Is the NKT a Personality Cult? – A Check Based on Word Statistics

In Germany there is a politician, Peer Steinbrück, who runs a campaign “More We, less I”. Spiegel Online investigated in a ‘Münchhausen Check’ if Steinbrück really says what he preaches by investigating two of his speeches and making a use-of-words statistic. For this they used among others a tool called Wordle to create a word cloud that makes the results easily visible. For the creation of a word statistic cloud the website or blog must have an Atom or RSS feed. The more a word is used the bigger it is written. In that way you get easily what is been stressed the most.

Now, I wondered what would be the result if I check the official New Kadampa Tradition (NKT) start page as well as their official site about Buddhism. I expected that at the centre of NKT and Buddhism is not the Buddha or Buddhism but NKT and its founder Kelsang Gyatso – this is what I would expect at least from a ‘good personality cult’ or based on my experiences.

Here are the results

Result of the official Homepage of the New Kadampa Tradition, http://kadampa.org/en/buddhism, relying on the Atom or RSS feed of that site:

The result of the official “Buddhism” page of the New Kadampa Tradition, http://kadampa.org/en/buddhism, relying on the words displayed, is:

To create the use-of-words statistic of NKT’s official “Buddhism” page I used all the words displayed on that page. The reason for this approach is that the Wordle javascript program relies on the Atom or RSS Feeds of the blog or site, and is therefore on all pages of a site the same. Hence, it doesn’t convey what words are really displayed to the reader of a specific page.

While the first result above shows that at the very centre of NKT is one person only “Venerable Geshe Kelsang founding NKT-IKBU”, the second result above demonstrates that “Kadampa” is what “Buddhism” is all about for NKT, and since the term “Kadampa” is synonymous with NKT – at least in the cosmos of NKT, as well as in their self-promotional approach – the meaning it conveys is ‘Kadampa=NKT=Buddhism’ or in brief ‘We are Buddhism.’

Another question I had is, who is the focal object of NKT’s Western Shugden Society? Is it Buddhism, Shugden or the Dalai Lama?

Here is the result of http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/

Using those statistic tools based on the NKT’s own Atom or RSS feeds and words displayed respectively it becomes somewhat more clear that the main object of ‘the Buddhism’ the New Kadampa Tradition is advertising is not so much Buddhism or the Buddha but mainly one person, NKT’s founder Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. The main object of NKT’s Western Shugden Society is not Dorje Shugden but one person, the Dalai Lama.

In that way it is also somewhat statistically explainable what drove Gen Kelsang Sangye to promote a new book of his guru at a BBC World News talk about Mindfulness in Schools. He has no other choice if he speaks about Buddhism or mindfulness than being compelled to stress his guru Kelsang Gyatso and one of his new books respectively because only HE is the center of his life, his tradition and his Buddhism.

But shouldn’t we begin with ourselves first? I checked this blog. Who is the focal object of this blog, NKT, Shugden, Tibet, the Dalai Lama, Sogyal, I (tenpel)? The RSS Feed gives this result:

Applying the approach of getting the statistics not based on the RSS Feed but on the mere words the start page displays, the following result is given:

To make the investigation complete, here also the words-displayed statistics – which means not relying on the RSS or Atom Feeds – of the NKT’s and the Western Shugden Society’s official start pages:

In case you have problems with the Javascript on Wordle, here are the results in a gallery:

Result of NKT’s Homepage. RSS / Atom Feed.

Result of NKT’s Homepage. Counting displayed words.

Result of NKT’s “Buddhism” page. Counting displayed words.

Result of NKT’s Western Shugden Society. RSS / Atom Feed.

Result of NKT’s WSS page. Counting displayed words.

Result of this blog, using RSS Feed.

Result of this blog using displayed words.

Last edited by tenpel on May 3, 2013 at 3:24 pm

Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims? Alan Strathern on BBC News

In a recent post, Buddhist Monks as Hate Preachers & Sexual Abuse, I mainly referred to sad developments within the global Buddhist community where Buddhist monks spread words of hate, actions that harm others, themselves as well as people’s faith in Buddhism. Ashin Wirathu, a Burmese Buddhist monk, was even jailed in 2003 for inciting religious hatred. After his release in 2012, he has referred to himself as “the Burmese Bin Laden”.

In a BBC article Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims? Alan Strathern from Oxford University asks and examines “… why have monks been using hate speech against Muslims and joining mobs that have left dozens dead?”

He makes clear in his article, that this is against a basic Buddhist principles as well as that where this is happening – in Burma and Sri Lanka – people are not facing an Islamist militant threat and the Muslims in both countries are “a generally peaceable and small minority”.

Strathern explains the violence from different angles – including power issues (“Faustian pact with state power”), national and religious identity (“many came to feel Buddhism was integral to their national identity – and the position of minorities in these newly independent nations was an uncomfortable one”). And he concludes his article by looking onto the violent events from a global perspective:

Even though they form a majority in both countries, many Buddhists share a sense that their nations must be unified and that their religion is under threat. The global climate is crucial. People believe radical Islam to be at the centre of the many of the most violent conflicts around the world. They feel they are at the receiving end of conversion drives by the much more evangelical monotheistic faiths. And they feel that if other religions are going to get tough, they had better follow suit.

However, there is one point, I don’t agree with Strathern. Though it is true that there has been violence by Buddhists and Buddhists used Buddhism to justify wars and violence against others – I object the following generalisation made by Strathern:

So, historically, Buddhism has been no more a religion of peace than Christianity.

because

1) One should discriminate between the people and the religion. Buddhism is in nature a peaceful religion which roots are non-violence, love, compassion and the teachings of interdependent origination. It are human beings that (ab)use religion to justify violence. Therefore, the faults Stathern attributes to Buddhism are not the faults of Buddhism but of the people who either ignore or twist Buddha’s teachings. All actions based on hatred, desire and ignorance are considered to be wrong and an object of abandonment in Buddhism. (It get’s more complicated and complex, when one considers the understanding of non-violence (ahimsa) in the context of the Bodhisattva ethics. In the book “Buddhist Warfare” one author goes even so far to claim that the ascetics of a monk could be also considered as violence. But if this author had a clear understanding of Buddhist principles, that violence is the wish to harm or all actions based on hatred, he could see that this view is not tenable from a Buddhist point of view, and from a mundane point of view it follows also those people who practice fasting to benefit their body are violent towards themselves.)*

2) Compared with the violence performed by other religious people in the name of their religion the amount of harm Buddhists have done to others (or humanity) by abusing Buddhism to justify war and violence seems to be not that much.

Alan Strathern’s article

• Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims?  By Alan Strathern (Oxford University), BBC News

More about Buddhism and Islam

• Buddhism & Islam – Alexander Berzin
• Holy Wars in Buddhism and Islam: The Myth of Shambhala - Alexander Berzin

More about Violence and (Tibetan) Buddhism

• Self-Immolation in Context, 1963-2012 by Prof. Michael Biggs
• »Orientalism« and Aspects of Violence in the Tibetan Tradition by Prof. Elliot Sperling
• Compassionate Killing or Conflict Resolution? The Murder of King Langdarma according to Tibetan Buddhist Sources by Prof. Jens Schlieter
• »Buddhist Warfare« (PDF) – Book Review by Prof. Daniel S. Margolies
• Krieg und Gewalt im Buddhismus: »Buddhist Warfare« – eine Buchbesprechung von Prof. Jens-Uwe Hartmann

* Non-violence or non-harmfulness is explained in the Abhidharma literature as follows:

Non-harmfulness (rnam par mi ‘tshe ba)
Regarding non-harmfulness, the Compendium of Knowledge says:

QUESTION: What is non-harmfulness?
RESPONSE: It is a mind of compassion and is involved with non-hatred. It has the function of not inflicting injury.

Just as it has been said above, non-harmfulness is a patience that, lacking malice, observes suffering sentient beings, thinking, “May they be free of that [suffering]!” This abandoning harm to sentient beings, or non-harmfulness, is the essence of the meaning of the Conqueror’s scriptures. It is taught [in sutra]:

Patience is the supreme austerity.
The Buddha said, “Patience is supreme nirvana.”
An ordained one who harms or injures another
Is not a trainee-in-virtue.

Even the Conqueror’s teaching in the context of bestowing a water strainer in the Vinaya procedural rite is a fine distinction of compassion. Since one must definitely turn away from harming others as well as their bases, the necessity of equipping oneself with a strainer for the sake of abandoning harm to creatures in water has been taught. And on the occasion of giving the instructions, one is cautioned about the necessity to abide in the four qualities that makes one a trainee-in-virtue:

Even when derided, do not deride in return.
Even when someone gets angry at one, do not get angry in return.
Even when hit, do not hit back.
Even when one’s faults are exposed, do not expose others’ faults.

Therefore, if the intelligent ones analyze and understand this well, they will be able to understand that abandoning harmfulness is the essence of the teachings.

From “A Necklace for Those of Clear Awareness Clearly Revealing the Modes of Minds and Mental Factors” by Ye-she Gyel-tsen, Translated from the Tibetan by Toh Sze Gee

  Last edited by tenpel on May 2, 2013 at 8:51 pm

Buddhist Monks as Hate Preachers & Sexual Abuse

There are some negative developments in the Buddhist world for which Buddhists should be ashamed, and if possible take up responsibility to counter them.

One of them is that the Rohingya – a Muslim minority in Burma – whom the BBC calls “one of the world’s most persecuted minority groups” face racist and violent abuse by Burmese Buddhists. There are also Buddhist monks who fuel this hate and ethnic conflicts by speeches that invoke hate and fear:

• Buddhist monk uses racism and rumours to spread hatred in Burma – BBC
• The Burmese monks who preach intolerance against Muslim Rohingyas – BBC
• Sri Lanka Buddhist monks, supporters demand halal boycott

In case you have Facebook or YouTube accounts and you stumble over racism, religious intolerance and hate speeches by Buddhists I think it’s good to let those people – including Buddhist monks or nuns – know that this is unacceptable and wrong and to give good reasons why. (Without getting angry, just as a peaceful protest against such harmful acts which are contrary to a good heart and Buddha’s teachings.)

My contribution for peace, mutual understanding and to counter these negative development is this speech by His Holiness the Dalai Lama:

There are also recently reported or discussed cases of child and sexual abuse:

• Bhutan seeks to curb sexual diseases among Buddhist monks – Tricycle
• Sri Lanka’s hidden scourge of religious child abuse – BBC
• Child ordinations and the rights of children by Gananath Obeyesekere
• Four Young Tulkus In The West – Details About What Happened To Kalu Rinpoche 2012/07/27

Something inspiring:

• Buddhist text’s true author identified as Thai woman By Samanthi Dissanayake

PDF exploits:

• Latest Adobe PDF exploit used to target Uyghur and Tibetan activists

Update 02 May 2013

• Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims?  By Alan Strathern (Oxford University), BBC News

Last edited by tenpel on April 27, 2013 at 11:14 pm

A brief Review of the New Kadampa Tradition Chapter in: “Spiritual and Visionary Communities: Out to Save the World”

Former members of the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT), as well as spiritual seekers might be in a better position after reading Carol McQuire’s chapter about her experiences within NKT in:

• McQuire, Carol (2013), “Realizing the Guru’s Intention: Hungry Humans and Awkward Animals in a New Kadampa Tradition Community”, Spiritual and Visionary Communities: Out to Save the World, Edited by Timothy Miller, Ashgate: 65-82.

because they can now base their discrimination and judgement on a more informed perspective.

It is the first academically reliable writing published from a former NKT follower’s point of view addressing issues such as the controversial NKT ordination and the commitment required from members. You might be able to read most of the text on Google-Books but to be fair to the publisher, editor and authors, I would like to encourage and recommend buying the book. It’s not very expensive (£17.99).

Academic research about the New Kadampa Tradition (especially that of the Open University by Prof. Robert Bluck and Dr. Helen Waterhouse) has been – for my taste – quite superficial so far. Robert Bluck (PDF) for instance tried to balance the criticism which was described by Dr. David Kay (PDF) by means of interviewing current members of the New Kadampa Tradition, and they – of course – rejected all criticism and toed the party line of the organisation. From McQuire’s insider-report on NKT one gets to know that “We should never talk to the press or to academic researchers. Only senior teachers could do this, by appointment …” (McQuire: 75). Using this insider-information provided by McQuire and putting it into another context, the interviews of NKT followers which Bluck made for his research on NKT, it becomes clear that Bluck only relied on well chosen people from the NKT establishment. Because no new voice of any former member of NKT is quoted by Bluck, Bluck seems to have missed interviewing former NKT members (or NKT critics) to at least balance the official NKT point of view of his interviewees. Subsequently – for instance – with respect to one of the many criticisms (or allegations) summarized in Kay’s research Bluck states (p. 147) :

More controversially, Bunting (1996b: 26; 1996c: 9) claimed that monastics changed out of their robes to sign for state benefits, residents financed NKT centre mortgages with their housing benefit, some members were pressurized into donating money through covenants or loans and the movement had acquired large properties including ‘several stately homes’. Waterhouse (1997: 144) reported properties being bought and renovated as local centres, with set board and lodging fees for residents who were often on state benefits, and she questioned whether those on the Teacher Training Programme were genuinely available for work.

All such accusations of wrongdoing were vigorously denied by interviewees, who explained that using housing benefit to support mortgages is wholly legitimate and that monastics often have part-time work and may wear ordinary clothes if this is more convenient (Namgyal, 2004). While smaller centres may struggle financially, donations were always voluntary. Manjushri’s large community and popular courses make it financially secure, a few people are sponsored because of their NKT work but others are on ‘extended working visits’ or work locally, and some are legitimately on employment benefit (Belither, 2004). However, while individual rule-bending has never been sanctioned, it may sometimes have been knowingly ignored, at least in the past.

However, for those who were deeply involved and committed to NKT it is obvious that Belither presented a skilful distortion of the facts to Bluck. And Bluck himself was obviously content with this statement, not going deeper into the issue. It is a major strategy within NKT to stretch the commitment of members to work full time for the organisation. Based on the pressure and dynamics of the organisation, many monastics had often no choice except to give up their paid work and receive state benefits which is then used to pay their rent to NKT – if they live in a NKT centre – and to pay the NKT study programmes, NKT festivals etc., and this money pays back the mortgages of castles and big, representative buildings. By this means NKT has acquired a considerable amount of expensive assets. Since this strategy is an integral part of NKT expansion one finds also in McQuire’s insider-report –  a “story similar to that of many others” (McQuire: 82) – in-between the lines (and there are many such points which are in-between the lines):

I wanted to live in an NKT residential community in Britain to deepen my practice and find support like that I had received from the Sangha, the NKT Buddhist community, in Mexico, I stopped training as a counselor and from 1998 to 2006 I lived within or very near an NKT centre with my children, depending entirely on British government social security benefits. I joined the Teacher Training Programme (TTP) and then, to  fulfill my intention to promote these teachings for the rest of my life, requested ordination …

As a result of this lack of questioning the official NKT characterisations, Bluck’s and Waterhouse’s research does not penetrate the issues in many ways and remains superficial – at least for my taste. The example given here is just one of many that can be given that can demonstrate that research published before McQuire’s account has often been superficial. The same non-challenging or non-questioning of NKT’s official point of view can be found also in Danial Cozort’s paper on NKT*. To give briefly another example, I would like to use one point I found in Waterhouse’s “Buddhism in Bath”*. There Waterhouse claims that the NKT ordination is a Getsul (skt. sramanerika) ordination. This is first of all not correct but more important, the implications of the change of how the Vinaya (monastic code for monks and nuns) is understood within NKT has grave, far reaching consequences for the spiritual life of NKT ordainees which have not been analysed at all so far by academic research. Again, McQuire goes into details with this too. There one learns for instance (p. 72/73):

Unlike in the Tibetan tradition, there was no ceremony for disrobing, no “clean break”. Those who disrobed had to stay away for a year and could never teach in the NKT again. Leaving was seen as shameful and a person who left would rarely be mentioned. It was said that disrobing would make our “bad karma” ripen as “hellish” experiences. We were told we were following a “special, new” ordination that “nobody has done before” but even though our ordination was different, we looked like Tibetan monks and nuns.

