Sogyal, etc. split from THE SELF-ARISEN VIDYA TANTRA thread

[PeterC]

That is not in fact the criteria of so-called unconventional behavior.

No, but it’s a relatively easy test to apply that would have screened out Lakhar, Mukpo Jr and others. And none of this would even need discussing if people didn’t fetishize ‘crazy’ behavior in the first place.

The point is that it is not a relevant test. The results of the test do not help us discern who is qualified and who is unqualified.

It is like this. My apartment smells like gas. I decide I need to determine if there is a gas leak. I grab a thermometer. The thermometer tells me the temperature; it is very good at that.

Great, now I know the temperature. Unfortunately, knowing the temperature does not help me determine if there is a gas leak. It is actually completely irrelevant.

Like this, answering the questions of whether or not a guru has lived as a mendicant and whether or not a guru enjoys rich sense pleasures actually does not really help us determine if they are qualified. If they possess pure samaya with their own gurus, knowledge and experience of the teachings, and the twofold bodhicitta than they are qualified gurus regardless of whether or not they live like Jabba the Hutt.

See my reply below. I think you’re missing the point. Life is short and investments of time in gurus are significant. In the absence of definitive proof, one should at least apply common sense to the choice, particularly when there are many lamas accessible whose conduct is not questionable.

[Charlie123]

No, but it’s a relatively easy test to apply that would have screened out Lakhar, Mukpo Jr and others. And none of this would even need discussing if people didn’t fetishize ‘crazy’ behavior in the first place.

The point is that it is not a relevant test. The results of the test do not help us discern who is qualified and who is unqualified.

It is like this. My apartment smells like gas. I decide I need to determine if there is a gas leak. I grab a thermometer. The thermometer tells me the temperature; it is very good at that.

Great, now I know the temperature. Unfortunately, knowing the temperature does not help me determine if there is a gas leak. It is actually completely irrelevant.

Like this, answering the questions of whether or not a guru has lived as a mendicant and whether or not a guru enjoys rich sense pleasures actually does not really help us determine if they are qualified. If they possess pure samaya with their own gurus, knowledge and experience of the teachings, and the twofold bodhicitta than they are qualified gurus regardless of whether or not they live like Jabba the Hutt.

See my reply below. I think you’re missing the point. Life is short and investments of time in gurus are significant. In the absence of definitive proof, one should at least apply common sense to the choice, particularly when there are many lamas accessible whose conduct is not questionable.

That is definitely sound advice.

[Malcolm]

No, but it’s a relatively easy test to apply that would have screened out Lakhar, Mukpo Jr and others. And none of this would even need discussing if people didn’t fetishize ‘crazy’ behavior in the first place.

It would not have screened out anyone anyway. You see, we are Anglos. We believe in laws. We live in nations where laws are above persons.

I think you’re misunderstanding me on this point. The poster that I was replying to was suggesting that maybe Lakhar beating up the nun was in some way not abuse because she was still devoted to him. I was saying there’s of course no way to prove a negative proposition, but if you want a quick test as to whether a guru engaging in unexpected behavior is someone you really want to spend time with, etc etc. Of course I’m not saying there’s a rule that easily allows you to determine who is qualified as a teacher, or whether a tulku is who is claimed, unless you have accomplished some degree of omniscience. (In any case, do we even care - these are functionally not that different from aristocratic titles in other countries.) Just that if someone fail to apply Occam’s razor in these situations, then they’re a fool.

There are plenty of disciples in the history of Vajrayana who are grateful that on one occasion or another they were struck or hit by their guru. It can indeed remove obstacles. Everyone knows this.

[Passing By]

Its not a seed, it is a real thing. The fault lies in the fact that some people want to enter into vratacārya before they have adequately mastered the creation and completion stages, and are nowhere near heat on the secret mantra path of application. Such people were sarcastically referred to as "great meditators" by Jetsun Drakpa Gyaltsen his Song of Experience, composed in the 12th century. It is not a new thing.

