The DJKR Topic

[Malcolm]

When you receive an empowerment from a teacher you don't have commitments to a teacher, but you may have a commitment to practice. If the commitment was to the teacher, then when they passed away, your commitments would be nullified. they're not.

Not everybody you receive a HYT empowerment or pointing out instruction from is your Guru.

Yes, everyone from whom you receive empowerment, etc. from is your guru. They may not be your mulaguru or root guru, but they are indeed to be considered your guru.

Would you like the citation storm? Ratnākaraśānti’s Kṛṣṇayamāripañjikā states:

Having heard even a single verse,
if one does not hold that person as a guru,
after being born one hundred times as a dog,
one will be born as a butcher.


There are many other such statements in the tantras and their commentaries.

[Malcolm]

AND, because it seems you did not read the rest of my statement: I was talking about the Guru-student relationship Taking an empowerment from somebody does not instantly make them your Guru (as you seem to be implying).

Yes, in fact it does.

Well then, I must have quite a few Guru then...

Yes, you must. I know I do, something like 40.

Do you have a source for this please?

Of course, Greg. Buddhist Ethics by Kongtrul, Perfect Conduct by Ngari Panchen, Distinguishing the Three Vows by Sakya Pandita, etc.

[Sonam Wangchug]

Hence the edit.

To be clear, I have never posted anything in support of Sogyal rinpoche here

That is refreshing.

But it doesn't alter the fact that what we see is a crude and silly attempt to justify the unjustifiable wrapped in religious patter and accompanied by folkloric anecdotes that are, frankly, only valid currency among the credulous.
For goodness sake!
If all we can come up with after half a century of exposure to Vajrayana is credulity and a continuation of medieval world views recast with Asian stereotypes in place of populist Christianity, then we all need to go away and have a long hard think.
We start off with quaint notions like spit as Holy Relics and we end up with the equivalent of Torquemada defending the Holy Foreskin ....and bloated sociopaths having free rein with the womenfolk.
Well not in my name.

Wow.

To be honest, I don't exactly understand peoples peoples inner wishes to reform the Vajrayana.

If you do not like the teachings of the Vajrayana, you are perfectly welcome to practice the Mahayana tradition, no one forces anyone to take empowerments, samayas, or have an allegiance to the tantric path.

However, to start insulting Tradition as it's been practiced time and tested for hundreds and more years, is silly. The tantric texts and the oral instructions of lineage masters are not "Medieval world views" they are our sources of refuge.

Personally, I think the view you expound here indicates everything wrong with Vajrayana in the west in 2017.

[Grigoris]

Yes, everyone from whom you receive empowerment, etc. from is your guru. They may not be your mulaguru or root guru, but they are indeed to be considered your guru.

Sorry, I was not being 100% clear, I was commenting in regards to the root guru.

That's why the comment by you and PeterC struck me as strange. Sorry about that.

[PeterC]

It's certainly out there and widely-cited, but it's also somewhat meaningless if it's not observed and historically hasn't ever really been widely observed, surely?

No it is not meaningless. If there was a seminal text in wide circulation stating that one should not put hand in a fire and people do not observe the text is the text to blame? Is the text meaningless?

That's true but not really helpful. Nobody observes this rule. None of our teachers observed this rule. Nobody that anyone can remember observed this rule. Yet when a guru misbehaves, there's always some people wagging their fingers and saying, "should have followed the instructions and observed the guru for a decade, then this wouldn't have happened...". Which is correct, but nobody really has a decade to spare, and even if they did, they don't have sufficient access to really observe the guru's qualities. So does the advice really help anyone?

But to step back from the definitions. I absolutely agree with your broader point. People receive too many empowerments with too little preparation from lamas who they barely know even by reputation, and often with no particular intent to do the practice seriously. It's silly. Under those conditions it's almost a given that problems will arise. By contrast, if you only received one empowerment from one teacher, which in any case is all you need, your practice would be so much simpler.

I didn't see the distinction you made between receiving an empowerment and entering into a guru-student relationship. But I'm uncertain as to what a guru-student relationship means above and beyond receiving a HYT empowerment or the something of analogous importance (pointing out, direct introduction, etc.). Certainly I could receive an empowerment from someone then not have much to do with them personally afterwards, but my proximity or distance from them would in no way change my samaya commitments to them - so what is the additional dimension of guru-student relationship you're seeing here?

When you receive an empowerment from a teacher you don't have commitments to a teacher, but you may have a commitment to practice. If the commitment was to the teacher, then when they passed away, your commitments would be nullified. they're not.

Not everybody you receive a HYT empowerment or pointing out instruction from is your Guru.

Many hours have been lost on this board discussing the definition of guru, and my main conclusion from those is that it's better to let others fight it out...

