No Right, No Wrong
An interview with Pema Chödrön
Pema Chödrön is an American nun in the Kagyu lineage of Tibetan Buddhism, and the director of Gampo Abbey, on Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. She was a student of the late Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche and in 1974 received the novice ordination from His Holiness Gyalwa Karmapa. She took the full nun's ordination in 1981. She is the author of The Wisdom of No Escape and Be Grateful to Everyone: A Guide to Compassionate Living, forthcoming from Shambhala Publications next year. Editor Helen Tworkov conducted this interview for Tricycle in Nova Scotia in June. Photographs by Jeri Coppola.
Tricycle: Pema, your life has unfolded into an interesting paradox. Because you are the director of Gampo Abbey, one of the few Buddhist centers in North America to maintain the traditional monastic precepts, and because you have been a celibate nun for twenty years, you are considered eminently trustworthy, a teacher beyond reproach in terms of ethical conduct; at the same time, you have become one the foremost representatives of the Vajrayana lineage of Trungpa Rinpoche, a teacher who became legendary as much for his unconventional behavior as for his spiritual attainment-specifically his drinking, and having sex with students. Since his death in 1986, there has been increasing concern about the inappropriate use of spiritual authority, particularly with regard to sex and power. Today even some students who were once devoted to Trungpa Rinpoche have had a change of heart. Behavior that they may have formerly considered enlightened they now consider wrong. Has there been a shift in your own outlook?
Pema Chodron: My undying devotion to Trungpa Rinpoche comes from his teaching me in every way he could that you can never make things right or wrong. I consider it my good fortune that somehow I was thrown into a way of understanding Buddhism which in the Zen tradition is called "don't know mind": Don't know. Don't know right. Don't know wrong. As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to make things right and wrong you can never even talk about fulfilling your bodhisattva vows.
How do you understand the bodhisattva vow?
The bodhisattva vow has something to do with going cold turkey, naked, without any clothes on into whatever situation presents itself to you, and seeing how you hate certain people, how people trigger you in every single way, how you want to hold on, how you want to get in bed and put the covers over your head. Seeing all of that just increases your compassion for the human situation. We're all up against not finding ourselves perfect, and still wanting to be open and be there for others. My sense of what it means to be a bodhisattva on the path, a student-warrior-bodhisattva, is that you are constantly caught with "don't know." Can't say yes, can't say no. Can't say right, can't say wrong. Trungpa Rinpoche was a provocative person. In Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism he says that the job of the spiritual friend is to insult the student, and that's the kind of guy he was. If things got too smooth, he'd create chaos. All I can say is that I needed that. I didn't like being churned up and provoked, but it was what I needed. It showed me how I was stuck in habitual patterns. The closer I got to him, the more my trust in him grew.
What was that trust based on?
It wasn't trust that he would be predictable or follow some kind of reliable code. It was trust that his only motivation was to help people. His whole teaching was about leading people away from holding on to some kind of security. And I wanted my foundations rocked. I wanted to actually be free of habitual patterns which keep the ground under my feet and maintain that false security which denies death. Things are not permanent, they don't last, there is no final security. He was always trying to teach us to relax into the insecurity, into the groundlessness. He taught me about how to live. So I am grateful to him, no matter what.
Stories of Trungpa Rinpoche's sexual encounters with students still upset a lot of people. Have they ever upset you?
No. But he upset me. He upset me a lot. I couldn't con him, and that was uncomfortable. But it was exactly what I needed. Sometimes, in certain situations, I can see how I'm a con artist, and I can see how I'm just trying to make everything pretty and smooth, and all I have to do is think of Rinpoche and I get honest. He has the effect on me of relentlessly—in a dedicated way—keeping me honest. And that's not always comfortable.
How did he respond to your choice of celibacy?
He encouraged me to be very strict with my vows.
He never provoked you or needled you about being attached to your vows?
Quite the opposite. He actually was very strict and used to say, You know people will be watching you, people will watch how you walk, how you move, and you should really represent this tradition well. In terms of how to be a nun or monk, his teachings were always very straight, very pure. He needled me about other things. I remember one time saying something to him about feeling that I was a nice person. I used the word "nice," and I remember the look that crossed his face-it was as if he had just eaten something that tasted really bad. And he would also do this thing, which many students have talked to me about, where you'd be talking on and on in your most earnest style and he'd just yawn and look out the window.
Would you say that the intention behind his unconventional behavior, including his sexual exploits and his drinking, was to help others?
