David Pearson writes: “Dharmacharya, could you explain where your teaching fits in overall in the Buddhist world? From what lineage and tradition are your monks associated? And have you not been expelled from that lineage, since your approach to the vinaya is ‘non-traditional’ at best? I mean no disrespect, but find it troubling that you are referred to by so many as a lama and Buddhist monk, yet your path seems to break with Buddhist tradition.”
Thank you for your patience, in waiting for a response, David. (David’s question was received in early December, but I asked him if he would kindly wait until January 18th for my response, and he was kind enough to oblige.)
One of my teachers said that I would know when the time was right to freely discuss my path, and told me that I should wait until I had served for thirty years as a Buddhist contemplative, and at least five years as the shepherd of the progressive Catholic contemplatives entrusted to my pastoral care.
Today marks six years since I was consecrated as a successor to the apostles, and is a White Tara Day in the Tibetan tradition. Since I took my vows as a Buddhist monk on a White Tara Day as well, over 30 years ago, I have chosen this auspicious day to answer David’s question, because I believe it is a question many have wanted to know about for some time.
There have been critics, as many know, from various camps, concerning the teaching, the tradition of our intentional community and our way of life. These critics have, from the very start, struggled to understand where we “fit in” in the overall scheme of things. And for thirty years now, there have been those who questioned whether or not I was suited to teach the path I have shared.
I don’t expect any of that to change.
My lineage is derived from as diverse a tapestry of beloved teachers as the tradition itself. My lineage includes transmission of the Advaita Vedanta and Buddha Dharma from Swami Abishiktananda (Father Henri LeSaux, OSB) of Santivinam (Saccidananda Ashram) in Tamil Nadu (Madras), India. The transmission of Japanese Zen in the Omoto-kyo lineage was given by Robert Danza Sensei, who received transmission directly from Morehei Ueshiba-san and his Master Onisaburu Deguchi-san. While I have been fortunate to receive Kalachakra empowerment from His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, I must consider my Root Guru to be Ma Jaya Sati Bhagavati (who was named Tenzin Yangchen by the Dalai Lama), whose lineage is derived from our Satguru Sri Neem Karoli Baba, Swami Muktananda, Swami Nityananda and Ramana Maharishi. And my apostolic lineage can be directly traced, in unbroken succession to the original disciples, James, John, Judas-the-Twin (Mar Thoma of India), Thaddeus and Bartholomew.
A Word About Lineages
There are frequent discussions online about lineage, and often, it is suggested that one ensure the pedigree of one’s guru or teacher, based on “approved” lineages, as an alleged means of ensuring that one is receiving the Dharma accurately. This type of approach is particularly espoused by some of the Tibetan traditions, and frequently results in students engaging in somewhat questionable banter about how “qualified” this teacher or that is, based on lineage.
Now I understand that recognising a particular lineage can serve as something of a superficial assurance, when seeking a potential teacher or sectarian affiliation, but it is never anything more than that – a superficial assurance.
The Buddha did not tell students to seek out a pure lineage or superior lineage, but rather to test and question everything they were taught, using reasoning, logic and the internal compass as a guide.
When my Root Guru was unable to teach me certain Tibetan and Bon practices, I sought permission to be released to study with other teachers, qualified and adept in such aspects of the Dharma. And I am grateful for having received the permission to study elsewhere, as much as I am to those teachers who taught (and some who continue to teach) me.
But I would never condescend by arrogantly bandying about that I hold this lineage or that. I hold nothing but a desire to alleviate suffering. If a student is looking to accumulate prestigious lineages, I will tell them that I cannot give that to them, despite the fact that many would consider the lineages of transmission I hold to be admirable or “qualified” by their temporal standards. I am not in the business of lineage brokerage. I am a Dharma teacher.
But What About the Purity of the Tradition?
I am troubled by the sectarianism that I see in Buddhism. While it is natural and beautiful for the Dharma to have developed such diversity throughout the East, in no small part, due to the efforts of Guru Rinpoche and the Great Lama Je Tsongkhapa, Milarepa and Nagarjuna; it saddens me when I find practitioners becoming so attached to the traditions, sadhanas and interpretations of texts that they begin to have disdain for those from other traditions. Such attitudes are the attitudes of religion, and Buddha surely did not come to start a religion.
I draw deeply from the Tibetan tradition, because there is an affinity for Je Tsongkhapa which arose in me at a very early age, for reasons I cannot explain. And therefore, certain sadhanas have become part of my practice and path. But my path is most influenced by the Dzogchen tradition, not because I believe it is superior to any other, but because it organically felt like a continuation of the work I came here to complete.
