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.
My Guru Was A Drunk.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
`The enlightened man is one with the law of causation.'
Those who are ignorant of karma dwell in an animal realm. Those who understand karma understand the value of generosity and virtue and practice them accordingly. Those who don't practice generosity and virtue are ignorant of karma.
It's easy to confuse generosity and virtue with conventional morality, which often really is just arbitrary worldly rules. But convention does often intersect with the prescriptions implied by karma. That doesn't invalidate those prescriptions.
The negative karmic consequences of Trungpa's unvirtuous behaviors are obvious and severe. It doesn't matter whether you think he was enlightened or 'awake' or not, "By their fruits ye shall know them." The drinking, the violence, the promiscuity: the mind leading to these actions, at least, was not heedful of karma.
But we can always pretend!
Enlightenment and a being who is enlightened IS the ceasing from evil, doing only good & the purifying of the heart.
What you call the privilege of an enlightened person, most meditaters would say is
the manifestation of a worldly imprisoned mind. This type of mind would also see no harm in creating flaming posts for one's entertainment..
The Buddha then instructs that the investigator should visually observe and carefully listen whether the Buddha’s actions or speech is defiled in any way and whether the Buddha’s conduct is purified or not as well as whether such purity is long-standing or fleeting.
The test does not end here and the Bhikkhus are told to investigate further, but for the purposes of this discussion, it is sufficient to note here that undefiled, pure conduct is said to be an essential characteristic of enlightened beings.
For instance, let us say a guy drinks all the time and does not have the willpower to stop. If he becomes enlightened, he will get an insight into the nature of the world, samsara, the sorrow - that doesn't mean he'll magically acquire the willpower to stop drinking. His addictions will continue because enlightened or not, he is still human with a frail body, mind, etc.
So, pre-enlightenment - addictions are present - karma is generated.
Post-enlightenment - addictions are present - karma is negated.
So I am not suggesting that an enlightened person should purposely break rules but, if he did, it would have no karmic consequences.
Anyways, for things like addiction to alcohol which is a very coarse type of addiction, even someone who is not that much developed along the path and still far from enlightenment should still be able to overcome such addiction.
Look at the addicts who have been able to give up drugs, drinking or smoking. Yes, they have strength and other good qualities, but they are more or less just ordinary folks. I gave up smoking a long time ago. So I know it really doesn't take that much to give up an addiction.
Also, we should consider that most people who drink do not get addicted to alcohol. So it doesn't take much to prevent oneself from becoming addicted to alcohol or to abstain from taking substances when they know doing so might lead them becoming addicted.
Sigh, sigh, sigh!
Dont be a sexual predator, alcoholic, or spiritual thug... but its ok for me as im ENLIGHTENED, whoooa! Amen.
What is your criterion for a spiritual thug?
I have slept with women. Does that make me a 'sexual predator'?
Trungpa wore suits not robes.
Has anyone seen Mahayanists call all the Theravadin teachers thugs? Maybe on a different website.
@Jeffrey, you're the one who's making this about mahayana/theravada. We were talking about whether Trungpa is enlightened. Patr asked whether a monk of either tradition has been seen going about drunk. (But actually, I am certain the answer is yes, many times.)
RELEVANTWhat is your criterion for a spiritual thug?
RELEVANTI have slept with women. Does that make me a 'sexual predator'? HUMOR NOTE THE SMILEY FACE Trungpa wore suits not robes.
@fivebells most of my comments were relevant to patr post just not the last one.
All I am saying is: a person may have good intentions, noble thoughts. But without enormous willpower, those noble intents wont translate to actions. A person is not 'bad' or 'unenlightened' on this account. An enlightened person may continue to do 'bad' things, not because he has bad desires or motives, but because the willpower to change them is lacking. Lacking willpower is no proof that a person isn't enlightened.
It comes down to one simple, wise saying;
1. Actions speak louder than words.
ANY monk/teacher/lama who can talk the talk but not walk the walk isn't "enlightened". Could very well be a terrific and charismatic "teacher" but they simply are not "enlightened".
Trungpa (specifically) caused chaos and emotional damage to a lot of the people around him during his drunken and debauched times.
"Oh but he was a brilliant teacher, had a brilliant mind" you say.... well, Charlie Manson also had a brilliant mind, also saw the world 'differently' and with a strange and alluring insight into society and it's faults.... would any of us here claim Charles Manson is "enlightened"? Why not? He was very intelligent, and he claimed to be "like Jesus" many times.
What makes Trungpa's drunkenness, drug taking, predatory sexual behavior and violence against others excusable, while many of us here are quick to point out that "real Buddhists" always sit in formal meditation, always follow all the (5) precepts -to the letter!, and never break any of the moral/ethical codes and rules of Buddhism -- because, after all, doing that repeatedly spoils all chances of progression on the Buddhist path and reaching enlightenment? Teachers, monks and lamas are held to even higher standards than lay Buddhists, no?
