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

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 »

pema tsultrim wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 5:10 am ...multiple posters have already observed that rape/sexual assault is the deliberate sexual overpowering and violation (on multiple levels) of an unwilling or non-consenting person, either by force or coercion or while the other is defenseless, for the purpose of self-gratification, or else motivated by some mental affliction. How could that ever be anything other than harmful?

While what you said is true, as pointed out above, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about bodhichitta motivation. Specifically, we are talking about actions that appear negative but are in fact done for the purpose of the enlightenment of all sentient beings even though they have negative aspects. We are discussing whether an action with the negative appearance labeled "rape" could ever be done with said bodhichitta motivation or if it is a type of action that can only be done with a negative motivation such as the one you described.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7138
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

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

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

I think a distinction should be made between a theoretical, legalistic, technical perspective versus a “for all practical purposes” perspective on this issue.
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 »

smcj wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:45 pm I think a distinction should be made between a theoretical, legalistic, technical perspective versus a “for all practical purposes” perspective on this issue.
Do you mean like this or another way?


Theoretically I would say it is possible to have a bodhichitta motivation here.

Legalistically I would say it should generally not be done because of the criminal aspects.

Technically I would say it should only be done by mahasiddhas, if it were to be done at all, which technically it could if and only if there was a great deal of benefit that would result AND the actor had sufficient powers to know that directly, and not theoretically.

For all practical purposes, I would say we can either assume that 1) these types of things never happen or 2) they happen all the time and there are a great deal of bodhisattvas and buddhas working for our benefit in ways we cannot perceive all the time.

Maybe we could also say this, which I think is the most appropriate outside of speaking within Vajrayana contexts:
Maybe these types of things do happen, but even if they do, we should never acknowledge in public that they happen because we should outwardly keep the Mahayana conduct and condemn these things, even though we may see with pure perception. If this is one of our teachers or vajra siblings, inwardly we can still have pure perception, and outwardly we can condemn the actions, and still be keeping samaya.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7138
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

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

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

TrimePema wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 8:37 pm
smcj wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:45 pm I think a distinction should be made between a theoretical, legalistic, technical perspective versus a “for all practical purposes” perspective on this issue.
Do you mean like this or another way?


Theoretically I would say it is possible to have a bodhichitta motivation here.

Legalistically I would say it should generally not be done because of the criminal aspects.

Technically I would say it should only be done by mahasiddhas, if it were to be done at all, which technically it could if and only if there was a great deal of benefit that would result AND the actor had sufficient powers to know that directly, and not theoretically.
I was using "theoretical, legalistic, technical" as synonyms of sorts, like reading scripture as if it were a legal document. But what you wrote wasn't bad.
For all practical purposes, I would say we can either assume that 1) these types of things never happen
The chances are about as great as winning the lottery. It can happen, but don't count on it.
...or 2) they happen all the time and there are a great deal of bodhisattvas and buddhas working for our benefit in ways we cannot perceive all the time.
As an article of faith, yes. But application into a specific situation is highly dubious.
Maybe we could also say this, which I think is the most appropriate outside of speaking within Vajrayana contexts:
Maybe these types of things do happen, but even if they do, we should never acknowledge in public that they happen because we should outwardly keep the Mahayana conduct and condemn these things, even though we may see with pure perception. If this is one of our teachers or vajra siblings, inwardly we can still have pure perception, and outwardly we can condemn the actions, and still be keeping samaya.
Ya know, when push comes to shove, that's probably how it's going to play out. Things would be so much better if every lama were a truly enlightened master where you don't have to play double-think with yourself in order to have pure view. But all we can do is our best.

My point in all this is that if you actually did have a fully enlightened master as a personal teacher, then it would be entirely appropriate to have pure view of him no matter what. But good luck with that. So until then you take a short cut and try to practice as if you did.

Right?
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 »

smcj wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 10:43 pm
TrimePema wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 8:37 pm
smcj wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:45 pm I think a distinction should be made between a theoretical, legalistic, technical perspective versus a “for all practical purposes” perspective on this issue.
Do you mean like this or another way?


Theoretically I would say it is possible to have a bodhichitta motivation here.

Legalistically I would say it should generally not be done because of the criminal aspects.

