Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@newbuddhist.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take up to 48 hours. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Young Kalu Rinpoche Video: "Buddha Was Not A God, Buddhism Is Not A Religion"

DakiniDakini Veteran
edited June 2013 in Buddhism Today
Young Kalu Rinoche gives is own very interesting perspective on the Buddha, Buddhism, and the meaning of Dharma practice for our lives. He's gaining a reputation for being a free-thinker and following his heart and conscience.

howpersonzenffpoptartJeffreyTheEccentricVastmind

Comments

  • personperson Where is my mind? 'Merica! Veteran
    He sounds very modern. Do you know how he is received by the establishment? Is the man trying to keep him down?
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited June 2013
    person said:

    He sounds very modern. Do you know how he is received by the establishment? Is the man trying to keep him down?

    I've been wondering what opinions are in his lineage, and among the "establishment" since he burst onto the international scene a couple of years ago, making an international tour, and taking charge of "his" (inherited from the deceased Kalu Rinpoche) Dharma centers. He's quite a reformist, kicking out corrupt monks who sangha members complained had molested them, and speaking out about sexual abuse of child monks in the monasteries. So he's bound to create waves sooner or later. He seems to be very much about compassion, even if it means blowing whistles on the establishment.

    personJeffreyLucy_Begood
  • poptartpoptart Veteran
    He sounds spot on to me.
    Lucy_Begood
  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Moderator
    Dakini said:

    I've been wondering what opinions are in his lineage, and among the "establishment" since he burst onto the international scene a couple of years ago, making an international tour, and taking charge of "his" (inherited from the deceased Kalu Rinpoche) Dharma centers. He's quite a reformist, kicking out corrupt monks who sangha members complained had molested them, and speaking out about sexual abuse of child monks in the monasteries. So he's bound to create waves sooner or later. He seems to be very much about compassion, even if it means blowing whistles on the establishment.

    Well, based on that alone, the guy's got MY vote......

    Lucy_Begood
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    I'd like to see more of his talks.
  • PatrPatr Veteran
    Lets hope he's the next Tsongkhapa.....

    Err, get a haircut first :) Vinaya rule 101.
    Jeffrey
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Patr said:

    Lets hope he's the next Tsongkhapa.....

    Err, get a haircut first :) Vinaya rule 101.

    Kalu Rinpoche has given back his robes and lives a secular life, something one of his teachers advised him to do. He still wears a type of robe to give his teachings, but (usually) it's not the same as an ordained monk's robe. I don't know why he's in full monk's garb in this vid. So anyway, he's let his hair grow a little, and it looks like he's grown sideburns, too. Crazy kid! ;) He's into rap and breakdancing, too!
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Patr said:

    Lets hope he's the next Tsongkhapa.....

    Err, get a haircut first :) Vinaya rule 101.

    Kalu Rinpoche is not a Gelug as was Tsongkhapa.
    So it might be more appropriate to hope that he is the next Marpa, the founder of the school to which he belongs...and Marpa was a married man and father.

    Many of the best Vajrayana teachers do not follow the Bhikkhu/Bhikshu Vinaya.
    They are not in breach of it. They do not follow it at all.

    There is a big wide Buddhist world beyond the hinayana.

  • PatrPatr Veteran
    Yeah, i know.... but as monks or yogis they have precepts as well. Only some dont follow it, but they do have precepts.

    Its considered a breach if taken.

    Hinayana,... hmm.


    @Dakini,
    Hmm that robe which looks like a monks robe looks very familiar. This is another area which should be reviewed. Its just like a security guards uniform which looks like the police, confusing, isnt it.

    The other yanas have a very clear distinction for ones whose disrobed . No confusion there.
  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Moderator
    If you were blind, what would it matter what he looks like?

    Actions speak more than appearances.
    Gandhi wandered the world looking like an overgrown baby in a nappy.

    Seems his message got through in spite of that.

    It would be nice if people critiqued what mattered, and didn't pick on trivia.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Patr said:

    Yeah, i know.... but as monks or yogis they have precepts as well. Only some dont follow it, but they do have precepts.

    Its considered a breach if taken.

    Hinayana,... hmm.


