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.
Did Buddha Teach the Tantras and Tantric Sex? And What is this Teaching?
Can you explain, Vincenzi? The problem that has been discussed earlier, is that guru devotion imposed by unscrupulous teachers at an elementary stage of study has had disasterous consequences for some students. Perhaps the whole idea is inappropriate at any stage, or perhaps it should only be implemented when the student is of the same gender as the teacher.
I suppose it is possible that your teacher might have learned about sexual practices of the Kalachakra from the Dalai Lama - I also received some instructions from one of his tutors on these matters, but it was never expected that I would put them into practice - just necessary as part of receiving the complete transmission of that lineage. I hope all goes well for you in your post Tibetan Buddhist future,
This should at least answer the question as to whether the Dalai Lama still teaches this aspect of the tantra.
"but it was never expected that I would put them into practice - just necessary as part of receiving the complete transmission of that lineage."
This part seems to say that the controversial aspect is part of the teaching but not that its actually practiced. To my mind this argues against the literal interpretation and isn't a conclusive statement, so I guess its in the eye of the beholder. I guess it does show that this aspect is still taught it just doesn't show that the literal approach is practiced.
Person, they are literal. They are sexual. That is what he said. The fact is the Dalai Lama still teaches it, and that is what we wondered, but even so not every teacher has to teach it in turn. "sexual" is literal.
I think the Dalai Lama teaches about those controversial practices as part of lineage teachings, but he doesn't perform them. Whether any of the other schools of TB still performs them, or any individual lama in any of the schools, is something we don't know.
I think Thao was saying that because India feels it can't control child slavery, the government isn't likely to investigate or take action against any abuses within Tibetan communities or monasteries.
...I don't know, it is just that the whole concept of guru/lama seems so egotistical.
In "A Social History of Indian Tantric Buddhism", the author says that concepts of power, individual charisma and authority, use of spells and ritual sex were very attractive to monks, and came from the influence of Indian medieval society. So it was egotistical from the start. But I think it's an individual choice nowadays, whether to play power games and all that. In the monastic system and within sects in general, I think there's always a certain amount of jockeying for power (witness the current Karmapa controversy). Which, granted, isn't very Buddhistic. Maybe this is why the Buddha was against institutionalized monasticism--did I understand correctly that there's something about that in the Pali sutras?
But I think Jeffrey's also right, that on a basic level (if not misconstrued by student or teacher), the student-teacher relationship is about simple respect. The guru devotion, viewing the guru as a Buddha, is supposed to apply only to the most advanced stage of study and practice.
I imagine that most lamas put the practice into effect. Stephen B. didn't.
What I was trying to say is exactly how you interpreted it Compassionate. But on the news they were talking to a head of some dept in India and he said he could not stop slavery. There was mention of rape being involved, but I can't remember if they mentioned this to him or just talked about the slavery. in either case, India does nothing about it, but hey, the u.s. has slavery, and I don't mean just the illegals coming to work for slave wages, but also sweat shops where they hide Asians. But I brought it up too because rape was mentioned.
My ex teacher, (the lama) told me to consider him Buddha, and this was just my taking the precepts. Yet, when I first started he said that it was only a friendship, walking side by side, not a master/student thingie.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited June 2011
"but it was never expected that I would put them into practice - So whatever the Dalai Lama is doing, if he using children, then it is okay by India's standards.This part seems to say that the controversial aspect is part of the teaching but not that its actually practiced. To my mind this argues against the literal interpretation and isn't a conclusive statement, so I guess its in the eye of the beholder. I guess it does show that this aspect is still taught it just doesn't show that the literal approach is practiced.
Person, they are literal. They are sexual. That is what he said. The fact is the Dalai Lama still teaches it, and that is what we wondered, but even so not every teacher has to teach it in turn. "sexual" is literal.
