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 think that would be confusing, particularly the drug use. Some of the students might think: why are we following this teacher? He/she hasn't dealt with his/her own issues.
And it sends mixed signals. Again, it would be a "do as I say, not as I do" situation.
I might ask where we draw the line? In buddhism we have precepts but of course there is no force to follow them. What if a teacher is up front about drugs and sex..
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.
Well, at least with #2 and possibly with #1 -- Precept, Precept. He is not following Buddhist teachings, why should Buddhists follow him?
I might ask where we draw the line? In buddhism we have precepts but of course there is no force to follow them. What if a teacher is up front about drugs and sex..
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.
Well, at least with #2 and possibly with #1 -- Precept, Precept. He is not following Buddhist teachings, why should Buddhists follow him?
That's up to them to decide. If he is open that he is not following the precepts.
I think that would be confusing, particularly the drug use. Some of the students might think: why are we following this teacher? He/she hasn't dealt with his/her own issues.
And it sends mixed signals. Again, it would be a "do as I say, not as I do" situation.
Dakini, he or she wouldn't be saying not to use drugs or have sex.. My lama doesn't say either of those. She lets each person decide. I would say the opposite: I wouldn't want a teacher that forced me to abstain from sex and drugs. The only way it would even come up in my opinion is if it were a part of my awareness practice.
I don't think sex and drugs is a matter of purity. I once had a long discussion on the campus square with a hari krishna. We talked about different stuff for example he believed that the sun had a deity associated with it. The topic of meat eating came up and he said that animals were impure and we poison ourselves by eating them. Not for the compassion of the animal but rather that they were poison and dirty. I thought to myself "what about my body? How is it different from an animal?"
It could be a possiblity the teacher suggests I stop drugs or sex. As part of my practice. Ok, but then what do you think of a teacher who says you have to start meditating? Or lengthen your sessions. I think you are better off drinking a little and having sex than not meditating. My opinion.
With rigpa maintained at all costs, regardless of what conditions manifest one cuts through all things.
So sex, drugs, weird behavior, etc would just be a play of ones energy. Along with all the positive qualities of a buddha. All dependently originated expressions.
Maintaining non dual contemplation during every single experience is to see that there is no true duality and all is empty luminosity.
In a way I see trungpa rinpoche's life as a practice of tantra or the embracing of life.
Precepts and rules are set up so that one conditions insight. At a certain point one no longer needs precepts/rules. Even meditation is thrown away.
So really all we see is our aversion and projections. That is all there really is anyways.
you guys are so bright I just like to do what every child does:
Sit and listen.
This teacher that partied and drank...what was his INTENTION?
Do we know the real reason why?
Did he?
Can't ask him now.
I was going to read up on the teachings w/o the life drama. This is another reason I stopped reading tabloids...they ruin good movies with actor's baby momma drama.
I think you are better off drinking a little and having sex than not meditating. My opinion.
There are lots of people who have had breakthroughs in their practice after their teacher told them to stop meditating... its the grasping that has to go, the trying to be something or someone else... occaisional drinking or having sex is one thing, but being an alcoholic or sex addict is another - for many it is a hell realm... perhaps there are Buddha's in hell realms. Trungpa's positive message was to stop grasping, stop being precious about never having broken a precept, and if the last fetter is pride...as long as we think we are better than a street person we have pride. And, Trungpa's negative message was, see what a mess we can make if we break the precepts...if we are slaves to the addictions of the mind - clear light - or grey.
@vinylyn you didn't say general practitioner you said doctor. In any case an analogy is illustrative but it isn't applicable to the case. I might surely take Trungpa as my teacher due to the powerful teachings he gives which have the power to break up the ordinary samsaric view. It reminds me of the Christians who just take the wafer but never shake up their world and sincerely practice for Christ. Just a trophy teacher who is pure. No I would rather be with a teacher who can point out my wisdom mind, but who does not follow the precepts. I already follow the precepts and I don't need a role model.
@Dakini, so if a teacher reads a Harry Potter book they are not buddhist because they are attached to the story?
What if they watch the Superbowl?
What if they go to the beach?
What if they play cards?