    @Dakini,
    Hmm that robe which looks like a monks robe looks very familiar. This is another area which should be reviewed. Its just like a security guards uniform which looks like the police, confusing, isnt it.

    The other yanas have a very clear distinction for ones whose disrobed . No confusion there.

    You will notice that I referred to 'hinayana' with a small ' h '...not Hinayana with a capital 'H ' which is a disparaging name that some sectarians give the Theravada.
    'hinayana' with a small 'h' is found in all vehicles.
    It is characterised by an exclusive view of the merits of one's own tradition and a denigration of the traditions of others.
    It substitutes rules and the letter for the spirit.
    Above all it sees Buddhadharma as a battle against the world rather than a View which encompasses the world in mudita and metta.
    Whatever one thinks of the concept of 'tulkus' in general terms, and my own feelings are ambivalent ,
    Young teachers like the present Kalu are a vital part in keeping alive Dharma in an age where traditional expressions are ossifying and dwindling.
  • karmablueskarmablues Veteran
    edited June 2013
    I have had a few lay teachers who have been wise and I benefited a lot from them. These lay teachers though were often themselves students of one or more famous monk(s). So the important role of the monk in such cases should not be overlooked.

    In Tibetan Buddhism, I think monasticism is held in very high regard and the value of the monk's monastic code/Vinaya rules/precepts are also treasured. According to the official website of the Dalai Lama:
    His Holiness the Dalai Lama feels that it is important to know that nuns and monks ordained in the Tibetan tradition follow the [253] vows (Vinaya) set forth in the Mulasarvastivadin school of monastic codes....

    .....

    In 1973 His Holiness the Dalai Lama wrote the "Direct Instruction From Shakyamuni Buddha -- A Gelong's Training in Brief", a vinaya text based on the Interleaved Summaries presenting the fully ordained monk's vows. In this commentary His Holiness comments on the 253 vows of a fully ordained monk according to the Mulasarvativadin school of Vinaya.

    ....

    In the Mulasarvastivadin Vinaya tradition, like the Theravada tradition, we follow the rules of ordination such as taking vows not yet taken, the ways of guarding them without causing degeneration and the ways to restore them if they degenerate. The ordained monks and nuns study and practice Vinaya...

    Monasticism is regarded with highest reverence as the foundation of the teaching of the Buddha. His Holiness the Dalai Lama says:

    "In particular the moral code of individual liberation is the essence of Buddha's teachings, such that it is said that wherever there is gelong, a holder of the Vinaya, there the teachings of Buddha abide and that place is not devoid of the Teacher himself."


    Lord Buddha himself says in the Vinaya Bases:
    Wherever there is a gelong, a holder of the Vinaya, that place is luminous; that place is illuminated. See that place as not devoid of me. I also abide unperturbed in that place.

    I think it is also worth noting that when the Buddha talked about the decline of Buddhism, one of the main factors seems to be the decline of the Sangha (in this context meaning the community of monks) which includes the neglect of following the monk's training rules/precepts/Vinaya.

    In the Pali Anagatavamsa, the Buddha said that the fall of Buddhism is marked by five disappearances as follows:
    'How will it occur? After my decease there will first be five disappearances. What five? The disappearance of attainment (in the Dispensation), the disappearance of proper conduct, the disappearance of learning, the disappearance of the outward form, the disappearance of the relics. There will be these five disappearances.

    'Here attainment means that for a thousand years only after the lord's complete Nirvana will monks be able to practice analytical insights.... But with the extinction of the last stream-winner's life, attainment will have disappeared.

    'This, Sariputta, is the disappearance of attainment.

    'The disappearance of proper conduct means that, being unable to Practice jhana, insight, the Ways and the fruits, they will guard no lore the four entire purities of moral habit. As time goes on and on they will only guard the four [parajika] offences entailing defeat. While there are even a hundred or a thousand monks who guard and bear in mind the four offences entailing defeat, there will be no disappearance of proper conduct. With the breaking of moral habit by the last monk- or on the extinction of his life, proper conduct will have disappeared.

    'This, Sariputta, is the disappearance of proper conduct.

