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.
Thats right. According to a literal view of Tibetan HYT , energy ( similar to Chi energy in Chinese systems ) runs through various channels. If those channels are open at the death of the body the life energy exits through the fontanelle..even though it is closed in most adults. This leads to the higher realms. But the same teaching says that if the higher channels are blocked the life energy exists through the anus which means almost inevitably to the hell realms. Many western teachers do not accept that homosexual activity blocks the channels.
I should really have written that ' activity involving an alternative orifice ' does not in the view of many modern teachers block the channels.. But the DL seems to hold the traditional view. Incidentally you may have heard of the ' Phowa' practises. This opens up the fontanelle to ensure a greater liklihood of exiting that way at death.
I don't think HH spends a lot of time energy dissing NKT and Shugenites. He did repudiate the practice causing a rift in the lineage, but .....
and it does annoy me how many people who blindly follow him hate on the NKT
It's his apologists that are the most annoying - saying how we should all be dissing NKT et al. I find this annoying because I don't happen to think such proscriptions have anything to do with me or my practice/study lineage - Kagyu - and seeing as neither my root guru of even the Karmapa has really said anything one way or the other, it's really none of my affair.
Also, I'm of the opinion that someone's practice is between them and their guru and none of my business.
Considering some of the extreme behavior we see on the web (where most of the real controversy lies) the whole sad business shames us all.
Well said..some of his followers, a small minority, take things well past dissing of course. There are deeply disturbing videos of groups of NKT AND hard-core DL supporters attacking each other physically in mobs. Truly shaming behaviour from both sides. In the Old Country all this went on to some extent, it was no Shangri-La. But Tibet is so huge and its population was so relatively small that they could physically avoid each other . Not a possibility in the global village.
Just a small correction there @Citta there are no videos of anyone from the NKT attacking or assaulting anyone, There are videos of protests and they clearly show Tibetans spitting and throwing objects no one from the NKT engaged in violent behaviour that was not the point of the protests but to rather object to the Dalai lama's rather destructive religious policy.
He resigned his political position. So whether or not he can still be considered a politician is debatable. In any case, he's no longer a professional one.
Thanks for that clarification. I suppose that would mean sexual intercourse among heterosexuals which involve the use of certain orifice would also be regarded in the same light. So it is actually not really about homosexual Vs. heterosexual, but rather just an issue of the orifice used.
He has said many contradictory things in this regard, but his most consistent message has been that a) only a certain orifice is to be used, and b) ultimately, sex should be for procreation only, because otherwise it represents clinging to desire.
So no, he's not anti-gay. He's anti-sex. Whether or not Buddhism in general is anti-sex, being pro-elimination of desire, has been the subject of many a thread, here.
And everything changed with the Chinese Invasion and the subsequent diaspora. He was thrust into a political role in a way that would not have prevailed before the invasion.
And everything changed with the Chinese Invasion and the subsequent diaspora. He was thrust into a political role in a way that would not have prevailed before the invasion.
@zenmyste just catching up, but any teacher I know who happens to be a monk has not renounced all material life. To be a teacher and reach people in other areas, they can't. My teacher has an iphone, and a webpage and a FB account. Does that make him a bad monk? No, it makes him a farther-reaching teacher. It makes him accessible even during the 6 months he is out of touch when he teaches in Nepal and Tibet. He wears a North Face winter jacket. Because he is a monk should he live in rags instead in our MN winters? Or is it ok for him to have a more expensive jacket that in the long run will last him many more years? Where does anyone draw the line at what is too much, materially? I thought the goal of giving up things was to give up our attachments to things, not necessarily always the things themselves. One can give up an attachment to their house. They would have a hard time giving up the house itself, though.
@zenmyste just catching up, but any teacher I know who happens to be a monk has not renounced all material life. To be a teacher and reach people in other areas, they can't. My teacher has an iphone, and a webpage and a FB account. Does that make him a bad monk? No, it makes him a farther-reaching teacher. It makes him accessible even during the 6 months he is out of touch when he teaches in Nepal and Tibet. He wears a North Face winter jacket. Because he is a monk should he live in rags instead in our MN winters? Or is it ok for him to have a more expensive jacket that in the long run will last him many more years? Where does anyone draw the line at what is too much, materially? I thought the goal of giving up things was to give up our attachments to things, not necessarily always the things themselves. One can give up an attachment to their house. They would have a hard time giving up the house itself, though.
