A qualified guru understands the job. What is the job? Aiding people to discover their own liberation without making big deal of themselves.

In Dzogchen in particular, realization depends on one’s devotion to a guru. Why? The principle of Dzogchen is not gathering the two accumulations and so on. The principle of Dzogchen is discovering one’s innate potential for liberation, the pristine aspect of consciousness that lies underneath the ordinary aspects of consciousness and is their source. Knowledge (rig pa) of this self-originated pristine consciousness (rang las byung ba’i ye shes) is the essence of the Dzogchen path, and this knowledge depends on one’s relation with a guru, and that requires trust and devotion.

An authentic guru is dangerous in the sense that they have no other goal than assisting us, the devotee, in discovering this knowledge for ourselves. They cannot be cajoled, bribed, or flattered into satisfying our fantasies of liberation. Our fantasies tend to be shipwrecked on the indomitable rock of their presence.

A real guru’s presence reminds one of how ordinary one is. Devotion to an authentic guru is an exercise in humbleness. Our vision of our gurus is always ordinary. We try to convince ourselves that we have pure vision when we see them picking their nose. We gaslight ourselves with Vajrayāna fantasies. But a real guru shows us that the state of Samantabhadra is right there, in front of us, immanent, like a live wire, even when they pick their nose.

One must be careful when picking up a live wire. Likewise, one needs to take care when choosing a guru. When one enters into a genuine relationship with an authentic guru, one cannot hide from oneself. And that’s the point. One is only going to get burnt by an authentic guru when one hides from oneself. If we hide from ourselves, we will never discover that the root guru’s message, the sanctuary of the great bliss of Samantabhadra, is no where else than in ourselves nor far away in a distant place.

The discovery of that place, however, depends on meeting someone who has already been there. That is why we need a guru, someone “heavy in qualities.” And devotion to such a person is a sublime gift.

On the contrary, a necessary condition for the existence of capitalism is the presence of certain kinds of commons. Indeed, without the capacity of capitalists to call upon the mutual aid and class solidarity of other capitalists and to use the communal character of workers to their advantage, capitalism would not have been able survive the shock of class struggle over centuries.

Barbagallo, Camille; Beuret, Nicholas; Harvie, David. Commoning with George Caffentzis and Silvia Federici (p. 209). (Function). Kindle Edition.

It all began with academic journals charging outrageous fees for 5000 word articles to the tune of 35-50$ a pop. And now we are in the midst of the greatest primitive accumulation event in human history. That is all AI is. Anthropic reportedly bought 50,000,000 million books, cut the pages out of them and scanned them through optical character recognition into their database. Knowing how inaccurate OCR can be, is it any wonder that AI is error-filled?

But that is not the main point. Human knowledge is a commons. Now, some dipshit is surely going to be tempted to bring up the long discredited notion called “The Tragedy of the Common.” Save your breath please. Human knowledge belongs to everyone. Not to Google, whose motto is now “Be evil;” not to Anthropic, who just crossed the boundary line from benign actor to existential threat to world civilization with Mythos; to Open AI, which has always been flawed, etc.

Jerry Mander warned us more than three decades ago to be suspicious of technology. The confluence of LLM’s, video, and personal devices is leading us to places we do not understand and are not prepared to cope with. Capital promises everything, and for most people on the globe delivers very little other than war, a polluted environment, rampant illness, and poverty. Don’t believe the hype.

None of the above has anything to do with the Dharma. The experience of positive mental factors has nothing to do with “feeling good.” “Feeling good” generally refers to an absence of worry about negative phenomena, such as illness, aging, and death— everything that goes along with the three kinds of suffering.

To recap, the three kinds of suffering are suffering of suffering, suffering of change, and the suffering of compounded phenomena.

There is a legendary story of someone asking the 16th Karmapa why they didn’t feel better after practicing Buddhism for many years. His reply, apparently was, “Why did you expect samsara to get better?”

Samsara does not get better, ever, anywhere, at any time, for anyone, at all, no exceptions.

Does this mean we must feel miserable? No, only when we feel miserable do we to feel miserable. In fact, knowing that samsara will never feel better should make us happy, for therein lay the seeds of the desire to escape.

From these seeds, we can begin to cultivate the limbs of the path. Path dharmas, such as faith (śraddha), effort, mindfulness, samadhi, and wisdom, while not making us feel better, give us the relief of knowing that we are doing something concrete to address the existential question all Buddhists should realize as essential—how to be free from afflictive birth.

So the next time you feel like life sucks, and it will never get better, cheer up, because it is true, it won’t. But that does not mean you cannot do anything about it. You can. You can hear the Dharma, reflect on the Dharma, and cultivate the Dharma through personal discipline, authentic contemplation practice, and wisdom.

But Buddhists do not wage war, at least, Buddhists who are following the principles of avihimsa, non-harming. Buddhists wage peace. Like any soldier, they go through basic training, adopting personal liberation restraints. They may then move on to advanced training, bodhisatva conduct, and some may even be interested in secret mantra, the special weapons and tactics division of the Buddha’s army. All of this training is dedicated to waging peace.

How does one wage peace? Can one wage peace with an afflicted mind, one filled with rage? No. Anger? No. Peace can only be waged when one’s mind is imbued with the four brahma viharas—loving kindness, compassion, empathy, and most importantly, equanimity. Equanimity (upekṣa) means to be free of partiality and aversion towards allies and enemies, partners and competitors, and so on. It is perhaps the most difficult of the four to apply consistently.

Based upon love and compassion, one then cultivates any of the three types of bodhicitta, aspiration for awakening—the aspiration to become an arhat, pratyekabuddha, or a buddha. Some people mistakenly assert arhats and pratyekabuddhas are selfish, but this is an error. They just do not have the imagination that allows them to think it is possible or desirable to attain complete buddhahood.

The bodhisatva is the frontline warrior in waging peace. But do not think that bodhisatvas are obvious or that one can know them through an overt commitment to Mahāyāna Buddhism. Many bodhisatvas have no knowledge of their past lives, many bodhisatvas are not even Buddhists. Until they reach the pure bhūmis, bodhisatvas forget all their realization and have to start over from the beginning every time. But like any learned skill, in each life time, they run through the stages more quickly, if they are lucky enough to meet the Dharma. Many do not for eons. Nevertheless, having taken bodhisatva vows in past lives, such bodhisatvas are motivated by compassion and aid sentient beings far better than many of us who call ourselves Buddhists. Candrakīrti states that there are no outer signs by which one can discern a bodhisatva. A bodhisatva can only be known through their acts of compassion.

Waging peace has nothing to do with social justice movements, but it could; it has nothing to do with addressing inequality; but it could, and so on. “Waging peace” first and foremost refers to defeating the enemy, self-grasping, which is the source of all misery and suffering in the world. If one cannot defeat self-grasping, one will always be defeated by everything else.

When we have begun to overcome our self-grasping, become free of the poison of the five afflictions, at that point, we can really be benefit to others. Until then, not so much. We need to recognize our limitations, and at the same time not abandon our aspiration to benefit sentient beings.

One of the most effective weapons in the arsenal of the warrior of awakening is generosity. In generosity, there are four types: material generosity, giving protection, giving love, and giving the Dharma. Giving the Dharma is the most effective way to wage peace. We try to understand where any given person is at and we educate them in a Dharma suitable for that person. We will not always succeed, especially in internet spaces. The internet attenuates communication, robs it of context. It’s not easy to wage peace in this medium. Still, no one said waging peace is easy.

There is much more that could be said on this topic. But for now, as Buddhists, let us always try to wage peace, and never war, refraining from violence in word and deed, as best we can. We are not perfect, so we will not always succeed, being subject to afflictions ourselves, but if we always try to do our best, then there is no fault.

In these trying Kali Yuga times, try to not spend that much time being outraged by the afflicted behavior of other sentient beings. Samsara is a madhouse and we should not expect to much, if anything, of others. There is not much point in outrage. It does not stop sentient beings from being sentient beings, i.e., dominated by the five poisons. Expecting other people to observe some defined ethical standard, even in the Buddhist community, is delusional, especially in a world filled with sociopathic leaders, both secular and religious. All we should expect of sentient beings is that they will invariably act out of self-interest, and when that competes with one’s own interests, they will choose themselves first. It is as rare as stars in daytime that sentient beings place the happiness of others before their own. Sadly, it is only when we put the happiness of others before our own that everyone will truly experience happiness. But, this is not possible in a modern, capitalist economy.

We cannot condition others, we can only observe ourselves. A Tibetan proverb holds, “For looking at others, you only need eyes; but for looking at yourself, you need a mirror.” The only way a bodhisatva can be honest is to use the mirror of mindfulness. In the Lojong teachings, there is a slogan, “Of the two judges, heed the principal one.” This means that when confronted with external judgments and self-reflection, heed the latter over the former.

