Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

My Guru Was A Drunk.

13

Comments

  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    I think they happened @MaryAnne but the thing is that he never hid it. He disrobed at one point. With his drinking Trungpa did make the excuse that the direct experience of alcoholism would make him in the future a better bodhisattva to help other alkies.

    I don't like this 'sexual predator'. These were adult women. I do disapprove of hitting on nuns for example because they have vows.
  • MaryAnneMaryAnne Veteran
    edited June 2013
    He married a 16 yr old girl in 1970. The same year he renounced his vows. The same year he came to the US. And this was several years after fathering a child with a Buddhist nun even before he renounced his monastic vows.

    Anyone who uses their position as teacher/authoritarian/leader/employer etc to manipulate women (or anyone in a subordinate position) into sexual relations, is using predatory behaviors. I'm not saying rape... merely unsavory, egotistical tactics to bed girls, women - and it's rumored- men.

    The reason I believe (IMO) that there is no excusing Trungpa for his behaviors is because they did not affect only him. He was not some troubled, quiet alcoholic suffering in silence behind closed doors.... nor was he a man suffering lust in his mind and heart, but not acting on it.
    Everything he did "wrong" had a real and impressive impact on the people he was involved with and learning from him.
    The fact that he didn't hide his faults doesn't win any points with me. I believe his ego was SO huge that he really thought he could slide - just by being "honest" about his failings. And apparently, that has worked pretty well with many many people.

    Anyway the question we're discussing is Was Trungpa "awake"... and/or enlightened?
    All things considered, I'd have to give that a resounding "No, he was not".
    PatrDakini
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    I just objected to 'sexual predator'. I didn't say he did not have an impact on people. I'm not sure it's wrong to marry someone 16. Surely that has happened in history, just not much in modern times. Like I said I don't approve of relations with nuns, because it breaks their vows. I would excuse someone who had adult relations aside from the nuns, but that's just me. Actually, no. I don't even approve of one night stands in lay non-Buddhists. But I know they will reap their own karma. Trungpa never forced himself on any of these women. My ex gf cheated on me but I wouldn't say she was a 'sexual predator'. I think we can talk about this on topic because it is the central interest of deciding if he is awake. Many people think his books are brilliant and we are left with the discussion of his morality.
  • personperson Don't believe everything you think The liminal space Veteran
    I'm a fan of CTR's books and teachings. I'd like to think that if I was in the situation of having an abusive or unethical teacher today, no matter the strength of their teaching, I'd have the strength to walk away.

    All the Tibetan teachers I've known that have lived and taught here in the west have upheld stellar ethical behavior, so I've never been in that situation before.
    Jeffrey
  • Lazy_eyeLazy_eye Veteran
    edited June 2013

    @Lazy_eye
    I feel your proposition (ie. that "the bodhisattva motivation trumps all other concerns, including precepts") is too dangerous of a misrepresentation of the Buddha's teachings that I'm sorry I can't just let this one pass by.

    @karmablues,

    I'm not quite sure where we disagree. You wrote: "breaking precepts includes the element of intention. So this makes the possibility that bodhisattva Vasumitra might be breaking a precept even more remote since her intentions were pure rather than being based on defilements. "

    In other words, the intention (bodhicitta) is ultimately what determines if the action was justified.

    Isn't this the same as my proposition that "the bodhisattva motivation trumps all other concerns, including precepts"?

    According to Alexander Berzin, the secondary bodhisattva precepts also show that moral discipline, in some situations, takes a back seat to bodhicitta.
    As a budding bodhisattva, we are willing to take the life of someone about to commit a mass murder. We have no hesitation in confiscating medicines intended for relief efforts in a war-torn country that someone has taken to sell on the black market, or taking away a charity's funds from an administrator who is squandering or mismanaging them. We are willing, if male, to have sex with another's wife - or with an unmarried woman whose parents forbid it, or with any other inappropriate partner - when the woman has the strong wish to develop bodhichitta but is overwhelmed with desire for sex with us...

