Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread

User avatar
Sonam Wangchug
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:26 pm

Re: The Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra and The Self-Liberated Vidya Tantra A Translation of the Rigpa Rang Shar and Rigpa Rang

Post by Sonam Wangchug » Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:01 pm

heart wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:39 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:31 pm
Sonam Wangchug wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 3:24 am

It might just be my perception, but I seem to detect a much different tone about Sogyal Rinpoche than you had when this had originally happened and in the trending threads at that time. (in which you seemed to be much more critical of him)
Well, when there is smoke on a hill, there is generally fire. I am not defending Sogyal's temperament, I am defending his student's right to regard him however they wish. Also, I have had time and opportunity to speak with people who both have left Sogyal in tremendous disappointment, and people who never experienced anything from him other than kindness, and people in between, whose experience of him was mixed. I have also seen that certain people have sought to use the Sogyal affair to smear Vajrayāna in general, namely a certain people who know nothing about our tradition. This bugs me.
It bugs me to.

/magnus
Indeed
"To have confidence in the teacher is the ultimate refuge." -Rigzin Jigme Lingpa

PSM
Posts: 260
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2018 1:15 pm

Re: The Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra and The Self-Liberated Vidya Tantra A Translation of the Rigpa Rang Shar and Rigpa Rang

Post by PSM » Fri Jan 10, 2020 7:55 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Thu Jan 09, 2020 5:36 am
There are plenty of disciples in the history of Vajrayana who are grateful that on one occasion or another they were struck or hit by their guru. It can indeed remove obstacles. Everyone knows this.
One of my teachers (who I think is also one of yours), after a private interview, gave me a hug then sharply hit me a few times in the side of the head. It was clearly for some purpose - any idea what was going on there? Is this a traditional blessing of some sort?

FWIW he also fixed someone's long-term back problems with an unsuspected punch.

Simon E.
Posts: 7231
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread

Post by Simon E. » Fri Jan 10, 2020 9:17 pm

I’ve told this story before, but it might be time to dust off the time that I was in a long thun session. My back was very painful and I was finding it hard to sit. The Lama leading the thun walked behind me and noticed something in my posture. He then leaned down and struck me quite hard just above my right hip, which had the effect of shifting my weight. The pain went.

The Lama? Sogyal Rinpoche..then young, slim, and dark haired.
“The difference between us and Tara is that she knows she doesn’t exist”.

pema tsultrim
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:49 am

Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread

Post by pema tsultrim » Sun Jan 12, 2020 4:58 am

What is not acceptable is taking life, taking what is not given, speaking with intent to deceive, and sexual misconduct, the four basis of training. Of course, excluding sex crimes, these four can also be given a pass if performed with bodhicitta motivation.
Malcom, this probably seems like such a basic question but what actually qualifies as "sexual misconduct" within the Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhist contexts?

Malcolm
Posts: 29772
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread

Post by Malcolm » Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:07 pm

pema tsultrim wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 4:58 am
What is not acceptable is taking life, taking what is not given, speaking with intent to deceive, and sexual misconduct, the four basis of training. Of course, excluding sex crimes, these four can also be given a pass if performed with bodhicitta motivation.
Malcom, this probably seems like such a basic question but what actually qualifies as "sexual misconduct" within the Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhist contexts?
Generally, the same thing as in Hināyāna, defined by place, time, partner, and orifice (the latter seems to be basically an issue of hygiene).

Monastics are forbidden all sexual conduct in any place, at any time, with any partner, or any orifice; lay people are forbidden sexual conduct with the spouses of others, minors, those under guardianship, etc., fellatio, cunnilingus, and sodomy are general forbidden.

Time means sexual conduct is generally forbidden during the day; place means in public or in shrines, etc.

smcj
Posts: 6677
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread

Post by smcj » Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:15 pm

Of course, excluding sex crimes, these four can also be given a pass if performed with bodhicitta motivation.
Why do you exclude sex? The Bodhisattva Vow says that negative actions of body and speech are to be done if compassion is deemed necessary by circumstance.

This of course is the Mahayana perspective. Vajrayana is different.

What is NOT permitted in the Bodhisattva Vow is a negative action of mind since there are no circumstances where that would be a compassionate remedy. Actions of the mind remain internal.