[DGA]

But it doesn't alter the fact that what we see is a crude and silly attempt to justify the unjustifiable wrapped in religious patter and accompanied by folkloric anecdotes that are, frankly, only valid currency among the credulous.
For goodness sake!
If all we can come up with after half a century of exposure to Vajrayana is credulity and a continuation of medieval world views recast with Asian stereotypes in place of populist Christianity, then we all need to go away and have a long hard think.
We start off with quaint notions like spit as Holy Relics and we end up with the equivalent of Torquemada defending the Holy Foreskin ....and bloated sociopaths having free rein with the womenfolk.
Well not in my name.

Wow.

To be honest, I don't exactly understand peoples peoples inner wishes to reform the Vajrayana.

If you do not like the teachings of the Vajrayana, you are perfectly welcome to practice the Mahayana tradition, no one forces anyone to take empowerments, samayas, or have an allegiance to the tantric path.

However, to start insulting Tradition as it's been practiced time and tested for hundreds and more years, is silly. The tantric texts and the oral instructions of lineage masters are not "Medieval world views" they are our sources of refuge.

Personally, I think the view you expound here indicates everything wrong with Vajrayana in the west in 2017.

What tradition, specifically, in Simon's post meets both these criteria:

1. attacked by Simon
2. is tested for hundreds and more years, are sources of refuge, and tend to the awakening of all beings

[Malcolm]

That is refreshing.

But it doesn't alter the fact that what we see is a crude and silly attempt to justify the unjustifiable wrapped in religious patter and accompanied by folkloric anecdotes that are, frankly, only valid currency among the credulous.
For goodness sake!
If all we can come up with after half a century of exposure to Vajrayana is credulity and a continuation of medieval world views recast with Asian stereotypes in place of populist Christianity, then we all need to go away and have a long hard think.
We start off with quaint notions like spit as Holy Relics and we end up with the equivalent of Torquemada defending the Holy Foreskin ....and bloated sociopaths having free rein with the womenfolk.
Well not in my name.

Wow.

To be honest, I don't exactly understand peoples peoples inner wishes to reform the Vajrayana.

In matters of religion people will always do as they please.

If you do not like the teachings of the Vajrayana,

Pretty sure Simon 'likes" the teachings of Vajrayāna just fine.

you are perfectly welcome to practice the Mahayana tradition,

Vajrayāna is part of the Mahāyāna tradition.

no one forces anyone to take empowerments, samayas, or have an allegiance to the tantric path.

Indeed, but there really isn't a Vajrayāna orthodoxy. If you have any doubts about this, please consult more than 1000 years of polemical disagreements between masters of all schools on these very issues (and then go back and consult Indian sources of disagreement). Why don't you start with Distinguishing the Three Vows by Sakya Pandita? Then you can move onto Ngari Panchen's Perfect Conduct, and conclude with Kongtrul's quixotic effort to reconcile all these different polemics in Buddhist Ethics.

However, to start insulting Tradition as it's been practiced time and tested for hundreds and more years, is silly.

Tibetans have been insulting each other over these very same issues for more than a millenia, why should it stop with Tibetans?

The tantric texts and the oral instructions of lineage masters are not "Medieval world views" they are our sources of refuge.

All of these sources of refuge are temporary and unreliable. Since you are a student of DKR, surely you have studied his commentary on the Uttaratantra and understand that the only true refuge is the dharmakāya?

Personally, I think the view you expound here indicates everything wrong with Vajrayana in the west in 2017.

There is nothing wrong with Vajrayāna in the West, it is chugging along just fine, with all its disagreements and contradictions. It is a sign of health, not crisis.

[Malcolm]

Yes, everyone from whom you receive empowerment, etc. from is your guru. They may not be your mulaguru or root guru, but they are indeed to be considered your guru.

Sorry, I was not being 100% clear, I was commenting in regards to the root guru.

That's why the comment by you and PeterC struck me as strange. Sorry about that.

And I was responding to the idea that one does not have an equal obligation to respect samaya with respect to all of one's gurus. This is why we unify all our gurus into one.

[PuerAzaelis]

To be clear, I have never posted anything in support of Sogyal rinpoche here, and personally I cannot regard him as an enlightened being.

And I assume you have good reasons. What would happen to those good reasons if you had received an empowerment from him?

[Sonam Wangchug]

To be clear, I have never posted anything in support of Sogyal rinpoche here, and personally I cannot regard him as an enlightened being.

And I assume you have good reasons. What would happen to those good reasons if you had received an empowerment from him?

I would have to be utterly free of those "Good reasons" to ever take an empowerment in the first place, which means being an entirely different person, so I cannot really answer your question since those good reasons would be non existent.

I do not afford respect easily to any lama, I have been around, and I have witnessed my fakes. For me Sogyal is not a heavy hitter, First of all there are, and have always been serious doubts as to his recognition as "Terton sogyal."