    As budding bodhisattvas, we are willing to lie when it saves others' lives or prevents others from being tortured and maimed. We have no hesitation to speak divisively to separate our children from a wrong crowd of friends - or disciples from misleading teachers - who are exerting negative influences on them and encouraging harmful attitudes and behavior. We do not refrain from using harsh language to rouse our children from negative ways, like not doing their homework, when they will not listen to reason. And when others, interested in Buddhism, are totally addicted to chattering, drinking, partying, singing, dancing, or telling off-color jokes or stories of violence, we are willing to join in if refusal would make these persons feel that bodhisattvas, and Buddhists in general, never have fun and that the spiritual path is not for them.
    http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/practice_material/vows/bodhisattva/secondary_bodhisattva_pledges.html

    By the way, my point is not to endorse abusive behavior, just to show that Buddhist morality is not always as black-and-white as folks make it out to be. Ultimately the purpose of Buddhism is to become awakened and reach nirvana, not simply to uphold precepts.
    Dakini said:


    It's stories like that that gurus use to justify their sexual affairs with students, a practice not foreign to Trungpa himself. This type of mythology is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    I think there are risks either way. If one adheres to a cookie-cutter moral doctrine, then it becomes hard to account for situations involving moral complexity. So Mayahana, I think, is right to suggest that in some cases we have to look beyond the letter of the law. Personally, I like the idea that a bodhisattva could manifest in seemingly low places, like a brothel or a courtesan's salon. This is part of a strain of universalism in Mahayana which we see in the Lotus Sutra, for instance.

    But there is a risk there also, as you point out. As soon as we appear to introduce possible exceptions, then along comes someone who wants to use the exceptions to justify his/her ill-intentioned behavior.

    It's a bind, no? I guess I would say that it's possible theoretically that an awakened person might engage in apparent misconduct -- but that most of the time when such misconduct happens, the person is probably not awakened at all but just an abuser. In short, if you're going to play fast and loose with the precepts, it's best if one really is a bodhisattva and not just pretending to be. :)


    Jeffrey
  • personperson Don't believe everything you think The liminal space Veteran
    edited June 2013
    In the whole I agree with the bodhisattva vows taking precedent over and making relative ethical vows.

    However, when I come across this particular vow...
    We are willing, if male, to have sex with another's wife - or with an unmarried woman whose parents forbid it, or with any other inappropriate partner - when the woman has the strong wish to develop bodhichitta but is overwhelmed with desire for sex with us...
    ...I have to chuckle to myself. It strikes me as being a situation that is incredibly unlikely and made as an excuse to allow normally celibate people to have sex. There are plenty of other equally unlikely scenarios that I could conceive of that aren't specifically included in the vows and the fact that this particular situation was singled out makes it seem rather fishy to me. :scratch:
    Jeffreyriverflow
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    YES! sounds like they are saying to take one for the team 'to develope bodhicitta'. As if rejection can prevent bodhicitta :scratch:
    riverflow
  • NevermindNevermind Bitter & Hateful Veteran
    A supremely "awake" alcoholic and sexual predator. Hmm, you'd think it wouldn't make sense, but then it doesn't need to make sense. Sensibility is for sissies. Faith is for the brave and wild at heart.

    God save us! :p
    Jeffrey
  • riverflowriverflow Veteran
    edited June 2013
    person said:

    In the whole I agree with the bodhisattva vows taking precedent over and making relative ethical vows.

    However, when I come across this particular vow...

    We are willing, if male, to have sex with another's wife - or with an unmarried woman whose parents forbid it, or with any other inappropriate partner - when the woman has the strong wish to develop bodhichitta but is overwhelmed with desire for sex with us...
    ...I have to chuckle to myself. It strikes me as being a situation that is incredibly unlikely and made as an excuse to allow normally celibate people to have sex. There are plenty of other equally unlikely scenarios that I could conceive of that aren't specifically included in the vows and the fact that this particular situation was singled out makes it seem rather fishy to me. :scratch:

    How convenient. And I imagine there isn't a similar scenario of a nun and a male. Hmmmm.

  • personperson Don't believe everything you think The liminal space Veteran
    person said:

    In the whole I agree with the bodhisattva vows taking precedent over and making relative ethical vows.

    However, when I come across this particular vow...

