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.
vinaya questions
angulimala
Veteran
i have some questions about vinaya (monk rules).my first question is how many times can a man/woman be ordained as monk?i heard that someone can be ordained as monk and returns to be a layman and be ordained again for 7 times,is it true?
and so i heard that there are rules that limit the contact between monk and female(lay people or nuns),but several years ago there was a news here that a monk raped a woman,so how can this thing happened?thanks for your opinions
and so i heard that there are rules that limit the contact between monk and female(lay people or nuns),but several years ago there was a news here that a monk raped a woman,so how can this thing happened?thanks for your opinions
0
Comments
Yes, as I recall, in the Theravadin tradition one may take full ordination up to seven times. That does not include ordaining as a novice, however, which entails 10 precepts instead of 227. As for other traditions, I do not know. There are many rules that limit the contact of ordained Sangha members to the opposite sex. Some of those rules include making sure that they are never alone together, but in our modern day society many people are becoming very lax with the Vinaya. Also, some of the people who do ordain do not do so out of pure reasons. Some do it because they are escaping troubles, or just see it as an easy life (free meal everyday, shelter, etc.). Unfortunelty, some people are just not meant to be ordained. It is very sad.
Jason
As for the question about the monk who raped a woman, please remember that monks and nuns are still sentient beings who suffer from desire and delusion like anyone. Taking robes doesn't automatically make you enlightened. The vow of celibacy in particular is a hard one to keep wherever you happen to live, and if someone tries to inhibit their sexual drive rather than deal with it, it can explode into a situation like this.
Palzang
I feel a heated debate coming on..... :buck:
The Western monastic movement started as a reaction against the priesthood becoming part of the career structure of the rich and powerful. Local priest, under the authority of a bishop, were (and remain) part of the ruling class. Monks and nuns, however, were seen as outwith the social structure.
It is naive, I think, to believe that abuse by 'secular clergy' (Parish priests) is something new. Indeed, sexual contact with underage people has been the norm rather than the exception worldwide. What is new is the horror that it arouses. In conversation with my contemporaries, it has become clear that 'fiddling' priests, uncles, aunts and, even, elder siblings were taken for granted as part of the discomfort of being a child!
In the Catholic Church, one of the reasons for the introduction of clerical 'celibacy' was to ban marriage by priests so that their children could no longer inherit. Priests' children were a normal part of society as far back as I can research.
I thought maybe your post had kind of put the kybosh on further discussion...
And while I was initially taken aback by your statements regarding underage sex being the norm, and being part of growing up, I realise that what you say, is true for some cultures.
However, I happened to catch 'Tarrant on TV' last night, and while by and large his examples of TV adverts from around the world are pithy and amusing, he had one from Africa which was both hard-hitting and harrowing, regarding this very topic.
it simply portrayed a mother in her kitchen ironing, listening to her child on the baby monitor, quietly singing to itself in their bedroom.... but the singing turned to distressed crying, as the father obviously came into the bedroom and began 'interfering' with the child. The mother just stood rooted to the spot in horror, tears coursing down her cheeks....
The final spoken caption was : 'If you don't stop this, who will?'
While we consider other cultures to be both precious (in their naivety and custom) and backward (ditto likewise), the idea that sex with minors is unacceptable, socially, seems to be spreading.
But even in as advanced a country as America (and this is in no way intended to be a criticism) the age of consent varies from State to State: What is illegal and unacceptable in one place, is seen as normal and fine in another.... How do we view this anomaly?
And why DO we as a Human race, have such a diverse attitude when it comes to sex and age?
However, in our "enlightened" era such things are frowned upon. Your either a dirty old man, or your a whore after the guys money and vicecera if the women is older.
As for monks, well my temple freaked about that with me. I told them that I wasn't threatened by women and I'm not a walking/talking penis.
Esau.
Actually, I was once told by a young chap that 'Men found me threatening'... you should see me... 4'10" half Italian, diminutive.... oh, hang on, I'm beginning to see it now.....!! :winkc:
I think we are really fooling ourselves if we think that Buddhism is somehow exempt from all of the abuses that have recently come to light in Catholicism. It is so easy for people in the West to look at Buddhism through unhistorical eyes.