Maybe I didn't make my argument very clear. I'm not saying that they aren't literal, but Batchelor's statement seems to say that its not being practiced or that its just the symbolic aspect that is being practiced and that the teaching of it is "just necessary as part of receiving the complete transmission of that lineage."
My point is that in my eyes Batchelor's E-mail doesn't back up your argument and even seems to support mine, its up for interpretation.
Can you explain, Vincenzi? The problem that has been discussed earlier, is that guru devotion imposed by unscrupulous teachers at an elementary stage of study has had disasterous consequences for some students. Perhaps the whole idea is inappropriate at any stage, or perhaps it should only be implemented when the student is of the same gender as the teacher.
feeding any ego, be it a lama/guru or a student... is going farther away from an understanding of anatta.
if all schools accept TriLaksana as a fundamental buddhist teaching, something that fuels misunderstandings of anatta does not lead to nirvana. as simple as that. feed an ego, and get farther away from nirvana understad anatta, and get closer to nirvana.
Here's that report on the meeting with Western Dharma leaders and HHDL on abuse: www.westernchanfellowship.org/shaping-the-future.html
"As long as one admits of the possibility that a Vajrayana teacher behaving "unethically" may be an enlightened tantric saint, one acknowledges a double standard; actions that are immoral for an unenlightened person can be moral for an enlightened person. And if one can never be sure whether a person is or isn't such a saint, then there will always be a loophole...that can never be definitively closed. ...
To what extent are Tibetan lamas and Japanese roshis still living within the context of a feudal morality [in which one is born to privilege, like the manor head who has the right to deflower his subject's bride]?
These profoundly difficult questions of cultural and ethical relativity were those which we were least able to address satisfactorily with the Dalai Lama. While he stressed that the life of ...the historical Buddha should serve as the ethical model for Buddhists, he acknowledged that tantric yogins should be judged by Vajrayana standards. ... he pointed out that a genuine tantrika should be as eager to ingest urine and excrement as alcohol.
'So what your Holiness is suggesting', called out the irrepressible Robert Thurman, 'is some kind of taste test'. "
So there you have it, folks: women who suddenly find their meditation guide or dharma instructor making a sexual demand of them, should require him first to drink the student's urine and eat her feces to prove that he is, indeed, the Enlightened being he has presented himself as from the beginning.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I imagine that most lamas put the practice into effect.
More speculation.
I live in the US, have money in the stock market and bought a home during the bubble. Stock brockers and shady mortgage dealers were largely responsible for the economic downturn, do you "imagine" that I was up to no good too?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Here's that report on the meeting with Western Dharma leaders and HHDL on abuse: www.westernchanfellowship.org/shaping-the-future.html
"As long as one admits of the possibility that a Vajrayana teacher behaving "unethically" may be an enlightened tantric saint, one acknowledges a double standard; actions that are immoral for an unenlightened person can be moral for an enlightened person. And if one can never be sure whether a person is or isn't such a saint, then there will always be a loophole...that can never be definitively closed. ...
To what extent are Tibetan lamas and Japanese roshis still living within the context of a feudal morality [in which one is born to privilege, like the manor head who has the right to deflower his subject's bride]?
These profoundly difficult questions of cultural and ethical relativity were those which we were least able to address satisfactorily with the Dalai Lama. While he stressed that the life of ...the historical Buddha should serve as the ethical model for Buddhists, he acknowledged that tantric yogins should be judged by Vajrayana standards. ... he pointed out that a genuine tantrika should be as eager to ingest urine and excrement as alcohol.
'So what your Holiness is suggesting', called out the irrepressible Robert Thurman, 'is some kind of taste test'. "
So there you have it, folks: women who suddenly find their meditation guide or dharma instructor making a sexual demand of them, should require him first to drink the student's urine and eat her feces to prove that he is, indeed, the Enlightened being he has presented himself as from the beginning.
Nice post, this is at least honest and constructive and can be worked with.
I think that first paragraph sums up the problem nicely. And yes, if a lama asks you to be a consort make him eat your poop first.