    We are willing, if male, to have sex with another's wife - or with an unmarried woman whose parents forbid it, or with any other inappropriate partner - when the woman has the strong wish to develop bodhichitta but is overwhelmed with desire for sex with us...
    ...I have to chuckle to myself. It strikes me as being a situation that is incredibly unlikely and made as an excuse to allow normally celibate people to have sex. There are plenty of other equally unlikely scenarios that I could conceive of that aren't specifically included in the vows and the fact that this particular situation was singled out makes it seem rather fishy to me. :scratch:

    I just want to clarify that the blockquote text is not an actual vow but an interpretation of certain vows.
    Jeffreyriverflow
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    @riverflow, actually there are female dharma teachers with similar shenanigans.
    riverflow
  • Jeffrey said:

    @riverflow, actually there are female dharma teachers with similar shenanigans.

    Using the above sort of "interpretation" to justify it? At any rate, it is disappointing, but not surprising.

    I don't think sexuality is something to be treated with such a cavalier and manipulative attitude-- it can have a negative impact on one's emotional well-being.

    Not very compassionate, but verrrry convenient.
    JeffreyMaryAnne
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    It's sort of like eating all the cookies in the cookie jar to prevent your family from being over weight.
    riverflowpersonSillyPutty
  • Jeffrey said:

    It's sort of like eating all the cookies in the cookie jar to prevent your family from being over weight.

    I don't know whether to go with "insightful" or "LOL"!
    Jeffreyperson
  • personperson Don't believe everything you think The liminal space Veteran
    In a yoga class I was attending once, a greasy, creepy guy was there in an obvious attempt to pick up chicks. This could be the basis for creeping on women in a retreat.

    Creepy Buddhist guy in retreat to woman retreatant : "I've been trying really hard this weekend to develop bodhicitta, but the amount of craving that is coming up towards you is really blocking my ability to do so. If only we could come up with a way to help me overcome this obstacle..." :mullet:

    riverflowJeffrey
  • Is the enlightened man subject to the law of causation [i.e., karma]?'

    `The enlightened man is one with the law of causation.'
    The Awakened One fully integrates the 4 Noble Truth is all its 3 respects.
    The third aspect of the First Noble Truth is: ‘Suffering has been understood.’ When you have actually practised with suffering - looking at it, accepting it, knowing it and letting it be the way it is — then there is the third aspect, ‘Suffering has been understood’, or ‘Dukkha has been understood.’ So these are the three aspects of the First Noble Truth: ‘There is dukkha’; ‘It is to be understood’; and, ‘It has been understood.’

    This is the pattern for the three aspects of each Noble Truth. There is the statement, then the prescription and then the result of having practised. One can also see it in terms of the Pali words pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha. Pariyatti is the theory or the statement, ‘There is suffering.’ Patipatti is the practice - actually practising with it; and pativedha is the result of the practice. This is what we call a reflective pattern; you are actually developing your mind in a very reflective way. A Buddha mind is a reflective mind that knows things as they are.

    The Four Noble Truths are a lifetime’s reflection. It is not just a matter of realising the Four Noble Truths, the three aspects, and twelve stages and becoming an arahant on one retreat — and then going onto something advanced. The Four Noble Truths are not easy like that. They require an ongoing attitude of vigilance and they provide the context for a lifetime of examination

    http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/Venerable_Ajahn_Sumedho:_Introduction
  • PatrPatr Veteran
    Till today there are people who say all manners of drugs, hallucinogenics, marijuana etc helps them to view life from a different perspective, or become a better person.

    Whats one more or one less.

    Misconduct is still misconduct, being awake is but an excuse to continue.

    What is always surprising is not that bad movies are made, but that people still go to watch it.
    MaryAnneDakini
  • SillyPuttySillyPutty Veteran
    edited June 2013
    I see this two ways....

    There are teachers/monks like Ajahn Brahm that, to me, simply exude peace, love, gentleness, compassion, patience, and kindness. He teaches the dharma well, and abides by what he says. I strive to be like him. I find his ways to be "pure" and uncomplicated. I like and identify with that.

    Then there are teachers/monks like Trungpa that make me say "yikes" and question what it really means to be awake and/or enlightened. His actions are not those that I wish to partake in. His methods make me uncomfortable.

