Cheshire Cat

He hardly found any so-called first-class men. The best thing that he got was... people who imitated him. Try to find some video of the new "heads" of the movement: they talk and behave like actors. Actors with one single character to play: Swami Prabhupada. At least, this is my impression.

I've posted my horrible pseudo-english for months on this forum, and I came to the conclusion that people here can read almost everything

bump

Thank you This means that it's not necessary to take vows in this life because maybe we made them in a previous life. The main point is just to cultivate without a selfish attitude. And if we do that (like Shakyamuni did), then there's no problem in not taking formal vows. Am I correct?

From: http://www.elephantjournal.com/2011/12/the-sex-lives-of-monks-confessions-of-kalu-rinpoche/ Revelations of Sexual Abuse and Dehumanization in Tibetan Buddhism. Kalu Rinpoche Kalu Rinpoche, a 21-year-old young man, is considered to be the reincarnation of Kyabje Kalu Rinpoche. The official website for the lineage declares Kalu to be the “The Supreme reincarnation of our spiritual master,” and someone whose mere gaze can inspire equanimity, even ecstasy. These are confusing pronouncements, when viewed in the light of Kalu’s personal and confessional video posted on November 28 of this year. Below, Kalu Rinpoche frankly and bravely tells the true story behind his spiritual myth. It is a story of molestation by Tibetan monks, murder attempts, and drug abuse. It is not a comforting tale. And it clarifies the endemic problems of any system that relies upon the denial of the senses in favor of supernatural “realities.” I speak from experience. I am a former monk and former guru from the Hindu tradition. And while my personal story is not one of sexual abuse, I can attest to the damages done by orthodoxy and mind-body dualism, which have the overwhelming tendency (and track record) to perpetuate dissociation, denial, and rationalizations that enable unethical and often dehumanizing—even criminal—behavior within the religious hierarchy. What to speak of how debilitating such body-negative philosophies can be to one’s personal spiritual journey. That being said, it is pretty clear by now that anytime you get a bunch of monks bonded together by an intense body-negative religious code some little kid is bound to get molested. Here is the video: This video has a power to it. It is, of course, disenchanting to those of us enamored and prone to romanticizing the Tibetan Buddhist tradition—and by that logic any traditional spirituality other than Western iterations. (Cue revelations of how condescending it is to perpetuate contemporary renditions of the “noble savage” with regards to Eastern guru-types.) But it has an even deeper lesson to teach us: the problems inherent to a spiritual philosophy that dehumanizes us. When we believe in supernatural realities to the extent that some young kid is somehow considered to be the reincarnation of a “Supremely Wise Being” we have essentially erased the person, the human being, behind all of our idealizations. Critiquing the corruptive power of such spiritual idealization is an oft cited and very relevant observation to make—which definitely applies to the monks who abused Kalu—but Kalu’s story is more than that. It is the story of a young man who is and was being crushed beneath the cultural and religio-political burdens of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition. He is definitely a remarkable young man. Very few human beings are subjected to such a powerful machine of personal erasure as the Tulku tradition and yet he has come out of it with his humanity, while bruised, intact. Again, I can relate to this. As a young boy my yogic community held me in high regard and, by the time I was twenty-five, had officially declared me to be a fully enlightened being. This conferment of spiritual authority produced a revelation in me, but not the one expected. What I saw so clearly were four things, two of which Kalu touches upon in his video: 1. We are all human beings, no one person is superhuman or has some privileged connection to a hidden domain of consciousness kept just out of the reach of other normal human beings—no matter their title or religious esteem (or cultural pedigree for that matter). 2. There are very dark politics seething beneath all forms of religious hierarchy. Kalu describes a key motivator behind this cutthroat political underbelly and the attempts on his life when he states, “and then my own manager tried to kill me… I mean my teacher. And it’s all about money, power, controlling. Because, if you can control the president you can get what you want” (min 5:03—5:14). Disheartening words for a spiritual tradition that promotes selflessness and compassion. The third awakening is one that Kalu barely and only briefly gestures to in his video. This elision has to do with a number of things but most importantly: he is still operating as Kalu Rinpoche, which only perpetuates the hypocrisy he has been the victim of. If this revelation has dawned upon him he has yet to put it into practice. I will describe this third awakening in the paragraph below. But here I want to say that I have profound sympathy for Kalu. He has so much personal trauma to work through, so many cultural and religio-political burdens placed on his shoulders, and—not to sound condescending—a very significant educational gap to overcome due to his monastic training (I speak from experience). He needs a lot of help and my heart goes out to him. Nonetheless, he has yet to leave the Tulku machine. I know I will get a lot of flak for saying this, but, I truly hope he does. Of course, I understand that he is living under intense social pressure, as a Tibetan. Still, that doesn’t change his very human need for help, which requires the time and appropriate space to heal. I don’t see this type of healing as forthcoming in his maintaining the role of spiritual educator, and divine incarnation, in an orthodox tradition. 