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.
Actually, Simon, I didn't address that part of the question on purpose. You can call something "absolute" or "relative", but in reality everything is relative. There are no absolutes. We're dualistic sentient beings who view everything from a point of view relative to ourselves, and our senses, being also the product of dualistic mind, only reinforce that view point. Also I do feel that the Dalai Lama's views on homosexuality have evolved since the questions were first asked. He's certainly not an absolutist on moral/ethical questions. Culturally Tibetans don't know from homosexuality since it doesn't really exist in Tibet as a recognizable social entity. People have sex with each other, of course, but they don't put labels on it. Like most of Asia, there is a stigma attached to homosexuality, but it is a cultural one, not a Buddhist one (and it happens just as much there as anywhere else). The Dalai Lama may be an enlightened being, but he's also a product of his culture, so the fact that he responded from a cultural bias initially should not be surprising. The fact that he has been willing to reexamine and adjust his position upon reflection and interaction with members of the gay community here in the West is, I think, much to his credit. Just compare that with the current Pope's position (or any pope, for that matter).
BTW, I thought it took incredible chutzpah on the part of Benedict to go to Portugal the other day and urge them to reject gay marriage when the whole foundation of the Catholic Church is close to collapse over the institutionalized sexual misbehavior of so many priests (and subsequent cover-ups by the Church)! Just another religious hypocrite! Bet his closet has a few skeletons in it too! Just sayin'...
One of the many problems with quoting an entire post when you only need to quote part is that it isn't clear what you're responding to. :-)
Whatever you're responding to, I posted a list of possibilities. As I said, I don't know why the DL said two different things at different times. All of the possibilities may be factors, none of them may be factors, some may be factors...or Palzang's suggestion that the DL's views have evolved may be the relevant factor.
The DL is a canny politician. He wields political power and he's constrained by political realities and other people's political perceptions. He has various constituencies with sometimes conflicting demands. I'm sure he fudges sometimes. Maybe he was fudging this time, and maybe he was doing something else. The point was to give the OP an idea of the possible motivations, rather than try to answer a question that only the DL can answer definitively.
Perhaps your temple could invite a bunch of these priests, and teach them meditation so they can learn to observe their sexual compulsions without reacting to them.
So they can learn to stop nurturing that weed that have become a giant unshakable tree over the years. And the tree would eventually die.
Actually this idea could gather much publicity and begin a revolution around the world.
In London there is also a LGBT Tibetan Buddhist centre which has Ringu Tulku as its spiritual head.
I don't mean to get OT, but, do you what the centre is called?, I live in London (and I'm also gay), and I'd really be interested in checking them out.
Actually, Simon, I didn't address that part of the question on purpose. You can call something "absolute" or "relative", but in reality everything is relative. There are no absolutes. We're dualistic sentient beings who view everything from a point of view relative to ourselves, and our senses, being also the product of dualistic mind, only reinforce that view point. Also I do feel that the Dalai Lama's views on homosexuality have evolved since the questions were first asked. He's certainly not an absolutist on moral/ethical questions. Culturally Tibetans don't know from homosexuality since it doesn't really exist in Tibet as a recognizable social entity. People have sex with each other, of course, but they don't put labels on it. Like most of Asia, there is a stigma attached to homosexuality, but it is a cultural one, not a Buddhist one (and it happens just as much there as anywhere else). The Dalai Lama may be an enlightened being, but he's also a product of his culture, so the fact that he responded from a cultural bias initially should not be surprising. The fact that he has been willing to reexamine and adjust his position upon reflection and interaction with members of the gay community here in the West is, I think, much to his credit. Just compare that with the current Pope's position (or any pope, for that matter).
Palzang, dear brother,
When I posed the question (above) as to how the world and our actions appear to the 'eye of compassion', it was the starting-point for me of reflection on 'ethical relativism'. Precisely as you say, HHDL is both a "high representative" of Chenrezig and, as he says himself, "a simple human monk". As always, context is all. What we see here is not relativism but contextual ethics.
What I mean is that HHDL may have an absolute: wise compassion. From that bedrock, and taking each question within its context, actions and opinions can be tested and skillful choices made. The liberation of LBGT people is an ongoing process. Those us like you and me, Palzang, in our 60s, remember all too well the opinions that our elders and peers voiced as we were growing up. It is not only that they changed, we did too. From the margins and the shadows, we came out and took our place in society, assumed our responsibilities at the same time as we struggled for equal and equitable rights.
The LBGT communities that HHDL and other Tibetans met as they came to the West, and which they have seen evolve since the 1960s, plays an integral and valuable part in society. The old views of 'perversion', 'degeneracy', 'imbecility' and so on that attached to different sexualities can be seen to be, at the very least, inaccurate.
We should not forget that it is a very few years since homosexuality was removed as a mental illness from the diagnostic manuals.
It is a tribute to HHDL and to western society that we progress in our ethical awareness: he embodies the evolution and liberation that we work for.
BTW, I thought it took incredible chutzpah on the part of Benedict to go to Portugal the other day and urge them to reject gay marriage when the whole foundation of the Catholic Church is close to collapse over the institutionalized sexual misbehavior of so many priests (and subsequent cover-ups by the Church)! Just another religious hypocrite! Bet his closet has a few skeletons in it too! Just sayin'...
