Gurus For Hire Enlightenment For Sale

[username]

You keep attacking the Buddhist religion and go even further as we see above to tell people here we all have to end (destroy) ALL religions as you stated on this page.

Proof of the toxicity of religion infecting Dharma one need look no further than present day Shri Lanka. In Tibetan history, we need look no further than the attempt of Pabhongkha to annihilate his "competitors" in Chamdo and elsewhere.

One can observe the religious civil wars that were waged in Japan, Thailand, etc., for proof that Dharma is easily corrupted by religion.

The religious impulse in human beings may have been adapative at the tribal, city, and national level, but this impulse is clearly toxic at the global level. As HH Dalai Lama states:

"Any religion-based answer to the problem of our neglect of inner values can never be universal, and so will be inadequate. What we need today is an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion and can be equally acceptable to those with faith and those without: a secular ethics,"

Human beings need to evolve beyond religion. Dharma can assist this -- but I am afraid that Buddhism cannot.

M

You are taking a quote of HHDL out of context to assert your mistaken cause to end all religions including Buddhism which is the opposite of what HHDL wants. Extremely knowingly deceitful which I condemn completely in both your intent and execution.

Since you mentioned your guru in the previous post, why don't you write to him to say you are rousing people on the internet, with a few of your supporters who also made your latest immediate U-turn as ever already signed up, to end all religions including Buddhism?

Or do you want someone else to do that for you?

[Indrajala]

Let's keep things civil please.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

When we face nasty people we, at least I know I do, have a tendency to react in the wrong way. That's when all problems start. Trying to change that through insight, not just external rules or even reasoning, helps a lot I think. Gotta do some more of that.

Indeed, me too. Leaving, for instance, can also be an insightful act.

[heart]

Welcome back Dechen. My point in this discussion is that the word religion isn't defined in a way that Malcolm use it. This is the first thing you learn when you study comparative religion. So looking at the various existing definition of the word religion they are so general that even DC would qualify as a religion and that makes his statement very strange, don't you agree? I like Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche a lot but I don't have any personal experience from his community. So I really don't know if it works well or not. But in general I think that what we discuss here on dharmawheel are mostly tenets and not so much experience, to tell you the truth.

/magnus

Thak you Magnus I hope everything's alright with you.
The DC is not a homogenous bunch. Some centers probably work better than others. Some follow more closely what the teacher says. Som probably mix more their own thing. In the end it's of utmost importance really listening to Rinpoche. When in doubt, ask him directly. He does answer, usually fast and clearly.
By reading the post above you get my take on this matter, I guess.
But I don't think this subject is of great importance. Not if we debate semantics instead of ideas. I think you get the idea Malcom wants to convey. I'm also prone to believe you mostly agree with the idea, but perhaps not with his choice of words, I don't know.

Thank you Dechen, I am fine. I don't like blanket statements like "religion is evil" very much, that is all.

/magnus

[Steveyboy]

Hi Steveyboy,

Thank you for your kind post. Rinpoche gave a Vajrapani statue to Tsem Tulku to present to HHDL. It was a mere presentation of the young tulku to HHDL. That photo is what I said myself. Not my question to you. If you look at the time stamp on the video it says (19)95. From what I remember HHDL has said Tsem Tulku has to make a certain precise announcement before the glorious Dalai Lama will accept a personal private one on one meeting with Tsem Tulku. To my knowledge Tsem Tulku has made a general announcement but not what HHDL exactly wants Tsem Tulku to say. Tsem Tulku so far has refused to make that very specific announcement and has refused the HHDL.

I think it is time Tsem Tulku made that precise announcement HHDL has kindly waited so long for and went to Dharamsala to pay his respects to HHDL. If he is waiting for HHDL to die, then I have to say things will only get much more difficult not easier and beyond salvage. Then he will always regret it. I will be grateful if you can ask Tsem Tulku if he has any plans to do the right thing and arrange a personal meeting with the historic HHDL the 14th any time soon? I am sure this question of mine will be brought to his attention as he is on the web often. In case of no answer I assume his reply is still negative in refusing HHDL in which case it will be the greatest mistake of his life. Also in case you misunderstand my questions to him, not you, I will state it again, in an expanded form into two:

Q1: When was the last time Tsem Tulku had a personal private one on one meeting with HHDL if ever?

