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.
I just did some internet research on Rigdzin Shikpo (aka Michael Hookham). He's a former student of Chogyam Trungpa. Hopefully he practices more ethically than his teacher did.
I am a student of his wife Shenpen Hookham. I don't know too much about his group. I really like his wife and have found her to have great honesty and teaches the dharma in a way I enjoy. In my questions to her she has been supportive where it was helpful and has asked insightful difficult questions to me in response which have made me turn over a stale problem cutting through to clarity.
I have read parts of her husbands books Clarity Openness and Sensitivity and also Never Turn Away. I thought they were interesting and encouraged me to question in my practice.
Trungpa Rinpoche is a controversial figure. Most would agree he gave excellent dharma teachings, but they are uncomfortable with his behaviour. One thing I find is that there is a different culture in the community of buddhism than in Christianity. For example there is an understanding that a minister is a certain type of person sort of a role model. In buddhism the focus as I see it is more on the students journey rather than on the teacher's paternal or maternal role. From that standpoint Trungpa never claimed that he did not drink alcohol or have sex and therefore he did nothing underhanded.
Regardless I believe Trungpa's students would have received his teachings but not necessarily engage in drinking etc or 'crazy wisdom'. Pema Chodron also one of his students mentioned her teaching in one tape and said how she was very different person from Trungpa but how she was able to receive quite a lot from his methods that has been of value to her.
HHDL has said the "crazy wisdom" idea is a crock. He's issued statements in the past denouncing it. I think he first heard about it when Jack Kornfield, S. Batchelor's wife, and other western sangha leaders met with him in the early 90's to discuss scandals and the need for ethical rules and accountability. His reaction upon hearing that there was supposedly a "crazy wisdom" tradition that allowed for wild behavior was, "Weird!"
The regent Trungpa appointed to carry on after his death had AIDS, and had sex with his students, giving them the disease before he died of it himself. Trungpa had told him that because of his spiritual attainments, the disease wouldn't manifest in anyone he chose to have sex with.
But yes, Chodron and I'm sure other students have not continued the "crazy wisdom" tradition. But at least one did, who passed away from AIDS some time ago now.
"The regent Trungpa appointed to carry on after his death had AIDS, and had sex with his students, giving them the disease before he died of it himself. Trungpa had told him that because of his spiritual attainments, the disease wouldn't manifest in anyone he chose to have sex with."
That was shunryu suzuki's successor
Neither Trungpa nor Suzuki is responsible for Richard Baker. Trungpa was dead so therefore he didn't say: "Trungpa had told him that because of his spiritual attainments, the disease wouldn't manifest in anyone he chose to have sex with."
My teacher also disagrees with some of the dalai lama's teachings to be quite honest.
This is interesting, and perhaps deserving of its own thread. I'd be interested in learning more about this. What teachings, and why does she disagree?
I'm not going to open a thread attacking HHDL, but since it came up in this one:
A student writes:
"I am trying to understand how to think about consciousness and also how to read Buddhist dharma literature, 'The final reason showing that there is rebirth is that your consciousness, being an entity of mere luminosity and knowing, must be produced from a former moment of consciousness- from a former entity of luminosity and knowing.
It is not possible for consciousness to be produced from matter as its substantial cause. Once consciousness is produced from a former moment of consciousness a beginning to the continuum of consciousness cannot be posited. In this way, the general and most subtle type of consciousness has no beginning and no end; from this rebirth is established.'
-from Kindness Clarity and insight by the Dalai Lama
In this passage it sounds like a moment of consciousness is always caused by a previous moment of consciousness.
This is what I had always thought. But is this true?
If we cannot locate a moment of consciousness then what do we really know about it? So in some sense I am baffled and I am sensing that personally I am making assumptions and understandings from what I am reading but they don't always match."
Lama Shenpen:
I think you are completely correct in the way you are questioning the logic of what the Dalai Lama is saying.
It is a standard argument for trying to establish rebirth through reasoning but as you notice - it doesn't work on a logical level.
He has got a big problem trying to posit luminosity and awareness as some kind of entity in contradistinction to matter.