    'The disappearance -of learning means that as long as there stand firm the texts with the commentaries pertaining to the word of the Buddha in the three Pitakas, for so long there will be no disappearance of learning... As time goes on and on learning will decay. In this decay the Great Patthana itself will decay first..... When it decays the Samyutta Nikaya, the Majjhima Nikaya, the Digha Nikaya and the Khuddaka-Nikaya will decay. They will simply remember the jataka together with the Vinaya Pitaka. But only the conscientious (monks) will remember the Vinaya-Pitaka(the monastic rules). As time goes on and on, being unable to remember even the jataka, the Vessantara-jataka will decay first... When the jatakas decay they will remember only the Vinaya-Pitaka. As time goes on and on the Vinaya-Pitaka will decay..... While a four-line stanza still continues to exist among men, there will not be a disappearance of learning... [but when there is no one knowing even a four-line stanza of the teachings then will be the disappearance of learning].

    'This, Sariputta, is the disappearance of learning.

    'As time goes on and on each of the last monks, carrying his robe, bowl, and tooth-pick like Jain recluses, having taken a bottle-gourd and turned it into a bowl for almsfood, will wander about with it in his forearms or hands or hanging from a piece of string. As time goes on and on, thinking: 'What's the good of this yellow robe?" and cutting off a small piece of one and sticking it on his nose or ear or ill his hair, he will wander about supporting wife and children by agriculture, trade and the like. Then he will give a gift to the Southern community for those (of bad moral habit). I say that he will then acquire an incalculable fruit of the gift. As time goes on and on, thinking: "What's the good of this to us?", having thrown away the piece Of yellow robe, he will harry beasts and birds in the forest. At this time the outward form will have disappeared.

    'This, Sariputta, is called the disappearance of the outward form.

    'Then when the Dispensation of the Perfect Buddha is 5,000 years old, the relics, not receiving reverence and honour, will go to places where they can receive them. As time goes on and on there will not be reverence and honour for them in every place.... They will weep, saying: "Henceforth there will be darkness for us." Then the relics, producing the condition of heat, will burn up that image leaving no remainder.

    'This, Sariputta, is called the disappearance of the relics.'

    In the Sutra on Ananda's Seven Dreams (A Mahayana text), Ananda had seven dreams and asked the Buddha what they meant. The Buddha told him that these dreams represent the future decline of Buddhism. In the context of this Sutra, references to "Sangha" means the community of monks. The relevant dreams for the purposes of this discussion are the following:
    .....

    "Buddha, I dreamt that monks do not wear robes, they fall into pits and the laymen step on their heads."

    "Ananda, this suggests that the future monks give public speeches but not follow what they preach. They are jealous of each other, do not respect the law of cause and effect, ultimately they fell, the laymen rises and look down on the Sangha. They go into monasteries and frame monks, and damage the temples. What is your 4th dream?"

    "Buddha, I dreamt that the monks robes are incomplete and they kneel on thorns."

    "Ananda, this says that future monks do not wear the holy robes but will adorn commoner's clothes, they do not follow precepts but will enjoy the worldly pleasures having wives and children, this is a big misfortune of the Dharma. What is your 5th dream?"

    "Buddha, I dreamt that in a thick forest, many pigs were digging the roots of the Bodhi tree."

    "Ananda, this says that the future monks only cares about making a living, they sell Buddha statues and sutras as occupations. What is your 6th dream?"

    "Buddha, I dreamt that the big elephants neglects the small elephants, and the king of the beasts the lion died. Holy flowers fall on the lion's head, but the animals are scared and keep their distance. Soon the corpse develops worms which feed on the lion's meat."

    "Big elephants neglecting the small elephants, this means in the future Sangha the elders are selfish and would not groom the young. The worms feeding on the lion's meat, this means no other religions can damage Buddhism, but it those within the Sangha who will destroy my teachings.



    PatrDakini
  • PatrPatr Veteran
    @karmablues,

    You hit it spot on. Again all monks and Yogis do have precepts.

    @citta,
    Seriously, I dont disparage your knowledge or practice, to each their own, but some of your notions I do find baffling. As mentioned above, where did you read that senior Vajrayana teachers need not follow the Vinaya. Maybe they dont follow it, but there are rules to live by as an ordained monk, for all three Yanas, for sure.