3. The third observation has to do with the pernicious effects of mind-body dualism. Whether it be Tibetan Buddhism, Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, or Christian mysticism, there is a deep and abiding disgust for the human body. This negative view of our human biology stems from a belief in the existence and superiority of the spirit. Most traditional forms of spirituality (whether Eastern or Western) are predicated upon a metaphysical identification with an invisible spirit that survives the death of the body and contains our essence. In Tibetan Buddhism this spiritual “imprint” may be devoid of “true self” but it nonetheless survives the death of the body and contains the continuity of self necessary for the demands of reincarnation. The second commonality within religious traditions is that the body is viewed as an obstacle to the evolution of the spirit. In Patanjali’s system, this problem is resolved through the abnegation of the body’s essential needs and wants, including food, sex, intimacy, and love. Both the Buddhist and yogic traditions teach us to not grieve the dead, for all things are impermanent. This speaks to not only a profound fear of death but it is also a fear of life—for it is life denying. In order to guard against death, life itself is rejected in the form of militating against the physical body via spiritual detachment. I spent years engaging in this form of metaphysical asceticism. I rejected my body, denied it sex, fasted continuously and abstained from all “impure” foods. I was starving for intimacy, for love, for the permission to grieve those cherished ones who had died (including my father). I was desperate to be human. And yet, my whole spiritual life was predicated on denying my essential humanity. This note of desperation I do hear in Kalu’s video. He implores us to take care of our families, to be human. And I applaud him for that. But I, personally, think this effort to be human demands a reinvestment in the body itself. (See Julian Walker’s excellent article that touches upon these same themes, and in greater depth) It is, in many ways, an ethical decision. In order to treat others well I must value them, not an imaginary supernatural idea of “who they truly are as invisible spiritual beings,” but as living breathing persons that I can touch and know and speak to right now with my own body and my own eyes made of flesh. This also means that I can hurt those people if I don’t invest in the value of the human body. Spiritual idealizations, such as mind-body dualism, have the tendency to not only obscure but also erase the value of the physical—for it is the physical body that invalidates and casts doubts/threatens the world of spiritual idealizations. These are the dangers engendered by losing contact with the real, the tangible, the physical, for it is the erasure of persons replacing them with concepts—which is anti-body and therefore has profound implications for our very human lives. 4. The fourth observation I made soon after being officially declared a superhuman divinity is intimately connected to this third awakening. It has to do with the implications of reinvesting in the body. It is a revisioning of spirituality and ethics. When we understand the importance of this living breathing human body, the questions are no longer about metaphysics, but ethics. The question is no longer “what is the meaning of life?” but is much more vitally “what should I do with this life?” This kind of spirituality, which is rooted in the reality of the body, elicits an interpersonal experience we can all share in. And it therefore generates an ethic of intimacy. This re-embodiment of our common humanity, based upon the value of the body itself, is in fact an ethical practice. By reinvesting in the body, we reinvest in our ecology, economy, and society. Understanding that all things lean into one another we can develop an ethical philosophy that has immense force. The force of this ethic is grounded in the experience of inhabiting your own skin. From there we inhabit our environment, our community, and this earth. If I invest in my body then I naturally care about the rivers and the lakes, from which I get water to live. By investing in my own body I come into greater intimacy with the bodies of others, which makes me care for the wellbeing of others as well as myself. Therefore, the ethics of this embodied life are about intimacy and the world of relationship. By this simple act, this reinvestment in my humanity, the ethical and environmental ramifications are enormous. I have in one simple philosophical shift become an environmentalist and an embodied humanist. This fourth observation I’ve come to call embodied spirituality (see Julian Walker’s wonderful sutra on this very topic), which is a type of embodied ethics and embodied ecology. Of course, I have not originated any of these ideas but they have been the touchstones by which I have learned to heal myself from years of metaphysical asceticism. It is also why I am no longer a monk or a guru, for both “occupations” perpetuate and engender beliefs I consider to be harmful to myself and others. Hence, my weariness regarding the Tulku theocracy via belief in reincarnation and its tendency to breed the kinds of exploitation and scandal Kalu is simultaneously mired in and exposing. It is inhuman to deny yourself the pleasures of the body and it is inhuman to deny the overwhelming precedence and value of our embodied lives. If such an embodied spirituality were to gain traction in the world, as I am advocating for, we would see less moral travesties, exploitation, and sexual abuse in the guise of religious holiness, such as the sad story of Kalu Rinpoche. I also believe that if such an embodied spirituality were to take hold it might stir a revolution in ethics, that would extend into all spheres of our religious, political, and social lives. For it is about becoming more human, not less.

This is a point that -for me- is hard to understand. We know that Shakyamuni took just one vow in his cultivation practice: "I will get enlightenment under this tree, or I'll die trying". We may suppose that he didn't take bodhisattva's vow in secrecy because otherwise, he wouldn't leave his family (wife and young child)... in addition, he never helped other beings until full enlightenment... and the Gods had to come down from heavens to ask him explicitly to turn the Dharma wheel. Sure, probably he didn't seek enlightenment directly... because there was no clues that such a thing existed. But the lack of "compassion" elements remains. So, how could you say that Shakyamuni is a good example of bodhisattva's vow?

Do they appear only to buddhists or may I hope to get some help from them?

What do you think of the Bon tradition?

Generally, theravadin monks (and especially the most learned ones) admit openly that hinayana and theravada are two distinct things. Hinayana doesn't exist today. For this reason, hopefully no theravada purists will kill you stefos

If something is beyond words, mind and logic, his province is outside of the human senses. That's because we name everything in our experience, we can think of what we experience and we can also use the logic to predict the future behavior of something. That means: God cannot be named. Thus he's not Allah. God cannot be thought, Thus, there's no difference in being atheist or devotee: if you think of God in any way (even non-existent God), it's not. God's behavior cannot be predicted by logic. Thus, you can't know what is pleasant to him, nor what he wants from you.

I'm sorry

Yes, we have many ways to manifest folly. Even the bodhisattva's emanations can manifest compassionate acts of madness. For example, when the Greath Fifth Dalai Lama, Buddha of compassion (Avalokitesvara is a bodhisattva in Mahayana, but tibetans say that he is a Buddha: Chenrezig) called upon his Qoshot Mongol Patron, Gushri Khan, to intervene on his behalf in the religious and regional power struggle in which Tibet was immersed in 1600 C.E. Fulfilling the Patron's duty, Gushri Khan advanced into Tibet in 1640, and made a bloody carnage in the region of Tsang (King of Tsang was linked to the Karmapa)... so that the Dalai Lama could become the political and spiritual leader of Tibet.

I just want to point out that there's not such a thing as an "higher teaching" in buddhism. And if it exists, it's not vajrayana. None here could negate my assertions with logic, they just hold on their Faith... to say that they are so special with their religion. Nonetheless, I appreciated your sincerity and understanding when you said that you're not interested in Shakyamuni Buddha. As for nazism, I never said that the dalai lama is a nazi.. I just showed the mental similarities in thinking to be the best. Nazis thought to be the supreme race as arians. But if you think to be so special and important because of your religion and that it's an higher teaching... then probably this is a mental state that you have to cultivate in order to realize something. Most people have too much; I seem to be missing something. Mine is indeed the mind of an ignoramus in its unadulterated simplicity. Ordinary people try to shine; I seem to be dark. Most people have ways and means; I am unsophisticated and simple. Sorry for threatening your faith, I just hoped to find someone with clear eyes.

Cool! Eager to read the translation: this could be a document from the hinayana school.

Trungpa, in terms of communication was a true genius of our time. He died due to liver cirrhosis from wine and drugs abuse; His student Tenzin Osel died of AIDS after he infected many people, just because Trungpa said to him that with Tantric practices he cannot infect anyone. Cool

Well... then change the word monks with lamas... there's nothing wrong in being monks. In dharma business, they have a greater success, especially if they have some title as rinpochè, etc... It's the religious attitude that blindly accepts what is handled down without realizing anything. That makes people as priest-like teachers. This means a teacher that have a knowledge based on study and not on personal realizations. The same reply, but without the nazi thing: If the teachings are higher and lower in accordance with people's mental capacities, then we may assume that the Dharma's history proves without any doubt that tibetans are the excellence among humans. They were given vajrayana, the highest teaching. All the other country were full of donkey-humans with inferior teachings. Moreover, in the West our mental capacities were so low that we never saw something buddhist until very recently. It seems so unlikely that the mental capacities of people are like that. So your arguments "Higher, average and lower are also pertinent to all the different levels of people's mental capacities, specifically in regard to being given teachings" are not valid. As for the swastika... it's a buddhist symbol. Where's the confusion? Haha yeah there's little space for your reply: I use the logic, you use faith. When you speak with an italian priest and ask for guidance because you cannot accept some weird truth, he replies: Mysterium Fidei, this is the unquestionable mystery of faith. You've found a nice way to sneak out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k77qynJJOg

This is not the traditional tibetan way of dealing with powers. Siddhis in traditional tibet were not hidden. The XVI Karmapa himself showed many siddhis during his lifetime. As for the modern karmapas (yes, we have 2 karmapas...), none can do anything special. How could I believe that they decided to hide themselves? Those people make a living on teachings, they don't teach for free. There's no reason to prevent advertising..

They were resurrected as Lazarus? I think they are dead... I greatly admired H.H. Dudjom Rinpoche.

A few years ago, this was right. Unfortunately, the times of the great tibetan mahasiddhas are gone... impermanence. Today, we just have fully ordained priest-like monks who cannot exhibits any siddhis whatsoever

If the mind doesn't intervene, I could teach a new form of buddhism in which Jesus Christ is in reality the Buddha Maitreya and all christian saints are bodhisattvas, Virgin Mary is Kwan-Yin.. People's mind will not cling on my absurd statements, there will be a sense of reflectiveness. You're advocating the benefits of blind Faith. Why then the Buddha explicitly said to his disciples to "prove" to themselves what he was saying? If the teachings are higher and lower in accordance with people's mental capacities, then we may assume that the Dharma's history proves without any doubt that tibetans are the excellence among humans. They were given vajrayana, the highest teaching. All the other country were full of donkey-humans with inferior teachings. The nazis would gladly accept this as a fact. As for me, I have several doubts. In addition, the mere fact that the West received buddhism very recently, proves that asian populations have higher mental capacities than westerners. EDIT: I edited the original svastika because people where strangely scandalized..

To say that different eras need different teachings means that people of today are different from the people at the time of the Buddha. Based on this statement, we can assume that the original teachings could be no longer valid and workable today. Hence, the need for new teachings. This explains why the mahayana teachings were hidden. Does this means that the Buddha prepared different teachings for different eras and hid them? Why he never said to his followers to keep the dharma open for upgrades from the heavens? How could we be sure of the legitimacy of this upgrades? This is a trouble because it's allowed to every teacher to "reveal" hidden teachings whenever he feel the need. Thus, the Dharma is a constantly changing thing, continuously adapting to different conditions. Should I assume that every transformation is legitimate? How could I legitimate a teaching and say that the others are wrong or surpassed? Buddha didn't signed a single document. It's from here that you read on books that tantra and dzogchen are higher teachings. This is sad.

If every turning of the wheel of Dharma is superior to the previous ones, then we may assume that once the superior teachings are proclaimed, the inferiors will vanish. This is because there's no use for the legendary Ford T now that we have superior vehicles. Even if the superior teaching builds on the foundations of the previous ones, then there is no use for disciples of the Buddha to hold on uncomplete teachings -if they were not a bunch of idiots-. Instead, there should be a fine transition without sectarian movements holding back. People who trust the Pope as the human representative of Jesus Christ will follow the updated rules. If the Buddha proclaimed a superior teachings, why should his disciples do not trust him? But we know that hinayana and mahayana existed together for a long time... The mahayana emerged in indian buddhist communities around the beginning of the common era (today we have many varieties of mahayana teachings in tibet, China, Corea, etc..). But where does this tradition comes from? The mahayana texts trace the origins of Mahayana to the second turning of the wheel of the Dharma during the life of the Buddha himself. The teachings of the Buddha were delivered to a special assembly of bodhisattvas from which the followers of the lesser vehicles and solitary buddhas had been excluded. The texts go on saying that the teachings were conceived for several centuries until the world was ready to receive it. Then the time comes when someone started saying "Hey guys, I have the ultimate teaching of the Buddha. He didn't deliver this to your ancestors and masters because they were so stupid. But now trust me, this teaching was given to an assembly of celestial angels at the time of the Buddha! Your ancestors weren't invited: they were not clever enough" Did the Buddha decide to deliberately create confusions amongst practitioners?

Socratic mode: ON If you say that there's no God, it's an affirmation of truth. And, if you add that all truth is non-dual, then you are saying that the truth "No god" is non-dual. How could it be? No-God is a one-sided affirmation which binds reality and negate an opposite reality. How could it be non-dual? You're saying that everything is an illusion: that means "life is illusion" also. So, how could you consider death as a happening?

May I ask who told you that there are "higher practices" and that they are tantra and dzogchen?