Samsara is an unrelenting battle. It is never satisfactory and there are no satisfactory outcomes for those who wander in samsara. Samsara is the House, and the House always wins.

The warrior of awakening then should try to help sentient beings free themselves from the mire of samsara. It’s endless, but the warrior of awakening is undaunted.

ལྔ་བརྒྱའི་ཐ་མ་རྩོད་དུས་སྙིགས་མ་ལ༔ སེམས་ཅན་ཐམས་ཅད་ཉོན་མོངས་དུག་ལྔ་རགས༔

ཉོན་མོངས་འབྱོལ་ཉོག་དུག་ལྔ་རང་རྒྱུད་སྤྱོད༔ དེ་འདྲའི་དུས་ན་ཁྱེད་འདྲའི་ཐུགས་རྗེས་སྐྱོབས༔

དད་ལྡན་མཐོ་རིས་འདྲེན་པའི་ཐུགས་རྗེ་ཅན༔ ཨོ་རྒྱན་པདྨ་འབྱུང་གནས་ལ་གསོལ་བ་འདེབས༔

བསམ་པ་ལྷུན་གྱིས་འགྲུབ་པར་བྱིན་གྱིས་རློབས༔

In the final 500 years during the degenerate Kāli Yuga,

the five poisonous afflictions of all sentient beings coarsen,

they indulge in the afflictions, and the five poisons consume their minds.

At such a time, protect us with your compassion.

We supplicate Padmasambhava of Oḍḍiyāna,

the compassionate one, who guides the faithful to higher realms—

bless us so that our wishes be effortlessly fulfilled.

Oṃ āḥ hūṃ vajraguru padma siddhi hūṃ

Samuel Johnson remarked, “Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.” We are going to be subjected to jingoism, and every objection to this idiocy will be met with cries of lack of patriotism.

All I can really say is Oṃ maṇi padme hūṃ. It’s going to be a long time until the midterms. I can only wish that Americans see through this and recall the last time we became involved in the Middle East, a war we still are paying down in the deficit.

No one wins a war. Everyone loses.

Whoever supports a war winds up in lower realms in their next life, and perhaps, will suffer a shorter life in this one.

Therefore, trust the Three Jewels, and understand that the law of karma is inevitable. Do not lend support to these fools, who spend other people’s lives as if they were pennies on the dollar.

Oṃ maṇi padme hūṃ.

A subtle consciousness of terror and fear stirs
toward the appearance of external objects.
An accumulation of traces of aversion produce
the coarse beating and slaying of perceived enemies. 
When the result of hatred ripens, 
there is the suffering of hell, boiling and burning.

Through the aspiration of the Buddha, myself,
may all sentient beings of the six realms
in whom strong hatred arises,
leave it aside without accepting and rejecting,
and having mastered rig pa,
attain the pristine consciousness of clarity.

—From the Powerful Aspiration1

These days it is all too common to see people who profess to be Buddhists justifying their anger about the state of the world, encouraging others to be angry.

I dissent.

As I have written elsewhere, anger is an afflictive emotion that arises from ignorance— not ignorance as a lack of knowledge of this or that subject, but ignorance of how to escape undesirable conditions, resulting in fear. In classical Buddhist texts, as above, the result of anger is birth in the eighteen hell realms.

Anger traps one in the dualism of self and other. Hostility and anger pyrrhically defeat themselves, being rash and short-sighted. The Buddha has said that a moment of anger destroys eons of merit.

We fuel our own anger; it never comes from outside, it is never foisted upon us by others. In response to the anger of others towards us, the best reply is “This is your anger; you own it; this is not mine.” Likewise, when we are in the throes of anger, that anger is not caused by some external force—it arises from our own afflictions. We own it; it is ours; it belongs to no one else. We must recognize and not allow ourselves to be trapped in our own emotions.

Anger is hard and unyielding. It gives no quarter and reflects everything around it. Its surface is shiny and bright, even glaring. Its nature is to destroy and separate. Anger is a distorted mirror, like those in a “funhouse.”

There is a force trapped in anger, however, called “the mirror-like pristine consciousness.” Mirror-like pristine consciousness too is unyielding, but it is not hard. It is unyielding, just as light never yields before the dark. It too is a mirror, but it is clear and does not distort reflections. If one wants to harness this force, one must look in the mirror and see oneself clearly. Only then will the force trapped in anger manifest its true nature, revealing rather than obscuring.

How does one harness the force of the mirror-like pristine consciousness? First, one must recognize anger, as it arises, as anger, and not allow one’s mind to remain focused on the object of anger. Second, to recognize anger as anger one must recognize that it is a product of ignorance. There is no such thing as “wise anger.” Anger always arises with its justification—I, me, and mine. I am being threatened, this is hurting me, my side is being harmed. One convinces oneself that one’s anger is justified. As long as one does not see through the illusions of self-grasping, one will never overcome subjection to the three poisons.

There is no need to transform anger into mirror-like pristine consciousness, anger’s nature is the mirror-like pristine consciousness. The mirror-like pristine consciousness manifests as anger when one does not see anger as anger, but instead allows anger to keep one distracted. But when we see the real nature of anger, we are confronted with a reflection of ourselves, not the “putative” enemy that we imagine fuels our anger.

When we correctly observe ourselves in a state of anger, at that moment we have an opportunity to free ourselves from anger, before we allow our anger to propel us into afflictive action, a.k.a karma. We have a moment right then and there to take this pure nature of anger—mirror-like pristine consciousness—and use it skillfully. Combined with compassion, we can employ this affliction as the path.

In these fraught times as we move deeper into the age of the five degenerations,2 Buddhists must depend on the teachings of the Dharma, and not give into the modernist tendencies to reframe destructive emotions like anger as “healthy.” Just as there is no wise anger, there is also no healthy anger.

In this degenerate age, it is imperative that Buddhists express compassion and love even towards those who regard us as enemies and heretics, and not succumb to affliction, especially the affliction of anger.

ཨོཾ་མ་ཎི་པད་མེ་ཧཱུཾ་ཧྲཱི༔

One of the first of these budding dharmapreneurs is Noah Rasheta, whose focus is so-called “Secular Buddhism.” His website, eightfoldpath.com, is trained on his own podcasts, and is accessed by prompting NoahAI, billed as “AI trained on Buddhist wisdom.” Whose Buddhist wisdom? Is Noah Rasheta a wise Buddhist? I guess you have to see for yourself and decide. Eightfoldpath.com has the usual testimonials. Have you ever seen a place that has bad testimonials (Is there a Yelp for Buddhist websites)?

This post is not really about Deepak or Noah, and their AI buddies, Digital Deepak and NoahAI. This post is about a deeper issue which faces the Buddhist community in general, and especially in the West, about the transmission of authentic Buddhist knowledge, that is the authentic reproduction of what is termed technically, pratyatmyavedanajñāna, the gnosis one knows oneself. This means that through the three wisdoms, hearing, reflection, and cultivation, one realizes for oneself the meaning of what one has heard, reflected upon, and cultivated. But it starts with hearing. And hearing begins with setting oneself down in the company of a living, breathing, human being who teaches the Dharma.

Bucar raises this issue in her article, namely:

[S]piritual guidance without accountability isn’t spiritual guidance. It’s a mirror that flatters. And mirrors don’t help you grow. They just show you what you already look like.

What she is talking about here is the LLM mirror effect, which reinforce the narcissism underlying modern trend of thinking we can get along by just googling whatever we want to know about, stating in her article that LLMs generally just tell you what you want to hear. So if one relying on an AI for spiritual guidance, one is foolish. Just check out the example of ChatGPT renaming itself Lumina, and convincing auto mechanic, Travis Tanner, not only was ChatGPT enlightened, but they have shared 11 past lives.

NoahAI has all the same pleasantries and tone that all these LLMs employ. Rasheta has a community page where people can ask him questions directly, but Liz Bucar points out, AIs tend to reinforce people’s narcissism. How can an AI correctly respond to a question about a meditator’s experience? If the AI is confined to Noah Rasheta’s content, how is this Buddhism and not Noahism? The same could be asked of any Buddhist who is creating AI content out of their own talks and lectures. Bucar adds:

This technology isn’t going away. Every wellness personality with a back catalog will be launching their own AI guru within the next years. So the question is whether we’ll be able to see these tools for what they actually are. Franchise models dressed up as wisdom traditions. Revenue engines wrapped in spiritual language. Automated intimacy sold as enlightenment.

Though I would not frame eightfoldpath as a wellness site, it is significant that it appeals to people’s wish for mundane results, with a ready made prompt, “How can Buddhism help in everyday life?” This seems like those people in the ‘80’s in multilevel marketing who used to wear large “ask me about” buttons.

