The worship of divine kings is atavistic, a childish but natural instinct of unlettered, naive human beings. Idols have feet of clay. Humans are only somewhat more resilient than clay, which is (perhaps) why they fascinate us so. Like walking clay idols, Buddhist teachers fascinate us with their mastery of form. How amazing, the way Buddhist meditators, teachers and yogis can use form as a medium of communication.
But, as the so-called Fire Sermon reminds us,
Bhikkhus, form is burning, feeling is burning, perception is burning, volitional formations are burning, consciousness is burning. Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion towards form ... feeling ... perception ... volitional formations ... consciousness .... Through dispassion [this mind] is liberated...[source]
So let us not attach too much to form. Form is thrones. Form is Rinpoches. Form is in flagrante delicto. Form will hook you and sink you. Non-attachment to form is the basic mode of perfect wisdom. Attachment to form is the first step into the bottomless pit of Samsara.
Perhaps it is time to go beyond a formal "Buddhism". Buddha himself was never a "Buddhist". I'm not sure he ever called himself a "bhikkhu". That was the name of someone who took vows in Buddha's presence.
Perhaps some of the disgraced Buddhist teachers in our midst could be called "Vidyadharas". I don't know if they are Awareness-Holders (Vidyadharas) or not. One thing is for sure. To have a drinking problem and to be a meditator do not go well together. I know this from personal experience. On can be a practitioner and have a drinking problem. But one can not live long without regrets, if one has a problem with drinking or other addictions. Similarly if one has a problem with entitlement, that is, a sense of entitlement -- be that entitlement to power over others (P.O.O.), sex, fame, or privilege of any kind.
So let us hold awareness in the genuine sense, and not expect others to hold our wee-wees in any way. That is, unless we pay the person properly for the privilege. I pity the poor fools who think they can enjoy sex, power and fame ad libitum, without paying for the privilege somehow.
If those are the best things in life, the best things in life are not free.
What is best in life, from a Buddha's perspective (and note I don't dare say "Buddhist"), is not a thing, nor a non-thing. And that which is best for Buddha is freed (vimukta = rnam par bsgral ba), and also freeing (vimocana = rnam par sgrol bar byed pa), and also freedom itself (vimukti = rnam par grol ba).
Expecting to find the best in life anywhere, inside, outside or in any experience, however pleasant, is bound to end in disappointment. It is bound to be somewhere in the realm of form, feeling, conception, ideation or consciousness. Calling any of those "enlightenment" or "freedom" is, by any measure of Buddha's teaching, a category mistake.
Buddha figured this out sometime in his late twenties or early thirties. Most so-called "Rinpoches" these days seem to have missed the point entirely. They spend too much time playing dress-up, playing "Doctor", or aping the lifestyle of princes, rock stars, politicians and poets. Lord Buddha did not waste time on costumes, pageantry, power-games and word-games. He did not use those devices to get laid. He didn't need to -- he left his harem, his palace, his cultural trappings and literary credentials, far behind when he rode out into the jungle in search of awakening. The only reason we believe anyone in a costume, with literary credentials, or with a sexy persona is enlightened, is because we ourselves are fascinated by such phenomena.
Who is fooling whom?
