Then why did you write: “There just aren’t enough half-Tibetan babies running around for the “tantric teachers abuse students” stories to be logical.” ?
You are contradicting your own argument.
Additionally, children could very easily be accidentally fathered by tantra (with real, not visualized, consorts, of course). Retention of semen is not an exact art.[/quote]
My point was that if a baby happens, it either wasn’t a true tantric exercise to begin with, or became a failed one. Secondly, I’m referring to the oft-flouted “abuse” allegation which holds that “many” or “most” so-called tantric gurus use the claim of tantric exercise as an excuse to somehow abuse women by luring them into ordinary sex. Again, if it’s abusive, or ordinary, or both, it’s not a tantric exercise.
As for the thread title and subsequent conversations, it’s that old question: do you engage disinformation, or ignore it? In this case the wording of the thread title was taken from a sign which is/was erected in Taiwan, so banning the topic would be hard to justify, though I agree that “Horrible Sign” might be a better header
Does anyone know if the sign is still up?
And what kind of deal does Zhengjue have with the local authorities to allow PRC front operations free reign on Taiwanese soil…
But even in HK in the 1970s the huge “China Products” store loomed, complete with flimsy little bicycles, communist propaganda books (in English!) directed at children, and the ubiquitous, oh-so-memorable bumper carts on the roof. There is simply no quicker way to a child’s heart than bumper carts.
Review of Stephen T. Butterfield- The Double Mirror amazon.com/The-Double-Mirror … 1556431767
The following material was sent to me by a friend. I have decided to reproduce it as it is. This seems to be a very important book in understanding the phenomenon of the abusive and ambiguous intermediate zone gurus. Butterrfield was a follower of Trungpa, and was ostracised by the community because of this book - MAK.
The Double Mirror: A Skeptical Journey into Buddhist Tantra: Stephen T. Butterfield
He asks the vital question: [color=#0000FF]why was it important to follow the Buddhist ethical guidelines in the early stages of practice and how then did these suddenly become irrelevant as soon as you were practicing at tantra level?[/color]
I would say both of them are genuine teachings of the Buddha. (Are the Middle Length (Pali) Sutras 中阿含 in Chinese? I just want to be 100% sure.)
You don’t look to the school, but you look into the essence of their teachings; the Cittamatra school could have favored Vijnana-Only (Vijnanavada) Sutras, what if they interpreted them in a wrong way then? Basically the Sutras are all right (apart from the tantras), but how people interpret them are quite important.
The Four Agamas Sutras (the first round of wheel-turning) focus on the Liberation-Way practices (the very basic for both Mahayana and Hinayana practices), which elaborate on the five aggregates, four noble truth, noble eightfold paths, and the twelve links of dependent arising. The subjects are all within the worldly five skandhas, twelve ayatanās and eighteen dhatavahs.
The Cittamatra school proceeds further to foster the Prajñāpāramitā wisdom, to uncover what is the original cause behind the whole existence and how it functions. These are the second and the third round of wheel-turning. Cittamatra refers to “three realms being Citta-Only, and all dharmas being Vijnana-Only.” In terms of Buddhism, the whole existence are divided into two categories, the mental dharma心法 and the form dharma 色法.
The Avatamsaka (Hua Yen) Sutra is much too profound to be properly understood by normal humans. When the Buddha attained Buddhood, He initially expounded the Hua Yen Sutra to the heavenly great Bodhisattvas. This is to show that the Buddha did attain the unsurpassed ultimate enlightenment; then the Buddha started to teach earthlings from the very beginning of the four Agamas Sutras.
How can on decide?
e.g., Any English native speaker can easily see my English writing is inadequate; just as simple as that! You just have to study and understand the contents of the Agama sutras as the very basic for the Buddhist learning, which I have compiled on the other thread more or less (very superficial only).