To revisit my primary concern, Buddhism is a tradition which goes from mouth to ear, not in one ear and out the other. Buddha did not teach a trio of “AI Prompt, get meditation instruction from recorded podcast, sit, rinse repeat.” He taught us that we find a teacher, listen to their teachings, reflect on those teachings, and then cultivate those to the best of our ability. In the Dharma, there can be no Digital Buddha or BuddhaAI. Buddhism is living tradition and cannot be reduced to a prompt on a screen or a phone.

Name change in order, from A Buddhist View to One Buddhist View.

For people looking to directly access this substack, you can find it now by going to www.onebuddhistview.com.

Some of you might be thinking, “Isn’t this is just a difference between so-called Sarma and Nyingma,” but it isn’t so. The approach of mahāyoga in both streams is basically the same. Now, there is a caveat here, since much of this presentation depends on what is termed “the basis of purification” and “the purifier,” and in the teachings of Anuyoga and the Great Perfection, the perspective about these two things shifts dramatically.

To begin with, we have to understand what tantra actually refers to. The locus classicus for the Buddhist definition of tantra may be found in Guhyasamāja Uttaratantra:

A tantra is a ‘continuum.’

That continuum changes into three aspects;

distinguished by basis,

its nature and inalienability.

Fundamentally, then, a tantra is a continuum, and this continuum is divided into three parts: the tantra of the basis, the tantra of the path, and the tantra of the result. The tantra of the basis refers the mind stream of a sentient being as the “cause tantra.” It is the basis of purification. The tantra of the path, referred to as the path tantra, is the purifier. The practice of the path leads to the result tantra, the result of purification, termed “inalienable” because once the result has been attained, it can never be lost.

Tantras, like Guhyasamāja, Kālacakra, and the like, are texts that detail the practices connected with the three tantras: cause, path, and result. However, they are not the actual tantra under discussion.

The tantra of the path begins with empowerment (Skt. abhiṣeka; Tib. dbang bskur). One cannot practice creation and completion stages practices successfully without having received empowerment in a proper way. The Mahāmudrātilaka Tantra states:

There are no siddhis without empowerment

just as no oil is produced by pressing sand.

While there is some argument amongst scholars about what truly counts as an empowerment, in general, no one in Vajrayāna seriously takes issue with the notion that empowerment is necessary, and for that a qualified guru is necessary. There are different levels of empowerment for each of the four classes of tantra, broadly speaking. Here, we are confining ourselves to anuttarayoga or the inner tantras. The Mahāmudrātilaka Tantra continues:

One who proudly clarifies the tantras and āgamas

for one who lacks empowerment,

even of siddhi is attained, both ācārya and disciple

will go to hell immediately upon death.

Sounds harsh? Since Vajrayāna is a body-based practice, it involves yogic practices that can cause severe psychosomatic disorders if the practitioner is not careful and systematic. This means that people who try to enter Vajrayāna practice without proper guidance in the creation and completion stages risk blocking their own progress. One needs an experienced guide who has some measure of realization (i.e. experience + understanding). Once one has received the ripening empowerments, one is then ready to receive the liberating instructions.

Each phase of Vajrayāna practice is meant to prepare the way for the next phase, and in particular, forestall obstacles on the path. Delusion is a particular danger, when one is not familiar with the very detailed roadmap by which one can measure one’s practice. This is no different than the standard Mahāyāna Buddhist teaching about the signs that arise on the five paths: accumulation, application, seeing, cultivation, and no more training. Indeed, the Vajrayāna path is structured according to the paths and stages shared with standard Mahāyāna.

Now, a full empowerment into a Vajrayāna cycle, such as Hevajra, and so on, generally requires participation in what is known as a dbang chen, a major empowerment. These generally require two days, and sometimes a third. The first day is the preparation day, where a series of ritual procedures are conducted, all with a view to remove obstacles for the disciple to receiving the four empowerments the following day.

So what are these four empowerments? They are the vase empowerment, which is grounded in yoga tantra, and provides the basis for meditating upon oneself as the pledged deity (Skt. samādāna devatā, Tib. yi dam lha). It is an empowerment where one’s five aggregates are recognized to be the nature of the five buddha families, and also includes the Vajrācarya empowerment, where one receives various vows. The second empowerment is called the secret empowerment, and is related to completion stage practices such as caṇḍlīyoga, and so on. The third empowerment is called the gnosis of the prajñā empowerment and is related to the much misunderstood completion stage practice called karmamudra. The final empowerment is termed the precious word empowerment,1 and consists of a direct introduction through words and symbols to the state of mahāmudrā.2

These four empowerments are taken upon what is known as the body maṇḍala. The cause body maṇḍala is the nāḍīs, the syllables inside the nāḍīs, the bindus which move through the nāḍīs, and the vāyus which move the bindus through the nāḍīs. The creation and completion stage both employ the body maṇḍala as the path.

As I mentioned in my last post on this subject, the purpose of practicing the two stages is to reverse the afflictive process of birth in the three realms. In general, when reversing a process, one must begin at the end, and in our case, we have to understand the process of the formation of the human body. In the Vajrayāna account of the formation of the human body, our consciousness, as the all-basis consciousness merged with a vāyu called the mahāprāṇavāyu, moves through the bardo.

One point to consider is that in Vajrayāna, consciousness is never completely divorced from a connection with the elements. It is said that matter and consciousness are like a flower and its scent. The mahāprāṇavāyu itself has all five of the elemental vāyus within it.

The all-basis consciousness, the vāyu, and the male and female reproductive tissue all merge at the moment of conception and form a bindu, which is serves as basis for the development of the human body. The action of the vāyu divides the bindu into two, then four, and so on. As the zygote grows into a fetus, the vāyu creates passages known as nāḍīs, and forms syllables within those nāḍīs, which govern our perception—in this case, our perception of the human realm. When the body maṇḍala is fully formed at thirty-eight weeks, we are born into the human realm with human realm experiences. There are detailed accounts of what forms when in the accounts of the formation of the human body provided in the tantras.

The process of creation and completion work in reverse. We practice the creation stage connected with the vase empowerment to work with the body nāḍī maṇḍala. Visualizing ourselves as a deity, and visualizing our senses as a maṇḍala of deities has the effect of causing our body nāḍī maṇḍala to soften and become more pliable.3 This is why it is also important to practice yantra yoga (Tib. ‘prul ‘khor rnal ‘byor) right from the beginning. Many people incorrectly associate yantra yoga with the completion stage, as if it is only an enhancement for caṇḍalīyoga, etc. This is an incorrect point of view. It is axiomatic in all yoga traditions that to control the nāḍīs, one must control the body, to control the vāyu, one must control the nāḍīs, to control the mind, one must control the vāyu. In reality, one should begin the practice of yantra right away, as soon as one can learn it from a qualified teacher.

Next, after we have gained moderate stability in the creation stage, we next begin to work with the completion stage, in connection with the secret empowerment.4 First we work with the nāḍīgranthi (Tib. yi ge’i rtsa) maṇḍala, the array of knots inside the nadis that have the shapes of syllables. These knots are formed by the latent afflictions influencing the movement of the vāyu during gestation, which influences our impure vision in turn. The practices of prāṇayāma, including caṇḍalīyoga, are connected with purifying both the inner sheath of the ṇāḍīs as well as the syllables or knots.

The next completion practice is connected to the third empowerment, and works with bindu maṇḍala.5 This is the misunderstood practice of working with a partner of the opposite sex, either physically or visualized, to produce a nonconceptual example gnosis based on a fleeting experience of physical bliss. The basis of purification here is formation of the zygote.

Finally, the last maṇḍala one works with in the completion stage is the jñānavāyu mandala.6 The practice here is an extension of the practice found in the third empowerment. However, the basis of purification here is the very moment of conception.

This brief overview is provided so that the reader can have a clearer understanding of the purpose and function of the four empowerments and their relationship to the creation and completion stage. In reality, what is mentioned above is merely the tip of the iceberg. The reason for providing this brief overview is so that people who are considering entering Vajrayāna have a clear view of the purpose of Vajrayāna practice from a traditional perspective, one grounded in thirty-five years of practice and study of original texts in the Tibetan language.

These days it is popular for people to write about their understanding of Vajrayāna on places like Substack and so on. A very few have done anything like a three year retreat, and even then a three year retreat is not enough, nor are two, nor are three. Most of them also have no skills in Sanskrit, or in Tibetan in particular. This means that there is a great deal of uninformed opinion posing as expertise.

At the root of the problem is seeing Vajrayāna Dharma as a set of techniques for personal growth and optimization. This then renders Vajrayāna Dharma ripe for hostile takeover by spiritual influencers of all varieties, who then sell off the parts of Vajrayāna they like, and leave the rest behind. Of course, the neoliberal exploitation of the Dharma is not confined to Vajrayāna; we see it in Zen, Vipassana, and so on, as well as non-Buddhist traditions.