    Both are teaching the dharma but in different ways. But if I had to choose one, my personal preference is the former. It's not to say the latter isn't any good, but he just appeals to a different "audience," that's all. Everyone is on a different path. And besides that, not everyone can identify with the "goodie-goodie" holier than thou teachers. It turns a lot of people off. But since I don't partake in drugs, alcohol, smoking, casual sex, etc., Trungpa is obviously not a teacher I really can identify with. But that doesn't mean his ways were wrong for that particular group of students, who just so happened to be living during a time of free sex, free love, free drugs, and so forth.

    I think it was MaryAnne who pointed out in this thread that no one ever denied that Trungpa did any of the things he was accused of. That is very important. But why? Were they all "brainwashed" or afraid of repercussions? I don't think so. My feeling is, their lack of "accusations" combined with their love and admiration of him makes me think that he behaved the way in which his students needed him to be in order for them to learn and further themselves on their path.

    Personally? I don't understand it. But as long as no one was robbed, raped, beaten, murdered or what not, *and* they are getting something good spiritually-speaking out of it, then why is it an issue? Consenting adults (and I believe 16 years old, in some places in the world, is considered a consenting age-- re: his widow) who learn and practice the dharma in their own way at their own pace is not a crime. It's not like Trungpa was passing out Kool-Aid and asking everyone to die with him. It's not like he was soliciting monies from them, either. In his own, taboo way, he was helping them-- at least that's what they claim he did for them. And if that helped them out? Good for them. It's not my personal cup o' tea, but hey-- what ever floats your boat and makes your duck quack, right? If you're doing good with your life and helping others and contributing positively to the world, then teachers like Trungpa must be doing something right, no?
    Jeffreyperson
  • karastikarasti Breathing Minnesota Moderator
    In most places in the US 16 is considered the age of sexual consent, anyhow, though in most states marriage before 18 requires parental consent. My mom got married the summer before her senior year of high school, she was 17. That was in the mid 70s.

    One of the lamas who did a retreat here was a student of CTR, and while I still prefer my teacher's methods and personality, the way of speaking and the ideas presented were very unique and extremely thought-provoking. I have no doubt that is how CTR was, and even though there were ways about this lama that took me aback a bit, I learned more just in the 3 hour introduction from him (in terms of where it took my thoughts and my practice) than I have in the past year simply meditating and studying. Sometimes, in order to move forward we need to be truly challenged, and sometimes it is too easy for us to fall into what feels the nicest to us and shooing away that which feels uncomfortable, and in doing that, it takes us much longer to learn the same lesson, I think.
  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran
    We are such PRUDES sometimes.
  • Lazy_eye said:

    I'm not quite sure where we disagree. You wrote: "breaking precepts includes the element of intention. So this makes the possibility that bodhisattva Vasumitra might be breaking a precept even more remote since her intentions were pure rather than being based on defilements."

    In other words, the intention (bodhicitta) is ultimately what determines if the action was justified.

    Isn't this the same as my proposition that "the bodhisattva motivation trumps all other concerns, including precepts"?

    What I understood you were saying is that anyone who is motivated to become a bodhisattva should just be concerned with fulfilling that aspiration and need not be that concerned with keeping the precepts. And I thought you were justifying this proposition by saying that even a bodhisattva such as Vasumitra breaks the precepts inferring that those aspiring to be bodhisattvas should thus also be allowed to do so as well. Therefore, I responded first by showing that the bodhisattva vows places a lot of importance on morality and then by showing that Vasumitra, as a bodhisattva, was not likely in fact to be breaking the precepts due to her intentions being free of the defilements (which is meant to distinguish the situation of bodhisattva aspirants whose intentions can much more easily become tainted by defilements).



  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran


    I think it was MaryAnne who pointed out in this thread that no one ever denied that Trungpa did any of the things he was accused of. That is very important. But why? Were they all "brainwashed" or afraid of repercussions? I don't think so. My feeling is, their lack of "accusations" combined with their love and admiration of him makes me think that he behaved the way in which his students needed him to be in order for them to learn and further themselves on their path.