What if they take a walk in the park?
These are all sense pleasures. Are you saying, Dakini, that you don't like these things. And that you have to stop them to 'become' a buddhist? Ha
Thats a silly argument. Taking a walk in the park is not on par with forty thousand dollars annually on Cocaine. Yes walking in the park, playing cards and going to the beach are enjoyable activities, but they are just that, enjoyable activities. Sure one could form emotional attachment to such an activity, but that does not equate playing cards with snorting lines of coke.
Drugs aren't mere "sense pleasures". Drugs change your perception of reality, they completely cloud critical thinking and serve as an escape from reality, not to mention being a clear violation of Buddhist precept.
Look as far as I'm concerned, judging Chogyam Trungpa might be a pointless exercise, but to claim he is actually just a misunderstood teacher who is teaching some wild; yet insightful teaching is a stretch.
This brings me to further criticism of Tibetan Buddhism which IMO convolutes Buddhist teachings overly.
Buddha said "question everything, dont believe something just because someone said it" (paraphrasing that one)
I feel being an apologist for his actions is not using a critical mind. It complicates Buddhism. The beauty of the teachings is often the simplicity. Explaining his actions as a form of esoteric teaching complicates Buddhism.
Why not say Osel Tendzins rape of another man was actually just a form of teaching about not being attached to negative emotions?
Thats not Buddhism. You can't just start acting however you please and call it "obscure teaching". If you can I don't know what Buddhism is.
“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.”
@Dakini: But I was more or less responding to the OP.
Right, I was responding to Jeffrey's earlier post. Sorry 4 the confusion.
In a way I see trungpa rinpoche's life as a practice of tantra or the embracing of life.
His "embracing of life" caused his early death. Real skillful. :-/
Why not say Osel Tendzins rape of another man was actually just a form of teaching about not being attached to negative emotions?
Horrifically, this is what people do say, and believe wholeheartedly. "The teacher coercing that student into sex was for her own good. That's what Vajrayana is about." "Rinpoche's verbal abuse of that student was a 'teaching'." "Trungpa Rinpoche's womanizing was his method, his teaching style." Does that go for the drug use, too?
The same way they can teach with attachment to anything. Like rollercoasters. There is still attachment until buddhahood.
The lamas aren't attached to rollercoasters. They're enjoying a single ride. They're not addicted to rollercoasters.
I'm not saying Chogyam Trungpa, and those "teachers" who struggled with addiction couldn't teach us anything.
They obviously had things of value to show us, but by that logic, doesn't every addict teach us something?
I just think its appropriate to draw the line in the right place, they weren't "Buddhist teachers".
In my mind a Buddhist teacher is one who teaches by example, and more importantly, from their own experience following Buddhist practice and teaching.
Chogyam Trungpa and his kin may have offered great commentary concerning Buddhist teaching, but I can't fathom how they could of credibly taught Buddhist practice.
Maybe it's a matter of someone who is a Buddhist scholar/poet/commentator and someone who is a teacher of Buddhist practice.
Someone who doesn't practice buddhist practice, and in fact does the reverse, cannot teach Buddhist practice.
I have no respect for such teachers and won't even read what they publish.
Another example was Rajneesh. People claimed that his writings were wonderful and deep. Too bad that I would not read them, but this tantric practices turned me off. Those who practiced tantric sex thought he was great.
For me someone who teaches the dharma is a buddhist teacher. But that's just me.
I enjoy Trungpa's etc books though personally I would not be a member of his sangha were he still alive. I do feel a close connection to Trungpa. I was an alcoholic previously and Trungpa's example encouraged me that I could 'stick with it' and practice buddhism.
We had a thread today with a quote, saying that all Vajrayana monks (Trungpa was a monk and gave back his robes after he married) practice the use of sensory pleasure as a path, and that the robes are sort of a disguise so the public won't know that theirs is not a renunciate tradition. If that's true, then we might conclude that Trungpa was conditioned to indulgence from his monastic days.
No-one is good at everything... I see your point on lack of consistency but the crazy fool style has a role to play too... His suffering hit me more than his credentials as a teacher...
