In the Name of Enlightenment - Sexual Abuse by Sogyal Rinpoche

[steve]

Lamaism will survive, I believe.

People will always want to be able to submit to a "higher authority."

I agree that it is an awkward fit in the West and no question that there is a need for deep and meaningful reform is some of the Tibetan traditions and cultural conditioning. We see it happening in the West and in the East, slowly but surely. 

 

Sogyal was clearly a fraud and a victim of his own lust. Just another in a long list of spiritual "leaders" seduced by power.

He probably had inadequate training and did not grow into the type of person that can handle the power and responsibility of a Vajrayana master and spiritual guide. 

 

I have grave concerns about Dzongsar Khyentse after reading the entire statement.

Where was the compassion? Where was the wisdom?

All I came away with was that he is angry, bitter, and frustrated.

I suspect that he would benefit from a nice, long retreat himself...

 

 

 

[Apech]

11 minutes ago, steve said:

Lamaism will survive, I believe.

People will always want to be able to submit to a "higher authority."

I agree that it is an awkward fit in the West and no question that there is a need for deep and meaningful reform is some of the Tibetan traditions and cultural conditioning. We see it happening in the West and in the East, slowly but surely. 

 

Sogyal was clearly a fraud and a victim of his own lust. Just another in a long list of spiritual "leaders" seduced by power.

He probably had inadequate training and did not grow into the type of person that can handle the power and responsibility of a Vajrayana master and spiritual guide. 

 

I have grave concerns about Dzongsar Khyentse after reading the entire statement.

Where was the compassion? Where was the wisdom?

All I came away with was that he is angry, bitter, and frustrated.

I suspect that he would benefit from a nice, long retreat himself...

 

 

 

 

 

i think I'll have to reread it because I didn't pick up anger or bitterness - just equivocation and defensiveness - because I'm guessing he visited Rigpa centres and should have done something.

[Apech]

1 hour ago, steve said:

.....

 

I have grave concerns about Dzongsar Khyentse after reading the entire statement.

Where was the compassion? Where was the wisdom?

All I came away with was that he is angry, bitter, and frustrated.

I suspect that he would benefit from a nice, long retreat himself...

 

 

 

 

 

Ok I'm reading it through slowly now and came to this section:

 

Quote

 

However you describe Sogyal Rinpoche’s style of teaching, the key point here is that if his students had received a Vajrayana initiation, if at the time they received it they were fully aware that it was a Vajrayana initiation, and if Sogyal Rinpoche had made sure that all the necessary prerequisites has been adhered to and fulfilled, then from the Vajrayana point of view, there is nothing wrong with Sogyal Rinpoche’s subsequent actions. (By the way, ‘initiation’ includes the pointing out instruction which is the highest Vajrayana initiation, known as the fourth abhisheka.)

 

Frankly, for a student of Sogyal Rinpoche who has consciously received abhisheka and therefore entered or stepped onto the Vajrayana path, to think of labelling Sogyal Rinpoche’s actions as ‘abusive,’ or to criticize a Vajrayana master even privately, let alone publicly and in print, or simply to reveal that such methods exist, is a breakage of samaya.

 

This is not to say, as has been suggested, that tantra provides teachers with a list of ways they can abuse students sexually, emotionally and financially—you will not find such a list in any of the tantras. At the same time, a Vajrayana guru will use anything he can to challenge and go against each individual student’s ego, pride, self-cherishing and dualistic mind, and might well end up telling a sexually voracious, horny man to become a monk.

 

I’m sorry, but we can’t bend the rules on this point. When both the giver and receiver of a Vajrayana initiation are fully aware and clear about what has happened, they must then both accept that pure perception is the main view and practice on the Vajrayana path. There is no room whatsoever for even a glimmer of an impure perception.

 

 

 

I do think that Rinpoche has misadvised himself here.

