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'm surprised to find this topic is still going strong today, way off-topic as it is.
I'm working with my local Zen ctr. to enact stricter ethics regs and measures for addressing problems if they arise. The roshi (female) is very concerned about this issue, and it's been the subject of long and repeated debate at the Zen Studies Society meetings. There's been a serious problem in Zen, as our member zenff (and probably others) could tell you from his experience.
I've noticed that no one is accusing the adult male victims of clerical molestation as being anti-sex. It's only women who get accused of this. Why would that be, I wonder?
It is unbelieveable to me that some men still use that same tactic on women by telling them that they are repressed, frigid, hate sex, or are lesbians. Loose women in the monasteries. I can see it all now. Seems like I have been on a Tibetan forum where men and women are saying that after the lamas get finished with the girls they end up on the streets as prostitutes in Tibet or India ,because no man wants them after they have been used, and "used" is the correct word here because there is no love involved. Still, in spite of this, women are accused by men of being repressed, etc. because they want the women to give in to their wishes. Kind of like how the lama plays the game of "If you want to become enlightened come practice this kriya techinque with sex in the equation, and you will become enlightened." And like how a man talks a woman into having sex with him by using these adjectives and then calls her a whore--another beautiful adjective.
Some men need to grow up because until then they will not have a meaningful relationship with a woman.
My point is that sex does not cause sexual abuse. And that taking away freedom is not a good way to handle abuse.
Here is an article about the root causes of sexual abuse. http://www.ccasa.org/documents/Root_Causes_Short_Descriptions.pdf None of these causes is inherent to sexual awareness practice. That means that it is possible to have a sexual awareness practice without these causes listed in my article.
Therefore if we ban sexual awareness practice it will not address the root causes listed in the article.
Also banning sexual awareness practice is taking away the freedom of consenting adults to practice their religion. Sexual abuse occurs in religions that do not have sexual awareness practice. It occurs in colleges. It occurs in families. It may occur in marriages. It may occur in day care. It may occur at camp. It may occur in big brother and big sister. It may occur in clubs or societies.
As we see sexual abuse can occur in settings other than sexual awareness practice. But we don't limit the freedom to engage in these activities.
So in debate I think there is abuse so there is a harm. But inherency is not proven because sexual abuse occurs in settings other than sexual awareness practice, thus it must not be inherent to the situation of sexual awareness practice. Banning sexual abuse also will not solve the problem because it doesn't address the root causes of sexual abuse listed in my article. Finally there is a disadvantage to banning sexual awareness practice in that religious freedom is persecuted.
It's always possible to imagine an ideal, and ideal conditions can be found in the tradition. I think it's a tradition that's prone to attracting less-than-ideal adepts who use their practice in a way that doesn't observe the basic principle of ahimsa, to state it simply. But this isn't a problem exclusive to HYT. There's the problem of the more garden-variety monk harassing his students, that has nothing to do with tantra.
consenting adults, there's the key! And tantric practitioner-teachers should wear a style of robe that indicates they're not monks. Some do, but I think most don't.
Now we're getting into the topic of how to reform TB. This has nothing to do with this thread's Gross and Subtle Mind topic.
I think it's a tradition that's prone to attracting less-than-ideal adepts who use their practice in a way that doesn't observe the basic principle of ahimsa, to state it simply.
Why do you think it attracts less-than-ideal adepts? I bet you know practically no people who are adepts, but you are making these assumptions. Why do you think sexual awareness practice is not observing ahimsa? That is offensive in my opinion and intolerant of other religions.
Why should tantric practioners wear a style of robe saying they are not monks? The definition of a monk in the Tibetan tradition does not preclude sexual awareness practice. You are imposing your own personal definition of a monk to them. That is also intolerance of other religions.
This does have to do with the thread because the claim was made that the teacher in the OP was awful. And the reason given was that he practiced sexuality in his awareness practice. We are addressing that claim. If defending the teacher is off topic then you have to accept that attacking his character is also off-topic.
What you say about robes is puzzling to me. It reminds me of Hawthorne's novel the Scarlet Letter.