Vincenzi, the guru does not benefit from having their ego massaged. The guru is interested in the student noticing that their ego is just thinking. This is the nature of mind. Just thinking. For that reason the guru is not attached to his/her ego. Because they know that ego is conditioned thought.
"So there you have it, folks: women who suddenly find their meditation guide or dharma instructor making a sexual demand of them, should require him first to drink the student's urine and eat her feces to prove that he is, indeed, the Enlightened being he has presented himself as from the beginning."
Reminds me of a joke I heard:
The guys were all at a deer camp. No one wanted to room with Bob, because he snored so badly. They decided it wasn't fair to make one of them stay with him the whole time, so they voted to take turns.
The first guy slept with Bob and comes to breakfast the next morning with his hair a mess and his eyes all bloodshot. They said, "Man, what happened to you?" He said, "Bob snored so loudly, I just sat up and watched him all night."
The next night it was a different guy's turn. In the morning, same thing, hair all standing up, eyes all bloodshot. They said, "Man, what happened to you? You look awful! He said, 'Man, that Bob shakes the roof with his snoring. I watched him all night."
The third night was Fred's turn. Fred was a tanned, older cowboy, a man's man. The next morning he came to breakfast bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. "Good morning!" he said. They couldn't believe it. They said, "Man, what happened?"
He said, "Well, we got ready for bed... I went and tucked Bob into bed, patted him on the rump, and kissed him good night. Bob sat up and watched me all night."
Vincenzi, you too are assuming much I can back up my statements theoretically. Wisdom and nirvana are unconditioned. Therefore a man or woman may have wisdom or nirvana while being a guru. Because unconditioned means that the wisdom is not conditional upon NOT being a guru! There you have it, Vince!
There is an ego. It is not true that there is no ego. Anyone can see that. The truth is that the ego is not reliable nor can it be grasped to. You have the ego but you give the keys to the awareness mandala. The ego is empty of characteristics but we mistake it for reality. But it is just conditioned thought. So it doesn't matter if the relationship feeds the ego, because the guru is liberated from the ego at least to the extent which they have.
Again you have to scrutinize your guru. You never stop scrutinizing. You are dealing in myths. Like the myth that you won't get pregnant if standing up.
Here's the theory, Vincenzi. As Jeffrey said, the teacher isn't supposed to get ego-involved in the student's devotion to him. The devotion is supposed to be merely a psychological device to put the student in a frame of mind that will allow the teachings to have maximum effect. And the devotion also has the effect of subduing the student's own ego.
If there's any difference between theory and actual reality, we're not in a position to say.
"If there's any difference between theory and actual reality, we're not in a position to say."
Thats why you have to scrutinize your guru. If you give up your mind then that is not buddhism. It is avidya. Ignorance. That is not the teachings of Tibetan Buddhism.
a srotapanna wouldn't behave in such a way as to mislead a student and put him/her in a state of reduced resistance and complete vulnerability. the reasoning of some parts of TB is backwards.
if tantric sex rituals are involved, a srotapanna wouldn't promote it and an anagami will see that the practice leads to more dukkha and will try to stop such nonsense.
in theory guru worship is buddhism backwards (contrarian to fundamental teachings), in practice it is blatant, authoritarian institutionalised abuse.
if tantric sex rituals are involved, a srotapanna wouldn't promote it and an anagami will see that the practice leads to more dukkha and will try to stop such nonsense. .
The theory is to use dukkha to get beyond dukkha to Enlightenment. I agree with you, Vincenzi. I'm not trying to justify these policies, I'm just trying to explain to you the reasoning behind them, since you're asking about them.
Yes, they are backwards and, as Jeffrey's teacher said, contrary to basic Buddhist principles and precepts. I think these practices spring from a medieval time, and as such, are an anachronism. Though some people swear by them and say they're highly effective.
