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
I don't like this 'sexual predator'. These were adult women. I do disapprove of hitting on nuns for example because they have vows.
Anyone who uses their position as teacher/authoritarian/leader/employer etc to manipulate women (or anyone in a subordinate position) into sexual relations, is using predatory behaviors. I'm not saying rape... merely unsavory, egotistical tactics to bed girls, women - and it's rumored- men.
The reason I believe (IMO) that there is no excusing Trungpa for his behaviors is because they did not affect only him. He was not some troubled, quiet alcoholic suffering in silence behind closed doors.... nor was he a man suffering lust in his mind and heart, but not acting on it.
Everything he did "wrong" had a real and impressive impact on the people he was involved with and learning from him.
The fact that he didn't hide his faults doesn't win any points with me. I believe his ego was SO huge that he really thought he could slide - just by being "honest" about his failings. And apparently, that has worked pretty well with many many people.
Anyway the question we're discussing is Was Trungpa "awake"... and/or enlightened?
All things considered, I'd have to give that a resounding "No, he was not".
All the Tibetan teachers I've known that have lived and taught here in the west have upheld stellar ethical behavior, so I've never been in that situation before.
I'm not quite sure where we disagree. You wrote: "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. "
In other words, the intention (bodhicitta) is ultimately what determines if the action was justified.
Isn't this the same as my proposition that "the bodhisattva motivation trumps all other concerns, including precepts"?
According to Alexander Berzin, the secondary bodhisattva precepts also show that moral discipline, in some situations, takes a back seat to bodhicitta. http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/practice_material/vows/bodhisattva/secondary_bodhisattva_pledges.html
By the way, my point is not to endorse abusive behavior, just to show that Buddhist morality is not always as black-and-white as folks make it out to be. Ultimately the purpose of Buddhism is to become awakened and reach nirvana, not simply to uphold precepts. I think there are risks either way. If one adheres to a cookie-cutter moral doctrine, then it becomes hard to account for situations involving moral complexity. So Mayahana, I think, is right to suggest that in some cases we have to look beyond the letter of the law. Personally, I like the idea that a bodhisattva could manifest in seemingly low places, like a brothel or a courtesan's salon. This is part of a strain of universalism in Mahayana which we see in the Lotus Sutra, for instance.
But there is a risk there also, as you point out. As soon as we appear to introduce possible exceptions, then along comes someone who wants to use the exceptions to justify his/her ill-intentioned behavior.
It's a bind, no? I guess I would say that it's possible theoretically that an awakened person might engage in apparent misconduct -- but that most of the time when such misconduct happens, the person is probably not awakened at all but just an abuser. In short, if you're going to play fast and loose with the precepts, it's best if one really is a bodhisattva and not just pretending to be.
However, when I come across this particular vow... ...I have to chuckle to myself. It strikes me as being a situation that is incredibly unlikely and made as an excuse to allow normally celibate people to have sex. There are plenty of other equally unlikely scenarios that I could conceive of that aren't specifically included in the vows and the fact that this particular situation was singled out makes it seem rather fishy to me. :scratch:
God save us!
How convenient. And I imagine there isn't a similar scenario of a nun and a male. Hmmmm.
I just want to clarify that the blockquote text is not an actual vow but an interpretation of certain vows.
I don't think sexuality is something to be treated with such a cavalier and manipulative attitude-- it can have a negative impact on one's emotional well-being.
Not very compassionate, but verrrry convenient.
Creepy Buddhist guy in retreat to woman retreatant : "I've been trying really hard this weekend to develop bodhicitta, but the amount of craving that is coming up towards you is really blocking my ability to do so. If only we could come up with a way to help me overcome this obstacle..." :mullet:
Whats one more or one less.
Misconduct is still misconduct, being awake is but an excuse to continue.
What is always surprising is not that bad movies are made, but that people still go to watch it.