The story starts during the summer of 1642, near Boston, Massachusetts, in a Puritan village. A young woman, named Hester Prynne, has been led from the town prison with her infant daughter in her arms, and on the breast of her gown "a rag of scarlet cloth" that "assumed the shape of a letter." It is the uppercase letter "A." The Scarlet Letter "A" represents the act of adultery that she has committed and it is to be a symbol of her sin—a badge of shame—for all to see.
Making them wear different robes because they have sex is like making Hester Prynne wear a scarlet letter.
Do you not recall the recent thread in which a Western lama said "the monastic thing is just for outer show"? He admitted monks were faking celibacy while practicing HYT. I'm advocating for truth in advertising.
What is "sexual awareness practice"? If all the HYT practitioners and teachers were ethical, there would be fewer scandals and traumatized victims.
They already do wear different robes. Take it up with them if you object. There's a robe that indicates a married lama, and one that indicates a tantric practitioner, like Dilgo Khentse Rinpoche wore. Not all tantric practitioners wear the appropriate robe, though. And Westerners often can't tell the difference.
That perception is changing, caz, due to HHDL's publications, discussions like Tsem Tulku's (see the last part of the OP video) and others who are beginning to be more open about Gelug practice. Tsongkhapa didn't practice it, but he taught it to others and said the practice was essential to reaching enlightenment.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Do you not recall the recent thread in which a Western lama said "the monastic thing is just for outer show"? He admitted monks were faking celibacy while practicing HYT. I'm advocating for truth in advertising.
As I remember, that claim was pretty well debunked in that thread. That's all I want to say, I don't really feel like engaging in this topic atm.
That perception is changing, caz, due to HHDL's publications, discussions like Tsem Tulku's (see the last part of the OP video) and others who are beginning to be more open about Gelug practice. Tsongkhapa didn't practice it, but he taught it to others and said the practice was essential to reaching enlightenment.
And yet he reached enlightenment without practicing it didnt he There are many in the Gelug who dont practice it physically as it would contridict their vows. Teachers like Geshe Kelsang havent taught it in their organisation.
Yes, he did, but he's the exception. I don't believe what you say about NKT. We had an NKT member here last year who was very enthusiastic about already practicing HYT even though he'd only been in the organization for a year, and a friend of mine has former NKT friends who quit because they didn't agree with the organization teaching the consort practice so early in students' careers.
@dakini if some dude says 'the monastic thing is all for show' it doesn't mean that is true. It just means that somebody said it. And it would be wise to question what he meant by that statement. It could have been meant as something like 'there is no buddhism there is only awareness'. You know one of those zen things or whatever. In that tradition the sexual awareness practice does not violate their understanding of celibacy. Please allow them to decide what clothing to wear for themselves. Please allow them to define celibacy as they wish.
I think one of the reasons we are having difficulty is that we have a foregone conclusion and then we look for evidence to support that. You would get a different story if you actually talked to several tantric practioners and asked them what they did in their practice.
I've noticed that no one is accusing the adult male victims of clerical molestation as being anti-sex. It's only women who get accused of this. Why would that be, I wonder?
Are you implying you're a female victim of clerical molestation, and therefore shouldn't be challenged on this point?
--That's an honest question. I want to understand what you're saying.
I don't speak for no one, but I will speak for myself:
I do not accuse adult child victims of clerical molestation -- where they all male? -- for being anti-sex because I have not heard anything anti-sex from them.
What I have heard, in the Catholic sex abuse scandal, is the accusation and desire for action taken against the particular molesters. I have not heard it argued that the Catholic church should be more repressive sexually.
If I had heard such an argument, especially from a non-Catholic, I might speak up.
It's hard to imagine how the Catholic church could be more repressive sexually, and I think their current level of repression is a bad thing... as demonstrated by the sex abuse scandal.
If they allowed priests to marry, to date, and even to have weird sexual orgies under controlled approved conditions, I think (a) you wouldn't run the risk of attracting pederasts to the clergy, and (b) you wouldn't run the risk of normal people becoming pederasts because of a lifetime of sexual repression.
I believe I would have the same response for anyone who argues for greater sexual repression of religious communities, whether they are male or female, victim or not: sexual repression causes serious problems. It's not a solution.
