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.
Sex, drugs and Buddhist teachers.
I want to talk about Buddhist teachers who partied hard.
I'm interested, that despite breaking fundamental buddhist teaching, some teachers have still been awarded great respect.
Can an alcoholic teach the dharma?
Chogyam Trungpa was a tibetan teacher who, for those who don't know, was considered an unusual; yet very insightful teacher.
He lived a pretty wild life full of sex and drugs, and eventually died of alcoholism.
Yet he enjoyed a high level of respect.
The Zen master Shunryu Suzuki (A teacher who I personally hold in very high regard) recommended his teachings to students.
Pema Chodron was taught primarily by Chogyam.
Now this is a great source of confusion to me, do you think that Chogyam Trungpa, despite his frequent drug/alcohol use, had anything of that much importance to teach?
Personally I'm lost.
It also seems as if this is a reoccurring issue, with Sogyal Rinpoche, Ösel Tendzin and Taizan Maezumi amongst others(google them).
Clearly in a lot of cases this is just plain old corruption, and that's perfectly ok, to expect buddhism to be super human is clearly quite foolish.
Is it always corruption? can alcoholic teachers have anything of importance to say? why do they accumulate so much respect within their respective communities?
These are the questions that linger.
I'm interested, that despite breaking fundamental buddhist teaching, some teachers have still been awarded great respect.
Can an alcoholic teach the dharma?
Chogyam Trungpa was a tibetan teacher who, for those who don't know, was considered an unusual; yet very insightful teacher.
He lived a pretty wild life full of sex and drugs, and eventually died of alcoholism.
Yet he enjoyed a high level of respect.
The Zen master Shunryu Suzuki (A teacher who I personally hold in very high regard) recommended his teachings to students.
Pema Chodron was taught primarily by Chogyam.
Now this is a great source of confusion to me, do you think that Chogyam Trungpa, despite his frequent drug/alcohol use, had anything of that much importance to teach?
Personally I'm lost.
It also seems as if this is a reoccurring issue, with Sogyal Rinpoche, Ösel Tendzin and Taizan Maezumi amongst others(google them).
Clearly in a lot of cases this is just plain old corruption, and that's perfectly ok, to expect buddhism to be super human is clearly quite foolish.
Is it always corruption? can alcoholic teachers have anything of importance to say? why do they accumulate so much respect within their respective communities?
These are the questions that linger.
0
Comments
He also upset a lot of people, and may have broken most precepts to some degree with the consequences that go with it, but as discussed in other strands... good can counterbalance bad, not all bad leads to bad and we can learn from drugs, sex and our own and other's errors. I think it was Pema Chodron's view that if you are sincere the path will open up for you and that it is important to also look for the good - I don't think she would ever recommend him however. I first came to the Dharma through being involved with Muktananda, I left, but I can thank him for my learning to trust my intuition, not to be so easily impressed by talk rather than deeds and most importantly to see how I was caught up in wanting easy magic solutions to my suffering and power when the solution was right before my eyes and it was I who was standing in the way of my own enlightenment and that no magic, technique could have moved me. I had to see into my own clinging - and no kundalini, Guru or magic can do that. I had another teacher who became infatuated with his own image and upset many people. It took me years to see where his insight fell short, and in some respects he is wiser than a great many other teachers. If it were not for his deep psychological wound, I think he would have been a great teacher and was an excellent teacher for many and I am grateful to him too - but would not recommend him.
There is no clarity.
Alcohol and drugs simply drop the level of consciousness below thinking to numbness or accelerate it to the other extreme.
Aren't their many other teachers to pick from?
I think it's dangerous when people start idolising teachers, after all the Buddha said something along the lines of "question everything, even what I say".
I feel as though ruthless critical thinking is one of the most valuable tools in the study of buddhist/hindu teaching.
That is why cherry picking is the best policy.
Even he was clear to say that if he ever said anything aloud that contradicted, muslims must see to the book ie, quran. Because some things he simply said as a man.
He was also worried that they would turn him into an idol like jesus.
You have a right to be disappointed and maybe betrayed...shit happens so instead
now you can't have blind faith, you know better.
It's a fascinating issue.
I mean how did the guy, a full blown alcoholic - habitual cocaine user, manage to a) be respected as a buddhist teacher and b) maintain that level of respect.
It defies common sense.
What confuses me the most however is Shunryu Suzuki on Chogyam Trungpa, can anyone try and interpret this for me?
