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.
Jeffrey, I don't think D-Field's objection is about sex without love. (pssst, D-Field: they say it's not sex if you don't ejaculate. Seriously. ) It sounds like he's studied what defines dogmatic or demagogic speech, and is analyzing Tsem Tulku's presentation in light of that. I can see both sides of the argument. I don't think this presentation is much different from most lamas' teachings, except that Tsem T. is more dynamic in his style. I think this is fairly par for the course for religious teachings in general. When you go to X-ian Sunday school, they assume a belief in Jesus, etc., and you're not expected to question that, and you'd be steered in the "right" direction if you do question basic assumptions.
The DL does teach differently. He's much more open to saying "I don't know" in response to a question, he's open to considering other points of view. That's not the norm in TB, or B in general. I also think his teaching approach varies, depending on whom he's teaching, the setting (individual/small groups, vs. large crowds) and other factors.
I like your physics analogy, Jeffrey, except that rebirth hasn't been proven. Gross, subtle, and very subtle mind haven't been proven, they're part of an elaborate theory in TB, which is based on hundreds of years of experience in meditation, dream state, etc., but still, it's a world unto itself, and one could question the validity of these conclusions. If one wants to learn about TB's worldview, then these teachings are fine. If one wants to arrive at a better understanding of reality through these teachings to one's own satisfaction, it may not happen.
I think when we go to teachings, there's a certain suspension of disbelief. We open ourselves up to receive these teachings and to a certain extent, suspend our critical thinking. I did that back when I was going to sangha to a certain point. And even when I thought I spotted contradictions or holes in the reasoning presented, and asked questions, the teacher always had an answer that satisfied me. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on your viewpoint and what you want out of the teachings, why you're there.
I like your physics analogy, Jeffrey, except that rebirth hasn't been proven. Gross, subtle, and very subtle mind haven't been proven, they're part of an elaborate theory in TB, which is based on hundreds of years of experience in meditation, dream state, etc., but still, it's a world unto itself, and one could question the validity of these conclusions. If one wants to learn about TB's worldview, then these teachings are fine. If one wants to arrive at a better understanding of reality through these teachings to one's own satisfaction, it may not happen.
I think when we go to teachings, there's a certain suspension of disbelief. We open ourselves up to receive these teachings and to a certain extent, suspend our critical thinking. I did that back when I was going to sangha to a certain point. And even when I thought I spotted contradictions or holes in the reasoning presented, and asked questions, the teacher always had an answer that satisfied me. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on your viewpoint and what you want out of the teachings, why you're there.
Dakini, the subtle mind is experienced eventually but yes it may not happen. In this lifetime at least This is why I encourage people to make decisions based on content. Certain people would not want to invest in these teachings, and yes I consider vibes and intutions like @Dhammafield has used to be important. Nonetheless, each person makes their own choices in the end.
The wiki link gave one definition of demigogue as: "20th-century American social critic and humorist H. L. Mencken, defined a demagogue as "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." I am a skeptic of @Dhammafields ability to know for a fact that Tsem does not believe in his own teachings. Additionally the claim is ad hominem because even if Tsem does not believe his own teachings they could be true in spite of it. To refute teachings you need to refute the content rather than sniping at the delivery person.
You have to ask yourself would it be socially acceptable for New Buddhist's members to refer to each other as liars? If name-calling is not in accordance with ahimsa for discourse amongst peers on Newbuddhist then why is it in accordance with ahimsa to make accusations at teachers?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
The DL does teach differently. He's much more open to saying "I don't know" in response to a question, he's open to considering other points of view. That's not the norm in TB, or B in general. I also think his teaching approach varies, depending on whom he's teaching, the setting (individual/small groups, vs. large crowds) and other factors.
Good point about HHDL. Though I think its really about how much time a teacher has spent teaching to westerners. If they don't have much experience the teaching is more by the book. I can imagine Stephen Batchelor's problem receiving teachings amongst the choir and many years ago when I'm sure the teachings were more dogmatic. Tsem Tulku teaches in Malaysia, I don't know how much that contributes to his style.
Thanks Jeffrey, you are a worthy soul. My point was about style, and the mention of lying was qualified (...if he hadn't had direct experience)... I think you have picked up the wrong end of the stick. Just to clarify, Menken's definition is extreme and not what I was saying. Also, I don't know why you started pathologising me as having some aversions - you have got the wrong person. But, some tantrics are not as far off what I say - read John Haule's writing.
Sorry, if I did give the wrong impression, as I wasn't trying to be definitive about Tsem, the rant icon was a playful jibe at how I saw him, not my reaction, but yes, it was a bit blunt. But, it did spark an interesting dialogue, which I invite you to honestly try and see if there is something that may be useful and compassionate in my writing about this.
I understand your point, but I would argue that "we" are far too uncritical and too tolerating of the guru style and the power relations that go with it, I am not sure the ends justifies the means. I think it runs deeper than me and we would have a much better world if more people had an awareness of how authority is necessarily constructed and that there are more positive ways of doing that. It took me years of practice and many grovelling mistakes before I came to see through that game and abusive behaviours of my own teachers. Seeing it as not a just one or two bad apples, but my own naivete did feel like a form of liberation - and in Zen they say when you meet the Buddha, you kill the Buddha. In this regard, I perhaps err on the sceptical, but having been bitten twice, I am twice as shy.
In regard to your question of whether it is posible to make a judgement of someone's practice by observation. I think this is pretty important - in my own experience, there are many subtle impacts of practice that manifest in almost every detail of a person's demeanor. As one becomes more clear we see how the mind and the body are connected. When the mind is clear, the body reflects it. It works both ways which is why Taiji is a great tool. It is also how I judge my own practice. Mindfulness of sensations is first level, but later on it becomes a second order tool - odd sensations give me clues to what is subtley going on in my mind.
In a world where the oriental "other" is romanticised, people cling like limpets to old traditions as a refuge, and it is hard to beg to differ! As I see it, each tradition is flawed, each has many skeletons in their closet, rarely to they match modern historical accounts, and most have made massive apocrypal additions to the dharma. These are not trivial, but serious questions. The baby-boomer seekers bought into the story without question, we practiced very hard, some with good teachers, and there were many frauds; luckily, enough of us experienced the positives before we encountered the negatives and enough so stayed in the game, even if only a few were attractive enough to have the privelege of being "had" , most of us gutlessly turned our backs when told to.