It's hard to imagine how the Catholic church could be more repressive sexually, and I think their current level of repression is a bad thing... as demonstrated by the sex abuse scandal.
If they allowed priests to marry, to date, and even to have weird sexual orgies under controlled approved conditions, I think (a) you wouldn't run the risk of attracting pederasts to the clergy, and (b) you wouldn't run the risk of normal people becoming pederasts because of a lifetime of sexual repression.
I believe I would have the same response for anyone who argues for greater sexual repression of religious communities, whether they are male or female, victim or not: sexual repression causes serious problems. It's not a solution.
Has anyone mentioned that the DL in the past has been unequivocal about the fact that tantric practice with a consort was verboten for monks, and when it was practiced that way, it was indicative of corruption of the tradition? In "The Story of Tibet" he said monks are supposed to practice tantra by visualization only. According to Thomas Laird, who wrote the book based on extensive interviews with HHDL, he was adamant and very clear on that point.
It sounds like the DL has begun to talk out of both sides of his mouth. I can't guess his motive, but it feels fishy. The book was published in 2006, so it's relatively recent, possibly contemporaneous with some of the other books in which he says practice with a consort is necessary for Enlightenment or for practicing tummo, or whatever it is he says.
All I know is, I've seen enough monks hustling women disciples, and been told about such incidents by a girlfriend and her friends, that I can't escape the conclusion that these people don't take their vows seriously. From where I sit the celibacy looks like a sham. If the monastic gig isn't working out for them, they can give back their vows and lead an honest lay life. Duplicity makes the tradition look bogus.
It is unbelieveable to me that some men still use that same tactic on women by telling them that they are repressed, frigid, hate sex, or are lesbians. Loose women in the monasteries. I can see it all now. Seems like I have been on a Tibetan forum where men and women are saying that after the lamas get finished with the girls they end up on the streets as prostitutes in Tibet or India ,because no man wants them after they have been used, and "used" is the correct word here because there is no love involved. Still, in spite of this, women are accused by men of being repressed, etc. because they want the women to give in to their wishes.
Trouser-man,
If that's true -- and I do not know that it is, but acknowledge it might be -- then it should be dealt with. It should be dealt with directly. Not by some ideological attack on the practice of sex yoga or on religions that use it.
It should be dealt with just like sex tourism or prostitution is dealt with, with full consideration of the evidence and using a system that is repeatedly reviewed to make sure the real results are the desired results.
--And again, I don't see how you can look at such a circumstance (if true) and say that it is not caused by sexual repression. Remove the vows of chastity, allow monks and nuns to intermingle in civilized ways, and you wouldn't get this kind of crap. The solution is not to pile on more repression! That never works!
Most Tantric practices are done via visualisation, I dont know anyone who actually has done consort practice as generally In the Gelug its visualisation only as per Tsongkhapas example.
Comments
I'm working with my local Zen ctr. to enact stricter ethics regs and measures for addressing problems if they arise. The roshi (female) is very concerned about this issue, and it's been the subject of long and repeated debate at the Zen Studies Society meetings. There's been a serious problem in Zen, as our member zenff (and probably others) could tell you from his experience.
C.
Some men need to grow up because until then they will not have a meaningful relationship with a woman.
It is irrelevant whether Dakini or anybody else is sexually repressed as that is an adhominem attack.
Here is an article about the root causes of sexual abuse. http://www.ccasa.org/documents/Root_Causes_Short_Descriptions.pdf None of these causes is inherent to sexual awareness practice. That means that it is possible to have a sexual awareness practice without these causes listed in my article.
Therefore if we ban sexual awareness practice it will not address the root causes listed in the article.
Also banning sexual awareness practice is taking away the freedom of consenting adults to practice their religion. Sexual abuse occurs in religions that do not have sexual awareness practice. It occurs in colleges. It occurs in families. It may occur in marriages. It may occur in day care. It may occur at camp. It may occur in big brother and big sister. It may occur in clubs or societies.
As we see sexual abuse can occur in settings other than sexual awareness practice. But we don't limit the freedom to engage in these activities.
