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 follow the Tantric tradition which has many views on the various subjects concerning typical buddhist rituals. There is some great literature on a great Mahasiddha and the saint of Bhutan, Drukpa Kunley. He used to make fun of the monks and their vow of celibacy among other rituals. A great book to read is titled "The Divine Madman"
Well, the Buddha did admonish against becoming attached to ritual, so maybe Drukpa Kunley is worth checking out.
I just read in an article by Tibetologist Melvyn Goldstein that the reason monks are allowed to engage in sexual activity is that the monasteries strove to maintain a large population of monks, the vast majority of whom arrived as children. Once they reached age 21 they were allowed to leave if they so chose. In order to keep those who were harboring doubts about a commitment to lifelong celibacy, sexual activity was (and still is) tolerated. This explains a lot. Maybe there's somewhat similar reasoning in Zen; the pretense of celibacy is better than no monks at all....?
("Tibetan Buddhism and Mass Monasticism", available at: www.case.edu/affil/tibet/currentStaff/goldstein.htm under "collected articles of Melvyn Goldstein")
I disagree with the premise of the original article, in that celibacy does not encourage pedophilia and the cases of sexual abuse by Priests are not, I repeat not, caused by celibacy. Being horney does not cause men to lose control of their actions and hurt other people. What causes sexual abuse by Priests is a culture where power and secrecy are held as virtues and the Priest has power over people. The rest is everyday self-centered desire and capacity for evil that everyone, married or not, getting laid regularly or not, has. If it was just lack of sex, a quiet visit to the bathroom to be alone with a tissue would solve the problem.
Yes, some schools of Zen allow married monks, especially in Japan, by government decree. What is ignored, is the unfortunate truth that Buddhism has been on the decline in Japan ever since then, and now the temples are often passed down from father to son and the people use them only for burial ceremonies and have little regard for the Buddhist Priests. So allowing marriage and family for monks who are supposed to be dedicated to the temple and Sangha creates a big conflict of interest.
The entire structure of the temple has to change, for the monks to enter a more full life. In the West, we're doing that. In Kwan Um, we've changed the temple focus so the mission is to teach and minister to the lay population, not a small closed group of monks. Monks are not required to move into some temple boarding room and be celebate; they can have families and home lives although their busy schedules mean that most choose to remain single. In other words, it's the familiar model of a church with a married Pastor.
Fully agree with your first paragraph, and the last one also.
I think though that the decline of Buddhism in Japan has a lot more to it than just the end of celibacy. Jodo Shinshu has not required celibacy for over 750 years and did pretty well becoming the largest denomination in Japan. I think the decline of Buddhism in Japan is very similar to the decline of Christianity in the west in terms of church going. I think it has far more to do with societies that more than ever before promote consumerism, technology, and pop culture as the path to happiness. Further I think each generation is becoming generally less influenced by religion, and far less likely to believe in ideas like God, Amida, Heaven, Pure Land, Prayer, Nembutsu etc. The reality is that in technological societies, religion is being left behind. I personally don't believe celibacy has much to do with it.
It always amazes me how people want to change the rules to fit their own preferences. It is a form of attachment. If you want to play soccer, you dont start arguing with the referee that you should be allowed to use your hands. If you want to be a buddhist monk or catholic priest, why do you still want to have sex? Why is sex so important? Sex is a sensual pleasure, it does not lead to liberation. If you cant give up sex, do you think you can free yourself from other attachments?
I can see both sides of the argument.
On the one hand, I have been concerned about how on this forum people seem to want to ignore the Precepts (the 5) that don't suit them. Are there any boundaries?
On the other hand, I look at something like -- well, let me give you a different example than sex. The Precept for monks that they can't eat after noon. I've yet to have anyone explain to me the validity of that rule, other than that it is a rule.