As a survivor, I don't turn my back. Perhaps I am really postbuddhist (see McMahon) which comes out of a sense of frustration with limitations of traditional Buddhist cultures and is a modern expression of hope that we can explore a new direction, critically exploring the nature and effects of premodern social hierarchies, homophobia, subjugation of women, lack of respect for lay teachers and how we might have a truly open dialogue. And if, as Glen Wallis suggests, we are stuck in a grammar that goes around in circles and this seems to be true of many discussions where there is a tendency to go on appologising or defending the status quo. For me this seems a bit like talking to Jehovah's witnesses, who cling to what they have so invested greatly in.
I just wanted to say that I read your post. I think you should be critical, but do it on a case by case basis. Sometimes something is complex. But sometimes it is simple. When it is simple you don't need to have all of those ideas and you can just hear the teaching without bias.
That's alarming Dakini. I'm not sure I believe that they are worshipping a 'demon'. That's a controversial point regarding the Dalai lama. Many of HHDLs western fans don't believe in 'demons' and thus it is confusing that the Dalai lama does. Thus I wouldn't assume the youtube is the truth as the creator may have been inflamed by their ideology which is against Dorje Shugden. I believe there are members of newbuddhist who are involved in groups who believe in Dorje Shugden as a dharma protector. This is very controversial.
Saying that the money will go to houses cars and a demon monastery is a little vague. How many cars and houses does he have for example? And how much of the money goes to the monastery relative to the personal possessions. I definitely have distaste for dharma teacher's living in luxary, but I wouldn't mind them having a car to get around and a house to live.
Yeah, I don't know, Jeffrey. I like Tsem Tulku's teachings, I just stumbled onto this, and decided to put it up, since someone raised the issue of demagoguery in his style. Demagoguery and cultism kinda go together, it just struck me that maybe Dharmafield was on to something. Or maybe not.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
If those claims are true then putting up a red flag is appropriate. Even if they are though the condemnation is over the top.
Yeah I agree. I am not certain about the demon claims. I kinda doubt that or at least do not have a basis for judgement.
Regarding the houses and cars I think it depends. I think it's not in the spirit of buddhism. At same time I would expect that many leaders of organizations are compensated for their expertise. But before passing judgement I require facts.
And I find it 100% likely that an anti-dorje shugden person is biased owing to the ideology.
I just did some research on this. Some people say there are a couple of former members of Tsem's sangha who are unhappy for whatever reason, and are spreading these rumors. However, one former member says he has received death threats from some of Tsem's sangha members. It looks like one of those controversies that outsiders may never get to the bottom of. So all we can do is take note. We can still enjoy Tsem's teachings if we're so inclined, but I wouldn't donate to him until more clarification is available.
I wouldn't donate to him either simply because I have nothing to do with him. The teaching he gave on tantra is not something in my experience of my life. It sounds like science fiction yet I guess there can be some amazing things I don't know about. Think of all the amazing talents in human beings?
He has a good teaching on anger that I saw on another forum. He says basically, there's good anger and bad anger. Destructive anger, obviously isn't skillful. But when anger motivates people to act for the benefit of others, to make positive changes in the world, he calls that "Divine anger", skillful anger.
This thread got sidetracked into a discussion of sex, that I think largely missed the point.
What he says is the subtle mind appears reliably in three contexts: 1. When you are sleeping and dreaming 2. When you have an orgasm 3. When you die
He sees the gross mind as being of the senses. It seems in his philosophy to form a kind of buffer to the subtle mind, which is all that survives death. Therefore, he says, focus on benefitting the subtle mind.
What he says about sex -- which is a different claim than that the subtle mind appears during orgasm -- is that sex can be done as a kind of giving, which can benefit the partner. The partner may take up dharma practice after sex, just as someone may take up dharma practice after having dinner together.
Honestly, it seems to me that people just picked up on the talk about sex.
Can someone tell me what school this teacher belongs to? -- Is this teaching a standard representation of that school's philosophy?
Conrad.
ps - Walking meditation is possible but not sex meditation? Clear mind practicing a martial art but not during sex?
I'd be interested to know if this teaching shares origins with the Taoist teaching about sex, or if was independently discovered.
(BTW, it's true that trapping orgasms feels incredibly better than doing the normal thing. I don't know if it has anything to do with the subtle mind -- might just be a physiological thing. You kind of relax and drink the energy with your bod, rather than tense up and drive the energy out. -- It goes against instinct, but it's not difficult.)
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Thanks @conradcook on bringing the thread back to my original intent. Tsem Tulku is a teacher in the Tibetan Vajrayana school, I believe in the gelug sect.
@Dakini wrote "they say it's not sex if you don't ejaculate."
I haven't heard talk like that since Clinton's time!
Honestly, what two skilled practitioners end up doing when they're going at it is very unlike what two lay-people do. They'll use the exchange of energies, hot and cold, to make a kind of engine that builds up and stores away energy.
I don't see the speaker's claim that "it's not sex" as a Clinton-like dodge. He's just trying to put something across to his students.
Conrad.
ps - "Ejaculating" means "having a traditional orgasm that expends the sexual energy."
Tsem is Gelug. The sexual practice is similar to Taoist longevity practice, but the Tibetan tradition, like the Hindu tradition it came from, has more emphasis on meditation techniques and breathwork, I think (controlling "winds", and so forth).
It's the Dalai Lama who has written in a couple of his books that it's not sex if you don't ejaculate. He makes it very clear in his writing what that means. He also says that monks retain their "purity" with this practice, it doesn't mean they've broken their vows.
Tsem is Gelug. The sexual practice is similar to Taoist longevity practice, but the Tibetan tradition, like the Hindu tradition it came from, has more emphasis on meditation techniques and breathwork, I think (controlling "winds", and so forth).
It's the Dalai Lama who has written in a couple of his books that it's not sex if you don't ejaculate. He makes it very clear in his writing what that means. He also says that monks retain their "purity" with this practice, it doesn't mean they've broken their vows.
Various Aspects of Tantra by His Holiness Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche
Translated by Gavin Kilty. Prepared by Michael Lewis. Printed in From Tushita, edited and published by Michael Hellbach, Tushita Editions, 1977.
The Relationship between Buddhist Tantra and Hindu Tantra
Although some scholars have maintained that Buddhist tantra was derived from Hinduism, this is not correct. The theory, prevalent among those who adhere to the tenets of the Hinayana, is based on a superficial resemblance of various elements of the two systems, such as the forms of the deities, the meditations on psychic veins and airs, the fire rituals, etc. Though certain practices, like the repetition of mantras, are common to both Hindu and Buddhist tantric traditions their interpretation, i.e. the inner meaning, is vastly different. Furthermore, Buddhist tantra is superior because, unlike Hinduism, it contains the three principal aspects of the Path: renunciation, the enlightened attitude and the right philosophy.