As the years went on, I felt everything he did was to help others. But I would also say now that maybe my understanding has gone even deeper, and it feels more to the point to say I don't know. I don't know what he was doing. I know he changed my life. I know I love him. But I don't know who he was. And maybe he wasn't doing things to help everyone, but he sure helped me. I learned something from him. But who was that masked man?
In recent years women have become more articulate about sexism. And we know more today about the prevalence of child abuse and about how many people come into dharma really hurting. If you knew ten years ago what you know today, would you have been so optimistic about Trungpa Rinpoche and his sexuality? Would you have wanted some of the women you've been working with to study with him, given their histories of sexual abuse?
I would have said, You know he loves women, he's very passionate, and has a lot of relationships with women, and that might be part of it if you get involved with him, and you should read all his books, go to all his talks, and actually see if you can get close to him. And you should do that knowing that you might get an invitation to sleep with him, so don't be naive about that, and don't think you have to do it or don't have to do it. But you have to decide for yourself who you think this guy is.
Were there women who turned down his sexual invitations and maintained close relationships as students? Was that an option?
Yes. Definitely. The other students were often the ones who made people feel like they were square and uptight if they didn't want to sleep with Rinpoche, but Rinpoche's teaching was to throw out the party line. However, we're always up against human nature. The teacher says something, then everybody does it. There was a time when he smoked cigarettes and everyone started smoking. Then he stopped and they stopped and it was ridiculous. But we're just people with human habitual patterns, and you can count on the fact that the students are going to make everything into a party line, and we did. The one predictable thing about him was that he would continually pull the rug out no matter what. That's how he was.
It was nice to see questions answered so well. The aggression of wanting to get some dirt was countered with honesty. A great example.
"..aggression of wanting to get some dirt...."; I like the way you worded that. Clearly, the interviewer was hunting but in Pema's inimitable style and integrity she never waivered in being forth right and being clearer than I've ever heard in regards to right/wrong. I've got a lot of work to do!
There's nothing wrong with trying to get to the dirt, I feel. Nothing need be hidden.
No Right, No Wrong
This koan has haunted me for years. I found this interview both refreshing and painful to read. So~~~another koan.
Thanks to Pema Chodren for the reminder of the difference between dharma and religion.
Pema speaks my heart, always has. Last year when I became aware of the background of her teacher I was confused and searched and searched for some information about her views on this. I have been working very hard this past year on the whole issue of 'righting and wronging' and it is was very serendipitous to find this article in my inbox this morning. If Pema's Crazy Wisdom was reflected in the Buddhist world around me I would be a Nun, but sadly I am not one for ritual etc.. I need a Crazy Wisdom teacher to take me on because like Pema I am forever attempting to push the boundaries whilst attempting to unearth a natural compassion to the process. Attempting this shift out of duality, away from putting back the rug has only been made possible for me with the help of Pema's finger pointing at the moon. Just as Pema is devoted to her teacher, I am devoted to her. We have never met, spoken or communicated via letter / e-mail, but the vision she inspires is the path beneath my feet and this article has helped open my heart / eyes just a little bit further.
On a certain level, "no right, no wrong" makes sense - philosophically, rhetorically. On a practical level, however, "no right, no wrong" has clear limitations. One can choose to ignore those limitations and cling unwaveringly to the precept of "no right, no wrong", but even in so doing, one has made a judgement about what is right. I am reminded of a lyric from a song - "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".
Be that as it may, what bothers me about the idea of "no right, no wrong" is that it implies no responsibility other than to one's self, in as much as one has "made a choice" and regardless decides how best to proceed - another decision, choice about what is right, individualistically.
That choice may be clothed in the justification of having been based on the way of Bodhisattva, but if it allows the continuation of behavior that causes others to suffer, victim or perpetrator, is it the "right" way? What does the precept of "do no harm" mean? Not do do so actively? "Sin" (I have lost sense of how to express, "not right") is only the result of commission, not omission?
I do not claim any understanding of Buddhism other than a superficial one, but this article makes me wonder. Is the concept of right based solely on what one decides leads one to enlightenment, a means justified by the end?