I follow the Tantric tradition which has many views on the various subjects concerning typical buddhist rituals. There is some great literature on a great Mahasiddha and the saint of Bhutan, Drukpa Kunley. He used to make fun of the monks and their vow of celibacy among other rituals. A great book to read is titled "The Divine Madman"
I read that book a long time ago and found the folk-tales about Drukpa Kunley and his supposed sexual exploits extremely tedious -especially such comments as:
"Mistress Gyaldzom of Khyung Sekha! Not only are you shapely and charming But you are skilled in the pelvic upthrust." etc etc
It's good to know that real schools that keeps the Buddha's teachings going will not commit sexual violations, nor will they take ignorant advice from lay people about basic Monastic Vinayas.
ok, I_AM_ThAT, I'll have to voice my true sentiments, since Dazz got the ball rolling. I find the Drakpa Kunley material incredibly puerile, as if it were written for 12 and 13-year old boys. Not only that, he states that having sex with anyone UNDER TEN years of age is prohibited! So 10, 11 and 12-year old girls are fair game??!! This is not amusing, in view of the many serious abuse issues that have resulted from Tantric Buddhism in the West and in Taiwan. If Drakpa Kunley was so enlightened, why was he so obsessed with having sex with children and virgins? That sounds like attachment to me.
Perhaps someone could manage to come up with some Tantric material that showed the practice as taking place between mature, responsible adults in a mutually-rewarding and loving practice, rather than the usual adolescent male fantasies.
ok, I_AM_ThAT, I'll have to voice my true sentiments, since Dazz got the ball rolling. I find the Drakpa Kunley material incredibly puerile, as if it were written for 12 and 13-year old boys. Not only that, he states that having sex with anyone UNDER TEN years of age is prohibited! So 10, 11 and 12-year old girls are fair game??!! This is not amusing, in view of the many serious abuse issues that have resulted from Tantric Buddhism in the West and in Taiwan. If Drakpa Kunley was so enlightened, why was he so obsessed with having sex with children and virgins? That sounds like attachment to me.
Perhaps someone could manage to come up with some Tantric material that showed the practice as taking place between mature, responsible adults in a mutually-rewarding and loving practice, rather than the usual adolescent male fantasies.
I'm not surprised at the reactions this post has caused. I can only suggest to go and read or re-read the text of "The Divine Madman". Read with an open mind and a open heart without judgement without prejudice and see all the teachings that abound... I can also suggest the book titled "Buddhist Masters of Enchantment" The lives and legends of the Mahasiddhas to see how other Tantric Masters achieved their enlightenment. Just for reference, Tantric Buddhism has nothing to do with Tantric Sex.
I'm not surprised at the reactions this post has caused. I can only suggest to go and read or re-read the text of "The Divine Madman". Read with an open mind and a open heart without judgement without prejudice and see all the teachings that abound... I can also suggest the book titled "Buddhist Masters of Enchantment" The lives and legends of the Mahasiddhas to see how other Tantric Masters achieved their enlightenment. Just for reference, Tantric Buddhism has nothing to do with Tantric Sex.
Tantric Buddhism has nothing to do with Tantric sex? Lots of practitioners on a number of forums, as well as many lamas along with the Dalai Lama would be surprised to hear that. It doesn't necessarily have to involve Tantric sex, that's true. But for Padmasambhava and Yeshe Tsogyal it did.
I follow the Tantric tradition which has many views on the various subjects concerning typical buddhist rituals. There is some great literature on a great Mahasiddha and the saint of Bhutan, Drukpa Kunley. He used to make fun of the monks and their vow of celibacy among other rituals. A great book to read is titled "The Divine Madman"
ok, I_AM_ThAT, I'll have to voice my true sentiments, since Dazz got the ball rolling. I find the Drakpa Kunley material incredibly puerile, as if it were written for 12 and 13-year old boys. Not only that, he states that having sex with anyone UNDER TEN years of age is prohibited! So 10, 11 and 12-year old girls are fair game??!! This is not amusing, in view of the many serious abuse issues that have resulted from Tantric Buddhism in the West and in Taiwan. If Drakpa Kunley was so enlightened, why was he so obsessed with having sex with children and virgins? That sounds like attachment to me.
Perhaps someone could manage to come up with some Tantric material that showed the practice as taking place between mature, responsible adults in a mutually-rewarding and loving practice, rather than the usual adolescent male fantasies.
