Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism; Lamas are not Buddhists

Arts & Sciences Religion & Spirituality
521

True Buddhism is already there. Perhaps you should try to learn something from them about True Buddhism.[/quote]
It means you agree with the teachings of Tibetan Buddhism. Than, would you tell me:

  1. In Four Agama Sutra（四阿含經）, Buddha Shakyamuni says repeatedly that the consciousness (6th vijnana) is impermanent and dual. But lamas of Tibetan Buddhism say the consciousness (6th vijnana) is permanent and non-dual. So, is Tibetan Buddhism true Buddhism?

  2. In Four Agama Sutra, Buddha Shakyamuni says repeatedly that the worldly desire (include the sexual desire) has to be given up, it means to vanish worldy desire is the condition to get out of the Three Realm （出三界）and become Arhat（成阿羅漢）. But lamas of Tibetan Buddhism say the tantric sex is the condition of achievement of Enlightenment and becoming Buddha (A person who becomes Buddha is also Arhat and has ability to get out of the Three Realms). So, is Tibetan Buddhism true Buddhism?

522

I read the information which reflects the reality of Tibetan Buddhism, even neither the authors are scholars nor the works are academic.

Miranda Shaw cites in her work that Lama Yeshe, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso and Geshe Dhargyey have real women for their tantric sexual rituals. Those 3 lamas are modern masters of Tibetan Buddhism, and this is a provable evidence that the latest stage of tantric practice can not be done without real women. It means the tantric sex does exist in Tibetan Buddhism and it is the most important way for lamas to achieve enlightenment. According to the teachings of Buddha Shakyamuni, those evidances show exactly that the Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism, even though Prof. Shaw does not deny directly the Tibetan Buddhism as Buddhism. (Actually, she is cheated by the teachings of Tibetan Buddhism and lamas so that she could not see through the truth of Tibetan Buddhism.)

For me, it’s more important to see the reality than the surface to find out the true color of Tibetan Buddhism. Thus, I prefer non-scholars who have sharp observations, eg. Trimondi and Colin Goldner. Both of them have been familiar to Tibetan Buddhism. Their information in books are helpful for recognizing the truth of Tibetan Buddhism. So, I think this is a good way for me to gain correct information without emphasizing academic works or qualified scholars.

523

You are misreporting your sources yet again.

Shaw does not claim that these Gelugpa lamas have real women for their tantric sexual rituals, at all.
What she actually says is that they acknowledge that advanced practitioners need to meditate in union with a human partner in order to attain enlightenment in their present lifetime. (p.146)
There is no evidence or suggestion that the teachers you mention engage in such practices themselves.

Shaw also reports the standard Gelug position on the subject, which is that Tsong-kha-pa, advanced practitioner though he was, did not take a human partner because he wanted to preserve his monastic vows.
Thus, your (and others’) claims that Gelugpas hold that a monk can secretly practice tantric sex with a physical consort while maintaining the purity of his monastic vows do not appear to be supported.

Well, since this way doesn’t appear to be working for you, perhaps you should try reading some reputable scholarly works instead.

524

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?[/quote]
I think maybe it’s good to ask first: Who wants to know the truth of Tibetan Buddhism? The scholars or you? If your answer is the last one, it is to suggest that as a reader of either academic or non-academic works it’s more important to look below the surface of words than the words themselves. Than it is possible to gain information, to judge or distinguish the arguments which are helpful and informative to recognize the ture side of Tibetan Buddhism.

As I read, Trimondi (author of The Shadow of the Dalai Lama, English version: trimondi.de/SDLE/Contents.htm) does actually say Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism. The subtitle of his book “Sexualität, Magie und Politik im tibetischen Buddhismus” (Sex, Black Magic and Politic in Tibetan Buddhism) shows his arguments. As a researcher of Tibetan Buddhism, he tells readers the Tibetan Buddhism is a belief derives from Indian tantric teachings, and the tantric sex is the core of practition of Tibetan Buddhism to get the androgynous superpower over the universe. It means the lamas/yogis need real women for tantric rituals. The women are used as batteries to offer their Gynergie (female energy). Than the lamas have male and female energy in one in their bodies. The more androgynous energy they have, the more strong their power is which makes them to be Buddha to control the whole universe.

Comparing to Four Agama Sutra, it is obvious that the Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism. Buddha Shakyamuni never teaches the tantric sex, never teaches his followers to get male and female energy in one, never teaches them to become Buddha to control the whole universe. But all these are written in tantric Sutra（密續）of Tibetan Buddhism.

Trimondi also analyses the Myth of Shambhala of Tibetan Buddhism and it’s “final battle” (to destroy all non-Buddhists). The lamas and gurus will not tell their followers the real meaning of those teachings (include the real aim of practition of tantric sex).

