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.
Judging other Lamas / traditions / centres
There is something I've been encountering more and more in the Buddhist world which is a bit disturbing and i'd like to draw attention to this here.
This is the trend of people judging other Dharma teachers, other traditions, other dharma centres, practices and practitioners. This is a very worrying trend because what ends up happening is that there is a huge community of laypeople all criticising the sangha and practices that are have been followed for hundreds of years.
We must ask ourselves if we're really qualified or attained enough to be able to judge the teachers and understand what they're really doing or saying? if we're so clever and so qualified, then why are we studying the Dharma and not teaching it?
We have to realise that whenever we pass judgement or critise other lamas, it can have a negative harmful impact on students who follow that Lama, cause them to think negatively about their teachers and perhaps even leave the teacher and centre. This means that we would have created the causes for this person to split away from the Dharma - we take on that karma.
Moreover, we collect the negative karma of criticising the three jewels - the the buddha, the Dharma and the sangha. We are not yet at the level to tell how attained a lama might be - he could be a fully enlightened being, in which case we would be criticising a Buddha directly. What karma do we collect from that.
Yes, we may not agree with what some lamas or centres do but are we really in a position to judge? We may not agree, but we don't have to practice or follow. We can maintain our own practices and just keep quiet. Other people may benefit from that lama and the practices / methods of those centres and we shouldn't destroy that faith in others.
then, once we start criticising one lama, it opens up the door to criticise another, and another and another. Then, if one lama can be wrong, what makes us think our own lamas can't be wrong then? We open up a big can of worms where criticism becomes prevalent and as practitioners, we become more involved in politics and judging each other than to focus on our own practices.
It is important - for others and also for our own practice - to maintain respect for all traditions, lamas, practitioners. That would be the best way to develop tolerance, patience and understanding and eventually to foster harmony between ourselves and others.
This is the trend of people judging other Dharma teachers, other traditions, other dharma centres, practices and practitioners. This is a very worrying trend because what ends up happening is that there is a huge community of laypeople all criticising the sangha and practices that are have been followed for hundreds of years.
We must ask ourselves if we're really qualified or attained enough to be able to judge the teachers and understand what they're really doing or saying? if we're so clever and so qualified, then why are we studying the Dharma and not teaching it?
We have to realise that whenever we pass judgement or critise other lamas, it can have a negative harmful impact on students who follow that Lama, cause them to think negatively about their teachers and perhaps even leave the teacher and centre. This means that we would have created the causes for this person to split away from the Dharma - we take on that karma.
Moreover, we collect the negative karma of criticising the three jewels - the the buddha, the Dharma and the sangha. We are not yet at the level to tell how attained a lama might be - he could be a fully enlightened being, in which case we would be criticising a Buddha directly. What karma do we collect from that.
Yes, we may not agree with what some lamas or centres do but are we really in a position to judge? We may not agree, but we don't have to practice or follow. We can maintain our own practices and just keep quiet. Other people may benefit from that lama and the practices / methods of those centres and we shouldn't destroy that faith in others.
then, once we start criticising one lama, it opens up the door to criticise another, and another and another. Then, if one lama can be wrong, what makes us think our own lamas can't be wrong then? We open up a big can of worms where criticism becomes prevalent and as practitioners, we become more involved in politics and judging each other than to focus on our own practices.
It is important - for others and also for our own practice - to maintain respect for all traditions, lamas, practitioners. That would be the best way to develop tolerance, patience and understanding and eventually to foster harmony between ourselves and others.
0
Comments
We should respect what other people believe, but most people have a real identity crisis when someone disagrees with them. Although I must say there are many "Dharma Teachers" praying on people's weaknesses, so you gotta watch out for con artists :-\
I always attributed that to the too common belief that your choices are somehow "truth" rather than just your choices. The discovery that others make different choices, is somehow threatening to the attachment that they have to have discovered "TRUTH." So, in turn, they attack other choices as false.
It goes downhill from there.
Of course, my choices are by happy coincidence also TRUTH!
You could read about a bomb that killed 10 thousand people but you probably would be more worked up if someone called you a name, or cheated on you or something like that. Weird isn't it? But it says something. It says that is not just the nature of the act itself, but whether or not it affects ME.
This fundamental stress is resolved by either placing yourself in a non-threatening world or transforming yourself in someone that cannot be threatened. Of course this is done by fantasizing a lot.
If someone disagrees when we say it's Wednesday and they say it's Saturday we don't get too worked up. But if we make up a set of beliefs that say "this is the way out of stress" - which is a place filled by religion too - and someone says we are wrong...hell breaks loose.
