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 don't know, Jeffers--if you're saying there are no rules for Tibetan Buddhist teachers, and it's open season sexually, with regard to their relations with the sangha, I'd say that's a pretty freaky tradition that is inhospitable to women (I've observed this myself), and I begin to wonder where the line is drawn between legitimate spiritual tradition and cult. You're starting to make me think the public needs to be warned about this.
I'd prefer to think that maybe you've misstated the case. It's hard to believe it's ok for monks and lamas to have sex with their disciples. Are you sure about that? Is that really what you mean to say? I thought I'd seen a quote by the DL somewhere, that indicated it wasn't ok, and was more the result of corrupt teachers. And why would it be ok for teachers in the Tibetan tradition, but not in Zen or Ch'an? For now, I'm chalking what appears to be your view to miscommunication, or misinformation, or similar error.
I mentioned Trungpa Rinpoche as an example. I wonder if the Berzin Archive was taken as authoritative in his eyes and in the eyes of the Karmapa? If it is authoritative in their eyes then why was TR not sanctioned in any way? Sounds unlikely Dakini
If I go to a priest, a therapist or a doctor, I want confidentiality and trust of things I wouldn't share with almost anyone else (which is why in the US, for example, in the medical field HIPAA is so absolutely important). You are opening yourself up in an intimate way you would not with a plumber or a music teacher, where the purpose of the interaction is of a different, less intimate scope.
Any situation involving an authority figure (whether it be a boss, a priest, a teacher, a therapist) is going to be on shaky ground. It usually doesn't turn out too well, not only in its effect between those two people involved, but also other fellow students and so on (favouritism, jealousy, gossip). Its not just about the authority figure and the student.
That's not to say that there could be exceptional situations, but generally the rule of thumb (which I've seen twice now) is the student or employee removed themselves to another teacher or department.
As far as sangha scandals, what was "scandalous" was not the sex per se, but the (perhaps sometimes unintentional) emotional manipulation of the teacher AND the student-- and in the end, the results were disastrous for everyone involved (the teacher, the student and the sangha). It seems irresponsible to me for a teacher to not think of that bigger picture, who is ultimately the one to say "no." These sorts of things never seem to end well.
It's not the Berzin Archive that's authoritative. It's the Buddha's teachings and later interpretations by accepted commentators, like Ashvaghosha. This is an accepted authority in the Kagyu sect as well as Gelug and others.
Trungpa was sanctioned by the Karmapa, I recall reading. The 16th Karmapa said he could no longer teach as a representative of the Kagyu tradition, I came across that online. Not that that would stop Trungpa from teaching. Even if that were erroneous info, the fact is that it's extremely rare for anyone to sanction anyone in TB, no matter how egregious the behavior. Dudjom Rinpoche, the head of the Nyingma sect, told Sogyal to go back to India to "ripen" his practice, when he learned of Sogyal's behavior, but all Sogyal did was remove D. Rinpoche's name off the letterhead of his Rigpa org., and went his merry way.
The fact that people don't get sanctioned doesn't mean the rules don't apply to them. It means there's extreme laxity in the tradition, and no accountability. In Thailand at least, there's a national Buddhist board that deals with discipline issues. There is no equivalent in TB, that's a big part of the problem.
Dakini can you provide a reference stating that the karmapa forbid trungpa from teaching?
Also just paste my same question with 'ashvaghosha' instead of 'berzin'.. You are just shuffling the goal posts. One moment Berzin is authoritative and the next moment ashvaghosha is authoritative..
The Karmapa didn't forbid him from teaching. According to what I read, he forbid him from representing the Kagyu tradition in his teaching. He was still free to teach as a free agent, which he did.
I'm sorry you don't understand this basic thing. You were asking if Berzin was authoritative to the leaders of the major sects. I explained it's not about Berzin, the archive is merely a resource for students, a reference I provided that gave info in support of my position. The authorities (whose writing the archive authors quote, analyze and explain for Western practitioners) are Ashvaghosha and one other early commentator. I'm not shuffling the goal posts. You mistook a reference I provided, which explained the morality rules and the history of their evolution, as a goal post.
No worries... Thanks for you input as always, Dakini..
Here's a quote I found:
Though there is no absolute right or wrong in this world, relatively, there are some matters that are more right or more wrong. This is why we still need to propagate the Buddhadharma, to encourage observation of the precepts as spiritual cultivation, so as to transform wrong views to right views, to transform wrong actions to right actions.
Comments
Any situation involving an authority figure (whether it be a boss, a priest, a teacher, a therapist) is going to be on shaky ground. It usually doesn't turn out too well, not only in its effect between those two people involved, but also other fellow students and so on (favouritism, jealousy, gossip). Its not just about the authority figure and the student.
That's not to say that there could be exceptional situations, but generally the rule of thumb (which I've seen twice now) is the student or employee removed themselves to another teacher or department.
As far as sangha scandals, what was "scandalous" was not the sex per se, but the (perhaps sometimes unintentional) emotional manipulation of the teacher AND the student-- and in the end, the results were disastrous for everyone involved (the teacher, the student and the sangha). It seems irresponsible to me for a teacher to not think of that bigger picture, who is ultimately the one to say "no." These sorts of things never seem to end well.
My only point is that I raise an eyebrow as to whether my 'advice' should be a rule which I impose upon other people.
Trungpa was sanctioned by the Karmapa, I recall reading. The 16th Karmapa said he could no longer teach as a representative of the Kagyu tradition, I came across that online. Not that that would stop Trungpa from teaching. Even if that were erroneous info, the fact is that it's extremely rare for anyone to sanction anyone in TB, no matter how egregious the behavior. Dudjom Rinpoche, the head of the Nyingma sect, told Sogyal to go back to India to "ripen" his practice, when he learned of Sogyal's behavior, but all Sogyal did was remove D. Rinpoche's name off the letterhead of his Rigpa org., and went his merry way.
The fact that people don't get sanctioned doesn't mean the rules don't apply to them. It means there's extreme laxity in the tradition, and no accountability. In Thailand at least, there's a national Buddhist board that deals with discipline issues. There is no equivalent in TB, that's a big part of the problem.
Also just paste my same question with 'ashvaghosha' instead of 'berzin'.. You are just shuffling the goal posts. One moment Berzin is authoritative and the next moment ashvaghosha is authoritative..
Are all commentaries authoritative? Who decides?
I'm sorry you don't understand this basic thing. You were asking if Berzin was authoritative to the leaders of the major sects. I explained it's not about Berzin, the archive is merely a resource for students, a reference I provided that gave info in support of my position. The authorities (whose writing the archive authors quote, analyze and explain for Western practitioners) are Ashvaghosha and one other early commentator. I'm not shuffling the goal posts. You mistook a reference I provided, which explained the morality rules and the history of their evolution, as a goal post.
Here's a quote I found:
Though there is no absolute right or wrong
in this world, relatively, there are some
matters that are more right or more wrong.
This is why we still need to propagate the
Buddhadharma, to encourage observation of
the precepts as spiritual cultivation, so as to
transform wrong views to right views,
to transform wrong actions to right actions.
- Stonepeace