Right, not all schools of Buddhism use those terms, Vincenzi. But I think the gist is that the historical Buddha wouldn't have asked his students to do anything inappropriate, and would have behaved in a moral fashion, according to what we all understand to be morality. And I think Jeffrey's teacher states that as well, which is a good sign. I also think it's good that you're raising these questions with her, Jeffrey. These are valid concerns, and teachers should respond to them. And they need to know what is being discussed among students of the Dharma.
Wow--8 pages, and counting! I think we have to be very careful about accusations of contemporary practice of rituals involving underage girls. We have no concrete proof or testimony that those are still practiced. But you guys give me hope, with your talk of protests.
Manjushrikirti, said to be the 8th king of Shambhala and the 2nd incarnation in the Panchen Lama lineage, says this, in contrast to HHDL's (and others' ) position on tantric yogis:
"Distance yourself from Vajra Masters who are not keeping the 3 vows, who keep on with a root downfall, who are miserly with the Dharma, and who engage in actions that should be forsaken. Those who worship them go to hell and so on as a result."
Manjushrikirti wrote and distributed a condensed version of the Kalachakra Tantra, which is the one currently in use. Wiki says that the longer version "is no longer extant". I think the longer version probably originally included the text Thao has, that was published as a "Commentary". I find it interesting that he eliminated that part, and that he cautions against following anyone who would participate in the practices described by the ritual.
Maybe 8th King of Shambhala means 8th King of Zhang Zhung, the ancient pre_Tibetan kingdom...??
Here's a thought: maybe the fact that the secret rituals are now in print indicates that they're no longer practiced, so it's ok to spill the beans (...she said, hopefully). But we don't know if the other sects are still practicing the equivalent in their tradition.
Comments
The problem that has been discussed earlier, is that guru devotion imposed by unscrupulous teachers at an elementary stage of study has had disasterous consequences for some students. Perhaps the whole idea is inappropriate at any stage, or perhaps it should only be implemented when the student is of the same gender as the teacher.
What I was trying to say is exactly how you interpreted it Compassionate. But on the news they were talking to a head of some dept in India and he said he could not stop slavery. There was mention of rape being involved, but I can't remember if they mentioned this to him or just talked about the slavery. in either case, India does nothing about it, but hey, the u.s. has slavery, and I don't mean just the illegals coming to work for slave wages, but also sweat shops where they hide Asians. But I brought it up too because rape was mentioned.
My ex teacher, (the lama) told me to consider him Buddha, and this was just my taking the precepts. Yet, when I first started he said that it was only a friendship, walking side by side, not a master/student thingie.
My point is that in my eyes Batchelor's E-mail doesn't back up your argument and even seems to support mine, its up for interpretation.
if all schools accept TriLaksana as a fundamental buddhist teaching, something that fuels misunderstandings of anatta does not lead to nirvana.
as simple as that.
feed an ego, and get farther away from nirvana
understad anatta, and get closer to nirvana.
"As long as one admits of the possibility that a Vajrayana teacher behaving "unethically" may be an enlightened tantric saint, one acknowledges a double standard; actions that are immoral for an unenlightened person can be moral for an enlightened person. And if one can never be sure whether a person is or isn't such a saint, then there will always be a loophole...that can never be definitively closed. ...
To what extent are Tibetan lamas and Japanese roshis still living within the context of a feudal morality [in which one is born to privilege, like the manor head who has the right to deflower his subject's bride]?
These profoundly difficult questions of cultural and ethical relativity were those which we were least able to address satisfactorily with the Dalai Lama. While he stressed that the life of ...the historical Buddha should serve as the ethical model for Buddhists, he acknowledged that tantric yogins should be judged by Vajrayana standards. ... he pointed out that a genuine tantrika should be as eager to ingest urine and excrement as alcohol.