Why would renunciation mean wearing rags in winter weather? Neglecting one's health and welfare wouldn't be very skillful. Besides, the Buddha taught against practicing extremes of renunciation. What does FB have to do with materialism? The DL's watch collection would be an example of materialism, albeit on a small scale (they're not Rolls Royces, at least). One expects one's teacher to exemplify the principles they're teaching. It's not an unreasonable expectation. What would inspire people to join a religion where the teachers do the opposite of what the religion teaches? Whatever happened to leading by example?
I'm going to have to tread lightly on this one because a lot of you know I have a history talking about him but I do wish he would stop throwing shade on the NKT and it does annoy me how many people who blindly follow him hate on the NKT without even trying out any Meditation classes for themselves or any thing just because of his opinion also he is to mainstream and is like a celebrity now, I think many of the people who have heard of him even know that he is a Buddhist.
I concur. I used to go to an NKT meditation class where a lady in the same building would rip down the posters because "they don't like the Dalai Lama."
Coming from a secular background, I find it very difficult to marry up buddhist practice and any sort of angry conflict between lineages / traditions.
At least in general we can agree that extremes must be avoided - renunciation in the Buddhist context is not - for lack of a better term - Gandhian renunciation (Gandhi was too extreme as an orthodox hindu, so was his renunciation). This sort of renunciation is worse than worldliness. But then again, this cannot be an excuse to indulge in every luxury - having a nice jacket is fine but a private jet? Is it that hard to draw the line?
Note: this is just a general observation, not about DL.
I think i the worst the HHDL does in terms of actual materialism is owning watches that were mostly given to him, he's still doing leagues better than the rest of us. Just because he's a teacher doesn't mean he's perfect. None of us has a teacher that is perfect, I'm sure. My teacher admits to harboring anger for the Chinese at their treatment of his family. Material, no, but attachment just the same. That doesn't make him an invalid, or poor, teacher because he cannot simply rid himself of something he knows is best to rid himself of.
I don't think anyone, whether talking about HHDL or someone else, is making an excuse to indulge in any and every luxury available.
The DL's watch collection would be an example of materialism, albeit on a small scale (they're not Rolls Royces, at least).
Mostly gifts as I understand it
One expects one's teacher to exemplify the principles they're teaching. It's not an unreasonable expectation.
What teaching does having a gifted watch collection violate?
What would inspire people to join a religion where the teachers do the opposite of what the religion teaches?
But Buddhist teachings don't prohibit the Dalai Lama from accepting and keeping gifts and using his own money to buy stuff.
Whatever happened to leading by example?
Whatever happened to allowing people be human beings?
Whatever happened to dealing with your own stuff and let others deal with theirs?
You completely misread my post. Who cares about the DL's watch collection? Another poster implied that having a FB account or a phone were examples of materialism, and might lead people to consider his teacher to be a bad monk. That's not materialism. Wearing warm clothing in winter isn't materialism.
However, we do expect our teachers to practice non-attachment, and exemplify the principles they're teaching, which the DL mostly does, but some teachers do not. It's reasonable to expect preachers to practice what they preach. There's nothing wrong with drawing a line. That's what lay and monastic vows are for. The line is already drawn. (Responding to the "where do we draw the line" post.)
At least in general we can agree that extremes must be avoided - renunciation in the Buddhist context is not - for lack of a better term - Gandhian renunciation (Gandhi was too extreme as an orthodox hindu, so was his renunciation). This sort of renunciation is worse than worldliness. But then again, this cannot be an excuse to indulge in every luxury - having a nice jacket is fine but a private jet? Is it that hard to draw the line?
Note: this is just a general observation, not about DL.
The line is drawn not by reference to the thing in itself but by the degree of attachment. One man will be attached to his cell phone but may not be attached to his private jet. Life and people are complex.
I'm going to have to tread lightly on this one because a lot of you know I have a history talking about him but I do wish he would stop throwing shade on the NKT and it does annoy me how many people who blindly follow him hate on the NKT without even trying out any Meditation classes for themselves or any thing just because of his opinion also he is to mainstream and is like a celebrity now, I think many of the people who have heard of him even know that he is a Buddhist.