It was told the robes “tend to lend authority to ordained teachers” and soon after my ordination I began teaching. The first time I taught, enthusiastic, I heard voices in my head during the teaching saying ‘Who do you think you are?’ and criticizing me for teaching when I knew nothing! Upset, I stopped teaching even though Geshe-Ia said that teachers who get “discouraged” are “foolish”. A year later, my ‘Heart Jewel’ practice was stronger so I began again. Teaching was considered our main practice for “promoting the tradition”, a “heart commitment” of Shugden practice, along with regarding Shugden as inseparable from our Tantric practice deity and our Guru. We needed to become “qualified spiritual guides” as soon as possible; one NKT teacher would be “more important” to Geshe-Ia than “the hundred [students] who become Buddhas”. Being qualified didn’t mean passing our exams, that wasn’t necessary; it meant “relying on the Guru” through ‘Heart Jewel’ and then teaching others the NKT texts.

The latter passage of this is already picking up another controversial issue, the qualification of NKT teachers … and in this way almost every passage or even sentence or phrase by McQuire sheds some new light from an insider-perspective on the complex internal functioning of a totally closed, self-referential group, where only one voice is accepted as the highest authority, and the impact it has on an individual.

The chapter by McQuire opens up and invites a deeper investigation into the mechanics and life within NKT and it offers insights as to why there is such an increasing number of former members who have started to speak up, reporting the experience of considerable damage from the organisation. (see e.g. New Kadampa Survivor Forum).

INFORM, based at the London School of Economics, and an independent charity that was founded in 1988 by Professor Eileen Barker with the support of the British Home Office and the mainstream Churches, has published this collection of essays under Ashgate publishing. In recent years this research institution – upon whose expertise the UK government and UK journalists, as well as international and national researchers rely – had more inquiries about the New Kadampa Tradition than about The Church of Scientology (see for instance Annual Reports 2010 (PDF), 2011 (PDF) or this summary). I can only assume that INFORM  saw a need to offer this insider report. As the New Kadampa Tradition had successfully stopped different critical academic publications by threatening to sue the author or publisher, this is the first academic publication that passed unnoticed into the public realm offering a critical insider account. I would like to thank Carol McQuire, Prof. Timothy Miller, INFORM, and Ashgate publishing for their effort and courage.

At the moment I lack time to write a detailed review of the chapter by McQuire in “Spiritual and Visionary Communities: Out to Save the World”. Also, I would prefer an established researcher to write a peer-review but as yet this has not happened. That’s why, meanwhile, I would like to offer a review by Andrew Durling – who is also a former NKT follower who just recently left NKT – which he posted on Amazon. He kindly agreed that it can be posted here on the blog too:

I must admit to being biased about this book: I have personal experience of INFORM, the independent charity that collects and disseminates accurate, balanced and up-to-date information about minority religious and spiritual movements, and which has organised the bringing together of the collection of essays that constitutes this book. I have had reason to be very grateful for the balanced, sensitive help and advice INFORM gave me when I experienced the trauma of becoming involved in a bitter dispute within the New Kadampa Tradition, one of the movements written about in this book. The subtitle of this book – Out to Save the World – indicates what is common to all the intentional communities that feature in this book, these communities being just a small sample of the many thousands of such communities around the world. These communities originally start off with the best of intentions, in this case the intention to help save the world in some way. But so often these communities, because they involve some radical experimentation or innovation in communal living, or represent a radical break with a spiritual tradition, or cultural norm, have crises and disputes to deal with which threaten their very existence. How these communities deal with these crises determines, amongst other things, whether the original intention of these communities survives or changes significantly, sometimes so much so that it becomes unrecognisable to the community’s original founders or members. These communities, when they function harmoniously, often help their members to experience the height of spiritual inspiration, even ecstasy, in ways not available in the ‘normal’ world, sometimes creating the feeling of having been ‘saved’ and thereby empowered to help save others. But when they go wrong, the fall-out can be toxic to all involved, especially given the deep emotional, financial and social investment members of these communities often have to make in order to gain entry to them, or at least feel like they belong within them. Exit from these communities, voluntary or enforced, is often deeply traumatic and destabilising for both the people leaving and for some of those left behind.

I will only mention one essay in this book, the chapter written by Carol McQuire about her time as a Buddhist nun within the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT), which is deeply controversial within the world of Buddhism generally. I, like Carol, was once a devout member of the NKT and I was deeply moved by Carol’s searing honesty about her experiences, and about her complex and evolving feelings towards the teachers, teachings and organisational practices of the NKT both during her time as a nun and after her traumatic exit from the NKT. I could relate to many of her experiences and feelings and recognised how difficult it is to retain one’s idealism and devotion in the midst of turbulent, confusing and often disturbing change within an organisation like the NKT, which tries so hard to preserve what it perceives to be a ‘pure’ Buddhism whilst at the same time trying to put clear blue water between itself and the rest of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition that it originally evolved from and which often itself criticises the NKT as being less than a ‘pure’ Buddhist sangha. Carol’s essay was somewhat cathartic for me and helped me with my present journey towards understanding and integrating my past within the NKT. I suspect many of the other essays in the book will serve a similar function for others who have had contact with either the NKT or the other intentional communities explored in this book.

All the essays in this book are meticulously backed up with copious footnotes and references to academic research and documentary material, and the introductory overview by Timothy Miller of the broad history of intentional communities is extremely useful in putting the essays that follow into context. The stories in this book are about powerful, often bizarre, always deeply felt experiences by real life people within the intentional communities they belonged to, and show a side of spiritual life that very rarely makes the headlines, especially as many communities have fraught relationships with the media and society in general, sometimes preferring not to engage openly with them at all, in order to maintain their ‘purity’ or so as to maintain their freedom to operate in the way they wish to, or simply because they despair of ever getting the wider world to understand or accept them. This book is an invaluable contribution to the study of intentional communities and their often fraught histories, complex social relationships and organisational psychologies. It is also very readable and compelling into the bargain. Truth is often stranger than fiction and this book certainly illustrates that.

* For a detailed list of academic research about the New Kadampa Tradition see

• Academic Research regarding Shugden Controversy and New Kadampa Tradition-IKBU 2008/07/24

  Last edited by tenpel on March 20, 2013 at 9:28 pm

Rigpa, Cults, The Catholic Church and HH Dalai Lama – A Pep Talk

GUEST POST

Recently Mike Garde recommended in an email that the best approach to take regarding this trouble within Rigpa is one based on successes in dealing with Tony Quinn and Scientology. I felt very uneasy about this. In exploring my unease, I came to two important conclusions.  The first is that these Rigpa troubles are best viewed in the context of troubles within mainstream religion, such as within the Catholic Church, rather than in the context of fringe cults such as Scientology.  In this context, HH Dalai Lama has played more of a role towards reform than he is often given credit for.  Second, the word, “cult”, was not created by God. While there are harmful practices which can be discussed in the context of cults, there is no magic line that a group crosses in order to become a “cult.” Using that word is dangerous because it closes down thinking and possibilities. The discussion becomes an either-or, dichotomous debate, instead of one open to all possibilities and solutions.

What is a cult? It appears that this word has evolved over time and is still evolving. On Wikipedia, there is quite a long entry on the word.  There is a lack of agreement between sociologists and psychologists about the term. Here is one definition:

Sociologists have said that unlike sects, which are products of religious schism and therefore maintain a continuity with traditional beliefs and practices, cults arise spontaneously around novel beliefs and practices.

By this definition, Scientology certainly fits as being a cult, but I would argue that Rigpa does not fall into the category either of sect or of cult. First, Sogyal Rinpoche has not invented a new religion. And while there are gaps in the education program within Rigpa, Sogyal Rinpoche has not turned away from mainstream Buddhist thought either.

In addition, Rigpa regularly invites teachers from outside to teach at its centers. In typical “cults” the social structure is closed. It does not allow for challenges from outside.  This is how they control students. However, Rigpa does not use this ploy, thus allowing students to grow spiritually in ways that a closed “cult” would prevent.

It seems that much of our use of the word “cult” on the threads comes from an assumption that if there are certain harmful practices within a group, then the group is a cult.  Again, I refer to Wikipedia:

In the mass media, and among average citizens, “cult” gained an increasingly negative connotation, becoming associated with things like kidnapping, brainwashing, psychological abuse, sexual abuse and other criminal activity, and mass suicide… Secular cult opponents like those belonging to the anti-cult movement tend to define a “cult” as a group that tends to manipulate, exploit, and control its members. Specific factors in cult behavior are said to include manipulative and authoritarian mind control over members, communal and totalistic organization, aggressive proselytizing, systematic programs of indoctrination, and perpetuation in middle-class communities. The media was quick to follow suit, and social scientists sympathetic to the anti-cult movement, who were usually psychologists, developed more sophisticated models of brainwashing.

While some psychologists were receptive to these theories, sociologists were for the most part skeptical of their ability to explain conversion to NRMs [new religious movement]  In the late 1980s, psychologists and sociologists started to abandon theories like brainwashing and mind- control. While scholars may believe that various less dramatic coercive psychological mechanisms could influence group members, they came to see conversion to new religious movements principally as an act of a rational choice.

While I acknowledge that a quick check of Wikipedia does not constitute a definitive argument, it appears that professionals have not reached much agreement about defining this beast called “cult,” even with the presence of certain, harmful practices in a group.  Because of that fact, I suggest that it would be more fruitful for our discussions on these threads if we addressed these troubles more in terms of old, familiar terms such as “abuse of power” or “sexual abuse” or “greed” or “manipulation” rather than the emotively charged term of “cult.” (Of course, I acknowledge that this might entail taking our conversations off such websites as Dialogue Ireland, which is dedicated to exposing and dissembling cults).

Along these lines, I suggest that it would be helpful to consider the strong similarities between troubles within Rigpa and those within the Catholic Church.  One similarity is the fact that the Rigpa troubles are an example of misbehavior by a spiritual leader and subsequent, shoddy attempts at cover-up.  Students are leaving Rigpa, just as Catholics are leaving the church and though it is difficult for them to do so, though it causes them emotional pain and spiritual trauma, they would rather leave than remain part of such an operation. This becomes a mandate for reform in Rigpa, just as it is for the Catholic Church.  Momentum is building.

The second similarity between troubles within Rigpa and those within the Catholic Church is the antiquated, feudal hierarchies that they both expose. Just as the misbehaviors of priests are a symptom and exposure of even bigger troubles higher up, so many of us believe that Sogyal Rinpoche’s mischief is a symptom of a bigger trouble within Tibetan Buddhist society. This fact, added to recent troubles with young tulkus and lamas, charges the mandate for reform within Tibetan Buddhism with new urgency.

In this context, I would like to observe that HH Dalai Lama has been enormously pro-active towards resolving the troubles within Rigpa—because he has been enormously busy rebuilding the Tibetan Buddhist hierarchy and vision.  While he has not engaged in the infinite regress of finger pointing or name calling, he has made enormous reforms within Tibetan Buddhism that facilitate and empower students and teachers to move forward.  Appreciating the ways in which he has done that could be useful for us. Some examples of this are:

Two decades ago, he met with Western teachers and broke with habitual Tibetan Buddhist approaches to empower westerners to speak out.  The relevant conclusions reached by that meeting are as follows:

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.

2. He has written out in texts and spoken out in teachings about the dangers of the tantric instruction to “see everything the lama does as perfect” or “to see the lama as a Buddha.”  He advises caution with these instructions.

3. He has stepped down as temporal leader of Tibet in order for full Democratic reforms to be implemented.  He has spoken of the dangers inherent in combining temporal and spiritual power.

4. For several decades, he has been engaged in dialogues with the scientific community and has added science to the monastic curriculum.  As a result of these exchanges, he has stated clearly that he disagrees with certain (outdated) aspects of the Abbhidharma (Buddhist) literature on cosmology and matter.  His dialogues with scientists are grounded in deep mutual respect.  His stated goal is to move Buddhism into the 21st century, by calling on Buddhists to be fully informed and critically aware.

5. He is an avid promoter of religious tolerance and actively discourages propagation of Buddhism.  He states repeatedly that it is safest to keep one’s own traditional religion.

6. While he doesn’t point fingers at specific lamas or name names, he is the only Tibetan Buddhist leader to speak of misbehavior on the part of lamas.  He is the only leader to acknowledge that there is a problem and to advise students on how to proceed.

7. He has initiated reforms such that female monastics can now achieve the “geshe” degree (comparable to a doctorate in Buddhist science, philosophy and religion).  Recently, at his home in Macleod Ganj in Northern India, he hosted historic debates between nuns.  In the past, Tibetan nuns frequently couldn’t even read or write and were rarely given full ordination or Buddhist studies.

All of these actions are radical and they push Tibetan Buddhism into 21st century.  This vision from the top calls for democracy and empowerment from the bottom up.  It calls for practitioners to look into their own rational minds, their own wisdom, their own common sense.  Whether we are talking about nuns standing equal to monks or about the Tibetan government-in-exile being run by a democratic system instead of a god king, this vision of His Holiness is about we-the-people.  It is a huge step from the feudal society existent in Tibet only a half century ago.

I suggest that we view our actions today within the optimism of that progress instead of within the pessimism of the problems still existent.  I suggest that Tibetan Buddhist leaders will fit it in with this changed vision or they will begin to face diminishing sanghas.  As Sogyal Rinpoche is doing.

These days, I am no longer certain that there will be a moment when we can say that this trouble has been completely resolved or finished.  However, whether Sogyal Rinpoche steps forward and does that final right thing or not, his actions and our outcries are having an effect that will make it harder for such actions to be committed by lamas in the future. Whether women file criminal/civil charges or not, our sane conversations are having an effect and women are being empowered to say—NO.  Whether we siege Rigpa bedrooms or not, we are here for those women who will need support and care.   We are here for disillusioned men as well.  They know that.

