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.
Young Kalu Rinpoche Video: "Buddha Was Not A God, Buddhism Is Not A Religion"
Dakini
Veteran
Young Kalu Rinoche gives is own very interesting perspective on the Buddha, Buddhism, and the meaning of Dharma practice for our lives. He's gaining a reputation for being a free-thinker and following his heart and conscience.
7
Comments
Err, get a haircut first
So it might be more appropriate to hope that he is the next Marpa, the founder of the school to which he belongs...and Marpa was a married man and father.
Many of the best Vajrayana teachers do not follow the Bhikkhu/Bhikshu Vinaya.
They are not in breach of it. They do not follow it at all.
There is a big wide Buddhist world beyond the hinayana.
Its considered a breach if taken.
Hinayana,... hmm.
@Dakini,
Hmm that robe which looks like a monks robe looks very familiar. This is another area which should be reviewed. Its just like a security guards uniform which looks like the police, confusing, isnt it.
The other yanas have a very clear distinction for ones whose disrobed . No confusion there.
Actions speak more than appearances.
Gandhi wandered the world looking like an overgrown baby in a nappy.
Seems his message got through in spite of that.
It would be nice if people critiqued what mattered, and didn't pick on trivia.
'hinayana' with a small 'h' is found in all vehicles.
It is characterised by an exclusive view of the merits of one's own tradition and a denigration of the traditions of others.
It substitutes rules and the letter for the spirit.
Above all it sees Buddhadharma as a battle against the world rather than a View which encompasses the world in mudita and metta.
Whatever one thinks of the concept of 'tulkus' in general terms, and my own feelings are ambivalent ,
Young teachers like the present Kalu are a vital part in keeping alive Dharma in an age where traditional expressions are ossifying and dwindling.
In Tibetan Buddhism, I think monasticism is held in very high regard and the value of the monk's monastic code/Vinaya rules/precepts are also treasured. According to the official website of the Dalai Lama:
I think it is also worth noting that when the Buddha talked about the decline of Buddhism, one of the main factors seems to be the decline of the Sangha (in this context meaning the community of monks) which includes the neglect of following the monk's training rules/precepts/Vinaya.
In the Pali Anagatavamsa, the Buddha said that the fall of Buddhism is marked by five disappearances as follows:
In the Sutra on Ananda's Seven Dreams (A Mahayana text), Ananda had seven dreams and asked the Buddha what they meant. The Buddha told him that these dreams represent the future decline of Buddhism. In the context of this Sutra, references to "Sangha" means the community of monks. The relevant dreams for the purposes of this discussion are the following:
You hit it spot on. Again all monks and Yogis do have precepts.
@citta,
Seriously, I dont disparage your knowledge or practice, to each their own, but some of your notions I do find baffling. As mentioned above, where did you read that senior Vajrayana teachers need not follow the Vinaya. Maybe they dont follow it, but there are rules to live by as an ordained monk, for all three Yanas, for sure.
@frederica,
Well, all sorts of institutions, i.e the Army, Police, the Church, some schools etc, all have their own rules. Trivia or not, they have to be followed. An ordained monk has to have a shaven head, clearly stated in the Vinaya, if Kalu has disrobed, then fine.
One is to clearly distinguish them from lay persons.
In Theravada and Mahayana, any monk who withdraws from the monkhood is strictly disallowed from donning the monk's robes, they usually wear a completely white garment, which clearly identifies them as lay practitioners, or Yogis.
In Thailand there are many Ajahns in white.
The problem in TB is that Yogis are meant to have a white lower garment, this has sometimes shrunk to a tiny stripe, many times hidden away in the folds.
Now this is why a lot of followers say ' Oh, Nyingma Lamas can get married, or something of the sort'. Well so sorry, this is completely wrong, those who keep long hair, get married or do things which monks are forbidden to, are usually Yogis. They are not monks, and should not be wearing a monks robes or something similar.
It only serves to deceive.
So, this is actually not exactly trivial. Do your research, check out their precepts, ask your Lamas bout what I said.
Lastly, Gelug does not confer Yogi status.
