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.
Lamas and their wives
NamelessRiver
Veteran
One thing I don't understand is this deal of lamas with women, specially why some of them get bashed (Michael Roach) while some of them evade the bullet (Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche).
Can a person be a lama without being a monk? Because I thought monks were supposed to be celibate.
Can a person be a lama without being a monk? Because I thought monks were supposed to be celibate.
0
Comments
yes.
one can be a lama and not be a monk.
Chagdud Tulku was not a monk, he was a ngakpa and his role in life was to live and teach as a lay person/married man.
Other non-monk lama's include Dudjom Rinpoche, Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, and Sakya Trizin.
The deal with Roach is different. He claims to still be a monk even though he has been expelled from his monastery for absolutely pi$$ing on the vinaya and engaging in other very culty behavior.
Roach was a Gelugpa monk, however, and a Geshe at that (a Geshe is like a Doctor of Divinity, one who is authorized to teach). Unfortunately he went on a 3 year retreat and seems to have come out a little overcooked, you might say, ran off with a woman "consort", and became very New Agey. The Gelugpa are very strict about such things, so I think he's pretty much lost all credibility. It's quite a different thing altogether.
Palzang
Thank you for the answers guys. I was just wondering...How does someone like Chagdud Tulku learns his "trade"?
Speculating as to why any specific person who renounces samsara but uses a consort is always a little dangerous. Which is different to knowing or wanting to know the mechanics involved.
many non-monastic lama's spend a great deal of time either studying in the monastic setting or retreat.
i am not sure of the details of Chagdud Tulku's training but i have no doubt that it was more than sufficient.
most of my lama's are non-monks, they have all spent time in monastic education and extensive time in practice retreat. As a person who is dedicated to living "in the world" with his family I feel that having ngakpa's as teachers provides me with greater accessibility and inspiration.
I very much agree with you. Nevertheless New Age is known to be very eclectic. Its usually a big mix of Christian/Jewish mysticism and various eastern philosophies.
So when a person adverticing to be a Geshe (which is a title, only given to monastics as far as i know) go "new age" it kinda means that he has become more eclectic and less "loyal" to his lineage - and thats a problem since people who seeks out a Geshe should at least be able to expect pure Gelugpa teachings. Adverticing to be a Geshe is the same as adverticing that this is a place where the lineage of the Gelugpa's are taught - and in that situation its a big no-no to go eclectic
Big love
Allan
Specifically on the matter of 'Roach', 90% of what he teaches is still pramana, logic, and tantra so, as usual, it's just people being retards on the internet again saying things obliviously.
At the moment he's teaching while translating one of the greatest books on emptiness ever written: https://www.dmes.org/contact/dmes/course/438/
Im not sure i understand your post entirely, but ill try to answer anyway.
Geshe is a Gelug title only - its not used in any other tradition than gelug. So when you give teachings as a geshe, you have an obligation to stick to gelug teachings - im pretty shure most Gelug monasics will agree with this, since lineage is a very important part of the Gelugpa teachings, and the Geshes are official upholders of these teachings.
If a Geshe adverticed giving a teaching and then taught christianity, im quite convinced that people would get a really weird impression. Ofcourse that doesnt mean that if a Geshe is invited to a christian communety to give a talk, that he cant teach christianity, or even if he just makes it clear from the beginning that he is going to teach about something else than Gelug. An example could be the time HHDL gave a teaching on the bible from a buddhist point of veiw - but if he only advertice that hes a Geshe and that he will teach about meditation, then he has an obligation to keep the teachings inside the Gelugpa school. It maybe rigid but thats the way the Gelug tradition is, and its that way to ensure that when people go to see a Geshe, they can expect that all the teachings are from the lineage of Tsongkhapa.
This is at least what ive been told
I hope this was of some kind of clarification of my previous post
Big Love
Allan:)
But i dont think thats why he was called "New Age". They way i understood it when i asked around, about Michael is that he in some ways seem to have made some rules of his own, and acording to an aspiring Geshe i talked to, Micheals teachings on emptines doesnt quite correspond with the teachings on emptiness taught at Sera-Je where Gehse's are educated.
There are other stories to about Michael but since they are third hand or less, i wont write them, since they might just be rumours.
Big Love
Allan
I do think he is odd and that he is violating his vows. So what is the big deal if the man doesn't wanna be a monk anymore (the people against him says if a monk is not celibate he is automatically disrobed)? Do you people know how many people disrobe, even if for the mere lack of support? (I am actually asking this one out of curiosity) That just means you have a problem with the person, not the teachings. Before his retreat nobody criticized his teaching: lamas, Geshes, laity, Dalai Lama.
The percentage of western monks and nuns giving up their vows is unfortunately extremely high. But this doesn't really play a role here. If GMR is indeed fucking like the rest of us and yet continues to assert the validity of his vows then this creates enough large problems on its own (such as for example lying about being a monk when a monk by definition cannot perform specifically defined and detailed sexual acts).
I call his "new" teachings New Age because to me New Age is all airy-fairy nonsense where everything is rosy and nice, and that's pretty much what he's teaching now. That's not Buddhism, and it's not reality. If you think I have New Age wrong, I suggest you go live in Sedona for a while. I think you'll change your tune when you see all the New Age craziness there.
Palzang
90% of what he teaches is straight-forward Madhyamika.. how is that newage? Regarding his impeccable logic and presentation, are you sure it is absent and has not in fact become more refined? It's weird that such different opinions can exist, though I suspect on this occasion 1 of us has actually investigated the matter and the other has not.
The person who said it wasnt a Geshe yet, but in his final years at Sera (i now i said Sera-Je... my mistake, i meant Sera-Mey) He didnt elaborate much since he really didnt seem all that happy to be asked about GMR by me. I think the only reason he answered at all, was because i asked quite honestly and we were just the two of us in private.
Looking in retrospect i think i might have said to much about GMR, since i dont really have anything evidential against him. I only know of GMR through articles and what people say. Im not a student of Michael, I never was..... and i doubt our paths will cross in the future since i follow another teacher. So what i really should do is apologizing for slandering and speaking ill of a person i dont really know anything about...... although im very happy that you have been able to point this out to me, so i can correct this behaviour - Thank you very much Aaki _/l\_
Big Love
Allan
That's true. I might have exaggerated a bit by saying "what is the big deal?". On this point I agree with you.