Q2: When is his next scheduled private meeting with HHDL for?

I am sure HHDL will quickly make time to see him privately in Dharamsala if Tsem Tulku satisfies the basic condition. As things stand, this is not acceptable anymore despite the kindness of HHDL.

Best wishes to you and Tsem Tulku and thank you again for your kindness in passing on my questions to him. I await Tsem Tulku's response.

You are welcome but I don't really know what you are talking about because you sound cryptic about some message sent between the Dalai Lama and Tsem Tulku. But I am sorry that I am not aware of the personal exchanges between Tsem Tulku and the Dalai Lama as I am not that close to Tsem Tulku. Even if I were, your questions are a little intrusive on Tsem Rinpoche's personal affairs, don't you think? I wouldn't dare ask Tsem Rinpoche or any Lama's schedule of when he is going to see the Dalai Lama or anyone else. I think that is a little too much to ask and its really none of our business. What are you trying to proof with all these questions?

[Malcolm]

why don't you write to him to say you are rousing people on the internet... to end all religions including Buddhism?

The purpose of Buddha Dharma is to evolve beyond views. If someone has evolved beyond views, then what need to speak of them having evolved beyond religion? The essence of religion is grasping at views. The essence of Dharma is evolving beyond views.

What I said was that people need to evolve beyond religion. As far as I can tell, the source of the most of the world's conflicts are grounded in religion.

The conflicts between Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Confucians, etc., and every combination therein are all grounded in the irrational impulse we call "religion".

The idea that our beleifs are so important that we must go to war, margianalize, kill, maim and otherwise oppress other people who do not agree with our point of view is at the root of all religious violence in the world today. That is evil. This is true of every religion that has ever been present on the planet. Buddhist cultures have been guilty of this phenomena too, as the history of the oppression of Bonpos in Tibet in the eighth century by the Tibetan Imperium demonstrates, or the Thai and Sinhalese repression of Vajrayāna also demonstrate (Buddhists burn books too, in other words).

We see this today in the barely contained internecine sectarianism rampant among Buddhists of various stripes.

The reason, the sole reason, Buddhism is seen as a "peaceful" religion today is that Buddhist countries are on the receiving end of European colonialism. But Bonpos sure didn't see Buddhism as peaceful, when Bonpos were either forced to convert or were forced to leave central Tibet, not to be invited back openly for 900 years. For Bonpos, Buddhism was a foreign religion being forced on them by an aristrocracy that imported missionaries from China and India for its promulgation.

When wed to state power, as we see during the Tibetan Imperium, and today in Shri Lanka, the "Buddhist" religion becomes every bit as pernicious as Christianity or Islam in terms of the oppression of others.

If you wish to have a blinkered view of the world in which all religions apart from Buddhism are capable of evil but Buddhism is not, then there is no help for it. But Buddhist religiosity has also been at the root of a lot of violence and oppression as any coherent reading of Asian history will readily reveal.

Religious freedom, the freedom to believe as one wishes, is only possible when religions, all of them, are not permitted to attain access to state power. Religious freedom is therefore possible only in a secular state grounded on purely secular ethics removed from metaphysical beliefs about morality and cosmology.

Human beings, including Buddhists, need to EVOLVE beyond religion.

Destroying anything however, is to make the same religious mistake religions have made in the past. So no, I am not proposing we destroy anything. I am proposing we evolve past the human need for religion, a conscious evolution.