Technically I would say it should only be done by mahasiddhas, if it were to be done at all, which technically it could if and only if there was a great deal of benefit that would result AND the actor had sufficient powers to know that directly, and not theoretically.
I was using "theoretical, legalistic, technical" as synonyms of sorts, like reading scripture as if it were a legal document. But what you wrote wasn't bad.
For all practical purposes, I would say we can either assume that 1) these types of things never happen
The chances are about as great as winning the lottery. It can happen, but don't count on it.
...or 2) they happen all the time and there are a great deal of bodhisattvas and buddhas working for our benefit in ways we cannot perceive all the time.
As an article of faith, yes. But application into a specific situation is highly dubious.
Maybe we could also say this, which I think is the most appropriate outside of speaking within Vajrayana contexts:
Maybe these types of things do happen, but even if they do, we should never acknowledge in public that they happen because we should outwardly keep the Mahayana conduct and condemn these things, even though we may see with pure perception. If this is one of our teachers or vajra siblings, inwardly we can still have pure perception, and outwardly we can condemn the actions, and still be keeping samaya.
Ya know, when push comes to shove, that's probably how it's going to play out. Things would be so much better if every lama were a truly enlightened master where you don't have to play double-think with yourself in order to have pure view. But all we can do is our best.

My point in all this is that if you actually did have a fully enlightened master as a personal teacher, then it would be entirely appropriate to have pure view of him no matter what. But good luck with that. So until then you take a short cut and try to practice as if you did.

Right?
Right! But I feel like this gets us back to the original question:

Given that I ought to practice as if my teacher were actually an enlightened master, if my teacher were to do something like rape someone, would there be any grounds for viewing it as pure or would it automatically mean my master was not actually enlightened?

So what about this statement:

Committing any action does not automatically discount the possibility that the actor could be enlightened, although certain actions definitely can make pure vision difficult. However, regardless of whether or not one has pure vision, an action with negative appearance should be condemned publicly, although the way one responds outwardly must be skillful if one wishes to remain on the path. One must evaluate the situation with both pure vision and logic, but the legalistic view is not relevant except in terms of keeping conduct in a way that is visible. As Guru Rinpoche says, one can keep the conduct in a way that is invisible.
Malcolm
Posts: 32601
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

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

Post by Malcolm »

TrimePema wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:04 pm
Right! But I feel like this gets us back to the original question:

Given that I ought to practice as if my teacher were actually an enlightened master, if my teacher were to do something like rape someone, would there be any grounds for viewing it as pure or would it automatically mean my master was not actually enlightened?
No and yes.
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 »

Malcolm wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:47 pm
TrimePema wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:04 pm
Right! But I feel like this gets us back to the original question:

Given that I ought to practice as if my teacher were actually an enlightened master, if my teacher were to do something like rape someone, would there be any grounds for viewing it as pure or would it automatically mean my master was not actually enlightened?
No and yes.
To which aspects?
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7138
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

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

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Malcolm wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:47 pm
TrimePema wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:04 pm
Right! But I feel like this gets us back to the original question:

Given that I ought to practice as if my teacher were actually an enlightened master, if my teacher were to do something like rape someone, would there be any grounds for viewing it as pure or would it automatically mean my master was not actually enlightened?
No and yes.
Yes and no. However the great likelihood favors the mundane view. Thus my support of HHDL and Mingyur R’s positionson lama abuse.

On a practical level you choose your teachers cautiously and conservatively so that such an occasion cannot occur. Then you can give carte blanche—but from a safe distance away from any lines.
Last edited by Schrödinger’s Yidam on Sat Jan 18, 2020 1:07 am, 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)
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 »

smcj wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:55 am
Malcolm wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:47 pm
TrimePema wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:04 pm
Right! But I feel like this gets us back to the original question:

Given that I ought to practice as if my teacher were actually an enlightened master, if my teacher were to do something like rape someone, would there be any grounds for viewing it as pure or would it automatically mean my master was not actually enlightened?
No and yes.
Yes and no. However the great likelihood favors the mundane view.