Palzang
Tut, tut, Pally! Using this thread to get in another of your anti-Catholic barbs. Not that you're wrong, tho'. I am hoping that the UK visit will enable us to demonstrate our outrage. I fear that Peter Tatchell and Richard Dawkins will not be allowed to get a warrant for his arrest. The Belgians are good at issuing warrants for war criminal heads of state and we did arrest Pinochet (even if the bastards in the suits let him go again). Perhaps they'd do it in this case, too.
What a sign to the world, if the Pope were to be arrested and tried, here in the UK! We led the world by executing a king and demonstrating that not even a head of state is above the law. Don't you think it's time we showed that High Priests are also subject to the same law as all of us?
Despite my residual fondness for Catholicism (rather than the Catholic Church, I make the distinction), I find the election of Ratzinger after Wojtyla lamentable. What more can I say?
I don't mean to get OT, but, do you what the centre is called?, I live in London (and I'm also gay), and I'd really be interested in checking them out.
Hi David -delighted to be of any help - its the Kairos group already mentioned by Fran45
Suffering abounds where desire is present, Clinging to sexual identity is not productive but acts as an inhibitor to clarity, all our present woes and misery stem from our desirous attachment.
We have become acustomed to our samsaric chains, our pleasure garden has become a prision, But how long can a prisioner remain content in a place that is only designed to cause pain and suffering ?
The DL says many things most of them very wise, Others very un-wise. It is wise not just to listen to someone because they are a renowned authority and simply believe them because of this, its is best to examine closely what is said and see if these words bear any wisdom, In western society these words of his where not wise and created alot of hurt and suffering, A Buddha's speach causes joy to all sentient beings it shows them the path to freedom from their suffering...It does not create more, Desire is a binding chain of samsara when speaking to the worldly it is best not to throw up walls of seperation, As how can the " Little king " take such an insult ?
" The path begins with strong reliance on my kind teacher source of all good " if one finds such words disturbing it is not wise to engage in actions that destroy faith in someone who has the knowledge to help others.
Well, that's your opinion, as usual anti-Dalai Lama.
Simon, I think if there is one lesson Catholics can draw from this whole mess, it is that one should never elect a pope whose name includes the word "Rat"!
Well, that's your opinion, as usual anti-Dalai Lama.
Simon, I think if there is one lesson Catholics can draw from this whole mess, it is that one should never elect a pope whose name includes the word "Rat"!
Palzang
He has his good points as well
Just has a habit of putting his foot in it is all.
He has his good points as well
Just has a habit of putting his foot in it is all.
I think that it is in the nature of the compassionate that they "put their foot in it" as the world sees things. Part of it comes from deep honesty and a complete lack of hypocrisy.
It has been my luck in life to meet quite a few 'famous' people, philosophers, theologians, scientists, etc. Some have been exceptional but Ternzin Gyatso trumps them all. He is the warmest, most generous individual it has been a blessing to have met in private conversation. His gentleness and genuineness are transformative. It will always be the greatest gift that he has called me 'friend'.
Ternzin Gyatso trumps them all. He is the warmest, most generous individual it has been a blessing to have met in private conversation. His gentleness and genuineness are transformative. It will always be the greatest gift that he has called me 'friend'.
Well spoken. His voice does sound very loving, from deep parami.
I always remember taking a charming Jain family from a local shop to a Dalai Lama teaching years ago. They were filled with joyful inspiration afterwards and the father began repeating:
Comments
That's what I thought.
Actually, Simon, I didn't address that part of the question on purpose. You can call something "absolute" or "relative", but in reality everything is relative. There are no absolutes. We're dualistic sentient beings who view everything from a point of view relative to ourselves, and our senses, being also the product of dualistic mind, only reinforce that view point. Also I do feel that the Dalai Lama's views on homosexuality have evolved since the questions were first asked. He's certainly not an absolutist on moral/ethical questions. Culturally Tibetans don't know from homosexuality since it doesn't really exist in Tibet as a recognizable social entity. People have sex with each other, of course, but they don't put labels on it. Like most of Asia, there is a stigma attached to homosexuality, but it is a cultural one, not a Buddhist one (and it happens just as much there as anywhere else). The Dalai Lama may be an enlightened being, but he's also a product of his culture, so the fact that he responded from a cultural bias initially should not be surprising. The fact that he has been willing to reexamine and adjust his position upon reflection and interaction with members of the gay community here in the West is, I think, much to his credit. Just compare that with the current Pope's position (or any pope, for that matter).
BTW, I thought it took incredible chutzpah on the part of Benedict to go to Portugal the other day and urge them to reject gay marriage when the whole foundation of the Catholic Church is close to collapse over the institutionalized sexual misbehavior of so many priests (and subsequent cover-ups by the Church)! Just another religious hypocrite! Bet his closet has a few skeletons in it too! Just sayin'...