Then there's the matter of "spiritual marriages", when ordained monks/lamas have a consort. This muddies the waters a bit. Kagyu monks have consorts, and I assume Nyingma monks do, too. And what about the Sakya? You say Sakya Trizin is a yogi, not a monk. What about Sakya Dagchen, in Seattle? He wears robes that appear to be monks' robes. But I'm told that there are robes that are similar, but they indicate a married "monk". http://vajrasana.org/dagchen2.htm
Traleg Rinpoche, in Australia, is married and wears robes. But maybe they're the robes of a married/lay teacher. I wish somewhere there were photos or drawings that show the difference between a lay lama's robes and a (supposedly) celibate monk's robes in the different traditions.
It's all very confusing.
I'm not positive about this but I believe a collar means a non monk.
It sure is.
Neither my first teacher nor my present teacher...among the most famous of Vajragurus, were /are monks. Neither needed/need to follow the Vinaya
For some reason you are viewing all of the Vajrayana through the lens of the Gelug.
Breaking monastic vows obviously constitutes a serious offense for ordained teachers, but how can we define sexual misconduct for teachers who have not taken vows?
“Every teacher has at least taken the lay vows and the bodhisattva vows.” Khandro Rinpoche retorts. “Apart from the obvious misconduct of using force, taking advantage of your own position and the naivete of a student is abuse and very painful to see. Abuse is when there is pretense, conceit, or lying. Pretending someone has more realization than they actually have and thus misleading the student is very, very harmful. There is no shortcut to enlightenment,” she states, “and anyone who offers one should be treated with suspicion.”
http://thedorjeshugdengroup.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/use-common-sense-khandro-rinpoche-about-sexual-abuse-by-buddhist-teachers-in-the-tibetan-buddhist-tradition/
I suspect that if ChNN confirms that he has no relationship to the Vinaya and lives an ordinary life with wife and kids and three meals a day and a glass of beer on occasion you will conclude that he can't therefore be a real teacher.
I know at least two well known sanghas where the (Dzogchen ) teachers consider that vows and the whole Bodhisattva concept are red herrings...
The Vajrayana simply does not lend itself to neat generalisations.
The vows in Dzogchen are specific to Dzogchen and are a contract between student and teacher.
They are not generalised vows.
So Nyingma teachers don't hold to any precepts? Still trying to get some clarity re: this tradition.
edit: I just remembered that Khandro Rinpoche, whom I quoted earlier, is from the Nyingma tradition. Her father formerly was the head of the lineage. And she says lay teachers in the lineage do take vows, there are generalized vows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khandro_Rinpoche
Secondly you are interpreting precept as 'vow'. In fact the word means ' a guiding principle '.
How that guiding principle is enacted is not implicit in the word.
In the case of Dzogchen precepts to vow to keep them would be to be ' intoxicated by duality '...
because it assumes that there is a seperate entity to keep or fail to keep them.
They affirm what is already the case.
Dorothy is not in Kansas....
When one learns another language the teacher often stresses the need to learn to think in the language that one is learning rather than mentally translating into English..
Just so with Dzogchen. Understanding it is made harder by 'translating' it into more familiar Buddhist terms. Things go better if it is seen in its own light.
Dzogchen starts from a position that our natural mind is not different from Enlightenment.
But our natural mind is often obscured by our identification with that which has no intrinsic lasting nature.
_/\_
Monks have different precepts from yogis, how many i dont really know. I do know that those in TB who wear monks robes and are married are yogis.
Yogis are practitioners who have taken 200+ precepts, so its really not me & you...
The real problem is that they are wearing robes that doesn't differentiste between.
If u remember sakya trizin, hes a yogi, which explains long hair, white skirt & marriage among other things. Also the reason why no ST tulku.
Have you not checked with them on this?
The DL is a monk, thats why hes not married .
The TB yogi seeks to maintain the monks elevated status by wearing similar robes.
One really has to ask the lama his status, its only appropriate. Its common for TB to start off as monks and some of them do switch to yogis. Does this explain why they look similar.
Consort tantra again is not OFFICIALLY allowed for monks, for sure, again, maybe some precepts are broken.
The Gelug was started precisely as Tsongkhapa was against the many Vinaya precepts not being followed. So, a new school where monks are...monks, nothing else.
Thats why Gelug does not confer .yogi status.
