Page 13 of 22

Re: Mipham Rinpoche channels Weinstein:

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:38 am
by Snowbear
javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:37 am
Snowbear wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:30 am
javier.espinoza.t wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:24 am


i understand Vajrasattva because one stains own's Samaya. Can't see the problem.
Staining it with those unclean non-Buddhist "heretics?" :lol:

That's just not true.
not really, non-Buddhist are not "heretics", here is no "enemy" but our stuborness.
i meant staining it by not keeping your commitments, if one can't hold it then one is stained, tainted. if one took that commitment, obviously.
Ah, gotcha. I agree. I was still in the "no sex with non-practitioners" conversation.

Re: Mipham Rinpoche channels Weinstein:

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:40 am
by TharpaChodron
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:44 am
TharpaChodron wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:49 am
Regarding the samaya of not having sex with non-practitioners:

What are those of us who have relationships with non-practitioners to do, divorce or otherwise leave our partners? We're told that being Buddhist is a matter of karma and thus, we don't proselytize and convert others if they don't have the same karma. Yet, we (okay, I) had the karma to get involved with another who is not cut from the same cloth...

And, if one breaks a branch samaya, what can one do? Usually, the remedy is to vow to never do it again, but what if one is married or falls in love. Not so easy.

I'm okay with not ever engaging in higher yoga practice, if that's what it takes. I just find it slightly off putting that the Dharma, would be so rigid when it comes to something which has nothing to do with unkindness.

this is giving me the notion I may have to give up my lifelong spiritual beliefs because it doesn't fit into the "rules". But, I would rather think it simply bullshit, like whomever told Tara she could not become enlightened in female form.

This what vajrasattva is for. No one expects you to abandon your spouse. It is s branch downfall, not a root downfall. In any case, samaya is easily purified, unlike lower yana vows. However, Buddhadharma is probably the least sentimental path there is.
Thanks for the clarification. Being sentimental is unavoidable for most humans, so we do our best. But being sentimental isn't a bad thing and I am not sure Buddhism isn't.

Re: Mipham Rinpoche channels Weinstein:

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:40 am
by Snowbear
Jangchup Donden wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:20 am
Snowbear wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:31 am
Jangchup Donden wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:05 am


Someone whose at least on the path of seeing, i.e., the first Bodhisattva level. But ideally, a Buddha. I think Patrul Rinpoche is pretty clear on what standards we should hold our guru to, and what they should ideally be -- an actual Vidyadhara.
I'm more interested in a definition in your own words. To me, teachers/gurus are normal human beings.
'
So you're saying there's no enlightenment to be had? No qualities of realization? Or that there isn't any more (hooray kali yuga)?
You think enlightenment erases a person's humanness? I don't.

Re: Mipham Rinpoche channels Weinstein:

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:44 am
by Malcolm
Snowbear wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:49 am
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:44 am
TharpaChodron wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:49 am
Regarding the samaya of not having sex with non-practitioners:

What are those of us who have relationships with non-practitioners to do, divorce or otherwise leave our partners? We're told that being Buddhist is a matter of karma and thus, we don't proselytize and convert others if they don't have the same karma. Yet, we (okay, I) had the karma to get involved with another who is not cut from the same cloth...

And, if one breaks a branch samaya, what can one do? Usually, the remedy is to vow to never do it again, but what if one is married or falls in love. Not so easy.

I'm okay with not ever engaging in higher yoga practice, if that's what it takes. I just find it slightly off putting that the Dharma, would be so rigid when it comes to something which has nothing to do with unkindness.

this is giving me the notion I may have to give up my lifelong spiritual beliefs because it doesn't fit into the "rules". But, I would rather think it simply bullshit, like whomever told Tara she could not become enlightened in female form.

This what vajrasattva is for. No one expects you to abandon your spouse. It is s branch downfall, not a root downfall. In any case, samaya is easily purified, unlike lower yana vows. However, Buddhadharma is probably the least sentimental path there is.
Vajrasattva for marrying a non-Buddhist? Come on, man.
Did I say that? No.

Re: Mipham Rinpoche channels Weinstein:

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:45 am
by Malcolm
Snowbear wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:40 am
Jangchup Donden wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:20 am
Snowbear wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:31 am


I'm more interested in a definition in your own words. To me, teachers/gurus are normal human beings.
'
So you're saying there's no enlightenment to be had? No qualities of realization? Or that there isn't any more (hooray kali yuga)?
You think enlightenment erases a person's humanness? I don't.
Yes, completely, if by human one means being in an afflicted state.

Re: Mipham Rinpoche channels Weinstein:

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:49 am
by Malcolm
TharpaChodron wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:40 am
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:44 am
TharpaChodron wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:49 am
Regarding the samaya of not having sex with non-practitioners:

What are those of us who have relationships with non-practitioners to do, divorce or otherwise leave our partners? We're told that being Buddhist is a matter of karma and thus, we don't proselytize and convert others if they don't have the same karma. Yet, we (okay, I) had the karma to get involved with another who is not cut from the same cloth...

And, if one breaks a branch samaya, what can one do? Usually, the remedy is to vow to never do it again, but what if one is married or falls in love. Not so easy.

I'm okay with not ever engaging in higher yoga practice, if that's what it takes. I just find it slightly off putting that the Dharma, would be so rigid when it comes to something which has nothing to do with unkindness.

this is giving me the notion I may have to give up my lifelong spiritual beliefs because it doesn't fit into the "rules". But, I would rather think it simply bullshit, like whomever told Tara she could not become enlightened in female form.

This what vajrasattva is for. No one expects you to abandon your spouse. It is s branch downfall, not a root downfall. In any case, samaya is easily purified, unlike lower yana vows. However, Buddhadharma is probably the least sentimental path there is.
Thanks for the clarification. Being sentimental is unavoidable for most humans, so we do our best. But being sentimental isn't a bad thing and I am not sure Buddhism isn't.
The minute one thinks Buddhism is sentimental, review karma and its results. Being sentimental is not necessarily bad, it is largely absent in Buddhism

Re: Mipham Rinpoche channels Weinstein:

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:20 am
by Snowbear
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:45 am
Snowbear wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:40 am
Jangchup Donden wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:20 am

'
So you're saying there's no enlightenment to be had? No qualities of realization? Or that there isn't any more (hooray kali yuga)?
You think enlightenment erases a person's humanness? I don't.
Yes, completely, if by human one means being in an afflicted state.
Do you think there is any person alive today that does not have sexual feelings? Other than, of course, abnormal clinical cases.

Re: Mipham Rinpoche channels Weinstein:

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:35 am
by Virgo
Snowbear wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:49 am


Vajrasattva for marrying a non-Buddhist? Come on, man.
No, you are wrong. Not non-Buddhists, but the uninitiated.

Kevin...

Re: Mipham Rinpoche channels Weinstein:

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 6:58 am
by amanitamusc
Snowbear wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:31 am
Jangchup Donden wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:05 am
Snowbear wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:33 am


First of all, why not? Second of all, what is an "enlightened guru" in your eyes?
Someone whose at least on the path of seeing, i.e., the first Bodhisattva level. But ideally, a Buddha. I think Patrul Rinpoche is pretty clear on what standards we should hold our guru to, and what they should ideally be -- an actual Vidyadhara.
I'm more interested in a definition in your own words. To me, teachers/gurus are normal human beings.
In that case you will attain the level of a normal human being.

Re: Mipham Rinpoche channels Weinstein:

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 8:08 am
by Simon E.
amanitamusc wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 6:58 am
Snowbear wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:31 am
Jangchup Donden wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:05 am


Someone whose at least on the path of seeing, i.e., the first Bodhisattva level. But ideally, a Buddha. I think Patrul Rinpoche is pretty clear on what standards we should hold our guru to, and what they should ideally be -- an actual Vidyadhara.
I'm more interested in a definition in your own words. To me, teachers/gurus are normal human beings.
In that case you will attain the level of a normal human being.
Which for much of humankind would be a promotion. For all kinds of psychological, biological and economic reasons.
To quote CTR (yet again) "Before embarking on Dharma it's necessary to be a functioning human being, that's the entry level requirement".

Re: Mipham Rinpoche channels Weinstein:

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 8:09 am
by Grigoris
Jangchup Donden wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:17 am
Would an enlightened guru ever have mundane sex?
Is your teacher enlightened? How many teachers do you know that are enlightened?

Re: Mipham Rinpoche channels Weinstein:

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 9:54 am
by smcj
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:45 am
Snowbear wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:40 am

You think enlightenment erases a person's humanness? I don't.
Yes, completely, if by human one means being in an afflicted state.
:good:

A fully realized Vajra Master is no longer a normal person, although he can pass as one. He is no longer a sentient being. He is an enlightened being. You’d have to expand your understanding of what “human” means to still include him in that category. He’s not like you and me. It’s not as if his humanness has been erased. It has been uncovered. What you and I think of “humanness” is the covering. You could say he is truly human and that we all are living as perversely human. He is in the natural state. We are in the unnatural state.

They are rare, but they do exist. If you meet one all the teachings on guru yoga start to make sense. But meeting even a somewhat realized being, one who is a mix of sentience and enlightenment, can give you enough of an experience so that you can have your mind opened enough to have your horizons broadened. That’s enough.

Re: Mipham Rinpoche channels Weinstein:

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:25 am
by Gatinho
Just as a point of clarification (I hope!) looking at Sakya Panditas Vajrayani Mula Pati (Dorje Thegpa Tsa-wa'i Tungwa) the First Branch Downfall is:

'If one takes on the path a consort who has not had the initiation, by relying on her as a mental object, one commits the first branch downfall.'

What this means is that if you are practicing completion stage Anuttarayoga such as the 'path of messengers' you cannot do this with the physical consort who has not received empowerments or with the mental image of them as the yidam. Since for this practice you are relying on the consort it must be an appropriate one.

So the mistake would be to confuse ordinary sexual relations with yoga involving a consort.

Thus it is perfectly normal and pleasant to fall in love with a non-initiate, have a sexual relationship, feel the earth move, settle down, have children and argue over breakfast and so on but do not confuse this samsaric experience with the liberating effect of yoga tantra. That would be the branch downfall.

This is how I read it.

This is quite a different issue to the precept on 'sexual misconduct' - which by the way is the most poorly defined of the five lay precepts. And it is also a different issue to sex as an antinomial/trangressive act in tantra generally.

Re: Mipham Rinpoche channels Weinstein:

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 12:59 pm
by amanitamusc
Simon E. wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 8:08 am
amanitamusc wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 6:58 am
Snowbear wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:31 am


I'm more interested in a definition in your own words. To me, teachers/gurus are normal human beings.
In that case you will attain the level of a normal human being.
Which for much of humankind would be a promotion. For all kinds of psychological, biological and economic reasons.
To quote CTR (yet again) "Before embarking on Dharma it's necessary to be a functioning human being, that's the entry level requirement".
For some seeing the root Lama as " entry level requirement" is fine for them.I choose
to see my Lama's as Buddha's.

Re: Mipham Rinpoche channels Weinstein:

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:48 pm
by Malcolm
Snowbear wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:20 am
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:45 am
Snowbear wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:40 am


You think enlightenment erases a person's humanness? I don't.
Yes, completely, if by human one means being in an afflicted state.
Do you think there is any person alive today that does not have sexual feelings? Other than, of course, abnormal clinical cases.
Sexual urges are not necessarily afflictive, anymore more than the urge to eat. One however need not act on sexual urges at all, or overindulge them in the case of lay people. Indeed, for practitioners, it is better to avoid having children, no matter what level of the Dharma one practices.

It is pretty clear that in Tibetan Buddhism there are any number of male teachers who are more than willing to exploit naive and unqualified female students.

Re: Mipham Rinpoche channels Weinstein:

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:50 pm
by Karma Dorje
Snowbear wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:33 am
Jangchup Donden wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:17 am
Would an enlightened guru ever have mundane sex?
First of all, why not? Second of all, what is an "enlightened guru" in your eyes?
If the sex is mundane, ur doing it wrong.

Re: Mipham Rinpoche channels Weinstein:

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:53 pm
by pael
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:44 am
TharpaChodron wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:49 am
Regarding the samaya of not having sex with non-practitioners:

What are those of us who have relationships with non-practitioners to do, divorce or otherwise leave our partners? We're told that being Buddhist is a matter of karma and thus, we don't proselytize and convert others if they don't have the same karma. Yet, we (okay, I) had the karma to get involved with another who is not cut from the same cloth...

And, if one breaks a branch samaya, what can one do? Usually, the remedy is to vow to never do it again, but what if one is married or falls in love. Not so easy.

I'm okay with not ever engaging in higher yoga practice, if that's what it takes. I just find it slightly off putting that the Dharma, would be so rigid when it comes to something which has nothing to do with unkindness.

this is giving me the notion I may have to give up my lifelong spiritual beliefs because it doesn't fit into the "rules". But, I would rather think it simply bullshit, like whomever told Tara she could not become enlightened in female form.

This what vajrasattva is for. No one expects you to abandon your spouse. It is s branch downfall, not a root downfall. In any case, samaya is easily purified, unlike lower yana vows. However, Buddhadharma is probably the least sentimental path there is.
How to remember all committed downfalls? I am sure I commit all root downfalls billions of times every day.

Re: Mipham Rinpoche channels Weinstein:

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:00 pm
by Malcolm
Gatinho wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:25 am
Just as a point of clarification (I hope!) looking at Sakya Panditas Vajrayani Mula Pati (Dorje Thegpa Tsa-wa'i Tungwa) the First Branch Downfall is:

'If one takes on the path a consort who has not had the initiation, by relying on her as a mental object, one commits the first branch downfall.'

What this means is that if you are practicing completion stage Anuttarayoga such as the 'path of messengers' you cannot do this with the physical consort who has not received empowerments or with the mental image of them as the yidam. Since for this practice you are relying on the consort it must be an appropriate one.
It is tempting to read it this way. But is not the case. If someone is engaged in HYT practice, it is not like they are allowed to put down their practice to engage in a bit of mundane sport, and then pick up their practice after having smoked a cigarette.
So the mistake would be to confuse ordinary sexual relations with yoga involving a consort.
Someone practicing inner tantra should never be involved in ordinary sexual relations. It is a downfall, easily repaired, but a downfall nevertheless. Since most people practice mother tantra, one should consult the 8 special samayas related to mother tantra.
Thus it is perfectly normal and pleasant to fall in love with a non-initiate, have a sexual relationship, feel the earth move, settle down, have children and argue over breakfast and so on but do not confuse this samsaric experience with the liberating effect of yoga tantra. That would be the branch downfall.

This is how I read it.
You are entitled to your reading, but there is sufficient commentarial evidence contra this interpretation.

This is quite a different issue to the precept on 'sexual misconduct' - which by the way is the most poorly defined of the five lay precepts. And it is also a different issue to sex as an antinomial/trangressive act in tantra generally.

If one is referring to the practice of taking low caste consorts like ḍombinis, and so on; this is part of vratacārya, brtul zhugs spyod pa. We do not have a cultural context for this in the West, any longer. Though of course the outrage in some quarters at Henry marrying Meghan Merkel approaches it.

Re: Mipham Rinpoche channels Weinstein:

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:06 pm
by Grigoris
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:00 pm
Someone practicing inner tantra should never be involved in ordinary sexual relations. It is a downfall, easily repaired, but a downfall nevertheless. Since most people practice mother tantra, one should consult the 8 special samayas related to mother tantra.
According to this I either get divorced, or prepare for a stint in Vajra Hell.
If one is referring to the practice of taking low caste consorts like ḍombinis, and so on; this is part of vratacārya, brtul zhugs spyod pa. We do not have a cultural context for this in the West, any longer. Though of course the outrage in some quarters at Henry marrying Meghan Merkel approaches it.
Maybe in your part of the world, but you could try marrying a gyspsy/Roma girl here in Greece and see how that goes down.

Re: Mipham Rinpoche channels Weinstein:

Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:15 pm
by dzogchungpa
I can't remember his name right now, but isn't (or wasn't) there a well respected lama living in England who was married to a Christian woman? I believe it was mentioned on this forum.