I concur. I used to go to an NKT meditation class where a lady in the same building would rip down the posters because "they don't like the Dalai Lama."
Coming from a secular background, I find it very difficult to marry up buddhist practice and any sort of angry conflict between lineages / traditions.
Well it's no wonder they don't considering how he is tried to destory its reputation. DL has chosen to make Shugden practitioners his enemy not us so it is not our fault that we are.
And Geshe-la's books have helped me a lot in the year that I have been studying from him but the Dalai Lama on the other hand just across as some one who is liked simply for being the Dalai Lama so no I do not like him although I don't wish him any ill-will.
I don't interpret his remarks in that way. He seems to be saying that homosexuality is not a good idea. Whatever our views I can't see how we would go about showing that he's wrong unless we are an equally advanced pactitioner. So if that's our thing it's fingers crossed for the future. Maybe he's wrong, maybe he isn't. I have no idea.
PS. My s/h boopkshop just came up trumps again with The Essential Dalai Lama, HH the Dalai Lama - ed. Rajiv Mehratra. (Priced at £1!). It's transcriptions of various talks. Completely brilliant and I highly recommend it.
He is not merely saying that it 'not a good idea ' in a conceptual vacuum. To know why he thinks that anal intercourse is a very bad idea indeed you would have to know about the nadis and 'wind channels '. You would also need to know why other eminent Vajrayana scholars think that HH's views on this matter are more to do with his very conservative social conditioning than anything that emerges from the Tantric literature. It amounts to a view of gay male sexuality no different from that of your local Evangelical preacher...its only the technical reasons that differ. And this is a cause of dissonance to some western Buddhists who have an idealised view of the DL as a beacon of liberality.
Well, I don't have to know all that to know what he says. And maybe in a sense he is speaking from a conceptual vaccuum. I prefer to think that he is a beacon of truth, regardless of what views we happen consider fashionable, liberal or preferable.
So if the DL says that gays are in danger of a trip to the hell realms because of their sexual preferences, and he does say that, he is still a beacon of truth in all subjects ? What about the idea that he is an inspiring figure who talks a great deal of common sense..but is still a product of his time and conditioning which gives him certain prejudices ?
My only comment would be that homosexual practices are not karma-free just because we want to think they are, and the Dalai Lama is not anti-liberal just because he says they are not.
One of the things I admire so much about him is his ability to re-examine the appropriateness of various teachings, and re-define them if need be. Love the way he has said that if modern science and Buddhism are in conflict, then Buddhism will have to change.
In his discussions of the traditional Buddhist view on appropriate sexual behavior, he explains the concept of "right organ in the right object at the right time," which historically has been interpreted as indicating that oral, manual and anal sex (both homosexual and heterosexual) are not appropriate in Buddhism or for Buddhists, yet he also says that in modern times all common, consensual sexual practices that do not cause harm to others are ethically acceptable and that society should not discriminate against gays and lesbians and should accept and respect them from a secular point of view.[73] In a 1994 interview with OUT Magazine, the Dalai Lama clarified his personal opinion on the matter by saying, "If someone comes to me and asks whether homosexuality is okay or not, I will ask 'What is your companion's opinion?'. If you both agree, then I think I would say, 'If two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay.'"[74] In his 1996 book Beyond Dogma, he described a traditional Buddhist definition of an appropriate sexual act as follows: "A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else... Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact."[75] He elaborated in 1997, explaining that the basis of that teaching was unknown to him. He also conveyed his own "willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context".[76]
Ok well first off what are organs not suitable for sexual contact exactly ? The ear ? The liver ? a church organ ? We all know what he is saying don't we ? He is talking about a practice widespread among gay men and some hetro couples. Secondly on this and a number of other areas HH has a habit of taking diplomacy to an extreme by saying one thing to one group and something else to another. When a delegation from the Lesbian And Gay Buddhist Association met him to express their concern about his views he back tracked...and then repeated the same ol' same ol' a couple of months later to a more conservative group.
If you met HHDL and spent some time with him, you'd know why he is revered. I had the honor to spend three days with him many years ago. He is a regular person (a faliable human) operating on a higher spiritual level (with purer intentions than 99.99% of the earth's population) than the rest of us. Criticism/judgement of any person, regardless of who they are, is wrong intention.
