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.
@Dakini said:
Bad comparisons. Adults aren't teenagers. And yes, I can keep mine to myself indefinitely, especially in a context in which it's inappropriate to pursue a liaison (which is more to the point). It's called self-control. (It works kinda like the precepts.) If a non-celibate teacher wants a partner, he has the entire population of women outside the sangha from which to choose.
Yes, exactly.
When I was a teacher, I didn't consider having sex with my students. When I was a principal, I didn't have sex with the teachers in the school or other subordinates. No one is saying a teacher of the Dharma shouldn't have sex, just not with students in the sangha. This is a pretty standard concept -- its considered unethical for a psychiatrist to have sex with his patient...just another example.
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
@karasti I think that's what some people do, they judge Buddhism based on the actions of some bad apples. Actually people do that for all religions. There may be some fundamental problem that can be fixed (conditions that allow these things to happen)... but people don't seem to be focused on the fixing. Identifying the problem does need to occur, and getting the word out may be required to spark action, but then something should be done.
@AldrisTorvalds said:
"The Buddha" didn't abandon his wife and son, "Siddhartha Gautama" did. Subtle but significant difference in that understanding. Of course we can judge (though some might say there are extenuating circumstances), but we're not judging the fully enlightened being that was known as the Buddha, and referred to himself as the Tathagata, we're judging the unenlightened younger version... in many respects a different person.
It's easy to not criticize Siddhartha because of his successful enlightenment. Would we feel the same if he had totally failed? I think not.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited May 2014
@vinlyn You're probably right. Still, my point was that unenlightened beings will cause harm and perform unskillful actions. Siddhartha was just like anyone else in that regard. If we're going to criticize him, I'd like to see a point to that criticism... perhaps to point out that "the Buddha" wouldn't have done such things, enlightened beings en masse wouldn't do such things, so teachers who are doing them shouldn't be mistakenly regarded as enlightened.
How many have tried and failed that we never, ever hear about? We wouldn't even know who Siddhartha was had he failed. I'm sure there are a lot of people who try, and fail, and we never know. Or we lock them up and deem them crazy.
The point, I think, is that teachers will also cause harm and perform unskillful actions. We forgive Buddha for his because of what he achieved. But we aren't so quick to forgive any other teachers.
1
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited May 2014
@karasti Also we're not the ones who would need to forgive. I could no more forgive a stranger their trespasses (against other people) than I could be forgiven by them for mine. Man that was a tough sentence to correctly formulate!
We also need discernment. We need to know what someone's state of mind was like when they did something horrible. If a woman murdered someone 60 years ago and wasn't by any stretch enlightened or teaching Buddhism, but today she's genuinely enlightened and teaching from prison (life sentence), what good would sitting in judgment be? The extent of my judgment would be "Yes, she did that when she was young and stupid. She accepts the consequences still today, even though she's not that person anymore.", and I'd move on. Some people never move on. There's a point where judgment becomes futility... it becomes insanity.
@dharmamom said:
Has anyone here heard of Eisel Mazard? He's some sort of Pali specialist and Phd in I don't know what.
He keeps ranting against the corruption in Buddhism on different sites. I personally think he borders on the delusional narcissist. I don't know if he's a Buddhist or not, or whether he's paid by someone to rail against Buddhism.
I think corruption is an anavoidable feature in any organized religious structure. I'm sorry to find Buddhism is no exception, still it is a human failure, not a failure inherent to the doctrine.
In any case, I don't like how this man attacks Buddhism the way he does.
I actually ran into him on another buddhist site. That is the main reason I am looking into this. We got into a bit of an argument and he kind of left the site before I was satisfied. Need I say I was as mild as dove in our engagement? I mean you know me right? .
He is pretty well versed in Pali but seems less able in the Dhamma.
@Chaz said:
The Buddha is said to have abandoned his wife and newborn son in the middle of the night. He also bailed on his responsibility to his people as their Prince. If you won't follow someone who had sex with his students, why do you follow the teachings of someone who took a powder on both his family and his people? If you don't cut CTR any slack, how do you square the Buddha's actions?
Because I do not want to become a Prince. I want to end fabrications which even at the time when I choose the path seemed useless to me. More so now.
But we grow and our goals in life change too. Maybe the reason I chose buddhism then is not the reason I would chose buddhim now.
@karasti said:
No, we shouldn't judge him as Buddha, but as Siddhartha, he was not a child when he left his wife and child in search of something greater.
We can appreciate it now, but what would most here say if their partner and parent of their children just up and decided to leave on a spiritual quest?
My question at all is why the focus on the dark side? I don't mean to say to pretend things don't happen or to ignore them. But what purpose does it serve to focus on them? To judge all of Buddhism based on people who identified as such who behaved badly? To be angry?
I agree. Mostly we focus on the positive and where we are heading and that is good. But I just wanted to get a feel for the other side as well. And good that I did because earlier I was in the blue compared to what I know now. Maybe getting snowed in on the sexual misconducts was a mistake because there are many other bad things going on too.
Like a person on a christian site that had left buddhism because a monk had suggested to get an exterminator to kill of his mice problem. Not because it is the proper way to go about it but because that would save him the bad karma of killing mice!