    @frederica,

    Well, all sorts of institutions, i.e the Army, Police, the Church, some schools etc, all have their own rules. Trivia or not, they have to be followed. An ordained monk has to have a shaven head, clearly stated in the Vinaya, if Kalu has disrobed, then fine.
  • PatrPatr Veteran
    Coming back, the Vinaya rules or Monks precepts are there for a very specific purpose.
    One is to clearly distinguish them from lay persons.

    In Theravada and Mahayana, any monk who withdraws from the monkhood is strictly disallowed from donning the monk's robes, they usually wear a completely white garment, which clearly identifies them as lay practitioners, or Yogis.
    In Thailand there are many Ajahns in white.

    The problem in TB is that Yogis are meant to have a white lower garment, this has sometimes shrunk to a tiny stripe, many times hidden away in the folds.

    Now this is why a lot of followers say ' Oh, Nyingma Lamas can get married, or something of the sort'. Well so sorry, this is completely wrong, those who keep long hair, get married or do things which monks are forbidden to, are usually Yogis. They are not monks, and should not be wearing a monks robes or something similar.
    It only serves to deceive.

    So, this is actually not exactly trivial. Do your research, check out their precepts, ask your Lamas bout what I said.

    Lastly, Gelug does not confer Yogi status.
  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Moderator
    ...and that's FEderica.... ;)
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited June 2013
    @Patr, I'm not so sure about what you say regarding Nyingma Lamas. Dudjom Rinpoche was married, was he not a lama? Did he not wear robes? (I don't know, I never saw him, I thought you might know.) Gyatrul Rinpoche was married for a few years, and he continued to wear robes.

    Then there's the matter of "spiritual marriages", when ordained monks/lamas have a consort. This muddies the waters a bit. Kagyu monks have consorts, and I assume Nyingma monks do, too. And what about the Sakya? You say Sakya Trizin is a yogi, not a monk. What about Sakya Dagchen, in Seattle? He wears robes that appear to be monks' robes. But I'm told that there are robes that are similar, but they indicate a married "monk". http://vajrasana.org/dagchen2.htm

    Traleg Rinpoche, in Australia, is married and wears robes. But maybe they're the robes of a married/lay teacher. I wish somewhere there were photos or drawings that show the difference between a lay lama's robes and a (supposedly) celibate monk's robes in the different traditions.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Patr said:

    ...

    In Thailand there are many Ajahns in white.

    ...

    I'm curious as to how you're defining "many"? I saw many Buddhist "nuns" in white robes, but virtually never saw a male in white.

  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Ran out of time to edit. I guess Chogyam Trungpa's root guru, Sechen Kongtrul Rinpoche, wasn't Kagyu, he was Nyingma, though he also taught the Kagyu tradition. He had a consort, considered a "spiritual wife", who was still alive a few years ago, when Trungpa's widow and sons visited her, but he was not married to anyone, as far as I know.

    It's all very confusing.
  • personperson Where is my mind? 'Merica! Veteran
    Yes, I think its a problem how similar the yogi's robes look to monk's robes. I imagine most Tibetans can tell the difference, but for those of us living outside that world they all look basically the same and leads to a lot of confusion.

    I'm not positive about this but I believe a collar means a non monk.
    Patr
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Dakini said:

    Ran out of time to edit. I guess Chogyam Trungpa's root guru, Sechen Kongtrul Rinpoche, wasn't Kagyu, he was Nyingma, though he also taught the Kagyu tradition. He had a consort, considered a "spiritual wife", who was still alive a few years ago, when Trungpa's widow and sons visited her, but he was not married to anyone, as far as I know.

    It's all very confusing.


    It sure is. :)
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited June 2013
    person said:


    I'm not positive about this but I believe a collar means a non monk.

    This makes sense. The robe Kalu Rinpoche is sometimes photographed in has a collar. I'm told the skirt of the robe is supposed to be different for married lamas, too.

  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Patr said:

    @karmablues,

    You hit it spot on. Again all monks and Yogis do have precepts.