Simply put, it seems to me that many people truly do not understand the two fundamental points of Vajrayāna: (1) sentient beings are under the power of affliction and karma, and without overcoming affliction and karma, they will continue to cycle endlessly in the three realms. (2) The reason for practicing Vajrayāna is because one aspires to benefit all sentient beings by attaining buddhahood through the most rapid means possible and one believes that the teachings of Vajrayāna are the best manner in which to fulfill that aspiration.

If someone does not accept this viewpoint of the cosmos, there is really no point for them to practice the profound practices of the two stages, which lead to the realization of Mahāmudra, let alone enter the practices of the pinnacle of all vehicles, Dzogchen. Without bodhicitta, the aspiration to achieve buddhahood to benefit all sentient beings, no matter how long it takes, there is no actual Vajrayāna. In other words, Vajrayāna is a branch of Mahāyāna. Without a Mahāyāna perspective, Vajrayāna is meaningless. Without the commitment to take rebirth for as long as it takes to attain full buddhahood to benefit sentient beings, Mahāyāna is meaningless.

Secondly, Vajrayāna is grounded in a very specific view of the human body, grounded in the Ayurvedic system of medicine. A stack I was reading this morning made the point that there are all kinds of maps we can apply to the same subject. But one of the interesting things about Tibetan Medicine—an offshoot of Ayurveda adapted by Tibetans to their own climate and available materia medica—is a detailed and empirical understanding of the anatomy and physiology of the human body. The details are not important other than to note that since at least the 10th century CE, and likely long before, Tibetan physicians understood how arteries, blood vessels, the lymphatic system, and nerves functioned in the body, and that physical functions in the human body were controlled by the brain long before these structures were clearly identified in Western medicine.

Why do I mention this? In order to understand Vajrayāna, all tantras state that in order to understand the basis for practicing Vajrayāna in toto, we need to understand how the human body forms. Without this understanding, we have no real hope at all of understanding the reasons and purposes of prāṇayāma yogas like caṇḍalī, a.k.a gtum mo. We can’t even properly understand why we practice the creation stage, since the creation stage specifically targets the afflictions and their traces that cause us to experience the world as a human being who perceives a human realm in the first place.

While of course there is a detailed understanding of the process of gestation of human beings in modern physiology, it will not help us understand the logic and reason we practice the creation and completion stages. Why? Simply put, the map is completely different and has a different goal. The map in Vajrayāna is not actually mapped to arteries, blood vessels, and nerves, though there are correlates recognized by Tibetan physicians, there is a relationship. The discussion of the thirty-eight weeks of the development of the human embryo in the Buddhist tantras is grounded in empirical observation.

So what is the point of the creation and completion stage? Simply put, the point of the creation and completion stage is not to have experiences of bliss, clarity, and nonconceptuality. The fundamental point of the creation stage and completion stage is to reverse the entire process of human gestation from the moment of conception in this life to our birth at 38 weeks by reversing the afflictive processes that drive it. In other words, the purpose of all Vajrayāna practice is to reverse dependent origination and put an end to uncontrolled rebirth in the three realms, just like all other Buddhist traditions.

Just to give a simple example, the purpose of caṇḍalī yoga is not heat. The heat is simply a byproduct of our body flushing due to temporary oxygen deprivation. The genuine purpose of caṇḍalī and other prāṇayāmas is to cause the cessation of the eighty gross prakṛtis— afflictive states associated with a coarse mind—connected with desire, hatred, and ignorance, and likewise, connected with the three processes of dissolution at death—white illumination, red illumination, and black illumination.

This is just one small example. In reality, the creation stage also has profound meaning. For example, merely by meditating on the celestial mansion, one is engaging in the thirty-seven adjuncts of awakening, by focusing on each of its parts. But of course, one must know what those are.

There is no way to modernize these teachings. Vajrayāna may be a swift path, but it requires diligence and learning. So please, if you are interested in Vajrayāna teachings, do not choose a teacher who is not educated in the traditional system. There is no way to improve Vajrayāna. It was taught by sambhogakāyas to mahāsiddhas, realized by yogis, commented upon by paṇḍitas, and brought to Tibet by translators like Vairocana and Rinchen Zangpo.

Don’t sell yourself short. Find an authentic guru.

It isn’t fair. Other people get to honor their heritage with Black, Asian, Latino (though there are problems with this appellation as well), etc. We people of European ancestry get lumped together into a region we never came from. I would much prefer it if I were allowed to choose “Northern European” as my demographic category, rather than white or caucasian, since these two terms are loaded with the racist history and colonial disenfranchisement, genocide, and displacement of Native people beginning in 1492 and the exploitation of Africans in the slave trade of the American colonies, beginning in 1619.

For example, I am of Highland Scottish, English, Dutch, Norwegian and Sami Descent, with a dash of Northern Italian in there—and a Mayflower descendant (Richard Warren). I think “pink” is a better term than “white,” since I am definitely more pink than white in my complexion. The Dutch and Mayflower connection makes my heritage OG settler-colonialist stock. My Scottish heritage is a result of the genocidal Highland Clearances and wholesale suppression of Gaelic and Scottish culture in the Highlands following the defeat of Bonnie Prince Charlie at the battle of Culloden in 1745. My folks were displaced to Canada, where they were involved in displacing earlier French colonialists and also First People. My Scandinavian heritage is mid-19th century, when the West was basically stolen from the Original People to make room for an influx of European settlers.

The point is, I am not a caucasian, I never was, and I never will be. “White” is also a ridiculous term. Light-skinned, maybe; but white-skinned, no. I have never seen anyone who looked white other than some Chinese and Japanese women who take extreme care never to expose themselves to the sun.

The American project is founded upon racism and racist categories. It is founded on ethnic essentialism. Until this is broadly recognized by all, we shall keep returning to the racist violence that is again being perpetrated by the US Govt. Humans come in all shades. But shades do not define us and never have.

Historians of authoritarianism always point out that in addition to the military and the police, there is also a secret police, accountable to no-one. It’s been clear since day one that the Patriot Act created the condition for a modern, repressive police state to rise in the USA. The only thing to wonder about is why it took so long. I guess we were distracted by foreign terrorists. Now that we have dealt with them, destroying and destabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan in the process, the State has turned its attention to the “enemy” within, “We the people.”

As a Buddhist observer, and someone whose political sentiment have always been aligned with the left—especially with deep ecologists like Arne Naess, Gary Snyder, (but not the racist Edward Abbey) and so on, and modern anarchists like Graeber, Wallis, Bookchin, and so on—I am not surprised by the backlash. It’s been building since 1965 and the Great Society initiatives passed under Johnson. Nixon and the Southern Strategy was the first evidence of backlash—but even before that were the systematic attempts by business interests in the United States to oppose and then undermine Social Security.

There has never been a valid danger of left wing authoritarianism happening in the United States, despite the absurd rhetoric of modern Republicans demonizing rightwing Democrats as radical left lunatics. What we are witnessing now is the rise of virulent right-wing authoritarianism in the United States and not much more needs to be said. Either you are against it or you are for it—at this point there is no middle way. The only option forward is either the consolidation of a fascist, white ethnostate or a diverse, multicultural society. The present attempt to literally Whitewash America is going to end in blood everywhere. Not only are innocent undocumented immigrants to the US being summarily deported without due process, and executed if they resist, American citizens, who supposedly have rights, are also being executed. Renee Good was not the first, she just happened to be “white.” All of this is upsetting.

I am not allowing myself to give into anger over these issues—anger clouds the mind and mirrors the impotence of the white supremacists, whose personal feelings of inadequacy and fear of others has led them to enlisting in ICE and violating American laws. Anger exhausts one emotionally. I prefer to cultivate compassion for everyone. Compassion is a choice, so is anger. We have good examples for this. The Buddha states in the Udanāvarga:

Hostility never pacifies the hostile,

those without hostility pacify hostility.

Since animus harms living beings,

the wise do not engage in hostility.

The commentary by Prajñāvarmin expands on this and points out that hostility is only pacified by the absence of hostility, through patience, loving kindness, and compassion. The fault of not removing animus from one’s mind is injuring living beings. It is inevitable. As I wrote the other day, the commitment of refuge in the Dharma is to not harm other living beings.

Gandhi stated:

A satyagrahi [one who holds the truth] will always try to overcome evil by good, anger by love, untruth by truth, himsa by ahimsa. There is no other way of purging the world of evil.

Martin Luther King wrote in his autobiography:

“You must not harbor anger,” I admonished myself. “You must be willing to suffer the anger of the opponent, and yet not return anger. You must not become bitter. No matter how emotional your opponents are, you must be calm.”

Does this commitment to nonviolence or not harming other beings end at being passive? No. If we can prevent harm to other beings, people, animals, and so on, we must. We have an ethical obligation, a categorical imperative in Kantian terms. We do not even have to frame this in bodhisattva vow terms. The categorical imperative is more fundamental than bodhisattva vows.

