You got the point. The fortune-telling is not a religion, but a local belief. The Tibetan Buddhism is a belief mixed with fortune-telling, demon respect and tantric sex. It’s not okay for Tibet because the people there (especially the serfs) never know what is real Buddhism. They are ruled terribly under the lama hierarchy, offer their brains, hearts and hands for ritual ceremony, and expect to be born in a better hierarchy of next life. They are abused by lamas for centuries.
Why don’t you guys (/gals) go there and teach about real Buddhism?
Could we possibly discuss Tibetan Buddhism as it exists today, as opposed to fifty years ago? Otherwise we can talk about how Chinese Buddhism oppresses the Chinese serfs.
Why no, now that you mention it, they do not–otherwise they would not be Tibetan Buddhists anymore. You see, your problem is that you’re judging me as an outsider. You will understand me better once you agree with me!
All right, all ye apologists for Lamaism–name one positive contribution Tibetan Buddhism has made to Taiwan. No fair counting its alleged supernatural benefits–let’s limit ourselves to things which would be worthwhile even if the religion itself were untrue.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
I don’t think you can convince anyone. If you could, you would in the real world rather than ranting on a virtual forum.
Yes, it does contribute a lot to Taiwanese people.
- Lamas do give extra confidence to a bunch of attractive young girls by up-grading them to the level of “Buddha mother,” secretly though.
- Taiwan media have enough subjects to report about Tantric sex scandals, thank to the Tibetan lamas as the leading role.
- Last but not the least, lamas’ disgraceful conduct provides Zhengjue the chance to put up the sign to warn the Taiwan public, even the Westerners around the world, including Zla’od of course.
[quote=“Zla’od”]
In any case, no serious scholarship argues that the historical Buddha taught tantra, so a paper pointing this out would be about as useful as a paper arguing that Christ was not a Mormon.?[/quote]
Given that H.H. the Dalai Lama does advocate tantra practice and states in his book:
“…The teaching of Sakyamuni Buddha is different from the teachings of other Buddhas in that his has a union of sutra and tantra, whereas most of others do not have any tantra.” (p. 19)
“The Buddhism of Tibet and the Key to the Middle Way”
By H.H. the 14th Dalai Lama, 1975
According to H.H.’s words, did Buddha teach tantra or not?
What is your opinion then, is H.H. a real Buddhist leader or not?
Or perhaps I misinterpreted your point.
[quote=“Zla’od”]
If you wish to discuss what the historical Buddha really taught, this points to a subfield of historians who analyze ancient Sanskrit and Pali texts, among other artifacts. If you wish to discuss modern Tibetan Buddhism, this points to the rather different group of Tibetologists (whose methodologies may be textual-philological or anthropological). .?[/quote]
Regarding “what the historical Buddha really taught,” if your analyses would be feasible, all historians or religious academics who analyzed ancient Sanskrit texts or mastered in languages when they should wish to achieve the Buddhist ultimate goal would all have attained enlightenment and become Buddhas already. Obviously, the actual Buddhist cultivation is irrelevant to whether an individual or a group of people are specialized in the religious research fields or academic studies.
To discuss the two subjects together is a “must” because the majority of people are not familiar with the Buddha dharma; so Zhengjue is explaining the reasons why Tibetan Tantrism is not Buddhism by two principles: the worldly phenomena and the Buddha dharma. My posts are long and complicated due to my unskillful English ability, and also thank to the contents that I wish to present both principles – the facts caused by lamas (worldly affairs) and the real teachings of the sutras – for your reference. In doing so, you can hardly remark that Zhengjue is acting on “personal religious assumptions.” Unless you are apt to make a fool of yourself.
To be frank, how many of you were well-informed about the sexual doctrines of Tibetan Tantrism before Zhengjue’s “stupid” revelation?
As you would prefer, just like Ms. June Campbell decently wrote a book thirteen years ago; Zhengjue also silently published “Behind the Façade of Tibetan Buddhism” (in Chinese) in 2002. Now Zhengjue has chosen to act as a retarded idiot, to be spat at and shouted at to draw the public’s attention, but not aiming to be agreed upon by the intelligent and well-informed people. Beside, once you are well-informed and intelligent enough, you don’t need to be warned off, right?
For your information, H.H. does know Zhengjue, didn’t you see the DVD of Radio Free Asia?