    @citta,
    Seriously, I dont disparage your knowledge or practice, to each their own, but some of your notions I do find baffling. As mentioned above, where did you read that senior Vajrayana teachers need not follow the Vinaya. Maybe they dont follow it, but there are rules to live by as an ordained monk, for all three Yanas, for sure.

    @frederica,

    Well, all sorts of institutions, i.e the Army, Police, the Church, some schools etc, all have their own rules. Trivia or not, they have to be followed. An ordained monk has to have a shaven head, clearly stated in the Vinaya, if Kalu has disrobed, then fine.

    @Patr...you are consistently insisting against all the evidence that Vajrayana teachers need to be monks. They don't. And if they are not monks they do not need to follow the Vinaya.
    Neither my first teacher nor my present teacher...among the most famous of Vajragurus, were /are monks. Neither needed/need to follow the Vinaya

    For some reason you are viewing all of the Vajrayana through the lens of the Gelug.
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Here's some helpful info from Khandro Rinpoche, a rare female reincarnate teacher, on lay teachers and the vows they're bound by:


    Breaking monastic vows obviously constitutes a serious offense for ordained teachers, but how can we define sexual misconduct for teachers who have not taken vows?

    “Every teacher has at least taken the lay vows and the bodhisattva vows.” Khandro Rinpoche retorts. “Apart from the obvious misconduct of using force, taking advantage of your own position and the naivete of a student is abuse and very painful to see. Abuse is when there is pretense, conceit, or lying. Pretending someone has more realization than they actually have and thus misleading the student is very, very harmful. There is no shortcut to enlightenment,” she states, “and anyone who offers one should be treated with suspicion.”


    http://thedorjeshugdengroup.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/use-common-sense-khandro-rinpoche-about-sexual-abuse-by-buddhist-teachers-in-the-tibetan-buddhist-tradition/
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited June 2013
    It strikes me @Patr that you are unlikely to accept my word that Chogyal Namkhai Norbu does not adhere to the Vinaya.( neither is he in breach of it. Just as he he is not breach of the rules of Kosher , they do not apply to him ) so I suggest that you contact his organisation and check it out. Or you can put your question on vajracakra.com which is the website that specialises in Dzogchen matters.
    I suspect that if ChNN confirms that he has no relationship to the Vinaya and lives an ordinary life with wife and kids and three meals a day and a glass of beer on occasion you will conclude that he can't therefore be a real teacher.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Dakini said:

    Here's some helpful info from Khandro Rinpoche, a rare female reincarnate teacher, on lay teachers and the vows they're bound by:


    Breaking monastic vows obviously constitutes a serious offense for ordained teachers, but how can we define sexual misconduct for teachers who have not taken vows?

    “Every teacher has at least taken the lay vows and the bodhisattva vows.” Khandro Rinpoche retorts. “Apart from the obvious misconduct of using force, taking advantage of your own position and the naivete of a student is abuse and very painful to see. Abuse is when there is pretense, conceit, or lying. Pretending someone has more realization than they actually have and thus misleading the student is very, very harmful. There is no shortcut to enlightenment,” she states, “and anyone who offers one should be treated with suspicion.”


    http://thedorjeshugdengroup.wordpress.com/2013/05

    @Dakini it is simply untrue that EVERY teacher has taken lay vows and the bodhisattva vows.
    I know at least two well known sanghas where the (Dzogchen ) teachers consider that vows and the whole Bodhisattva concept are red herrings...

    The Vajrayana simply does not lend itself to neat generalisations.
  • karmablueskarmablues Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Citta said:


    @Dakini it is simply untrue that EVERY teacher has taken lay vows and the bodhisattva vows.I know at least two well known sanghas where the (Dzogchen ) teachers consider that vows and the whole Bodhisattva concept are red herrings...
    The Vajrayana simply does not lend itself to neat generalisations.

    Are all Dzogchen teachers, however, supposed to take the Dzogchen precepts, which we have been discussing in another thread, and have concluded that those Dzogchen precepts are actually much more all-encompassing than the five Buddhist precepts.

  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    Citta said:



    @Dakini it is simply untrue that EVERY teacher has taken lay vows and the bodhisattva vows.
    I know at least two well known sanghas where the (Dzogchen ) teachers consider that vows and the whole Bodhisattva concept are red herrings...

