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.
Why is enlightenment considered incompatible with lay life?
Who said I was saying they should take ordination due to gender politics? Pls don't read things into my posts that aren't there. Dzongsar Khentse is totally the wrong person to quote on this subject, BTW.
I'm not in favor of monastic power structures, but I think there needs to be more ordination of women. That would help cut down on the number of sex scandals...
Your original quote. If that isn't the most puerile of gender politics, I don't know what is. The implication that men are not serious when they take ordination is duly noted and dismissed as yet more of your grandstanding about an issue you know nothing about in a religion you do not practice.
You would do well to read Khyentse Rinpoche's entire post that these verses were taken from:
Actually, I lifted that idea about ordaining more women as a possible way to reduce the number of sex scandals from some comments Federica made on a thread about "Bhikkunis, or the first nuns...". You might check it out, it's pretty interesting. (See posts 41 and 68, among others.) But I've suggested that idea before. (And you left out my comment about adding diversity to the ranks might lead to some interesting teachings being added to the repertoire, as already demonstrated by some contributors on this site.) My point is that you get to attend teachings unmolested. I and other women don't, always. If I could study with a nun, I wouldn't have to deal with fending off unwanted attention from the monks/teachers. To say nothing of the more serious problems other women have encountered. I see nothing wrong with proposing increased opportunity to study with nuns as a remedy. And why shouldn't nuns have the opportunity to become ordained? It would be nice if they didn't have to go to Taiwan to do that; not everyone can manage it.
I agree, some of the currently ordained nuns are impressive, like Khandro Rinpoche. A friend of mine knew her when she was growing up; she attended a Catholic school. Who could object to more ordained nuns of that caliber? I see no problem here; these points are nothing new to this site.
I know that essay of Dzongsar Khentse's so well, I practically have it memorized. Notice that he admonishes Western women for supposedly expecting "candlelight dinners" in their "relationships" with their teachers. He misses the nature of women's complaints entirely. Few, if any, want "relationships" with their teachers at all. They only want to be able to study unmolested. It's not too much to ask. In another essay, which he's removed from his website in a recent reorganization, DK Rinpoche said that a colleague of his was teaching in the West, had "several consorts" and "no complaints", as if this were a badge of honor. He has also said that Westerners were "naive" to expect that women could go to Asia to study alone with teachers without incident. You picked the wrong guy to quote.
How has it been misinterpreted? And what do you mean by, /-.
misinterpreted in application, there's wrong views when reading the sutras... maybe the sangha is no working efficiently? the forks in 3 major schools doesn't help... a further fork (Western Buddhism) will be fatal, unnecessary and unwise.
"What sense not to give up"? You don't sound like you've given up, if you're a monk. Please clarify your points, so we can better understand what you're referring to, and can discuss your ideas.
Can you give more about the context? I thing that referes to how to chose another life... but plz provide the context.
Actually, I lifted that idea about ordaining more women as a possible way to reduce the number of sex scandals from some comments Federica made on a thread about "Bhikkunis, or the first nuns...". You might check it out, it's pretty interesting. (See posts 41 and 68, among others.) But I've suggested that idea before. (And you left out my comment about adding diversity to the ranks might lead to some interesting teachings being added to the repertoire, as already demonstrated by some contributors on this site.) My point is that you get to attend teachings unmolested. I and other women don't, always. If I could study with a nun, I wouldn't have to deal with fending off unwanted attention from the monks/teachers. To say nothing of the more serious problems other women have encountered. I see nothing wrong with proposing increased opportunity to study with nuns as a remedy. And why shouldn't nuns have the opportunity to become ordained? It would be nice if they didn't have to go to Taiwan to do that; not everyone can manage it.
I agree, some of the currently ordained nuns are impressive, like Khandro Rinpoche. A friend of mine knew her when she was growing up; she attended a Catholic school. Who could object to more ordained nuns of that caliber? I see no problem here; these points are nothing new to this site.
I know that essay of Dzongsar Khentse's so well, I practically have it memorized. Notice that he admonishes Western women for supposedly expecting "candlelight dinners" in their "relationships" with their teachers. He misses the nature of women's complaints entirely. Few, if any, want "relationships" with their teachers at all. They only want to be able to study unmolested. It's not too much to ask. In another essay, which he's removed from his website in a recent reorganization, DK Rinpoche said that a colleague of his was teaching in the West, had "several consorts" and "no complaints", as if this were a badge of honor. He has also said that Westerners were "naive" to expect that women could go to Asia to study alone with teachers without incident. You picked the wrong guy to quote.
there should be more bikkunis, some schools are more responsible for this lack of bikkunis. There should also be urban monks, and there should be a higher % of noble ones (srotapanna, sakadagami, anagami, buddha) in the buddhist community.