@vinlyn said:
It's easy to not criticize Siddhartha because of his successful enlightenment. Would we feel the same if he had totally failed? I think not.
Maybe it is not a question of judging for judging's sake but to see where you want to go.
If you look at CTR for an example and ask your self. Is that where I want to be in 30,40,50 years? If the answer is yes then by all means pursue!
Otherwise you should find a teacher you want to emulate.
@Victorious said: I agree. Mostly we focus on the positive and where we are heading and that is good. But I just wanted to get a feel for the other side as well.
It's important to be aware of the pitfalls. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.
@Victorious said:
I actually ran into him on another buddhist site. That is the main reason I am looking into this. We got into a bit of an argument and he kind of left the site before I was satisfied. Need I say I was as mild as dove in our engagement? I mean you know me right? He is pretty well versed in Pali but seems less able in the Dhamma.
I still can't figure out what his agenda is in all this. I can't remember reading if he actually is Buddhist or not.
Apparently, he made some very bad experiences during his many years of living in Asia, but I find his tone, either pathological or plain distasteful.
Suffices to say that I think he has Issues. I think Compassion is in order but maybe not pampering.
/Victor
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@Victorious said:
Suffices to say that I think he has Issues. I think Compassion is in order but maybe not pampering.
/Victor
I think I succeeded in getting him banned from another site. He sent me a foul, patronising, insulting and condescending pm, to which he blocked reply. I reported it to a Moderator there.
Neve saw him again.
Oho. Was that you? I heard byways...We'll share the (bad) karma then.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
To be honest I think it was a culmination of different incidents. My report may have been the straw that broke the camel and all that, but had it not been me it would have been someone else, and not too far off, either.
Sorry, but my curiosity is: is he actually a Buddhist, or does he simply troll in Buddhist sites to spread the bad tidings? Is he for real or just a muckraker?
According to others he does not consider himself a Buddhist. But I never asked him. I see no reason to tolerate nonsense critique of the Dhamma in any case.
But he might be in a very bad place currently. Not only mentally. So there is reason not get too upset but just meet his accusations with good arguments. Which is not difficult to do since he is very emotional.
/Victor
PS
He claims to have lived in Asia for 12 years and probably has too and much of his criticism might have good causes. So I do not think he is a troll only.
DS
I don't think one has to look to a teacher and say "if I follow him, that is how I will be in 30 years." Especially when you consider CTR, for example. He's not even alive anymore to follow, just his words left behind, which is all I need anyhow.
Just because I lived for so many years with my parents, and still interact with them every day, hardly means I have, or will continue, to grow to be like them. I've never been one to lose myself in someone else.
@federica: That's true the two cases are in general apples and oranges but I think I was trying to make a specific point which I should have made clearer; both smoking and sex, for some of the reaction, is cultural biased. For example frat boys are going to react differently than southern baptists or the puritans. So my comparison does make a point, although as you say sex is a different thing than smoking.
For me ahimsa is absolute and formless and the precepts are forms (non-absolute) that protect the people of the society. Ahimsa is like water and fits within any container of moral standards exist in the society. The mold is like the forms themselves. Ahimsa takes on any form and is formless. Conditional rules are the form which provides a context for the values and beliefs.
An example is that rules on putting men and women together are not absolutely wise to any society. But perhaps in monks and nuns (including Christian and Buddhist) there is a practical side and the rule is a form to protect the spiritual purity. Ahimsa is the absolute that fits the form.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited May 2014
Asking someone to be perfect is a pretty tall order.
EXPECTING someone to be perfect is completely unreasonable.
Until we ourselves can honestly, hand on heart, state that ' we would NEVER do such a thing' and live up to the affirmation, we have no right to expect anyone else to uphold perfect standards, no matter what their role.
Which is different to how we view those standards and consider how important they are in comparison to the quality and rigour of the teaching we are receiving.
@karasti said:
I don't think one has to look to a teacher and say "if I follow him, that is how I will be in 30 years."
I think you choose a teacher for a quality that you lack but the teacher has. For me it was information and knowledge of the path and knowledge of how to master the path.
And when I say path I mean the Arahant path. Obviously according to both the pali canon and practical knowledge from those who follow that path it will lead towards lessening of lobha, dosa and moha.
If a person who has practised the path for 50 years does not show any lessening of these things then obviously he has wasted his time.
And it would be stupid of me to listen to him and emulate his path in order to get to where I need to go.
But if someone else finds a quality in the same teacher that they find desirable, then who am I to disagree?
@federica said:
Asking someone to be perfect is a pretty tall order.
EXPECTING someone to be perfect is completely unreasonable.
Until we ourselves can honestly, hand on heart, state that ' we would NEVER do such a thing' and live up to the affirmation, we have no right to expect anyone else to uphold perfect standards, no matter what their role.
Which is different to how we view those standards and consider how important they are in comparison to the quality and rigour of the teaching we are receiving.
There are some other slogans that are somewhat related to how you said and it is in a number of lojong slogans such as:
Drive all blames into one : Take responsibility as your fault whenever you have a conflict. People are always passing blame around like a piece of shit. Nobody wants it. So you just take the blame and the process is solved.