No-one is good at everything... I see your point on lack of consistency but the crazy fool style has a role to play too... His suffering hit me more than his credentials as a teacher...
Suffering caused by himself and transferred to others.
We had a thread today with a quote, saying that all Vajrayana monks (Trungpa was a monk and gave back his robes after he married) practice the use of sensory pleasure as a path, and that the robes are sort of a disguise so the public won't know that theirs is not a renunciate tradition. If that's true, then we might conclude that Trungpa was conditioned to indulgence from his monastic days.
The author of the quote was way off the mark, imo. First, not all Vajrayana monks actually practice using pleasure as path. Second, even if they do there is no contradiction with keeping the renunciation vows, so robes are not any kind of disguise. Third, equating taking pleasure as the path with indulgence is incorrect.
When you have a nice cup of tea, you can enjoy it with openness, no clinging and no grasping and experience the pleasure fully. Not so esoteric, and far from "indulgence".
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
We had a thread today with a quote, saying that all Vajrayana monks (Trungpa was a monk and gave back his robes after he married) practice the use of sensory pleasure as a path, and that the robes are sort of a disguise so the public won't know that theirs is not a renunciate tradition. If that's true, then we might conclude that Trungpa was conditioned to indulgence from his monastic days.
Well, from my personal experience of a few Tibetan monks I don't think it is true. I only know a few so maybe they're a small sample and don't represent the true community or they are expert at hiding their true selves.
I don't know, there are reports of misconduct. Maybe there's an expectation for every monk to be perfect and if they're not the whole tradition's reputation takes a hit. Maybe with the focus on tantra there isn't as much emphasis on renunciation in TB. Maybe monastic life is such a part of the culture people become monks as a social thing and not as a spiritual path so they look for ways around the rules instead of understanding the importance of following them.
The robes don't really work as a disguise if someone actually spends time with monks, their true nature will be revealed. So idk, maybe there are more shenanigans in TB than elsewhere but to imagine that they're spiritual hedonists in disguise just doesn't hold up to reality
A cup of tea. How quaint. I don't think that's what the writer was talking about, since he said monks could get in trouble, because their behavior doesn't conform to the "Hinayana" vows. Trungpa was known as a tantrik practitioner. You don't get there by sipping tea.
But thanks, sattvapaul, for the feedback here, and on the other thread. It helps to put things into perspective. It sounds like this is not a trustworthy, or knowledgeable source?
HHDL is a tantric practitioner also. He has no problem keeping his vows. My example was meant to counter the tendency to view "using pleasure as path" as being about sex, drugs, alcohol & indulgence. Far from it. I'm sure you've read Lama Yeshe's Intro to Tantra and you know what I'm talking about. Even in non-tantric Buddhism energy of desire can be used in practice. It's just not spelled out as it is in tantra. Of course these things can (and do) happen and are often justified in this way. I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on them, and Trungpa is a bit of an enigma to me.
As to the source of the quote, as far as I can tell, it is neither trustworthy nor knowledgeable. I don't want to go into details why here.
We had a thread today with a quote, saying that all Vajrayana monks (Trungpa was a monk and gave back his robes after he married) practice the use of sensory pleasure as a path, and that the robes are sort of a disguise so the public won't know that theirs is not a renunciate tradition. If that's true, then we might conclude that Trungpa was conditioned to indulgence from his monastic days.
@Dakini, Are you talking about the thread by @Thao that was locked today because the quotation was from a guy from e-sangha who liked to bait people and argue?
We had a thread today with a quote, saying that all Vajrayana monks (Trungpa was a monk and gave back his robes after he married) practice the use of sensory pleasure as a path, and that the robes are sort of a disguise so the public won't know that theirs is not a renunciate tradition. If that's true, then we might conclude that Trungpa was conditioned to indulgence from his monastic days.
@Dakini, Are you talking about the thread by @Thao that was locked today because the quotation was from a guy from e-sangha who liked to bait people and argue?
just found this, posted by a Western lama in a discussion forum:
"The reason why the conduct of Tibetan monk is kept secret from lay people is so that lay people will not criticize monks. Part of the reason behind this is that all Tibetan monks are Vajrayana [tantric] monks, and so if their conduct seems to be not in keeping with Hinayana vows, they might get into trouble. Vajrayana monks are not under the same restrictions as Hinayana monks.