I do appreciate your sincere statements; after all, I am merely revealing the long hidden secret to the public. Having known the truth, everyone is still free to make your own decision if you would like to be one of the tantric members. Who wishes to be fooled to get involved with any religion without knowing the whole picture?
Would you care to name a few?
(Apart from Waddell, of course, whose irrelevance I have already pointed out.)
Although I do not regard myself myself an apologist for Tibetan Buddhism (or “Lamaism”, for that matter), might I suggest that the basic Tibetan Buddhist teachings of viewing all beings with compassion, while at the same time recognising that they lack any inherent existence has brought a degree of wisdom and a certain sense of meaning to the lives of those people who choose to follow and implement those teachings, regardless of whether they be Tibetan, Taiwanese, Western or whoever.
Whether this can be expressed in any measurable terms (along the lines of the Bhutanese gross national happiness index) I am not prepared to say, but let me say this: at least their non-violent response to the outrageous vitriolic diatribes directed their way from rabid sectarian fundamentalists like buddhism is to their credit.
In other religious traditions and in other countries, the response to such attacks is not always so peaceful.
Perhaps there is a lesson being taught that we are not yet fully appreciative of.
And even if Tibetan Buddhism in Taiwan is, as you say, paracitic in nature, so what?
Imagine, if you will, a hypothetical situation in which Taiwan is invaded by a powerful neigbour, and as a result, Chan Buddhist monks and nuns find themselves languishing in refugee camps throughout SE Asia. If they then sent some of their high-profile teachers to countries with sympathetic Buddhist populations ostensibly to teach, but mainly to try to raise funds to support their bretheren back in the camps, would the paracitic nature of the relationship be something so objectionable?
I, for one, don’t think so. (OK, I admit I might see it differently if they were to try to carve out a larger slice of the donation market by means of sectarian propaganda campaigns.)
Regarding “what the historical Buddha really taught,” if your analyses would be feasible, all historians or religious academics who analyzed ancient Sanskrit texts or mastered in languages when they should wish to achieve the Buddhist ultimate goal would all have attained enlightenment and become Buddhas already. Obviously, the actual Buddhist cultivation is irrelevant to whether an individual or a group of people are specialized in the religious research fields or academic studies.[/quote]
Breathtaking!
[quote=“buddhism”] According to H.H.’s words, did Buddha teach tantra or not?
What is your opinion then, is H.H. a real Buddhist leader or not?
Or perhaps I misinterpreted your point.[/quote]
The fact that the Dalai Lama makes unsubstantiated claims about what Śākyamuni taught does not disqualify him from being a Buddhist leader. (Just the opposite, I would have thought.)
And yes, you do miss the point. We are talking about what editors of academic journals think, not pious Tibetan Buddhists.
Do I detect a slight change in position here?
Is it now only the tantric side of Tibetan Buddhism that is not Buddhism?
In other words, is the exoteric sutra side of Tibetan Buddhism now admitted as Buddhism?
To be frank, how many of you were well-informed about the sexual doctrines of Tibetan Tantrism before Zhengjue’s “stupid” revelation?
As you would prefer, just like Ms. June Campbell decently wrote a book thirteen years ago; Zhengjue also silently published “Behind the Façade of Tibetan Buddhism” (in Chinese) in 2002. Now Zhengjue has chosen to act as a retarded idiot, to be spat at and shouted at to draw the public’s attention, but not aiming to be agreed upon by the intelligent and well-informed people. Beside, once you are well-informed and intelligent enough, you don’t need to be warned off, right?[/quote]
I guess I would read that as “no” and “no”.
Umm… those who choose to dismiss the well-researched work of historians and philologists because it does not accord with their own dogmatic beliefs, perhaps?
Would you care to name a few?
(Apart from Waddell, of course, whose irrelevance I have already pointed out.)[/quote]
Thanks for giving me chance to give more explanations:
- The Germany Prof. Helmut von Glasenapp, Indologist and religios scholar at Tübingen University, published The five Worldreligions (Die fünf Weltreligionen) in 1940. Prof. von Glasenapp analyzed in his book: Due to the erotic practices (= tantric sex), most of the Buddhists deny to recognize Vajrayana Buddhism as Buddhism; It’s Buddhist teachings are fake.
