That is hilarious. Tibetan’s are like everyone else.
Ok, funny Tibetan story, though the funny part is not about the Tibetans.
In the summer of 1981, the Dalai Lama came to the US Theosophical Society hq in Wheaton, Illinois. As you can imagine, everyone there was in a dither, to say nothing of the poor Secret Service folks who took one look at the grounds and nearly all died of heart failure realizing that they could not be secured and had little wooded areas all over the place that could hide all manner of malefactors. But I digress.
Anyway, he came with eight monks. And the eight monks were very unhappy about the food because they were not vegetarians. Well, the little old ladies on the staff were in an absolute second dither because no one had bothered to explain to them that the Tibetans, being good Cosimanian Orthodox and thus regarding the murder of helpless vegetables for food as an abomination, ate meat. And no one had also bothered to explain that given the climate of Tibet if they tried to live on vegetables they would starve to death, a habit they took with them into exile.
But then it works the other way. The monks, knowing that they were going to be near Chicago, were surprised to learn that we did not all carry machine guns.

Well, Native Americans/ American Indians serve the same function for ignorant and romanticizing Euro Ams: a kind of symbolic bank for spiritual capital; and the reality is just as complicated, as you have pointed out, Rod, in your posts related to the Comanche.
That said, there’s something possibly real going on in the nostalgia at work here: we (Euro Ams) know we lost something at some time in the past, and would like it back. Being unwilling to reconstruct or rediscover this something for the most part, we like “others” to serve it to us through projection. This same applies to the comments about GM wheat and romanticism in yesterday’s post: yes, romanticism as a movement is silly; but it is reacting to real losses. Take the losses seriously; take the movement with a hill of salt.
Also, consider reading some books, maybe Marco Pallis’ Peaks and Lamas, and 7 Years in Tibet, made into a Brad Pitt movie!
PDGM

Rod, the book you mention sounds like Prisoners of Shangri-La, by Donald Lopez. He is a scholar of Tibetan Buddhism, and the book is very good; your description of it is quite accurate.
Of course, much of this is because of the modernization and Sinification by the Chinese government; seventy years ago, Lhasa would have been more like modern Romantics envision it. However, based on descriptions of travelers from that era, a modern Romantic, transported back there to that era, wouldn’t have like it any better. It was described as dirty, smelly, and packed to the gills with prostitutes and VD(read Seven Years in Tibet, which is much less romanticized than the movie).
PDGM, good points. Robert Pattison, in his excellent book The Triumph of Vulgarity: Rock Music in the Mirror of Romanticism discusses this at some length. He talks about how ever since the Romantic era and the glorification of the so-called “noble savage”, Westerners have sought to project some kind of primal purity on Blacks, American Indians, etc., which is actually a subtle way of keeping them down–don’t want to spoil their purity, you know.
People have so much difficulty in grasping that there aren’t pristine, noble people, or debased, modern people–just people.

there is probably no one who stresses o’neills point more than the dalai lama himself, who is very clear about the duality of his teachings. while throngs of westerners are attracted to, and study, many of the tenets of buddhism, he makes very clear that pure buddhist practice is a deep lifelong (many lives actually) commitment, rather than some kind of feel-good hobby.
the talks that he gives, and books that he publishes, in the usa are really more like secular self-help and peace seminars based on buddhist principles. whereas, his appearances before tibetans or gathering of monks are entirely different affairs that can go on for hours and involve an incredible amount of dense obtuse texts. way over the head of most college kids lining up to hear how we can live as butterflies.
so perhaps a lot of the romanticism comes from western exposure to the buddhist-lite college campus version of tibetan buddhism, rather than an understanding of the intense monastic dharma that true tibetan buddhist practice requires.
(years ago, i had a tibetan roommate who had emigrated from exile in india. he would tell people, ‘i am not indian, i eat cow!’, and ‘we are buddhist, we eat cow!’.