Incidentally the idea that somehow Vajrayana reverses this and permits the reintroduction and indulgence of negative mind is not true. The Vajrayana practitioner’s mind is so positive it can take a negative mind (greed, anger, jealousy, etc.) and transform it into an enlightened awareness. This of course requires a deep detachment born of authentic renunciation of defilement. The presence and indulgence of defilements being the source of entanglement in the cycle of samsara.

Contrary to popular opinion, there is no form of Dharma that allows for perpetuating the defiled mind as such. Defiled mind can be rejected, transformed, or self-liberated, but never indulged.
Last edited by smcj on Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
https://soundcloud.com/user-730689343/chenrezig-puja
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)

Malcolm
Posts: 29772
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread

Post by Malcolm » Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:26 pm

smcj wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:15 pm
Of course, excluding sex crimes, these four can also be given a pass if performed with bodhicitta motivation.
Why do you exclude sex?
sex crimes...

smcj
Posts: 6677
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread

Post by smcj » Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:42 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:26 pm
smcj wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:15 pm
Of course, excluding sex crimes, these four can also be given a pass if performed with bodhicitta motivation.
Why do you exclude sex?
sex crimes...
Sex crimes are by definition not done with bodhicitta motivation. In the same sense I t is also possible to do an otherwise virtuous action with criminal intent.

As I just said, there is never a circumstance that allows for a negative mind since that cannot be a remedy to a situation.
https://soundcloud.com/user-730689343/chenrezig-puja
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)

Malcolm
Posts: 29772
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread

Post by Malcolm » Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:58 pm

smcj wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:42 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:26 pm
smcj wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:15 pm

Why do you exclude sex?
sex crimes...
Sex crimes are by definition not done with bodhicitta motivation. In the same sense I t is also possible to do an otherwise virtuous action with criminal intent.

As I just said, there is never a circumstance that allows for a negative mind since that cannot be a remedy to a situation.
Right, which is why I specified sex crimes, like rape, etc.

TrimePema
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 1:16 am

Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread

Post by TrimePema » Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:27 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:58 pm
smcj wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:42 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:26 pm


sex crimes...
Sex crimes are by definition not done with bodhicitta motivation. In the same sense I t is also possible to do an otherwise virtuous action with criminal intent.

As I just said, there is never a circumstance that allows for a negative mind since that cannot be a remedy to a situation.
Right, which is why I specified sex crimes, like rape, etc.
Okay... I don't want to be THAT GUY but I have to genuinely ask this.

In my experience with the Shambhala people - I was fairly close with them when the SMR info came to light - there was some confusion. Initially, people thought there were sex crimes that were committed. But when the report actually came out, and when I spoke with people who were actually there during one or more of the reported incidents, or received first hand accounts from people who were actually there and relayed them to me, it became clear that during one of the main incidents people were super upset about, what had transpired was the following: there was a party (read tsok) and during the offerings one student had the idea to play truth or dare with the Guru. What happened is someone dared SMR and a student to kiss, which they did, during which he allegedly kissed her too long and it made people uncomfortable.

Is this a sex crime or what category does this fall under given the above descriptions of sexual misconduct and also the legal definition of sex crimes and also given what was said about negative actions of mind?

User avatar
Adamantine
Former staff member
Posts: 3932
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
Location: Space is the Place

Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread

Post by Adamantine » Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:30 pm

TrimePema wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:27 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:58 pm
smcj wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:42 pm


Sex crimes are by definition not done with bodhicitta motivation. In the same sense I t is also possible to do an otherwise virtuous action with criminal intent.

As I just said, there is never a circumstance that allows for a negative mind since that cannot be a remedy to a situation.
Right, which is why I specified sex crimes, like rape, etc.
Okay... I don't want to be THAT GUY but I have to genuinely ask this.

In my experience with the Shambhala people - I was fairly close with them when the SMR info came to light - there was some confusion. Initially, people thought there were sex crimes that were committed. But when the report actually came out, and when I spoke with people who were actually there during one or more of the reported incidents, or received first hand accounts from people who were actually there and relayed them to me, it became clear that during one of the main incidents people were super upset about, what had transpired was the following: there was a party (read tsok) and during the offerings one student had the idea to play truth or dare with the Guru. What happened is someone dared SMR and a student to kiss, which they did, during which he allegedly kissed her too long and it made people uncomfortable.

