Apech

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Well at least we don't speak a language called American . I think a case could be made for religions as vehicles for holding and preserving ideas through generations. In the west at any rate there have been individual mystics through history who reinterpret Christianity in a very individualist way and sort of make sense of it. Blake, Boehme and Bruno come to mind (why do they all begin with B???). Would they have been able to do this if there was no orthodox church?

I went to see Namkhai Norbu give a talk in London in 1979 (this is another of my lama stories). My friend came round and said that there was this talk on Dzogchen somewhere maybe Camden and so we drove across London and sat ina hall with maybe 200 people. He appeared with three or four Italians on stage (he was at Milan or Turin university a the time I think) - one of them was enormously overweight. They all wore little mirrors as pendants and this was part of talk. His talk was ok but quite Buddha-lite if you know what I mean - just basic four noble truths and a few funny stories (told in Italian and translated for us). They said that they had been somewhere and a guy had come up to them and assumed that the big fellow must be the lama because he was so large. That raised a laugh. At the end of the talk there was questions from the floor. My friend who I went with leaps to his feet and waves his arm. He wasn't the shy retiring type like me. Then he says in a loud voice (there was no mike): "Me and my friend," (points at me),"drove all the way across London and gave up an evening to come to a talk on Dzogchen. So far you haven't mentioned it at all. Maybe you could say something now so we haven't completely wasted our time." Needless to say every one of about 200 people turned to stare at us and I quietly willed a trap door to open under me so I could sink out of their gaze. There was a lot of tutting and gasping going on. Meanwhile the translator told the Lama the question, He replied, "I'm not going to talk about Dzogchen if I don't want to. If you have wasted your time then that's your problem." It always stuck in my mind as a great answer - probably because I expected a long boring blah blah about secret doctrines not this kind of 'tough shit' response. (Thank you for listening ... please carry on)

I got the impression she was married to Stephen B. who practices vajrayana - so she would know about samaya vows. I think the interesting thing about the 14 Root Downfalls while we're on the subject is that they do include 'not denigrating women'. Clearly whoever it was that formulated them realised that denigrating women was a problem, either culturally or personally and that people specifically had to be told 'don't do that if you want to be a good tantrika.' So I think she was spot on about the culture ... and I suppose it makes whatever Soggy gets up to even worse ... since he was a member of an 'elite' who had spefically agreed not to do these things. Mind you as you say in his own mind he probably thought he was doing them a favour. Yes, see above. Like everything there's good lamas and not so good ones. I have to say that SG's reputation amongst the Buddhist circles I mixed in a few years ago was not good. He was considered 'confused' and other lamas said this openly. I also never came across this total lama worship although the samaya vows were taught and emphasised along with the 5,000 verses of guru-yoga. The view seemed to be that you developed a relationship of trust (love even) over a long period of time with your lama ... ok they sat on high thrones to teach but in a one to one situation they were gentle, kind and tolerant and never put any pressure on (apart from urging you to practice). Maybe I was lucky. I think if there is any of this ... "you are special" stuff then that is pure manipulation and very un-dharmic if I can coin that phrase. But I still go back to the fact that I don't really care. I used to go and see these guys teach ... and for me it was more a question of what they knew and what they could impart. I wasn't ever interested in a god to worship or a saviour ... maybe that's just me.

Is this a fact or an allegation? If you are going to name someone like this in this context it could be libelous ... I suggest you remove it.

Hi, I don't want to watch it again but she says something like part of the problem was the place of women in trad Tibetan culture. My only point is that while this may be the case (that women were second class citizens) this view is specifically prohibited for those practicing tantra. So if a lama had this opinion of women they were already breaking their samaya. Perhaps the lama may have thought that in fancying and shagging young western women he was not denigrating them I don't know. For me the root is not the sex scandals which I don't actually care about much but the whole misunderstanding of the lama/guru thing. If the guru does anything they point out one's true nature and the true nature of reality for you. That is by being realised themselves they give you an external example (is that the right word) to resonate with ... so that you can benefit by getting closer to your own true nature. They don't give you anything because you already have it. So it is not necessary to suspend all caution and rationality ... in fact that would be a denial of your own buddha-nature. EVEN IF you regard your teacher as a Buddha you do not approach them in a gormless and naive way. You owe it to them and to yourself to keep your eyes open and your wits about you. If they try to pull the wool over your eyes and to act otherwise then pack up your cushion and move on.

Excellent interview ... but she's wrong on one point ... denigration of women is a Root Downfall (might be number 14 not sure) and thus a breach of samaya vows no matter what Tibetan culture generally might say about women for a tantrika it is not ok to regard women as second class beings or whatever. Here they are: 1. Contradicting one’s Guru or Lama. 2. Contradicting or denigrating the teachings of the Buddha or one’s Guru (Lama). 3. Quarreling with others on the same path. 4. Violating the Bodhisattva vows (in action, word or thought). 5. Violating the sacred drops in the heart chakra through illicit sexual activity. 6. Denigrating the teachings and paths of other systems. 7. Revealing secrets to non-initiates or those not ready to receive them. 8. Viewing the five aggregates that compose the psycho-physical continuum as impure. 9. Doubting one’s entrance into the path. 10. Having the ability to perceive the mental continuum of others and recognizing that someone in particular will commit great harm to others and not taking action. 11. Holding either of the extremist views of permanence or nihilism. 12. Refusing to teach someone who asks for teachings and is qualified to receive those teachings. 13. Superficial or dualistic clinging to appearances of pure/impure, good/bad etc. 14. Verbally or mentally denigrating women.

Quite probably.

Complicated area I think. I have had good teachers and none of them was him. I don't have a teacher currently and I wouldn't particularly look for one - I just practice see what happens. The guru thing is very confusing because I think it has a cultural base which is foreign in the west. My best teacher wouldn't go near that kind of thing but still managed to inspire great respect and love naturally. As an individual you cannot absolve responsibility for what you get into. If your teacher turns out to be a charleton (can't spell that word) then you have to deal with that. I can't think of a religion in the world that has not had sex scandals. This is because they involve people. Some people think its about joining a religion ... this makes you something or somebody ... it doesn't its just you with another tag.

I can claim to have met Sogyal Rinpoche in my friends flat in Manchester in 1973 (probably) ... he would have been at Cambridge doing comparative religion I guess. We were so disrespectful that we called him Soggy Old Rinpoche (we had no idea how to pronounce Tibetan names). I read his book years later of course and saw him give a talk ... also that bloody awful film he was in ... Little Buddha was it? Anyway I would say he is far from being a great master but of course that's my op. He likes to sleep with a lot of women .. so what? Some of those women feel used ... again ... not surprised. Its kiss and tell almost ... happens to politicians, rock stars, business men, sportsmen ... so again ... so what? Its all rubbish lets get on with our practice.

Suspension or banning only comes into play for either something very extreme or repeated ignoring of warnings. So yes, systematic an disruptive. The rule is one thing ... its a statement of how we would like to see people interact ... how it is enforced is another ...

The Guardian article is a very poor one IMO. I am not defending Sogyal Rinpoche - I don't think he is the best example of a lama one could have - and I think he has been seduced himself by western culture of celebrity. But the abuse allegations have to be proven and the article is written without any question as to whether they are true at all. ''How can a fat little man attract pretty girls " ... whatever ... well look around you. What exactly was the abuse? Is it just that he had sex with them ... or something worse? The writer doesn't understand samaya properly. No I would need to know more to draw any conclusion from this.

This is exactly the point. As I see it the mod rules are not about quashing debate but about helping it move past this point. So when you are about to type "you stupid moron" you stop for a minute take a breath ... then tell then exactly why you were thinking that ... Its difficult because people have different boundaries. Some people are very sensitive to insult and others its water of a ducks back .... they don't even notice. So for me respect each other is just about that 10 sec gap where you draw breath and think what do I actually want to say to this person.

Hi, I can't do your pp forum - only sean I think maybe Mal - but I can change your user name ... do you want your log in to change as well or remain the same?

I still think it has to be a majority of a group to make any sense. The speaker can be wrong of course and it may just be their mistaken opinion that it is a majority when in fact it is not. I already made this point. I wasn't arguing. I just wanted to to make sure that you were saying what you seemed to be saying because I found it hard to believe that that was what you thought. Enough from me ... carry on if you must.

Really? To me frequency means 'how many times' or 'how often' which is a number, like three times a day (... but I don't want to get back to the masturbation issue again : )). But I guess you mean these statements are subjective assessments of fact rather than a measurement as in a survey. Well of course. If I say 'its been really hot this week' ... there'll always be some smartypants who points out that its actually 0.005 degrees below the average for this time of year. I tend to keep away from such types ... apart from on here of course where you meet them all the time.

Yes, so there are different classes/groups of women under headings such as 'women in bars' and so on ... in every case 'in general' means 'most of' or 'the majority' of that class. What shifts in language and meaning is the group/class or perhaps set is a better word, which is the subject of the statement. So if you say 'in general women are angry'. The term 'in general' doesn't change meaning but the set of women which you are referring to might. Because often when we speak or write we are not that precise. Language is not math(s). Its just the cheese argument all over again.

The hard majority masturbate. Ok. Maybe not so hard after a while just pale and spotty. Ok I'll try again I suppose because I don't get your answer. In general women are angry. In general women are not angry. In general women are angry but in general they are not angry. I'm sure you are going to say context. So skip that and just tell what these statements actually mean.

Sloppy (or anyone), Just one thing has been puzzling me. For those who think (not including me) that 'in general' can mean some but not the majority. Does this mean I can say this: In general women have brown eyes. (majority) In general women have blue eyes. (many but not a majority) In general women have brown eyes but in general women have blue eyes. (both) ... I don't really care because I think the whole argument is daft ... but maybe some one could answer.

Oh! with the City ... sorry.

How many of those women tasted cheesy? Come on be honest.

No ... are you?

I think we always said that the Pit is moderated in extremis and to me that would include personal threats. If some one posted white supremacist racist material I would moderate that as well - so there are exceptions. I completely support what Mal has done here.

A few painful meetings ... yes. In any case 'in general' means the majority of the set you are talking about ... either 'women' ... or 'women you have met'. But if you make a statement like "In general women are shorter than men" people will understand that you think that most women are shorter than men ... not just the women you have met ... you might hang around with a lot of tiny people ....

I usually enjoy reading your posts GiH ... but you have lost me here.