I’m as wary as the next man about SWPL “noble savage” BS. That said, however, I can’t quite get on board with O’Neill here. For a start, I find the Spiked crew’s reflexive attention-seeking contrarianism rather tedious and juvenile.
But more importantly, their attack on Tibet, and its unique and precious culture (sometimes White People are right!) is of a piece with their near-relentless apologetics for Chinese totalitarianism.
This is disguised as disapproval of Western “imperalist” criticism, but you’ll be lucky to find any serious criticism of the PRC on the Spiked website that isn’t hedged round and qualified with whataboutery and fudge.
And Brendan: The fact that Lhasa now looks and behaves like other Chinese cities, rather than the uniquely beautiful Tibetan city that it once was, is not simply because White People have exaggerated its splendours. It is because it has been under Chinese occupation for sixty years.

I saw this video circulating years back, and it’s still relevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kstH-8jwa80
The Dalai Lama is beloved by millions of “Spiritual, But Not Religious” types in the USA, precisely because those people THINK Buddhism is a loosey-goosey rellgion in which there aren’t any real rules, in which you can devote a few minutes a day to meditation and then live like a hedonist the rest of the time.
Those people have no idea how prudish and ascetic real, devout Tibetan Buddhists are.

Dear Rod:
The west has a romanticized view of Buddhism in general, though Tibetan Buddhism may be particularly distorted. (As a previous poster mentioned, Donald Lopez’ “Prisoners of Shangri-La” is an excellent antidote.
Buddhists, and Tibetans, are just people. The history of Buddhism, like the history of all large-scale religions, is filled with sectarian strife and acrimony. And in some cases this acrimony boils over into overt sectarian violence; several times in Japanese Buddhist history, to pick one example.
This is not a critique of Buddhism or Japan or Tibet. It’s just the recognition that people are people everywhere and a plea for allowing Buddhists to be fully a part of humanity.
Jim

astorian, excellent link! As someone who’s actually read primary source material, and who has studied Buddhism (studied, not practiced, since I’m not a Buddhist myself) for nearly thirty years, I’m well aware of this. What the link didn’t mention is that the Buddha himself, in the canonical Buddhist scriptures (specifically the Tripitaka) is quoted as saying that a man would be better off putting his–ahem, well, you know–in the mouth of a venomous serpent than into a woman! Also, the traditional Buddhist views of sex come out well in this interesting interview from a few years back with a Sri Lankan Theravada monk.
I alternate between irritation and hilarious amusement at the ignorance of Eastern religions rampant among the trendy, faux-intellectual set in this country. They want something like what Bruce Willis’s character on the old Moonlighting series once mentioned: a religion “easy on morality, with lots of holidays, and as short an initiation period as possible”, and they project this image on to something they don’t understand, or even try to understand.
What’s unfortunate is that even some that ought to know better do the same thing. Robert Thurman was one of the the first Western Tibetan Buddhist monks (he later left the monastic life and got married; he’s Uma’s father!) and is an expert on Tibetan Buddhism, and holds the Je Tsongkhapa chair of Indo-Tibetan Buddhist Studies at Columbia University. Despite all this, his books and translations have a definitely flaky, New-Agey (in the bad sense) flavor to them. A further discussion of Thurman in this context is over here.
In any case, don’t get me wrong. While, to be totally honest, aspects of Tibetan art and culture creep me out, I still have respect for it, and for Buddhism more generally (though I’m more sympathetic to Theravada, Zen, and Pure Land than to Vajrayana, which in my view picked up a lot of freaky extraneous stuff from late Shaivism). The point is that most Western Buddhists or Buddhist fellow-travelers really don’t have much of a clue about real Buddhism or Tibetan (or any other Asian) culture. Oh, well–the Buddha himself said that delusions are limitless….