When one understands the fundamental principle of Vajrayana conduct is to engage sense objects and enjoy them for one's own pleasure, it changes the game of how one understands a Vajrayana monastic's conduct. The monastic thing is merely an outer show. It's not the essence of the practice."
In other words, the monks' robes, traditionally an indicator of renunciation of worldly life and pleasure, are merely a cover for a practice that is secretly indulgent, even to the point of abuse. Finally, an insider speaks the truth! "The monastic thing" is fake! It's all about enjoying sense objects for one's own pleasure--no wonder TB is such a scandal-ridden tradition. Scandal and abuse are fundamental to its nature.
I did some research and it seems that the quote originates from Namdrol aka Malcolm Smith, from old e-sangha days. I think it can be safely disregarded. Those who witnessed the e-sangha thing know what I mean.
@Dakini, Are you talking about the thread by @Thao that was locked today because the quotation was from a guy from e-sangha who liked to bait people and argue?
That's the one, but I don't know anything about e-sangha or the source of the quote, except that he's highly respected by some of our members, but in my very limited observation, his "teachings" seem to be way off-kilter. This one actually makes some sense, but I was surprised he'd be that open and honest. I was also surprised at what sounds like a sweeping statement about all Vajrayana monks.
@Dakini, Are you talking about the thread by @Thao that was locked today because the quotation was from a guy from e-sangha who liked to bait people and argue?
That's the one, but I don't know anything about e-sangha or the source of the quote, except that he's highly respected by some of our members, but in my very limited observation, his "teachings" seem to be way off-kilter. This one actually makes some sense, but I was surprised he'd be that open and honest. I was also surprised at what sounds like a sweeping statement about all Vajrayana monks.
@Dakini, remember what buddha said to the Kalamas. That you cannot know for certain that something is true just because a person says it is so. I don't know much about e-sangha either but I would say that what the mods have said about NB. We are guests in their house and if I were a guest with a Christian I would be careful about how I brought up topics such as the sexual abuse of children by priests. Here on NB it kind of works and we have good conversations... But the moral I am saying is that it all went wrong on e-sangha apparently and the place imploded or exploded however you want to say it.
So when you make a statement that all vajrayana monks are lying it is like I ask my aunt why she believe in talking snake. One has to be careful how to broach topics.
From my standpoint I try to allow you to bring this out. Your view. Your feeling. And we can talk about it. From your position the quotation might make sense. It might SEEM true. But like the buddha advised the Kalamas we have to be cautious of believing it because we heard it in a book or on the internet. And as you say sweeping statements are often not correct because they work in generalizations.
I read the quotation and it's worded inflamatory way by an insensitive person. Oh well lol It would be like I said "grandma your meatloaf tastes like shit". I may very well not like the meatloaf but I needn't express it like that.
Regarding the content it might be that the vajrayana has an insight into the dharma that is different from the hinayana or whatever that guy called it. My teacher is supportive of renunciation in my practice. She said it was a wonderful realization. When I was suffering and I told her she said 'let this be a goad to you to be renunciate etc'... And I have been. I am more disenchanted with sense things. I can pull away from them. I can meditate 3 hours a day quite easily and put my efforts to use. So for me I have my own experience to show me what Tibetan buddhism can accomplish via renunciation. But I have also noticed that I enjoy many of my pleasures MORE though I am LESS attached. Video games, music, family time, cooking... All of these is in harmony with my meditation. I even have better orgasms j/k
From a muslim perspective...we have the holy quran and the haddith, which are things that the prophet mohd pbuh said and was recorded.
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.
Dear Lady_Alison,
If one will look at Quran and see the bad words said to some people by ALLAH, then do you think the reader will think those bad words were uttered by ALLAH?
Come on please, do not give us what Mohammed had said. Just read Quran and see what Mohammed said to unbelievers! For insatance to ABDULL UZZA, whose name was changed into Abu LEHEB...Mohammed condamning this poor guy, and trying to show it as if ALLAH has said these bad words...Look at the surehs as El LEHEB and MUNAFIKUN. And many others ...
