Turning water into wine(Chogyam Trungpa)

[TRC]

The quality of a tree should be known by its fruit, not buy the appearance of its bark.

Perhaps the quality of a tree should be known by all its characteristics, not just the ones we have a preference for.

[Malcolm]

The quality of a tree should be known by its fruit, not buy the appearance of its bark.

Perhaps the quality of a tree should be known by all its characteristics, not just the ones we have a preference for.

I don't know about you, but when I eat fruit, I don't care much about the appearance of the tree as long as the fruit tastes good.

[Malcolm]

You're answering a different question, Malcolm, which is your prerogative.

I asked how you knew that it was a "teaching method." If you know what a teaching method is, and you know that Chogyam Trungpa used alcoholism and womanizing as a teaching method, explain how you know this. Or you can answer a different question if that's easier for you.

I explained this to you — I know many, many of his direct students. He would often times use sexual situations as a teaching method, as well as alcohol. He even used LSD etc.

Trungpa used any method he could to reach people who were hard to reach. He also used these to create situations so that people could go beyond their limitations, which after all is the job of a real teacher of Dzogchen and Mahamudra.

For example, sometimes he would randomly have his driver pull into a stranger's driveway, and have the student get out and knock on the door, he did many things like this all the time. He would burst into people's rooms in the middle of the night at his seminaries, and if you were sleeping alone, without a partner, he would demand to know why and then fix you up with someone.

In any case, it hardly matters now what he did. He has passed on, and a teacher like him will not be seen again for a long while.

[dzogchungpa]

He has passed on, and a teacher like him will not be seen again for a long while.

Yup, and btw he thought Ramana Maharshi was totally, completely enlightened.

[boda]

I know many, many of his direct students. He would often times use sexual situations as a teaching method, as well as alcohol. He even used LSD etc.

We often interpret past events, particularly tragic events, as lessons of some sort. Like someone saying that a bout of cancer helped them to learn what's important in life, and though it caused a lot of suffering, they are better for the experience. The many many students you know who were taught by CT could be doing this kind of thing. Cancer cells do not plan and execute teaching methods. People do a lot of things for reasons other than teaching, and with no methodology whatsoever.

Chogyam Trungpa did a lot of writing and speaking. If he were indeed using these things as teaching methods, and not just doing them for the usual reason people do such things, then why did he never say so himself?

[TRC]

The quality of a tree should be known by its fruit, not buy the appearance of its bark.

Perhaps the quality of a tree should be known by all its characteristics, not just the ones we have a preference for.

I don't know about you, but when I eat fruit, I don't care much about the appearance of the tree as long as the fruit tastes good.

Yes, but if you forget to consider the bark you may miss some potent medicinal properties.

[Mkoll]

Chogyam Trungpa did a lot of writing and speaking. If he were indeed using these things as teaching methods, and not just doing them for the usual reason people do such things, then why did he never say so himself?

Because that was silence was part of his teaching method of course.

He probably could have murdered people and some of his more gullible acolytes would see it as part of his teaching method. Just sayin'.

[dzogchungpa]

Boda, it's clear that you are not familiar with his life and work. Why not have a look at the books I mentioned, all freely available online, and this website: http://www.chronicleproject.com/, and if you are still interested return to this thread?

[Malcolm]

then why did he never say so himself?

He did say so himself, many times, just read any of his discourses on the role of the guru.

Trust on this level means one cannot maintain one’s ego. One cannot maintain one’s basic existence as “myself.” This self has become completely dedicated, it has completely opened up in surrendering to the world created by the guru. The world that the guru creates is not particularly a pleasant one. It might be very unpleasant, horrific. It might also be beautiful at the same time. The reason the world created by the guru tends to be an irritating one is that the guru goes beyond the role of spiritual friend at this point and begins to act as a dictator. He minds your business completely; he minds every inch of your life. Your guru has the ability to do such a thing, because he knows every inch of your life, of your state of consciousness. He knows the tiniest fragments of your subconscious gossip, he knows all the little freckles in your mental functions. The guru has a complete understanding of all this. Therefore you are highly exposed, fully exposed. For this reason, the tantric tradition is considered very dangerous. The traditional format is that you can either make love to your guru as a divine being or kill him. The analogy is that of a snake in a bamboo tube. When you put a snake in a bamboo tube, the snake has to face either up or down. Relating with the guru is very powerful, too powerful. It is too much having somebody mind your business in that fashion. From that point of view, it is extremely

Trungpa, Chogyam (2010-09-28). The Lion's Roar: An Introduction to Tantra (Dharma Ocean Series) (Kindle Locations 930-940). Shambhala Publications. Kindle Edition.