First, we must recognize that anger is a toxic mental factor, driven by ignorance, and not allow it to flourish in our minds. We must meet anger with patience. Only then will we be able to exercise patience with the burgeoning police state.

In Vajrayāna terms, the fundamental energy of anger is the mirror-like pristine consciousness. Anger, resentment, and hostility lead to a hall of mirrors where every where one looks, one sees distorted images of oneself and others. But when anger, resentment, and hostility are pacified, the hall of mirrors vanishes, and the mind itself becomes a simple mirror that reflects without distortion.

We cannot control the anger of others, and we cannot condition others to agree with the Buddhist perspective. But we can observe ourselves and we can bring peaceful minds to this conflict, and hopefully, our focus on nonviolence, along with the other nonviolent traditions, will help derail forces of oppression, as has happened so many times before. Anger, resentment, and hostility will only lead to more anger, resentment, and hostility.

If one is going to stand in the street and protest, first cultivate loving kindness, compassion, and faith. When the crowd is being gassed, help others around you (and not by washing their eyes with water or milk, it only makes it worse). If you are not healthy enough to protest in the streets, you can write your representatives and lodge your objections. The Republic isn’t lost yet.

It is important to remember that the true motto of the United States is not “In God We Trust.” This unfortunate slogan has only been the motto of the United States since 1956. Prior to this, it was E Pluribus Unum, “One out of many” This should be the unity cry at protests against ICE. Five powerful syllables.

The police state is not inevitable. Resistance is and has always been an option. Black and Native people have been resisting the police state arrayed against them since the beginning of the Republic and before. Also immigrant workers have always felt the brunt of the police state. But, as the chant goes, “We shall Overcome.” There are far more of us than there are of them. They may have guns on their side, but we have rights and moral certitude on our side. They are afraid and hide behind masks, we have the courage of our convictions, and our faces are exposed.

E Pluribus Unum.

Trigger Warning: If you are not a Tibetan Buddhist, all of what follows will seem very strange to you.

Pre-buddhist Tibetans have a useful concept called bla, pronounced la. Generally, bla is mistranslated as soul, but is it not a soul in the theistic sense. La is often considered to be a support for life force. The thing about la that distinguishes it from the theistic soul is that one’s la can be stolen, it can wander, and it can be impacted, especially by shocking things. La can be lost, it can wander away, be stolen, or weakened, but the la can also be summoned back or retrieved (bla ‘gugs) or in the case of its being stolen by formless nonhuman beings, the la can be ransomed (bla bslu). The la can be hidden away as well. Often the la of the ancient kings of Tibet would be hidden in a rare piece of turquoise call a la stone (bla rdo). Such items would be then carefully hidden and protected. To this day, in many apotropaic Tibetan Buddhist rites, the symbolic use of la stones continues.

The symptoms of the loss of la are very marked: weakness that cannot be attributed to a physical condition, chronic fatigue, listlessness, dissociation, and so on are all symptoms associated with loss of la. Loss of la only responds to ritual remediation.

My teacher of Tibetan Medicine, Gen Phuntsog Wangmo, once related a story to us about a woman who had lost her la. During the Cultural Revolution, she witnessed a relative being shot to death in front of her. The resulting trauma manifested as a loss of la. With the application of the proper procedures for summoning her la, some of which involved walking around with her and calling her name, she eventually recovered.

When I saw yesterday the video of the extrajudicial murder of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis, I immediately thought of the story above. The thought occurred, “America has lost its la.”

There is no doubt that the world, the entire world, has fallen into the hands of banal, evil men and women. Truthfully, the Dharma view is that this is result of our collective lack of merit. Our society, for many reasons, has become increasingly unvirtuous.

Our lack of merit, in my opinion, begins with American adventurism into the Buddhist countries of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, as well as our abandonment of Tibet by Nixon. I am of the generation that watched Cronkite report on the Vietnam War every night, body counts and all.

The la of the American people has wandered away, stolen by the dön demons of unfettered greed, avarice, and malice. And now we are ruled by a venal, vain, pompous, arrogant, and ignorant demon king, an actual enemy of living beings, one who makes Dasgriva, the ancient rakṣasa king of Śṛī Lanka, look like an amateurish imposter.

Watching the murder of Renee Nicole Good caused me to realize that we Dharma practitioners have something we must do, especially those of us who follow Vajrayāna Dharma with its myriad skillful means. Of course, if we like we can add our voices in dissent to the actions of this cruel regime. But such dissent, while necessary, easily slips into verbal nonvirtues. We see it all the time. I chuckle almost every time I read Jeff Tiedrich, for I am only human, and the schadenfreude is sweet. But we all must admit, it appeals to our anger and frustration.

If Dharma practitioners do not purify their minds, they will not generate merit. If they do not generate merit, they will never be able to assist the world to be free of the evil of this regime or any other. If we do not have compassion for the human beings who are inflicting this evil upon the world, our minds will never be pure. So we must have compassion for the man who murdered Renee Nicole Good. He has lost his way. He has lost his la. His la has been stolen.

So how do we summon America’s la back? We practice. Especially, we Vajrayānīs need to apply ourselves to Dharmapāla practices and other appropriate abhicāra rites. Even if we are not qualified to perform such rites, we can recite the Praise to 21 Tārās, practice Vajrakīlaya, Guru Drakpo, and other wrathful manifestations in order to protect all the people in the world at risk of harm in this time. We can also do sang offerings, offer serkyems, and we can call America’s la back. We can, through our practice, remind America of who she imagined she was, and frankly, has never been, and maybe in time, she will get there.

We can exhaust ourselves in anger and frustration, or we can increase our merit and compassion. We cannot do both. There is no such thing as compassionate anger or angry compassion. Anger, frustration, and so on are all negative mental factors that dissipate and destroy compassion. We must instead increase our faith, conscientiousness, and so on and, most important of all, our wisdom. If we do this, if we try to create a field of merit in our own way, perhaps we can see our way together through these terrible times, this time of famine, illness, and weapons.

I will leave you with the famed supplication of Removing Obstacles from the Path, Barchey Lamsel:

དུས་གསུམ་སངས་རྒྱས་གུ་རུ་རིན་པོ་ཆེ༔

dü sum sangye guru rinpoche

Buddha of the three times, Guru Rinpoche,

དངོས་གྲུབ་ཀུན་བདག་བདེ་བ་ཆེན་པོའི་ཞབས༔

ngödrub kün dak dewa chenpö zhab

lord of all siddhis, venerable one of Great Bliss,

བར་ཆད་ཀུན་སེལ་བདུད་འདུལ་དྲག་པོ་རྩལ༔

barché kün sel düdul drakpo tsal

remover of all obstacles. Powerful, Fierce Tamer of Māra,

གསོལ་བ་འདེབས་སོ་བྱིན་གྱིས་བརླབ་ཏུ་གསོལ༔

solwa deb so jingyi lab tu sol

I supplicate you, please grant your blessings.

ཕྱི་ནང་གསང་བའི་བར་ཆད་ཞི་བ་དང༌༔

chi nang sangwé barché zhiwa dang

Pacify outer, inner, and secret obstacles,

བསམ་པ་ལྷུན་གྱིས་འགྲུབ་པར་བྱིན་གྱིས་རློབས༔

sampa lhün gyi drubpar jingyi lob

and bless me that my wishes are effortlessly accomplished.

Out of fear, humans usually go for refuge

to mountains, forests, gardens, shrines, and trees.

Those refuges are not the highest, those refuges are not supreme.

There is no freedom from all suffering by relying on those refuges.

At that time, if refuge is sought in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha

whose wisdom sees the four truths of āryas—

suffering, the source of suffering,

the true transcendence of suffering, the eightfold path of the āryas,

happiness, and the way to nirvana—

that is the highest refuge, that is the supreme refuge.

There will be liberation from suffering by relying on that refuge.

—Udānavarga, Section 29, the Collection on Seeing.

The Indo-Tibetan tradition has very legalistic notion of [Skt.] samvara or [Tib.] sdom pa, literally “restraint,” usually translated as “vow.” The term “vow” is not a perfect translation for term saṃvara, though is fine equivalent for Vajrayāna samaya or dam tshig, which are literally promises. I will not cover samaya in these two posts since they are a subset of bodhisattva restraints. Also, reader should understand that this presentation is grounded in common Mahāyāna.

There are two kinds of restraints: restraints connected with personal liberation (pratimokṣasamvara) and restraints connected with bodhicitta (cittotpādasaṃvara). In this post we will concentrate on pratimokṣasamvara, with a special focus on the restraints connected with going for refuge as well as the vows for upāsakas and upāsikās.

The fundamental difference between a Buddhist and a non-Buddhist is who and what are sought as a refuge, thus, it is important for us to understand who and what are suitable refuges.