OK, Jeffrey. I thought some of what the quote says might provide some useful background info re: the environment that produced someone like Trungpa. But...maybe not. Apparently it's not an entirely credible source.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I came across Drukpa Kunley an old world 'crazy wisdom' tantric from Trungpa's lineage. So it seems there is some precedent for that style of teaching. Keep in mind that he was also not a monk and wasn't bound by the monastic vows, not that that automatically makes the behavior ok, but its not fair to judge by those standards.
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I'll say for myself I'm rather off put by some of the things I read at the link. In my years in TB I've never been taught or experienced any behavior remotely like that. So it seems there's some precedent but it sounds fairly fringe.
I still want to know where everyone's finding these sex-oriented teachings today.
I've been fortunate to take teachings from HHDL, Geshe Lhundup Sopa, Yangsi Rinpoche, Geshe Thabkay, Ven. George Churinoff, Khensur Rinpoche, and Geshe Tenzin Dorje, and not one of them has ever even said the word "sex" during a teaching, that I can recall, much less put on any unseemly displays of promiscuity or coercion.
If whatever traditions you're engaged in are continuing to abuse you sexually or coercively. have you considered trying another tradition? There are many, many teachers out there which, from talking to students, you will be able to ascertain fairly well are not abusive; you can then go and carefully see for yourself.
We need to be somewhat incredulous about Buddhist stories.
Does it really matter what a fully realised being does? I think we can say as long as it does not harm others the answer is no.
Teaching however is a mutual thing - its a contract with each student and with the community that legitimates and appoints that teacher. The downside of the Tulku system is the same as the tenure system, you can't take it back.
I think we need to be clear about teachers who are alcoholics (or sex addicts, etc), as this is doing harm even if it is to oneself, and under the influence we know that alcoholics do harm, whether in speech or action. To have a teacher in this condition is the same as getting into the car with one. You might get from A-B in one piece, but we know 75% of accidents are alcohol related, that is why we have laws. Similarly, Pema Chodron got from A - B in one piece, but I am sure she does not recommend people drive in cars driven by drunks. Similarly, the community needs to set out clear standard for the behaviour of teachers and expectations for the treatment students, especially when students are so deluded that they think enlightenment means becoming god-like, or having special omniscient wisdom. As far as I understand it, awakening is to what is right here and it is not anything other than the brimming emptiness of this moment...nothing more, nothing less ... drinking booze every day and that view is certainly lost. But, in the magic world of our imagination, anything is possible - monks can fly,walk through walls, drink without losing samadhi - anything you want - just bring your credit card.
I don't know if it's an overemphasis on teachers, but I definitely think that the idea that teachers (especially those star-quality teachers, the big names) are above "mundane" morality and exist on a higher plane, so we can't question their motives, they're Bodhisattvas, is what causes a good part of the trouble.
Buddha Goatama is the best teacher and even if you idolise him, it does not make you a one like him. Likewise to questioning his motive also will not make you become a buddha like him. The current world has conflict amongst religions due to questioning of motives instead of walking the compassionate path stated in book. i think anyone that show you the way of deconflicting yourself is a teacher at that point in time. So a buddhist teacher who can point you a way to be liberated in this short lifespan is very comforting, need not be too carried away focusing the incorrect mindfulness. Alcoholic only ruin your mind at that moment and not necessarily so on the moment in sanity. Nothing is more crucial than knowing wisdom, practicing and attain it like buddha. Without knowing the buddha jewel in you, one will be living in darkness even though having full of materialism etc surrounding them.
Comments
And it sends mixed signals. Again, it would be a "do as I say, not as I do" situation.
I don't think sex and drugs is a matter of purity. I once had a long discussion on the campus square with a hari krishna. We talked about different stuff for example he believed that the sun had a deity associated with it. The topic of meat eating came up and he said that animals were impure and we poison ourselves by eating them. Not for the compassion of the animal but rather that they were poison and dirty. I thought to myself "what about my body? How is it different from an animal?"