I have not found English translation of Goldner’s work. His research bases on the politic and society of Tibet and XIV Dalai Lama. Eg. he reveals the historical situation of old Tibet (the poor life of serfs, the tyrannical rule of lama hierarchy) which shows the XIV Dalai Lama is a ambidexterous politician. He accuses the violence of human rights of China without mention of his own violence of human rights. He and the noble hierarchy (= lamas) are those who lose their benefits after China ends the serfhood. Those who assert “Free Tibet” come from lama hierarchy, not serf hierarchy. But the western wolrd know less about this. They also don’t see the true face of Dalai Lama, and support him without knowing the truth.

525

Yes, that’s clearly your interpretation, but unless you can actually quote any passages that unambiguously express the view that Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism, we shall just have to assume that neither Trimondi, nor any of the other sources you have cited on this thread holds the views that you immaginatively attribute to them (which given your record for distorting the facts, would hardly be surprising.)

Nor did Śākyamuni teach anything about ālayavijñāna. Historians and scholars have shown that it was a Yogācāra innovation that came along about 700 years later. But unless they had some ulterior motive, nobody would use this as a reason to say that Chan Buddhism is not Buddhism.

And you still want to maintain that your so-called “purely religiously motivated” campaign is not aimed at discrediting the Dalai Lama politically? Come on!

While I agree that it would be a good thing if the Dalai Lama made a clearer public acknowledgement of the injustices and human rights abuses that were inherent in the old Tibetan political system (rather than just say that it “wasn’t perfect”), I hardly think that he can be held personally responsible for its excesses.
After all, he was not appointed as the temporal leader of Tibet until just before the PLA marched into Lhasa. And he was only 15 y.o. at the time.
Sorry, but I don’t buy into the whole dubious reincarnation recognition processs (nor do you, I suspect), so don’t try and tell me that he is responsible for the actions of earlier Dalai Lamas.
And don’t you think it’s a bit hypocrital for the Chinese to insist on an acknowledgement from the Dalai Lama of the exploitation that some Tibetans suffered under the old system while they themselves refuse to acknowlege the human rights abuses that are occuring right now?
Isn’t what is happening now more important than what happened under an old theocratic system that even the Tibetans themselves do not wish to revive.
It would seem you think not (and I think it’s fairly clear why).

526

[quote=“Tantrismuskritik”]
It means you agree with the teachings of Tibetan Buddhism. Than, would you tell me:

  1. In Four Agama Sutra（四阿含經）, Buddha Shakyamuni says repeatedly that the consciousness (6th vijnana) is impermanent and dual. But lamas of Tibetan Buddhism say the consciousness (6th vijnana) is permanent and non-dual. So, is Tibetan Buddhism true Buddhism?

  2. In Four Agama Sutra, Buddha Shakyamuni says repeatedly that the worldly desire (include the sexual desire) has to be given up, it means to vanish worldy desire is the condition to get out of the Three Realm （出三界）and become Arhat（成阿羅漢）. But lamas of Tibetan Buddhism say the tantric sex is the condition of achievement of Enlightenment and becoming Buddha (A person who becomes Buddha is also Arhat and has ability to get out of the Three Realms). So, is Tibetan Buddhism true Buddhism?[/quote]

Answer for 1 and 2 is same: Nobody knows what Buddha Shakyamuni reallly said. Different branches of Buddhism were started by different followers. While you believe in one follower, other branches believe in others. Who is to say that Buddha Shakyamuni opposed sex or sexual practices? Just because you believe in one type of literature, you should not be disrespecting others’ teachings. So, yes, Tibetian Buddhism is real Buddhism. It is of course not your branch of Buddhism but it is as real and true as anything can be. Once your mind is open and accepting through regular meditation, you will see how everything is one.

527

Would you say that the Trimondis are respected by the Buddhological and Tibetological communities? Has their work received positive reviews in academic journals? Are they routinely cited as authorities in their field, or are they fringe figures who have to publish on the internet because no academic press will have them?

528

No. No. No. Yes.

529

I doubt that is correct.

While I am aware that in Tibetan Buddhism certain states of consciousness are said to be non-dual (in the sense of the disappearance of the distinction between subject and object), I was under the impression that notions of non-dual awareness are also to be found in Theravadin presentations of the eight [i]dhyānas /i.
I therefore doubt that the āgamas consistently say anything about the duality (or non-duality) of the sixth vijñāna.

And as for Tibetan Buddhist lamas supposedly asserting the permanence of the 6th vijñāna, could you please cite your source? (Preferably a Gelug one.)

530

[quote=“Zla’od”]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.
[/quote]

Why are they called the Three Jewels: the Buddha, the Buddha dharma and Sangha?
Why should the general public offer donations and respect them?
It is because the Buddha has taught the ways to attain liberation and Buddhahood, and the Sangha are the group dedicated themselves entirely to carry on the Buddha’s teachings and spread the Buddha dharma to the public.