here they drive cars, drink beer, smoke, dance, wear leather, sit in parks, play cards, flirt, chat, talk rubbish, and do all the other things that the rest of us do. It is testament to the influence of the Western Tibetophilic lobby, all those actors, princes and middle-class healing nutjobs who have spread such a severely distorted image of Tibet as a land of childlike monks and nuns who smile softly all day long, that even I find myself surprised by the reality.
Beautifully put. I had a very similar experience when I first moved to the Middle East (I lived in the Gulf for a couple of years). When I arrived, I was subconsciously braced for a nation of angry zealots and grim puritans and silent women. I was expecting every Gulf Arab to rant non-stop about American foreign policy, or Israel, or Western decadence…
But the ordinariness of Arab life in the Gulf was like a slap in the face. Conversations about food and sports. Whining about traffic and the weather. Gossip about marriages, relatives, relationships, weight, appearances. Political ignorance! Political apathy! Just like real people! The ordinariness was especially acute when it came to women wearing niqab. I expected such women to be angry fanatics handing out photocopies of the Protocols. Instead, I’d see them sitting around drinking coffee in the mall, or buying chicken and canned tomatoes and ice cream in bulk at the supermarket. Fighting over parking spaces (I wasn’t in Saudi, obviously).
Eventually I got to know many Arabs personally and formed real friendships. But even merely going to Arabia and watching the daily humdrum of life during those first days and weeks was (in and of itself) utterly fascinating and worthwhile. My image of the Arab world had been so heavily colored by the US media’s mantra that Arabs are violent, Arabs are violent, Arabs are violent. The normalcy of real life shouldn’t have been so astounding, but it absolutely was.
Captcha: “bindery that” (ha)

I saw a lot of Tibetans in Nepal, since a large number of them settled there in light of the Chinese crackdown. They are, I am happy to report, normal human beings. They have a distinctive language, a more rounded face than most Nepalis, a few markers in the matter of dress (mandarin collar jackets and a certain pattern of straight skirt are common), and some beautiful temples set up complete with prayer flags like you’ve seen in the movies. There are monks among them in their orange robes. But in general the Tibetans I saw didn’t behave any differently than anyone else in Kathmandu. They smoked, drank tea, sold and bought things, groused at the demonstrations blocking up traffic (or shrugged – demonstrations are a valid excuse for not going to work or running errands and many in Nepal take advantage of the break whenever it presents itself!)

Livia, I’m glad you got the chance to visit the Arab world, and a Gulf country at that. Human beings are just human beings, and Arab culture is not actually as vastly different from ours, as say, Eastern Asian culture is. But though their worldview may be remarkably different in East Asia, a lot is remarkably the same. It sounds sort of cheesey and idealistic, but it actually is true: we have more in common than we have differences. The differences are important and real, but they don’t make folks from a different culture space aliens.
Hey, Rod, I picked up a copy of the book “God is Not One.” So far I’ve only gotten through the chapter on Islam, but it was pretty good. I look forward to the East Asian religions where I’m sure I’ll learn a lot more.

isn’t it interesting from the comments (and from the comboxes of other posts) that whenever people relate stories of real-life interaction with the ‘other’, that they so often tell of their opinions and attitudes moderating or becoming more nuanced? it’s a pretty obvious pattern.
conversely, it seems much rarer that the more that people become familiar and interactive with a different culture, that they become more hardened and simplistic in their attitudes towards it.
i do wonder what the larger lessons of this phenomenon are.

In Mongolia where the majority are Tibetan- school Buddhists they live on mutton, dairy products,and flat bread. Why? There is virtually no agriculture possible there. An old Mongol once told me “vegetables taste like dirt!”
When my wife guided in Nepal in the 70′s the Buddhists had her kill the chickens, telling her with a grin that any karma (?–I am no Buddhist scholar and she is at work) was on her head!

Turmarion,
Thanks for the reference to Pattison on Romanticism and rock.
It occurs to me that “majority culture” or at least majority middle to upper middle class culture in America often senses deeply the lack of their own roots in every sense of the word. And in their rootlessness, they look to more “primitive” (by which I mean premodern, not primitive in any perjorative way) to get a glimpse; but this allows them (us?) to avoid the work of rootedness in place, in spiritual discipline, and in culture. This is why, for example, that wealthy dentists’ and lawyers’ kids aspire to rap as authentic.
This has been going on for a long time; a quick look at Robinson Jeffers’ poem “New Mexican Mountain” about tourists (and his strangely privileged self) at Taos Pueblo for a dance must date from a half century ago at least; and it’s full of this awareness of a lack.
PDGM

Tibetans are just people. Uh, yeah, and that’s why they should be accorded human rights, including the right of self-determination, free of cultural suppression my unwanted mass immigration.
If someone can walk through modern Lhasa and see everyone there as Tibetan, that means that someone thinks Asians “all look alike”.