There are teachers/monks like Ajahn Brahm that, to me, simply exude peace, love, gentleness, compassion, patience, and kindness. He teaches the dharma well, and abides by what he says. I strive to be like him. I find his ways to be "pure" and uncomplicated. I like and identify with that.
Then there are teachers/monks like Trungpa that make me say "yikes" and question what it really means to be awake and/or enlightened. His actions are not those that I wish to partake in. His methods make me uncomfortable.
Both are teaching the dharma but in different ways. But if I had to choose one, my personal preference is the former. It's not to say the latter isn't any good, but he just appeals to a different "audience," that's all. Everyone is on a different path. And besides that, not everyone can identify with the "goodie-goodie" holier than thou teachers. It turns a lot of people off. But since I don't partake in drugs, alcohol, smoking, casual sex, etc., Trungpa is obviously not a teacher I really can identify with. But that doesn't mean his ways were wrong for that particular group of students, who just so happened to be living during a time of free sex, free love, free drugs, and so forth.
I think it was MaryAnne who pointed out in this thread that no one ever denied that Trungpa did any of the things he was accused of. That is very important. But why? Were they all "brainwashed" or afraid of repercussions? I don't think so. My feeling is, their lack of "accusations" combined with their love and admiration of him makes me think that he behaved the way in which his students needed him to be in order for them to learn and further themselves on their path.
Personally? I don't understand it. But as long as no one was robbed, raped, beaten, murdered or what not, *and* they are getting something good spiritually-speaking out of it, then why is it an issue? Consenting adults (and I believe 16 years old, in some places in the world, is considered a consenting age-- re: his widow) who learn and practice the dharma in their own way at their own pace is not a crime. It's not like Trungpa was passing out Kool-Aid and asking everyone to die with him. It's not like he was soliciting monies from them, either. In his own, taboo way, he was helping them-- at least that's what they claim he did for them. And if that helped them out? Good for them. It's not my personal cup o' tea, but hey-- what ever floats your boat and makes your duck quack, right? If you're doing good with your life and helping others and contributing positively to the world, then teachers like Trungpa must be doing something right, no?
One of the lamas who did a retreat here was a student of CTR, and while I still prefer my teacher's methods and personality, the way of speaking and the ideas presented were very unique and extremely thought-provoking. I have no doubt that is how CTR was, and even though there were ways about this lama that took me aback a bit, I learned more just in the 3 hour introduction from him (in terms of where it took my thoughts and my practice) than I have in the past year simply meditating and studying. Sometimes, in order to move forward we need to be truly challenged, and sometimes it is too easy for us to fall into what feels the nicest to us and shooing away that which feels uncomfortable, and in doing that, it takes us much longer to learn the same lesson, I think.
One salient thought pervades any discussion of CTR among these people. He was, simply, and unequivocally, awake. Despite all of his glaring and obvious shortcomings, relative to our perceptions of what a Dharma teacher "should" be, no one could deny that CTR was the most realized person they had ever met. He kept them off-balance, he made them uncomfortable, he assaulted their spiritual materialism at every turn and gave them no ground to stand on. He insisted on practice. He never hid himself, but never said for them to emulate him. He didn't want his students to be copy-cats. He wanted his students to practice.
His importance goes without saying. His influence is vast.
He was, warts and all, a genius.
And probably a touch insane.
That seems irreconcilable.
Maybe he was a genius - maybe he was just cleverer and those he met.
Common herd tactic - follow the leader - he's the leader for a reason - mainly because he's a better version of a human than his followers or perhaps he's just clever and confident enough to convince others of it.
"Insane" is simply a projection we put on others. It has no bearing on anything, really.
Genius is often accompanied by unconventional behavior - behavior we sometimes label as "insane"
Maybe both?
Remember, I'm taking this from people who had first-hand, face-to-face experience with this guy. Compared to that, any evaluation we may place on the man is irrelevant. Or perhaps because he was really awakened.