A Buddhist religious leader certainly needs not to be an academic or a linguist, but he/she must have the proper knowledge of what he/she is advocating, otherwise he/she does not deserve others hard-earned money under the name of Buddhism or Buddhist Sangha, let alone does live an enjoyable life style like any ordinary individual without having to work, yet immersing in sensory pleasures.

For your further reference, please see what H.H. the Dalai Lama says:
"According to the general Mahayana point of view, there were three major turnings of the wheel, as the three main cycles of the Buddha’s teachings are traditionally called. The teachings that were given during these three major turnings of the wheel are literally contradictory—some elements are really incompatible. (Jeremy Hayward and Francisco J. Varela, Gentle Bridges: Conversations with the Dalai Lama on the Sciences of Mind, 1992, Boston, Mass: Shambhala Publications, p.31)

Since the Buddha has attained the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment, does the Dalai Lama’s statement here insinuating that his achievement in Buddhist field is superior than that of the Buddha?
The Dalai Lama’s speeches and deeds are obviously not a Buddhist monk; in terms of Buddhist Sangha, he does not deserve any respect at all; for worldly show biz, that’s entirely another story!

531

[quote=“Buddhism”]
The Dalai Lama’s speeches and deeds are obviously not a Buddhist monk; in terms of Buddhist Sangha, he does not deserve any respect at all; for worldly show biz, that’s entirely another story![/quote]

Trashing others is certainly not a part of Buddhist Culture. Are you a Buddhist or just trying to spread your propaganda against Dalai Lama?

532

[quote=“buddhism”]For your further reference, please see what H.H. the Dalai Lama says:
"According to the general Mahayana point of view, there were three major turnings of the wheel, as the three main cycles of the Buddha’s teachings are traditionally called. The teachings that were given during these three major turnings of the wheel are literally contradictory—some elements are really incompatible. (Jeremy Hayward and Francisco J. Varela, Gentle Bridges: Conversations with the Dalai Lama on the Sciences of Mind, 1992, Boston, Mass: Shambhala Publications, p.31)

Since the Buddha has attained the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment, does the Dalai Lama’s statement here insinuating that his achievement in Buddhist field is superior than that of the Buddha?[/quote]
As you are well aware, his statement is nothing but a recognition of the bleeding obvious, namely, that certain Buddhist scriptures contradict each other. (Which is, of course, not surprising, given that that they were compiled over many centuries by monks who often disagreed with each other over what the Buddha was supposed to have taught.)

Would you care to be specific about which prātimokṣa vow he has “obviously” broken?

Are you suggesting that he’s not a member of the saṃgha?
Perhaps you’d better define saṃgha.

533

(Sigh.) The Dalai Lama–like Tibetan Buddhists generally–believes that the buddhas and bodhisattvas teach in numerous ways due to the different needs and capacities of sentient beings; and that all three “turnings” (following the schema set forth in the Sandhinirmocanasutra, the Sutra of Unravelling the Thought [of Enlightenment]) all represent the teachings of Sakyamuni Buddha, but that the second turning is definitive, while the others require interpretation.

534

[quote=“adikarmika”]Nor did Śākyamuni teach anything about ālayavijñāna.
[/quote]

Not again, please! 炒冷飯 !
We have spent pages in this subject! Please spare everybody’s precious time!
Since you do not believe in the authentic existence of PP sutras, I did provide you the proof from the Four Agamas.

Just to refresh your memory, if you would care to have a look.

[quote=“Buddhism”][quote="adikarmika ]
At least you admit the Four Agamas Sutras, let’s have them first:1. In the Four Agamas you can already see the teachings of Alaya vijnana (如來藏).
“…What does that mean? If the vijnana did not enter the embryo, would there be name-and-form?’ Ananda replied: ‘No!’ ‘If the vijnana entered the embryo and would not work, would there be name-and-form?’ Ananda replied: ‘No!’…,” in the Longer Agama Sutra, Vol. 10

It is good that you can read Sanskrit, please read this original text from Sanskrit.
Mind you, here, this vijnana is not the mind vijnana of the twelve links of dependent arising.