While some Mahayana Buddhists (notably in China, Taiwan, and Korea) are strict vegetarians, other Buddhists follow the teaching given by the Buddha that as long as you don’t kill the animal yourself or see, hear, or suspect that it was killed just for you, you can eat the flesh. Thus, you find that in Buddhist countries where meat is eaten, butchery is done by non-Buddhists, but they will happily eat the meat. The vegetarian Buddhists don’t buy that logic, and point to other scriptures (such as the Lankavatara Sutra and Surangama Sutra) that say that Buddha’s purported allowance for meat eating is a false teaching introduced by flesh-craving monks. Himalayan Buddhists, as has been noted, have very little plant agriculture, so while they respect vegetarianism, it is not practiced much.
Prior to the Meiji restoration in Japan, monks were forbidden to eat meat and fish, though it was not uncommon for them to sneak out of the temple at night and indulge. It seems that it was regarded more as a matter of temple discipline than a moral prohibition, and when the ban was lifted by the government, Buddhist vegetarianism pretty much ended.
Besides the bad karma of killing, the other reason that some Buddhists have for not eating meat is that it, like alcohol, garlic, and onions, are supposed to excite the passions.

Where I come from (Pennsylvania), we romanticize the Amish in a similar way. Until, of course, you actually get to know them. I think we tend to take the salient traits of a culture different from our own and use them to romanticize or demonize. I remember the prepratory talk we received for a work trip to the Navajo/Dine reservation at Four Corners, specifically the proper etiquette for navigating the Hogan. Turns out it was mostly used for kids playing hide and seek. Much of our belief about other cultures seems to me to be based on what we aspire to or fear in our own.
ReCaptcha: smocks is. (started out “the filth”)

Actually Rod, you’re right: Tibetan Buddhism is quite dark, and encounters with its shadows was one of the things that propelled me into a spiritual journey that led me to become a theist and eventually a Christian.

Thus, you find that in Buddhist countries where meat is eaten, butchery is done by non-Buddhists, but they will happily eat the meat.
Yup, apparently Tibet used to be full of Muslim butchers who would kill animals for Buddhists who wanted to eat meat.
Re: While, to be totally honest, aspects of Tibetan art and culture creep me out, I still have respect for it, and for Buddhism more generally (though I’m more sympathetic to Theravada, Zen, and Pure Land than to Vajrayana, which in my view picked up a lot of freaky extraneous stuff from late Shaivism).
It’s interesting that you say that. I have no desire to become a Buddhist, of any variety, but I find it easier to relate to the Vajrayana then to the cold rationalism of some other forms of Buddhism. Then again, that’s probably because Shaivism is, in fact, the faith of my mother’s family, so of course it seems familiar! (My mother’s family is Shaivist Hindu, my father’s is part Christian and part Hindu, and I was raised nonreligious). I suppose that, to borrow C. S. Lewis’ terminology, I’m more drawn to the ‘thick’ aspects of religion then most people who grow up in a Protestant Western culture. What good is a religion without deities and demons?
I don’t know much about the history of late Shaivism, though, so I’d be interested to hear what you thought was extraneous.