However, the 1/3 part of the Påli Tripitaka (quello che corrisponde alle rigole di monichi)... should be seriously considered wrong view (parts of them) because most are not Middle Way'y
Se ricordo bene, i have studied mostly Sutra Pitaka.
What parts of the Tripitika are "not Middle Way", and "should seriously be considered wrong view"? Some of us are new to these texts, and would appreciate your presenting an analysis. What tradition or school do you practice, Vincenzi?
I am curious to understand, why is it said that those who see the way can no longer remain as Arahant householders?
You need to look at this from the point of view of the monks who passed down these stories. A monk gives up his entire life to seek Enlightenment. He see the vast majority of lay people as wholly pleasuring-seeking and materialistic. He is correct. He thinks that because he is not pleasure-seeking, he must be closer to Enlightenment. He can not see any ultimate value to materialism. He is within-time... looking from his own perspective.
8 consciousness, that's the sense that one must access in between lifetimes. It is not related to the 4 arupa-dhatu's in a strict sense.
It is not what sense to give up, it is what senses NOT to give up.
My question referred to your earlier post in this discussion. Your several observations, on that page are interesting, could you explain? What wrong views when reading the sutras? How is the monastic system broken? What is your perspective? I second Compassionate Warrior's questions, as well. Please tell us more.
My point is that you get to attend teachings unmolested. I and other women don't, always. If I could study with a nun, I wouldn't have to deal with fending off unwanted attention from the monks/teachers.
Though you have thrown around anecdotal evidence like it is going out of style, you have never once said that you yourself were "molested while attending teachings" as you are now insinuating. If it is true that:
a) You have actually attended any teachings with the lineages you speculate about, which I have openly called you on and you have not contradicted;
b) You have been actually molested or propositioned;
then by all means share your experience with dates, names and details. That would be a lot more credible than the baseless accusations that have been your stock in trade so far. I have been attending teachings from all four schools for the last quarter century. I have never once encountered the situation of which you speak. My best friends in the dharma community have almost always been women, often very attractive, professionally accomplished and intelligent. If there was the systemic problem you have consistently alleged, I would have heard about it.
To say nothing of the more serious problems other women have encountered.
That is something you have never tried. In fact, you speak of little else.
I see nothing wrong with proposing increased opportunity to study with nuns as a remedy. And why shouldn't nuns have the opportunity to become ordained? It would be nice if they didn't have to go to Taiwan to do that; not everyone can manage it.
You are looking for a remedy for a sickness that doesn't exist. People should study with teachers because of their accomplishment and morality, not their plumbing. There are many, many women teaching now including some that I have studied with. Few are nuns. On the balance I would say that at least as many women have completed three year retreats in the west than men:
Lama Tsering Everest
Sarah Harding
Tsultrim Allione
Chagdud Khandro
Sangye Khandro
etc.
On the score of nun's ordination, you show that you don't understand the issue. Maybe when you get back to your university women's studies program you could research how it is only the gelongma ordination which doesn't exist currently in Tibet, because there was no historical ordination lineage. Women can still take genyenma and getsulma ordination. In any case, most monks and nuns would have to hold getsul ordination for five years before they are given the full set of vows. Vinaya depends on lineage. The Tibetan abbots can not just make up an ordination lineage that doesn't exist. The Dalai Lama has been investigating ways to restore the gelongma lineage and perhaps in the future this will bear fruit.
I agree, some of the currently ordained nuns are impressive, like Khandro Rinpoche. A friend of mine knew her when she was growing up; she attended a Catholic school. Who could object to more ordained nuns of that caliber? I see no problem here; these points are nothing new to this site.
Nobody is objecting to more nuns. Not me, not anyone else here. I was merely commenting on a foolish remark of yours that this would have anything even remotely to do with sexual abuse. There are women in all of the Catholic order of very high levels of sanctity, yet still there was abuse by priests so obviously there is no relation. Secondly, aside from you and a few wingnuts like the Trimontis no one is claiming that there is systematic sexual abuse in Tibetan Buddhism.
I know that essay of Dzongsar Khentse's so well, I practically have it memorized. Notice that he admonishes Western women for supposedly expecting "candlelight dinners" in their "relationships" with their teachers. He misses the nature of women's complaints entirely. Few, if any, want "relationships" with their teachers at all. They only want to be able to study unmolested. It's not too much to ask.
Doesn't that say a lot about you that you spend more time reflecting on controversy than on the teachings themselves? Who appointed you to speak on behalf of the women involved? You haven't even been involved in studying the dharma to begin with.
In another essay, which he's removed from his website in a recent reorganization, DK Rinpoche said that a colleague of his was teaching in the West, had "several consorts" and "no complaints", as if this were a badge of honor. He has also said that Westerners were "naive" to expect that women could go to Asia to study alone with teachers without incident. You picked the wrong guy to quote.