Who is a suitable refuge and why? A suitable refuge is an awakened person and the teachings they give to assist others in waking up. This leads us to inquire, what is awakening (bodhi) and how is a person defined as awakened? Awakening itself is not complex, though it is described in many ways. Awakening is defined in Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhaṣya simply as uncontaminated wisdom (anāsravaprajñā), or wisdom without effluents, outflows. A person who has attained uncontaminated wisdom is an awakened person. Uncontaminated wisdom is genuine insight (Skt. vipaśyanā, Tib. lhag mthong), defined as sight that is not obscured or afflicted. Two kinds of people possess this kind of wisdom: buddhas and those who have attained what is known as the path of seeing. The latter people are referred as the “Noble Sangha.” Thus, Buddhas and all those who have attained the path of seeing are suitable objects for one to seek a refuge. These are referred to as the Buddha Jewel and the Sangha Jewel. In Mahāyāna in particular, the Sangha Jewel is primarily considered to be the bodhisattvas on the ten bodhisattva stages.

The Sangha in which we should find refuge is only in the Noble Sangha, and never the mundane Sangha. What is this latter Sangha? It is sometimes called “the conventional Sangha.” Why is it not a proper refuge? It is made up of ordinary people who are on the path, but below the path of seeing. Since these fellow practitioners are not awakened, they cannot be considered a refuge.

Finally, we have the refuge in the Dharma, the teachings of the Buddha and his awakened disciples, in particular, noble bodhisattvas on the stages.

The commitments connected with these three refuges are straight forward: the commitment of going for refuge to the Buddha is not to take other teachers, worldly teachers such as Śiva, Kṛīṣna, Jesus, Confucius, and so on, as one’s refuge. This does not mean one is forbidden to find value in the writings of other teachers, but one should not regard such teachers as a refuge. The commitment of going for refuge to Dharma is to avoid harming sentient beings. The commitment of going for refuge to the Sangha means not associating with harmful people, people of wrong view, and in particular, not associating with those who bear malice towards the Three Jewels.

Secondly, one should respect representations of the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha as if they were the actual Three Jewels,

Third, one should not renounce the Three Jewels, one should place one’s trust in the Three Jewels exclusively, make regular offerings to the Three Jewels, go for refuge keeping in mind the benefits of the Three Jewels, and pay homage and prostrate to the Three Jewels when one comes into the presence of their images.

Having taken refuge, one is considered an upāsaka (male) or an upāsikā (female). While there is really is no category of lay people in the Dharma, there is a distinction between those who remain in householder life and those who chosen to become renunciate practitioners. The vows and commitments of the latter are beyond the scope of this post.

The upāsaka (male) or an upāsikā (female) may adopt one, two, or more of the five basic restraints: not taking life, not lying, not taking what has not been given, not becoming intoxicated, and not engaging in sexual misconduct. These five restraints are designed to assist the practitioner avoid birth in lower realms and create a stable basis for the development of concentration and wisdom. Thus they are not a practice of “ethics” in the western philosophical sense of the term, rather, they are pragmatic conduct for the development of concentration and insight. This is the reason they are catechistic in nature, rather than analytical.

Overall, the personal commitments of a Dharma practitioner are not onerous, and are solely designed to be a vehicle for one to practice the Dharma. These commitments or restraints are connected only with one’s personal liberation (pratimokṣa) and do not directly benefit other sentient beings. The five precepts are not mental in nature, and only cover physical and verbal conduct. These five were selected by the Buddha because these five actions create the heaviest karma among the ten nonvirtues.

In the next post, we will take up a review the commitments of bodhicitta.

These days, according to some Buddhists, if you are not out there fighting in the streets, screaming about yet another genocide US money is involved in, you are not doing enough. These days people love to talk about “Engaged Buddhism,” as if somehow Mahāyāna Buddhists missed the memo.

Of course we didn’t miss the memo. Developing skills to help solve the mundane problems of sentient beings is built into the foundation of Mahāyāna. We’ve never needed to call ourselves “engaged.” Bodhisattvas become bodhisattvas in order to benefit sentient beings, not merely retire to the forest, focus on their breath, gaze at their navels, kasinas, statues, pebbles, or branches. When it comes to what bodhisattvas need to do, what do our texts tell us? Maitreyanatha’s Ornament of the Mahāyāna Sūtras informs us:

Awakening is attained

by relying on diligence in the meaning of concentration.

However without diligence in the five sciences1

even the noble ones will not become all-knowing.

Therefore, be diligent [in the sciences] order to criticize and care for others,

and for one to have a comprehensive education.2

In other words, from the outset, the aspiring Mahāyānī a) needs to be educated, b) needs to have an occupation useful to others, and c) be able to defend and elucidate Buddhist principles in general. In Mahāyāna we need to to be free from afflictions—liberation—and we need to develop our knowledge—the two-fold omniscience. The first omniscience involves knowing the actual nature of things. The second involves knowing all paths in order to teach them to others.

Bodhisattvas also need to take care of themselves. In Śantideva’s Compendium of Training,3 a detailed manual of bodhisattva training, in no uncertain terms it is declared that bodhisattvas must first preserve themselves in order that they may help others. Bodhisattvas do need to go into retreat and practice śamatha and vipaśyanā from time to time. Even the Buddha took śamatha holidays.

A bodhisattva is always engaged with people. This is not a doctrine and does not need a label. It’s just part of what makes a Mahāyāna practitioner tick. A Mahāyanī is never concerned with their own happiness first. As Śantideva states, all suffering arises from prioritizing solely one’s own happiness. All happiness arises from prioritizing the happiness of others before one’s own.

Mahāyāna Buddhism has always been embedded in communities of human beings and has never advocated a program of total withdrawal from the world. To illustrate this, there is an entertaining story in the Mahāyāna sūtras about an uptight monk and a relaxed monk. The relaxed monk’s disciples used to hang out in the taverns in town and drink alcohol with the regular folks in the evening. The uptight monk was scandalized and severely castigated the relaxed monk for his moral failings—much in the same way that some so-called “Engaged” buddhists have taken to scolding other Buddhists for their “moral failings” in not being vocal enough about whatever it is today they are angry about. Of course, the uptight monk was a former birth of the Buddha, and the ripening of the karma of his action was that the Buddhist Sangha split into eighteen schools.

Some people like to quote Thich Nhat Hahn, “"When bombs begin to fall on people, you cannot stay in the meditation hall all of the time.” When one lives in a country where bombs are falling, it goes without saying this is not an ideal circumstance for developing concentration. If one lives in a country that is at war, like Vietnam in the post-War period under French rule, these conditions are not favorable at all for practice of monastic Buddhism, so of course one does not remain in the monasteries. This is only common sense.

Look at Tibet. The only way Tibetans preserved their religious culture and language was fleeing the bombs into India and withdrawing into the hinterlands of Tibet where the Chinese were unable to go easily. I rarely see people mention the ongoing, systematic genocide of Tibetans. People seem unaware of it. It’s an old story and the Tibetans have established a successful diaspora community in Nepal and India…but have they? In Nepal, the Chinese pressure the Nepalese government to return Tibetans to Tibet, and have covered Katmandhu with cameras that the Chinese control. Tibetans cannot honestly say they were born in Tibet when they apply for citizenship and visas, and many diaspora Tibetans remain stateless people. In India, there are still camps that are restricted, and need special visas to enter. Actually, the genocide of Tibetans has been going on for decades, their language, culture, reproductive rights, education, religion, and even folk customs suppressed by Chinese authorities or only practiced in a museum. Meanwhile Tibetans who resist are arrested, disappeared, summarily executed, vanishing into the Chinese Gulag system.

When is it correct to pull back from politics and so-called engagement? When it is correct to flee to hidden lands? We can find guidance for this in many places, but the long and short of it is—this is an appropriate course of action when ordinary sentient beings are given over to more misdeeds than virtue, as is the case today in the world. Buddhadharma is disappearing more rapidly than any other major religion in the world. The True Dharma will not remain long. There are all kinds of counterfeit dharmas that one can follow, and these days, they are way more popular than the True Dharma.

The purpose of hidden lands (sbas yul) is to preserve the True Dharma, so that when social conditions permit the spread of Dharma again, it remerges from obscurity. But the idea of building an “enlightened society” is a farce. Awakening is not a mass event. We also are not going to be saved by philosopher kings. But if we build strong, resilient communities in isolated “hidden lands,” based on Mahāyāna Buddhist principles, then it is possible there is some hope for the Dharma, and likewise, humanity.

Tibetan Buddhists commonly refer to themselves as nang pas, insiders, and relegate all other religious traditions into the category of phyi pa, outsider. Why? It has nothing do with discrimination, rather, it has to do with models of liberation. It might be argued that Advaita, Samkhya, and Taoism be exempt from this category, but we will get to that below.