This is worrisome. I've seen a few other threads here dealing with this subject, specifically relating to child abuse in Tantric practice. It is deeply disappointing to me that there are respected texts that encourage such a thing. While I realize that historically it was 'normal' for younger people (teenagers) to be sexually involved with adults, it is hard for me to imagine that anyone at any point in time could rationalize sexual activity with a pre-teen. It is hard not to be disturbed and angered by the idea of adults lusting after undeveloped bodies. It's hard to imagine that people did not think of these practices as harmful to the child both psychologically and physically. This seems like a fundamental violation of the 'not harming' policy and a mockery of Bodhichitta.
The question I'm left with is whether such cruelty is essential to Tantric Buddhism, either in principle or in practice. I am relatively new to Buddhism, so my conclusion probably doesn't carry much weight; however, I think that if we reflect on the nature of the Tantric methodology and its goals, we can see how it does not have to - and SHOULD not - manifest in such a repugnant way. Granted, I am more familiar with Tantra in the Indian Shaiva tradition, which I think is a little different in it's approach in that it largely frames itself as a direct, head on confrontation of both attraction and repulsion. The Buddhist variety seems less directly concerned with this type of 'renunciation through confrontation', as desire is already presumed (?) to be subdued in Hinayana and Mahayana practice. However, both traditions share the understanding that Tantric activity is a way of engaging with emptiness (or in Shaivism, the Absolute/Infinite as personified by Shiva) as it is expressed in form (the relative, the finite, the manifested Shakti).
To rest in emptiness while active in embodiment. One can see how this might lead to sexual practices, but does it necessitate sexual abuse? I don't think so. I suspect that the sexual abuse occurs because individuals with very negative attachments understand instinctively that Tantra can be manipulated and appropriated in order to legitimize their perversions. Actually, there are Vajrayana teachings that warn us against this kind of deviance directly: the story of "Black Salvation", the failed Tantrika whose practice was just self-serving nihilism.
I feel like I'm starting to ramble, and I'm not sure how effectively I'm making my point. It might make more sense to ask, "Can I imagine myself engaging in these teachings in a careful, compassionate way that harms no-one? Do I trust myself to be authentically concerned with the needs of others, and to not lie to myself about my motivations?"
Anyway. As far as I'm concerned, no one should be involved in Tantric practice, sexual or otherwise, who isn't a consenting adult, both in a legal sense and also in the sense that they are widely regarded as mature and psychologically stable. Even satisfying this prerequisite, I don't think that sexual practices should be engaged in by people who are in a guru-student relationship. Student-student makes more sense. And even then, there are going to be risks.
attachment to rites and rituals is one of the fetters.
ergo, vajrayana is not part of the BodhiDharma.
If I'm understanding you correctly, this seems both arrogant and provocative. The logic certainly does not seem sound.
Are you sure that the presence of rituals and rites indicates attachment to rituals and rites? Does use of language indicate attachment to language? Does it indicate that a user of language could not leave words behind if the situation called for it?
Further, I'd like to point out that it is very much possible for an individual to have a knee-jerk reaction to the presence of rituals and rites (or whatever else) because they have their own attachment to the ABSENCE of these things. I don't know if this is the case for you, or not, obviously. Just pointing out that we don't know the inner reality of a person based solely on their participation in a certain activity, nor is it particularly easy to grasp the underlying logic of a system simply by taking inventory of its parts.
@Bhogakapala My understanding is that Tibetan Tantra evolved out of the Hindu "left-handed" Shakti tradition (see N. N. Bhattacharrya's "History of the Tantric Religion", and Miranda Shaw's "Passionate Enlightenment"). Also, there is, in fact, much discussion in tantric texts and commentaries regarding using desire to overcome desire, similar to your "renunciation through confrontation" . I'm not familiar with the story of "Black Salvation". Could you provide a source for that?
Funny that the thread digressed into this area. My idea of reforming celibacy wasn't to introduce sexual practice as part of the monastic program. :eyeroll:
.... as desire is already presumed (?) to be subdued in Hinayana and Mahayana practice.However, both traditions share the understanding that Tantric activity is a way of engaging with emptiness (or in Shaivism, the Absolute/Infinite as personified by Shiva) as it is expressed in form (the relative, the finite, the manifested Shakti).
