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.
I have no problem with the core teachings. I'm not comfortable with what I've heard of some of the unusual aspects of TB. Like, "deconstructing the ego"...? On another thread I read that students are sometimes required to take off all their clothes in front of the lama. (Maybe this is an "advanced" practice.) I've heard of nude weekend retreats organized by some of the lamas, and everyone's supposed to keep it a secret. And then there's the tantric sex. Is this Buddhism? This isn't what I look for when I choose a course of study.
This is absolute nonsense.
Where are you getting this?
May I step in to answer that? Compassionate_warrior may have gotten some of that info from one of my posts.
Chogyam Trungpa said that his teacher required him to take off his clothes once, which embarrassed him deeply. He said this practice is called "stripping the ego". So he started doing that with his students, in groups, men and women. The comment I read about that is that the teacher is supposed to choose only students who are ready for the practice, and who don't object. (An account of one of Trungpa's sessions says that one of the women was screaming, "Call the police!")
I've been emailing with a woman in the US who helped start a dharma center, donating land and participating in the construction of it, etc. She sent her 11-year old daughter to a weekend retreat where the tummo practice was being taught. Everyone was required to be naked in the snow, and the practitioner who succeeded in steam-drying a wet towel placed on him/her "won". The 11-year old turned out to be the most adept practitioner. Afterwards one of the monks asked to marry her.
This same woman said that the "stripping the ego" practice had been done in her sangha, but the lama only required that everyone strip the top half of their bodies. The women were mortified.
I'm sure this sort of thing is never done in the Tibetan community. It almost sounds like a bizarre form of entertainment for Westerners, the tummo "contest", I mean. I can't explain why such strange things go on when Westerners are involved. But it's a problem. It creates a very strange impression of Tibetan Buddhism.
May I step in to answer that? Compassionate_warrior may have gotten some of that info from one of my posts.
Chogyam Trungpa said that his teacher required him to take off his clothes once, which embarrassed him deeply. He said this practice is called "stripping the ego". So he started doing that with his students, in groups, men and women. The comment I read about that is that the teacher is supposed to choose only students who are ready for the practice, and who don't object. (An account of one of Trungpa's sessions says that one of the women was screaming, "Call the police!")
I've been emailing with a woman in the US who helped start a dharma center, donating land and participating in the construction of it, etc. She sent her 11-year old daughter to a weekend retreat where the tummo practice was being taught. Everyone was required to be naked in the snow, and the practitioner who succeeded in steam-drying a wet towel placed on him/her "won". The 11-year old turned out to be the most adept practitioner. Afterwards one of the monks asked to marry her.
This same woman said that the "stripping the ego" practice had been done in her sangha, but the lama only required that everyone strip the top half of their bodies. The women were mortified.
I'm sure this sort of thing is never done in the Tibetan community. It almost sounds like a bizarre form of entertainment for Westerners, the tummo "contest", I mean. I can't explain why such strange things go on when Westerners are involved. But it's a problem. It creates a very strange impression of Tibetan Buddhism.
I've received instructions on the practice of tummo from three different lineages and nobody has ever asked me to take my clothes off in order to do the practice.
I have heard the Trungpa story, and many of the others.
Its unfortunate that the misbehavior of a few leaves such lasting impressions.
Shenpen Nangwa: I've asked this question before elsewhere, but do you have any idea how this sort of thing could be controlled? I asked the woman I mentioned above why people didn't simply refuse to take off their clothes. (I would have walked out.) She said it's about doing what you're told, submitting to the lama's authority. I'm not telling these stories to rant, or to pointlessly criticize; I'd like to find a solution to these problems that keep coming up, try to find a way to stop these practices and somehow insure integrity and respect. Any ideas or comments? Any clue why Dzonsar Khentse Rinpoche says "Western husbands are naive to send their wives to Asia alone to study with lamas"? Why aren't women dharma students safe with their teachers? Are we naive to trust our teachers? Such a sweeping statement! This whole issue has rocked my world.
Why aren't women dharma students safe with their teachers? Are we naive to trust our teachers? Such a sweeping statement! This whole issue has rocked my world.