    I'm fortunate to be surrounded by many people who studied and practiced under CTR's direct guidance.

    One salient thought pervades any discussion of CTR among these people. He was, simply, and unequivocally, awake. Despite all of his glaring and obvious shortcomings, relative to our perceptions of what a Dharma teacher "should" be, no one could deny that CTR was the most realized person they had ever met. He kept them off-balance, he made them uncomfortable, he assaulted their spiritual materialism at every turn and gave them no ground to stand on. He insisted on practice. He never hid himself, but never said for them to emulate him. He didn't want his students to be copy-cats. He wanted his students to practice.

    His importance goes without saying. His influence is vast.

    He was, warts and all, a genius.

    And probably a touch insane.
    JeffreypersonpegembaraSillyPutty
  • ZeroZero Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Chaz said:


    He was, simply, and unequivocally, awake.
    ...no one could deny that CTR was the most realized person they had ever met.
    And probably a touch insane.

    He kept them off-balance, he made them uncomfortable, he assaulted their spiritual materialism at every turn and gave them no ground to stand on. He insisted on practice. He never hid himself, but never said for them to emulate him. He didn't want his students to be copy-cats. He wanted his students to practice.
    His importance goes without saying. His influence is vast.
    He was, warts and all, a genius.

    Completely awake but probably a little insane?
    That seems irreconcilable.

    Maybe he was a genius - maybe he was just cleverer and those he met.
    Common herd tactic - follow the leader - he's the leader for a reason - mainly because he's a better version of a human than his followers or perhaps he's just clever and confident enough to convince others of it.
    SillyPutty
  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran
    Zero said:


    Completely awake but probably a little insane?
    That seems irreconcilable.

    Doesn't it just. Liars can tell the truth. Bad people find redemption.

    "Insane" is simply a projection we put on others. It has no bearing on anything, really.

    Genius is often accompanied by unconventional behavior - behavior we sometimes label as "insane"
    Maybe he was a genius - maybe he was just cleverer and those he met.
    Maybe both?

    Remember, I'm taking this from people who had first-hand, face-to-face experience with this guy. Compared to that, any evaluation we may place on the man is irrelevant.
    Common herd tactic - follow the leader - he's the leader for a reason - mainly because he's a better version of a human than his followers or perhaps he's just clever and confident enough to convince others of it.
    Or perhaps because he was really awakened.

    Why was there a huge sangha of monks, and bodhisattvas following the Buddha everywhere? Herd mentality? Why are so many people attracted to the Dalai Lama or Ajan Brahm? Herd mentality, or do these people have something meaningful for those who follow them.

    If you don't get the guy, or his teachings are meaningless to you, or you disagree with his behavior, you are free to find teaching elsewhere. Other than that, anything we might say is meaningless.
  • a quote

    “Whether we eat, sleep, work, play, whatever we do life contains dissatisfaction, pain. If we enjoy pleasure, we are afraid to lose it; we strive for more and more pleasure or try to contain it. If we suffer pain we want to escape it. We experience dissatisfaction all the time. All activities contain dissatisfaction or pain, continuously.”
    ― Chögyam Trungpa
  • NevermindNevermind Bitter & Hateful Veteran
    Well, except for when we experience satisfaction of course. ;)
  • Nevermind said:

    Well, except for when we experience satisfaction of course. ;)

    Of which is an illusion......

  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran
    Nevermind said:

    Well, except for when we experience satisfaction of course. ;)

    And we cling to the satisfaction as if it were truly real, out of fear that in the next instant will will not longer be satisfied.

    That causes suffering. Out of pleasure comes pain.

  • zenffzenff Veteran
    You are so negative.
    SillyPutty
  • What does "awake" mean? That's the same term @Citta used to praise him. What was he awake to? The question this raises for me is what is the value of the Vajrayana criteria for 'awake'? Was he awake to the delusion, aversion and greed underlying his alcoholism? Heedful to the demands his sexual relationships placed on his Sangha? Awake to the risk posed by Osel Tendzin as his annointed successor?

    @Citta left the thread shortly after I asked these questions, unfortunately. I'd be interested to hear your answers, @Chaz.
  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran
    MaryAnne said:

    and it's rumored- men.

