Is This The Truth About Kundalini?

[Birch]

Hey Kate, I know this isn't related to the thread, but what I'm about to type can give you one example of what VJ was saying.

 

This is a verse from Zen master Lin-Chi:

 

"Going along with the flow without stopping to ask how

True awareness shining boundlessly,

describing it to them

Detached from forms, detached from names,

people don't accept it

After the sword of wisdom has been used,

we must hurry to hone it"

 

This is an excerpt from Working Toward Enlightenment explaining the last part of the verse: "....Zen master Lin chi is instructing us that before we have illuminated mind and seen true nature, we must reflect back and examine our selves at all times, to reverse the workings of thought and cultivate samadhi, and not let false thoughts arise. For a person who has already been enlightened, after using his meditative accomplishments, he must immediately take them back and hone them further."

 

Hope this helps you understand better what he meant.

 

 

Thanks Jack. It's a neat read. But I strongly urge you to send such things to others only ever on your own behalf. Why? Because speaking for VJ is possibly not to his benefit, not to your benefit, not to mine either, given I seem to have a few ancestral bones to pick with the guy. Otherwise, how could I possibly explain my aversion? Oh right

 

In affixing his name to your gift I am found biased to throw it in the trash, so now I must FORCE myself to read it.

 

Still, it was a nice thought.

[Vajrahridaya]

The view of renunciation is not to be underestimated. I would say that anyone who promotes a positive view of the body doesn't really sit at the same level of insight as someone who promotes the view of renunciation.

 

It's only after you completely exhaust every merit you possibly can glean from the view of renunciation that you can take up the ornamental beauty of phenomena as a view. For most people who are deeply, profoundly attached and in love with their bodies, the view that the body is a beautiful thing is a completely spiritually counter-productive and binding view. The only people who can beneficially consider the body to be a beautiful ornament are those who have matured their renunciation to utmost perfection and who hold to absolutely nothing in this world, including their own bodies, their family and nothing else.

 

I will say without hesitation that for the vast majority of people renunciation is the skillful and expedient view that leads to liberation and insight development, not to mention siddhis if you care about such things.

 

Renunciation is a powerful medicine and like with all medicine, overdoing it can be bad for you too. But considering that most of us don't suffer from aversion to our bodies but instead suffer from a super-strong attachment to our bodies, it's a good risk to take compared to lazily viewing the body as a wonderful thing.

 

Hear, hear! Well said GIH! I only did complete renunciation for a few years, and it was extremely powerful! I cannot say that I exhausted it's merit, because I definitely did not... But, it was amazingly powerful to take all that energy that I had used for external gains and turn it completely within for only internal gains. I speak in dualistic terms as there is no ultimate inner vs. outer, but you know what I mean. Well said.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that]

 

 

Her mouth is a vessel of impurity,

with putrid saliva and gunk between her teeth;

Her nose is a pot of snot, phlegm and mucous,

and her eyes contain eye-slime and tears.

 

Her torso is a container of excrement,

holding urine, the lungs, liver and such.

The confused do not see that a woman is such;

thus, they lust after her body.

 

 

 

I find it amazing that the Dalai lama can give an almost perfect description of my ex-wife!

 

He left out the part about her having a bad temper mind you.

[ralis]

The view of renunciation is not to be underestimated. I would say that anyone who promotes a positive view of the body doesn't really sit at the same level of insight as someone who promotes the view of renunciation.

 

It's only after you completely exhaust every merit you possibly can glean from the view of renunciation that you can take up the ornamental beauty of phenomena as a view. For most people who are deeply, profoundly attached and in love with their bodies, the view that the body is a beautiful thing is a completely spiritually counter-productive and binding view. The only people who can beneficially consider the body to be a beautiful ornament are those who have matured their renunciation to utmost perfection and who hold to absolutely nothing in this world, including their own bodies, their family and nothing else.

 

I will say without hesitation that for the vast majority of people renunciation is the skillful and expedient view that leads to liberation and insight development, not to mention siddhis if you care about such things.

 

Renunciation is a powerful medicine and like with all medicine, overdoing it can be bad for you too. But considering that most of us don't suffer from aversion to our bodies but instead suffer from a super-strong attachment to our bodies, it's a good risk to take compared to lazily viewing the body as a wonderful thing.

 

 

Monastic renunciation is always in the venue of bare essentials. Therefor, it is very easy for a monk to live a cloistered life. No real challenges or responsibilities from the outside world.

 

Take those same monks and put them in a brothel full of gorgeous women or in front of porn and see how detached they remain.

 

All these easy setups in the name of spirituality and purification are just that. Easy! This life style is more about suppression and fear than facing real life.

Edited December 9, 2010 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Monastic renunciation is always in the venue of bare essentials. Therefor, it is very easy for a monk to live a cloistered life. No real challenges or responsibilities from the outside world.

 

Take those same monks and put them in a brothel full of gorgeous women or in front of porn and see how detached they remain.

 

All these easy setups in the name of spirituality and purification are just that. Easy! This life style is more about suppression and fear than facing real life.

 

Actually, no, it is not. That is your view, based upon a very deficient level of understanding and experience, revolving around your "glass is half empty" view of everything religious.

 

When in that state of recognizing the reasons for renunciation, on a deeply personal level, porn has no quality of attraction, and a brothel of naked horny women is found to be a place of barren and unsatisfying results.

 

That is, if you have the "right view" involved with your renunciation.

 

But, if you are merely repressing "stuff" out of fear, then no, you will be self denying and this denial will enact itself in destructive ways.

 

Yet, we are not talking about those Catholic monks that are always referenced by you type of people in reference to monastic living, which percentage wise, are very, very few compared to those that are honestly being a Monk, or Nun for the sake of a higher goal in life than the conventional.

 

We are not talking about false renunciation based upon fear.

 

GIH and I are talking about the real feeling of disgust towards the obvious results of such things you just mentioned. Not in a life denying kind of way, but just in a state of true longing for deeper meaning beyond the obvious pulls of nature that are based upon the fear of death. This deeply ingrained fear manifesting through our physical gene pool as the desire for procreation. Which is a reflection of the secret and largely unnoticed desire for union with the mysterious "other", which is essentially found within anyway.

 

Even if the energy of lust arises in the body for one such monastic, it is immediately channeled towards a higher purpose through understanding of the empty result of sexual activity.

 

Please take a look at yourself and your prejudices. You're only harming yourself with your constantly negative view of all things you deem "religious." You and Ulises should get together, compare notes, and burn them in the fire of realized renunciation!

 

P.S. Sexual activity can of course be a path to liberation, but only from the right view of renunciation of chemical attachment, clinging and craving.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

real life.

 

What is real life ralis? Lifetimes of social and genetic conditioning spanning a length of time unremembered?

[ralis]

Actually, no, it is not. That is your view, based upon a very deficient level of understanding and experience, revolving around your "glass is half empty" view of everything religious.

 

When in that state of recognizing the reasons for renunciation, on a deeply personal level, porn has no quality of attraction, and a brothel of naked horny women is found to be a place of barren and unsatisfying results.

 

That is, if you have the "right view" involved with your renunciation.

 

But, if you are merely repressing "stuff" out of fear, then no, you will be self denying and this denial will enact itself in destructive ways.

 

Yet, we are not talking about those Catholic monks that are always referenced by you type of people in reference to monastic living, which percentage wise, are very, very few compared to those that are honestly being a Monk, or Nun for the sake of a higher goal in life than the conventional.

 

We are not talking about false renunciation based upon fear.

 

GIH and I are talking about the real feeling of disgust towards the obvious results of such things you just mentioned. Not in a life denying kind of way, but just in a state of true longing for deeper meaning beyond the obvious pulls of nature that are based upon the fear of death. This deeply ingrained fear manifesting through our physical gene pool as the desire for procreation. Which is a reflection of the secret and largely unnoticed desire for union with the mysterious "other", which is essentially found within anyway.

 

Even if the energy of lust arises in the body for one such monastic, it is immediately channeled towards a higher purpose through understanding of the empty result of sexual activity.

 

Please take a look at yourself and your prejudices. You're only harming yourself with your constantly negative view of all things you deem "religious." You and Ulises should get together, compare notes, and burn them in the fire of realized renunciation!

 

P.S. Sexual activity can of course be a path to liberation, but only from the right view of renunciation of chemical attachment, clinging and craving.

 

 

A very good friend of mine who is a Tibetan scholar and important translator, told us in a class in the Tibetan Stupa here in Santa Fe, that homosexuality runs rampant in Tibetan monasteries. Even among the young men! Please, spare me the pure vision of Buddhist monks. It does not exist!

 

 

http://www.lamashree.org/dalailama_08_childabuse_tibetanbuddhistmonasteries.htm

Edited December 9, 2010 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

A very good friend of mine who is a Tibetan scholar and important translator, told us in a class in the Tibetan Stupa here in Santa Fe, that homosexuality runs rampant in Tibetan monasteries. Even among the young men! Please, spare me the pure vision of Buddhist monks. It does not exist!

 

 

http://www.lamashree.org/dalailama_08_childabuse_tibetanbuddhistmonasteries.htm

 

Sure it does! Just not in your vision and the experiences and information that are reflective of your vision. Karma is a continuum from within, so without. Your constant referencing of the negative to support your negative view says more about you ralis. One can also reference the positive and those that are truly and actually monks, channeling their sexual energy towards higher goals in a process of self transformation. It is possible, I know this based upon direct and personal experience, unlike you ralis.

 

Once again, you trump yourself, by revealing your flawed understanding of the nature of things, again and again.

 

Your glass will always be half empty if you continue in this view. You find what you seek for, as you find what you think yourself to be. Corrupt and dirty.

[ralis]

Sure it does! Just not in your vision and the experiences and information that are reflective of your vision. Karma is a continuum from within, so without. Your constant referencing of the negative to support your negative view says more about you ralis. One can also reference the positive and those that are truly and actually monks, channeling their sexual energy towards higher goals in a process of self transformation. It is possible, I know this based upon direct and personal experience, unlike you ralis.

 

Once again, you trump yourself, by revealing your flawed understanding of the nature of things, again and again.

 

Your glass will always be half empty if you continue in this view. You find what you seek for, as you find what you think yourself to be. Corrupt and dirty.

 

 

I guess vows of celibacy mean nothing!

Edited December 9, 2010 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

I guess vows of celibacy mean nothing?

 

What?? Of course they mean something very deeply for one who realizes it's intent.

 

Again... you constantly reference the ignorant instead of the wise to support your anti-Buddhist (anti-religious) view. It's an extreme, a clinging, a reflection of your own state of mind and desire for reference to support this negativity. You will constantly find support for yourself, as this information will always arise for you dependent upon your view. You really have no experience of emptiness and inter-dependence. You haven't experienced "rigpa" yet. So, you have not understood the teachings of ChNNR on an experiential level yet. You should tune into his transmissions more with a new and open mind, filled with longing to transcend your current state of self and world reference. You can only benefit. He is one of the few Masters that is giving global transmission for free, especially on this level.

 

My wife got on through the internet 2 years ago, and when he "snapped" his fingers at "p$#t" during the transmission (I'm not supposed to say the word publicly) her brain popped, audibly and spiritually... she has not been the same since. It was followed by a stream of deeply synchronic experiences that lasted for 3 weeks that completely transformed her state of self reference forever. Actually, she says that they are still happening, though not as intense. She hasn't capitalized with regular practice of a "tun" or anything as such so that's understandable, still, she is noticeably different and more awake to herself.

 

P.S. Because I know you a little bit, you probably reference Muktananda to yourself in your anti-monastic view and anti-religious view. But Muktananda had already realized the intent of Sanyas before he ventured into Tantric sex practices of Kaula Shaivism, which he was introduced to only later in his life.

 

It's the same in Vajrayana, within reference to HYT or Anuttarayogatantra. It's said that a high level bodhisattva who got there through monasticism can let go of the vow of celibacy and engage in karmamudra.

 

This is in no way condoning those few referenced by such links like the one you posted above. I am coming from an entirely different view point here when I say the above.

 

Also... It's said in Tantric texts that a Master of later years can through inserting his lingum into a youthful yoni and through utilizing the knowledge and wisdom of the practice of, bindu (elemental essence), and the union of awareness, bliss and emptiness, elongate his or her life for the sake of teaching others.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

You haven't experienced "rigpa" yet. So, you have not understood the teachings of ChNNR on an experiential level yet.

 

 

You have no right to make that judgment! You have continually made it a point to belittle me on this matter. My relationship and experiences with Norbu's teachings are none of your business!

Edited December 9, 2010 by ralis

[Mandrake]

I always felt that admitting children into monasteries was deeply wrong. We have enough backing from western psychological research in the development of children, of childhood traumas, building healthy connections and personal borders etc. to forbid this kind of thing here.

 

Admit only adults, and this kind of violence towards the helpless will disappear. And of course - when you send a lot of kids into a monastery - many of them never wanted that lifestyle consciously - so the result is not the serious cultivator, who does not care about possessions and practices brachmacarya.

 

There is an article about the huge material hoarding of high ranking lamas in pre-China tibet.

Organized religion carries sinister potential and needs to be monitored and shackled from power.

 

Mandrake

 

A very good friend of mine who is a Tibetan scholar and important translator, told us in a class in the Tibetan Stupa here in Santa Fe, that homosexuality runs rampant in Tibetan monasteries. Even among the young men! Please, spare me the pure vision of Buddhist monks. It does not exist!

 

 

http://www.lamashree.org/dalailama_08_childabuse_tibetanbuddhistmonasteries.htm

[Mandrake]

Ralis has a point. Being a monk does not equal renunciation. Some people become monks just for the easy life. People overestimate the cultivation accomplishments of monks. I've seen enough.

There are people who are serious and devoted in monasteries, but you can also find renunciates who are living in society.

 

When adults, who through their experiences and contemplations reach renunciation, enter into monk-hood, you have good candidates, but again - how many children are able to do this?

 

For the former, adults, monasteries can provide a splendid environment, not for renunciation - since it is a mental aspect(you can dream of lavish buffets, sex, drugs... while living in a cave) - but for dedicated cultivation.

 

Mandrake

 

Actually, no, it is not. That is your view, based upon a very deficient level of understanding and experience, revolving around your "glass is half empty" view of everything religious.

 

When in that state of recognizing the reasons for renunciation, on a deeply personal level, porn has no quality of attraction, and a brothel of naked horny women is found to be a place of barren and unsatisfying results.

 

That is, if you have the "right view" involved with your renunciation.

 

But, if you are merely repressing "stuff" out of fear, then no, you will be self denying and this denial will enact itself in destructive ways.

 

Yet, we are not talking about those Catholic monks that are always referenced by you type of people in reference to monastic living, which percentage wise, are very, very few compared to those that are honestly being a Monk, or Nun for the sake of a higher goal in life than the conventional.

 

We are not talking about false renunciation based upon fear.

 

GIH and I are talking about the real feeling of disgust towards the obvious results of such things you just mentioned. Not in a life denying kind of way, but just in a state of true longing for deeper meaning beyond the obvious pulls of nature that are based upon the fear of death. This deeply ingrained fear manifesting through our physical gene pool as the desire for procreation. Which is a reflection of the secret and largely unnoticed desire for union with the mysterious "other", which is essentially found within anyway.

 

Even if the energy of lust arises in the body for one such monastic, it is immediately channeled towards a higher purpose through understanding of the empty result of sexual activity.

 

Please take a look at yourself and your prejudices. You're only harming yourself with your constantly negative view of all things you deem "religious." You and Ulises should get together, compare notes, and burn them in the fire of realized renunciation!

 

P.S. Sexual activity can of course be a path to liberation, but only from the right view of renunciation of chemical attachment, clinging and craving.

[Birch]

"obvious pulls of nature that are based upon the fear of death"

 

How about "based upon the love of life"?

 

I believe love/life "wants" to resolve everything, make it the best possible. I wonder if that's why it kills egos that are badly constructed during single lifetimes. VJ, did yours pop?

 

I suggest this is Tao in action. To desire to go against this flow, is IMO a human (I won't say "ego" but I could I suppose) desire - but is it a desire found everywhere?

 

A desire to escape from the embrace of life and one's relationship to it is actually IMO a pulsion towards death. Techniques (or traditions, so I don't get accused of B-bashing because it could also apply to many secular practices) that attempt this, are IMO taking on the very arduous task of attempting to fight life's desire and smack much more of social control than paths to enlightenment.

 

Where things get confusing IMO is when spiritual tools are used (and one could say "hoarded") by traditions in order to draw in adepts.

 

I won't get into the seemingly sanctioned child sexual abuse (calling your penis a lingam is cute but you're still an old dude sticking it to a child). I am also aware that such things exist in many cultures and traditions so don't assume I'm B-bashing.

[joeblast]

You have no right to make that judgment! You have continually made it a point to belittle me on this matter. My relationship and experiences with Norbu's teachings are none of your business!

No "right" to make that judgment? Amusing choice of verbiage. Of course he has the right to do so - or has free speech been banished while I wasn't looking? If you honestly and sincerely self-reflected on the words instead of immediately trying to figure out in what way they were meant to demean you, then you might take a step forward - this is looking more and more like trying to tell a toddler to stop throwing tantrums and having them yell back at you that they are NOT throwing a tantrum!

 

We all assess each other through our words here, unfortunately we have little else to go by. One can certainly look at the focus and quality of another's posts and make certain educated guesses. Whether they are completely correct or not is aside the point. If somebody make an observation of me, it is up to me to conclude for myself where it is coming from, is it valid, and then assail myself with those very criticisms and decide honestly for myself if the criticisms hold or fail in the court of my own mindground. If that person is correct, am I to reflect upon myself for the opening for the criticism, or simply be critical of where it seemingly came from? Lashing out at "the source of the criticism" is most certainly not looking at the root.

 

The minutiae of your relationship with Norbu's teachings is yours - but those of us walking the ground around the tree do not see those roots - what is seen is the quality of the fruit, the health of the leaves and branches.

[三江源]

 

This is the circular chain of interdependence for a Samsarin:

 

With Ignorance as condition, Mental Formations arise

With Mental Formations as condition, Consciousness arises

With Consciousness as condition, Name and Form arise

With Name & Form as condition, Sense Gates arise (This happens both on physical and psychic planes)

With Sense Gates as condition, Contact arises (both physical and psychic)

With Contact as condition, Feeling arises

With Feeling as condition, Craving arises

With Craving as condition, Clinging arises (This clinging can be both of form and without form in higher bliss states)

With Clinging as condition, Becoming arises

With Becoming as a condition, Birth arises

With Birth as condition, Aging and Dying arise

 

For the enlightened you are turning ignorance into wisdom or awareness..

 

ah, it is a continuum. Thankyou.

[Vajrahridaya]

You have no right to make that judgment! You have continually made it a point to belittle me on this matter. My relationship and experiences with Norbu's teachings are none of your business!

 

Then stop belittling my writings style, stop insulting my syntax, stop insinuating that I'm brain washed, stop following me around and talking to me as if you knew what Buddhism was about, without actually having learned much from it at all except more facts about wickedness of Samsara reflecting your jaded view of humanity. You've done this for over a year now... talk about a frozen narrative! The vast majority of your posts here are negative responses to me. Seriously!

 

The things you say are reflective of what I said about you. Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche talks about people who have an experience and think it's "rigpa", but it's really just one of the jhana states, either form or formless... non-the-less... merely a jhana state. Which are powerful and wonderful, but not "rigpa."

 

The things you say are reflective of this. You ultimate no-separation, oneness. You don't reveal the insight congruent with the experience of "rigpa." You haven't read Chogyal Namkhai Norbus more nuanced books that you need permission to read that will contextualize your experience. You've probably only read the mass consumption works. I am assuming here, but it's based upon a year of reading your posts to me.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

I always felt that admitting children into monasteries was deeply wrong. We have enough backing from western psychological research in the development of children, of childhood traumas, building healthy connections and personal borders etc. to forbid this kind of thing here.

 

Admit only adults, and this kind of violence towards the helpless will disappear. And of course - when you send a lot of kids into a monastery - many of them never wanted that lifestyle consciously - so the result is not the serious cultivator, who does not care about possessions and practices brachmacarya.

 

There is an article about the huge material hoarding of high ranking lamas in pre-China tibet.

Organized religion carries sinister potential and needs to be monitored and shackled from power.

 

Mandrake

 

There is lots to agree with here. I've also read lots of incredible and positive success stories concerning pre-Chinese Tibet, from biographies and autobiographies. I think it's interesting that the human psyche clings more to the stories of negative revelation than positive revelation. Don't you think?

 

Is the glass half full or half empty? Or neither, maybe it's just a glass and you fill it to the degree and with the substance you want to fill it with?

[Vajrahridaya]

Ralis has a point. Being a monk does not equal renunciation. Some people become monks just for the easy life. People overestimate the cultivation accomplishments of monks. I've seen enough.

There are people who are serious and devoted in monasteries, but you can also find renunciates who are living in society.

 

I am not denying this at all. There are also those that have renounced renunciation and just renounce ego instead. I have yet to master that one...

 

 

When adults, who through their experiences and contemplations reach renunciation, enter into monk-hood, you have good candidates, but again - how many children are able to do this?

 

I would think a vast minority. But, out of all those inducted into the monastery for a time being, not all of them stay, plenty learn something of great value. I've had a couple of friends who were monks since kids, and they were wonderful people who I enjoyed being with. They weren't Rinpoches or recognized Tulkus mind you, just regular people, but they were genuinely nice and gentle people. I met them in NYC at one retreat or another. So, life is filled with different occurrences, some will jade your mind and others will open it to the experience of beauty. I don't deny the horrors that humans do, but I choose not to focus on that. This doesn't benefit me or anyone else, especially when I'm not in a position to change it.

 

For the former, adults, monasteries can provide a splendid environment, not for renunciation - since it is a mental aspect(you can dream of lavish buffets, sex, drugs... while living in a cave) - but for dedicated cultivation.

 

Mandrake

 

:lol:

[Vajrahridaya]

"obvious pulls of nature that are based upon the fear of death"

 

How about "based upon the love of life"?

 

That's what the practice of Tantra and Dzogchen attempt to do with the energetic pulls that arise based upon the evolution of fear and the energy of desire arising based upon a feeling of lack.

 

Most "natural" behavior in sentient beings arises based upon a feeling of lack and a fear of change, or death.

 

I believe love/life "wants" to resolve everything, make it the best possible. I wonder if that's why it kills egos that are badly constructed during single lifetimes. VJ, did yours pop?

 

I've definitely had my glimpses, which have completely transformed my perception permanently. I also completely agree! It's really about perspective, which is based upon experience and interpretation of experience, based upon experience.

I suggest this is Tao in action. To desire to go against this flow, is IMO a human (I won't say "ego" but I could I suppose) desire - but is it a desire found everywhere?

 

There are so many flows Kate. Look around you! See all the different flows of people? Many seemingly natural flows just lead to incarceration in ambiguity and ignorance... More times than not, I see the word "natural" tossed around as an emotional, and intellectual excuse to not question and investigate deeper.

 

A desire to escape from the embrace of life and one's relationship to it is actually IMO a impulsion towards death. Techniques (or traditions, so I don't get accused of B-bashing because it could also apply to many secular practices) that attempt this, are IMO taking on the very arduous task of attempting to fight life's desire and smack much more of social control than paths to enlightenment.

 

Do you think renouncing sex and conventional social activities is "going against the flow" of life? Flow is just energy, you do with it what you will, based upon your inner feeling and what you want out of life. Most "natural" cravings arise due to the evolution of fear and sense of lack or incompleteness... to not see that I think is reflective of a lack of investigation. As if this craving for copulation and sense friction was the only dimension to live a long and fulfilled life from?

 

Of course, there are so many methods and Buddhadharma has instigated a vast array of methods for lay practitioners that include Tantric sex and Tantric pleasure experiencing where one transforms the flow of pleasure or releases the flow of pleasure into the elixir of wisdom, in every moment. People who master this can do the same with pain.

 

I think most people are in denial of how trapped by the pulls of the 5 senses they are, and how each pleasurable fulfillment of one sense or another is merely a reflection of impermanent and unsatisfying endless craving for more from without due to a sense of lack from within. If a person has truly renounced ego... then that person could take it or leave it with the same inner state of complete fulfillment.

 

Where things get confusing IMO is when spiritual tools are used (and one could say "hoarded") by traditions in order to draw in adepts.

 

:lol: That's a confusing statement.

 

I won't get into the seemingly sanctioned child sexual abuse (calling your penis a lingam is cute but you're still an old dude sticking it to a child). I am also aware that such things exist in many cultures and traditions so don't assume I'm B-bashing.

 

What? I was not talking about unwilling children, or even children at all. I was more talking about a 70 year old male master and maybe a 20 year old female youth who knows what she is doing and has awakened intelligence. I was not sanctioning child or sexual abuse.

 

Kate, most people continually harbor their cultural conditioning as a platform for misconstruing information.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

ah, it is a continuum. Thankyou.

 

Yup!

[ralis]

 

What? I was not talking about unwilling children, or even children at all. I was more talking about a 70 year old male master and maybe a 20 year old female youth who knows what she is doing and has awakened intelligence. I was not sanctioning child or sexual abuse.

 

Kate, most people continually harbor their cultural conditioning as a platform for misconstruing information.

 

If you meant 20 year old then just say so. You respond in ways that seem that abuse towards others, especially anyone in a monastery is fine as long as it is for some higher cause. Reread the article I posted and do a thorough Google search in regards to this topic.

 

Some of us here are not interested in abuse in the name of religion. That is not a clinging to the negative while forgoing some positive. That is showing compassion.

Edited December 9, 2010 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

If you meant 20 year old then just say so. You respond in ways that seem that abuse towards others, especially anyone in a monastery is fine as long as it is for some higher cause. Reread the article I posted and do a thorough Google search in regards to this topic.

 

Yes, I should have been more clear there. Whao!

 

Why would I want to bury my head in that level of information, since I already knew and know about it? Why not do a google search and read books on the positive occurrences surrounding these Monasteries as well as the amazing Masters that came out of them? If you dig in the dirt, you are mostly going to find worms and more dirt, but there are also precious metals in that dirt as well, some platinum, gold and plenty of diamonds! I will focus on those... because those will make me a better person with a more enlightened outlook on everything. If I focus on the worms, my mind will become like what it focuses upon.

Edited December 9, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Ulises]

An eye-opening interview with one of the most interesting female scholar/practitioners about Buddhist Tantra, Dr. Mranda Shaw:

 

WIE: There have been so many abuses of power by spiritual authorities over the past twenty years, and in particular, many reported cases of sexual abuse by teachers in the Buddhist tradition claiming to be practicing tantra. Often it seems that the word “tantra” is used to justify what usually turns out to be nothing more than the pursuit of personal sexual gratification, often at the disciples expense. Even the great Kalu Rinpoche, revered as one of the greatest Buddhist masters of the modern era, often referred to as the Milarepa of the twentieth century and considered by many to have been a living Buddha, is now known to have been maintaining a secret sexual relationship with his young Western female translator, June Campbell, who claims with considerable support that she was intimidated into keeping the relationship secret.

 

MS: I have no doubt that it happened. She was emotionally coerced into a sexually abusive and exploitative relationship. Unfortunately, the word “tantra” does provide a shield behind which sexual predation can hide. But when you actually inquire into such sexual situations, you find out that tantric practice was not the intent of the relationship. The way, for example, that June Campbell describes their relationship, there was nothing even remotely tantric about it. It was not for their mutual pursuit of enlightenment. It was purely exploitative. This is not tantra.

http://lila.info/art/text/sexuality/everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-tantra-but-were-afraid-to-ask.html

Edited December 9, 2010 by Ulises

[Vajrahridaya]

MS: I have no doubt that it happened. She was emotionally coerced into a sexually abusive and exploitative relationship. Unfortunately, the word “tantra” does provide a shield behind which sexual predation can hide. But when you actually inquire into such sexual situations, you find out that tantric practice was not the intent of the relationship. The way, for example, that June Campbell describes their relationship, there was nothing even remotely tantric about it. It was not for their mutual pursuit of enlightenment. It was purely exploitative. This is not tantra.

http://lila.info/art/text/sexuality/everything-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-tantra-but-were-afraid-to-ask.html

 

I don't see this as eye opening. I also already knew about this. This is still a confused age of information and degradation, money, power and sex. The vast majority of human kind are confused and lost in darkness.

 

I still don't focus on that... what for?

 

Just as there are those that have abused the term and practice of "tantra", there are those that have not.

 

None of what any of you have said takes away from the merit of the practices of Buddhism when they are actually applied and utilized for their intended purpose.

 

Edited December 9, 2010 by Vajrahridaya