It's not a violation of lay precepts and monks lay down their vows. Citation please.
If monks can lay down precepts for some time (temporarily) then they are not monks. I mean, a monk can't say "I will lay down my precepts of not having sex and not eating meat next week, because I am going back to my hometown for holidays". Once the precepts are taken, they have to be followed sincerely, or at the very least, the intention should always be to maintain them completely.
If what you say were the case, then I would be a monk too, because I only indulge in sex once in a very rare while.
You missed the point. For the most part, they lay down their monks vows and become tantrikas...they don't go back to being monks. There are exceptions to even this of course.
I think this concept temporarily laying down precepts is a perversion of Buddhist precepts by the Tibetans or Westerners.
Don't tell Theravadan laypeople in Thailand about this then....because they do this too. Laypeople will take monks vows for a week, month, etc. and stop. However, it seems your sectarianism knows no limits to geography.
And there are also questions to the authenticity of the Surangama Sutra:
Same with most of the tantras.
You've missed the point again. There are many people who don't believe all off the Pali Canon is "authentic". There are many people who don't believe the Surangama sutra is "authentic". There are many people who don't believe that any Mahayana sutras are "authentic". There are many people who don't believe the tantras are "authentic". Yet in your all-knowing discriminating wisdom, you've decided what is authentic, and what is not. On top of that, you start a thread that you know will sow discord without even having an elementary understanding of what Vajrayana is.
Really? Does the consort get the same kind of enlightenment as the male just be allowing him to come over her? If just offering oneself so passively to a reputed lama would bring enlightenment to women, most of the women would happily offer themselves - not to mention, the women would be superior in their potential for enlightenment considering that the male has to be active and put effort and the female has to just passively offer herself. Most of the Mahasiddhas chose prostitutes for their practice. I think this is a violation of Buddhist precepts, for at least the customers pay her in return for her services, where as the Mahasiddha merely uses her for his own personal benefit/liberation.
what I am questioning is if exploitation of a woman just for a practice is contradictory to Buddhism?
This is not true:
A very different view of the role of women in late tantric Buddhism
has been advanced by Prof. Miranda Shaw. Shaw argues that
not only did women have a key role in tantric theory but that they
were prominent as adepts in tantric circles, and that they figured
as founders and pioneers in tantric Buddhism’s history. She
suggests, moreover, that their position in relation to male tantric
practitioners was not one of being exploited but, on the contrary,
one of intimacy and equality, if not of superiority (as their
- Prof. Anthony Tribe
Mahayana vinaya is even more elaborate than Hinayana, and it has even more stricter restrictions.
No, they're not. For example, some Theravadan dhutanga monks take an extra 13 vows of austerity.
Mahayana scriptures also consider sex as an impediment to Buddhahood.
You haven't read many Mahayana scriptures then. In the Upayakausalya Sutra, the key actions of the traditional life of Sakyamuni is explained with reference to their compassionate purpose in helping and teaching others. In one story the Buddha in a previous life as a bodhisattva was a celibate religious student who saved through sexual intercourse the life of a poor girl who had threatened to die out of love for him. Also, where in the Pure Land sutras does it say sex is an impediment to Buddhahood? How about the Lotus Sutra? Do you actually read Mahayana sutras besides the Surangama sutra? If so, how could you possibly make such an ill-informed flippant statement like that?
Lastly, I would like to post an excerpt from the prophecy of Padmasambhava to further my argument:
Guru Rinpoche further said that in that era, many ordained monks are greedy and pursue wealth and fame. They travel everywhere to cheat on their followers. They plan and think of ways to get offerings and donations from followers and possess their own private wealth and properties, yet they do not engage in any Buddhist practice or chanting on their own. They indulge in music, dance and entertainments. They break precepts and vows yet without any remorse
You posted a view from Guru P who was a tantric practitioner, thinking this is a statement against tantric practice?