Hi - far be it from me to make what you have said 'right or wrong' my response is my way of trying to gain clarity for myself. Do you feel that Pema is saying there is 'no right, no wrong' or simply that making things right /wrong is not helpful ? As you say, even doing this means that we have decided that making right/ wrong is not right or is wrong. However, in my limited understanding, isn't the finger pointing beyond a world defined by such limiting concepts ? It's not a question is it of 'allowing the continuation of behaviour that causes suffering' but an attempt to move beyond the right/ wronging that perpetuates the cycle ? I also feel there is a real problem here with what is relevant in the spiritual community and what is relevant in the wider world, do you? In a way people who step knowingly onto the path (whatever that means), are asking for experiences that will wake them up, such situations as Pema has clearly processed deeply. However, both within the community and in the wider context as Pema says this is a razor edge a tightrope because it is easier to reach a conclusion than to keep the heart / mind open to 'what next'. Who is righting / wronging? Can we truly right anything? Is there right without wrong? Can we choose to have only one side of the equation? Is it not therefore about not making 'righting' or 'wronging' right or wrong but a question of holding a bigger space where they are both contained, where the whole is seen where there isn't something final arrived at ? Isn't Pema saying something like 'can you right rules for life without missing the point of life'? Something like ' can we make rules without limiting the process, without forming judgements'? Isn't life a process that once we start to define / limit it, introduce rules / regulations / moral guidelines etc etc we have lost what is naturally occuring beyond limits , where right / wrong are one thing and that which senses that oneness is beyond moral judgements therefore beyond making not righting / wronging something that is right or wrong ? I sense that what is being spoken of here is what arises naturally beyond our judgements, that does not make child abuse / murder etc right but it does not make it wholely wrong. I feel there is a story behind every situation / action, getting to the heart of what is happening to me feels more important than righting / wronging...but then what would I know ? However, I also feel in my very limited life experience that in a way righting / wronging do feel like they create the right and wrong, without 'wronging' would there would be anything to 'right' without our sense of needing to 'right' something or to get it 'right' would there be far less that feels wrong ? Do you feel that 'righting' 'wronging' grows out of our need to fix things ? To fix ourself in a concept that we can grasp, to fix other by our concepts of them, to want to only see part of the story, by our desire to fix the whole catastrophe so nothing is 'wrong'? Certainly'what is right what is wrong' feels like a useful koan for me, one, as I say, I have been working on for a year, if not my whole life and I will continue to work with until I die .
Do you hear the spiritual bypassing going on here?
Pema Chodron has talked about how her spiritual path began when her husband came home and announced he was having an affair and was leaving her.
She then enters into a deep long term relationship with a teacher who is addicted to alcohol and sex and she rationalizes his behavior as a support for her learning to hang on to nothing. She then becomes a nun.
Yes, she learned to hang on to nothing, but also gave up on the possibility of a fulfilling long term commitment to another human being. A fulfilling long term commitment to another human being means we need to acknowledge human needs, boundaries and yes, some actions are harmful and we cannot expect to engage in them and maintain healthy relationships.
If a Christian teacher is discovered to be having sex with his students/parishioners and an alcohol or other substance addiction, we would quite easily know there is a serious problem. It seems the guru-disciple traditions put us at risk for rationalizing our teachers behavior.
Common sense helps us see through the smoke screen of spiritual bypassing.
.
I have a somewhat different understanding of spiritual bypassing:
Says John Welwood: “Spiritual bypassing” is a term I coined to describe a process I saw happening in the Buddhist community I was in, and also in myself. Although most of us were sincerely trying to work on ourselves, I noticed a widespread tendency to use spiritual ideas and practices to sidestep or avoid facing unresolved emotional issues, psychological wounds, and unfinished developmental tasks.
See http://www.tricycle.com/interview/human-nature-buddha-nature
I’m not sure that Pema Chodron does try rationalize CTR’s behavior. I have read all her books. It seems to me more like she acknowledges that he did things that she would choose not to do, yet remains capable of appreciating what he did have to teach her, things that she felt were extremely valuable for her own development.
Spiritual bypassing, to me, has to do with how I work on my own personal development. It is not about how I judge other peoples’ development, even if that other person is my teacher. I take what benefits me from my teacher and I must leave the rest for that person to work on himself or herself, perhaps with a little helpful input from me. If that person has little to teach me, then I move on. But I do not judge.
I might take action to protect people who might suffer as a result of someone else’s actions, but that does not mean I judge. Since CTR died long before I ever learned of his or Pema’s teachings, it does not serve me or others to condemn his spirituality wholesale.