Why was there a huge sangha of monks, and bodhisattvas following the Buddha everywhere? Herd mentality? Why are so many people attracted to the Dalai Lama or Ajan Brahm? Herd mentality, or do these people have something meaningful for those who follow them.
If you don't get the guy, or his teachings are meaningless to you, or you disagree with his behavior, you are free to find teaching elsewhere. Other than that, anything we might say is meaningless.
“Whether we eat, sleep, work, play, whatever we do life contains dissatisfaction, pain. If we enjoy pleasure, we are afraid to lose it; we strive for more and more pleasure or try to contain it. If we suffer pain we want to escape it. We experience dissatisfaction all the time. All activities contain dissatisfaction or pain, continuously.”
― Chögyam Trungpa
That causes suffering. Out of pleasure comes pain.
@Citta left the thread shortly after I asked these questions, unfortunately. I'd be interested to hear your answers, @Chaz.
Everything he did, right, or wrong had a real and impressive impact ion those around him.
Have you ever met any of those people? I have. The real and impressive impact on each and every one of them was a deep and powerful practice. Would you rather that he was a fake and hid himself and his .... eccentricities ..... from the world? Again, how many do you know?
And you are entitled to that, for better or for worse. That too is part of his legacy. He left nothing out. Everything about him is out there, plain to see. You can make your evaluation, you can judge him by whatever standard you choose (and I hope it's you're own exemplary conduct).
I also said that I deeply regret starting the thread.
It would be nice if that regret was acknowledged and respected.
The three poisons are from the ego. Trungpa saw through the ego. So for him being drunken is just sensitivity. That last <- are if you assume Trungpa was without ego. Maybe he wasn't but his books give lamborgini quality tools to disarm the ego, so I go with him having less ego. The poisons radiate as distorted (in some cases shockingly) bodhicitta. When the ego is seen through the bodhicitta is left. Sensitivity corresponds to craving. Openness corresponds to delusion. Clarity corresponds to anger.
Just to get the flavor here in vajrayana they sometimes do a ceremony where they eat meat and drink alcohol to show that one is not to be attached to purity.
In Tibetan there are three trainings and a teacher to point them out. Actually this is from the Jewel Ornament of Liberation which is only Kagyu school.
The three trainings:
reflect on impermanence to overcome attachment to this life
reflect on suffering to overcome attachment to sense pleasures
reflect on love to overcome attachment to peace
You don't find the last one in many other branches of Buddhism. In fact if you uproot the poisons you might stop at the level of peace. But the Bodhisattva motivation breaks the attachment to peace. I think in other traditions a practitioner realizes this attachment but the difference is that Tibetan Buddhism emphasizes the third one and include it in the three practices of Buddhism in the JoL and possibly other literature and surely in the Bodhisattva teachings. Metta isn't the same thing as the last. In Tibetan Buddhism metta is used to grant strength versus fear in the path when the ego mandala is trying to shut down the awareness process for self-preservation, But metta isn't bodhicitta.
An example of the last one is parents who give up peace to have children.
It will not reach a resolution. Threads on E Sangha and Dharma Wheel on the same subject never have.
I repeat , I should not have started it, and I am hurting because I did.
I would deem it an act of personal charity for it to be closed.
_/\_
I hope the thread is not closed. It does not seem particularly fractious at this point, despite discussing a fairly delicate topic.
I will not make that mistake again.
Either experience could be dependent on an illusion or on a valid cognition.
Like the difference between grieving for someone who has died, or grieving for someone that you believe to be dead, who is not. The grief is the same.
Those feelings are empty, like everything else. Except an illusion.
An illusion cannot be empty because it has no dependent reality at all.
Like the proverbial horns of a rabbit. An illusion is not a valid cognition.
True duality might be what is a valid cognition and what is not.
Does this make any sense?
But that is my understanding. Could be wrong.
Sorry, I'm an english speaker?
Your excused?