 

As I said before I think the correct thing to do if told to do something that could be sexual abuse and so on, is to politely refuse as it is un-dharmic.  As to a breach of samaya vows these are defined in the Fourteen Root and Eight Branch Downfalls.

 

The first Root Downfall says:

 

"Since achievement of all siddhis in this life and in future lives of a holder of the vajra depends upon following the guru, to despise him is the first root downfall."

 

The commentary says - 'Dispargement does not mean being a little angry with the lama, but to formulate such views as, "this Vajra Master is evil", "He destroys moral discipline, "This master does not practise dharma."  This kind of disrespect is a root downfall.  If one disrespects him a little, this can be confessed.

 

Now you might say that people will come to have these views if he repeatedly abuses their trust.  But again that would be because you didn't put your foot down and apply the guidance to refuse politely in the first place.

 

In fact the second Root Downfall says:

 

"To go against the word of the buddhas is the second root downfall."

 

The commentary explains that this includes the basic precepts - so sexual misconduct is still prohibited by this Root Downfall.  So this would form your basis for objecting to the Lama requiring you to indulge in abusive sex and so forth.

 

So it seems pretty clear to me how one should behave.

[Chang]

How the Buddhists do love words - the more complex and confusing the better.

 

You spend so much time musing over complexities of syntax that all meaning is lost along with any vestige of common sense that you may once have possessed

 

Sexual abuse. Do we really need anyone to tell us whether this is wrong? If for Buddhists the answer is yes then there is really little hope for you.

[rex]

I don't see the scandal as the death knell for vajrayana in the West. It does perhaps burn any Shangri La illusions people may have had about Tibetan Buddhism.

 

Patriarchy, power and abuse exists in all types of religious institutions, even in the West, so in this respect the scandal shows that the Tibetans are no better and no worse than any one else. It's a universal problem.

 

 

Edited August 24, 2017 by rex
Typo correction

[C T]

18 minutes ago, rex said:

I don't see the scandal as the death knell for varjayana in the West. It does perhaps burn any Shangri La illusions people may have had about Tibetan Buddhism.

 

Patriarchy, power and abuse exists in all types of religious institutions, even in the West, so in this respect the scandal shows that the Tibetans are no better and no worse than any one else. It's a universal problem.

Back in the mid to late 90s I was part of the Rigpa sangha in Ireland and on a few occasions had got opportunities to get closer glimpses into the private moments of SR, and not once did I see any inappropriate conduct as mentioned in the exposè. 

 

Away from the public teaching platform he spends most of his time guiding the long term retreatants. Although were not allowed in that secluded part of the complex we could still hear him conducting long sessions there daily whenever he visited the Irish centre. 

 

On his breaks he is either in discussions with his senior students, taking calls from other Rigpa centres or meeting those who have requested private consultation, and these were always done in the sitting room of his chalet. Other than that he enjoys watching documentaries and cartoons, or he takes naps. Contrary to what's claimed, at that time he does get up quite early before sunrise and does practice. 

 

For health reasons he had a rather restricted diet so his meals have always been quite simple then. 

 

I left the group early 00s, not because of anything unsavoury but because I connected with another teacher whom I had a closer heart connection with. 

 

This latest development is rather sad and I feel for some of my close sangha brothers and sisters who are still with the group. 

 

How things must have changed since that period. 

 

I thought I'd offer some thoughts here so as to be aware that there was a time where he was ok as a teacher. 

[steve]

6 hours ago, Chang said:

How the Buddhists do love words - the more complex and confusing the better.

 

You spend so much time musing over complexities of syntax that all meaning is lost along with any vestige of common sense that you may once have possessed

 

This is quite a generalization and insult to the Buddhist community, Chang.

If that's how you feel, so be it, but I feel compelled to point out the ugliness of these words from another's perspective.

I'm not personally offended because I don't feel it applies to me but telling all Buddhists that they have no common sense is unnecessary and unkind. 

 

My practice is almost entirely experiential.

I occasionally read a book on Bön or Buddhism but it is infrequent and usually practice oriented.