In Buddhadharma, liberation itself is defined as freedom from rebirth in a condition called samsara. There is no other kind of liberation taught in Buddhadharma. The fundamental stance of Buddhadharma is that liberation cannot found by anyone in any material condition and that liberation cannot be granted by anyone or transferred to another being. Liberation is possible only through personal practice and insight which burns away the afflictions responsible for karma and rebirth. That process is entirely personal and inward and does not depend on any external savior or material condition at all. This is true in all three yānas: Śrāvakayāna, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna. Since liberation in Buddhism is an inner process and does not depend on any kind of external savior or refuge, Tibetans have in the past called themselves nang pas, insiders. I think this is a useful distinction.

“Outsiders” refer to all those who seek relief from consequences of their misdeeds through forgiveness, relying on some outside agency: God, Allah, Krishna, Shiva, etc. While there may be some argument about whether Advaita, Samkhya, and so on can be included here—the Indian Buddhists were quite clear in their analysis of tenets that these siddhāntas are eternalist in orientation, and reject dependent origination. Hence they possess wrong view. For them, liberation depends on relying on an eternal entity that is free from suffering and that eternal entity is outside of the psychosomatic continuum of the five aggregates Hence they too are considered “outsiders.”

We have to consider the position of Secular Buddhists as well. While they may nominally understand that no self exists inside or outside the five aggregates, they are annihilationists who imagine that the consciousness they experience at the moment will cease with brain death. Therefore, they do not accept karma and karmavipaka, and as such, fundamentally reject the Buddha’s teachings on the four kinds of nobles. For them, there can be no actual stream-entrants, etc., because they reject the notion of rebirth. There is no need to talk about the bodhisattva path for these folks. It is of no use for them to pretend to be agnostic, because this kind of doubt is just moha, confusion. Nevertheless, they can practice the vehicle of devas and humans, that is cultivating love, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity. So we have to consider them half-in and half-out.

Moreover, there is no liberation through improved material conditions for sentient beings. Of course all Buddhists wish that sentient beings have happiness, etc. But we must recognize that there is truly no happiness or liberation through material conditions. Wealth does not make people happy, and poverty does not make people miserable. There are none so poor as authentic bhikṣus and bhikṣunis, and they are the happiest people in the world.

We also have to understand that while it is important to create improved material conditions for sentient beings as much as possible, we cannot mistake this for freeing sentient beings from suffering. If we save one cow from the abattoir we are just hastening death of the one in line behind it. Some will complain, “Eliminate all meat-eating!” but in a world dominated by Christians, Muslims, and Capitalists, this will never happen. The death factories will never stop. Some people may be intoxicated by the Marxist fantasies of a materialist utopia, other people by spiritual fantasies of egalitarian communities run by sagacious elders steeped in indigenous culture but they are equally fantasy. There will never be a materialist or a spiritual utopia in this Saha (Unbearable) Loka. No one is coming to save us. As followers of the Buddha, we have to understand there is no perfect samsara nor is samsara perfectible. We just have to do our best.

As followers of the Buddhadharma, we should be never be seduced by promises of political reform, economic reform, etc. We have to understand the default mode of samsara among sentient beings is warfare and conflict. Peace among humans is a very rare state and it does not last long in any one place in the world. It seems the average is about three generations. If we have a precious human birth—being born with the eight freedoms and ten endowments—we must not waste this, fritter it away on worldly occupations. We need to accept that our wisdom as foolish ordinary people (bālapṛthagjana) is very limited, and we can rarely know the outcome of our collective actions, no matter how well intended. There is no wisdom in the crowd.

To be a true insider is to understand that oneself and only oneself has the keys to unlock one’s own happiness and freedom. There are no external sources to turn toward. Only by understanding one’s afflictive states can one free oneself from karma and its ripening. Only through insight into the nature of reality can one free oneself from the afflictions that drive karma. We cannot do this for anyone else and no one can do it for us. If we are Mahāyāna practitioners, we do so with great compassion, committing ourselves to any of the three bodhisattva vows to attain buddhahood for the benefit sentient beings over as many lifetimes as it takes us to attain true, full awakening. But benefitting others begins with benefitting ourselves, attaining genuine realization and immaculate prajñā. After that, maybe we can truly understand the consequences of the actions of ourselves and others.

There is no Buddhist salvation. We are not saviors and we cannot be saved. Buddhadharma has never operated on a savior model. We can, in like-minded communities, offer each other support in trying times, but even this is not a refuge. The only refuge we have is the Three Jewels, and in reality, the Dharma is our actual refuge. The Buddha passed away 2500 years ago. No one can really say who is an awakened being these days—we might guess, we might think we know, but we have to admit to ourselves our ability to know such things is limited by our profound ignorance and lack of insight. Thus, even the Dharma is only a refuge if we realize its sublime meaning. As the Buddha instructed Ānanda:

All compounded things vanish. Be diligent.

Just right, poised between sun and shade,

cut in half by a line made with a samurai sword,

Toshiro Mifune.

Life is short on substack, and the attention fleeting.

One more dopamine high,

Try licking the toad, someone says.

Occult conspiracies fill the feeds.

We are so awfully fucking sick of DJT

and his bruised ego and tiny hands.

It’s new years, but the algo has no clue.

Dead machines preying on the living,

“I’ll be back” Arnold snarled over the years,

gatling gun in hand, raybans,

gleaming metal under skin.

One tragedy after another,

one conspiracy after another.

Nothing prepared us for this new world.

And in America no one under 30 knows how to use rotary phone.

Someone once said first thought, best thought,

but there are no more thoughts any more—

content, feeds, rage, and desire—

It’s 2026 in somone’s calendar,

it’s not even new years yet in someone else’s.

Long after we die, the algo will digest our words, spit them out

in a dead world, with poison wind whistling through dead trees

towering over glistening waves of a dead ocean

under a sun that once gave life.

—The Buddha

These days many Buddhists in West like to talk about something they call collective liberation. I am not sure what they mean by collective liberation. But in Buddhadharma, collective liberation is impossible. Not even in Mahāyāna is collective liberation a possibility. If it were, we would not have to spend eons helping all sentient beings achieve liberation. If we are not talking about freedom from the three afflictions, then in the context of Dharma, we are not talking about liberation.

Before we can talk about collective or individual liberation we have to define terms. What is liberation in Buddhism?

In general, people seem to believe the liberation referred to in Buddhism, (Skt.) mokṣa, is liberation from suffering (dukkha)—unpleasant experience from various kinds of material relations—illness, pain, hunger, poverty, and so on. It is true that being free of such conditions will cause one to be free of that suffering for a time. In addition, people desire to be free of unhappiness, emotional trauma, and a host of mental ailments that never had names prior to the late 20th century. But is freedom from these various kinds of suffering the liberation Buddha referred to? Certainly, being free from these conditions of suffering is a kind of temporary liberation, better cast as temporary relief (Tib. dbugs ‘byung, literally inhaling exhaling). However, these sufferings easily return unless the root cause is eliminated. Thus, the measures here can only be considered palliative.

So what did the Buddha mean when he discussed liberation? He was referring eliminating the causes or source of suffering. When he talked about the causes of suffering, he never identified a single external cause or source of suffering, not one. The only causes of suffering (as opposed to pain) are internal. They exist only in your mind. Now, when we say they exist only in your mind, we do not mean that they are just a projection, etc. What it means is that the direct cause of suffering is karma, and it is also the direct cause of afflictive happiness (most happiness is afflictive, liable to turn into suffering later.

Contrary to popular belief among many Buddhists, there is no such thing as collective karma either.

So what is karma? Karma has two aspects karma, action, and vipaka, ripening. The Buddha stated with absolutely clarity that karma is an individual’s intentions, and physical and verbals acts that follow from those intentions. Karmavipaka on the other hand, the ripening of karma, is separate in time from any given deed. Karmavipaka is the ripening of three types of karma—negative, positive, and neutral, depending on the intention and subsequent physical or verbal deeds—at a later time. That could be today, tomorrow, next year, in a hundred years, or a million years. When negative karma ripens, it ripens as suffering, When positive karma ripens, such as going for refuge, or just speaking nicely to someone, it ripens as happiness. When neutral karma ripens, it ripens as off-white, meaning neutral actions tend to be subtly negative since such as actions are motivated by indifference, etc. It is impossible to say when a given karma will ripen for a given sentient being apart from certain acts called karmas with uninterrupted or immediate ripening: harming a buddha, killing an arhat, killing one’s father, killings one’s mother, or causing a split in the Bhikṣu Sangha.1

Now, there is a kind of karma that seems collective, but it is not collective in a true sense. Suppose there are ten people. One person is appointed to murder someone. The other nine do nothing but watch. However, there are four things needed to make a karma “complete.” Like the murderer, these nine others must have the intent to kill, malice; an object of malice, a human being; there is deed of the murder itself; and finally, satisfaction in the deed. Substitute greed and ignorance in the case of robbery, and so on (use your imagination). Each person in that group of ten accrues ten times the heaviness of the karma. In other word, each person’s karma is ten times worse. The murdered person no longer will suffer that specific ripening again. Who can say why they were the victim of murder? But we can understand at some point they engaged in some action in the past that ripened in this lifetime. In any case, if one approves of and is satisfied with the killing of a human being in a group of ten, one will have the karma of ten people killing ten humans. Just keep multiplying that into we hit war level. If one thinks about it, the consequences of karma, when it comes to modern warfare, are too horrible to contemplate.

