Hello
a friend. Yes indeed, the Tripa
did do that. While it is little, it still is something, so you are correct: The Tripa did not merely sit silent, but actually did something positive about the whole thing. Thank you for reminding me.
I have thought a bit more about this issue of "silent Lamas", and here are some of my thoughts - not conclusions, but just thoughts:
Generally most Buddhist Teachers are purely reactive. For instance, they do not teach unless asked to teach. In a way, it is the Buddhist Way to sit in silence, and not go teaching or running helping others unless the teachings or the help is requested. To do otherwise is seen as proselytizing. This means, that Buddhist authorities are not proactive, they merely react.
The Buddhist style is reactive. Therefore most Lamas, no matter what their view about some issue is, remain in silence.
However, the DL did become proactive over this one branch of practice, called DS. He was not content in merely answering questions presented to him over the practice (if there ever even was those questions), but became proactive by 'showeling his opinions' over others. He broke the traditional mold of being reactive by becoming proactive. He became a prozelytizer, although a negative one; he did not speak
for a Dharma-teaching, but
against a Dharma-teaching. And he spoke what he spoke without anyone requestioning it. So the main point is, that he became proactive, not merely responding. He has even stated this himself. He has said that he feels it is his responsibility to warn others, and so forth. Instead of merely expressing his opinion when asked, he took the role of "truth-yeller", proclaiming his vision, whether it was wanted or requested.
But as this proactive stance of the DL was seen by many to be negative in content, it compelled some to act, but act only as a reactionist. Therefore the actions taken, for instance, by GKG, are reactive, not proactive. They arose only because the wrong-conceived proactivity of the DL; they arose as a mere reaction. So although many maintain the view that the "1996 protests" by NKT were non-Buddhist in spirit, they nevertheless were more Buddhist that the ban and public condemnations by the DL, because they were reactive in
nature. (Do note, that I'm now not taking into the account whether the view, or the
content, is correct - I'm only commenting on the action. Whether the DS is or is not a Buddha or a demon has nothing to do with what I'm discussing here.) The same goes to the more recent WSS-protests. Neither of the 'protests waves' were made to promote any Buddhist Deity, view, or teaching, but they were made merely as a reaction to ill-adviced proactivity done by the DL. The WSS is not promoting anything positive, but only reacting to something negative, in a true Buddhist reactive spirit. WSS is not proselytizing.
If what I have written above is true, there might be some implications:
- Most of the Lamas will be silent in the future also, unless specifically asked and requested. The initiative must come from outside. From us.
- To promote DS is wrong, because it would be proselytizising. It is enough for us all to oppose the "negative-content proselytization" of the DL. To do more, is
bad form. We can of course openly tell that
this is our practice and present it's history, benefits, and so forth, but if we step further, and start to think, or even worse proclaim, that DS will be the next global Über-Buddha, we have went too far (and in fact would be just like those mistaken ones who say that the DL is "the Leader of All Buddhists of this Earth" andwhatever.)
So all in all, now I in a sense understand why many Lamas remain silent: They just weren't asked to speak.
But then, the question still emains: Why didn't they react?