Because emptiness has no limit and no beginning, we can believe in it. Isn't this so? This is very important. I am not fooling you! Okay? If you really understand this, tears will flow. You will really feel happy to be a Buddhist. If you struggle hard enough, you will feel how important this point is. The way you can struggle with this is to be supported by something, something you don't know. As we are human beings, there must be that kind of feeling. You must feel it in this city or building or community. So whatever community it may be, it is necessary for it to have this kind of spiritual support. That is why I respect Trungpa Rinpoche. He is supporting us. You may criticize him because he drinks alcohol like I drink water, but that is a minor problem. He trusts you completely. He knows that if he is always supporting you in a true sense, you will not criticize him, whatever he does. And he doesn't mind whatever you say. That is not the point, you know. This kind of big spirit, without clinging to some special religion or form of practice, is necessary for human beings.
How'd he maintain the respect? Well, he didn't, entirely. People did quit his community in CO. A couple of ex-groupies published books about their experience. "The Other Side of Eden" is one book, by the son of a famous author. He said his experience with Trungpa & Co. mimicked his home experience, growing up with an abusive alcoholic father. He says a fair amount of the people in Trungpa's circle came from dysfunctional families, so they felt at home in the Trungpa scene. It takes a certain amount of psychological strength to leave a situation like that, and when you find yourself in a religion that is about "destroying the ego", then what chance do you have of developing that strength?
Look, if there's any fallout tomorrow over this topic, I'm referring the complainants to you. I'm tired of taking the same old flack and having to defend my view.
I can't even begin to see anything controversial about anything you've said!
Here's an online book with a chapter on him:
http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stgsamplechapters/trungpa.asp
But maybe I'm just old-fashioned...
But having been a beneficiary of a very good, if small, bit of teaching from Trungpa Rinpoche as he sat at a table sipping on a very big glass of clear liquid whose octane I could easily smell, I do have to ask and obvious question: What serious Buddhist imagines that s/he cannot learn from a drunk? What serious Buddhist imagines that teachers are not liars and can adduce convincing proof that does not include what those serious Buddhists want/hope/believe? What serious Buddhist imagines that Buddhism is nothing but smooth serenity and sidewalks without dog shit? Are such serious Buddhists really serious Buddhists?
I would not try to skirt the facts. Hanging out with drunks has its drawbacks. The same might be said of hanging out with those of exemplary virtue. Pretending that a drunk is not a drunk would be silly. But pretending there was no lesson in drunkenness would be equally silly.
Every practicing Buddhist navigates the dog turds on his or her intimate sidewalk. It goes with the territory. Choices are made. Some turn out to be good choices. Some don't. Either way, it's pretty good Buddhist teaching.
Just my take.
Everything is a projection from us.
Hard pill to swallow, but that is how it is.
This does not justify their actions, but that is not our business. Since we see it as such, we must deal with our projections. Realizing this peace is maintained at all costs.
The guru in all his/her flaws and perfection are merely a mirror to ourselves. And the guru is everywhere. Illuminating and empty. Showing our naked karma.
We can learn a lot from teachers who make mistakes; as long as we see their mistakes as mistakes.
The bottom line is that we have to think for ourselves; decide for ourselves.
The idea of complete and unconditional trust in the teacher is –imho – a dangerous mistake.
Teachers are human and are bound to make mistakes. As long as we don’t forget about that we will be okay.
In a Buddhist group – again imho – we need to take measures to prevent abuse of power.
We can’t throw all responsibility in the lap of the Great Enlightened One. Because when we do; there’s a considerable chance our group is going to derail. It works like that in all “worldly” organizations and it works like that in a Sangha. The reason is simple. Sangha people, teacher or not, are made from the same material as all other people.
Roshi Joan Halifax has an essay on her blog titled, "Why Buddhism?" It expresses anguish over the fact that Zen has had serious scandals with some masters. One comes to one's religion from a place of devotion, that's what religion's about. It can shake one's faith to encounter spiritual leaders who think nothing of harming disciples, harming novices or acolytes, carrying on not only like worldly people, but like highly flawed worldly people.
Someone posted a response on Roshi Joan's blog: "Why not Buddhism?" they said. True enough. Why would we expect Buddhism to be any different from other religions? On the other hand, why should we come to expect this of religion at all? All of these scandals across the board, including Western religions, are a relatively new development in terms of their exposure and public debate. One doesn't go into religion expecting messes, or one didn't used to. The purpose of religion is to lift us up, to inspire us to become better people.