To elaborate: as even animals want freedom from suffering, there are non-Buddhist practitioners who wish to be free from contaminated feelings of happiness and so cultivate the preparatory state of the fourth absorption (Dhyana). There are even some non-Buddhists who temporarily renounce contaminated feelings of happiness and attain levels higher than the four absorptions. However, only the Buddhists renounce all these as well as neutral feelings and all-pervasive suffering. Then by meditating on the sufferings together with their causes, which are mental defilements, they can be abandoned forever. This is why, while non-Buddhists meditate on the form and formless states and attain the peak of worldly existence, samadhi, they cannot abandon the mental defilements of this state. So, when they meet with the right circumstances anger and the other passions develop, karma is created and the wheel of the circle of rebirth begins to turn.
Because of this and similar reasons, such practices are not fit to be included in the Mahayana. They resemble neither the common sutra path comprising: the attitude of renunciation which wishes for freedom from the cycle of rebirths; the wisdom which correctly understands egolessness, which is the right philosophy acting as an opponent to ignorance-the root of cyclic existence; and the development of the mind which aims for complete enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings; nor do they resemble the practices of the exclusive tantric path of the Great Vehicle.
The Origin of Tantra
The tantras were spoken by the Buddha himself in the form of his supreme manifestation as a monk, also as the great Vajradhara and in various manifestations of the central deity of specific mandalas. The great beings, Manjushri, Samantabhadra, Vajrapani and others, urged by the Buddha, also taught some tantras.
In terms of the four classes of tantra, the Kriya tantras were taught by the Buddha in the form of a monk, in the realm of the thirty-three gods on the summit of Mt. Meru, and in the human world where Manjushri and others were the chief hearers.
The Pung-Zang tantras were taught in the realm of Vajrapani. Others were taught by the teacher, Buddha himself, and with his blessings some were explained by Avalokiteshvara, Manjushri and Vajrapani while others were spoken by worldly gods.
The Carya tantras were also taught by the teacher Buddha in the form of his supreme manifestation in the celestial realms and in the realm called Base and Essence Adorned with Flowers.
The Yoga tantras were taught by the Enlightened One when he arose in the form of the central deity of each mandala in such places as the summit of Mt. Meru and in the fifth celestial realm of desire.
The Anuttara tantras were also taught by the Buddha. In the land of Ögyan the Buddha, having manifested the mandala of Guhyasamaja, taught King Indrabodhi this tantra. The Yamantaka tantras were taught by the teacher Buddha at the time of the subduing of the demonic forces and they were requested by either the consort of Yamantaka or by the consort of Kalacakra. The Hevajra tantra was taught by Lord Buddha when he arose in the form of Hevajra in the land of Madgadha at the time of destroying the four maras. The tantra was requested by Vajragarbha and by the consort of Hevajra. Having been requested by Vajra Yogini, the Buddha, in the manifestation as Heruka on the summit of Mt. Meru, taught the root tantra of Heruka and, when requested by Vajrapani, taught the explanatory tantra. As for the Kalacakra tantra, the mighty Buddha went south to the glorious shrine of Dharnacotaka and there, manifesting the mandala of the Dharmadhatu speech surmounted by the mandala of Kalacakra, taught this tantra to King Chandrabhadra and others. Although he appeared in many different manifestations, actually the tantras were taught by the enlightened teacher, Lord Buddha.
What happens during an initiation
In the initiations of each of the four classes of tantra there are many differences, some great and some small, and so therefore one initiation is not sufficient for all mandalas. At the time of initiation some fortunate and qualified disciples, when receiving the initiation from a qualified master, develop the wisdom of the initiation in their mind streams. Unless this happens, sitting in initiation rows and experiencing the initiations of the vase and water, etc. will implant instincts to listen to the Dharma but little else. An initiation is necessary to study tantra because if the secrets of tantra are explained to someone who has not received initiation, the guru commits the seventh tantric root downfall and the explanation will be of no benefit whatsoever to the mind of the disciple.
The relationship between Sutra and Tantra
Regarding renunciation and bodhicitta, there is no difference between Sutrayana and Tantrayana, but regarding conduct there is. Three kinds of conduct have been taught: the disciple who admires and has faith in the Hinayana should separate himself from all desires; the disciple who admires the Mahayana should traverse the stages and practice the perfections; while he who admires the deep teachings of tantra should work with the conduct of the path of desire.
From the point of view of the philosophy, there is no difference in emptiness as an object of cognition but there is a difference in the method of its realization.
In the sutra tradition the conscious mind engages in meditative equipoise on emptiness, while in tantra the innate wisdom, an extremely subtle mind, is involved and the difference therefore is great. The main practice of Sutrayana, engaging in the path as a cause to achieve the form body and wisdom body of a buddha, is the accumulation of wisdom and virtue for three countless eons and the accomplishment of one's own buddhafields. Therefore, Sutrayana is known as the causal vehicle. In tantra one concentrates and meditates, even while still a beginner, on the four complete purities which are similar to the result—that is, the completely pure body, pure realm, pure possessions and pure deeds of an enlightened being. Thus tantra is known as the resultant vehicle.
The Four Traditions
As for the sutra tradition, the explanation of the Hinayana and Mahayana is the same in all the four great traditions. Also, as far as the preliminary practices are concerned, there are no differences apart from the names. In the Gelug tradition they are called the Stages of the Path of the Three Motives; in the Kargyü they are known as the Four Ways to Change the Mind; the Sakya refer to Separation from the Four Attachments; while the Dri-gung Kargyu speak of the Four Dharmas of Dag-pa and the Five of Dri-gung.
In tantra, the individual master's way of leading the disciples on the path depends on his experience and the instructions of the tantric root texts, together with the commentaries of the great practitioners. These result in the entrance into practice being taught a little differently. However, all are the same in leading to the final attainment of the state of Vajradhara.
TB tantra is clearly Hindu Shakti/Shaivism with a veneer of Buddhist theory. The mythology of the various lineages is hardly an objective source. We had a whole thread on that question last year, you must've missed it. In any case, we're getting off-topic.
TB tantra is clearly Hindu Shakti/Shaivism with a veneer of Buddhist theory. The mythology of the various lineages is hardly an objective source. We had a whole thread on that question last year, you must've missed it. In any case, we're getting off-topic.
Dakini. You state that as if it is established fact when actually it is not. Do you recall Vajraheart's thoughts? Additionally it is very possible that some of the people buddha taught had practiced something resembling tantra. Buddha may have given them teachings which they could understand and use. There was definitely a schism in the sangha. That we know. And it is a presumption to say 'these were heretics' or whatever.