I don't have the time or patience for the wordiness of much of the written Dharma.

I do not have that much interest in philosophy or theory, some might say to my detriment - I'm fine with that.

What little time I have to devote to Bön is focused on practice and practical application.

My teacher is a great fit for me because he also rarely touches on theory or philosophy, being committed to investigate how the experiential practices can change our views, behavior, and lives.

 

There is no question that many online Buddhist warriors are lost in concepts and debate but that is not a fair representation of dedicated practitioners IME. There is also no question that proper study of Buddhist philosophy and tantra are enormously valuable for the intellect and the mind. The degree of precision and focus that can be achieved is astounding. Far more than is required by advanced Daoist practices that I've been exposed to.

 

 

6 hours ago, Chang said:

 

Sexual abuse. Do we really need anyone to tell us whether this is wrong? If for Buddhists the answer is yes then there is really little hope for you.

 

This sounds a bit like victim blaming and shaming. Many women and children are victims of sexual abuse at the hands of someone in a position of authority that they trust or fear. The predators are quite expert and cunning in their manipulation making it difficult for the victim to resist and even recognize what's happening as abusive. Add to that the mystique of the Tibetan tantric master and the tantric methods which sometimes employ sexual or extreme practices, and you have the perfect storm.

 

I agree with you that if a person cannot see abuse for what it is, that person needs serious adjustment to their view. Dzongsar Khyentse's rant was offensive and disappointing to me. I think his view is narrow-minded, patriarchal, and ignorant. It's important to acknowledge that this is not a problem isolated to Buddhism. It is alive and well in all religions, business, health care, education... everywhere you find men. If you choose to pin it on a single group, men would be the most accurate, IMO.

 

 

[Chang]

52 minutes ago, steve said:

 

This is quite a generalization and insult to the Buddhist community, Chang.

 

It is quite a generalisation and is meant as an insult to the section of the Buddhist community which is lost in its own labyrinthine addiction to the verbose.

 

Quote

If that's how you feel, so be it, but I feel compelled to point out the ugliness of these words from another's perspective.

I'm not personally offended because I don't feel it applies to me but telling all Buddhists that they have no common sense is unnecessary and unkind. 

 

Not all Buddhists. See above.

 

Quote

 

My practice is almost entirely experiential.

I occasionally read a book on Bön or Buddhism but it is infrequent and usually practice oriented.

I don't have the time or patience for the wordiness of much of the written Dharma.

I do not have that much interest in philosophy or theory, some might say to my detriment - I'm fine with that.

What little time I have to devote to Bön is focused on practice and practical application.

My teacher is a great fit for me because he also rarely touches on theory or philosophy, being committed to investigate how the experiential practices can change our views, behavior, and lives.

 

I wish you well in your endeavors.

 

Quote

 

There is no question that many online Buddhist warriors are lost in concepts and debate but that is not a fair representation of dedicated practitioners IME. There is also no question that proper study of Buddhist philosophy and tantra are enormously valuable for the intellect and the mind. The degree of precision and focus that can be achieved is astounding. Far more than is required by advanced Daoist practices that I've been exposed to.

 

Concepts and debate. I have grave doubts as to whether precision and focus can be so achieved.

 

Quote

 

 

 

This sounds a bit like victim blaming and shaming. Many women and children are victims of sexual abuse at the hands of someone in a position of authority that they trust or fear. The predators are quite expert and cunning in their manipulation making it difficult for the victim to resist and even recognize what's happening as abusive. Add to that the mystique of the Tibetan tantric master and the tantric methods which sometimes employ sexual or extreme practices, and you have the perfect storm.

 

I am at a loss as to what you are getting at here in reagrds to my previous statement.

We have the age old problem of a person in a position of both trust and authority taking advantage of his status to fulfill his sexual cravings.

My earlier statement was in reference to the need of Great Buddhist Bores to discuss verse and scripture in an effort to decide if this was wrong.

