Tsongkhapafan wrote: ↑
Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:15 pm
I do think it is that simple. We are encouraged to investigate our potential root Guru for a long time and the quality of the teachings is not a good enough reason to rely on a Spiritual Guide. I also think the tradition should teach these values that the Spiritual Guide is supposed to conform to.
So, we really should spend time examining a Guru claimed as a wondrous emanation of Buddha and holy Spiritual Guide to see if they are living up to the values of the Tradition in which they ordained:
If suitable, a Lama would most certainly not be encouraging complete beginners to take HYT and Tantric Vows to create samaya,nor give such Empowerments having been expelled from his monastery of course, nor teach them to follow practices forbidden by his own lineage, knowing that to be samaya breaking.
Nor would a suitable Guru appoint as a senior teacher someone who was a known abuser, whom the Guru himself claimed had a 'sexual lineage' and previously made disrobe, of course. That would lead to the deduction that the 'Buddhist' edifice was, 'a Priori', a Dodgy Shag den.
Nor would such a perfect Guru encourage disruption of the teachings and vile abuse of his own Guru because that would be very far from moral discipline as taught within his lineage, wouldn't it?
Of course, the above examples are ridiculous, unbelievable, and no Guru could possibly act this way without being noticed as someone lacking all credibility as a Guru in any Buddhist tradition. Anyone carefully examining them is highly likely to notice.....sadly, very few in 'modern buddhism' do examine closely .......... but are slowly hooked and reeled in.
The criterion of 'moral discipline' seems to be a very ephemeral, inconsistent and elastic notion when interpreted by some. But then, if the 'Tradition' teaches that sexual abuse is OK because senior teachers and the Guru are 'beyond karma', of course they are able to comply with it with that interpretation.