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.
Is the guru relationship abusive in Tibetan Buddhism? Inherently or some? NOT discussion of tantra
What if its "come see the guru for yourself" and "don't trust the guru in anything unless it has proven useful/worthy to you"; based on this guru worship is buddhist.
Do you see any reason why someone can not be a teacher at the same time as having a sex life?
I see that episcopalian ministers may be married. Their spouse is a part of the church. Is this ok? The spouse may even be in the pews as the the priest gives the sermon. What do you think of that?
I think marriage would be a good idea in this case as opposed to a casual affair because the priest (guru) and spouse have more of an idea that they are getting into something.
I do see that the notion of tantra confuses the issue unlike in episcopalian. The episcopalian spouse doesn't have the expectation that they can become close to God by having sex.
Those issues aside I think if the gurus were married it would prevent a lot of these problems.
I see that episcopalian ministers may be married. Their spouse is a part of the church. Is this ok? The spouse may even be in the pews as the the priest gives the sermon. What do you think of that?
I don't see the point here. Protestant sects all allow priests to marry. The wife and family typically attend church. So?
I think marriage would be a good idea in this case as opposed to a casual affair because the priest (guru) and spouse have more of an idea that they are getting into something.
Churches disapprove of a minister using parishioners for casual affairs. Some churches (maybe most?) don't allow the priest to have sex until he marries his girlfriend or fiance, whether she's from inside the Church or not. (He's supposed to tell the Church supervisors if he's seeing someone.)
I do see that the notion of tantra confuses the issue unlike in episcopalian. The episcopalian spouse doesn't have the expectation that they can become close to God by having sex.
YEAH!!
Those issues aside I think if the gurus were married it would prevent a lot of these problems.
Except that married lamas prey on female students, too. The last time I posted testimony about that, that named names, people said it was all lies, so I"m not going to post that again.
Rather, I'd suggest that the abuse issue isn't just a celibacy issue. It's about power, it may be in part about Westerners being perceived as easy marks or exotic marks, or both (person made a good post about that, in his observations of attitudes he encountered in India/the Himalayas), many factors play a role, I think. And lack of accountability: people try to get away with stuff because they know they can.
"You missed an important Q, Jeffrey. If Jill gets really friendly with Johnny, the sangha teacher, what does he do? He's supposed to give her a talk, and tell her to keep to herself. If she persists, he's supposed to recommend that she go to a different sangha. That's how churches tell clergy to handle it. Spirit Rock left that one out, too."
Dakini, I think that would be VERY difficult for a monk who had never had sex if he received a come on to resist. He/she wouldn't be experienced with the opposite sex at all and would not be familiar with those feelings.
That's no excuse to give in to temptation. We expect our spiritual leaders to hold to a higher morality. The spiritual path means developing a discipline. Like the precepts, for example. They're a discipline. And churches provide training in ethics that cover how to deal with such situations. TB doesn't.
An ex=monk acquaintance of mine (Western) did say, though, that when Westerners first flooded into India in the 70's to study with Tibetan teachers, many of them were women, of course, and the monks and lamas were really caught off guard.
Alexander Berzin, in his book on Teacher-Student Relationship, writes that Tibetans traditionally didn't have weekly sangha attendance. They'd go to the monastery for special occasions to receive a teaching during a festival time, for example, but the Rinpoches didn't have women students. So quite a revolution has happened in the Westernized practice of TB, ready or not! It sounds like the lamas weren't ready.
"That's no excuse to give in to temptation. We expect our spiritual leaders to hold to a higher morality. The spiritual path means developing a discipline. Like the precepts, for example. They're a discipline. And churches provide training in ethics that cover how to deal with such situations. TB doesn't."
I find morality to not be universal. Morality is based on connections between individuals and I don't believe there are ultimately rules. The rules are more warnings than self existent.
My teacher said she thinks there should be a sign in bold black letters in front of each dharma center: "sleep with the guru at your own risk."
My teacher said she thinks there should be a sign in bold black letters in front of each dharma center: "sleep with the guru at your own risk."
Interesting assumption your teacher makes. This seems to imply that the student wants to have sex with the teacher. In the sanghas I've been in, women who experience inappropriate attention from the guru avoid him as much as possible, or end up leaving the sangha.
One thing to think about is that sanghas are not religious organizations. Being a teacher has no mechanism for approval. If you say you are a guru. You are one. If your teacher says you are then you are one.
The sanghas are no different from 10 people meeting in someone's home and watching videos. They are not an organization.
Well if they don't want to sleep with the guru then they shouldn't. If they want to leave the sangha they can!