Is this a sex crime or what category does this fall under given the above descriptions of sexual misconduct and also the legal definition of sex crimes and also given what was said about negative actions of mind?
I think you need to review the entire “Project Sunshine” series of reports along with the legal investigative report if you have been led to believe this is the only issue with SMR’s conduct. If so you’ve been misled.
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha

Malcolm
Posts: 29772
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread

Post by Malcolm » Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:19 pm

TrimePema wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:27 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:58 pm
smcj wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:42 pm


Sex crimes are by definition not done with bodhicitta motivation. In the same sense I t is also possible to do an otherwise virtuous action with criminal intent.

As I just said, there is never a circumstance that allows for a negative mind since that cannot be a remedy to a situation.
Right, which is why I specified sex crimes, like rape, etc.
Okay... I don't want to be THAT GUY but I have to genuinely ask this.

In my experience with the Shambhala people - I was fairly close with them when the SMR info came to light - there was some confusion. Initially, people thought there were sex crimes that were committed.
This is because allegedly he raped someone in Chile. But I think this was never verified.
But when the report actually came out, and when I spoke with people who were actually there during one or more of the reported incidents, or received first hand accounts from people who were actually there and relayed them to me, it became clear that during one of the main incidents people were super upset about, what had transpired was the following: there was a party (read tsok) and during the offerings one student had the idea to play truth or dare with the Guru. What happened is someone dared SMR and a student to kiss, which they did, during which he allegedly kissed her too long and it made people uncomfortable.
That's not what I had in mind.
Is this a sex crime or what category does this fall under given the above descriptions of sexual misconduct
That is not sexual misconduct in my book. That's just poor manners.

The fact is that men need to learn how to restrain themselves around women and act in a manner appropriate to the situation. In most cases, sleeping with female students is just a bad policy, especially if they are throwing themselves at you. But the male ego is a fragile thing, and this is why men get into so much trouble. This is not an issue with Gurus, etc. This is an issue of male entitlement, and listen gentleman, we have all been raised with it from the time we were little kids.

TrimePema
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 1:16 am

Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread

Post by TrimePema » Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:05 am

Adamantine wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:30 pm
TrimePema wrote:
Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:27 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:58 pm


Right, which is why I specified sex crimes, like rape, etc.
Okay... I don't want to be THAT GUY but I have to genuinely ask this.

In my experience with the Shambhala people - I was fairly close with them when the SMR info came to light - there was some confusion. Initially, people thought there were sex crimes that were committed. But when the report actually came out, and when I spoke with people who were actually there during one or more of the reported incidents, or received first hand accounts from people who were actually there and relayed them to me, it became clear that during one of the main incidents people were super upset about, what had transpired was the following: there was a party (read tsok) and during the offerings one student had the idea to play truth or dare with the Guru. What happened is someone dared SMR and a student to kiss, which they did, during which he allegedly kissed her too long and it made people uncomfortable.

Is this a sex crime or what category does this fall under given the above descriptions of sexual misconduct and also the legal definition of sex crimes and also given what was said about negative actions of mind?
I think you need to review the entire “Project Sunshine” series of reports along with the legal investigative report if you have been led to believe this is the only issue with SMR’s conduct. If so you’ve been misled.
Disclaimer: I'm not a SMR apologist I just want to know how sex crimes are relevant to this conversation in that I'm curious if somehow what happened with SMR and Sogyal are being treated as sex crimes.

EDITED after I read the report again.

You're right in the sense that what he did was concluded to be sexual misconduct regarding a number of claims. This is defined as unwanted sexual contact. I thought what was implied by "sex crimes" earlier in this conversation was rape. Am I misunderstanding the categories here?

My own teacher says we should just follow Guru Rinpoche's advice: "follow the laws of the place you are living."

Malcolm
Posts: 29772
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread

Post by Malcolm » Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:32 am

TrimePema wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:05 am


You're right in the sense that what he did was concluded to be sexual misconduct regarding a number of claims. This is defined as unwanted sexual contact. I thought what was implied by "sex crimes" earlier in this conversation was rape. Am I misunderstanding the categories here?
Definitions vary from state to state, but generally sexual assault refers to penetrating the body in any orifice with any member of the body.