Quote

 

I agree with you that if a person cannot see abuse for what it is, that person needs serious adjustment to their view. Dzongsar Khyentse's rant was offensive and disappointing to me. I think his view is narrow-minded, patriarchal, and ignorant. It's important to acknowledge that this is not a problem isolated to Buddhism. It is alive and well in all religions, business, health care, education... everywhere you find men. If you choose to pin it on a single group, men would be the most accurate, IMO.

 

 

 

To blame men is an example of a generalization which reminds me of the t-shirts feminists used to wear stating "All Men Are Rapists". Unfortunately there will always be one man who will let the side down and refrain from molestation.

 

I wish you well with your Buddhist discipline but my own view is that it is but the poor neighbour of Taoism. But each to their own.

Edited August 18, 2017 by Chang

[9th]

Dont bother steve - he's too busy with college classes and stuff.

[steve]

5 hours ago, Chang said:

 

It is quite a generalisation and is meant as an insult to the section of the Buddhist community which is lost in its own labyrinthine addiction to the verbose.

 

 

Not all Buddhists. See above.

 

 

I wish you well in your endeavors.

 

 

Concepts and debate. I have grave doubts as to whether precision and focus can be so achieved.

 

Debate cultivates precision, focus comes from tantric practices.

They're quite similar to some Daoist practices.

 

 

5 hours ago, Chang said:

 

 

I am at a loss as to what you are getting at here in reagrds to my previous statement.

We have the age old problem of a person in a position of both trust and authority taking advantage of his status to fulfill his sexual cravings.

My earlier statement was in reference to the need of Great Buddhist Bores to discuss verse and scripture in an effort to decide if this was wrong.

 

To blame men is an example of a generalization which reminds me of the t-shirts feminists used to wear stating "All Men Are Rapists". Unfortunately there will always be one man who will let the side down and refrain from molestation.

 

I wish you well with your Buddhist discipline but my own view is that it is but the poor neighbour of Taoism. But each to their own.

All men are certainly not rapists but it's not too far from the truth to say that all rapists are men.

There's something to be learned from that. 

 

I appreciate the reply.

[steve]

Here is a link to a rebuttal to Dzongsar Khyentse's statement from the NYT.

 

 

The excerpt below is from the comments and I felt it worth copying and pasting here:

 

Startdust on August 18, 2017 at 8:20 pm 

Reply

I have been working on this post for a while, using exerpts from various articles most of which mentioned here before, relating predominantly to both interpersonal teacher-student relationship dynamics and ethics.
The views expressed involve, as you will see, the concept of fiduciary care, which is of paramount importance in other care professions such as those of therapist, counsellor, doctor, professor and clergy.

 

Jack Kornfield, Buddhist teacher Insight Meditation Society, says: ‘’There’s no problem with sex itself. Some people choose to be celibate. Some people choose to enjoy sexual relations. Both can be done as a part of spiritual practice. The problem that we have seen in many communities arises when spiritual leaders misuse their role of authority.’’

Zen teacher Grace Schireson suggests that ‘’A person doesn’t come to a Buddhist community to grow through a sexual relationship with a teacher. They come to a Buddhist community to study Buddhism. So in a teacher-student sexual relationship, the primary purpose of that relationship has been subverted.’’
Both quotes from https://tricycle.org/magazine/sex-sangha-again/

 

From ‘’Sex and the Spiritual Teacher’’ by Scott Edelstein: “Any relationship potent enough to promote growth and healing is also powerful enough to harm. This is especially so with the relationship between a spiritual teacher and a student hungry for spiritual knowledge and growth.”

“It is entirely possible for a spiritual teacher to be wise, compassionate, empathetic, and inspiring, and at the same time sexually exploitive. This may seem entirely contradictory, but spiritual teachers have proven it true time after time. For better or worse, we humans are often contradictory creatures—especially when it comes to sex, power and vocation.”