In Buddhist learning, you have to piece the knowing altogether like a jigsaw puzzle into a whole picture, the same way as we build up a pyramid, and the foundation is quite important. Once you have the fundamental knowledge of Buddhism, whenever someone is talking about Buddhism, you will automatically know it is or is not true Buddhism. The same way as you can judge my English. The difference is that, inadequate English can pass by with some guessing, but true Buddhism needs zoom lens in every details, it is about nothing or eternity.
I hope my reply is to your satisfaction, if not, please let me know. Thank you.
So, it’s official - I have a copy now of Gendun Chopel’s book (edited by Hopkins), “Tibetan Arts of Love.” Contrary to what the “Trimondis” clam, this author says absolutely nothing about offering sweets to 12 year old girls to entice them into ritual sex.
Here’s a link to a PDF copy of the book (small, abt 1 MB):
Since none of the cases you cite is an actual instance of sexual abuse established in a court of law, then we must assume that such cases don’t exist. Otherwise you would have cited them (instead of mere allegations anonymously posted on a blog.)
Furthermmore, even if such cases were successfully proven in the courts, it would not follow that sexual abuse is institutional within Tibetan Buddhism.
And even if it were, it would not follow that Tibetan Buddhism was not a form of Buddhism (though, admittedly, it may be a corrupt form.)
What you mean to say is:
Once you have blindly swallowed the fundamentalist dogma of your fringe sect (and ignored the well-researched writings of countless scholars), whenever someone is talking about a tradition of Buddhism that has beliefs and practices different from your own, instead of accepting that Buddhism may take many forms or subjecting your own essentialist beliefs to closer scrutiny, you automatically become super-defensive and deny that those other traditions could possibly be Buddhism.
One has to wonder why. What are you afraid of?
It just doesn’t make sense. Unless, of course, you have some sort of ulterior motive (or are being manipulated by others with such motives.)
That was my impression as well. I assume Shakyamuni to have been a rather more engaging speaker!
In this light, then, it is possible (without committing theological inconsistency) to be either a Theravadin or a Mahayanist, and yet reject the tantras (or some of the tantras, e.g. the ones with sexual imagery). It is also possible–though by no means required–for such a person to maintain that those who accept such tantras are not really Buddhist.
Yes, in real life (as opposed to contrived debate) I agree with this–and note the Wittgensteinian insight’s affinities with Buddhism!
Homey (poster–no, I am not lapsing into AAVE), I wouldn’t worry too much. Just as Chinese propaganda tends to be counterproductive, so does Zhengjue’s (and the Trimondis’). More people around here humor them than support them.
On the canon, it seems that Buddhism (poster) accepts both the Pali canon (represented by the Middle-Length Suttas) and the traditional Chinese canon (represented by the Avatamsaka Sutra). I speculate that she would reject, say, the Sutra of the Owl-Headed Dakini (a treasure text) or the messages delivered through Elizabeth Clare Prophet (who channeled Buddha, Maitreya, and Padmasambhava, among other worthies). The question naturally arises: why? Is there a reason why one should prefer some, but not other, claimed sutras? For example, should we rely on the opinions of scholars, or on the traditions of modern Buddhist teachers? Or should we evaluate them in light of some preconceived theology, which we assume the genuine sutras ought to reflect? (Would it matter if the Sutra of the Owl-Headed Dakini, or Mrs. Prophet, taught Cittamatrin doctrines?)
PS. Guess whose birthday it is tomorrow!
(Hint: I hear he’s a notorious lecher.)
Well, I now know one thing: the “Trimondis” (Herbert & Mariana Röttgen, allegedly), are complete bollocks. Their claims agains the author, Gedun Chopel, were completely false.
It’s time now to find out who the really are (if they even exist, or are mere pen-names-of-pen-names for a Chinese political party), and what they’re up to!
I could not locate your other post stating somthing like since Tsongkhapa’s reform, Gelugpa is better in behavior (sort of). This is indeed officially recorded in history, yet, the truth about Tsongkhapa’s decree is still to be verified. I hereby post some old news for your reference:
“It is known however that ‘monastic homosexuality’ became actually institutionalized with the advent of the reformed Gelugpa movement of Je Tsongkhapa in the fifteenth century. Even so, penetration oral or anal, has always constituted a breach of the monk’s vow of celibacy and openly discouraged!”