This kind of explanation might have worked with less sophisticated audiences as a kind of conventional truth that everyone just accepted like the sun rising in the east - but it cannot be posited as a coherent system of thought.
It is very clumsy and full of holes and contradictions. It is not well thought out at all and doesn't go very far.
Student:
"So perhaps I am not understanding them in context. Or perhaps the authors think about reality differently.
For example what is meant (in The Sky Dragon's Profound Roar by Khenpo Rinpoche) by 'I can't find anything that's born or has a root'?
Does this contradict the previous passage dealing with rebirth or not? It sounds like it does to me."
Lama Shenpen:
It is fundamental to what the Buddha discovered when he Awakened.
He discovered Nirvana, the deathless, beyond birth and death - the truth.
He didn't end birth and death - he discovered it was not real.
Nonetheless in order to explain to ordinary beings that actions matter - karma operates from life to life - he also talked about rebirth.
I think my explanations in 'there is more to death than dying' and in Trusting the Heart of Buddhism are more helpful here though.
Student:
"Or else it is just saying that you can't find causes (the second) and the first is saying that there must be causes although we cannot find them.
Does this make sense?"
Lama Shenpen:
In a way it does - but causes are not causes in the way we think of them in our common sense way of grasping at ideas.
Trunpa is not magically responsible for Osel anymore than Suzuki is responsible for Baker. Your statement you attributed to Trungpa was stated by Osel. Trungpa was dead.
Jeffrey, this isn't an "attack" (Lama Shenpen's statement). We needn't view diverse opinions so negatively. This is interesting. There's nothing wrong with discussing differences in philosophy.
ok, I'll check into your point about who said what re: Osel.
"For the first time since I began reading your work and listening to your teachings, I am confused and a little frightened by your attack on some of the writings of the current head of Tibetan Buddhism.( Editor: In the recently sent out Buddhism Connect � Rebirth and Consciousness)"
Lama Shenpen:
It is true I spoke boldly and that must have taken you by surprise -sometimes I am a bit blunt and it can be a bit frightening when you are not expecting it!
Student:
"I will explain more as we go on though. Before doing that I need to correct your statement that the Dalai Lama is the current head of Tibetan Buddhism.
He is the head of the Tibetan government in exile. He is also among the highest ranking of all Buddhist teachers of our time and known as an emanation of no less than Avalokiteshvara himself.
More than that, he is a man of peace and compassion whom I deeply admire for all that he has done for the cause of Buddhism and his people and in the cause of humanity in general. He is an amazing and wonderful being.
Nonetheless there is no such position as the head of Tibetan Buddhism nor of Buddhism in general.
'It is very clumsy and full of holes and contradictions. It is not well thought out at all and doesn't go very far.'
Why so harsh? What on earth is going on with you to use such language?"
Lama Shenpen:
That is a good question.
I need to explain myself and as you say, said bluntly like that it does sound harsh and aggressive. I did not mean to offend.
My comments are actually addressed at the content of the view expressed which I am familiar with from other sources. At the moment of writing I was attacking the view, having put aside the matter that it was the Dalai Lama who happened to be expressing it.
I have struggled with the view myself in the past and my conclusion was that it didn't work as an argument and is attacked by other worthy and learned teachers within the Buddhist tradition.
For example, the whole of the Madhyamaka points out that the idea that a moment of consciousness causes another moment doesn't work and simply produces logical contradictions,(using arguments about whether a moment is singular or multiple, or whether the cause is present at the same time as the effect and so on).
That aside, even if you want to say that the mind gives rise to mind in the sense that it is the mind and not the body that goes from life to life, at best you are left with a strange dualism of body and mind and no explanation that works of how the one relates to the other.
Nevertheless the model the Dalai Lama is using here is from the Abhidharma and that is a standard source for all Buddhists � it's an ancient and venerable source and the fact that it does not go very far in terms of explaining the nature of reality is not the Dalai Lama's fault.
It is not really designed to give an explanation of the nature of reality. Its arguments would not stand up to modern standards of logic and scientific enquiry.
That is why I said explanations based on it that try to explain the nature of the universe are clumsy and do not go very far.
There is some error in the second text from buddhism connect. It appears the student is contradicting themselves both stating HHDL is the head and also denying it. There must be an error in the text oh well.