Yes, and some do leave the sangha for that reason. But is this fair? What if the guru is offering a rare teaching that someone doesn't want to miss, and may not have another opportunity to receive for years? Why should she (or he) have to give up that opportunity, just because the teacher can't control himself? Shouldn't the teacher's respect for students be based on merit (or more radically--total equality) rather than on gender?
The sanghas are no different from 10 people meeting in someone's home and watching videos. They are not an organization.
This is quite a statement. I don't think all the sanghas that advertise they're affiliated with this or that sect or lineage would agree.
Yes, by Western standards, it is. And here is my reasoning.
Unlike other schools of Buddhism, a Tibetan guru has traditionally held both spiritual and secular power over those under him. When the temple is also the governing authority of the nation, then a guru has unquestioned authority and that mindset refuses to change. The guru literally can do no wrong, because even to question his actions was a crime against both Buddha and the state. Being in exile has not changed that yet. Even today in the West, the Tibetan guru refuses to adapt to and resists Western ideas of equality. Tibetan Buddhism is Tibetan culture, and there is no separating one from the other.
The other schools of Buddhism that came to the West are attempting to adapt to our more egalitarian and democratic way of organizing, with mixed success. For Tibetan Buddhism, the cultural rituals are inviolate and the guru must reign supreme.
My teacher said she thinks there should be a sign in bold black letters in front of each dharma center: "sleep with the guru at your own risk."
I liked your teacher's statements about ethics and morality. She must be aware that many students end up in sexual "practice" with the teacher involuntarily. There's so much more to it than "enter at your own risk". To be sure, students need to be informed of the risks and empowered to walk away from the guru. But it's not just about students who become infatuated with the teacher. Your lama must be aware of that. I hope she is.
Yes, and some do leave the sangha for that reason. But is this fair? What if the guru is offering a rare teaching that someone doesn't want to miss, and may not have another opportunity to receive for years? Why should she (or he) have to give up that opportunity, just because the teacher can't control himself? Shouldn't the teacher's respect for students be based on merit (or more radically--total equality) rather than on gender?
No, it isn't fair. It's discriminatory. Sooner or later Tibetan teachers who want to teach in the West will have to get with the ethics and equality program, cultural differences notwithstanding. But in the case of Western teachers harassing their students, there are no cultural differences. It's just plain predatory behavior, in most cases, I think.
Jeffrey, Buddha taught ethics, and he gave guidelines for the sangha. This really shouldn't be an issue if you know right from wrong. The Buddha gave around 200 precepts to monks and about 300 to nuns. Sex was out of the question.
There is a monk that has published the rules for the monastics as given by Buddha. It is a good read. I spent my early years reading the books when I attended a Buddhist monastery in CA.
It has nothing to do with their not being monks or nuns. Mainly because these rules are also for the Masters, and the Masters are the Lamas in this case. I have a feeling that Tibetan Buddhism doesn't really teach morals, because things that you are saying prove that to me, and it isn't your fault; it is the fault of the lamas. I think you have morals personally, or you would not be interested in this subject, and it wouldn't bother you. You would just say, So, who cares? And you definitely care, which is what I like about you. When I was in Hinduism there was not much talk on morals either. They barely talked about the yamas and the niyamas.
But to even question whether it is okay for a lama to sleep with his disciple tells me that something is amiss, and that what is amiss is within the teachings.
The rules for the monastics in actually in the Vinaya Pitaka.
Now if the Tibetan Buddhists do not really teach what Buddha taught then that is a different matter. They can make up their own rules, as they have, but I wish that they would quit claiming that Shakyamuni Buddha taught them, because he didn't. There are not one set of rules for monks and nuns and another for lamas, who in fact tell disciples to consider him/her Buddha. And also teaches that because they are lamas they can break the rules now. It just doesn't work that way.
The rules are for monks and nuns. The precepts aren't commandments. Its a voluntary vow. Anyone is free to not join a sangha of a non-monk. Freedom, choices, and responsibility.
So you are saying that there is one set of rules for the monks and nuns and the lamas have no rules? So that went a lama started out as a monk or nun, he actually did take the precepts, but that now that he is a lama, he is free from them?
"The precepts that govern the behaviors of the odained Buddhists reflect the human ethics and morality to the highest standard. While Lamaism pays lip service to the importance of oberserving the precepts, it does not follow them in practice. In fact, it encourages lamas to do just the opposite of what are commenly regarded as right and good, and terms it as “Rule of Reverse”."
And this is actually good to know because if women can read this and understand that the lama has no morals, then maybe they would change their minds about joining.
I have stated this before, because even the Kalacakra book says that they should not think themselves pure but instead have sex, alcohol, meat, etc. This reminds me of Satanism in a way.
And more: "For instance, if the conventional practice of the precepts requires lamas to maintain personal hygiene, then the filthiest one among all lamas would be considered as the cleanest; if the precepts demand lamas to obstain from sex, then a sex mania shall be regarded as a saint. Why? Because it is a way to achieve great order through maximum chaos.