Peter Rutter, M.D. psychiatrist, speaks on the subject in terms of man in power and woman under their care:
‘’What I have come to call sex in the forbidden zone sexual behavior between a man and a woman under his care of mentorship in a professional relationship can occur any time a woman entrusts important aspects of her physical, spiritual, psychological, or material welfare to a man who has power over her. (Women in power can exploit men too, but the balance of power is all too often in the other direction and such situations represent a small percentage of cases of sexual abuse.) Because these relationships invite both men and women to put into them their strongest hopes, wishes, fantasies, and passions, they are especially vulnerable to abuse and can be severely damaging to both people.’’

 

Rutter states that ‘’Although conservative estimates suggest that several million women in this country have been sexually victimized in relationships of trust, no numbers can possibly convey the full human cost of sex in the forbidden zone. (…) the mere presence of sexual innuendo from a man who has power over her can determine whether she experiences her femininity as a force to be valued and respected or as a commodity to be exploited.’’

 

‘’For the teacher, this unethical and immoral violation of a woman’s trust is often seen by him as a loving act that promises mutual fulfilment, and he is in denial of the suffering he causes. Because the relationship is inherently dishonest and manipulative, even if the woman has initiated it and wants it to continue, the love, intimacy and healing he is seeking usually remains illusively unattainable, often compelling him into a succession of equally empty and unfulfilling liaisons. This compulsive, self-destructive behavior only increases his disconnection from himself and others.’’
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1992/01/sex-in-the-forbidden-zone

 

It can and often will take time to realise there is or has been an element of exploitation, or one can even remain unaware of this.

”Adult victims of sexual exploitation by clergy often don’t see themselves as victims. Without wider public awareness of the extent and impacts of this form of sexual violence, adults who have been sexually victimized by a beloved priest, pastor, minister, rabbi or other clergy will remain the “silent majority” of clergy sexual abuse victims, suffering in their shame and self-isolation.”

”Many people, including the victims themselves, often label incidences of clergy sexual misconduct with adults as ‘affairs’. In reality, they are an abuse of spiritual power by the religious leader.”
http://www.adultsabusedbyclergy.org/

 

Lama Rod Owens writes: ”Buddhist communities are not unlike other organized religious communities: where there is hierarchy, patriarchy, and a clergy class with weak accountability structures, abuse will thrive. Lately, many of us have to come to realize how unsafe sanghas can be for the most vulnerable among us. We must work to undo this violence, which is rooted in patriarchy.”
”Sometimes the line between appropriate and inappropriate is blurred. And while I have seen and experienced boundaries being crossed by students, I still understand that the power balance in the situation means that I am the one ultimately responsible for maintaining boundaries.”
”Male-identified teachers, monks, staff, authorities, and lay practitioners in Western, mixed-gendered sanghas must speak out, taking responsibility for our role in a system that perpetuates violence in subtle and insidious ways.”
https://www.lionsroar.com/buddhists-ethical-misconduct-we-all-have-patriarchy-work-to-do/

 

Some communities have been proactive; they did not wait to address these issues until they had a scandal on their hands, like the Spirit Rock Insight Meditation Centre.
Their ‘’Codes of ethics’’ say: ‘’A sexual relationship is never appropriate between teachers and students.’’ ‘’If interest in a genuine and committed relationship develops over time between a single teacher and a student, the student-teacher relationship must clearly and consciously have ended before any further development toward a romantic relationship.’’
https://www.spiritrock.org/teacher-code-of-ethics-2016

How one would clearly and consciously bring the student-teacher relationship to an end is not quite clear, particularly as there are social dynamics regarding each person’s position in a sangha, which unavoidably affect interrelational dynamics.