Don't ponder others: don't nickpick others because they have not attained what you have
Don't malign others: thinking your virtue only shine when others flaws are pointed out
Don't wait in ambush: "revenge is the dish best served cold"
Don't transfer the ox's load to the cow: "don't pass the buck onto someone else"
Don't make gods into demons: arrogance about your attainment
Also the lojong slogans are provisional. They are like a stick to unjam the drain. But if they themselves get stuck in the drain then the problem is not solved. You have to hear them and then contemplate how they fit in your life. Sometimes the wording is unhelpful to you you have to extract the point and then use your own words and analogies.
@vinlyn said:
I agree, Federica. Smoking is something you to do to yourself.
Sexual relations bring in a second party.
Just not the same.
Well, not so fast ....
Smoking tobacco products does bring others into it. Second-hand smoke has been shown to have adverse health effects in those exposed to it.
Personally, I'm not sure I buy into that, but that is what authorities say and most people believe it, so ......
Not the same thing as sex, but unlike sex, it seems to be invariably harmful to everyone. Sexual relations can be healthy and fun, but can also create a lot of psychic damage in the wake of it that can take a lifetime heal. Cardio/Pulmonary damage from tobacco smoke damages the body along with the mind and may not ever heal. Sex probably won't kill you. Emphysema does.
But, it's all academic, wouldn't you say? Just the same, if you're going to evaluate teachers on the damage caused by sexual relations with students, I don't think it unreasonable to evaluate of smoking around anyone, not just students.
@vinlyn, actually, the bad effects of smoking aren't just done to the smoker. That's why many states have now passed no smoking bans that make it illegal to smoke indoors, in public spaces, in airplanes, and so on. Smoking and sex aren't the same, no, but smoking isn't one of those things that only impacts the smoker. And neither is drug use, or any of those other vices. All vices have an impact on health and society at large.
Thankfully, we are all free to discern what the information means for us as far as who we choose as valid sources of information.
@Victorious, absolutely. I might feel different about CTR if he were still alive. Maybe it's easier to forgive and not put as much consideration on his misdeeds because he is not here still committing them. If his wife and son (I've never seen anything of the other kid(s) of his, never looked) forgive him and understand him in a different way, then maybe there is more to it than I can ever know. Diana Mukpo has talked a lot about their marriage and relationship, along with his drinking and his sleeping with students. She didn't have a problem with it, so, why should I have a problem with it for her? She knew him, she was married to him, who am I to judge what she says about him?
If there is one thing I've learned so far, it's that just because people do things that make no sense to me, doesn't mean it's always, 100% in every situation, wrong. There are levels of understanding that people have of the world that I am unable to touch. I can't claim to know if what they say they experience is true, or not. Sometimes it sounds like a load of hooey. But sometimes there are enough truly credible and scholarly people who insist they have seen and experienced things (lie the rainbow body) that I can't phathom. Just because I haven't experienced it and my society and culture doesn't accept it, doesn't mean it isn't possible. I extend that open-mindedness to pretty much everything. There's very little about the world that I am sure enough of to fully accept or fully reject.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Having just now read through this thread I thought to post some stuff on the qualifications for a Buddhist teacher.
I think you choose a teacher for a quality that you lack but the teacher has. For me it was information and knowledge of the path and knowledge of how to master the path.
And when I say path I mean the Arahant path. Obviously according to both the pali canon and practical knowledge from those who follow that path it will lead towards lessening of lobha, dosa and moha.
If a person who has practised the path for 50 years does not show any lessening of these things then obviously he has wasted his time.
And it would be stupid of me to listen to him and emulate his path in order to get to where I need to go.
But if someone else finds a quality in the same teacher that they find desirable, then who am I to disagree?
Fair enough?
/Victor
I can sympathize with wanting a teacher an the arahant path. Actually Vajrayana Buddhists are supposed to not break the precepts or bodhisattva vows unless it contradicts their vajrayana vows. Trungpa says that himself in his book. So there is that regarding Trungpa in that he did not walk the walk (it seems). For students who are not monks or in a life they can study for umpteen hours a week they don't have time to study all of the yanas. So it ends up a case of different paths.
The Buddha never appointed a successor to take over (according to the Pali Canon) even though there were many arahants around. He left behind his teachings to guide us. A truly wise move. Perhaps a case of following the teachings and not the teacher since the Buddha is not with us anymore.
Then the Blessed One said to Ven. Ananda, "Now, if it occurs to any of you — 'The teaching has lost its authority; we are without a Teacher' — do not view it in that way. Whatever Dhamma & Vinaya I have pointed out & formulated for you, that will be your Teacher when I am gone.
"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.
"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.
3
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
@pegembara Gotta love the Kalama Sutra. It's not often that a religious leader encourages skepticism. That's pretty much the last thing faith-based religions would do.
@federica said:
EXPECTING someone to be perfect is completely unreasonable.
Of course. On the other hand teachers are role models for their students, and if they're not a positive role model then it's potentially damaging and misleading, particularly if it's a case of "Do as I say, not as I do".
I don't think a Buddhist teacher smoking cigarettes sets a particularly good example, particularly if the teacher is lecturing about the disadvantages of attachment and craving.
My yoga teacher and karate teacher (Terry Dukes) smoked and then justified his actions by saying how the Chinese believed smoking 'stimulated' the lungs.