M

[Malcolm]

Hi Steveyboy,

Thank you for your kind post. Rinpoche gave a Vajrapani statue to Tsem Tulku to present to HHDL. It was a mere presentation of the young tulku to HHDL. That photo is what I said myself. Not my question to you. If you look at the time stamp on the video it says (19)95. From what I remember HHDL has said Tsem Tulku has to make a certain precise announcement before the glorious Dalai Lama will accept a personal private one on one meeting with Tsem Tulku. To my knowledge Tsem Tulku has made a general announcement but not what HHDL exactly wants Tsem Tulku to say. Tsem Tulku so far has refused to make that very specific announcement and has refused the HHDL.

I think it is time Tsem Tulku made that precise announcement HHDL has kindly waited so long for and went to Dharamsala to pay his respects to HHDL. If he is waiting for HHDL to die, then I have to say things will only get much more difficult not easier and beyond salvage. Then he will always regret it. I will be grateful if you can ask Tsem Tulku if he has any plans to do the right thing and arrange a personal meeting with the historic HHDL the 14th any time soon? I am sure this question of mine will be brought to his attention as he is on the web often. In case of no answer I assume his reply is still negative in refusing HHDL in which case it will be the greatest mistake of his life. Also in case you misunderstand my questions to him, not you, I will state it again, in an expanded form into two:

Q1: When was the last time Tsem Tulku had a personal private one on one meeting with HHDL if ever?

Q2: When is his next scheduled private meeting with HHDL for?

I am sure HHDL will quickly make time to see him privately in Dharamsala if Tsem Tulku satisfies the basic condition. As things stand, this is not acceptable anymore despite the kindness of HHDL.

Best wishes to you and Tsem Tulku and thank you again for your kindness in passing on my questions to him. I await Tsem Tulku's response.

You are welcome but I don't really know what you are talking about because you sound cryptic about some message sent between the Dalai Lama and Tsem Tulku. But I am sorry that I am not aware of the personal exchanges between Tsem Tulku and the Dalai Lama as I am not that close to Tsem Tulku. Even if I were, your questions are a little intrusive on Tsem Rinpoche's personal affairs, don't you think? I wouldn't dare ask Tsem Rinpoche or any Lama's schedule of when he is going to see the Dalai Lama or anyone else. I think that is a little too much to ask and its really none of our business. What are you trying to proof with all these questions?

He/she is talking about the fact that Tsem Tulku maintains ties with Shugden Lamas.

[username]

Hi Steveyboy,

Thank you for your kind post. Rinpoche gave a Vajrapani statue to Tsem Tulku to present to HHDL. It was a mere presentation of the young tulku to HHDL. That photo is what I said myself. Not my question to you. If you look at the time stamp on the video it says (19)95. From what I remember HHDL has said Tsem Tulku has to make a certain precise announcement before the glorious Dalai Lama will accept a personal private one on one meeting with Tsem Tulku. To my knowledge Tsem Tulku has made a general announcement but not what HHDL exactly wants Tsem Tulku to say. Tsem Tulku so far has refused to make that very specific announcement and has refused the HHDL.

I think it is time Tsem Tulku made that precise announcement HHDL has kindly waited so long for and went to Dharamsala to pay his respects to HHDL. If he is waiting for HHDL to die, then I have to say things will only get much more difficult not easier and beyond salvage. Then he will always regret it. I will be grateful if you can ask Tsem Tulku if he has any plans to do the right thing and arrange a personal meeting with the historic HHDL the 14th any time soon? I am sure this question of mine will be brought to his attention as he is on the web often. In case of no answer I assume his reply is still negative in refusing HHDL in which case it will be the greatest mistake of his life. Also in case you misunderstand my questions to him, not you, I will state it again, in an expanded form into two:

Q1: When was the last time Tsem Tulku had a personal private one on one meeting with HHDL if ever?

Q2: When is his next scheduled private meeting with HHDL for?

I am sure HHDL will quickly make time to see him privately in Dharamsala if Tsem Tulku satisfies the basic condition. As things stand, this is not acceptable anymore despite the kindness of HHDL.

Best wishes to you and Tsem Tulku and thank you again for your kindness in passing on my questions to him. I await Tsem Tulku's response.