Similarly, my tradition as a teacher of the Christ Dharma is influenced by Zen and Dzogchen, because these paths express the life the Master led, and can be found in the dharma transmission of Mar Thoma of India (the brother and disciple of Rav Yeshua/Jesus). Again, I feel no compulsion toward a particular religion, because I do not believe Yeshua, like Buddha, wished to start a religion in any way; nor do I subscribe to the legends and errant notions that any of his apostles set out to do so either.
Traditions were not intended to be pure, but rather to be celebrated. And a celebration is dynamic, living, changing. Therefore I dismiss the idea of preserving the “purity” of a tradition, because such things are ego-driven pursuits, which have distracted even the greatest of Dharma masters and throne holders throughout time.
Labels… Labels… Labels…
Labels can be useful for helping us to communicate. But they are no substitution for understanding.
I can speak to you of “fire”, but unless you’ve experienced fire, you only hold a rough conceptual idea of it. I must first define fire for you, and then offer some sort of demonstration to affirm that what I suggest is physically “real”. Then you can comprehend more fully what fire is.
Our understanding of the Dharma is no different. We must begin with what we call pramana in Sanskrit, or valid cognition. We learn the qualities and function of the Buddha and the Buddha Mind, just as we learn the qualities and functions of fire. And once we’ve attained this valid cognition, we can begin to build upon that so that understanding gives rise to wisdom and integration, and wisdom gives rise to realisation.
So how do I label myself and my community?
Well, the fact is that for the past thirty years, we felt no need to consider ourselves as anything other than monks. Some would call themselves Buddhist-Catholic monks, others would say Catholic-Buddhist monks.
But beginning in 2001, when we formally severed our ties with the Roman Catholic Church, and then again in 2006, when we severed our ties with institutional religion and sectarianism altogether, some significant distinctions arose, which I believe may have unintentionally caused discomfort for members of the Buddhist and Catholic contemplative communities at-large.
Our monks take refuge vows, like any other Buddhist practitioner, upon entering the Order. They commit to living according to our Rule of Life, and according to the precepts of the Order. The Rule of Life our monks live by can be found on the web here: http://www.orderofcompassion.com/rule_of_life.html and the precepts can be found on the Order’s website as well, by first going here and choosing the various links: http://www.orderofcompassion.com/about_the_dharma_of_compassion.html.
What? No celibacy?
That is correct. Notably absent from the lives of our monks is a prescription for or against celibacy. We recognise that attachments can arise due to sexual intimacy, but that they can also arise as a result of vowing to avoid sexual intimacy. Therefore, we chose to work a little harder, and more diligently, to become mindful of attachments, rather than seeking the “quick fix” that had become the custom in both the Buddhist and Catholic monastic environments. We also recognise that primitive attitudes toward sexuality in the ancient times influenced such prescriptions, and that a healthier attitude toward sexuality need not present barriers or obstacles to one’s path.
Now, given that important distinction, along with the fact that in the West, it is less acceptable for monks to beg for their food, shelter and sustenance, we developed an intentional community that operates from a postmodern, culturally relevant perspective, without diluting the essential message of the Dharma – that is, the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, the Eight Verses of Mind Training, etc.
Which brings us to the question of whether or not we’ve unintentionally caused our sisters and brothers in the Sangha discomfort, anxiety or even anger.
And because it is clear to me that we have, I am asking all members of our Order, from this point forward, to stop referring to themselves as Buddhist monks or Catholic monks and nuns. Instead, we will identify ourselves as “contemplatives, drawing deeply from the Buddhist, Franciscan, Benedictine and Quaker traditions”. It would be acceptable, I think, to still refer to oneself as a Buddhist contemplative, or Buddhist-Catholic contemplative, etc. but to omit the use of the word monk, when prefacing it with Buddhist or Catholic.
I am not saying that we are no longer monks, because like it or not, with or without the approval of any particular sect, we are monks. Period. We are postmodern monks… non-sectarian monks… emergent monks. And no one has a right to take that from us.
What About Liturgy?
Every contemplative is free to express their spirituality in ways that they personally find appropriate, sacred and “right”. This may or may not include drawing from the wealth of Tibetan, Zen, Catholic, Celtic, Hindu or Bon traditions, or any other spiritual path, so long as those practices do not conflict with the essential nature, understanding and pursuit of the Dharma.
When a group gathers for darshan or Dharma instruction, we do not follow a strict “prescribed liturgy”. The type of liturgy we enjoy depends on the group itself, on the focus of that particular teaching, and on being present in the moment.
Isn’t that Syncretism?
Perhaps it can be called syncretism, for all spirituality has been influenced by various degrees of syncretism throughout human history.