Lastly, Jack Kornfield on collective responsibility and structures offers practical and positive direction:
‘’It’s not just about educating women or educating men; it’s educating everybody. Educating the communities—that’s really the game. The responsibility has to be held collectively.’’
‘’You’re quite right that our communities are structured from the top down. That’s because the traditions themselves have been patriarchal and top-down. To address this, what we’ve set up in our community at Spirit Rock is an independent ethics council. A small group of teachers who are most respected for their balance and integrity are elected to it—the balance is important, because these issues can stir up a hornet’s nest, and when emotions are triggered, people tend to think unclearly. So the council is made up of the elected teachers, a community member, and a board member who are independent from the board or the head teacher. They have the power to investigate, to look for reconciliation, and, if necessary, to come back to the board or the community and require changes. There has to be a process that’s outside of the hierarchy (…) described.’’
https://tricycle.org/magazine/sex-sangha-again/

[Chang]

12 hours ago, steve said:

 

Debate cultivates precision, focus comes from tantric practices.

They're quite similar to some Daoist practices.

 

Debate may cultivate precision but this depends upon the qualities of the debater and cannot be taken for granted.

 

 

12 hours ago, steve said:

All men are certainly not rapists but it's not too far from the truth to say that all rapists are men.

 

On face value this would appear as a fact but viewed from a different angle it is as misleading as the "All Men Are Rapists" feminist slogan. Or indeed as misleading as my saying that all Buddhists are bores. It is undoubtably true that there are some Great Buddhist Bores on this forum but i am sure that there will be at least one who would not fit the description. As human beings we are unique in having individual characters and so one hat will never fit all. It would not even be true to say that all men are capable of rape.

 

12 hours ago, steve said:

There's something to be learned from that. 

 

But nothing of great value and any claim that it is otherwise amounts to Buddhist Sophistry.

 

12 hours ago, steve said:

 

I appreciate the reply.

 

Thank you. You will doubtless have realised by now that I am not a practising Buddhist and hold both the religion and its practitioners in no high regard.

 

I spent some time as a moderator on this forum and as such had to wade through laborious Buddhist themed threads filled with the most boring sophistry. This was a time of the Buddhist flame wars on the forum and I concluded quickly that Buddhist Intellectualism leaves much to be desired. This overly clever nonsense seems more prevalent in Tibetan Buddhism, certainly on this forum

 

 

[steve]

37 minutes ago, Chang said:

 

Debate may cultivate precision but this depends upon the qualities of the debater and cannot be taken for granted.

Agreed

 

 

37 minutes ago, Chang said:

On face value this would appear as a fact but viewed from a different angle it is as misleading as the "All Men Are Rapists" feminist slogan. Or indeed as misleading as my saying that all Buddhists are bores. It is undoubtably true that there are some Great Buddhist Bores on this forum but i am sure that there will be at least one who would not fit the description. As human beings we are unique in having individual characters and so one hat will never fit all. It would not even be true to say that all men are capable of rape.

 

37 minutes ago, Chang said:

But nothing of great value and any claim that it is otherwise amounts to Buddhist Sophistry.

I think there is a lot to learn here and it has nothing to do with Buddhism.

 

 

37 minutes ago, Chang said:

Thank you. You will doubtless have realised by now that I am not a practising Buddhist and hold both the religion and its practitioners in no high regard.

That's clear.

When we dismiss or judge people based on their religions and practices, we do no one a service, particularly not ourselves.

But that certainly is your privilege.

 

 

37 minutes ago, Chang said:

I spent some time as a moderator on this forum and as such had to wade through laborious Buddhist themed threads filled with the most boring sophistry. This was a time of the Buddhist flame wars on the forum and I concluded quickly that Buddhist Intellectualism leaves much to be desired. This overly clever nonsense seems more prevalent in Tibetan Buddhism, certainly on this forum

My experience as a moderator was similar. 

 

The pseudo-Tibetan Buddhist sophistry on DaoBums should not be confused with Buddhist intellectualism any more than the pseudo-Daoist sophistry here can be taken as advanced Daoist practice... Fortunately, I've had credible training in both and can make the distinction. There are some wonderful contributors and lots of chaff. I learned a good lesson from my experience moderating - my negative reactions and frustrations were not to the content of the posts (Buddhism, Daoism, lizard people, whatever) but to the reclusive individuals and their dysfunctional ways of interacting with the community. 