So I basically cannot spiritually bypass someone else’s personality development. Perhaps CTR wrote or spoke somewhere about what he learned from the results of his sexual and drinking behavior. Or perhaps he was spiritually bypassing the negative results of some of his own acts for himself and others. I can still learn from him about the things that I am weak in and he is strong in.
We are all humans, with varying human faults. Our only teachers are other, imperfect human beings. We can learn from anyone, especially from people who have made mistakes. We can observe their actions and the harm that results and choose to behave differently. The fact that a teacher makes some choices that harm others does not mean we have to reject that whole person and everything he said or did without discrimination.
For me, my working Buddhist measure of any thought, word, or deed is ultimately: does it increase or reduce suffering of sentient beings. I do not know personally anyone harmed by CTR. I can easily imagine how some female persons might have felt ashamed or bereft after engaging in a sexual liaison with CTR. I do not know for sure how any of them actually felt. I cannot judge for them. In fact, my impulse to judge appears to arise from my own fear and anger rather than from a justifiable indignation at the behavior of others. Such anger and condemnation harms me and everyone who is affected by my emotions.
I do tend to believe that the risk of harm resulting from sex between teachers and students is generally very great. That does not prevent me from learning what I can from someone who as an imperfect human being chose to engage in such acts.
I have met, though, a follower of CTR who is a recovered alcoholic and said that CTR’s alcoholism helped him to relate to another human being, find acceptance of himself, and develop spiritually. This is one illustration of how the weaknesses we all unavoidably possess in this life can be transformed into something that ultimately benefits others. This is the dharma.
Thank you fpr the opportunity to dialogue on this important issue.
With compassion, LInda
Well put....there is no benefit in deepening my own suffering by experiencing anger or self importance when commenting on or observing other's behavior. That does not mean I cannot discriminate.
There is a difference between judgement and wise discrimination. When we judge we experience negative emotions. I am not free of these, but my comments were not stimulated by them. My comments were stimulated by my own experience in buddhist communities and well publisized reports of confusion in buddhist communities related to sexual boundaries.
You are correct that the harm I am supposing is an extrapolation-I have not personally witnessed it related to CTR. However, I have witnessed a lot of harm in other people's lives where there were addictions to sex and alcohol.
It seems naive to hear these stories of CTR's behavior and suppose no harm was done.
The reason I made the spiritual bypassing connection is because when we do not make our needs known in a circumstance where someone we are close to is abusing us through their behavior, we are often bypassing our needs and psychological wounds and our own development may be hindered. This is not always true, but is often true.
Thank you for responding, Leslie. Your comments are very illuminating to me.
I can see how Pema Chodron’s unwillingness to state definitively and publically that some of CTR’s behavior produced suffering and that other people could therefore choose not to make the same mistakes, could reflect an unconscious denial on her part of his spiritual fallibility. For those readers who still long to believe in perfect human beings, such denial could reinforce their own illusory ideas and thus feed ignorance.
Curiously enough, in her own writing Pema never claims to be enlightened herself. On the contrary, she pointedly reveals her own life’s missteps, which has been for me one of the most helpful aspects of her work. I learn from her how to recognize and leave behind my own destructive behavior.
It is also possible Pema’s mind is open to the possibility that CTR was fallible and hurt others, but feels it is more beneficial for everyone that she refrain from critiquing him publically. Or any number of other possibilities. It’s impossible to know for sure what is going on in someone else’s mind (or in my own unconscious mind, for that matter!).
It is clear to me that CTR’s behavioral choices will mean that many people will not explore what he has to offer. To me this is very sad, but a typical instance of how we human beings continue to stay stuck in samsara generation after generation. We seem to demand perfection where it cannot be found—in people—and then resent it when these people we have projected upon fail to live up to all our expectations. I often catch myself doing this, and have steadily but very reluctantly let go of many such expectations. No doubt I will continue to make these discoveries about myself as my life moves on.
I cannot make anyone else be “perfect” to suit my own needs. I can only commit to the mundane, everyday job of working on my own self in hopes that I can increase the joy and reduce the suffering that my own thoughts, words, and deeds contribute to the world.
I am deeply grateful for the discussion. Thank you, Leslie.
With Maitri, Linda
I can see how those of us who are survivors of sexual abuse might feel a sense of compassion and identification with what we perceive as sexual abuse by a leader. One of the challenges of being a teacher is that we are always in a position of power over our students, and we are responsible for how we (ab)use that power. And for those of us who are suffering with the wounds of that kind of abuse, it is not simply a matter of, "Well he was imperfect." For some (wo)men, that imperfect person was a rapist or abuser of some other kind. To simplify it as merely a matter of imperfection does not offer those victims compassionate in their endeavor to heal.