Personally yogis, which is an Indian word meaning practitioner , should be clearly differentiated. A lot of them are rinpoches, even tulkus, just that yogi status lets them do some things differently.
The very first step any TB student must ask is are they bhikku or yogi. You will be told.
@Vinlyn,
There are lots of ex monks wearing white in Thailand, also self proclaimed masters. Have also seen nuns, though rarely.
You didnt even read my post on yogis..!!
Also, being married doesn't mean one is a yogi. There are monks who have given back their vows, married and become householders, but may don robes to run their own sangha, as teacher of their sangha. Yogis are bound by vows never to release their semen. Lay lamas are bound by no such vow, they're married ex-monks or Rinpoches who live a lay life, but also teach. They may hold down an ordinary job, and teach and run a sangha in their spare time.
There’s a difference between literal interpretation. the orthodox interpretation, the reformed interpretation, the symbolic interpretation, and between exoteric and the esoteric interpretation and it would take a whole lot of scholars, attorneys…and whoever had the most political juice could historically claim the wn.
As to lay teachers donning robes, this is where the major transgressions are. A monks precepts and appearance are meant to distinguish them from us. Should anyone wear a police uniform and go around arresting people....or even for ex-officers??
As to consort tantra, sigh, this IMO is the greatest sin/breaking of the precepts.
This is precisely the causation of sexual deviation of TB lamas. The Gelug was started to abolish all this deviant practices, to follow the Vinaya strictly, guess it has failed in some instances.
May i add that consort tantra is hindu and definitely not Buddhist, so therein lies the problem.
You wont find it in Theravada or Mahayana, but its well documented in Taoism.
Only as in Tsongkhapas time, maybe their adherence is patchy.
To assert therefore that only the Gelug is a valid vehicle for Dharma at least has the merit of honesty and consistency.
To assert it of course means that the Kagyu, Nyingma, and Sakya are INvalid...All of them support karmamudra...the use of consorts to practice certain yogic techniques..
So lets be clear @Patr you are asserting that the Karmapas, Dudjom Rinpoche, Pema Chodren, Shenpen Hookham, Shikpo Ridzin, Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, Dzongcar Khyentse Rinpoche, Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, and indeed most of the well-known teachers of modern times are not valid Dharma teachers.
Because ALL of them are/were practitioners of karmamudra, or support a model which supports others that do.
So the resulting positions are now quite clear. You are in fact asserting that in the Vajrayana only the Gelug is valid. I can respect that position..while disagreeing utterly and fundamentally with it.
Oh, and on the 'yogi ' matter. The term 'yogi' merely refers to an individual incorporating various sadhanas ( techniques ) into their practice. It does not imply a particular status defined by adherence to vows.
Precisely.
THE KARMA KAGYU LINEAGE OF TIBETAN BUDDHISM traces its origins to Shakyamuni Buddha through Marpa the Great Translator, who three times traveled to India to bring back authentic Buddhist teachings to Tibet. His teacher, Naropa, received the lineage transmission from Tilopa and so on, back to the Buddha himself. Marpa's most famous student was the greatest yogi in all of Tibet, the renowned Jetsun Milarepa, who passed the teachings on to Gampopa, who in turn transmitted the teachings to the First Karmapa, Dusum Khyenpa.
It doesnt make sense to put forward your arguments, when fundamental issues are not well versed, and the Yogi/Bhikku status is crucial to understanding TB.
He was at that time a Bhikshu. His Bhikshu status was confered by a formal ceremony and by the adoption of the Vinaya. His status as a yogi was an informal recognition of his attainment. It did not follow a formal process. Because there ain't one. Not in Buddhism.
I notice my statement about the universality ( outside of the Gelug ) of Karmamudra as an optional skillful means has not been addressed. Instead we have hairsplitting about a relatively minor issue of nomenclature.
NB Marpa was a married man and famously, a practitioner of Karmamudra.
In other words @Patr precisely one of those whose 'degenerate practices' were what the Gelug came to reform. So your using him as an example is ill-advised.
No one goes into an exam room or formal ceremony and comes out a 'tantrika'...There are Higher Tantrik Vows, but again they are a contract between student and teacher...not status conferers.