It could be a possiblity the teacher suggests I stop drugs or sex. As part of my practice. Ok, but then what do you think of a teacher who says you have to start meditating? Or lengthen your sessions. I think you are better off drinking a little and having sex than not meditating. My opinion.
What if they watch the Superbowl?
What if they go to the beach?
What if they play cards?
What if they take a walk in the park?
These are all sense pleasures. Are you saying, Dakini, that you don't like these things. And that you have to stop them to 'become' a buddhist? Ha
So sex, drugs, weird behavior, etc would just be a play of ones energy. Along with all the positive qualities of a buddha. All dependently originated expressions.
Maintaining non dual contemplation during every single experience is to see that there is no true duality and all is empty luminosity.
In a way I see trungpa rinpoche's life as a practice of tantra or the embracing of life.
Precepts and rules are set up so that one conditions insight. At a certain point one no longer needs precepts/rules. Even meditation is thrown away.
So really all we see is our aversion and projections. That is all there really is anyways.
Would you choose a doctor who was pretty good at most things, but really weak in the field of heart and circulatory system?
Why would you choose a Buddhist teacher who wasn't dependable pretty much all the way around?
Although, I think I kind of address your concern as well.
the point is that people do have a choice and that is their business. I shouldn't gossip about their teacher if that is their choice.
@Dakini
The same way they can teach with attachment to anything. Like rollercoasters. There is still attachment until buddhahood.
Sit and listen.
This teacher that partied and drank...what was his INTENTION?
Do we know the real reason why?
Did he?
Can't ask him now.
I was going to read up on the teachings w/o the life drama. This is another reason I stopped reading tabloids...they ruin good movies with actor's baby momma drama.
@Vinylyn said: Actually doctors specialize in a certain area. For example I wouldn't mind that my psychiatrist doesn't know much about anesthesia..
But that's just my take
Thats a silly argument.
Taking a walk in the park is not on par with forty thousand dollars annually on Cocaine.
Yes walking in the park, playing cards and going to the beach are enjoyable activities, but they are just that, enjoyable activities. Sure one could form emotional attachment to such an activity, but that does not equate playing cards with snorting lines of coke.
Drugs aren't mere "sense pleasures".
Drugs change your perception of reality, they completely cloud critical thinking and serve as an escape from reality, not to mention being a clear violation of Buddhist precept.
Look as far as I'm concerned, judging Chogyam Trungpa might be a pointless exercise, but to claim he is actually just a misunderstood teacher who is teaching some wild; yet insightful teaching is a stretch.
This brings me to further criticism of Tibetan Buddhism which IMO convolutes Buddhist teachings overly.
Buddha said "question everything, dont believe something just because someone said it" (paraphrasing that one)
I feel being an apologist for his actions is not using a critical mind.
It complicates Buddhism. The beauty of the teachings is often the simplicity.
Explaining his actions as a form of esoteric teaching complicates Buddhism.
Why not say Osel Tendzins rape of another man was actually just a form of teaching about not being attached to negative emotions?
Thats not Buddhism. You can't just start acting however you please and call it "obscure teaching". If you can I don't know what Buddhism is.
And by that logic I argue.
They obviously had things of value to show us, but by that logic, doesn't every addict teach us something?
I just think its appropriate to draw the line in the right place, they weren't "Buddhist teachers".
In my mind a Buddhist teacher is one who teaches by example, and more importantly, from their own experience following Buddhist practice and teaching.
Chogyam Trungpa and his kin may have offered great commentary concerning Buddhist teaching, but I can't fathom how they could of credibly taught Buddhist practice.
Maybe it's a matter of someone who is a Buddhist scholar/poet/commentator and someone who is a teacher of Buddhist practice.
Someone who doesn't practice buddhist practice, and in fact does the reverse, cannot teach Buddhist practice.
Maybe they can talk about it, I dont know.
Another example was Rajneesh. People claimed that his writings were wonderful and deep. Too bad that I would not read them, but this tantric practices turned me off. Those who practiced tantric sex thought he was great.
I enjoy Trungpa's etc books though personally I would not be a member of his sangha were he still alive. I do feel a close connection to Trungpa. I was an alcoholic previously and Trungpa's example encouraged me that I could 'stick with it' and practice buddhism.