Is it because Trungpa (supposedly) reached Enlightenment - once- for a day- for a week- for 6 months- for 5 yrs- and then what? He's done? He gets the Gold Medal around his neck, we all sing his praises and off he goes, free to do whatever drunken craziness he likes with the brass ring of 'enlightenment' in his pocket? Really??
Where did the claim of enlightenment come from? Not from him. In his autobio he describes the need to discipline Western Buddhists, because they have a wrong understanding of Buddhism. He still very much sees himself in the role of teacher and representative of his lineage. Nothing is mentioned about enlightenment. He seems himself as fully human like anyone else, and nothing more than a teacher.
http://jodoshin-dharma.blogspot.com/2011/07/precepts-and-jodo-shinshu.html
Also, looking at the Sokka Gakkai website, I notice this comment: Japanese Zen, meanwhile, has Ikkyu, who hung out in bars and brothels.
I don't know if there's a similar line of thinking found in Trungpa's Vajrayana tradition, with which I'm almost totally unfamiliar. I have studied parts of the Avatamsaka Sutra, though, and it seems to show pretty emphatically that the bodhisattva motivation trumps all other concerns, including precepts. For instance, the sutra includes a story about a bodhisattva who manifests as a prostitute.
Whoa, you knew Hitch?!? How did that come about? What was he like in person (besides the sexing and boozing)?
Sorry for the two posts in a row but I could hardly ignore this... one of the greatest prose writers of his era...
Could anyone who was a student of his back in the day fill us in on who or what generated this idea that this particular teacher was "awake"? AFAIK, all he did was what so many other monks and tulkus do, which is: complete extensive schooling in the Tibetan Dharma texts, and perform extended meditation sessions. I gather that he was good at teaching the concepts in English, and in a way young people of the 60's and 70's could understand (though not without controversy due to some unorthodox methods), so that's a valuable skill. So why not say he was a good teacher and brilliant author? Why attribute semi-Divine (or Buddha-like) qualities to him?
I do recall reading that he became enlightened at death. And yes it was some students who believed this.
Remember Trungpa was a layperson though a teacher. That is different from a monk. I am referring to the sex and alcohol. I am also a layperson and I have sex and alcohol. There is a difference of course since I am not a teacher. Yet even so there is a difference between a teaching monk and a teaching layperson.
Awakening is seen by quality of understanding the dharma in one context. In that context TR was awake. If the pinacle of Buddhsim were the five precepts you would have to say at least 50% of us on the forum practice all five and thus most of us are Buddhas?? Clearly insight is more hard to come by than morality.
In a sangha I went to the zen priest was introduced to me as "bodhisattva frank (or whatever)". So it isn't unthinkable that someone be recognized as a bodhisattva in their lifetime. Trungpa never went around declaring himself as such.
Maybe it is possible to come across this way and not be awake, I don't know.
I did find this quote, which I think is worth keeping in mind with anyone we come across:
As the third Jamgön Kongtrül explained in a teaching given to students of Chögyam Trungpa, "You shouldn't imitate or judge the behavior of your teacher, Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche, unless you can imitate his mind."
What do you think of that?
It is said that, historically, there are four famous bodhisattva. Each symbolizes the Buddha's emphasis on different aspects of Dharma practices. They are Avalokitesvara's compassion, Manjushri's wisdom, Samantabhadra's practice, and Ksitigarbha's vow. Samantabhadra is also called the Great Conduct Bodhisattva, a name that reflects his practice of Buddhism through his famous Ten Great Vows.
It is said that Samantabhadra's primary concern was centered on the conduct of regular Buddhists, that is, how they should put the Buddhist principles into practice. He is also the patron of the Lotus Sutra and, according to the Avatamsaka Sutra, made the ten great vows which are the basis of a bodhisattva.
The Ten Great Vows of Bodhisattva Samantabhadra
In the last chapter, "Entry into the Realm of Reality," a young seeker named Sudhana undertakes a spiritual quest and meets 52 great teachers including Avalokiteshvara. One of the teachers is the bodhisattva Vasumitra, who manifests in the world as a courtesan or high-class prostitute.
Sudhana actually gets warned off visiting her by some dogmatic types who cannot see how she might have anything to teach him, but he goes anyway and hears this: (pages 1271-72)
If a bodhisattva can appear in the guise of a prostitute and enlighten people via sex, then theoretically someone like Trungpa could have achieved some sort of awakening despite being a drunk. I'm just saying...
I feel your proposition (ie. that "the bodhisattva motivation trumps all other concerns, including precepts") is too dangerous of a misrepresentation of the Buddha's teachings that I'm sorry I can't just let this one pass by.