I dont really know what the answer is. Sexual misconduct by teachers is a serious issue that impacts all traditions of Buddhism and other religions as well. I personally feel extraordinarily fortunate because I know that my teachers are not like this.
These arent institutional practices but cases of individuals behaving inappropriately. The "submitting to the lama's authority" thing is a gross misinterpretation of what guru devotion actually means and shows a problematic misunderstanding on the part of both the teacher and student.
Personally I would be 100% confident that my wife and my lama could practice together without any risk of this kind of behavior.
It is well known that a person of authority and charisma will be able to manipulate his subjects to a great extent. The only "weapon" against such abuse is a healthy portion of self-reliance and a critical mind - which again is only developed during childhood, passed on from parents to children through guidance and raising.
All other later developed feelings of self-reliance and a critical mind is but thin layers covering the insecure core..
The best we can do to stop such culprits is to raise our children responsibly, so that they will neither become as the predator nor the prey..
Tummo "competitions" were held among practitioners since Old Tibet. I've heard more than one lama say this before. Mainly among the Kagyu lamas.
As to "stripping the ego", I have not heard of such practices being institutionalized before. Although I can understand the underlying reasons for making the student do so.
Thank you all for your comments and information. Clearly, Western sanghas need to be briefed on how the guru-chela relationship is supposed to work, and what is reasonable to expect from their teacher, and what is outside of accepted practice. Would anyone like to clarify the guru-chela relationship?
Ficus_religiosa, you said a mouthful. The pattern that emerges in the more severe abuse cases is that the women tend to have experienced childhood abuse in the family, so they turn to Tibetan Buddhism for healing, and to their lamas in search of a "healthy" parental figure. It's terribly unfortunate that this has happened, but it takes two to tango; I don't know why the lamas would take advantage of these vulnerable people. I'm beginning to suspect it's a matter of a certain image of Westerners that was created by a large influx of "hippies" into India and Nepal in the 70's (according to the letter of Shamar Rinpoche on his website, www.shamarpa.org). That still doesn't explain why there isn't more discipline/integrity among the lamas. Maybe Dzongsar Khentse has the answer, he seems to believe that we're "naive" to trust our teachers, he must have his reasons for believing this.
RE: "Stripping the ego", I only know that Trungpa experienced that with his teacher. I don't know if it was exclusively a Kagyu practice, but I know that Nyingma lamas have presided over the practice in the US. I suspect this may be a deliberate attempt to take advantage of sangha women, it's hard not to come to that conclusion, but maybe it's not. I think that if this practice is to be performed in sanghas involving women, it should be presided over by nuns. More nuns need to be ordained.
I've written about these problems on other threads, I'm about done with this topic here. Thank you all for your thoughtful feedback, it's been helpful.
I was thinking about this. I think its possible to have an awake nature and be able to teach the dharma. But due to your entanglement in karma you still have some serious sketchy issues about you.
Not to talk bad about Trungpa but clearly he was an alcoholic. I have known other alcoholics who weren't dirt or crap and I think there is a strong stigma there. It is amazing that he is so strongly respected and I think it is a credit to his 'crazy wisdom' in showing some individuals a vaster vision and the dharma.
If you look at some of his students such as Pema Chodron they took his dharma message but did not take on his alcoholism. I am really not qualified to sort out if getting naked is a dharma teaching. But I once skini dipped with my two friends who were girls haha.
I dont really know what the answer is. Sexual misconduct by teachers is a serious issue that impacts all traditions of Buddhism and other religions as well.
These arent institutional practices but cases of individuals behaving inappropriately. The "submitting to the lama's authority" thing is a gross misinterpretation of what guru devotion actually means and shows a problematic misunderstanding on the part of both the teacher and student.
Here is a statement from a woman who spent 10 years in India looking for a teacher, and she never found one who didn't molest her in some way. Is this a correct interpretation of the student/teacher relationship, or are there errors? Can you (or anyone else) add anything to this? We could start a thread to discuss just the student/teacher relationship.