It is also clear he was not trained well, his excessive thirst and like of young beautiful women around him is something I find off putting. This is all before I have heard about his "Lavish lifestyle" which I also find off putting.

I had listened to some video teachings of him and was unimpressed, he didn't seem learned, and was referencing things like Romeo and Juliet instead of being able to quote from the scriptures.

He is not a great lama, Great lamas have other lama's go to them for teachings and empowerment's. It seems none of the teachers, even those who have visited Rigpa, would be willing to ever take such an empowerment from Sogyal. That is telling.

That being said there are many students of his, who somehow have a tremendous devotion in him, and claim to have benefited tremendously from being his student. I cannot utterly discount their experience, just as I cannot discount that there are students who have had an opposite reaction and effect. However, I don't have that kind of view or connection personally. I think he has brought tremendous shame to the name of Jamyang khyentse chokyi lodro and khandro tsering chodren whose name he so shamelessly casts around to try to big himself up. Despite the fact of having only been with rinpoche when he was a child, and never having been invested as an important lineage holder at all.

[Grigoris]

That's true but not really helpful. Nobody observes this rule. None of our teachers observed this rule. Nobody that anyone can remember observed this rule.

You sound very sure of this. You must have some sound evidence to do so.

... but nobody really has a decade to spare, and even if they did, they don't have sufficient access to really observe the guru's qualities.

Now you are making excuses and setting yourslef up for a fall. When you fall will you also place all the onus of responsibility on the teacher?

But to step back from the definitions. I absolutely agree with your broader point. People receive too many empowerments with too little preparation from lamas who they barely know even by reputation, and often with no particular intent to do the practice seriously. It's silly. Under those conditions it's almost a given that problems will arise. By contrast, if you only received one empowerment from one teacher, which in any case is all you need, your practice would be so much simpler.

Unless the teacher was a scammer...

[dzogchungpa]

Yes, everyone from whom you receive empowerment, etc. from is your guru. They may not be your mulaguru or root guru, but they are indeed to be considered your guru.

Would you like the citation storm? Ratnākaraśānti’s Kṛṣṇayamāripañjikā states:

Having heard even a single verse,
if one does not hold that person as a guru,
after being born one hundred times as a dog,
one will be born as a butcher.


There are many other such statements in the tantras and their commentaries.

Dudjom Rinpoche actually quotes what appears to be that verse in his ngondro commentary:

Such examination must be carried out before any connection is made through empowerment or teaching. But once one has received an empowerment or teaching, even if one’s teachers have broken their vows by committing all four radical defeats, it is improper to examine them or lose faith, or do anything but regard them as objects of devotion and respect. As it is said,

If you don’t consider as your teachers
Those from whom you’ve heard a single verse,
It’s as a dog you’ll be reborn a hundred times,
And as an outcaste you’ll take birth.

BTW, one of the four radical defeats for a monk is killing a human being.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

So there are scenarios where you take empowerment from some lama on tour and you never get to meet him. On a Vajrayana level he is your guru, but obviously you have no teacher to student relationship with him. What elements, if any, of the GY are in play in that situation?

[Malcolm]

Dudjom Rinpoche actually quotes what appears to be that verse in his ngondro commentary:

Such examination must be carried out before any connection is made through empowerment or teaching. But once one has received an empowerment or teaching, even if one’s teachers have broken their vows by committing all four radical defeats, it is improper to examine them or lose faith, or do anything but regard them as objects of devotion and respect.

This may certainly be his opinion, but I don't agree with his opinion, and there are other opinions in traditional Vajrayāna sources which contradict this claim, opinions which I have already cited so there is no need to do so again.

Just to bring remind everyone, the four defeats are: killing a human being, sexual misconduct, stealing, and lying about one's realization.

Now, just to make it a bit more complex, in Mahāyāna of course, all four of these defeats are permitted if one is motivated by bodhicitta and possesses clairvoyance.

[Virgo]

If you do not like the teachings of the Vajrayana, you are perfectly welcome to practice the Mahayana tradition

I already did that.

Kevin

[gb9810]

Wow.

To be honest, I don't exactly understand peoples peoples inner wishes to reform the Vajrayana.

If you do not like the teachings of the Vajrayana, you are perfectly welcome to practice the Mahayana tradition, no one forces anyone to take empowerments, samayas, or have an allegiance to the tantric path.

However, to start insulting Tradition as it's been practiced time and tested for hundreds and more years, is silly. The tantric texts and the oral instructions of lineage masters are not "Medieval world views" they are our sources of refuge.

Personally, I think the view you expound here indicates everything wrong with Vajrayana in the west in 2017.

If I may ask the following (this is not a challenge!)
By the way since our last exchanges I've come around more to understanding your point of view, even though I still don't hold that same view.

