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

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

An undefiled mind that has realized some degree of Dharma can benefit others. Sometimes that free expression is not limited by convention.

The defiled mind, confused by that display, will eagerly mimic what it sees, indulges its own negativities, and call it “Vajrayana”—if given the chance. That is not Vajrayana or Dharma of any sort. It is sinking lower into the suffering of samsara. It should not be encouraged.

Big difference.

[Malcolm]

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 was talking to smcj. He/she has this belief, unwarranted though it is, that somehow the tantras grant license to a teacher to do anything to anyone. But this is not true.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

I know a guy that had a heart transplant. He let some guy that had gone to med school give him drugs that rendered him completely helpless and at the guys mercy. Then this guy cut his chest wide open and literally cut my friend’s heart out. Plus he took a LOT of my friend’s money. As described that is outrageous and criminal!

Is it shameful that I did not object? No, of course not.

That’s a far cry from saying I won’t object if my dentist gets in a drunken bar fight and stabs somebody.

See the difference?

[Malcolm]

I know a guy that had a heart transplant. He let some guy that had gone to med school give him drugs that rendered him completely helpless and at the guys mercy. Then this guy cut his chest wide open and literally cut my friend’s heart out. Plus he took a LOT of my friend’s money. As described that is outrageous and criminal!

Is it shameful that I did not object? No, of course not.

That’s a far cry from saying I won’t object if my dentist gets in a drunken bar fight and stabs somebody.

See the difference?

Non sequitur.

[pema tsultrim]

...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.

What about the part of my post that you did not highlight? The part where by definition, rape and other forms of sexual violence are unwanted, non-consentual, forced, coerced, or done while the victim is helpless or too young to know better, and harm the victim emotionally and/or physically (I added on some, but still true)... Does the experience of the object of an action not matter? So if someone believes themselves to doing all the above with a bodhicitta motivation, but the direct recipient is demonstrably harmed and no one else benefits, then that is certainly the most unskillful means imaginable, and the agent is deluding themselves. No bodhicitta there. So I think that point was addressed, if only implicitly.

[TrimePema]

...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.

What about the part of my post that you did not highlight? The part where by definition, rape and other forms of sexual violence are unwanted, non-consentual, forced, coerced, or done while the victim is helpless or too young to know better, and harm the victim emotionally and/or physically (I added on some, but still true)... Does the experience of the object of an action not matter? So if someone believes themselves to doing all the above with a bodhicitta motivation, but the direct recipient is demonstrably harmed and no one else benefits, then that is certainly the most unskillful means imaginable, and the agent is deluding themselves. No bodhicitta there. So I think that point was addressed, if only implicitly.

Why did you say "no one else benefits"? You need to re-read my example and then look at these passages again.
Additionally, we are not talking about someone (an actor) "believing themselves to be doing all the above with a bodhichitta motivation" we are talking about someone who absolutely IS doing the above with a bodhichitta motivation.

The discussion is whether or not that's possible and on what grounds it would be or wouldn't be.

Nine Considerations
Here are the relevant passages again:

2. Consideration of the status of beings
If something would benefit lower beings such as animals but harm higher ones such as humans, do not act for the benefit of the lower. Even if an action would harm some animals, if it would benefit humans and the like, then act for the humans’ benefit. The same principle applies with regard to ordinary people and practitioners of Dharma, and among practitioners, with regard to shravakas and bodhisattvas.

3. Consideration of the number of beings
If many beings would be helped and few harmed, you should act to benefit the many. But if many would be harmed and few helped, do not act. If the numbers and the help and harm would be equal, by relying on teachings of skillful methods of protection from harm, you will succeed in helping.

4. Consideration of this and future lives
If it would benefit others in both this life and those to come, you should act to benefit them, by all means. Whenever it would benefit neither life, you should not act. If it would help in this life but harm in future ones, do not act. Even if it would harm in this life, if it would help in the next, being skillful with methods to protect this life from harm you should act to benefit the next.

[Malcolm]

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.