Then what is the perfect order from Lamaists' perspective? You may like to hear this: it is a world that is ruled by Tibetan Lamas in both political and religious aspects."
And don't start saying that this isn't true because it is on a Chinese website. it is also in the kalacakra.
Theres no rules for being a lama. If I say I am a lama then I am one. Donald Trump could say that he is a lama.
Traditionally most lamas have done a three year retreat but that is just a tradition and it only applies to most.
In general you misunderstand the practice of using filth. Many lamas keep the 5 precepts. They might eat meat and alcohol ceremonially like in catholicism. The focus isn't on violating precepts but rather on transforming kleshas into enlightenment. What I am saying is that very few violate the precepts other than ceremony.
There is no shortage of kleshas necessitating loads of putrid meat/sexuality etc. Thus many lamas do not experience this I imagine.
You have a gross misunderstanding and are letting your fantasies roam free rather than enter into a dialogue with any lamas on the matter. Thus you isolate yourself tending towards ignorance rather than knowledge.
Theres no rules for being a lama. If I say I am a lama then I am one. Donald Trump could say that he is a lama.
I'm not sure that's true. I read somewhere that one is required to do a 3 year, 3 month 3 day retreat before one had the right to refer to oneself as a Lama (in addition to studies). The Kagyu called "Lama" Ole Nydahl on that one, and said he wasn't a lama.
If you consider all of the world leaders lamas. Since there is no requirement to be a lama. And if you consider all world religious leadrs to be lamas, since no requirement, then we already have a world governed solely by lamas. So it is already at its pinacle
Compassionate warrior, thats only tradition. There is no one to enforce that tradition. If the kagyu calls out Ole Nydahl its just the kagyu. Which is sectarian and not general to the term lama.
Compassionate warrior, thats only tradition. There is no one to enforce that tradition.
Well, this is part of the problem with the abuse situation in general, isn't it? No one is enforcing anything, there are few standards.
Just FYI for anyone interested: "Lama" : " Historically the term was used for venerated spiritual masters or heads of monasteries. Today the title can be used as an honorific conferred on a monk, nun or advanced tantric practitioner to designate a level of spiritual attainment and authority to teach, or may be part of a title applied to a lineage of reincarnate lamas (tulkus)." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lama
So, going by those criteria, do you, Jeffrey, or does Donald Trump, have "a level of spiritual attainment and authority to teach"? Are either of you tulkus or advanced tantric practitioners? No? Then you can't call yourselves lamas. Just because people do self-designate as such, doesn't make it right or mean that they actually are what they try to palm themselves off as.
Compassionate warrior. In context thao is saying 'lamas' need to have taken on the same vows as monks and nuns. I am correcting her misconception of the meaning of lama.
So you are saying that there is one set of rules for the monks and nuns and the lamas have no rules? So that went a lama started out as a monk or nun, he actually did take the precepts, but that now that he is a lama, he is free from them?
I see what you mean, Jeffrey. The confusing thing for many people is that "lama" isn't a title that specifies whether someone is a monk or not, married or celibate or single. To add to the confusion, they all wear robes that appear to be the same to Westerners. A friend who's an authority on Tibetan culture says that there are differences in the robes. A certain type of robe denotes a married lama, other type of robe denotes a celibate monk-lama. Who knew? And then there may be differences by sect as well.
Comments
What if its "come see the guru for yourself" and "don't trust the guru in anything unless it has proven useful/worthy to you"; based on this guru worship is buddhist.
Do you see any reason why someone can not be a teacher at the same time as having a sex life?
I see that episcopalian ministers may be married. Their spouse is a part of the church. Is this ok? The spouse may even be in the pews as the the priest gives the sermon. What do you think of that?
I think marriage would be a good idea in this case as opposed to a casual affair because the priest (guru) and spouse have more of an idea that they are getting into something.
I do see that the notion of tantra confuses the issue unlike in episcopalian. The episcopalian spouse doesn't have the expectation that they can become close to God by having sex.
Those issues aside I think if the gurus were married it would prevent a lot of these problems.
Except that married lamas prey on female students, too. The last time I posted testimony about that, that named names, people said it was all lies, so I"m not going to post that again.
Rather, I'd suggest that the abuse issue isn't just a celibacy issue. It's about power, it may be in part about Westerners being perceived as easy marks or exotic marks, or both (person made a good post about that, in his observations of attitudes he encountered in India/the Himalayas), many factors play a role, I think. And lack of accountability: people try to get away with stuff because they know they can.
An ex=monk acquaintance of mine (Western) did say, though, that when Westerners first flooded into India in the 70's to study with Tibetan teachers, many of them were women, of course, and the monks and lamas were really caught off guard.