Stop telling me I picked the wrong guy. I picked him for a reason. Please provide the full quotation you are paraphrasing as him saying having many consorts are a badge of honour. If men and women want to have consensual sexual relationships on their own terms, they certainly don't need you telling them what to do.
KD, when I said on the "Abuse" thread that I had witnessed harassment of women students by teachers in my sangha participation, you didn't require me to give details. When Federica made comments on a thread earlier this year about sex scandals and implied that not ordaining nuns was sexist (I do read Dakini's links, which you apparently don't), you didn't demand documentation from Federica, or call her ignorant. And when Dakini has provided links that give details of alleged molestations, you've dismissed them as lies. So what do you say we just put the whole argument to rest. This thread has taken an interesting direction, which I'm curious to follow, given the opportunity *ahem*, and I would prefer it not be hijacked by your provocations toward Dakini. She made a reasonable enough suggestion, and it's not a new one on this site. So kindly back off. You come across like someone spoiling for a fight, and there's no place for that here, IMHO.
KD, when I said on the "Abuse" thread that I had witnessed harassment of women students by teachers in my sangha participation, you didn't require me to give details. When Federica made comments on a thread earlier this year about sex scandals and implied that not ordaining nuns was sexist (I do read Dakini's links, which you apparently don't), you didn't demand documentation from Federica. And when Dakini has provided links that give details of alleged molestations, you've dismissed them as lies. So what do you say we just put the whole argument to rest. This thread has taken an interesting direction, and I would prefer it not be hijacked by your provocations toward Dakini. She made a reasonable enough suggestion, and it's been made before. So kindly back off. You come across like someone spoiling for a fight, and there's no place for that here, IMHO.
I didn't pay attention to your claims before. Are you also making the claim that there is systematic sexual abuse in Tibetan Buddhism? If so, by all means name names and describe incidents. Which sangha, which teachers and what was done about it? Nebulous claims are the issue here. If you can't put things out to be discussed with details, don't advance them.
Tibetans do ordain nuns, they don't have the gelongma ordinationa lineage. Evidently you didn't even read my post. "Dakini" has linked to sites such as American Buddha, Dialogue Ireland and the Trimontis. She has quoted from June Campbell, who made an academic career out of alleging an incident of abuse after the teacher she accused was conveniently dead.
Dakini's claim was of the nature of "Sir, when did you stop beating your wife?". There is no systematic problem of sexual abuse in Tibetan Buddhism. Now what I find interesting is that "compassionate_warrior" would purport to be a translation of "pawo" or "daka". So we have a "Daka" and "Dakini" both advancing a certain agenda through these posts. Things that make you go "hmm..."
I've stated from the beginning that I think the sangha as a whole should work to make everyone feel welcome and an equal member of the community. A spiritual community should look out for their own, IMO. Given that I had a thread on the student-teacher relationship, which you thoughtfully contributed to (and for which contribution I'm grateful), I'm surprised you only just now discovered that I share one of Dakini's interests.
I'd like to get back to hearing about Vincenzi's ideas.
they certainly don't need some feminist gossipmonger telling them what to do.
It's all polite debate until you break out the name-calling. :nonono:
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 December 2010
And members don't need to be subjected to name-calling either.
keep your tone civil, and refrain from the name calling.
'Feminist scaremonger' and 'wingnut' are implied defamatory remarks.
I'm sure you're articulate enough to put your point across without resorting to insults.
At least, I hope from here on in, that you are......
there should be more bikkunis, some schools are more responsible for this lack of bikkunis. There should also be urban monks, and there should be a higher % of noble ones (srotapanna, sakadagami, anagami, buddha) in the buddhist community.
However, the 1/3 part of the Påli Tripitaka (quello che corrisponde alle rigole di monichi)... should be seriously considered wrong view (parts of them) because most are not Middle Way'y
Se ricordo bene, i have studied mostly Sutra Pitaka.
What is "wrong view" about one third of the monks' rules? Why are they not "Middle Way"? What tradition do you follow, Vincenzi?
What is "wrong view" about one third of the monks' rules? Why are they not "Middle Way"? What tradition do you follow, Vincenzi?
i said, seriously considered. i have just ignored them all in my studies. and it served me well. so, buddhas can not get married? do monks have to be in a boot camp to acchieve nirvåna?
i don't follow a specific tradition, because am trying to merge them.
And members don't need to be subjected to name-calling either.
keep your tone civil, and refrain from the name calling.
'Feminist scaremonger' and 'wingnut' are implied defamatory remarks.
I'm sure you're articulate enough to put your point across without resorting to insults.
At least, I hope from here on in, that you are......
Edit.
Lincoln beat me to it.
Double-Mod-Whammy.