    The Vajrayana simply does not lend itself to neat generalisations.

    This is an important question. Do you know for sure the teachers have never taken vows? Who is that, Nyingma teachers? Like Namkhai Norbu? Please tell us more, so we can learn. What does he say about vows and the Bodhisattva concept? Norbu is certainly highly respected. No scandals, either.

  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited June 2013

    Citta said:


    @Dakini it is simply untrue that EVERY teacher has taken lay vows and the bodhisattva vows.I know at least two well known sanghas where the (Dzogchen ) teachers consider that vows and the whole Bodhisattva concept are red herrings...
    The Vajrayana simply does not lend itself to neat generalisations.

    Are all Dzogchen teachers, however, supposed to take the Dzogchen precepts, which we have been discussing in another thread, and have concluded that those Dzogchen precepts are actually much more all-encompassing than the five Buddhist precepts.

    Those are not taken as vows as such...they are reflections intended to subvert the idea of building a kind of atta around striving. They are reflections upon what is already the case.

  • CittaCitta Veteran
    Dakini said:

    Citta said:



    @Dakini it is simply untrue that EVERY teacher has taken lay vows and the bodhisattva vows.
    I know at least two well known sanghas where the (Dzogchen ) teachers consider that vows and the whole Bodhisattva concept are red herrings...

    The Vajrayana simply does not lend itself to neat generalisations.

    This is an important question. Do you know for sure the teachers have never taken vows? Who is that, Nyingma teachers? Like Namkhai Norbu? Please tell us more, so we can learn. What does he say about vows and the Bodhisattva concept? Norbu is certainly highly respected. No scandals, either.

    ChNN's view of the Bodhisattva concept can be gauged from the fact that he has Christian and Sufi students who are not required to change religion at all.
    The vows in Dzogchen are specific to Dzogchen and are a contract between student and teacher.
    They are not generalised vows.
  • Citta said:

    Those are not taken as vows as such...they are reflections intended to subvert the idea of building a kind of atta around striving. They are reflections upon what is already the case.

    Well, then I have to say that you naming those reflections as "precepts" in the other thread is somewhat misleading.

  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Citta said:


    ChNN's view of the Bodhisattva concept can be gauged from the fact that he has Christian and Sufi students who are not required to change religion at all.
    The vows in Dzogchen are specific to Dzogchen and are a contract between student and teacher.
    They are not generalised vows.

    OK, but there are vows? The Dzogchen context provides something sort of structure (individualized vows) to act as a check on teacher and student behavior? Or do they not address that? Is there a view that vows regarding behavior aren't necessary if one's motivation is pure? This is what I'm trying to understand.

    So Nyingma teachers don't hold to any precepts? Still trying to get some clarity re: this tradition.

    edit: I just remembered that Khandro Rinpoche, whom I quoted earlier, is from the Nyingma tradition. Her father formerly was the head of the lineage. And she says lay teachers in the lineage do take vows, there are generalized vows.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khandro_Rinpoche


  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited June 2013
    What I said was that in Dzogchen they are not generailised vows...I did not refer to the Nyingma specifically.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited June 2013

    Citta said:

    Those are not taken as vows as such...they are reflections intended to subvert the idea of building a kind of atta around striving. They are reflections upon what is already the case.

    Well, then I have to say that you naming those reflections as "precepts" in the other thread is somewhat misleading.

    Firstly I didn't name them..I quoted them.
    :)
    Secondly you are interpreting precept as 'vow'. In fact the word means ' a guiding principle '.
    How that guiding principle is enacted is not implicit in the word.
    In the case of Dzogchen precepts to vow to keep them would be to be ' intoxicated by duality '...
    because it assumes that there is a seperate entity to keep or fail to keep them.
    They affirm what is already the case.

    Dorothy is not in Kansas....
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited June 2013
    I am concerned that I may have muddied the waters when my intention was to clarify. :hair:
    When one learns another language the teacher often stresses the need to learn to think in the language that one is learning rather than mentally translating into English..
    Just so with Dzogchen. Understanding it is made harder by 'translating' it into more familiar Buddhist terms. Things go better if it is seen in its own light.
    Dzogchen starts from a position that our natural mind is not different from Enlightenment.
    But our natural mind is often obscured by our identification with that which has no intrinsic lasting nature.