When it comes to the ripening of that karma, it will be individual and specific to you. Not as in the movie franchise Final Destination, Death will not hunt you down. If you are in a place where 100 people are gunned down, each person is experiencing the ripening of their own karma, so it is not collective. It may seem collective, but it is not. This is why speaking of the collective karma of countries is just incorrect from a Dharma perspective. People may engage in karma because of their national, class, tribe, or family associations, but the karmic ripening will be unique for each person. The same of course goes for virtuous karma.

So what about collective liberation? In order to be liberated one must be free of the three afflictions that cause birth in samsara: desire, hatred, and confusion. That is all the Buddha meant by liberation—liberation from uncontrolled birth in samsara.

There is no way to collectively remove the three poisons from the minds of a group of people. All karma is motivated by affliction. All motivations are personal. And all suffering is the ripening of karma. Afflictions exist in the independent mind streams of all sentient beings. Since these afflictions cannot be removed manually, but only through wisdom of personal insight, there is no external means of liberating sentient beings collectively. Therefore, there is no possibility of collective liberation. Liberation is only personal and individual, one person at a time, based on one’s own interest in entering the Dharma. Therefore, we all must wake up one by one. This is why the teaching on the preciousness of human birth is so important. But that is a post for another time.

The Dharma cannot be forced on people. People must go for refuge voluntarily. But without refuge and faith in the Buddha’s Dharma, learning to calm one’s mind, and realizing the wisdom of emptiness—the absence of self or identity in all dependently origination phenomena2—liberation will never happen, and one will continue to be driven by the three poisons in lifetime after lifetime.

Moreover, sentient beings all have different karmas. Thus, there is no way to engineer equality in samsara. I am very sorry that this is so, but it is true. The best we can do is do is try and create ideal conditions so that all people have an even chance of success in life. We cannot really succeed in doing this either, or at least no one has tried without inflicting intense violence on people. Some people will be born sickly, and spend their entire life ill, but living to 90. Others will be born strong and healthy, and drop dead at 18. Karma is what determines social status, health, longevity—ripened karma is the starting condition for each sentient being’s life—whether deva, human, animal, preta, or hell being. These starting conditions can be overcome, they are not fate.

We should try to create conditions for everyone to succeed, but also no one agrees what those conditions are. Some people think we should redistribute all the weath of oligarchs. Even if we could redistribute all the wealth in the world, in dollar figures it would amount to a measly 55k for everyone. Basically, a one year salary for a lower middle class American. So, I don’t have an answer to the material misery of sentient beings.

What I do know is that collective liberation is impossible, at least, it is impossible in Buddha’s Dharma. Maybe some other teacher’s dharma makes this promise, and if that is what you believe, you are of course free to do as you please. But don’t claim it is possible in Buddhadharma.

For a very long time I have been skeptical of so-called Engaged Buddhism. It’s a nice idea, but is it necessary?

In my opinion, the Dharma and politics should never be mixed. Every time in history, when Buddhists have combined politics with the Dharma to engineer social change, it has ended in oppression, war, and even genocide.

For example, Aśoka is generally held to be a hero of Engaged Buddhism. Aśoka converted to Buddhism, according to the truncated story of his life, over his remorse at waging war. Nevertheless, according to the Aśokāvadāna, after his conversion he carried out a pogrom against Jains, and murdered 18,000 of them over a cartoon he considered insulting to the Buddha (sound familiar?). The first Buddhist dharmarāja, dharma king, was a genocidal religious maniac until his brother’s head was presented to him by a couple seeking the bounty Aśoka had placed on the heads of Jain monks. They had murdered Aśoka’s brother, mistaking him for a Jain. The story goes that after this tragic sequence of events, a much chastened Aśoka mended his ways and became a wise ruler, paving the way for brilliance of the Dharma to shine its light out to world.

Sinhalese Buddhism was born out of a genocidal war against an indigenous population. The Mahāvaṃsa, the detailed chronicle of the founding of the Buddhist Kingdom of Shri Lanka, celebrates the killing of millions of human beings by the Dutugamunu, the Buddhist king, dismissing their deaths as being no more important than the killing of animals.

In India, Tibet, China, and Japan we have 2000 years of history that tells us that trying to mix Dharma into political life never ends well for the Dharma, most recently in Imperialist Japan. War after war was fought in Tibet because of their unifying politics with Dharma. The same in Japan, monastic wars were frequent and always about political power. Many modern Tibetans believe, as do I, that the reason Tibet fell to the communists in the 1950s was due to the mixture of Dharma with worldly politics.

The tragedy of the Myanmar genocide of the Rohingya is well known, as well as the disappointing showing of Ahn San Su Khyi, a one time darling of engaged Buddhists everywhere until she downplayed the atrocities of the Myanmar military. This is yet another example of the corruption of Dharma by mixing it with politics. Thus, we should not deceive ourselves with the vanity that we are more modern, more thoughtful, more ethically sophisticated, and more capable of resisting the corrosive influence of politics. It isn’t true.

Therefore, the way I see it, prohibiting the renunciate Sangha from collective engagement in political life was born out of the Buddha’s insight that the renunciate Sangha needs to remain free of mundane politics for its very survival, if not its reputation and trustworthiness.

The Muslims didn’t destroy Buddhism in India, we did, we did it to ourselves by getting sucked into regional Indian politics. What do you think all the magical wars between Buddhist siddhas and Hindus were really about? Power, control, money, patronage. Eventually we lost.

One of the reasons there is so little traditional Buddhist literature on ethics and governance is that in India it was decided that these were mundane topics—thus ethics is not part of the five sciences, the ten sciences, or even the eighteen sciences. In a traditional Buddhist education, such as mine, there is no discipline of ethics one would recognize as ethics in the western philosophical sense. Absent is inquiry into inequality as in Rousseau, absent too is an interrogation of justice, as in Rawls. There is no thorough interrogation of power as in Foucault, no class analysis as in Marx. Indeed, even justice is a modern concept that is entirely lacking in the Buddhist lexicon. There simply is no word for “justice” in Buddhist language.

The modern literature on Buddhist ethics dwarfs any premodern Buddhist writing that could even be remotely construed as concerning ethics in the Western sense. But the way ethics is written about and assumptions which support this branch of western philosophy, including its application to the subject of Buddhism, is totally foreign to the native Dharma sensibility found in texts on samvara, aka vows or discipline.

Śīla is not about ethics or law. It concerns avoiding taking birth in lower realms, and creating a stable basis for concentration. When renunciates ran into legal troubles, they were remanded to civil courts.

When one looks at arguments around meat eating in some Mahāyāna sutras, like the Lanka, the main appeal is to Indian caste prejudice. Aesthetics, not ethics, is the primary concern—avoiding birth as carnivorous animals, untouchables; hunters; dombas (the ancestors of the modern Roma); or the spawn of ḍākinīs. Some tears are spilled over the poor animals, but the main thrust is why meat eating is bad for us, not Daisy the cow.

Now, I think it’s a good thing people are out in the streets (but not enough of us) resisting ICE, pushing back against AIPAC tentacles on the US gvt., protesting the Gaza genocide, the genocide in Ukraine, etc. We need more of this. I remember when the S. African gvt. was toppled through divestment. We can do that to Israel, and we should—but we don’t need “Engaged Buddhism” to accomplish that goal.

We don’t need to articulate any of this through “Engaged Buddhism.” It has nothing to add here. Through the Dharma, we already know the peril of anger, holding biased views, and so on. We don’t need a new form of Buddhism to inform us of this.

HH Dalai Lama wrote a very good book entitled Beyond Religion, where he points out that rather than trying to shoehorn religious traditions into a modern ethical framework, we need go entirely beyond religion and religious ethics, such as they are, and forge a universal secular ethical framework. He says:

“What we need today is an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion and can be equally acceptable to those with faith and those without: a secular ethics.”

And to the Dalai Lama’s point, Buddhists should be engaged in trying to help forge a new secular ethic.

We can’t improve the Dharma, but we can improve the world.

Thus, we really do not need Engaged Buddhism. The Dharma we have is already sadhu, sadhu, sadhu—good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end. Let’s not foul it with worldly politics. As I show above, it always ends poorly for the Dharma.