because of it.  My personal feeling is that, 
these days, there are very few morally decent, compassionate, kind, 
caring and uncorrupted human beings in the world – the kind of person 
for whom we instantly feel a sense of awe when we meet them. And as the 
mentality of ‘each man for himself’ grows stronger every day, the few 
decent human beings left on this planet are disappearing fast. Perhaps 
exposing people’s faults publicly like this, in social media and 
elsewhere, will make others afraid to act badly? Maybe this is the best 
we can do in this degenerate day and age. At least some lamas, 
especially the younger generation, are being sent a powerful message 
that they can’t get away with this kind of behaviour. So at a time when 
power and prestige are so intoxicating that some lamas consider 
themselves untouchable and forget that they could well be held to 
account, perhaps it is necessary? But I really don’t believe that public
 shaming or legal punishment is the answer, or that it will actually 
solve the whole problem.  Many people seem to be so disillusioned by
 this current situation that they think we have reached a turning point 
that signifies the beginning of the final decline and demise of 
Buddhadharma. Sadly, some students may be so disillusioned that for 
them, there is no turning back.  I’m afraid there is no doubt about 
it: Buddhism is declining in this world. I am certain that the 
misgivings people have about the key stakeholders in Buddhadharma – like
 the Tibetan rinpoches who should have a vested interest in the survival
 of Buddhism – is one of the reasons why so many feel so discouraged. 
 While Buddhism has always faced outer obstacles – like invasions, 
forced conversion by Islam, cunning conversion by Christianity, 
patronizing assimilation by Hinduism, and so on – its main obstacle is 
internal and stems from sectarian attitudes. Today, most of us are 
barely aware of this, even though it’s the greatest of all the threats 
Buddhism is facing.  There are many factors contributing towards the
 degeneration of Buddhadharma. Under the banner of rational objectivity 
as opposed to superstition, and clothed in a supposedly undogmatic 
liberalism, many among the European and American Buddhist elite are 
currently promoting a version of Buddhism that completely does away with
 reincarnation. Their campaign has the potential to destroy Buddhism far
 more surely than any of its internal scandals. After all, the current 
scandal is about just one person, whereas the pernicious and apparently 
contagious trend of misrepresenting the Dharma – which is being 
perpetrated by many and affecting even more – is spreading so fast that 
it is far more insidious and destructive.  In addition, there’s a 
large group of ‘respectable’ life-style teachers who cherry-pick and 
plagiarize Buddhist ideas without compunction. They market their 
approaches as ‘mindfulness’ and ‘secular ethics’, but are careful to 
leave out any terms, expressions or jargon that sound even remotely 
religious, on the pretext of making the Buddha’s ideas accessible to 
modern people. They lack the decency even to acknowledge the original 
author of the ideas and practices they peddle, and instead often try to 
insinuate or even baldly claim that they have discovered it all for 
themselves. To me that’s theft, plain and simple. I would have thought 
that westerners, who so cherish notions about intellectual property and 
whose countries enforce strict copyright rules for the protection of 
writers and institutions, would behave better.  Even more dangerous 
are the self-made gurus who use mindfulness and other Buddhist practices
 to turn the essence of the Buddhist path into techniques for increasing
 our love of samsara. By doing so, they utterly destroy the entire 
purpose of the Buddhadharma, which is to liberate suffering beings from 
samsara. If this perversion of the Buddha’s teachings is not demonic – 
the ‘devil incarnate’, as Christians might say – what is? At the 
other extreme, Buddhism is also being undermined by the pervasive 
tendency in Sikkim, Nepal and Bhutan to preserve so-called ‘precious 
culture’ and ‘age-old tradition’ at any cost. In the process of trying 
to embalm their traditions, they are effectively hijacking Buddhism and 
stripping it of all meaning and relevance for this modern age.  
Sogyal Rinpoche’s misbehaviour may be his ruin and, sadly, it may be the
 ruin of some of his students. But the other far more destructive trends
 within Buddhadharma have the power to affect millions and will 
ultimately destroy Buddhism far more completely than this present 
scandal. Frankly, they are even more deadly than the decimation wreaked 
on Buddhadharma by the Cultural Revolution and other external forces. 
 What Now?

 The present situation is difficult and unfortunate, there’s no doubt 
about it. But at the same time it’s nothing new. In the course of 
Buddhist history many such scandals have blown up – and some were much 
worse. I think that this particular situation is giving us all the 
opportunity to show how resilient we are. It’s also our chance to think 
about Buddhism’s big picture rather than just one small corner.   