Our tradition freely draws on other traditions, because we choose not to see the imaginary lines drawn in the sand separating one from another. We recognise and celebrate the truths of the great Teachers and Holy Ones, the Heroes and Heroines, both from this life and realm, and those from other realms. We recognise that some of these great ones have been perceived as “gods” and “goddesses” by other traditions, and have no qualms with that. Whether such beings are “real” or metaphors makes no difference either, since the ultimate reality of all phenomena is inherent emptiness.
We do not recognise nor affirm the existence of a “creator” or supreme god or goddess, since the purpose of our spiritual practice is to alleviate suffering, and such notions do nothing to alleviate suffering or realise enlightenment. We do not feel compelled to argue for or against the existence of such beings, simply finding such notions to be less than useful for our own personal spiritual journeys. Since everything is created in our minds, it is possible that some being could create an entire universe in their minds, and trapped by ego and delusion, imagine that they are “in charge” of the entire cosmos. Such possibilities are not our concern. (we have our hands full with gaining control over our own delusions and ego-minds!)
We’re Simply Not Evangelical…
Our purpose as an intentional spiritual community is to provide a safe space in which like-minded people can come together to work toward eliminating suffering for all sentient beings. We have no recruitment agendas. Therefore, we don’t go trying to make converts, because we fundamentally have no use for religion itself. Therefore, there is nothing to convert to!
If someone is part of a particular religious tradition, and wishes to be part of our intentional community, they are welcome to do so. We don’t ask that they give up any religious affiliations. We simply require that no one ever try to convert, persuade or influence anyone else to join, leave or otherwise become part of any religion or religious group.
So maybe we’re Buddhist in your opinion. Maybe not. Maybe we’re Catholic in your opinion. Maybe not.
From my perspective, none of it matters. I am a contemplative monk. And my spiritual path is guided by the teachings of the Buddha and the Christ. But I choose no labels… no distinctions… no titles.
When my students were arguing for the right to refer to me as their lama, I cleverly suggested that they simply call me Khenpo (abbot) or Dharmacharya. The reason was that Dharmacharya, when written in Sanskrit can either mean “teacher of the Dharma” (Dharma Acharya) or “one who lives according to the Dharma” (Dharma charya). At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter… because if you do one, you do the other.
Taking my lead from my Spiritual Father, His Holiness, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, and from my Satguru Sri Neem Karoli Baba Santa Maharaj, I profess no religion but compassion… I recognise no god but love… and I follow no path but service to others.
Namasté
dharmacharya gurudas sunyatananda
_____________________________________________
“Chenrezig, Treasure of Objectless Compassion;
Manjushri, Lord of Stainless Wisdom;
Vajrapani, Destroyer of all adversarial forces;
O Je Tsong Khapa – Losang Drakpa —
Crown Jewel of the Sages of the Land of Snows,
Humbly at Your Lotus Feet I ask your blessing.”
_____________________________________________
Drawing on the essential teachings of the great spiritual teachers, philosophers and freethinkers throughout time, Dharmacharya Gurudas Śunyatananda (retired Archbishop Francis-Maria Salvato, O.C.) has been regarded as a provocative, revolutionary “voice of reason” within the field of religion and spirituality, since 1983. Having the distinction of being one of the few openly non-theistic, openly-gay and post-denominational thinkers ever to serve as Bishop-Exarch and spiritual leader of the autocephalic Eastern Catholic Franciscans in North America, Gurudas is the author of more than 600 articles, eight books and currently serves as the spiritual advisor for a non-theistic, intentional spiritual community, The Spiritus Project. He can be reached at: http://dharmadudeunplugged.com
Copyright ©2008, His Eminence Dharmacharya Gurudas Sunyatananda (The Most Reverend Dr. F. Francis-Maria G. Salvato, M.Sc., O.C.). All rights reserved. This material may be reproduced, blogged, quoted or distributed, provided the entire copyright including contact information remain intact. It may NOT be altered in any way, without express written permission.
When there is little substance behind one’s claims of grandeur… when one is posing as someone they are not… they are easily threatened by those who legitimately come to do the work they have failed to do.
On January 18th, 2004, I was consecrated as the bishop-protector of the Franciscan Community (Servitores Franciscan Immacolatae), and became the exarchos (highest ranking patriarch) of the autocephalic Eastern Catholic Congregational Church, then operating throughout the United States, Canada, Mexico and the European Union. 
From 1983, when I began my contemplative life as a vowed monastic, until 2006, I was fortunate to be able to financially provide for the vast majority of the Order’s needs, and many of the expenses of the church itself. Until 2001, I personally covered the rent or mortgage on six convents/monastic houses, and our only fundraising outreach was to cover the growing costs of feeding the poor on the streets of the cities in which we were present.