Institutional Buddhism

[Adamantine]

This sentence structure

I am not saying that there are no good monks, nuns, lamas, khenpos and tulkus,

clearly indicates that good monks, nuns, lamas, khenpos and Tulkus would be the rare exception,
not the rule.

Thank you for telling me what I mean. Honestly-- the amazing thing to me is how you and others go out of your way to misrepresent what I say. I never do that you or anyone else.

It is quite dishonest -- you sound like Fox News.

That's not what you meant? Then clarify, because I was not trying
to misrepresent you, that's clearly how I read it based on your choice
of words and sentence structure.

Calling me dishonest is ad hom, I am just trying to respond to your own writing.

[Malcolm]

Listen, I don't disagree with many of your critiques
of Tibetan Buddhist institutional politics. I think there
are many problems with institutions in general, not only
monastic or political ones. I am aware of many problems in Tibetan
politics both historically and currently.

However, I separate that from my experience, because my experience,
---and it has been extensive-- has been wholly positive.

You are lucky you are not an attractive woman.

[Malcolm]

That's not what you meant? Then clarify, because I was not trying
to misrepresent you, that's clearly how I read it based on your choice
of words and sentence structure.

You could have asked me what I meant. Instead you chose to read into it.

[Malcolm]

Many dharma centers subsist on fledgeling budgets barely making ends meet. I just don't see all the financial corruptions.

Whatever made you think I was talking about the pathetic Dharma center scene in the US? Though one reason it is pretty sad is that when Lama tours come through everyone goes broke trying to host them and money sure does not stay in the Dharma centers.

[LunaRoja]

Many dharma centers subsist on fledgeling budgets barely making ends meet. I just don't see all the financial corruptions.

Whatever made you think I was talking about the pathetic Dharma center scene in the US? Though one reason it is pretty sad is that when Lama tours come through everyone goes broke trying to host them and money sure does not stay in the Dharma centers.

Actually the point that I was trying to make is that there are other Lamas like ChNN that do not live off of donations and visiting Lamas that do not walk away with large sums of money.

[Malcolm]

Many dharma centers subsist on fledgeling budgets barely making ends meet. I just don't see all the financial corruptions.

Whatever made you think I was talking about the pathetic Dharma center scene in the US? Though one reason it is pretty sad is that when Lama tours come through everyone goes broke trying to host them and money sure does not stay in the Dharma centers.

Actually the point that I was trying to make is that there are other Lamas like ChNN that do not live off of donations and visiting Lamas that do not walk away with large sums of money.

Yes, there are some.

[Adamantine]

I am becoming a little tired of seeing you distort what Malcom says, Adamantine.
I don't know if you aren't really understanding him or if you are distorting what he says on purpose by reasons unknown to me, but nevertheless it's becoming annoying already. Can you stop? Thank you.

He is just pissed because I am tired of the hierarchical bullshit that is so integral to Tibetan Buddhism and am open about it. He is mad because I have over the years made it absolutely clear that I disdain the tulku system as a mere money game, and so on. He is mad because I don't respect the system -- and I don't. Of course, lotuses grow in swamps, and likewise, there are mavelous persons who have come out of that system, or rather, despite it. I also don't share the sort of lame "anti-science" rhetoric he is into dereived in large part from the late Thrinly Norbu Rinpoche. He brought it up earlier in this thread and it is never far from his lips in these discussions. Now, I understand why he is into it, since TNR is one his gurus, but I don't find it TNR's arguments very compelling at all, and I am far from a "new athiest" of the Dawkins and Harris variety. Indeed, recently, Adamantine compared me with Batchelor, as if I had abandoned the notion of rebirth. So he is clearly approaching me from some ideological bent that I honestly can't relate to.

Wow. For someone who gets so upset about me supposedly
putting words in your mouth you've just crammed a whole lot of words thoughts
and emotions into mine.

Amazing projection technique you have.

In case you care, I don't have any of these sentiments
that you're claiming I do... But please, keep fantasizing.

Anti-science? You clearly have no idea who you're talking to or
you haven't read my posts with much attention. This is getting absurd.

Is it possible to try to stay on point, or do you prefer to act juvenile
and keep talking about my innermost feelings with Dechen?

[Adamantine]

I am becoming a little tired of seeing you distort what Malcom says, Adamantine.
I don't know if you aren't really understanding him or if you are distorting what he says on purpose by reasons unknown to me, but nevertheless it's becoming annoying already. Can you stop? Thank you.

Karmic vision apparently Dechen. We are reading the same
posts. I am responding sincerely to what I see in them. If you think that
is distortion, then it is because you read them a different way. Only
Malcolm can clarify what he really means. If you're annoyed, stop following the thread.
Or put me on ignore. When I see thing represented in
what I feel are subjective, unbalanced and bias ways by an influential
person on a public Buddhist forum I have a perfect right to challenge them.
Telling me to shut up is just kind of insulting, and not really in the
spirit of an open forum.

[Adamantine]

There is way too much corruption, greed, abuse, and lust for power, title and position in Tibetan Buddhism and in Buddhism in general. There are way too many Lamas who abuse the Dharma to control people, to control scandals, to extort money from their students, etc. This completely wrong. But I have seen that Tibetan Buddhist institutions run on cash. It is all about the money. Everytime Lamas come here they are putting out the plate for donations. Of course, they have to, because they are expected to, it is their job. But frankly, I am fatigued by it. I could go on and on about my gripes about the way Tibetan Buddhism. Perhaps I have just seen one corrupt lama too many.

How should I interpret this?

Would it be wrong to interpret this to mean:

1.There is way too much corruption, greed, abuse, and lust for power, title and position in Tibetan Buddhism and in Buddhism in general.

Too much = more this than positive qualities, or benefits?

If not, what do you mean by too much?

2. There are way too many Lamas who abuse the Dharma to control people, to control scandals, to extort money from their students, etc.

What do you mean by too many? More than ones who do not do these things?
If not, what do you mean?

3. It is all about the money.

Do you mean Tibetan Buddhism is all about the money?

If not, what do you mean?

Ok, I am trying to ask you what you mean, as you suggested. So I don't misinterpret or misrepresent.
I hope you'll explain in depth.

[Andrew108]

There is way too much corruption, greed, abuse, and lust for power, title and position in Tibetan Buddhism and in Buddhism in general. There are way too many Lamas who abuse the Dharma to control people, to control scandals, to extort money from their students, etc. This completely wrong. But I have seen that Tibetan Buddhist institutions run on cash. It is all about the money. Everytime Lamas come here they are putting out the plate for donations. Of course, they have to, because they are expected to, it is their job. But frankly, I am fatigued by it. I could go on and on about my gripes about the way Tibetan Buddhism. Perhaps I have just seen one corrupt lama too many.

True this Malcolm. Hope this doesn't happen with Dzogchen.

[Sönam]

Now, anyone who have listen to today's teachings know why DC is not like Dharma centers ... with many limitations.

"DC is open to any kind of existence, not only Buddhism or Bön, but also Muslim, Christian, etc ..."
"When I am passing does not mean it is finish ... that's why my students collaborate ..."
"There is no Dzogchen way, no Dzogchen method, no Dzogchen philosophy ..."
"Dzogchen is you are ready to collaborate with others"

Sönam

[kalden yungdrung]

There is way too much corruption, greed, abuse, and lust for power, title and position in Tibetan Buddhism and in Buddhism in general. There are way too many Lamas who abuse the Dharma to control people, to control scandals, to extort money from their students, etc. This completely wrong. But I have seen that Tibetan Buddhist institutions run on cash. It is all about the money. Everytime Lamas come here they are putting out the plate for donations. Of course, they have to, because they are expected to, it is their job. But frankly, I am fatigued by it. I could go on and on about my gripes about the way Tibetan Buddhism. Perhaps I have just seen one corrupt lama too many.

True this Malcolm. Hope this doesn't happen with Dzogchen.

Tashi delek,

Dzogchen is not Buddhist and Bon etc. so it must be logical freed of corruptions.
No Dzogchen is practiced by humans also called Dzogchenpas and here it is the same beat like in other Traditions.
If Dzogchen would be practiced by animals, we get another photo / picture, but animals don't practice Dzogchen and here i am glad that Dzogchen is self-protected thanks also to its Protectors.

Mutsog marro
KY

[Pero]

...if anyone reaches SMS Level 9...

I'm curious about that. I mean, AFAIK, until today no one, not even the oldest students who are practicing since almost 40 years passed beyond level 4 or 5, hence I'm wondering how big the chances are that anybody ever is going to reach level 9...

BTW, is Khyentse Yeshe actually participating in the SMS program? I ask, because he doesn't show up in the lists of SMS instructors...

Yes, he is. And he's a base level teacher.

[Sönam]

Now, anyone who have listen to today's teachings know why DC is not like Dharma centers ... with many limitations.

"DC is open to any kind of existence, not only Buddhism or Bön, but also Muslim, Christian, etc ..."
"When I am passing does not mean it is finish ... that's why my students collaborate ..."
"There is no Dzogchen way, no Dzogchen method, no Dzogchen philosophy ..."
"Dzogchen is you are ready to collaborate with others"

Sönam

How have you interpreted this? "There is no Dzogchen way, no Dzogchen method, no Dzogchen philosophy ..."
and then this: "Dzogchen is you are ready to collaborate with others".
Is it that in Dzogchen you always keep an open mind? That it's silent and somewhat secret? That really you don't try to convince people of it or teach them in anyway? That you work with their beliefs which are more important than your own? That you are not conditioned - not even by Dzogchen. That you are completely open and accepting of new situations without wanting to complicate the 'now' by bringing faith into it. That you have no agenda - especially not about Dzogchen. That no statements about what Dzogchen is or is not suffice?

You see, I did'nt interpreted ... I've just understood what Namkhai Norbu has said.

Sönam

[Grigoris]

"Dzogchen Jesus"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hesychasm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

st-seraphim-of-sarov.jpg (22.28 KiB) Viewed 3026 times

[Sönam]

Hello Greg ... can you give your sources

Sönam

[Malcolm]

It does not support a feudal elite.

Well not a poltical feudal elite but definitely a spiritual one...

Beleive what you will.

[treehuggingoctopus]

So let's just cut the bs about DC not being a (Tibetan styled) institution.

It's NOT a Tibetan-styled institution. Not like it, either - at least I know no Tibetan institutions comparable to the DC. Judging what it is on the basis of info leaflets, adverts or wiki entries will not do, btw. Join it - or talk to those who've done so - and you'll understand.

It really is an autarky, with all the (numerous) pros and (not so numerous, but by no means scant) cons autarkies entail. And no, ChNNR is not its hidden puppet-master. In no way he is.

[Grigoris]

Hello Greg ... can you give your sources

http://khyentseyeshe.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://tsegyalgar.org/theteachers/namkhainorbu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Beleive what you will.

I believe what I can very clearly see.

[Malcolm]

So let's just cut the bs about DC not being a (Tibetan styled) institution.

It's NOT a Tibetan-styled institution. Not like it, either - at least I know no Tibetan institutions comparable to the DC. Judging what it is on the basis of info leaflets, adverts or wiki entries will not do, btw. Join it - or talk to those who've done so - and you'll understand.

It really is an autarky, with all the (numerous) pros and (not so numerous, but by no means scant) cons autarkies entail. And no, ChNNR is not its hidden puppet-master. In no way he is.

You're wasting your breath. Let those who live in instutional Buddhism keep their institutions. It is not our job to condition anyone.