***
Edit: What kind of thing? Well, the kind of thing that I felt might be implied by Federica`s words: I am a Western person of Catholic background, am now living in Japan in a long-term relationship with a Japanese woman of Jodo-Shin Buddhist background.
But anyway it also works the other way around, too. I think African and Asian people are able to see Christianity in an ahistorical light. They are able to see the message in spite of the failings of the messangers.
Why did I say that it pains me? Because I don`t like to to think that Buddhists might be unaware of the apparent abuses that have been done in Buddhist countries (and in Western ones as well) by Buddhist monks/lamas/priests. I mean I`m not one of those inclined to reckon Chogyam Trungpa`s `controversial` actions to have been acceptable, for example.
Dear VWP,
Your post demonstrates a lack of knowledge about how Vajrayana works. For one thing, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche did not hold monastic vows (he dropped them while living in England), so he was not subject to the Vinaya. For another, Trungpa was an amazing crazy wisdom yogi whose actions do appear unorthodox or controversial or just plain immoral to those who do not understand such things. You have to also understand that enlightened beings are beyond karma and ordinary rules of behavior. If you don't like that, that's OK, there are lots of other schools of Buddhism, but don't criticize it just because you don't understand it.
Palzang
I find it amusing that you feel you are in the position to judge Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche's actions as being acceptable or not. I think that's absolutely hilarious!!
Brigid
I would argue that this statement is a bit misleading. In my understanding, it is not so much that an enlightened being is 'beyond' karma, it's just that their actions are not cause for future bhavana (becoming). However, I am uncertain to what extent we can consider Chogyam Trungpa's to be fully liberated (as I am no ariya being), but I do think we can generally consider his behavior to be unadvisable, as some of it tiptoes the line of 'scandal'. That said, I cannot determine the actual vipaka (consequence) of his Crazy Wisdom so I am not really fit to judge the actions. And though I am not of favorable a impression to what I've heard of his actions (alcoholism, etc), I can greatly respect what he has done for advancing the dharma here in the west, and he certainly was a fount of buddhist wisdom.
Anyway, this issue reminds me of a Koan.
http://www.ibiblio.org/zen/gateless-gate/2.html
_/\_
metta
P.S.-
Not really sure why that is funny, but then again, why should I be?
I could certainly believe that a person who was awake would know when it was okay to break the "rules" we ordinarily follow and that they might act within the rules without having follow rules, but I can't see how it would put them above the rules or how it would take away the effects of their actions.
If a person who is awake kills someone in order to awaken another person, the person they killed will still be dead, the family and friends of the person who was killed are not likely to think it's okay just because the person who killed them was awake, nor are the police likely to say "oh, okay, we won't take you in since you're awake".
If someone who is awake drinks too much alcohol, there body won't ignore the effects of it and would be just as likely to break down as it would if they weren't awake.
If a person who is awake helps someone who's sick, they're not going to be more or less grateful because of the fact that the person helping them is awake.
If they smile at someone, they're just as likely to get a smile back as anyone else.
Someone who isn't a buddhist and doesn't know anything about any of this is likely going to have a more negative impression of buddhism if they hear about someone who is supposed to be highly accomplished and awake and acts in ways that they think of as immoral, than they would if they heard about a "regular" buddhist acting that way.
*demonstrating her lack of understanding of buddhist practices, overly simplistic take on karma, and perhaps disqualifying herself from being allowed to practice Buddhism*
One must always wonder and question any and all teachers of the Dharma. Judging their behavior as unacceptable, however, is ridiculous and amusingly arrogant. Unless VWP is a Buddha or an enlightened being himself, he has neither the information nor the right to make such judgments. It's as simple as that. I don't mean this to be an insult in any way nor is this just an opinion. It's just a simple fact.
Regardless of whether Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche was an enlightened being, I think it's important that we don't confuse wondering and questioning a teacher with a categorical judgment. VWP has no idea whatsoever if Rinpoche's actions were acceptable or not. There is no way he could know and to judge them as unacceptable is just silly. If he had said that he wondered or questioned his controversial actions I would have wholeheartedly agreed.