"The lama teaches that he himself is a symbol of the Holy Truth. There's a holy samaya,the vow of total devotion to that teacher, perceiving the teacher as a living Buddha, as more than a deity, as an emanation of The Truth, a guide to enlightenment for all sentient beings. Stories are repeatedly told by the teacher of guru devotion, examples are Marpa and Milarepa. When Marpa told Milarepa to build and deconstruct house after house, Milarepa obeyed. This is given as the ultimate example of correct guru devotion. So after being told to see lamas as the Buddha, worthy of total obedience, the student is set up to do what the lama says, in the belief that the lama has the disciple's best interests in mind, as part of the Path to Enlightenment.
"The intention of the lama is thought to be pure (as the lama instructs). So when the lama makes a demand of the student , it is seen as a test of obedience, of guru devotion and faith in the dharma. When the lama's actions are not pure, but deceptive, egocentric, exploitive, lustful and worldly in the worst way, the lama has committed a total betrayal as trusted guide on the sacred path of the holy dharma. "
You can see how this can be used to take advantage of people. This is why there are so many abuse cases, so many complaints about lamas. Any comments? (I'm trying to find solutions to the problem.)
Gosh, mercifully for me, I haven't looked at this thread in a while. Really, really off-topic now
I think a clarification of how the guru-chela relationship is supposed to work is a helpful topic. If a widespread misunderstanding of that basic principle is causing problems, then that's a Problem In Buddhism. This topic hasn't been discussed anywhere else. I had a girlfriend once who was hassled by lamas, so I'd like to learn about this. The only experience I've had in a sangha was at Sakya Monastery, where the head lama didn't take students, and ran a clean show, as did the younger lamas who set up their own sanghas. So I've never had an opportunity to learn about this aspect of dharma practice. I'm on this website mainly to learn. (It's true, though, that some of the earlier points have been made elsewhere. But the discussion seems to be moving on, and in a constructive direction.) Hopefully, we'll get some informative input.
It still has nothing to do with the original post which had salient points in it that need not be distracted from. What's so hard about creating a new thread?
Regardless of how people either traditionally or contemporaneously deem the proper bounds of the guru-disciple relationship, it is not what the OP dealt with.
HOW the guru-chela relationship is supposed to work is not germane here on this thread.
To Clarify: I am not trying to be dismissive of any possibility of wrong behavior by anyone in religious orders. I am just resistant to people pushing their own agendas on everyone to the detriment of the common good. The common good is not served by throwing allegations of misconduct around at every possible turn. No, the common good can only be served by due process. That due process does not exclude the press and people publishing their opinions in context. However, making graffiti all over the place, as it were, solves nothing and sickens many people to the very subject. Then, out the window goes a lot of true objectivity.
If someone is of the opinion that something (the first house) is all corrupt, let her first see to it that her own house is in order. If, by her actions, she shows that she has an axe to grind, the reader will then see that perhaps the latter house needs some more immediate attention (or ignoring, as the case may more likely be).
Spreading this stuff over five or six threads is absurd. Why not just create a "The Evils of Tibetan Buddhism" thread and let people interested engage? But foisting all this nightmarish stuff on people who have tuned in to another channel is unconscionable when it's a religious/spiritual forum with some modicum of respect therefore in order. I mean, a lot of people really don't want to wade through a lot of accusing, demanding, and complaining about others on their pilgrimmage to the truer way. I've seen people object to politics being introduced into a masturbation thread; well, IMO, the politics being thrust upon us here is much more egregious —especially as Buddhism is a more hallowed subject (I hope.).
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3) Tibetan Buddhism. I'm not here to criticise Tibetan Buddhists. But am I the only one who thinks Tibetan Buddhism is almost like the Mormonism of Buddhism. It also seems very patriarchal in which leaders are worshipped like Gods almost.
Anyway, sorry to criticise, I just was hoping for someone to maybe show me how my comments are wrong so I can continue.
Thanks.
