Apech

***********************************. So, this is the classic accuse the accuser of what you were accused of out of a distraction measure. This is also the case with certain x-swami's too.

 

 

Is this a fact or an allegation? If you are going to name someone like this in this context it could be libelous ... I suggest you remove it.

I have two questions:

 

1. When exactly in the interview does she say something to the contrary? I will watch the interview at the precise minute and second to try to understand what you're talking about.

 

2. Are you making a distinction between the ideal case and what actually happens in real life (theory vs practice)? Are we discussing how things ought to happen or how they actually tend to happen?

Hi,

I don't want to watch it again but she says something like part of the problem was the place of women in trad Tibetan culture. My only point is that while this may be the case (that women were second class citizens) this view is specifically prohibited for those practicing tantra. So if a lama had this opinion of women they were already breaking their samaya.

Perhaps the lama may have thought that in fancying and shagging young western women he was not denigrating them I don't know.

For me the root is not the sex scandals which I don't actually care about much but the whole misunderstanding of the lama/guru thing. If the guru does anything they point out one's true nature and the true nature of reality for you. That is by being realised themselves they give you an external example (is that the right word) to resonate with ... so that you can benefit by getting closer to your own true nature. They don't give you anything because you already have it. So it is not necessary to suspend all caution and rationality ... in fact that would be a denial of your own buddha-nature. EVEN IF you regard your teacher as a Buddha you do not approach them in a gormless and naive way. You owe it to them and to yourself to keep your eyes open and your wits about you. If they try to pull the wool over your eyes and to act otherwise then pack up your cushion and move on.

Orb,

 

When I read your link, I found the show mentioned in the article.

 

Here's a link to one of the clips from the show. I think the woman in the clip is right about a lot of things and people should pay attention to what she says.

 

I'm going to watch other clips. The clips can be activated on the lower portion of the page, under the main video clip window.

 

EDIT: Here's an interview with Stephen Batchelor on the same topic. I found this interview to be very insightful.

Excellent interview ... but she's wrong on one point ... denigration of women is a Root Downfall (might be number 14 not sure) and thus a breach of samaya vows no matter what Tibetan culture generally might say about women for a tantrika it is not ok to regard women as second class beings or whatever.

Here they are:

1. Contradicting one’s Guru or Lama.

2. Contradicting or denigrating the teachings of the Buddha or one’s Guru (Lama).

3. Quarreling with others on the same path.

4. Violating the Bodhisattva vows (in action, word or thought).

5. Violating the sacred drops in the heart chakra through illicit sexual activity.

6. Denigrating the teachings and paths of other systems.

7. Revealing secrets to non-initiates or those not ready to receive them.

8. Viewing the five aggregates that compose the psycho-physical continuum as impure.

9. Doubting one’s entrance into the path.

10. Having the ability to perceive the mental continuum of others and recognizing that someone in particular will commit great harm to others and not taking action.

11. Holding either of the extremist views of permanence or nihilism.

12. Refusing to teach someone who asks for teachings and is qualified to receive those teachings.

13. Superficial or dualistic clinging to appearances of pure/impure, good/bad etc.

14. Verbally or mentally denigrating women.

Maybe he was being humble and you and your companions just didn't appreciate him anyway?

 

 

 

Quite probably.

Cmmon now, how can u compare and old tradition like that to a miserable life of a rock star or a politician and you are saying lets get on with our practice ? Practice what ? Your imaginary Dantien?

 

You need a real teacher in order to learn anything (because a lot of serious mistakes can be made) and the best way of teaching is by example. And what if your teacher turns out to be a weak, pathetic useless jerk off who just knows the theory and can give a speech but in reality has the level of being of a hookworm?

 

Wouldn't that concern you at all if you found out?

 

These monks (or whatever they are) were supposed to carry the sacred flame and instead they "vaginalized" the most pure aspect of humanity.

 

IMO they should have to pay somehow and never be allowed to represent a certain tradition (or any tradition for that matter)

Complicated area I think. I have had good teachers and none of them was him. I don't have a teacher currently and I wouldn't particularly look for one - I just practice see what happens.

The guru thing is very confusing because I think it has a cultural base which is foreign in the west. My best teacher wouldn't go near that kind of thing but still managed to inspire great respect and love naturally. As an individual you cannot absolve responsibility for what you get into. If your teacher turns out to be a charleton (can't spell that word) then you have to deal with that.

I can't think of a religion in the world that has not had sex scandals. This is because they involve people. Some people think its about joining a religion ... this makes you something or somebody ... it doesn't its just you with another tag.

I can claim to have met Sogyal Rinpoche in my friends flat in Manchester in 1973 (probably) ... he would have been at Cambridge doing comparative religion I guess. We were so disrespectful that we called him Soggy Old Rinpoche (we had no idea how to pronounce Tibetan names).

I read his book years later of course and saw him give a talk ... also that bloody awful film he was in ... Little Buddha was it? Anyway I would say he is far from being a great master but of course that's my op.