Not1 said it well:
That's all I was saying.
Brigid
P.S. Not1, don't forget that he gave up his robes and his drinking was a disease so we might want to go easy on our judgment there as well. We are not privy to all the factors that went into his disease. Teachers deserve our compassion as much as our questioning.
Sorry, I have to disagree with this view as well. Are you aware that about 85% of Trungpa's students had either an alcohol or a substance abuse problem? He was simply reflecting their minds. Teachers on the level of Trungpa don't just get sick or just have problems. Everything they do and everything they experience is a teaching in itself. We can't judge their behavior because we're looking at it through the eyes of an ordinary sentient being and can't possibly see what's really going on. That may sound like a cop-out, but it's the way it is. You don't find your teacher and then sit there and question his every move. That isn't the way to enlightenment; that's the way to rebirth in the lower realms. The external teacher, remember, is nothing more than the external manifestation of our own internal teacher who has always been there but that we cannot hear due to our obscurations.
Palzang
Of course, HH Dalai Lama says we should study a teacher for possibly 10 years before taking him on for a Guru-Disciple relationship with him/her. It's important to keep this in mind, as a Guru has the potential to do major spiritual damage to the disciple if they are not a realized being. I think it's best to stick to the guidelines laid down by Tibetan Masters for finding a good teacher, except in rare circumstances.
Here's a question for those schooled in the Vajrayana tradition: Is one allowed to take a consort in Vajrayana after having disrobed? If so, under what circumstances is this allowable?
_/\_
metta
Palzang,
Yes, I see what you're saying and that you're right. I had been wondering about this along the same lines that you put forth here. It makes perfect sense to me. I can also see how other people might see this as a load of crap but that's O.K. I don't seem to have any concern about that.
I see how my statement that you quoted was silly and based on ignorance. I really was looking through the eyes of a newbie. I kind of felt it while I was writing it. I also have so little knowledge of Trungpa Rinpoche that I was describing him as an ordinary teacher. I've only just begun to discover him and his work. I haven't even read any of his books yet! All I really know is that I have a very strong attraction to his teaching and that this happened before I ever learned about his "controversial" behavior. When I did learn about it, for some reason it made me feel a great love and respect for him and I really don't know why but I have absolute confidence in him. I'm not afraid of discovering anything about him that may seem "flawed". I almost welcome that. It's odd but I trust him, even at the risk of being called naive. I shouldn't have spoken so flippantly about him, especially through my lack of knowledge.
Here I was laughing at another's lack of understanding and I was guilty of exactly the same thing. LOL!! I'm the foolish one. :buck:
Thanks, Palzang. I see things differently now.
With love,
Brigid
Well, we all do that! That's where the term "ignorant sentient being" comes from. LOL!
Palzang
Let me see if understand your question correctly. By "after having disrobed", I assume you mean disrobed voluntarily. As for "taking a consort," do you mean just having sex with someone or are you referring to a tantric consort?
Palzang
_/\_
metta
So maybe I should be silent.
But I’m not there yet.
I’ve accepted to call myself a Buddhist for only about the past year or so, and I have been engaged in Buddhist practices (on and off again, I admit) for the past three and a half years. I have been studying Buddhism in an informal fashion, however, for about thirty years, but for about twenty-five of those years I was a Christian, and so studying Buddhism merely from the outside. In some ways I’m a newbie, but I suppose in some ways I’m not.
Without going into the details, it is relatively well-known that in both Tibetan and Japanese Buddhism many teachers/lamas/priests may be married. In various kinds of Mahayana and Vajrayana certain rules still kept by Theravada have been somewhat relaxed. I don’t have a problem with that, for example: after the completion of a Japanese Shingon Vajrayana ceremony that I participated in about a year ago, a large bottle of sake made in that town was opened up and shared among the participants. A paper cupful of sake was given to the elderly officiating priest. He took just one small sip and threw the rest on the shrine of the image where the ceremony had been conducted. But my point is that it seems to me that there may be a big difference between taking a sip in ceremonial circumstances and being a chronic drunkard, or between being a married practitioner having sex with one’s spouse and being a promiscuous person. This is a point made somewhere on Alexander Berzin’s archive website.