Oh, Tibetan Buddhism, the great flowering of Mahayana! The Lamas are considered stand-ins or near-incarnations of Buddha on earth and are traditionally shown great deference and reverence. However, outside the tradition we just lack the moral authority to pass judgment on their lifestyles. In the same way that we cannot judge Muhammed and his marriage to the 9-yr-old girl from our cultural vantage point —nor even Buddha.
People nowadays will criticize Siddhartha Gautama for having abandoned wife and small child to seek out salvation. Even though he left them in opulence and well-provided for, they want to call him a deadbeat dad. Go figure!
What unabashed ethnocentricism!
The forest dwelling tradition is an ancient one and sacred and even today successful men of business see that calling as their ultimate and highest profession, after retirement.
I think that the OP is looking in the third question for distinctions, not for the absolute LowDown on every fault that can possibly be ennumerated or possibly even imagined or enlarged upon.
Don't worry about excepting reincarnation and karma, there are many other lessons relevant to your life. Once you start liberating yourself from social programing, these more obscure concepts will be understood without effort. The movie "Unmistaken Child" is a good look at the traditional concepts of reincarnation.
You see quite clearly that religion is the passing of profound wisdom, primarily through the use of traditions. It is therefore, important to make the distinction between the traditions of followers and the universal wisdom presented by a Buddha so many years ago.
It might be better to think of them as revering their great lama's, rather than worshiping. The various traditional life styles of Buddhism can be aids in remembering the universal wisdom, but they are only guides and guardsmen.
I was blessed by receiving a copy of Thomas Byrom's translation of the Dhammapada, which was worded in a way I could easily understand. While the essence of the-Way was easy to understand (or remember) through reading this book, truly living a pure and virtuous life is not the same as understanding it. ^_^
The understanding of Karma is not an option (it's a "fundamental" doctrine essential to proper practice), but it's not as difficult as we sometimes make it. For Westerners, an easy way to view it initially is "cause and effect". This strikes a chord with our scientific rationality. It goes deeper than that, but there are a lot of resources to learn from.
Misunderstandings and trying to see how karma and "rebirth" work together can muddy the waters and if this is the case, one should be aware that this confusion has arisen and step away from it for now. Just avoid the perilous mistake of putting karma off as some mystical and irrelevant superstition, 'n stuff.
The understanding of Karma is not an option (it's a "fundamental" doctrine essential to proper practice)...
Everything is an option. The understanding of karma is crudely passed from one person to another; we truly come to understand the concept when we begin to live our lives based on certain lessons, such as: "Speak the truth. Give whatever you can, never be angry."
Understanding how you suffer and how to stop is an option, yes. So, go learn some math without addition and I'm going to do something other than laugh so much.
The understanding of karma is crudely passed from one person to another; we truly come to understand the concept when we begin to live our lives based on certain lessons, such as: "Speak the truth. Give whatever you can, never be angry."
Thanks for that insight, Honest Abe!
Karma is sort of a crude concept in the West, but nearly everybody has heard of it and most people basically know what it means. In the popular culture is basically means, "as you sow, so shall you reap." That is what karma means on the pragmatic level and I think most people take that as a given. I believe that Cloud may have misunderstood your meaning a few posts above, so I'll boldface your statement for clarification:
Don't worry about accepting reincarnation and karma, there are many other lessons relevant to your life. Once you start liberating yourself from social programing, these more obscure concepts will be understood without effort. The movie "Unmistaken Child" is a good look at the traditional concepts of reincarnation.
Rebirth and reincarnation are two different things, as Federica is always tirelessly pointing out. Rebirth refers to the endless recycling of births, birth after birth, until nirvana is achieved. Reincarnation refers to the assumption of another body after the death of a previous one by a permanent self or soul (clearly not a Buddhist belief). —I believe the Tibetan tulkus are seen as manifestations of Celestial Buddhas, rather than reincarnations of the souls of previous tulkus. ???????
What a lot of people in the West do not understand is that in the world from which Siddhartha Gautama sprang, rebirth was a thing to be avoided —and nothing to be gloried in. Samsara was the underlying, inescapable reality from which there was no escape save achieving nirvana, thereby cutting off the chain of continual rebirth.