I tend toward a simplistic, practical view of things in general. To me (me only) it kinda boils down to: 1. HHDL is here to help us. All of us. 2. Why on earth do we ask celibate monks, priests, Popes or reincarnated Buddhas for sexual advice anyway???
Seems like there are some things we can figure out for ourselves, huh? Like what to put where and when lol?
I have met him several times. And spent time in his company. He is a very warm and likeable chap. No one is above criticism. And we in the west are not going back to a situation where we are lectured about what we do with our bits.
I thought the goal of giving up things was to give up our attachments to things, not necessarily always the things themselves. One can give up an attachment to their house. They would have a hard time giving up the house itself, though.
This reminds me of what Ajahn Chah said about one of his students when questioned about his thoughts on the Altar Sutra of Hui Neng, the sixth Patriarch of Chan Buddhism:
Q: Have you ever looked at the Altar Sutra of the 6th Patriarch, Hui Neng?
Ajahn Chah: Hui Neng's wisdom is very keen. It is very profound teaching, not easy for beginners to understand. But if you practice with our discipline and with patience, if you practice not-clinging, you will eventually understand. Once I had a disciple who stayed in a grass-roofed hut. It rained often that rainy season and one day a strong wind blew off half the roof. He did not bother to fix it, just let it rain in. Several days passed and I asked him about his hut. He said he was practicing not-clinging. This is not-clinging without wisdom. It is about the same as the equanimity of a [donkey]. If you live a good life and live simply, if you are patient and unselfish, you will understand the wisdom of Hui Neng.
None of us has a teacher that is perfect, I'm sure.
I like what Ajahn Chah says on the topic of perfect teachers:
Q: If putting everything together in our bowls is important, why don't you as a teacher do it yourself? Don't you feel it is important for the teacher to set an example?
Ajahn Chah: Yes, it is true, a teacher should set an example for his disciples. I don't mind that you criticize me. Ask whatever you wish. But it is important that you do not cling to the teacher. If I were absolutely perfect in outward form, it would be terrible. You would all be too attached to me. Even the Buddha would sometimes tell his disciples to do one thing and then do another himself. Your doubts in your teacher can help you. You should watch your own reactions. Do you think it is possible that I keep some food out of my bowl in dishes to feed the laymen who work around the temple? Wisdom is for yourself to watch and develop. Take from the teacher what is good. Be aware of your own practice. If I am resting while you must all sit up, does this make you angry? If I call the color blue red or say that male is female, don't follow me blindly. One of my teachers ate very fast. He made noises as he ate. Yet he told us to eat slowly and mindfully. I used to watch him and get very upset. I suffered, but he didn't! I watched the outside. Later I learned. Some people drive very fast but carefully. Others drive slowly and have many accidents. Don't cling to rules, to outer form. If you watch others at most ten percent of the time and watch yourself ninety percent, this is the proper practice. At first I used to watch my teacher Ajahn Tong Raht and had many doubts. People even thought he was mad. He would do strange things or get very fierce with his disciples. Outside he was angry, but inside there was nothing. Nobody there. He was remarkable. He stayed clear and mindful until the moment he died. Looking outside the self is comparing, discriminating. You will not find happiness that way. Nor will you find peace if you spend your time looking for the perfect man or the perfect teacher. The Buddha taught us to look at the Dhamma, the truth, not to look at other people.
@Dakini I wasn't saying wearing warm clothing was materialism. Quite the opposite. I was simply asking where a line is drawn. My teacher could have a coat that does the job for less money than the one he does have. Should he be judged for his choice in clothing? I don't think so. Especially since I have no idea if he even chose his coat of if his assistants picked it up for him or if it was a gift, or what. I was just saying that judging someone by what WE see because we assume it is materialistic isn't a good place to go. It's just us projecting OUR attachments to our clothing, our cell phones, our FB accounts onto someone else, assuming if they have those same items, clearly they are attached to them like we might be. Someone else was insinuating, it seemed to me, that simply by having a twitter account or a 5 star hotel rooms makes one attached to material items, which isn't true.
If you met HHDL and spent some time with him, you'd know why he is revered. I had the honor to spend three days with him many years ago. He is a regular person (a faliable human) operating on a higher spiritual level (with purer intentions than 99.99% of the earth's population) than the rest of us. Criticism/judgement of any person, regardless of who they are, is wrong intention.