Palzang
One of the many problems with quoting an entire post when you only need to quote part is that it isn't clear what you're responding to. :-)
Whatever you're responding to, I posted a list of possibilities. As I said, I don't know why the DL said two different things at different times. All of the possibilities may be factors, none of them may be factors, some may be factors...or Palzang's suggestion that the DL's views have evolved may be the relevant factor.
The DL is a canny politician. He wields political power and he's constrained by political realities and other people's political perceptions. He has various constituencies with sometimes conflicting demands. I'm sure he fudges sometimes. Maybe he was fudging this time, and maybe he was doing something else. The point was to give the OP an idea of the possible motivations, rather than try to answer a question that only the DL can answer definitively.
So they can learn to stop nurturing that weed that have become a giant unshakable tree over the years. And the tree would eventually die.
Actually this idea could gather much publicity and begin a revolution around the world.
I don't mean to get OT, but, do you what the centre is called?, I live in London (and I'm also gay), and I'd really be interested in checking them out.
Apparently they hold a Buddhist session once a week. Hope it is useful.
Palzang, dear brother,
When I posed the question (above) as to how the world and our actions appear to the 'eye of compassion', it was the starting-point for me of reflection on 'ethical relativism'. Precisely as you say, HHDL is both a "high representative" of Chenrezig and, as he says himself, "a simple human monk". As always, context is all. What we see here is not relativism but contextual ethics.
What I mean is that HHDL may have an absolute: wise compassion. From that bedrock, and taking each question within its context, actions and opinions can be tested and skillful choices made. The liberation of LBGT people is an ongoing process. Those us like you and me, Palzang, in our 60s, remember all too well the opinions that our elders and peers voiced as we were growing up. It is not only that they changed, we did too. From the margins and the shadows, we came out and took our place in society, assumed our responsibilities at the same time as we struggled for equal and equitable rights.
The LBGT communities that HHDL and other Tibetans met as they came to the West, and which they have seen evolve since the 1960s, plays an integral and valuable part in society. The old views of 'perversion', 'degeneracy', 'imbecility' and so on that attached to different sexualities can be seen to be, at the very least, inaccurate.
We should not forget that it is a very few years since homosexuality was removed as a mental illness from the diagnostic manuals.
It is a tribute to HHDL and to western society that we progress in our ethical awareness: he embodies the evolution and liberation that we work for.
Tut, tut, Pally! Using this thread to get in another of your anti-Catholic barbs. Not that you're wrong, tho'. I am hoping that the UK visit will enable us to demonstrate our outrage. I fear that Peter Tatchell and Richard Dawkins will not be allowed to get a warrant for his arrest. The Belgians are good at issuing warrants for war criminal heads of state and we did arrest Pinochet (even if the bastards in the suits let him go again). Perhaps they'd do it in this case, too.
What a sign to the world, if the Pope were to be arrested and tried, here in the UK! We led the world by executing a king and demonstrating that not even a head of state is above the law. Don't you think it's time we showed that High Priests are also subject to the same law as all of us?
Despite my residual fondness for Catholicism (rather than the Catholic Church, I make the distinction), I find the election of Ratzinger after Wojtyla lamentable. What more can I say?
Hi David -delighted to be of any help - its the Kairos group already mentioned by Fran45
http://www.kairosinsoho.org.uk/budRingu.asp
Dirk De Klerk who takes the meditation classes did a 4 year retreat at Kagyu Samye Ling Tibetan Buddhist Monastery's retreat centre in Scotland.
With kind wishes,
Dazzle
.
We have become acustomed to our samsaric chains, our pleasure garden has become a prision, But how long can a prisioner remain content in a place that is only designed to cause pain and suffering ?
The DL says many things most of them very wise, Others very un-wise. It is wise not just to listen to someone because they are a renowned authority and simply believe them because of this, its is best to examine closely what is said and see if these words bear any wisdom, In western society these words of his where not wise and created alot of hurt and suffering, A Buddha's speach causes joy to all sentient beings it shows them the path to freedom from their suffering...It does not create more, Desire is a binding chain of samsara when speaking to the worldly it is best not to throw up walls of seperation, As how can the " Little king " take such an insult ?
" The path begins with strong reliance on my kind teacher source of all good " if one finds such words disturbing it is not wise to engage in actions that destroy faith in someone who has the knowledge to help others.
Simon, I think if there is one lesson Catholics can draw from this whole mess, it is that one should never elect a pope whose name includes the word "Rat"!
Palzang
He has his good points as well
Just has a habit of putting his foot in it is all.
I think that it is in the nature of the compassionate that they "put their foot in it" as the world sees things. Part of it comes from deep honesty and a complete lack of hypocrisy.
It has been my luck in life to meet quite a few 'famous' people, philosophers, theologians, scientists, etc. Some have been exceptional but Ternzin Gyatso trumps them all. He is the warmest, most generous individual it has been a blessing to have met in private conversation. His gentleness and genuineness are transformative. It will always be the greatest gift that he has called me 'friend'.
I always remember taking a charming Jain family from a local shop to a Dalai Lama teaching years ago. They were filled with joyful inspiration afterwards and the father began repeating:
" Buddham saranam gacchami
Dhammam saranam gacchami
Sangham saranam gacchami "
.
Palzang