ACCOUNTABILITY

'Before you criticise another, you should walk in his moccasins a mile.'

- native American saying.

Accountability, rather the lack of it, could be said to be one of the chief characteristics of traditional society. At the same time, this is both its strength and its weakness. Its strength lies in that such a situation, calling for the complete acceptance by younger generations of the heritage of the past. as embodied in the elders, ensures its continuance into the future. The existence of a particular set of values, mores and so on, specifically, presumed ethno-cultural purity and superiority, is thus enabled to be passed on with the least of modifications. The question of establishing an ideal society, really a western obsession, based on principles of equality, liberty, and fraternity are not really pertinent here. It is stability and continuity which are of paramount importance. It matters little as to whether these values or mores are based on sound principles or not. In some of the more ancient cultures, their progenitors have been said to be Rishis, enlightened personages and social thinkers, who must be credited with a profound understanding of the human psyche and its various ramifications, as is borne out by their writings or recorded sayings. Modern generations unfortunately, are not able to appreciate the verities contained in their respective traditions, whose specific aims was to contain, creatively channel, and regulate human neuroses. The disintegration of traditional society from this point of view, cannot but be construed as the desire of individuals to give license to their self-indulgence, irrespective of as to whether this might be in their greater interest or not. This is the general concept of individual freedom.

The attempt in this paper is hardly to make a case for traditionalism. It is rather to highlight certain of its characteristics, both positive and negative, and their possible relevance in the modern world. The specific focus of this paper is the Himalayan Buddhist tradition, where on the one hand accountability is upheld as an essential of the spiritual journey, whilst on the other its dire lack in key individuals in authority, plays a significant role in shaping history, both individual. as well as collective. Considering that the differences in the Tibetan and Indian consciousness are really minimal, this paper should be equally pertinent in the context of ashramas and mathas in this sub-continent.

The Vajrayana teachings are explicit in that they require both prospective Gurus and disciples to analyse the other in depth for a minimum period of three years, prior to accepting each other in the samaya covenants. Once such bonds have been forged, both polarities become accountable, each to the other, the consequences of a breach on the part of either, having serious repercussions on the other its consequences dire for both. This is taken to its very limits in authoritarianism. One’s Guru, the very embodiment of the Three Jewels and the Three Roots, by definition can do no wrong. Such is the conviction required of the disciple.

A Guru-disciple relationship is sacrosanct, akin to that of a father and a son. This places the onus of the relationship on both, requiring on the one hand the complete surrender on the part of the son-disciple to the father-Guru. The father-Guru, becoming the repository of confidence for his disciple, undertakes the responsibility of accomplishing holistically one's welfare. He grants one refuge and protection from samsara and the threats it presents to the security and well-being of the disciple, creating a protected environment conducive to healing and growth. Here, considerations of power, prosperity, politics and exploitation are not to be operative as these would only impede the fruition of this relationship. The surest way to undo it is to betray this trust!

The hagiographies of Guru Padmasambhava, his Twenty-five Immediate Disciples, Marpa, and Milarepa, to mention only a few, may be taken as ideals.

This becomes an extremely potent and pregnant situation. On the one hand the Guru is rightly given the authority by the disciple to deal with one’s life as he/she pleases, and work out in the disciple the divine plan, to borrow a phrase from the Christian tradition. The lacuna here is that in actuality, authentic Gurus may or may not be fully enlightened as they themselves will admit, and may not therefore be considered infallible. Thus a Guru being a manifest individual, though admittedly on a higher plane of evolution, is still subject to the constraints imposed by one's environment, viz. ethnic, social, cultural and religious. As such it is only logical to assume then that each Guru's activity, style, and so on, will be at variance with those of others, and a direct function of his/her particular aspirations.

Here one finds basically two distinct types of personalities. The one in which an authentic Guru in his wisdom and compassion, takes on the role of being in total command of his surroundings. The other is that in which temporal authority is delegated to a subordinate. the Master himself seeking to concentrate more on spiritual affairs. This becomes a situation of shared authority; it might even become one in which the subordinate becomes the dominant, with the implicit permission of the Guru.

It is only obvious that the former of these situations is the easier to handle, as the interaction between Guru-disciple becomes direct, with no intermediaries. The problems really seem to arise in the latter situation, the more so where the subordinate, not necessarily other than a devotee, bhakta or premi, becomes the dominant. In either case however, the question of accountability does not arise. Because of the differences in their levels of evolution, the neuroses seemingly manifest in a Lama, are much easier to handle than the prejudices, biases, and preferences by which an ordinary person is governed.

Before delving into the following examples it must be emphasized here that these are not to be construed as attempts to vilify or uphold any individual in particular. Rather these are to be construed as symptomatic of events which occur through the entire gamut of the Himalayan Buddhist tradition. The discerning reader will appreciate that this is not meant as an attack on a system which has preserved within its folds the Mahayana in its uncorrupted forms for over twelve hundred years it having, virtually disappeared every where else. The preciousness of this legacy being hereby acknowledged, it is imperative that the discerning reader take a step beyond the vested interests of the day, in a bid to ensure its continuance in its purity for generations to come.