What about the part of my post that you did not highlight? The part where by definition, rape and other forms of sexual violence are unwanted, non-consentual, forced, coerced, or done while the victim is helpless or too young to know better, and harm the victim emotionally and/or physically (I added on some, but still true)... Does the experience of the object of an action not matter? So if someone believes themselves to doing all the above with a bodhicitta motivation, but the direct recipient is demonstrably harmed and no one else benefits, then that is certainly the most unskillful means imaginable, and the agent is deluding themselves. No bodhicitta there. So I think that point was addressed, if only implicitly.

Why did you say "no one else benefits"? You need to re-read my example and then look at these passages again.
Additionally, we are not talking about someone (an actor) "believing themselves to be doing all the above with a bodhichitta motivation" we are talking about someone who absolutely IS doing the above with a bodhichitta motivation.

The discussion is whether or not that's possible and on what grounds it would be or wouldn't be.

Nine Considerations
Here are the relevant passages again:

2. Consideration of the status of beings
If something would benefit lower beings such as animals but harm higher ones such as humans, do not act for the benefit of the lower. Even if an action would harm some animals, if it would benefit humans and the like, then act for the humans’ benefit. The same principle applies with regard to ordinary people and practitioners of Dharma, and among practitioners, with regard to shravakas and bodhisattvas.

3. Consideration of the number of beings
If many beings would be helped and few harmed, you should act to benefit the many. But if many would be harmed and few helped, do not act. If the numbers and the help and harm would be equal, by relying on teachings of skillful methods of protection from harm, you will succeed in helping.

4. Consideration of this and future lives
If it would benefit others in both this life and those to come, you should act to benefit them, by all means. Whenever it would benefit neither life, you should not act. If it would help in this life but harm in future ones, do not act. Even if it would harm in this life, if it would help in the next, being skillful with methods to protect this life from harm you should act to benefit the next.

Pretty hard to understand how anyone can be benefitted by rape and sexual harassment.

[pema tsultrim]

Why did you say "no one else benefits"? You need to re-read my example and then look at these passages again.
Additionally, we are not talking about someone (an actor) "believing themselves to be doing all the above with a bodhichitta motivation" we are talking about someone who absolutely IS doing the above with a bodhichitta motivation.

The discussion is whether or not that's possible and on what grounds it would be or wouldn't be.

[/quote]
Pretty hard to understand how anyone can be benefitted by rape and sexual harassment.
[/quote]

I interpret the highlighted passage to mean someone with absolute bodhicitta, i.e. direct realization of emptiness, rather than a bodhisattva on the stage of devoted conduct, who also may have bodhicitta motivation but not absolute bodhicitta (Patrul specifically refers to the latter kind of bodhisattva in 9 considerations and says to weigh up the priorities). I'm a beginner so please anyone correct me if I am wrong on these definitions.

I am inclined agree with Malcom's statement above, but perhaps, as a thought experiment, one could say:

Only in the case of an Arya Bodhisattva, who works solely for the benefit of others:

a) One could have developed powers of clairvoyance/omniscience to such a strong degree that they could infallibly determine that:

b) Although in this particular instance, this particular "apparent rape victim" (and by extension their loved ones and the community at large) would suffer great harm as a result, the "victim" and others might be emotionally scarred, frightened to walk the streets alone at night, unable to have meaningful loving relationships, spend years in therapy, turn to substance use, or any of the other known effects of such actions...ultimately, the "victim" and all those connected to them would not only make a full recovery but eventually thrive beyond their pre-"rape" condition to such a degree that they themselves would acknowledge that it was not in spite of, but because of, this "apparently" heinous act, they are better, stronger people; and that in fact their "apparent attacker" did them a great service, by teaching them to overcome such insurmountable odds. Perhaps this "victim" might go on to benefit countless "actual rape victims" as a result their own experience. One can imagine the rest of the scenario.

Of course, real victims of sexual violence do in fact recover and go on to thrive, and to benefit countless others, making untold contributions to society, but I have yet to hear of anyone expressing gratitude to their attacker and never wanting it to have been any other way. To my mind, this would have to be the only possible outcome from the beginning, with a net positive result for all those connected to the event, AND it would have had to be the known outcome for the bodhisattva, AND the only possible way to produce such benefit.

I think in such a ludicrously unlikely scenario one could commit such an act with "ABSOLUTELY" a bodhicitta motivation. But c'mon.

[Malcolm]

But c'mon.

Um, yeah, that about sums it up.

[TrimePema]

Why did you say "no one else benefits"? You need to re-read my example and then look at these passages again.
Additionally, we are not talking about someone (an actor) "believing themselves to be doing all the above with a bodhichitta motivation" we are talking about someone who absolutely IS doing the above with a bodhichitta motivation.

The discussion is whether or not that's possible and on what grounds it would be or wouldn't be.

Pretty hard to understand how anyone can be benefitted by rape and sexual harassment.
[/quote]

I interpret the highlighted passage to mean someone with absolute bodhicitta, i.e. direct realization of emptiness, rather than a bodhisattva on the stage of devoted conduct, who also may have bodhicitta motivation but not absolute bodhicitta (Patrul specifically refers to the latter kind of bodhisattva in 9 considerations and says to weigh up the priorities). I'm a beginner so please anyone correct me if I am wrong on these definitions.

I am inclined agree with Malcom's statement above, but perhaps, as a thought experiment, one could say:

Only in the case of an Arya Bodhisattva, who works solely for the benefit of others:

a) One could have developed powers of clairvoyance/omniscience to such a strong degree that they could infallibly determine that:

b) Although in this particular instance, this particular "apparent rape victim" (and by extension their loved ones and the community at large) would suffer great harm as a result, the "victim" and others might be emotionally scarred, frightened to walk the streets alone at night, unable to have meaningful loving relationships, spend years in therapy, turn to substance use, or any of the other known effects of such actions...ultimately, the "victim" and all those connected to them would not only make a full recovery but eventually thrive beyond their pre-"rape" condition to such a degree that they themselves would acknowledge that it was not in spite of, but because of, this "apparently" heinous act, they are better, stronger people; and that in fact their "apparent attacker" did them a great service, by teaching them to overcome such insurmountable odds. Perhaps this "victim" might go on to benefit countless "actual rape victims" as a result their own experience. One can imagine the rest of the scenario.

Of course, real victims of sexual violence do in fact recover and go on to thrive, and to benefit countless others, making untold contributions to society, but I have yet to hear of anyone expressing gratitude to their attacker and never wanting it to have been any other way. To my mind, this would have to be the only possible outcome from the beginning, with a net positive result for all those connected to the event, AND it would have had to be the known outcome for the bodhisattva, AND the only possible way to produce such benefit.

I think in such a ludicrously unlikely scenario one could commit such an act with "ABSOLUTELY" a bodhicitta motivation. But c'mon.
[/quote]

Right! As long as we make the distinction that it could happen.

Again, I don’t think this is very likely. I’m just trying to establish whether or not there are any actions that could never be done with bodhichitta motivation.

I agree with the “but c’mon”

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

I have a problem with how “bodhicitta motivation” is being used here. Motivation is only one factor in an act. The other major factor is the degree of awareness or skillfulness of the actor. Somebody unskilled could intend to help and make things worse if they don’t know what they’re doing. This happens a lot in life.

Perhaps better said “an action coming from fully enlightenment awarenes”. I don’t think you’ll find a classical teacher or text that thinks full enlightenment has any restrictions on how it manifests—circumstances permitting.

[pema tsultrim]

Right! As long as we make the distinction that it could happen.

Again, I don’t think this is very likely. I’m just trying to establish whether or not there are any actions that could never be done with bodhichitta motivation.

I agree with the “but c’mon”

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

Right! As long as we make the distinction that it could happen.

Again, I don’t think this is very likely. I’m just trying to establish whether or not there are any actions that could never be done with bodhichitta motivation.

I agree with the “but c’mon”