Alexander Berzin, in his book on Teacher-Student Relationship, writes that Tibetans traditionally didn't have weekly sangha attendance. They'd go to the monastery for special occasions to receive a teaching during a festival time, for example, but the Rinpoches didn't have women students. So quite a revolution has happened in the Westernized practice of TB, ready or not! It sounds like the lamas weren't ready.
I find morality to not be universal. Morality is based on connections between individuals and I don't believe there are ultimately rules. The rules are more warnings than self existent.
My teacher said she thinks there should be a sign in bold black letters in front of each dharma center: "sleep with the guru at your own risk."
The sanghas are no different from 10 people meeting in someone's home and watching videos. They are not an organization.
Lineage just means your teacher was a guru.
Unlike other schools of Buddhism, a Tibetan guru has traditionally held both spiritual and secular power over those under him. When the temple is also the governing authority of the nation, then a guru has unquestioned authority and that mindset refuses to change. The guru literally can do no wrong, because even to question his actions was a crime against both Buddha and the state. Being in exile has not changed that yet. Even today in the West, the Tibetan guru refuses to adapt to and resists Western ideas of equality. Tibetan Buddhism is Tibetan culture, and there is no separating one from the other.
The other schools of Buddhism that came to the West are attempting to adapt to our more egalitarian and democratic way of organizing, with mixed success. For Tibetan Buddhism, the cultural rituals are inviolate and the guru must reign supreme.
There is a monk that has published the rules for the monastics as given by Buddha. It is a good read. I spent my early years reading the books when I attended a Buddhist monastery in CA.
But to even question whether it is okay for a lama to sleep with his disciple tells me that something is amiss, and that what is amiss is within the teachings.
The rules for the monastics in actually in the Vinaya Pitaka.
Now if the Tibetan Buddhists do not really teach what Buddha taught then that is a different matter. They can make up their own rules, as they have, but I wish that they would quit claiming that Shakyamuni Buddha taught them, because he didn't. There are not one set of rules for monks and nuns and another for lamas, who in fact tell disciples to consider him/her Buddha. And also teaches that because they are lamas they can break the rules now. It just doesn't work that way.
"The precepts that govern the behaviors of the odained Buddhists reflect the human ethics and morality to the highest standard. While Lamaism pays lip service to the importance of oberserving the precepts, it does not follow them in practice. In fact, it encourages lamas to do just the opposite of what are commenly regarded as right and good, and terms it as “Rule of Reverse”."
http://wenhousecrafts.com/2008/apr/lamapolitics.htm
And this is actually good to know because if women can read this and understand that the lama has no morals, then maybe they would change their minds about joining.
I have stated this before, because even the Kalacakra book says that they should not think themselves pure but instead have sex, alcohol, meat, etc. This reminds me of Satanism in a way.
And more: "For instance, if the conventional practice of the precepts requires lamas to maintain personal hygiene, then the filthiest one among all lamas would be considered as the cleanest; if the precepts demand lamas to obstain from sex, then a sex mania shall be regarded as a saint. Why? Because it is a way to achieve great order through maximum chaos.
Then what is the perfect order from Lamaists' perspective? You may like to hear this: it is a world that is ruled by Tibetan Lamas in both political and religious aspects."
And don't start saying that this isn't true because it is on a Chinese website. it is also in the kalacakra.
Traditionally most lamas have done a three year retreat but that is just a tradition and it only applies to most.
In general you misunderstand the practice of using filth. Many lamas keep the 5 precepts. They might eat meat and alcohol ceremonially like in catholicism. The focus isn't on violating precepts but rather on transforming kleshas into enlightenment. What I am saying is that very few violate the precepts other than ceremony.
There is no shortage of kleshas necessitating loads of putrid meat/sexuality etc. Thus many lamas do not experience this I imagine.
You have a gross misunderstanding and are letting your fantasies roam free rather than enter into a dialogue with any lamas on the matter. Thus you isolate yourself tending towards ignorance rather than knowledge.
Just FYI for anyone interested: "Lama" : " Historically the term was used for venerated spiritual masters or heads of monasteries. Today the title can be used as an honorific conferred on a monk, nun or advanced tantric practitioner to designate a level of spiritual attainment and authority to teach, or may be part of a title applied to a lineage of reincarnate lamas (tulkus)." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lama
So, going by those criteria, do you, Jeffrey, or does Donald Trump, have "a level of spiritual attainment and authority to teach"? Are either of you tulkus or advanced tantric practitioners? No? Then you can't call yourselves lamas. Just because people do self-designate as such, doesn't make it right or mean that they actually are what they try to palm themselves off as.
...another straw man.
your dismissive "so, then all leaders are lamas" post.
be serious.