He likes to sleep with a lot of women .. so what? Some of those women feel used ... again ... not surprised. Its kiss and tell almost ... happens to politicians, rock stars, business men, sportsmen ... so again ... so what?

Its all rubbish lets get on with our practice.

 

 

It just seems too ambiguous to say "you are being disrespectful" and then suspend/ban someone for that, unless it can be show that it is systematic and disruptive.

Suspension or banning only comes into play for either something very extreme or repeated ignoring of warnings. So yes, systematic an disruptive. The rule is one thing ... its a statement of how we would like to see people interact ... how it is enforced is another ...

The Guardian article is a very poor one IMO. I am not defending Sogyal Rinpoche - I don't think he is the best example of a lama one could have - and I think he has been seduced himself by western culture of celebrity. But the abuse allegations have to be proven and the article is written without any question as to whether they are true at all.

''How can a fat little man attract pretty girls " ... whatever ... well look around you. What exactly was the abuse? Is it just that he had sex with them ... or something worse? The writer doesn't understand samaya properly.

No I would need to know more to draw any conclusion from this.

 

Yeah, it's hard when people involved don't fundamentally respect each other, because when that happens it's never about the argument, it's always personal, or at least it can seem that way. You could present the best argument in the world, but if I don't respect you as a person, I'm never going to listen to it. And vice versa.

 

 

This is exactly the point. As I see it the mod rules are not about quashing debate but about helping it move past this point. So when you are about to type "you stupid moron" you stop for a minute take a breath ... then tell then exactly why you were thinking that ...

Its difficult because people have different boundaries. Some people are very sensitive to insult and others its water of a ducks back .... they don't even notice. So for me respect each other is just about that 10 sec gap where you draw breath and think what do I actually want to say to this person.

Hi admins,

 

Could you change my username from 'wtm' to 'chris d'?

 

Maybe you could also change the name of my personal practise forum to 'chris d'?

 

If 'chris d' is taken, please use 'chrisd'.

 

Thanks!

Hi,

I can't do your pp forum - only sean I think maybe Mal - but I can change your user name ... do you want your log in to change as well or remain the same?

 

So in that case, it doesn't necessarily have to be a majority. It could be many. As center pointed out, many enough to warrant a comment and perhaps their own category. But not necessarily the majority of their said group. Just numerous enough that you notice.

 

And/or associated with particularly strong perceptions (super bitchy, super jackass, super nerdy, etc) which might influence your "counting" even more

 

But I'd be careful Apech, it seems like you're starting to get pretty into this daft argument

I still think it has to be a majority of a group to make any sense. The speaker can be wrong of course and it may just be their mistaken opinion that it is a majority when in fact it is not. I already made this point.

I wasn't arguing. I just wanted to to make sure that you were saying what you seemed to be saying because I found it hard to believe that that was what you thought.

Enough from me ... carry on if you must.

I'd say it has more to do with frequency of perception rather than numbers.

Really? To me frequency means 'how many times' or 'how often' which is a number, like three times a day (... but I don't want to get back to the masturbation issue again : )). But I guess you mean these statements are subjective assessments of fact rather than a measurement as in a survey. Well of course. If I say 'its been really hot this week' ... there'll always be some smartypants who points out that its actually 0.005 degrees below the average for this time of year. I tend to keep away from such types ... apart from on here of course where you meet them all the time.

 

 

"In general, women are angry, but in general, they are not angry"- you need to make up your mind, figure out what you are trying to say, and/or qualify some of your terms. For instance "in general, women I meet at bars are angry", "in general, women I meet picking up their kids from school are not angry", "in general, women I meet in the mall are not angry, but in general, women I mean outside the mall are angry".

 

Like that

Yes, so there are different classes/groups of women under headings such as 'women in bars' and so on ... in every case 'in general' means 'most of' or 'the majority' of that class. What shifts in language and meaning is the group/class or perhaps set is a better word, which is the subject of the statement. So if you say 'in general women are angry'. The term 'in general' doesn't change meaning but the set of women which you are referring to might. Because often when we speak or write we are not that precise. Language is not math(s). Its just the cheese argument all over again.

 

 

So "in general, people masturbate". Is that a hard majority, is it a large portion? Hard to say, hard to say.

The hard majority masturbate. Ok. Maybe not so hard after a while just pale and spotty.

Ok I'll try again I suppose because I don't get your answer.

In general women are angry.

In general women are not angry.

In general women are angry but in general they are not angry.

I'm sure you are going to say context. So skip that and just tell what these statements actually mean.

Sloppy (or anyone),

Just one thing has been puzzling me. For those who think (not including me) that 'in general' can mean some but not the majority. Does this mean I can say this:

In general women have brown eyes. (majority)

In general women have blue eyes. (many but not a majority)

In general women have brown eyes but in general women have blue eyes. (both)

... I don't really care because I think the whole argument is daft ... but maybe some one could answer.

Then you need to go back and read this post and this post.