Hi Bhogakapala,
It might be worth me mentioning that the term 'Hinayana' which is used in Tibetan Buddhism, is considered to be a pejorative term when used to describe Theravada Buddhism and in fact there isn't a 'Hinayana' tradition. Additionally there isn't any 'Tantric activity' in Theravada Buddhism and the Pali suttas.
Funny that the thread digressed into this area. My idea of reforming celibacy wasn't to introduce sexual practice as part of the monastic program. :eyeroll:
Right. I was actually thinking about the weirdness of a supposed lifelong celibate person's sole frame of reference for sexuality being Tantra. I think it was earlier in this thread somewhere, where someone proposed the idea that growing up celibate, as in a monastic setting, might hinder psychological development in the sense that it might sort of 'freeze' or 'crystallize' that person's sexuality at a basically adolescent level... Throwing Tantric sexual activity into the mix seems like it could have problematic consequences.
Anyway, thanks for those sources. I've encountered the "Black Salvation" thing in a few places. "The Practice of Vajrakilaya" by Khenpo Namdrol Rinpoche is probably the most reliable.
Basically, the idea is that a student of Tantra misunderstands his master's teachings and believes that emptiness empowers him to do whatever he wants without suffering consequences. He kicks his guru out of the kingdom, sexually abuses women, murders people, etc, until he dies and is delivered into some awful Hell realm. Eventually he is redeemed, but he has to suffer horrible torments and humiliations and learn many bitter lessons first. He becomes a "Rudra" and gets his ass kicked by wrathful Bodhisattvas. Eventually he ends up doing penance as a Dharmapala.
adoration of deities, using of trishna to become free from dukkha (EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of what Buddha Shakyamuni said)... should there be more arguments to say? those are quite sound.
vajrayanists should call it quits and become truly hindu or truly buddhist.
.... as desire is already presumed (?) to be subdued in Hinayana and Mahayana practice.However, both traditions share the understanding that Tantric activity is a way of engaging with emptiness (or in Shaivism, the Absolute/Infinite as personified by Shiva) as it is expressed in form (the relative, the finite, the manifested Shakti).
Hi Bhogakapala,
It might be worth me mentioning that the term 'Hinayana' which is used in Tibetan Buddhism, is considered to be a pejorative term when used to describe Theravada Buddhism and in fact there isn't a 'Hinayana' tradition. Additionally there isn't any 'Tantric activity' in Theravada Buddhism and the Pali suttas.
Oh, yeah. I realize it has a pejorative connotation, but it's my understanding that in Tibetan Buddhism, they teach the '3 Yanas' as successive stages. Isn't that right?
When I hear the word "Hinayana", I think, "The way Tibetan Buddhists refer to certain teachings". Since we were discussing Vajrayana I thought it seemed appropriate. I don't regard Theraveda as "lesser" at all, and only intended to refer to ideas as they're presented in Tibetan Buddhism. Which is something I'm certainly not an authority on, anyway.
Thanks, though, I take your point. I hope I didn't offend.
(...) When I hear the word "Hinayana", I think, "The way Tibetan Buddhists refer to certain teachings". Since we were discussing Vajrayana I thought it seemed appropriate. I don't regard Theraveda as "lesser" at all, and only intended to refer to ideas as they're presented in Tibetan Buddhism. Which is something I'm certainly not an authority on, anyway.
Thanks, though, I take your point. I hope I didn't offend.
the problem is that tibetan buddhism isn't buddhism.
I understand the argument you're making, but do you wonder if there might be something you're missing which might explain (what I regard) as this superficial incongruousness?
For instance. You see the heavily ritualized nature of Vajrayana practice as indicative of attachment. I asked if use of ritual inherently implies attachment to ritual, and then made a comparison to the use of language. You didn't respond to this, but I'd like it if you would. Maybe you understand what I'm getting at, here, and you'll correct my error if there is one.