The Prof. von Glasenapp has another book Buddhist Mystery (Buddhistische Mysterien) with more research results.
- The Germany human thinker Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803) criticized: “If there is any religion of enormity and disgust in the world, it is the religion in Tibet. (Wenn eine Religion der Erde ungeheuer und widrig ist, so ists die Religion in Tibet.)”
See: Reflections on the Philosophy of the History of Mankind (Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit)
What here mentioned are Germany critics. As I know, there are some European researchers (eg. Italian or French) who have observations and critical points of view of Tibet and Lamaism. Maybe their researches will be a good reference for you.
Buddhism, the Dalai Lama is (to me) obviously a Buddhist, and a teacher, but he is not an academic, and has no particular qualifications to discuss the historicity of Buddha, other than the fact that people respect him as a religious leader. For example, he does not read Sanskrit, he has not published referreed articles on the subject, etc.
Adikarmika, you seem to think that Tibetan monks have been raising money primarily to support their besieged co-ethnics under Chinese rule. The FPMT was raising money to build a big statue. Many lamas fund monasteries (which they control) in places like India. But they do nothing to better the lives of Taiwanese people, unless you count the rhetoric about compassion and so forth as a kind of contribution. Of course, talk is cheap, and Scientology also teaches these things. We have to look beyond the rhetoric.
Bhutan’s GNH ideology is ironic, considering that it was formulated at about the same time as a government-ordered ethnic cleansing of the country’s Nepali-speaking Hindu minority. GNH is great PR, and plays into the whole “Shangri-La-La Land” image, but at bottom is just an impressive-looking quantitative exercise designed to justify whatever the government has decided to do anyway.
Tantrismuskritic, have you found any academic writings like that from recent decades? Or did that kind of talk die out after World War II?
Why don’t you guys (/gals) go there and teach about real Buddhism?[/quote]
Sorry for the repeated post.
Why don’t you guys (/gals) go there and teach about real Buddhism?[/quote]
Isha, may I ask how long have you learned the Tibetan Buddhism? What have you learned from the teachings of you guru lama? I ask because I notice that your way of thinking and expressions is aggressive. Aggression is one of the marks of Tibetan Buddhism. Maybe you could change your way of expressions to discuss with others?
Than to your question. Who are the guys who have gone to Tibet and taught the people there the so-called Buddhism? The Padmasambhava and other gurus taught them the fake Buddhist teachings so that the Tibetan serfs believed in the fake Buddhism without knowing it’s teachings are fake.
You ask me why not go there to teach them the true Buddha dharma. As I realize, it’s an internet world nowadays, and all information is easy to go through anywhere via Internet. So, it’s not my responsibility, but also yours to spread out the true Buddhist teachings. It is meant anyone who realizes the true color of Tibetan Buddhism can and should help others realize the same thing.
I am afraid it’s impossible to ignore the old Tibet under the rule of Dalai Lamas. The XIV Dalai Lama accuses of the violance and abuse of China without mentioning his violance and abuse to the serfs. Is it logical? The good and wealthy life of old Tibet he mentioned is the life of landlord (= lama hierarchy = 2% of Tibetan), not the serfs (= 98% of Tibetan). As the leader of lama hierarchy, he is the one who has right to gain the human rights for the serfs and change their lives. But he did not do anything to show his kindness. It shows Dalai Lama has 2 faces. One is for the poor serfs (= to abuse them), the other for the Westerner who emphasize the human rights. Before Dalai Lama finger points China, he has to face honestly his history of abusing the hierarchy of serf.
In the History of Yuan, it is written down that the Mongolian lama rape as their will the Han women（任意強暴漢族婦女, sorry for my poor language ability）so that the city is full of tears of Han women. And every bride has to be sent to the Mongolian lama who abuses her sexually and gains the right of “first night”. I didn’t know yet the Chinese Buddhim oppressed the Chinese serfs, but the Mongolian lamas abuse the Chinese women. Maybe you could give me any hint to find the evidence of the oppression of Chinese Buddhism? Thanks a lot.
If you read my post more carefully, I believe you will see that I was talking about money being channelled back to monasteries in refugee communities in India and Nepal, not Chinese-occupied Tibet.
As I intimated in an earlier post, I don’t have much more than a passing acqaintance with Tibetans in Taiwan, so I could be mistaken about this.