I don’t believe we can draw the line definitively and say, Rigpa is fixed now. Nor do I believe that there is the will in any of us to shut Rigpa down.  However, what we can do is empower each other so that our minds are free to think and analyze and reach sound, unbiased conclusions. What we can do is reach out to each other with warmth and kindness and attempt within ourselves to better embody the Buddha’s teachings.

Joanne Clark
Minor revision on March 18, 2013 at 9:44 pm

Why the Dalai Lama cannot condemn Tibetan self-immolations

“This is a very, very delicate political issue. Now, the reality is that if I say something positive, then the Chinese immediately blame me. If I say something negative, then the family members of those people feel very sad. They sacrificed their own life. It is not easy. So I do not want to create some kind of impression that this is wrong. So the best thing is to remain neutral.”

There are discussions and opinions from Westerners that the Dalai Lama should condemn the Tibetan self-immolations. We had these discussions also here on the blog. Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion scholar and author of “The American Bible: How Our Words Unite, Divide, and Define a Nation,” states on CNN Belief Blog:

I know it is impolitic to criticize the Dalai Lama, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who is revered as a bodhisattva by many Buddhists. But he deserves criticism in this case. Why not “create some kind of impression” that killing is wrong? Why not use his vast storehouse of moral and spiritual capital to denounce this ritual of human sacrifice?

If the Dalai Lama were to speak out unequivocally against these deaths, they would surely stop. So in a very real sense, their blood is on his hands. But the bad karma the Dalai Lama is accruing here extends far beyond Tibet and these particular protesters.

In a reply to it, Tenzin Dorjee, executive director of Students for a Free Tibet, states on CNN blog:

In a crass display of moral blindsight, Stephen Prothero’s blog post on Tibetan self-immolations blames the victim instead of the bully.

Tibetans are stuck in one of the world’s last remaining and most brutal colonial occupations. It is through this lens, more than anything else, that we must understand the self-immolations.

Since 2009, at least 44 Tibetans – monks, nuns and lay people – have set themselves on fire to protest China’s rule; 39 self-immolations have occurred this year alone. Every one of these acts is a direct result of China’s systematic assault on the Tibetan people’s way of life, their movements, their speech, their religion, and their identity.

Instead of responding to China’s oppression with revenge – a path far more tempting to the basic human instinct – Tibetans have chosen a means far more peaceful. Without harming a single Chinese, they set aflame their own bodies to shine a light upon the atrocity taking place in their homeland. They sacrifice their own lives not in the name of “God” or “Buddha,” as Mr. Prothero so dismissively suggests, but in an altruistic intention of alerting the world to their people’s suffering.

By demanding that the Dalai Lama condemn these individuals who have shown compassion beyond our imagination, Mr. Prothero has betrayed a colossal indifference to the courage and circumstances of those fighting for the same democratic freedoms and human rights that he himself enjoys.

How can the Dalai Lama condemn the self-immolators when their motivation was evidently selfless and their tactic nonviolent? Would we ask Gandhi to condemn activists in the Indian freedom struggle who were killed while lying on the road to block British police trucks? Or the hunger strikers who were starving themselves to death in order to protest the injustices of British rule in India?

By every measure, it’s the Chinese leaders and not the Dalai Lama who are responsible for the self-immolations in Tibet. They have the power to ease tensions, reverse restrictions, and stop the self-immolations overnight. But instead of seeking a lasting solution to the Tibet issue, they continue to aggravate the situation by intensifying the repression.

No one is more tormented by the self-immolations than the Dalai Lama, whose bond with the Tibetan people goes deeper than language can express. In fact, it is the singular calming influence of the Dalai Lama that has kept the movement nonviolent to date.

As a universal icon of peace, the Dalai Lama’s spiritual influence goes well beyond the Buddhist world. Nevertheless, his moral authority is not an infinite resource. There is an invisible moral rope with which the Dalai Lama has bound the Tibetans to nonviolence for four decades. But this rope is wearing thin as China’s escalating tyranny drives Tibetans into a corner.

Self-immolation, which emerged as a tactic from being cornered for too long, represents the final outpost in the spectrum of nonviolent resistance. If this last remaining space for expression, no matter how drastic, is taken away, the rope might just snap. Chaos will ensue, vastly increasing the chances of a full-blown ethnic conflict that even the Dalai Lama will have exhausted his moral capital to stop.

From all of Mr. Prothero’s accusations, the most offensive is his comparison of self-immolations to sati – a social system in ancient India where widows were pressured to throw themselves into the funeral pyre of their deceased husbands. Self-immolation – a political act of reason – is the polar opposite of sati – a blind act of superstition.

There is not a single case of Tibetan self-immolation that was prompted by social pressure or religious obligation. Every incident of it, unexpected as it is, shakes the nation, the community, not to mention the family, to its foundations. Every Tibetan prays in his or her heart that the latest might be the last.

The image of a person engulfed in flames is shocking, often disturbing, to people living in the free world. For all our obsession with violent movies, graphic video games, and live coverage of wars, it still rips our hearts to pieces when we see a human in flames.

Rather than indulging in philosophical investigations into the morality of self-immolations, we must see these actions for what they are: urgent pleas for help from a people pushed to the brink by decades of ruthless repression.

One hopes that most people are focused on the real question at hand: how shall we answer this call?

Personally, as a Western Buddhist, I try to be cautious not to condemn others but to start any judgement from first trying to understand the events, situations and background of it. Only if I can understand, if I am able to put myself into the shoes of others, there is the opportunity for a fair judgement of things.

One argument sticks to me as being misleading in this context, and that is that – as Prothero and the Chinese official say – “If the Dalai Lama were to speak out unequivocally against these deaths, they would surely stop.” I think such a belief is based on a wrong mental image that imposes omnipotent powers to the Dalai Lama. This imagination is not based on reality. Why?

First, Tibetans themselves remark self-critically, that they usually never did what their spiritual or political leaders advised them – ‘this tradition’, as Buddhist Tibetans humorous remark – of disobeying the advice of their leaders started already at the time of King Trison Detsen (742–97). The saying goes as follows: Padmasambhava recommended Trison Detsen not to partake in the Tibetan New Year’s annual ceremonies, but Trison Detsen didn’t heed Padmasambhava’s advice (as a king he had to partake, he argued), then Padmasambhava asked him at least not to partake in the horse race, but Trison Detsen didn’t listen. During the horse race he, so it is said, fell off the horse and died. Also the 13th Dalai Lama intensively pleaded to the Tibetans to heed his advice in his “political testament” (PDF):

Therefore take measures now. Maintain friendly relations with the two great powers, China and India, conscript able soldiers to guard the borders and make them sufficiently strong to ward off those countries with whom we have had border disputes. The armed forces should be drilled and disciplined so as to be effective and strong to overcome those who threaten us. These precautions should be taken at a time when the forces of degeneration are most prevalent and when Communism is on the spread. Remember the fate that befell the Mongolian nation when Communists overran the country and where the Head Lama’s reincarnation was forbidden, where property was totally confiscated and where monasteries and religion were completely wiped out. These things have happened, are happening and will happen in the land which is the Centre of Buddhism (i.e. Tibet). So, if you are not able to defend yourselves now, the institutions of the Dalai Lama, venerable incarnates and those who protect the Teachings shall be wiped out completely. Monasteries shall be looted, property confiscated and all living beings shall be destroyed. The memorable rule of the Three Gardian kings of Tibet, the very institutions of the state and religion shall be banned and forgotten. The property of the officials shall be confiscated; they shall be slaves of the conquerors and shall roam the land in bondage. All souls shall be immersed in suffering and the night shall be long and dark.

And what did the Lhasa elite do – especially the conservative wing of the (Gelug) monasteries (most often Shugden proponents btw) – after the death of the 13th Dalai Lama? They reverted almost all of his reforms. Such deep is the “obedience” many superimpose onto the Tibetans and their relation to the Dalai Lamas or their spiritual leaders. Also the case of the 14th Dalai Lama shows many such examples, that while the Tibetans revere him tremendously most often they don’t heed his advice. To take just one example: in 1998 the Dalai Lama personally asked the “Hunger Unto Death” strikers to stop their strike in India. He clearly said that he regards this as violence against oneself and cannot agree with it. Nevertheless, though initially heeding, some of the hunger strikers picked up the political protest again and it ended in the first self-immolation of a Tibetan, the death of Thubten Ngodup.

I would like to ask those who wish to form an opinion, to do this carefully, to first take time to fully investigate the background otherwise one risks to elevate oneself over others based on a narrow minded ethical point of view, and this mode of thinking would easily go into the direction of an unfair discrimination of the Tibetans. (Westerners have this tendency – and I think Stephen Prothero might have stepped into this trap too – to place themselves higher than others based on their assumed superior ethical views without understanding the complex background of events and other cultures.) There is also another risk: shouldn’t we be ashamed about the Western countries’ silence to these self-immolations and our moral corruption with respect to the legal rights of the Tibetans as a people? Isn’t there a risk, that we project our own moral failings onto the Dalai Lama and Tibetans, attacking them, instead of asking us: Why are we silent and leave the Tibetans alone, doing nothing about the brutal colonisation of their country? As anthropologist Katia Buffetrille commented:

What is happening in Tibet is very rarely covered by the media, firstly because of the many events that shock the world, secondly, because the Western countries greatly restrain themselves when it comes to anything to say against China. They are afraid that they might miss a business …

And the Tibetan author and writer Jamyang Norbu states in a more desperate mood:

Seventy Tibetans have, one after the other, in relentless and purposeful succession, set themselves on fire for the cause of their people’s freedom. If anything so heroic, selfless, spontaneous, non-instigated, and entirely non-violent* had happened anywhere else in the world, especially in the West or in places important to Western interests, like the Middle East or North Africa, these self-immolations would not only have become headline news but would have been discussed to death (if you will forgive the expression) in TV news-shows, chat-rooms, newspaper op-eds, editorials, blog-rooms, think-tank forums and so on. The issue could even have come up in the American presidential elections, and Tibetan TV viewers watching the foreign policy debate might have been amused by the vision of Mitt Romney scolding president Obama for ignoring the immolations in Tibet and “apologizing” to China – or its equivalent in this alternate reality.

But, of course, nothing of the kind has happened in our space-time continuum. Far from being the subject of international discussion the world media has given the Tibetan immolations the absolutely minimum attention it is possible to give to a major news story, without actually opening itself to the charge of deliberately and cynically ignoring the issue altogether.

…

I must make it clear that I am not saying that the New York Times, the BBC or CNN have not reported the immolations. Clearly they have all done so, though only to the minimally acceptable extent – CNN being the worst offender. Even the tone of the published reports have been uniformly clinical and impersonal as weather reports. But the big evasion in these reports is the lack of discussion on the fundamental cause for which these Tibetans burnt themselves.

So before we judge another people in despair maybe it’s good to first question our own silence instead of questioning Tibetans, and the Dalai Lama’s supposed silence, isn’t it?

After having done this self-introspection, one might be able to ask in a fairer way why the Dalai Lama cannot condemn Tibetan self-immolations as many Westerners expect him to do.

The Dalai Lama says in The Hindu:

This is a very, very delicate political issue. Now, the reality is that if I say something positive, then the Chinese immediately blame me. If I say something negative, then the family members of those people feel very sad. They sacrificed their own life. It is not easy. So I do not want to create some kind of impression that this is wrong. So the best thing is to remain neutral.

Westerners who are so used to feel compelled to say something, to judge, to give an opinion on everything at hand seem to be unable to tolerate this neutral approach, and subsequently they project – as Prothero does it – that now there would be the self-immolators’ “blood is on his [the Dalai Lama's] hands”. Hello! The Dalai Lama didn’t kill any body, the Chinese mistreat, kill and torture Tibetans!

Moreover, according to Kelsang Gyaltsen, the Dalai Lama supported the appeals of the elected Tibetan government in Exile (CTA) who appealed to the Tibetans to not grasp to such drastic measures as self-immolations. Dr. Lobsang Sangay, elected prime minister of the CTA, said that while he highly discourages the drastic action, it is the “sacred duty” of the exiled community to support it.

“We have made so many appeals (to stop self-immolations), but they are still doing it,” said Sangay, the political successor of the Dalai Lama, as the number of self-immolations by monks, nuns and others swelled to 68 since March 2011.

I think it is save to say, what the Dalai Lama said already: “This is a very, very delicate political issue.”

Kelsang Gyaltsen, the Dalai Lama’s special representative for Europe, explained in an interview with the German radio station Deutschlandfunk (mp3 file, 01. December 2012, translation by Tenpel – sorry for the mistakes):

HEUER: At the moment, people are dying in Tibet. China now says one word of the Dalai Lama were sufficient to stop self-immolations. Why doesn’t he say anything?

GYALTSEN: The Dalai Lama is very, very worried about the situation in Tibet. And the whole world knows his attitude to non-violence and also violence towards oneself. The Dalai Lama has clearly emphasized, when the first case of self-immolation 1998 in Delhi took place that also violence against oneself is an act of violence and should be avoided.

HEUER: But that’s 14 years ago. Why doesn’t he say anything now?

GYALTSEN: Why now he says nothing about it? If the Dalai Lama in this situation cannot offer Tibetans any alternatives in how they can achieve their rights then he simply cannot prohibit the Tibetans to protest against the Chinese’s policy of oppression. Since years he offered to engage in talks [with China].

He makes clear that he doesn’t strive for independence and separation but for a genuine autonomy within the People’s Republic of
China. But the Chinese government is not responding to this offer. If the Chinese government would give any sign that the Chinese leadership is willing to address the concern of the Tibetans, the dissatisfaction of the Tibetans seriously, then I’m convinced that the Dalai Lama would offer every help and cooperation.

HEUER: Mr. Gyaltsen, but then I understand you correctly: As long as that is not the case, the Dalai Lama approves the suicides because they are a protest against Chinese rule and because they create publicity?

GYALTSEN: That’s not the case at all. There can be no talk of his [supposed] endorsement! He must offer an alternative to the Tibetans,
how they can gain their [basic human] rights without immolating themselves. Tell me this alternative!

HEUER: I can not tell you any, but it is clear that people continue to kill themselves. And that you do not do anything against it, that the Dalai Lama does not intervene.

GYALTSEN: But! That’s not right. The elected Tibetan leaders have repeatedly appealed to the Tibetans in Tibet, not to resort to such drastic forms of protest. And the Dalai Lama has supported all of these appeals from the elected Tibetan leaders [in exile].

HEUER: Mr. Gyaltsen, the international community is predominantly silent given to what we’re seeing now in Tibet.
I want to focus this on Germany. We have last experienced that Angela Merkel has publicly criticized Russian President Putin and has tangled with him. Do you wish something like this in dealing with the Chinese Government?