    _/\_
    Jeffrey
  • PatrPatr Veteran
    @Dakini,
    Monks have different precepts from yogis, how many i dont really know. I do know that those in TB who wear monks robes and are married are yogis.
    Yogis are practitioners who have taken 200+ precepts, so its really not me & you...

    The real problem is that they are wearing robes that doesn't differentiste between.
    If u remember sakya trizin, hes a yogi, which explains long hair, white skirt & marriage among other things. Also the reason why no ST tulku.
    Have you not checked with them on this?

    The DL is a monk, thats why hes not married .
    The TB yogi seeks to maintain the monks elevated status by wearing similar robes.

    One really has to ask the lama his status, its only appropriate. Its common for TB to start off as monks and some of them do switch to yogis. Does this explain why they look similar.

    Consort tantra again is not OFFICIALLY allowed for monks, for sure, again, maybe some precepts are broken.

    The Gelug was started precisely as Tsongkhapa was against the many Vinaya precepts not being followed. So, a new school where monks are...monks, nothing else.
    Thats why Gelug does not confer .yogi status.

    Personally yogis, which is an Indian word meaning practitioner , should be clearly differentiated. A lot of them are rinpoches, even tulkus, just that yogi status lets them do some things differently.

    The very first step any TB student must ask is are they bhikku or yogi. You will be told.


    @Vinlyn,
    There are lots of ex monks wearing white in Thailand, also self proclaimed masters. Have also seen nuns, though rarely.
  • PatrPatr Veteran
    @Citta,
    You didnt even read my post on yogis..!!
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Patr said:

    @Dakini,
    Monks have different precepts from yogis, how many i dont really know. I do know that those in TB who wear monks robes and are married are yogis.
    Yogis are practitioners who have taken 200+ precepts, so its really not me & you...

    The real problem is that they are wearing robes that doesn't differentiste between.
    If u remember sakya trizin, hes a yogi, which explains long hair, white skirt & marriage among other things. Also the reason why no ST tulku.
    Have you not checked with them on this?

    The DL is a monk, thats why hes not married .
    The TB yogi seeks to maintain the monks elevated status by wearing similar robes.

    One really has to ask the lama his status, its only appropriate. Its common for TB to start off as monks and some of them do switch to yogis. Does this explain why they look similar.

    Consort tantra again is not OFFICIALLY allowed for monks, for sure, again, maybe some precepts are broken.

    Again, it's all very confusing. The DL has written in a couple of his books that as long as the semen is retained, the monk stays "pure", and hasn't broken his vows. So it would seem that consort practice is allowed monks, just not monks in the Gelug tradition. Having a consort isn't the same as being married. Unless your wife is your consort, obviously. So one can have a consort and still be considered unmarried, or maintain an ordained monk's status.

    Also, being married doesn't mean one is a yogi. There are monks who have given back their vows, married and become householders, but may don robes to run their own sangha, as teacher of their sangha. Yogis are bound by vows never to release their semen. Lay lamas are bound by no such vow, they're married ex-monks or Rinpoches who live a lay life, but also teach. They may hold down an ordinary job, and teach and run a sangha in their spare time.
  • wrathfuldeitywrathfuldeity Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Confused… Buddhist have lots of sex…I mean sects… Just like Christians.
    There’s a difference between literal interpretation. the orthodox interpretation, the reformed interpretation, the symbolic interpretation, and between exoteric and the esoteric interpretation and it would take a whole lot of scholars, attorneys…and whoever had the most political juice could historically claim the wn.
  • PatrPatr Veteran
    Oh yes, those who disrobe and forgo all the precepts would not have yogi status. They would reenter lay status.

    As to lay teachers donning robes, this is where the major transgressions are. A monks precepts and appearance are meant to distinguish them from us. Should anyone wear a police uniform and go around arresting people....or even for ex-officers??

    As to consort tantra, sigh, this IMO is the greatest sin/breaking of the precepts.
    This is precisely the causation of sexual deviation of TB lamas. The Gelug was started to abolish all this deviant practices, to follow the Vinaya strictly, guess it has failed in some instances.
    May i add that consort tantra is hindu and definitely not Buddhist, so therein lies the problem.
    You wont find it in Theravada or Mahayana, but its well documented in Taoism.
  • PatrPatr Veteran
    They are all defined by their precepts taken, no questioning that.
    Only as in Tsongkhapas time, maybe their adherence is patchy.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited June 2013
    The Gelug was indeed established in part for that reason. Not that karmamudra was seen by the other schools as ' deviant ' of course...it was only viewed as such by the Gelug.
    To assert therefore that only the Gelug is a valid vehicle for Dharma at least has the merit of honesty and consistency.
    To assert it of course means that the Kagyu, Nyingma, and Sakya are INvalid...All of them support karmamudra...the use of consorts to practice certain yogic techniques..
    So lets be clear @Patr you are asserting that the Karmapas, Dudjom Rinpoche, Pema Chodren, Shenpen Hookham, Shikpo Ridzin, Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, Dzongcar Khyentse Rinpoche, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, and indeed most of the well-known teachers of modern times are not valid Dharma teachers.
    Because ALL of them are/were practitioners of karmamudra, or support a model which supports others that do.

    So the resulting positions are now quite clear. You are in fact asserting that in the Vajrayana only the Gelug is valid. I can respect that position..while disagreeing utterly and fundamentally with it.

    Oh, and on the 'yogi ' matter. The term 'yogi' merely refers to an individual incorporating various sadhanas ( techniques ) into their practice. It does not imply a particular status defined by adherence to vows.
    Jeffrey
  • JeffreyJeffrey Veteran
    I thought 'yogi' was a recognition of meditation accomplishment much like 'khenpo' indicates scholarly accomplishment.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    Khenpo is a formal qualification ..Yogi is just a generic term for those who use yogic techniques.
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    In the TB context, I think "yogi" means "tantrika" -- tantric practitioner. Like Padmasambhava.
    Patr
  • PatrPatr Veteran
    Dakini said:

    In the TB context, I think "yogi" means "tantrika" -- tantric practitioner. Like Padmasambhava.


    Precisely. :)


    THE KARMA KAGYU LINEAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM traces its origins to Shakyamuni Buddha through Marpa the Great Translator, who three times traveled to India to bring back authentic Buddhist teachings to Tibet. His teacher, Naropa, received the lineage transmission from Tilopa and so on, back to the Buddha himself. Marpa's most famous student was the greatest yogi in all of Tibet, the renowned Jetsun Milarepa, who passed the teachings on to Gampopa, who in turn transmitted the teachings to the First Karmapa, Dusum Khyenpa.



    It doesnt make sense to put forward your arguments, when fundamental issues are not well versed, and the Yogi/Bhikku status is crucial to understanding TB.
    Jeffrey
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited June 2013
    I was first given wang ( empowerment ) into the Karma Kagyu more than 40 years ago ( ! ) by one of the most famous Kagyu yogis of the 20th century.
    He was at that time a Bhikshu. His Bhikshu status was confered by a formal ceremony and by the adoption of the Vinaya. His status as a yogi was an informal recognition of his attainment. It did not follow a formal process. Because there ain't one. Not in Buddhism.
    I notice my statement about the universality ( outside of the Gelug ) of Karmamudra as an optional skillful means has not been addressed. Instead we have hairsplitting about a relatively minor issue of nomenclature.

    NB Marpa was a married man and famously, a practitioner of Karmamudra.
    In other words @Patr precisely one of those whose 'degenerate practices' were what the Gelug came to reform. So your using him as an example is ill-advised.
    Jeffrey
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited June 2013
    Dakini said:

    In the TB context, I think "yogi" means "tantrika" -- tantric practitioner. Like Padmasambhava.

    You are correct...but tantrika too describes the subject's practices. It is not a formal title.
    No one goes into an exam room or formal ceremony and comes out a 'tantrika'...There are Higher Tantrik Vows, but again they are a contract between student and teacher...not status conferers.
    Jeffrey
Sign In or Register to comment.