    No it's not rumored, except by those been on slander. Rumors are not fact.
    Everything he did "wrong" had a real and impressive impact on the people he was involved with and learning from him.
    Everything he did, right, or wrong had a real and impressive impact ion those around him.

    Have you ever met any of those people? I have. The real and impressive impact on each and every one of them was a deep and powerful practice.
    The fact that he didn't hide his faults doesn't win any points with me.
    Would you rather that he was a fake and hid himself and his .... eccentricities ..... from the world?
    I believe his ego was SO huge that he really thought he could slide - just by being "honest" about his failings. And apparently, that has worked pretty well with many many people.
    Again, how many do you know?
    All things considered, I'd have to give that a resounding "No, he was not".
    And you are entitled to that, for better or for worse. That too is part of his legacy. He left nothing out. Everything about him is out there, plain to see. You can make your evaluation, you can judge him by whatever standard you choose (and I hope it's you're own exemplary conduct).

  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited June 2013
    fivebells said:

    What does "awake" mean? That's the same term @Citta used to praise him. What was he awake to? The question this raises for me is what is the value of the Vajrayana criteria for 'awake'? Was he awake to the delusion, aversion and greed underlying his alcoholism? Heedful to the demands his sexual relationships placed on his Sangha? Awake to the risk posed by Osel Tendzin as his annointed successor?

    @Citta left the thread shortly after I asked these questions, unfortunately. I'd be interested to hear your answers, @Chaz.

    But I did answer. The fact that answer was not coached in a way that satisfied you I can do nothing about.
    I also said that I deeply regret starting the thread.
    It would be nice if that regret was acknowledged and respected.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    Citta said:

    I don't think CTR was Enlightened either...but how would I know..?
    What he was , was awake...completely there...and without fear and neurosis. No magic. No woo-woos. No bleeding hearts. No rain of flowers.
    When you looked into his eyes you knew that he was fully, completely, present. That might not sound much...until you experience it.

  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    edited June 2013
    @fivebells, remember the vajrayana leaves the kleshas as path rather than trying to purify the mind so that they go away.

    The three poisons are from the ego. Trungpa saw through the ego. So for him being drunken is just sensitivity. That last <- are if you assume Trungpa was without ego. Maybe he wasn't but his books give lamborgini quality tools to disarm the ego, so I go with him having less ego. The poisons radiate as distorted (in some cases shockingly) bodhicitta. When the ego is seen through the bodhicitta is left. Sensitivity corresponds to craving. Openness corresponds to delusion. Clarity corresponds to anger.

    Just to get the flavor here in vajrayana they sometimes do a ceremony where they eat meat and drink alcohol to show that one is not to be attached to purity.

    In Tibetan there are three trainings and a teacher to point them out. Actually this is from the Jewel Ornament of Liberation which is only Kagyu school.

    The three trainings:

    reflect on impermanence to overcome attachment to this life
    reflect on suffering to overcome attachment to sense pleasures
    reflect on love to overcome attachment to peace

    You don't find the last one in many other branches of Buddhism. In fact if you uproot the poisons you might stop at the level of peace. But the Bodhisattva motivation breaks the attachment to peace. I think in other traditions a practitioner realizes this attachment but the difference is that Tibetan Buddhism emphasizes the third one and include it in the three practices of Buddhism in the JoL and possibly other literature and surely in the Bodhisattva teachings. Metta isn't the same thing as the last. In Tibetan Buddhism metta is used to grant strength versus fear in the path when the ego mandala is trying to shut down the awareness process for self-preservation, But metta isn't bodhicitta.

    An example of the last one is parents who give up peace to have children.

    Lazy_eyeperson
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Could this thread please be closed ? It has simply gone round in circles for the last few days.
    It will not reach a resolution. Threads on E Sangha and Dharma Wheel on the same subject never have.
    I repeat , I should not have started it, and I am hurting because I did.
    I would deem it an act of personal charity for it to be closed.