[Chang]

1 hour ago, steve said:

That's clear.

When we dismiss or judge people based on their religions and practices, we do no one a service, particularly not ourselves.

But that certainly is your privilege.

 

 

 

 

In every interaction with our fellows we judge both what they say and what they do. Such judgements may well result in our dismissal of them. We also judge people on how they think and what they believe. You are well aware of this so why do you post the platitude above. This whole thread concerns judgement.

 

I do not accept that such reasonable behaviour as judging others does us or no else a service but a Buddhist intellectual could keep the argument going for days.

 

 

[steve]

3 minutes ago, Chang said:

 

In every interaction with our fellows we judge both what they say and what they do. Such judgements may well result in our dismissal of them. We also judge people on how they think and what they believe. You are well aware of this so why do you post the platitude above. This whole thread concerns judgement.

 

I do not accept that such reasonable behaviour as judging others does us or no else a service but a Buddhist intellectual could keep the argument going for days.

 

 

 

You are welcome to the last word on the topic.

Mine will be

Peace

[Apech]

15 hours ago, Chang said:

 

In every interaction with our fellows we judge both what they say and what they do. Such judgements may well result in our dismissal of them. We also judge people on how they think and what they believe. You are well aware of this so why do you post the platitude above. This whole thread concerns judgement.

 

I do not accept that such reasonable behaviour as judging others does us or no else a service but a Buddhist intellectual could keep the argument going for days.

 

 

 

 

I don't suppose there's any point asking why you are reading this thread (which bores you) let alone posting on it.  Mind you you clearly haven't read any of the arguments as no one has debated or defended what is or is not sexual abuse.  Most of the comments are about another Lama's analysis and its flaws.

[Chang]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

 

I don't suppose there's any point asking why you are reading this thread (which bores you) let alone posting on it.  Mind you you clearly haven't read any of the arguments as no one has debated or defended what is or is not sexual abuse.  Most of the comments are about another Lama's analysis and its flaws.

 

Why I am reading or not reading the thread is really no matter. But the subject of the thread and the nature of the debate did catch my interest resting as it did on subjects of right and wrong, good and bad

 

My comments were regarding Buddhist Sophistry lost without trace in a maze composed of its own verbosity. How complicated the Tibetan Buddhist mind can make the simplest of things. This is the very opposite of Taoist thought and the concept of the uncarved block. The very opposite of Zens simplicity and laser like focus.

 

You are probably aware that apart from my time on the Mod Team I do not become involved in threads invoving Buddhist debate and intellectual concepts. The only reason I made comment here was to point out the ridiculousness of such a method with no great hope that anyone would take notice.

 

You need not fear that I will become a troll in threads of this nature as my visit was but fleeting and my return unlikely.

Edited August 20, 2017 by Chang

[Apech]

7 minutes ago, Chang said:

 

Why I am reading or not reading the thread is really no matter. But the subject of the thread and the nature of the debate did catch my interest resting as it did on subjects of right and wrong, good and bad

 

My comments were regarding Buddhist Sophistry lost without trace in a maze composed of its own verbosity. How complicated the Tibetan Buddhist mind can make the simplest of things. This is the very opposite of Taoist thought and the concept of the uncarved block. The very opposite of Zens simplicity and laser like focus.

 

You are probably aware that apart from my time on the Mod Team I do not become involved in threads invoving Buddhist debate and intellectual concepts. The only reason I made comment here was to point out the ridiculousness of such a method with no great hope that anyone would take notice.

 

You need not fear that I will become a troll in threads of this nature as my visit was but fleeting and my return unlikely.

 

As long as you don't try to have the last word all should be ok.

[steve]

This interaction with Chang brought up something for me.