Could you provide a definition of "trishna", please, Vincenzi?
Just as a reminder: the topic is celibacy in Buddhism in general (and by comparison, Catholicism). Problems and lack of adherence to the vow arise not only in Tibetan Buddhism, but in Chan, Zen and Theravada as well.
Catholic priests are expected to live properly, die righteous, and go to heaven. While there is a sub-culture of mysticism in the Catholic church, it is not a prerequisite for Catholicism, and is rarely practiced.
Buddhist monks and nuns, however, are expected to actually "do" something over their lifetime. And one of those things they are supposed to do is to remain centered within the current of desires that continually wash over us. It is the "hooks" of our attachment and aversion that cause our suffering. To quote Pema Chodron's concept ... if you have an itch, you don't scratch it, as that only makes it worse ... you resist scratching it and it will heal.
Seems a little inconsistent to be suggesting that Buddhist monks and nuns turn and embrace their desire ... why bother becoming ordained?
Catholic priests are expected to live properly, die righteous, and go to heaven. While there is a sub-culture of mysticism in the Catholic church, it is not a prerequisite for Catholicism, and is rarely practiced.
Buddhist monks and nuns, however, are expected to actually "do" something over their lifetime. And one of those things they are supposed to do is to remain centered within the current of desires that continually wash over us. It is the "hooks" of our attachment and aversion that cause our suffering. To quote Pema Chodron's concept ... if you have an itch, you don't scratch it, as that only makes it worse ... you resist scratching it and it will heal.
Seems a little inconsistent to be suggesting that Buddhist monks and nuns turn and embrace their desire ... why bother becoming ordained?
A couple of points.
Catholic priests "do" things. Not so much for themselves, but for their parishioners. They say mass at least daily, sometimes multiple times on Saturdays and Sundays. They hear confessions. Visit parishioners in the hospital or in other times of need. Many sponsor community activities that may or may not relate directly to the Catholic Church. Now you may agree or disagree with any of those activities, or with the Catholic Church in general, but to imply that Catholic priests don't "do" anything is silly.
As far as Buddhist monks "doing" something...well, many do, probably most. But I have sometimes been concerned when I have seen Buddhist monks in Thailand just sitting and laying around...in many cases over and over when I would visit particular temples regularly. One of my Thai friends one day said, "Oh, when you see them doing nothing they're just meditating." I said, "Really, they can meditate while they're snoring?"
My point here is not that Catholic priests are active while Buddhist monks are not...not saying that at all. What I am saying is -- let's hold both religions to the same standards and be fair.
Could you provide a definition of "trishna", please, Vincenzi?
Just as a reminder: the topic is celibacy in Buddhism in general (and by comparison, Catholicism). Problems and lack of adherence to the vow arise not only in Tibetan Buddhism, but in Chan, Zen and Theravada as well.
Catholic priests are expected to live properly, die righteous, and go to heaven. While there is a sub-culture of mysticism in the Catholic church, it is not a prerequisite for Catholicism, and is rarely practiced.
Buddhist monks and nuns, however, are expected to actually "do" something over their lifetime. And one of those things they are supposed to do is to remain centered within the current of desires that continually wash over us. It is the "hooks" of our attachment and aversion that cause our suffering. To quote Pema Chodron's concept ... if you have an itch, you don't scratch it, as that only makes it worse ... you resist scratching it and it will heal.
Seems a little inconsistent to be suggesting that Buddhist monks and nuns turn and embrace their desire ... why bother becoming ordained?
Comments
http://www.keithdowman.net/books/dm.htm
I just read in an article by Tibetologist Melvyn Goldstein that the reason monks are allowed to engage in sexual activity is that the monasteries strove to maintain a large population of monks, the vast majority of whom arrived as children. Once they reached age 21 they were allowed to leave if they so chose. In order to keep those who were harboring doubts about a commitment to lifelong celibacy, sexual activity was (and still is) tolerated. This explains a lot. Maybe there's somewhat similar reasoning in Zen; the pretense of celibacy is better than no monks at all....?