'So what your Holiness is suggesting', called out the irrepressible Robert Thurman, 'is some kind of taste test'. "
So there you have it, folks: women who suddenly find their meditation guide or dharma instructor making a sexual demand of them, should require him first to drink the student's urine and eat her feces to prove that he is, indeed, the Enlightened being he has presented himself as from the beginning.
More speculation.
I live in the US, have money in the stock market and bought a home during the bubble. Stock brockers and shady mortgage dealers were largely responsible for the economic downturn, do you "imagine" that I was up to no good too?
I think that first paragraph sums up the problem nicely. And yes, if a lama asks you to be a consort make him eat your poop first.
Reminds me of a joke I heard:
The guys were all at a deer camp. No one wanted to room with Bob, because he snored so badly. They decided it wasn't fair to make one of them stay with him the whole time, so they voted to take turns.
The first guy slept with Bob and comes to breakfast the next morning with his hair a mess and his eyes all bloodshot. They said, "Man, what happened to you?" He said, "Bob snored so loudly, I just sat up and watched him all night."
The next night it was a different guy's turn. In the morning, same thing, hair all standing up, eyes all bloodshot. They said, "Man, what happened to you? You look awful! He said, 'Man, that Bob shakes the roof with his snoring. I watched him all night."
The third night was Fred's turn. Fred was a tanned, older cowboy, a man's man. The next morning he came to breakfast bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. "Good morning!" he said. They couldn't believe it. They said, "Man, what happened?"
He said, "Well, we got ready for bed... I went and tucked Bob into bed, patted him on the rump, and kissed him good night. Bob sat up and watched me all night."
you are assuming such. and it is still how a samsaric wanderer will behave, and still makes both farther away from an understanding of anatta.
well, at the very least the guru worship leads to that.
please explain, how does a practice that feeds an ego will help anyone realise there's no ego (anatta).
it is a reasoned conclusion, not an assumption.
Again you have to scrutinize your guru. You never stop scrutinizing. You are dealing in myths. Like the myth that you won't get pregnant if standing up.
If there's any difference between theory and actual reality, we're not in a position to say.
Thats why you have to scrutinize your guru. If you give up your mind then that is not buddhism. It is avidya. Ignorance. That is not the teachings of Tibetan Buddhism.
a srotapanna wouldn't behave in such a way as to mislead a student and put him/her in a state of reduced resistance and complete vulnerability. the reasoning of some parts of TB is backwards.
if tantric sex rituals are involved, a srotapanna wouldn't promote it and an anagami will see that the practice leads to more dukkha and will try to stop such nonsense.
in theory guru worship is buddhism backwards (contrarian to fundamental teachings), in practice it is blatant, authoritarian institutionalised abuse.
Yes, they are backwards and, as Jeffrey's teacher said, contrary to basic Buddhist principles and precepts. I think these practices spring from a medieval time, and as such, are an anachronism. Though some people swear by them and say they're highly effective.
I think we have to be very careful about accusations of contemporary practice of rituals involving underage girls. We have no concrete proof or testimony that those are still practiced. But you guys give me hope, with your talk of protests.
"Distance yourself from Vajra Masters who are not keeping the 3 vows,
who keep on with a root downfall, who are miserly with the Dharma, and who engage in actions that should be forsaken.
Those who worship them go to hell and so on as a result."
Manjushrikirti wrote and distributed a condensed version of the Kalachakra Tantra, which is the one currently in use. Wiki says that the longer version "is no longer extant". I think the longer version probably originally included the text Thao has, that was published as a "Commentary". I find it interesting that he eliminated that part, and that he cautions against following anyone who would participate in the practices described by the ritual.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manjushrikirti for more info on him.
Maybe 8th King of Shambhala means 8th King of Zhang Zhung, the ancient pre_Tibetan kingdom...??
Here's a thought: maybe the fact that the secret rituals are now in print indicates that they're no longer practiced, so it's ok to spill the beans (...she said, hopefully). But we don't know if the other sects are still practicing the equivalent in their tradition.