GYALTSEN: Of course! The question, Ms. Heuer, in the frame we are discussing had to be: What does the Chinese government do to stop the self-immolation of Tibetans? What does the international community do to convince the Tibetans thereof not to resort to these forms of protest? You can not, as the Chinese do, blame the Dalai Lama for all the problems that exist in Tibet. The Dalai Lama lives since 50 years outside of Tibet. About 95 percent of the Tibetans who live in Tibet have never seen the Dalai Lama. And still the Chinese explain that for every protest in Tibet, for each of these self-immolations the Dalai Lama as the culprit. I think in this context, of course, Germany is in a very good position, to take effect on China. Germany is China’s largest trading partner in Europe and has a major impact. And an active involvement of the German government, to relax the situation in Tibet and to create a real Dialogue between the Tibetans and the Chinese leadership, would be seen by us Tibetans as being very, very welcomed.

Conclusion

So, why the Dalai Lama cannot condemn Tibetan self-immolations? Ask this yourself but please based on an informed perspective. In my opinion it is strange to expect from a person to condemn actions that are the last means of an oppressed people against their oppressors, a means that does not inflict harm on the oppressors but “only” on themselves. How can I condemn this or expect others to do this?

However, based in the immense suffering self-immolation is creating for oneself and the families, I would highly welcome any action that can stop the self-immolations, right now. This is even more so, since more than 100 self-immolations of Tibetans haven’t turned any thing to the better but only increased China’s oppression. The more than 100 Tibetan self-immolations have not achieved any similar result to the self-immolation of Quảng Đửc, or the self-immolation of Tunisian Mohamed Bouazizi that became the catalyst for what has become known as the Arab Spring.

It was the Dalai Lama himself who – besides his known stance on non-violence – also questioned the effectiveness of the Tibetan self-immolations. He said, that these actions would lead to increased repression (see Katia Buffetrille).

Self-Immolations in Perspective

• Self-Immolation in Context, 1963-2012 by Michael Biggs (University of Oxford)
• A reading list: Toward an Understanding of Self-Immolation (as ‘fire suicide’ or ‘auto-cremation’): A Basic Reading Guide

Appeals to Stop Self-Immolations

• Senior exiled Tibetan (Karmapa Lama) urges end to immolations (Reuters)
• Dalai Lama questions wisdom of self-immolations (BBC)
• Lobsang Sangay Discusses Self-Immolation Of Tibetan Buddhist Monks (Huffington Post)
• Plea to Stop Burnings Ignored (Radio Free Asia)
• Naktsang Nulo shares his thoughts on Self-Immolations of Tibetans

The Power of the Dalai Lama in Perspective

• FAQ-Interview with Tibetologist Thierry Dodin

Further Readings

• How Many Self-Immolating Tibetans Does It Take to Make a Difference? – TIME
• Make it a burning issue by Jamyang Norbu
• A collection of scholarly papers in Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines
• SELF-IMMOLATION AS PROTEST IN TIBET – Guest Editors: Carole McGranahan (University of Colorado) and Ralph Litzinger (Duke University)
• A large compendium of background material and commentary – provided by the Cultural Anthropology Journal
• Self-immolation as political protest (Prague University)

On this blog

• China is criminalizing self-immolators, arresting protesters’ friends and confiscating thousands of satellite TV dishes 2013/01/21
• Trying to Understand the Self-immolations of Tibetans 2013/01/09
• Tibet’s Independence – Tibet as a Feudal Hell 2013/01/01
• The Burning Question: Why are Tibetans Turning to Self-immolation? 2012/11/10

Last edited by tenpel on March 16, 2013 at 12:35 pm

The Guru-Disciple Relationship – Advice by HH the Dalai Lama

In “Healing Anger – The power of patience from a Buddhist perspective” pub. Snow Lion, USA 1997, pp 83-85, H.H. the Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, states:

Q: What do you think about Dharma teachers who speak and write about Dharma beautifully, but do not live it?

A: Because Buddha knew of this potential consequence, he was very strict in prescribing the qualities that are necessary for a person to be qualified as a teacher. Nowadays, it seems, this is a serious issue. First on the teacher’s side: the person who gives some teaching, or gives talks on Dharma must have really trained, learned, and studied. Then, since the subject is not history or literature, but rather a spiritual one, the teacher must gain some experience. Then when that person talks about a religious subject with some experience, it carries some weight. Otherwise, it is not so effective. Therefore, the person who begins to talk to others about the Dharma must realize the responsibility, must be prepared. That is very important. Because of this importance, Lama Tsongkhapa, when he describes the qualifications that are necessary for an individual to become a teacher, quotes from Maitreya’s Ornament of Scriptures, in which Maitreya lists most of the key qualifications that are necessary on the part of the teacher, such as that the teacher must be disciplined, at peace with himself, compassionate, and so on. At the conclusion, Lama Tsongkhapa sums up by stating that those who wish to seek a spiritual teacher must first of all be aware of what the qualifications are that one should look for in a teacher. Then, with that knowledge, seek a teacher. Similarly, those who wish to seek students and become teachers must not only be aware of these conditions, but also judge themselves to see whether they possess these qualities, and if not, work towards possessing them. Therefore, from the teachers’ side, they also must realize the great responsibility involved. If some individual, deep down, is really seeking money, then I think it is much better to seek money through other means. So if the deep intention is a different purpose, I think this is very unfortunate. Such an act is actually giving proof to the Communist accusation that religion is an instrument for exploitation. This is very sad.

Buddha himself was aware of this potential for abuse. He therefore categorically stated that one should not live a way of life which is acquired through five wrong means of livelihood. One of them is being deceptive and flattering toward one’s benefactor in order to get maximal benefit.

Now, on the students’ side, they also have responsibility. First, you should not accept the teacher blindly. This is very important. You see, you can learn Dharma from someone you accept not necessarily as a guru, but rather as a spiritual friend. Consider that person until you know him or her very well, until you gain full confidence and can say, “Now, he or she can be my guru.” Until that confidence develops, treat that person as a spiritual friend. Then study and learn from him or her. You also can learn through books, and as time goes by, there are more books available. So I think this is better.

Here I would like to mention a point which I raised as early as thirty years ago about a particular aspect of the guru-disciple relationship. As we have seen with Shantideva’s text Guide to the Bodhisatva’s Way of Life, we find that in a particular context certain lines of thought are very much emphasized, and unless you see the argument in its proper context there is a great potential for misunderstanding. Similarly, in the guru-disciple relationship, because your guru plays such an important role in serving as the source of inspiration, blessing, transmission, and so on, tremendous emphasis is placed on maintaining proper reliance upon and a proper relationship with one’s guru. In the texts describing these practices we find a particular expression, which is, “May I be able to develop respect for the guru, devotion to the guru, which would allow me to see his or her every action as pure.”

I stated as early as thirty years ago that this is a dangerous concept. 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. However, it seems now, as time goes by, that my warning has become something quite relevant. Anyway, that is my own conviction and attitude, but I base the observation that this is a potentially poisonous idea on Buddha’s own words. For instance, in the Vinaya teachings, which are the scriptures that outline Buddha’s ethics and monastic discipline, where a relationship toward one’s guru is very important, Buddha states that although you will have to accord respect to your guru, if the guru happens to give you instructions which contradict the Dharma, then you must reject them.

There are also very explicit statements in the sutras, in which Buddha states that any instructions given by the guru that accord with the general Dharma path should be followed, and any instructions given by the guru that do not accord with the general approach of the Dharma should be discarded.

It is in the practice of Highest Yoga Tantra of Vajrayana Buddhism where the guru-disciple relationship assumes great importance. For instance, in Highest Yoga Tantra we have practices like guru yoga, a whole yoga dedicated toward one’s relation to the guru. However, even in Highest Yoga Tantra we find statements which tell us that any instructions given by the guru which do not accord with Dharma cannot be followed. You should explain to the guru the reasons why you can’t comply with them, but you should not follow the instructions just because the guru said so. What we find here is that we are not instructed to say, “Okay, whatever you say, I will do it,” but rather we are instructed to use our intelligence and judgment and reject instructions which are not in accord with Dharma.

However we do find, if we read the history of Buddhism, that there were examples of single-pointed guru devotion by masters such as Tilopa, Naropa, Marpa, and Milarepa which may seem a little extreme. But we find that while these masters, on the surface, may look like outcasts or beggars, or they may have strange behaviours which sometimes lead other people to lose faith, nevertheless when the necessity came for them to reinforce other people’s faith in the Dharma and in themselves as spiritual teachers, these masters had a counterbalancing factor – a very high level of spiritual realization. This was so much so that they could display supernatural powers to outweigh whatever excesses people may have found in them, conventionally speaking. However, in the case of some of the modern-day teachers, they have all the excesses in their unethical behaviours but are lacking in this counterbalancing factor, which is the capacity to display supernatural powers. Because of this, it can lead to a lot of problems.

Therefore, as students, you should first watch and investigate thoroughly. Do not consider someone as a teacher or guru until you have certain confidence in the person’s integrity. This is very important. Then, second, even after that, if some unhealthy things happen, you have the liberty to reject them. Students should make sure that they don’t spoil the guru. This is very important.

---

In “The Gelug/Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra”, pp. 209–211, His Holiness the Dalai Lama states:

Premature Commitment To An Unsuitable Guru

In some cases it happens that disciples do not examine a spiritual teacher very carefully before accepting him or her as their guru and committing themselves to a guru/disciple relationship. They may even have received tantric empowerments from this teacher. But then they find they were wrong. They see many flaws in this teacher and discover many serious mistakes he or she has made. They find that this teacher does not really suit them. Their minds are uneasy regarding this person and they are filled with doubts and possibly regret. What to do in such a circumstance?

The mistake, of course, is that originally the disciples did not examine this teacher very carefully before committing themselves to him or her. But this is something of the past that has already happened. No one can change that. In the future, of course, they must examine any potential guru much more thoroughly. But, as for what to do now in this particular situation with this particular guru, it is not productive or helpful to continue investigating and scrutinizing him or her in terms of suspicions or doubts. Rather, as The Kalachakra Tantra recommends, it is best to keep a respectful distance. They should just forget about him or her and not have anything further to do with this person.

It is not healthy, of course, for disciples to deny serious ethical flaws in their guru, if they are in fact true, or his or her involvement in Buddhist power-politics, if this is the case. To do so would be a total loss of discriminating awareness. But for disciples to dwell on these points with disrespect, self-recrimination, regret or other negative attitudes is not only unnecessary, unhelpful and unproductive, it is also improper. They distance themselves even further from achieving a peaceful state of mind and may seriously jeopardize their future spiritual progress. I think it best in this circumstance just to forget about this teacher.

Premature Commitment To Tantra And Daily Recitation Practices

It may also occur that disciples have taken tantric empowerments prematurely, thinking that since tantra is famous as being so high, it must be beneficial to take this initiation. They feel they are ready for this step and take the empowerment, thereby committing themselves to the master conferring it as now being their tantric guru. Moreover, they commit themselves as well to various sets of vows and a daily recitation meditation practice. Then later these disciples realize that this style of practice does not suit them at all, and again they are filled with doubts, regrets, and possibly fear. Again, what to do?

We can understand this with an analogy. Suppose, for instance, we go to a store, see some useful but exotic item that strikes our fancy and just buy it on impulse, even though it is costly. When we bring it home, we find, after examining the item more soberly now that we are out of the exciting, seductive atmosphere of the marketplace, that we have no particular use for it at the moment. In such situation, it is best not to throw the thing out in the garbage, but rather to put it aside. Later we might find it, in fact, very useful.

The same conclusion applies to the commitments disciples have taken prematurely at a tantric empowerment without sufficient examination to determine if they were ready for them. In such situations, rather than deciding that they are never going to use it at all and throwing the whole thing away, such disciples would do better to establish a neutral attitude toward it, putting tantra and their commitments aside and leaving it like that. This is because they may come back to them later and find them very precious and useful.

Suppose, however, disciples have taken an empowerment and have accepted the commitment to practice the meditations of a particular Buddha-form by reciting a sadhana, a method of actualization, to guide them through a complex sequence of visualization and mantra repetition. Although they still have faith in tantra, they find that their recitation commitment is too long and it has become a great burden and strain to maintain it as a daily practice. What to do then? Such disciples should abbreviate their practice. This is very different from the previous case in which certain disciples find that tantric practice in general does not suit them at the present stage of their spiritual life. Everyone has time each day to eat and to sleep. Likewise, no matter how busy they are, no matter how many family and business responsibilities they may have, such disciples can at least find a few minutes to maintain the daily continuity of generating themselves in their imagination in the aspect of a Buddha-form and reciting the appropriate mantra. They must make some effort. Disciples can never progress anywhere on the spiritual path if they do not make at least a minimal amount of effort.

---

In “The Gelug/Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra”, pp. 185–186, His Holiness the Dalai Lama states about

The Root Guru

Sometimes we differentiate a root guru from our other gurus and focus particularly on him or her for our practice of guru-yoga. Our root guru is usually described in the context of tantra as the one who is kind to us in three ways. There are several manners of explaining these three types of kindness. One, for example, is the kindness to confer upon us empowerments, explanatory discourses on the tantric practices and special guideline instructions for them. If we have received empowerments and discourses from many gurus, we consider as our root guru the one who has had the most beneficial effect upon us. For deciding this, we do not examine in terms of the actual qualifications of the guru from his or her own side, but rather in terms of our own side and the benefit we have gained in our personal development and the state of mind this guru elicits in us. We consider the rest of our gurus as emanations or manifestations of that root guru …

More about the Teacher-Student-Relationship

• Questioning the Advice of the Guru by H.H. the XIV. Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso
• Relating to the Guru by Jetsünma Tenzin Palmo
• The Teacher-Student-Relationship by Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Thaye
• Relating to a Spiritual Teacher: Building a Healthy Relationship by Dr. Alexander Berzin
• East-West, West-East by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche
• Approaching the Guru by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche
• Devotion with Discernment – A question of personal responsibility by Rob Preece
• Maha-Moggallana by Hellmuth Hecker

Spiritual Teacher and Sexual Abuse / Sexual Exploitation

• Sex and the Spiritual Teacher by Scott Edelstein
• Books On Sexual Exploitation By Professionals – Selected and reviewed by James Park

See also

• Open Letter – Conference of Western Buddhist Teachers

Posts on this Blog

• The Bodhisattva & Sexuality – The Skill In Means Sutra 2013/01/31
• Dangerous Cult Leaders – Psychology today 2013/01/13
• Is forsaking the Guru, Kelsang Gyatso, worse than the karma generated by Hitler and Mao Tse Tung? 2012/11/01
• Kumaré: A True Film About a False Prophet 2012/07/27
• Sex And The Lama by Gavin Kilty 2012/07/11
• Characteristics of those unsuitable to be gurus 2010/11/05

  Last edited by tenpel on April 27, 2013 at 11:39 pm

Full Ordination for Women: Thailand’s Buddhist nuns cautiously lobby for legal recognition

Thai Bhikkhunis have their own limitations, not just because they number only 25 compared with the approximate 200,000 male monks here. They lack legal recognition – a denial that accompanies various withholdings of public benefits, and it highlights a persistent issue of discrimination for women across the country.

A revived campaign to grant Bhikkhunis legal recognition launched quietly at the end of July, with advocates hoping that minimal fanfare would help them evade the conservative religious opposition that has prevented the movement from strengthening for more than 80 years.

