Is consort practice selfish?

[himalayanspirit]

Shakyamuni Buddha said in The Sutra in Forty-two Sections,

As to love and desire: no desire is as deep-rooted as sex. There is nothing greater than the desire for sex. Fortunately it is one of a kind. If there were something else like it, no one in the entire world would be able to cultivate the way.

In the Surangama Sutra, Buddha said, "The difference between the worldly and the saintly … depends solely on the elimination or not of sexual desire.

[Dechen Norbu]

I once wrote in a similar topic a post addressing someone with your type of views. It fits this thread perfectly.
With the due differences here it goes again:

There are sexual practices in Vajrayana, fragant herbs. What's the problem about it? It's a good practice among many others. Plus, your knowledge about the tantras is practically null. You are not qualified to discuss tantra. Period.

All you have to say comes from ignorance, bias and poor sources. So instead of keep vomiting more BS about tantra, understand that you have no authority to talk about it. At least no more than a kinder garden brat talking about quantum physics because he read one or two books. I wonder where that kind of puritanical bullshit comes from, but seems to be all you discuss regarding Vajrayana. Nobody forces you to practice.

I'm not to put up with people slandering Vajrayana freely, especially people who abundantly show not having qualifications. If you want to discuss abuse, we can do it. Equating Vajrayana to abuse is more than I'm prepared to concede, so I'll start reporting posts that have such content.

More than that, this as a personal note, you seem to have some kind of extreme aversion to sex, like if it was something inherently dirty. I'll go out on a limb and say that to me it looks like you have some deep issues to deal with, probably with the help of a professional.

Please stop pushing your views about tantra as if they are wholesome. They are not.
There are those who have too much attachment to sex and those who have too much repulsion. Both sides of the same coin.

This thread is about abuse in Buddhism, not about discussing if Vajrayana is abuse or prone to it.

[Mr. G]

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
teacher).

- 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?

[himalayanspirit]

edit by Mr. G: post edit for TOS violation

Dear Mr. G and Dechen Norbu,

Please answer the following questions:

1. Why do you ignore the various Mahayana and Thervada scriptures that are chronologically more authentic than the Tantras that you believe in, and they claim in no uncertain terms that desires are an impediment to enlightenment?

[Mr. G]

himalayanspirt/fragrantherbs:

This has been discussed ad nauseum:

"Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism"
Sects and Sectarianism
Whose Buddhism is Truest?
Mahayana split
Tantra and the Buddha
Is ecumenical Buddhism realistic?
Defining Buddhism - Theravada/Mahayana/Varayana

You need to be aware of this forum's TOS. In particular TOS #2. The naive dogmatic statements you espouse are outdated and inadequate. If you have an axe to grind with traditions here, this is not the forum for you. If you want to have a civilized discussion regarding a sincere inquiry, you are more than welcome.

Thread has been locked.