("Tibetan Buddhism and Mass Monasticism", available at: www.case.edu/affil/tibet/currentStaff/goldstein.htm
under "collected articles of Melvyn Goldstein")
I think though that the decline of Buddhism in Japan has a lot more to it than just the end of celibacy. Jodo Shinshu has not required celibacy for over 750 years and did pretty well becoming the largest denomination in Japan.
I think the decline of Buddhism in Japan is very similar to the decline of Christianity in the west in terms of church going.
I think it has far more to do with societies that more than ever before promote consumerism, technology, and pop culture as the path to happiness. Further I think each generation is becoming generally less influenced by religion, and far less likely to believe in ideas like God, Amida, Heaven, Pure Land, Prayer, Nembutsu etc.
The reality is that in technological societies, religion is being left behind. I personally don't believe celibacy has much to do with it.
On the one hand, I have been concerned about how on this forum people seem to want to ignore the Precepts (the 5) that don't suit them. Are there any boundaries?
On the other hand, I look at something like -- well, let me give you a different example than sex. The Precept for monks that they can't eat after noon. I've yet to have anyone explain to me the validity of that rule, other than that it is a rule.
For those that have developed genuine samadhi bliss, celibacy is the most natural thing... :om:
"Mistress Gyaldzom of Khyung Sekha!
Not only are you shapely and charming
But you are skilled in the pelvic upthrust." etc etc
.....zzzzzzzz
Perhaps someone could manage to come up with some Tantric material that showed the practice as taking place between mature, responsible adults in a mutually-rewarding and loving practice, rather than the usual adolescent male fantasies.
ergo, vajrayana is not part of the BodhiDharma.
The question I'm left with is whether such cruelty is essential to Tantric Buddhism, either in principle or in practice. I am relatively new to Buddhism, so my conclusion probably doesn't carry much weight; however, I think that if we reflect on the nature of the Tantric methodology and its goals, we can see how it does not have to - and SHOULD not - manifest in such a repugnant way. Granted, I am more familiar with Tantra in the Indian Shaiva tradition, which I think is a little different in it's approach in that it largely frames itself as a direct, head on confrontation of both attraction and repulsion. The Buddhist variety seems less directly concerned with this type of 'renunciation through confrontation', as desire is already presumed (?) to be subdued in Hinayana and Mahayana practice. However, both traditions share the understanding that Tantric activity is a way of engaging with emptiness (or in Shaivism, the Absolute/Infinite as personified by Shiva) as it is expressed in form (the relative, the finite, the manifested Shakti).
To rest in emptiness while active in embodiment. One can see how this might lead to sexual practices, but does it necessitate sexual abuse? I don't think so. I suspect that the sexual abuse occurs because individuals with very negative attachments understand instinctively that Tantra can be manipulated and appropriated in order to legitimize their perversions. Actually, there are Vajrayana teachings that warn us against this kind of deviance directly: the story of "Black Salvation", the failed Tantrika whose practice was just self-serving nihilism.
I feel like I'm starting to ramble, and I'm not sure how effectively I'm making my point. It might make more sense to ask, "Can I imagine myself engaging in these teachings in a careful, compassionate way that harms no-one? Do I trust myself to be authentically concerned with the needs of others, and to not lie to myself about my motivations?"
Anyway. As far as I'm concerned, no one should be involved in Tantric practice, sexual or otherwise, who isn't a consenting adult, both in a legal sense and also in the sense that they are widely regarded as mature and psychologically stable. Even satisfying this prerequisite, I don't think that sexual practices should be engaged in by people who are in a guru-student relationship. Student-student makes more sense. And even then, there are going to be risks.
Are you sure that the presence of rituals and rites indicates attachment to rituals and rites? Does use of language indicate attachment to language? Does it indicate that a user of language could not leave words behind if the situation called for it?
Further, I'd like to point out that it is very much possible for an individual to have a knee-jerk reaction to the presence of rituals and rites (or whatever else) because they have their own attachment to the ABSENCE of these things. I don't know if this is the case for you, or not, obviously. Just pointing out that we don't know the inner reality of a person based solely on their participation in a certain activity, nor is it particularly easy to grasp the underlying logic of a system simply by taking inventory of its parts.
