Is tibetan inherently peacefull ?

[AlexanderS]

My sources for padmashambava killing in his youth is "The Lotus Born", his biography, written by Yeshe Tsogyal and translated by Erik Pema Kunsang. Another account where he kills 500 brahmins through a destructive ceremony is "Crazy Wisdom" by Trungpa.

My point with Milarepa was that Marpa asks him at some point to kill bandits with his magic, which also makes Marpa guilty of killing.

Tashi delek A,

Thanks for your reply.

Like told before, this Guru Rinpoche story is brand new for me.

- What do you think, has this story consequences for the status of Guru Rinpoche ?

We all know him as a realized Tantrika with great Compassion and Wisdom, therefore i cannot imagine myself that Guru Rinpoche would miss use Tantric powers / Siddhis.


KY.

It is not for me to say. It does not disminish my view of Guru Rinpoche. It may for others. I suppose it was revealed as a treasure and published as a book so people may read it.

[M.G.]

Basically, you are saying that violence in Buddhism is allowed as long as it has a good justification.

But then, which religions resort to violence without good justifications? In fact, who in the world resort to violence without good justifications? Does anyone need Buddhism to teach them non-violence, then?

That’s a good question.

Tibetan Buddhism has an entirely consequentialist ethic, to the point where it can come across as shocking, almost inhuman - many here are familiar with stories of Vajrayana masters who kill sentient beings, then ensure their rebirth in Pure Lands, guaranteeing their ultimate liberation.

That said, you’re correct to say that many religions, in practice, teach roughly similar ethics - “thou shalt not kill, unless God authorizes it. Then it’s OK, even meritorious, and the whole world will be better for it.”

So I’d agree one shouldn’t look to Buddhism if one is purely interested in peaceful morality. (And plenty of peaceful people aren’t Buddhist.)

You should really only turn to Buddhism if you think it’s the best path to enlightened wisdom. I’m not sure there’s anything else there you couldn’t find elsewhere.

However, that is really a way to mass propagate Buddhism in a easily understandable form. Directly preaching, rebirth, karma and other higher teachings is never going to gain followers in a fast clip. And these, we really have to solid proofs on them and have to admit that they are beliefs which one is free to choose whether to take or reject. Furthermore, these higher teachings never have visible influence on the society in a bigger scale. Peace will be different, at least people believe that once somebody proclaim that he has a solution to peace, it is likely he will attract some audience.

I’m not sure of that ; if the key to propagating a religion was emphasizing its peacefulness, Jainism would probably be the dominant global faith.

I’d personally say Buddhism’s popular appeal largely comes from its understanding of mind, and its promise of freedom through meditative practice.

[WeiHan]

I’m not sure of that ; if the key to propagating a religion was emphasizing its peacefulness, Jainism would probably be the dominant global faith.

I’d personally say Buddhism’s popular appeal largely comes from its understanding of mind, and its promise of freedom through meditative practice.

I do not deny that too. I myself am only interested with the mind (spiritual) and philosophical aspects. But if you observe around, not only Buddhism but in all religions, the biggest segments are the one associated politically, or at least more associated with and has impact with people lives...I myself am not keen with all these aspects ..

[PadmaVonSamba]

These stories are, generally speaking, meant to convey a kind of truth that goes beyond the ordinary duality of "peaceful" and "not peaceful".
The message is never that one should go out and kill beings.
At the same time, it's a mistake to think that a buddha is limited to sitting quietly on a lotus all day long.
And, while one shouldn't indulge in the tendency to write off anything seemingly contradictory as merely "cultural tradition",
it is important to keep in mind that the context of most of these stories is that of a fierce and largely nomadic people centuries ago.
The lessons they teach may still apply to us today, even though the details might be a bit sketchy.
.
.
.

[climb-up]

No, it is not inherently peaceful; not at all.
You have given examples yourself of enlightened masters who are not peaceful.

It’s not just Tibetan Buddhism either; Buddhism is not inherently peaceful.

But it is, if practiced genuinely, inherently compassionate. There are examples even in Theraveda of a violent act being more compassionate than a ‘peaceful’ one; and the Dalai Lama has given examples of this as well. If the compassionate act saves more people than it harms, or saves people from a greater harm (either in this life or the next) and is motivated by genuine wisdom and compassion (which is a tall order for us normal folks, so it’s no license to act inappropriately) then it is karmically kosher, ...so to speak.

The reason that there are both peaceful and wrathful Buddhas and Boddhisattvas is that sometimes it is more effective to help sentient beings through peaceful methods, and sometimes wrathful methods are called for.

[Sherab]

Hello everyone,

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.

Thank you!

The teachings ARE inherently peaceful. Whether Tibetan or people in general are peaceful depends on what they have cultivated in themselves.

Violence expressed verbally or physically are generally discouraged if not prohibited in Buddhism. There could be the rare occasions when violence may be justified. However, if you are not an enlightened being, the law of karma will still operate and you will have to bear that karma, whether in this life or a future life. If you are an enlightened being, the motivation behind the violent action will be pure and the violent action will be beneficial to whomever it was directed to. If you are an non-enlightened being thinking of a violent action because you think that would be beneficial to whomever it will be directed, chances are you are deluding yourself.

In brief, where Buddhism is concerned if you cannot benefit others, at the very least, you should not harm or cause harm to others.

[muni]

"Lasting peace or contentment", is applying compassionate skilful methods. These methods can be wrathful or peaceful appearing. But both are actually by "contentment", or applied trough selfless nature ( selfless lama) to open the door of our self- prison, which we maintain by our habits. Pointing to these habits is not always a piece of chocolat when a dentist is more useful to prevent us from more suffering.

[Simon E.]

What constitutes “peace” in samsara?