Be that as it may, I was nevertheless under the impression that the Gelugpa presence here was small compared to the other three sects combined. Therefore, it is also my opinion that, since FPMT is a Gelugpa organisation, that funding for the Maitreya statue in Kushinagar, constitues a relatively minor portion of the total amount of money donated by Taiwanese citizens.
I have no idea how much it costs to build a gigantic statue in India, but I imagine that only a small percentage of money donated to FPMT is used for that purpose. If you visit their website (fpmt.org/projects/fpmt/seraje.html) you will see that they claim to fund 7,800 meals per day to monks in India, which suggests to me this is where most of their funds are directed.
However, I stand to be corrected if you can supply the relevant figures.
Again, if you read my post carefully, you’ll see that I accept that the relationship between Tibetan Buddhists and Taiwanese could be characterised as paracitic, but that I don’t see this as particularly abnormal. It’s basically how Buddhism has survived for the past 2,500 years.
Actually, it was about two decades earlier. The expulsion of Nepalis occurred in the late 80s and early 90s. The GNH was first announced in 1972, and was presumably formulated in the years leading up.
Yes. Its dubious nature is the reason I said I was not prepared to claim that it could be used to measure any beneficial impact that Tibetan Buddhism may have had on Taiwan. (Though that may be a line that others may wish to take.)
On February 4. 1997, a ritualmurder occured in the Tibetan community in Dharamsala. The Lama Lobsang Gystso is terribly murdered, and his skin is teared off. THIS shocked the Western media as well as the societies. They found out that the Dalai Lama is not an angle as they knew but a projection of western images, and the Tibetan Buddhism is a fake religion. Since that time, it begins to hear the critical voices. Following are some of the critical books, for your references:
-
Trimondi, Der Schatten des Dalai Lama: Sexualität, Magie und Politik im tibetischen Buddhismus (The Shadow of Dalai Lama: Sex, Black Magic and Politic in Tibetan Buddhism), 1999, Düsseldorf Germany
-
Colin Goldner, Dalai Lama - Fall eines Gottkönigs (Dalai Lama - Fall of the Godking), 1999, Aschaffenburg Germany
-
Bruno Waldvogel-Frei, Das Lächeln des Dalai Lama… und was dahintersteckt (The Smile of Dalai Lama… and what is behind), 2008, Brockhaus Swiss
-
Maxime Vivas, Pas si zen: La face cachée du Dalaï-Lama (“Not So ‘Zen’: The Hidden Side of the Dalai Lama”), 2012, France
(amazon.co.uk/Pas-zen-face-ca … 2315002907) -
Miranda Shaw, Passionate Enlightenment: Women in Tantric Buddhism.
(amazon.com/Passionate-Enligh … 0691033803) -
Benjamin Walker, Tantrism, Its Secret Principles and Practices
(amazon.com/Tantrism-Its-Secr … 0850302730)
(On Gross National Happiness:) The previous king coined it as a joke in 1972, in answer to an interview question about why Bhutan was so poor. It took them awhile to run with the idea.
98 percent of pre-1950 Tibetans were serfs, and the rest monks? Were there no nomads? (I thought about half of them were nomads.) No traders? Come now. As for Chinese Buddhism, the biggest problem is that temples accumulate wealth to the point where they dominate more and more of society, and have to be purged with massacres from time to time as an economic reform measure.
Compare with the behavior of Christian monasteries, which engage in charitable activities (at least sometimes). No, religion does not HAVE to be parasitic. It depends on the religion, and the group.
Among Tibetan Buddhist groups, Penor Rinpoche’s seems to have the biggest presence in Taiwan. Money goes to a monastery in India (is it Mindroling?)–that’s why he recognized Jetsunma and Stephen Seagal as tulkus.
Tantrismuskritik, several of the books on your list cannot be considered academic works. Miranda Shaw’s is, but she does not deny that Tibetan Buddhism is Buddhism.
I stand corrected. (Not that it’s particularly relevant to the present discussion.)
Same goes, as far as I can tell, for the non-academic books that you mentioned.
Yes, they are critical of Tibetan Buddhism, but do they actually say it isn’t Buddhism? And if so, what are their arguments, exactly?
True Buddhism is already there. Perhaps you should try to learn something from them about True Buddhism.