Some of us are stupid and gullible enough to believe such drivel.
Being a teacher is a responsibility, not a means of [insert 'crazy' alcoholism, smoking, sexual predation, emotional abuse etc of choice] Personaly I believe the role of a spiritual mentor is making us independent of them and our myriad selves as quickly as possible. Then we may start practicing discernment, critical appraisal and lightening the load for ourselves, others and if necessary them . . .
@SpinyNorman said:
I don't think a Buddhist teacher smoking cigarettes sets a particularly good example, particularly if the teacher is lecturing about the disadvantages of attachment and craving.
Yeah, but at my age, I'm not particularly interested in role models. A "good example" is of no consequence to me. If my teacher happens to have a little dirt under his nails, that's ok.
I just read this and in all honesty I cannot disagree with basically anything he has said. I also think what he is asking for, ie a way to test whether a teacher is legit or not, is something the Buddha gave in the suttas. I will attempt to look it up and get back to this thread.
EDIT: here is one.. its not the exact one I'm looking for though:
Qualities of a Dhamma teacher
"It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma should be taught to others only when five qualities are established within the person teaching. Which five?
"[1] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak step-by-step.'
"[2] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak explaining the sequence [of cause & effect].'
"[3] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak out of compassion.'
"[4] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak not for the purpose of material reward.'
"[5] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak without disparaging myself or others.'
"It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma should be taught to others only when these five qualities are established within the person teaching."
as far as my own judgement of teachers I also take this into account.. if there are secret doctrines, I'm out:
I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back.
as far as my own judgement of teachers I also take this into account.. if there are secret doctrines, I'm out:
Well, seeing as you're practicing in a tradition where "esoteric" teachings, such as in Vajrayana, aren't much of an issue for you.
I sometime get the sense that there is a misunderstanding with such things.
No teacher, regardless of tradition, will teach a student beyond his/her capacity to understand. It's kinda like the system of prerequisits we see in academia. It's not so much that a teaching is "secret" so much as the student isn't ready. Students are instructed to not discuss the teachings outside their class for the same reason.
And these days, there's hardly anything that's truly secret. You can easily find books or websites that explain just about topic of "esoteric" teaching. People either intentionally or innocently give restrticed texts to people not authorized to have them. I inadvertantly left a restrcted Vajrayana course book on the train. Somebody got that. Secrets's out.
^Yes. It's not about hiding anything, it's about ensuring the student is truly ready. You wouldn't want your surgeon to take on surgery without basic anatomy, would you? There have been some teachers/people who have been unhappy that everyone and his uncle have written so-called guides to Dzogchen, which then has resulted in others feeling they must publish something to correct the misunderstanding. And now you have a whole host of people who are teaching their own mishmash idea of Dzogchen and other such things who don't really have any training in it at all. Sometimes, misusing information can be unhealthy and even dangerous.
But there seems to be a general consensus lately that even those who might have preferred to keep the higher teachings taught in the way of old tradition (actual transmission by guru with years of established practice and relationship) they are realizing that that way is dying off, and the only way to preserve the teachings at all is to get them out there before the old school masters are gone.
It makes it much harder though, for people without teachers, to determine which is truly authentic and which is not. Often when we have to make those choices, we go with what is comfortable to us, and that might not be the best route to take to learning advanced teachings.
My teacher is a vajrayana teacher, and he's good at knowing who is ready for what. But our local group has invited a teacher to come this summer, and I have mixed feelings about it. He basically studied the more advanced and esoteric teachings of many traditions (Dzogchen, Vedanta, Sufism, Kabbalah, Orthodox Christianity and others) and turned it into his own brand of "fast track to enlightenment" without having that foundation in place. I'm open to what he has to say, but skeptical because completely taking what he perceives as the best of multiple traditions and putting them together in order to fast forward seems, in some ways, unethical. Maybe that's not the right work. For me, it is problematic. I find it odd there are people on his FB page who talk about Dzogchen without having much of a clue at all about anything in Buddhism other than what this author chose to tell them in his 200 page book.
To some people it would just be mumbo jumbo @Chaz, what with all those for'n words - if the person who found your course book were not into buddhism, the lack of understanding and patience trying to interpret what was going on would have meant it's probably landfill now. If you're not ready for it, your'e not ready for it!
I lent a friend my book on Dzogchen, because he said he was interested in buddhism, I think that's landfill now as well.
I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back.
Buddha also said that what he taught was like a handful of leaves in a forest relative to how much he knew. So it is not surprising that there could be other yanas based on some of the knowledge that is the leaves on the ground in the forest.
Another perspective is that the dharma produces realized beings. Those beings could add to the teachings. If you are going to say that no realized beings are produced then the dharma has no point; you could just as easily learn a different 'hobby' if no realized beings are a result of the dharma studies.
@karasti said:
But there seems to be a general consensus lately that even those who might have preferred to keep the higher teachings taught in the way of old tradition (actual transmission by guru with years of established practice and relationship) they are realizing that that way is dying off, and the only way to preserve the teachings at all is to get them out there before the old school masters are gone.