Hector, the tantric stuff is what gives me issues. The sex stuff, which is what gets portrayed in the media, and is usually distorted into something like “how to have hot spiritual lovin’!” is only one component of Tibetan Buddhism and tantra in general. Moreover, to the extent that in theory tantra takes the attitude that anything in life can be sacred, even the ordinary or supposedly “profane”, I can have some sympathy with it.
However, if you read actual tantric literature, it can be quite blood-chilling. Consumption of blood and other bodily fluids and even feces (sometimes by multiple people at once), lurid descriptions of demonic “guardian deities”, and even descriptions of murder and cannibalism abound. Now I’m not saying that this is actually practiced. Moreover, the typical defense of this is that this is the so-called “twilight language” that uses such extreme statements as a way of metaphorically conveying deep spiritual truths. To this I say, with all due respect, BS. Yes, deep mysticism sometimes takes forms that seem odd or even scandalous to the mundane world: consider the cleansing of the Temple or fools for Christ, just to give two Christian examples. I think, though, that these are qualitatively quite different from stuff in some of the tantras.
BTW, if anyone thinks I’m making this up, research it some. Re some of the disturbing aspects of Tibetan Buddhism, have a look at this website and also over here, as well as this article here. I’d also recommend June Campbell’s Traveler in Space: In Search of Female Identity in Tibetan Buddhism.
On another but related issue, if you study Tibetan art in detail, skulls, skeletons, death, demonic beings that are actually supposed to be worshiped (e.g. Mahakala and Vajrayogini–Google some images to see what I mean), and ritual sex practically drip from the milieu. You don’t see this so much in thangkas (religious icons) produced for Western consumption, but if you look in museums of Tibetan art or in traditional Tibetan contexts, it’s all over the place.
As to Shaivism, most scholars trace the beginnings of tantrism to forms of Medieval Shaivism, and most Hindu tantric literature is in the form of dialogues between Shiva and Shakti. The general consensus (although Vajrayana Buddhists would probably debate this) is that tantrism is a late borrowing from Shaivite tantric practice by the last stage of Northern Indian Buddhism. This was the form transmitted to Tibet before it died out in India around the beginning of the 1st Millennium AD. Of course, there are forms of Shaivite tantra that are so-called “right-hand” which emphasize ritual and bhakti (“devotion”) without all the freaky stuff; and most Shaivism is non-tantric altogether. My understanding is that in India, “tantra” in common parlance is more or less equivalent to “black magic” or “witchcraft” in Western languages, and that actual tantrikas are way, way underground.
Anyway, I hope that’s of interest.

Ah, OK. My experience of Shaivism is limited to something like ‘Shaivism as practiced by the wives of middle class South Indian civil engineers who grew up in the 1950s’. Which didn’t, to say the least, involve much black magic or witchcraft.
Shaivism is not, to be clear, the form of Hinduism that I find most interesting (though it is the faith of my mother’s side of the family). It pretty much leaves me cold; I’m much more drawn to the Vaishnavite theology that emphasizes the ten avataras of Vishnu. Hindu avataras aren’t _quite_ analogous to the Christian concept of the Incarnation (none of them present us with quite the same coexistence of divine and human that we see in Christ) but it’s close enough to be interesting and appealing to me.

Well, this fake controversy is definitely a function of people not understanding Buddhism, and the people guilty of this lack of understanding are the critics here, not the western adopters.
Buddhism is not based on local customs, but on the Four Noble Truths. Buddhism is readily adaptable to all kinds of cultures and settings, and it has thousands of acceptable variants. Tantric Buddhism, also called Vajrayana, is a major category of Buddhism, and it has many sects, most of them originating in Tibet, where Buddhism became intertwined with the native shamanic religion of Bon. It’s tantric Buddhist teachings, however, are not dependent on those customs, it is dependent on the core Vajrayana teachings, which are meant to be universal in nature, and not confined to Tibet.
So there’s nothing wrong whatsoever with adapting Vajrayana teachings to western culture, and leaving behind “Tibet”. In fact, it would be against Buddhist practice to do otherwise. This isn’t Catholicism which is supposed to be practiced virtually the same everywhere in the world. The idea that westerners ought to practice Vajrayana as Tibetans do it is as absurd as the notion that Tibetans ought to practice Buddhism as Theravadins do. These uneducated critics are confusing Vajrayana with the practices of Tibet, rather than seeing Tibet as just one tradition for the practice of Vajrayana, which is being taken up by people all over the world.
As for romantic ideas about Tibet, not all of them are wrong. Traveling to Tibet today is not the same at all as traveling there before the Chinese invasion, when it really was a mystical backwater with virtually no contact with the outside world for many centuries. You should read about traditional Tibet, in which 10% of the population were monks, in which everything centered around religion, and the harsh life of these mountain folk was made hospitable by a highly adaptable religion – so adaptable that it was able to fuse with a “barbaric” shamanic tradition like Bon, because it could recognize that even Bon had some profound mystical elements in it as well, such as the tradition of Dzogchen, which is now an integral part of Vajrayana Buddhism.
There’s simply nothing wrong with westerners taking up Vajrayana and practicing it in a manner suitable for our culture. That’s how Buddhism has always worked.