Good point, moonsaysl. I do feel compassion for victims of abuse--I've been one myself. Not one person expressed compassion for me. Part of my healing process has been accepting my anger and aversion, and another part has been accepting the abuser's suffering that preceded the abuse.
It is not simple. It is flatout paradoxical. That's the way we human beings are. NOW THAT I HAVE BEEN OUT OF THE ABUSIVE SITUATION for a while, I feel better when I let go the old anger.
"..aggression of wanting to get some dirt...."; I don't see it that way. There are questions. There are answers.
Refrain from all harmful, destructive behavior;
Put genuine goodness into practice;
Tame and train your mind completely;
This is the Buddha's teaching.
To say there is no "right" or no "wrong" is an evasion of what was harmful, destructive behavior or potentially so... definitely unskillful behavior to be sure. I'm no one to judge him or Pema, but Pema seems to run from the truth in this case of unskillful behavior, not that I blame her given the line of questioning. Just goes to show you that even if you have great clarity, you can still be caught in desire and shenpa...
CTR had given up his monastic vows by the time he came to the US. So he was not breaking any vows when he drank or had sex with people.
I don't think it's unethical to have sex with people, or to drink. It's normal human behavior.
It IS unethical to assault people sexually or rape somebody. As far as I know, CTR never did that.
I am curious about one aspect of this discussion. I have heard and read that Trungpa was 'open' about his drinking and sex, in that he did not attempt to conceal these behaviours, which puts him at some distance from the more malignant guru-disciple transgressions we read about. However, does anyone know if he acknowledged, in words, what he was doing, took questions, and explained his perspective? Anyone know about this?
I'm looking for wisdom from Buddhism, not a priesthood, with codes of behavior & rules from on high. I think Pema was privileged to have Trungpa as her teacher. It's inspiring to me that she praises the wisdom of her "mad" teachers, even in the face of the insistent quasi-puritanical interrogation suggested in this interviewer's questions.
Incidentally, consider the context of Trungpa's times- the 60s-80s. I grew up in the 60s and 70s. Many of us adventurously explored the limits of sexual norms, intoxication, drug use. To be honest, I think it was in many ways a less exploitative and freer time. If you toss out those who lived through those years and indulged in what would now be dismissed as "sexual immorality," you'd be limited to monks and nuns for teachers, and even they would have to pass a test of loyalty to their vows, apparently. It really annoyed me reading the questions to Pema as to her personal fealty to her vows, as if the wrong answer would taint her teachings somehow as well.
In any case, judging Trungpa's writings (and his students) by his personal behavior according to contemporary morality only deprives one of the chance to consider his ideas. Imposing a universal, imposed morality is antithetical to Buddhism, in my opinion. If you look only for your wisdom from those who adhere to convention, why would you be interested in a man like the Buddha, living life as he did, and attaining enlightenment by abandoning every rule laid out for the life he was born to?
I don't think the issue is conventional morality or sexuality. No one is begrudging any teacher a sex life, within or outside of a committed relationship. The issue is exploitation, and surely that is of some significance to embodied wisdom. Sexuality is a complex issue and drawing clear lines is more difficult than, say, monetary exploitation or physical violence. However I have heard justifications by a teacher, and defensiveness by his students, for financial exploitation (after all, wanting good things is also part of our flawed humanity), physical violence (ditto anger) and sex with an underage student (he was drunk - only too human, and she was a harlot). Surely having spiritual insight does not simply cancel out everything else, because then there are no limits whatsoever.
Trungpa's brilliance is obvious. Perhaps Pema, being there, was able to experience something that transcended the hard question as to whether there was exploitation of an imbalance of power. Perhaps Trungpa was able to explain himself in ways that make sense to others who were there. Perhaps his behavior is completely of a different kind that what we generally condemn (teacher-student; doctor-patient; adult-child. etc) where the imbalance of power is embedded in the relationship. But to not ask hard questions is to risk veering away from being a Sangha and toward being a cult.
I would agree that Buddhism was never meant to provide "codes of behavior and rules from on high." All cultures produce such codes and rules, often in unspoken norms, sometimes codified in an official religion; this is called ideology. Buddha never tried to produce an ideology, but to teach people to gain some critical distance from their ideologies, to stop mistaking cultural norms for universal truths. This is probably one of the things that makes people most uncomfortable with Buddhism. Without our ideologies to guide us, we have great responsibility, and must make endless effort.