Yes. There are teachers teaching Dzogchen without Ngondro. We'll see Mahamudra taught the same way soon. A number of teachers, perhaps unwilling to relinquish the old ways completely, have reduced the duration of Ngondro to 10% of the old school, in an effort to get students progressing towards higher practice and study.
I'd agree that this is because the old teachers - those of CTR's generation are getting old, and there is much left to impart to the west.
In addition, for the Tibetan traditions to continue in the west, there must be western-born lineage holders and for this reason, too, training and practice must be accelerated.
It makes it much harder though, for people without teachers, to determine which is truly authentic and which is not. Often when we have to make those choices, we go with what is comfortable to us, and that might not be the best route to take to learning advanced teachings.
Quite right.
You see a certain resistance in the west to this tradition of teaching. With it comes a percievable sense of entitlement- that anything and everything Dharma is free to all, merely for the asking or taking. That may be how it should be, but that's not how it's been. There's bound to be conflict. So we end up with conflict getting in the way of true Dharma.
The Dark Side.
My teacher is a vajrayana teacher, and he's good at knowing who is ready for what. But our local group has invited a teacher to come this summer, and I have mixed feelings about it. He basically studied the more advanced and esoteric teachings of many traditions (Dzogchen, Vedanta, Sufism, Kabbalah, Orthodox Christianity and others) and turned it into his own brand of "fast track to enlightenment" without having that foundation in place. I'm open to what he has to say, but skeptical because completely taking what he perceives as the best of multiple traditions and putting them together in order to fast forward seems, in some ways, unethical. Maybe that's not the right work. For me, it is problematic. I find it odd there are people on his FB page who talk about Dzogchen without having much of a clue at all about anything in Buddhism other than what this author chose to tell them in his 200 page book.
As an alchemist, I am completely veiled by nonsense and fluent gibberish. The real 'esoteric' is never, ever veiled. It is there revealed in our experience and expression. The dharma is open, it is us who close it . . . and ultimately open to it . . .
Mr Cushion did you just sell yourself? Bad cushion!
Comments
Yes, exactly.
When I was a teacher, I didn't consider having sex with my students. When I was a principal, I didn't have sex with the teachers in the school or other subordinates. No one is saying a teacher of the Dharma shouldn't have sex, just not with students in the sangha. This is a pretty standard concept -- its considered unethical for a psychiatrist to have sex with his patient...just another example.
Could you have sex with your piano teacher?
@karasti I think that's what some people do, they judge Buddhism based on the actions of some bad apples. Actually people do that for all religions. There may be some fundamental problem that can be fixed (conditions that allow these things to happen)... but people don't seem to be focused on the fixing. Identifying the problem does need to occur, and getting the word out may be required to spark action, but then something should be done.
It's easy to not criticize Siddhartha because of his successful enlightenment. Would we feel the same if he had totally failed? I think not.
@vinlyn You're probably right. Still, my point was that unenlightened beings will cause harm and perform unskillful actions. Siddhartha was just like anyone else in that regard. If we're going to criticize him, I'd like to see a point to that criticism... perhaps to point out that "the Buddha" wouldn't have done such things, enlightened beings en masse wouldn't do such things, so teachers who are doing them shouldn't be mistakenly regarded as enlightened.
How many have tried and failed that we never, ever hear about? We wouldn't even know who Siddhartha was had he failed. I'm sure there are a lot of people who try, and fail, and we never know. Or we lock them up and deem them crazy.
The point, I think, is that teachers will also cause harm and perform unskillful actions. We forgive Buddha for his because of what he achieved. But we aren't so quick to forgive any other teachers.
@karasti Also we're not the ones who would need to forgive. I could no more forgive a stranger their trespasses (against other people) than I could be forgiven by them for mine.
Man that was a tough sentence to correctly formulate!
We also need discernment. We need to know what someone's state of mind was like when they did something horrible. If a woman murdered someone 60 years ago and wasn't by any stretch enlightened or teaching Buddhism, but today she's genuinely enlightened and teaching from prison (life sentence), what good would sitting in judgment be? The extent of my judgment would be "Yes, she did that when she was young and stupid. She accepts the consequences still today, even though she's not that person anymore.", and I'd move on. Some people never move on. There's a point where judgment becomes futility... it becomes insanity.
I actually ran into him on another buddhist site. That is the main reason I am looking into this. We got into a bit of an argument and he kind of left the site before I was satisfied. Need I say I was as mild as dove in our engagement? I mean you know me right?
.
He is pretty well versed in Pali but seems less able in the Dhamma.
/Victor
Because I do not want to become a Prince. I want to end fabrications which even at the time when I choose the path seemed useless to me. More so now.
But we grow and our goals in life change too. Maybe the reason I chose buddhism then is not the reason I would chose buddhim now.
/Victor
I agree. Mostly we focus on the positive and where we are heading and that is good. But I just wanted to get a feel for the other side as well. And good that I did because earlier I was in the blue compared to what I know now. Maybe getting snowed in on the sexual misconducts was a mistake because there are many other bad things going on too.
Like a person on a christian site that had left buddhism because a monk had suggested to get an exterminator to kill of his mice problem. Not because it is the proper way to go about it but because that would save him the bad karma of killing mice!
I mean hallo!
/Victor
Maybe it is not a question of judging for judging's sake but to see where you want to go.