I, for one, think that belief in samsara and endless rebirths is not a necessary precondition for Buddhist belief. The thinking of all prophets and sages is at least partly determined by the customs, traditions, and beliefs from which they sprang. Even if the Sages were somehow able to make a complete break from these, their followers would still be greatly swayed by these same customs and conceptual frameworks.
The thinking of all prophets and sages is at least partly determined by the customs, traditions, and beliefs from which they sprang. Even if the Sages were somehow able to make a complete break from these, their followers would still be greatly swayed by these same customs and conceptual frameworks.
^_^ ! Thank you.
The absorption of others typifies much of our learning process; but equally as important, and not always as straightforward, is the governing of what we absorb.
Reflected by the state of the world: how one can govern thought, and what one 'should' think about, are not taught to the same degree.
---
Cloud, let us both reflect on this aphorism: "If you phrase something in a way that can be misunderstood, be prepared for it to be misunderstood."
What I meant was: "Don't worry about excepting [understanding] the intricacies of ...karma quickly"
When you said: "The understanding of Karma is not an option"
I was compelled to challenge that, with the hope of, revealing its tone as received by one other than yourself. If we speak about the-Way with the tone of enforcing law, it is hard to also be seen as a group spreading the understandings of a Buddha, a master of detachment.
Comments
This is absolute nonsense.
Where are you getting this?
Chogyam Trungpa said that his teacher required him to take off his clothes once, which embarrassed him deeply. He said this practice is called "stripping the ego". So he started doing that with his students, in groups, men and women. The comment I read about that is that the teacher is supposed to choose only students who are ready for the practice, and who don't object. (An account of one of Trungpa's sessions says that one of the women was screaming, "Call the police!")
I've been emailing with a woman in the US who helped start a dharma center, donating land and participating in the construction of it, etc. She sent her 11-year old daughter to a weekend retreat where the tummo practice was being taught. Everyone was required to be naked in the snow, and the practitioner who succeeded in steam-drying a wet towel placed on him/her "won". The 11-year old turned out to be the most adept practitioner. Afterwards one of the monks asked to marry her.
This same woman said that the "stripping the ego" practice had been done in her sangha, but the lama only required that everyone strip the top half of their bodies. The women were mortified.
I'm sure this sort of thing is never done in the Tibetan community. It almost sounds like a bizarre form of entertainment for Westerners, the tummo "contest", I mean. I can't explain why such strange things go on when Westerners are involved. But it's a problem. It creates a very strange impression of Tibetan Buddhism.
I've received instructions on the practice of tummo from three different lineages and nobody has ever asked me to take my clothes off in order to do the practice.
I have heard the Trungpa story, and many of the others.
Its unfortunate that the misbehavior of a few leaves such lasting impressions.
I dont really know what the answer is. Sexual misconduct by teachers is a serious issue that impacts all traditions of Buddhism and other religions as well. I personally feel extraordinarily fortunate because I know that my teachers are not like this.
These arent institutional practices but cases of individuals behaving inappropriately. The "submitting to the lama's authority" thing is a gross misinterpretation of what guru devotion actually means and shows a problematic misunderstanding on the part of both the teacher and student.
Personally I would be 100% confident that my wife and my lama could practice together without any risk of this kind of behavior.
All other later developed feelings of self-reliance and a critical mind is but thin layers covering the insecure core..
The best we can do to stop such culprits is to raise our children responsibly, so that they will neither become as the predator nor the prey..
As to "stripping the ego", I have not heard of such practices being institutionalized before. Although I can understand the underlying reasons for making the student do so.
Ficus_religiosa, you said a mouthful. The pattern that emerges in the more severe abuse cases is that the women tend to have experienced childhood abuse in the family, so they turn to Tibetan Buddhism for healing, and to their lamas in search of a "healthy" parental figure. It's terribly unfortunate that this has happened, but it takes two to tango; I don't know why the lamas would take advantage of these vulnerable people. I'm beginning to suspect it's a matter of a certain image of Westerners that was created by a large influx of "hippies" into India and Nepal in the 70's (according to the letter of Shamar Rinpoche on his website, www.shamarpa.org). That still doesn't explain why there isn't more discipline/integrity among the lamas. Maybe Dzongsar Khentse has the answer, he seems to believe that we're "naive" to trust our teachers, he must have his reasons for believing this.