“This is a basic human rights issue,” says prominent former senator and lawyer Paiboon Nititawan, an organizer of the Bhikkhunis’ rights movement.

For more read: Thailand’s female monks (cautiously) lobby for legal recognition by the Christian Science Monitor

See also

• Buddhist text’s true author identified as Thai woman – BBC News
  1st International Congress on Buddhist Women’s Role in the Sangha: Bhikshuni Vinaya and Ordination Lineages held at the University of Hamburg from July 18-20, 2007
• First female Geshe: Geshe Kelsang Wangmo 2012/10/06

Last edited by tenpel on April 1, 2013 at 8:35 pm

The Bodhisattva & Sexuality – The Skill In Means Sutra

We had some discussion on the blog about ethics & safety. We mainly looked onto the ethics from the point of view of the Vinaya, and we only slightly touched the ethics from the Vajrayana point of view. This post should stress the Mahayana point of view and is an extract / quote from the The Skill in Means Sutra (Upayakausalya-Sutra) translated by Prof. Dr. Mark Tatz who dedicated the work to his gurus Kalu Rinpoche and Dezhung Rinpoche.

The cover of the book says about this sutra:

This rare Sutra, ancient but timely, has long been treated with circumspection because of its liberal attitude toward sexuality and other ethical concerns. One of the original statements of the early Mahayana school, it is here collated from Chinese and Tibetan translations, and from passages that remain in the original Sanskrit. Originally part of a larger sutra on the six perfections that included the well-known Perfection of Wisdom Sutra, the Skill in Means Sutra explicates the other five perfections of the Bodhisattva. The translator has traced its source to verses of the Ratnagunasamcaya-gatha that have no counterpart in the Perfection of Wisdom. The Skill in Means is also found as part of the Ratnakuta collection of sutras, under the title The Question of Jnanottara’.

The Bodhisattva and Sexuality: The Bodhisattva “King at the Head of the Masses”

23. Then the master Ananda said to the Lord:
“Venerable Lord, the Thus-Come-One may be the teacher of all sentient beings; and it may be that there is nothing not known to, not seen and realized by, not directly evident to him. Nevertheless, the Thus-Come-One has said, ‘When you see a monk incur a transgression, do not dissemble, but tell your fellow celibates or the Thus-Come-One. Therefore I relate this to the Lord, with friendliness and the intention of avoiding an act of transgression.

“Venerable Lord, as I was making my round for alms in this great city of Sravasti, I saw the Bodhisattva King at the Head of the Masses inside a certain house, together with a woman on a couch.”

When master Ananda had finished speaking, the great earth suddenly shook in six ways.

24. Then the Bodhisattva King at the Head of Masses levitated and sat in the atmosphere before the Lord at seven times the height of a palm tree. Addressing master Ananda, he said: “Master Ananda, what do you think of this? Can someone sit in the atmosphere while possessed of a subject of transgression?”

Ananda answered, “No, son of the family, he cannot.”

The Bodhisattva King at the Head of the Masses asked again: “Then let master Ananda ask the Thus-Come-One who is present before us now how one comes to be possessed of a subject of Bodhisattva transgression.”

Master Ananda was disconcerted. Bowing his head to the feet of the Lord, he said to the Lord:

“Venerable Lord, I disclose as an offense the offense I have committed in accusing such a standard-bearer of a fault. May it please the Lord to accept as an offense the offense I have confessed as an offense.”

25. The Lord replied to master Ananda: “Ananda, do not conceive of a holy person, someone practicing the Greater Vehicle correctly, as being faulty. Ananda, this is how you should understand it: A person of the vehicle of the auditors, in order to be absolutely peerless in maintaining meditative calm, will seek uninterruptedly to exhaust the outflows. In the same way, Ananda, the Bodhisattva great hero who is skilled in means, who is endowed with the thought of omniscience, will seek uninterruptedly for omniscience, even to the point of abiding among a holy retinue of women and enjoying, playing with, and taking pleasure in it.

“Why so? Ananda, the Bodhisattva great hero who is skilled in means takes a retinue only to introduce it to the three jewels—the jewel of the Buddha, the jewel of the doctrine and the jewel of the community—and to supreme,
right and full awakening.

“Ananda, if you should see a son of the family or a daughter of the family (someone of the Bodhisattva vehicle) who, while not parted from the thought of omniscience, is enjoying, playing with and taking pleasure in the five sensuous qualities—then, Ananda, you should understand that the holy person in question is endowed with five faculties like those of the Thus-Come-One.

26, “Now listen, Ananda, to why the Bodhisattva King at the Head of the Masses was sitting together with a woman on a couch. That woman, Ananda, had been the wife of Bodhisattva King at the Head of the Masses for the past
five hundred lives. Because of that clumsiness (ayonisa) in the past, her thoughts clung to that son of the family. On the other band, she perceived the splendor and majesty (generated by the power of his past morality) of the Bodhisattva King at the Head of the Masses. She found herself incapable of uttering the words that would take her to (sic) a lower rebirth.

“Off in private, the thought arose in her mind, If the Bodhisattva King at the Head of the Masses were to sit with me on a couch, I also would generate the thought of supreme, right and full awakening.

27.  Ananda, the Bodhisattva King at the Head of the Masses 
cognized that sister’s supposition with his mind.
He let the night pass and in the morning put on his under and outer robes, took his bowl and went for alms to the great city of Sravasti. Wandering through the great city of Sravasti for alms, he came to the house of that sister.

“He thought about the earth-equivalency—the spiritual exercise of equating the internal and external elements of earth. He took that sister by the right hand, and they sat down on a couch. As soon as they had been seated, he spoke this stanza:

The Buddha does not praise desire;
That is the range of the foolish.
Eliminate craving for sense-objects,
And become the best of humanity—a Buddha.

28. “Ananda, then that sister, hearing the stanza, was elated and jubilant.
 She rose from the couch and fell at the feet of the Bodhisattva King at the
 Head of the Masses, Then she uttered these stanzas:

Desires censured by the Buddha,
I will not seek hereafter;
Abandoning thirst for sense-objects,
I’ll become the best humanity—a Buddha.

The offensive thought I was thinking,
I hereby confess to you;
For the welfare of all living creatures,
I generate the wish for awakening.

29, “Ananda, the Bodhisattva King at the Head of the Masses instructed that sister in supreme, right and full awakening, built her up to it, introduced her to it, and established her in it with that skill in means. Then he rose from the couch and departed.

“Ananda, regard the distinction of his beneficent intentions! Ananda, I make this prediction in regard to that sister: Upon transmigrating from here, she will exchange her woman’s body. After 9.9 million ‘incalculable’ eons, she will become and appear in the world as a Thus-Come-One, a Worthy, a fully perfected Buddha named Free From Obsession, in the Buddha-field in which he obtains awakening, sentient beings will have no unwholesome obsession at all in their minds.

“Ananda, you may understand by this account how a Bodhisattva takes a retinue without its becoming a subject of transgression.”

30. Then the Bodhisattva King at the Head of the Masses descended from the atmosphere. He made a prostration to the Lord, and said:

“Venerable Lord, a Bodhisattva maintains skill in means and great compassion. Venerable Lord, this is how I think of it:

“Suppose that a transgression would befall a Bodhisattva in the course of creating a store of merit for a particular sentient being, and the offense would cause him to bum in hell for a hundred thousand eons. The Bodhisattva will incur the transgression—and the suffering of hell-enthusiastically, O Venerable Lord, rather than relinquish the store of merit of a single sentient being.”

31. The Lord gave a “Well done!” to the Bodhisattva King at the Head of the Masses. “Well done, well done, holy personage. With such great compassion, a Bodhisattva avoids any transgression; he possesses no subject
of transgression. How is this the case?

pp. 30–33

The Bodhisattva and Sexuality: The Story of Jyotis

[…]

The Bodhisattva and Sexuality: The Story of Vimala

36. Then the Lord again addressed the Bodhisattva great hero Jnanottara:

“Son of the family: If the monks Sariputra and Maudgalyayana had been skilled in means, the monk Kokalika would not have gone to hell. Why so?

37. “Son of the family, this I know for myself. Once upon a time, during the promulgation of the Thus-Come-One, the Worthy, the fully perfected Buddha Kakutsunda, there was a monk a preacher of doctrine named Vimala (‘Immaculate’) who dwelt in a remote cave. Not far from him lived five hundred rsis. During that period a mass of clouds arose unseasonably, and a great rain came to fall. A pair of women who were en route between villages
entered Vimala’s cave seeking refuge from the rain. When they re-
emerged from the cave, they were spied by the five hundred rsis. Seeing them, 
the five hundred rsis thought 
harsh and hateful thoughts:    in alarm:

“‘ Aha! This monk Vimala is lusting for wickedness. He is uncelibate.’

38. “‘Then the monk Vimala, knowing in his mind the thinking of those
 five hundred rsis, levitated into the atmosphere to seven times the height of
 a palm tree. Seeing him sitting there, the rsis thought to themselves:
“‘According to our theories, someone who is uncelibate cannot levitate and sit in the atmosphere.’

“Without further ado they made prostration with five limbs to the feet of the monk Vimala and confessed their fault to be a fault.

“Son of the family: If the monk Vimala had not levitated and sat in the atmosphere at that time, those five hundred rsis would have fallen physically into hell.

39. “Son of the family, what do you think of this? At that time, in that 
life the present Bodhisattva Maitreya was none other than the monk Vimala. Do not view it otherwise. Have no second thoughts or doubt on this point.

“Son Of the family: You should understand by this account that if the monks Sariputra and Maudgalyayana had levitated and sat in the atmosphere, the monk Kokalika would not have gone to hell.

pp. 35–36

From the Conclusion (pp. 39–45)

52. The thought occurred to him, “What have I done to be reborn here?” Knowledge that is a recollection of past deeds arose in him, and he thought:

“I was the daughter of a merchant in the great city of Sravasti, and while there I gazed amorously upon the Bodhisattva great hero Priyamkara. After dying with my mind possessed by lust, I transformed my woman’s body to obtain a male body here. I have become opulent beyond measure.”

Then the male divinity (devaputra) thought: “If this be the reward for thoughts of lust, what would be my reward for doing prostrations and service with thoughts of faith to the Bodhisattva great hero Priyamkara? It is inappropriate and wrong for me to continue in a state of careless indulgence in sensual exhilaration and play and sexual pleasure. Instead, let me go before the Lord and the Bodhisattva great hero Priyamkara.”

[…]

58. Then Master Ananda said to the Lord:

“Venerable Lord, it is like this. All sentient beings who stand before Sumeru, the king of mountains, have the same color—the color of gold—regardless of whether they have thoughts of hatred, serenity, or attachment, or thoughts hindered in access to the doctrine. In the same way, venerable Lord, all sentient beings who stand before Bodhisattvas, whether they have thoughts of hatred, serenity, or attachment, or thoughts hindered in access to the doctrine, all have thoughts of the same complexion—the complexion of omniscience. Venerable Lord, henceforth I will consider all bodhisattvas to be like the king of mountains.

——————-

Professor Mark Tatz holds a Ph.D. in Buddhist Studies from the University of British Columbia, and an M.A. in Asian Languages (Sanskrit and Tibetan) from the University of Washington. Resident in Berkeley, California, he teaches at the Institute of Buddhist Studies. He is the author of numerous books and articles, including Rebirth: The Tibetan Game of Liberation; and The Complete Bodhisattva: Asanga ‘s Chapter on Ethics with the Commentary by Tsong-kha-pa.*

* from the book cover

China is criminalizing self-immolators, arresting protesters’ friends and confiscating thousands of satellite TV dishes

Tibetan exile Janphel Yeshi is engulfed in flames after setting himself on fire during a protest in New Delhi. Yeshi set himself on fire and suffered extreme burns as he ran down a street in New Delhi to protest against an upcoming visit to India by Chinese President Hu Jintao. (March 2012)

Nearly 100 Tibetan monks, nuns and lay people have set themselves on fire since 2009. All of them calling for Beijing to allow greater religious freedom and the return from exile of the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama. None of them said anything bad about China.

Incapable of dealing with these protests, Chinese authorities respond by sending in security forces to seal off areas and prevent information from getting out. Communities and their leaders, as well as the families of self-immolators are punished through the cutting of financial support. Communal prayer services for the deceased and their families have been forbidden. However, those efforts did not stop or slow the protests.

More

• As Tibet burns, China makes arrests, seizes TVs by GILLIAN WONG | Associated Press – Fri, Jan 18, 2013
• 10 facts about Tibet by FreeTibet.org
• Press Releases by FreeTibet.org

See also

• Trying to Understand the Self-immolations of Tibetans 2013/01/09
• Tibet’s Independence – Tibet as a Feudal Hell 2013/01/01
• The Burning Question: Why are Tibetans Turning to Self-immolation? 2012/11/10

Reflections of a former New Kadampa (NKT) practitioner

I received a link today with posts from someone who left NKT. The reflections add new perspectives on NKT, rarely stressed. The following two points from “But the teachings work don’t they?” I feel important to highlight:

The importance of mindfulness and self-acceptance as central teachings of Buddhist practice

It is only since leaving the NKT and reading other teachers that I see clearly what was missing, just the other day I was reading a short Zen book on the basics of the practise, and the author began by saying that  ”the one thing that unites all Buddhist traditions are two main practises, firstly mindfulness and secondly acceptance of ourselves. The curious thing is that despite the hundreds of teachings presented by GKG, these are the very two he doesn’t  look at in any real detail. Mindfulness I have been told can be included in his Mahamudra teachings but these are nothing to do with the very simple presentation I have found in the 6 other books I’ve already read since leaving the NKT, not just Zen but many other traditions, and although breathing meditation is taught in the NKT it is taught as a basic preparation practise not as a mindfulness practise in itself There is sprinkled throughout GKG’s books references to mindfulness, to observing our mind, but it is very sketchy to say the least not presented in any complete way. Also teachings on self acceptance, self love or anything that is likely to empower people to have faith in themselves and to develop their own wisdom is very absent. This is not the case with many other teachers, so I have to ask why out of all the teachings GKG thought to write about why so little on these two subjects which most other traditions seem to feel is very important.

The denigration of oneself and the need for individual growth

Rob Preece writes a brilliant book called “The wisdom of imperfection: The challenge of individuation in Buddhist life.” this book addresses these issue’s but also points out how certain Tibetan teachings do not encourage us to develop as individuals, I believe this is very true of the NKT, infact the individual is ignored, we are told time and time again how little wisdom we have, how ignorant we are, how only our Guru has the insight to know the truth. For those of us in the west with already very low self esteem we eat up this information with relish and use it to continue beating ourselves. Suddenly we know nothing and the Guru knows all, we are faulty, the Guru faultless. And the only light at the end of the tunnel? We will one day be a Buddha like him! Great just countless life times of ignorance and misery and maybe by some miracle one day we will become Buddha’s, but how? I do not for the life of me understand how we can even hope to emulate these great, perfect beings if all we relate to in ourselves is our deluded, dark mind. I can not believe Buddha ment for us to see ourselves in such a negative light. How can we hope to love and accept other’s if we can not love and accept ourselves? We mirror what is happening within our own mind, if what is happening is self abuse, fear and hatred, where is the light and love to come from.