And by implication anyone who expressed an opinion. Its one of the most obvious illogical statements found on Buddhist websites. ' You are wrong to judge people, and I am just the person to tell you so '
We all judge people, all the time. It's a natural human thing to do. And, it's often wise.
Did you vote in the last election? Then you judged the candidates. And don't say, "I judged their policies, not the person." I've read the comments here on Dick Cheney and Mitt Romney, and others who are out of favor with the average American Buddhist.
Do you not shop in a particular neighborhood because it's "a bad neighborhood"? You're not judging the architecture. You're judging the people who live in that neighborhood. Most of you are at best uneasy driving into downtown D.C. at night, and you damn well won't spend much time in most of NE D.C. It ain't that buildings that are going to jump out and get you. It's the people you're worried about.
There are posters right here on this forum you like or don't like, respect or don't respect, or think are a little nutty. Judgement.
And then there are the causes celebre. What is this idea that people don't have the right to have an opinion? There's nothing wrong with having the opinion that being gay is a good or bad idea. It's only wrong when you treat someone badly because of it, and that includes taking away their rights. If the DL thinks homosexuality is unwise, fine, he has the right to think. I don't understand this implied concept that if you don't think like me, then you don't the right to think. That's like having mind police.
I think it depends how far you take your judgement. "Mitt Romney doesn't meet what I prefer to see in a politician. I don't agree with his opinion on X, Y or Z, so I'm not going to vote for him" is different from "GOD. Mitt Romney is such a useless tool. Anyone who votes for him is a moron because his ideas are idiotic and no one should want someone like that to be president." Weighing and balancing things is definitely a part of us, and sometimes key to our survival. But it depends how much of our own fears and stories we put on top of the other person. Likewise "I've seen that crime in this part of DC is pretty high and since I'm not from the area, I think I'll avoid it." isn't the same as judging anyone and everyone who lives in that area as a criminal/bad person.
I agree with the last part especially. Anyone can hold any opinion they like. I might strongly disagree with them and I might choose to not be friends with them as a result. But as long as they aren't using their opinions to hurt other people, then I don't have a problem with them. But sometimes that gets pretty sticky because people on almost any side of any argument try to make a claim that their rights are being taken away by the other side. Abortion: The rights of the woman versus the rights of the fetus. Capital punishment: The rights of the victim versus the rights of the person who committed the crime versus the rights of society as a whole to feel safe and protected. Gay marriage: The rights of people to marry who they love versus the rights of those who feel gay marriage infringes on their religious beliefs (even though it doesn't, that is how they feel). So sometimes it's not always clear on whose rights are really right and who deserves to have their rights protected over the opposing rights of another person.
I think it depends how far you take your judgement. "Mitt Romney doesn't meet what I prefer to see in a politician. I don't agree with his opinion on X, Y or Z, so I'm not going to vote for him" is different from "GOD. Mitt Romney is such a useless tool. Anyone who votes for him is a moron because his ideas are idiotic and no one should want someone like that to be president." Weighing and balancing things is definitely a part of us, and sometimes key to our survival. But it depends how much of our own fears and stories we put on top of the other person. Likewise "I've seen that crime in this part of DC is pretty high and since I'm not from the area, I think I'll avoid it." isn't the same as judging anyone and everyone who lives in that area as a criminal/bad person.
I agree with the last part especially. Anyone can hold any opinion they like. I might strongly disagree with them and I might choose to not be friends with them as a result. But as long as they aren't using their opinions to hurt other people, then I don't have a problem with them. But sometimes that gets pretty sticky because people on almost any side of any argument try to make a claim that their rights are being taken away by the other side. Abortion: The rights of the woman versus the rights of the fetus. Capital punishment: The rights of the victim versus the rights of the person who committed the crime versus the rights of society as a whole to feel safe and protected. Gay marriage: The rights of people to marry who they love versus the rights of those who feel gay marriage infringes on their religious beliefs (even though it doesn't, that is how they feel). So sometimes it's not always clear on whose rights are really right and who deserves to have their rights protected over the opposing rights of another person.
Well stated.
In American politics today, I don't hear many people saying things along the lines of, ""Mitt Romney doesn't meet what I prefer to see in a politician. I don't agree with his opinion on X, Y or Z, so I'm not going to vote for him". And that's a shame.