RE: "Stripping the ego", I only know that Trungpa experienced that with his teacher. I don't know if it was exclusively a Kagyu practice, but I know that Nyingma lamas have presided over the practice in the US. I suspect this may be a deliberate attempt to take advantage of sangha women, it's hard not to come to that conclusion, but maybe it's not. I think that if this practice is to be performed in sanghas involving women, it should be presided over by nuns. More nuns need to be ordained.
I've written about these problems on other threads, I'm about done with this topic here. Thank you all for your thoughtful feedback, it's been helpful.
Not to talk bad about Trungpa but clearly he was an alcoholic. I have known other alcoholics who weren't dirt or crap and I think there is a strong stigma there. It is amazing that he is so strongly respected and I think it is a credit to his 'crazy wisdom' in showing some individuals a vaster vision and the dharma.
If you look at some of his students such as Pema Chodron they took his dharma message but did not take on his alcoholism. I am really not qualified to sort out if getting naked is a dharma teaching. But I once skini dipped with my two friends who were girls haha.
Here is a statement from a woman who spent 10 years in India looking for a teacher, and she never found one who didn't molest her in some way. Is this a correct interpretation of the student/teacher relationship, or are there errors? Can you (or anyone else) add anything to this? We could start a thread to discuss just the student/teacher relationship.
"The lama teaches that he himself is a symbol of the Holy Truth. There's a holy samaya,the vow of total devotion to that teacher, perceiving the teacher as a living Buddha, as more than a deity, as an emanation of The Truth, a guide to enlightenment for all sentient beings. Stories are repeatedly told by the teacher of guru devotion, examples are Marpa and Milarepa. When Marpa told Milarepa to build and deconstruct house after house, Milarepa obeyed. This is given as the ultimate example of correct guru devotion. So after being told to see lamas as the Buddha, worthy of total obedience, the student is set up to do what the lama says, in the belief that the lama has the disciple's best interests in mind, as part of the Path to Enlightenment.
"The intention of the lama is thought to be pure (as the lama instructs). So when the lama makes a demand of the student , it is seen as a test of obedience, of guru devotion and faith in the dharma. When the lama's actions are not pure, but deceptive, egocentric, exploitive, lustful and worldly in the worst way, the lama has committed a total betrayal as trusted guide on the sacred path of the holy dharma. "
You can see how this can be used to take advantage of people. This is why there are so many abuse cases, so many complaints about lamas. Any comments? (I'm trying to find solutions to the problem.)
Yea, maybe people interested in that topic might want to chime in on it there.
_________________
I wonder how far I'd get if I insisted on the necessity of infant baptism on each post I made over several threads.
I think a clarification of how the guru-chela relationship is supposed to work is a helpful topic. If a widespread misunderstanding of that basic principle is causing problems, then that's a Problem In Buddhism. This topic hasn't been discussed anywhere else. I had a girlfriend once who was hassled by lamas, so I'd like to learn about this. The only experience I've had in a sangha was at Sakya Monastery, where the head lama didn't take students, and ran a clean show, as did the younger lamas who set up their own sanghas. So I've never had an opportunity to learn about this aspect of dharma practice. I'm on this website mainly to learn. (It's true, though, that some of the earlier points have been made elsewhere. But the discussion seems to be moving on, and in a constructive direction.) Hopefully, we'll get some informative input.
Regardless of how people either traditionally or contemporaneously deem the proper bounds of the guru-disciple relationship, it is not what the OP dealt with.
HOW the guru-chela relationship is supposed to work is not germane here on this thread.
If someone is of the opinion that something (the first house) is all corrupt, let her first see to it that her own house is in order. If, by her actions, she shows that she has an axe to grind, the reader will then see that perhaps the latter house needs some more immediate attention (or ignoring, as the case may more likely be).