If you read this carefully trungpa only said that IF you believe Osel was reporting trungpa's words truthfully. So you must believe that the same guy who slept with his students with AIDS was also telling the truth about what his teacher Trungpa said?
At the same time this is disgusting to me. I would NOT stay with rigdzin shikpo if he were having sex with students! I tend to doubt that there is guilt by association with regards to rigdzin based on my experience with his wife...
There is no "Crazy Wisdom" tradition. When they talk about Crazy Wisdom Masters in Tibet, they are just talking about enlightened beings acting unconventionally, spontaneously. You can't fake it, and it can't be passed down as a teaching tool from Master to Student, so of course the Dalai Lama is going to go, "weird." As, there is no tradition of Crazy Wisdom. One must have followed the Buddhist precepts to their completion before manifesting spontaneous wisdom events such as the Mahasiddhas.
Controversial or not, Chögyam Trungpa's writing is what brought me to the dharma, and for that I am extremely grateful.
I agree that the acts of Ösel Tendzin are completely wrong - morally, ethically, and spiritually reprehensible. However I am not sure that Rinpoche was aware of his flaws when he appointed him regent. Also I do not believe that Trungpa would tell him it was okay to knowingly have unprotected sex after testing positive for AIDS - this is what Tendzin CLAIMED he was told by Rinpoche, and sounds more like an excuse after Rinpoche died and could not defend this serious allegation. "According to Mukpo [Trungpa's wife], Trungpa ultimately became disillusioned with Tendzin as his heir — at one point calling him 'terrible' and 'dreadful' — and indicated that he would have gotten rid of Tendzin had he a suitable candidate with which to replace him." So perhaps he was planning to replace him or already working on appointing a new regent before his death in 1987.
There is no "Crazy Wisdom" tradition. When they talk about Crazy Wisdom Masters in Tibet, they are just talking about enlightened beings acting unconventionally, spontaneously. You can't fake it, and it can't be passed down as a teaching tool from Master to Student, so of course the Dalai Lama is going to go, "weird." As, there is no tradition of Crazy Wisdom. One must have followed the Buddhist precepts to their completion before manifesting spontaneous wisdom events such as the Mahasiddhas.
We can always count on Vajraheart for the straight dope!
Ethical behaviour is the basis of Dharma it is not just something for the ordained but lay person alike. Bad behaviour destroys peoples faith in the teacher and the Dharma itself there is no excuse for a teacher to misconduct themselves in such a way.
I think its interesting to read about someone's teachers. However I would be more interested in Rigdzin Shikpo's behaviour. If I were enquiring about the longchenpa foundation. Much like I would be more interested in Obama in regards to enquiring about the US government than I would to enquire about George Washington.
Thanks for all the discusssion on this topic, I hadn't realised there was such controversy over the origins of the Longchen Foundation. I have been reading Never Turn Away by RS and have found it very interesting and hope to attend the Lion's Roar gate 1 later this year. Interesting to hear from Jeffrey who is a student of Shenpen Hookham, I also agree with his comment below, past events shouldn't dictate our views and I think the ethics of teachers in other coutries / cultures can be very different to those teaching in the UK.
I think its interesting to read about someone's teachers. However I would be more interested in Rigdzin Shikpo's behaviour. If I were enquiring about the longchenpa foundation. Much like I would be more interested in Obama in regards to enquiring about the US government than I would to enquire about George Washington.
As a complete outsider, one who embraced Zen early in his Buddhist practice so I don't know a Roshi from a Lama, may I interject with a comment?
It doesn't matter how your teacher's teacher acted. What matters is what the person sitting in front of says and does. They either know the Dharma and have the skills to teach it to you, or they don't. They could have sat at the feet of the Buddha himself and not learned a thing, or listened to a drunkard's ramblings and been enlightened. Judge the people in front of you by their own actions. A student can outshine the teacher. But that's just my Zen take on the subject.
Hi Diane, I've attended some Longchen classes including Gate 1. I too wanted to be careful because I'd read about the background as mentionned above in this thread. I have no qualms so far. The approach changes after the 3-year Lions Roar course (possibly necessarily and in common with other Tibetan traditions as far as I understand), and I'll only know what I think of that when I reach it.