Read more: http://independent-buddhist.webnode.com/blog/

See also

• A cult or not a cult that is the question.

Thoughts on Leaving Rigpa

GUEST POST

After almost 20 years in Rigpa, I have left with a heavy heart and a wounded soul.

I still have huge faith and trust in the Dharma and have connected with my own wisdom in a real way. The allegations of abuse by Sogyal Rinpoche have been around for a long time and every now and again, they re-surface in the media and a whole new generation of Rigpa students become aware that all is not as it seems.

For my first few years in Rigpa, I was not aware of these issues at all and when I did become aware in some way, my mind compartamentalised these issues. I was so confused, I tried to rationalise it – so many people benefit from the teachings, this surely can’t be true and so on but there was always a niggling doubt.  Then people that I trusted in the Dharma assured me that this was all fine, it was allegations, it was crazy wisdom, this was my ego reacting and so on. However, this doubt got bigger and bigger and when I discussed the issues with senior students, some of whom were in blank denial and issued a party line, some of whom admitted the truth of the allegations but justified it by “crazy wisdom” approach. Both reactions only made my doubts bigger, I read as much as could, watched interviews and soon found myself connecting with other students who had left or were leaving. We were all fearful  as this was a taboo subject and had been taught that to speak or think badly about the master would be a terrible corruption of samaya and would send you to the vajra hells. These teachings in recent years in Rigpa on devotion and samaya have become more numerous and explicit – I believe this is deliberate.

Only after leaving Rigpa, did I realise how free I felt – no longer did I have to justify thoughts in my mind as bad or a corruption of samaya, I was recognising something wrong had happened. I had attended weekends where these issues were discussed in Rigpa but mostly how the issues could be managed in the face of questions from students or the public. It was effectively a re-education or PR training and it left me feeling deeply uncomfortable. Why  should I put out a party line? I remember how my skin crawled a little when one instructor referred to those making allegations as “these women”, it was how it was said, it was loaded with meaning – these woman who dare speak out, who make these allegations, these women who don’t know what they want. We were told Sogyal is not a monk, he is not celibate and is entitled to a private life and that many woman because he is a Rinpoche want to connect with him and have a relationship. This does not make it ok as many people project hugely onto Tibetan masters, in much the same way as those in psychotherapy in the West might do so with a therapist. A good therapist sees this immediately and uses it in the therapy in a healthy way to sort out real issues and the idea of a therapist sleeping with a client is seen as a huge betrayal of trust and breach of fiduciary duty.

Since leaving Rigpa, I am clearer and happier – I feel sick that I stayed there so long and didn’t see the reality, that I listened to the lies and justification. I sometimes now meet people from Rigpa and I know that a lot of people have left in the past year or two and there is a concerted campaign to re-connect with those who have left, wanting to know their reasons why, wanting to talk to them. I want to have nothing to do with this as I believe the allegations against Sogyal Rinpoche should be dealt with openly and honesty.

The complicity of many people in Rigpa in covering up these allegations, managing what can and can’t be said and so on is wrong and so sad. It is no different that the terrible behaviour of the Catholic Church in how they covered up abuses for years.

This whole experience has left me deeply wounded in ways I cannot describe – Buddhism has brought huge benefit and meaning to my life but this experience with Rigpa about Rinpoche’s abuse and the cover-up of same means there is a dark shadow over my experience. I feel by participating in such an organisation for some time, I was also complicit as first I didn’t know and then I did and didn’t say anything about my questions or concerns. This isn’t surprisingly as a very strong and distinct culture of silence, group think and constant activity has built up in Rigpa. It means people are afraid to speak out, afraid to be different and the constant activity means people are so busy and tired they don’t question the norms.

I am hopeful that in the coming year the issues in Rigpa will be exposed more and more and there will be a honest dialogue that benefit all those who have suffered at the hands of this organisation.  The really sad thing is there are many kind and good people in Rigpa, who lead lives according to the Dharma but there is this huge blindspot about the issues of the allegations about Rinpoche. Rigpa has also provided students in the west with access to extraordinary lamas such as Ringu Tulku Rinpoche, Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche, Garchen Rinpoche and so on but I also have questions why does no-one speak up. Surely these lamas also know about these allegations? it is all so sad and confusing and disheartening and I commend those who have the bravery to speak out from the bottom of my heart.

Dangerous Cult Leaders – Psychology today

Dangerous Cult Leaders

There is an article by Joe Navarro, a former FBI Counterintelligence Agent, about “Dangerous Cult Leaders“.

Navarro is investigating the topic from the perspective of cult leader’s pathological patterns and from the point of view when he or she becomes a danger to others. For Navarro there is a “historical record of suffering and hurt caused by various cult leaders around the world.” Joe Navarro bases his article on his studies of cults and cult leaders during his time in the FBI.

In my opinion one of the pattern behind cult leaders is a personality disorder, usually I stress that it is good to get to know the signs of a Narcissistic personality disorder in order to understand cults and one’s own or others’ experiences in the context of so-called “cults”.

Navarro seems to come also to such a conclusion and he states that the individuals whose life, teachings, and behaviours he studied have “or had an over-abundant belief that they were special, that they and they alone had the answers to problems, and that they had to be revered. They demanded perfect loyalty from followers, they overvalued themselves and devalued those around them, they were intolerant of criticism, and above all they did not like being questioned or challenged. And yet, in spite of these less than charming traits, they had no trouble attracting those who were willing to overlook these features.”

Joe Navarro offers a list of 50 typical traits of a pathological cult leader and suggests that “you should watch for and which shout caution, get away, run, or avoid if possible”:

1. He has a grandiose idea of who he is and what he can achieve.
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, or brilliance.
3. Demands blind unquestioned obedience.
4. Requires excessive admiration from followers and outsiders.
5. Has a sense of entitlement – expecting to be treated special at all times.
6. Is exploitative of others by asking for their money or that of relatives putting others at financial risk.
7. Is arrogant and haughty in his behavior or attitude.
8. Has an exaggerated sense of power (entitlement) that allows him to bend rules and break laws.
9. Takes sexual advantage of members of his sect or cult.
10. Sex is a requirement with adults and sub adults as part of a ritual or rite.
11. Is hypersensitive to how he is seen or perceived by others.
12. —> for more please read the article: Dangerous Cult Leaders, Published on August 25, 2012 by Joe Navarro, M.A. on Psychology today blog.

The Dalai Lama as a god king in the eyes of a psychologist who has no understanding of Tibet’s history, Tibetan Buddhism and the Dalai Lamas

Another article on Psychology today blog shows rather the opposite of a thoughtful investigation: Dr. Joachim Krueger’s “The Dalai Lama as a Brand – neither god nor king“. After Krueger portrays the image of the current Dalai Lama as “a unique phenomenon in today’s world. More than anyone else, he transcends ordinary social categories …” etc. he puts him high above human categories and claims he would be “the closest thing to a god-king we currently have.”

God king? No Tibetan, not the Dalai Lama, nor anybody else who has some understanding calls the Dalai Lama “a god king”. The term derives from Western projections as scientists like Michael von Brück made clear. The Dalai Lama stresses himself quite often – including in his books – that he is just a human being like everybody else. When the Dalai Lama was asked in 1960 that it is believed he were a “living Buddha” or “a god king”  he replied: “What a strange remark! I am just a blessed follower of the Buddha.”

However, Krueger has to ignore those things to be able to follow Goldner’s presentation of a Dalai Lama, an image that is based on an “Anti-religious”, “Anti-lamaistic” stance (Golzio). To make it short, though it is highly welcome to balance the overall present rather enthusiastic image of the Dalai Lama, Goldner’s work is just a skilfully distorted, one-sided portray of Tibet, monasticism, and the Dalai Lama which FAZ reviewd as “Excessive doom-saying in such an amount and in such disparaging, abusive lingo, it’s not every day.” Although there exist some positive reviews of Goldner’s book in some news outlets too (NR, FR), the journalists in those outlets clearly lack any knowledge about the history of Tibet, Tibetan Buddhism and the Dalai Lamas, and missed to contact Tibetologists, Historians, Indologists or Anthropologists to verify Goldner’s presentation. A trap in which Krueger stepped too.

When I hinted to Krueger that Colin Goldner is a highly questionable source and gave some brief background information in the comment section Krueger wrote immediately another post Comments on Dalai Lama Post. There he wrongly claimed that

“The commentator gets more specific with regard to the last charge by noting that Goldner lost a court case when suing a reviewer who accused him of racism. … A Viennese court apparently saw it differently. I ask the commentator to supply the entire text of the court’s decision so I can form an informed opinion.

What strikes me is what did not happen. The suit was brought by Goldner with respect to an issue of language and not of fact. I would be interested to learn if there are cases of successful suits against Goldner, showing that critical parts of the evidence presented in his book are false, made-up, or grossly distorted.”

My request to clarify and to change this he ignored.

However, the “Dalai Lama as a Brand” is still an interesting topic. But I think if one wants to really investigate it in a serious and thoughtful manner one needs also enough knowledge about Tibet, Tibetan Buddhism and the Dalai Lamas, and reliable sources. — Not only knowledge is required but one must be free from prejudices and ideological delusions, and one should understand the inner logic of phenomena too. “Schuster bleib bei Deinen Leisten” we would say in German: “Cobbler, stick to your last!”*

* A cobbler makes shoes and their last is the thing they fashion or repair the shoes on. The phrase means stick to what you’re good at, or more negatively, don’t get above yourself. (see http://ask.metafilter.com/27518/What-does-Cobbler-stick-to-thy-last-mean)

Update 04 April 2013

• Spiritual Esperanto: A Response to “The Dalai Lama as a Brand” by Alex Caring-Lobel in Tricycle

Update 20 April 2013

• Colin Goldner: »Speichellecken und Scheissefressen« by Ursache&Wirkung

Trying to Understand the Self-immolations of Tibetans

I think for many Westerners or Europeans it is still hard to understand the self-immolations of Tibetans. Someone asked a Tibetan Rinpoche, Ringu Tulku. His answer was*:

There is a discussion about whether the self-immolations are Buddhist or not Buddhist, if they are according to Buddhist principles or not. But this, I think, is not the issue here. These are protests. These are protests and they are not based on hatred. No Tibetan who self-immolated himself or herself has ever said something negative about China, like “down with China” – as one might expect – instead of doing this all of them asked for freedom and the return of the Dalai Lama. If the protests were based on hatred they would say something negative about China, but they didn’t do this. Buddhism doesn’t promise something good if someone self-immolates. Unlike other religions one doesn’t become a martyr nor are there virgins waiting in the heaven for someone who does this. No higher birth is promised. Rather Buddhism teaches that one has to experience this [rather traumatic] experience again and again. But Tibetans do these protests besides this. It is their despair. They think it is better to die than being captured during the protests and being tortured slowly to death after having been arrested. Westerners don’t understand it. Tibetans have too much faith in Western democracy. They have too much faith or expectations that Westerners will take their protests seriously and will help them, e.g. by urging China to change their policies against Tibetans.

Then a person asked: But Westerners don’t stand up for Tibetans, they say it is aggression against themselves and they have even less compassion for Tibetans.

I heard this but I cannot understand the logic behind this. Why should I have less compassion if someone self-immolates? I cannot understand this logic.

*Summarized from notes I made. All faults in the English are mine. Rinpoche’s English is excellent.

There is an appeal to Vice-President Xi Jinping from the International Tibetan Studies Community: http://www.petitions24.net/an_appeal_to_president_xi_jinping_from_the_tibetologist_community signed by the following scholars: http://www.rangzen.net/2012/12/07/an-appeal-to-vice-president-xi-jinping-from-the-international-tibetan-studies-community/

Also a greater amount of scholarly papers are available from the Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines:

Number 25, Décembre 2012

• Full text    (7.8 MB)
• Cover, contents    (473 kb, pp. i-x)
• Self-Immolation in Tibet: Some Reflections on an Unfolding History    (1.9 MB, pp. 1-17)
  author: Katia Buffetrille
• Self Immolation, the Changing Language of Protest in Tibet    (539 kb, pp. 19-40)
  author: Tsering Shakya
• Political Self-Immolation in Tibet: Causes and Influences    (513 kb, pp. 41-64)
  author: Robert Barnett
• Kīrti Monastery of Ngawa: Its History and Recent Situation    (819 kb, pp. 65-80)
  author: Daniel Berounský
• Chinese Policy Towards Tibet versus Tibetan Expectations for Tibet: A Divergence Marked by Self-Immolations    (1.2 MB, pp. 81-87)
  author: Fabienne Jagou
• Conversations and Debates: Chinese and Tibetan Engagement with the Broader Discussion of Self-Immolation in Tibet    (482 kb, pp. 89-97)
  author: Elliot Sperling
• Online Articles on Self-immolation by Tibetans in Exile — A Brief Survey    (182 kb, pp. 99-104)
  author: Chung Tsering
• bTsan byol bod mi’i drwa thog bod yig dpyad rtsom nas rang lus mer bsregs la blta ba    (1.9 MB, pp. 105-112)
  author: Chung Tshe ring
• The Flames of Poetry Spreading – From the Fire of Heroes    (1.9 MB, pp. 113-122)
  author: Noyontsang Lhamokyab
• Fire, Flames and Ashes. How Tibetan Poets Talk about Self-Immolations without Talking about Them    (344 kb, pp. 123-131)
  author: Françoise Robin
• Fire and Death in Western Imagination    (228 kb, pp. 133-141)
  author: Michel Vovelle
• Self-Immolation in Context, 1963-2012    (781 kb, pp. 143-150)
  author: Michael Biggs
• Immolation in a Global Muslim Society Revolt against Authority — Transgression of Strict Religious Laws    (248 kb, pp. 151-157)
  author: Dominique Avon
• Self-Immolations by Kurdish Activists in Turkey and Europe    (254 kb, pp. 159-168)
  author: Olivier Grojean
• The Arab Revolutions and Self-Immolation    (252 kb, pp. 169-179)
  author: Farhad Khosrokhavar
• Self-Immolation by Fire versus Legitimate Violence in the Hindu Context    (245 kb, pp. 181-189)
  author: Marie Lecomte-Tilouine
• Immolations in Japan    (322 kb, pp. 191-201)
  author: François Macé
• Multiple Meanings of Buddhist Self-Immolation in China — A Historical Perspective    (237 kb, pp. 203-212)
  author: James A. Benn

The Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy (TCHRD) released a short documentary film on Tibetan immolations, “Beyond the Numbers: A Human Perspective on Tibet’s Self-immolation”:

See also

• Rite of Freedom: The Life and Sacrifice of Thupten Ngodup by Jamyang Norbu
• The Burning Question: Why are Tibetans Turning to Self-immolation? 2012/11/10

Update March 09, 2013

• SELF-IMMOLATION AS PROTEST IN TIBET – Guest Editors: Carole McGranahan (University of Colorado) and Ralph Litzinger (Duke University)
• A large compendium of background material and commentary – provided by the Cultural Anthropology Journal

Update March 10, 2013

• Why the Dalai Lama cannot condemn Tibetan self-immolations 2013/03/10

New Blog: British Buddhism

There is a new blog investigating British Buddhism, including the New Kadampa Tradition: http://britishbuddhism.blogspot.co.uk.
I could only read one post so far which I found very interesting and convincing:

• Burgers & Buddhas: The NKT  & Macdonalds
  

There are also four new articles at http://www.info-buddhism.com:

• Buddhist Meditation Traditions in Tibet: The Union of Three Vehicles by Prof. Georgios T. Halkias
• Compassionate Killing or Conflict Resolution? The Murder of King Langdarma according to Tibetan Buddhist Sources by Prof. Jens Schlieter
• Tibet’s Status Under International Law by Prof. Eckart Klein
• The matter of mass death in Tibet: The Body Count by Prof. Elliot Sperling

The Dalai Lama’s Compassion – A Healing Experience

“I had no idea how deeply spiritual our visit would become. The meeting with His Holiness would rank as one of the most emotional and treasured moments of my life — along with the births of my children, climbing high mountain peaks and other deeply personal experiences.”  — Ted Wilson, formerly Salt Lake City mayor (from 1976 to 1985)

The healing powers of the Dalai Lama

By Ted Wilson | The Salt Lake Tribune

[…]

We entered the Dalai Lama’s residence, each holding a white Buddhist blessing scarf. He placed the scarves around our necks and uttered a few blessing words. We sat on comfortable couches with the holy man, surrounded by a group of muscular monks. I surmised they were a security detachment. The Dalai Lama opened with small talk, his wit and iconic smile bringing resonate laughter from the guards. A group of designated laughers, I thought with some amusement.