Posterity should not be given the opportunity to point a finger to any particular individual and say of one that it was because of that person's lack of foresight that the Dispensaticn has come to such a head. Already a few such individuals have risen to fame during the last millenium. To add to their ranks cannot be considered intelligent or skilful. This is precisely the accountability referred to in this paper. Of course, one's 'ultimate' accountability is to Dharamraja, a fact not really considered by those who cunningly seek their advancement at the expense of others or perhaps consider themselves beyond the laws of karma.

The corridors of authoritarianism pose the greatest threat to the survival of the Mahayana, especially where the selfish ensconse themselves in its tiers. It is they who ring the death-knell for the Dispensation. The controversy surrounding the XVIIth. Gyalwang Karmapa and the personages who are its progenitors, are striking examples of the misuse of trust, power and authority. Amazingly the Taala’i Lama has himself admitted this in a video-recorded interview in a cassette titled ‘Karmapa - Two Ways of Divinity’ available from Dharma Videos, Auhofstr. 39, A-1130 Vienna, Austria. He has though, stopped short of saying as to the role he has played in this game himself.

The following examples are now presented with the qualifications mentioned above. The first is of H.E. Kathog Zhing-Kyong Trulku and Ven. Jhadhral Rinpoche both household names in the Nyingma tradition. The activity manifest by the former had been so bizarre and diverse, that he has left behind in India an indelible imprint on the Tibetan consciousness. The latter, acknowledged openly by all, including the Royal Personages of Bhutan, as a Mahasiddha, is completely uncompromising in his manifest phenomenal activity. Yet another, H.H. Dhrubwang Penor Rinpoche of Pal-yul, is extremly active in his community and elsewhere, is a monk who has taken upon himself the onus of running his charitable trust with its large range of activities not to mention of course his spiritual engagements as well. On the other end of this scale is H.E. Thrulzhig Rinpoche of Solukhumbu, Nepal, whose estate manager wields the final authority.

Similar was the case with the late XVIth. Gyalwang Karmapa, who was said to be mortally afraid of his General Secretary, the late Mr. Dhamchoe Yongdu. This gentleman has reputedly been the cause of immense hardship to a large number of people who did not find favour with him. Those who did, including his immediate relations, were raised to high places, some of whom continue to operate internationally, and all this within the full knowledge of H.H., who would himself merely endorse his brother-in-law's recommendations. It is evident then, that an institution cannot but be considered imperfect, even though it might be headed by one none other than the Buddha himself, as the Karma Kagyu is wont to refer to H.H.. It is no hidden secret that H.H.'s Buddha Activity was distorted to a marked degree by this extraneous influence. This extended to the recognition of Trulkus as well in certain cases.

Likewise, distinct rumblings were heard against the management of the seat of H.E. Kalu Rinpoche during his life time, concerning amongst others, the misuse of funds.

Naturally the inquisitive reader will ask for explanations for such happenings. Those generally provided are, "H.H. being all- knowing and compassionate, he had manifest his activity solely for the benefit of others. We cannot fathom the extent of his vision, hence accepting him as the Buddha, we accept his activity as totally valid.” The same standard would be applied to H.E. Kalu Rinpoche, who had kept his nephew Lama Gyaltsen close to his heart and form. He even went to the extent of returning as the Lama’s son later on.

He would justify this in the elliptical manner characteristic of the eastern consciousness as follows : "There was once an old woman who had six sons of whom the elder five were Bodhisattvas, the youngest was not. They would go every day into a forest nearby to chop wood which they would then sell for sustenance. Every evening, the old mother would ask specifically about her youngest son. and how he was faring. One day, the elder sons asked her as to why she was constantly enquiring about the welfare of the youngest, whilst seemingly unconcerned about them. She replied, 'You are all Bodhisattvas, hence capable of taking care of yourselves. The youngest is an ordinary being and needs to be taken care of more.' "

Interesting indeed! However, if this was to be taken to its logical conclusion, the entire edifice of the system of re-incarnate Lamas would collapse.

The questions which thus arise are: "Is the future of us disciples to be sacrificed on the altar of selfishness of particular individuals? Who is to be held accountable for these events? Is it the authentic Guru; is it his General Secretary or Estate Manager: is it the karma of disciples? Is it that the Guru is purposely creating such a mandala so as to enable his disciples to work out unsavoury aspects of their karma? Is he doing this so as to compel them to recognise the negativity which might exist in themselves? Is it to give them a taste of the real world and thus impart a fillip to their urgency to transcend suffering? Are these lessons in impermanence, forgiveness and compassion and to realize the futility of anger, resentment and retaliation? Are these exhortations for disciples to develop skilful mean and utilize their intelligence, rather than fall into the snare of complacency?"