(This Website is the personal creation of Lama Shree Narayan Singh. It has been prepared at his own initiative with the sole intent of serving the cause of truth. It has not been inspired or sponsored by any person, organisation & tradition, Buddhist or otherwise. The Lama himself accepts full responsibility for all its contents. – lamashree.org/index.html )
True enough, here is the evidence that teachings are given that lamas are superior to all Buddhas.
Lam-Rim Prayers
A Glance Meditation on All the
Important Points of the Lam-Rim
“…[color=#0000FF]The creator of all buddhas, Dharma, and Sangha is the lama[/color]. The one
who combines all three refuges is the kind lama himself. I beseech you,
Lama, whose presence combines all refuges, please look after me always
without separation, in this life, future lives, and the bardo.
Thinking of how the actual form of all buddhas arises in the aspect of the
lama and mercifully looks after me – reminds me of you, Lama.
Thinking of how you show the excellent unmistaken path to me, an unfortunate
wretched being, [color=#0000FF]abandoned by all the buddhas – reminds me of
you, Lama…” [/color](p. 7)
Practicing Guru Devotion with the Nine Attitudes
[color=#0000FF]“I am requesting the kind lord root guru,
Who is more extraordinary than all the buddhas:[/color]
Please bless me to be able to devote myself to the qualified lord guru with
great respect in all my future lifetimes.
By realizing that correctly devoting myself to the kind lord guru—who is
the foundation of all good qualities—is the root of happiness and goodness,
I[color=#0000FF] shall devote myself to him with great respect, not forsaking him
even at the cost of my life.[/color]Thinking of the importance of the qualified guru,
[color=#0000FF]allow yourself to enter under his control.
Be like an obedient son,
acting exactly in accordance with the guru’s advice…” [/color]
(Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition Education Services, p.8)
To be frank, I was shocked when I first read the sentences of the texts including The creator of all Buddhas, Dharma, and Sangha is the lama, abandoned by all the Buddhas, reminds me of you, Lama and root guru is more extraordinary than all the Buddhas. Within these contexts, lamas are superior to all Buddhas.
Could we blame the female victims for being coerced into “female-consorts” or “buddha-mother”?
I have often wondered about sexual abuse in the monasteries, on the assumption that any “total institution” full of young boys would attract pedophiles as well as boarding-school-/prison-like predatory sexual behavior among the boys. Unlike the situation with Roman Catholicism, however, there is little public record of this in the form of victims’ testimony, investigations, etc. Your article by “Lama Sree Narayan Singh” (!) does not give very specific information, of the sort that might be looked into. For example:
What journalist? What monastery? All it says was “a monastery directly under the Dalai Lama in the hills of West Bengal” (presumably nearer to Darjeeling than to Calcutta).
Lama Shree Narayan Singh’s proclamation that he is acting alone is just as unbelievable as your claim to be not following instructions from Beijing.
Otherwise known as “Lama Tsering”, Lama Shree Narayan Singh is a member of Rumtek monastery in Sikkim, where he is a high-profile supporter of Trinley Thaye Dorje, the “unofficial” claimant to the title 17th Karmapa. Naturally, he opposes the Dalai Lama supported claimant to the title, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, whom he considers a fake.
The political dimensions of the controversy are well-known. Not only has Narayan Singh written many letters to the president of India expressing his concern over the political activities of the Dalai Lama, he has also accused a number of high ranking lamas in the Kagyu sect of conspiring to dismember Sikkim from India.
The article you cite from his website is just another anti-Gelugpa diatribe (the Dalai Lama is nominally a monk of the Gelugpa sect). The claim that homosexuality is rampant in Gelugpa monasteries in India is based on nothing but one anonymous unsubstantiated allegation and information pertaining to pre-1959 Tibet.
I guess you must still be following a policy of “if you sling enough mud some of it will stick”.