If you look at CTR for an example and ask your self. Is that where I want to be in 30,40,50 years? If the answer is yes then by all means pursue!
Otherwise you should find a teacher you want to emulate.
No?
/victor
At age 64, I already know what I'll be doing in "30,40,50 years".
I plan to live until 120. So I am not even middle aged yet... :-P (going on 40 now...)
It's important to be aware of the pitfalls. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.
I still can't figure out what his agenda is in all this. I can't remember reading if he actually is Buddhist or not.
Apparently, he made some very bad experiences during his many years of living in Asia, but I find his tone, either pathological or plain distasteful.
Suffices to say that I think he has Issues. I think Compassion is in order but maybe not pampering.
/Victor
I think I succeeded in getting him banned from another site. He sent me a foul, patronising, insulting and condescending pm, to which he blocked reply. I reported it to a Moderator there.
Neve saw him again.
Can't honestly say I'm sorry.
@federica
Oho. Was that you? I heard byways...We'll share the (bad) karma then.
To be honest I think it was a culmination of different incidents. My report may have been the straw that broke the camel and all that, but had it not been me it would have been someone else, and not too far off, either.
Sorry, but my curiosity is: is he actually a Buddhist, or does he simply troll in Buddhist sites to spread the bad tidings? Is he for real or just a muckraker?
According to others he does not consider himself a Buddhist. But I never asked him. I see no reason to tolerate nonsense critique of the Dhamma in any case.
But he might be in a very bad place currently. Not only mentally. So there is reason not get too upset but just meet his accusations with good arguments. Which is not difficult to do since he is very emotional.
/Victor
PS
He claims to have lived in Asia for 12 years and probably has too and much of his criticism might have good causes. So I do not think he is a troll only.
DS
I think teachers have a responsibility because they're in a position of power. And don't teachers lead by example?
I don't think one has to look to a teacher and say "if I follow him, that is how I will be in 30 years." Especially when you consider CTR, for example. He's not even alive anymore to follow, just his words left behind, which is all I need anyhow.
Just because I lived for so many years with my parents, and still interact with them every day, hardly means I have, or will continue, to grow to be like them. I've never been one to lose myself in someone else.
What about a teacher who smokes cigarettes? For some people that is disgusting, yet some don't give a rip. Kinda similar.
Apples and oranges.
Hardly comparable. Many Buddhists smoke too.
It's hardly the same as having sex with a student....
I agree, Federica. Smoking is something you to do to yourself.
Sexual relations bring in a second party.
Just not the same.
@federica: That's true the two cases are in general apples and oranges but I think I was trying to make a specific point which I should have made clearer; both smoking and sex, for some of the reaction, is cultural biased. For example frat boys are going to react differently than southern baptists or the puritans. So my comparison does make a point, although as you say sex is a different thing than smoking.
For me ahimsa is absolute and formless and the precepts are forms (non-absolute) that protect the people of the society. Ahimsa is like water and fits within any container of moral standards exist in the society. The mold is like the forms themselves. Ahimsa takes on any form and is formless. Conditional rules are the form which provides a context for the values and beliefs.
An example is that rules on putting men and women together are not absolutely wise to any society. But perhaps in monks and nuns (including Christian and Buddhist) there is a practical side and the rule is a form to protect the spiritual purity. Ahimsa is the absolute that fits the form.
Asking someone to be perfect is a pretty tall order.
EXPECTING someone to be perfect is completely unreasonable.
Until we ourselves can honestly, hand on heart, state that ' we would NEVER do such a thing' and live up to the affirmation, we have no right to expect anyone else to uphold perfect standards, no matter what their role.
Which is different to how we view those standards and consider how important they are in comparison to the quality and rigour of the teaching we are receiving.
I think you choose a teacher for a quality that you lack but the teacher has. For me it was information and knowledge of the path and knowledge of how to master the path.
And when I say path I mean the Arahant path. Obviously according to both the pali canon and practical knowledge from those who follow that path it will lead towards lessening of lobha, dosa and moha.
If a person who has practised the path for 50 years does not show any lessening of these things then obviously he has wasted his time.
And it would be stupid of me to listen to him and emulate his path in order to get to where I need to go.
But if someone else finds a quality in the same teacher that they find desirable, then who am I to disagree?
Fair enough?
/Victor
Which is why you must look to yourself to validate your teaching:
There are some other slogans that are somewhat related to how you said and it is in a number of lojong slogans such as:
Drive all blames into one : Take responsibility as your fault whenever you have a conflict. People are always passing blame around like a piece of shit. Nobody wants it. So you just take the blame and the process is solved.
Don't ponder others: don't nickpick others because they have not attained what you have
Don't malign others: thinking your virtue only shine when others flaws are pointed out
Don't wait in ambush: "revenge is the dish best served cold"
Don't transfer the ox's load to the cow: "don't pass the buck onto someone else"
Don't make gods into demons: arrogance about your attainment
Also the lojong slogans are provisional. They are like a stick to unjam the drain. But if they themselves get stuck in the drain then the problem is not solved. You have to hear them and then contemplate how they fit in your life. Sometimes the wording is unhelpful to you you have to extract the point and then use your own words and analogies.