    _/\_
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    Did you notify mods @Citta? You just have to go @and then their name
  • SillyPuttySillyPutty Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Citta said:

    Could this thread please be closed ? It has simply gone round in circles for the last few days.
    It will not reach a resolution. Threads on E Sangha and Dharma Wheel on the same subject never have.
    I repeat , I should not have started it, and I am hurting because I did.
    I would deem it an act of personal charity for it to be closed.

    _/\_

    Don't feel bad, Citta. I understand you want it closed, but I actually found the thread quite interesting. I don't know much about Trungpa other than the things I read here and there and a documentary I saw on him just recently. I enjoy reading why you think he's awakened because I personally don't understand it. That's not meant to come off as fighting words or an insult to Trungpa or an insult to you for appreciating him, but rather just an honest, matter-of-fact statement. There is actually another teacher who is quite controversial whom I kind of feel the same way about like many of you do with Trungpa. I flip flop back and forth because in one ear someone says, "He's no good!" but with my eyes and ears (and more importantly my heart and mind) I sense different. That's why I feel as if I really have no right to say Trungpa is not awakened because, as stated before, if his students think so, and they have been helped by him (in a non-abusive manner), then who am I to judge? This thread has actually caused me to want to learn more about him, so thank you for starting it! :thumbup:
    riverflowperson
  • NevermindNevermind Bitter & Hateful Veteran
    edited June 2013
    wondering said:

    Nevermind said:

    Well, except for when we experience satisfaction of course. ;)

    Of which is an illusion......

    That there is only dissatisfaction is the illusion... or rather, narrative.
  • Nevermind said:

    wondering said:

    Nevermind said:

    Well, except for when we experience satisfaction of course. ;)

    Of which is an illusion......

    That there is only dissatisfaction is the illusion... or rather, narrative.
    Keep telling yourself that. It must make you feel good/special/above it all, and one who has the REAL knowledge. Unfortunately that statement is utterly false. Because when you do not feel that everything is OK, then you must believe you have fallen into "wrong view"...( instead of "right view"). Back and forth we go, and it will never stop.
  • Citta said:

    The fact that answer was not coached in a way that satisfied you I can do nothing about.

    Well, if you'd hung around, I would have responded with more questions, but you made it clear that you weren't interested in discussing the matter further.

    I hope the thread is not closed. It does not seem particularly fractious at this point, despite discussing a fairly delicate topic.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited June 2013
    What I had hoped I made plain was that I bitterly regretted starting the thread.
    I will not make that mistake again.
  • What do you regret about it, exactly?
  • ZeroZero Veteran
    In order to derail the discussion and assist in alleviating your regret... here is a picture of some chillis that look like cocks...
    person
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Is it true that they taste better when they're cut?
    Zero
  • robotrobot Veteran
    wondering said:



    Nevermind said:

    wondering said:

    Nevermind said:

    Well, except for when we experience satisfaction of course. ;)

    Of which is an illusion......

    That there is only dissatisfaction is the illusion... or rather, narrative.
    Keep telling yourself that. It must make you feel good/special/above it all, and one who has the REAL knowledge. Unfortunately that statement is utterly false. Because when you do not feel that everything is OK, then you must believe you have fallen into "wrong view"...( instead of "right view"). Back and forth we go, and it will never stop.
    Experience tells us that there is satisfaction and there is suffering. Insight tells us that both are empty because they are dependently arisen and temporary. But they are not illusions.
    Either experience could be dependent on an illusion or on a valid cognition.
    Like the difference between grieving for someone who has died, or grieving for someone that you believe to be dead, who is not. The grief is the same.
    Those feelings are empty, like everything else. Except an illusion.
    An illusion cannot be empty because it has no dependent reality at all.
    Like the proverbial horns of a rabbit. An illusion is not a valid cognition.
    True duality might be what is a valid cognition and what is not.
    Does this make any sense?



    Jeffrey
  • NevermindNevermind Bitter & Hateful Veteran
    edited June 2013
    robot said:

    wondering said:



    Nevermind said:

    wondering said:

    Nevermind said:

    Well, except for when we experience satisfaction of course. ;)

    Of which is an illusion......