Eventually you will just label someone that disagrees a lot as bad, or dumb or whatever makes you feel better. "This person is an idiot, that means he has to wrong, and I have to be right". "This person is evil, that means he is just concerned about being mean and not honest, therefore I am right", and this is how we see the world.
A big part of the human fantasy is that we have a hard time saying "we don't know". We are not comfortable with "I don't know" because this energy that arises when something attacks us doesn't go away by saying "we don't know", so we make up stories, therefore we are all fundamentally insane :P (just my opinion)
Good point. I hadn't looked at it this way and I appreciate your thoughts. How very true (pun intended) this is - after all, if we were very secure and confident in our own beliefs, we will not feel threatened by other schools / thoughts / beliefs; we will not try to suppress them, judge them or criticise them.
Instead, as can be seen in the examples of all highly attained, compassionate masters (who of course are very confident of their beliefs and not at all threatened), they do not speak at all against other schools. They may not agree or they may even feel that this way is harmful to someone, but out of compassion and wisdom, they will not put that person down or take them away from their practice; instead they find ways to speak or act that does not put anyone down but actually helps them to find the truth or the greatest benefit in whatever situation they are in.
When we "criticise" or speak out against other faiths, schools, traditions, teachers, teachings the most important factor to consider is our motivation - are we saying or doing what we're saying and doing because we want to assert that our own way is the right way? Does it just become another power game? Or are we genuinely concerned about the other person's spiritual education and well being? If it is the latter, then we wouldn't just pounce on them and criticise / judge / speak down upon them, but look for the best way to approach that individual and advise them kindly or point them in the right direction, provide them knowledge for them to understand and come to an informed, secure decision for themselves. that would be the most Dharmic way, I believe
There is an excellent book called "Gurus for Hire, Enlightenment for Sale" by H.E. Tsem Tulku Rinpoche which explores this very topic of what it means to go into a Guru-disciple relationship - what we need to check before we take on a teacher, what to look for, what to be careful of, and how to NOT get caught up in the politics between centres, or between criticising lamas. Have a look at it here: http://www.amazon.com/Gurus-Hire-Enlightenment-Tulku-Rinpoche/dp/9834339984
Here's a good excerpt about what he calls Lama-bashing. Something helpful to bear in mind when we think about criticising other lamas:
"If a centre, a Guru or a group of people say, “That group or that Guru
is wrong,” then they or their Guru also has the potential to be wrong. If
we want to start going down that road to say, “This Guru is right, this
Guru is wrong,” then we have to realise that our Guru could therefore
also be wrong, because who or what is to say which Guru is right or
wrong? The higher their thrones? The bigger their status? The greater
their following? Their name? What makes them the highest? Their
ladrang? The number of students they have?
If we criticise our own Gurus and say our Gurus are wrong, we could
be wrong too. If we want to say another Guru is wrong, then we could
be wrong too. Then Buddhism is fi nished because the outside world
(which is much larger than the Buddhists) will question, “Well, who
is right then?”
Then, what happens if these high Gurus were to pass away? There
are many other Gurus who are not as eminent but who are still high,
and who may start factional fi ghting. One will say that Guru X is
wrong; another will start quoting, “He’s right, he said he’s wrong, that
Rinpoche said they’re right, that Rinpoche said they’re wrong.” They
go back and forth. There will be no end and soon, people will say we
do not need to practise Buddhism because we start questioning who’s
right and who’s wrong. How do we even judge who’s right and who’s
wrong, and on what basis?
Someone of authority, power, eminence and spiritual background has
recognised and made this person a Rinpoche, Tulku, Geshe or Dharma
teacher. When we put that person down and we say he is doing a bad
practice, we must think: how can that Rinpoche or Geshe do bad
practice, and still be a Rinpoche or a Geshe?
Some people were recognised by His Holiness the Dalai Lama. When
we criticise them, we also criticise the Dalai Lama. Some people are
recognised by the abbots of the monasteries, so if we criticise them, does
that mean the abbots of the monasteries are all wrong? Can the oracles
that recognised these Rinpoches and Tulkus all be wrong? Can those
people who have been practising for years and who recognise these
people always be wrong? If they are always wrong, then everything is
wrong. There is no end to what is wrong.
If this person is a so-called Rinpoche or a so-called teacher and he is
doing “bad practices” that we do not agree with, that is just our view.
We may like what some Gurus do and not like what other Gurus do
but who are we to judge? When we think negative things, we train our
mind to think negative things again about the next Guru and the next
one... Then it does not end!
