Since our 100th episode, several offspring has emerged into the world. Being extremely busy in this period, I have not had the time to post for each one. What follows is a summary of what you might have missed if this site is your main portal to the imperfect world of the podcast.
I did a series of interviews of writers for Sumeru Books that were wide ranging and at times nostalgic. From learning more about one of my mother’s heroes, Alexandra David-Neel, to challenging non-dual ideas with a psychotherapist in the form of Ken Bradford and a non-dual teacher, Peter Fenner, the four episodes veer slightly off the track of the usual themes we tackle. They were interesting for this reason.
I uploaded a couple of Think Pieces, one on a core challenge that all practitioners face at some point, the refusal to change, the other an audio version of a book review of Glenn Wallis’s A Critique of non-Buddhism.
Finally, I interviewed two guests, one returning, on subjects related to the form of Buddhism I practice and with which I have a complicated relationship: Vajrayana, Tantric, or Esoteric Buddhism. I have an interesting chat with a like-minded individual in the form of Simon Cox who shares my own critical yet deeply personal engagement with Buddhism and the satellite of meaning associated with it. We look at the Subtle Body and the existence of practices and concepts of the energy body in Europe and beyond. The second is with Ken McLeod on his recent release The Magic of Vajrayana, a book that will no doubt interest intelligent practitioners, as will our conversation.
101. Contemplative, Existential Psychotherapy and Dzogchen – A Discussion with Ken Bradford Sumeru Press
102. Audio Review: “A Critique of Western Buddhism” Bloomsbury Press
103. Dianne Harke – Incognito: The Astounding Life of Alexandra David-Neel Sumeru Press
104. The Ancient Greek Version of Buddhism – A Discussion with Douglas C. Bates Sumeru Press
105. Ken McLeod on the Magic of Vajrayana Unfettered Mind Media
106. “I Refuse to Change” A Think Piece
107. Simon Cox on the Subtle Body OUP
108. Buddhism and Transcendence: A Conversation with Curtis White Melville
You can find all of the episodes on Spotify and iTunes through these links.
Spotify: Imperfect Buddha Podcast
iTunes: Imperfect Buddha Podcast
Finally, I am currently writing a piece on countering stupidity and the ideological capture of our age. It will be published in two parts here and at the non-Buddhism site. Its purpose is to offer a menu of items for thinking our times as a non-reactive subject and member of the practicing life.
Don’t forget, guest suggestions are always welcomed.
The Imperfect Buddha Podcast 
I have listened to some of your podcasts. I have found them mannerly and intelligent, but skirting the issue of what enlightenment is as an experience. I believe they suffer from the overly intellectual approach that the West is prone to at the cost of actual realization.
I am going to commit a cardinal sin in western Buddhism and assure you that I am fully enlightened and have been so for close to thirty years. This rare occurrence is the result of having a Buddha for a teacher ( the Vidyadhara, Chogyam Trungpa, Rinpoche, don’t even think you know anything about what he really was and is) , extensive devoted practice , the teachings and life’s tests.
The enlightenment I speak of is the realization of the true nature of mind which is fundamentally emptiness inseparable from awareness and compassion, nonduality, bliss, complete peace ,restfulness, eternal( no I’m not stuck in eternalism), but what else can you say about something or nothing that is unborn, unceasing and non dwelling.
If you ever feel like having an enlightened person on your podcast invite me. I have written 5 books on enlightenment, so I am not devoid of intellectual credentials, but I know well how inferior they are to the actual experience, without can experiencer, of enlightenment.
I commend you on the success f your podcast. It serves a need but not completely. I believe you need a an American yogin to fill the bill. 🙂
LikeLike
Dear Fred, Thanks for visiting and being a listener to the podcast. I shall mull over your comment and provide a response in due course. Matthew
LikeLike
Hi Fred,
Since you made the effort to write, I shall honour you with a more thorough response.
I have actually interviewed several individuals who claim to be enlightened. Robert Foreman, Peter Fenner being two that come to mind, and other teachers who more or less alluded to being so, Gregory Kramer and Tina Rasmussen, and a personal acquaintance, Daniel Ingram, who famously came out as enlightened years ago, and with whom I explored many topics. Others still alluded to being so, but were less forward.
We also recorded a very early episode years ago called The Big Enlightenment Show, which critiqued the whole thing in a light-hearted way and lays out why we might be critical in our approach. The podcast takes a critical approach to Buddhism, spirituality and teachers and practitioners, but it is not cruel or dismissive or overly-intellectual, like the podcast itself, which started out seeking to get beyond subjective claims, traditional takes on Buddhism that are hagiographic and combat the anti-intellectualism that is part and parcel of American religion and spirituality and culture. Since then we have unmoored from the American scene and attempted to engage serious thought as practitioners. There are so many podcasts that are happy to be part of the status quo; we have sought to do something different, especially as there was a profound need for a more intelligent, robust approach to exploring contemporary western Buddhism as so many of our listeners have affirmed over the years.