You are welcome but I don't really know what you are talking about because you sound cryptic about some message sent between the Dalai Lama and Tsem Tulku. But I am sorry that I am not aware of the personal exchanges between Tsem Tulku and the Dalai Lama as I am not that close to Tsem Tulku. Even if I were, your questions are a little intrusive on Tsem Rinpoche's personal affairs, don't you think? I wouldn't dare ask Tsem Rinpoche or any Lama's schedule of when he is going to see the Dalai Lama or anyone else. I think that is a little too much to ask and its really none of our business. What are you trying to proof with all these questions?

The ultimate arbiter is the head lama, in this case HHDL. If you do not find it odd that a major Gelug Tulku, middle age by now, has never had a personal meeting with HHDL nor has no plans to despite HHDL asking him to, then carry on as you were. But I assure this is not normal, like a cardinal refusing the authority of a pope publicly. Very obvious to everyone else, including Tsem Tulku I assure you who knows what his actions or lack of mean. Best wishes and good luck to you and Tsem Tulku on the sacred path of Buddhism.

[username]

why don't you write to him to say you are rousing people on the internet... to end all religions including Buddhism?

The purpose of Buddha Dharma is to evolve beyond views. If someone has evolved beyond views, then what need to speak of them having evolved beyond religion? The essence of religion is grasping at views. The essence of Dharma is evolving beyond views.

What I said was that people need to evolve beyond religion. As far as I can tell, the source of the most of the world's conflicts are grounded in religion.

The conflicts between Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Confucians, etc., and every combination therein are all grounded in the irrational impulse we call "religion".

The idea that our beleifs are so important that we must go to war, margianalize, kill, maim and otherwise oppress other people who do not agree with our point of view is at the root of all religious violence in the world today. That is evil. This is true of every religion that has ever been present on the planet. Buddhist cultures have been guilty of this phenomena too, as the history of the oppression of Bonpos in Tibet in the eighth century by the Tibetan Imperium demonstrates, or the Thai and Sinhalese repression of Vajrayāna also demonstrate (Buddhists burn books too, in other words).

We see this today in the barely contained internecine sectarianism rampant among Buddhists of various stripes.

The reason, the sole reason, Buddhism is seen as a "peaceful" religion today is that Buddhist countries are on the receiving end of European colonialism. But Bonpos sure didn't see Buddhism as peaceful, when Bonpos were either forced to convert or were forced to leave central Tibet, not to be invited back openly for 900 years. For Bonpos, Buddhism was a foreign religion being forced on them by an aristrocracy that imported missionaries from China and India for its promulgation.

When wed to state power, as we see during the Tibetan Imperium, and today in Shri Lanka, the "Buddhist" religion becomes every bit as pernicious as Christianity or Islam in terms of the oppression of others.

If you wish to have a blinkered view of the world in which all religions apart from Buddhism are capable of evil but Buddhism is not, then there is no help for it. But Buddhist religiosity has also been at the root of a lot of violence and oppression as any coherent reading of Asian history will readily reveal.

Religious freedom, the freedom to believe as one wishes, is only possible when religions, all of them, are not permitted to attain access to state power. Religious freedom is therefore possible only in a secular state grounded on purely secular ethics removed from metaphysical beliefs about morality and cosmology.

Human beings, including Buddhists, need to EVOLVE beyond religion.

Destroying anything however, is to make the same religious mistake religions have made in the past. So no, I am not proposing we destroy anything. I am proposing we evolve past the human need for religion, a conscious evolution.

M

I don't think ChNN agrees with you or wants people in his sangha to tell others as you do and want to:
End all religions including Buddhism.

Like HHDL, ending religions including Buddhism is the absolute opposite of what ChNN wants.

[gregkavarnos]

Buddhism sucks, Buddhism is great
Buddhists suck, Budhists are great.
Centres suck, Centres are great.
Religion sucks, religion is great.
I am not a Buddhist, you are a Buddhist.
I am a Buddhist, you are not a Buddhist.
I am a Dzogchenpa, you are not a Dzogchenpa.
Dzogchen rules, Dzogchen sucks.
I am right, you are wrong.
Ad nauseum!