I don't think breaking moral codes is necessarily a sign of wisdom, or of the lack of wisdom. I do have serious doubts, though, that an active alcoholic who was drinking himself to death was really as joyous and wise as those who knew him seem to think he was. I have known many, many active alcoholics, and have been one myself, and I simply cannot believe that there is any way wisdom and self-destructive drinking can coincide. Because of this, I have serious doubts about anybody who knew Chogyam Trungpa during his life and believed him to be happy and enlightened.
When I turn to his writing, I see only a jumble of poor reasoning, superficial thinking, and rhetoric perfectly calculated to appeal to the "me" generation. I have read books that are more poorly reasoned than "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism," but only a few. There is a lot of craziness, a lot of foolishness, and a lot of cheap sophistry, but I don't see any wisdom at all. There are many Buddhist teachers writing today who do not feel the need to be incoherent and call it "wisdom." Whether he had sex with his students or not, he just didn't leave anything behind to get so exited over. It isn't like these are great words of wisdom being denied us because they are connected with a scandal; once you ignore the scandal, there is nothing else there to talk about.
What do you say, then, to those who he inspired? Not too many teachers fired up the imagination, and led to committed practice, in the way he did. I too find the books unreadable, but he seems to have had a powerful impact that I am trying to understand. I am very uncomfortable with charisma and group think and elevation of teachers to ridiculous heights, but I am curious about how we think through what we accept in some, and not others.
The whole charisma thing is quite powerful. I've met some followers of Chogyam Trungpa who simply dismiss criticism of his writing as unimportant, saying his teaching could only be passed along in person.
I do think it is important to distinguish between "committed practice" and truly useful practice. We've all met some very committed practitioners who were running hard down the wrong path, haven't we?
At any rate, I'm sure there is wisdom to be gained from people who are not enlightened. I have great compassion for Chogyam Trungpa, because I can only imagine that someone in the process of killing himself with alcohol and cocaine must have been suffering horribly. He kind of reminds me of those graduate students who get that first glimmer of understanding of deconstruction and think they've understood all of philosophy; they, also, often end up self-destructing and spouting the same incoherent nonsense for years.
I do not think that love and debate are natural antagonists, and the same goes for reason and faith, so I do not quite take your views as angry or purely philosophical. I enjoy your comments.
I am not so sure about the difference between committed and useful practice; in me one seems to intertwine with the other.
I am still curious about whether Trungpa directly addressed what can be seen, from an objective perspective, as potentially exploitative. Does anyone know?
Dear eternallyperplexed:
I appreciate your comments. It is helpful to me to learn that wtompepper’s statements elicit a different reaction in other minds and hearts than they do in me. It opens my perspective a little more.
I, too, would like to know if Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche ever acknowledged the potential for abuse in his actions.
Linda
Hello Linda.
There is a fascinating article in today's NYTimes that describes better than I can why discussion and debate on even those topics that seem ineffable can help us all (and why I so enjoy wtom's posts). Here is an extract:
'This pragmatic view understands seeking the truth as a special case of trying to win an argument: not winning by coercing or tricking people into agreement, but by achieving agreement through honest arguments. The important practical conclusion is that finding the truth does require winning arguments, but not in the sense that my argument defeats yours. Rather, we find an argument that defeats all contrary arguments. Sperber and Mercier in fact approach this philosophical view when they argue that, on their account, reasoning is most problematic when carried out by isolated individuals and is most effective when carried out in social groups.'
In case you are interested here it is, and you can follow the links to the related longer articles:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/argument-truth-and-the-s...
Bows.
Dear eternallyperplexed:
Thanks for the reference. I read the original article, "Reason Seen More As Weapon Than Path to Truth." Hadn't seen this one. Need to read it several more times to get the jist of it.
Thanks a lot.
Dear wtompepper:
Good reasoning is a useful life skill, but a limited one. I grew up in a family that presumed that exerting control over self and others through the power of reason was the answer to meeting all life’s wants and needs. I excelled in philosophy at several universities.
I did not learn to trust or love human beings. Instead I feared them, and in reaction, I sometimes attacked them or expressed contempt for them, much as you do.
I wonder if your family of origin went overboard in a different, chaotic way, so that the power of reason now seems to you the great missing ingredient to guarantee the good life.