So in debate I think there is abuse so there is a harm. But inherency is not proven because sexual abuse occurs in settings other than sexual awareness practice, thus it must not be inherent to the situation of sexual awareness practice. Banning sexual abuse also will not solve the problem because it doesn't address the root causes of sexual abuse listed in my article. Finally there is a disadvantage to banning sexual awareness practice in that religious freedom is persecuted.
consenting adults, there's the key! And tantric practitioner-teachers should wear a style of robe that indicates they're not monks. Some do, but I think most don't.
Now we're getting into the topic of how to reform TB. This has nothing to do with this thread's Gross and Subtle Mind topic.
Why should tantric practioners wear a style of robe saying they are not monks? The definition of a monk in the Tibetan tradition does not preclude sexual awareness practice. You are imposing your own personal definition of a monk to them. That is also intolerance of other religions.
This does have to do with the thread because the claim was made that the teacher in the OP was awful. And the reason given was that he practiced sexuality in his awareness practice. We are addressing that claim. If defending the teacher is off topic then you have to accept that attacking his character is also off-topic.
What is "sexual awareness practice"? If all the HYT practitioners and teachers were ethical, there would be fewer scandals and traumatized victims.
They already do wear different robes. Take it up with them if you object. There's a robe that indicates a married lama, and one that indicates a tantric practitioner, like Dilgo Khentse Rinpoche wore. Not all tantric practitioners wear the appropriate robe, though. And Westerners often can't tell the difference.
There are many in the Gelug who dont practice it physically as it would contridict their vows. Teachers like Geshe Kelsang havent taught it in their organisation.
I don't believe what you say about NKT. We had an NKT member here last year who was very enthusiastic about already practicing HYT even though he'd only been in the organization for a year, and a friend of mine has former NKT friends who quit because they didn't agree with the organization teaching the consort practice so early in students' careers.
Awareness practice - training the mind
Sexual awareness practice - training the mind during sex
--That's an honest question. I want to understand what you're saying.
I don't speak for no one, but I will speak for myself:
I do not accuse adult child victims of clerical molestation -- where they all male? -- for being anti-sex because I have not heard anything anti-sex from them.
What I have heard, in the Catholic sex abuse scandal, is the accusation and desire for action taken against the particular molesters. I have not heard it argued that the Catholic church should be more repressive sexually.
If I had heard such an argument, especially from a non-Catholic, I might speak up.
It's hard to imagine how the Catholic church could be more repressive sexually, and I think their current level of repression is a bad thing... as demonstrated by the sex abuse scandal.
If they allowed priests to marry, to date, and even to have weird sexual orgies under controlled approved conditions, I think (a) you wouldn't run the risk of attracting pederasts to the clergy, and (b) you wouldn't run the risk of normal people becoming pederasts because of a lifetime of sexual repression.
I believe I would have the same response for anyone who argues for greater sexual repression of religious communities, whether they are male or female, victim or not: sexual repression causes serious problems. It's not a solution.
Conrad.
It sounds like the DL has begun to talk out of both sides of his mouth. I can't guess his motive, but it feels fishy. The book was published in 2006, so it's relatively recent, possibly contemporaneous with some of the other books in which he says practice with a consort is necessary for Enlightenment or for practicing tummo, or whatever it is he says.
All I know is, I've seen enough monks hustling women disciples, and been told about such incidents by a girlfriend and her friends, that I can't escape the conclusion that these people don't take their vows seriously. From where I sit the celibacy looks like a sham. If the monastic gig isn't working out for them, they can give back their vows and lead an honest lay life. Duplicity makes the tradition look bogus.
If that's true -- and I do not know that it is, but acknowledge it might be -- then it should be dealt with. It should be dealt with directly. Not by some ideological attack on the practice of sex yoga or on religions that use it.
It should be dealt with just like sex tourism or prostitution is dealt with, with full consideration of the evidence and using a system that is repeatedly reviewed to make sure the real results are the desired results.
--And again, I don't see how you can look at such a circumstance (if true) and say that it is not caused by sexual repression. Remove the vows of chastity, allow monks and nuns to intermingle in civilized ways, and you wouldn't get this kind of crap. The solution is not to pile on more repression! That never works!
Conrad.