 

But I shall try to sum it all up:

 

Center/scotty, in the other thread, listed several sources which gave multiple definitions for the meaning "in context". The English language has many words with multiple meanings determined by the contexts. Intelligent readers/listeners fill in the appropriate definition depending on the context.

 

For instance, the word "rape" means forced sexual intercourse. However, violent military campaigns that involve the destruction and general sacking of a city have been referred to as "rapes" for a very long time (though very often, forced sexual intercourse happens). Case in point, the rape of Nanking. I doubt any intelligent person thinks the city itself was forced into sexual intercourse (how can you have sex with a city???).

 

Oh! with the City ... sorry.

 

 

Women? Ha! Everyone I have ever tasted tasted differently. And they all acted quite differently as well. I just don't think that any generalization of women can ever be properly supported with hard fact data.

 

 

How many of those women tasted cheesy? Come on be honest.

 

 

 

Anybody confused?

No ... are you?

I think we always said that the Pit is moderated in extremis and to me that would include personal threats. If some one posted white supremacist racist material I would moderate that as well - so there are exceptions.

I completely support what Mal has done here.

 

 

And as such, the comment would not be a reflection of 50% of the total population of women, but only a reflection of 50% of the total number of women that the individual speaker has encounter (which could be painfully few).

A few painful meetings ... yes.

In any case 'in general' means the majority of the set you are talking about ... either 'women' ... or 'women you have met'. But if you make a statement like "In general women are shorter than men" people will understand that you think that most women are shorter than men ... not just the women you have met ... you might hang around with a lot of tiny people ....

You have to get wet and dirty to become enlightened.

I usually enjoy reading your posts GiH ... but you have lost me here.

If he said he liked Limburger cheese in general then he would probably mean that he liked most of the L. cheese he had eaten.

Have you, marblehead, personally eaten every limburger cheese that has ever been made? I understand that's a very tall order. So I'll ask something a little different...

 

What percentage of the limburger cheese that has been around in your lifetime would you say that you have eaten?

He's eaten most of it ... hence the need for exercise.

Hi seth,

I'm going to try to answer your OP (rather than tell you you asked the wrong question!).

I studied Buddhist philosophy about ten years ago and this is from memory and also I will just say how I understand it in my own terms (i.e simple English).

The whole philosophical journey starts with asking whether or not anything exists which is fundamentally real in and of itself. In other words is there anything, object, idea or essence which does not depend on anything else to exist, is permanent and is wholly itself (i.e. has not parts). If there is - then it has a self.

Its fairly easy to look round the observable world and see that there isn't anything like this. Just ask yourself about the objects in the room where you are sitting one by one, was it brought about by some process external to itself? will it last forever? is it made of parts? the answer to all three is always yes. So no ordinary objects have a 'self'. Having done this then turn the spotlight on the thoughts and ideas in your mind and you will similarly see that they arise dependent on causes, have a finite lifetime and can be broken down into parts - although it is slightly harder to see than with objects this is still the case. Lastly turn the spotlight on yourself. How did you arise? Will you live for ever? Do you have parts? And you will see just like everything else you have no self.

In essence this is the Rantong view. Everything is empty of self. And that's it. Obviously it has huge ramifications but in itself it is as simple as that.

Some people's reaction to this is to suggest either that as things appear to exist then there must be some eternal essence underpinning them - even though those things in themselves have no self - the essence does have a self. This is Eternalism. otherwise some people go the other way and say because nothing has a self then everything is meaningless and there is just a complete absence of anything. This is Nihilism. The Rantong view refutes both of these positions although it holds resolutely to the view of emptiness of self and refuses to accept the underlying essence of Eternalists or the complete absence of the Nihilists.

The 'problem' arises then in examining what are viewed as the positive qualities of Buddhahood, or the enlightened mind. For instance the enlightened mind is compassionate. From where does compassion arise? Same for generosity, patience and so on. Where do these qualities come from? Is the compassion of the enlightened mind actually real? the Zhentong school would say yes. They would say that although the Rantong view is correct in that nothing has a self, in fact Buddha-nature is a real existent and the origin of the positive qualities of the enlightened mind and Buddhahood. In this case the Zhentong Buddhists say that everything is 'empty of other', that is empty of anything other than Buddha-nature itself.

So Rantong = empty of self

Zhentong = empty of other

The Rantong Buddhist would say oh this is just reintroducing the self when we got rid of it. But the Zhentong Buddhists would say if you practice any kind of tantra then you are already implicitly accepting the Zhentong view (because of the yiddam).

In the end these are philosophical views which are not the same as inner realization - following which there will be no conflict at all.

This is my go at answering your questions. Hope it helps. I'm sure if I got something fundamentally wrong I will be corrected by our 'real' Buddhists.

Yeah, maybe one day the Jews and Arabs will get along peacefully.

They did before the state of Israel was created there are many testimonies to this effect that I have seen on TV documentaries about the history of the Middle East.

But I have to say you are right to be cynical.

As I say, I like to dream nice dreams.