@vinlyn - i simply made a statement with good intentions not directed at anyone. How people perceive that statement is not my responsibility. OP simply asked, more or less, "what's the big deal?" My intention in response is that i met the guy, he was awesome, and It is my intention not to judge. I am sorry if you read it differently.
@vinlyn - i simply made a statement with good intentions not directed at anyone. How people perceive that statement is not my responsibility. OP simply asked, more or less, "what's the big deal?" My intention in response is that i met the guy, he was awesome, and It is my intention not to judge. I am sorry if you read it differently.
I have no problem with what you said.
My point has been that we all judge people, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively...and there's nothing wrong with making such judgements...providing our actions based on those judgements don't harm the other person.
For example, "The DL is a wise person whom I think I will follow." Versus, "I don't think the DL is a wise person, so I won't follow him." Either position is fine, and it doesn't harm the DL. But, both the positive and negative viewpoints are still judgements.
@vinlyn - Exactly. "Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?" My intention is come from the neutral self. I may express my experience, which happens to be a positive one of the HHDL, but at the same time intend not pass judgement, right? Right here, right now, this is what it is. Time for me to make some tomato sauce. @lobster gave me a good recipe.
@vinlyn - Exactly. "Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?" My intention is come from the neutral self. I may express my experience, which happens to be a positive one of the HHDL, but at the same time intend not pass judgement, right? Right here, right now, this is what it is. Time for me to make some tomato sauce. @lobster gave me a good recipe.
Well, although I can't quote the sutra, I seem to remember that Buddha taught that we should choose the people we associate with carefully. Which is making a judgement.
@vinlyn - Well, the fact is I did not "choose" to spend three days with HHDL. I was working for the Lithuanian government when HHDL was making an official state visit and it was my job to help organize the visit and serve as his host and translator. It was an unexpected good experience brought to me from the randomness of the universe which I benefited from. However, I am choosing to associate with the people here on NewBuddhist.com
As for the watches, I don't think being overly averse to watches is any different than being overly attached to them. I think the point is to not worry too much about belongings. You don't have to be a fanatic about rejecting them or about having them. I think that fanatically rejecting objects could border on the spiritual materialism Trungpa Rinpoche described. And rejecting objects on someone else's behalf, criticizing them for not rejecting objects, takes that a step further yet I respect people who want to reduce belongings, and I have been happier by reducing them, too. But in our zeal, if we start to worry what kind of watch or shoes someone is wearing, it doesn't serve any positive purpose and seems to me to usually serve a negative one.
Somebody said, "many Buddhists don't like the Dalai Lama."
I've never heard this before and I'm wondering if it is true. If it is, why is that the case?
I'd sure love an objective answer, detached from extreme emotion. Thank you in advance!
I like cake and the daily lamer. Each has a preferred orifice and some an office. I talk out of mine. I have a great reverence for cake. I could worship cake or the Dalai Lama. Each practice has benefits. Some better than others . . . My holy cake, so perfect . . . never needs to know the time and is unaffected by poverty or riches. I must conclude cake is the perfect teacher . . .
OM MANI PEME HUM HRIH (all hail the fruit and nut cake)
Somebody said, "many Buddhists don't like the Dalai Lama."
I've never heard this before and I'm wondering if it is true. If it is, why is that the case?
I'd sure love an objective answer, detached from extreme emotion. Thank you in advance!
I like cake and the daily lamer. Each has a preferred orifice and some an office. I talk out of mine. I have a great reverence for cake. I could worship cake or the Dalai Lama. Each practice has benefits. Some better than others . . . My holy cake, so perfect . . . never needs to know the time and is unaffected by poverty or riches. I must conclude cake is the perfect teacher . . .
OM MANI PEME HUM HRIH (all hail the fruit and nut cake)
Comments
But the same teaching says that if the higher channels are blocked the life energy exists through the anus which means almost inevitably to the hell realms.
Many western teachers do not accept that homosexual activity blocks the channels.
But the DL seems to hold the traditional view.
Incidentally you may have heard of the ' Phowa' practises.
This opens up the fontanelle to ensure a greater liklihood of exiting that way at death.
Truly shaming behaviour from both sides.
In the Old Country all this went on to some extent, it was no Shangri-La.
But Tibet is so huge and its population was so relatively small that they could physically avoid each other .
Not a possibility in the global village.