Anyway, no offense is intended to anyone devoted to Chogyam Trungpa as to a great guru. Perhaps the topic of this thread had already strayed from the originally designated one. When I posted the comment about Chogyam Trungpa, I was certainly forgetful of the original reference to Vinnaya questions. I was not at all referring to that topic. I mentioned Chogyam Trungpa not because he was or wasn’t a “lama” but because the topic had seemed to drift generally toward scandal in Buddhism and Christianity and the fact that Trungpa was a controversial teacher had already been mentioned on this site. I thought that to speak of his supposed transgressions would not be to introduce anything new into the forums on this site. To be controversial indicates that some people don’t accept him. I guess except perhaps for those practicing under Trungpa’s lineage, anyone is entitled to have an unfavorable opinion of him, even if that opinion may be an incorrect one. I might mention that there have been serious allegations against other well-known Vajrayana teachers, but I don’t wish to stir things up more than they have been.
Some time ago I read a wonderful book by the Dalai Lama called Awakening The Mind, Lightening The Heart. In it there is a discussion on pages 55-61 about examining a person and his or her lifestyle before taking on a spiritual master and about how correctly to practice faith and obedience to a master after having accepted one: --HH The Dalai Lama
On breakdowns in that relationship, I offer this link to an informative article by Alexander Berzin:
http://www.berzinarchives.com/e-books/spiritual_teacher/spiritual_teacher_1.html
1) gossip (I'd suggest you read Lord Buddha's teachings on the poisonous effects of gossip),
2) your opinions about the "morality" of teachers (which is nothing more than a reflection of your own lack of morality and generosity),
3) intolerance
4) pretending you know more than acknowledged masters when, by your own admission, you haven't been a buddhist for more than a year and so couldn't possibly understand where someone like Trungpa Rinpoche is coming from.
Palzang
Palzang,
While I understand where you are coming from, this is an open forum, and this whole argument arose over one line of a statement where Void expressed several things. No need to jump all over him. Suggesting that he go elsewhere based on his statement of opinion isn't necessary. Just point out the error, suggest that because we are speculating on the character of a teacher without the ability to really discern his level of attainment that we should refrain from further discussion, and be done with it.
Otherwise, it seems we are creating a hostile environment towards those with doubt. We need no such wrathful deities on this forum, and while the defensiveness being displayed is likely due to sincere devotion to your path and your teachers, I really do not feel that this kind of response is appropriate.
The last to posts by Void seem to have been an explanation of why he made the original comment, and his concerns are valid, though his research on Chogyam Trungpa and understanding of certain behaviors of a Guru may very well be incomplete. Basically, I do not see any hostility or malice in Void's posts, and therefore, I feel we should treat his statements as being simply uninformed. Until you can demonstrate actual malice on the part of Void, please refrain from this approach. You may very well turn him off to the Vajrayana tradition.
Additionally, he is echoing the teachings on how to choose a good teacher according to your own tradition. Conduct is a very important factor in choosing a teacher. While Chogyam Trungpa may have been working on quite a high level, such behaviors cannot be properly judged (as you have said) be people who are uninformed in Vajrayana. Therefore, Void was correct in expressing his concern about Chogyam Trungpa as some activities associated with him would cast him outside of the criteria for choosing a teacher (although he certainly fits pretty much all the other criteria).
In other words, we should not attack Void for statements made based on proper teachings, just because he is ignorant on some high aspects of Vajrayana. Additionally, those coming from outside the Vajrayana tradition may be influence on the idea of sila (virtue/conduct). The vinaya code, while specifically being the rules for the monks practicing the dhamma, are also considered to be enlightened behavior or the behavior of the noble ones. The buddha did not go outside of the vinaya in order to teach, so it is understandable that some would object to some of the behavior reportedly engaged by Chogyam Trungpa.