For followers of the Buddha, particularly Vajrayana students and 
especially students of Sogyal Rinpoche and those who are asking very 
hard questions, I firmly believe that the current discussion about how 
gurus behave is rooted in a sincere desire to sort things out and to 
help the Rigpa sangha and larger Buddhist world. This is the positive 
aspect of the kind of questioning we are seeing today, and it’s an 
aspect that really must be recognized and appreciated.  Like it or 
not, as members of the wider Buddhist sangha and specifically as vajra 
brothers and sisters, we have created a bond between us that is far more
 important than family. But in our close relationships, we human beings 
often suffer as a result of miscommunication. What is the antidote for 
miscommunication? Communication! So now’s the time to clear a space in 
which genuine, wholehearted communication can take place. In fact, I’ve 
already seen a number of letters and on-line postings by people who are 
making a big effort to find a good solution. Above all, though, we 
really must look at the big picture – this is most important. We must 
not make outcasts of the Rigpa sangha or of any of its individual 
members. It’s also vital that we remember and acknowledge just how much 
goodness Sogyal Rinpoche has brought to Europe and to America. The fact 
that he introduced so many people to such truly great teachers alone is a
 contribution to the Dharma that can’t be repaid, because those 
outstanding masters were not just authentic Dharma teachers, they were 
some of the greatest living beings of the century.  On balance, I 
would argue that Sogyal Rinpoche has contributed far more benefit to 
this world and Buddhadharma than harm. We must remember this. It’s far 
too easy to view this current situation simplistically, then take sides 
and gang up on those with opposing views – especially where devotion is 
involved. For myself, what’s been happening recently amongst the 
Rigpa sangha has really enhanced my appreciation of many of Rigpa’s 
students – those that some might label as blind sycophants. I myself 
know many who are diligent, kind, eager to learn, and who really care 
about the continuity of the Buddhadharma and lineage – which is rare in 
this world. In this day and age, for anyone even to attempt the practice
 of pure perception and maintain devotion for their teacher and the 
teachings is truly admirable. It is so encouraging to see so many first 
or second generation western practitioners dedicating themselves to 
Buddhist practice in this way. While it is tempting to focus entirely on
 the scandal and the disgrace, what we should really try to do is view 
it through a much larger and more positive lens. From what I can see, 
most Rigpa students recognize that there is something incredibly good in
 the teachings they have heard and in their lineage. And of all the 
western Vajrayana students I've come across, Rigpa students are among 
the best and humblest. Tibetans should also recognize that these 
westerners, unlike Tibetans themselves, were born and grew up in 
countries that lacked any form of Dharma influence. Yet many of these 
western students go to great lengths to seek out the Buddhist teachings.
 Without any historical Buddhist roots and absolutely no Buddhist 
culture in their countries of birth, they have nevertheless tried to do 
everything the Tibetans, who were their teachers, have asked of them. 
They have always tried to do their best. Many have even done things like
 turn their living rooms into small gathering places where people can 
practice. And most of them are not rich – many can barely make ends 
meet.  In this extreme, fanatical age, when so many are lost and 
desperately looking for some meaning in their lives, these westerners’ 
pursuit of Buddhadharma is remarkable and worthy of lavish praise. This 
is especially so at a time when so many people in the world voluntarily 
opt to follow the most extreme of all views and paths which glorifies 
harming themselves and others. Yet our so-called liberal, free, 
intellectual society tries so hard to justify this kind of extreme 
outlook and action. Some even label it ‘moderation’, laying the blame 
for its violence on an errant few, rather than recognizing that it’s the
 view and the path that are mistaken.  I would go as far as to say 
that there seems to be a trend amongst liberals and intellectuals – all 
those who pride themselves on being objective and love to criticize – 
for finding fault in things that are obviously good, and finding good in
 things that are obviously very bad. As a result, they put a remarkable 
amount of time and energy into deriding a path that’s based on love and 
compassion, has virtually no historical record of violence, and that 
teaches the most profound wisdom of dependent arising. And they put even
 more time and energy into justifying a path that glorifies violence and
 dualism. The present upheaval caused by the very public criticisms 
of Sogyal Rinpoche is distressing for many genuine Buddhist 
practitioners, especially now that the western media are seizing on it 
with such enthusiasm. I suspect that many liberals, atheists and much of
 the western media would be delighted if news of a Jain suicide bomber 
now hit the headlines, because it would prove their point that all 
religions have a dark side and harbour extremists. How can we not be 
discouraged when Germany’s largest daily newspaper, the Süddeutsche 
Zeitung with a daily readership of more than one million, publishes a 
lead article about the Sogyal Rinpoche scandal under the section heading
 ‘Buddhism’, and entitled “Abuse.” Imagine the outcry if the western 
press were to report every Muslim bombing and massacre under the heading
 ‘Islam!’ So in this hypocritical age, followers of the Buddha must 
be braver and more courageous than ever before. At a time when there is 
almost no support or encouragement for those who follow a genuine path, 
and when doubt is sown at every turn, it’s more important than ever that
 we – as individual practitioners and sanghas – don’t get swallowed up 
by scandal and factional conflicts. In an era when wrong views and 
murderous actions not only prevail, but are celebrated and even 
justified by respected liberal intellectuals, we must redouble our 
efforts to study the authentic view of Buddhadharma. By focusing on the 
big picture and the long-term future of Buddhism, this present crisis 
could be the perfect opportunity for us all to renew, for the sake of 
all suffering beings, our commitment and dedication to the study and 
practice of the Buddha’s authentic path to enlightenment.