Comments
I have read parts of her husbands books Clarity Openness and Sensitivity and also Never Turn Away. I thought they were interesting and encouraged me to question in my practice.
Trungpa Rinpoche is a controversial figure. Most would agree he gave excellent dharma teachings, but they are uncomfortable with his behaviour. One thing I find is that there is a different culture in the community of buddhism than in Christianity. For example there is an understanding that a minister is a certain type of person sort of a role model. In buddhism the focus as I see it is more on the students journey rather than on the teacher's paternal or maternal role. From that standpoint Trungpa never claimed that he did not drink alcohol or have sex and therefore he did nothing underhanded.
Regardless I believe Trungpa's students would have received his teachings but not necessarily engage in drinking etc or 'crazy wisdom'. Pema Chodron also one of his students mentioned her teaching in one tape and said how she was very different person from Trungpa but how she was able to receive quite a lot from his methods that has been of value to her.
The regent Trungpa appointed to carry on after his death had AIDS, and had sex with his students, giving them the disease before he died of it himself. Trungpa had told him that because of his spiritual attainments, the disease wouldn't manifest in anyone he chose to have sex with.
But yes, Chodron and I'm sure other students have not continued the "crazy wisdom" tradition. But at least one did, who passed away from AIDS some time ago now.
That was shunryu suzuki's successor
Neither Trungpa nor Suzuki is responsible for Richard Baker. Trungpa was dead so therefore he didn't say: "Trungpa had told him that because of his spiritual attainments, the disease wouldn't manifest in anyone he chose to have sex with."
A student writes:
"I am trying to understand how to think about consciousness and also how to read Buddhist dharma literature, 'The final reason showing that there is rebirth is that your consciousness, being an entity of mere luminosity and knowing, must be produced from a former moment of consciousness- from a former entity of luminosity and knowing.
It is not possible for consciousness to be produced from matter as its substantial cause. Once consciousness is produced from a former moment of consciousness a beginning to the continuum of consciousness cannot be posited. In this way, the general and most subtle type of consciousness has no beginning and no end; from this rebirth is established.'
-from Kindness Clarity and insight by the Dalai Lama
In this passage it sounds like a moment of consciousness is always caused by a previous moment of consciousness.
This is what I had always thought. But is this true?
If we cannot locate a moment of consciousness then what do we really know about it? So in some sense I am baffled and I am sensing that personally I am making assumptions and understandings from what I am reading but they don't always match."
Lama Shenpen:
I think you are completely correct in the way you are questioning the logic of what the Dalai Lama is saying.
It is a standard argument for trying to establish rebirth through reasoning but as you notice - it doesn't work on a logical level.
He has got a big problem trying to posit luminosity and awareness as some kind of entity in contradistinction to matter.
This kind of explanation might have worked with less sophisticated audiences as a kind of conventional truth that everyone just accepted like the sun rising in the east - but it cannot be posited as a coherent system of thought.
It is very clumsy and full of holes and contradictions. It is not well thought out at all and doesn't go very far.
Student:
"So perhaps I am not understanding them in context. Or perhaps the authors think about reality differently.
For example what is meant (in The Sky Dragon's Profound Roar by Khenpo Rinpoche) by 'I can't find anything that's born or has a root'?
Does this contradict the previous passage dealing with rebirth or not? It sounds like it does to me."
Lama Shenpen:
It is fundamental to what the Buddha discovered when he Awakened.
He discovered Nirvana, the deathless, beyond birth and death - the truth.
He didn't end birth and death - he discovered it was not real.
Nonetheless in order to explain to ordinary beings that actions matter - karma operates from life to life - he also talked about rebirth.
I think my explanations in 'there is more to death than dying' and in Trusting the Heart of Buddhism are more helpful here though.
Student:
"Or else it is just saying that you can't find causes (the second) and the first is saying that there must be causes although we cannot find them.
Does this make sense?"
Lama Shenpen:
In a way it does - but causes are not causes in the way we think of them in our common sense way of grasping at ideas.
ok, I'll check into your point about who said what re: Osel.
"For the first time since I began reading your work and listening to your teachings, I am confused and a little frightened by your attack on some of the writings of the current head of Tibetan Buddhism.( Editor: In the recently sent out Buddhism Connect � Rebirth and Consciousness)"
Lama Shenpen:
It is true I spoke boldly and that must have taken you by surprise -sometimes I am a bit blunt and it can be a bit frightening when you are not expecting it!
Student:
"I will explain more as we go on though. Before doing that I need to correct your statement that the Dalai Lama is the current head of Tibetan Buddhism.
He is the head of the Tibetan government in exile. He is also among the highest ranking of all Buddhist teachers of our time and known as an emanation of no less than Avalokiteshvara himself.
More than that, he is a man of peace and compassion whom I deeply admire for all that he has done for the cause of Buddhism and his people and in the cause of humanity in general. He is an amazing and wonderful being.
Nonetheless there is no such position as the head of Tibetan Buddhism nor of Buddhism in general.
'It is very clumsy and full of holes and contradictions. It is not well thought out at all and doesn't go very far.'
Why so harsh? What on earth is going on with you to use such language?"
Lama Shenpen:
That is a good question.
I need to explain myself and as you say, said bluntly like that it does sound harsh and aggressive. I did not mean to offend.
My comments are actually addressed at the content of the view expressed which I am familiar with from other sources. At the moment of writing I was attacking the view, having put aside the matter that it was the Dalai Lama who happened to be expressing it.
I have struggled with the view myself in the past and my conclusion was that it didn't work as an argument and is attacked by other worthy and learned teachers within the Buddhist tradition.
For example, the whole of the Madhyamaka points out that the idea that a moment of consciousness causes another moment doesn't work and simply produces logical contradictions,(using arguments about whether a moment is singular or multiple, or whether the cause is present at the same time as the effect and so on).
That aside, even if you want to say that the mind gives rise to mind in the sense that it is the mind and not the body that goes from life to life, at best you are left with a strange dualism of body and mind and no explanation that works of how the one relates to the other.
Nevertheless the model the Dalai Lama is using here is from the Abhidharma and that is a standard source for all Buddhists � it's an ancient and venerable source and the fact that it does not go very far in terms of explaining the nature of reality is not the Dalai Lama's fault.
It is not really designed to give an explanation of the nature of reality. Its arguments would not stand up to modern standards of logic and scientific enquiry.
That is why I said explanations based on it that try to explain the nature of the universe are clumsy and do not go very far.
« back to search results
I don't want to participate in a thread where we compile criticisms of HHDL's teaching and then argue about who is right and wrong! :eek2:
If you read this carefully trungpa only said that IF you believe Osel was reporting trungpa's words truthfully. So you must believe that the same guy who slept with his students with AIDS was also telling the truth about what his teacher Trungpa said?
At the same time this is disgusting to me. I would NOT stay with rigdzin shikpo if he were having sex with students! I tend to doubt that there is guilt by association with regards to rigdzin based on my experience with his wife...
I agree that the acts of Ösel Tendzin are completely wrong - morally, ethically, and spiritually reprehensible. However I am not sure that Rinpoche was aware of his flaws when he appointed him regent. Also I do not believe that Trungpa would tell him it was okay to knowingly have unprotected sex after testing positive for AIDS - this is what Tendzin CLAIMED he was told by Rinpoche, and sounds more like an excuse after Rinpoche died and could not defend this serious allegation. "According to Mukpo [Trungpa's wife], Trungpa ultimately became disillusioned with Tendzin as his heir — at one point calling him 'terrible' and 'dreadful' — and indicated that he would have gotten rid of Tendzin had he a suitable candidate with which to replace him." So perhaps he was planning to replace him or already working on appointing a new regent before his death in 1987.
It doesn't matter how your teacher's teacher acted. What matters is what the person sitting in front of says and does. They either know the Dharma and have the skills to teach it to you, or they don't. They could have sat at the feet of the Buddha himself and not learned a thing, or listened to a drunkard's ramblings and been enlightened. Judge the people in front of you by their own actions. A student can outshine the teacher. But that's just my Zen take on the subject.
Samsara is the mind state that arises when we identify with the self sense.