Please reread this statement by Void, perhaps you missed it:
Also, you said this:
Where did he pretend to know more than acknowledged masters, and can you please cite examples of his 'intolerance'? I may be wrong, but these accusations seem unfounded. If they are, in fact, unfounded, then you have behaved offensively towards Void without basis. I really don't see how this fits into Right speech, as it appears to be divisive, borders on being unhelpful, and it might not even be true.
Anyway, time for bed.
take care & be well
_/\_
metta
I personally feel that a spiritual teacher should be trusted completely. I believe that a person has the right to question a teacher's actions, especially when those actions might possibly be destructive and harmful to others, as well as themselves. I don't care what tradition they're in, I don't think that they are above reproach. I certainly can respect a person's right to question a teacher's reported misconducts, strange behaviors, etc. I think that potential students have a right, as well as a need, to know these things so that they can make a truly informed decision as to whether or not they wish to learn from such a teacher. To me it just seems like common sense. As for Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, I have no answer one way or the other concerning his controversial reputation. I never knew the man personally, and I am not a practitioner of Vajrayana. I do know that he was definitely well respected by many, many Vajrayana and non-Vajrayana practitioners alike. I guess what it all boils down to is that it is up to each individual to figure out what path or teacher is best for them, and then follow that path or teacher to the very best of their ability.
Jason
Palzang
Well, I'll tell you what guys, in order to prevent the continuation of this situation, let's just cool off a bit and leave this particular discussion right here...There is no need for anyone to take offence, as I don't think offence was intended, so if we just look upon it as a learning curve, unless you guys have any objection (or further constructive comment) I'll come in here tomorrow and quietly close the thread. How does that suit everyone...?*
***
Thank you for engaging in serious discussion of imprtant topics.
I am reposting the Dalai Lama`s words on this topic and the link Alexander Berzin`s book on the topic of controversy:
Some time ago I read a wonderful book by the Dalai Lama called Awakening The Mind, Lightening The Heart. In it there is a discussion on pages 55-61 about examining a person and his or her lifestyle before taking on a spiritual master and about how correctly to practice faith and obedience to a master after having accepted one: --HH The Dalai Lama
On breakdowns in that relationship, I offer this link to an informative article by Alexander Berzin:
http://www.berzinarchives.com/e-books/spiritual_teacher/spiritual_teacher_1.html
I like this passage from Berzin about reincarnate lamas (tulkus):
Very interesting is the following:
And though I DO NOT BY ANY MEANS agree with all of the following, what have we got to fear from reading this?:http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
And lest people think that it is entirely communist propaganda, I have seen photos in ancient issues of the National Geographic substantiating some of the physical punishments. Anyway, please read all the way to the end (where some imprortant clarifications are made) before freaking out.
I take refuge in the Buddha
I take refuge in the Dharma
I take refuge in the Sangha
Palzang
I said I would, and now I shall. *
Palzang has clarified his position and Void is clarifying his. I'd really like the opportunity to read what they have to say. I have to be able to tell the difference between gossip and genuine concerns.
I have chosen Tibetan Buddhism as my school. However, if there are valid concerns regarding lineages, certain lamas etc. I have to know about them. I won't get controversial information in any other way. I have to be given the opportunity to come to my own conclusions. I can't give myself over to a tradition if I'm not completely sure.
Palzang,
I was dying to say what you said in your last post: I'd also like to know what your intentions are, Void. I have a degree in history and politics and studied Tibetan culture for a few years. I don't have an idealized view of Tibet or Tibetan culture. The article you linked to by Michael Parenti is full of so many mistakes I'd have been laughed out of my professor's office if I had used it. This sentence in the first paragraph should have given you pause: Of all the things Buddhism is, it is definitely not a belief system and the fact that he describes it as one betrays his complete misunderstanding of Buddhism. And Buddhism cannot be judged by the cultures in which it is practiced. Genryu has repeated this fact time and time again. Parenti also talks about God a number of times in the article. Didn't that make you wonder at all?