Great conversation you are having here people. It has really cleared things up for me. Please keep it up!

[Malcolm]

I don't think ChNN agrees with you or wants people in his sangha to tell others as you do and want to:
End all religions including Buddhism.

Like HHDL, ending religions including Buddhism is the absolute opposite of what ChNN wants.

I think you are hard of hearing so I will repeat it so you understand:

Ending anything however, is to make the same religious mistake religions have made in the past. So no, I am not proposing we end anything. I am proposing we evolve past the human need for religion, a conscious evolution.

[Steveyboy]

Hi Heart,
Anti-Buddhist? Not at all. Quite the reverse. My bias favors teachers who don't have anything for sale. Who don't set up big organizations.. Who don't worry about criticism. Who don't try to condition their students. Who teach the dharma in a straight manner without fuss and brocade. Who don't care if they are sick or well. Who live out of a suitcase. Who don't seek fame. Who treat their students equally, whether the student is a Rinpoche or roadsweeper. Luckily I met such a teacher.

That's fantastic that you have met a teacher but your limited view of how a Lama manifest shows that you know little of what what a real Lama can do for others. If the Lama don't try to condition the students with the Dharma, isn't he just imparting dry knowledge on his students? If that's the case, why don't we just learn the Dharma from books? I understand that you are biased towards Gurus that are the heads of large spiritual organisations. Many Lamas and Gurus of these large organisations are living Bodhisattvas because they spend every fibre of their being trying to benefit others and they do that via an organisation with lots of assistants and in that way reach more people. On that basis, I find Lamas who lead large organisations kinder than those who lead a carefree life in retreat in the forest because the work needed to maintain such an organisation is incredible and so is the results.

[gregkavarnos]

Ending anything however, is to make the same religious mistake religions have made in the past. So no, I am not proposing we end anything. I am proposing we evolve past the human need for religion, a conscious evolution.

Lead the way messiah, though you may find it a bit hard to evolve past a need. To evolve past a want, okay, but a need? That's a tough one!

[Malcolm]

Ending anything however, is to make the same religious mistake religions have made in the past. So no, I am not proposing we end anything. I am proposing we evolve past the human need for religion, a conscious evolution.

Lead the way messiah, though you may find it a bit hard to evolve past a need. To evolve past a want, okay, but a need? That's a tough one!

People evolve past needs all the time, just like babies evolve past the need for the tit. Like babies, we need to evolve past the need for the tit of religion.

[Steveyboy]

Hey guys,

See.... Just one little except from the book Gurus For Hire, Enlightenment For Sale has spawn a rather long thread. I told you it would be controversial....

[username]

I don't think ChNN agrees with you or wants people in his sangha to tell others as you do and want to:
End all religions including Buddhism.

Like HHDL, ending religions including Buddhism is the absolute opposite of what ChNN wants.

I think you are hard of hearing so I will repeat it so you understand:

Ending anything however, is to make the same religious mistake religions have made in the past. So no, I am not proposing we end anything. I am proposing we evolve past the human need for religion, a conscious evolution.

In the five centuries of degenerate age, you go ahead and lead billions out of religions, same way Dinosaurs were evolved out of, of course starting with the smaller religion of Buddhists and even smaller ones of Vajrayana right here on Dharmawheel. What can I say but good luck?

In your posts as we see here in this thread you are basically resuming to attack religion yet again in general and in specific major religions and making a even more specific target of Buddhism and Vajrayana. That is what the content of your posts are, attacking religions mainly Buddhism. All in the name of your new personal self made religion.

Most people who know me do not know I am a Buddhist except a very few or even suspect I am religious, far from it. However even ordinary people would say you and your few supporters here are actually very religious people in every possible way as you appear. Yet attacking the banner of the same religion you have protection under and enjoy the fruits of yet deny. Absurd.