To me it is one skill among many. Now that I know how to love and to laugh affectionately at human foibles, I prefer to express these in all their illogic over a dry, philosophical discussion, any day of the week.
Would you rather be loved or debated with? Be honest. Maybe you have decided love is neither manly nor possible for you, so you will make do with bitterness.
With maitri, Linda
I can see how well that's working out for you. You've clearly let go of all your anger.
But seriously, perhaps you might examine why you need so much to attack me every time I post on Tricycle. I'm sorry if I seem so bitter, hostile and judgmental to you. Perhaps I seem that way to others as well. But what do my posts represent to you that makes you so upset that you need to repeatedly call me names and accuse me of dishonesty? I don't mind if you just need to vent. I won't take it personally.
You remind me of me. When I thought/wrote like you do, I was in tremendous pain. That suffering has eased for me, but it hurts to see someone else possibly in the same place.
I am fortunate to live in a city with a river running through it, and to access a relatively natural setting is only minutes away. I was thinking of this on-going discussion on Trungpa and Pema and observing my surroundings. I watched ospreys fishing, little duck butts looking like white flags as they turned upside down to feed, heard many more birds than I could see, the clicking of marmots warning of approaching people/dogs. And my dog seems to know that what makes a good life is chasing a ball, playing in the river, then coming home for a long nap. As far as I know, we are the only animals who anguish over how everyone else lives their lives. I, too, am a result of the 60s and 70s and the too-much-of-everything decades, and like many others have spent the years since recovering from excess and dealing with my own guilt. I tend to concentrate in my meditation and hopefully in my life as much as possible on kindness and compassion. Today I have compassion for both Trungpa and the women with whom he had sex, compassion for him coming more slowly than for the women. But most everyone I know who reads Buddhist literature has been profoundly touched by Pema's writing. She is not responsible for what he did; she is only responsible for her own life. I, for one, am grateful she is in the world and whatever it took to get her here. Sorry to take so long to get to my point.
I spent some time during the mind/body portion of a retreat at Gampo Abbey this past summer interrogating my own emotional attachments/resentments to the legacy of my teacher's teacher. I only saw him once at a big public lecture in Chicago. I had read all his books up that point and I thought I understood what he was talking about, but in retrospect, I think I had a naive idea about how really challenging it is to be a committed Buddhist in terms of my own life. If you think about it, he really had his hands full trying to convey very subtle teachings to a crowd of lefties, pot heads, lapsed Catholics, etc. I am sad that I never got to encounter him one on one.
But, on the other hand, he clearly turned on a switch in Pema Chodron that has allowed her to convey some fairly esoteric concepts in a manner that really touches my heart now, some 35 years after I saw Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche speak. Thanks for the great interview.
a friend and i were fortunate to have a tour at the gampo abbey this summer (during off season). this interview with ani pema is very interesting, honest and .. enlightening in it's own rite. i knew this happened with some teachers but wasnt aware of it with chogyam trungpa rinpoche. ani pema chodron has a unique and open perspective on this. an all around great informative interview. thank you so much for reposting it.
What an inspiration Pema is. She sees clearly. And like you said, Gribneal, she's only responsible for her own behavior. Trungpa is a mystery to all of us. How could someone be so wise in so many regards and yet be so controlled by the grasp of greed and aversion, succumbing to sensual gratification through substance abuse and sex? Hard not to have compassion for that. We are all addicted to samsara.
I think the comments have been complex and fascinating. I like Wtompepper's honesty. There is no agression in my estimation, only sincere thoughts. Humans are complex.Clearly, coming into a messiness of CTR's personal life, from her own incendiary entry into Buddhism, she has become an incredible teacher who has seen shit and found teaching jewels. Does that mean that his behavior shouldn't be scrutinized because of what she became? And that if we scrutinize it, we aren't good practitioners? No. Clearly students were hurt by his sexual abuse of his power. It goes back to wisdom and clarity of knowing what is right for oneself. That was a time of immense sexual wildness, not that its not like that today in the world. Lots of suffering regarding selfishness of both men and women regarding sexual immorality. I have been there and am extremely sorrowful now. Turning that corner into modesty and celibacy has been freeing for me. I felt I was just lock-stepping before in a very corrupt cultural pattern. The precepts feel freeing to me, ahimsa all the way. Who knows who CTR would be today if he had lived, and what his life would be now. I somehow think he would've turned full circle........Namaste.