Agreed about "feminist gossipmonger", and edited. I did not call the interlocutor a "wingnut" but rather Victor and Victoria Trimondi who are not part of this conversation. It is really hard to find a better term for them. They make outlandish claims and provide spurious evidence to back it up. They have an extreme agenda.
""Wingnut" (sometimes "wing-nut") is used in United States politics as a political epithet referring to a person who holds extreme political views. According to Merriam-Webster, it is analogous with the word "radical. ..."
Dakini: I apologize for the lapse in civility.
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 December 2010
Please take this discussion back to topic (see post #1.)
Further lapses will result in a closed thread and a few well-directed words to those responsible.
i said, seriously considered. i have just ignored them all in my studies. and it served me well. so, buddhas can not get married? do monks have to be in a boot camp to acchieve nirvåna?
i don't follow a specific tradition, because am trying to merge them.
This is in itself Wrong View.
You cannot 'merge' traditions.
Sure, you can glean what is useful and applicable from diverse sources, but after a while, it becomes necessary, due to some doctrinal and tradition-based conflict, to decide, one way or the other, which direction your nose is pointing.
you cannot pick and choose, like buying tomatoes off a market stall, which bits are most juicy and palatable, and which are not to your taste.
Trust me, I know.
I spent 15+ years implementing teachings from different Traditions.
In the end, I tied myself up in knots.
Now that I am inclined towards a specific tradition, things fall into place much more easily.
Sometimes, you just have to jump in with both feet.
You cannot swim AND stay on shore......
un piede in ogni campo funziona, ma non per sempre. Ti assicuro.
Please take this discussion back to topic (see post #1.)
Further lapses will result in a closed thread and a few well-directed words to those responsible.
Thank you.
here is the original post:
Carry on.
it is not true! who said that? a buddha can be a householder, it just have a moral responsabilidad with da sangha to teach.
I would think that one could be enlightened as a householder; the key would be non-attachment to one's possessions. And not all householders have families, not all householders are married.
I agree, Vincenzi. I see no reason why a householder can't reach Nirvana. I think the belief that householders can't is based on the assumption that all householders have families, though even one with a family has come pretty close (Gopi Krishna, I have in mind). There are plenty of single householders in this day and age, with leisure time for study and meditation. There are, in fact, numerous unmarried householders who are celibate, contrary to what one sees on TV. (TVs are best given away to people who don't have a dedicated path to follow, IMO.) Vincenzi, himself, is a good example.
I agree, Vincenzi. I see no reason why a householder can't reach Nirvana. I think the belief that householders can't is based on the assumption that all householders have families, though even one with a family has come pretty close (Gopi Krishna, I have in mind). There are plenty of single householders in this day and age, with leisure time for study and meditation. There are, in fact, numerous unmarried householders who are celibate, contrary to what one sees on TV. (TVs are best given away to people who don't have a dedicated path to follow, IMO.) Vincenzi, himself, is a good example.
thanks, am unmarried but reserve the right to get married (have to solve the relationship with LL... it has being difficult as part of cleaning karmic debts i guess).
... It is also possible for a lay disciple to become enlightened. As Bhikkhu Bodhi notes, "The Suttas and commentaries do record a few cases of lay disciples attaining the final goal of Nirvana. However, such disciples either attain Arahantship on the brink of death or enter the monastic order soon after their attainment. They do not continue to dwell at home as Arahant householders, for dwelling at home is incompatible with the state of one who has severed all craving."
It is ascribed to this publication:
Bhikkhu Bodhi, In the Buddha's Words, Wisdom Publications 2005; page 376
In relation to the below quote, monastics are not going to promote lay life. And what the Buddha said about monasticism vs laity was said at a time in which the current institutions both monastic and laity, bear little resemblance to those of today. My point is that enlightenment is not a state, but rather the culmination of learning. It is dependent on ability, motivation and most importantly practice. It therefore does not matter whether you are a monk, a lay person or not even a Buddhist. There are two aspects to that learning: the first is seeing into the empty nature of the self and the second and most difficult is to put this into action.
The former aspect does not entirely innoculate one from error, like a pianist who stops practicing, he or she still knows how to play, but is more likely to make mistakes. The same applies to Buddha's, see Stephen Bachelor's book Living with the Devil. Sex scandals arise because people put too much on their teachers and project on to them unfulfilled desires about their parents, lover and even give them god-like qualities. They are only guides on the way, and there are great pianists who never had a teacher and there are child prodigies whose career never takes off. There are also very bright teachers who slip, lay people have more opportunity to act out than monks, but both can slip.
Being put on a on pedestal would become a precarious place if you agree to sit on it, I think ... my teacher ensures any tendency toward developing such notions about him are discussed rather than encouraged to grow.
my teacher is Samyak Buddha Siddharta Gotama. i chosed this very life, because in this planet there are recordings about this master/teacher in the Påli TriPitaka. i have focused on the Sutra Pitaka. This has bear good phåla (fruit).