[gregkavarnos]

People evolve past needs all the time, just like babies evolve past the need for the tit. Like babies, we need to evolve past the need for the tit of religion.

We didn't evolve past the need for nourishment (which the tit provided), all we did is change the source. Has it ever occured to you that religion may not be the tit but the need for nourishment? Has it ever occured to you that instead of having outgrown religion you have merely outgrown one expression of religion and merely moved onto another expression?

[Dechen Norbu]

We can usually say the same thing about any theory. Theories exist for practical purposes. Using again a Christian example - because people generally accept that as a religion - while the Bible is the Holy Scriptures, the important thing is not the collection of papers and ink but the message in it. However, just as the good news, so the teaching has to be conveyed somehow.

You mean theories are not an end in themselves. I agree. However, you can practice Dzogchen with very little if any theory at all.

Agreed. But as with all myths and traditions, they are meant to establish the legitimacy of the current teacher and teaching. And that's what they do.

The above applies. The cosmogonies Buddhist or otherwise are pretty much useless to Dzogchen practice. You may ignore them all and be an excellent practitioner.

Are you saying that people can participate in activities without taking any of the regular pointing out instructions?

I'm not sure if I understand what you are asking. To be a DC member all you need to do is pay your membership. Then it's up to you. You may go to centers or you may never set foot on one. It's up to you. Your practice is up to you, your religious affiliation is up to you, pretty much you take care of yourself. It's you who decide the kind of commitment you have, the type of practices you take, the sort of things you choose to accept. So you can do community practices or not. I think they are a good thing, but nobody is obliged to like, much less perform them.

The difference is there here are religious authorities legitimised by traditional and subjective criteria, and their role is in spiritual guidance and not just relaying information.

That depends. Some people give more credit than others to ChNN. I, for one see him as a living Buddha. Others have many doubts. All is legitimate. It will be the fruit of your practice that will dictate the kind of confidence you'll have in the teacher. That or wishful thinking.

By "religious people" do you mean simply followers of a set of doctrines?

People who uphold theories based on faith alone. People who consider, based on faith alone, a certain set of beliefs to be superior, a certain organization to be superior. That's more or less what I mean, I guess.

The difference between a Hegelian philosopher and a Calvinist theologian is not in that they apply rational thinking in their works following an existing system of thought, but that what that system is based on is in the first case a rationally established method (can be questioned and modified) and in the second one it is based on revelation from a higher source (cannot be questioned or modified). All Buddhist traditions are founded upon the teachings of the Buddha and they have to be followed to achieve liberation. Devotion to the guru further emphasises that.

A point well noted. That's why Buddhism is a religion and Dzogchen isn't or can't be. Dzogchen starts with direct experience. Buddhism starts with a conscious choice. You choose to believe in the doctrine. Why you choose to do so is grounded on many reasons, but in the end it's a decision that always passes through mind (unless you are "born Buddhist", which makes your religious affiliation kind of automatic, which may be even worse). In the case of Dzogchen, your beliefs matter little or nothing. Until you experience the primordial state, there's no Dzogchen beyond fantasy. When you taste sweet, you don't decide to believe you know what sweet is. It's an experience. You either have it, or haven't. It's not a rational position.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

It would be interesting to hear how this evolution squares with more traditional ideas such as the end-of-age Chakravartin ruling over the new Buddhist world empire, etc.

[kirtu]

Ending anything however, is to make the same religious mistake religions have made in the past. So no, I am not proposing we end anything. I am proposing we evolve past the human need for religion, a conscious evolution.

Lead the way messiah, though you may find it a bit hard to evolve past a need. To evolve past a want, okay, but a need? That's a tough one!

People evolve past needs all the time, just like babies evolve past the need for the tit. Like babies, we need to evolve past the need for the tit of religion.

We need the form of religion to preserve the conduit of wisdom and transformation for people who don't just jump to direct experience. We also need the form to support people whose experience is not strong (and that's most people).

Kirt