[TRC]

People do a lot of things for reasons other than teaching, and with no methodology whatsoever.

Yes this is the point that people get confused about. Because they can’t reconcile the paradox of Trungpa’s more profound teachings with his obvious fallibility and (self-) destructive behaviour, they prefer to characterise this behaviour as a skilful and premeditated teaching method, to help ameliorate their dissonance.

Obviously Trungpa was suffering. His alcohol addiction was an overt manifestation of craving/clinging, which is of course the immediate cause of suffering.

[boda]

then why did he never say so himself?

He did say so himself, many times, just read any of his discourses on the role of the guru.

Trust on this level means one cannot maintain one’s ego. One cannot maintain one’s basic existence as “myself.” This self has become completely dedicated, it has completely opened up in surrendering to the world created by the guru. The world that the guru creates is not particularly a pleasant one. It might be very unpleasant, horrific. It might also be beautiful at the same time. The reason the world created by the guru tends to be an irritating one is that the guru goes beyond the role of spiritual friend at this point and begins to act as a dictator. He minds your business completely; he minds every inch of your life. Your guru has the ability to do such a thing, because he knows every inch of your life, of your state of consciousness. He knows the tiniest fragments of your subconscious gossip, he knows all the little freckles in your mental functions. The guru has a complete understanding of all this. Therefore you are highly exposed, fully exposed. For this reason, the tantric tradition is considered very dangerous. The traditional format is that you can either make love to your guru as a divine being or kill him. The analogy is that of a snake in a bamboo tube. When you put a snake in a bamboo tube, the snake has to face either up or down. Relating with the guru is very powerful, too powerful. It is too much having somebody mind your business in that fashion. From that point of view, it is extremely

Trungpa, Chogyam (2010-09-28). The Lion's Roar: An Introduction to Tantra (Dharma Ocean Series) (Kindle Locations 930-940). Shambhala Publications. Kindle Edition.

Maybe I need reading glasses but I don't see where it says he used his drinking or womanizing as a teaching method.

[Malcolm]

People do a lot of things for reasons other than teaching, and with no methodology whatsoever.

Yes this is the point that people get confused about. Because they can’t reconcile the paradox of Trungpa’s more profound teachings with his obvious fallibility and (self-) destructive behaviour, they prefer to characterise this behaviour as a skilful and premeditated teaching method, to help ameliorate their dissonance.

The perhaps the dissonance belongs to you, and not to them. Have you bothered to consider this?

Obviously Trungpa was suffering. His alcohol addiction was an overt manifestation of craving/clinging, which is of course the immediate cause of suffering.

He would never have denied that he was an ordinary, suffering person:

The guru is immediate. For one thing, he is a human being like yourself. He has to eat food and wear clothes like you do, so it’s a direct relationship. And the fact that the guru has basic human survival needs makes the situation more threatening. Do you see what I mean? It is more threatening because you can’t dismiss the guru as being outside of our thing, someone who can survive without our human trips. The guru does thrive on human trips. If we need food, the guru also needs food. If we need a love affair, the guru also needs a love affair. A guru is an ordinary human being, but still powerful. We begin to feel personally undetermined, because the guru minds our trips too closely and too hard.

Trungpa, Chogyam (2010-09-28). The Lion's Roar: An Introduction to Tantra (Dharma Ocean Series) (Kindle Locations 3136-3140). Shambhala Publications. Kindle Edition.

[Malcolm]

then why did he never say so himself?

He did say so himself, many times, just read any of his discourses on the role of the guru.