Theravada's view on monasticism is antique and not elegant. Mahayana/Zen has a more modern view on monastic life but it doesn't focus on sutras. "Tibetan Buddhism" has Bøn and other-indian ideas mixed in... they are forks, and the Dharma should be unified (or at least not divided further). Those that promote forks are bad for the Sangha (which includes lay buddhists); this is in the sutras. The sutras are wrong in some parts; inspection of sutras itself is suggested in the sutras. example: Rahula may not have being a buddha... but is portrayed as a "genius meditator"; he may have being just a spoiled brat with some basic education on the Dharma.
i will like to wake up with an Ona*/ragazza in my bed, but she better be or is on the way of becoming an anågåmin ^_^
Lets put aside your choice to privilege the past over the present and the historical written word for that of present day experience, as there is a lot that can be said about that. If the world honoured one, was to ask you what fork in the Dharma do you think that lay buddhists are promoting...what would be your answer?
Considering most bodhisattvas are presented in art as lay people, enlightenment is compatible with lay life.
I was rather suprised to see there was an issue with women ordination and abuse by monks earlier... I've only ever studied under female venerables (they are not even referred to as nuns, but as dharma brothers just like everybody else) and never even considered all the sexist problems mentioned.
Perhapes there is no problem with female ordination or traditions what so ever. The problem lies with the people running some of the sanghas.
[quote=Cristina;150693]Where do you live, BTW, that you don't have any spiritual friends? Are you in the US?
Yeah I live in the US, near Seattle Washington. I moved here like...4 or 5 months ago. I'm just wary I guess.
I had the same problem until recently. I moved to Portland, Oregon, about 4 years ago and I just found a group I feel comfortable with. Of course, as soon as I find one, I get laid off from work, but I guess that just means I have more time to meditate.
Lets put aside your choice to privilege the past over the present and the historical written word for that of present day experience, as there is a lot that can be said about that. If the world honoured one, was to ask you what fork in the Dharma do you think that lay buddhists are promoting...what would be your answer?
Mahayana Zen, even if Tibetan Buddhism (Vahjrayana) is being pushed (dare I say perverted) in the west. Theravada doesn't have a chance because if the Dharma Chakra will turn in the West, this fork of Buddhism will be compared (in a negative way) to Catholic Christianism (and the West is fed up with this intolerant fork of Christianity).
I am curious to understand, why is it said that those who see the way can no longer remain as Arahant householders?
Those who see the way will never attach to such an intention in view of their no grasp or right view on emptiness.
"I" disagree. A samyak buddha will do its best to teach "others"; remaining as householder will further (or not) that path. The focus isn't "householder" and "not householder"... it is having enough time to teach "others".
Considering most bodhisattvas are presented in art as lay people, enlightenment is compatible with lay life.
I was rather suprised to see there was an issue with women ordination and abuse by monks earlier... I've only ever studied under female venerables (they are not even referred to as nuns, but as dharma brothers just like everybody else) and never even considered all the sexist problems mentioned.
Perhapes there is no problem with female ordination or traditions what so ever. The problem lies with the people running some of the sanghas.
When I lived in Korea for a few years, I realized the problem with Buddhist temples not being very welcoming to women who want to take the vows is simple cultural bias. The Eastern cultures are extremely male dominate, so their institutions including Buddhist temples reflect this. It has changed a bit, but it's so ingrained into the thinking that Western Buddhist should just realize that some Eastern Buddhist practices are limited in that area because of their culture without looking for reasons within the Sutras.
Buddhism has no problem at all with women being Buddhas. Some Buddhists had a problem with it.
[quote=Cristina;150693]Where do you live, BTW, that you don't have any spiritual friends? Are you in the US?
Yeah I live in the US, near Seattle Washington. I moved here like...4 or 5 months ago. I'm just wary I guess.
I had the same problem until recently. I moved to Portland, Oregon, about 4 years ago and I just found a group I feel comfortable with. Of course, as soon as I find one, I get laid off from work, but I guess that just means I have more time to meditate.
if i ever visit USA, it will have to be in California... someone (from devART) recommended Modesto, California.
enlightenment, like the buddha, is not found in any place. Enlightenment is not found in the monastary. If you can't be enlightened now, then you can't be enlightened.
Everyone is already enlightened. It's a matter of figuring out what is unenlightening you at this moment. Without enlightenment of Buddha nature how could you be aware of reality? Awareness itself is Buddha nature and enlightenment. That which exists before thinking and feeling. If something was not aware prior to thinking and feeling, how would you know you were thinking and feeling? Lay people, Buddhist monks, everyone is already enlightened. Throw down everything and what are you left with?
Everyone is already enlightened. It's a matter of figuring out what is unenlightening you at this moment. Without enlightenment of Buddha nature how could you be aware of reality? Awareness itself is Buddha nature and enlightenment. That which exists before thinking and feeling. If something was not aware prior to thinking and feeling, how would you know you were thinking and feeling? Lay people, Buddhist monks, everyone is already enlightened. Throw down everything and what are you left with?
good! I've seen a couple of your posts and you seem to know your stuff. You're definitely right though, about everyone being enlightened. However, if you don't TRULY understand this concept, sometimes it is best, or at least they think it is best, to still shoot for this mystical "enlightenment" that everyone is searching for. If you truly understand the concept, though, it is freedom. That's why they call it liberation.
[QUOTE=shenpen nangwa;148473]The actual difference is debatable but according to tradition (in this case Therevada) a fully enlightened Buddha only appears in a world system when the previous Buddhas dharma has died out. There are certain characteristics of a Buddha that are said to be lacking in an arhat. Physical marks and signs along with the compassionate impulse to turn the wheel of dharma (not that arhats dont teach). Like I said, the actual differences may be non-existant but from the traditional records and interpretations a division is made between one who has reached nirvana and a/the Buddha. This is of course interpreted differently in the Mahayana traditions.[/QUOTE]
I think this might only be a difference in semantics. Whilst Theravada does view a Buddha and an Arahant differently, I believe it is only in a matter of degrees. The Buddha is firstly self-awakened, has more powers and greater compassion than any other being that awakens after or due to his teachings. However, in terms of awakening to the four noble truths, all Arahants do that, therefore they can also be called enlightened.
The only difference is the power in activity. A Buddha has more connectivity with people so is able to transmit to a larger audience.
Everyone is already enlightened. It's a matter of figuring out what is unenlightening you at this moment. Without enlightenment of Buddha nature how could you be aware of reality? Awareness itself is Buddha nature and enlightenment. That which exists before thinking and feeling. If something was not aware prior to thinking and feeling, how would you know you were thinking and feeling? Lay people, Buddhist monks, everyone is already enlightened. Throw down everything and what are you left with?
You are actually not awareness either, there is no self nature there either. Buddha nature is not awareness. Buddhanature is nothing but a synonym for emptiness which is a synonym for dependent origination.
Because you have consciousness due to the instantaneous continuum of dependent origination manifesting as a human through you, you can become aware of Buddhanature, which means recognizing that awareness is also dependently arisen and empty of self nature.
Everyone is already enlightened. It's a matter of figuring out what is unenlightening you at this moment. Without enlightenment of Buddha nature how could you be aware of reality? Awareness itself is Buddha nature and enlightenment. That which exists before thinking and feeling. If something was not aware prior to thinking and feeling, how would you know you were thinking and feeling? Lay people, Buddhist monks, everyone is already enlightened. Throw down everything and what are you left with?
You are actually not awareness either, there is no self nature there either. Buddha nature is not awareness. Buddhanature is nothing but a synonym for emptiness which is a synonym for dependent origination.
Because you have consciousness due to the instantaneous continuum of dependent origination manifesting as a human through you, you can become aware of Buddhanature, which means recognizing that awareness is also dependently arisen and empty of self nature.
Thank you for the reminder! You can't talk about it. Just be.
Comments
Your original quote. If that isn't the most puerile of gender politics, I don't know what is. The implication that men are not serious when they take ordination is duly noted and dismissed as yet more of your grandstanding about an issue you know nothing about in a religion you do not practice.
You would do well to read Khyentse Rinpoche's entire post that these verses were taken from:
http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2014&Itemid=247
I agree, some of the currently ordained nuns are impressive, like Khandro Rinpoche. A friend of mine knew her when she was growing up; she attended a Catholic school. Who could object to more ordained nuns of that caliber? I see no problem here; these points are nothing new to this site.
I know that essay of Dzongsar Khentse's so well, I practically have it memorized. Notice that he admonishes Western women for supposedly expecting "candlelight dinners" in their "relationships" with their teachers. He misses the nature of women's complaints entirely. Few, if any, want "relationships" with their teachers at all. They only want to be able to study unmolested. It's not too much to ask. In another essay, which he's removed from his website in a recent reorganization, DK Rinpoche said that a colleague of his was teaching in the West, had "several consorts" and "no complaints", as if this were a badge of honor. He has also said that Westerners were "naive" to expect that women could go to Asia to study alone with teachers without incident. You picked the wrong guy to quote.
Can you give more about the context? I thing that referes to how to chose another life... but plz provide the context.
there should be more bikkunis, some schools are more responsible for this lack of bikkunis. There should also be urban monks, and there should be a higher % of noble ones (srotapanna, sakadagami, anagami, buddha) in the buddhist community.
However, the 1/3 part of the Påli Tripitaka (quello che corrisponde alle rigole di monichi)... should be seriously considered wrong view (parts of them) because most are not Middle Way'y
Se ricordo bene, i have studied mostly Sutra Pitaka.
You need to look at this from the point of view of the monks who passed down these stories. A monk gives up his entire life to seek Enlightenment. He see the vast majority of lay people as wholly pleasuring-seeking and materialistic. He is correct. He thinks that because he is not pleasure-seeking, he must be closer to Enlightenment. He can not see any ultimate value to materialism. He is within-time... looking from his own perspective.
My question referred to your earlier post in this discussion. Your several observations, on that page are interesting, could you explain? What wrong views when reading the sutras? How is the monastic system broken? What is your perspective? I second Compassionate Warrior's questions, as well. Please tell us more.
Though you have thrown around anecdotal evidence like it is going out of style, you have never once said that you yourself were "molested while attending teachings" as you are now insinuating. If it is true that:
a) You have actually attended any teachings with the lineages you speculate about, which I have openly called you on and you have not contradicted;
b) You have been actually molested or propositioned;
then by all means share your experience with dates, names and details. That would be a lot more credible than the baseless accusations that have been your stock in trade so far. I have been attending teachings from all four schools for the last quarter century. I have never once encountered the situation of which you speak. My best friends in the dharma community have almost always been women, often very attractive, professionally accomplished and intelligent. If there was the systemic problem you have consistently alleged, I would have heard about it.
That is something you have never tried. In fact, you speak of little else.
You are looking for a remedy for a sickness that doesn't exist. People should study with teachers because of their accomplishment and morality, not their plumbing. There are many, many women teaching now including some that I have studied with. Few are nuns. On the balance I would say that at least as many women have completed three year retreats in the west than men:
Lama Tsering Everest
Sarah Harding
Tsultrim Allione
Chagdud Khandro
Sangye Khandro
etc.
On the score of nun's ordination, you show that you don't understand the issue. Maybe when you get back to your university women's studies program you could research how it is only the gelongma ordination which doesn't exist currently in Tibet, because there was no historical ordination lineage. Women can still take genyenma and getsulma ordination. In any case, most monks and nuns would have to hold getsul ordination for five years before they are given the full set of vows. Vinaya depends on lineage. The Tibetan abbots can not just make up an ordination lineage that doesn't exist. The Dalai Lama has been investigating ways to restore the gelongma lineage and perhaps in the future this will bear fruit.
Nobody is objecting to more nuns. Not me, not anyone else here. I was merely commenting on a foolish remark of yours that this would have anything even remotely to do with sexual abuse. There are women in all of the Catholic order of very high levels of sanctity, yet still there was abuse by priests so obviously there is no relation. Secondly, aside from you and a few wingnuts like the Trimontis no one is claiming that there is systematic sexual abuse in Tibetan Buddhism.
Doesn't that say a lot about you that you spend more time reflecting on controversy than on the teachings themselves? Who appointed you to speak on behalf of the women involved? You haven't even been involved in studying the dharma to begin with.
Stop telling me I picked the wrong guy. I picked him for a reason. Please provide the full quotation you are paraphrasing as him saying having many consorts are a badge of honour. If men and women want to have consensual sexual relationships on their own terms, they certainly don't need you telling them what to do.
I didn't pay attention to your claims before. Are you also making the claim that there is systematic sexual abuse in Tibetan Buddhism? If so, by all means name names and describe incidents. Which sangha, which teachers and what was done about it? Nebulous claims are the issue here. If you can't put things out to be discussed with details, don't advance them.
Tibetans do ordain nuns, they don't have the gelongma ordinationa lineage. Evidently you didn't even read my post. "Dakini" has linked to sites such as American Buddha, Dialogue Ireland and the Trimontis. She has quoted from June Campbell, who made an academic career out of alleging an incident of abuse after the teacher she accused was conveniently dead.
Dakini's claim was of the nature of "Sir, when did you stop beating your wife?". There is no systematic problem of sexual abuse in Tibetan Buddhism. Now what I find interesting is that "compassionate_warrior" would purport to be a translation of "pawo" or "daka". So we have a "Daka" and "Dakini" both advancing a certain agenda through these posts. Things that make you go "hmm..."
Hatred does not cease by hatred, but by love alone does hatred cease.
I'd like to get back to hearing about Vincenzi's ideas.
keep your tone civil, and refrain from the name calling.
'Feminist scaremonger' and 'wingnut' are implied defamatory remarks.
I'm sure you're articulate enough to put your point across without resorting to insults.
At least, I hope from here on in, that you are......
Edit.
Lincoln beat me to it.
Double-Mod-Whammy.
nirvAna is compatible with lay life, enlightenment is a western construct.