On a practical level you choose your teachers cautiously and conservatively so that such an occasion cannot occur. Then you can give carte blanche—from a safe distance away from any lines.
Sure but in the case of SMR and Sogyal almost every Vajrayana student is likely their vajra sibling, no?
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7138
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

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

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

TrimePema wrote:Sure but in the case of SMR and Sogyal almost every Vajrayana student is likely their vajra sibling, no?
Vajrayana sibling? I don’t know what that means.

I suggest staying away from lamas that display corrupt behavior and make “crazy wisdom” rationalizations. That will prevent the worst problems.

Two good pieces of advice I’ve heard are:
1. Talk to a lamas ex-students about them, and
2. If you can predict what a teacher will do based on winning or losing at money, sex, power, or prestige (the 8 worldly dharmas), give them a pass.

That still won’t be enough. Use your own good sense.
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)
User avatar
PeterC
Posts: 2606
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

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

Post by PeterC »

TrimePema wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 1:06 am
smcj wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:55 am
Malcolm wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:47 pm

No and yes.
Yes and no. However the great likelihood favors the mundane view.

On a practical level you choose your teachers cautiously and conservatively so that such an occasion cannot occur. Then you can give carte blanche—from a safe distance away from any lines.
Sure but in the case of SMR and Sogyal almost every Vajrayana student is likely their vajra sibling, no?
Hmm. I think no. The explanations I've been given on this aspect of samaya refer to those with whom you have received empowerment. I know there are alternative explanations that present it as students of the same lama, and that would widen the net considerably, but still a long way short of every vajrayana student - particularly for Mukpo Jr, who didn't interact widely during his training.

In either case the obligation, if it applies, is to maintain pure perception, but there are two caveats to that. First, one is not required to receive any teaching from anyone. You can always choose to keep your distance, whether it's from a vajra master or a vajra sibling. Second, there is an argument that subsequent behavior may cause you to believe that the person conferring the empowerment, or the person receiving it, didn't meet the qualifications in the first place, hence no samaya ever existed. Hypothetical: you're in an empowerment, someone turns up drunk, doesn't participate in the actions of the empowerment, tells you that vajrayana is BS and decides to take a shit in the shrine room during the ritual. Assuming the empowerment actually proceeds, you could reasonably conclude that this person didn't receive it and you therefore don't have any vajra sibling relationship with them. Granted this is a harder judgement to make.
Malcolm
Posts: 32601
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

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

Post by Malcolm »

smcj wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:55 am
Malcolm wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:47 pm
TrimePema wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:04 pm
Right! But I feel like this gets us back to the original question:

Given that I ought to practice as if my teacher were actually an enlightened master, if my teacher were to do something like rape someone, would there be any grounds for viewing it as pure or would it automatically mean my master was not actually enlightened?
No and yes.
Yes and no. However the great likelihood favors the mundane view. Thus my support of HHDL and Mingyur R’s positionson lama abuse.

On a practical level you choose your teachers cautiously and conservatively so that such an occasion cannot occur. Then you can give carte blanche—but from a safe distance away from any lines.
Your answer is in direct contradiction to the tantras. I am not sure why you persist in such wrong headed contrarianism.
tingdzin
Posts: 1346
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:19 am

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

Post by tingdzin »

smcj wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 1:47 am Use your own good sense.
Sine qua non.
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 »

Malcolm wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 4:01 am
smcj wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:55 am
Malcolm wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:47 pm

No and yes.
Yes and no. However the great likelihood favors the mundane view. Thus my support of HHDL and Mingyur R’s positionson lama abuse.

On a practical level you choose your teachers cautiously and conservatively so that such an occasion cannot occur. Then you can give carte blanche—but from a safe distance away from any lines.
Your answer is in direct contradiction to the tantras. I am not sure why you persist in such wrong headed contrarianism.
What do you mean?

I'm just looking for the actual answer with the reasoning.


I take your answer to mean:
"No there is no grounds for viewing your teacher as pure if they rape someone."
"Yes it automatically means they are not enlightened."

Implicit is the statement: rape can never be done with the bodhichitta motivation.

Now we have the answer, but like I said I am also interested in the reasoning. If it's in the tantras, can you share it here?
Last edited by TrimePema on Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

PeterC wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 3:41 am
TrimePema wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 1:06 am
smcj wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 12:55 am
Yes and no. However the great likelihood favors the mundane view.