First just to clarify: those of us whom you view as "representing everything that's wrong with Vajrayana in the west in 2017" can and are likely to say that we are taking the essence and what is truly precious about VY while leaving behind all the cultural trappings. We equally could quote tons of texts as well as teachings from respected lineage holders in support of our views. We could also "interpret" some of your reading of what you quoted as being too literal, and not the secret or ultimate meaning of the teachings..etc. The power of confirmation bias is not to be under-estimated.

However, I am not trying to convince you either is the "right" or "wrong" paths.

My question is more: is the idea of right vs wrong even valid here?
(I am not referring to rape/abuse vs. loving kindness, merely the two broad/vague/general approaches we seem to be discussing: the more devotion-based vs. critical-thinking based paths, while recognizing they don't have to be mutually exclusive)

Can the different approaches merely be appropriate for people with different inclinations at a particular time?
End points are the same, and I am not even suggesting one can't cross paths.
At the right time, our teachers may challenge what we've been feeling too comfortable with, e.g. making some of us pray to a dog's tooth, or making you find criticisms in various "sacred texts", perhaps?

Obviously, we each gravitate towards certain types of teachers, because of our different natural inclinations. Teachers perhaps also train us by emphasizing or reinforcing what is more natural for us, to help us see or realize our mind.

Yes, once one sees the moon, the fingers are irrelevant, but until then, one may need the finger to even know where to begin looking. I don't see why which finger the teacher is using makes that big of a difference, so long as it's helping us see.

In other words, if the path we are on works just fine for us, why do we care if others are not on the exact same path? Instead of thinking they therefore must be wrong, shouldn't we rejoice in the fact that others have found paths that are appropriate for them?

Of course the difficulty here for me is still how in a more devotion-based system, if one is unfortunate to encounter an unqualified teacher, what's the way out? Perhaps that's where the 12 years probation period comes in. The faith should never be based on any title, or because so-and-so says so.. But then again, I can also imagine devotion-based students who had not observed their teachers for 12 years in this life claiming prior life connections, oh the immediate arising of such powerful and deep faith upon meeting...etc.

p.s. I have had a couple very personal meetings with Lama Zopa rinpoche decades ago and yes, I deeply felt what you quoted: the emphasis on devotion, love, compassion, and that he embodies those essence. It is his way, which I deeply deeply admire. I ended up following a different tradition, but that in no way diminishes my admiration for him and his approach.

[Virgo]

p.s. I have had a couple very personal meetings with Lama Zopa rinpoche decades ago and yes, I deeply felt what you quoted: the emphasis on devotion, love, compassion, and that he embodies those essence. It is his way, which I deeply deeply admire. I ended up following a different tradition, but that in no way diminishes my admiration for him and his approach.

Of course gb9810 he is a master who has actualized lamrim teachings. He is like a sun in the sky free of clouds.

Kevin

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

Of course the difficulty here for me is still how in a more devotion-based system, if one is unfortunate to encounter an unqualified teacher, what's the way out?

As per Mingyur R.'s piece in Lion's Roar, just leave. That's not a problem. But try leave on good terms.

OTOH, if you see someone else being abused M.R. says you can take action to protect others. Although not specifically articulated in Mingyur R's statement, what he says looks to me like the compassion involved in protecting others trumps the samaya with the guru.
https://www.lionsroar.com/treat-everyone-as-the-buddha/

The faith should never be based on any title, or because so-and-so says so..

True. I took empowerment with a lama I had uncomfortable feelings about, but he was high up in my lineage, so I went against my own intuition. I later had reason to regret it.

In other words, if the path we are on works just fine for us, why do we care if others are not on the exact same path? Instead of thinking they therefore must be wrong, shouldn't we rejoice in the fact that others have found paths that are appropriate for them?

That is always the case, not just concerning this issue.

[PuerAzaelis]

I would have to be utterly free of those "Good reasons" to ever take an empowerment in the first place ...

... I cannot utterly discount their experience ...

?

What if you or other people made a mistake, and have samaya with him. Is that not possible?

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

What if you or other people made a mistake, and have samaya with him. Is that not possible?

Then it's a mess.

There are several scenarios possible.
DJKR implies that Sogyal R was unqualified to give samaya, so there's no problem in taking action against him.
Mingyur R. says if things aren't to your liking, leave. And if someone else is being abused, take action.
In his YouTube video HHDL says try to address bad behavior privately. If that doesn't work then pull the fire alarm. I've also heard, but can't source, that HHDL says seeing the guru as pure should be reserved for advanced practitioners. Sounds good but I don't know how that could be administered.
Or just suck it up if he's an actual realized siddha. I suggest you require proof before you imagine yourself in that scenario.

The chances of that happening are about as great as winning the lottery. A true siddha has siddhis that can be demonstrated. If they're trying to invoke that contractual clause they'd better show that they've got the qualifications to do so. Don't just listen to someone brag.