Void, please tell me what your intentions are. As I said, if there are valid concerns I need to know about them before I devote myself to Tibetan Buddhism. But that article is really bad. I mean really bad. I wrote a better one in second year university. I know how arrogant that sounds but I showed a better understanding of Buddhism in my paper and I used no sensationalism to get my point across. And I definitely didn't make the mistake Parenti makes when he writes: I have no idea to whom he is referring those quotation marks. The holy lama? Tom Grunfeld? Stuart and Roma Gelder? The former serf, Tsereh Wang Tuei? Please, if you have valid concerns, state them. But this article only makes me take you less seriously. What are your intentions? My mind is open, Void. But I do have a brain as well.
Brigid
However, please know that the comments I received with regard to closing this thread outnumbered those I received for keeping it open.
In the interests of those who wished to continue, I tried to compromise.
I hope everybody is suitably content now, as I believe I did the right thing.
Could I however just take the opportunity to point two things out:
If a Moderator (no matter who it may be) makes a 'suggestion' it would at least be the polite thing to either acknowledge the comment or at least indictate that the comment has been noted.
Generally speaking, (and you could check with Brian on this) A Moderator's decision is final.
If for whatever reason, a Moderator sees fit to take a specific action, that action should be both respected and accepted.
I'm not draconian. But many of you will understand what I mean when I say that this forum has lived through some trying times. *
My point is that nobody should be a Buddhist because they might think that Buddhists have had a better track record in history. Perhaps nobody here thinks that way. But it certainly is the kind of tendency I have at times seen in operation among some Westerners who practice various Eastern spiritualities. Federica asked why we hear more about Catholic clergy not being true to their vows than about other religions. I think the only reason is that Catholicism is the only religion of the West that has an extensive history of monasticism (BTW, Eastern Orthodox Christianity is in fact just that: Eastern), and it is Western society that has, for whatever reasons, developed some degree of openness of information. I think that we hear more about the transgressions of Catholics not because they have in fact commited more transgressions than others, but because they are doing them in societies where it is less possible to hide these things and the sad truth is finally coming out. Asian societies are, by and large, still much less open. Anyway, that is my perception, and I live in an Asian society.
Dear Brigid:
I said in bold letters that I did not by any means agree with all of the article. I think it is clear from the errors you point out and from other aspects as well that the author is a secular leftist and not a Buddhist at all. It is not necessary that he understand Buddhism for me to link to the article, is it? Rather than an endorsement of the linked article, I tagged it with the question about what we had to fear from reading such articles. You wrote a good response, for a beginning.
What is my motivation? Well, that is a question that we all have to ask ourselves over and over again as well, since it is possible for all of us unenlightened sentient beings to decieve ourselves.
But I believe that I would never have even touched upon such divisive points if it had not been for the fact that some people seem to throw stones at Catholicism. (Yes, Federica, that means you!* And you yourself wrote you sensed a fight coming, yet you posted the comment anyway. ) I do not think that is an appropriate action for Buddhists or for anyone. I think we ought not to believe all the accustations that have been made, whether against Buddhists or against Christians. So the major point is that if we are going to deal in accusations, then we will find ourselves mired in a muddle which seems to be where we have got. Sorry.
*Hello Federica:
I guess you and I and Brigid too are all ex-Catholics. I have little tolerance for anti-Catholicsm, however. I also have little tolerance for anti-Nichirenism, or anti-Islamism for that matter. What I have done, generally, since I arrived here is try to counter what I thought might be one-sided or extreme views. I am not against Vajrayana. I love Tendai and especially Shingon , the Japanese schools of Vajrayana. One important point raised in Alexander Berzin`s article is that beatings were a normal practice for child monks in Tibetan monasteries. That connected for me to one reference you made somewhere to the incredible beatings given by the nuns in Catholic schools. I am not in favour of beatings. But I don`t think we should make an issue out of what happened in the past in Europe or in Asia. Corporal punishiment was the norm for all traditional societies. Perhaps no one here is suffering from any delusions to the contarary, but I only wished to point out that if we are going to start slinging the mud, then Buddhists will not come out "clean", either.
Anyway, in all honesty I think people ought to be able to endure open discussion of these topics without either becoming angry or imagining hidden agendas.