Funny that the thread digressed into this area. My idea of reforming celibacy wasn't to introduce sexual practice as part of the monastic program. :eyeroll:
It might be worth me mentioning that the term 'Hinayana' which is used in Tibetan Buddhism, is considered to be a pejorative term when used to describe Theravada Buddhism and in fact there isn't a 'Hinayana' tradition. Additionally there isn't any 'Tantric activity' in Theravada Buddhism and the Pali suttas.
This article might be helpful to you:
http://www.lienet.no/hinayan1.htm
with kind wishes,
D.
Anyway, thanks for those sources. I've encountered the "Black Salvation" thing in a few places. "The Practice of Vajrakilaya" by Khenpo Namdrol Rinpoche is probably the most reliable.
Basically, the idea is that a student of Tantra misunderstands his master's teachings and believes that emptiness empowers him to do whatever he wants without suffering consequences. He kicks his guru out of the kingdom, sexually abuses women, murders people, etc, until he dies and is delivered into some awful Hell realm. Eventually he is redeemed, but he has to suffer horrible torments and humiliations and learn many bitter lessons first. He becomes a "Rudra" and gets his ass kicked by wrathful Bodhisattvas. Eventually he ends up doing penance as a Dharmapala.
vajrayanists should call it quits and become truly hindu or truly buddhist.
When I hear the word "Hinayana", I think, "The way Tibetan Buddhists refer to certain teachings". Since we were discussing Vajrayana I thought it seemed appropriate. I don't regard Theraveda as "lesser" at all, and only intended to refer to ideas as they're presented in Tibetan Buddhism. Which is something I'm certainly not an authority on, anyway.
Thanks, though, I take your point. I hope I didn't offend.
I'm serious about it... TB is actually a hybrid that isn't (yet) honest with itself in being a hybrid (between BodhiDharma, Hinduism and Bön)
For instance. You see the heavily ritualized nature of Vajrayana practice as indicative of attachment. I asked if use of ritual inherently implies attachment to ritual, and then made a comparison to the use of language. You didn't respond to this, but I'd like it if you would. Maybe you understand what I'm getting at, here, and you'll correct my error if there is one.
it fuels trishna... it is an unwise practice. rites and rituals, practiced in such extreme is unwise.
some traditions may be nice once in a while, and if there is no craving... but vajrayana goes farther.
to not make it only about vajrayana... celibacy, in any tradition, is for fools.
Just as a reminder: the topic is celibacy in Buddhism in general (and by comparison, Catholicism). Problems and lack of adherence to the vow arise not only in Tibetan Buddhism, but in Chan, Zen and Theravada as well.
Buddhist monks and nuns, however, are expected to actually "do" something over their lifetime. And one of those things they are supposed to do is to remain centered within the current of desires that continually wash over us. It is the "hooks" of our attachment and aversion that cause our suffering. To quote Pema Chodron's concept ... if you have an itch, you don't scratch it, as that only makes it worse ... you resist scratching it and it will heal.
Seems a little inconsistent to be suggesting that Buddhist monks and nuns turn and embrace their desire ... why bother becoming ordained?
Catholic priests "do" things. Not so much for themselves, but for their parishioners. They say mass at least daily, sometimes multiple times on Saturdays and Sundays. They hear confessions. Visit parishioners in the hospital or in other times of need. Many sponsor community activities that may or may not relate directly to the Catholic Church. Now you may agree or disagree with any of those activities, or with the Catholic Church in general, but to imply that Catholic priests don't "do" anything is silly.
As far as Buddhist monks "doing" something...well, many do, probably most. But I have sometimes been concerned when I have seen Buddhist monks in Thailand just sitting and laying around...in many cases over and over when I would visit particular temples regularly. One of my Thai friends one day said, "Oh, when you see them doing nothing they're just meditating." I said, "Really, they can meditate while they're snoring?"
My point here is not that Catholic priests are active while Buddhist monks are not...not saying that at all. What I am saying is -- let's hold both religions to the same standards and be fair.
...this is Buddhism 201.