Indeedheart wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:39 pmIt bugs me to.Malcolm wrote: ↑Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:31 pmWell, 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.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)
/magnus
Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread
- Sonam Wangchug
- Posts: 427
- 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
"To have confidence in the teacher is the ultimate refuge." -Rigzin Jigme Lingpa
Re: The Self-Arisen Vidya Tantra and The Self-Liberated Vidya Tantra A Translation of the Rigpa Rang Shar and Rigpa Rang
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.
Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread
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 Lama? Sogyal Rinpoche..then young, slim, and dark haired.
“You don’t know it. You just know about it. That is not the same thing.”
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche to me.
-
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:49 am
Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread
Malcom, this probably seems like such a basic question but what actually qualifies as "sexual misconduct" within the Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhist contexts?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.
Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread
Generally, the same thing as in Hināyāna, defined by place, time, partner, and orifice (the latter seems to be basically an issue of hygiene).pema tsultrim wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 4:58 amMalcom, this probably seems like such a basic question but what actually qualifies as "sexual misconduct" within the Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhist contexts?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.
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.
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread
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.Of course, excluding sex crimes, these four can also be given a pass if performed with bodhicitta motivation.
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 Schrödinger’s Yidam on Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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)
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)
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread
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.
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)
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)
Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread
Right, which is why I specified sex crimes, like rape, etc.smcj wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:42 pmSex 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.
Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread
Okay... I don't want to be THAT GUY but I have to genuinely ask this.Malcolm wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:58 pmRight, which is why I specified sex crimes, like rape, etc.smcj wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:42 pmSex 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.
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?
- Adamantine
- Former staff member
- Posts: 4027
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:09 am
- Location: Space is the Place
Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread
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.TrimePema wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:27 pmOkay... I don't want to be THAT GUY but I have to genuinely ask this.Malcolm wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:58 pmRight, which is why I specified sex crimes, like rape, etc.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.
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?
Contentment is the ultimate wealth;
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha
Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread
This is because allegedly he raped someone in Chile. But I think this was never verified.TrimePema wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:27 pmOkay... I don't want to be THAT GUY but I have to genuinely ask this.Malcolm wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:58 pmRight, which is why I specified sex crimes, like rape, etc.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.
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.
That's not what I had in mind.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 is not sexual misconduct in my book. That's just poor manners.Is this a sex crime or what category does this fall under given the above descriptions of sexual misconduct
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.
Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread
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.Adamantine wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:30 pmI 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.TrimePema wrote: ↑Tue Jan 14, 2020 10:27 pmOkay... 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?
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."
Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread
Definitions vary from state to state, but generally sexual assault refers to penetrating the body in any orifice with any member of the body.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?
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/
Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread
Okay. What I'm confused about here is not the law, it's what you referred to earlier as the four basis of training.Malcolm wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:32 amDefinitions vary from state to state, but generally sexual assault refers to penetrating the body in any orifice with any member of the body.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?
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/
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.
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread
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.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;
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.
Nope. Sexual activitY, whether positive or negative, is physical....sexual misconduct of any kind is an action of negative mind, not a negative action of body;
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.
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....therefore any sexual misconduct must have been the action of an unrealized being.
However this idea is frequently misused as a pretext for bad behavior by the not so fully realized.
Big problem.
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)
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)
Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread
So if sex crimes are actions of body why are they by definition not done with bodhichitta motivation?smcj wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:42 pmSex 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.
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?
-
- Posts: 7885
- Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am
Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread
I don’t understand what that means. Try that again.So if sex crimes are actions of body why are they by definition not done with bodhichitta motivation?
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.
Are you assuming that sex is a negative action?They must automatically, definitionally include being done with negative mind. Why?
Are you assuming bodhicitta is the only virtuous motivation?
I wish that were so, but no.Are you also saying any action done with bodhichitta intent automatically has visible benefit in the immediate aftermath?
*****
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.
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)
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)
Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread
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.smcj wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:21 amI don’t understand what that means. Try that again.So if sex crimes are actions of body why are they by definition not done with bodhichitta motivation?
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.Are you assuming that sex is a negative action?They must automatically, definitionally include being done with negative mind. Why?
Are you assuming bodhicitta is the only virtuous motivation?
I wish that were so, but no.Are you also saying any action done with bodhichitta intent automatically has visible benefit in the immediate aftermath?
*****
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.
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.
- Könchok Thrinley
- Former staff member
- Posts: 3276
- Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:18 am
- Location: He/Him from EU
Re: Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread
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.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?
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
For those who do virtuous actions,
goodness is what comes to pass.
For those who do non-virtuous actions,
that becomes suffering indeed.
- Arya Sanghata Sutra
For those who do virtuous actions,
goodness is what comes to pass.
For those who do non-virtuous actions,
that becomes suffering indeed.
- Arya Sanghata Sutra