Trust on this level means one cannot maintain one’s ego. One cannot maintain one’s basic existence as “myself.” This self has become completely dedicated, it has completely opened up in surrendering to the world created by the guru. The world that the guru creates is not particularly a pleasant one. It might be very unpleasant, horrific. It might also be beautiful at the same time. The reason the world created by the guru tends to be an irritating one is that the guru goes beyond the role of spiritual friend at this point and begins to act as a dictator. He minds your business completely; he minds every inch of your life. Your guru has the ability to do such a thing, because he knows every inch of your life, of your state of consciousness. He knows the tiniest fragments of your subconscious gossip, he knows all the little freckles in your mental functions. The guru has a complete understanding of all this. Therefore you are highly exposed, fully exposed. For this reason, the tantric tradition is considered very dangerous. The traditional format is that you can either make love to your guru as a divine being or kill him. The analogy is that of a snake in a bamboo tube. When you put a snake in a bamboo tube, the snake has to face either up or down. Relating with the guru is very powerful, too powerful. It is too much having somebody mind your business in that fashion. From that point of view, it is extremely

Trungpa, Chogyam (2010-09-28). The Lion's Roar: An Introduction to Tantra (Dharma Ocean Series) (Kindle Locations 930-940). Shambhala Publications. Kindle Edition.

Maybe I need reading glasses but I don't see where it says he used his drinking or womanizing as a teaching method.

I give up.

[TRC]

The perhaps the dissonance belongs to you, and not to them. Have you bothered to consider this?

I have no dissonance about Trungpa, that's the point. I don't need to reconcile the paradoxes that exist which others seem to need to. He gave some profoundly deep teachings, which had good results in certain circumstances. His addictions and proclivities led to less than good results in other circumstances. I can accept both dimensions without having to shoehorn it all into being a skilful teaching method, and that all his outcomes were positive - as they clearly weren't. It's others that need to do that.

[boda]

A requisite of giving up is having first tried.

[Malcolm]

A requisite of giving up is having first tried.

What you seem to be looking for is a quote by CTR along the lines of "I use womanizing and drinking as Dharma methods..."

Of course, you will not find such a quote. But you can certainly find many statements by him which indicate that like his teacher, Khenpo Gangshar, he was interested in pushing his students beyond their limitations. For example, we know that Khenpo Gangshar actively encouraged monks and nuns to leave retreat, have sex, and so on.

[Malcolm]

The perhaps the dissonance belongs to you, and not to them. Have you bothered to consider this?

I have no dissonance about Trungpa, that's the point. I don't need to reconcile the paradoxes that exist which others seem to need to. He gave some profoundly deep teachings, which had good results in certain circumstances. His addictions and proclivities led to less than good results in other circumstances. I can accept both dimensions without having to shoehorn it all into being a skilful teaching method, and that all his outcomes were positive - as they clearly weren't. It's others that need to do that.

Whether or not all his interactions with people were positive is hardly the point. He was a realized person. He cannot be judged on the same standard as everyone else.

[TRC]

Whether or not all his interactions with people were positive is hardly the point. He was a realized person. He cannot be judged on the same standard as everyone else.

Well I happen to think he can. And in fact there should a higher standard of judgment if he claimed to be realised.

[Malcolm]

Whether or not all his interactions with people were positive is hardly the point. He was a realized person. He cannot be judged on the same standard as everyone else.

Well I happen to think he can. And in fact I'm going to set a higher standard of judgment if he claimed to be realised.

He, as far as I know, never made any such claim at all. But other high Lamas such as Dudjom Rinpoche, Dilgo Khyentse, and so on have made such claims on his behalf.

Then of course there is Drugpa Kunley, Do Khyentse, etc., many Tibetan masters that would hardly externally match your standards of moral conduct for that matter Virupa, Tilopa, Padmasambhava and so on also wouldn't.

[TRC]

Whether or not all his interactions with people were positive is hardly the point. He was a realized person. He cannot be judged on the same standard as everyone else.

Well I happen to think he can. And in fact I'm going to set a higher standard of judgment if he claimed to be realised.

He, as far as I know, never made any such claim at all. But other high Lamas such as Dudjom Rinpoche, Dilgo Khyentse, and so on have made such claims on his behalf.

Well my response would remain the same regardless of who made the claims.