We have a tendency to seek out things that reinforce our view rather than be primed to look into things that may offer a different perspective.

So Chang notices a thread about sexual abuse in Tibetan Buddhism and makes a rare appearance in the Buddhist forum.

He does so because it's negative and he already knows Buddhism to be negative.

At least that's my theory, and I think it's well supported in Western psychology.

How often does he see something that might make him feel better about Buddhism and go down that road instead?

I don't mean to pick on Chang but I see this pattern so often in myself and others and wanted to point it out.

It's worthy of my attention when it happens in me. 

You all will have to decide if it's worth paying attention to in yourselves.

Hopefully you already do.

.

[Apech]

10 hours ago, steve said:

This interaction with Chang brought up something for me.

We have a tendency to seek out things that reinforce our view rather than be primed to look into things that may offer a different perspective.

So Chang notices a thread about sexual abuse in Tibetan Buddhism and makes a rare appearance in the Buddhist forum.

He does so because it's negative and he already knows Buddhism to be negative.

At least that's my theory, and I think it's well supported in Western psychology.

How often does he see something that might make him feel better about Buddhism and go down that road instead?

I don't mean to pick on Chang but I see this pattern so often in myself and others and wanted to point it out.

It's worthy of my attention when it happens in me. 

You all will have to decide if it's worth paying attention to in yourselves.

Hopefully you already do.

.

 

 

Good point Steve.

 

I think maybe there's another factor involved.  I would suggest that statistically DBs members are self selecting in certain ways - such as favouring individualism over communality, eclecticism over singularity, practice over theory, self-belief over compliance and so on - as I say statistically as a population and there will be individual exceptions of course.  Dharma as practiced in the west has strong emphasis on both communality and compliance.

 

The Lama - student relationship is perhaps the most obvious example of compliance and a typical dharma centre or 'sangha' is usually quite social and communal.  Despite the fact that many great masters from history were both highly individualistic and non-compliant and spent most of their time avoiding people (e.g. Milarepa).

 

Just an observation.

 

 

[9th]

Everyone has some really good points here.  So many points.  And they are so good.  Really!

 

Keep up the good work, everyone.

[3bob]

some demons are very clever as recounted in parts of this string...and I think such should be called what it or they are - crazy demonism - not crazy wisdom

Edited August 21, 2017 by 3bob

[9th]

1 hour ago, 3bob said:

some demons are very clever as recounted in parts of this string...and I think such should be called what it or they are - crazy demonism - not crazy wisdom

 

The days of classical Upaya are long gone.  1000 years ago, people lived much, much differently than we do in our modern civilization.  The context of "skillful means" is really only "skillful" when it is actually effective.  Sexual abuse may or may not lead to awakening in the same way getting hit by a car may or may not lead to awakening.  A shocking event is just that and life already provides plenty of dangerous situations on its own without the help of manufactured scenarios.

 

Actual accomplishment of Upaya requires many more levels of activity, and many more moving parts than a shocking event on its own.  But to be clear as possible, it certainly doesnt require sexual abuse - or sex at all.  It can be accomplished through all kinds of things, including sexual intercourse - but there is a certain element of proper alignment to the whole endeavor which most likely wont require a transgression of personal boundaries to that degree.  And even if it does require that level of transgression, it is still possible to accomplish such things without being abusive.

 

So yes, all these bullshit buddhists and bullshit gurus with their bullshit ideas about "crazy wisdom" need to fuck right off and stop fooling themselves.  Its rather impossible to do a disservice to a practice such as Upaya, but it does cast a bad light on buddhism in a way that probably wont be helping people in the long run - which is ostensibly the point of buddhist compassion.

 

Its also fairly debatable whether or not a mode of being such as the Avadhuta is conducive to teaching or institutional groups in the first place...

[3bob]

miss greater laws and beings, fall to a lower laws and beings - and a reboot.

 

[9th]

There, there.. dont be scared.  Everything will be ok.