My decision to Moderate has nothing to do with Catholicism, Buddhism or anything else. My decisions are based on the ordinary humanistic values of Politeness, respect, courtesy and dignity.
But thank you for your comments.
Good post. O.K. I understand now. Everything's cool. You have explained your intentions clearly and I understand and agree that slinging mud on any religious tradition results in making us all dirty. Your intention was to offer a dose of reality and to disabuse anyone of their romantic ideas about the history and cultures in which Buddhism is found. I agree. Seeing reality for what it really is, is one of my intentions as well. We're on the same side.
I do want to say, though, that I have read some posts of Fede's regarding Catholicism that were warm, generous and totally inclusive. I always got the feeling that Fede had an affection for the all the beauty and good in Catholicism and that she also had a clear and realistic view of it's shortcomings.
It appears that we are all expressing the same point through different examples. I guess there is no actual argument going on after all. I think we are all in agreement that respect for all traditions is as important as having a realistic view of them. Am I correct in boiling it all down to this?
I respect and fully agree with your intentions, Void. Can we let go of any hard feelings and continue on in friendship from here on in?
Brigid
I don't think he was getting a totally fair shake regarding his posts on teachers and such.
I think some of us tend to forget that Americans - or if not Americans - 20th century people tend to question things a lot more now-a-days. It's who we are. We've seen so many lies, untruths, atrocities, evil deeds, swindling, etc. that, I believe, it's become part of our nature.
If a teacher doesn't want to face the light of being questioned for their answers - it's my opinion that they shouldn't be a teacher. If you can't walk the walk, don't talk the talk.
If there are Buddhist traditions of human suffering or pain brought on by the actions of another Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Mulsim - they should be questioned. If someone doesn't like that their, possibly blindly, following of a certain tradition is being viewed under a microscope - I think they need to grow up. Enlightenment doesn't mean forcing people to live or think under Mideval/Dark Ages mindset.
But... if you can't view something under an analystic mind - with having a goal of reaching the trust - and your only intention is to sling mud - that doesn't help anything at all either.
-bf
This has to be one of the nicest things anyone has ever said about me. Thank you Brigid, how kind.
I figured since we were talking about truth and all...
Love,
Brigid
Vimalakirti Sutra, anyone....?
I consider myself a Buddhist, but I neither approve of Shakyamuni's words nor think they are true simply because he is supposed to have said them. And, to be frank, I don't want to assume such things at all. My attitude is one of agreeing with what he said if it really convinces me, and if it doesn't, I will continue to doubt.
Even if I am doubtful, however, I will never insist that only my view is correct. I think I am flexible enough to learn from the sutras where I am wrong or my understanding is insufficient.
Thus, whether The Vimalakirti Sutra is considered a sermon directly from Shakyamuni's "golden lips" or from a later date, I want to find a way to live in truth by learning from it and understanding it for myself. This is my present attitude."
(http://www.purifymind.com/TalkVimalakirti.htm)
THis should be interesting....
Calm and composed
Let us Awaken to our True Self
Become fully compassionate humans
Make full use of our abilities
According to our respective vocations
Discern suffering
Both individual and social
And its sources
Recognize the right direction
In which history should proceed
Joining hands as kin
Beyond the differences of
Race, nation or class
Let us, with compassion
Vow to bring to realization
Our deep desire
For emancipation
And construct a world in which
All can live truly and fully."
(From the same link.)
Perhaps this could be translated into every language and heads of state be obliged to swear to it even before swearing to uphold local constitutions, etc. The kings of Israel were supposed to write out the instructions on government from the Pentateuch - this would make a fantastic, secular alternative, don't you think.
VWP:
I want to thank you for the reference to the Vimalakirti Sutra. It has so resonated with me (perhaps because of its mixture of the mythic and the Socratic) that it has become a regular part of my daily study. I use Robert Thurman's translation:
Vimalakirti Sutra
This, in particular, has formed a part of my reflections: [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica]I hope that your withdrawal into Noble Silence has brought benefit to you and to all beings.
[/FONT]