When you have a nice cup of tea, you can enjoy it with openness, no clinging and no grasping and experience the pleasure fully. Not so esoteric, and far from "indulgence".
I don't know, there are reports of misconduct. Maybe there's an expectation for every monk to be perfect and if they're not the whole tradition's reputation takes a hit. Maybe with the focus on tantra there isn't as much emphasis on renunciation in TB. Maybe monastic life is such a part of the culture people become monks as a social thing and not as a spiritual path so they look for ways around the rules instead of understanding the importance of following them.
The robes don't really work as a disguise if someone actually spends time with monks, their true nature will be revealed. So idk, maybe there are more shenanigans in TB than elsewhere but to imagine that they're spiritual hedonists in disguise just doesn't hold up to reality
But thanks, sattvapaul, for the feedback here, and on the other thread. It helps to put things into perspective. It sounds like this is not a trustworthy, or knowledgeable source?
As to the source of the quote, as far as I can tell, it is neither trustworthy nor knowledgeable. I don't want to go into details why here.
So when you make a statement that all vajrayana monks are lying it is like I ask my aunt why she believe in talking snake. One has to be careful how to broach topics.
From my standpoint I try to allow you to bring this out. Your view. Your feeling. And we can talk about it. From your position the quotation might make sense. It might SEEM true. But like the buddha advised the Kalamas we have to be cautious of believing it because we heard it in a book or on the internet. And as you say sweeping statements are often not correct because they work in generalizations.
I read the quotation and it's worded inflamatory way by an insensitive person. Oh well lol
Regarding the content it might be that the vajrayana has an insight into the dharma that is different from the hinayana or whatever that guy called it. My teacher is supportive of renunciation in my practice. She said it was a wonderful realization. When I was suffering and I told her she said 'let this be a goad to you to be renunciate etc'... And I have been. I am more disenchanted with sense things. I can pull away from them. I can meditate 3 hours a day quite easily and put my efforts to use. So for me I have my own experience to show me what Tibetan buddhism can accomplish via renunciation. But I have also noticed that I enjoy many of my pleasures MORE though I am LESS attached. Video games, music, family time, cooking... All of these is in harmony with my meditation. I even have better orgasms j/k
Huh?
(sigh)
http://www.keithdowman.net/books/dm.htm
I've been fortunate to take teachings from HHDL, Geshe Lhundup Sopa, Yangsi Rinpoche, Geshe Thabkay, Ven. George Churinoff, Khensur Rinpoche, and Geshe Tenzin Dorje, and not one of them has ever even said the word "sex" during a teaching, that I can recall, much less put on any unseemly displays of promiscuity or coercion.
If whatever traditions you're engaged in are continuing to abuse you sexually or coercively. have you considered trying another tradition? There are many, many teachers out there which, from talking to students, you will be able to ascertain fairly well are not abusive; you can then go and carefully see for yourself.
Who are the abusive teachers you are naming?
Does it really matter what a fully realised being does? I think we can say as long as it does not harm others the answer is no.
Teaching however is a mutual thing - its a contract with each student and with the community that legitimates and appoints that teacher. The downside of the Tulku system is the same as the tenure system, you can't take it back.
I think we need to be clear about teachers who are alcoholics (or sex addicts, etc), as this is doing harm even if it is to oneself, and under the influence we know that alcoholics do harm, whether in speech or action. To have a teacher in this condition is the same as getting into the car with one. You might get from A-B in one piece, but we know 75% of accidents are alcohol related, that is why we have laws.
Similarly, Pema Chodron got from A - B in one piece, but I am sure she does not recommend people drive in cars driven by drunks. Similarly, the community needs to set out clear standard for the behaviour of teachers and expectations for the treatment students, especially when students are so deluded that they think enlightenment means becoming god-like, or having special omniscient wisdom. As far as I understand it, awakening is to what is right here and it is not anything other than the brimming emptiness of this moment...nothing more, nothing less ... drinking booze every day and that view is certainly lost. But, in the magic world of our imagination, anything is possible - monks can fly,walk through walls, drink without losing samadhi - anything you want - just bring your credit card.