We should not jump on the band wagon. The minute we take sides with
one group, no matter how holier-than-thou we think we are, we have
already become political. Therefore, it is not Dharma."
Men are not infallible.
Lamas are not superior or better than anyone else, and if anyone thinks they are, or worse, if they think they are, this simply gives rise to the Ego as dominant, rather than the practice being sound.
Even HH the DL states that he is a 'simple monk', because I'm sure he realises there are times when he is incorrect, misinformed , or simply ignorant of many things.
He advises that we investigate a teacher for 10 years before deciding whether they are worthy of our attention.....
Remember the adage,
"When the finger points at the moon, look at the moon and not at the finger."
The best way to ascertain whether a teacher is sound, praiseworthy and beyond critique, is to see how well his teachings sit with you.
And with him.
.
It depends what is meant by judging and what basis there is for it.....
if it's nobody's intention to deliberately cause a schism, but there seems to be justification to them.....It all depends on what the circumstances are, doesn't it?
Sometimes things happen that need to be outed rather than hidden and denied. This is for the benefit of any community in the long term. To suggest that any teacher or school is beyond constructive criticism is erroneous.
To illustrate my point - If nobody had outed paedophile priests in the Catholic faith where would that have left the faithful ? In denial and practising blind faith in their teachers of course.
.
When I hear rumors of misconduct by some practitioner of Buddhism, I feel sad, I don't feel that what I ought to do is spread the rumor or point my finger out.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by the OP.
I think it's far too easy for us to make errors in speech than any other kind of misconduct.
.
To me, it means that I have confidence in the Lama's teachings and realization and that I rest in that mind to mind, symbolic and oral transmission.
Most of all, I rejoice that DharmaPrincess brought to our attention the book "Gurus for Hire, Enlightenment for Sale". That is an amazing book and it is also available in DVD J
The teachings of Tsem Tulku Rinpoche came at a perfect time and supported my Dharma practice tremendously because of the "Dharma Politics" that was beginning to find its way into the Dharma World limelight. It was disappointing (due to my weak mind) to hear so called Dharma practitioners bash another center or Guru because they want you to enroll into their center and support their Guru. From the teachings of Tsem Tulku Rinpoche, I stayed committed to one center and one Guru. Today, although I have not made great progress in my Dharma practice, I am fortunate enough to experience higher levels of happiness and purpose.
If not for the profound and to-the-point teachings of Tsem Tulku Rinpoche, I believe that my learning would be much distracted and disrupted. Therefore, I would like to sincerely thank Tsem Rinpoche and this jewel of a book!
NamelessRiver, Thank you for touching on the matter on "I don't know". It is ironic how sometimes admitting "I don't know" can solve so many problems! I would like to humbly encourage greater acceptance of "I don't know" so that we can actually begin the journey of discovery and get to know what we did not!
<o:p> </o:p>
Lastly, I understand that some view the Sangha and Dharma Gurus to be men who are not infallible. They may do something that appears to be a mistake. However, I was taught to look at the motivation behind each action. Off course it is difficult for our unattained minds to determine anyone's intention, what more the intentions of a mind trained in pure Dharma. However, more often than not, results eventually will reveal the truth. I completely treasure my Guru as he has shown me the precious Dharma, he has cleared my misunderstandings of Dharma and I trust that he will continue to support my Dharma growth so that I can be of some kind of benefit to others. With this, whether the Guru is a man or a Buddha, he is precious and should be held with high respect and esteem.
<o:p> </o:p>
<!--EndFragment-->
I've begun to notice a great deal of the passing of judgments back and forth between minds, which seems rooted in a specific, basic confusion. A good vaccine to this confusion is realizing that there is nothing static about those Lama's for the concepts to stick to.
For instance, lets say one of those Lamas casts out a series of words or ideas that seems rooted in ignorance or confusion. Those words are not some solid object, forever attached to their face.... so by collapsing their very transitory expression of feelings and dharma into a judgment does nothing but distance us from them in our minds. Wouldn't it be more fruitful, more joyous to regard them as an imperfect pointer toward liberation? Perhaps they too work through the fear that they are wrong, that they are human, that they are bound to get sick, suffer and die?
Then it seems easy to hold great compassion for both the Lama, and the Lama's judge. Few of us are completely free from ignorance, or making these flawed attributions, so being able to accept people as they are might be critical to continued peace off the cushion.
Excuse me, but all lamas are not men!
Palzang
look how well this mindset works in the catholic church...