Well, not so fast ....
Smoking tobacco products does bring others into it. Second-hand smoke has been shown to have adverse health effects in those exposed to it.
Personally, I'm not sure I buy into that, but that is what authorities say and most people believe it, so ......
Not the same thing as sex, but unlike sex, it seems to be invariably harmful to everyone. Sexual relations can be healthy and fun, but can also create a lot of psychic damage in the wake of it that can take a lifetime heal. Cardio/Pulmonary damage from tobacco smoke damages the body along with the mind and may not ever heal. Sex probably won't kill you. Emphysema does.
But, it's all academic, wouldn't you say? Just the same, if you're going to evaluate teachers on the damage caused by sexual relations with students, I don't think it unreasonable to evaluate of smoking around anyone, not just students.
@vinlyn, actually, the bad effects of smoking aren't just done to the smoker. That's why many states have now passed no smoking bans that make it illegal to smoke indoors, in public spaces, in airplanes, and so on. Smoking and sex aren't the same, no, but smoking isn't one of those things that only impacts the smoker. And neither is drug use, or any of those other vices. All vices have an impact on health and society at large.
Thankfully, we are all free to discern what the information means for us as far as who we choose as valid sources of information.
@Victorious, absolutely. I might feel different about CTR if he were still alive. Maybe it's easier to forgive and not put as much consideration on his misdeeds because he is not here still committing them. If his wife and son (I've never seen anything of the other kid(s) of his, never looked) forgive him and understand him in a different way, then maybe there is more to it than I can ever know. Diana Mukpo has talked a lot about their marriage and relationship, along with his drinking and his sleeping with students. She didn't have a problem with it, so, why should I have a problem with it for her? She knew him, she was married to him, who am I to judge what she says about him?
If there is one thing I've learned so far, it's that just because people do things that make no sense to me, doesn't mean it's always, 100% in every situation, wrong. There are levels of understanding that people have of the world that I am unable to touch. I can't claim to know if what they say they experience is true, or not. Sometimes it sounds like a load of hooey. But sometimes there are enough truly credible and scholarly people who insist they have seen and experienced things (lie the rainbow body) that I can't phathom. Just because I haven't experienced it and my society and culture doesn't accept it, doesn't mean it isn't possible. I extend that open-mindedness to pretty much everything. There's very little about the world that I am sure enough of to fully accept or fully reject.
Having just now read through this thread I thought to post some stuff on the qualifications for a Buddhist teacher.
From: http://viewonbuddhism.org/spiritual_teacher_guru.html
QUALIFICATIONS FOR A SPIRITUAL TEACHER OF BASIC PHILOSOPHY
If possible, try to find a guru who possesses all these qualities, but at least the first 5. This may be difficult enough...
Also, how you should try to be as a student:
A proper disciple should avoid the so-called 3 faulty attitudes:
A proper disciple should fulfil the 3 requisites:
I can sympathize with wanting a teacher an the arahant path. Actually Vajrayana Buddhists are supposed to not break the precepts or bodhisattva vows unless it contradicts their vajrayana vows. Trungpa says that himself in his book. So there is that regarding Trungpa in that he did not walk the walk (it seems). For students who are not monks or in a life they can study for umpteen hours a week they don't have time to study all of the yanas. So it ends up a case of different paths.
The Buddha never appointed a successor to take over (according to the Pali Canon) even though there were many arahants around. He left behind his teachings to guide us. A truly wise move. Perhaps a case of following the teachings and not the teacher since the Buddha is not with us anymore.
Then there is the advice to the Kalamas.
@pegembara Gotta love the Kalama Sutra. It's not often that a religious leader encourages skepticism. That's pretty much the last thing faith-based religions would do.
Where as the above is expected of teachers, in Yinyana we expect those qualities in students
In Yinyana we like to go rhinoceros
http://www.hermitary.com/solitude/rhinoceros.html
Of course. On the other hand teachers are role models for their students, and if they're not a positive role model then it's potentially damaging and misleading, particularly if it's a case of "Do as I say, not as I do".
I don't think a Buddhist teacher smoking cigarettes sets a particularly good example, particularly if the teacher is lecturing about the disadvantages of attachment and craving.
I thought you were giving up the cushions @lobster; can't break the habit eh?
My yoga teacher and karate teacher (Terry Dukes) smoked and then justified his actions by saying how the Chinese believed smoking 'stimulated' the lungs.
Some of us are stupid and gullible enough to believe such drivel.
Being a teacher is a responsibility, not a means of [insert 'crazy' alcoholism, smoking, sexual predation, emotional abuse etc of choice] Personaly I believe the role of a spiritual mentor is making us independent of them and our myriad selves as quickly as possible. Then we may start practicing discernment, critical appraisal and lightening the load for ourselves, others and if necessary them . . .
. . . and now back to the Sith orgy . . .
Yeah, but at my age, I'm not particularly interested in role models. A "good example" is of no consequence to me. If my teacher happens to have a little dirt under his nails, that's ok.
I just read this and in all honesty I cannot disagree with basically anything he has said. I also think what he is asking for, ie a way to test whether a teacher is legit or not, is something the Buddha gave in the suttas. I will attempt to look it up and get back to this thread.