And you have the audacity to call yourself “buddhism”!
[quote=“Zla’od”]
On the canon, it seems that Buddhism (poster) accepts both the Pali canon (represented by the Middle-Length Suttas) and the traditional Chinese canon (represented by the Avatamsaka Sutra). I speculate that she would reject, say, the Sutra of the Owl-Headed Dakini (a treasure text) or the messages delivered through Elizabeth Clare Prophet (who channeled Buddha, Maitreya, and Padmasambhava, among other worthies). The question naturally arises: why?[color=#0000FF] Is there a reason why one should prefer some, but not other,[/color] claimed sutras? For example, should we rely on the opinions of scholars, or on the traditions of modern Buddhist teachers? Or should we evaluate them in light of some preconceived theology, which we assume the genuine sutras ought to reflect? (Would it matter if the Sutra of the Owl-Headed Dakini, or Mrs. Prophet, taught Cittamatrin doctrines?)[/quote]
For a Buddhist, sutras are the Buddha’s teachings; it’s a serious religious matter, not for one simply to prefer them or not.
Pali canon expounds Hinayana practices and recognizes the eighth vijnana, as well as eliminates the worldly attachments and self-view. Their teachings are in line with that of the sutras.
Buddhist teachings focus on transcending the desirous world, not plunging into it.
The Buddha had never taught Tantrism; it is just that simple, no need to make a great deal of complicated speculation.
[quote=“adikarmika”][quote=“SauLan”]
What sexual abuse cases?
How about this for fair and rational?
Since none of the cases you cite is an actual instance of sexual abuse [color=#0000FF]established in a court of law[/color], [color=#0000FF]then we must assume that such cases don’t exist.[/color] Otherwise you would have cited them (instead of mere allegations anonymously posted on a blog.)
Furthermmore, even if such cases were successfully proven in the courts, it would not follow that sexual abuse is institutional within Tibetan Buddhism.
And even if it were, it would not follow that Tibetan Buddhism was not a form of Buddhism (though, [color=#0000FF]admittedly, it may be a corrupt form.)[/color][/quote]
The subject here was about a “sexual abuse case” actually happened to a German lady, and I offered her latest open blog to prove my statement.
What is the “established in a court of law” to do with the actual fact - sexual abuse case?
Even worse with the statement “then we must assume that such cases don’t exist.”
In terms of Buddhism, such statement and deed are exactly what Chan Buddhists would call “a mind with tangle complication 葛藤”! For a Buddhist practitioner, this is a state very far way from the true reality.
I would not say “it may be a corrupt form,” instead, it is indeed not Buddhism at all.
In reply to your statement, there are some explanations to it:
“More often than not, child abuse goes undetected primarily because of the hesitation of the victims to be frank to their parents about it. Debonair April 1996 had carried an in-depth analysis on this issue. Though focusing on heterosexual abuse, the article titled INCEST – INHOUSE ABUSE deals with the matter very sensitively and elaborating partly along the following lines.
Firstly, as is well-known, children find it extremely difficult to tell their parents about anything as personal and immediate as the violation of their bodies which they do not understand in any case.
Secondly such behavior is not to be expected from those who have been entrusted with their welfare and upbringing, be it parents, relatives or mentors. It is a blatant breach of trust.
Thirdly, it is natural for the authorities to feign absolutely no knowledge of child-abuse.
Fourthly Tibetan society, as is well-known, is amazingly blind when it comes to its beliefs in the Dharma and their Lamas who constitute an elite of supra-mundane beings who can do no wrong and that too in spite of ever growing evidence of their culpability.”
[quote=“adikarmika”][quote=“buddhism”]The political dimensions of the controversy are well-known. Not only has Narayan Singh written many letters to the president of India expressing his concern over the political activities of the Dalai Lama, he has also accused a number of high ranking lamas in the Kagyu sect of conspiring to dismember Sikkim from India.