Just a small correction there @Citta there are no videos of anyone from the NKT attacking or assaulting anyone, There are videos of protests and they clearly show Tibetans spitting and throwing objects no one from the NKT engaged in violent behaviour that was not the point of the protests but to rather object to the Dalai lama's rather destructive religious policy.
So no, he's not anti-gay. He's anti-sex. Whether or not Buddhism in general is anti-sex, being pro-elimination of desire, has been the subject of many a thread, here.
He was thrust into a political role in a way that would not have prevailed before the invasion.
Coming from a secular background, I find it very difficult to marry up buddhist practice and any sort of angry conflict between lineages / traditions.
Whatever happened to dealing with your own stuff and let others deal with theirs?
Note: this is just a general observation, not about DL.
I don't think anyone, whether talking about HHDL or someone else, is making an excuse to indulge in any and every luxury available.
Whatever happened to dealing with your own stuff and let others deal with theirs?
You completely misread my post. Who cares about the DL's watch collection? Another poster implied that having a FB account or a phone were examples of materialism, and might lead people to consider his teacher to be a bad monk. That's not materialism. Wearing warm clothing in winter isn't materialism.
However, we do expect our teachers to practice non-attachment, and exemplify the principles they're teaching, which the DL mostly does, but some teachers do not. It's reasonable to expect preachers to practice what they preach. There's nothing wrong with drawing a line. That's what lay and monastic vows are for. The line is already drawn. (Responding to the "where do we draw the line" post.)
One man will be attached to his cell phone but may not be attached to his private jet.
Life and people are complex.
And Geshe-la's books have helped me a lot in the year that I have been studying from him but the Dalai Lama on the other hand just across as some one who is liked simply for being the Dalai Lama so no I do not like him although I don't wish him any ill-will.
PS. My s/h boopkshop just came up trumps again with The Essential Dalai Lama, HH the Dalai Lama - ed. Rajiv Mehratra. (Priced at £1!). It's transcriptions of various talks. Completely brilliant and I highly recommend it.
To know why he thinks that anal intercourse is a very bad idea indeed you would have to know about the nadis and 'wind channels '. You would also need to know why other eminent Vajrayana scholars think that HH's views on this matter are more to do with his very conservative social conditioning than anything that emerges from the Tantric literature.
It amounts to a view of gay male sexuality no different from that of your local Evangelical preacher...its only the technical reasons that differ.
And this is a cause of dissonance to some western Buddhists who have an idealised view of the DL as a beacon of liberality.
What about the idea that he is an inspiring figure who talks a great deal of common sense..but is still a product of his time and conditioning which gives him certain prejudices ?
My only comment would be that homosexual practices are not karma-free just because we want to think they are, and the Dalai Lama is not anti-liberal just because he says they are not.
One of the things I admire so much about him is his ability to re-examine the appropriateness of various teachings, and re-define them if need be. Love the way he has said that if modern science and Buddhism are in conflict, then Buddhism will have to change.
The following is an exerpt from a Wikipedia summary at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Dalai_Lama
In his discussions of the traditional Buddhist view on appropriate sexual behavior, he explains the concept of "right organ in the right object at the right time," which historically has been interpreted as indicating that oral, manual and anal sex (both homosexual and heterosexual) are not appropriate in Buddhism or for Buddhists, yet he also says that in modern times all common, consensual sexual practices that do not cause harm to others are ethically acceptable and that society should not discriminate against gays and lesbians and should accept and respect them from a secular point of view.[73] In a 1994 interview with OUT Magazine, the Dalai Lama clarified his personal opinion on the matter by saying, "If someone comes to me and asks whether homosexuality is okay or not, I will ask 'What is your companion's opinion?'. If you both agree, then I think I would say, 'If two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay.'"[74]
In his 1996 book Beyond Dogma, he described a traditional Buddhist definition of an appropriate sexual act as follows: "A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else... Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact."[75] He elaborated in 1997, explaining that the basis of that teaching was unknown to him. He also conveyed his own "willingness to consider the possibility that some of the teachings may be specific to a particular cultural and historic context".[76]
He is talking about a practice widespread among gay men and some hetro couples.
Secondly on this and a number of other areas HH has a habit of taking diplomacy to an extreme by saying one thing to one group and something else to another. When a delegation from the Lesbian And Gay Buddhist Association met him to express their concern about his views he back tracked...and then repeated the same ol' same ol' a couple of months later to a more conservative group.