Spreading this stuff over five or six threads is absurd. Why not just create a "The Evils of Tibetan Buddhism" thread and let people interested engage? But foisting all this nightmarish stuff on people who have tuned in to another channel is unconscionable when it's a religious/spiritual forum with some modicum of respect therefore in order. I mean, a lot of people really don't want to wade through a lot of accusing, demanding, and complaining about others on their pilgrimmage to the truer way. I've seen people object to politics being introduced into a masturbation thread; well, IMO, the politics being thrust upon us here is much more egregious —especially as Buddhism is a more hallowed subject (I hope.).
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Oh, Tibetan Buddhism, the great flowering of Mahayana! The Lamas are considered stand-ins or near-incarnations of Buddha on earth and are traditionally shown great deference and reverence. However, outside the tradition we just lack the moral authority to pass judgment on their lifestyles. In the same way that we cannot judge Muhammed and his marriage to the 9-yr-old girl from our cultural vantage point —nor even Buddha.
People nowadays will criticize Siddhartha Gautama for having abandoned wife and small child to seek out salvation. Even though he left them in opulence and well-provided for, they want to call him a deadbeat dad. Go figure!
What unabashed ethnocentricism!
The forest dwelling tradition is an ancient one and sacred and even today successful men of business see that calling as their ultimate and highest profession, after retirement.
I think that the OP is looking in the third question for distinctions, not for the absolute LowDown on every fault that can possibly be ennumerated or possibly even imagined or enlarged upon.
- It might be better to think of them as revering their great lama's, rather than worshiping. The various traditional life styles of Buddhism can be aids in remembering the universal wisdom, but they are only guides and guardsmen.
I was blessed by receiving a copy of Thomas Byrom's translation of the Dhammapada, which was worded in a way I could easily understand. While the essence of the-Way was easy to understand (or remember) through reading this book, truly living a pure and virtuous life is not the same as understanding it. ^_^Misunderstandings and trying to see how karma and "rebirth" work together can muddy the waters and if this is the case, one should be aware that this confusion has arisen and step away from it for now.
Everything is an option. The understanding of karma is crudely passed from one person to another; we truly come to understand the concept when we begin to live our lives based on certain lessons, such as: "Speak the truth. Give whatever you can, never be angry."
Thanks for that insight, Honest Abe!
Karma is sort of a crude concept in the West, but nearly everybody has heard of it and most people basically know what it means. In the popular culture is basically means, "as you sow, so shall you reap." That is what karma means on the pragmatic level and I think most people take that as a given. I believe that Cloud may have misunderstood your meaning a few posts above, so I'll boldface your statement for clarification:
Rebirth and reincarnation are two different things, as Federica is always tirelessly pointing out. Rebirth refers to the endless recycling of births, birth after birth, until nirvana is achieved. Reincarnation refers to the assumption of another body after the death of a previous one by a permanent self or soul (clearly not a Buddhist belief). —I believe the Tibetan tulkus are seen as manifestations of Celestial Buddhas, rather than reincarnations of the souls of previous tulkus. ???????
What a lot of people in the West do not understand is that in the world from which Siddhartha Gautama sprang, rebirth was a thing to be avoided —and nothing to be gloried in. Samsara was the underlying, inescapable reality from which there was no escape save achieving nirvana, thereby cutting off the chain of continual rebirth.
I, for one, think that belief in samsara and endless rebirths is not a necessary precondition for Buddhist belief. The thinking of all prophets and sages is at least partly determined by the customs, traditions, and beliefs from which they sprang. Even if the Sages were somehow able to make a complete break from these, their followers would still be greatly swayed by these same customs and conceptual frameworks.
---
Cloud, let us both reflect on this aphorism: "If you phrase something in a way that can be misunderstood, be prepared for it to be misunderstood."
What I meant was: "Don't worry about excepting [understanding] the intricacies of ...karma quickly"
When you said: "The understanding of Karma is not an option"
I was compelled to challenge that, with the hope of, revealing its tone as received by one other than yourself. If we speak about the-Way with the tone of enforcing law, it is hard to also be seen as a group spreading the understandings of a Buddha, a master of detachment.