We formally invited him to Utah. Then, suddenly, the formality dissolved. Looking intently at the couple that had joined us that morning, and with no visible cue from anyone he said, “You are sad.”

Our new friends broke down. Through gentle sobs, they explained their young son had recently committed suicide. A pause hung in the air. The Dalai Lama simply waited. And waited.

[…]

Read full story …

Stephen Schettini about Tibetan Buddhism – When Buddhism is a Cult

A while ago an excerpt from the book “The Novice: Why I became a Buddhist Monk …” by Stephen Schettini was posted on this blog. In it Schettini writes about his experience of Kelsang Gyatso and about the New Kadampa Tradition. Schettin’s book has now been translated into German and is published by the rather reputable Arbor Verlag: “Mein Leben als tibetischer Mönch” (“My live as a Tibetan monk”).

A friend of mine sent me a link to a blog entry, “When Buddhism is a Cult” where Stephen Schettini writes about his understanding of Tibetan Buddhism. I found it quite superficial and also in general rather misleading not really helpful to clarify things. I just added a comment to his blog post and in case someone is interested here are the key points of my thoughts to it.

Reply to When Buddhism is a Cult by Stephen Schettini

If there are cults in a religion – and I would not hesitate to say within “Tibetan Buddhism” as well as in other “Buddhisms” there are some cults – this does not necessarily mean that the whole religion is a cult. Because there are some cultish or cult-like groups within Tibetan Buddhism to infer from this Tibetan Buddhism in general is a cult is a generalisation that goes a bit too far for me, and it’s no valid proof either because one cannot infer validly “because one child of the family is crazy the whole family is crazy.”

Schettini: “You should regard your guru as a fully enlightened buddha […]” but Schettini misses to contextualise this teaching, which is mainly a training, and shouldn’t be understood on a literally level.

When one trains even in the lower classes of Tantra one starts from the perception / meditation of oneself, the guru, and the deity as being of the same nature: lacking inherent existence (lacking a self) = “ultimate deity”. Then gradually one proceeds through the Six Deities of self-generation to the “deity with signs” where one perceives oneself as a Buddha and trains in “correct pride” based on the visualised basis to be the deity. In such a context it would be ridiculous to regard oneself as a Buddha (as a part of the tantric training) and the Vajra-Master as ordinary. And since one trains in the same way in the mediation break, it makes sense to see the “Guru as a Buddha” (while the mind that realizes emptiness takes on the aspect of oneself having the form and mind of a Buddha too.) In short the Tantra training does not include to see the teacher as a Buddha and oneself as an ordinary, deluded, poor-self being who is nothing and the guru is everything. In Tantra one trains to avoid ordinary appearance and ordinary grasping to both, oneself and others, including the teacher (+environment etc).

These teachings don’t suggest therefore to look up to a teacher and down on oneself or to bend reality as it fits. It’s a training for certain trainees (mainly Bodhisattvas with sharp faculties). If one has taken up such a training and if one is properly qualified (as well if the teacher is properly qualified) one can quickly progress on the path – as long as one is not lead astray by oneself or the teacher. There are certain risks, which is illustrated by the saying that one either goes up or down by practising Tantra. To attain in “three years” full enlightenment in Highest Yoga Tantra is only a theoretical measure related to the breath and the winds entering into the central (or side) channel(s) at certain occasions, and it should not be taken literally. It’s a hypothetical time duration! HH the Dalai Lama stresses that for most in a three year retreat what they attain is pride, when they do a next 3-year-retreat, they attain that this pride reduces, after a third 3-year-retreat one might have some genuine experiences.

Also the hells need not to be taken literally: if there are the qualifications of both (teacher & student) and if one gives this rare occasion up, the hell is waiting in the sense of one continues to wander in Samsara. Moreover, to go to the hell “by a breach of guru devotion” is not that easy, as Alexander Berzin explains in his excellent book on this subject. Some teachers go so far to say, that Westerners are so less qualified for Tantra that they cannot break their Samayas. So there is a variety of understanding here too.

I don’t know where Stephen Schettini got this from:
“To benefit from your relationship with him [the tantric teacher], you must see him as always having your interests at heart, no matter what. If you doubt, question or reject that, you’re cut off from your source of spiritual advancement now and in future lifetimes, where you’ll suffer countless rebirths in tantric hell.”

First of all once one has checked the tantric teacher (ideally 12 years of examination) and if one sees him/her as qualified and has decided to accept him/her as one’s Tantric teacher such thoughts about his or her shortcomings aren’t useful for the training, nevertheless different texts also clearly state, that if the master gives wrong teachings, wrong advice or wrong commands contrary to the Dharma, one should no follow it. E.g. Je Tsongkhapa states for instance: “If someone suggests something which is not consistent with the Dharma, avoid it.” “Distance yourself from Vajra Masters who are not keeping the three vows, who keep on with a root downfall, who are miserly with the Dharma, and who engage in actions that should be forsaken. Those who worship them go to hell and so on as a result.” How can one do this if one doesn’t even question his or her actions? Also the Dalai Lama says clearly that to see all actions of the guru as enlightened is an “extremely dangerous teaching”.

Maybe the teachers Stephen Schettini met didn’t go to the depths of the meaning of the teachings, however, it’s a bit more profound than the blog entry suggests.

Schettini: “The Dalai Lama’s public Kalachakra rituals are organized and attended like rock concerts. Few devotees pass up the opportunity, and then they’re supposed to view the officiating lama as a tantric guru.”

Again, I find this as being a superficial statement. There are different ways to attend an empowerment (see “Motivations for attending empowerment” by Alexander Berzin). For instance a Christian (who sometimes as well as Theravadins are also present during such empowerments) can just attend as an observer to receive inspirations for the own faith, a next level is just to receive a blessing etc. In all those cases the Dalai Lama doesn’t become their Tantric Guru, nor do they have to practice Tantra or the Sadhana. (The Dalai Lama usually also doesn’t give a commitment, when he grants a Kalachakra empowerment. He even leads through the taking of the Bodhisattva vows in a way, that everybody has the choice to take or not to take them.) People like these rituals and the Dalai Lama says himself only 3-6 at such a gathering receive a real empowerment but he gives it mainly to use their faith in the ritual by passing some relevant teachings for their lives to them.

Schettini: “Newcomers to Tibetan Buddhism are often hungry for enlightenment, and teachers need students for their ongoing credibility and sustenance.”

This is a mere allegation that “teachers need students for their ongoing credibility and sustenance.” Why shouldn’t there be teachers who give it really with the motivation to benefit others? Again Schettini generalises: “teachers need students for their ongoing credibility and sustenance” but what proof does he have for this claim? It might be true in some cases or even in many but not for every teacher. As Jackson from Hamburg University has put it so nicely:

»In Tibet as in many a country, in addition to genuine religious teachers there were also a host of dubious mendicants, madmen, and charlatans who plied their trade among the faithful, and life within the big monasteries witnessed the full range of human personalities, from saintly to coldly calculating.«

Schettini: “There’s no historical record of the Buddha teaching tantra. To lend these practices authenticity the Tibetan establishment calls them the Buddha’s ‘secret’ teachings …”

Schettini misses to mention that the Tantra is not an invention by the Tibetans but was brought to Tibet by Indian masters such as Padmasambhava or Atisha. And they say exactly the same. One can likewise say “there is no historical record of the Buddha teaching Theravada or Mahayana” because all written and transmitted teachings appeared long after Buddha’s passing away. Even scientists (who are more open and who don’t adhere to the view that Theravada is the “most authentic Buddhism”) say that there is no proof for any teaching that it is from the Buddha. The Buddha did also not teach in Pali. This is quite of a vast topic …

Schettini says: “The practice is further legitimized by the claim that tantra is built upon ‘ordinary’ Buddhist practice.”

This is not a claim, it’s a fact. Why? Tantra is based on renunciation, great compassion and emptiness.

Schettini says: “In theory, you can choose at what level you wish to practice. However, tantra is said to make enlightenment achievable in as little as three years, as opposed to the ‘countless lifetimes’ of ordinary Buddhism. Once ensnared in the Tibetan orbit, few devotees opt out.”

I commented on this theoretical claim of in-3-years-enlightenment already above. I don’t know if few devotees opt out. Does he base this claim on any reliable statistics?

Schettini says: “By contrast, tantric practitioners need to view every facet of the guru’s behavior as enlightened. Whether or not it’s actually possible to reconcile these two approaches, for all but the most penetrating thinkers they end up being mutually exclusive.”

For a differentiation of this see the Dalai Lama’s clarifying statement: Questioning the Advice of the Guru.

After reading the blog entry, my impression is that what was passed to Stephen Schettini or what he has understood seems to be rather a superficial type of understanding of Tibetan Buddhism but not what Tibetan Buddhism is all about in its depths. Kelsang Gyatso (New Kadampa Tradition) and his NKT teachers spread such superficial understanding too, and of course this is a cause of misunderstandings and subsequent problems but it’s not what “Tibetan Buddhism” in a deeper sense is all about. Therefore I wouldn’t go so far to attribute these misunderstandings to Tibetan Buddhism but to the persons, groups, teachers who have taught / spread it.

I agree however, that the teachings within Indo-Tibetan Buddhism can be used to establish and to abuse power. But this is a human failing and not necessarily the failing of Tibetan Buddhism, and you find this also among practitioners of other Buddhisms and religions, Atheists, Scientists, Agnostics etc.

Schettini claims further:

• “Lamas are routinely referred to as a living buddhas, especially if they’re wealthier, smarter or better-connected.” — Such a generalisation again doesn’t meet the reality. The Dalai Lama mocks about the Chinese officials who call Tulkus or Rinpoches “living Buddhas”. Lamas are not referred to in general within Tibetan Buddhism as “living Buddhas” mainly the Chinese officials apply this term a lot.
• “The Tibetan language itself has different vocabularies for speaking up to a superior, across to a peer or down to an inferior. The everyday name for woman is, ‘low-born.’” — In general this is true that there are special terms for “superiors”. This linguistic approach is also present in the religious language, e.g. someone who has realized emptiness is referred to as having “exalted wisdom” instead of just having “wisdom”. This terminology needn’t be meant to look down on others but rather for the sake of respect or for the sake of discrimination. E.g. Je Tsongkhapa talks a lot about inferior/superior in his “Great Exposition of Secret Mantra”, and when one examines the use of this inferior/superior distinction in his text closely it becomes clear that it is not meant as a deprecation but as a distinction for the sake to highlight something. However, indeed the Tibetan term for woman is skye’dman which means ‘low born’. The reason is that a birth as a woman is seen as difficult for pursuing a spiritual path, because usually in ancient societies women had (and they still have) lesser freedom than man. However, the tantric vows say clearly one shouldn’t despise or look down on women. For women in Tibetan society see: “The role of women in Tibetan society before China’s invasion …” However, all of this does not exclude that these terms might not be used also in a deprecating way.
• “Some of those who reported Sogyal Lakar’s sexual abuses received death threats.” — I asked Mary Finnigan, she replied that she didn’t receive any death threat. However, Victoria Barlow says in a comment to the post by Schettini “This included death threats and voodoo-like curses.”

The arrogance of Westerners when judging other societies

If one looks back from today’s points of view it is easy to criticise other societies of the past, especially if they are somewhat alien to oneself like Tibet. But I would like to remind Westerners that the liberties we enjoy in the West today are rather very new, and one has to look on societies according to the standards of their time. For instance the right to elect for women was formally established in Swiss at 7. February 1971. An it was only on 27. November 1990 that the last Swiss Kanton, Appenzell Innerrhoden, was forced by law to allow women to participate elections. In 1959 Mildred and Richard Loving were sentenced one year to prison because it was forbidden in the USA that people of different ethnic “races” marry. It was only in 1967 that the Supreme Court of the USA abolished the “Anti-Miscegenation Laws” that forbade the mixing of two different “races”.

The General Ex-Monk Going-Public Phenomenon

Schettini’s approach has also raised questions by other Buddhists. The following thoughts by a British Buddhist* I found very useful to be considered:

I have several questions about the general ex-monk going-public phenomenon.

1. The Dhamma is free, not available for packaging as if it was a commodity on capitalist markets. I would not expect to be charged for Christian preaching, so why is this acceptable in Buddhist circles? I am keen about taking the religion out of Buddhism – but the danger is that, freed from the religious understanding that teachings are free, some see this as an opportunity to make money.
2. The ex-monk-going-public phenomenon is curious. Cudos is gained by leaving the religious community – and yet simultaneously, credibility is claimed because “He was a Tibetan Buddhist monk for 8 years …” You cannot have it both ways.
3. Why join a religious community – and then write publications that criticise them? Criticising others to build your own reputation – is this acceptable or credible?
4. Here, we are a nebsangha – so why would we exchange religious hierarchy for a new hierarchy – the expert ex-monk?
5. Are we expected to praise people who leave religious communities – and accept their personal reasons for leaving? If you have a failed vocation, then why is that a lesson for the rest of us and a reflection on the religious community – but never a reflection on the leaver? We have already chosen not to join a religious order – so what lessons are we meant to gain?

* posted with kind permission from the author

Last edited by tenpel on March 16, 2013 at 1:14 pm

The Burning Question: Why are Tibetans Turning to Self-immolation?

The fact that Tibetan people are setting themselves on fire in this 21st century is to let the world know about their suffering, and to tell the world about the denial of basic human rights. – Jamphel Yeshi¹

Tibetan exile Janphel Yeshi is engulfed in flames after setting himself on fire during a protest in New Delhi. (March 2012) As one of the few magazines Germany’s Der Spiegel, has reported about Jamphel Yeshi in a very moving report. (PDF)

The world press has been mainly silent about the many self-immolations among Tibetans. Some media mentioned it briefly, some speculated about the reasons behind it, assuming for instance it would have to do with “religious fundamentalism” (ZEIT Online), lacking any understanding or deeper insights. It might be due to this undue silence of the world, that the CTA (Tibetan Government in Exile) felt urged to publish their own documentary about it. It’s a real shame that the press failed to pick up this sad tragedy but instead uses time and money to report about ridiculous topics like a “Nazi Buddha from Space“.

For a background about the documentary see:

• CTA releases documentary film ‘The Burning Question’ by Phayul

In an interview anthropologist Katia Buffetrille commented on the silence of the media with respect to Tibet and the self-immolations as follows:

What is happening in Tibet is very rarely covered by the media, firstly because of the many events that shock the world, secondly, because the Western countries greatly restrain themselves when it comes to anything to say against China. They are afraid that they might miss a business …

In answer to the question why the Dalai Lama is now silent with respect to the self-immolations, Buffetrille answers:

During the hunger strike of Thubten Ngödrup in 1998, the Dalai Lama expressed his disagreement with this kind of practice, which he considered as violence against oneself. However, he cites often Gandhi, for whom hunger strike was a non-violent act. He expressed his admiration for the courage of these people and attended prayers for them. But he questioned the effectiveness of such actions, he said, [these actions] lead to increased repression. Now he does not want to say anything about this [topic] any more.

The first Tibetan who self-immolated was Thupten Ngodup. He set himself on fire on 27th April 1998 after the Indian police came to forcefully stop the “Hunger Strike Unto Death” which was organised by the Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC). After Thupten Ngodup set himself on fire the Dalai Lama visited him next day in the evening at the hospital.

For a background article see:

• Rite of Freedom: The Life and Sacrifice of Thupten Ngodup by Jamyang Norbu

To see the self-immolations in a more global and balanced perspective, see:

• Self-Immolation in Context, 1963-2012 (PDF) – by Michael Biggs (University of Oxford) – which is from the collection of scholarly papers Revue d’Etudes Tibétaines.

Update Nov 24th, 2012

• The inextinguishable Tibetan fire in China’s darkness  by Tibet Sun
• Make it a burning issue by Jamyang Norbu

Update January 2013

• Trying to Understand the Self-immolations of Tibetans

Update March 06, 2013

• „Why Tibet is Burning?“ (PDF)
• STORM IN THE GRASSLANDS – Self-immolations in Tibet and Chinese policy (PDF) – ICT

Update March 07, 2013

• Quand les Tibétains s’immolent. Rencontre avec Katia Buffetrille
• Interview with Kelsang Gyaltsen – Representative of the Dalai Lama in Europe (mp3)

Update March 09, 2013

• SELF-IMMOLATION AS PROTEST IN TIBET – Guest Editors: Carole McGranahan (University of Colorado) and Ralph Litzinger (Duke University)
• A large compendium of background material and commentary – provided by the Cultural Anthropology Journal

Update March 10, 2013

• Why the Dalai Lama cannot condemn Tibetan self-immolations 2013/03/10

¹ Associated Press, March 29 2012.

  Last edited by tenpel on March 10, 2013 at 6:51 pm

If you meet „The Evil“ you must be „evil“ yourself? Tibet’s & the Dalai Lama’s CIA connections + Nazi myths

Often we apply our present knowledge to situations or events without seeing these in their respective contexts. Due to this there are a lot of judgemental opinions, or “ethical condemnations” – which means one judges another person’s ethic as wrong or distorted etc. and feels oneself a bit better or higher than the other.

Such things can also be observed with respect to Tibet and the Dalai Lama. The internet is full of it and also newspapers and magazines tend towards simplified views of events.

Some of the main arguments to put down Tibetans or the Dalai Lama is an alleged “Nazi-Tibet connection” and that some Nazis or Shoko Asahara were able to meet with the Dalai Lama. The Western Shugden Society (see details for their background) has picked up many if these allegations to depict the Dalai Lama as a “hypocrite”, “liar” etc. Sometimes also journalists with firm ideological views pick up de-contextualised “facts” and semi-truths to project based on them their own imaginations.

I started already to briefly pick up some points and to address them. Today I will add some more points and two new sources of information.

CIA, Tibet and the Dalai Lama

When the Tibetans in their despair for help against China’s brutal invasion asked finally the USA for help (after all trials to receive help from the UK and India failed), at that time, the US had a rather good reputation and the CIA was not necessarily seen as “the devil in person”. So when the USA via the CIA “helped” (with poor weapons and equipment) the Tibetans at that time of China’s invasion this was rather something normal, not very surprising. And who can condemn a people under attack to look for help and to accept what they were able to get?

The money the TGIE and the Dalai Lama received by the CIA was used for setting up exile structures and the Dalai Lama wasn’t on “payroll”. He was no spy, no secret agent etc. Of course if today someone brings the nowadays negative image of the CIA together with the Dalai Lama, this is a tempting but also a cheap method to denounce the latter, and it is also not utterly true with respect to the CIA, who also helped Poland / Solidarnosc and other movements to find their independence in the past. Tibetans and the Dalai Lama never denied the connection with the CIA. The Dalai Lama called it in a New York Times interview in 1993 “not healthy” because the US / CIA had no serious motivation to help Tibetans but rather used them to harm the influence of Communism.

Moreover the Dalai Lama rejected to be in any way the Tibetan guerrilla’s spiritual head but said also he cannot morally condemn them for seeing no other way than to defend their beloved people and country by using violence.

The contact with the CIA was made by the brothers of the Dalai Lama without the Dalai Lama’s knowledge. Later he must have got knowledge and met also with the CIA chief operator who said that this was the coldest meeting he ever had. So obviously the Dalai Lama was not enthusiastic about this.

I lack time to go further or to add the exact sources for this. Its just a bit food for thought. Here a  “new” article about the CIA in Tibet:

• A Secret War in Shangri-La by Patrick French

Non-Violence

Another problem involved in evaluating and judging if the Dalai Lama is not only a proponent of non-violence but really lives it is the term “non-violence” itself. “Non-violence”, as the Dalai Lama understands, it is not synonym with Western ideas of “pacifism”. In »Buddhist Warefare«, an academic approach to violence in Buddhism, it is correctly stated on page 6:

… the Sanskrit term for violence [is] hiṃsa. Hiṃsais [is] the root of ahiṃsa, the word for nonviolence made popular by Mohandas Gandhi. The literal definition of hiṃsa means “to desire to harm.”

Non-violance (skt.: avihimsa; tib.: rnam par mi ‘tshe ba) is defined in Abidharmasamuccaya (Asanga) as:

“What is non-violence? It is an attitude of loving kindness belonging to non-hatred. Its function is not to be malicious.”

So, the Buddhist meaning of it is mainly not to have a malicious mind or to not the have the desire to harm. That’s why some translators translate it as “non-harmfulness” (it’s the last of the eleven virtuous mental factors). However, this doesn’t mean that violence might not be used under certain circumstances “with a good motivation”+seeing that a violent action will bring more benefit than harm to a majority. Subsequently the Dalai Lama’s point of view is not that simplistic like most people think. He said different times that violence might be justified for instance in the case of terrorists (“Terrorism is the worst kind of violence, so we have to check it, we have to take countermeasures.”). He never was a proponent of “strict pacifism”, in the sense that he rejects violence under all circumstances and in all situations.

Avalon states the position of the Dalai Lama in one of his books:

“In theory violence and religious views can be combined but only if a person’s motivation, as well as the results of his actions, are solely for the majority of people. Under these circumstances and if there is no other alternative, then it is permissible. Now regarding Tibet, I believe that a militant attitude is helpful for maintaining morale among our youth, but a military movement itself is not feasible. It would be suicidal.”

The Dalai Lama said this at a point when the Tibetan Youth Congress became more and more militant and Tibetans witnessed that Arafat was warmly welcomed (with a big applause!) by the UN after his terrorist fights. The Tibetan youth were frustrated that the peaceful way doesn’t bear fruits, while the violent way of Arafat was successful.

The alleged “Nazi-Tibet connection”

Finally, the paper by Isrun Engelhardt (PhD) about the Nazi-Tibet myths is online, and I think, it speaks for itself. Especially the section about Conspiracy Theory might be interesting for some.

• Nazis of Tibet: A Twentieth Century Myth by Dr. Isrun Engelhardt

Who meets with whom and what does it tell?

Dalai Lama and Shoko Asahara.
What does this really tell, that they met?

A last thought. The same problem in applying present understanding to past events is the criticism that Shoko Asahara met the Dalai Lama. At that time Shoko Asahara was not known to be a gift gas murderer, and Asahara met also with other dignitaries and politicians. If one follows the argument “the Dalai Lama is ‘bad’ because he met with Shoko Asahara” it follows also Rosalynn Carter, the wife of the US President, is ‘bad’ because she met with the serial killer John Wayne Gacy in 1978.

Rosalynn Carter, wife of US President Carter, met the serial killer John Wayne Gacy
And what does this tell?

Moreover, the Dalai Lama met with so many, is he therefore necessarily near to others’ ideologies and beliefs? He met amongst others with Mao, Hippies, with left wing, right wing, liberal, and green politicians, with scientists, religious figures, atheists, Nobel prize winners, Chinese, Germans, Schugden followers ;-), presidents, and some criminals, yes even with some few former Nazis … and what would be the problem for a saint to meet with a person shunned by society, what crime was it that Jesus met with a prostitute?

However, this doesn’t mean, that it might not have been a fault that the Dalai Lama met with Asahara or Beger etc. It’s up to the observer how he/she puts those things together …

  Last edited by tenpel on October 26, 2012 at 12:12 am

Geshe Kelsang Calls Seattle Non-NKT Practitioners Dogs

GUEST POST

Hello, my name is Frank Hopper. I became a disciple of Geshe Kelsang Gyatso in July of 1990. I served briefly as the Administrative Director of Vajralama center in Seattle in the spring of 1995. I’m writing this story just for the record, so that the incident doesn’t get lost in time and to declare that I was a personal witness to its’ occurrence.

My aim isn’t to save or warn anyone. Geshe Kelsang has a huge, world-wide fishing net that scoops up unsuspecting spiritual searchers to feed his network of Dharma Centres. Nothing I could write would ever get to those poor people. They’ll be pulled in and sucked dry if they’re not strong enough to see the truth. There’s no hope for them, really. They’ll either become NKT Bliss Ninnies who pour all their disposable income into their local NKT center and into Geshe-la’s books, or they’ll become ex-practitioners like me who feel they must have done something wrong and avoid future contact with any Dharma tradition, no matter how benign. A terrible shame either way.

Geshe-la came to Seattle in 1990 as part of a North American tour to raise support and establish Dharma centers. I was attending an informal meditation group at the time run by a lovely man named Joel Levey and his wife Michelle. They organized every aspect of Geshe-la’s visit from securing a venue, producing promotional literature, handling financing, and preparing people for what to expect. It was a big deal, believe me.

Geshe-la came to Seattle and granted Vajrayogini empowerment. I was blown away by it all. He seemed so genuine, kind, and sincere. I made an appointment to see him and requested ordination. He said I should wait and study more first. He gave me a picture of Je Tsongkhapa and sent me on my way.

Later I heard that Geshe-la was opening a center here in Seattle to be called the Seattle Buddhist Institute with Joel slated to be the resident teacher. I was elated!

But then everything fell apart for some unknown reason. Plans for the new Dharma center dissolved and people stopped talking about it. When I asked Joel what happened he explained that he and Geshe Kelsang had a difference of opinion and that he had backed out.

It turns out Joel had plans to let teachers from other traditions speak at the new Dharma center. He knew a lot of them and wanted his students to be exposed to more than just Geshe Kelsang’s lineage. But Geshe-la wouldn’t have it. He was the one who shut down plans for the center in Seattle, not Joel. Joel simply took the heat so as not to offend the people who were loyal to Geshe-la.

I didn’t know any of this and remained loyal to Geshe-la. I wrote to him and kept requesting ordination. Six months later Geshe-la contacted me and said he was opening a Dharma Center in Mexico and if I still wished to receive ordination I could go there and he would ordain me.

So I dropped everything and went. When I arrived he was so pleased to see me. I was one of the few people in Seattle who remained loyal to him. I remember he sat me down and fed me soup because I’d just driven all the way from Seattle. “Eat!” he said.

The monk named Losang was there in the room with us and said that Seattle had been quite a disappointment for Geshe-la because so many people were loyal to Joel and not to Geshe-la.

Then Geshe-la’s face turned dark and he said, “Granting Vajrayogini empowerment in Seattle was like giving precious food to dogs.”

Dogs. That’s how he thought of all those people in Seattle to whom he had granted empowerment. If they weren’t willing to take him as their one and only guru, then they were dogs.

I needed a father figure so badly and I loved Geshe Kelsang so much that I blocked out my feelings about what he had said for years. I was in denial. I heard those words coming out of his mouth and I put them in a box deep down inside myself.

Geshe-la eventually opened an NKT center in Seattle that he called Vajralama Center after the Highest Yoga Tantra aspect of Green Tara. He chose a handsome NKT monk named Jangsem as resident teacher, an ambitious lad who knew where the power lay and who towed the party line flawlessly. Jangsem had been trained at Madhyamaka Centre in Pocklington under the supervision of Gen Thubten Gyatso (Neil Elliott), the hard-driving original “Heart Disciple” of Geshe Kelsang.

I met Gen Thubten when I went to England in 1995. He was charming and funny, but I actually trembled when I was near him. The power and celebrity just dripped off him and I felt as if I were meeting a rock star. He was the one who turned Geshe-la’s teachings into a business machine. He was a powerhouse narcissist whom Geshe-la later defrocked because of his sexual relationship with a female assistant, but not before Geshe-la used him to grow his empire. All the English people loved him but all the Americans were a bit leary. I personally was afraid of him. Now I’ve read he’s back at Manjushri centre as a lay practitioner. That’s scary and it speaks to Geshe-la’s willingness to make pacts with the devil if it serves his purposes.

In 1994 and 1995 I watched as Jangsem used the NKT business model designed by Gen Thubten to package up and market Geshe-la’s teachings the way McDonald’s markets hamburgers. I realized this wasn’t a religious tradition. It was big business with Geshe Kelsang and the NKT being promoted as a “brand” like Coca-Cola or Nike or Apple computers. I lost heart and eventually moved out.

But now I’m proud to count myself among the dogs. Woof, woof! Thanks for listening.

Frank