Criticism/judgement of any person, regardless of who they are, is wrong intention.
1. HHDL is here to help us. All of us.
2. Why on earth do we ask celibate monks, priests, Popes or reincarnated Buddhas for sexual advice anyway???
Seems like there are some things we can figure out for ourselves, huh? Like what to put where and when lol?
Its one of the most obvious illogical statements found on Buddhist websites.
' You are wrong to judge people, and I am just the person to tell you so '
We all judge people, all the time. It's a natural human thing to do. And, it's often wise.
Did you vote in the last election? Then you judged the candidates. And don't say, "I judged their policies, not the person." I've read the comments here on Dick Cheney and Mitt Romney, and others who are out of favor with the average American Buddhist.
Do you not shop in a particular neighborhood because it's "a bad neighborhood"? You're not judging the architecture. You're judging the people who live in that neighborhood. Most of you are at best uneasy driving into downtown D.C. at night, and you damn well won't spend much time in most of NE D.C. It ain't that buildings that are going to jump out and get you. It's the people you're worried about.
There are posters right here on this forum you like or don't like, respect or don't respect, or think are a little nutty. Judgement.
And then there are the causes celebre. What is this idea that people don't have the right to have an opinion? There's nothing wrong with having the opinion that being gay is a good or bad idea. It's only wrong when you treat someone badly because of it, and that includes taking away their rights. If the DL thinks homosexuality is unwise, fine, he has the right to think. I don't understand this implied concept that if you don't think like me, then you don't the right to think. That's like having mind police.
"Mitt Romney doesn't meet what I prefer to see in a politician. I don't agree with his opinion on X, Y or Z, so I'm not going to vote for him" is different from "GOD. Mitt Romney is such a useless tool. Anyone who votes for him is a moron because his ideas are idiotic and no one should want someone like that to be president."
Weighing and balancing things is definitely a part of us, and sometimes key to our survival. But it depends how much of our own fears and stories we put on top of the other person.
Likewise "I've seen that crime in this part of DC is pretty high and since I'm not from the area, I think I'll avoid it." isn't the same as judging anyone and everyone who lives in that area as a criminal/bad person.
I agree with the last part especially. Anyone can hold any opinion they like. I might strongly disagree with them and I might choose to not be friends with them as a result. But as long as they aren't using their opinions to hurt other people, then I don't have a problem with them. But sometimes that gets pretty sticky because people on almost any side of any argument try to make a claim that their rights are being taken away by the other side. Abortion: The rights of the woman versus the rights of the fetus. Capital punishment: The rights of the victim versus the rights of the person who committed the crime versus the rights of society as a whole to feel safe and protected. Gay marriage: The rights of people to marry who they love versus the rights of those who feel gay marriage infringes on their religious beliefs (even though it doesn't, that is how they feel). So sometimes it's not always clear on whose rights are really right and who deserves to have their rights protected over the opposing rights of another person.
In American politics today, I don't hear many people saying things along the lines of, ""Mitt Romney doesn't meet what I prefer to see in a politician. I don't agree with his opinion on X, Y or Z, so I'm not going to vote for him". And that's a shame.
How people perceive that statement is not my responsibility.
OP simply asked, more or less, "what's the big deal?"
My intention in response is that i met the guy, he was awesome, and It is my intention not to judge.
I am sorry if you read it differently.
My point has been that we all judge people, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively...and there's nothing wrong with making such judgements...providing our actions based on those judgements don't harm the other person.
For example, "The DL is a wise person whom I think I will follow." Versus, "I don't think the DL is a wise person, so I won't follow him." Either position is fine, and it doesn't harm the DL. But, both the positive and negative viewpoints are still judgements.
I actually agree with you on the DL.
My intention is come from the neutral self. I may express my experience, which happens to be a positive one of the HHDL, but at the same time intend not pass judgement, right?
Right here, right now, this is what it is.
Time for me to make some tomato sauce. @lobster gave me a good recipe.
It was an unexpected good experience brought to me from the randomness of the universe which I benefited from.
However, I am choosing to associate with the people here on NewBuddhist.com
OM MANI PEME HUM HRIH
(all hail the fruit and nut cake)
:thumbsup:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torma