I couldn't find the entire last chapter of the Sutra you refer to, just excerpts on it. But from what I can make of it, there is no evidence that bodhisattva Vasumitra was actually a real prostitute, so I think the proper way to see this story is that she was merely pretending to be one.
Also from the quoted text you provide, the acts which caused beneficial results include: seeing the bodhisattva, talking to her, holding her hand, being in her company, gazing at her, embracing her and kissing her. From the quoted text you provide and the various excerpts I've been able to find online, there is no mention of bodhisattva Vasumitra allowing any sexual acts beyond just kissing to be performed on her by the men.
Also, breaking precepts includes the element of intention. So this makes the possibility that bodhisattva Vasumitra might be breaking a precept even more remote since her intentions were pure rather than being based on defilements. Therefore this makes your proposition that "the bodhisattva motivation trumps all other concerns, including precepts" even more difficult to be justified by this story.
In Thervada, we have the ten perfections (paramitas). In Mahayana there are six, but both schools include Sila (Morality) as one of the perfections.
Ajahn Chah use to say that greater morality leads to greater insight and greater insight leads to greater morality ie. each is reinforcing one another in a virtuous cycle. At least if you look at your own experience I am sure you can see how when your understanding of the Dhamma increases, the purity of your conduct also becomes more refined. The effect morality has on insight is more difficult to observe but as theory goes, morality helps with concentration and thus this helps with meditation. As meditation improves, this leads to greater insight.
Regarding the practice of morality under the Mahayana's six paramitas, here is what Lama Thubten Zopa Rinpoche says:
By the way, as a final note, I just want to clarify that none of my comments in this thread are meant as an attack on CTR in any way. In fact, I would like to ask whether it ever occurred to anyone that perhaps all these stories about CTR are just that, ie. stories. I mean people who have met him are saying he always seemed to be "awake". So how can anyone know for sure that he was ever drunk? Did anyone ever make him breathe into a breathalyzer? Did anyone ever caught him on video being violent or sexually abusive?
Given the many accomplished students he had, I am inclined to believe that stories about his violence, womanizing and drunkenness are just unsubstantiated rumours . I think it is very possible that HHDL and other learned Tibetan masters hold CTR in high regard because either (1) they never heard stories about him being violent/drunk/womanizing or (2) they heard such stories but shrugged them off as mere gossip/rumours.
Think about the various conspiracy stories about freemasons that has circulated worldwide. We have thousands of websites, books and articles dedicated to spreading these various allegations about freemasons as if they were "facts". To be honest, some of it seems pretty convincing. But is it right to believe these allegations without hard evidence?
I think innocent until proven guilty is the proper approach.
Sorry-- I didn't mean it like it sounded. "I used to know *of* a guy..." would have been a better way to phrase it. I was just trying to sound colorful and mysterious in the build up to my point.
So, no, I did not know Hitchens personally. Although, there was a very prominent atheist writer I was very close to who ran in that circle whom actually dedicated his first book to me. :vimp: Also used to talk to a couple other very famous atheist celebrity figures and nearly had a fling with two of them. Decided against it since I consider sex a very powerful thing and I almost feel like someone steals your mojo if you do it with just anyone. (I've seen how dangerous it can be... being a sensitive/empathic person, you really take on the other person's baggage and lose your "good stuff" when you "become one" with another in that sense. "They" say it literally takes a year to get rid of someone's energy after you've slept with them. Who knows if that's true. But I kinda feel that it is true and I've seen the dangers of sleeping with the wrong person-- and I've only ever slept with 2 people in my life, and one of 'em was my ex-husband. And I saw as soon as I slept with him, my "3rd eye" abilities went *poof* and it's like I became... sorta... tainted. Weird, eh? But anyway, that's why I choose to be celibate. The older I get, the less I find anyone worthy of my magical va-jay-jay.
But so... yeah, that's my nearly-name-dropping explanation. Forgive the ego and sex talk... I'm still working on that whole "no-self" thing and my libido has been out of control lately... I am a Leo after all.
Anyhow they were brought to the gathering evidentally forcibly and I don't know exactly then, but I think someone poured alcohol on them. Don't quote me on that but it is in wikipedia (or at least used to be).
Of note the poet and his wife didn't leave the retreat and continued to hear Trungpa's dharma talks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chögyam_Trungpa
As far as rumors vs reality goes;
notice that those who support and/ or defend Trungpa (not only in this forum, but everywhere), have always made excuses, or redefined the 'intent' (or personal helplessness) of his alcohol & drug use - as well as his sexually predatory actions towards students; or, they simply excuse the behavior as some sort of mystical or divine 'privilege' or savant madness, etc.
But never do you read or hear of them specifically saying:
"That never happened...."
That leads me to think it's safe to say that while there may be an element of exaggeration included in some of the stories, they are, nevertheless, pretty much true. And most of the stories can be cross- referenced between several sources.