Sexual harassment, as defined by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is illegal and can include “offensive remarks about a person’s sex, unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors.” The latter is criminal, but is not what I meant when I used the term sex crime. I was thinking of sexual assault.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sol ... k-it-down/

TrimePema
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 1:16 am

Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread

Post by TrimePema » Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:23 am

Malcolm wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:32 am
TrimePema wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 12:05 am


You're right in the sense that what he did was concluded to be sexual misconduct regarding a number of claims. This is defined as unwanted sexual contact. I thought what was implied by "sex crimes" earlier in this conversation was rape. Am I misunderstanding the categories here?
Definitions vary from state to state, but generally sexual assault refers to penetrating the body in any orifice with any member of the body.

Sexual harassment, as defined by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is illegal and can include “offensive remarks about a person’s sex, unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors.” The latter is criminal, but is not what I meant when I used the term sex crime. I was thinking of sexual assault.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sol ... k-it-down/
Okay. What I'm confused about here is not the law, it's what you referred to earlier as the four basis of training.

With respect to sexual misconduct, is it the case that while taking of life may be beneficial in certain cases done by certain realized individuals, sexual misconduct is never beneficial? It seemed to me you were referring specifically to sex crimes, which I took to be rape, but now it seems as though you are saying any sexual misconduct is criminal and sexually related so therefore it is a sex crime and any type of sex crime, from rape to unwelcome sexual advances, is never beneficial regardless of motivation or who does it?

I'm not trying to defend anyone here I am just trying to understand how this is being parsed, if it is being parsed at all.

The reasoning for this would be the following: although negative actions of body and speech can sometimes be positive, any negative action of mind is always negative; sexual misconduct of any kind is an action of negative mind, not a negative action of body; therefore any sexual misconduct must have been the action of an unrealized being.

I'm sure I'm misunderstanding this so clarification is appreciated.

smcj
Posts: 6677
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread

Post by smcj » Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:44 am

The reasoning for this would be the following: although negative actions of body and speech can sometimes be positive, any negative action of mind is always negative;
If you see someone being chased by an attacker, and you lie to the attacker about which way they went, that’s a lie. But the circumstance and compassion required you to lie.

So circumstances determined that the otherwise negative action is positive in this case. However with a mental action, such as anger or jealousy, there are no circumstances that would be properly solved by them.
...sexual misconduct of any kind is an action of negative mind, not a negative action of body;
Nope. Sexual activitY, whether positive or negative, is physical.

Any action of the body or speech (including sex) can be a positive action with a positive motivation, or a positive action with a negative motivation. It can also be a negative action with positive motivation, or a negative action with a negative motivation.

What is conventionally seen as a negative act can, in truth, be a positive action with the right motivation. And if done by an enlightened being it is buddha-activity and a great blessing. A fully enlightened being is not capable of actual harm.

But good luck meeting one of those.
...therefore any sexual misconduct must have been the action of an unrealized being.
For everyone, like you and me, the motivation determines the quality of the action. In the case of a fully realized being their motivation is assumed to be pure and their actions unmistaken. In the guru-yoga, seeing fault is dismissed as simply dirt on you own vision.

However this idea is frequently misused as a pretext for bad behavior by the not so fully realized.

Big problem.
https://soundcloud.com/user-730689343/chenrezig-puja
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)

TrimePema
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 1:16 am

Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread

Post by TrimePema » Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:04 am

smcj wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:42 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:26 pm
smcj wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:15 pm

Why do you exclude sex?
sex crimes...
Sex crimes are by definition not done with bodhicitta motivation. In the same sense I t is also possible to do an otherwise virtuous action with criminal intent.

As I just said, there is never a circumstance that allows for a negative mind since that cannot be a remedy to a situation.
So if sex crimes are actions of body why are they by definition not done with bodhichitta motivation?

They must automatically, definitionally include being done with negative mind. Why?

Are you also saying any action done with bodhichitta intent automatically has visible benefit in the immediate aftermath?

smcj
Posts: 6677
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread

Post by smcj » Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:21 am

So if sex crimes are actions of body why are they by definition not done with bodhichitta motivation?
I don’t understand what that means. Try that again.

Keep in mind “crimes” are a legal issue. What may be legal in one place may be illegal in another. The other issue that it is related to, and somewhat confused with, is ethics and karma.
They must automatically, definitionally include being done with negative mind. Why?
Are you assuming that sex is a negative action?
Are you assuming bodhicitta is the only virtuous motivation?
Are you also saying any action done with bodhichitta intent automatically has visible benefit in the immediate aftermath?
I wish that were so, but no.
*****
You seem to be confused about something that is fairly simple and common sense—common sense until you get to the Vajrayana guru-yoga part. That’s a hornets nest.
https://soundcloud.com/user-730689343/chenrezig-puja
1.The problem isn’t ‘ignorance’. The problem is the mind you have right now. (H.H. Karmapa XVII @NYC 2/4/18)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)

TrimePema
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 1:16 am

Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread

Post by TrimePema » Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:30 am

smcj wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:21 am
So if sex crimes are actions of body why are they by definition not done with bodhichitta motivation?
I don’t understand what that means. Try that again.