As for the wild side of tantra, it’s definitely there, but this tends to get oversensationalized. Most of tantra, whether Hindu or Buddhist, is of the “right-handed” variety, meaning without any use of detriments. The word “tantra” merely means “continuity”, and the principle behind this is that nirvana is continuous with all of creation, not separate from it. It is only in the “left-handed” tantra that this is taken literally, rather than spiritually, and which thus engages in what would normally be considered detrimental practices, using their negative force in a kind of ju-jitsu fashion to transform these negative qualities into positive spiritual force. It isn’t what some might think, some kind of groovy soft way of indulging one’s desires while still getting to be “spiritual”. It’s really pretty harsh and unappealing if one actually does it right.
A lot of what one finds in Tibetan Buddhism isn’t even standard tantra, but it’s a form of Bon, the native shamanic religion of Tibet which is fused with Vajrayana to create a cultural hybrid unique to Tibet. But most of traditional Tibetan Buddhism is really quite mild, especially the Gelugpa tradition of the Dalai Lama. And the core teachings have virtually nothing to do with the left-handed tantric path, and most are warned to stay away from such things unless they have a qualified Guru to teach them the way. And those kinds of Gurus don’t take casual students.
There really are some harrowing things in the left-handed path, whether Buddhist or Hindu, and a lot of shamanic stuff gets mixed in there as well. But with Buddhism it’s never the specific practices that matter, it’s the core teaching of the Four Noble Truths. However one is able to grasp those truth and live one’s life according to them, that is “Buddhism”. Everything else is merely impermanent and transient, and of no ultimate value.

Very good comments Broken Yogi. As someone who is just now studying Buddhism your insights have helped me a lot. I too have heard that life in Tibet was less than ideal in the pre-Chinese invasion days. But my attitude was “So what?” Name one culture or society where everything is just swell. Where there is no injustice or bad laws. Such a place does not exist.
But we need to look at the heart of the scriptures to find out what is really expected of us. Were some of the Tibetan monks corrupt and greedy? No doubt they were. In Christianity did some Popes do cruel and evil things. Yep. Do the crusades and the inquisition make Christianity irrelevent? Not at all. The same holds for Buddhism under different rulers.

Broken Yogi: A few things.
There really are some harrowing things in the left-handed path, whether Buddhist or Hindu, and a lot of shamanic stuff gets mixed in there as well.
Glad you acknowledge that–and note, I did point out the right-hand path, and did not claim that all or most tantra that’s practiced is left-hand. Anyway, there is debate (not only among Westerners) as to whether left-hand paths in general are valid even in principle. While I understand the notion conceptually (your description of it as spiritual ju-jutsu is quite felicitous), I’m inclined to think that the dangers in actual practice are so great and the probability of abuse so high that with very, very rare exceptions (if any) left-hand paths are very bad news.
Shorter me: Left-hand paths really are evil, barbaric, borderline black magic!
You are right to say, “It isn’t what some might think, some kind of groovy soft way of indulging one’s desires while still getting to be ‘spiritual’. It’s really pretty harsh and unappealing if one actually does it right,” but unfortunately 90% of Westerners see it as just what you describe–a “groovy soft way of indulging one’s desires while still getting to be ‘spiritual’.” The Dalai Lama once said that to safely practice left-hand tantra one would have to be so spiritually advanced already that he could drink urine and eat feces with the same equanimity with which he’d have tea and cakes–and went on to say that even he wasn’t at that level. If this is so, there seem to be an awful lot more tantrikas out there than would likely fit this criterion.
It’s tantric Buddhist teachings, however, are not dependent on those customs, it is dependent on the core Vajrayana teachings, which are meant to be universal in nature, and not confined to Tibet….The idea that westerners ought to practice Vajrayana as Tibetans do it is as absurd as the notion that Tibetans ought to practice Buddhism as Theravadins do.
First, many Tibetan teachers have been very explicit that Westerners indeed ought to “practice Vajrayana as Tibetans do”. If you’ve read the Buddhist press over the last fifteen years or so, this has been an ongoing debate. More seriously, the question is whether the “core Vajrayana teachings” are even legitimate as a part of Buddhism at all, let alone being universal. Yes, Buddhism has inculturated itself in many different ways; but not all Buddhists view all those ways as legitimate. If you read the article I linked to with the interview with Bhante Henepola Gunaratana, who is well-respected, he is very clear in denying that tantra has any legitimacy in a Buddhist context, and firmly rejects the tantric view of sex.
The analogy is that Christianity may take different forms, but different Christians differ as to the legitimacy of various forms. For example, is honoring the saints idolatrous or not? Are Mormons beyond the pale of Christianity or not? And so on. I’m not a Buddhist, so in one sense it’s not my issue, anyway; however, IMO, I agree with Bhante Henepola that tantra (of either hand) is not, in fact legitimate in Buddhism, that it has nothing to do with the Four Noble Truths (often, in my view, violating them, in fact), and that it is an accretion picked up in Northern India and then mixed in Tibet with the native Bön, as you point out.
Analogy: we had an earlier thread about “paganizing” Catholicism. Now the meaning of that can be quite subtle; but I could respect a Protestant who said that the “pagan” elements in Catholicism so overwhelm the core elements of Christian teaching that Catholics can not be considered Christians. I’d disagree, but I could respect the argument. I think it’s something similar here.
Are tantra and Vajrayana another form of upaya (“skillful means”) for teaching the Dharma, no matter how aberrant they seem? Or are they just aberrations, and aberrations so great as to put Vajrayana beyond the pale of true Buddhism? My opinion is the latter. You may disagree with me, but I think it’s a valid opinion, and in fact most non-Vajrayana Buddhists also hold it (though they’re rather circumspect about saying anything in the West–Buddhists are very courteous about doctrinal disagreements!). One could make a stronger case for tantra being legitimate in a Hindu context, but as I said, even most Hindus view it with great disdain, and practice even of right-hand tantra tends to be underground in India.
You should read about traditional Tibet, in which 10% of the population were monks, in which everything centered around religion, and the harsh life of these mountain folk was made hospitable by a highly adaptable religion – so adaptable that it was able to fuse with a “barbaric” shamanic tradition like Bon, because it could recognize that even Bon had some profound mystical elements in it as well, such as the tradition of Dzogchen, which is now an integral part of Vajrayana Buddhism.
I have; and there was also sexism, wars, politically motivated murders, a culture in which the commoners joked about sending their tulku children to the monasteries to be raised by supposedly celibate monks by saying, “Well, they’re just going back to their real fathers,” venereal disease was rampant, etc. Look, if someone wanted to portray Medieval Europe as sort of like the Shire (and BTW, about the same population there were monastics as in Tibet, and if you look at how different Celtic, Russian, Syrian, German, and Italian Christianity were and how they fused with “barbaric” Greco-Roman paganism and neo-Platonism, you’d see that it was every bit as adaptable and flexible as Tibetan Buddhism, stereotypes about “authoritarian Christianity” to the contrary), without mentioning the Crusades, the Inquisition, sale of indulgences, the Borgia popes, etc., he could rightly be accused of idealizing the Medieval Church and painting a rosy, idealized portrait. Same with Tibet.
The upshot is that I don’t think the issue, as you indicate, is whether Westerners can adapt or inculturate Tibetan or any other kind of Buddhism; I think it’s whether they really understand what they’re doing and if they’re really willing to take all of it, the good, the bad, and the ugly.
I’d also point out that if one has kept up with Buddhism over the past twenty years, one would note that in the late 80′s and a large part of the 90′s, there were scandals galore, full of sex, abuse, money, etc. in Western Buddhist organizations, mostly Zen and Tibetan. I’m not saying that this de-legitimates either form or Buddhism, or Buddhism as such, per se; but just as one would be ill-advised to ignore the pedophilia scandal in the Catholic Church, no matter how sympathetic to it he might be, one is ill-advised to think that Tibetans (or Roman Catholics, or anyone of the species Homo sapiens, regardless of religion) are somehow pure, noble, spiritual types as a group who are not subject to the same weakness, or who should not be subject to the same scrutiny and cautions, as anyone else.