This is what I mean about taking a different teaching role. What I hear him saying is... do we really need him to validate our perceptions of the situation? Isn't that type of mindset what led to problems to begin with?Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 1:58 amI want to agree, but the conspicuous absence of a simple act - calling out abusive behavior- coupled with lots of crusty old defenses of "but there Guru said so and you practice Vajrayana so there" make for an ugly combo.KoolAid900 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:59 pmIt seems to me that Dzongsar Khyentse is teaching Vajrayana, and is not going to make a determination for others about what happened with Sogyal. I don't necessarily think this is saving face, but saying that the Vajrayana is bigger than any situation and we have to decide our spiritual path for ourselves. He is emphasizing that one aspect of Vajrayana while HHDL and Mingyur are emphasizing another aspect.... I see both presentations as being compatible. Dzongsar is challenging our views, while HHDL and Mingyur are clarifying certain points. Two different teaching activities.Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:22 pmI like what I heave read from Ringu Tulku a lot.
There is a difference between someone advocating real devotion and connection to the Outer Guru, and someone advocating for devotion to the Outer Guru as basically an obligatory institutional thing, whatever else they want to claim it is. Once it turns from an experience of the individual state of Guru yoga to the one where you are supposed to reinforce cultural and institutional norms by showing fealty and somehow that is the practice...then I ain't interested, and I can tell the difference.
I'm sure some will claim there's no difference, but I haven't even been around that long and I believe I can sufficiently grok which teachers are advocating which.
It's called saving face. One of the things that makes Mingyur Rinpoches and HHDL responses to the Sogyal thing impressive is that they have to step outside their own institutional culture to engage in open talk about abuse and scandal of authority figures. I.e. they are willing to give priority to the practice and welfare of individuals over what might be said to the the institutional end of Guru Yoga. To me that indicates someone who is trying to put the essence of the teachings out there.
Other teachers decided the Sogyal situation was a place to repeat the strictures of the institution of Guru Yoga. I don't fault them on some deep ethical level, I believe they are all doing what they think is best, but this is one place where I default to my own cultures norms - whatever the downsides of supposedly decadent, liberal Western culture, our openness about discussing scandal honestly is vastly preferable to "scandal management through tradition", which is IMO what DJKR's response amounted to, among other things.
I have liked the stuff DJKR has said more recently, and I am glad he has not simply condemned the entire Rigpa sangha and thrown up his hands, that is commendable in this age. However, without serious condemnation of what Sogyal has done, I am not sure it's enough, and I wonder why he cannot simply condemn the behavior in uncertain terms without sidetracking into Samayaland.
Also, he is teaching how to practice guru devotion (which I would say is different than guru yoga)... I would he surprised if he definitively says something one way or another about Sogyal. I feel reasonably comfortable believing that Sogyal's behavior was abusive, but I can't be 100% certain (and fortunately dont personally have to worry about it since hes not a teacher of mine).
Another point I hear DJKR making is that Vajrayana is supposed to challenge our perspectives, beliefs, concepts, etc... we can't expect to take that journey with a guru while at the same time expecting the guru to conform to our ideas about how things should be.
Having said that.... my personal synthesis is that while I should expect my teacher to challenge my views, and more importantly my ego, and while I probably shouldn't feel TOO comfortable around my guru, I should feel safe and loved. If I examine my relationship with my teacher, I don't always feel comfortable with certain things and sometimes it gets confusing as to whether those things are cultural issues, my guru's flaws, or just my own self importance being challenged. But even if they are his flaws, I feel a deep sense of gratitude and love for my guru. And I feel capable of loving him regardless, as he has certainly done with me (and I definitely have plenty of flaws). If instead, I felt shame or bad about myself it might be time to start questioning whether it's a good situation for me.