EDIT: here is one.. its not the exact one I'm looking for though:
Qualities of a Dhamma teacher
"It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma should be taught to others only when five qualities are established within the person teaching. Which five?
"[1] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak step-by-step.'
"[2] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak explaining the sequence [of cause & effect].'
"[3] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak out of compassion.'
"[4] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak not for the purpose of material reward.'
"[5] The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak without disparaging myself or others.'
"It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma should be taught to others only when these five qualities are established within the person teaching."
as far as my own judgement of teachers I also take this into account.. if there are secret doctrines, I'm out:
I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back.
Well, seeing as you're practicing in a tradition where "esoteric" teachings, such as in Vajrayana, aren't much of an issue for you.
I sometime get the sense that there is a misunderstanding with such things.
No teacher, regardless of tradition, will teach a student beyond his/her capacity to understand. It's kinda like the system of prerequisits we see in academia. It's not so much that a teaching is "secret" so much as the student isn't ready. Students are instructed to not discuss the teachings outside their class for the same reason.
And these days, there's hardly anything that's truly secret. You can easily find books or websites that explain just about topic of "esoteric" teaching. People either intentionally or innocently give restrticed texts to people not authorized to have them. I inadvertantly left a restrcted Vajrayana course book on the train. Somebody got that. Secrets's out.
^Yes. It's not about hiding anything, it's about ensuring the student is truly ready. You wouldn't want your surgeon to take on surgery without basic anatomy, would you? There have been some teachers/people who have been unhappy that everyone and his uncle have written so-called guides to Dzogchen, which then has resulted in others feeling they must publish something to correct the misunderstanding. And now you have a whole host of people who are teaching their own mishmash idea of Dzogchen and other such things who don't really have any training in it at all. Sometimes, misusing information can be unhealthy and even dangerous.
But there seems to be a general consensus lately that even those who might have preferred to keep the higher teachings taught in the way of old tradition (actual transmission by guru with years of established practice and relationship) they are realizing that that way is dying off, and the only way to preserve the teachings at all is to get them out there before the old school masters are gone.
It makes it much harder though, for people without teachers, to determine which is truly authentic and which is not. Often when we have to make those choices, we go with what is comfortable to us, and that might not be the best route to take to learning advanced teachings.
My teacher is a vajrayana teacher, and he's good at knowing who is ready for what. But our local group has invited a teacher to come this summer, and I have mixed feelings about it. He basically studied the more advanced and esoteric teachings of many traditions (Dzogchen, Vedanta, Sufism, Kabbalah, Orthodox Christianity and others) and turned it into his own brand of "fast track to enlightenment" without having that foundation in place. I'm open to what he has to say, but skeptical because completely taking what he perceives as the best of multiple traditions and putting them together in order to fast forward seems, in some ways, unethical. Maybe that's not the right work. For me, it is problematic. I find it odd there are people on his FB page who talk about Dzogchen without having much of a clue at all about anything in Buddhism other than what this author chose to tell them in his 200 page book.
To some people it would just be mumbo jumbo @Chaz, what with all those for'n words - if the person who found your course book were not into buddhism, the lack of understanding and patience trying to interpret what was going on would have meant it's probably landfill now. If you're not ready for it, your'e not ready for it!
I lent a friend my book on Dzogchen, because he said he was interested in buddhism, I think that's landfill now as well.
@Jayantha said:
Buddha also said that what he taught was like a handful of leaves in a forest relative to how much he knew. So it is not surprising that there could be other yanas based on some of the knowledge that is the leaves on the ground in the forest.
Another perspective is that the dharma produces realized beings. Those beings could add to the teachings. If you are going to say that no realized beings are produced then the dharma has no point; you could just as easily learn a different 'hobby' if no realized beings are a result of the dharma studies.
Yes. There are teachers teaching Dzogchen without Ngondro. We'll see Mahamudra taught the same way soon. A number of teachers, perhaps unwilling to relinquish the old ways completely, have reduced the duration of Ngondro to 10% of the old school, in an effort to get students progressing towards higher practice and study.
I'd agree that this is because the old teachers - those of CTR's generation are getting old, and there is much left to impart to the west.
In addition, for the Tibetan traditions to continue in the west, there must be western-born lineage holders and for this reason, too, training and practice must be accelerated.
Quite right.
You see a certain resistance in the west to this tradition of teaching. With it comes a percievable sense of entitlement- that anything and everything Dharma is free to all, merely for the asking or taking. That may be how it should be, but that's not how it's been. There's bound to be conflict. So we end up with conflict getting in the way of true Dharma.
The Dark Side.
Will you PM me his name?
Here are some of my 'esoteric' rambling. It is also quite 'simple' to understand on a variety of levels:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041013012238/http://pages.britishlibrary.net/edjason/green/key.html
As an alchemist, I am completely veiled by nonsense and fluent gibberish. The real 'esoteric' is never, ever veiled. It is there revealed in our experience and expression. The dharma is open, it is us who close it . . . and ultimately open to it . . .
Mr Cushion did you just sell yourself? Bad cushion!
http://gadgetshow.channel5.com/gadget-show/gadget-news/are-you-sitting-comfortably-darma-smart-cushion-tells-you-the-truth