  1. The Angulimaliya Sutra of [color=#800000]the Miscellaneous Agamas /color, mentioned several times the
    Tathagata (如來藏)

“Having faith in the Tathagata dharma is as rare as finding gold grains in the sands of the Ganges, or as a blind turtle coincidentally running into a hole in a piece of drifting wood in the sea; these exemplify the situation(s) of those who encounter the Tathagata sutras (如來藏經) of the Buddha,” in the Angulimaliya Sutra, Vol. 4 (鴦掘魔羅經)

  1. The PP Sutras for example:
    …
    There are countless phrases that are beyond my time to do the translation.
    Because the dharmakaya manifests like an empty space, without any form or appearance in all sentient beings, it is natural that we tend to grasp the word “empty” and regard the Buddha’s teaching is all but “emptiness.”[/quote]
    You even replied:

Buddhism, I’ll respond to your post on the other thread.[/quote][/quote]

535

[quote=“Zla’od”]
Miranda Shaw’s is, but she does not deny that Tibetan Buddhism is Buddhism.[/quote]
(A very big sigh)
For an apologist of Lamaism (a part-timer), you could do much better than such insipid remarks.
To claim that Tibetan Tantric Buddhism is not Buddhism, it is necessary to point out the reasons why, and the reasons have to be in line with the Buddha’s teachings which were recorded in the Sutras; these processes are exactly what Zhengjue is doing.

Ms. June Campbell published her personal experience as a sex slave of the holy guru Kalu Rinpoche for years, and she still does not have any faintest idea about the true Buddhist cultivation methods; it is because there exists no Buddha dharma for liberation to transcend the three realms 出三界 among lamas and gurus.

So many books reveal real lamas performing actual sexual practices; Tibetan Tantric practitioners, either lay or monastic, their final goal is to cultivate the Highest Yoga Tantra (couple-practice of copulation); while Buddhist monastic Sangha should abide by the celibate precept as a basic requirement for self-restraint in order to attain advanced cultivation to carry on the Buddha dharma.

Your argument here reminded me of the case in the U.S. titled “Buddhist Sect Alarmed by Reports that Leader Kept his AIDS a Secret,” which reads:
“The biggest branch of Tibetan Buddhism in America has been stunned with reports that its spiritual leader, whose homosexual activity was known to the movement’s insiders, has been infected with the AIDS virus since 1985 but did not acknowledge the problem until last December when a companion was also found to be infected.”
aegis.com/news/lt/1989/LT890302.html

If all symptoms point to the actual fact, but none explicitly spelled the words out, people are prone to ignore the truth until it explodes eventually. How amazing!

Typical enough, Zhengjue points out and spells the words out, Tibetan Tantric Buddhism is not Buddhism, and provided with sufficient proofs, there are some well-informed intellectuals still disagree.

536

Your conclusions strike me (and practically everybody else) as overblown. In any case they have little to do with the “insipid remark” you are apparently responding to.

537

[quote=“buddhism”]I did provide you the proof from the Four Agamas…

  1. The Angulimaliya Sutra of the Miscellaneous Agamas (雜阿含), mentioned several times the Tathagata (如來藏)[/quote]
    All you have shown is that the word tathāgatagarbha, which your tradition interprets as being synonymous with ālayavijñāna, is found in a certain Sanskrit text (Aṇgulimālīya sūtra 央掘魔羅經 ; T120) that was translated into Chinese in the 5th century (yet is absent in a later Chinese translation of the same text).
    But you have not at all proven (the basically unprovable assertion) that the Aṇgulimālīya sūtra records the teachings of the Buddha.
    We might therefore be just as dismissive of your claim that it does as you are of Tibetan claims that the tantras were taught by the Buddha.
    Don’t you see that?

[quote=“buddhism”]Zhengjue is explaining the reasons why Tibetan Tantrism is not Buddhism by two principles…

[quote=“adikarmika”]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?[/quote][/quote]
I assume, based on your most recent post, that your answers to the above questions are “yes”, “yes” and “yes”

[quote=“buddhism”]To claim that Tibetan Tantric Buddhism is not Buddhism, it is necessary to point out the reasons why, …
Typical enough, Zhengjue points out and spells the words out, Tibetan Tantric Buddhism is not Buddhism, …[/quote]

Yes, “overblown” is an apt description of your post.
She was coerced. That’s hardly the same as being a “sex slave”.

Sorry, but you will have to be a bit more explicit about the relationship between being a tantric practitioner and not disclosing one’s HIV positive status.
I just don’t quite see the causal connection.

It would perhaps be more accurate to say that there are virtually no well-informed intellectuals who do agree.
In fact, one doesn’t need to be an intellectual or even particularly well-informed to see your campaign for what it is.

538

A big :bow:
It must have been the result from my new keyboard + an abnormal Chan style reply; hopefully everybody’s Buddha nature would be awakened, in time.

Are you still alive and kicking around?

539

[quote=“adikarmika”]

Yes, “overblown” is an apt description of your post.
She was coerced. That’s hardly the same as being a “sex slave”…[/quote]
Perhaps you missed the article somehow; these are Ms. June Campbell’s own words.
For your reference, please see for yourself:

godlikeproductions.com/forum … 523474/pg1

independent.co.uk/arts-enter … 69859.html

540

(Sigh.) She did not write the headline. Money 'grafs:

and then: