Is tibetan inherently peacefull ?

[AlexanderS]

I know that tibetan buddhism as it is taught is peacefull and as it practiced by the vast majority tibetan buddhists, I know they value peace and compassion, but it occured to me that most of my favourite tantric buddhist masters of all time were actually technically killers according to their biographies. Spefically my favourite three Padmasambhava, Yeshe Tsogyal and Milarepa.

Padmasambhava starts of his princely life by killing a child by dropping his trident on him. He is then expelled to a charnel ground where he consorts with local dakinis. He then takes on a demonic form and slays all the men in a local tribe that has wrong views and has sex with all their women. He then later proceeds to bodghaya where he takes on the form of Shakya Senge and debates 500 brahmins. According to "The Lotus born" he wins the debate and everything is fine. According to the same story told in "Crazy Wisdom" by Trungpa, he loses the debate, and creates a destructive ceremony which summons a mudslide/landslide that kills the 500 brahmins on the spot.

In Yeshe Tsogyals biography, her, padma and the rest of the tantric adepts engages in a contest of miracles against the bön priests. The bön priests summon lightning bolts to kill the buddhists, but tsogyal with her powers redirects them to kill the bön priests on the spot.

Needless to mention that Milarepa killed a lot people before he was enlightened, but did his perfect teacher Marpa not also at some point ask Milarepa to use his magic powers to take out some local bandits?

Personally I feel that when you look at most iconic masters of tibetan buddhism I find it quite surprising how peacefull it is, but can buddhas really be buddhas if they kill? Someone like padmasambhava was supposed to have been enlightened from the very beginning.

Personally just wondering how to reconcile the fact that buddhism is supposed to the religion of peacefull while icons engage in killing.

[Gatinho]

If you read Tibetan history you'll find it wasn't particularly peaceful (to say the least).

[AlexanderS]

If you read Tibetan history you'll find it wasn't particularly peaceful (to say the least).

Im not talking about tibetan history, but history of the enlightened masters of tibet I know the 6th or was it the 5th Dalai Lama? Was quite violent as well, yet we regard these as enlightened beings. Well I do by the way.

[Virgo]

"Well, what had happened was..."

Kevin...

[Vasana]

Personally I feel that when you look at most iconic masters of tibetan buddhism I find it quite surprising how peacefull it is, but can buddhas really be buddhas if they kill?

When a genuinely enlightened being engages in what appears to be killing, violence or the other non-virtues there is usually a lot more insight involved than just the appearance of the act it's self from our ordinary perspective. Sometimes killing is something else. Enlightened beings have a multiple life-time view of karma cause and effect.

Check this text out:

Nine Considerations and Criteria for Benefiting Beings
by Dza Patrul Rinpoche

http://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-mas ... iderations

[Natan]

Killing is killing. The slain are slain. Was it good. Was he or she good? Was Angulimala good? If it’s bad, it’s not a permanent stain. It’s usually the passion of youth. Old men prefer solitude. Yogis shrug of hopes and worries of good and bad. That’s all about what young men hope to achieve in society. What you find among Tibetans and Bhutanese is like the Dharma Industrial Complex. They have 1000 years of practice organizing a country to practice dharma. Pretty impressive in itself, but the sorcerers and hit men were replaced tulku producers. I liked sorcerer and murder. It’s not as fun as it sounds in your head. All you need are clear instructions on dharma and put them to use. Tantra is ritual oriented. The basic one is ganapuja. No level of practice in any lineage says you can do away with this. So in that case you will find everything you’re asking about in there.

[Simon E.]

I know that tibetan buddhism as it is taught is peacefull and as it practiced by the vast majority tibetan buddhists, I know they value peace and compassion, but it occured to me that most of my favourite tantric buddhist masters of all time were actually technically killers according to their biographies. Spefically my favourite three Padmasambhava, Yeshe Tsogyal and Milarepa.

Padmasambhava starts of his princely life by killing a child by dropping his trident on him. He is then expelled to a charnel ground where he consorts with local dakinis. He then takes on a demonic form and slays all the men in a local tribe that has wrong views and has sex with all their women. He then later proceeds to bodghaya where he takes on the form of Shakya Senge and debates 500 brahmins. According to "The Lotus born" he wins the debate and everything is fine. According to the same story told in "Crazy Wisdom" by Trungpa, he loses the debate, and creates a destructive ceremony which summons a mudslide/landslide that kills the 500 brahmins on the spot.

In Yeshe Tsogyals biography, her, padma and the rest of the tantric adepts engages in a contest of miracles against the bön priests. The bön priests summon lightning bolts to kill the buddhists, but tsogyal with her powers redirects them to kill the bön priests on the spot.

Needless to mention that Milarepa killed a lot people before he was enlightened, but did his perfect teacher Marpa not also at some point ask Milarepa to use his magic powers to take out some local bandits?

Personally I feel that when you look at most iconic masters of tibetan buddhism I find it quite surprising how peacefull it is, but can buddhas really be buddhas if they kill? Someone like padmasambhava was supposed to have been enlightened from the very beginning.

Personally just wondering how to reconcile the fact that buddhism is supposed to the religion of peacefull while icons engage in killing.

I wonder whether you might need to reflect on what peaceful means. Buddha Dharma I would suggest is not about 'peace' as a goal. Its about Enlightenment. Which may or may not include peacefulness as conventionally understood. Some of the greatest Vajra masters appear far from peaceful..

[AlexanderS]

I know that tibetan buddhism as it is taught is peacefull and as it practiced by the vast majority tibetan buddhists, I know they value peace and compassion, but it occured to me that most of my favourite tantric buddhist masters of all time were actually technically killers according to their biographies. Spefically my favourite three Padmasambhava, Yeshe Tsogyal and Milarepa.

Padmasambhava starts of his princely life by killing a child by dropping his trident on him. He is then expelled to a charnel ground where he consorts with local dakinis. He then takes on a demonic form and slays all the men in a local tribe that has wrong views and has sex with all their women. He then later proceeds to bodghaya where he takes on the form of Shakya Senge and debates 500 brahmins. According to "The Lotus born" he wins the debate and everything is fine. According to the same story told in "Crazy Wisdom" by Trungpa, he loses the debate, and creates a destructive ceremony which summons a mudslide/landslide that kills the 500 brahmins on the spot.

In Yeshe Tsogyals biography, her, padma and the rest of the tantric adepts engages in a contest of miracles against the bön priests. The bön priests summon lightning bolts to kill the buddhists, but tsogyal with her powers redirects them to kill the bön priests on the spot.

Needless to mention that Milarepa killed a lot people before he was enlightened, but did his perfect teacher Marpa not also at some point ask Milarepa to use his magic powers to take out some local bandits?

Personally I feel that when you look at most iconic masters of tibetan buddhism I find it quite surprising how peacefull it is, but can buddhas really be buddhas if they kill? Someone like padmasambhava was supposed to have been enlightened from the very beginning.

Personally just wondering how to reconcile the fact that buddhism is supposed to the religion of peacefull while icons engage in killing.

I wonder whether you might need to reflect on what peaceful means. Buddha Dharma I would suggest is not about 'peace' as a goal. Its about Enlightenment. Which may or may not include peacefulness as conventionally understood. Some of the greatest Vajra masters appear far from peaceful..

Well there is a reason for the first precept no? What makes us different to imperialist christians or muslims if our icons kill?

[Simon E.]

Perhaps it would be useful to think about the nature of those iconic beings and about the nature of their 'killings'. We need to distinguish between history and symbolic narrative.

[AlexanderS]

Perhaps it would be useful to think about the nature of those iconic beings and about the nature of their 'killings'. We need to distinguish between history and symbolic narrative.

I read them quite literally, but i still believe enlightened beings can kill without creating karma, but it makes me hypocrite for critizing the prophet muhammed fx.

[Aryjna]

Redirecting is not the same as killing them 'from scratch' and they would in any case get much worse from the karma created from the deed if it had been completed. Milarepa doesn't count at all, as he was not even a dharma practitioner when he killed in the story.

This leaves only Padmasambhava, and i remember reading here that it was accidental that he dropped the trident.

[AlexanderS]

Redirecting is not the same as killing them 'from scratch' and they would in any case get much worse from the karma created from the deed if it had been completed. Milarepa doesn't count at all, as he was not even a dharma practitioner when he killed in the story.

This leaves only Padmasambhava, and i remember reading here that it was accidental that he dropped the trident.

Considering padmasambhava was a buddha from the very first nothing he did was accidental. He did in order to be expelled from the princely life. But what about the tribe with wrong views and the 500 brahmins?

[Aryjna]

Redirecting is not the same as killing them 'from scratch' and they would in any case get much worse from the karma created from the deed if it had been completed. Milarepa doesn't count at all, as he was not even a dharma practitioner when he killed in the story.

This leaves only Padmasambhava, and i remember reading here that it was accidental that he dropped the trident.

Considering padmasambhava was a buddha from the very first nothing he did was accidental. He did in order to be expelled from the princely life. But what about the tribe with wrong views and the 500 brahmins?

I don't know, haven't read the biography yet. But it is not murder in the usual sense as they were in all likelihood liberated or something close to it in the process.

[Natan]

The idea is you can kill enemies of dharma, like samaya breakers. But you do a ritual it’s Murder by sorcery. Actual physical killing is reserved for those who harm the guru. Then the bodhisattva can kill one to save many, like the assassin who wanted to sink a boat and kill 500 Arahats. It’s pretty obvious this can quickly descend into basic zealotry. The Buddhist killer ought to have some realization and teachings and do the deed quietly and secretly And not be recruiting an army. And if he caught keep his mouth shut and take the punishment with calm and humility. This is the one off extreme case scenario. This is not a norm. It’s no other peaceful option scenario.

In the case of tantric gurus who killed, the principle is tantra benefits passionate people the most, even killers. It doesn’t mean killing makes you cool

[Tenma]

The idea is you can kill enemies of dharma, like samaya breakers. But you do a ritual it’s Murder by sorcery. Actual physical killing is reserved for those who harm the guru. Then the bodhisattva can kill one to save many, like the assassin who wanted to sink a boat and kill 500 Arahats. It’s pretty obvious this can quickly descend into basic zealotry. The Buddhist killer ought to have some realization and teachings and do the deed quietly and secretly And not be recruiting an army. And if he caught keep his mouth shut and take the punishment with calm and humility. This is the one off extreme case scenario. This is not a norm. It’s no other peaceful option scenario.

In the case of tantric gurus who killed, the principle is tantra benefits passionate people the most, even killers. It doesn’t mean killing makes you cool

So why not kill Mao Zedong during the time China began its invasion?

[Mantrik]

Compassion may include killing to prevent greater harm.
I am not qualified to judge the compassion of those beings.
I doubt that my assessment of my own compassion and karma is anything other than defiled.
I have to live according to a series of 'best guesses'.
How about you?

[Natan]

The idea is you can kill enemies of dharma, like samaya breakers. But you do a ritual it’s Murder by sorcery. Actual physical killing is reserved for those who harm the guru. Then the bodhisattva can kill one to save many, like the assassin who wanted to sink a boat and kill 500 Arahats. It’s pretty obvious this can quickly descend into basic zealotry. The Buddhist killer ought to have some realization and teachings and do the deed quietly and secretly And not be recruiting an army. And if he caught keep his mouth shut and take the punishment with calm and humility. This is the one off extreme case scenario. This is not a norm. It’s no other peaceful option scenario.

In the case of tantric gurus who killed, the principle is tantra benefits passionate people the most, even killers. It doesn’t mean killing makes you cool

So why not kill Mao Zedong during the time China began its invasion?

Good question. HHDL sticks with Vinaya rules as official public policy. Tantric adepts have a different course. I’m sure some
Sorcery was attempted. Obviously didn’t work. I recall important lamas from the time basically felt the circumstances were irreversible.

[WeiHan]

The idea is you can kill enemies of dharma, like samaya breakers. But you do a ritual it’s Murder by sorcery. Actual physical killing is reserved for those who harm the guru. Then the bodhisattva can kill one to save many, like the assassin who wanted to sink a boat and kill 500 Arahats. It’s pretty obvious this can quickly descend into basic zealotry. The Buddhist killer ought to have some realization and teachings and do the deed quietly and secretly And not be recruiting an army. And if he caught keep his mouth shut and take the punishment with calm and humility. This is the one off extreme case scenario. This is not a norm. It’s no other peaceful option scenario.

In the case of tantric gurus who killed, the principle is tantra benefits passionate people the most, even killers. It doesn’t mean killing makes you cool

So why not kill Mao Zedong during the time China began its invasion?

I guess they won't succeed. They did attempt to put up some fight with the invasion but of course they still lose out.

[WeiHan]

The idea is you can kill enemies of dharma, like samaya breakers. But you do a ritual it’s Murder by sorcery. Actual physical killing is reserved for those who harm the guru. Then the bodhisattva can kill one to save many, like the assassin who wanted to sink a boat and kill 500 Arahats. It’s pretty obvious this can quickly descend into basic zealotry. The Buddhist killer ought to have some realization and teachings and do the deed quietly and secretly And not be recruiting an army. And if he caught keep his mouth shut and take the punishment with calm and humility. This is the one off extreme case scenario. This is not a norm. It’s no other peaceful option scenario.

In the case of tantric gurus who killed, the principle is tantra benefits passionate people the most, even killers. It doesn’t mean killing makes you cool

So why not kill Mao Zedong during the time China began its invasion?

Good question. HHDL sticks with Vinaya rules as official public policy. Tantric adepts have a different course. I’m sure some
Sorcery was attempted. Obviously didn’t work. I recall important lamas from the time basically felt the circumstances were irreversible.

Has the reason been explained why wasn't the circumstances irreversible? I may have missed out the discussion somewhere.

[Aryjna]

So why not kill Mao Zedong during the time China began its invasion?

Good question. HHDL sticks with Vinaya rules as official public policy. Tantric adepts have a different course. I’m sure some
Sorcery was attempted. Obviously didn’t work. I recall important lamas from the time basically felt the circumstances were irreversible.

Has the reason been explained why wasn't the circumstances irreversible? I may have missed out the discussion somewhere.

Ripened karma cannot be stopped. Even if Mao had hypothetically been murdered, why would this make a significant difference? There are many others to take his place.