What is "wrong view" about one third of the monks' rules? Why are they not "Middle Way"? What tradition do you follow, Vincenzi?
i said, seriously considered. i have just ignored them all in my studies. and it served me well. so, buddhas can not get married? do monks have to be in a boot camp to acchieve nirvåna?
i don't follow a specific tradition, because am trying to merge them.
Agreed about "feminist gossipmonger", and edited. I did not call the interlocutor a "wingnut" but rather Victor and Victoria Trimondi who are not part of this conversation. It is really hard to find a better term for them. They make outlandish claims and provide spurious evidence to back it up. They have an extreme agenda.
""Wingnut" (sometimes "wing-nut") is used in United States politics as a political epithet referring to a person who holds extreme political views. According to Merriam-Webster, it is analogous with the word "radical. ..."
Dakini: I apologize for the lapse in civility.
Further lapses will result in a closed thread and a few well-directed words to those responsible.
Thank you.
here is the original post:
Carry on.
This is in itself Wrong View.
You cannot 'merge' traditions.
Sure, you can glean what is useful and applicable from diverse sources, but after a while, it becomes necessary, due to some doctrinal and tradition-based conflict, to decide, one way or the other, which direction your nose is pointing.
you cannot pick and choose, like buying tomatoes off a market stall, which bits are most juicy and palatable, and which are not to your taste.
Trust me, I know.
I spent 15+ years implementing teachings from different Traditions.
In the end, I tied myself up in knots.
Now that I am inclined towards a specific tradition, things fall into place much more easily.
Sometimes, you just have to jump in with both feet.
You cannot swim AND stay on shore......
un piede in ogni campo funziona, ma non per sempre. Ti assicuro.
it is not true! who said that? a buddha can be a householder, it just have a moral responsabilidad with da sangha to teach.
a silent buddha is not a samyak buddha.
I agree, Vincenzi. I see no reason why a householder can't reach Nirvana. I think the belief that householders can't is based on the assumption that all householders have families, though even one with a family has come pretty close (Gopi Krishna, I have in mind). There are plenty of single householders in this day and age, with leisure time for study and meditation. There are, in fact, numerous unmarried householders who are celibate, contrary to what one sees on TV. (TVs are best given away to people who don't have a dedicated path to follow, IMO.) Vincenzi, himself, is a good example.
thanks, am unmarried but reserve the right to get married (have to solve the relationship with LL... it has being difficult as part of cleaning karmic debts i guess).
The former aspect does not entirely innoculate one from error, like a pianist who stops practicing, he or she still knows how to play, but is more likely to make mistakes. The same applies to Buddha's, see Stephen Bachelor's book Living with the Devil. Sex scandals arise because people put too much on their teachers and project on to them unfulfilled desires about their parents, lover and even give them god-like qualities. They are only guides on the way, and there are great pianists who never had a teacher and there are child prodigies whose career never takes off. There are also very bright teachers who slip, lay people have more opportunity to act out than monks, but both can slip.
Theravada's view on monasticism is antique and not elegant. Mahayana/Zen has a more modern view on monastic life but it doesn't focus on sutras. "Tibetan Buddhism" has Bøn and other-indian ideas mixed in... they are forks, and the Dharma should be unified (or at least not divided further). Those that promote forks are bad for the Sangha (which includes lay buddhists); this is in the sutras. The sutras are wrong in some parts; inspection of sutras itself is suggested in the sutras. example: Rahula may not have being a buddha... but is portrayed as a "genius meditator"; he may have being just a spoiled brat with some basic education on the Dharma.
i will like to wake up with an Ona*/ragazza in my bed, but she better be or is on the way of becoming an anågåmin ^_^
*japanese. anata means wife!
Lets put aside your choice to privilege the past over the present and the historical written word for that of present day experience, as there is a lot that can be said about that. If the world honoured one, was to ask you what fork in the Dharma do you think that lay buddhists are promoting...what would be your answer?
I was rather suprised to see there was an issue with women ordination and abuse by monks earlier... I've only ever studied under female venerables (they are not even referred to as nuns, but as dharma brothers just like everybody else) and never even considered all the sexist problems mentioned.
Perhapes there is no problem with female ordination or traditions what so ever. The problem lies with the people running some of the sanghas.
Buddhism has no problem at all with women being Buddhas. Some Buddhists had a problem with it.
Without enlightenment of Buddha nature how could you be aware of reality? Awareness itself is Buddha nature and enlightenment. That which exists before thinking and feeling. If something was not aware prior to thinking and feeling, how would you know you were thinking and feeling? Lay people, Buddhist monks, everyone is already enlightened. Throw down everything and what are you left with?
greetings.
Because you have consciousness due to the instantaneous continuum of dependent origination manifesting as a human through you, you can become aware of Buddhanature, which means recognizing that awareness is also dependently arisen and empty of self nature.
You can't talk about it. Just be.
Much love.