On a practical level you choose your teachers cautiously and conservatively so that such an occasion cannot occur. Then you can give carte blanche—from a safe distance away from any lines.
Sure but in the case of SMR and Sogyal almost every Vajrayana student is likely their vajra sibling, no?
Hmm. I think no. The explanations I've been given on this aspect of samaya refer to those with whom you have received empowerment. I know there are alternative explanations that present it as students of the same lama, and that would widen the net considerably, but still a long way short of every vajrayana student - particularly for Mukpo Jr, who didn't interact widely during his training.

In either case the obligation, if it applies, is to maintain pure perception, but there are two caveats to that. First, one is not required to receive any teaching from anyone. You can always choose to keep your distance, whether it's from a vajra master or a vajra sibling. Second, there is an argument that subsequent behavior may cause you to believe that the person conferring the empowerment, or the person receiving it, didn't meet the qualifications in the first place, hence no samaya ever existed. Hypothetical: you're in an empowerment, someone turns up drunk, doesn't participate in the actions of the empowerment, tells you that vajrayana is BS and decides to take a shit in the shrine room during the ritual. Assuming the empowerment actually proceeds, you could reasonably conclude that this person didn't receive it and you therefore don't have any vajra sibling relationship with them. Granted this is a harder judgement to make.
If you received empowerment from the same teacher.

If they receive empowerment from HHDL and so do I... we're vajra siblings, right? Or does it have to be the same empowerment at the same time?

Students of the same lama have also vajra siblings but have a closer relationship so I've been told.
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7138
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

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

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Scenario 1: Naropa and Milarepa.

Scenario 2: Ösel Tendzin and SMR.

I think both scenarios should be taken into consideration in a dedicated Buddhist forum.

In summary my point has mostly been that, as serious as scenario 2 is, it does not completely invalidate scenario 1. However in the version of Mila’s biography I read he said something like, “I’ve taken on this kind of harsh karma for the lineage, so don’t abuse students anymore.”

Is that a problem for people?
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 »

smcj wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:31 am Scenario 1: Naropa and Milarepa.

Scenario 2: Ösel Tendzin and SMR.

I think both scenarios should be taken into consideration. In summary my point has mostly been that, as serious as scenario 2 is, it does not completely invalidate scenario 1.

Is that a problem for people?
Osel Tendzin is a good example IMO because when he became regent Trungpa Rinpoche also stated directly that VROT was not enlightened. VROT then, later, did actually rape someone, and he also had students who still saw him as pure...

Hm....

Were the students mistaken in that case? Does that mean their practice was backwards?
Schrödinger’s Yidam
Posts: 7138
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

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

Post by Schrödinger’s Yidam »

Scenario 1 and scenario 2 are different scenarios.
Both scenarios are extreme.
Lessons should be learned from both, but both should be avoided imho.
Last edited by Schrödinger’s Yidam on Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:42 am, 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)
User avatar
PeterC
Posts: 2606
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

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

Post by PeterC »

TrimePema wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:09 am
If you received empowerment from the same teacher.

If they receive empowerment from HHDL and so do I... we're vajra siblings, right? Or does it have to be the same empowerment at the same time?

Students of the same lama have also vajra siblings but have a closer relationship so I've been told.
Like I said, ask different people, and you'll receive different opinions.

However nothing prevents one from walking away from teachers or companions. All this is only really a practical problem if you believe you have samaya with a person - and in that case, you always have the option of seeking another teacher.

Note also my point about the possibility that conditions for creation of samaya were not met.
Malcolm
Posts: 32601
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

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

Post by Malcolm »

TrimePema wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:37 am
smcj wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:31 am Scenario 1: Naropa and Milarepa.

Scenario 2: Ösel Tendzin and SMR.

I think both scenarios should be taken into consideration. In summary my point has mostly been that, as serious as scenario 2 is, it does not completely invalidate scenario 1.

Is that a problem for people?
Osel Tendzin is a good example IMO because when he became regent Trungpa Rinpoche also stated directly that VROT was not enlightened. VROT then, later, did actually rape someone, and he also had students who still saw him as pure...

Hm....

Were the students mistaken in that case? Does that mean their practice was backwards?
Yes. He caused the fatal illness of at least one person, and now that act is considered homocide.
Post Reply

Return to “Dzogchen”