TB tantra is clearly Hindu Shakti/Shaivism with a veneer of Buddhist theory. The mythology of the various lineages is hardly an objective source. We had a whole thread on that question last year, you must've missed it. In any case, we're getting off-topic.
@Dakini, that is not what I recall. Vajraheart said that Hindu Tantra emerged from Buddhist Tantra as I recall it. And he said that indisputably both influenced eachother and were interwoven. In my sangha it is influenced by mahamudra. Clarity, Openness, and Sensitivity is the main idea. And that teaching is stamped by the three marks of impermanence, non-self, and dukkha. Thus it is a buddhist teaching. I recall you also saying Buddha Nature, the Two Truths teaching, and so forth are not buddhist teachings. I have to say it but you are aligning yourself with sectarianism. And establishing yourself as an arbitrator of what is and isn't a buddhist teaching.
So is Zen buddhism clearly Taoism with a veneer of Buddhism?
Are you arguing that Vajraheart, a vajrayana practitioner and self described buddhist, has stated that his own practice is not buddhist. That doesn't even make sense Dakini. :crazy:
It seems that there was a schism and then one group put their ideas in writing first. And the assumption is that their text defines what is and isn't a teaching. Because they wrote it down first? Is that how this works?
Now, without getting into this "veneer" business, it seems very possible that you might have energetic practices revolving around a kind of sexual yoga or alchemy, which, when those practices are taken up by different religions, make meaning out of the practices and why and how they work in different ways. --Isn't that observed in syncreticsms, like, yes, Zen?
Are you arguing that Vajraheart, a vajrayana practitioner and self described buddhist, has stated that his own practice is not buddhist. That doesn't even make sense Dakini. :crazy:
That's what he said. The core of it comes from Hindu Shaivism (his term), but much Buddhist theory and practice has been woven in. The end product is a hybrid. I've read, for example, that the drinking of alcohol that is part of the Highest Yoga Tantra initiations originally was done as an offering to Shakti. The eating of meat was an offering to Shiva.
I suppose if you define sex as that activity which is meant for procreation, then "non-ejaculatory sex" would not be sex.
What's your opinion on that score, Conrad? I think sex is sex. But some say, no, it's not sex, it's ritual, it's symbolic, it's meditation.
I think the function of sex is procreation. But that does not mean its purpose is.
A lot of what we do is "hack" our existing system to make it do things it was not necessarily meant to do. We weren't meant to become enlightened.
Could a person leverage behavior designed for species propagation for the purpose of cultivating clear-mindedness? --I imagine so.
If it is usage that determines meaning, Clinton was right: at that time a researcher published previously-collected data that showed that most Americans did not consider that oral was "sex." (Got in trouble for publishing it too. Considered political.)
On the other hand, could someone repurpose sexual yoga as a pretense for talking someone into bed? Ya think?
Am I willing to get drawn into what I personally see as your feminist prudery, your sex-is-inherently-exploitative crusade? --No. I think it's intrusive.
Anyway, sexual yoga works. It's not important to me if tantric monks use it as a loophole to allow an easy out from their vows of abstinance. They were stupid vows anyway.
This is debatable. The kundalini energy exists for a reason. Great topic for its own thread.
Could a person leverage behavior designed for species propagation for the purpose of cultivating clear-mindedness? --I imagine so.
It's already a fait accomplis. And not only Hindus and Tibetans have so leveraged. Some of the Gnostic sects, Jewish sects and, I hear, Islam have as well, at one point or another in history.
Am I willing to get drawn into what I personally see as your feminist prudery, your sex-is-inherently-exploitative crusade? --No. I think it's intrusive.
Don't be ridiculous. Totally missing the point. Anyway, you made the leading comment, I was just following up to your supposing.
Anyway, sexual yoga works. It's not important to me if tantric monks use it as a loophole to allow an easy out from their vows of abstinance. They were stupid vows anyway.
No one said it doesn't work. But think about it: if they're not planning to keep the vows anyway, why take them? Why the pretense? And if their religion is based on sexual yoga, and they're monks, where are they going to get the women, living in monasteries as they do? It's a system designed to fail, and to cause abuse. It's interesting. Some high lamas cluck and fuss about Westerners using the tantric technique for better sex. They tsk tsk about the West stripping the tradition of much of its spirituality and using it more mundanely. But whose way is causing suffering and trauma, and whose is taking place in a context of mutual agreement and loving egalitarianism? Seems like the secular way is doing a better job of it.
This is debatable. The kundalini energy exists for a reason. Great topic for its own thread.
It has a function. That does not mean it has a purpose.
Could a person leverage behavior designed for species propagation for the purpose of cultivating clear-mindedness? --I imagine so.
It's already a fait accomplis. And not only Hindus and Tibetans have so leveraged. Some of the Gnostic sects, Jewish sects and, I hear, Islam have as well, at one point or another in history.
Then surely you would agree that this practice is not exactly "sex"?
Am I willing to get drawn into what I personally see as your feminist prudery, your sex-is-inherently-exploitative crusade? --No. I think it's intrusive.
Don't be ridiculous. Totally missing the point. Anyway, you made the leading comment, I was just following up to your supposing.
No, I'm not missing the point. As your following comment shows. Your agenda is to condemn religious people for having sex.
Anyway, sexual yoga works. It's not important to me if tantric monks use it as a loophole to allow an easy out from their vows of abstinance. They were stupid vows anyway.
No one said it doesn't work. But think about it: if they're not planning to keep the vows anyway, why take them? Why the pretense? And if their religion is based on sexual yoga, and they're monks, where are they going to get the women, living in monasteries as they do? It's a system designed to fail, and to cause abuse.
Because women aren't interested in sex, in enlightenment, or in yoga?
It's interesting. Some high lamas cluck and fuss about Westerners using the tantric technique for better sex. They tsk tsk about the West stripping the tradition of much of its spirituality and using it more mundanely. But whose way is causing suffering and trauma, and whose is taking place in a context of mutual agreement and loving egalitarianism? Seems like the secular way is doing a better job of it.
You are imputing that sexuality in the context of a religious life inherently causes trauma. Which is a hobby horse of yours. I don't buy it.
In my view, what causes trauma is ill-will and a repressive culture. As you advocate sexual repression, I consider the causes you advocate to ultimately be trauma-causing.
It's not my business why or how a religion defines its vows. I feel the same way about the Catholics and their thing about gays. Those of us who are not Catholic should not be trying to tell the Catholics how to run their religion.
No, I'm not missing the point. As your following comment shows. Your agenda is to condemn religious people for having sex.
hahahahaha!
You are imputing that sexuality in the context of a religious life inherently causes trauma.
I'm saying that when the highest practice of a monastic tradition requires the use of women's sex organs, there's a high risk of abuse, unless the monks can find enough women to hire or to volunteer. Talk about repressive culture, you should hear what Tibetans have to say about monks and tulkus who have consorts or surround themselves with women!
Dakini, I do not understand how this is a laughing matter to you. This is in fact what you do. You have been doing it for the past year. I have never heard you pass a favorable judgement on religious people's sexuality.
Holy men get to pass judgement on college kids who adopt their sacraments for the purpose of having a good time. That's what holy men are for. It's called moral authority.
Religions are not supposed to be fair. That's not what they're for. They're supposed to be true.
You, on the other hand, do not get to imply that all tantric Buddhists are rapists and molesters. You just don't. You can talk about particular ones, if you have collected enough good evidence. You can then work backward to the causes and identify the institutions around tantra as an aggravating factor.
But this thing you do, where you identify an instance of sexuality in religious communities and derive intellectually the presumed existence of abuse -- is getting really old. And, speaking for myself, it just does not lead me to take you seriously when you start working the hobby-horse and neglect this little thing called evidence.
Not this again! :rolleyes: There's a problem in Buddhism. Similar to the current problem in Catholicism. How many people believe Catholic priests have any moral authority? Some lamas are a turn-off in that regard, frankly. I've become very dubious about any spiritual authority's moral authority. No one gets my respect without proving themselves first.
Life is a lot simpler if, in childlike innocence, you assume morality and integrity on the part of the priest or guru and suspend critical thinking. Experience has a way of disillusioning the innocent. This is the road to maturity and wisdom. Sadder, but wiser.
@conradcook I think it's a good point about the monastic tradition; we're lead to believe the tradition is celibate. Except for sects that allow married "monks". Then we learn there are secret rituals (not so secret nowadays) involving alcohol consumption (4th precept, anyone?) and sex. How does that square with celibacy? How does it square with Buddhism? :wtf: This isn't the Buddhism I signed up for.
Are you arguing that Vajraheart, a vajrayana practitioner and self described buddhist, has stated that his own practice is not buddhist. That doesn't even make sense Dakini. :crazy:
That's what he said. The core of it comes from Hindu Shaivism (his term), but much Buddhist theory and practice has been woven in. The end product is a hybrid. I've read, for example, that the drinking of alcohol that is part of the Highest Yoga Tantra initiations originally was done as an offering to Shakti. The eating of meat was an offering to Shiva.
That is not what I recall @Vajraheart saying. Moreover it does not make sense. Vajraheart is a vajrayana buddhist. He grew up a hindu but he changed to buddhism. Vajraheart felt that he was receiving buddhist teachings as a vajrayana buddhist. The offering to Shakti is just an example of how you are not correct. In Tibetan vajrayana buddhism the alcohol is NOT an offering to shakti. It is a symbol of non-attachment to purity. Just because two groups drink ceremonial alcohol does not indicate that hindu tantra predates buddhist tantra. Catholicism also uses alcohol in a ceremony and that fact does not establish a link to either buddhism or hinduism.
They're not my priests or holy men, so I don't get to feel betrayed. You certainly can if you want to. But I don't feel I can.
However, even though they're not my holy men, I do understand that they get to pass judgement. Particularly on college students who co-opt their sacraments to have a good time. I mean, it's kind of their job.
--And, I get to ignore them if I like. I'm certainly not going to armchair quarterback their operation and tell them how to be holy men.
Conrad.
ps - However, I will say that you might avoid bitter disappointments if you don't have the expectation that Buddhist monks are other than human.
--From what I've seen, the ones who really get advanced are rarely the ones who percolate to the top of the heirarchies. Probably a general rule having to do with politics.
Find the idiot who's always being assigned the crap work and doesn't mind. Him I bet you'll learn from.
You and me both.
I admit this is 90% speculation and 10% observation of a Zen Center I go to. To consider, not to rely on.
@Jeffrey V-heart did say what I said he said. :crazy: It made a big impression on me. The thing is, in a later thread, he said something a little different, that may be what you're recalling, then he modified that 2nd statement. I wish I'd bookmarked his original comments. And I didn't say "Hinduism", I said specifically Hindu (call it "Indian" if you prefer) Shakti/Shaivism.
Conrad, you're reading so much into my posts, there's no point in dragging this on. Now you're imagining I'm against religious sex, or something. If you can't see the difference between traditions in which non-celibate men and women participate as equals, and a monastic tradition feigning celibacy but requiring the use of women's bodies for the monks' own enlightenment (which use is supposedly prohibited), even girls' bodies, as some of the tantric texts instruct, well then I can't help you. If nothing else, such a tradition is a recipe for hypocrisy and corruption. And no one said anything about college kids. Anyway, heaven (or "nirvana"?) knows we've discussed all this to death on earlier threads. Let's not rehash it all here.
@Dakini, Vajraheart grew up in Shaivism and did not find fulfillment. Later he became interested in buddhism. Do you recall him describing how buddhism's dependent origination view was more true to him and helpful? We have to at least conclude that Vajraheart did not see his own practice as a veneer of buddhism. What I recall Vajraheart saying is that buddhist and Indian tantra were entwined. He stuck to his guns that buddhist was first however.
You are still involved in sectarianism. What is your motivation if I may ask? You seem like a protestant who gets mad that Catholics pray to Mary. wtf? Reality doesn't fit in these neat little boxes: 'real buddhism' 'not-real buddhism'. It's a red herring.
Shaivism does not include dependent origination as far as I know. Advaita Vedanta is more like buddhism than Shaivism.
@Dakini, I will try to think of this in terms of needs. As buddhists we derive a lot of inspiration in the Buddha. We have heard of the buddha and as we got interested presumably we felt we were going in the right direction.
Ok so you have a buddhist from sect Tibetan Buddhism. Now that person believes in the stories and tradition and cultures. They are happy. They have a community and they are learning teachings they are excited about and seem true to them.
So next a person comes to them and tells them their religion is not from Buddha. Does this help them? In them they have a closeness to Buddha but someone is saying their beliefs are false. So in them they have a need that is attacked.
Now why does a person decide to go on to show other people that their beliefs are false? I just don't understand what that person's need is. Are they trying to convert others to their way of thinking? What's going on with them?
If you can't see the difference between traditions in which non-celibate men and women participate as equals, and a monastic tradition feigning celibacy...
You're implying that you only go after dirty old men who hide behind religion. But in fact, a year ago you were aggressively investigating American Zen Centers, which are coed in membership and authority structure.
Can you identify any religious non-celibate community which you have passed *positive* judgement on?
Without the specific evidence of wrongdoing, you should not be making these accusations. With the specific evidence of wrongdoing, you should stick to the evidence!
There is a disconnect between sexual abuse and sex in awareness practice. Sex doesn't cause sexual abuse. This is easy to see in our own experiences. A normal person has sex. A normal person does not sexually abuse. A kung fu teacher teaches martial proficiency. But martial proficiency does not cause abusive violence. Most rape occurs between men and women who know each other. But friendship between the sexes does not cause rape.
There is a disconnect between sex in awareness practice and sexual abuse. The first does not cause the second.
Comments
The DL does teach differently. He's much more open to saying "I don't know" in response to a question, he's open to considering other points of view. That's not the norm in TB, or B in general. I also think his teaching approach varies, depending on whom he's teaching, the setting (individual/small groups, vs. large crowds) and other factors.
I like your physics analogy, Jeffrey, except that rebirth hasn't been proven. Gross, subtle, and very subtle mind haven't been proven, they're part of an elaborate theory in TB, which is based on hundreds of years of experience in meditation, dream state, etc., but still, it's a world unto itself, and one could question the validity of these conclusions. If one wants to learn about TB's worldview, then these teachings are fine. If one wants to arrive at a better understanding of reality through these teachings to one's own satisfaction, it may not happen.
I think when we go to teachings, there's a certain suspension of disbelief. We open ourselves up to receive these teachings and to a certain extent, suspend our critical thinking. I did that back when I was going to sangha to a certain point. And even when I thought I spotted contradictions or holes in the reasoning presented, and asked questions, the teacher always had an answer that satisfied me. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends on your viewpoint and what you want out of the teachings, why you're there.
The wiki link gave one definition of demigogue as: "20th-century American social critic and humorist H. L. Mencken, defined a demagogue as "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." I am a skeptic of @Dhammafields ability to know for a fact that Tsem does not believe in his own teachings. Additionally the claim is ad hominem because even if Tsem does not believe his own teachings they could be true in spite of it. To refute teachings you need to refute the content rather than sniping at the delivery person.
You have to ask yourself would it be socially acceptable for New Buddhist's members to refer to each other as liars? If name-calling is not in accordance with ahimsa for discourse amongst peers on Newbuddhist then why is it in accordance with ahimsa to make accusations at teachers?
Sorry, if I did give the wrong impression, as I wasn't trying to be definitive about Tsem, the rant icon was a playful jibe at how I saw him, not my reaction, but yes, it was a bit blunt. But, it did spark an interesting dialogue, which I invite you to honestly try and see if there is something that may be useful and compassionate in my writing about this.
I understand your point, but I would argue that "we" are far too uncritical and too tolerating of the guru style and the power relations that go with it, I am not sure the ends justifies the means. I think it runs deeper than me and we would have a much better world if more people had an awareness of how authority is necessarily constructed and that there are more positive ways of doing that. It took me years of practice and many grovelling mistakes before I came to see through that game and abusive behaviours of my own teachers. Seeing it as not a just one or two bad apples, but my own naivete did feel like a form of liberation - and in Zen they say when you meet the Buddha, you kill the Buddha. In this regard, I perhaps err on the sceptical, but having been bitten twice, I am twice as shy.
In regard to your question of whether it is posible to make a judgement of someone's practice by observation. I think this is pretty important - in my own experience, there are many subtle impacts of practice that manifest in almost every detail of a person's demeanor. As one becomes more clear we see how the mind and the body are connected. When the mind is clear, the body reflects it. It works both ways which is why Taiji is a great tool. It is also how I judge my own practice. Mindfulness of sensations is first level, but later on it becomes a second order tool - odd sensations give me clues to what is subtley going on in my mind.
In a world where the oriental "other" is romanticised, people cling like limpets to old traditions as a refuge, and it is hard to beg to differ! As I see it, each tradition is flawed, each has many skeletons in their closet, rarely to they match modern historical accounts, and most have made massive apocrypal additions to the dharma. These are not trivial, but serious questions. The baby-boomer seekers bought into the story without question, we practiced very hard, some with good teachers, and there were many frauds; luckily, enough of us experienced the positives before we encountered the negatives and enough so stayed in the game, even if only a few were attractive enough to have the privelege of being "had" , most of us gutlessly turned our backs when told to.
As a survivor, I don't turn my back. Perhaps I am really postbuddhist (see McMahon) which comes out of a sense of frustration with limitations of traditional Buddhist cultures and is a modern expression of hope that we can explore a new direction, critically exploring the nature and effects of premodern social hierarchies, homophobia, subjugation of women, lack of respect for lay teachers and how we might have a truly open dialogue. And if, as Glen Wallis suggests, we are stuck in a grammar that goes around in circles and this seems to be true of many discussions where there is a tendency to go on appologising or defending the status quo. For me this seems a bit like talking to Jehovah's witnesses, who cling to what they have so invested greatly in.
Saying that the money will go to houses cars and a demon monastery is a little vague. How many cars and houses does he have for example? And how much of the money goes to the monastery relative to the personal possessions. I definitely have distaste for dharma teacher's living in luxary, but I wouldn't mind them having a car to get around and a house to live.
Regarding the houses and cars I think it depends. I think it's not in the spirit of buddhism. At same time I would expect that many leaders of organizations are compensated for their expertise. But before passing judgement I require facts.
And I find it 100% likely that an anti-dorje shugden person is biased owing to the ideology.
What he says is the subtle mind appears reliably in three contexts:
1. When you are sleeping and dreaming
2. When you have an orgasm
3. When you die
He sees the gross mind as being of the senses. It seems in his philosophy to form a kind of buffer to the subtle mind, which is all that survives death. Therefore, he says, focus on benefitting the subtle mind.
What he says about sex -- which is a different claim than that the subtle mind appears during orgasm -- is that sex can be done as a kind of giving, which can benefit the partner. The partner may take up dharma practice after sex, just as someone may take up dharma practice after having dinner together.
Honestly, it seems to me that people just picked up on the talk about sex.
Can someone tell me what school this teacher belongs to? -- Is this teaching a standard representation of that school's philosophy?
Conrad.
ps - Walking meditation is possible but not sex meditation? Clear mind practicing a martial art but not during sex?
I'd be interested to know if this teaching shares origins with the Taoist teaching about sex, or if was independently discovered.
(BTW, it's true that trapping orgasms feels incredibly better than doing the normal thing. I don't know if it has anything to do with the subtle mind -- might just be a physiological thing. You kind of relax and drink the energy with your bod, rather than tense up and drive the energy out. -- It goes against instinct, but it's not difficult.)
I haven't heard talk like that since Clinton's time!
Honestly, what two skilled practitioners end up doing when they're going at it is very unlike what two lay-people do. They'll use the exchange of energies, hot and cold, to make a kind of engine that builds up and stores away energy.
I don't see the speaker's claim that "it's not sex" as a Clinton-like dodge. He's just trying to put something across to his students.
Conrad.
ps - "Ejaculating" means "having a traditional orgasm that expends the sexual energy."
It's the Dalai Lama who has written in a couple of his books that it's not sex if you don't ejaculate. He makes it very clear in his writing what that means. He also says that monks retain their "purity" with this practice, it doesn't mean they've broken their vows.
But truly, the two definitions might be different in intension, but they're not in extension. The one follows the other.
Whether we're managing energy and feelings or bodily fluids, it's interchangeable.
C.
Buddhist Tantra did not come from Hindu Tantra.
Various Aspects of Tantra
by His Holiness Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche
Translated by Gavin Kilty. Prepared by Michael Lewis. Printed in From Tushita, edited and published by Michael Hellbach, Tushita Editions, 1977.
The Relationship between Buddhist Tantra and Hindu Tantra
Although some scholars have maintained that Buddhist tantra was derived from Hinduism, this is not correct. The theory, prevalent among those who adhere to the tenets of the Hinayana, is based on a superficial resemblance of various elements of the two systems, such as the forms of the deities, the meditations on psychic veins and airs, the fire rituals, etc. Though certain practices, like the repetition of mantras, are common to both Hindu and Buddhist tantric traditions their interpretation, i.e. the inner meaning, is vastly different. Furthermore, Buddhist tantra is superior because, unlike Hinduism, it contains the three principal aspects of the Path: renunciation, the enlightened attitude and the right philosophy.
To elaborate: as even animals want freedom from suffering, there are non-Buddhist practitioners who wish to be free from contaminated feelings of happiness and so cultivate the preparatory state of the fourth absorption (Dhyana). There are even some non-Buddhists who temporarily renounce contaminated feelings of happiness and attain levels higher than the four absorptions. However, only the Buddhists renounce all these as well as neutral feelings and all-pervasive suffering. Then by meditating on the sufferings together with their causes, which are mental defilements, they can be abandoned forever. This is why, while non-Buddhists meditate on the form and formless states and attain the peak of worldly existence, samadhi, they cannot abandon the mental defilements of this state. So, when they meet with the right circumstances anger and the other passions develop, karma is created and the wheel of the circle of rebirth begins to turn.
Because of this and similar reasons, such practices are not fit to be included in the Mahayana. They resemble neither the common sutra path comprising: the attitude of renunciation which wishes for freedom from the cycle of rebirths; the wisdom which correctly understands egolessness, which is the right philosophy acting as an opponent to ignorance-the root of cyclic existence; and the development of the mind which aims for complete enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings; nor do they resemble the practices of the exclusive tantric path of the Great Vehicle.
The Origin of Tantra
The tantras were spoken by the Buddha himself in the form of his supreme manifestation as a monk, also as the great Vajradhara and in various manifestations of the central deity of specific mandalas. The great beings, Manjushri, Samantabhadra, Vajrapani and others, urged by the Buddha, also taught some tantras.
In terms of the four classes of tantra, the Kriya tantras were taught by the Buddha in the form of a monk, in the realm of the thirty-three gods on the summit of Mt. Meru, and in the human world where Manjushri and others were the chief hearers.
The Pung-Zang tantras were taught in the realm of Vajrapani. Others were taught by the teacher, Buddha himself, and with his blessings some were explained by Avalokiteshvara, Manjushri and Vajrapani while others were spoken by worldly gods.
The Carya tantras were also taught by the teacher Buddha in the form of his supreme manifestation in the celestial realms and in the realm called Base and Essence Adorned with Flowers.
The Yoga tantras were taught by the Enlightened One when he arose in the form of the central deity of each mandala in such places as the summit of Mt. Meru and in the fifth celestial realm of desire.
The Anuttara tantras were also taught by the Buddha. In the land of Ögyan the Buddha, having manifested the mandala of Guhyasamaja, taught King Indrabodhi this tantra. The Yamantaka tantras were taught by the teacher Buddha at the time of the subduing of the demonic forces and they were requested by either the consort of Yamantaka or by the consort of Kalacakra. The Hevajra tantra was taught by Lord Buddha when he arose in the form of Hevajra in the land of Madgadha at the time of destroying the four maras. The tantra was requested by Vajragarbha and by the consort of Hevajra. Having been requested by Vajra Yogini, the Buddha, in the manifestation as Heruka on the summit of Mt. Meru, taught the root tantra of Heruka and, when requested by Vajrapani, taught the explanatory tantra. As for the Kalacakra tantra, the mighty Buddha went south to the glorious shrine of Dharnacotaka and there, manifesting the mandala of the Dharmadhatu speech surmounted by the mandala of Kalacakra, taught this tantra to King Chandrabhadra and others. Although he appeared in many different manifestations, actually the tantras were taught by the enlightened teacher, Lord Buddha.
What happens during an initiation
In the initiations of each of the four classes of tantra there are many differences, some great and some small, and so therefore one initiation is not sufficient for all mandalas. At the time of initiation some fortunate and qualified disciples, when receiving the initiation from a qualified master, develop the wisdom of the initiation in their mind streams. Unless this happens, sitting in initiation rows and experiencing the initiations of the vase and water, etc. will implant instincts to listen to the Dharma but little else. An initiation is necessary to study tantra because if the secrets of tantra are explained to someone who has not received initiation, the guru commits the seventh tantric root downfall and the explanation will be of no benefit whatsoever to the mind of the disciple.
The relationship between Sutra and Tantra
Regarding renunciation and bodhicitta, there is no difference between Sutrayana and Tantrayana, but regarding conduct there is. Three kinds of conduct have been taught: the disciple who admires and has faith in the Hinayana should separate himself from all desires; the disciple who admires the Mahayana should traverse the stages and practice the perfections; while he who admires the deep teachings of tantra should work with the conduct of the path of desire.
From the point of view of the philosophy, there is no difference in emptiness as an object of cognition but there is a difference in the method of its realization.
In the sutra tradition the conscious mind engages in meditative equipoise on emptiness, while in tantra the innate wisdom, an extremely subtle mind, is involved and the difference therefore is great. The main practice of Sutrayana, engaging in the path as a cause to achieve the form body and wisdom body of a buddha, is the accumulation of wisdom and virtue for three countless eons and the accomplishment of one's own buddhafields. Therefore, Sutrayana is known as the causal vehicle. In tantra one concentrates and meditates, even while still a beginner, on the four complete purities which are similar to the result—that is, the completely pure body, pure realm, pure possessions and pure deeds of an enlightened being. Thus tantra is known as the resultant vehicle.
The Four Traditions
As for the sutra tradition, the explanation of the Hinayana and Mahayana is the same in all the four great traditions. Also, as far as the preliminary practices are concerned, there are no differences apart from the names. In the Gelug tradition they are called the Stages of the Path of the Three Motives; in the Kargyü they are known as the Four Ways to Change the Mind; the Sakya refer to Separation from the Four Attachments; while the Dri-gung Kargyu speak of the Four Dharmas of Dag-pa and the Five of Dri-gung.
In tantra, the individual master's way of leading the disciples on the path depends on his experience and the instructions of the tantric root texts, together with the commentaries of the great practitioners. These result in the entrance into practice being taught a little differently. However, all are the same in leading to the final attainment of the state of Vajradhara.
So is Zen buddhism clearly Taoism with a veneer of Buddhism?
A lot of what we do is "hack" our existing system to make it do things it was not necessarily meant to do. We weren't meant to become enlightened.
Could a person leverage behavior designed for species propagation for the purpose of cultivating clear-mindedness? --I imagine so.
If it is usage that determines meaning, Clinton was right: at that time a researcher published previously-collected data that showed that most Americans did not consider that oral was "sex." (Got in trouble for publishing it too. Considered political.)
On the other hand, could someone repurpose sexual yoga as a pretense for talking someone into bed? Ya think?
Am I willing to get drawn into what I personally see as your feminist prudery, your sex-is-inherently-exploitative crusade? --No. I think it's intrusive.
Anyway, sexual yoga works. It's not important to me if tantric monks use it as a loophole to allow an easy out from their vows of abstinance. They were stupid vows anyway.
You're an ascetic. -- For others.
My honest thoughts.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
It's interesting. Some high lamas cluck and fuss about Westerners using the tantric technique for better sex. They tsk tsk about the West stripping the tradition of much of its spirituality and using it more mundanely. But whose way is causing suffering and trauma, and whose is taking place in a context of mutual agreement and loving egalitarianism? Seems like the secular way is doing a better job of it.
(We're really off topic now!)
In my view, what causes trauma is ill-will and a repressive culture. As you advocate sexual repression, I consider the causes you advocate to ultimately be trauma-causing.
It's not my business why or how a religion defines its vows. I feel the same way about the Catholics and their thing about gays. Those of us who are not Catholic should not be trying to tell the Catholics how to run their religion.
Conrad.
Holy men get to pass judgement on college kids who adopt their sacraments for the purpose of having a good time. That's what holy men are for. It's called moral authority.
Religions are not supposed to be fair. That's not what they're for. They're supposed to be true.
You, on the other hand, do not get to imply that all tantric Buddhists are rapists and molesters. You just don't. You can talk about particular ones, if you have collected enough good evidence. You can then work backward to the causes and identify the institutions around tantra as an aggravating factor.
But this thing you do, where you identify an instance of sexuality in religious communities and derive intellectually the presumed existence of abuse -- is getting really old. And, speaking for myself, it just does not lead me to take you seriously when you start working the hobby-horse and neglect this little thing called evidence.
I'm honestly not trying to be mean here.
Conrad.
Life is a lot simpler if, in childlike innocence, you assume morality and integrity on the part of the priest or guru and suspend critical thinking. Experience has a way of disillusioning the innocent. This is the road to maturity and wisdom. Sadder, but wiser.
@conradcook I think it's a good point about the monastic tradition; we're lead to believe the tradition is celibate. Except for sects that allow married "monks". Then we learn there are secret rituals (not so secret nowadays) involving alcohol consumption (4th precept, anyone?) and sex. How does that square with celibacy? How does it square with Buddhism? :wtf: This isn't the Buddhism I signed up for.
They're not my priests or holy men, so I don't get to feel betrayed. You certainly can if you want to. But I don't feel I can.
However, even though they're not my holy men, I do understand that they get to pass judgement. Particularly on college students who co-opt their sacraments to have a good time. I mean, it's kind of their job.
--And, I get to ignore them if I like. I'm certainly not going to armchair quarterback their operation and tell them how to be holy men.
Conrad.
ps - However, I will say that you might avoid bitter disappointments if you don't have the expectation that Buddhist monks are other than human.
--From what I've seen, the ones who really get advanced are rarely the ones who percolate to the top of the heirarchies. Probably a general rule having to do with politics.
Find the idiot who's always being assigned the crap work and doesn't mind. Him I bet you'll learn from.
You and me both.
I admit this is 90% speculation and 10% observation of a Zen Center I go to. To consider, not to rely on.
India also had a tradition of rebirth. Buddha included rebirth. The Pali Canon is not more authoritative because someone wrote it down first.
Conrad, you're reading so much into my posts, there's no point in dragging this on. Now you're imagining I'm against religious sex, or something. If you can't see the difference between traditions in which non-celibate men and women participate as equals, and a monastic tradition feigning celibacy but requiring the use of women's bodies for the monks' own enlightenment (which use is supposedly prohibited), even girls' bodies, as some of the tantric texts instruct, well then I can't help you. If nothing else, such a tradition is a recipe for hypocrisy and corruption. And no one said anything about college kids. Anyway, heaven (or "nirvana"?) knows we've discussed all this to death on earlier threads. Let's not rehash it all here.
You are still involved in sectarianism. What is your motivation if I may ask? You seem like a protestant who gets mad that Catholics pray to Mary. wtf? Reality doesn't fit in these neat little boxes: 'real buddhism' 'not-real buddhism'. It's a red herring.
Shaivism does not include dependent origination as far as I know. Advaita Vedanta is more like buddhism than Shaivism.
Ok so you have a buddhist from sect Tibetan Buddhism. Now that person believes in the stories and tradition and cultures. They are happy. They have a community and they are learning teachings they are excited about and seem true to them.
So next a person comes to them and tells them their religion is not from Buddha. Does this help them? In them they have a closeness to Buddha but someone is saying their beliefs are false. So in them they have a need that is attacked.
Now why does a person decide to go on to show other people that their beliefs are false? I just don't understand what that person's need is. Are they trying to convert others to their way of thinking? What's going on with them?
Conrad.
Can you identify any religious non-celibate community which you have passed *positive* judgement on?
Without the specific evidence of wrongdoing, you should not be making these accusations. With the specific evidence of wrongdoing, you should stick to the evidence!
Conrad.
There is a disconnect between sex in awareness practice and sexual abuse. The first does not cause the second.