Keep in mind “crimes” are a legal issue. What may be legal in one place may be illegal in another. The other issue that it is related to, and somewhat confused with, is ethics and karma.
They must automatically, definitionally include being done with negative mind. Why?
Are you assuming that sex is a negative action?
Are you assuming bodhicitta is the only virtuous motivation?
Are you also saying any action done with bodhichitta intent automatically has visible benefit in the immediate aftermath?
I wish that were so, but no.
*****
You seem to be confused about something that is fairly simple and common sense—common sense until you get to the Vajrayana guru-yoga part. That’s a hornets nest.
It was said sex crimes are by definition not done with bodhichitta motivation. but as you said they are actions of body, so they can be either virtuous or not virtuous depending on motivation.
so:
what makes a sex crime different from other actions of body such that they are by definition not done with bodhichitta motivation?

I know crimes are a legal issue. Laws have nothing to do with the karmic results. There are laws that produce negative karma. For instance, it is a law we must pay taxes. Those taxes in part fund wars, killing, procurement sale and manufacturing of weapons and so on.

Which part of this is common sense?

Given that: 1. actions done with bodhichitta intent do not automatically have visible benefit in the immediate aftermath
2. negative actions of body can be positive if done with bodhichitta intent, which is impossible to know
3. sex crimes are actions of body
4. a crime is a legal definition and does not necessarily have anything to do with karma

It should follow that 5. even sex crimes done with bodhichitta motivation have positive results.

But you are saying, given 1, 2, 3, and 4, that 5 is actually "therefore, sex crimes are different from every other action of body and are by definition never done with bodhichitta motivation."

So, again, what is it about sex crimes specifically that makes them different from other actions of body and renders them definitionally not done with bodhichitta motivation?


And no, what I was saying is: if they are by definition never done with bodhichitta motivation, they must be a negative action of mind, since actions of body can always be positive if done with bodhichitta motivation.

And also, I'm not talking about some run-of-the-mill "i want you to be free from samsara" lipservice bodhichitta. I'm talking about "I see your karma directly and I know for certain that I have to do this thing right now for the benefit of you, me, and all beings." That is to say, we are talking about the type of bodhichitta that allows one to liberate fish by biting their heads off and so on.


Further, we have established sex crimes range from sexual harassment all the way to the most extreme sexual assault. How is it possible that all of these by definition cannot be done with a bodhichitta motivation?

What is it about sex crimes that makes them different than every other type of action?

For instance, there could be a situation where an enlightened being could become romantically involved with a minor which would technically be a sex crime but it would be beneficial for the minor, right? But since it's a sex crime it could never be done with bodhichitta motivation and so an enlightened being, even though they have attained equanimity, would *never* do it because it could *never* be done with bodhichitta motivation and an enlightened being *always* does everything with bodhichitta motivation.

User avatar
Könchok Thrinley
Former staff member
Posts: 1921
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:18 am

Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread

Post by Könchok Thrinley » Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:16 am

TrimePema wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:30 am
It was said sex crimes are by definition not done with bodhichitta motivation. but as you said they are actions of body, so they can be either virtuous or not virtuous depending on motivation.
so:
what makes a sex crime different from other actions of body such that they are by definition not done with bodhichitta motivation?
While killing somebody or stealing can be imagined being done for the benefit of others and even the victim, I kinda doubt there is any such scenario with rape, or any of the sorts. It is because cheating, rape, etc are caused by a strong sexual desire and by definition there is no space for thinking of how it influence others.

The case with killing and stealing is different, just look at Robin Hood, or the story of the merchant from the sutras. There are no such stories with sexual misconduct anywhere.
“Observing samaya involves to remain inseparable from the union of wisdom and compassion at all times, to sustain mindfulness, and to put into practice the guru’s instructions”. Garchen Rinpoche

Formerly known as Miroku.

Post Reply

Return to “Dzogchen”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests