Out of all the posts that have sparked debate, our Rigpa postings have attracted far and away the largest number of comments. However, not all of these comments have been pertinent to the topic at hand.
We at Dialogue Ireland have been hesitant to moderate with a heavy hand as we feel it can stifle the free flow of discussion. Unfortunately this ideal has lead to the threads in question being dragged far beyond their original intentions. We had hoped that our forums would help alleviate this problem by providing a platform where such discussions could be continued. Despite our hopes this option has not been fully engaged, and it appears that our commenters prefer to leave comments on this site.
With this in mind we are creating this ‘Rigpa Spillover Thread’. It does seem as if there are a collection of commenters who wish to engage with each other on topics not directly related our threads. By creating a thread specifically for such comments we hope that our Rigpa threads can remain more fully on topic.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
Dialogue Ireland 
bellaB comments from Why is the Dalai Lama anywhere near Sogyal?
Moved to The Rigpa Spillover Thread
When DI is boasting about being able to debate SR, just the thought of the whole scenario rises a big grin on my face. DI doesn’t have clue.
LikeLike
bellaB comments from Why is the Dalai Lama anywhere near Sogyal?
Moved to The Rigpa Spillover Thread
Buddhism arrives to the West when the Iron Birds fly and Horses Run on Wheels.
It’s a well known saying. Buddhism has a lot to offer to the World unlike many other religions, like the “Religion of Peace”. People wouldn’t be interested in Buddhism if it didn’t have the substance. If you bothered to study what is truly taught you would notice that it has more depth and content than Christian religion. It also doesn’t only fill the heart but also answers questions on an intellectual level, where Christian interpretation fails.
LikeLike
dialogueireland, on August 13, 2013 at 9:59 pm said: “I believe in this context you are subtly trying to relatavise the experience of abuse and to again rationlise your strategy.”
It seems that there’s a big difference between providing support for the abused and championing a campaign against “Lamaism”.
If you were simply providing support to those abused then you would be right on the money, but my repeated point is that we are not considering individual cases of reported abuse, but expressions of fear based upon perceptions of the other’s desire.
LikeLike
I believe in this context you are subtly trying to relatavise the experience of abuse and to again rationlise your strategy.
LikeLike
You might find this useful
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
It outlines the tendency to overestimate the effect of personality and underestimate the effect of the situation in explaining behaviour.
Paradoxically, the attribution of power to the agent rather than to structure also grants them more power than they really possess.
LikeLike
Marte-Micaela Riepe, on August 13, 2013 at 6:48 pm said:
“You got that from books. You never were a companion.”
So are you saying that the role of this blog, and all these articles on “Lamaism” are intended to provide a companion?
Did you ask yourself why these books say those things?
It strikes me as strange that you characterise me as some kind of freak, while at the same time seeing my view as a mainstream one – maybe you have an issue with the mainstream view?
I’m not really convinced that your advice to victims is that sound, you seem to be placing your own concerns before those of the victim – really I would suggest respecting their wishes rather than insisting they avoid reporting it to the police, etc.
LikeLike
That serious studies I would like to see! It is a joke.
A woman is victim of cruel rape on her way home. She never saw the rapist before.
Serious studies advice:
You have had a relationship to the rapist in your former life. Think about of having raped him first.
The rapist earns our compassion, so don´t blame him as a criminal and avoid to reporting him to the police.
Don´t go out of your house, because only changing your behaviour is a guarantee for your security, you cannot only expect the changing of the behaviour of the rapist.
You may substitute rapist by abuser.
And: Do you know anything about empowerment of a victim? Which process has to be done? What does safety means in your eyes? Emotional well being? New boundaries and guidelines for victims because of their inappropriate behaviour towards the abuser?
You got that from books. You never were a companion.
You are sitting back and waiting for emotional howls and in my eyes it is exactly what you are looking for. Like a vampire you take emotions of wounded people to fill your empty soul. Your whole way long here on DI.
As I said before it is so easily to read your character.
LikeLike
I’ve contributed to serious studies of abuse Mike, and I can tell you that they take almost the opposite approach.
Please don’t blame me for your blog turning into a macabre form of entertainment.
If you want to know how serious people deal with abuse, here are some suggestions;
– Understand the dynamics of the relationship between the abused and the abuser.
– Avoid purely emotional appeals to blame the abuser
– Avoid expecting only the abuser to change
– Instead work out strategies to empower the abused and allow them to move forward; strategies for their safety, their emotional wellbeing, and to set new boundaries and guidelines.
(Now I sit back and wait for the emotional howls about who should change, because it’s their fault and they are to blame…)
LikeLike
Sums you up well from my observations.
Intellectualising abuse, avoidance of the real pain of people using a second language which you poke fun at as you must know this is the case.
Bye
LikeLike
Anyone would think you are slow learner
LikeLike
I have no interest in blame, or fault finding, or any of these backward looking positions which do nothing but complain about abstract fantasies.
If there are real problems, then I look for real solutions, but so far in two months of theorising based upon nothing but conjecture I haven’t encountered any.
LikeLike
No, Kate, anyone would think it except you. What you are fighting tooth and nails is the leading definition on Lamaism. It will not be successful.
What I posted on Rick Ross was well-founded. To Rick it was just new and unknown so he didn´t agree in all points, which was completely ok.
Parallel to Chris` publications you are playing the game with me:Trying to blame my positions.
There is something very grim, may be not in your person, but in your behaviour.
LikeLike
Anyone would think DI is afraid of the truth, in fact.
LikeLike
Mike,
Marte-Micaela Riepe, on August 13, 2013 at 8:15 am said:
“It´s not an idea but a fact and I reported it”
Either decide if information concerning Nydhal is relevant or not and then impose this rule across the board.
You allow her to post this, then condemn my response.
This has happened several times now, where someone brings up certain ideas and information and then I get shit from you about discussing it – you move or delete my posts and allow theirs to stand.
Anyone would think you were biased!
LikeLike
Expulsion from this site? I thought this was the spillover, the safe zone…. Good grief.
LikeLike
Kate, you said, “This exactly matches Lifton’s criteria, where experience is seen to be contrary to the thesis then the thesis wins out and the individual’s experience is dismissed.”
That is so very true and has been my experience here as well. For example, it also did me no good to say that I am not part of any Buddhist group or sangha or that the teachings I have received from HHDL have helped me become more independent in my thinking and more self-confident– the response is that I am lying and that I am a secret agent and secret cult conspirator.
This thinking is very cultlike, but also very much the thinking of conspiracy theorists I think.
LikeLike
KateS I would ask you to desist from introducing extraneous material from another site. The comments on this site by Marte-Micaela earlier a year or so ago about Nydahl we had to ask her to resist from. Now we understand what her experience is and do not have Joanne’s filter, we will publish her experience in full on a separate thread. In the meantime respond to her points here which have been on Lamaism not Nydahl.
You are getting close to expulsion from this site. This nasty bit of commentary sums you up, you are obviously not reading those books you told me about but spending your time drooling over this site. Even Sankappa can’t reach you now!
LikeLike
Marte-Micaela
– the cult you attended has one of the longest threads on the rick ross site.
– not a single other person on there reported anything close to your experience.
– the moderator warned you several times to focus on empirical data rather than drifting into your own made up theories of occult phenomena.
– you freely admitted having no interest in Buddhism of any kind, but instead were attracted to a man you still maintain is a “free-thinker”, despite him being a reactionary conservative who is openly racist and sexist.
– you also admitted to ignoring your own intuition to avoid making a commitment to something you had no intention of following.
These are all checkable and verifiable, and yet you call it a “phantom view”, instead insisting on the “reality” of hearing someone else’s voice in your head.
LikeLike
We are moving much of this attempt to divert so stick around and we will have your document up in English soon I hope. Look advice to Altera Sophia
LikeLike
Phantom view!
LikeLike
One report from someone claiming that a well known fake Lama “invaded” their head neither constitues a “they” nor has any proven connection to Tibetan Buddhism.
The organisation you are talking aboout is regarded as a joke by almost all Tibetan Buddhists.
LikeLike
“It creates the idea that no one chooses, but instead they are “forced to surrender”, even though not a single person has reported this.”´
It´s not an idea but a fact and I reported it. I will not go on now, I am bored by your betraying ignorance and phantom view.
Mike, I am going on with the translation!
LikeLike
In fact, if we look at Lifton’s own definition of Doctrine Over Person
– “If a person’s experience is contrary to the group’s doctrine then the doctrine must win out and personal experience must be dismissed.”
This has nothing to do with the idea of people being forced to surrender.
The clearest example of it occurred when I wrote about how my experience didn’t match that of the Lamaist thesis, only to be told that was irrelevant.
In fact Mike himself wrote, “This is the fundamental point she did not say she was the subject of these experiences, but suggested they were characteristic of what was going on in Lamaism.”
This exactly matches Lifton’s criteria, where experience is seen to be contrary to the thesis then the thesis wins out and the individual’s experience is dismissed.
LikeLike
You’re right, but then I never claimed to be an autodidact.
I’m currently reading some Kafka, some essays by contemporary writers on modern continental philosophy, and some of Robert J Lifton’s work, and I must admit, their ideas do permeate and inform my own thinking.
I was particularly interested in Lifton’s ideas about the use of emotionally loaded language combined with the “thought-terminating cliché” used to close down any attempts at in-depth analysis.
It is facinating to observe the way it occurs in these threads, even using Lifton’s ideas to acheive that, for example in the phrase,
“people are forced to surrender to the lama (point 7 “doctrine over person”).”
It creates the idea that no one chooses, but instead they are “forced to surrender”, even though not a single person has reported this.
LikeLike
Yes the lesson I have learnt is that my study of Theology has very little relevance to to the issue of cultism.
It is not about beliefs but about influence. You are seriously under someone’s influence and it is not your own.
LikeLike
KateS comment moved to Spillover Thread
Submitted on 2013/08/12 at 7:20 pm from
Dr. Robert J. Lifton’s Eight Criteria for Thought Reform and Lamaism, the Cultist form of Buddhism
and there’s me thinking you studied Theology Mike and would find the corruption of the original doctrine useful in outlining the differences and identifying the problem issues and organisations.
It’s become clear that you know very little about Theology and have no concern other than sensationalising your own cult of whingeing gasbags.
LikeLike
KateS comment from Dr. Robert J. Lifton’s Eight Criteria for Thought Reform and Lamaism, the Cultist form of Buddhism has been moved to Spillover Thread as it is trying to divert from the criteria for cultism and move those trying to discuss its affects to a general Buddhist discussion of philosophy.
Submitted on 2013/08/12 at 12:10 pm
BackAtHome, on August 12, 2013 at 11:44 am said: “Exactly.”
Right, so the choice is to differentiate between an imaginary third person plural perspective and the first person perspective of one’s own experience.
The two exist in different registers. If a crime has been committed then the “objective” agencies still apply.
The “dogma” only occurs when one fails to distinguish between the two and confuses one’s own viewpoint for some kind of universal truth.
As I said, this is not really relevant here, what really matters is the gap between the theory of what is supposed to happen and the practices where it fails to materialise and people feel disempowered instead – which is what seems to be happening in a large number of cases.
LikeLike
Dr. Robert J. Lifton’s Eight Criteria for Thought Reform and Lamaism, the Cultist form of Buddhism This philosophical discourse on Kantian and Hegelian philosophy is the antithesis of this thread and is again on its way to the Spillover thread.
KateS
Submitted on 2013/08/12 at 10:09 am
BackAtHome, on August 12, 2013 at 7:01 am said:
“Here the axiom is: Everyone is in complete charge of his or her life”
oops, I missed this one. The axiom is in fact, “I choose this for myself”, and has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else, or with objective reality. Clearly the Kantian universal imperative is not contiguous with such a viewpoint.
LikeLike
KateS comment Submitted on 2013/08/12 at 10:05 am on Dr. Robert J. Lifton’s Eight Criteria for Thought Reform and Lamaism, the Cultist form of Buddhism
This philosophical discourse on Kantian and Hegelian philosophy is the antithesis of this thread and is again on its way to the Spillover thread.
BackAtHome
“But to assume a complete control is just nonsense.”
Maybe that answers the question as to why so many followers of “Lamaism” are not really doing Buddhism…
“June Campbell choose to be abused by her lama.
The tibetan slaves choosed to be enslaved.
The three killed monks in Dharamsala choosed to be killed and now that they are dead they should “take power for themselves rather than giving it away” (as you wrote).”
I’m not sure you’ve quite understood the idea. As I said, “objectively” it makes no sense whatsoever, but that’s up to you to choose between “objective reality” and an act of creation ex nihilo.
You seem to be combining both when really, it’s up to June Campbell what stance she takes concerning her own life.
I’m not sure it works if you’re dead though.
“This dogma is denying the responsibility of the offender and locating the responsibility solely at the victim. Thinking of that on a grand scale would lead to a society without civil rights. In the end it leads to the law of the strongest. And guess what? That is exactly what this world is currently heading for.”
That is certainly an interesting debate, but the claim here is that the followers are precisely failing to achieve such a Copernican turn in their own point of view.
It seems unsurprising that your vision of the bleak Darwinian future should actually coincide with the perception that the “sheeple” should have of the Lamas.
What alternative would you suggest? Maybe an all powerful “nanny” state to protect these vulnerable individuals?
This “theological” debate does seem to be a bit of a side-track in this discussion.
Altera Sophia asked about the aim of empowerment and I was comparing the Buddhist ideal with the “Lamaist” reality.
LikeLike
KateS comments moved from Dr. Robert J. Lifton’s Eight Criteria for Thought Reform and Lamaism, the Cultist form of Buddhism thread to Spillover thread
Submitted on 2013/08/12 at 2:18 am
A serious spiritual practice draws no line between “spiritual things” and everything else.
The concept of empowerment is related to the idea of karma. In Buddhism, the idea of the past and future are purely imaginary, so for someone for example, born with no arms, they might blame nature, genetics, or the use of pharmaceuticals when they were still in the womb – or they could choose to say “I chose that”.
Clearly it’s not “objectively” true, but it’s a personal choice to take power for oneself rather than giving it away – the opposite of making the choice to see oneself as a victim.
Current thinking would advise spending a huge effort trying to get compensation from the pharmaceutical industry and call it justice, when in real terms it would make little difference to one’s outlook on life, and the recompense of a chunk of money is really no equivalent to having no arms or giving away one’s power.
LikeLike
KateS’s comment moved from Dr. Robert J. Lifton’s Eight Criteria for Thought Reform and Lamaism, the Cultist form of Buddhism
Submitted on 2013/08/10 at 5:30 pm
Yeah, I’m sorry. What I meant was, it’s all them and all their fault and they should change to suit us, cos we know best and they should listen, just like I should to uncle Mike.
LikeLike
KateS comment moved from The Visit of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to Lerab Ling 2008
Submitted on 2013/08/10 at 3:43 am
I just watched the lerab ling promo video and I must confess I skipped the parts where Sogyal was talking – I just find him quite patronising, so I can never really do any discourse analysis, I was hoping someone else might do that for me.
It seems that if you take the position that TB is somehow invalid, then everything in it seems a cynical trick, and Chris said something to this end where she suggested that it was only upon rejecting the whole package that she could finally see through it.
It seems that the inability to actively engage in it without getting “sucked in” suggests a failure of any adequate Western response.
Personally I think the issue is divided between the Western “populist” stance and that of a genuine Western philosophy, but the gap between those two is far wider than the gap between TB and the Westerners that seem caught up in the more cult-like aspects of it, so maybe it is a project doomed from the start.
To use a metaphor which Mike introduced, if people are drowning in the sea, then it seems not only prudent to put up warning signs, but also to teach them how to swim, and how to recognise the potential dangers once they are in the water.
You seem to be advocating a position of “don’t go in the water” simply on the basis of lacking the adequate tools to cope with such situations. The policy of total avoidance would seem an inadequate position from which to develop such a response.
The Visit of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to Lerab Ling 2008
LikeLike
Joanne comments are taken from:
Commentary on the Great Living Masters and presenters appearing at Dzogchen Beara. 1. Ringu Tulku Rinpoche
which are about Buddhism and its teachings have been moved to the Spillover thread. We are not a site for the discussion of the Buddhist religion unless it is pertinent to the Lamaism debate which is the Cultist Form of Buddhism.
Submitted on 2013/07/04 at 1:14 pm
Also, Chris, regarding Dzogchen and the methods current lamas are using to teach it, I personally do not find those suitable for me. I personally prefer lamrim. However, I know many people who find Dzogchen, as taught by modern TB lamas to be very beneficial. One of the treasures of Buddhism is its breadth of paths and techniques. It is hard to really judge that, not being Buddha ourselves, isn’t it?
LikeLike
“We aim to do all in our power to create safe environments for all, including children and vulnerable adults, in order to secure their protection and enable their full participation in appropriate activities and events.”
This is pretty much my experience. There is quite a lot of care and caring people.
If people in families were able to tame their minds like the Buddhist teachings teach in countless ways, they would be more harmony in families.
I have seen countless times SR’s own son playing with his pals like an ordinary boy. Seems to be taken care of in a very down to earth, ordinary way.
So, what is your real question about children?
Buddhist teachings are probably the guidelines for any policy about treating people: children, vulnerable or not vulnerable adults. One can aim high, even though we are just people with our faults.
I can recommend for you to go to Dzogchen Beara when there are no retreats and discuss matters in peace with those people who live in Dzogchen Beara. They are very decent, kind, good people with open hearts. I don’t think manipulation is their way of facing reality and you can have your own ideas. They have practiced Buddhism for 30 years or even more.
LikeLike
They feel conflicted and by the way we find this in many groups not just Rigpa. Sometimes people who contact us can take up to five years to get back to me.It is not the mechanics of using a phone but the psychological pressure of the influence they are still under even when they have left the group or are thinking of leaving. This is a very common thing in regard to the victims of sexual abuse in all kinds of groups. It can be years for these survivors to address their situation.Sometimes it is too painful to address it, for others they have to blank it in order not to be just carry on their day to day living.
I have now explained it a number of times, but you seem not to understand abuse. You do mention you were a victim but perhaps it is too long ago for you to actually feel what it is like.Obviously they trust me as they contact me on the blog or by email. They know at the rational level that they can call, but they have this sense of loyalty to the group even after all they have gone through.
Imagine you are in an accident and emergency hospital ward, a woman comes in and claims to have been the victim of an assault. The issue is not whether she is a liar at this stage, but just trying to help her. You start from the ideological position that there can be no abuse in Rigpa, because you never saw it. You put yourself in a godlike position. I rather accept that those that report what happened are in fact not making it up. The people since 2007 who told me about the abuse implored me to ask the President not to give her blessing to that centre. I heard from the same woman againlast year. She still has not found the strength yet to have a conversation. recovery can be slow and I respect their right to privacy.
The more you write the more I sense you do not have a clue, buy a phone card, what planet are you on?
You obviously do as you are writing again!
I get that but what is their child welfare policy and what is their vulnerable adult policy?
I do not seem to be able to get a clear answer from you?
Could you define what you mean by a vulnerable adult?
What relevance does this issue have to this discussion. As far as I am aware it is normal for all churches to have children at their churches? What point are you making or more likely what point are you not making?
Precisely my point!
Perhaps you might check out what this means? It could be helpful to get your understanding of the policy for vulnerable adult women?
http://www.dzogchenbeara.org/index.php?pid=152
LikeLike
So, if people are not threatened with violence – like in domestic violence scenes – then why are they scared to talk on the phone?
If one has a real story without crazy projections then why would one be scared to TALK ON THE PHONE? The only reason that comes to my mind is that they are scared of you and don’t trust you.
This is another reason: If they are liars, then of course it’s good to be cautious when you spread out slander… it can all turn against you.
Can you think of any other reason why would they be scared to talk on the phone? They can buy a phone card or something if they don’t want to reveal their real name.
I don’t want to divert the issue. I have no interest in continuing the issue.
Why there are children in Rigpa? Maybe because there are thousands of people and a few have families. Maybe people with children in Catholic setting don’t go to church with children?
I must say that there are very few children in Rigpa compared to the amount of people are involved. In the West Buddhism is not solely a monastic thing. Maybe that is the reason why Buddhists have children…
What a bizarre question about children all in all. I can only imagine the content of your next post… getting pretty weird. You should check out facts of your stories. Would be healthy for all involved.
LikeLike
Are you suggesting I am telling lies about the contacts I have received?
If you are there is no point you coming onto this site again!
Note how you tried to divert from the real issue? No one claimed that people were being beaten up and it is hardly domestic violence in a public teaching context. No what we have is inappropriate grooming and the clear violation of the boundaries between teachers and students.
Perhaps you could get back to me around the issue of child care policies which Rigpa have in place. Why do they have a lot of children there? I have asked you twice?
They also mention vulnerable adults, could you forward us these policies?
LikeLike
“I have had individual Irish women contact me but they are too afraid to even talk on the phone.”
I’m sorry but I don’t believe it. Nobody in Rigpa is beating up people or threatening to kill them like in a domestic violence scene. Rigpa is not a crazy place…
LikeLike
Well there is little on it at present. I will give you something to write about soon. Just busy/
The proxy referred to here is not someone taking your place but what Sheila did namely trying to pretend to be a different person by having their IP address concealed. As you know the Sheila was caught out doing that. I know where you live and can tell whether you are at it. I was asking as the person who I challenged used your arguments and I was trying to see if you were using a proxy.
Did you have any comments to make about:
The reason is very similar to your situation. In your country if people knew you were commenting they would get who it was. Here Ireland everyone knows everyone and specially in West Cork. Also very few people are aware of SR and so he does not have great scrutiny. I have had individual Irish women contact me but they are too afraid to even talk on the phone.
Have a look at their child protection policies? Do they have a lot of kids there?
Also what is a vulnerable adult according to your definition?
They mention they have a policy where is it!!!
LikeLike
I don’t care about this site anymore, so I don’t care if I’m in the spillover thread or in the Queen’s Palace.
Thank you DI anyway for the time here, since I’ve learned a lot. It’s been an eye opening in many ways.
Are you asking me about the proxy or who? No, I don’t feel that threatened to use it. Maybe some day I will learn to use it: could be useful since I tend to talk too directly, even online.
But, as you can see, there are a few people in the universe who may agree with me to some extent. Don’t you wonder why so few Irish people from Rigpa write here? I do. Seems like only a few foreigners want to write here.
LikeLike
Have you ever tried to use a proxy? I am coming close to you later in the month.
I assume you are hoping the DL is going to go to Cork. Are you joining the magic bus down there?
I will be posting again on issues to do with rigpa soon, but a bit busy with Christian crazies at the moment.
Have a look at their child protection policies? Do they have a lot of kids there?
Also what is a vulnerable adult according to your definition?
They mention they have a policy where is it!!!
If you are over do let me know and we can meet for a coffee in the decontamination tank.
This guy gets it!
http://www.beatmuseum.org/kienholz/edkienholz.html
LikeLike
I’d say DI was having the last laugh now, bellaB. The Spillover thread is the only place they will allow you to post … this means you will no longer be able to spread your rubbish and denials, other than right here, on this thread. Pretty much an un-linked thread that counts of very little in the scheme of things
LikeLike
Ha, ha…
Now DI is amazed that it is not only me from Rigpa that thinks that these stories are weird and bothers to comment here.
Good luck DI with your campaign. I know you think you are right and you like to believe crazy stories. In a way I don’t wonder about it. I’m just wondering why such intense self-righteousness even though you don’t really know these people who complain here. Do you feel threatened by Buddhism or what?
LikeLike
munichmisfit we have moved your comment ………………and another thing, if you really WANT to contact and meet SR on that for you obviously so important issue there should be a way to arrange that………..
as it has no relevance to the questions asked, but is about Buddhist teachings which are not relevant to that thread.
DI Moderation.
Oh, and another thing, if you really WANT to contact and meet SR on that for you obviously so important issue there should be a way to arrange that.
But I also know that in the histroy of Rigpa there were rare cases of mentally disturbed stalkers who had to be banned and removed from any events. But that happened only in a hand full very severe cases and there was absolutely nothing sexual involved, in an organisation that attracts thousands of people there are always some who have serious mental problems going on.
You know, on the internet anyone can post anything. So believing something simply on some “rumours” spread on the internet in blogs and forums would be ridiculous. I could with ease claim that George W. Bush, the pope or my ex boss has sexually molested on some internet blog me just because I keep a grudge against them and want to harm them.
In the case of the catholic church there was evidence to back up all those claims. In the case of SR I have yet to see anything that would convince me. And what is written in this blog for me doesn’t seem very conclusive, unlike for example the personal stories of victims in the catholic church I have read and heard in interviews..
LikeLike
munichmisfit we have moved your comment from the one you had it under the open letter…
as it has no relevance to the questions asked, but is about Buddhist teachings which are not relevant to that thread.
DI Moderation.
Sorry, I have no idea what that “Bardo-state” you are talking about is.
I’m currently IN a bardo, the natural brado of this life, simply by living as a human being, I don’t have to reach that and the next bardo state that is waiting for me is the bardo of dying and then the bardo of the in between state.
In 20 years of study of Tibetan buddhist I have never encountered that term for a spiritual attaiment, so it’s either something not Nyingma and Gelug or it’s something that someone has made up.
Bardo is always present in samsara, it is samsara, not something one has to reach.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bardo
LikeLike
anonymous
Did you not read the statement below? I have now stated about five times that if you return to any other thread other than this one and try to tell your story it can’t be affected by what anyone like bellB says as if she tries to question any person’s story on this site her comments will be deleted. I do not know how much clearer we can be. If you persist in engaging her here you must take responsibility for your actions and we can’t keep deleting your comments. This spillover thread is for issues around Buddhism not connected to the abuse issue. This was to keep it out of the abuse threads. If people like you start addressing the abuse issue here you leave yourself open to people commenting on it in the form of denial. If they start talking about abuse here it will also be deleted as this is not the thread for it.
Obviously they can comment on points made on other threads, but if it is in the form of denial or personal attacks on other people it will be deleted forthwith. Also just because it does not happen asap does not mean it will not happen.
LikeLike
Anonymous, I have no idea who you are and what stories you have told here. I have not told you that you have lied, unless you are VB or MF.
I have told very personal stories here, both related to Rigpa and my personal life. That is the reason why I don’t want to publish them with my own name. I have already told my stories to other people in the past, so they are not hyper sensitive issues to me today.
I think I have the right to make research on issues. It was actually Sheila who introduced me to the google groups, that has been a valuable reference point. They give a historical background to the stories.
Wouldn’t you also double or triple check if someone told you that your dear husband or son has raped somebody or abused somebody? I’m sure you would do it if it was someone important to you. To some extent I’m relieved at the moment. If there is anything real and important, then I might change my mind. It doesn’t happen over night though.
What is your goal anonymous? Is it to make people leave Rigpa or is it just to make your voice heard and story known? If you goal is the first one, I’m sorry but it’s not a good and easily obtainable goal: you may get disappointed. If your sincere wish is to make your story heard, then what do you have got to fear? If you are not lying, what do you care if someone thinks that you are lying? Just tell the facts, describe events and let other people form their opinions.
(I think I can claim that two story tellers have lied, and one can also find out about it for themselves in the internet. There is proof. About other people and their stories I can’t remember having made claim about lying.)
You can also keep your story to yourself, if you are not ready. I’m not after your story. Bye!
LikeLike
Revealing sensitive information (no need for a reality check bella) is a highly personal thing to do on the internet. I’m sorry if you find that so difficult to understand.
It was for that reason, that I asked DI to remove my posts. I’m not interested, at this point in getting involved in what happens on this site, which seems to be a perpetual attempt to discredit anyone who had a different experience from the posters above. Why on earth would I go into further detail here of all places, when it’s already being implied that I’m lying.
All this digging for information just strikes me as voyeuristic, and more than a little bit passive aggressive. No doubt this conversation will continue and what I’ve said or lack of it, will be If I don’t reply it simply means that I’m not interested and don’t want to get involved,
LikeLike
Anon, on April 6, 2013 at 11:01 am said: “It wouldn’t matter how many women document here that they have been abused Bella b and Kate S and others will never believe it. Their only agenda is to get the victims to go away so they don’t have to accept that abuse has happened and could still be happening.”
This is exactly my point. Joanne did not claim she was abused by SR and neither did anonymous in the above posts.
You are the one sidestepping the issues they raised in favour of your obsession with “victims of abuse”.
So what if Sogyal gets his kicks from getting women to eat his own excrement? What has this got to do with the difficulties experienced by the people in Rigpa who have never exchanged a single word with SR?
Are you interested in the real issues here or just in the juicy gossip?
LikeLike
Anon note that when discussing the issue please do not use the spillover thread, but rather one that clearly deals with the abuse issue. we assume abuse happened and invite comments on it. We will delete comments which deny abuse. We allow comments on issues other than abuse on the spillover thread, but if people discuss issues here that clearly try to subvert this we will delete here to.
LikeLike
“Anon, on April 6, 2013 at 11:01 am said:
It wouldn’t matter how many women document here that they have been abused Bella b and Kate S and others will never believe it. Their only agenda is to get the victims to go away so they don’t have to accept that abuse has happened and could still be happening.”
I’m sorry but I was quite open when I first came to this page. I noticed from the journalist’s comments that her stories were crap since the beginning. Nothing has changed in that regard.
Many people seemed to have many ideas, but I can see from most posters that they have never been in Rigpa. Therefore there is a lot of stuff that can be shot down as they emerge.
Another matter is people who have some negative experiences. (I wonder in which Buddhist or non Buddhist organization they wouldn’t have negative experiences…?! That kind of heaven doesn’t exist among humans.)
I have listened to many friends during my life. Some have told me even when we were young that I was the only one they could tell things. Therefore the dark side of life is no stranger to me. I’m not afraid to hear, but I think I can also tell a bit in my age where things may come from. In real life I wouldn’t always say so directly what I think, but as I have become older I also have the courage to say. But I also know that it’s my opinion, and maybe the person hasn’t told everything or I don’t understand. In some situations it’s no use to put any label on the experiences. It’s just enough to let the person talk and listen. Many times I agree with people who tell me their issues.
My problem is when I can see real slander campaign.
My problem is that when someone is accusing a lama falsely.
My problem is not people who have been offended by SR’s general behavior. I’m familiar with his many sides. They really don’t shock me at all. I know people don’t tell these things only to me, so you can also share what ever there’s on your mind to other people. At times people have also opened up and told how offended they were in public in Rigpa events, so really: nothing new to me. SR is quite capable to respond to these people in a calming manner.
Anything else to add?
LikeLike
“Maybe there is some kind of connection there, but I’ve yet to see a convincing argument for what it is. It seems that the real issues at ground level are not really being addressed, and instead there is this fascination with the idea that SR has some kind of perverse fetish which people find distasteful and abusive.”
Well, I do go that far to say that the perversion is elsewhere, but that gets deleted here, even in the spillover thread.
“Is SR transmitting this “issue” to his followers? Is there a general culture of misogyny in Rigpa, or is this a confusion of two different issues – one about the problems in the organisation, and the other about our own perceptions of how people should conform to our own expectations in sexual matters?”
No: you absolutely cannot see misogyny in Rigpa: it’s the opposite. Many main holders of the teachings are women. Many presentators, if not most, are women. Many men are also very gentle and hearty in Rigpa. It’s sometimes hard to find such men in the ‘real world’.
“It seems the minute that we get close to actually discussing the real issues experienced by people (who have had absolutely no contact with SR whatsoever), the “trump card” of SR’s alleged abuse gets played and the focus shifts back onto making generalized moral judgements, so like anonymous’ contribution above, it is all done in terms of hints that there is some big shameful issue that is too sensitive to be spoken aloud, but which looms like a shadow over every attempt to be specific.”
Well: it’s maybe fearful to tell people their story. One has their own thoughts about their experiences, and if other people don’t see the things in the same way, it’s painful. One has to be actually quite convinced and have a sound explanation in order to convince others. Maybe best is to tell their story to other people in the real world and not here (for the first time). You can get a reality check already in advance.
LikeLike
It wouldn’t matter how many women document here that they have been abused Bella b and Kate S and others will never believe it. Their only agenda is to get the victims to go away so they don’t have to accept that abuse has happened and could still be happening.
LikeLike
One thing I’m finding lacking in some of these posts is the connection between SR’s personal sexuality and the difficulties experienced at Rigpa by various individuals.
We see the contribution made by Joanne which is really about issues within the organisation, and again we get the above comment by anonymous that they too experienced difficulties – but it is really difficult to find any kind of analysis of the these organizational issues that doesn’t somehow get overshadowed by judgements about SR’s personal sexual preferences.
Maybe there is some kind of connection there, but I’ve yet to see a convincing argument for what it is. It seems that the real issues at ground level are not really being addressed, and instead there is this fascination with the idea that SR has some kind of perverse fetish which people find distasteful and abusive.
Is SR transmitting this “issue” to his followers? Is there a general culture of misogyny in Rigpa, or is this a confusion of two different issues – one about the problems in the organisation, and the other about our own perceptions of how people should conform to our own expectations in sexual matters?
It seems the minute that we get close to actually discussing the real issues experienced by people (who have had absolutely no contact with SR whatsoever), the “trump card” of SR’s alleged abuse gets played and the focus shifts back onto making generalized moral judgements, so like anonymous’ contribution above, it is all done in terms of hints that there is some big shameful issue that is too sensitive to be spoken aloud, but which looms like a shadow over every attempt to be specific.
LikeLike
You can have all kinds of experiences. I’m not always happy in Rigpa either. I don’t think a place exists that I would be 100% happy. It’s absurd.
I don’t doubt Joanne’s story. The other matter is what labels you put on the story or the experiences.
One can tell their story and we can feel sympathy for them. Then we can try to analyze where did the experience come from. I haven’t thought for an instant that Joanne was abused. I have brought up my view here and also the reasons why I think so.
My problem is when one blames SR for their, for example, psychological difficulties. Joanne also said that no other lama either took her visions seriously. It’s not just Rigpa or SR. Buddhism is no therapy, so what can a lama do in that kind of situation? Reject the blame and address the person to therapy.
If certain journalist had lied only in one thing, I might say: oh, she made a mistake. But since her inventions have been there for more than a decade and many people can point out the mistakes (lies), so I have very little hope to believe BTT would contain any truthful stories.
Others have tried to show that too earlier on:
Google: Mary Finnegan Doesn’t Know much about Sogyal Rinpoche
(discussion in google groups, May 6th, 1998)
Mimi/Janine, if her own stories are true, is in very bad company. Harem, orgies, porn pictures behind the thanka paintings! How laughable! Only a person of the likes I’ve written in regard to voyeurism can write such stuff. I’m not saying that any ordinary person who has had difficulties in Rigpa is like that. Most people are not that far *out there*.
So: the main thing is:
a) you can tell your story
b) labeling experiences (who or what is to blame?)
They are two different things. Maybe one should also be a bit careful when one puts a blame on someone. It might be too easy resolution and hitting a wrong target.
LikeLike
Thanks Angie,
I really probably shouldn’t have said anything, bella really will never believe what anyonelse says, and there is no reason or point in trying to engage – at all, I know that also, I’m not at all comfortable, in using this kind of medium, to tell things of this nature. it really goes out way too far. so maybe the last you hear from me, at lest for a while :)
LikeLike
Anonymous:
When you feel the need to post your story don’t do it on the spillover thread. If BellaB replies Dialogue will remove her comments. Any comments you post on another thread will be protected as Dialogue are fed up with her negative reaction to the truth.
Don’t let people like her stop you from unburdening yourself.
LikeLike
anonymous, are you a victim and do you have something real to add? Speculation is just waste of time. Endless gossiping.
LikeLike
The stance of this blog is that abuse has and is taking place.
BellaB you are a Abuse Denier and as you are on the Spillover Thread we will leave your comments to illustrate this phenomenon. If it was on our main thread it would be deleted.
After the long denial this sentence is laughable:
LikeLike
People have difficulties in all places. Rigpa is no isolated heaven of perfection where suffering stops as soon as you step in. (I never had these misplaced fantasies about creating a heaven on earth that characterize Middle Eastern religious thinking).
I find it sad that hardly any stories sound true. So much talk and so little to say at the end. It’s sad for all who relied on the stories and also the story tellers.
Why the stories do not sound true? It’s not because we (?) made them look like imagination. They did it themselves. I have my own sources to check issues in real life. Anybody can find the old stories to compare them to the new ones (Barlow’s role in relation to SR). Internet is handy in that way that the stories are still there (google groups). Either you want to look at the face of things or you like to imagine things. It’s your choice.
The liar is also an abuser. You place trust on the person and then that person abuses that trust. It is also a crime in my mind.
Somebody wrote this: “the sexual accusations are terribly common in religious communities. I believe that it is due to the link between existence and desires in the Westerners. Sexuality, sensuality and excitability are interesting. Suppressed sexuality is looking for outcome in wide range of channels, in order to get satisfaction in the strangest forms. Voyeurism is probably one of them. As in this case too. Her own sexuality and identity, are highlighted in the inventions made in the false stories. I’ve encountered quite a few that have thought to have experienced abuse during childhood, but the real story is completely different: the hopes and dreams to get intimacy, attention, libido aroused.”
That is also one view in to the issues. I still can’t claim that any sexual abuse has never taken place, but the stories around them are quite absurd. I have to say that I have lost interest.
LikeLike
Must have missed that, yes it does clarify it
DI
LikeLike
ok perhaps a little bit too cryptic.
I think I’ve said it before, so at the risk of repeating myself.
the attempt to suggest that anyone who has had a difficulty at rigpa.
must be imagining it, and that it’s all just a figment of their
imagination
Hope that clarifies things –
LikeLike
Perhaps you could enlighten us to what you find sad?
Who is the You you are referring to?
Good to have you back for a visit?
LikeLike
I find it really profoundly sad what you have done here.
LikeLike
Thank you so much for the Sacks link – fascinating.
LikeLike
Nobody is blaming anybody for strange experiences. Life happens. Lamas do not blame anyone in general.
LikeLike
BellaB
You say “Ordinary mind is fascinated by those experiences and likes to create stories around them. Because ordinary mind is not the goal in Buddhism, those things are not the focus.” Don’t you think it dangerous that ‘ordinary mind’ is ‘not the focus’ and then ignoring devotees who are experiencing delusions, or worse, blaming them for what is happening?
I have stated my case – over and out!
LikeLike
Billy no mates, Bella no mates.
LikeLike
You can have all kinds of experiences in meditation. I have heard it many times.
I don’t know if Joanne was meditating or not at the time. I have no idea how much she has meditated.
It is another matter accusing some teacher about abuse because they have hallucinations.
I don’t understand how you can’t separate things. Sometimes it feels like deeper looking into things is forbidden. One shouldn’t ask questions, but just feel pity. I find it absurd and it’s not in my nature to respond only emotionally to things. I begin to ask questions in my mind in all situations.
If you are really looking for explanations, then isn’t it also reasonable to consider that some things can be caused by an imbalanced mental state? Not everybody have weird experiences that others report. There might be many factors, and one should study what triggers psychosis. Stress is one factor.
I have nothing against discussing strange experiences. I have to say that in Rigpa strange experiences are not much discussed, if at all. They are not the goal in Tibetan Buddhism, but are considered as display or projections of the ordinary mind. One should not focus on them. For those people who are very much affected by all kinds of experiences it might be difficult to avoid dwelling in them. If those experiences create a major block on the path, one should perhaps seek help from therapy to better try to understand and let go of those experiences. Ordinary mind is fascinated by those experiences and likes to create stories around them. Because ordinary mind is not the goal in Buddhism, those things are not the focus. No lama – ever – emphasizes those things. If one wants to find explanations and study the phenomena, then perhaps it’s best to look for answers elsewhere, not from Buddhism. On the other hand research is being made between Western scientific and Tibetan Buddhist approaches. Maybe one should attend those events and ask questions there from the researchers: both Tibetan and Western.
I see no point in combining abuse in this matter, since I really don’t believe SR has sent any of those messages into Joanne’s mind. In reality no action from his part supported those ‘visions’ she had. They are called projections of the mind. Those can be examined in psychotherapy, where it is common to discuss matters like projections and subconscious wishes.
Do you yourselves believe that SR sent thoughts to Joanne, and in reality rejected her? What is the proven mechanism that would have made the thought sending possible?
If you don’t want to answer these questions, then you are hiding from proper research and examination of the events.
LikeLike
Anon,
you are right indeed, but sometimes I spontanously write what I am feeling and that was “thanks” for the moment.
LikeLike
I have read two of his books. Sacks reveals, according to our present understanding, what part of the brain is affected/activated with hallucination. I also have heard about people who meditate who experience what may be considered hallucinations but it is psychic phenomena that are very useful. My concern with cults is how manipulation and projection is used in this area to mislead and may even cause mental breakdown or a delusional state. Studies would need to be done to separate both types of experiences.
LikeLike
Thank you for the link, bellaB. Oliver Sacks is such an impressive and wise men although even he does not know everything about altered states of mind. It is a pleasure to listen to him!
LikeLike
LikeLike
What ever. Sometimes intuition is right. Sometimes one reacts from old wounds.
I just know people who learnt “meditation” elsewhere and when I saw people’s postures (back was not straight, eyes closed and so on) I thought that there is ‘meditation’ and then there is proper meditation. Hopefully you had decent instructions.
LikeLike
BellaB, it’s interesting that you use the word ‘scared’. I would be inclined to say I use my intuition and take note of how I feel about any given situation. I did not need to attend a Dharma to practice meditation. They called it relaxation where I went and the constant reminder was to focus. Isn’t it very strange, at least I find it strange, that people go on about ‘the only thing to fear is fear itself’ as if it were terribly wrong to feel fear or understand a feeling of discomfort as a warning to get out of a situation or environment. Obviously there is some form of control exerted when the women who found themselves with Soygal did not heed their true feelings and believed what he was telling them. The practice had undermined their intuitive warning system. They are scared for good reason.
LikeLike
Angie, I am getting tired of the discussion, so I also feel like leaving. Meditation is no a trance state or at least trance is not the goal, and it’s not a hypnosis. They have different goals. The teacher teaches you about the goals.
In Tibetan Buddhist tradition there is a tradition of hundreds of years of unbroken teacher student lineages where the authenticity and the understanding of the teachings is kept carefully.
Ask some lama to explain to you what is meditation and what happens in it. Ask if it is hypnosis. If you are scared about being hypnotized, then I guess you have to remain scared and not study what is actually taught in Buddhism.
Most of the meditation one is practicing is not in the presence of any rinpoche or anybody else, so who is hypnotizing you? I think people would be very different if they were zombies as a result of some hypnosis than what people are in Rigpa. People in Rigpa are very ordinary: they work, they have nights out, they quarrel, they practice, they study and so on, just like everybody else. The only difference to us is that they are constantly reminded of the Dharma and mindfulness.
It’s not useful to make oneself scared about everything. Best is to figure out.
LikeLike
A trance state brought about by hypnosis. This is a state that is easily led and open to abusive behaviour. Ethical and moral standards need to be adhered to. This is what we are saying! Why put a woman in an unsafe environment when this is part of the course?
LikeLike
We simply call it ‘mirroring’. Automatic reaction to stimuli, positive and negative. Does you teaching go as far as asking a person not to react to anything? It is a sure sign they are ‘out of their mind’ and as they say, ‘going with the flow’. This is what I, and many others, consider to be hypnosis.
LikeLike
Mirror neurons: when a mother smiles, the child smiles.
Did you ever think that “verbally abusing” might be at times good for someone who is not on the right track? Do you think that all the students themselves are always good and kind without any “neurotic crimes” like they are called in the Ngondro? Good and nice Buddhists are mistreated? How naive. If a child at school is behaving bad, do you think it’s not okay if the teacher is also hard on the kids? SR also talks to students and explains to them, so he is using different methods in different situations. Please stop viewing things from this black & white narrow view, when you have no idea what are the background stories in each scene. You have to watch the full movie in order to judge.
LikeLike
‘Mirror neurons’? What do they look like? Or it another explanation, besides hypnosis, why people take on the views of the guru without thinking about it? Or is it something Sogyal shares when he verbally abuses his devotees? Have you see any yourself lately? Maybe it’s just another word for energy?
LikeLike
Better you watch your own mind games. Going over already!
LikeLike
Joanne is gone for now, but I am not. Will be watching your mind games
“so he is no stranger to
Sly attempt again but will keep a watching brief
.
LikeLike
I guess Joanne is gone for a while now, but I think it would be good for her to get in touch with Minguyr Rinpoche. He is very peaceful and light lama. He is now doing his three year retreat, but I guess he will emerge to teach again at some point.
Minguyr Rinpoche also wrote the book about his panic attacks, so he is no stranger to strange experiences of the mind.
The Joy of Living: Unlocking the Secret and Science of Happiness
LikeLike
For the director of any public aid organisation to tell someone with
whom he has a long association,
LikeLike
Anonymous what kind of education do you aspire to?
LikeLike
Now, what have we got here? Is it the HofP? It reads like something he would say. So obvious he does not keep up with BellaB and doesn’t have a clue what she posts about. Don’t forget to say your prayers and ask for forgiveness.
LikeLike
bellaB….do NOT worry about the abuse you get from Mike G/DI/…and whoever old Angie is…when EVER was DI an open fair and balanced discussion forum? It was not, and so all you state and try to explain will only be treated with scorn/mockery/insult /etc….maybe a better idea is to just kiss that site goodbye and better use your talents…God Bless….
LikeLike
Yes, that is so true, bella
LikeLike
Sheila,
It’s like visiting a mental institution: one isn’t absolutely sure who are the nurses and doctors and who are the patients. :)
LikeLike
Thanks for explaining bella. .
LikeLike
It went by accident in the Open letter… page. I meant to copy those messages here. DI doesn’t respect me at all. You can see it in almost every post he writes about me.
I wonder why my messages seem offensive. I have written them earlier already about V.B.
I think I can respond to Joanne, if she tells me I have lied. I have not lied purposefully and I think it’s fair I can clarify that.
KateS, well, it’s a paradox. For some lamas all is accepted, like for Kalu Rinpoche and Trungpa Rinpoche, because someone holds them in high regard. If the same person isn’t able to see SR having any qualities, then nothing is okay, but “let’s make it look even worse”.
LikeLike
Just an observation bella.
You show no regard at all that you are a guest on
someonelse’s webspace. This is dialogue ireland’s forum, and they
moderate it. by reposting your delete messages,
you are completely disregarding this fact, and showing scant regard
or respect to them.
LikeLike
Wow, that is from Mary Finnegan!
She also wrote, “it has more to do with cultural misunderstanding than anything else. Trungpa WAS a lecherous womaniser. He was also the most effective teacher this generation has known.”
LikeLike
You have to look:
GOOGLE GROUPS: Reply to Nicky Skye and CO.
LikeLike
…Some of us take it into our relationship with our spiritual teachers. I did not do this, but I know many who did/do. Tibetan lamas are not trained to deal with psycho-emotional distress. The ones who clocked the western mind, adapted their approach accordingly. Lama Thubten Yeshe, Akong R, Trungpa R for example.”
Interesting quote Bella, where is it from?
I get the impression she is saying that lamas should be trained to deal with this sort of thing, and gives Trungpa as an example!
I’m really not sure what to make of this.
LikeLike
My DELETED posts from the other thread:
• bellaB, on March 2, 2013 at 5:16 am said:
You both are just gullible. You see little and make a drama out of it. You didn’t bother to look hard enough to see different sides of SR. If he was too wrathful to you, just look up another lama. There are peaceful ones. Just because you got panic, doesn’t mean that all the BS is written about him, is true. It’s just easy for you to believe all of it because of your own negative expectation. Keep that in mind when you read stuff.
And this was to Joanne. “I’m sorry for all of this in relation to you and I wish you well.”
• bellaB, on March 2, 2013 at 5:21 am said:
I was not lying, I simply remembered two facts wrong: dreams and Europe. Sorry that I didn’t remember the story in detail, but it doesn’t change the over all context.
Dzogchen is not necessarily safe and how ever much you want Rigpa to become another place, suited just for you, it will not become. There is enough care there both in Rigpa and elsewhere.
• bellaB, on March 2, 2013 at 6:49 am said:
“So now we know that your commitment to the truth is very subjective and partial.”
I could say the same to you.
Did you EVER bother to read google groups and all those stories about V.B.?
“SR raped me. ST abused me… ” Attention seeking was also a characteristic of my friend who was abused as a child.
• bellaB, on March 2, 2013 at 6:55 am said:
“Another woman allegedly abused by Sogyal Rinpoche was quoted in Lattin’s piece. Victoria Barlow, 40, said she met Sogyal when she was 21 and that he sexually exploited her during meditation retreats in New York and Berkeley. Barlow, a resident of New York City, told Lattin that she went to an apartment ‘to see a highly esteemed lama and discuss religion. He opened the door without a shirt on and with a beer in his hand. Once they were on the sofa, Barlow said in the Free Press article, Sogyal Rinpoche lunged at her with “sloppy kisses and groping.” ”
Then Barlow went on testifying with her pseudonym Nicky Skye in different forums about how SR raped her. Now in the documentary she is honored to testify how SHE was his girlfriend. That must be the accomplishment of her life time.
GOOGLE GROUPS: Reply to Nicky Skye and CO.
LikeLike
Your histrionics Sheila are quite remarkable, but not surprising. I have watched this sort of behaviour several times in my life, and as with you, it has always been in an attempt to deflect away attention from ones self, when ones actions have been shown to be suspect. It is usually a pattern of escalation and upping the ante (I’m calling the cops!) to distract from their own behaviour. Let’s remember, It is you who have acted improperly on a public internet forum by engaging deceptively in sock puppetry, and them continually avoiding any acknowledgment of this. So stop trying to deflect from your behaviour and take some responsibility for your actions. We are all the heirs to our Karma. You can’t evade this.
LikeLike
DI “MF through her persistent work has exposed the lie at the centre of your life. The disordered spirituality and carnality of your lama.”
Through my and others persistent work I have revealed the abuse that has traumatized the critics elsewhere.
SR will provoke anything. It is what he does: intensifies the process. Lots of pain in people. I hope we will all be liberated.
LikeLike
Some clever researcher can figure out whose post is this:
“The victim is always under duress. Perhaps you have been lucky to avoid sexual abuse. I will make a confession here that I have never addressed before because I do not usually mix personal stuff with broad issues — especially not in this bear garden! I risk all manner of destructive feedback in doing this. I have never been sexually abused by a lama, never even been propositioned, but I have experienced sexual abuse by a member of my family. Believe me, no matter what time of your life it occurs, it leaves VERY deep scars that never heal. All one can do is learn acceptance and move on. With hindsight, it is clear to me now that this personal damage was a contributing factor to my interest in Buddhism. This applies for many people. Not all of us have the capacity to resolve this type of problem. Some of us take it into our relationship with our spiritual teachers. I did not do this, but I know many who did/do. Tibetan lamas are not trained to deal with psycho-emotional distress. The ones who clocked the western mind, adapted their approach accordingly. Lama Thubten Yeshe, Akong R, Trungpa R for example.”
I begin to believe that all these critics have been sexually abused elsewhere and now they attack SR with full force. Tibetan Buddhism was supposed to be sex-free, safe area, where nothing from their Western background bothers them: an escape. When they are faced with sexual issues again in Tibetan Buddhism, especially ANYTHING that could have slight taste of abuse will provoke a huge slander campaign. One cannot escape ANYTHING in the Buddhist path, but you will be faced with EVERYTHING.
I feel sorry for these people, but if you have been sexually abused by your family, it will remain with you. I have no idea how long it will last and if there is a way out of it. Some say that the recognition of the nature of mind, the inherent goodness and love inside us, could be a very positive healing experience. There’s no fabrication, no manipulation in one’s nature.
LikeLike
Holy Mary, do not say her name in vain…
LikeLike
” bellab do an exercise. I want you to just sit in silence and try to let go of MF.
Say MF is a person 10 times. Then you will be able to let go of her. I would discuss it with your therapist.
It is clear to me. MF through her persistent work has exposed the lie at the centre of your life. The disordered spirituality and carnality of your lama. You hate her because of this and would actually shoot her if you could. How do I find MF? Prickly, and very much needing to be in control. Does it worry me yes.What am I going to do about it. Nothing. Why because against the odds she has stood up for the women you are walking all over………”
Joanne supported BTT blog.
I even went very far to write a detailed response to it, because I it is incredible BS. Nobody in their senses is ale to write such a story.
She has not revealed anything from SR to me. She has only showed me that the years of campaigning were just crap. Sorry to disappoint you, but in fact I was relieved that her dossier didn’t contain anything that would make me believe in her stories.
I wouldn’t use violence. Do you really think that such a person like MF has any ability to make me lose sleep? I feel pity for her and it’s not a positive feeling.
Why did you have to remove my direct response to Joanne here? The truth about “my lies” has to be hidden and twisted?
LikeLike
bellaB
Submitted on 2013/03/01 at 10:33 pm Moved here from:
Open letter to Sogyal Rinpoche from Joanne Clark
Joanne, didn’t you write “One Year in Rigpa”? I can find it in this DI blog and Tenpei’s too.
My recollections did a few factual mistakes:
dreams – psychic visions (?)
Europe – Australia
I don’t think I was lying, but remembered them wrong. They were not even too important details in my opinion.
Anybody who has spent more time in Rigpa, can see in 1 minute that
bellab do an exercise. I want you to just sit in silence and try to let go of MF.
Say MF is a person 10 times. Then you will be able to let go of her. I would discuss it with your therapist.
It is clear to me. MF through her persistent work has exposed the lie at the centre of your life. The disordered spirituality and carnality of your lama. You hate her because of this and would actually shoot her if you could. How do I find MF? Prickly, and very much needing to be in control. Does it worry me yes.What am I going to do about it. Nothing. Why because against the odds she has stood up for the women you are walking all over………
From top to the bottom. My friends are not even able to read it without puking. Ugly stuff.
I’m sorry for all of this in relation to you and I wish you well.
LikeLike
“sankappa, on March 1, 2013 at 10:54 am said:
It’s what you believe bella that’s important, regarding defilements. Do you believe anybody can remove or plant a defilement other than your”self”?”
What do you believe?
I don’t believe in anybody putting anything into my mind.
The other matter is mirror neurons, that are studied at the moment.
“He said that humans had a template for compassion and therefore the need was to make it a ‘temple.’ In the case of human emotions such as pity, sympathy, empathy and compassion the last was the most positive while pity was a negative feeling. Mirror neurons, he stressed, helped a person to feel another’s emotions, like pain or pleasure.”
http://www.asiantribune.com/?q=node/13079
LikeLike
What is the relevance of this question?
DI used to have a Buddhist expert who was also a cult expert.
We had a difference of opinion and then we had a new Buddhist expert, but we had a disagreement with them
on the issue of cultism. So now we have no one in that field working for us. Hence you might have noted that I asked Buddhists who understand the cult issue to send us a private email if they feel there are aspects relevant to the cult issue which we are not getting to advise us. We tried to set up a forum but no one used it. We need no help to deal with you and Sheila on the blog. However, as you know we created this spillover to allow a variety of views to find expression. We do monitor it and will not allow Sheila to post here until she acknowledges her deception.
LikeLike
It’s what you believe bella that’s important, regarding defilements. Do you believe anybody can remove or plant a defilement other than your”self”?
LikeLike
hahahaha, so I’ll take it bella you’ve dropped the, I’m the DI Buddhist Expert, à la Sheila Shigley crazy conspiracy theory, then…
LikeLike
Since you sankappa all the time blame me for thinking Joanne as psychotic. I think she was: the story sounds like that. In my opinion she doesn’t seem to be anymore, since her writings are not chaotic.
You yourself avoid answering this theoretical question, which would reveal your own thinking in depth. Are you afraid, or what?
“He also doesn’t answer my pretty relevant question, about SR sending thoughts to Joanne and his contrast Buddhist theoretical view on defilement and how NOBODY can remove them from the mind except oneself. If nobody can’t remove defilement then how can somebody put defilement in another person’s mind?.”
LikeLike
About sexism… I have a male friend who doesn’t lack understanding in subtle issues and nuances. Here you both men show time and again to lack that. Maybe women in general are just more intelligent… ;)
LikeLike
Joanne’s own claims about mystical abuse (SR sending marriage proposals to her mind…) are invalid, just like in the story from the Christian context. Joanne can however critisize other abuse as much as she wants. Better is if she shows examples.
This is my opinion.
LikeLike
Wow have you been having a private conversation with Sheila. That sounds like a Sheila conspiracy theory
LikeLike
From this comment above and other sexist comments, seems like you’ve have got some men issues, you are yet to “grow” through, bella.
I understand very clearly what you write bella, so take responsibility for your words, instead of trying to back away from them, as if your maliciousness has been an attempt to help Joanne. I really think you have “grown” through very little, bella
LikeLike
Can you sankappa out yourself as the Buddhist expert?
LikeLike
Well, if you sankappa have never went through a process, when you leave things behind, also blaming, then of course you cannot understand. For your lack of life experience and personal development I have nothing to say. These are my experiences, I have learnt something.
One doesn’t need to be psychotic to change, so don’t purposefully misunderstand every line I write. If you don’t understand what I write about, then that’s it.
One can be for example angry at their parents for the rest of their lives, but does it help? When one is able to let go off the anger, one is beginning to heal. There will be more space in the mind and space for growth to new directions. One can also be stuck forever. It’s a choice and question of ability to grow. I believe Joanne as a therapist understands this very well, or she doesn’t understand anything about her own work.
I believe some others might understand what I talk about even though DI and sankappa (both men!) don’t. Like KateS has said the blame and the shouts about guilt, of which you know absolutely nothing factual about, is one way, but doesn’t change anything.
LikeLike
What I have highlighted above in you quote bella is some the most disingenuous and appalling rubbish I have read of yours. What you have really done bella, is post a stream of malicious content in an attempt to paint Joanne as someone who is unstable and psychotic and therefore lacking in credibility about her claims of abuse about your master, Sogyal Rinpoche. At least have the guts to stick by what you said, rather than this mealy-mouthed attempt at covering your actions!
LikeLike
This is the quote from themadhair I am referring to, which indicates very clearly that you were engaging in sock puppetry. So Sheila, would you now show some integrity by acknowledging you did engage in deception, instead of carrying on here as if nothing untoward has occurred, or set the record straight, if you did not?
LikeLike
Sheila, it’s hard to believe anything you say now. So your posts are being deleted. Then why hasn’t the post above been deleted? DI is only deleting the ones relevant to answering about your sock puppetry, is that what you are saying.It’s quite simple, you either did or did not post intentionally under the name ‘zephyranthos’ with a different IP. So a simple yes or no is all that is required.
LikeLike
Why do you DI have to be so black and white?
If a teacher has responsibility, so does the student. The student can be off balance, and we can say that the person couldn’t take care of herself and has no responsibility.
One can be stuck in their pain and blame the rest of their lives. What is different in Buddhism, is that we try to change our minds, and be free from pain. That is why I wrote those things to Joanne. Not to minimize anything, but to try to see her a way over her own stuff. It needs to be done for the sake of healthy life. Of course it can’t be done like one was in the army, but slowly that is the path to healing.
LikeLike
I also asked if Anon was Madam F, but people got enraged about me “outing” someone. For some reason that Anon disappeared quite soon after that.
Now Sankappa chases after Sheila.
He also doesn’t answer my pretty relevant question, about SR sending thoughts to Joanne and his contrast Buddhist theoretical view on defilement and how NOBODY can remove them from the mind except oneself. If nobody can’t remove defilement then how can somebody put defilement in another person’s mind?
I’m very interested in hearing abut your views on this.
LikeLike
Anyone reading this, I tried to post several times, including a lengthy answer to the question sankappa keeps posing, while he pretends I haven’t answered.
Maybe someone will see this long enough for it to matter, at any rate.
LikeLike
I was actually trying to encourage you to focus on what was in your control – namely staying focused more on the issues than on the identity of the person saying it – if you seriously think that your line of questioning in regard to Sheila is useful to furthering this thread then I apologise.
LikeLike
I think this says more about you then it does about me Kate. You maybe willing to accept deception on a public forum, but I’m not. It’s not about whether I write her off or not, but more about Sheila being responsible for her action,s and at least acknowledging that she has engaged in deceptive behavior.
So how about it Sheila; are you going to own your actions, or just carry on as if it didn’t happen?
LikeLike
Beautiful. Love that one.
LikeLike
It is time for a poem, isn´tit?
Go placidly amid the noise and haste,
and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible without surrender
be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others,
even the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons,
they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain or bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.
Keep interested in your own career, however humble;
it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs;
for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;
many persons strive for high ideals;
and everywhere life is full of heroism.
Be yourself.
Especially, do not feign affection.
Neither be cynical about love;
for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment
it is as perennial as the grass.
Take kindly the counsel of the years,
gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline,
be gentle with yourself.
You are a child of the universe,
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be,
and whatever your labors and aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful.
Strive to be happy.
– Desiderata, Max Ehrmann
LikeLike
I’m not really sure what difference it will make to you Sankappa. Your basic modality is to try to invalidate anyone who has a different point of view to yours, so if she says it was her then you’ll have a good reason, if she says it wasn’t then you will find another reason to write her off. Go figure.
LikeLike
Sheila goes missing when the hard questions are asked. Like when ex-Dakini gave her account of abuse. Sheila could not distort that, so all of a sudden she was absent (she was till commenting on another thread, but not the one that mattered)
LikeLike
I don’t believe she has answered it Kate. But she certainly has avoided it. A simple “yes” or “no” will do Sheila
LikeLike
Sheila replied to this and I commented on it too – but it got deleted.
LikeLike
Your failure to answer this question, is looking like an admission that you did indeed engage in sock puppetry Shiela
LikeLike
Sheila, you are still avoiding the question of the claim by DI regarding your sock puppetry. I will ask now for a third time:
Did you intentionally change your IP address and post as zephyranthos?
LikeLike
Threatening to delete conversations on the Spillover Thread?
Will there now be a Spillover Spillover Thread, or does this represent the final step in the censorship of all opinions other than the one and only opinion on this topic allowed by “Dialogue” Ireland?
This is so obviously just a place to scream out one, pre-determined position on an issue, and to ridicule those who don’t obey the order to join in.
LikeLike
Maybe it’s just me, but I really can’t see how sticking to the “objective fact” of abuse is compatible with what Joanne wrote about, “empowering dharma students in the West, giving them the tools they need to be fully informed about their spiritual paths. That’s how abuse is avoided.”
Focusing entirely on the issue of abuse does not seem to lead to anything other than warning people away from Rigpa, and this is being used to close down any attempts to discuss experiences of “spiritual paths”. It seems it is fine to discuss wild theories about mind control, or ideas of the role of the lama as being a “father confessor” only on condition they lead in the “desired” direction of pointing the finger at SR. If these theories do not stand up to anyone’s actual experience of this theoretical framework of control and submission then they are deemed to be invalid. As a result, this does strike me as either “empowering” or “fully informed” information about the relationship between the lama and his students.
LikeLike
bellaB you persist in minimising the actual view, namely the objective fact that your Lama SR has in deed been involved in the abusing his teaching role and hitting on women. you too have made this point many times before and it is really not appropriate anymore. Any further comments of this type will be deleted.
DI Moderation
LikeLike
Joanne, I understand what KateS means by this:
“so we do not seem to be able to get beyond this idea that we might be able to help the “victim” by understanding the “part played” by them because that is mistakenly taken to mean that we are “blaming the victim””
When I was younger I used to blame all men for the acts of a few. It is very easy: the blame.
Later I came to understand also what part I had played in those scenes too to facilitate events. That understanding was a turn over for me in my relation to those events and how I saw myself. Not before that I was able to take any responsibility, and I saw events only from the view point of the “poor me” who was used and put into danger. Those men did wrong things, but something in me allowed that too. Maybe it was blindness of a young, needy person, maybe something else, maybe karma.
As soon as I stopped seeing myself only as a victim, I think I was able to let go of the past and take charge about my own future actions. No way I will allow dubious men in my life again. They are sent on their way with direct instructions on how to treat women, if they want to have friends from women in the future.
I hope that you will find that in you and are able to let go of the self pity, blame and neediness of external nurturing.
You can also still fight for the rights of women, but then it will be from another angle. You will be stronger when you can see things from another people’s perspective too.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Joanne, on February 28, 2013 at 3:30 pm said: “…not the woman’s fault or a lie…”
I never mentioned who’s fault it was, as you said yourself, “Certainly, she plays a part because she has stayed and submitted herself.”
Now, when I suggested that there was a part played by SR’s students, I was jumped on with the claim – it is not their fault, it is SR’s – so we do not seem to be able to get beyond this idea that we might be able to help the “victim” by understanding the “part played” by them because that is mistakenly taken to mean that we are “blaming the victim” – and that is the impasse that I have encountered here every time I try to talk about that.
LikeLike
Kate, as I have dedicated many hours towards viewing this trouble from many angles, I have nothing whatsoever to say to your reply, “The whole thread.” Silly.
LikeLike
In fact, in the current environment, there are many emotionally distressed individuals who would be reassured to enter a dharma center with such a statement of an ethical code. It would be of great benefit to many to know such boundaries have been acknowledged. Those who don’t feel that need could find a dharma center with no such code. Everything here is about empowering dharma students in the West, giving them the tools they need to be fully informed about their spiritual paths. That’s how abuse is avoided.
I also strongly object to an assumption made by you that if women haven’t gone to the police and filed charges of abuse, then either no abuse has occurred or they should stop complaining. I have someone in my own life whom I know quite well and has been abused for many many years. Certainly, she plays a part because she has stayed and submitted herself. However, she suffers badly the consequences and I wish from my heart that I had had the means to have helped her to leave years ago.
That’s what this is about, Sheila/Kate. Human suffering and it’s not black and white, not the woman’s fault or a lie because she didn’t report it nor find the courage to leave.
LikeLike
Joanne, on February 28, 2013 at 2:48 pm said: “Where was that response?”
The whole thread. The sole focus here is on blame. Any attempt to discuss the wider issues gets accused of talking rubbish and attempting to sidetrack.
LikeLike
And Sheila/Kate, I don’t think you understand how ethics works in Buddhism. It is never a regulation, but a commitment. Unlike Christian Ten Commandments, Buddhism talks about virtue and nonvirtue. The vows are not imposed but taken willingly.
If you notice, what I am most excited about with the Jack Kornfield et al code of ethics is that it is a commitment made by the teachers resulting from a meeting between them. That is what excites me. This approach is the only way forward– it’s not a regulation, do you hear?
LikeLike
Kate/Sheila you are speaking in black and white, rigid, kindergarten terms (e.g. bad lama, good lama)– which misses the point of a code of ethics in Buddhism completely. Your reaction to this code is something like that of a 2 year old in a tantrum. I don’t think your “good lamas” would mind sitting down and discussing such a code of ethics at all, I don’t think they would even imagine all these frustrated married couples being barred from attending each other’s teachings that you keep describing– I think they would be wise enough to know that such a thing is not even part of the discussion. I mean, give me a break.
This discussion is about adults sitting down and addressing a problem which even HH Dalai Lama has acknowledged ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS does exist. What is your problem?
LikeLike
“Kate said about us: “the general response was to tell me that SR was fully to blame and that the students had no ability to take any responsibility whatsoever. Make your mind up where you stand here!”
Where was that response?
Sheila says, “Then suggest that abusive men should simply sign a code of conduct and keep teaching?”
Where was that suggestion?
You two are twins indeed because neither of you cares to address the issues raised, instead you create paper dolls, call them us and then disagree with them.
Neither of you have addressed the solutions presented from the meeting with His Holiness.
LikeLike
Also, at no point in this conversation have the coders addressed fellow students. I have been in teachings where the teacher is a young man married to someone in the audience, and all around me are older men, long time practitioners, to whom transference of a father figure is a given, for any young woman new to the center. Are we going to include in the code of conduct that no relationship may take place between students? Or will we put an age condition on it – you can’t have a relationship with a fellow student who is ten years younger or older than you? There are far more students than teachers at any time and the chances of abusive relationship problems developing between students are significant.
It does make me curious what sanghas people have actuall attended, because every one I’ve attended has consisted of a student body of a very wide range of ages and experience levels. I get the feeling sometimes from the coders that they are paimtomg a picture of an audience full largely of young girls, learning from one elderly male teacher; but that does not describe any sangha I’ve attended.
Any code of conduct that genuinely seeks to prevent young women from any and all unwanted and/or abusive relationships at a particular dharma center must take into account fellow practitioners.
I would argue that the reasons it will prove basically impossible and unethical to regulate relationships between students are the same reasons it isn’t logical to do so for someone taking a turn at the podium.
LikeLike
Don’t you folks see the harmful message you’re sending when you accuse a man of abuse, and then suggest that abusive men should simply sign a code of conduct and keep teaching?
No code of conduct keeps an abuser from abusing–they’ve already broken moral laws and state laws; an extra piece of paper is meaningless.
I don’t think you want bad people to actually keep teaching, so you simply must separate the very different issues of addressing 1) actual abuse and 2) codes of conduct you think will keep nice teachers from getting into trouble.
The constant implication in the current conversation, though is that either the persons you generally refer to specifically are not actually abusers (since they can be easily modified by a code of conduct) or that they are abusers, and women should feel completely safe with them once they’ve signed a code of conduct.
Sonce most people in the world are good, though, and not abusers, my chief objection to these codes is their false assertion that a relationship between dharma practitioners becomes dirty if one of them teaches a class. This negative view has no basis in Buddhist history, and in fact runs directly counter to the very positive view that exists in reality. Beyond Buddhism, I can see from my own upbringing (and having been born!) that a relationship between so-called spiritual teachers and students is a positive thing.
The words “teacher” and “student” call to mind images of dirty professors and hapless college girls; but in the realm of spiritual teaching, many people of all ages can be teachers and those teachings are blessings. Regulating against their home life or family bonds has no basis in sound psychology.
LikeLike
Joanne, I don’t think I said anything was irrelevant. If you take seriously point 4. – “An individual’s position as a teacher arises in dependence on the request of his or her students…”
When I suggested this earlier, the general response was to tell me that SR was fully to blame and that the students had no ability to take any responsibility whatsoever. Make your mind up where you stand here!
LikeLike
What about unethical students, that are plenty?
LikeLike
I would like to say also, that I think for some people it is very easy to believe in the stories, because they have their own emotions stirred so much that they believe everybody else is experiencing things similarly.
“Absolutely, I would have hopped into bed with SR in an instant—regardless of my marriage, my children, my life. I would have done almost anything he asked.”
SR most likely wouldn’t even want to have sex with them, even though they fear that they are in danger. SR even made once a joke in public about these women in fear.
I don’t know if women see any responsibility in their own behavior. It’s easy just to put the blame on someone, even though that someone hasn’t done ANYTHING to THEM. It’s just their fear that causes some panic.
LikeLike
Kate, your logic in the previous comment would seem to suggest that the teachings of the Buddha are irrelevant now as well? Shoddy logic. The instructions given at the 1993 meeting are as relevant today as they were then. They will continue to be relevant tomorrow. They are:
4.” An individual’s position as a teacher arises in dependence on the request of his or her students, not simply on being appointed as such by a higher authority. Great care must therefore be exercised by the student in selecting an appropriate teacher. Sufficient time must be given to making this choice, which should be based on personal investigation, reason, and experience. Students should be warned against the dangers of falling prey to charisma, charlatans, or exoticism.
5. Particular concern was expressed about unethical conduct among teachers. both Asian and
Western teachers have been involved in scandals concerning sexual misconduct with their students,
abuse of alcohol and drugs, misappropriation of funds, and misuse of power. This has resulted in
widespread damage both to the Buddhist community and the individuals involved. Each student must be encouraged to take responsible measures to confront teachers with unethical aspects of their conduct. If the teacher shows no sign of reform, students should not hesitate to publicize any unethical behavior of which there is irrefutable evidence. This should be done irrespective of other beneficial aspects of his or her work and of one’s spiritual commitment to that teacher. It should also be made clear in any publicity that such conduct is not in conformity with Buddhist teachings. No matter what level of spiritual attainment a teacher has, or claims to have, reached, no person can stand above the norms of ethical conduct. In order for the Buddha dharma not to be brought into disrepute and to avoid harm to students and teachers, it is necessary that all teachers at least live by the five lay precepts. In cases where ethical standards have been infringed, compassion and care should be shown towards both teacher and student.”
LikeLike
Sankappa, are you referring to the meeting in the early 1990’s (1993 I think), which I understand was called partly in response to the SR court case?
This raises two points for me here;
Firstly, that was 20 years ago, and yet we are still discussing the same issues. It seems that falling back on that “open letter to the Buddhist community” suggests that no further insight has been developed in that time.
I take that document as a provisional framework of guidelines which provides a basis for future work rather than a definitive set of laws
Secondly, the Dalai Lama’s parting words, echoed by S.Batchelor were,
“Past is past. What is important? The future. We are the creators. The future is in our hands. Even if we fail, no regrets. We have to make the effort.”
So it seems that there is a tendency to ignore this and look to the past to blame SR, which not only has the effect of making him less forthcoming, but also gets into this game of saying, it’s his fault, he needs to make the effort, not us – and so we contribute nothing new either to understanding the situation or how it can be tackled in the future.
LikeLike
And I would add to Sankappa that taking that first step to even acknowledge the need for ethical consideration of the sexual behaviors of spiritual teachers is hugely beneficial in itself. Once teachers sit down to work together on being more forthcoming, transparent and responsible about these issues, then problems can be resolved. It might be that other dharma centers would write up ethical guidelines differently– however, silence and turning the other way is not an acceptable approach to these problems.
LikeLike
Kate, I completely reject your premise that that what Jack Kornfield and other senior teachers have done is half-baked. Let’s remember that this model to countering sexual abuse, was in response to the meeting that Western teachers and the Dalia Lama had. So if you think that is half-baked, and being A Tibetan Buddhist yourself, perhaps you are in disagreement with HHDL.
This response by inclusion in the Fourth Precept, is a well considered, balanced and responsible approach. It doesn’t NOT allow a teacher and student to have a sexual relationship, but it just puts space between them by advocating a time frame. How is this half-baked, Kate?
Again, I know who I’m with on this. Yes, and sometimes the majority gets it right.
LikeLike
I’ve been practicing for over 30 years, and got a masters degree in Buddhist philosophy 20 years ago but I don’t see why you see it as one thing or the other, I’m not saying anyone else is wrong, simply that there are aspects which haven’t been fully addressed. If you favour the half-baked approach then you can be confident that you’re in the majority. I’m sure that brings you some small comfort.
LikeLike
The point still remains Kate: who’s point of view is more valid and has way more chance of solving the problem of abuse. These teachers and practitioners of some 30-40 years, or your callow and misguided view??
(A Buddhist of how many years now, Kate?)
You really don’t even need to think about this
LikeLike
Actually Sankappa, I was referring to Joanne’s statement about people turning to the dharma (from Western thinking) as a cure for the “sickness”. No mention was made of unhealthy attitudes to sex, I was referring to our current understanding of the dynamic between the Guru and student.
I was raising certain issues based upon ideas from others – the unnamed close personal assistant to SR who said, “as a therapist I knew about the transference phenomenon: students see the teacher as kind of a father figure, so sex with the student is psychologically seen as incest.” and wondering what Joanne’s take on that was due to her experience of both Rigpa and as a therapist.
If you want to discuss Western ideas on this matter I suggest you familiarise yourself with Jacques Lacan, who describes the transference thus:
The subject comes to the analysis and founds the transference on a demand to the analyst who is in the position of the possessor of knowledge which would be the solution to their problems. Lacan compares this demand to a visitor to a Chinese restaurant where the menu is not translated. The visitor asks the waitress what he should order, and allows her to make the decision for him. But Lacan says that what the customer really wants is to “tickle her tits a bit” (Seminar XI, p.270).
LikeLike
dialogueireland, on February 27, 2013 at 11:30 pm said: “Not quite yet as Oz and USA must be attended to as there is more to life than your philosophy-Buddhism, there is also 20 Century Buddhism as LRH does state to be addressed”
Are you talking about L. Ron Hubbard, what did he say? Does it also apply to 21st Century Buddhism?
LikeLike
Come on Sheila, I think you need to answer the question as I’m sure you would like to clear the air surrounding your good name.
Did you intentionally change your IP address and post as zephyranthos?
LikeLike
KateS I’m sure you have good intentions here as well. But when we look at the complexity and the potential for abuse and pain on either side of the equation, who are we going to trust has the more well thought out, wise and effective solution? These teachers who have 30-40 years plus as Buddhist practitioners and teachers, or you KateS with your how many years as practitioner and teacher? and very apparent misguided principles (however well-intentioned) proffering a rather shallow argument along the lines that we have unhealthy (sickness as you say) attitudes to sex, in the West. Well, I know who I, and most thinking people would be with.
LikeLike
Not quite yet as Oz and USA must be attended to as there is more to life than your philosophy-Buddhism, there is also 20 Century Buddhism as LRH does state to be addressed
LikeLike
Shall I compare thee to a summers day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summers lease hath all to short a date:
Sometimes to hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often in his gold complexion dimm’d;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature’s changing course untrimmen’d;
But the eternal summer shall not fade
Nor lose possessions of that fair thou owest;
Nor shall Death brag thou wander’st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou growest:
So long as men can breath or eyes can see,
So long lives this and this gives life to thee.
Shakespeare 18. Sonett
Have a Good Night!
LikeLike
dialogueireland, on February 27, 2013 at 11:14 pm said: “With reason so overused to deflect us from our path”
Conversely, if your path was reason then there would be no argument.
LikeLike
With reason so overused to deflect us from our path, yes poetry gladdens the heart and sends an arrow through the troll’s heart
Ode to a Nightingale
by John Keats
My heart aches, and a drowsy numbness pains
My sense, as though of hemlock I had drunk,
Or emptied some dull opiate to the drains
One minute past, and Lethe-wards had sunk:
‘Tis not through envy of thy happy lot,
But being too happy in thine happiness,—
That thou, light-winged Dryad of the trees,
In some melodious plot
Of beechen green, and shadows numberless,
Singest of summer in full-throated ease.
O, for a draught of vintage! that hath been
Cool’d a long age in the deep-delved earth,
Tasting of Flora and the country green,
Dance, and Provencal song, and sunburnt mirth!
O for a beaker full of the warm South,
Full of the true, the blushful Hippocrene,
With beaded bubbles winking at the brim,
And purple-stained mouth;
That I might drink, and leave the world unseen,
And with thee fade away into the forest dim:
Away! away! for I will fly to thee,
Not charioted by Bacchus and his pards,
But on the viewless wings of Poesy,
Though the dull brain perplexes and retards:
Already with thee! tender is the night,
And haply the Queen-Moon is on her throne,
Cluster’d around by all her starry Fays;
But here there is no light,
Save what from heaven is with the breezes blown
Through verdurous glooms and winding mossy ways.
I cannot see what flowers are at my feet,
Nor what soft incense hangs upon the boughs,
But, in embalmed darkness, guess each sweet
Wherewith the seasonable month endows
The grass, the thicket, and the fruit-tree wild;
White hawthorn, and the pastoral eglantine;
Fast fading violets cover’d up in leaves;
And mid-May’s eldest child,
The coming musk-rose, full of dewy wine,
The murmurous haunt of flies on summer eves.
Darkling I listen; and, for many a time
I have been half in love with easeful Death,
Call’d him soft names in many a mused rhyme,
To take into the air my quiet breath;
Now more than ever seems it rich to die,
To cease upon the midnight with no pain,
While thou art pouring forth thy soul abroad
In such an ecstasy!
Still wouldst thou sing, and I have ears in vain—
To thy high requiem become a sod.
Thou wast not born for death, immortal Bird!
No hungry generations tread thee down;
The voice I hear this passing night was heard
In ancient days by emperor and clown:
Perhaps the self-same song that found a path
Through the sad heart of Ruth, when, sick for home,
She stood in tears amid the alien corn;
The same that oft-times hath
Charm’d magic casements, opening on the foam
Of perilous seas, in faery lands forlorn.
Forlorn! the very word is like a bell
To toil me back from thee to my sole self!
Adieu! the fancy cannot cheat so well
As she is fam’d to do, deceiving elf.
Adieu! adieu! thy plaintive anthem fades
Past the near meadows, over the still stream,
Up the hill-side; and now ’tis buried deep
In the next valley-glades:
Was it a vision, or a waking dream?
Fled is that music:—Do I wake or sleep?
LikeLike
Dust in the Eyes
If, as they say, some dust thrown in my eyes
Will keep my talk from getting overwise,
I’m not the one for putting off the proof.
Let it be overwhelming, off a roof
And round a corner, blizzard snow for dust,
And blind me to a standstill if it must.
Robert Frost
LikeLike
Very true Joanne, and there’s no doubting the good intentions there, just the execution. There are dangers inherent in certain relationships, but our current understanding of them seems a bit woeful – as I said to you way back, our current model for thinking about this seems to be based more upon the sickness than the cure.
LikeLike
What is distinctive about this code of ethics is that it is written in a spirit of good will, written in recognition that there are dangers inherent in the spiritual teacher-student relationship. It is neither rigid nor loose. None of the code is written in such a way that it would hamper a healthy relationship of any sort from developing. Not only that, but in such a spirit of good will, considerations of tantra etc. could also be introduced. Much better than denial that any danger exists at all.
LikeLike
Sorry Kate S, by sangha I meant ordained.
LikeLike
Sheila, I reiterate Sankappa’s question– you remind me of a politician who answers difficult questions by simply talking about something else.
And not to answer Sheila, who has questions herself to answer, but to give an example, for the benefit of all, of how responsible teachers can take measures to address these issues seriously, I enclose the following: The is on the Insight Meditation Center (California) website: I’ve cut and pasted it from a larger statement of the ethical code of conduct for teachers. The teachers sat down together and wrote it.
“3) We undertake the precept of refraining from sexual misconduct.
We will avoid creating harm through sexual misconduct and will refrain from all forms of sexual exploitation. Teachers with vows of celibacy will live according to their vows. Teachers in committed relationships or marriages will refrain from sexual involvement outside their relationships or marriages. Teachers will not use their teaching role to exploit their authority and position to assume a sexual relationship with a student. Specifically, with respect to relationships between a teacher and a student, we will abide by the following guidelines:
a) A sexual relationship is never appropriate between teachers and their students.
b) During retreats, formal teaching occasions, or interviews, any speech or actions indicating interest in a student-teacher romantic or sexual relationship is inappropriate. This applies to anyone in a teaching role, including senior students.
c) If interest in a genuine and a committed relationship develops over time between a teacher and a student, the student-teacher relationship must clearly and consciously end before a romantic relationship begins. A minimum period of three months should elapse from the time when they mutually agree that their formal teacher-student relationship has ended. This understanding must be coupled with a conscious commitment to enter into a relationship that brings no harm to either party.”
This is comparable to the code of ethics binding psychotherapists.
LikeLike
You still haven’t answered the question Sheila. Did you intentionally change your IP address and post as zephyranthos?
LikeLike
“all this stuff of going to the police is just blarney.”
The testimonies accuse SR of assault and of performing non-consensual acts of sexual abuse. What possible reason would you have for not treating that as a police matter?
LikeLike
You have no standing as a commentator who is a sock puppet. Till you address that we will just ignore you.
You are in fact living a lie, and all this stuff of going to the police is just blarney.
LikeLike
Let me ask you another question: of the suggestions given on how to approach your concerns, whose suggestions are more likely to bear fruit, mine or DI’s? Really ask that question.
I said 1) go to the police, and 2) initiate lawsuits; DI says, “Picket.” (Not trying to bash you overly, DI, but this is an important difference in this case).
Which approach is more serious? Which is more genuine, and least likely to be just for “splash” value? How can you and DI think I’m “pro abuse” when I’m urging you to do the only thing that would likely bear fruit and move things forward, instead of seeing us all back on this forum (heaven forbid, lol) ten years from now?
Nothing has convinced me more that something’s not right here than the expressed lack of interest in solutions that help the stated problem, and the over-enthusiasm for measures that simply make noise and cast general aspersions on Buddhism without dealing with the alleged issue itself.
LikeLike
Sheila does have a point. The idea of “sacred western psycholoigcal perspectives on sexual misconduct in the clergy” seems to have such a strong cultural bias as to make it quite obvious why such a model cannot really be used to account for a non-sacred, non-western, non-clerical perspective.
LikeLike
Another thing that always crops up in my mind is that laws against abuse already exist in the countries we have mentioned so far, or that get mentioned the most, at least.
Anyone willing to violate the existing law of the land–violation of which carries not excommunication but a prison term and fines–is not going to give a hoot about a code of conduct.
It’s not the spirit of what’s happening I object to–at least not where that spirit is genuine–but the clumsy and unethical ways being suggested as methods of dealing with things. The methods suggested so far, in my opinion, would create further harm, not prevent any current travesties.
How would this code of conduct, for example, in any way help define Rigpa as a “cult?” How does accusing Rigpa of being a “cult” in any way bring a code of conduct about, and thirdly, if something is already labeled a dangerous cult, why on earth are people going on about a code of conduct instead of doing the obviously necessary work of shutting the cult down?
I don’t know how many times I can point out that Dialogue Ireland’s aims and your own are not mutually beneficial, but mutually destructive. I’ve said this in good faith, even though I don’t have a problem with much of DI’s work, and I don’t have a problem with you addressing your own concerns; it is simply the case that your two, stated aims, sabotage each other. Every time I’ve said that I’ve been shouted down, and yet I think it’s one of the greatest truths visible in this whole saga (and I am far from the first to say it).
Allies can sometimes be worse than enemies, and not all enemies are enemies.
LikeLike
Joanne, on February 27, 2013 at 5:09 pm said: “Also, I would observe that SR would have done very well to have kept to paternal (or grand-paternal) feelings towards his students. We wouldn’t be here in this mess.”
I see no reason why SR would even begin to adopt such a stance. The whole claim here is that the students are being duped due to their misrecognition of the role of the lama. It would seem very relevant to ask just how aware SR was of his role in this, and how the dynamic was being played out, and maybe even to look at any potential clash between the Tibetan and Western idealised roles which may lead to such misunderstandings as to the intention and result.
LikeLike
My arguments have extreme relevance, Joanne. You and others are trying to initiate codes of conduct within religions that forbid adults to have relationships on the sole basis of where they are sitting in a religious teaching or lecture hall. Because my own parents’ marriage would have been prevented by your code of conduct, I reject such an idea strongly.
As with any code or law, it must be a *good* one. It’s not enough to simply say “something is needed” and then fail to define it in a way that makes it a just law.
I’ve asked several times for examples of what such a code of conduct would look like, as opposed to just a vague statement that “teachers and students can’t have a relationship.”
The latter is absolutely unethical in its current form.
LikeLike
I didn’t call the abuse of women voluntary sex. I said priests having homosexual relationships are engaging in voluntary sex.
LikeLike
Joanne, on February 27, 2013 at 5:09 pm said: “Yes, Kate, I do think it is more important to talk about harm (the fischer) and non harming.”
Ok, but aren’t you a Buddhist? I can’t see why this would be an issue for you or even what kind of concept of harm you have here. Is it anything other than self-cherishing which is the cause of the perception of “harm” here?
LikeLike
Yes, Kate, I do think it is more important to talk about harm (the fischer) and non harming.
Also, I would observe that SR would have done very well to have kept to paternal (or grand-paternal) feelings towards his students. We wouldn’t be here in this mess.
Sheila, I addressed those issues on my post, your arguments have no relevance. https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/violation-of-the-sacredwestern-psychological-perspectives-on-sexual-misconduct-in-the-clergy-and/
LikeLike
Yes Joanne, I realise you overlooked it there, that’s why I asked you about it here, or do you think it’s more relevant to talk about fisher cats and porcupines?
LikeLike
I don’t think a blanket statement can possibly be made against lecturers and lecturees having a relationship……Deleted
DI Moderation we have had this ad nauseam. DI Moderation off topic
LikeLike
As for my own personal experiences, as a Buddhist, I am very comfortable with the traditional Tibetan view of “father (or mother) guru.” Is that transference? I have no idea nor do I care. The relationship is simply what it is and was invented many many years before psychotherapy.
LikeLike
Why do I have an idea that sexual relationships between lamas students are usually harmful? I wrote a post on that https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/violation-of-the-sacredwestern-psychological-perspectives-on-sexual-misconduct-in-the-clergy-and/ I addressed it at length and never once did I mention transference. Total diversion.
LikeLike
Oh my. Another happy day at the Rigpa Spillover Ranch.
Sankappa, I don’t know what IP anyone posts from. I don’t know what IP *I* post from. I’ve used my real name, so I don’t need to authenticate my IP, but if you want to do it for me, I don’t mind, since I’ve already given all my contact details. I’m not sure what possible additional info my IP could provide anyone, but go for it.
And since DI thinks KateS and I are the same person, it’s pretty obvious that any such authentication…wouldn’t be, but whatever.
If *I* had brought up such an issue, by the way, DI would say I was using a “clever diversion to distract from the topic at hand.”
Anyone notice, btw, the lameness of the Vatican’s last-ditch effort to distract from child abuse, by pretending to be scandalised about a–gasp–number of homosexual priests within the Vatican?
Honestly, I don’t know that there could be any greater sign of an organisation’s being mired in the past than to think the world would, at this point in history, be more concerned about voluntary adult sex than it is about child abuse.
There’s a lesson in here somewhere…
LikeLike
Joanne, I have no idea what is the diagnosis you’ve received and I’m not asking. I sent a story from a Christian context hoping you’d see similarities in the stories. I still would not diagnose you with anything, because I’m not qualified.
Hearing voices, I believe, is not usually considered normal. I have begun to object people like Marte who tries to tell you that you were mystically abused.
I also still don’t think you were a victim in Rigpa. If you read the story of the woman in Christian context, people used the person to prove themselves that there was supernatural messages from god and so on.
I thought that it is wrong to encourage such thoughts in anybody. I don’t care if the context is Christian, Buddhist or Maoist.
In the comment section juan-marco said it was a load of work to accept himself that he was not okay. I think afterwards both juan_marco and kylee both disapproved of those so called “friends” who kept them from finding real help. I will not be such a “friend” to you.
I know it may hurt what I say, but I don’t think this victim thinking is good for you.
LikeLike
Thank you Joan. In Summary bellaB was trying to divert from the issue of the abuse of SR and Rigpa on your thread in relation to your letter to SR. She was moved to the Spillover thread. She has now begun trying to import the same venom in relation to mental health issues. Unless she has something of relevance to the overall issue we will edit or delete it. Obviously we do not mind in which direction people take the spillover takes, but the same moderation still applies.
LikeLike
…also, I did ask you for your point of view on it which would seem relevant to your idea that any sexual relationship between lama and student is inappropriate. I am aware of the different views on transference by major schools of thought, just not your own point of view about it in general, and more specifically in your own experience at Rigpa.
LikeLike
Diversionary from what? I thought the issue was SR’s allegedly probematic relationship with his students, but if you decide it isn’t the issue then please tell me what is?
LikeLike
http://www.screamsfromchildhood.com/spirituality_cements_childhood_blindness.html
by Barbara Rogers
LikeLike
It’s the approach of the Fischer again, Bella. The Fischer is a mammal who was brought into my state in order to control the population of porcupines. Porcupines are pretty invulnerable because they are mostly covered in quills. However, Fischers have a way of first knocking them out of trees and then rolling them over and viciously attacking their faces and stomachs, the only vulnerable places on their bodies.
I don’t think I’m quill covered but I do think you have settled on the only vulnerable place on my self that you can find to attack. After attacking those vulnerable women who have found the courage to come forward and tell their stories of abuse, you now decide to attack me, the only one left still telling her vulnerable stories on DI. If I was actually unstable mentally, as you constantly imply, then your approach would be very successful and I would definitely be experiencing much distress by now– I would be traumatized in fact.
So I have two questions: Where is your kindness, Bella and what is your point?
Perhaps the answer is that you can find no other topic of discussion than this silly diversion: the many diagnoses of Joanne Clark. It is a clear sign that you have no strong, valid point of view based on the merits or demerits of the situation at Rigpa.
I would also like to comment that as a psychotherapist, I have worked with the mentally ill and I find your underlying assumption that if you can prove I am mentally ill then you can discredit me, to be very unkind indeed. In my experience, those with hefty diagnoses of mental illness are courageous individuals with plenty of wisdom and insight. For their sakes, I object strongly to your approach.
Also, in response to Kate (AKA Sheila), regarding transference and counter transference, I would like to point out that amongst psychotherapists there are many different viewpoints about that. In Freudian therapy, transference is seen as a main source for work, as something indicative of trouble, as a problem to be avoided by the therapist. However, Rogerian therapists embrace transference, they see it as fruitful terrain– if a client sees a father or mother in his or her therapist, that role is actually embraced warmly.
That’s a little like the Buddhist approach. There are references in Buddhist texts to “father guru” etc. and in the text I am studying currently, which is a commentary on the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, they speak of the “Mother” frequently in regard to these sutras. We are also advised to speak of “mother sentient beings,” to see all beings as once being our mothers and to cultivate love and compassion based on that. Love and appreciation towards one’s mother is seen as very fruitful territory for opening the heart.
So that issue you keep raising seems a little diversionary, I think.
LikeLike
If Joanne would have told someone, do you think anyone in Rigpa would have told her: “Okay, I think you should hook up with Rinpoche and plan the wedding + moving in here.” If anyone would in Rigpa would support her plans, they would be guilty. The fact is that NOBODY would go along supporting and encouraging her to find her way to live in France.
LikeLike
“It’s lucky under very trying circumstances, she still had the good sense to get the hell out with out going to get potentially very dubious Rigpa counselling, that could have further confused her.”
Too bad you spent so little time in Rigpa, and are left with strange ideas.
I am in general interested in and to some extent open for mystical sounding stuff, but I draw a line somewhere. Even my level of fascination is not looked well in Rigpa. People mostly are not supporting weird explanations. In Tibetan Buddhism in general weird stuff is only partly accepted, but people do not dwell in them.
I think Joanne would have received pretty rational advice in Rigpa if she had looked for support. I think she would have been sent to search for real help instead of indoctrination. It’s mainly Christians, who believe that a sick person could be possessed.
You sankappa didn’t answer my earlier question about your notions of mind and the defilement and if you thought SR sent messages to Joanne’s mind? I think your ideas seem to be in stark contrast. Would be good to clarify that.
LikeLike
Why would Joanne confess anything to anybody at Rigpa? It’s lucky under very trying circumstances, she still had the good sense to get the hell out with out going to get potentially very dubious Rigpa counselling, that could have further confused her. I just have empathy those people still trapped there, caught-up in the cult of Sogyal Rinpoche (much like you bella). In fact it’s obvious to me that Joanne looks back on it with enough clarity and wisdom now, so much so that she can apply compassion and concern for to those still there.
That shows real progress spiritually, after a time of turmoil.
LikeLike
“sankappa, on February 27, 2013 at 10:28 am said:
Links are working fine here bella. Maybe you’ve been “de-linked” by DI”
So maybe since you are not blocked you can put a link for me?
“Christians exploited my mental illness to indoctrinate me”
LikeLike
sankappa, you still cannot compare religious lunatics to real lunatics. Religious lunatics can just hit the road at some point, when they come to their senses, but lunatics need therapy.
I am convinced that supporting delusional thinking (hearing voices talking to me, losing ones boundaries and inability to draw lines = victimizing oneself for abuse) is not good for anyone and people who try to mystify it, are also on the edge, more or less. It applies to people writing here. I must say that Joanne didn’t “confess” her issues to anyone in Rigpa, so nobody in Rigpa was supporting her ideas. SR always talks about grounding and in Rigpa strange thinking is not supported. On the contrary it’s mostly rejected.
LikeLike
Links are working fine here bella. Maybe you’ve been “de-linked” by DI
LikeLike
https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:POPE
Could this be it?
LikeLike
What is this “pope” you speak of?
LikeLike
Oh Sankappa, on the subject of ignorance, have you worked out who the Pope is yet?
LikeLike
I just put a source: the heading of the writing, which you can google, and can find it easily. Ask DI, why messages where there is a direct link is not allowed for me anymore. And: I put the title already a while a go (and quoted a comment by juan-marco from the page).
The main point is the story not DI’s technical problems.
LikeLike
Perhaps you should not quote it then if you cannot provide a source.
On the contrary I think delusion is rife at Rigpa. But as is the case with delusion, you don’t know it. So it’s not their fault, but they really should check-out their “Guru” a lot closer.
LikeLike
I can’t put a link (ask DI why). Google the source:
“Christians exploited my mental illness to indoctrinate me”
Sent in by Kylee
In Rigpa mental sicknesses are not supported as the path. They are delusions.
LikeLike
Sounds similar to what happens at Rigpa when Sogyal Rinpoche abuses students.
bella, you need to provide sources when quoting
LikeLike
Sometimes someone tapping someone on the head and allowing them to believe in their hallucinations as divine messages may seem kindness. Fundamentally it’s just madness from everyone involved.
I can’t put a link, so I have to copy paste the story:
We are deleting this mass of material as it has no relevance to anything on any thread. If you find the link you can put it up, but you are again filling the page with spam.
DI Moderation
…….. only failed to direct me to medical attention; they exploited my illness and indoctrinated me.”
Real friends don’t support wrong paths.
LikeLike
meant to say “hollow” not “whole”
LikeLike
Yes point well made Joanne. I think I take this as you intended: there intentions speak volumes more about their attitude, rather than their more whole claims to being Buddhist.
LikeLike
So Sheila, as you are not going to confront this sock puppetry, I am going to ask you directly. Were the posts by “zephyranthos” made with a different IP address?
LikeLike
Hardly at the same time Sheila. The posts are 8 minutes apart. But that is your style, you love a good conspiracy and to conveniently gloss over and divert from the facts.
Let’s have a brief recap of your loopy explanations of the abuse of students by Sogyal Rinpoche since coming to this forum in November 2011:
* They are all down to PRC propaganda to discredit Tibetan Buddhism
When that was shown to be complete garbage the new tack was that it was
* All racist based. It was Western teachers trying to discredit Sogyal Rinpoche and Tibetan Buddhism because he is Asian, and that these Western teachers were motivated because they couldn’t get enough students or limelight
Your evidence for this turned-out to be feeble at best and just speculation. When these ludicrous claims were blown out of the water you tried to distract everyone’s attention by claiming
* You’re real agenda at DI was doing serious research, and that you knew better than everyone else, and they had it wrong, and you could refute the claims of abuse
Then Mike Garde asked, that considering you here doing serious research that perhaps you should research the corroborated claims of abuse that were given to him by Inform. When you get this confirmed you
* Try to play-down the claims made to inform by Sogyal Rinpoche’s assistant, and indeed imply that they are not evidence
Then, when someone comes forward to directly speak of their experience of abuse on The DI forum (I.E. ex-Dakini)
* Sheila you mysteriously goes missing. Up until this point Sheila, you commented on every thread that moved, but were conspicuous by your absence when ex-Dakini gave her account. I believe, until this day you have not commented.
Why? Because you can’t apply your usual diversionary tactics and sensational conspiracy theories to this.
There is much more to follow after this, but I think people memories would be sufficiently refreshed by now. But let’s not forget the latest and greatest conspiracy theory since returning
* “I am curious about the timing of this Dialogue Ireland ramp-up; maybe it’s just the particular threads I subscribe to, but it seems to me that things were very quiet and then all of a sudden, just before Pope Benedict’s announcement of retirement, it’s time to bash Buddhists again.”
Can anyone else see the pattern here? Another Sheila Shigley conspiracy theory of such ridiculousness that the uninitiated would believe it’s a wind-up. But no, she is quite serious.
And we also see your other favourite tactic Sheila – diversion. Well in evidence here by trying to divert away from your sock puppetry instead of addressing this issue directly. The patterns are all too familiar.
Sheila I believe you are delusional and cannot be taken seriously on any level.
LikeLike
AHA – Joanne and I post at the same time, once again. I’m growing suspicious of myself.
LikeLike
Oh my. I just figured out who the Buddhist expert is :/ Bad business. I would advise steering clear.
But possibly I’m banned, so I don’t know if this will come through.
Very interesting to read back over this thread.
LikeLike
Bella, are you OK?
LikeLike
Google:
Christians exploited my mental illness to indoctrinate me
Sent in by Kylee
….
Comment by juan_marco:
About a year and a half after that last episode, I finally started seeing a psychiatrist. Coming to terms with the fact that my experiences were hallucinations was a huge hurdle. And not just for me…
My co-workers were convinced I had been filled with the Holy Spirit, and absolutely could not accept that things of a religious nature could be rooted in mental illness. They wanted my experiences to be real, nay I say, they NEEDED them to be real.
Instead of being “filled with the spirit”, I was now on the losing end of a satanic attack, led by an evil psychiatrist.
LOL. Idiots every one…
LikeLike
http://www.hearing-voices.org/
LikeLike
Joanne: “How dare you infer that I am not truthful, when you have made endless false and baseless statements about me– something I have never done towards you.”
Which baseless statements? I already wrote a longer post earlier where I showed you in detail that you were the same person I had had conversations before. You didn’t like that (why? I don’t necessarily understand), so I’m really NOT writing anything anymore to you, before YOU begin to write clear EXAMPLES and not just vague opinions. Others have pointed that out to you too: lack of accuracy. I’m sorry if your sensitivities are hurt again. I am at peace still and I’m not going into some fight mode now.
What took you away from the cozy peace again? Keep reading the Dark Soul stuff and accept your situation. Let go of trying to be in some other place (mentally, emotionally or physically) than where you are now. You are safe and everything is okay as they are. At least I did experience something like that this week. Not only because of something that happened here, but in life. It’s best to accept one’s situation, even if it’s a bit chaotic. Light will shine through sooner or later. Karma has ending too.
One thing to Felicity written by Joanne: “Actually, Bella is right– I still experience voices and other strange paranormal phenomena.”
(Except that I didn’t write that she still hears voices. How could I have known? What those voices mean and whose voices are they? Different people have different explanation, but who knows for sure? One thing came to my mind just now: when we really sleep we hear in our dreams other people say things they would never say in reality. Could it be that in some state where one is exhausted brain mixes reality with those dream like states? Just an idea.)
LikeLike
Joanne asked where I was on that thread, I responded on that thread, I asked Joanne’s opinion about a topic relevant to that thread.
The taboo on therapists sleeping with clients is explicity about this, so if the same applies to lamas then it would seem relevant – the fact that you didn’t get it doesn’t surprise me in the least though.
It’s really no skin off my nose if we all prefer to ignore than and call each other names on this thread instead, just a pity that you keep deleteing all the choice names that the voices in my head have for you eh Mike?
LikeLike
You attempted to do it on a thread dedicated to addressing the abuse of women. We here have no doubt of the veracity of the women who have contacted us that they have been abused. Whether you or Sheila or bellaB believe it or not is not relevant. The discursive tour was to give you a new bus stop!
The Rigpa Spillover Thread. Here you can take any direction you like.
LikeLike
OK. Mike. No rush.
Shiela, your attempts to avoid addressing the facts that you posted as Zeph, really are quite embarrasing. Why did you? You do see that you undermine your own credibility don’t you?
LikeLike
I take your point, but they are in fact Buddhists but ones you do not think represent Buddhism well!
Statement of faith
Any evidence? We will await the evidence!
LikeLike
I made the mistake it is in fact org, the wordpress address takes longer to come to me. The good news is that I have it and will reply soon.
LikeLike
Before I am zapped into cyberspace, Joanne, here is my phone number in case you’d like to visit when you come this spring:
608-469-7573
Genuine wishes to all (you as well, Mike) in case I go the way of Bilbo in the next few minutes…
LikeLike
Feel free to ban me, but then, according to your accusations, half the people posting here would suddenly disappear.
In fact, I urge you to ban me, so that everyone can see the lameness of that accusation!
LikeLike
Mike, in my opinion your statements and those of one of your staff have been abusive. Do I not have the right to say that?
I am a real person, and as I’ve said many times, you are all welcome to visit me either at my workplace, Wisconsin Public Radio, or at my home on Madison’s east side. I have nothing to hide and would welcome personal conversation either on or off these topics.
If I wanted to hide who I am, I would never have used my real name.
LikeLike
Hence your attempts to divert from that issue. If you do not believe that why do you not just get lost!
LikeLike
What you are is a sock puppet, please stop trying to divert away from this. Your personal attacks on myself are tiresome and are a pathetic attempt to divert. If you do not apologise to our readers we will consider banning you from this site.
LikeLike
Could you now having given us your cv give us your take on your deception and sock puppetry?
LikeLike
Felicity, let me ask you – are you aware of the threats made here by Mike and his team to women posters, and if so, why do you think that’s okay?
LikeLike
A “known threat?” I do not believe, nor have I ever stated that Sogyal Rinpoche is a “known threat.” I happen to disbelieve the accusations against him, and I think I had made that position pretty clear when last I was here.
LikeLike
There’s really nothing I can say here that matters. I’m Kate, I’m a Rigpa-whatever, I’m (who else did you say?), I’m the Devil.
Who I really am is a struggling Buddhist, mom, musician, and employee of public radio. There’s no need to give me a wide berth unless you hate tea, coffee, or a decent curry.
I do think–myself included–that we are all harsher, or sound harsher, online; I think it’s easier to pour out our feelings online, which in some senses is good, but in another sense makes it easier to say things we wouldn’t say in face to face conversation.
I do regret some of the negative things I’ve said hear on Dialogue Ireland, especially in the early days when I was a little more heated up about the issues. But I think I’ve been fairly decent overall, particularly in the face of Mike Garde’s menacing tone, and the hypocrisy of those who conveniently overlook it.
LikeLike
Felicity, on February 26, 2013 at 5:08 pm said:
Shiela, let’s just be reminded of your other id:
zephyranthos, on February 23, 2013 at 4:19 pm said:
There are not enough resources to pursue dead ends, there needs to be concerted effort against the actual well-delineated threat. Moreover when these dead ends are the result not of honest effort but simply ill thought out. Here you seem to have a case of a known individual which is a precious gift given the amount of time we spend in other organizations trying to get the hunt down to one known individual. But instead the effort here imo is wasted by haphazardly casting it out onto an entire organization which upon a simple few days of investigation doesn’t show indications of being a cult. Without question there are things to be checked into as with any group but after checking into them I find it doesn’t even come near to a cult. So then, all that time has been wasted which could be spent on groups such as FLDS exhibiting endemic, group-wide abuse against children. There are not enough resources in the world to go after groups we simply don’t like. You must prioritize, if you’ll accept my opinion.
This following article may be of interest if I may offer it as an example of a very difficult but successful operation against a proven threat: http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/catching-flds-one-year-after-warren-jeffs%E2%80%99-conviction
zephyranthos, on February 23, 2013 at 4:21 pm said:
Also I don’t wish to receive emails any more not because I am disinterested but as I am too tied up with other investigations, if you could kindly remove my notifications, and I will come visit here on my own sometime later. Thank you.
LikeLike
Especially when you willfully post under Zeph with a completely different backstory to your supposed upfront cleaner than clean Shiela id. Shame on you. I would advise Joanne to give you a wide berth.
LikeLike
Felicity, there’s no need for name calling. We have enough challenges to dialogue as it is.
LikeLike
Oooh, CAPS lock. Always a sign of a NUTTER
LikeLike
Well, I am just boggled by the concept that multiple women here, complaining of abuse, can stand by and watch Mike and his team say menacing things to women posting here, and not give it as second thought.
LikeLike
Sheila: BellaB has been calling Joanne a liar consistently on this site. You only have to go back and read through the thread regarding An Open Letter to SR to see this. She has also inferred that Joanne is Psychotic and suffers from mental illness. This has been her ongoing commentary for weeks. BellaB has been quite happy to assault others with very little compassion or understanding of the meaning of what it is to be abused. He whole intention has to try to show that Joanne is unhinged and not telling the truth.
I have no idea whether BellaB lies or not but she has no problems inferring that is what others do.
LikeLike
I object STRONGLY to the accusation that “Bella lies often.” That is an outrageous statement to make, given that poor girl’s patience with you lot’s vicious attitude to her, and I’d like to know on what possible basis you could say such a thing.
The ONLY reason I’m back, well, the main one, is that I feel awful that Bella is still here bravely on her own being assaulted from all sides.
Rather ironic to say “Bella lies” in the same series of posts accusing me of being people who I am not.
LikeLike
haha, thanks Sheila… I think! :p
LikeLike
Now if I were a *completely* paranoid person I would ask how on earth it is that Joanne, KateS and I all posted spontaneously within minutes of each other.
LikeLike
KateS your posts reminded me so much of mine that even *I* thought you were me lol. Only on the most cursory level, though; yours are more Dharma based and thought-out whereas I have relatively little patience. A fault of mine to be sure. At any rate they’ll think we’re the same person for sure now but honestly I just don’t care any more.
Mostly, meeting people in person from this forum would simply be interesting in its own right, but I don’t deny a small desire to give possibly-genuine people here a second thought as to who’s participating in good faith, who is not.
LikeLike
Will you go to any Deer Park teachings do you think? It’s quiter there compared to the madhouse of the convention center, but the latter does have nice lawn areas where people like to picnic if they can find a spot away from the scary shugden mob.
I think I alreadyosted my cell number but if you need it again just let me know.
LikeLike
Joanne, firstly, when I first looked at that thread, there were a load of ad hominem attacks against Bella, but none coming from her. I might not agree with Bella’s point of view, but I can see when someone is trying to engage with the issues raised, while others are simply being idiots.
This raises the wider issue of “right speech” – which the majority seem to think means “I am right, you are wrong” and the kind of thought that believes it has grasped its object. Even this speculation about who I really am is simply an attempt to grasp the object – with all the attachment and aversion that accompanies that kind of mental activity.
All this talk of people trying to “derail” the thread – as if to blame others for their own lack of focus – no one is stopping anyone else from typing what they want to – fun as it is to witness all this speculation about who is who and what their intentions are, ultimately it is BS.
I tried to address a certain issue, asking you what you thought about the idea of transference in regard to the lama – as far as I’m concerned that is an attempt to discuss issues relevant to this topic, but my question has just been ignored in favour of this discursive detour.
LikeLike
Joanne, I did just read through the comments as I had said. I receive notifications only for subscribed topics, so when “Rigpa Spillover Thread” as well as another older thread started sending notifications again, I resisted temptation for a while, then back down the rabbit hole.
In trying to navigate to Spillover from my iPad at some point, I ended up on the man DI page where lo and behold in the left “recent comments” section was a link to “Open Letter…” I thought it must be a very recent thread, and left one comment; a day or so later I went back to respond and scrolled up a bit, then kept scrolling, and then saw endless posts reaching back across the month. My name invoked no less as if I’m some kind of demon, lol.
This is all quite silly. More and more, I just don’t see any benefit to online public discussion, at least past a point. But in person would be a refreshing chang, though again, if you’d rather leave these subjects be, I am happy to steer clear of sensitive issues if you’d like a get-together when you come to town.
LikeLike
Also, I have no need to discuss the topics from this thread if you’d rather avoid those issues, but if you’d like to discuss them I’m open to it.
LikeLike
No, Mike, Bella lies frequently and is deceitful. I was not speaking of “posing as Buddhist” by way of saying that she was practicing sock puppetry– but that she is doing this by way of not speaking truthfully or straightforwardly, not practicing Buddhist Right Speech but speaking strategically, harshly and provocatively, using deceit frequently in order to harm. I was speaking Buddhist to Buddhist, Mike, (on the spillover thread) merely in hopes that her conscience might be pricked.
I also believe that she and Sheila could very well have concocted this scheme together in order to present the illusion that there are many supporters of their point of view. Notice that Kate entered the conversation with her famous line that Bella is the only one speaking sense– This was a statement made several times by Sheila herself over the years. And when Sheila entered the conversation a week or so ago, she did so with these silly references to having just “read through all the comments” etc.– they did not ring true. Sheila is Kate allright, maybe a little jet lagged but Kate nonetheless.
What I can say, however, is that Sheila was not that skillful– and that’s a good thing, shows it doesn’t sit easy with her.
LikeLike
I would be more than happy to meet with you, Joanne, and in fact would look forward to it. So much of the coming-to-loggerheads we see online very likely wouldn’t happen offline, where face to face communication and sharing physical space make for a more genuine exchange. I will definitely be going to see HH and would enjoy a cup of tea/coffee before the teachings, or you are welcome to come to my home – we live on the east side about ten minutes from the capitol.
LikeLike
oops -it’s been returned.
LikeLike
Mike, it says on website .org -have re-sent it to .com just this minute.
LikeLike
Joanne it is not that they are posing as Buddhists and are not, but rather that Sheila was deceiving us by using different identities from the same IP address. She then engaged in a dialogue with herself, that is the deception.
bellaB on the other hand is not doing anything illegal at all. We know her country, her location in that country. She is totally honest and just happens to be a troll trying to lead you astray and generally she is very successful. She is able to get under your skin and takes people away from the issue of the abuse of SR of Rigpa on this site.
LikeLike
Also, Sheila, AKA other names, I am coming to Madison in May to see His Holiness. I had actually considered looking you up– but you’ve made it very clear that we have very little to say to each other, very little in common.
LikeLike
Bella, you don’t like liars, does that include your good friend Sheila? AKA Zephenopalapagas and probably Kate? I don’t like being played with, don’t like my time wasted. I come on this thread in my own name, owning all my previous personas, and I attempt to respond to every comment in good faith, attempt to keep the conversation level, intelligent and endowed with some basic decency. I do this because I believe that this approach is of benefit to others. I do this because I believe that such an approach is the foundation of the Lord Buddha’s teachings.
I think you need to stop talking about integrity and your dislike of lying until you can own your own endless attempts at subterfuge and deceit. How dare you infer that I am not truthful, when you have made endless false and baseless statements about me– something I have never done towards you.
This has gone far enough– I third Felicity and Disappointed Educaist in this and also thank Mike for his efforts.
As a Buddhist, I find it abhorrent that commenters pose as Buddhist in order to deceive, manipulate and harm others. I think you and Sheila need to stop posing as Buddhists and cease talking about such serious and sacred subjects as the nature of mind, until you can be transparent and decent and post comments with an honest intention to be of benefit to others.
Enough enough.
LikeLike
did you send it to info@dialogueireland.com ? As nothing has come in
LikeLike
Thanks you likely saw the defining quality of KELLY. Red.
LikeLike
Felicity,
“where Bella gets people (who she has previously interrogated with ill intent), to drop their guard.”
I want people to be direct. Joanne could have just clarified my question about different writers. She didn’t but like ALL of you tried to ignore, put a blame on me and so on.
Of course I will react on that. Lynch mob. How would you react?
I have said many times, already long in the past before I even recognized anybody called Felicity here, that I’m sorry for Joanne’s experiences. I just disagree on the explanation of the cause. Even you, Felicity, cannot play god and tell what truly happened to her.
Like I said before: I don’t like liars. There is weakness of the character there. Also no respect for other people either, who they lie to and whose lives they try to direct with the untruths. Felicity, you may allow that to people, maybe you are a person yourself who doesn’t mind white or gray lies. I’m severely allergic to them – no less.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx With men who lie, I tried to forgive and trust again, but in complete vain: more and more abuse occurred. I have no mercy to them: they are stupid, and unable to learn.
LikeLike
Mike, I’ll drop you a line later about my thoughts on that.
LikeLike
Green, amber or Red. You are on amber as we speak.
You will be getting a transfer soon. Kate do you hear voices?
LikeLike
KateS comment on Open letter to Sogyal Rinpoche from Joanne Clark moved here.
Submitted on 2013/02/26 at 12:50 am
Hi Joanne, I was just doing some reading, thinking about what we were talking about, and wondering what was your take on the idea of transference in respect the lama, possibly also the idea of the lama getting caught in the counter-transference?
LikeLike
Felicity I can confirm that Sheila and Zeph are one. However, the jury is out on Kate as her patterns reflect a person either suffering from insomnia or as you say a skillful use of proxies. She is geographically not far from you if she is in fact a genuine single person. However, I must study her ideas and literary style or wait like I did with Sheila for that moment when she slips up.
What is your reaction to the idea of direct action at the seminars? Non violent direct action which will be hopefully given media coverage. We would need to have one ex member perhaps wearing a wig and a mask to protect anonymity. Also an ancient Irish tradition of a hunger strike outside the Centre would be important.
It looks like someone is already protesting in California. could this be a better way to open up the can of worms than litigation.
LikeLike
Well done, DI.You’ve spotted and outed Shiela aka Zeph aka perhaps Kate. No doubt, part of Rigpa spin machine. I think you made a good point about the thread’s discursive topics and the interaction, where Bella gets people (who she has previously interrogated with ill intent), to drop their guard. It’s great to see you standing up to Bella and not allowing her to run riot over the pages here, and the posters who in good faith open their hearts here.
There has to be accountability. This is the 21st century, and major institutions like Catholics and their Cardinal O’Brien who preyed on young priests, or Lord Rennard who preyed on women Lib Dem candidates all look stupid and hypocritical when it gets aired in the major media pages and networks. I would have hoped for more from a large Buddhist organisation, in terms of accountability.. .It just isn’t good enough for Sogyal to say “I did no harm”.
But I only popped in, to second Disappointed’s post and to reiterate thanks for your attempts to moderate and keep in check those who abuse this space. Thanks, Mike.
LikeLike
“When that did not work she then tried like yourself a new approach which others have bought into namely going off on a tangent about various aspects of Buddhism. You are being so nice to them they let their guard down and the result is you are again dominating this thread. I do not have the time to be moving your stuff across. Go there yourself………………! ”
From the “Open letter…” thread. I’d like to respond honestly and directly, as always. Do you seriously think that I enjoy very much bad treatment, fights and so on? If I’m very angry about some wrong doings, I will say so (Finnigan’s stories). I also say if I disagree. It’s not my style among friends to play nice, pretend someone who I’m not.
We have found one common interest after 3 years of battle. Everybody admits it. We finally share at least something: we are human beings after all – and we all know suffering.
This calm and peace loving is also one of my sides. I don’t enjoy fights with neighbors, but for sure I will protect myself from wrong doing.
Since you think that I’m a narcissist, of course you will never notice or realize that I may have various genuine sides to me, like most human beings. I have feelings too, and I have shown them.
I enjoy this peace and acceptance.
I think this is the best narrative ever.
By the way, I believe I have (during the first year here) spoken something about similar issues like the Dark Night of the Soul, since I read a book or two about stuff like that during my time in Rigpa. I’m just too lazy and cozy to try to look for the comment. And it doesn’t even matter.
About narratives: there’s always the climax and the resolution. Do you think DI that you could ever accept an end of this narrative, where SR is not the worst enemy? He might be the Joker. Narratives have turns, sometimes very sudden ones too. It’s never straight forward.
LikeLike
I for one am very grateful to Dialogue Ireland and this blog. I disagree with you Sheila when you say this is whipping up an anti Buddhist feeling. From the posts surrounding the abuse at Rigpa it has made me wary of that sect of Buddhism but I would not be anti Buddhist at all and certainly not from the posts here.
This site is allowing victims of abuse to tell their stories if they wish to do so. No one is holding a gun to any one’s head to tell their stories but for those brave enough to do so have helped many others understand happenings in many other organisations. For so many people it isn’t until they read some one else’s story do they feel brave enough to post their own. Lucky you if you haven’t suffered any abuse but you should allow others to tell their story without the threat of being accused of making it up, being deluded, psychotic etc.
You keep bleating on about a private site why don’t you set one up instead of critiscing those who have suffered abuse and consistently trying to bait them from their story. DI provides a confidential service to those who require it and from experience I know it is confidential & very helpful.
Also the comment regarding the popes resignation from the catholic church as timing with this thread is plain ridiculous. This thread has been going on for a few weeks if you had been reading it you would be aware of that.
I am not a follower of the Christian faith and I have never felt that this is a christian site. That is a cheap shot from other people posting when they don’t like the inconsistencies being pointed out in their arguments or they have been caught posting under more than one identity to cause disharmony on the thread.
It seems to me that you are ant- christian and I am surprised by someone who says they are a Buddhist just how unpleasant your posts can be. It seems to me that you are the one whipping up the problems of posting. No one is being lured in to do anything.
LikeLike
That made me chuckle a little.
You were posing as a separate poster under the username ‘zephyranthos’. You were using a proxy server and fake device string to try disguising that fact. But you screwed up and forgot to activate your proxy server for one of the comments you made, leaving you caught red-handed.
I will say though that, out of all the sockpuppetry we have had on this site, yours was up with the very best until you screwed up.
LikeLike
A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception
LikeLike
My name is Sheila Shigley, as I have stated many times before, and I live in Madison, Wisconsin, USA. I am a real person, and very easy to find. If someone is spoofing me, that’s their business, and not much I can do about it. It would not be the first time, and really doesn’t matter in the larger scheme of things.
I am curious about the timing of this Dialogue Ireland ramp-up; maybe it’s just the particular threads I subscribe to, but it seems to me that things were very quiet and then all of a sudden, just before Pope Benedict’s announcement of retirement, it’s time to bash Buddhists again.
Pope Benedict has made Buddhism the number one enemy of the Catholic Church; as Cardinal Ratzinger he stated that “In the 21st century, Buddhism will replace Marxism as the Church’s greatest enemy.”
As for women and safety, I have said before and will say again, that it is completely and utterly irresponsible for Dialogue Ireland to pose as a safe haven for women to tell their story, encourage and even beg them to tell their story, on a public forum. A true safe haven would be PRIVATE, and any psychiatrist you ask will likely warn woman AGAINST doing what DI asks them to do.
But DI insists on encouraging unsuspecting women to continue to spill their particulars, then pounces huffily on anyone asking questions, accusing them of “hurting women,” when it is the unwise practice of luring women to a public forum that is the root of the fault.
Because DI has consistently refused to create a private forum for women to consult with each other and seek help, I can only conclude that the intention is either ill-thought-out at best, or dishonorable at worst. strikes me as convenient info-gathering for what is, in fact, a private business which makes money off of information drawn from these unsuspecting contributors, and from whipping up and anti-Buddhist feeling in general.
Will DI establish a private forum for these women, instead of continuing to lure them into a situation where, by virtue of DI’s own obvious shadiness, the women themselves are suspected by some?
And will DI, in luring these Buddhist women into what is ostensibly a “non-religious” forum, admit that it is a Christian organization which, quite obviously, discourages discussion of actual Buddhist belief (note the constant moderator messages urging people to stop talking about Buddhism and return to talking about abuse.)
Where’s the private forum that could truly offer abused woman a safe place to talk? This isn’t it.
LikeLike
Angie
Sheila, I think you have no credibility as you are deceiving the public by using different identities to talk to yourself. In other words you are deceptive and were caught with your hand in the till. If you persist in commenting here in a dubious manner, we will release the IP logs.
Like Disappointed Educoist, I also appreciate this information from the comments DI as it points to, what is considered, the expected progression of enlightenment. People practice meditation and too often they develop, what appear to be, signs of mental illness due to prolonged meditation. In Rigpa the symptoms are ignored or, as some of them seem to believe, need to be endured as they are understood to be a sign of progression and, in Joanne’s case, Soygal’s behaviour was not accepted as the catalyst of her breakdown. For some the symptoms are understood as being part of the process or a combination of both personal process and techniques and so they may be less willing to stop the practice of meditation or leave the group even when it prolongs the symptoms. The helpful comments and information on the dark night of the soul, gives the opportunity to make some sense of it all. There are far too many opportunities for an abuser to take advantage during this process.
LikeLike
Suddenly I remembered a young woman in a retreat at Dzogchen Beara. She told publicly that she has suffered from severe depression for years. She seemed quite hopeless in her talk. Towards the end of the retreat she said she doesn’t feel depressed at all: she was amazed, because it had been so persistent for long.
It can go the other way around too.
LikeLike
sankappa,
to give positive feedback: I enjoyed reading about the Dark Night.
I have read similar stories and even books. I think we all might have more in common, if we stopped fighting like kids.
This book is also useful. I don’t know if men like it.
Laurie Brands Gagné: The Uses of Darkness, Women’s Underworld Journeys, Ancient and Modern
LikeLike
“sankappa, on February 24, 2013 at 11:38 am said:
bella, you go on about the nature of mind. what you refer to is just the mind without defilement. Nobody but us removes these defilements.
It’s really quite simple. The mind without defilement, is the mind without defilement. The mind with defilement, is just the mind with defilement. There is no intrinsic nature of the mind.
The Buddha said that whatever we incline the mind to, is what will manifest”
With your views, do you then think that SR planted thoughts in Joanne’s mind?
LikeLike
For the post traumatic stress patients using extacy & therapy allowed them to go back to the trauma, and heal.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/03/health/ecstasy-ptsd-3
So, fundamentally facing up with the traumas seems to be the key in recovery.
I guess we can debate if Buddhist teachings are the best place to face up with the traumas or not. It should require quite a lot of strength from the person and also trust in the process with SR for it to work. Since we have various examples of SR and women, who have been traumatized, I can’t say definitely, if it’s always harmful. I believe there are good examples too. Psychotherapy should be the first address.
I know 2-3 of his female students, who have been traumatized, and he has been able to help them. In fact one of them was suicidal and could not be reached by psychotherapists or friends at all. He took care of her. Two have been sexually abused by other men. SR never touched them, but has shown caring and respect for them. These are real women, whom I know. I don’t know about Mimi, if she was traumatized before she met SR. Barlow was of course traumatized, and it didn’t help that SR was not a monogamous man, but was he aware at the time that she had been abused as a child, and what that means?
LikeLike
Sankappa, can I ask you, if you are ill do you go to a doctor? If your car breaks do you go to a mechanic? If your pet is ill do you go to a vet? If you need legal representation do you go to a lawyer?
It would seem that there is a certain need to rely on others who may or may not have the imagined expertise we require. I agree that in a perfect world we would all be totally self-sufficient, but this is rarely the reality of the situation.
LikeLike
I can now explain the intelligence that Mike was referring to. He suspected that you and zephyranthos were the same person, but he wanted to wait until I checked the logs to confirm.
Now that I have checked the logs I can confirm that you and zephyranthos are indeed the same person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
LikeLike
bella, you go on about the nature of mind. what you refer to is just the mind without defilement. Nobody but us removes these defilements.
It’s really quite simple. The mind without defilement, is the mind without defilement. The mind with defilement, is just the mind with defilement. There is no intrinsic nature of the mind.
The Buddha said that whatever we incline the mind to, is what will manifest
LikeLike
bellaB, on February 24, 2013 at 11:21 am said: “Empowerments are to ripen the student.”
Empowerments just hark back to a Brahmanistic world where power was given over to priests to mediate all. And that’s the point, it is basically more disempowering!. The Buddha was highly critical of this approach
LikeLike
“sankappa, on February 24, 2013 at 11:10 am said:
Yes. We show ourselves the nature of mind. Nobody does it for us.”
I don’t share your view. I don’t think it’s the view of Tibetan Buddhist tradition.
Empowerments are to ripen the student.
There are now discussions about the mirror neurons that might have something to do with the usefulness of the teacher. If you could pick up with your neurons the state of the Buddha who is sitting in front of you, I find it useful. Maybe later alone you can pick it up again. Then when you experience it, you’ll recognize that state. They say the enlightened mind is always present in us, but we don’t recognize it.
LikeLike
I am not trying to rediscover the Path by myself as the Buddha did. That trail has already been blazed. I’m not reinventing the wheel here
LikeLike
Thanks Kate. I know the history ,but as bella correctly pointed-out, their teaching could not lead him to awakening (which is the whole point). Gautama rediscovered the Path by himself. This is why a have Faith in the Dahrma, not a dodgy Rinpoche
LikeLike
I think the only danger SR contains, are the provocations, that quicken the path. He stirs up things, opens up people to their issues, presses the buttons, so one can slowly stop reacting to them in the same way. One at least becomes aware and is sort of forced to deal with their problems. There’s no hiding place.
For some that is helpful.
Some think that seeing and feeling the disturbing pain of the traumas creates more trauma. I don’t know. Some people might go to therapy, and easily avoid facing up with the traumas for years. That is also waste of money. I have no final answers to these.
LikeLike
Shakyamuni studied extensively under two teachers, Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta, both of which asked him to become their successor, and then followed Kaundinya in ascetic practices that almost cost him his life, a total of six years of following teachers before attaining enlightenment.
LikeLike
Yes. We show ourselves the nature of mind. Nobody does it for us.
LikeLike
About the Buddha. He was an advanced individual. Maybe he had many life times of practice or purifying the karma before that lifetime. At least he was aware and hungry to get on the path to search for the truth.
There is also this guy Eckhart Tolle, who just sat homeless on the bench and who became enlightened or something to that direction. Who knows his past lives?
Or do you believe that you can achieve things easily alone in one lifetime?
Do you deny the possibility of the master showing the student the nature of mind? What is the purpose of empowerments?
LikeLike
I understand that bella. But I wanted to point out that devotion or Faith can be in the Dharma and have the same effect (and probably safer IMO then having Faith In Sogyal Rinpoche).
LikeLike
My point in sending that Glimpse was to show what SR means by devotion.
LikeLike
OK, I’ll answer it for you. The Buddha didn’t have a master. Kind of blows the Glimpse of the Day out of the water really (and TBLD) but no surprises there.
Beside bella I have a teacher. His name is Mr. Gautama. His teachings are beyond compare. They are called the Dharma
LikeLike
If you know the answer, why don’t you share it?
LikeLike
Yes, that’s not just Tibetan view thoguh. The Buddha prior to Gautama was Dīpankara.
But you still haven’t answered the question bella
LikeLike
So who was THE Buddha’s master?”
According to my knowledge, he had many teachers on the way, but they didn’t show him the final result. He understood that his teachers examples didn’t bring the truth: we don’t need to get rid of the body and starve, but body is the vehicle for the mind.
According to Tibetan tradition, there have been many Buddhas, also prior to THE Buddha.
LikeLike
You haven’t answered yet bella
So who was THE Buddha’s master?
LikeLike
Dzongsar Khyentse: Introduction to the Middle Way, (Foreword)
“The view of Madhyamika in Buddhism
In Buddhism, the view is essential for both theory and practice. All the various Buddhist schools and paths have been established based on the right view, and the result of the Buddhist path – enlightenment – is none other than the complete understanding or realisation of the view. The view is indispensable for all kinds of Buddhist practice, from the simple and seemingly mundane acts of a Theravadin monk shaving his head and not eating after midday, to the Mahayana practitioner abandoning meat, offering butterlamps and circumambulating, to more complicated and exotic paths such as building monasteries or practicing kundalini yoga. The view not only gives us the reason to practice; it is also the result we seek to attain through practice. Furthermore, the view is also a safety railing that prevents us from going astray on the path. Without the view, the whole aim and purpose of Buddhism is lost. If we wish to reach a destination, it is fruitless to proceed aimlessly on the journey if we have not established our direction and destination. Likewise, meditation and action will not bear fruit unless we have established the view.
For example, when teaching the Four Noble Truths, Buddha taught that the fundamental truth – the view – is that we are not suffering; we merely have suffering. Therefore, by knowing the nature and cause of suffering, we can follow the path to liberate ourselves from suffering. Nevertheless, although many of us are eager to follow the path to liberate ourselves from suffering, and we may even understand what our suffering is caused by, few of us pay attention to the view: the fact that we are not suffering, we just have suffering. Because we do not understand the view, we still cling to primordial suffering. Therefore, no matter how much we practice and seek to apply methods to end our suffering, our path is not a middle path – a Madhyamika path, a path beyond conceptual clinging. Instead, it ends up becoming an extreme path – a path of concepts, which will not liberate us from suffering.”
“And if we were to encounter a path that did not have the view, we would become even more disillusioned. This would be very sad, because there is genuine seeking. Without the view, the whole purpose of Buddhism is lost. It is then no longer Buddhism – a path to enlightenment – but merely a method for temporal healing.”
“I don’t believe there is any merit in this kind of work, but if there is any, let us dedicate it to the further understanding of the Madhyamika, through which we can topple the kingdom of extremism.”
LikeLike
bellaB, on February 24, 2013 at 10:02 am said:
Rigpa Glimpse of the Day for Sankappa,
February 24
Just as Buddha said that of all the buddhas who attained enlightenment, not one accomplished it without relying on the master, he also said: “It is only through devotion, and devotion alone, that you will realize the absolute truth.”
Yes straight out of TBLD P.133.
So who was THE Buddha’s master?
LikeLike
“zephyranthos, on February 23, 2013 at 4:21 pm said:
Also I don’t wish to receive emails any more not because I am disinterested but as I am too tied up with other investigations, if you could kindly remove my notifications, and I will come visit here on my own sometime later. Thank you.”
Send one message here and don’t tick the box
“Notify me of follow-up comments via email.”
That will make the system stop sending the emails.
LikeLike
Rigpa Glimpse of the Day for Sankappa,
February 24
Just as Buddha said that of all the buddhas who attained enlightenment, not one accomplished it without relying on the master, he also said: “It is only through devotion, and devotion alone, that you will realize the absolute truth.”
So then, it is essential to know what real devotion is. It is not mindless adoration; it is not abdication of your responsibility to yourself, nor indiscriminately following of another’s personality or whim. Real devotion is an unbroken receptivity to the truth. Real devotion is rooted in an awed and reverent gratitude, but one that is lucid, grounded, and intelligent.
LikeLike
Sheila, on February 23, 2013 at 3:35 pm said:
“@sankappa, the pope is resigning.”
Who?
LikeLike
unlikely we will remove them as they are being used to check sockpuppetry
LikeLike
that is correct but you forgot your ip!
LikeLike
Also I don’t wish to receive emails any more not because I am disinterested but as I am too tied up with other investigations, if you could kindly remove my notifications, and I will come visit here on my own sometime later. Thank you.
LikeLike
There are not enough resources to pursue dead ends, there needs to be concerted effort against the actual well-delineated threat. Moreover when these dead ends are the result not of honest effort but simply ill thought out. Here you seem to have a case of a known individual which is a precious gift given the amount of time we spend in other organizations trying to get the hunt down to one known individual. But instead the effort here imo is wasted by haphazardly casting it out onto an entire organization which upon a simple few days of investigation doesn’t show indications of being a cult. Without question there are things to be checked into as with any group but after checking into them I find it doesn’t even come near to a cult. So then, all that time has been wasted which could be spent on groups such as FLDS exhibiting endemic, group-wide abuse against children. There are not enough resources in the world to go after groups we simply don’t like. You must prioritize, if you’ll accept my opinion.
This following article may be of interest if I may offer it as an example of a very difficult but successful operation against a proven threat: http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/catching-flds-one-year-after-warren-jeffs%E2%80%99-conviction
LikeLike
Btw I was quite proud of “Ratzinger’s zinger” but it seems humour is wasted here, lol. I suppose a million people had already used it anyway ;)
LikeLike
@sankappa, the pope is resigning.
Mike, I’m not really sure what “intelligence” you have on me since I’ve already posted my address, real name, and I believe even my phone number.
Keep letting the not-so-subtle threats hang put there, though, and showing visitors exactly what kind of people you are. I’m sorry to be so unkind, but someone really needs to call you on the hypocrisy of decrying abuse even as you’re implying some kind of nasty action against a woman.
As for my personally making you aware of Salzberg’s visit, it’s on the Lerab Ling website. If you aren’t even checking Rigpa websites, how is any woman going to have confidence you’re really here to create awareness? It just all smacks of “making noise” to me.
Threaten all you like, but it’s a sad day when any man feels such a thing is necessary. I would hope your aguments could stand on their own.
LikeLike
Seems like I’m blocking the Slander Road. Very beautiful.
LikeLike
bellaB moved from Open letter to Sogyal Rinpoche from Joanne Clark
Submitted on 2013/02/22 at 5:51 am
I haven’t been in pain. Can’t you see I was conversating with OTHER people? I didn’t see fights, except one was attacking. Now DI decided to turn this into fight zone again.
I just think this blog should be better called:
“Let’s All Go Paranoid – Blog and Discussions”
I am bullied and also the holder of the pages participate in that, like a real adult. That might make me angry, if i wasn’t already aware of the low attitude of these pages. Now it’s just proven, again.
It was peaceful today until he showed up.
Good Morning DI! You could also delete some other people’s posts here, if you were fair. But you aren’t.
LikeLike
Bellab comment moved from Open letter to Sogyal Rinpoche from Joanne Clark
Felicity, if you HAD been there, you would have known that many lamas taught in Rigpa during the three year retreat.
Since you don’t know, I correct your facts. There hasn’t been any change in that. Three year retreat was partly closed, and they had a point in restricting access.
The view SR also has (since you don’t know) is:
1. we build the outer temple
2. then we build the inner temple: maturing the sangha (in the three year retreat and elsewhere)
3. then we can benefit beings in the outer world
LikeLike
bellaB moved from Open letter to Sogyal Rinpoche from Joanne Clark
Submitted on 2013/02/23 at 4:47 am
Well, if she is a trained psychotherapist, she should also know about the pitfalls. I don’t think any of her colleges would say anything different than what I said, to anybody.
I think we all know she is no longer psychotic, because she has told us so, so we don’t need to worry for her being unstable. It’s in the past. There’s also non-psychotic, stable people who rather escape to mysticism. I could do it easily too, because it’s fascinating. But for those who are now really unstable, it’s dangerous to lead them to believe in their hallucinations and so on. The sooner they are directed towards real treatments, what ever they are (therapy, medication), the better for them. It’s frightening to be psychotic, I’ve read.
Don’t think you know what I think, Sankappa, because obviously we don’t think in the same way. But of course it’s good to clarify by asking.
I don’t think Joanne’s writings are chaotic or unclear, so I have no reason to think she is unstable. (Just to write it clearly, so you don’t need to wonder.)
LikeLike
In regard to Sheila she came back in just as bellab needed reinforcements. I see bellab is back on the thread again and will be removed. She has a problem of calling foul but we are not deleting her but moving her off the road which she keeps blocking. We have interesting intelligence concerning Sheila and am waiting for my web master to give me heads up on it.
The more I think about it trying to get a response from the DL, the state, Presidents or the media is no longer going to be enough. I am not sure about the dates but I am beginning to think we should hold a cult conference locally where we can call a number of speakers addressing the issues we have here on the blog. We could get a variety of speakers. We could also hold an ex members meeting with competent psychological counselling, and then have an open meeting for the public which the ex members could attend if they are ready or leave if they are not.
We can then call on the people who are giving the lectures there to come and make their case at our conference.
It will take some organising. Could you and Joanne and others on the site begin to think about it?
We could hold the workshop and Conference some distance from the Beara location, but we could also do the picket while SR is doing his teaching.
We can learn from the Anonymous protests by using masks to protect those that need anonymity. We also do this with a local Guru Tony Quinn as you will see here.
LikeLike
Sankappa, thanks for this link. It really is excellent. I’m reposting it, as Bella has already spammed the page. In the meantime have a good wkend.
“Kornfield has gone on to be a very strong advocate of Dharma teacher ethics in the West, and has modified the Fourth Precept: We undertake the precept of refraining from sexual misconduct, to include teacher/student relationships, at his centre in Spirit Rock: “http://www.spiritrock.org/page.aspx?pid=315
LikeLike
I think the only way is to have a court case. Then we would truly know if abuse has happened.
We still cannot know what is true about the stories and what is not. The court should figure it out.
There are quite a few women who have strange ideas about their relationship with SR as we have seen here. It would be important to see what is real and what is not. I have not made up my mind on this, but consider all possibilities possible.
LikeLike
Felicity, if you HAD been there, you would have known that many lamas taught in Rigpa during the three year retreat. Moved to The Rigpa Spillover Thread
LikeLike
Yes Mike, it is hard to understand why McAleese continues to show this support. Is she giving him the benefit of the doubt here? Or would it be seen as admitting error after conducting the opening? It does seem contradictory in light of what appear to be sound human rights stances, along with her husband.
I think naming names is fair, given that you have personally made them aware of the claims. I am quite disappointed with Sharon Salzberg holding a retreat at Dzogchen Beara. She was a co-founder of the Insight Meditation Society along with Jack Kornfield. Jack Kornfield was prominent in organising the meeting in the 90’s with the Dalia Lama regarding teacher ethics. This meeting was largely in response to Sogyal Rinpoche’s antics. Kornfield has gone on to be a very strong advocate of Dharma teacher ethics in the West, and has modified the Fourth Precept: We undertake the precept of refraining from sexual misconduct, to include teacher/student relationships, at his centre in Spirit Rock: http://www.spiritrock.org/page.aspx?pid=315
I guess it would be fair to conclude that’s where the similarities between Salzberg and Kornfield end.
I wish you all the very best in taking direct action picketing at Dzogchen Beara, in June/July. It will have to be in spirit only though, due to distance. I hope you get many supporters and some good media coverage.
Is Ratzinger’s zinger, some sort of code, or just Sheila’s new “bait”?
LikeLike
It strikes me that there’s a sort of grandiose plan to “bring down Rigpa,” what would be a shiny gem in the cult-busting crown to be sure, when instead people should be focusing on bringing charges against someone they claim is guilty of them.
Honestly, having waded through this for some years now, I just don’t buy any of it.
Funny this would crop up again just after Ratzinger’s zinger, eh?
LikeLike
Well, I don’t know what else to say. The accusations against Rigpa do not match up to the facts.
LikeLike
In Ireland I have talked to leading teachers who continue to go to the centre even though they know what is going on.
I am getting close to having to out them as they claimed they would attempt to have the issues we have here addressed, however, there is no sign of that happening. Our former President actually opened the Centre in 2007.
http://www.dzogchenbeara.org/
http://www.dzogchenbeara.org/index.php?pid=98&aid=267
http://www.dzogchenbeara.org/index.php?pid=100&aid=268
When we brought her attention to what was happening to women she backed off in 2009. Last year I was informed from her contacts that she was happy to have photographs of her and Sogyal up on their web site. She left office in 2011.
She was very concerned to foster Catholic – Protestant dialogue when President. She was also heavily into Interreligious dialogue but clearly she has been persuaded to believe there are no concerns. Her husband just completed a study of the Magdalene Laundries which showed the abuse of women. She is herself studying canon law, so one wonders how she is allowing this issue to escape her radar?
A number of Irish women have implored me to ask her to stop giving her endorsement without any result.
I am beginning to think I will have to return to my beloved County to picket the Centre in June /July. Hopefully we can bring a TV crew to discuss this at the entrance, as we will unlikely gain access.
The time for indirect action is over. It is time to march on Dzogchen Beara which is situated on south-west coast of Ireland, on the beautiful Beara Peninsula in County Cork. It is 144km (100 miles) west of Cork city, 56km(35 miles) west of Bantry, and 128km (80 miles) south of Killarney. The nearest villages are Castletownbere 8km (5 miles) and Allihies 11km (7 miles). The nearest airport, train station, bus station and port are in Cork.
LikeLike
Felicity, on February 22, 2013 at 9:16 pm said:
“and I’m sure Sogyal/Rigpa, is intelligent enough to start inviting honourable people to teach when it looks like enough ex-students are claiming sexual abuse/assault etc etc.”
Yes, excellent point Felicity. All cunning charlatans seek to launder their activities by association with people that in essence hold the opposite values and thereby give then the appearance of legitimacy.
The 4th International Forum on Buddhism and Medicine is a good example http://2013.buddhismandmedicine.org/en/about-us
Sogyal Rinpoche initiates a forum on empathy and compassion while he abuses his own students. An old trick, but unfortunately effective.
LikeLike
Felicity, on February 22, 2013 at 9:07 pm said:
“Shiela/KateS/Zeph…you write:
“That degree of platform-sharing, Rigpa-wide, does not match the description of a one-man show. Rigpa is simply not a one-man show”
Salzberg and other masters are invited guests, with Sogyal/Rigpa hosting them. They always speak respectfully of him to his students, and defer to him, as you would expect an honoured guest to do so, if you invite them to your show.”
Maybe SR has done his mind control on them too?
LikeLike
Felicity, on February 22, 2013 at 8:32 pm said:
“I knew Bella was emotionally immature, but I would have put her at about 12yrs, not toddler…though she does have a lot of tantrums.”
Ha, ha, yes Felicity, she acted like a 12 year old when you said she was a poopy-pants, she is so immature.
LikeLike
…and I’m sure Sogyal/Rigpa, is intelligent enough to start inviting honourable people to teach when it looks like enough ex-students are claiming sexual abuse/assault etc etc. After the Doe case, Rigpa threw it’s doors open to teachers, and it was a fertile time for the dharma. Then students were told, as more and more drifted off to other teachers that they should stay with him. The doors closed on other teachers. It became a closed shop-some would say because of a 3 yr retreat…then when Mimi and then her dad found out, his teacher was sha**ing his daughter without condoms, and complained, and so on and on, and others decided to tell their stories, the doors once again opened wide to other masters. It may all be chance, it may all not be. Speculate to your hearts content. Argue the toss over whether he teaches buddhism or a perversion, argue over whether it’s a cult or not…it’s semantics, it’s academic. What is not academic, is that real young women and the men related to them are in pain, in confusion and until the insiders at Rigpa decide to own this problem and not keep it outside their sacred gates, it will not go away, it will only keep spoiling the good and honoured name of buddhism, Rigpa, shape up or ship out.
LikeLike
Shiela/KateS/Zeph…you write:
“That degree of platform-sharing, Rigpa-wide, does not match the description of a one-man show. Rigpa is simply not a one-man show”
Salzberg and other masters are invited guests, with Sogyal/Rigpa hosting them. They always speak respectfully of him to his students, and defer to him, as you would expect an honoured guest to do so, if you invite them to your show.
LikeLike
I knew Bella was emotionally immature, but I would have put her at about 12yrs, not toddler…though she does have a lot of tantrums.
LikeLike
why are you finding the playpen restrictive?
LikeLike
p.s Ist Anon didn’t post Felicity’s post either. Au revoir
LikeLike
(2nd Anonymous isn’t the 1st Anonymous…I have an idea who it is, he has form in this) 1st Anonymous won’t post any more under this pseudonym)
LikeLike
DI, it would be a good idea to check in the kindergarten again.
LikeLike
Besides, everyone knows Sharon Salzberg is really Sogyal Rinpoche in a wig and a frock!
LikeLike
Ha ha ha ha!
LikeLike
Sheila do you often talk to yourself? Would you like us to introduce you to zephyranthos?
We could do it privately or publicly. You tell us!
LikeLike
With all due respect to the poster, that description of a well-organized, intense teaching system matches those of any football organisation, martial arts network, or Martha Graham dance company. Commitment to technique is not inherently problematic.
But what is being referred to here is not the limited cases where Sogyal Rinpoche himself is teaching, but the many, many other cases where he is not, and where the teachers or speakers are from many other denominations and even other religions.
Sharon Salzberg for example will be teaching a course on living-kindness in Lerab Ling in May. Many distinguished professionals in the field of healthcare, neuroscience, and yes, Buddhism, will participate in the 4th International Forum on Buddhism and Medicine in June; this will also be at Rigpa’s Lerab Ling center. If Sogyal Rinpoche even speaks at this, he will be just one of many. That degree of platform-sharing, Rigpa-wide, does not match the description of a one-man show. Rigpa is simply not a one-man show. Maybe it feels that way to those who choose Sogyal Rinpoche as their primary teacher? If so, that’s how it’s supposed to work when you choose a primary teacher of Buddhism–or art, or music, or medicine.
It is simply inaccurate, misleading, and suspect to continue to refer to a “Rigpa” problem. I’m positive Sharon Salzberg, as an example, is intelligent enough to distinguish between organizations which are worth being publicly associated with, and those that are not.
LikeLike
In answer to Sheila, and to perhaps to an extent Zephyranthos, let me point you in the direction of a reply felicity gave to Kate:
Felicity, on February 18, 2013 at 4:12 pm said:
Ok, thanks for that, Kate. The way Rigpa works is that Sogyal is the only master there. Older students become facilitators or instructors, and they will use video clips and so on of Sogyal teaching. All the dharma in centres is transmitted from Sogyal, so he is the only master in Rigpa. In that sense, and I don’t mean this pejoratively, it is a dictatorship. He works directly with his main students and those who are instructors are carefully monitored and instructed in and on what to facilitate. The initiations are given by visiting masters, and very, very rarely Sogyal may give one, but it is informal usually. Centre leaders all do Sogyal’s bidding. They tend to all be centralized, even the shrines are the exact same at each centre.
In a huge gathering it would be easy to get lost, but Rigpa students have study groups where they all check in. Definitely, I would say, for those who are unstable, then vajrayana practice would be unsuitable.
The style of Sogyal is full on, very personal with his older students, and very demanding. I have known people faint through fatigue in a teaching. A wkend teaching may start at 2pm when students may have been waiting for several hours and take no account of students needs, like trains to catch on a Sunday evening. He is in command. No question. Hope this helps.f
Hope that clears things up
LikeLike
My question is why any thread at all, which seems concerned with one man, contains as its primary tag, “Rigpa” instead of the subject in question.
My concern is that no evidence has been presented to show that Rigpa as an organization and venue constitutes a “cult,” much less the many Buddhist and non-Buddhist teachers, of every possible religion and denomination, who offer programs and talks via Rigpa.
It would be rather like perpetuating a discussion critical of one of the founders of, say, the RSPCA, and using not the name of the party in question, but “RSPCA” in the title – as if the RSPCA as a whole, and all those working for it, were being accused.
In the case where one person is the sole teacher and administrator of a single, specific sect or denomination, it might make sense to impune the organisation as a whole; however, that is not the case with Rigpa.
LikeLike
“dialogueireland, on February 22, 2013 at 12:57 pm said:
Nothing to do with Christianity you have tried that trick before, just off topic.
This is a Human Rights blog not a Christian one read our mission statement please:”
What was off topic? How do you define a topic? I was writing responses, conversating, with somebody else, in a calm way about this issue.
I think discussing beliefs, fears and scientific views are relevant, when the abuse Joanne describes, contains strange things, like she heard SR’s voice in her mind. I think it’s quite important to try to clarify that. One can look for answers from Christian views, about spirit possessions, hypnosis, or then from psychological side and others. I think that stuff is anyway there at the background, as fear. It would be a good idea to discuss the matter openly too. It reduces fear.
LikeLike
As you know Sheila when we had this problem before we tried to set up a forum which no one used, so we decided that the debate about the abuse should stay on the original thread, and any other extraneous material about Buddhism will be directed to “The Rigpa Spillover Thread.” It can be about any aspect of Buddhism people want to discuss, not limited to Rigpa. We just do not want to have this clogging up the main thread.
Go for it there but we will be totally forensic when anyone tries to divert from our primary mission.
LikeLike
Why are these threads called “Rigpa?” They all seem to be about one individual.
If you have a problem with an individual, that’s fine, but it’s inaccurate and misleading to slander the many wonderful teachers and speakers who donate their time, name and effort to programmes at these centers, programmes which help a great many people in need.
LikeLike
Nothing to do with Christianity you have tried that trick before, just off topic.
This is a Human Rights blog not a Christian one read our mission statement please:
Also you are dealing with other Buddhists not Christians. It has nothing to do with religion but influence.
LikeLike
Nothing is threatening about this, just not on topic see comments have not been delted just moved to
LikeLike
bellaB
Submitted on 2013/02/22 at 5:51 am moved from Open letter to Sogyal Rinpoche from
I haven’t been in pain. Can’t you see I was conversating with OTHER people? I didn’t see fights, except one was attacking. Now DI decided to turn this into fight zone again.
I just think this blog should be better called:
“Let’s All Go Paranoid – Blog and Discussions”
I am bullied and also the holder of the pages participate in that, like a real adult. That might make me angry, if i wasn’t already aware of the low attitude of these pages. Now it’s just proven, again.
It was peaceful today until he showed up.
Good Morning DI! You could also delete some other people’s posts here, if you were fair. But you aren’t.
LikeLike
sankappa
Submitted on 2013/02/22 at 3:54 am moved from Open letter to Sogyal Rinpoche from Joanne Clark Spillover:
bella, honestly I can see you are losing sleep over this. Start taking “refuge in our own nature” as you say above. You were thinking rationally the other day when you identified that you needed to take a break from this. You said it was causing you pain by opening up this forum. There’s the first and second Noble Truths, right there. (Suffering because of Attachment) You’ve identified this so wouldn’t it now make sense to apply the third and fourth NTs.See the cesation of suffering and begin to cultivate the path.
I say this sincerely and not as a manipulative measure. I can see your pain surrounding this.
LET GO!
Unapprove | Reply | Quick Edit | Edit | History | Spam | Trash
LikeLike
sankappa
Submitted on 2013/02/22 at 2:31 am moved from Open letter to Sogyal Rinpoche from Joanne Clark Spillover:
Joanne, on February 21, 2013 at 2:30 pm said:
“And Sankappa, regarding the Four Noble Truths, I personally finished Ngondro before I had any clarity about these– and before I had even heard of the 12 links etc.! I don’t blame my lamas for this particularly, nor do I completely blame myself. I think it is a problem in the West that needs to be addressed however– at least, students should know certain basics before receiving their first initiation.”
I originally missed this post from you Joanne. You most certainly should not blame yourself in any way. In fact none of this should be about blame at all, but about how we can have Dharma effectively and responsibly transmitted in the West – a point on which I know you already strongly agree on.
“I know that HH Dalai Lama has a habit of giving what he calls an “introduction to Buddhism” every time he teaches. I think he is acknowledging this danger. I think there are always going to be beginners present at a Western teaching and somehow lamas need to work out ways of accounting for their ignorance of dharma. This is a bigger problem than SR I believe.”
Yes, it is a bigger problem then just Sogyal Rinpoche, and all the more reason it needs to be addressed. I would like to strongly emphasise that the teaching on the 4NT is not just an introductory teaching, which when that box is ticked, we then move onto the “good” stuff. Viewing our whole practice through the 4NT paradigm, reveals the truth and reality of our existence and then ultimately our release. As I said previously, it IS the Path and that which the Buddha Awakened to. Without proper grounding in the 4NT, the whole Dharma can only be as marginally effective. I believe this is a very real problem in SOME cliques of Tibetan Buddhism, Rigpa being a prime example (this is not sectarian comment either). When the Dalia Lama made the below comment, he was making it abundantly clear the importance of the 4NT:
“…although I recite mantras and visualize certain deities, even so, the main emphasis of my daily practice is the Four Noble Truths and bodhichitta. These two practices I feel are of real practical benefit.”
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths#Mahayana_tradition
LikeLike
The other comment about some Christian views about hell beings and possession was also too much for you?
You are showing me all your cards. But I already knew those cards, from year 1 here.
I’m sorry I offend your sensibilities, but maybe also try to learn about medication against voices. It’s maybe too scientific for you. It might lessen the fear that someone is controlling other people’s thoughts.
LikeLike
DI, can you explain to me what is so threatening in my comment . a response to Joanne?
Because I’m right about it, and you want people NOT to see that. They see it anyway, unless they like to believe in paranoia.
LikeLike
bellaB cooments moved from Open letter to Sogyal Rinpoche from Joanne Clark Di Moderation
Submitted on 2013/02/21 at 9:58 pm
“Joanne, on February 21, 2013 at 6:58 pm said:
It is funny to watch:
1. Bella asks if anyone has heard of instances where people can control other people’s minds.
2. I respond that there are tantric feats which speak of this.
3. Bella comments that I can’t claim that my experiences are the result of SR controlling my mind.
4. And now Bella is discussing whether or not schizophrenia can be attributed to this mind control.
A little like the game of telephone.”
You just missed the earlier point:
1. your voices and real SR didn’t want the same things. Therefore I don’t believe he was your voice and in any way accountable.
2. I have no idea where the sounds to psychotic people come from, or how they were born in the mind
3. Angie asked me what the Tibetan Buddhist tradition says about these things. I don’t know. They don’t usually talk about things like that. The ordinary Tibetans do know the term “crazy”. Now I remembered that they also believe in nagas and supernatural stuff. I don’t know if that applies to the lamas.
4. Medication is able to prevent hallucinations – at least for some. I don’t know if for all.
Conclusion (for me): you were not influenced by SR. There hasn’t been a single moment I would have believed otherwise. I hope you will find a sound explanation.
I have heard about hypnosis, but I have never heard or seen anyone hypnotized in Rigpa. That is not what Dharma is about. You have to use reason in your search for answers too. It can’t all be based on fears and imagination.
LikeLike
bellaB
Submitted on 2013/02/21 at 5:19 pm
Angie,
“BellaB. Your reply is interesting in the sense that you say “in the old days” when you commented:
“I guess the Christian schizophrenic or his/her “friends” would say the growling sounds come from hell and he/she is possessed. That is in the old days. What do you think? Do you want to give an explanation?”
Is it interpreted differently by lamas? Or are you telling me they have no understanding of such phenomena? Do you think it is dangerous not to understand this phenomena considering they work with the mind?”
I was trying to be polite in saying “in the old days” while I guess some people still think in the similar way.
I don’t think that lamas think those sounds come from hell, but I don’t really know. It would be interesting to know for the reason you said: because they work with the mind – or we work with our minds, which can be scary to many. It’s for me too and I would like to know in detail what happens and why in meditation.
I don’t know if the lamas can work with other peoples minds, except by teaching. One should also clarify what is meant by hell in Tibetan Buddhism. Trungpa talked about a state of mind. On the other hand they mention hell realms in the literature. I can’t remember what SR has taught on that. I think we just read it quickly from the Words of My Perfect Teacher and the Commentaries, but didn’t dwell on that issue, because “we would create concepts about it”.
Is there some protection field broken so that other people or beings have access to schizophrenics? I once spoke with a guy who claimed to see spirits. He could be schizophrenic, or not. I didn’t spend enough time knowing him. He wasn’t Tibetan, but Asian from Buddhist background and had been studying at the University, so he was not a country boy. He said that spirits can enter people who are drunk or weak in some way. I have no idea if that is an Asian view or his view. He was only 25 when I knew him.
LikeLike
bellaB Moved by DI
Submitted on 2013/02/21 at 5:04 pm
“There is a tremendous potential for abuse in this idea of trying to see all the behaviours of the guru as pure, of seeing everything the guru does as enlightened. I have stated that this is like a poison. To some Tibetans, that sentence may seem a little bit extreme.”
Well, what SR taught on this, if anyone is even a bit interested, is:
“Emulating the teacher doesn’t mean blowing your nose as he does.”
“I may have many faults as a person, but I have the blessings of the lineage.”
Not every lama in the West has that.
It was recently that one very famous lama said that SR is a very good teacher and there’s is nothing to worry about, even though there is criticism. Some teachers are kind, some enriching, some wrathful and so on. He also said we all know what kind of lama SR is. For me it’s obvious that he has aspects of one deity in him and that is how I see him and accept him. I would never expect him to behave like anything else. And I don’t mean that I think he is a Deity.
One other very respected lama, who is a very good friend of SR’s, doesn’t even want to teach in the West. He still helps SR anytime he can. That man is a serious shaman, magician, and very accomplished in many areas, that ordinary lamas today have no clue about.
Chogyam Trungpa had also very different views about Dharma with Akong Rinpoche. It’s in Diane’s book. They faught about it and Akong (I think) told Trungpa to leave Samye Ling. Trungpa was very different from anybody else. SR is different from Trungpa, but he has been a wild kid as a child and a wild man during his life. Now that I have known him, he is very contained, powerful man, who can reach out and teach many people. He doesn’t need to be Tiger Lily’s or Joanne’s favorite, but enough other people seem to like him.
LikeLike
@Sheila:
“Sogyal Rinpoche, at any given moment, is not the teacher at most Rigpa venues. I have repeatedly asked, but gotten no answer, as to whether DI considers abuse endemic to Rigpa..”
Do you agree, then, that Sogyal’s behavior as described in the Thankga thread constitutes abuse? Cultish grooming and indoctrination?
Is there evidence that the material as presented is untrue?
Do you think self-centered behavior, sexploitation, verbal abuse, beatings described above are consistent with spiritual mastery?
Personally, it would seem to me that SR belongs to jail.
LikeLike
Somebody wrote this today:
The churches and parishes declare that God exists. They tell the people about the God living in Heaven and that He would have sent His son Jesus to death for the mankind to pay for their sins against Himself. Today’s question is, that if this God exists, then where does He live? Christian doctrine of God’s dwelling place would be heaven. Where is Heaven?
The factual situation is that the U.S. launched two sonar transmitters space Voyager I and II in 1977. Probes have traveled in space for the past 35 years without seeing the sky or any other civilizations. Yesterday in the news it was said that the probe is at the border of our solar system moving into the interstellar space. It was also said that in the 34 years of Voyager’s travel the distance is less than 18 billion kilometers. So, at least in 18 billion kilometers the sky has not been detected.
It is also interesting that, at least during the 18 billion mile trek any deity or civilization has not been interested in the rovers as they continue to send information to Earth. Their journey has not been suspended, and have not been tampered with. The Deities allow them to continue their journey to interstellar space.
So what is God’s heaven that Christian preachers talk about? Where did Jesus go when he boarded the Heaven according to the Bible, 2000 years ago? I think my questions are relevant when considering if the Bible is the truth or a created belief in the world for the past 2,000 years.
If the Heaven is not a physical dimension, then why did Jesus rise into it in flesh?
LikeLike
Sheila
LikeLike
I wasn’t even at home when you wrote your posts, so how could I have looked for the Bible, read it, looked for the English version in the internet (it wasn’t the first one on the list) and then write it down. I’ve always made lots of mistakes, so if I don’t check what I write, would have made even more mistakes. You are wrong. I’m not following on line, at all times.
LikeLike
I think one of the greatest missteps in these conversations is holding Rigpa to be something it’s not: a “sect.” Rigpa is not a sect, school or branch of Buddhism. There isn’t, from my understanding, a “Rigpa way,” as compared, say, to NKT or I think even Diamond Way, both of which have one teacher who is held up almost as some kind of messiah, and who has written multiple books which are used as the very rigidly organized basis for teaching. Rigpa is really just a collection of individual venues which offer teachings from multiple schools of Buddhism, as well as Fromm non-Buddhist teachers.
So when one tries to suggest that there is some kind of ritualized abuse built into this “sect,” it makes no sense. Sogyal Rinpoche, at any given moment, is not the teacher at most Rigpa venues. I have repeatedly asked, but gotten no answer, as to whether DI considers abuse endemic to Rigpa, and if so, who among the many teachers speaking at Rigpa centers is demonstrating the consistent level and quantity of abuse which would be necessary for Rigpa as an organization to be subject to these accusations.
LikeLike
Those are people who put the their doctrinal beliefs and loyalty to an organisation over the needs and human rights of others. The same goes for Christianity. Here is an example:
LikeLike
Again you miss the point you seem addicted to commenting. The first thing you do in the morning is to comment. what I am suggesting is that you think BEFORE you comment.
The point I was making I made a suggestion and within 17 mins you were able to put another diatribe up about John’s gospel. I am suggesting mindfulness, reflection taking your time. I am not promoting John’s gospel but as Alternative suggested you look at a canonical gospel.However, you missed the point.
you are that quick as you did not read what was said and started your comment machine after only 17 mins. By the way where can I send the invoice for all the space you have used on our blog? lol
LikeLike
Benefits of meditation:
LikeLike
Mental abuse. Other lamas have given their statements about Sogyal Rinpoche and the current situation. We were told not to worry and not to feel bad. There are different teachers: some are soft, some are not so soft. Buddha said already that there are different ways to deal with different students.
There are four ways to teach:
1. peaceful
2. enriching, glorious, wisdom, compassion, generous
3. magnetizing (?) role model, inspiration
4. powerful, wrathful, direct
We were also told to see the teacher in different ways.
One is also free to choose if one follows certain teacher or some other. I’ll post this also to Drolma’s page, since it also answers some of the issues raised by her.
But DI, it’s unlikely that your efforts will change anything, unfortunately maybe for you, but fortunately for me, since I like SR as a teacher – and I’m not offended by him.
LikeLike
I don’t think I could have read the posts, read a few pages from the Gospel of John and write my response in 17 minutes. I’m not that quick. There must be another factor, time difference or something.
“There is nothing worse than those who are ideological Buddhists”
What does it mean? Ideological Buddhists? What are ideological Christians?
I think those people I mentioned have genuine respect for Sogyal Rinpoche and the lineage, they are soft and have held sessions about opening the heart. They are able to create a really secure and warm atmosphere. I think they are genuine students of Sogyal Rinpoche – and not fanatics. One can see they have practiced a lot.
LikeLike
I doubt my issues are any larger or smaller than anyone else’s, Mike. We all have childhoods, and we all have memories. I treasure my upbringing, and I treasure my Adventist lineage. Doctrinally now, I have found a path that is far more suited to me, but Adventism can still serve a purpose for many. I do worry about the exclusivity issues; however, if one joins as an entire family, those are not as destructive. Adventism can be a very nurturing place.
I do hope that over time, the SDA church (and all churches) become comfortable enough in their own skin to allow others to be in theirs.
LikeLike
This has nothing to do with religion, but you always side step into it being about you.
We are not interested in your views of religion here, but if you remember we had a discussion going on here between Alternative and Bella.
I was trying to ask Bella to respect Alternative enough to respond in a genuine way. I was not making a judgement on the truth claims of either. It is clear you have real issues to deal with because of your experience of Christianity. Please do not take them out on this blog if you do not mind.
You still do not get it do you. This is what I said about the folks in west Cork,
Then I wrote,
I fully acknowledge your right to be an atheist, Deist or Mahayanist, Confucianist or Buddhist, that is not in contention. Where did you find my view that suggested you were unable to hold to your faith pray tell?
We are not interested in religion per se on this blog, unless it addresses the issues of cultism
LikeLike
Dialogue Ireland the difference I see between us is that I acknowledge your right to choose your own religion, and you seem not to acknowledge my right to do the same.
You seem to feel the need to belittle my path, though I do not see the need to belittle yours.
LikeLike
17 minutes, before your next comment Bella. Could you not watch and wait with me …… Please take a chill pill… you do not have a monkey on your back.
Relax take up and read…… You read it not so long ago. Now in the present… Be a human being and not a doing… Try it out.
You do not get it. The folks you mention are lovely people and would make lovely carers. As we speak they are under a challenge. Will they follow their hearts and break free from the Rigpa structure or will they be systems people? Doctrine before freedom and humanity. There is nothing worse than those who are ideological Buddhists
LikeLike
On receiving the prize, the Dalai Lama said: “When I heard your decision to give me this quite famous award, I really felt this is another sign of recognition about my little service to humanity, mainly nonviolence and unity around different religious traditions.”
Established in 1972 by the late global investor and philanthropist Sir John Templeton, the prize is a cornerstone of the John Templeton Foundation’s international efforts to serve as a philanthropic catalyst for discoveries relating to the questions of human purpose and reality.
The monetary value of the prize is set always to exceed the Nobel Prizes to underscore Sir John’s belief that benefits from discoveries that illuminate spiritual questions are bigger than those from other worthy human endeavours.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9258784/The-Dalai-Lama-to-give-away-1m-at-St-Pauls-Cathedral.html
LikeLike
– John said: “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”
Before, when? Reincarnations from the past?
– “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him.”
I think this doesn’t meant flesh descended from the sky, but a spirit landed on a human flesh.
– Jesus makes water into wine at Cana wedding feast
Tibetans would call this as some kind of working with the elements. I can’t recall any story now, but I assume there are examples of this kind of events in Tib. Buddhist tradition.
– In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers at their business. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.
If SR did this, a police would be called, at least in Ireland. Whipping people?
– Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” But he spoke of the temple of his body.
In Buddhism there are also information about the future available to some, especially to high practitioners, like lamas. I have heard stories, where those people know when they are going to die and how. Some have left behind messages where their next incarnation will take place, like in the film: Kundun (?)
– You must be born anew.’ The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit.”
All cultures have spiritual traditions and are aware of spiritual dimension. There are people who don’t care – except for the material things. It depends on the culture how many people are materialistic and how many have faith in the spiritual world view established by the culture.
– For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.
It’s kind of general truth, a moral code.
– For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God
This kind of story is what I detest: it’s kind of blackmailing. What about those countless beings who never met Jesus (they were born and died before his life time) and what about all those beings, who are tortured somewhere and all hope is taken away from them? They have never experienced even mother’s love. How can you, after all that loveless life, send them to the eternal hell?
– You are right in saying, `I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband; this you said truly.” The woman said to him, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet
Jesus had clairvoyant skills. In Buddhist tradition many consider some lamas having similar skills.
– He is often referring to the meaning of his life as some kind of change and sacrifice in behalf of people.
————————————-
I don’t have a problem with him nor with his teachings. (I cannot know what is his teachings and what is interpretation – and why gnostic texts wouldn’t be his true words?) But still I have no single experience in relation to Christianity.
There are, have been and will be many religions talking about the same light. I think Buddhism is a valid path – and it has living guides for people, so in that sense it makes sense to walk that path in this life time.
————————————
About healing. I met in one of my journeys a shaman. He called himself like that. He also considered himself a Christian. I had a stomach pain because I had taken some ‘acid drink’ and some medicine that didn’t fit with that. It caused terrible cramps if I ate anything for 4 days. He placed his hand on top of my stomach. I didn’t have any problem with the stomach after that. he was a healer. How it worked, I have no answer. But there are healers in many cultures and they have different spiritual backgrounds.
LikeLike
I have read the Gospel of John a while ago. I have heard that it’s different from the other Gospels – and that is why I read it at that time, years ago. What is so special in it for you?
That hospice is not a bad thing. If you met Christine Whiteside or Andrew Warr in Dzogchen Beara you’d see the kindest and softest hearts ever. I wonder why SR’s students are often so wonderful, if their teacher was a madman?
Christine Longaker
http://www.strategies-for-managing-change.com/christine-longaker.html
LikeLike
I do not need to meet him or view him just make people aware of the infiltration of our society by this rigpa operation. No not a disciple of Mary’s just a protector of human rights. Why do you not go in July and see for yourself what I am reporting about the hospice. I am not dying yet so do not need the service. Again read St John’s gospel and see if you can not comment until you have read it and then tell us how it went.
LikeLike
Because people are being harmed and I have received reports of that harm.
LikeLike
I’d like you to go and see him, so you can form a realistic image of him. You have repeated other people’s statements about him here, which may not be accurate at all, like “is the book his creation?”. Maybe he didn’t sit by the type writer, but it is his book. Finnigan is really twisted – and as soon as you get it, you will stop repeating her ideas. Are you her follower?
LikeLike
“I also believe that the hospice in Beara is a total failure.It is the equivalent of opening a Catholic hospice in a Baptist dominated area like Alabama!”
If you think so, then why worry?
Do you sincerely think that all Christians think about things in the same way? Many are seemingly Christian with different views. Those who are ‘pure’ Christians wouldn’t bother even to read TBLD.
What about HIV patients and gay people? How do the Catholics treat them? Can they die in peace or are the Christians rejecting them and telling them that they are going to hell? How are the Christians in Ireland?
LikeLike
It is precisely because the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying does *not* proselytize, and takes great care not to disturb the dying person’s mind or shake their faith in their current religion, if they have one, that I found it one of the most conscientious resources on the subject.
This high standard of ecumenism stands in sharp contrast to the well-meaning but damaging visit of the hospital chaplain to my father’s home bedside one day, when my father was asked to get down on his knees as the Baptist minister repeated loudly, “But are you SAVED, Gordon? Are you SAVED? How do you KNOW you are saved?” My father was already on enough morphine by that point that his intellect, which normally would have withstood (and cheerfully debated) the minister’s dubious tactics, instead was quite disturbed after the man left, and worried aloud as to whether we believed he was indeed saved.
I don’t care if no one here wants to read TBOLD – it’s not my intention or desire to push it on anyone. But I will continue to address what I see as blatant inaccuracies stated by those whom I’m beginning to doubt have ever read it.
In one very clear sense, TBOLD is not about Buddhism; it is just a collection of ways that Tibetans approach the dying process, yes, with ideas as to how current Buddhists can apply that to those fellow Buddhists in need, but with practical cross-cultural ways that the ideas can be applied to Christians. How on earth is suggesting that a Catholic patient be given a picture of Mary to put by their bedside somehow an attempt to convert that person to Buddhism? The idea is simply that the dying person may be less agitated and more at peace if some object of devotion, appropriate to their personal faith and individual tendencies, is made available. Often the dying person and their family are too cut up in their own fear and pain to think of organizing their environment–caring and knowledgable staff could easily incorporate such simple spiritual support into the routine in cases where it is helpful.
The point of TBOLD is that many patients would benefit greatly from spiritual support as well as physical, and that those who care for the dying are in a position to be attentive to these needs rather than ignore them.
LikeLike
Bella B you have been suggesting DI meet Patrick and go and hear SR. This is not about what we feel. We have no interest in the subject per se. We are only concerned about the issues of the safety of the public in a democratic country. The reason I am answering you here is that it is on the spillover thread. I have grave concerns for people in this country who are dying and at this vulnerable stage of their lives coming undue influence to go to a Buddhist hospice which would subject them unnecessary pain in their last days.It is my intelligence that Rigpa as an organisation has gained undemocratic influence in the philosophical and actual thanatology sector here in Ireland. I also believe that the hospice in Beara is a total failure.It is the equivalent of opening a Catholic hospice in a Baptist dominated area like Alabama!
LikeLike
In the past there have been discussions about Minguyr Rinpoche and how he left for his three year retreat. There has been also discussions about Sogyal Rinpoche only thinking about himself, gather funds for himself and all this nonsense. Here you can see in practice how he really is: He talks how important Minguyr Rinpoche is for us, the Buddhists, and will be as a teacher in the future. This indicates that Sogyal Rinpoche is here thinking things in the long term and really for the benefit of beings. He is not interested in his own life and what he can get out of it for himself, which would be extremely stupid from a Buddhist lama in the first place.
LikeLike
“Do feel free to prepare a post on death and dying with regard to the book by SR. Many believe he never wrote it.”
Finnigan thinks so – and she is false. How could she even know? I believe Patrick and the students who were there while the book was written. Finnigan was probably at her home writing ‘articles’.
Why don’t you DI go and see him, or are you afraid you would form a karmic link, if you did? You would hear him talking in the same way as in the book. He would also be side stepping a lot.
Is it too frightening to meet the human being himself?
LikeLike
Alternative, I still didn’t find the nerve to read all your long posts above. I just finished a big projects and staring a new, this is a short period of resting.
I think SR wanted to show how much Buddhist literature there is with his hotel room example. We are Buddhists, his students, not Christian, so Christianity doesn’t need to be put down in any way. I don’t think he is that stupid and disrespectful either (as I might be).
I know SR and other Tibetan Buddhist lamas know a lot more of Buddhism than me. Treating them in such a way doesn’t make me think of them as gods, but as teachers.
Realizing and stabilizing the nature of mind is the ‘goal’ of the Buddhist teachings. If he is very advanced in that path and is able to share a little of that experience with the students, then he has a lot offer, maybe a bit more than philosophical theories ans speculations.
Just like if Jesus was standing in front of you with his radiance, would you rather go to discuss matters with Paul? And I don’t mean to say I consider SR = Jesus. I have never met Jesus or God, so I can’t compare :) I am just saying that I have once experienced him radiating light and love. It could be that it’s my projection, which I accept, or we shared some moment. In my other posts I have described my other experience, so I don’t go into that.
LikeLike
Again farewell and thank for addressing the inability to reflect before leaving a comment. A kind of ping pong. No reflection just more material vomited up. Bits taken out of context. No reading of say Irenaus or a gospel before jumping to the comment machine Good bye for now. Do feel free to prepare a post on death and dying with regard to the book by SR. Many believe he never wrote it. Also you are familiar with the fact that in Ireland they have a Buddhist hospice at the very edge of the west. I have personally heard of a case of one person caught between Catholicism and Buddhism in her moment of death- a terrible assault on the soul! A clear examination of the book and a comparison with the Christian view of death and dying would be a great service to Christians in this country who are dropping their views on the subject like flies. So one of the ways that this penetration of Irish society is at the point of death. Thanks for recognising this thanatology crusade.
LikeLike
Why, in fact, do Christians not observe the practices Jesus did–worshipping on the Saturday Sabbath, observing it by refraining from work, as well as observing countless Jewish customs he believed were God’s will? What right do we have to spontaneously abandon this or that practice over time which Jesus himself observed? And why are Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek not studied by our children, when other religions (Islam, Judaism) insist that their children study the original languages of the Koran and Torah? Always wondered about these points.
LikeLike
Certainly not all Gnostics were Christian, but it was early considered a Christian movement, and only later found to also reflect other communities. Many Gnostics absolutely considered themselves, and called themselves, and practiced as, Christians.
The things that we continue to find out about Gnostic Christianity, which we mistake as “non-Christian” are for the most part cultural attributes that applied to many of these early Christians, whether they were Gnostic or not.
Take for example a Jewish or Zoroastrian influence which we recently discover to have been part of Gnostic Christian life: it’s not necessarily the case that that influence was due to Gnosticism, but rather that those early Christians–Gnostic or not–absolutely reflected many Jewish and Zoroastrian influences, because that was the culture they came from. There is no “pure” Christianity devoid of influence from other traditions; in fact, if we were to practice the exact way Jesus did, we would be mistaken for Zoroastrian-influenced Jews.
LikeLike
I do not mean to be impolite by not answering you, Sheila … As I said, I mean it … let us first read, and think and then write … If you really want to know what I saw disrespectful, try and read carefully at least my last post (it is shorter), if not the previous ones (in one you will see, for example, that SR cited Origen in his book with words regarding reincarnation that were not written by Origen, and that is a proven fact), and other recommended texts. Maybe you will see what it means “wolves dressed in ships” … .
I see no meaning either in starting over the discussion about Gnostics. I limit myself noting a reasoning fallacy in your last post: Gnostics were never equated with Christians (you are free to do it, if only your desire counts, because I did not see a base mentioned for your understanding), although there were Gnostic sects with Christian influences and Christian sects with Gnostic influences (enumerating Gnostic sects serves nothing in this case, other than that you heard about them). There are reasons even to believe that Gnosticism occurred before Christianity. But as I said before, we are free to confound anything with anything, though I do not see the purpose for doing that other than undermining any written discourse. In that case, also, all the hotels filled with Buddhist texts and scriptures would be and would mean nothing, too.
Thank you all for being patient with my posts and offering the opportunity to express my views.
Not to be continued, for good … and sorry for not answering your possible future posts.
LikeLike
As for Christian reincarnation, it has been my understanding that multiple Gnostic sects believed in physical reincarnation, and that if spiritual resurrection was not attained in one lifetime, then the soul would be subjected to as many reincarnations as it takes until spiritual rebirth is attained.
By way of example, the Sethians, Valentinians, Bardaisanians, and Basilidesians, all Gnostic sects, believed in physical as well as spiritual reincarnation. [R.E. Slater, “Paradise Reconsidered”]
Form the Gnostic Gospel of the Nazirenes, 69:3:
“For them that persist in evil there is no rest, but they go out and in, and suffer correction for ages, till they are made perfect. But for them that have done good and attained to perfection, there is endless rest and they go into life everlasting. They rest in the eternal.”
LikeLike
I find this odd, Alternative Perspective. One of the reasons the Tibetan Book of Living & Dying appealed to me so much was it’s obvious and deep respect for Christianity. I am a Buddhist, but my father was a Christian when he passed; the very nature of this particular book is that it is not necessary for either person to accept nor reject anyone else’s belief in order to make use of the very sound end-of-life advice–much of it simple, practical ways of dealing with stress–that it relays. I found the book immensely respectful of individual religions and needs.
It’s funny that we imbue Sogyal Rinpoche here with so much power, when the power is equally in the hands of the students – if they don’t come, he has no one to teach.
I don’t see the Tibetan Book of Living & Dying as a “Sogyal Rinpoche” thing. There wasn’t anything about my experience, reading it, that led me to focus on Sogyal Rinpoche. My focus was drawn towards my loved ones, my own mind, Padmasambhava (who was new to me), and several of Sogyal Rinpoche’s teachers whom he cites often in the book. If the book were designed to establish a “Sogyal Rinpoche club” or cult of some kind, I think I would have felt myself focusing on him, but I didn’t at all. I respected his writing, and found it exceptionally fluid, but my thoughts about the writer lingered on that single aspect–fluidity of communication, and only now and then. Some here say he didn’t write it, but as I listened to many of his recorded talks, I found the same language, the same way of phrasing thoughts, the same side-paths taken; to me (as a linguist, I should add) it struck me as very much the same voice. However, he does strongly credit several colleagues with whom he worked, and I have no doubt the book is such a gem because, like many gems, it was an exceptional collaboration.
I’m curious what struck you as disrespectful towards Christianity, Alternative Perspective? It’s interesting we would have such different feelings on this point.
LikeLike
I was not saying that Christianity, or Buddhism is absolute truth, or the pieces the knowledge I have, or some of it that can be easily found out on Internet if someone is really interested. My point was there is knowledge out there to consider, that might change one’s perspective (about Christianity, Buddhism, Gnosticism etc.) expressed in this thread, without considering any information at its face value, but trying and waiting to sort things out after both (many) sides were listened in a matter. Some knowledge I was referring to is not about interpretations, but rather about facts, admitting that there are things that are less interpretable than others. If there are no facts, and they are interpreted to be only solid views, something to be avoided, then any dialogue or reading (from Christian and Buddhist texts) is pointless.
I did not mean to use knowledge as a weapon against either of you. I simply said that, as much as I would want to, I do not have the time and I think it is not even possible to replace somehow the Bella’s lack of desire or time to read not entire Christian or Buddhist libraries, but only source texts, the fundamental ones in original (for example, the entire Bible or some of the Holy Fathers, or the links put in previous posts) to see for herself, without me imposing her my own view and interpretation of them. I am not saying that they (those texts) are right, only that they are to be read before one makes strong affirmations about Christianity as Bella did, or SR did. But, indeed, knowledge is a weapon against ignorance, and false and unbalanced view, and I suggested it to Bella to use it in her own interest.
My point was against the superior and condescending attitude (abusive in a sense) toward Christianity in SR’s book, without him having solid knowledge in that respect. An illustrative example of that kind of attitude is given exactly by Bella: “Like SR has often said: if you would fill hotels with Buddhist scripture (instead of the Bible) those books wouldn’t fit in” (I heard him myself saying this on a movie on internet, specifically making the comparison with Bible, although I did not see what was the point in that context other than to demean Christianity). It is as if one would say that the quantity of the scriptures is what matters as a proof of their truth. Besides, if one counts all the Christian and Buddhist books and writings (not comparing only Pali Canno, which does not fill hotels, and Bible), it may be that their volume would be similar. But, like I said, it is beside the point such a superficial approach.
Bella says that she does not see SR as a god, not to be omniscient in general, but my impression is that she considers him in every particular case in discussion to be omniscient, not fallible in any way. He always knows better and has a deeper understanding of everything (because of his access to esoteric teachings and because he showed some people the nature of mind, whatever that may mean), whatever one is saying or whatever arguments are made. Unfortunately, for some of his disciples, my impression now is that no one can have a weapon against such a belief and attitude (or solid view, as Bella likes to say it). It is an example of the kind of thinking that made me to say that Bella’s case was interesting from a psychological point of view. It is indeed, paradoxical, that Buddhism is for me especially about knowledge (the root of evil is personal ignorance), but, in the same time, knowledge is rejected by some of its disciples, in the name of the fact that it is too much to know, or everything is fluid or and illusion, or that there are direct, intuitive and sudden ways to get to know just about everything.
My plea was not for you to admit that my version of Christianity (I did not even state what is my version of Christianity) is right, but to admit that there things you do not know about Christianity or specific matters like Gnostic gospels, things that may change the sweeping generalizations and strong claims about Christianity made by Bella or SR, and other matters.
It is strange that you, as Buddhists, i.e. trying to weaken their Ego, your attitude is rather defensive (defending Ego). You see my attitude as criticizing and condescending, just for stating a situation, but, in the same time, the same SR’ sattitude toward some of his disciples, according to their witnesses, is considered reasonably, and acceptable, as challenging the Ego.
I do not know what is more compassionate: to let a person in ignorance, not saying that there are things she/he does not know, or to say what is the real situation. Reading New Testament, one can see that Jesus had “solid views” and spoke them out against priests and Pharisees, showing them and bemoaning about their faith because of their lack of knowledge and understanding (for example, from Matthew : Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God”).
I understand that if, from your point of view, nothing is real, everything is illusion or fluid, or that there are no other facts and knowledge worthy of considering other than those stated by SR or the authors that you have already read, then any discussion has no end, being like two parallel tracks.
Not to be continued … maybe until all we will have more time to read or write, surpassing in that way superficial ego quarrels.
LikeLike
Alternative Perspective that is clear and thank you for journeying with us and finding this thread that does not distract us from our primary focus namely the abuse of SR in regard to the methods used in his teaching and the abuse of the teacher / student relationship, the imbalance of power in these relationships and the misuse of the consort concept with those newly involved and certainly who interpret it in a different way due to their coming from the west.
LikeLike
Alternative Perspective, life is a journey of learning. There is no shame in continuing to learn, nor should there be overt boasting by those who feel they have nothing left to learn.
I respect your views, but I find it troubling that you feel the need to criticize others for what you think is their lack of knowledge.
What use is knowledge of Christian doctrine if you don’t apply it? Certainly the direct advice from the Lord himself, that we do unto others as we would have done to us, means that criticizing others sharply or condescendingly is un-Christian? Knowledge was not given to us in order that we use it as a weapon to belittle others. And just because we think we alone have the knowledge, doesn’t mean it’s true.
LikeLike
Alternative view, I think you have very strict ideas and you see Christianity in an idealistic way, exactly in the way it is taught and you seem to accept almost all as it’s been told you. I don’t see there much individual thinking, except in one thing (below).
I am not thinking that I know all or even much about Buddhism. It is too vast for one person to hold it all. Like SR has often said: if you would fill hotels with Buddhist scripture (instead of the Bible) those books wouldn’t fit in.
I do believe SR and other Tibetan Buddhist teacher have deeper understanding than me about it, so I’m not naive like you think. The whole Buddhist teachings are there to shake your solid views, and I accept that shaking.
Christianity more strictly denies any other explanation of the Universe than the Christian version. There are more blind spots in your view than you think.
Do you understand that Hell and Satan are considered as real: a being and a place in Christianity? If you think they are just some concepts, you are wrong. If you think dualism is not part of Christian doctrine and world view, I think you just have twisted Christianity to fit your own views – exactly what you blame me of.
This feels a bit like typical manipulation:
“…not even God … who respects our freedom to go astray on one’s own path …” Like you or anybody else could tell other people what is their right path? How much there is fear involved in that faith?
LikeLike
Dialogueireland,
My reason for entering in a Christianity-Tibetan Buddhism in the context of SR’s abuse was given in a previous post. I will try to summarize it here, from a slightly different point of view. My reasoning was that a lot of Westerners are as naïve in what respects religious matters as children are in what respect sexual matters. That naïveté leads them to an extended relativism, subjectivism, syncretism, a black and white way of thinking. They see differences between religions where there are any, and similarities where are differences, and confound religious ideas of all sorts, taking as true popular versions of the religions (the last examples: Christianity as dualistic, when nothing can be further from the truth, that being considered an heretical thinking, arrogance toward animals, or, conversely, that tantras are sexual etc., all the examples encountered in this thread). They also confound the problems of the dominant religion in a culture with the problems of the society of that culture, not knowing that similar problems are encountered in societies with other religions, or idealizing other societies. Last but not least, their general religious confusion and ignorance may lead to moral relativism, when encountering other religious views, where one might be ready to accept immoral things in the name of a false and foreign religious authority.
Therefore, given this naïveté, although they are adults, their religion decisions are not more mature than the decisions of a child in what respects sexual matters. So, in a way, false spiritual masters are abusing them, taking advantage of their naïveté. As I said, it is hard to find a culpable for their naïveté, because responsible are not only those adults, but also the society in which they live, school, the religious authorities etc.
Bella was an illustrative case for such kind of extended confusion both in what regards Christianity and Buddhism, when exposing her views on both of them, and on SR, and an interesting case to me from a psychological point of view, as a member of a controversial religious organization.
My impression is that some people who are in such confusion willingly or unwillingly entertain it. They expect to change themselves by trying to change religions doctrines to fit their views instead changing their views by considering the existing religious ideas and experiences. They do not realize that it is a fault strategy, which allows one only to remain in the same place in which she/he started.
Of course that any thought of ours is from a subjective perspective ultimately, but it can progress toward a greater level of objectivity by incorporating in one’s subjective view, the subjective views of others, especially of those who are not in agreement with us, and trying to obtain a more coherent way of thinking, surpassing the involved subjectivities. Otherwise, all would limit themselves in living in the one-dimensional world of their exclusive subjective view.
The Gnostic issue has became important because Sogyal Rinpoche claims in his book that rebirth or reincarnation was a Christian doctrine at first, and I tried show that that is not an established truth. My impression is that his book spreads some lies about Christianity, at least, which is also a form of abuse, taking advantage of the ignorance of his audience, or showing that he is ignorant. Indeed, Gnosticism would not matter, but, lately, Gnostic gospels and false spread ideas in mass media about them are used as a tool to gain adepts in many pseudo-Christian and non-Christian sects or religious organizations. Unfortunately, Christian and Buddhist scholars do not get to read and contest all this popular literature (pseudo-Buddhist, pseudo-Spiritualistic, pseudo-Christian that pretends to uncover great mysteries and methods of spiritual change of an unmet efficacy), to unmask one by one all the faults and lies in them, but alas, this is the kind of literature that is affecting the religious life of the majority of the people, even of the intellectuals who have a professional education, but not an equally solid religious education.
I a not interested in continuing the dialogue on the Gnostic matter or between religions, because I do not have the time to fill all the gaps in the Bella’s knowledge, and my impression is that it is also not Bella’s desire. If still it is, I am sure that there are plenty of means at her disposal to satisfy such a desire (starting with the recommended links). My point until now was only to give her a signal that there are serious knowledge gap
LikeLike
That Jesus rose bodily from the dead, and that this process was concluded after his physical appearances to his disciples in the Ascension.
Some liberal or gnostic believers view the resurrection as purely spiritual or psychological.
I only studied Christianity at school, over 20 years ago. I stumbled upon theoretical literature about Mary Magdalene while studying Gender studies. I was interested in women in various religions. So I didn’t spend time searching individually about Christianity. In my youth I didn’t find that path interesting, but I rejected it as alien world view to me. Like I said: I have never seen human being above nature, but as a part of it with arrogant attitude. I don’t believe in Satan and the dualism, the external evil being lurking behind the corners.
DI, what is the orthodox Christian view on resurrection?
About Mary Magdalene: it was believed for long that she was a prostitute. It might be that she was simply confused with another woman in the Bible stories. The confusion could also be purposeful: to lower her as a student, because she was a woman. Who knows? I only remember priests wondering, if women had souls at all.
LikeLike
I agree – I don’t know how they do it. Kudos to both from me, too.
LikeLike
To Bella and Alternative perspective, you are both to be congratulated on your willingness to write so extensively in a foreign language at such length.
Could I suggest Bella you give your biography in regard to your religious formation. The fact that you are not aware of the orthodox views of the resurrection was quite striking to me. Also Alternative perspective give us a sense of why you believe the Christian -Buddhist dialogue is taking us?
LikeLike
Thanks for this, Bella! Some of the most helpful teachings for me have been from this man, though via his student Pema Chodron.
LikeLike
Sheila, Chogyam Trugpa’s view on the Vajra Master. I found it interesting and humours.
LikeLike
“were not written only by Peter”
But the Bible was edited by men, I believe. Reading Mary’s gospel one can clearly see there were chauvinist attitudes toward women, and only Jesus considered women worthy and taught that to the disciples, even though Peter still had prejudice against women.
Judas kissing Jesus may or may not be scandalous: in many Middle Eastern countries men can touch each other, but not women.
Mary was said to be closer to Jesus than the others, in her gospel. Seems quite strongly that those two had a relationship.
1) When Mary had said this, she fell silent, since it was to this point that the Savior had spoken with her.
2) But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, Say what you wish to say about what she has said. I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas.
3) Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things.
4) He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?
5) Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?
6) Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.
7) Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.
8) But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.
9) That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.
10) And when they heard this they began to go forth to proclaim and to preach. http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm
I believe in both the Bible Gospels and the other Gospels equally much or little. They are stories of events, but I still don’t believe Christianity’s explanation of Jesus as a sacrifice for God for our sins. I did read also other Gnostic texts and they seem very bizarre and complex – one should need someone to explain those things. One doesn’t necessarily need anybody to explain Bible or Quran, which are more simple, mostly.
Pistis Sophia: “IT came to pass, when Jesus had risen from the dead, that he passed eleven years discoursing with his disciples, and instructing them only up to the regions of the First Commandment and up to the regions of the First Mystery, that within the Veil, within the First Commandment, which is the four-and-twentieth mystery without and below–those [four-and-twenty] which are in the second space of the First Mystery which is before all mysteries,–the Father in the form of a dove.” http://www.gnosis.org/library/pistis-sophia/ps005.htm
What do you consider as dangerous in Sogyal Rinpoche’s book? Maybe Sogyal Rinpoche knows what he is doing. He has shown the nature of mind to many people. I think it’s his generosity.
For you it seems to be very important to separate Gnostic texts from Christianity. For me there is no such need. I also do not see Jesus as a God incarnated in flesh.
What Buddhist monks have compared to Christian monks? They have a lot. They have a lot theory about the workings of the mind. They have words and explanations to those experiences in the body and the mind. Christian monks do not have any. Buddhist monks (and nuns) also have someone there who has already gone through the process. A teacher is someone with a steady realization of the nature of mind. Priests do not have such requirements (stabilizing the presence of God, using Christian words). Buddhist monks have the tantric visualization practice, which DO WORK. If one never had any experience about those practices and the effects, then they can’t relate to this.
Christians have some means though: prayer, silence and devotion toward Jesus and God. It helps.
Buddhism doesn’t have an explanation about the Birth of the Universe. The cyclic existence has no end and no beginning. The only way to stop the causes that keep creating future lives is to recognize the primordial basis.
I admit that I do not know or have forgotten a lot of Christianity. I do remember those points very well that causes me to rebel. For some reason I don’t find many things to rebel against in Buddhism. Islam provokes me to actively oppose the recommendations to kill people.
LikeLike
While I agree that Westerners (and to be honest, just about everyone) is intrigued by “secrets,” an aura of secrecy does not exist in my Buddhist experience.
In the current “abuse” discussions, sanghas are often curiously portrayed as hotbeds of intrigue and whispers, with “tantric sex” being forced upon unwitting females, or students being “pushed into tantra.”
I find this caricature completely at odds with real-life experience of the Tibetan Buddhist world. My teacher was hesitant to even give me refuge (the most basic of Buddhist first-steps) when I asked. It wasn’t until five years after initially asking that I finally took the refuge vows.
Most westerners I know (including myself) were never attracted to Tibetan Buddhism by rumors of tantric intrigue. I, and I rather suspect most, were attracted by exposure at some point to the Dalai Lama or to a general positive feeling toward Buddhism resulting largely from the Dalai Lama’s work and reputation.
There may have been some tendency in the 1960s and 1970s to gravitate toward the East in some quest for ultimate sex, but that is certainly not the case now in the expanding world of Tibetan Buddhism. Most Eastern “sex quests” in the 60s and 70s, in fact, were not initiated with Tibet in mind, but more commonly, India.
I think it’s very interesting that those (it seems to me) most actively perpetuating the “tantra is sex” misconception were in fact, from what I can see, in their youth in the 1960s and 1970s. Also interesting is the heavily-Indian connection; have you ever run into any Westerner who came back from Tibet or Bhutan or Nepal going on and on about sexual tantra? If sexual tantra were such a massive component of Tibetan Buddhism, Westerners (like my grandparents) who have lived in Tibet would also be talking about it; instead, it seems to always trace back to an Indian connection. My take on that is that the youthful adventure-seekers who ended up in India in the 60s and 70s, including time spent in Dharamsala getting acquainted with Tibetans, already had “sexual tantra” on the mind.
In other words, they for the most part didn’t get this concept from Tibetans, but rather already had it in their emotional palette of “things Eastern.” Maybe the sight of thangkas showing deities embracing and so forth was grist to their mill, but I find it doubtful that such things were what started their minds musing about “tantric sex.” I feel this theory is supported by the well-known fascination with India in the West which well-predated a fascination with Tibet. Tales of the Indian Kama Sutra, the exciting idea of “super sex,” and the New Age movement were all well underway before Americans had any significant contact with Tibetan refugees.
While Tibetan Buddhism and culture (and Bhutanese, Mongolian, Sikkimese, etc.) do have many elements of what we call “tantra,” this does not translate as “secret sexual activity.” Tantric aspects are woven throughout, and beyond, Himalayan culture–even Islam in India was influenced by tantra.
“Though the vast majority of scriptural Tantric teachings are not concerned with sexuality, in the popular imagination the term tantra and the notion of superlative sex are indelibly, but erroneously, linked.” [Wallis, Christopher (2012). Tantra Illuminated. pp. 19, 41–42.]
There are countless tantric practices, including extremely rare ones which almost NO one practices, and which we erroneously call “sexual.” But even saying that “sexual” tantra is about “sexual activity” is equivalent to saying Christian communion is about “oral activity.” Yes, the wine passes the lips, but put bluntly, communion is not about lips.
LikeLike
I am aware that the safety of the disciples, or of the tantras (not being misinterpreted by unprepared minds) was the reason for which some tantras were kept secret, and also of the fact that transmissions from a master to a disciple are secret in the sense that they are something particular, and intimate, to be understood only in the context of that particular relationship. But I was not referring to tantras in particular, and their secrecy in Tibet. I was referring to a general tendency of the Westerners to be attracted only by what is considered to be secret (no matter the reason of secrecy, of which most of them are not even aware), and to consider it to be more true than what is publicly known only because they found out that it had been a secret before, or so they think. Furthermore, a lot of them feel superior and worthy only because they got to know and believe in that information. For some it is enough even to believe in the existence of that information, without knowing exactly its content. They may perceive it as a future revelation that will solve all their problems and will bring a complete knowledge, projecting on that unknown secret information all their expectations. And, sometimes, the more something seems unavailable to them, the more they strive to obtain it, as a man chasing obsessively an unavailable woman. My idea was as yours: that people should first understand what is available for every one, and then to want to know what might seem secret from a point of view. But that it is not always the case, and the illustrative examples I had in mind are the following. First example is the fact many people prefer to believe the Gnostic gospels, without reading first the canonical ones and checking the information on both sides. The second one is the fact that SR said in his book that he reveals in it things that were in Tibet hidden and secret, which were not allowed to be disclosed. So, if Sogyal Rinpoche would have cared about the safety of the readers he would have not revealed them, respecting the recommendations made by lamas preceding him. For me it was not clear the reason for which he was ready to disclose those things that even he admits that were not to be disclosed: is he wiser than the previous Tibetan masters (to my knowledge, it is not an alternative with wide support in the Tibetan world), are western disciples and readers, who maybe never got to read elementary Buddhist texts and live in a different culture, more prepared to understand them than the Tibetan disciples from other times (hard to believe such an alternative), is SR more compassionate than previous Buddhist masters (but what compassion may be that, disclosing things that may hurt people if they are unprepared), or it was a way to attract westerner adepts, knowing their love for secrecy? The irony is that what is told to be a secret, or a disclosed secret for those fortunate people who got the read the book, is not a secret any more for a long time, because some of the “secret” texts were already translated and published before in the West. So, my impression is that there is an ambivalent and confused attitude toward tantras secrecy in the Western world, maybe because there is no Tibetan Buddhist authority to preserve the secrecy of the tantras and to protect the safety of the “fortunate” westerners who start reading and even applying them without the guidance of a master in spite of the warnings, before understanding the basics of Buddhism (an observation made also on this thread and others by previous Rigpa students). Unfortunately, tantras are not like higher mathematics. No one who does not know elementary mathematics wants or gets to read a handbook of higher mathematics. But there are people who supposedly jump directly to higher tantras, because they are made available, at least partially. I find it to be a contradictory thing to say that tantras are secret, and to find them so available in the Western world, with the pretension that it is the secret part (although it is not). If they were secret, then they have not been very well preserved in that way, or some masters or authors have lied that what they offered was something secret.
Bella, I do not know what kind of Christian classes you had, but it is my impression that you do not know a lot of elementary things about Christianity, and not only that, my impression is that you do not want to know them, being very pleased with your distorted view. You may consider the possibility that Christianity is not as incomplete as you say, but rather your knowledge about it is incomplete. First you had to read yourself canonical gospels and the most important Gnostic gospels, carefully, and with an unbalanced mind (not wanting to find and see only those parts that fit with your present view, defending it at all costs) and then to see for yourself.
There is a widely recognize fact that canonical Gospels were not written only by Peter, or a certain malevolent priest following his view, as you seem to imply. Mary’s gospel was not a top priority for several reasons, some of them presented in the previous posts (among them, the fact that they were probable influenced by the religious ideas from the culture of the region in which they were written, much later than the canonical Gospels). One important one is the fact that it is more incomplete, only a fragment, in comparison with the canonical ones. It does not present the Jesus’ life and death, only some disparate scenes and dialogues, mainly after the Jesus’ death. I will not list all the arguments against its complete veracity. I will mention here only the reasons why your feminist key of interpretation may be not so adequate or probable. In canonical Gospels, there is a scene where Jesus met and spoke with a woman from Samaria, a region that was supposed to be avoided by Jews. Moreover, Jesus spoke alone with a woman, from a population that was to be avoided. For that time and for the time afterwards, that scene should have been a scandal, an outrageous gesture, raising many suspicions. But, in spite of that, that scene was not deleted or hidden. When Jesus was betrayed, He was kissed by Judas, a man. The Jesus’ beloved disciple leaned on His breast. There are some gestures (along with the others), or scenes that also should have been deleted in order to not discredit Jesus or apostles in some way, but they were not. Besides, kissing on mouth was not a gesture to be condemned on the time the canonical Gospels were written (in the first century, as it is widely recognized), not having always a sexual connotation or meaning as it is mostly considered today. Particularly, at first, Christians greeted themselves with a kiss, and Holy Communion was associated with a Holy Kiss between the participants, which was for century, in many regions, on mouth, no matter the sex (see, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_of_peace). For the record, it is not mentioned in Mary’s Gospel that Mary is kissed by Jesus, but in Gospel of Philip, a much later and more disputed gospel, and the meaning of that kiss, in the context of that Gospel, was not probable a sexual one, a view supported with arguments by many interpreters (see below). Furthermore, Mary’s figure is depicted differently in other Gnostic gospels (see, for example: http://www.religionfacts.com/da_vinci_code/mary_magdalene_in_gospels.htm
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/was-jesus-married-a-careful-look-at-the-real-evidence/)
My impression is that you tend to interpret what is legend as a fact, and what is a fact as a legend.
Sogyal Rinpoche said in his book the practices described by him are the best, and suggested that several times.
I am curious how you get to know with so much certitude what tools are available to the Christian monks. Describing them as people living only in caves waiting that God will appear in front of their eyes, betrays the fact that you have no real knowledge about that, or you like to depict them as a cartoon image. It as if someone would say about a Tibetan Buddhist practitioner, considering only what one can see, that she/he stays with crossed legs under a tree, waiting to have a sudden enlightenment, and nothing more.
To my knowledge, there is no systematic, clear, less fantastic than the Bible’s one and credible view regarding the species’ and man’ origin in Buddhism, too. Let me know if you know one. Furthermore, Holy Fathers support the view that the scene of the Genesis has also a metaphorical and symbolic interpretation.
To my knowledge, there are parts from Buddhist texts (no one knows for sure when they were written, although all are attributed without much support to Buddha) that are in accord with some knowledge or, especially, yet unproven hypotheses from current science, and ones that are in discord. The same can be said about Christian texts or other religious texts. But those similarities cannot prove anything for sure about a religion or the other. It is an ironic fact that people like you, who support the view that Gnostic gospels were hidden or destroyed because they supposedly do not presented the logical and down to the earth view (based on what is observable with one’s senses) of the Canonical gospels, praise Buddhism and support it because it is supposedly more scientific, i.e. more logic and based on observation.
In my opinion, there is progress to be made: a first step is from having the illusion that you know something to the knowledge that one’s knows little or nothing, and there is still so much to know and to find out.
But you are right, “One cannot make the other believe something they simply can’t believe.”, not even God … who respects our freedom to go astray on one’s own path …
LikeLike
Btw Drolma, I was not referring to you as a “vulture” – I meant in this case the author of the “press release.”
LikeLike
Sorry, “impune Roach.” Dharma overload.
LikeLike
A should say that the above is my current opinion – – – I’m looking for further perspectives on the story and am prepared to come to different conclusions, but currently there is no comparison between the effort to impute Roach versus the university’s very detailed report on what they feel happened. The attack on Roach is poorly worded and hasty sounding, whereas the rebuttal is exceptionally detailed. Again, I await further information before coming to any final conclusions.
LikeLike
Well, here’s another tragedy being latched onto as an example of how “horrible” Buddhism is.
Ian Thorson passed away April 22 of apparent dehydration, in a cave near Diamond Mountain University, run by Geshe Michael Roach. The vultures are swooping in to label this a “cult death.”
This organization may or may not be a “cult” – I don’t know, though I have read some of Roach’s teachings and found them fascinating and helpful. That’s the extent of my exposure.
A “press release” written by a Matthew Remski claims Roach banished Thorson without warning shortly before Thorson’s death. A man named John Stillwell disagrees, saying that Thorson and his wife, Lama Christie, were involved in a dispute which included among other things Christie’s stabbing of Thorson in February of this year.
Roach states, that despite repeated attempts by the university board to encourage Thorson and Christie to take a year’s leave of absence to resolve their dispute, as it was causing concern to the other students, they refused to leave the university.
There is a detailed explanation of the university’s attempts to work with the couple here:
http://diamondmountain.org/an-open-letter-from-geshe-michael
I’d suggest anyone interested in this sad story read testimony from all sides. It does not sound to me in any way to be a careless “cult death,” but rather the tragic end to a lengthy and concerted effort to help two troubled people in every way possible.
There are numerous pieces of information in Roach’s testimony which can be fact-checked..911 calls, consults with psyhotherapists, purchases of plane tickets for the couple to try and encourage them to take a year off, etc.
So yet again, I find myself encountering a “Buddhist incident,” which is seized upon by invisible forces as an example of Buddhism being a horrible cult that leads to death and destruction, only to discover (yet again) that the real story is being swiftly and endlessly spun to convey this image.
Who is spinning it? How did they spin it so quickly and widely? Is it any wonder some of us approach these waters with trepidation and suspicion?
LikeLike
“Now the book is called Stories from the Nerve Bible and what I mean by the Nerve Bible is the body. And parts of the body appear and disappear throughout the book, adding up to a kind of self-portrait although not a very naturalistic one. And I used the word Bible in the title of this book because the first really strange stories I remember hearing were Bible stories. And these stories were completely amazing: about parting oceans, and talking snakes. And people really seemed to believe these stories. And I’m talking about adults.
Adults, who mainly just did the most mundane things imaginable: mowing their lawns and throwing potluck parties; they all believed in these wild stories. And they would sit around and discuss them in the most matter-of-fact way. So in a way I was introduced to a special local form of surrealism at an early age and so there was always a question in my mind about what’s actually true and what is just another art form.
Now I’ve always been interested in trying to define what makes up the late twentieth century American for example and so, as an artist, I’ve always thought my main job was to be a spy, to use my eyes and ears, and find some of the answers. For example, I like to hang around the banks of phones in airports, one of my favorite listening posts and eavesdrop on conversations. Now I usually travel on the same schedule as salesmen and after lunch these guys call into the main office and I just stand there at the phones, listening in and taking notes for my portrait of the American salesmen. Oh Frank? Listen, Frank. You know, I hate to say this about Brad. I mean we both know he’s got a heck of a job. Ya, ya. Oh you’re so right. But you know, we both know that Brad isn’t pulling his weight. You know what I mean? And I’m not saying this just because we’re both up for the same Safeway account.”
lyrics of the Salesman by Laurie Anderson
LikeLike
I have never heard in my Christianity classes that Jesus ate with the students after he was dead. If that story exists in the Bible, then my teachers never spoke about it.
If he was in flesh, then I almost begin to believe he was a practitioner of the Eastern methods what they speculate about. As you can see, my last guess would be the one explained by the Christians. One cannot make the other believe something they simply can’t believe. In the same manner I guess I cannot ask Peter and the rest to believe what Mary the Magdalene had to say. People believe different things.
LikeLike
Alternative, I didn’t have yet time to read your long posts, because of my work.
I’d like to question if there are gospels in the Bible by other people, and they were clearly chosen there out of the 100 that have been found so far (?) – why Mary’s wasn’t a top priority? It doesn’t seem to contrast anything to me but adding a lot more. I think it’s because she was a woman. And Jesus was kissing her on the mouth – and the idea of a God kissing a fleshy woman didn’t sound too good for the future worshipers.
If you think that I consider Buddhist path more interesting than other faiths only because Sogyal Rinpoche may think so (he has never said so), it’s a limited view. Buddhism is older wisdom than Christianity and they have both grown from older traditions. I just think Buddhism offers very practical means to advance. Christian monks are praying in their caves and waiting for a sudden presence of God. They just have a little less tools. For me Christianity is not a systematic world view (I find it also hard to believe in the structural image of the mandala with Mt Meru in the middle of the Universe, but other than that it doesn’t seem bizarre to me) or it doesn’t have a structure, but instead it has fantastic stories and characters like Adam, Eve, an apple and a snake… No matter how much you spend scholarly years guessing about the meanings, I don’t think there’s much progress to be made (my arrogance, I admit!), but it’s still better than a nihilistic or materialistic world view. It’s just not my path.
Scholars in the whole world have millions of theories about millions of issues… feels like going round in circles, when Buddhism offers a path of clarity. It’s just my opinion. When ever I went to a lecture in the West about present day thinkers, I could point out in many theories that Buddha taught that already thousands of years ago. But since I knew many of my teachers were Christians, I just didn’t dare to open my mouth. Once when I did, the teacher bluntly told me that he knows many physicists who are into Buddhism, but his voice said, that it doesn’t mean a thing. End of discussion.
LikeLike
Outer – inner – and secret level of practices… they have a philosophical meaning – and it doesn’t necessarily mean secret like in CIA’s investigations or in politics or in court cases. I understand it this way:
Outer practices – what is recited and shown on the outside
Inner practices – tantric practice and deities
Secret practices – the truth about our innermost mind and ourselves
An example:
Outer, Inner and Secret Refuge Practice
Of the Mahasiddha Thangtong Gyalpo
Sentient beings, all our very own mothers, are as limitless as space—all of us take refuge in the precious lama, who is the Buddha;
We take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha;
We take refuge in the lamas, yidam deities and dakinīs;
We take refuge in the dharmakāya: the inseparable clarity and emptiness of our own mind.
This prayer carries the blessing of Avalokiteshvara, who transmitted it to Chöje Kangapa and told him to give it to Gelong Tsöndru Zangpo (Thangtong Gyalpo), saying that if he taught it to the people of this world, it would dispel all sickness, negative influences and obstacles here and now, and also grant protection from the lower realms. Virtue!
http://www.lotsawahouse.org/topics/refuge/outer-inner-secret-refuge-thangtong-gyalpo
LikeLike
Alternate Perspective, the term “secret” is a misnomer as regards tantra. “Secret” tantra is no more secret, in many ways, than upper-level martial arts techniques; they are very definitely “withheld” from beginning level students, but not because they are “hush-hush.” since beginning students and even medium students absolutely do not get to learn them, though, the techniques can seem “hush-hush” when in fact they are simply off-limits for ones own (and for others’) safety.
LikeLike
I do not have the time to fill all the knowledge gaps that may be at the foundation of some of the opinions expressed here, in which might originate also the position regarding sexual abuse in Rigpa, because that would mean to replace years of reading literature from various religions. It is not my interest and competence to have a more detailed theological discussion, and certainly it is not the place to follow it through here. My intention was, beyond the courtesy of answering when I am asked questions or informing when disinformation is obvious, to awaken another kind of spiritual curiosity (wanting to know more not only on what is hush-hush, hidden, and top secret, to be disclosed only for some elected who think that in that way they have access to a superior status, but also to know better what is available to all who really want to understand and follow a genuine spiritual path) and to plead for another way of thinking for some contributors to the thread in what respects the spiritual and religious matters (more balanced and complex). No matter how clever a person may think she/he is, without information, her/his cleverness may be for no avail. Her/his thinking processes would be like a mill having no grains to grind, or grinding artificial cereals (false information), instead real ones. The output will be useless in those cases. One’s intelligence should help her/him discover also what information is missing and should be sought after, based on the inconsistencies identified in current knowledge, and not letting the imagination to fill freely those gaps out of interest, unfulfilled desires, lack of time or laziness. It may be better to suspend judgment until those gaps are filled, than jump to a conclusion only because one is desperate after certainties.
In my opinion, it is hard to separate the abuse issue in the spiritual world from the theological issues, because they are entangled, and tight intertwined. The reasons are plenty. The first one is that it is hard to distinguish a lie from a genuine belief regarding some spiritual realities, as long as there is no recognized method to certify a religious truth. Then, there may be people disappointed with what the religious leaders they knew or they happened to encounter offered them, not fulfilling in some way their spiritual expectations. As thirsty people, they rush to other religious leaders, who seem to offer what they expected, even though, sometimes, it is only a surrogate, being coned by them, because they are ready to tell to them what they want to hear. They may noticed it, and suffer again of disappointment and feel that they were abused, or they would perpetuate their illusion out of fear, because they are not able to see, or do not have access to any better solution. I think that at the root of that situation may be a lack of self-interrogation regarding what is a religion, what are the fundamental tenets of the main religions, what does it mean to commit to a certain spiritual path, what are the consequences of such a commitment, what expectations are in accordance with a certain religious path, how a crooked religious representative of a certain religion could be recognized. All those issues are linked with the theological and doctrinal issues of the various religions. As body and soul of a man are in a tight relationship, also the practice and doctrinal issues are also hard to be disentangled. But people tend to see and judge only according to the superficial part, the most easily accessible: the practice part, not informing themselves first deeper on the doctrinal part. They may choose a spiritual path or another based on how pleasant and gratifying for their current needs and views it is for them a particular practice. But then they may be sucked into a commitment unwillingly, not wanting to throw away all the time and effort invested in a path chosen based on wrong criteria, not knowing the theological basis of the religion of their culture, or the doctrinal basis of the adopted religion, from another culture.
As I said before, ignorance, i.e. lack of relevant and correct information, may make a person vulnerable to religious abuse, no matter the religion involved, but also, an ignorant religious leader is on the path to become an abuser. It is very hard to place the blame of the ignorance in the case of an adult disciple teacher relationship, because there is responsibility on both sides. Still, the responsibility is higher on the side of the teacher, because he is supposed to be less ignorant, he is the side who should offer information, at least in good faith, i.e. only that information of which veracity is certain, or underlying what is a certain fact, a common accepted dogma and experience and what is personal opinion, interpretation, or experience. Confounding them or spreading confusion in that respect in a disciple mind, either in what respects his religion, or others’ religions, is a kind of abuse. But in order to prove that kind of abuse from the part of a spiritual teacher, I think one inevitably gets to a theological and doctrinal discussion. I think that kind of abuse, based on stimulating or maintaining confusion precedes sexual abuse. The victim of a covert sexual abuse (not a physical rape) does not say no because she/he does not know that such an act is wrong even from the point of view of the religion to which a religious teacher is affiliated, or because she/he is convinced by that teacher that it may be beneficial in some way. Sometimes, that leader may suggest the idea that the religion supported by him annuls the former religion of a new adept, letting him the believe that in that way even common moral rules are no more relevant and to be respected, because they were supported by the former rejected religion. Generally, people are easily enslaved by offering them the freedom illusion.
Sheila, answering only now to your older post:
In my opinion, the answer is not in the title “The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying”, because SR did not limit himself to just presenting the Tibetan approach of the death, letting the reader to compare it with other ones on their own and make up their mind for themselves. Even though the title is that, the content of the book is different. Besides, to my opinion, he does not present purely the traditional Tibetan view, but also some of his speculation and interpretations, and information gathered from Western authors who have written on the process of dying mainly from a psychological point of view, not making a clear distinction between what is Tibetan tradition and what is not. He made implicit and explicit comparisons particularly with Christian religion, the predominant former religion of his potential audience (because the book was mainly written for Westerners). Several times he praises that approach as to be the best, the only one etc. without a solid support. If it is the best or the only one, it would have been me honest or humble to let the reader to decide for themselves. To say that it is the best without trying other practices (for example, the prayers and elaborated rituals from Eastern Orthodox Christianity) is a deceiving strategy to gain adepts in my view. My point was that he had no authority to say that it can be used by Christians. At most he should have underlined that it is only his speculation that idea. He should have asked Christians authors, who also understand Tibetan Buddhism, before making such claims, and giving their names and their reasons, as a support for his views. As I said before, it would have been a more honest way. To my mind is a kind of covert proselytism the claim the Tibetan practices may replace (actually fill a supposed void, as SR has never mentioned in the book the Christian approach of death, letting the reader to believe that there is no such thing) Christian approach to death. My previous posts intended to show exactly the fact that the recommended practice may be considered by most Christians as incompatible with their faith and views. The way Christians see the life after death, and the significance of life is different from the way is viewed in Buddhism. The issue is not reducible to replacing a deity with another one. Deities are not interchangeable, if one really has faith and is not playing games with her/his mind, considering them at most an expedient meaning. For Christians, Jesus may not be only an expedient meaning, a puppet from imagination to play with Him symbolic games. I suppose that if you have a boyfriend, you do not expect him to consider you exchangeable with any other woman, whenever it pleases him or he feels that other woman will bring greater satisfaction of his needs, or that you are only an imaginary being for him. If everything is relative, than why one should bother in believing something in particular, or being devoted to some deity?
I agree with you that the traditional way of life had a psychologically more helpful way to approach death. But there is a distinction between being helpful psychologically, and being helpful religiously to the dying persons or bereaved relatives. Besides, the fact that in the West there are no more death rituals may have little to do with a particular religion per se, but with a greater social mobility that impedes the building of strong communities, able to help individuals in need. The same may happen and I suppose is already happening also in Buddhist countries (where also there are different rituals and Buddhist traditions in that respect), where life was westernized. Vulnerable people seek then accessible surrogate communities, opening a gate to cult membership.
From a strictly religious point of view, the value of the Christian approach to death is not in traditional rituals, but in the belief regarding the significance of the life and death from a Christian point of view. Without that belief, ritual may be only a psychological relief.
It is one thing the dialogue between religions in order to solve common human pragmatic issues, and other thing the dialogue between religions having in mind the purpose of discerning the truth.
Bella, regarding your last post:
It is my impression that currently there is a tendency to think that people from Jesus’ time were surely more stupid, ignorant and credulous than we think we are. You seem to believe that apostles and other Jesus’ disciples had never heard of ghosts, and did not think to that possibility. As a proof that it may be otherwise, I cite the case of the apostle Peter who, seeing Jesus walking on water, thought at first that he was seeing a ghost and he was frightened. So, he seems to have had experience with ghosts and their way of manifestation, or, at least, to be aware of that possibility. When apostles found out first about the Jesus’ resurrection were not quick to believe, on the contrary, they were at least skeptic. Particularly Thomas, missing from the first encounter, required a proof, other than just seeing Jesus, maybe especially to exclude the possibility that he sees a ghost. That is why he was allowed to put his hands on Jesus’ wounds. Jesus eats in front of the disciples several times probably to prove that he is not a ghost, because it was known that ghosts do not eat. It seems that disciples experienced the presence of the resurrected Jesus as somehow distinct from the one of a ghost, that they identified a difference. It may be possible that in those times people to be more knowledgeably about and ready to accept the idea of the existence of ghosts than in our time. It is hard to believe that they would sacrifice themselves for a ghost, or that they would have changed their behaviour so dramatically because of that, as nobody does in our times also. Besides, in Judaism, as in Christianity, spiritist practices, talking with dead people appearance, were interdicted. It was believed that those appearances are not actually the spirits of those peoples, they are not actually resurrected, but evil spirits disguised in their appearance in order to con or fool (by frightening or transmitting false information and believes) the living people in some way or another.
LikeLike
Well, I do understand free speech gets sticky. It’s not easy figuring out where lines should be.
I just have to point out the irony, though, of appreciating this person as a source of insight even though his speech is harsh, since that’s exactly what Sogyal Rinpoche supporters are criticized for ;)
LikeLike
There are only two accounts that represent Dialogue Ireland. This one, which I post exclusively under, and the ‘dialogueireland’ account which Mike uses.
That was probably my fault. Many commenters contributed to what became a bit of a cesspool. It could have been stopped by handing IP bans but would self-defeating in the end. My over-optimism in allowing free speech I suppose. The Rigpa-related threads just slowly boiled over before becoming a mess.
Despite the behaviour in the comments section, it must be said the person in question was (and is) a valuable source of information and insight on these issues. It is rare to find someone so expert in a given theology and issues concerning cultism.
LikeLike
Scholar-practitioner Judith Simmer-Brown has fascinating insights on issues for Western Buddhists, including the issues of lineage and gender.
From Voicebase:
Judith shares her take on the importance of lineage for new teachers, explaining the role of an Acharaya, and discussing the need to connect strongly to the roots of the tradition. She also warns that if as Western Buddhists we aren’t properly educated in our traditions we can’t make intelligent adaptations, however important those adaptations might be.
http://www.voicebase.com/voice_file/public_detail/42022
LikeLike
Just don’t pick Finnigan nor someone from outside Tibetan Buddhist tradition, because outsiders don’t often understand Tibetan Buddhism very deeply, even if they are Buddhist. Hinayana teachings can be contradictory to Vajrayana or Tantric teachings – and it doesn’t help, if someone doesn’t understand the teachings. I wouldn’t recommend either someone who is against Nyingma school. I also would find it useful if the person would really follow teachings of a Tibetan lama. The Western group is high on marriage and partnership as a path. I don’t know if a person without a permanent partner is considered less perfect fit as a teacher. I would recommend a follower of a Tibetan lama who has been around for over 20 years and knows a lot.
LikeLike
dialogueireland, I’m sorry, but I have to ask – why on earth, as an anti-abuse organization, did you allow this Buddhist expert to be on your staff, and to come onto these forums telling women to “shut up,” to be careful or they might experience dire consequences, and so forth? Without any consequence whatsoever, without any admonition? It just doesn’t make sense.
LikeLike
We currently do not have a Buddhist expert or consultant. We are looking for someone who is expert but does not require a fee, as we are a small organisation which protects human rights but without hardly any funding. Also now we have this spillover thread we do not need to monitor theological, philosophical or ideological disputes.
All we are interested in is the violation of human rights whether in terms of mental coercion or sexual abuse or the abuse of the teacher /student relationship.
LikeLike
“To believe in resurrection or Trinity does not require logic, or trust in one’s sensorial experience. It is quite the contrary. It makes more sense and it is more logic the Gnostic view, especially for the people of our days who never saw an actually resurrected person. It is more in sync with their current experience and world view.”
I hope I understood this correctly. I have to disagree, because many people say that they have seen ghosts or heard sounds (or objects moved) of recently dead people. My childhood friend’s mother, who is not crazy, often visited an elderly couple in the neighborhood. One of those old people died. After that she and the woman who was left behind heard a telephone ring loud many times. There was no one. Then the sound of a vacuum cleaner begun in another room. It was not on. They had made a deal with the recently diseased that the deceased would come and say hi. :)
LikeLike
themadhair, I really appreciate your explanation. With anonymity compounded by sockpuppetry, it can be a little hard to tell who’s representing Dialogue Ireland. I have probably unfairly attributed sentiments to Dialogue Ireland which actually came from those not related to it.
I do appreciate the spillover thread, as I still have many questions on this whole issue, and it’s practically impossible to ask them otherwise (the assumption being all who ask such questions are “Rigpa trolls.”)
BellaB, I realize that some of my recent statements might have lead you to believe I consider you a “Rigpa troll” – – – I do not. I very much enjoy your perspective (as well as yours, Alternative Perspective).
LikeLike
@ Alternative Perspective
Please try not to post more than one weblink in your comments. When you do that it sets off our spam filter. This places your comment into a moderation queue which will delay your comment from appearing.
LikeLike
You posted your comment in the other thread. The method I used to copy it here means it is ‘blockquoted’, hence the yellow. It is just the easiest way to do the copy on the admin side.
I really don’t think you are getting the point of this blog. Let me explain the history.
Back in 2009 the Dialogue Ireland website was DDOS’d into dust. DDOS mitigation costs are extremely expensive, so an alternative solution was needed. So, in December of that year, I set up this blog which, due to being based on the WordPress.com platform, is practically DDOS-proof. The ability for users to leave comments comes with the package and it was felt that this ability would be useful tool.
In the early days most comments were little more than a means of expressing agreement or disagreement with a given post or article. Gradually the contributions grew, with some commenters leaving quite insightful material – often with the benefit of first-hand experience. This input has provided very valuable to us.
People who wish to report abuses do so by contacting us directly. This blog was never intended to be a replacement for that, and it sole use is to offer our readers the ability to comment on any materials we publish.
In some cases, most notably the Rigpa threads, the comments have developed into full-blown discussions and arguments. There are plenty of forums out there who would nip such arguments in the bud, but we feel that this only serves to exclude one-side from a given debate. For this reason we have chosen to tolerate such heated discussion because, at the end of the day, these comments sections are intended to be available to everybody who wishes to share their thoughts.
Admittedly we are still trying to find the right balance between facilitating robust debate and trying to stop such debates becoming an insult-fest. My attempt to do this by directing people to our forums was a failure – people simply prefer commenting on this blog due to its proximity to the articles under discussion and due to its ease of use. This ‘spillover’ thread is my second attempt and, so far, it seems to be working well. As you can there are certainly people on this thread who wish to express themselves, and that alone seems good enough reason to persist with the format.
This blog has never been intended to be a ‘refuge’ in any sense of the word. All it does is offer material to the public that Dialogue Ireland feel is worth being in the public domain. The ability of comments sections to allow members of the public, should they wish, to offer feedback, commentary and their own personal experiences is simply an additional service that adds to our own materials.
Many people do contact Dialogue Ireland in a manner unconnected to this blog. That will always continue to happen, and people who do so are treated in a fair and non-judgemental manner. A lot of the information we receive comes from both former and current members of various groups, family members, etc. – and we always protected anonymity and privacy. This blog is not intended to be a medium for such contact, and it never was.
As for abusive comments, try to understand the tightrope we are trying to walk. There are plenty of forums on the internet where dissent is quickly removed and posters banned. We have chosen, deliberately, to try our utmost to preserve access to our commenting features for all people regardless of their views (even when such views are expressed distastefully). In terms of the Rigpa threads you must admit that ‘both sides’ have been guilty of throwing abusive comments. Yes, banning people was an option but one I didn’t feel would be particularly productive. I’m *hoping* this spillover thread will help alleviate some of the problems here.
I hope this illuminates the intentions and history of how and why this blog came to be. Just want to add one final comment. When discussion arises concerning criticism of a particular group it is my preference that posters representative of the views of that group are able to leave comments. This is the essence of what I hope this blog stands for – a genuine platform where people of all views can leave comments without fear of censorship, even if it means a few insults and bit of trolling will occur.
LikeLike
I would have saved the pigs.
LikeLike
“A proof for me that from a Buddhist point of view the life and death of Jesus has no meaning and that SR has no respect for his potential so called Christian students is that he organizes retreats simultaneously with major Christian fests. I suspect that at those retreats not many words about Jesus are heard. ”
I think SR sees this question so, that he believes that a practicing person who prays to Jesus and wants to be in his presence does similar things as a practicing Buddhist who invokes Buddhas and who does Deity practice in order to allow deities ‘presence’ in him/herself. The outcome is the same: “I felt the love of Jesus” or “I noticed the grip of my ego loosen and this overwhelming love filled me”.
I did not see the point in your answer to my idea, because my comment was referring to something else. My comment was not about what things a Christian and a Buddhist practice, but about the fact that actually a Christian student if she/he goes to SR’s retreat cannot go in the same time at the Church and be with her/his family at Christmas or Eastern Liturgies. I imagine that there is no Rigpa practice with visualizing Jesus during retreats.
The answer for your irrelevant comment to my comment is to be found above, when I spoke about devotion. Besides, to my impression, one cannot equate Jesus with Buddhist deities. Jesus was a historical figure, like Buddha, but Buddhist deities are mere symbols of some aspects of the Absolute, if I understood well (although my impression is that they tend to be confounded by some practitioners with the kind of deities from antique times, as some supernatural protective beings). Furthermore, Holy fathers and Eastern Christian monks have not encouraged visualizations of Jesus, of the Virgin Mary, or of God when praying. On the contrary, it was discouraged, because it is seen as a kind of pietistic, sentimentalist and displaced devotion.
Using the same reason as that mentioned by you, the practice of the Greeks, Hindus and Romans in their temples, dedicated to their deities, is perfectly the same with of a Buddhist’s or of a Christian’s one.
I, also, did not see the point regarding the Jesus’ throwing of the tables in the Temple. If you think that it was a self-righteous gesture, my opinion is that it should be interpreted by considering the whole context. There was not a pretension to be morally superior to others, but a way to show what is and was and obvious thing for many people and that people should take attitude when saint places and feelings are tarnished, that commerce in a Temple should be not allowed. What would you feel if a Buddhist Temple would be actually a trading place?
“What I meant that priests stole our freedom by saying that there is only one life and we should pay money, in order to go to heaven after this one.”
You say that priests stole our freedom by saying that there is only one life as if it a certain fact. It is at most a mere supposition of yours taken from others. The arguments and links from above regarding the authenticity of the Gnostic gospels show that it is not an unquestionable issue.
It is ironic that you accuse priests, although, from a Buddhist point of view, nobody than ourselves, by our ignorance, could steal our freedom. The same could be said about lamas that they have stolen their disciples’ eternal life by saying that there is rebirth and innumerable lives, having enough time to postpone their spiritual change, and people should pay money to them or to others in order to accumulate merit for an auspicious rebirth.
Anyway, what is the problem with giving money to the church and not to Rigpa? Their use is the same: buildings and more buildings and lands, supporting the teachers’ life and their servant disciples, donations for charitable purposes etc.
Also, it is not a fair strategy to overgeneralize your particular experience about priests to all priests and all Christian churches. There is no general dogma that people should pay to go to heaven, but quite the opposite. The fact that in Catholic Church, for example, or other Christian churches, there were exaggerations and greedy priests taking advantage of the people’s ignorance does not prove anything about Jesus and what He said.
“Christianity is a complex creation of people.” and other of your ideas and comments
It may be so, but so it may be in the case of Buddhism, particularly Tibetan Buddhism. When one is reading the life of Padmasambhava, even though it was historically more recent than the Jesus’ one, the impression may be more close to the legend and fairy tale than in the case of the Jesus’s life (it is one thing to be born from a virgin mother and another thing to be born directly from a lotus as a boy having directly eight years old). To my impression, there are even less historical evidences for the historicity of his life, even less references to particular dates and precise attested locations and people. His life is mixed with elements from legends or events depicted in other religions (some have noticed the resemblance of his life with the Moses’s life and some influence of the Gnostic writings in the written works attributed to him (http://books.google.ro/books?id=PaQNqu7aeYQC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=Padmasambhava+Moses+gnostic&source=bl&ots=n2_HgjH-Os&sig=eHcAKjfw5fm8CUNfh2GMB861Re8&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=0aalT56kEonctAbCxZWMBQ&ved=0CGAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Padmasambhava%20Moses%20gnostic&f=false)
To my impression, the canonical Cospels are more sober in that respect, and less filled with obvious elements of fantasy or imagination, even in those contexts in which supernatural events are depicted. Besides, there are reasons to believe the fact that not only Gnostic sects existed in the region from where supposedly Padmasambhava came, but that, also, there and in the region controlled by Mongols (inclusive Tibet) there were merchants who were Nestorian Christians traveling in that area, spreading their religion. Their influence in that region seemed to be rather important, at that time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_among_the_Mongols). So, it may not be a far-fetched hypothesis to suppose that some of the ideas about bodhisattvas occurring relatively late in Buddhism may be linked with Christian ideas, or even that the similarities in the lamas’ rituals with the Christian ones may have a similar origin.
About the Hourus and Jesus, here you have some alternative sources with information showing that it is not such a clear matter as you think to be: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message436598/pg5
http://creativecounterpart.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/ending-the-myths-of-horus-jesus/
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread310802/pg1
Furthermore, there are authorized Christian authors who recognize the fact that people from every time and earth region had intuitions about the truth, but those were distorted or lost in fantasies and imagination. People from all times were waiting for a savior.
I have never said that God cannot be questioned. He can be questioned, but in a fair manner, without prejudices, and by wanting to know more about Him sincerely. After all, in the Old Testament, even Jacob fought with God (http://www.unionchurch.com/archive/100399.html), “wrestling” in prayer (http://www.gospelweb.net/ronsermons/jacobwrestleswithgod.htm, http://www.answering-christianity.com/jacob.htm)
I am aware of the controversies from Christianity, but that does not mean that all Christianity is false, or that I should believe that only the conspiracy theory woven around the Gnostic gospels is true, without having any solid reason for believing that. I tried to discern the best I could what might be true and what not, by searching for the global picture and reading the source texts, not limiting myself to some superficial and even fake and false information and citations flying around on internet, taking over by people unwilling to check their veracity. Unfortunately, in my posts I also had to cite mostly websites, and not source texts, as they are not easily available on Internet in English.
In Christianity, too, no one takes credit for the good deeds, because it is recognized the fact that we are able to do good deeds because of God, that only He is the source of all Good.
My impression is that you also have a simplistic view regarding sacrifice in Christianity and Buddhism. In Christianity, people sacrifice, too, their ego, but out of love, as a gift to God, and recognizing in a humble way that there is a power greater than theirs, that they are only creatures in comparison with the One Who created them. In fact, there is also properly no sacrifice here, but only to recognize a fact, a truth, and not believing in the absolute autonomous power of a creature. Besides, when there is love, there is no accumulated merit and computing of merit of one part or the other, even of the merit of giving up the merit. To my knowledge and understanding, Bodhisattvas still sacrifice something: they postpone their entrance in Nirvana.
If the idea of karma (in the Buddhist traditional way) is only about changing lenses, as you say, I wonder, what is the chance of a sentient being reborn as a worm, pig or pigeon to change its karmic vision or lenses during that life, to have as a worm a “deep understanding and self-awareness” to change those lenses, when even to a self-conscious man such change is so hard to achieve?
LikeLike
“I’m not against Jesus (I like him), but I don’t understand the sacrifice-explanation about his life and I don’t agree on that view. I throw a bit harsh questions here, but I do it on ‘purpose’ (to question). You could also see a bit what it feels like when you criticize (from my point of view) trivial issues. I don’t mean abuse, but many have strange ideas here about Buddhism and SR.
How Jesus saw himself?
Is it explained somewhere? Did he believe he was the son of God? Could it be that he had a grandiose self image? He had a few skills, what Buddhists can also have, but do those skills make him more the Son of God than other people with gift of healing and so on? There are many people with the ability to heal. (They were called witches as some point in history.)
Jesus was very self righteous: throwing around tables, wasn’t he?
Why did he shout on the cross: Why did you abandon me, Father? If he was God himself, shouldn’t he have known what is going on?
“Jesus considered His sacrifice to have a meaning, other than to be mere a lesson for His followers, saving other people through His death and resurrection …”
Did HE really – or his followers or the priests that invented meanings after his death?
“Old Testament they would found out that animals are protected and not to be killed because they are too God’s creatures.””
For me it is unclear which sacrifice-explanation you do not understand and you do not agree with. There could be many, depending on the kind of Christianity you are talking about. Furthermore, in the same time, you asked where it is explained Jesus’ sacrifice. I suppose you read a particular explanation somewhere as long as you do not agree with it.
It is unclear to me which Jesus you like: the one from one of the Gnostic gospels or the one from the canonical Gospels.
You are not alone in not understanding. Even the Apostles did not understand at first. And I think not many of the Christians truly and fully understand also. But not understanding does not mean we are obliged to fill that void with our imagination or suppositions, based on our limited experience, regarding its meaning, as you seem to be inclined to do. In my opinion, it would be more honest for one to recognize simply that she/he does not know or understand, or that it is an undecided issue, than to prefer an alternative that has no solid support, at least not a greater support than the rejected alternative.
The way Jesus saw Himself is to be found in the canonical Gospels and traces of that image are to be found even in some of the Gnostic gospels (as I imagine that you already know). There is no other more direct written source. If you do not believe that the canonical Gospels are veridical sources is another matter (to be discussed separately). But your idea that they are pure forgery of some priests thirsty of power and money is simplistic, and without solid support, other than the fact that you met some present priests that fit with that idea and that there are other people supporting such view, from a reason or another. But as Buddhism is not to be judged by considering only the case of some abusive lamas, I think Christianity should enjoy the same right when being judged by you.
You said that you like Jesus. From my point of view, one could really like Jesus if she/he believes that He was what He said to be, the Son of God and the Redeemer who forgives the people’s sins. I know of any other religious leader claiming to have the power to forgive one’s sins. It is an explicit claim made repeatedly by Jesus in the Canonical Gospels, which is harder to be misunderstood in comparison with the claim that He is the Son of God. But if He was not and is not what He said to be, there is no reason to like him (other than the fact that was a human being and taught about love), on the contrary. Why should anyone particularly like a possible liar, lunatic (as in C. S. Lewis trilemma), confused man about his identity and powers, or a misunderstood teacher not having the power to transmit his true message? Why should anyone particularly like him as a moral teacher, if he had immoral behaviors (for example lying) or for his teachings about love and morality if he only repeated a known message, transmitted by others before and after him? In my opinion, in case Jesus was not Who He said He was, one could like Jesus for the same reasons for which any person should be liked, but not like a master, or a religious leader.
Not only that Jesus from the canonical Gospels affirms to be the Son of God, the only way to God, and to eternal life, but He accepted to prove that, that His words are not to be meant otherwise, that they are not only a way of speaking, a metaphor, that His claims were no lesser than the way they were heard and understood by His audience, who was appalled by such unheard and blasphemous claims. Jesus from the canonical Gospels was crucified not for some wrongdoing, but because His claims regarding who He was: the only Son of God, which was a blasphemy for religious leaders of the Jews. If he would have been only a moral teacher, or a prophet, like many others preceding or following Him, he should have said that at His trial out of honesty and compassion for those people who died because of their misunderstanding. But through His trial and death, He suggested that people should be in no doubt that He thought and taught of Him that. Whether people believe Him or not is another question. The point is that according to Jesus’ sayings, God does not want to constrain us into believing by offering an indisputable proof (if there could be such proof for everyone), as priests asked, totally annulling in that way our freedom and the value of our love. He said about Him to be rather a testing stone (“Anyone who stumbles over that stone will be broken to pieces”). If you were very rich and very powerful, I wonder if you would trust 100% that any boyfriend of yours loves you for yourself or for your power and money, being constrained to love you for your greatness. So God would want that our love for Him to be not out of pure interest and because He constrained us through an undisputable evidence, or to be a cold love, deriving purely from logic, or from a crushing imbalance of power.
You said that you actually do not understand Jesus. In fact, it seems to me that even from the start, people were attracted by Him or rejected Him, without really and fully understanding Him. That is the mystery: that so many people liked him even after His death, and believe in His resurrection, and were even ready to die for Him, no matter their cultural and education level, even though they not fully understood Him. The reason given by Jesus in canonical Gospels for the fact that not all people are willing to believe in or love God or Jesus is that people love more the darkness than the light, because they are afraid that their sins and ignorance will be revealed in the light. Furthermore, maybe in order to understand His sacrifice, one should accept it first. It seems to me that you first want to understand logically Jesus’ sacrifice and than to believe, although you say that you are against the people who believe only in what they see and who think logically.
So, Jesus saw himself as the Son of the God, as long as one believes what is written in the Canonical Gospels. What it means Son of God can be understood from there, as much as a human mind can understand that, and from the writings of the Holy Fathers, who unanimously support the view that Jesus was and is “Perfect God and Perfect Human” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Christian_theology, http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/doctrine1.aspx, http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7063) , although such a union is hard to understand logically, and any sliding toward the God or Human part extremes was considered to be heretic. That is why, it is said, in the canonical Gospels there are instances when Jesus speaks like a God and instances and situations when He behaves and speaks like every human being. The last situation is, for example, on the cross, when He asked that question you mentioned. Holy fathers speak of the kenosis of the Son of the God on the cross, when He renounces to His powers. According to the Eastern Orthodoxy, death means not especially the death of the body, but the death of the soul, i.e. to be separated from God. So, if on the cross Jesus died also as a man, who takes on him others’ sins, he should have feel His death as such a man, as a separation from God. In the same time, that question is the first line from the Psalm 22, starting with the feeling of despair of a man, but finishing with the hope in the power and love of God. So it may be a reminder for people, and the fulfillment of a prophecy from the Old Testament.
Jesus’ ability to heal was not supposed to be the sole proof that he was the Son of God. He was considered to be able to give to the man the eternal life, not only health in this life, or to resurrect people. Indeed, many people had the ability to heal, even in Jesus’ time, but no one got known and loved like Jesus. If Jesus was not more than a healer, then His healings would not have any significance other than the benefit of the healed persons. Indeed, those healings would be no reason for considering Him a great master. Besides, not every healing is really a healing: some healings may be followed by more severe illnesses in the long run or may cost one the eternal life (if they are obtained through evil spirits, as some Holy Fathers or monks say). Comparing Buddha and Jesus, one notices a difference occurred in that respect in a specific situation. When Buddha was asked by a mother to resurrect her son, he sent her first to see if every family had or not a similar tragedy. He did not resurrect her son, but wanted to teach her a lesson. Instead, Jesus resurrected the widow ‘s son from Nain, even though she did not ask for that. If you were the mother, which one of the two solutions would you prefer?
The point in any religion is not mainly what is obtained in this life (health, for example) or what particular state of mind is obtained at some point (similar states of mind, even of all embracing love, could be obtained in other ways, even artificial ones, by drugs or other experimental manipulation affecting brain physiology), but of a future or transcendental life. Similarly, devotion may be or seem to be the same as a process, no matter the object of devotion (there are people devoted to animals or even objects), a guru, a husband or wife, Jesus, God, etc. Even the short term effects may seem to be the same (the feeling of love spreading from the devotion object), but the question remains regarding the effects on the long run, for a possible future life. And in what respects the way future life is conceived there are major differences among religions.
Of course that anyone is free to think that all people who established the teachings of a rival religion were malevolent, materially or otherwise interested to lie consciously or unconsciously or stupid and their religion is the result of a pure fantasy or fabrication. But in the particular case of the Jesus’ death, apart of His words, the meaning of His death is to be found in Paul’s epistles (not only in the later words of the priests). For example, Paul says, in his epistle Corinthians (http://carm.org/analysis-pre-pauline-creed-1-corinthians-151-11, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_the_Corinthians):
“For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. (…)And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up; if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. (…)But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the first fruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. (…)Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead? And why do we stand in jeopardy every hour? I affirm, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. If, in the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantage is it to me? If the dead do not rise, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die! (…)So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.”
Paul did not gain anything from his preaching that, on the contrary, he suffered because of that. So, it is hard to see what would have been his personal reason to lie in this matter. The only alternative may be the one that he was confused or deluded somehow. But the same thing was supported also by Apostles, as they never contradicted him in that matter, even though he was a new comer.
From another point of view, it is my opinion that if Jesus’ death would not have had a meaning in itself, beyond its interpretation of the followers, if Jesus was who He said it was, He should have stated more clearly for all people the significance and the interpretation of His death. But as it is suggested, the effect of His death is partially beyond and independent of the people’s interpretation of it. They will feel the consequences no matter the way they are willing to interpret it.
Besides, when His disciples were sad regarding His announced death, He consoled them saying that it is in their interest for Him to die, because only in that way they will receive the Holy Spirit, Who will reveal them the whole truth.
It is not the place and my ability and competence to fully speak here about the significance of the Jesus’ death. I only made reference to some ideas, because my impression was that on this matter, too, you have a rather simplistic vision, without being aware of the most important Christian authors who have discussed the issue, beginning with St. Paul and Holy Fathers.
You said you do not agree with the meaning of the Jesus’ life, as sacrifice for our sins. I wonder myself what would you do in the following situation: you are in debt with a very, very large sum of money to other people because some mistakes you made (willingly or unwillingly, on purpose, out of ignorance, negligence, etc.). Several lives would not be enough to gain the money to pay your debt. But, a very generous and rich man comes to you saying that he can pay your debt to your creditors. You only have to accept that offer and to try not to do other debts, and to forgive the people who have debts to you. That person will not pay your debts if you do not want that, out of respect for your freedom. What would you do? Would you reject his offer out of pride? Are you willing to accept slavery for ever and being in prison for this entire life and for a possible future one? One may say that she/he is able or should be able to pay his debts toward other people by herself/himself, without making other debts in the process. But that would mean to say that one is independent of others, and it would mean a kind of pride. One may say that it is a kind of generosity, that she/he does not want others to suffer losses because of her/him. But if that person does not pay your debts, suffering losses willingly, other persons, your creditors, will suffer losses anyway until you will be able hopefully sometime, if ever, to pay them your debts. But for any day of waiting, their loss may increase. So, if you are generous with the rich man, the poor one would have to suffer unwillingly, until you will be able to pay your debt. Of course, Jesus’ life and death has a more profound meaning, but it was an illustrative example offering an alternative point of view.
You seem to reject the notions of sin, or guilt. But, in my opinion, their rejection may have to do with a powerful ego, who does not like to admit being wrong or weak. What is wrong anyway with a guilt trip from a Buddhist point of view? The fact that one (the priest as you suggest) accuses and judges another (maybe without being himself without blame or a saint) is the problem? If one wrongly accuses, she/he will have the pay for her/his wrong accusation. Why an egoless person would suffer for a wrong accusation? And if she/he still suffers, then she/he suffers because of her/his ego. Isn’t that the method to challenge the ego also in Rigpa, as it was suggested by several of his members and even you have not contested it? How one can become humble without accepting to be humiliated? If by being accused, on the contrary, the ego of the accused person is strengthen, then why in Rigpa disciples are verbally abused (scorned for their errors) if it is true what some of them say?
Actually, in Christianity, repentance is not a guilt trip (as it is misunderstood by some people), but actually recognizing your current status, that you may be on the wrong track toward your target. It is a prerequisite in order to correct yourself and to find the right track. A prerequisite for a change toward good is to recognize that your current state is not the one you were actually after. It is like in the Jesus’ parable of the lost son, who realizes himself that he was not on the right path and returned to his father. Also, sin, from a Christian point of view, means failing to reach the target, and using in a wrong manner, bringing suffering in that way, something which might be by nature beneficial, if it is used for its proper purpose. For example, a knife may be used in order to make food, or to kill someone. Sex may wrongfully be used only for obtaining sensual pleasure (even if it is by mutual adult consent), or for giving life to a person. Anger can be beneficial if it is used to protect people and the truth, as Jesus did when He threw away the merchants’ tables from the temple (protecting in that way the true believers).
You give the impression that because of some of your personal experiences you may hate or despise Christian priests (I do not know from what kind of Christian church), and your opinions and information seeking and interpretation about Christianity are distorted by that feeling. In the same time, although you despise Christian priests for being materially interested, you mentioned that SR is accepted by some priests who agree to meet him and attend some Rigpa events. I do not understand if those priests are of the kind you despise, who came to meet SR out of material or political interest, or they suddenly are more enlightened just because they accept meeting with SR.
In accordance with the canonical Gospels, it was not actually Jesus who drove the pigs over the edge to the sea, but evil spirits. They were free to do it or not, especially considering the fact that by killing those pigs those spirits also suffered. It is an example of how evil is self-limiting, because evil means to drive yourself to your own perdition, to go to death on your own and take others with you. It is considered also an example that the life of a man is more important than the material possessions and to show how powerful the evil spirits can be. The Gerasenes people were upset that they lost their fortune because of that healing and asked Jesus to leave their land. What a Buddhist would have chosen to save out of compassion, because all parts involved are considered to be sentient beings deserving compassion: the evil spirits, the pigs, or the possessed men and the ones possible affected by his possession? If you were in the position of the possessed man would you prefer Jesus to save the pigs, evil spirits, or you? From a Buddhist point of view, one may say that those pigs accumulated a better karma by saving that man or that it was their karma to be killed by evil spirits.
You asked if Jesus had a grandiose self-image. To my impression, if that would have been true, according to the Canonical gospels description of events, then He should have asked others to pay homage to Him and bow in front of Him, and He would have not bowed Himself to wash His disciples feet, He would have stayed on a throne (like many lamas), He would have boasted Himself in front of the Pontius Pilate, there would have been no prayer as the one from the Garden of Gethsemane, showing His human weakness, He would have not said that His disciples will make miracles even greater than the ones made by Him.
LikeLike
“I prefer the version and explanation that early Christianity was divided into two: the followers of Peter and the followers of Mary Magdalene.
Peter’s tradition is the tradition of priests, who do not have a lot of understanding. Those people are rational, people who believe what they see. People who understand mainly logic.
Mary Magadlene’s tradition was the one that only a few followed. People rather follow men (why?), especially in the early days. She had the revelation of Jesus and she asked questions from him. She received answers that Peter couldn’t understand, so “let’s delete them and form our own official view”.”
If you had actually read the Canonical Gospels, you would have noticed that actually they do not represent only the Peter’s view. There is a Gospel of John, of Luke, of Mathew. Actually, Peter is not presented always in a very favorable light in the Canonical Gospels. Furthermore, initial Christianity was influenced also of Paul’s writings, who declared himself to had been initially a detractor of Jesus and of His followers. Paul did not meet Jesus along with the twelve apostles, but only in vision, as Mary claims in the Gospel of Mary. But the twelve apostles did not contest Paul and his writings. On the contrary, they were accepted by them, not being envious or jealous on him. Why then they should have been jealous on Mary? If they were indeed envious on her, why then in the Canonical Gospels it is recognized that Mary was the first or among the first who saw the Resurrected Jesus in flesh (because that is why she was so astonished when meeting Him) and who was entrusted to transmit this news to the apostles, who are shown to not believe her at first. Why Mary is depicted in a favorable light in the Canonical Gospels? If Mary had a Gnostic view of Jesus, who was supposedly only metaphorically and spiritually resurrected, only to be met in visions and not for real, why is she depicted (together with the other women) to be so frightened and unwilling to give the news to apostles when seeing Jesus and what point does it make to make her the first messenger of the resurrection and not the apostles themselves in the canonical Gospels if they supposedly represented in it their exclusive distorted view?
Gnostic tradition, also, does not represent exclusively the claimed Mary’s tradition. There is a Gospel of Thomas (that was recognized to be authentic even more than Mary’s one), a Gospel of Judas, a Gospel of Philip, even a Gospel of Peter etc. And all those gospels make contradictory claims, for example regarding who was to be considered the true disciple (for example, in the Thomas’ Gospel, James is the one recognized to be the true heritor of the Jesus’ teachings): Mary, Philip, Judas etc. By comparison, in the canonical Gospels, there is no such explicit favoritism for a single disciple. On the contrary, when some of the apostles asked for such favoritism, they were admonished for that. Furthermore, Buddha also did not have only one true disciple. Why Jesus should have only one? What point it would have been to have so many bad chosen followers, who almost all, except of one, got it wrong and misunderstood His message? Why the majority of the apostles were ready to die for the way they understood the message and Jesus let them die, not illuminating them on the truth?
Canonical gospels do not support the view that the priests are to be followed blindly, or that one should pay money to them. The same message of freedom and personal relation with the Jesus’ person is endorsed in them. Anyway, Christians in general are not more constrained to give money to the priests than are Buddhist to give money to lamas.
Also, your view that Canonical Gospels or Peter support a view of people who understand mainly logic or what they see (in fact, those are not the same, as you seem to think, because to understand logics requires not to trust only what you see) suggests the possibility that you have never read Canonical Gospels. To believe in resurrection or Trinity does not require logic, or trust in one’s sensorial experience. It is quite the contrary. It makes more sense and it is more logic the Gnostic view, especially for the people of our days who never saw an actually resurrected person. It is more in sync with their current experience and world view.
You put in contrast the Mary’s tradition with Peter’s one, but you specified only the Peter’s one to be logic, but not Mary’s one to be in some specific way different than the Peter’s one. You seem to defend Gnostic gospels believing that they are more in agreement with Buddhism. Actually, although some of them have vague statements that may be interpreted to be similar with very general Buddhist ideas, there are no explicit Buddhist teachings in them (about karma, the four noble truths, mediation etc.) and no reason is given for such omissions.
A lot of apocryphal Christian writings were banned, or not included in the Canonical collections because they were controversial at the time those collections were established. When judging their truthfulness some criteria were used, keeping only those texts that were safer in what respects the direct contact with the first witnesses, which have internal and mutual coherence, and which were widely recognized by all. I am aware of no certain proof of major forgery of the Canonical Gospels. If it were for the priests’ interests, many of the sayings from the Canonical gospels should have been deleted, but they were not (especially the ones regarding the priests from the Jesus’ time). In Eastern Orthodoxy, there are apocryphal texts, part of the Tradition, which are recognized as such (they were not banned or destroyed or deleted), but they are considered to be only useful, not as having an undoubted high level of certitude or to be authoritative.
Besides, especially in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church, not only the written teachings were consider important in transmitting the truth, but also the holy sacraments or mysteries, the transmission of the spiritual grace, of the Holy Spirit, and the Eucharist, i.e. the holy Communion through which remission of sins and union with Jesus is obtained. So, that was one reason for which for those Churches the salvation is not obtained only by imparting or transmitting knowledge in written texts. Those sacraments are not logic as you implied, but, as John of Damascus wrote of Eucharist: “If you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it is through the Holy Spirit … we know nothing more than this, that the word of God is true, active, and omnipotent, but in its manner of operation unsearchable”. So, a person is enlightened or saved not especially by studying some secret written teachings as in Gnostic gospels, but by participating to sacraments, where she/he receives the gift of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, it is said (in Christianity and also in the traditional Buddhism) that a person has access to the truth only after she/he has purified her/his life of evil deeds and thoughts, and not before, no matter how many esoteric, hidden, or secret teachings has read.
You were concerned in your previous posts regarding what would happen with the people who will die without hearing or believing in Jesus, considering that it is unfair to have to suffer for that, but, in the same time, you are ready to accept and you consider to be fair that only a few people, or only Mary got the real message from Jesus. Wouldn’t be unfair to let the other ones, the most numerous, to be deluded and in misunderstanding?
I do not have the time, too, to select you quotations from all the Gnostic Gospels and analyze their probable authenticity one by one, and their contradictions. In fact, anyone should make herself/himself time for finding the truth if she/he is really interested. Besides, you seemed to have had enough time to write on many blogs. That is why I will limit myself in discussing a little the case of the Gospel of Thomas, the one that is considered to probable be the most authentic of the Gnostic Gospels. I selected some quotations from it in order to see for yourself in what way they explicitly and strongly support the Buddhist view:
Jesus said, “I shall give you what no eye has seen and what no ear has heard and what no hand has touched and what has never occurred to the human mind.” (This quotation suggests that no one, even Buddha before, had ever transmitted such a message).
Jesus said, “I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out.”
And he took him and withdrew and told him three things. When Thomas returned to his companions, they asked him, “What did Jesus say to you?”
Thomas said to them, “If I tell you one of the things which he told me, you will pick up stones and throw them at me; a fire will come out of the stones and burn you up.”
Jesus said, “Men think, perhaps, that it is peace which I have come to cast upon the world. They do not know that it is dissension which I have come to cast upon the earth: fire, sword, and war. For there will be five in a house: three will be against two, and two against three, the father against the son, and the son against the father. And they will stand solitary.”
“I took my place in the midst of the world, and I appeared to them in flesh.
(33) Jesus said, “Preach from your housetops that which you will hear in your ear. For no one lights a lamp and puts it under a bushel, nor does he put it in a hidden place, but rather he sets it on a lamp stand so that everyone who enters and leaves will see its light.”
His disciples said, “When will you become revealed to us and when shall we see you?”
Jesus said, “When you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments and place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then will you see the son of the living one, and you will not be afraid”
(38) Jesus said, “Many times have you desired to hear these words which I am saying to you, and you have no one else to hear them from. There will be days when you will look for me and will not find me.”
(43) His disciples said to him, “Who are you, that you should say these things to us?”
“You do not realize who I am from what I say to you, but you have become like the Jews, for they (either) love the tree and hate its fruit (or) love the fruit and hate the tree.”
(44) Jesus said, “Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven.”
(46) Jesus said, “Among those born of women, from Adam until John the Baptist, there is no one so superior to John the Baptist that his eyes should not be lowered (before him). Yet I have said, whichever one of you comes to be a child will be acquainted with the kingdom and will become superior to John.” (It is suggested that not even Buddha was greater than John).
“Jesus said, “Take heed of the living one while you are alive, lest you die and seek to see him and be unable to do so.”
Salome said, “Who are you, man, that you … have come up on my couch and eaten from my table?”
Jesus said to her, “I am he who exists from the undivided. I was given some of the things of my father.”
(77) Jesus said, “It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.”
(82) Jesus said, “He who is near me is near the fire, and he who is far from me is far from the kingdom.”
(85) Jesus said, “Adam came into being from a great power and a great wealth, but he did not become worthy of you. For had he been worthy, he would not have experienced death.”
108) Jesus said, “He who will drink from my mouth will become like me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him.”
(114) Simon Peter said to him, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.”
Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males.
Also, here there are some quotations from the “The Hymn of Judas Thomas the Apostle”, taken from
http://www.gnosis.org/library/hymnpearl.htm
http://www.gnosis.org/library/actthom.htm
‘I (i.e., Thomas) am an Hebrew man; how can I go amongst the Indians and preach the truth?’
Jesus Christ, Son of compassion and perfect saviour, Christ, Son of the living God, the undaunted power that hast overthrown the enemy, and the voice that was heard of the rulers, and made all their powers to quake, the ambassador that wast sent from the height and camest down even unto hell, who didst open the doors and bring up thence them that for many ages were shut up in the treasury of darkness, and showedst them the way that leadeth up unto the height: l beseech thee, Lord Jesu, and offer unto thee supplication for these young persons, that thou wouldest do for them the things that shall help them and be expedient and profitable for them. And he laid his hands on them and said: The Lord shall be with you, and left them in that place and departed.
At the links referred below there are some relevant comments:
http://users.misericordia.edu//davies/thomas/farrell.htm
“Scholars continue to debate the effects of Gnosticism on “mainstream” Christianity, and on the canonic gospels themselves. The Gnostic concept of a divine spirit trapped in weak, imperfect flesh can be found in Matthew 26:41 (= Mark 14:38) and especially Romans 8:3-9. John 1:1 has been demonstrably traced to a Judeo-gnostic hymn that predates Christianity. Indeed, Elaine Pagels published gnostic exegeses of both John and the authentic Pauline letters, convincingly showing that they are more at home in Gnostic thought than Orthodox—or at least open to much wider interpretation than Church leaders wished.”
http://www.equip.org/articles/the-gnostic-gospels-are-they-authentic-
“Many sympathetic with Gnosticism make much of the notion that the Gnostic writings were suppressed by the early Christian church. But this assertion does not, in itself, provide support one way or the other for the truth or falsity of Gnostic doctrine. If truth is not a matter of majority vote, neither is it a matter of minority dissent. It may be true, as Pagels says, that “the winners write history,” but that doesn’t necessarily make them bad or dishonest historians.
In Against Heresies, Irenaeus went to great lengths to present the theologies of the various Gnostic schools in order to refute them biblically and logically. If suppression had been his concern, the book never would have been written as it was. Further, to argue cogently against the Gnostics, Irenaeus and the other anti-Gnostic apologists would presumably have had to be diligent to correctly represent their foes in order to avoid ridicule for misunderstanding them. Patrick Henry highlights this in reference to Nag Hammadi: “While the Nag Hammadi materials have made some corrections to the portrayal of Gnosticism in the anti-Gnostic writings of the church fathers, it is increasingly evident that the fathers did not fabricate their opponents’ views; what distortion there is comes from selection, not from invention. It is still legitimate to use materials from the writings of the fathers to characterize Gnosticism.”5
It is highly improbable that all of the Gnostic materials could have been systematically confiscated or destroyed by the early church. Dunn finds it unlikely that the reason we have no unambiguously first century documents from Christian Gnostics is because the early church eradicated them. He believes it more likely that we have none because there were none.5”
Here are some comments of mine:
If the words of the Thoma’s Gospel were secret, why so many of them are similar with the one from the canonical Gospels?
The majority of the fragments from the Thoma’s Gospel that do not occur in canonical Gospel are not “dangerous” or in contradiction with the canonical point of view. I see no reason for which priests would have wanted to delete them.
In Thoma’s Gospel, Jesus says that James is the one whom disciples should follow, not Mary, as you think.
LikeLike
I’ve also seen women told here, directly by the “Buddhist expert,” to “shut up.” Literally in those words.
LikeLike
Also, to be honest, I have found these “anti-abuse forums” to be some of the most subtly abusive places in my online experience. As a woman myself, I have been told multiple times that my experience is irrelevant, that I’m lying, that I’m a hired gun, and that the reason I haven’t experienced abuse in the spiritual community is because I must not be attractive enough to be “abusable.”
LikeLike
themadhair, I do agree with some of your most recent statement which came in as I was writing. Forums can draw in people who feel alone.
The thing I have a problem with is letting these women go on and on publicly, once they get here, instead of saying, “Look, glad you found us–now here’s the private forum for victims, where there are no Rigpa people camped out.”
Otherwise it looks simply as if the forum is meant to be some kind of “accusation party.”
LikeLike
I’m not sure what happened above…I made a normal post, but it’s now yellow.
At any rate, any certified abuse counselor will tell you that abuse victims need a place to report abuse that is completely non-judgmental. Such places focus on the abused–not the abuser. These places, by definition, need to be very private. The purpose of these places is not to police abusers, but to support abuse victims by allowing them a place to say anything they want, without interference of any kind.
The problem in these public forums is that the focus is generally on the alleged abuser. As such, with accusations leveled publicly and by name, those who disagree with the accusations must respond to them. We are not judging the alleged abusee, we are judging the alleged abuse, and our counter-experience if we have one.
In order for a public forum to genuinely be an abuse haven, it would have to be completely anonymous, including not naming the abuser. Then one could have a discussion about general abuse, not naming names, but focusing on abuse itself.
The minute one publicly accuses someone else–whether that be an ethnicity, a religion, a particular organization, or a particular person within that organization–those disagreeing have a right to address the accusation. It is clear that by naming a thread “Rigpa,” the focus is not on any abuse victims, but rather on the alleged abuser. That’s fine, but it is not the same, at all, as a haven for abuse victims, and the difference needs to be made clear.
Further, I would suggest that given that DI knows very well that there is at least one genuine Rigpa person here, who posts frequently, they are doing a huge and perhaps shady disservice to potential victims by widely advertising Dialogue Ireland for years now as a place for Rigpa “victims to gather,” knowing full well those women will be immediately questioned by a Rigpa person.
Do you honestly intend me to believe you have women’s best interests in mind, watching all this unfold? How can you in good conscience purposely try to attract ex-Rigpa students here to tell their stories, knowing Rigpa is, by your own definition, camped out here? And then have the audacity to say it’s Rigpa supporters’ fault when a woman feels badly at having her story questioned? You are setting women up, every single day, for this experience.
LikeLike
The idea is to provide a forum where people can share their information and experiences anonymously with the wider public. In some cases this can serve to illustrate to victims of a given group that they are not alone.
Please try to understand that our intention is to make relevant material public, and these forums offer people a medium through they can contribute. There are many people who choose to contact us and share information with us directly in a private capacity, and that is fine too. In essence these forums are simply another tool that people can utilise if they so wish.
It does seem as if you are attributing claims to us that we have not made.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Please keep such comments to this thread, wherein you will not be censored. Thank you.
LikeLike
“In my mind, it may be that a true spiritual messenger of God should have the power to state the truth in such a way that everyone should understand it if she/he wants to, anytime, not needing innumerable repetitions in various forms.”
Not everyone understand anything anyway. I prefer the version and explanation that early Christianity was divided into two: the followers of Peter and the followers of Mary Magdalene.
Peter’s tradition is the tradition of priests, who do not have a lot of understanding. Those people are rational, people who believe what they see. People who understand mainly logic.
Mary Magadlene’s tradition was the one that only a few followed. People rather follow men (why?), especially in the early days. She had the revelation of Jesus and she asked questions from him. She received answers that Peter couldn’t understand, so “let’s delete them and form our own official view”.
Of course it’s interesting what happens after anyone dies. Jesus told what he saw happening. In your writings reincarnation was removed because it didn’t fit (with Peter’s and his follower’s views). Jesus had to be the sacrifice like Egyptian god Horus was sacrificed and he became the god of death (liberator from death?). Of course those people who only understood what they saw, would interpret the event as ‘Jesus died because of our sins’ (the early students and especially Judas who revealed his residence to the enemy). That is generalized to mean that every human being, who do not even know Jesus, is guilty of his death, because we are all sinful.
Someone collected these common traits between Horus and Jesus in the internet:
Jesus was the “only begotten son” of the god Yahweh.
Horus was the “only begotten son” of the god Osiris.
The mother of Jesus was Mary. Sometimes referred to as Maria (Gospel of Mark) or Miriam.
The mother of Horus was Meri.
The foster father of Jesus was Joseph
The foster father of Horus was Jo-Seph
The birth of Jesus was heralded by a star in the East (where the Sun rises in the morning)
The birth of Horus was heralded by the star Sirius (the morning star)
After the birth of Jesus, Herod tried to have him murdered
After the birth of Horus, Herut tried to have him murdered
Jesus was taken from the desert in Palestine up a high mountain to be tempted by his arch-nemesis Satan.
Horus was taken from the desert of Amenta up a high mountain to be tempted by his arch-rival Set.
Jesus was known as the Christ (which means “anointed one”)
Horus is known as KRST, the anointed one.
Jesus is identified with the Tau (cross)
Horus was identified with the Tau
Sumerian goddess Inanna also died and resurrected after three days. Before that she lived in her paradise garden when the snake, the Anzu bird and Lilith entered there and made nests in the Huluppu tree, which became the problem. So: because so many traditions are also interwoven in the Bible stories, it just depends on whose story are we to believe. Christianity is a complex creation of people.
“As he has created the impression to his audience that he has access to higher truths, than anything coming through his mouth may be believed to be the absolute truth if he does not state otherwise(especially for those less educated people who have not the spiritual and educational background to discern the two situations). ”
I for one do not think that he is all knowing. He is a teacher, who knows a lot and understands a lot. I think I have never abandoned my ability to question, not even something he has said. I’m not a cult person.
I don’t know why people here think of him as god and if they notice some characteristics or personality in him, those should be removed, because he is supposed to be divine or godlike. I don’t share those expectations, so for me all this hassle seems a bit childish fight against imperfect parent, who doesn’t always tap his children in the head.
It would be interesting to see direct quotes of these, so one could see where what is said. I’m not a Christian scholar and I don’t have time to study these things in depth:
“to one saying about reincarnation in a vague way, to the other one saying the opposite, or about the resurrection in flesh at the final Judgment, to several saying that it is His death that is important, saving them from their sins, not his teachings, etc”
In Tibet there are independent practitioners who ask questions from lamas, go into a retreat alone. Many women do their daily pujas by the fire place. People murmur their mantras where ever they go. Practice is depending on the person too, not only on lamas
What I meant that priests stole our freedom by saying that there is only one life and we should pay money, in order to go to heaven after this one. I don’t know if Buddhist lamas have threatened with hell if people don’t pay them money, but it could have happened (?).
“That situation may live one with the impression that for some people does not matter how truthful a story is, as long as the child listening to it behaves herself/himself or if the child feels happy listening to it.”
I come from a family where my grandmother used to tell her early experience in church as a child:
The priest was shouting to the listeners:
“You dirty sinful children of snakes!”
My grandmother’s reaction was that she had laughed at it and waved her legs in her boots when sitting in the church chair. I think it’s not in my ‘genes’ to have a true believer’s view: there’s too much laughter and questioning in my family, on a daily basis. I’m too ‘childish’ to take everything as they are told.
Once I heard an Irish man commenting in Rigpa: “Yes, I have done the Catholic Guilt Trip now, so…”
LikeLike
one by one, because I do not have time to give them in a single post)
LikeLike
”I haven’t learned my Gnostism from SR, but from the internet. Like we know, there are no teachers to teach that path.”
and
“Those Gospel texts were present in the hands of the people who edited the Bible book based on their understanding and left those out. One can see from the Gnostic gospels that Peter was hesitant to believe that Jesus would give esoteric teachings of resurrection process to Mary, when he didn’t offer those to him. Teacher teaches on the student’s level and considers that person’s ability to understand. That is how Buddha also taught, differently to different people.”
Bella, I have never implied that you learned your Gnosticism from SR. It does not matter, anyway, where it came from. I have already imagined that the Gnosticism, or Jesus are not topics of interests or to be discussed in Rigpa by SR extensively. But I think that what have you learned from other sources came in sync with what is said in the SR’s book about the belief in rebirth of the initial Christians, based on his careless citation that was attributed to Origen (one would have expected less negligence in checking the sources from the part of a supposedly spiritual leader with such claimed altitude, and a former student of comparative religion). I do not know what you have read about Gnosticism and reincarnation in early Christianity, but my impression is that you were satisfied with finding only those sites supporting the belief you have already had. Here are a few illustrative links (they are more numerous, but they come first in my way, and they correspond to the views of the main Christian churches) showing that the issue is not so simple, or clearly established, as you seem to think, balancing the information you already have:
http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/origen1.htm
Click to access klohajesusandgnosticgospels.pdf
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Eastern-Orthodox-1456/2009/3/Reincarnation.htm
http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar14.htm
As a short summary, my impression is that Gnostic Gospels were very heterogeneous, supporting very different religious views, that the predominant evidences are that they were written much later than the canonical Gospels, that their ideas cannot be understood with certainty, as only fragments of their manuscripts were found (essential parts from them are missing, as it is also the case with Gospel of Mary) and little is known about the context and the reason for which they were written (some are like conspectuses of the Jesus sayings), that they were written in places where Buddhist and Pythagorean ideas (about reincarnation, for example) were currently in use (possible influencing the beliefs of the people who embraced also some of the Christian ideas, the “New Age” peoples of those times) that, generally, they are in perfect accord neither with Orthodox Christianity, nor with Buddhism. Some of them only hint to some more specific Buddhist ideas (as the idea of rebirth, or karma), without stating them explicitly, in plain words, making one to wonder why even when revealing his secret message to his most faithful, spiritually evolved and beloved disciples, the Jesus of the Gnostic gospels did not stated his teachings in plain Buddhist terms, and the whole Buddhist theory, but mere vague crumbles of it. If by the recent discovering of the Gnostic gospels the truth about the Jesus’ message was to be revealed, why then those manuscripts were not preserved or protected through the Jesus’ or Buddhas powers in a better shape (as it is supposedly in the case of the terma writings), but only fragments of them were found?
Why the priests who supposedly forged the canonical Gospels did not delete fragments from those Gospels that are embarrassing for apostles (Peter, Jacob, John, Paul, for example), or that could be used and were used by those supporting the reincarnation ideas?
Furthermore, there are plenty of revelations in the name of God until our days, people who say that they received in visions the Jesus’ true or new message for the world. The revelation of the Qur’an made to Mohammad may be seen also to be another version than the Gnostic one regarding the Jesus’ message. All those revelations should be linked and judged in relationship with the words of the Jesus from the canonical Gospels, warning against future false Christs. So, the Gnostic texts may be “revelations” of the same kind as those who have come after them until our days. In my mind, it may be that a true spiritual messenger of God should have the power to state the truth in such a way that everyone should understand it if she/he wants to, anytime, not needing innumerable repetitions in various forms.
It is an ironic thing that, actually, the entire Gnostic view (that has little to do with Jesus), its ideas about creation, matter and soul, its dualism are more distant globally from Buddhism than the Orthodox Christianity view, especially of the Saint Fathers of the Eastern Orthodoxy, but still, Buddhist Western students and teachers tend to support the Gnostic gospels instead of the canonical ones. The only reason for that seems to be their impression that the Gnostic gospels offer a greater support for the rebirth idea, even though that support is not so explicit and significant as it is claimed.
My impression from your comments is that you seem to know as a sure fact that there were people who edited the Bible, that it was a sure fact that Peter was hesitant and that Mary got the true message, and not the other apostles, that Mary was the closest disciple etc., as sure as you if you were there. Only that I do not understand why are you so sure that the Gnostic gospels were not also edited by other interested people (only with other interests), what are your evidences other than that that beliefs fit more easily in your own previous worldview. It is true that a teacher teaches according to the level of the students, but no matter how low is their level, they do not teach things that contradict the truth or the teachings of the higher level (it is as saying that a teacher would admit that two added with two is not for, only because the pupil does not get it). In addition of that, no reason is given in the Gnostic gospels why the other apostles were not worthy or prepared to receive higher teachings, especially about reincarnations and rebirth. Besides, Gnostic gospels contradict each other in what respects who was the one who received the higher and the most secret teachings (Mary, Tomas, John, Juda etc.), each claiming to be the favorite one. If only one of the disciples, for example Mary, was ready to receive the highest teachings, what was the point for Jesus to choose the other apostles if they were so unworthy and unprepared to receive his teachings in comparison with others? Is that a decision from a wise man you would appreciate? Furthermore, someone may think that Jesus was unwise or even devious stirring such a dispute among apostles by having secret messages only for some of the followers, undermining the transmission of his message in the future by a possible constant quarrel provoked in that way: to one saying about reincarnation in a vague way, to the other one saying the opposite, or about the resurrection in flesh at the final Judgment, to several saying that it is His death that is important, saving them from their sins, not his teachings, etc. I see no reason for which Jesus should have not spoken to the other disciples about rebirth and reincarnation, as long the belief in reincarnation was rather spread among Jews in those times, and even disciples in the canonical Gospels are asking questions or make statements that reveal the fact that they initially believe in reincarnation (e.g., some Jews and even disciples thought that Jesus may be John the Baptist, or they asked Him if a man born blind sinned in his past life or not, and Jesus said that he did not). To my knowledge, Buddha also has not left his important messages only to one disciple.
You asked why the Gospel of Mary had to be hidden. Who knows for sure? But possible alternative answers are that maybe because it was not important the message from it, or that it was important only for the Mary’s particular case, or it is not truly Mary’s, that it is a forged and edited text written by someone else, maybe after meeting her or maybe only in her name. If it would have been important, if God is almighty, or Jesus had powers to be admired even by you, he should have done something to preserve the entire message and not to let it to be hidden.
As regards the gender thing in Christianity, that thing, to my knowledge, still exists in Buddhism, too, even in the Tibetan Buddhism. Buddha did not want to teach to female disciples and to ordain them nuns in the Sangha, even when they insistently asked that. Only when Ananda, who was still not realized then, asked him to have mercy on them Buddha gave up, although affirming that there will be negative consequences on Dharma because of that. To my knowledge, in Tibetan Buddhism, still, the most revered and important lamas are not females, but males, and they are more numerous, too. Besides that, if Tibetan Buddhism had no problem with gender at all, then Yeshe Tsogyal should have been in the place of Padmasambhava, i.e. Padmasambhava to be her disciple, and Yeshe Tsogyal the teacher.
As regards the argument from your last post in what respects the people who remember their supposedly past life, you will find other possible interpretations for that phenomenon from the links I recommended to you above and from many more links you could find by yourself if you are interested to. It suffices to say here that there are numerous alternative interpretations and explanations: possession by evil spirits, who are able to reveal past information (Christian explanation), access to a universal collective memory (followed by a process of identification, similar with the one happening when one watches a film and identifies herself/himself with the protagonist, having the impression during the movie that she/he has immersed in a new world for a time, living the protagonist’s life and forgetting her/his life for a period of time) etc. There are recent experiments showing even that extracorporeal experiences can be provoked experimentally in the lab, by tricking the brain with a system of mirrors, for example, or by stimulating artificial members placed near the real one etc. I watched at TV and read numerous descriptions made by people who were so convinced of the worlds they saw in their visions and the extra sensorial experienced they had, either alive or in a clinical death after several days (as it was the one in the link you put in you last message). The problem is that they are so different and contradictory, as there are the innumerable secret revelations received by so many people believing that they have important messages to transmit (from deities, extraterrestrial beings, from Jesus, God, etc.) or that they are special beings, and everyone of them is ready to swear that what she/he said is the pure truth, and even something very new, or the ultimate truth. Such of diversity of visions over the life after death, and over the worlds that are not accessible to our senses makes one only wonder about the unlimited power of the human imagination and how frail are the mechanisms through which we are attributing the status of reality to our experiences. In fact, there are studies in psychology that show that there are psychological processes functioning in order to monitor reality, their output being a decision based on several cues whether a particular experience should be attributed the status of reality, or of imagination (the process being similar with the one in which one is deciding what object she/he perceives based on some processed cues). And those mechanisms could err, or be dysfunctional sometimes (generating reality illusions). So, again, it is not so simple and decided issue as you seem to think it is.
Answer for the rest of the Bella’s last post:
It is irrelevant for how long you followed school, or that SR went to a catholic school, and that he was student in comparative religion (I have already knew that, as it is general knowledge, from the first to read on Wikipedia about SR). It is important what one was taught there, what one knows, says, and behaves. You have never explicitly said that you actually read the entire Bible, no matter how long you went to school, or that in that school you read or you was taught, for example, writings of the Saint Fathers.
I wonder how frequent SR is speaking with his supposed friends, the Christian priests, and on what themes. I am aware that Christians priests went to such events, and that it is a courtesy practice in the West, or a politically correct thing to do, in order to demonstrate that one is not narrow minded, that he is ecumenical and welcomes any culture, promoting peace and understanding between people. Jesus himself spoke with a woman from Samaria, from a population of outcasts for Jews in those times. So, from a Christian point of view, it is not forbidden to talk to, help or meet people of other religions. But meeting does not automatically mean accepting their points of view (although I am aware that there are former Christians priests or monks, as Merton was, for example, who accepted some Buddhist ideas or practices). Those meetings and friendships do not prove anything by themselves, without knowing more about their true nature and the context in which they occurred, and who exactly was involved, and what was their purpose (collaboration on practical matters regarding the general common interest, or theological issues, for example).
SR can compare religions, of course, with other lenses than mine, but he should compare them after reading carefully and knowing about both religions (and his book does not give evidence if and what he read in that respect), otherwise it is as if I compare a known object with an unknown or imaginary object, or an object seen for only a few moments, from passing. Also, he should state his conclusions not as definitive, but underlying that they are only tentative ideas. That is important not only because the intellectual honesty requires that, but also because it is not the same thing when I am comparing two religions or he is comparing them. As he has created the impression to his audience that he has access to higher truths, than anything coming through his mouth may be believed to be the absolute truth if he does not state otherwise(especially for those less educated people who have not the spiritual and educational background to discern the two situations). Otherwise it would be like an abuse of trust, taking advantage of his image created in the eyes of the public and transferring that image over his ideas, letting people to deduce that what he is saying is not a tentative guess, but a revelation received through his spiritual powers. For example, as I said in my previous post, SR gave such a definitive conclusion after implicitly comparing religions in his book, that “compassion logics” is specific to Tibetan Buddhism, as if that it would be a definitive truth. And it is easy to prove that it is not the case, that other religions too speak of compassion and give reasons for its necessity.
I have never heard SR saying that he knows better, and I have never said that I heard him saying that, but that is the impression left to me after reading his ideas expresses in his book in that respect (when saying, without evidences on specifying his basis, that the initial Christians believed in reincarnation, that one can practice safely guru yoga using Jesus’ image, that Jesus is on a par with other Buddhist masters, and that it is not a far fetched idea that the Christian trinity and the three kayas from Buddhism are the same) and I read what you think,that he is able: “Maybe SR understands your Christian faith deeper than what you can, because he also has the deeper, esoteric teachings of Buddhism available”.
The animal consummation was only a metaphor. I actually did not specifically refer to the reason for which lamas are eating meat. But, by the way, for anything it may be a justification or rationalization: one may also think that the criminal people save their victims from further sufferance that they would have in the remaining life, or that they are making them the favor of being killed by them, as important beings in their psychopath mind, dying gloriously, and not by some illness or in a banal accident, or as Breivik thought that he kills for a good cause.
Yes, in Christianity there are personal views, but also some generally shared dogmas (the Nicene Creed) in the most important Christian Churches. But what is not in creed has never been declared to be, at least in the Eastern Orthodox Church, other than a simple ‘theologoumena’ (i.e., a theological opinion, and nothing more). Teachings of the Saint Fathers are considered only in the measure in which that they do no contradict the Nicene Creed and the Jesus’ words from the canonical gospels, and they are based on the credibility of their saint lives, as monks. And any religious important decision for the community is taken in a synod of bishops, with equal rights and vote power, in a consensual manner. No important religious decision is left to be taken by a single person, no matter how saint he may seem. This practice is based on the Jesus’ word that only when two or more people are gathered and prey in His name He will be with them and the Holy Spirit will inspire them the truth. So, there are some brakes put in the traditional church to limit and control the wild imagination or the hidden interests of only one person, no matter how saint may seem to be. You are suspecting that Christian priests have monopolized our relationship with God, because they want money and power, but I do not see the reason for which you are not suspecting the lamas to have the same hidden interests or reasons to monopolize our relationship with dharma. In Tibetan society, the Tibetan “clergy” seem to have played the same role as the Christian clergy. If your reason is that you or other people you know seem to benefit in a way or other following their teachings and participating in retreats, there are also people going to churches and preying who benefit from the priests’ teachings, suspecting nothing about their hidden interests. That situation may live one with the impression that for some people does not matter how truthful a story is, as long as the child listening to it behaves herself/himself or if the child feels happy listening to it.
To be continued … (As I said in my previous message I will give you the answers
LikeLike
Alternative Perspective, I believe the answer is in the title, “The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying.” It is meant to show the Tibetan approach to dying, but adds that this particular, Tibetan approach can be used by interested Christians or members of other faiths by using their own, particular deities as the objects of inspiration and faith in the process.
Christians do not have one, specific way to approach death; this is especially true on the Protestant side. The Catholics, at least, have last rites and so forth, slightly more solid frame of support for the dying person and the dying person’s family, friends and medical supporters.
This is just someone from the Tibetan tradition, which does have a very specific way of helping the dying and their supporters, offering insight to others who might benefit from it
The Hocak people for whom I worked also had a very set way of helping people die–steps to take during and after. This tradition was a source of strength and peace for not only the dying, but the bereaved. In western cultures, we are sort of left hanging–the closest we get to a tradition is the doctor announcing “time of death,” or the funeral home workers coming to take the body away. Those are the moments I remember thinking, “Wow, at least someone has a plan for what to do,” as the rest of us were helpless.
The grieving need (in my opinion, from what I personally have experienced), specific things to do, a ritual to take refuge in. This is not a ritual for the sake of ritual, but should be specific things that really do help.
The Hocak tradition, for example, says to cry for four days during the four day funeral (if you feel the need to), but after the fourth day, when the soul leaves, try your best not to fall into the depths of mourning beyond that time. It’s thought that this disturbs the soul of the loved one who is journeying on; and it also helps the grieving: we are communal creatures, and if we live in a community which acknowledges that endless mourning is unhealthy, we can derive a lot of strength from communal values, in my opinion. Of course everyone cries after four days, but at least we try hard to adhere to the advice, so that overall we’re less likely to be destroyed by endless grieving. It’s hard, and I’m sure it’s not followed to a T (I certainly haven’t been able to), but it really does help keep things in check, even if only a little bit. A little bit can be the difference between falling into clinical depression, or just being really sad.
Tibetans and Christians are already very much in dialogue, from what I can see; working on joint projects, sharing spaces–my temple hosts multi-faith community meetings for the purpose of working together and sharing thoughts. But the point is not to convert each other or take turns proselytizing; the point is that we have each chosen our own faiths, and as people of faith, can work together on mutual goals such as helping the dying, helping the hungry, etc.
LikeLike
SR went to a Catholic School in India and he studied comparative religion is the UK. He has Christian priest friends, which I have heard talking for an hour (among others) in Rigpa when HHDL inaugurated the temple. Many Christians also have different lenses and understanding of Christianity, hence the different schools and also sects that are not accepted as Christian, which you are aware of. I guess he can compare religions and find/see similarities in them without having the same lenses as you for his view.
“SR saying to a Christian that he knows better what it means to be a Christian, who was Jesus, and what may be Trinity than that Christian beliefs is like one saying to another one that he knows better how or who she/he is than that another one.” I have NEVER heard him saying he knows better. He knows more about Buddhism, more deeply than you – and he understands Christianity or the words of Christ from another angle than somebody who doesn’t know Buddhism nor it’s depth in analysis of similar spiritual experiences that people world wide have had before and after Christianity or Buddhism.
If he is collaborating with other faiths, it’s usually Christian, not Muslim community or some other. I guess some Christians also accept him, even though he doesn’t understand God in the same way. Also Islam rejects the idea of Jesus as a sacrifice gift – and they don’t see God as trinity.
I think I learned enough of Christianity during my 13 school years in order to form an opinion.
“Buddhism means to consummate it (animal meat) by digestion, transforming it in something else”. They don’t transform it into something else. High lamas eat it and form a karmic link (karmic debt toward the animal) and in future lives they may meet and that animal may have access to Buddhist teachings, which are considered, by Buddhists, the way to end suffering.
Bodhisattvas are not bound by attachment to their pleasure and pain, so their acts don’t mean a sacrifice of anything.
“Jesus’s access to the truth, of the Apostles, of the Christian saints and Saints Fathers, or other more recent authors affirming otherwise.”
Those writings are also personal views about him, not a truth. There are fights between different schools about Christianity and what is essential and what not. Do those schools discuss and collaborate? Why Christian people are not thrilled about finding Mary Magdalene’s Gospel? If I was Christian, I would have been. Why not incorporate her story, since SHE was the closest disciple, to Christianity?
In Tibetan Buddhism Yeshe Tsogyal was Padmasambhava’s closest student and her questions to the teacher are very important and have been published. Gender or what problem do the Christians have? Why her book had to be hidden for the future generations?
Bardos. There is a book about Delog Dawa Drolma where it is described her fairly recent experiences. One can believe or not.
http://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/details/delog-journey-to-realms-beyond-death-IDI022/
There are many people who seem to remember their past life, where they died as young, and they could – in their new life – remember their past home and relatives. Those people have even visited those past life homes, named the old relatives and so on. If those stories are for real or not, I cannot say. But I also had a strong sense as a child that I don’t want to be reborn again.
For the whole text I was waiting your responses to my main issue: how does Jesus see himself.
LikeLike
As I said before, initially, my point was firstly to underline the fact that there are signs that Sogyal Rinpoche actually does not respect Jesus words (both from canonical and some of the Gnostic Gospels) and that he does not seem to have a Christian culture giving him the right to say something in that respect without supporting evidence. In the second place, it seemed to me that you had an unbalanced position, being ready to doubt and suspect, for example, the reasons and intentions of the Christian priests, or of the Jesus’s words based on what you read or find out about them from a third source, books, others opinions or internet, without knowing them directly, but not about SR’s intentions, using the same sources, and, in the same time, you also condemn others who suspect SR’s intentions without knowing him personally. It seemed to me also that you have an unbalanced view regarding the animal issue comparing the two religions.
I am glad that you have asked those questions, but they prove what I have already suspected, that you have not read very much Christian literature in order to find them an answer. You stop at the phase at which you said that all that is nonsense for you and other views are easier to understand. If you had read more you would have found answers to at least some of these questions (I will recommend you some links in the future in that respect).
I will try to answer to your questions to my understanding and knowledge, underlying that I am not pretending to be the truth, but the way I think based on the evidences, experience, and information I presently have.
As most of the answers will be rather long, and I do not have much uninterrupted time to write them all in the same post, I will post them rather one by one. The same limit of time will probably impede me, unfortunately, to answer to any other comments or questions you may have (and I am guessing that there will be such comments), especially during the time I will be finishing the answers for the questions already asked by you.
“There has to be discussions between religions. Why do you want to prevent SR to co-operate with Christians? What are you afraid of?”
I do not understand what collaboration you have in mind between SR and Christianity. Expressing unilaterally some views over Jesus and ideas from Christianity, without citing or mentioning even a Christian source in the bibliographical part of his book, is not properly a collaboration and a real dialogue. Neither should be, in my opinion, some formal meetings between SR and members of unrepresentative Christian denominations (widely recognized as such within the larger Christian community). In the present days, there are even people who say, in a contradictory way, that they are Christian without Christ (I do not imply that SR met one of them, but only that there are all kinds of Christianity as there are all kinds of Buddhism). A true dialogue means much more than was mentioned above. It would mean firstly to really listen (or read) what the other one has to say. And that would mean to find out as much as possible firstly about what Jesus said and then what widely recognized Christian theologians or saints have said about that. It is my impression from his book and other accessible sources that SR is not aware of the content of such Christian works. He seems only to select some pieces of superficial knowledge about Christianity and reinterprets them in a Buddhist key, separating them from the entire picture. It is like someone saying that a pigeon and a man are the same because they both have eyes. When comparing two religions, the parts in dialogue should compare the entire picture of each of the two, piece by piece, and not extracting some elements that seem to be similar, especially when they are separated from their context, and not taking an overgeneralization view, as from an airplane (it is like saying the two pictures are the same because they are rectangular and have a frame).
A true dialogue also means to listen to the ideas of the other part and give specific feedback for each expressed idea: either through accepting it, or rejecting it, by given a valid argument. When two persons are in dialogue it makes little sense the initial motives for which either of one is defending a position as long as the rules of a logical dialogue are accepted and followed, i.e. logical arguments or factual information (even referring to subjective feelings one may have, but not confounding them with definitive proofs) are provided in order to support one’s position (the same should go also for the dialogue on this forum). Counterargumenting does not mean violent behavior toward the other, but making steps together toward the truth, not trying to obstinately say that you are ok in the initial position, defending it at all costs, ultimately saying that logics is not important at all, or that it is important only when it is convenient in supporting one’s own position, and that ultimately only personal experience matters. Believing that makes any dialogue irrelevant and without finality. I recognize also that a dialogue in which one has a view that all are All, that nothing is distinct in any way, that everyone anything equals everyone and anything, that anything goes, as anything may be the truth viewed from a particular point of view, has, too, no point. One’s mind cannot be all over the place, believing everything and anything.
SR saying to a Christian that he knows better what it means to be a Christian, who was Jesus, and what may be Trinity than that Christian beliefs is like one saying to another one that he knows better how or who she/he is than that another one. It is more like a paternalizing position than a collaborative one. It seemed to me similar with saying that when one is eating the meat of a killed animal it means collaborating with that animal (because, to me, taking a piece of Christianity is like taking a piece of the meat of an animal, killing it in that way, and then, saying that it was the same as Buddhism means to consummate it by digestion, transforming it in something else). If SR still wanted to express his view over Jesus or Christianity, he should have highlighted more that it is only an opinion and not some hidden knowledge acquired through some esoteric way accessible to him (to my knowledge, other Buddhist masters, with some exceptions, as Thich Nhat Hanh, and in a lesser degree Dalai Lama, have not adventured to pronounced themselves in that matter), as even you seem to perceive to be. He should have not let the impression that it is something that he knows or may know for sure, expressing instead more openly that the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism, between their spiritual practices, and between Buddha and Jesus are still undecided matters. He should have said explicitly that he does not support his view at all on his readings from Bible and important Christian authors, but on his supposedly special direct access to the Absolute Truth, surpassing the Jesus’s access to the truth, of the Apostles, of the Christian saints and Saints Fathers, or other more recent authors affirming otherwise. It is my opinion that it would have been more honest to be more explicit in that respect, and not letting a Quid pro quo to hover over some disoriented Christian disciples, claiming implicitly to know something he does, or may not.
Writing a whole book for a Western audience about the spiritual support of the dying person, mentioning Jesus a few times, and Trinity once, but not saying nothing about the Christian practices for the dying persons (with the only exception that I am able to remember of mentioning the presence of a catholic nurse, Brigid, in an Irish asylum) says a lot to me about the sincerity of his desire of collaboration with Christians. SR even says that Buddhism is unique in that respect. I am aware that those practices are not very elaborate in the protestant denominations, but in the Catholic Church and especially in the Eastern Orthodox Church, i.e. the ones with the highest number of members, there are practices in that respect. Furthermore, SR says in his chapter “The Compassion Logics” that the “specific force of the Buddhist teachings” is that it reveals clearly a compassion logics, based on reasoning. Also, SR says that idea of sacrifice out of compassion is specific to the Buddhism supporting the bodhisattva idea. Saying that compassion and a logic support for it, and sacrifice out of compassion are specific to Buddhism is like saying other religions have nothing to do with compassion and its support, and sacrifice out of compassion and it is as if SR thinks that Jesus never existed, that Jesus said nothing regarding that matter, that only Buddhists know how to behave compassionately, and one who sacrifices himself for others must be a bodhisattva, as only bodhisattvas sacrifice themselves. Sometimes one may have the impression that in his book he borrows ideas from Christianity, and sells them to the Christians as Buddhist ones.
SR may respect Jesus, but I did not understand from his book what exactly he respects at Jesus. Is it the respect for every human being, is it the respect for a kind and wise man as there are a lot, is it more like compassion for a deluded, or misunderstood man, saying things that were not in accord with the Buddhist truth, or that he interpreted in the wrong way, or that they were distorted and misinterpreted by the majority of his followers, and only a minority that disappeared got it well, and His true message was revealed only recently through the Gnostic gospels? Is he respecting the Jesus from canonical Gospels or the Jesus from Gnostic gospels? If it is the first variant, it is hard to believe, since SR’s behaviour and words are in contradiction with the Jesus’s words from the canonical Gospels (that a man has to have only one women, when SR had several ones, that people are cured in the name of Jesus, when he said in his book that name does not matter, that there is a creator God as it is said in the Old Testament etc.). It seems to be rather the second case, based on SR’s claim that Christians believed from the start in reincarnation or rebirth, citing Origen in support of that, but without specifying where and exactly what Origen said in that respect. But then, what kind a respect one should have for a spiritual teacher who mainly failed in His enterprise? Furthermore, I wondered: when SR recommends that people who consider themselves Christians should follow the life of the Jesus, is that the Jesus’s life from the canonical Gospels or the one of the Jesus from the Gnostic gospels. As it is the second one, as he seems to believe, then it would be a hard thing to do for a Christian, because, in the Gnostic gospels, the Jesus’s life is not narrated, and only fragments of His supposedly sayings and teachings were presented. One has only to follow, at most, those recommendations, but not properly His life, i.e. concrete behaviours and reactions. Besides that, as it I will show below, Jesus from the Gnostic gospels may seem different than the One from the canonical ones, but still it is very hard for one to clearly say that His teachings from the Gnostic gospels are properly Buddhist teachings. If those teachings were the secret and real ones, what would have impede Him to talk explicitly to the chosen disciples about rebirth processes, about karma, about the meditation practices, about previous Buddhas as the historical Buddha taught?
In addition of that, there is no specific place for Jesus in the Bardo processes. SR only mentions that it may appear to the Christians as a perception distorted by their belief, but he does not say what or who is perceived as Jesus from the many manifestations occurring during the Bardo dharmata process (which one of the five Families of Buddhas … , or a lower deity?). If Guru Rinpoche is the Tibetan equivalent of Jesus, for me it was strange the fact that he was not mentioned to occur in the dharmata bardo processes, in the case of the Tibetan people, by comparison with Christian people.
I wonder myself what purpose does it serve to confound or to induce confusion regarding Buddhism and Christianity. I do not see that as a necessary way to promote the understanding between the followers of the two religions, since there is currently no particular intense tension between them. Even if that would have been the reason, there is no real peace without a basis on the truth, and on a real dialogue, not on unilateral unfounded claims. I am not aware currently of a significant number of cases where Christians or Buddhists banned to the other part the access to their own religion: e.g, of Christians that killed or persecuted Buddhists systematically. It is rather the other way around, because there is support in a great measure for the Tibetan cause or for Buddhist countries from Christian countries. People collaborate one with each other in concrete common matters anyway, if there is a mutual interest, without wanting to first establish a common religious ground. And if the interests are divergent, then conflict and tension may exist even between persons or countries with the same common religious ground, as there are numerous examples in history. Religious motives were usually only an excuse for masking with a veil of good intentions more mundane conflicts. To some Christians, the supposed SR’s desire of collaboration with them may sound as the tactic used by the Queen in the Snow White story when offering a poisoned apple, or as the tactic of the fishermen who use baits to attract fishes. It is a tactic of enticement by offering apparently to the other the something similar with the thing she/he wants, but that has a hidden aspect, making her/him to swallow also a hook or a poison. The same tactic of gaining credit by creating confusion through claims about unsupported identities could be discovered in the SR’s pretension that Tibetan Buddhism is a science of mind, and that it can be used by anyone, no matter her/his religion. In the first place, in order that a way of knowing to be named properly a science, it has the gain that knowledge by using the scientific method. But in what respect the bardo processes I do not see in the book or otherwise any scientific undisputable proof. In order to obtain that proof, an experimenter should demonstrate that she/he has control of those processes, that a particular choice of the dying person leads to a predicted rebirth. I know of no proof in that respect, and I think it is questionable that such proof is attainable. Bardo processes may be in the way they are described in the book or maybe not, but I see no point (other than the obtainment of a higher credit in the Westerners’ eyes or of a an ascent over other religious that are mere religions) in claiming that that description is like the knowledge obtained through the regular science, when it was not obtained through the methods used in what usually is called science. The impression of tactic is accentuated in my mind by the fact that although the traditional Western science is generally courted when its data seem to be in accordance with the Buddhist knowledge, it is rejected when it contradicts them, by saying that Buddhist “science” is surpassing it.
There is also a similar kind of confusion in the book, in my opinion, in what respects the dying persons’ assistance between the contribution of the Tibetan Buddhism spiritual tradition and the theoretical and practical endeavor of some Western authors in that respect, who actually initiated the hospice care in the West. Although those Western authors are cited in the book, their ideas are not linked and compared clearly with what is specific in the Tibetan spiritual tradition. One may think, who does not wishes the read the entire original Tibetan literature in that respect or the Westerners’ works, that the two are the same, that the Westerners’ work implicitly support the Tibetan view, or that Tibetan view includes actually all what was said by the Westerner authors (and their contribution is mentioned only as a support for the Tibetan perspective in the face of the Westerners).
LikeLike
Also TQ has the most posts but the least comments, which suggests that his style of control is very effective in neutralising a reaction. Also the House of Prayer is the same. Buddhists pre, pro and ex Rigpaists have a lot of fuel in their tanks.
LikeLike
Ah yes, those others are pretty massive (didn’t realize Quinn had 299 posts — wow).
LikeLike
Doubtful the contribution from that is a large as you may think. It helps, but there is much more that contributes more.
It is a pretty incredible archive of information we have on this site when you think about it. From Scientology to Tony Quinn, each topic has a range of relevant posts that have been linked on multiple websites. Much of the Tony Quinn material, for example, isn’t available in a single location as it is here. Same with the House of Prayer material. That archive of information, and the many weblinks linking to various parts of it, are what give us a good google ranking. In the grand scheme of things the PRC are a drop in the ocean in terms of google ranking.
LikeLike
Those who run the UK NHS would likely rather provide free pills than see 14 year olds dropping out of school to take care of their babies.
My guess: none of those babies are half-Tibetan.
LikeLike
HHDL on women:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c2#/video/bestoftv/2012/04/24/pmt-dalai-lama-on-women.cnn
LikeLike
For Information Only
In the UK, it has been announced today that contraception will be offered without the need for a doctors consent, to girls of 13 years and above.This would seem to be an indcation of at what age girls become sexually ‘mature’ these days. I wonder if those who run the UK NHS are secret practitioners of tantra?
Good bye
LikeLike
I haven’t read many visualization descriptions in tantra about women, but the ones I have read do not describe 12 year old girls. The women described there are sexually and physically mature.
LikeLike
themadhair, I’m pretty sure #1 on the list accounts for a large part of your Google ranking, lol. Dialogue Ireland is linked on multiple sites in the PRC.
LikeLike
Sorry about that. The main point was that, without diligent research into the persons and personalities involved in this story, it’s impossible to say with certainty what’s going on.
I just found out, for example, that the accusation that Tibetan tantras instruct practitioners to “use 12 year old girls” is an utter falsehood, likely invented by a person in Taiwan for reasons I won’t get into. And yet this “underage girl” nonsense has cropped up literally on nearly every Buddhist forum, and sadly, at least several unsuspecting and goodhearted people have bought into it.
So who would do such a thing in the first place, and who would then take advantage of it?
These are the players I see so far in this story:
1. The Chinese government
2. Disgruntled ex-Buddhists with a vendetta against Buddhism
3. Fundamentalist Hinayanists (who knew!)
4. Some kind of shady “Western Buddhist” movement.
5. People with personal vendettas against Sogyal Rinpoche
6. Several woman who have made a lifestyle out of accusing numerous eastern Asian men of abusing them, for reasons that elude me but could include any of the above
7. People who may really have suffered abuse somewhere, going (understandably) overboard
8. People who are genuinely concerned about abuse, but go overboard–understandable to the extent of being somewhat obsessive, but unforgivable when crossing the line into fabricating falsehoods
9. The Catholic Church
10. Several fundamentalist Protestant organizations or simply people–I suspect the Baptists but haven’t had time to look far enough down that track
11. Self-appointed “cult chasers” whose livelihood is tied to the existence of cults
12. People for some reason paralyzed with fear about tantra, probably based mostly on misunderstanding it
13. Any of the above pretending to be someone else from above
Sigh. I’m sure I’m leaving something out. The sad thing is that there really are genuine abuse victims in this world, but with the exception of #7 and #8 above, everyone on that list is using allegations of abuse to further some other, non-related cause. And that amount of noise tends to drown out any one set of voices.
Keep this thought in mind: from what we can tell, every single one of the above listed interests has at some point generated, or perpetuated, a falsehood in connection to abuse. That adds noise to noise; but, worse, it not only drowns out real voices, but makes people immediately suspicious of real voices.
Everyone can be tempted to go overboard serving a cause. But I think we can see how damaging that becomes.
LikeLike
It may be due to a very small Rigpa presence in Ireland. For some reason this site gets a really high google ranking which means we get lots of international visitors.
Just offering some possible reasons.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Didn’t mean to finish the thought there but must run…will try to finish the thought.
LikeLike
With Jesus’ story in mind, I highly recommend a quaint little film, “The Man from Earth.” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/
In it, the main character addresses how Jesus’ life and teachings were appropriated and “spun” by various groups, for various purposes.
The older a story is, the more layers of spin it can acquire, until at some point, the story may have evolved into something that doesn’t much resemble historical reality.
If you read back through the Sogyal Rinpoche/Mary Finnigan saga, you can see various layers of interest at work, too…
LikeLike
So, I’ll start. Here’s my response to alternative view:
There has to be discussions between religions. Why do you want to prevent SR to co-operate with Christians? What are you afraid of?
I haven’t learned my Gnostism from SR, but from the internet. Like we know, there are no teachers to teach that path.
I’m not against Jesus (I like him), but I don’t understand the sacrifice-explanation about his life and I don’t agree on that view. I throw a bit harsh questions here, but I do it on ‘purpose’ (to question). You could also see a bit what it feels like when you criticize (from my point of view) trivial issues. I don’t mean abuse, but many have strange ideas here about Buddhism and SR.
How Jesus saw himself?
Is it explained somewhere? Did he believe he was the son of God? Could it be that he had a grandiose self image? He had a few skills, what Buddhists can also have, but do those skills make him more the Son of God than other people with gift of healing and so on? There are many people with the ability to heal. (They were called witches as some point in history.)
Jesus was very self righteous: throwing around tables, wasn’t he?
Why did he shout on the cross: Why did you abandon me, Father? If he was God himself, shouldn’t he have known what is going on?
“Jesus considered His sacrifice to have a meaning, other than to be mere a lesson for His followers, saving other people through His death and resurrection …”
Did HE really – or his followers or the priests that invented meanings after his death?
“Old Testament they would found out that animals are protected and not to be killed because they are too God’s creatures.”
Jesus placed evil spirits into the pigs and drove the pigs over the edge to the see.
“A proof for me that from a Buddhist point of view the life and death of Jesus has no meaning and that SR has no respect for his potential so called Christian students is that he organizes retreats simultaneously with major Christian fests. I suspect that at those retreats not many words about Jesus are heard. ”
I think SR sees this question so, that he believes that a practicing person who prays to Jesus and wants to be in his presence does similar things as a practicing Buddhist who invokes Buddhas and who does Deity practice in order to allow deities ‘presence’ in him/herself. The outcome is the same: “I felt the love of Jesus” or “I noticed the grip of my ego loosen and this overwhelming love filled me”.
“His message in an uncorrupted manner until recently, when the apocryphal gospels were discovered? Why someone would believe more those Gnostic gospels than the canonical ones?”
Those Gospel texts were present in the hands of the people who edited the Bible book based on their understanding and left those out. One can see from the Gnostic gospels that Peter was hesitant to believe that Jesus would give esoteric teachings of resurrection process to Mary, when he didn’t offer those to him. Teacher teaches on the student’s level and considers that person’s ability to understand. That is how Buddha also taught, differently to different people.
http://www.gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm
One can feel devotion toward many masters… in Buddhism.
“it is more convenient to believe in those words”
Or maybe it just sounds more truthful?!
You are a true believer of God who cannot exist without this belief. I can exist without it. All you talk is from the perspective that God cannot and should not be questioned.
I could also say that you have a convenient path, because you don’t need to question the controversies in Christianity.
The idea of Karma. Listen to what SR teaches about it. It’s not that you have to live 30 years with something because you caused suffering for some other being for 30 years. The deeper understanding of karma is that karma are the lenses through which we see the world. Therefore, if we chance our view we change our karmic vision. It requires deep understanding and self awareness to change those lenses.
Like I said: I have nothing against Jesus, but I don’t agree on the meaning given to his life: sacrifice for our sins.
If you think about the process of allowing your ego to dissolve – it actually means that you abandon all your sinful intentions, but also more: you abandon all selfishness, since grasping on to yourself and your needs is irrelevant. You give up more than just your sins. You neither take credit for your good deeds. I personally think it’s deeper than the Christian view about sacrifice.
LikeLike
Thank you for this opportunity. :)
LikeLike
It is nothing like that BellaB. We just don’t really think a discussion on the finer points of Buddhism or whatnot is on-topic for those threads. This latest move is me trying to find a solution that a) keeps the threads on-topic and b) leaves commenters with pretty much free reign about what they want to discuss.
We’ll see how it goes.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Random first comment – BellaB is only 129 comments away from the 1k mark.
LikeLike