It is impossible to provide answers to such and other similar questions, generally applicable. The individual reader, devotee, and aspirant needs to seek one's own answers, because each is accountable to oneself alone for the good or evil one might have done, might be doing in the present, or might do in the future.

A natural extension of this logic would take us to an investigation of monastic situations. In the old system, each monastery was an island unto itself. Each had its own laws, its own customs, and so on. their being some homogeneity amongst affiliate monasteries. All however. were agreed on the one point, that they were effectively sealed from investigation or interference by the laity. Interaction between the clergy and laity was well-defined. As far as the laity was concerned, a monastery was sacrosanct, its institutions sacred. It is common knowledge that such insular situations provide fecund breeding grounds for the entire range of human qualities and emotions.

Drugpa Kunleg, 'The Divine Madman', having already delivered an excellent critique of these institutions not more than two centuries ago, it would be impossible for any to attempt an improvement on it. It is necessary however, to stress, that in an age of unhampered communication where authority is openly questioned, analyzed, and then accepted or rejected. these bastions of sanctity too will be open to review and accountability. The 'Dob-dob-s', or monk-mafia of the Gelugpa monasteries of Sera, Ganden, Drepung amongst many others; sectarian wars; monk-armies; monk-bandits; monk-merchants; and so on -- their existence in the past, relevance in the present, and requirement for the future will be questioned, and answers demanded. It is an accepted fact seeing the situation amongst the youth everywhere, that far-reaching reforms will be necessitated in monasteries, if only for their very continuance as viable institutions relevant to the modern age.

Whether the Dispensation will continue and in what form. will be directly governed by the steps the present spiritual leadership of the various schools of Himalayan Buddhism take to ensure its well-being. Obviously, the first and foremost step is to work towards a mutual understanding, acceptance, and appreciation of each other. Tibetan history both in Tibet, recently in India, and elsewhere as well, has been marred by ugly incidents of sectarianism. It is true that the stakes being played for are very high, beyond the wildest imagination of those who lived in independent Tibet. The progenitors of schisms need to set their priorities right -- is it more relevant that the Dispensation remain in its myriad and diverse forms amongst us, or is it more important that a particular, hence incomplete aspect of the Dispensation continue? Thus dismembered, will the Dispensation be able to cater to the needs of the entire gamut of beings, or not?

Are not these questions of greater importance than one's personal petty considerations ? Would you dear reader, want to be accountable to future generations for your acts of omission and commission, because you weren't far-sighted enough? Or would you like to pass on the onus to others, contrary to the teachings of the Mahayana. that it was not your fault. that you were compelled by circumstances? Is it to be assumed then that the Buddha's Dispensation is now bereft of warriors willing to and capable of standing up for the truth?

There are some who will say after studying this paper, "Mind your own business; who are you to interfere in affairs where you don't belong? We are what we are; if you do not like the way things are, you are welcome to leave, and we. will continue the way we have done for centuries." This is the authoritarian approach that of self-justification, that of not willing to face the realities of the modern world. This is also in direct contrast with the way things are done currently, where prominent public figures outside India resign their office out of shame and a sense of scruples. once their faults are exposed -- such consider themselves accountable to the people they represent, lead or govern. That this must happen in monasteries too is inevitable, but the process will take time and it will be extremely painful for all concerned, entailing, as it will, the removal of crud accummulated over the centuries, layer by layer.

Unfortunately the modus operandi in India is that once in power you remain in power facing all odds, shamelessly and unscrupulously, and this is also the dictum on which monasteries are seemingly run. This is not to suggest of course, that every monastic administrator is corrupt. Such a statement would be entirely false. Rather the attempt is to make Buddhists aware that such people also exist in the echelons of power in monasteries. Democratisation and responsible governance are most certainly the requirement of the day, entailing greater in-depth involvement in monastic affairs by responsible lay people not merely to serve as a convenient facade, but of significance both in context and content!

A plausible response to the statement in the preceding para could be, "Venerable One, out of the conviction that you are worthy recipients of our gifts, we are making you these offerings. You will appreciate that we have worked hard to earn this money. hence you will understand our concern to ensure that it is properly utilised. Since your life is supposedly centered around the law of Karma, and you take care not to harm even the smallest insect which may come your way; since you understand that living off donations creates its own karmik indebtedness, as well as psychosomatic contamination; should you therefore not be accountable to us who provide you with the very means sustenance?"

It is an acknowledged fact that unless a system has built into it the capacity to rejuvenate itself, discarding the old and the bad, growing from within, it is doomed to die. In this battle between falsity and truth, the power of darkness and light, although the former might occasionally be seen as having the upper hand, it is the truth which ulitamtely triumphs! Had this not been so, Siddhartha could never have become the Buddha!

Postscript : "Whatever therefore ye wish men to do to you, do the same of them, for this is the meaning of the Law and prophets." (the authentic Dharma)

- The Anchor Bible: Matt. VII, vs. 12.

Sept. 30, 1989