The article you cite from his website is just another anti-Gelugpa diatribe (the Dalai Lama is nominally a monk of the Gelugpa sect). The claim that homosexuality is rampant in Gelugpa monasteries in India is based on nothing but one anonymous unsubstantiated allegation and information pertaining to pre-1959 Tibet.
I guess you must still be following a policy of “if you sling enough mud some of it will stick”.
And you have the audacity to call yourself “buddhism”![/quote][/quote]
Simple unveiling the truth about Tantric monasteries by a inner circle lama;
why do you have to make the whole case so complicated? Another 葛藤!
What about the Confessions of Kalu Rinpoche II?
In terms of Buddhism, having a straight mind is the way to the bodhi path 直心是道場!
I will come back to you about Nagarjuna’s middle way view when I manage with my time.
I find it kind of tragicomic that Tibetans are being portrayed as meek beings who think their teachers can do no wrong
Many a Tibetan girl will haul off with a decent left hook if anyone tries to do her wrong. Tibetan society in my experience is not meek at all, but very frank and practical.
Tibetan culture has a monastic system because it wants it. It is a treasured and respected part of Tibetan life, provides a good education and living and so forth. People come and go from monasteries and nunneries; they’re not prisons, and many kids have family already in the monastery (aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings). Some people decide to leave and pursue another vocation, while at the same time others are begging to get in. It’s a personal decision, except to the extent that the Chinese government is now inflicting unprecedented religious and racially discriminatory policies. Many monasteries are now suffering the bizarre policy of “cadre roommates,” where cadres literally move into the monasteries and nunneries to bunk with the occupant against his/her will, under the claim of “making sure the occupant is reading the re-education” manuals," but realistically as a form of psychological harassment which forces some monks and nuns to flee their institution (which is the whole point–to empty out the religious institutions).
Just like he never taught the basic scriptures of your school, as historians and scholars of Buddhism the whole world over know quite well.
I have presented the evidence several times on this thread – evidence that you have basically ignored since you prefer to believe that the rest of the world is wrong and only you are right because only Zhengjue teaches the True Meaning of Buddhism.
The statement that you were trying to prove was that there are “so many sexual abuse cases committed by the Tantric gurus around the world”.
Your “proof”, such as it is, is simply a rather unspecific accusation by an anonymous woman who feels she was taken advantage of by Ole Nydahl.
Ole Nydahl is not a Tibetan and he’s not even a tantric guru. He has not completed the 3-year meditation retreat which is required if one is to assume the title of “lama” (= guru) in the Kagyu tradition of Tibetan Buddhism.
And as for the Osel Tenzin scandal, it was actually a case of him not disclosing his HIV positive status to his partners. As far as we know, the sex was entirely consensual.
Come on now, you’ve been conducting your campaign on this forum for almost a year now. Surely you can come up with some real evidence to support your “case”.
Suppose I were to start an anonymous blog full of allegations of sexual abuse and rampant homosexuality in Chan monasteries.
Would you still think it was irrelevant for such allegations to be substantiated legally?
I’d appreciate it if you had the decency not to twist my words, thank you very much.
I never said that we should assume cases of sexual abuse don’t exist in Tibetan Buddhist monasteries. (On the contrary, they are bound to exist in any institution, including your own, where natural sexual urges are repressed.)
What I clearly said was, since you hadn’t cited any, then we must assume that there aren’t any cases that have been established in court.
Plenty of sex scandals in Zen, (the Japanese version of your school, Chan). And not just anonymous allegations either - there have been names and public confessions.
I suppose that must mean sexual abuse is institutional there, too.
So how come you don’t say Zen isn’t Buddhism?
Sorry, I forgot. Zen leaders aren’t advocating the independence of an “inalienable” part of China.
And anyway, that would just be “complicating the issue” unecessarily.
I really don’t know why you think anyone cares about your interpretation of the “middle way”.
Just look at The Bodhi Way thread – one long post after another, all by you, full of dogmatic mumbo-jumbo.
Nobody responds, and no one is interested.
Even I don’t bother to read them, and I’m actually someone who has some idea what you’re talking about.