I think it's harsh to accuse people of not being serious Buddhists just because they have perfectly reasonable expectations of their master. Sure, from the sadder-but-wiser, cynical perspective of hindsight, one can smugly condescend to those whom one regards as naive. But before all this stuff hit the fan, weren't we all naive? Remember those days? Or has your hardened heart forgotten in its rush to protect itself from further disillusionment?
Who knew this mayhem "came with the territory"?
The greater question seems to be: is one willing to overlook the debauchery in order to glean some good teachings. That's a highly individual decision.
A sticky wicket.
(for those like me who were not familiar with Eido Shimano)
Anyone who has practiced for long enough will know that after insight there remains a sense of the way, even if you are drunk, but over time it becomes hazy and muddled - and dimmer. Thats why most teachers keep practicing for their entire lives, don't use it you lose it. Chogam may have been a dim candle in a very dark room, now there are lots of candles and so one candle does not shine so brightly. Times have changed.
http:/www.nytimes.com/2010/08/21/us//21beliefs.html
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/Aitken_Shimano_Letters.html
Thats not to say that I would want him as a teacher. I would much rather have someone who lives by the ethical rules of Buddhism. But I'm saying that there can be realization that remains untouched by the conventional world.
I don't know why he became an alchoholic. Was it to teach some lesson or was it his intention to show Buddhism as not so uptight and he got lost in the booze, was it a result of the trauma of losing his country?
It was a different time then and today there are many more options. I've spent time with people in the shambala tradition and among some there is still a bit of a party atmosphere. I don't spend time there anymore.
I don't buy into the view that "realized" masters inhabit some special, exalted plane of existence that raises them above conventional reality. The Dalai Lama has said that people who behave as Trungpa did have a "wrong-footed practice". "There is a gap between the Dharma and their life", he puts it. I think Westerners need to be careful not to fall into the trap of sophisticated theoretical rationales for plain old ugly behavior. Masters are humans, they're not demi-gods. The truly realized ones have let go of attachments like alcohol, sex, etc., and have no use for that. I think those are rare.
Thus buddhism is not evangelical and you can only know clear light of mind through practice. But actually everybody has this experience: open. Smile at fear.
As far as demigod that does not fit because anyone who does the practice, meditation included, will eventually realize the clear light of mind. It is for everyone.
I'm not sure Trungpa had clear light mind. How are we defining clear light mind? What's the difference between clear light mind, and intellectual genius? Alcoholics can be geniuses when they're sober. Does that mean they're spiritually realized masters.
Sometimes when I suffer I think how good this is for me to remember what suffering is like so that I can have more compassion. I just had flu yesterday and I thought about that. Suffering reminds you to spend your time wisely so that you are not left with unreliable refuge when you get something you don't want such as old age/sickness/fire or other calimity. Or you lose something that you love: a material or even a loved one.
He did follow the precept about lying as far as I know! We know so much about the tragedy and apparently unskillful behaviour.
I wonder how many of us would post in a thread where we reveal all of the foolish things we have done?
Also, just because someone sees the world beyond conventional reality I don't think that means they can just totally ignore it. Trungpa was an alchoholic and as such I wouldn't want to recieve teachings from him. But the debate about him usually either ignores any special realization he may have had or uses it as an excuse for his behavior. Why can't he have had a special realization and still have behavior that one wouldn't approve of, even if as @Jeffrey put it, it was about being open.
Having lived through several 'scandals' that disrupted a Zen center I attended, I can testify to the damage, to the anger, to the confusion, to the lies, to the disgust, to the tears ... to the whatever ... it was awful for the directly-affected victims and it was awful for the less-directly affected. And even today, so many years later, there is an attempt to paper over malfeasance of the past ... with 'compassion' or 'let's not throw the baby out with the bath water' or other displays of what I consider a gutless and debilitating silence.
My experience led me to think this ... and I hardly think it needs to be anyone else's point of view. 1. There is a time to say "no!" Just "no!" No dithering or analyzing or explaining or dissecting or playing the amateur psychologist. Just "no!" 2. And for my own purposes, there is a small credo: "The Zen teacher may be a liar, but zazen is no liar."
Obviously this is all just my personal take.
Humans!!
And they really fall for charisma, don't they?
For the purpose of this thought experiment
1) teacher has sex with non-students only
2) teacher does drugs on his own time, not while with the students.
3) teacher is open about his sexuality/relationships and drug use.
Is this a problem?
What challenges would be expected? I can think of one in that the teacher might have a relationship or drug buddy who also knows some of the students.