    That there is only dissatisfaction is the illusion... or rather, narrative.
    Keep telling yourself that. It must make you feel good/special/above it all, and one who has the REAL knowledge. Unfortunately that statement is utterly false. Because when you do not feel that everything is OK, then you must believe you have fallen into "wrong view"...( instead of "right view"). Back and forth we go, and it will never stop.
    Experience tells us that there is satisfaction and there is suffering. Insight tells us that both are empty because they are dependently arisen and temporary. But they are not illusions.
    Either experience could be dependent on an illusion or on a valid cognition.
    Like the difference between grieving for someone who has died, or grieving for someone that you believe to be dead, who is not. The grief is the same.
    Those feelings are empty, like everything else. Except an illusion.
    An illusion cannot be empty because it has no dependent reality at all.
    Like the proverbial horns of a rabbit. An illusion is not a valid cognition.
    True duality might be what is a valid cognition and what is not.
    Does this make any sense?



    Illusions are independent and/or permanent?
  • NevermindNevermind Bitter & Hateful Veteran
    wondering said:



    Nevermind said:

    wondering said:

    Nevermind said:

    Well, except for when we experience satisfaction of course. ;)

    Of which is an illusion......

    That there is only dissatisfaction is the illusion... or rather, narrative.
    Keep telling yourself that. It must make you feel good/special/above it all, and one who has the REAL knowledge. Unfortunately that statement is utterly false. Because when you do not feel that everything is OK, then you must believe you have fallen into "wrong view"...( instead of "right view"). Back and forth we go, and it will never stop.
    Sorry, I'm an english speaker?
  • robotrobot Veteran
    Nevermind said:

    robot said:

    wondering said:



    Nevermind said:

    wondering said:

    Nevermind said:

    Well, except for when we experience satisfaction of course. ;)

    Of which is an illusion......

    That there is only dissatisfaction is the illusion... or rather, narrative.
    Keep telling yourself that. It must make you feel good/special/above it all, and one who has the REAL knowledge. Unfortunately that statement is utterly false. Because when you do not feel that everything is OK, then you must believe you have fallen into "wrong view"...( instead of "right view"). Back and forth we go, and it will never stop.
    Experience tells us that there is satisfaction and there is suffering. Insight tells us that both are empty because they are dependently arisen and temporary. But they are not illusions.
    Either experience could be dependent on an illusion or on a valid cognition.
    Like the difference between grieving for someone who has died, or grieving for someone that you believe to be dead, who is not. The grief is the same.
    Those feelings are empty, like everything else. Except an illusion.
    An illusion cannot be empty because it has no dependent reality at all.
    Like the proverbial horns of a rabbit. An illusion is not a valid cognition.
    True duality might be what is a valid cognition and what is not.
    Does this make any sense?



    Illusions are independent and/or permanent?
    Neither, they have no existence whatsoever. Everything that exists does so dependently.
    But that is my understanding. Could be wrong.


  • Sorry, I'm an english speaker?

    Your excused?
  • Nevermind said:

    robot said:

    wondering said:



    Nevermind said:

    wondering said:

    Nevermind said:

    Well, except for when we experience satisfaction of course. ;)

    Of which is an illusion......

    That there is only dissatisfaction is the illusion... or rather, narrative.
    Keep telling yourself that. It must make you feel good/special/above it all, and one who has the REAL knowledge. Unfortunately that statement is utterly false. Because when you do not feel that everything is OK, then you must believe you have fallen into "wrong view"...( instead of "right view"). Back and forth we go, and it will never stop.
    Experience tells us that there is satisfaction and there is suffering. Insight tells us that both are empty because they are dependently arisen and temporary. But they are not illusions.
    Either experience could be dependent on an illusion or on a valid cognition.
    Like the difference between grieving for someone who has died, or grieving for someone that you believe to be dead, who is not. The grief is the same.
    Those feelings are empty, like everything else. Except an illusion.
    An illusion cannot be empty because it has no dependent reality at all.
    Like the proverbial horns of a rabbit. An illusion is not a valid cognition.
    True duality might be what is a valid cognition and what is not.
    Does this make any sense?



    Illusions are independent and/or permanent?
    All gobble-dee-gook to me. I leave that stuff to the philosophers who have non ending discussions about such things.

This discussion has been closed.