Let me address some of your points.
I am sure you will agree that enlightenment is a problematic word and concept on many levels because it can be used to point to an endless array of claims. You could argue that even if ‘it’ does produce a sort of internal end to emotional and psychological suffering, a direct and continuous relationship with non-duality, emptiness, etc., it nevertheless remains a form of subjective experience for that person and is thus impossible to verify or see any value in beyond the person living a freer life and perhaps being a nicer person in the world and not contributing to unnecessary suffering. What’s more, being that in practical terms it exists in the mind, or imagination of the one claiming it, we have little to go on to separate out the claims of all sorts of self-identified enlightened individuals; many of whom are certainly delusional, others who may have reached a certain stage of liberation and confused it with what they imagine something called enlightenment to be, and some, who no doubt experience what is written in books and uttered by teachers, but with limits. Healthy scepticism is what saves us from the fraudsters, healthy scepticism is what allows us to critique our own claims and avoid turning what may be of real value into spiritual materialism (to use one of Trungpa’s most valuable contributions to our understanding of the whole gig).
I say none of this about you, as I don’t know you, but about many such people I met in person and I have enough direct experience of such folk across that spectrum to be sceptical about anyone claiming the big ‘E’. Ultimately, after interviewing several of them, and conversing with others, I find myself more interested in what it says about Buddhism more broadly in our day and age and the social context in which such people emerge than the claims themselves. Al of their claims and instructions tend to be rooted in personal narrative and be shaped by the social context in which they live.
As an example, Sogyal Rinpoche is a relatively recent, famous teacher who was supposed to be ‘fully’ enlightened yet went round sexually abusing many of his female followers and amassing wealth. Some of his followers still insist he was all he claimed to be even as more stories have come out about just how cruel he was. This to me is deeply sad, but also fascinating. Why is it such a teacher existed? Why did he accept such a claim? Why did so many flock to him in the 90s? Why did the Dalai Lama support him so vigorously? Why did so many seemingly intelligent westerners devote themselves to him in the first place? Why do so many people read into vague platitudes of the sort he ‘taught’ signs of profound wisdom? How is it that so many accepted his abusive behaviour as the sign of a crazy wisdom master when he was a cruel, vindictive, narcissist of a man? You may discount him as a fraud, but what separates him out from other enlightened folk, who were not in the right place, at the right time to get the power he had? There’s an interesting lien of inquiry.
Though not Buddhist, Osho was another example of the problem of enlightenment claims and overly-eager followers. The documentary about him on Netflix was exceptional for illustrating the nature of American spirituality more broadly and its deep underbelly of desire, dysfunction and confusion. I see little difference between the wider context in him and Sogyal; they are of a type. Then there is the son of someone you admire very much.
I have found much of immense value in Trungpa’s works but his errors of judgement are in the historic record too and the claim he was a Buddha undermines many of the broader claims about enlightenment if he were indeed so; alcohol abuse, passing the reigns onto a man who infected many with aids, whilst claiming he was enlightened enough to avoid the material reality of the deadly disease at the time. This is not to trash Trunpa, but merely highlight the contradictions and flaws that are part and parcel of our flawed humanity. I have no doubt Trungpa was an exceptional person, who went through immense hardship and strove to actualise the outcomes of his practices, attainment and teachings. What I see is a thoroughly human individual, who may have experienced a profound relationship with the nature of mind, but who was deeply flawed fellow human. The humanity is the part I find most of value – the imperfection that is part of the podcast’s name.
For context, I have read nearly all of his books, many several times and I practised from them for many years in my early twenties, whilst working with other Tibetan traditions, so I guess I could push back and say I do know a bit about him and his work.
Enlightenment is so many things even within the range of Buddhist traditions. Despite many Buddhists claiming that all of it pretty much the same and it all goes back to Shakyamuni, even a passing study of texts, beliefs and claims of real individuals finds there are lots of contradictions and vague, confusing claims. Whose enlightenment is the right one we might ask. So, what would we get as an audience speaking with you if not another claim, rooted in personal testimony, couched in the language of Trungpa and American spirituality?
As for being overly-intellectual. I would argue this is a cliché. America suffers from chronic anti-intellectualism and this play out in its approach to religion and spirituality with Buddhism not escaping this deep trend.
David McMahan’s book highlights much of the historical roots of contemporary American Buddhism and its emergence in the 60s and the form it took and you may find it worth a read.
Matthew
LikeLike
Hi Matthew, Just read your new piece over on SNB. It’s so so good. Right on the nose without being punch drunk on one’s power of explication. And funny to boot !! But where is the Menu or am I succumbing to the first symptoms of senility. Couldn’t find it there.
LikeLike
Hi Patrick, The text is in two parts with part two in the works. That fact was originally indicated in the first text but perhaps it got lobbed off! Glad you picked up on the humour in the text: not everyone does…
LikeLike