Sorry if I'm misuderstanding but why would people seeking to apply Vajrayana necessarily engage in behaviour harmful to others? Isn't it basically just pure perception and enjoyment of all things? It doesn't imply someone would say, just go around assaulting others for no reason right? I would think in most people it would just manifest as them enjoying what they always do and remaining undisturbed by whatever circumstance in their life arises rather than them suddenly taking leave of common sense and going around harming others. Or am I missing some point here?

(to be clear I am talking about Vajrayana people in general. When they are not meditating, in their daily life, they try to apply in post-meditation as best as they can whether successful or not...but at any rate they generally don't behave any differently from before outwardly no?)

[PeterC]

It would not have screened out anyone anyway. You see, we are Anglos. We believe in laws. We live in nations where laws are above persons.

I think you’re misunderstanding me on this point. The poster that I was replying to was suggesting that maybe Lakhar beating up the nun was in some way not abuse because she was still devoted to him. I was saying there’s of course no way to prove a negative proposition, but if you want a quick test as to whether a guru engaging in unexpected behavior is someone you really want to spend time with, etc etc. Of course I’m not saying there’s a rule that easily allows you to determine who is qualified as a teacher, or whether a tulku is who is claimed, unless you have accomplished some degree of omniscience. (In any case, do we even care - these are functionally not that different from aristocratic titles in other countries.) Just that if someone fail to apply Occam’s razor in these situations, then they’re a fool.

There are plenty of disciples in the history of Vajrayana who are grateful that on one occasion or another they were struck or hit by their guru. It can indeed remove obstacles. Everyone knows this.

Of course. And as someone who started out in the Zen school, I'm quite OK with being hit for the right reasons. But neither you nor I think what was going on with Lakhar and that nun was that, do we? How many of your own teachers have hit students in public in what looks like a fit of rage? Moreover if Lakhar were still alive now, and someone you knew decided to take him as a student after all his issues had become public, and he subsequently abused that person; wouldn't you perhaps feel that they should have been more circumspect? So perhaps common sense isn't completely useless in this context.

This is probably so obvious a point that it doesn't need stating. I don't disagree with your broader point that any and all skilful means are valid in the context of the relationship with the guru.

[Malcolm]

But neither you nor I think what was going on with Lakhar and that nun was that, do we?

She is an adult. She is apparently ok with it. According to one eyewitness report communicated to me personally, immediately after Sogyal punched her in the stomach, they both started giggling and embraced.

Moreover if Lakhar were still alive now, and someone you knew decided to take him as a student after all his issues had become public, and he subsequently abused that person; wouldn't you perhaps feel that they should have been more circumspect? So perhaps common sense isn't completely useless in this context.

I know people who have been subject to being hit with Sogyal's famed backscratcher. Not only was it more startling than painful, they swear it really helped them understand the nature of the mind.

It is not my place to judge him in his role as a guru. That is between him and his students. I am not going to criticize those who felt they had to bring him down, not even Mary Finnegan, but neither am I going to participate in outright condemnation of Sogyal either. He was not my teacher, I never met him, and apart from criticisms of him in the press, I have no personal knowledge of the goings on in Rigpa; other than having heard some of the other side of the story which up till now, has been met with derision and accusations of cult brainwashing.

This is probably so obvious a point that it doesn't need stating. I don't disagree with your broader point that any and all skilful means are valid in the context of the relationship with the guru.

I think that we are not really in a position to judge. After all, Drogmi Lotsawa stated that even if his guru, Gayadhara, was burning in hell, he still would regard the latter as a perfect buddha.

I am not certain that Sogyal deserves the near universal scorn he receives in many quarters. I can understand it from those who are not Vajrayānis. They cannot understand Vajrayāna at all, much less the meaning of guru devotion.

I have no problem with people who have no devotion towards Sogyal. I also have no problem with those who remain devoted to him. It just isn't any of my business.

[Könchok Thrinley]

That is a great post Malcolm. Perfectly sums up my feelings about the entire thing, except that my mind still tries to make sense of it as if it ever could or it ever had the right to.

One thing is certain, Sogyal helped dharma take root in the west by using his name and influence to bring teachers here. That by itself is an amazing deed.

The rest ... well something went wrong.

[Charlie123]

I think a lot of the confusion is that people don’t want to acknowledge that there is a middle ground between Sogyal being a Buddha and Sogyal being a complete scoundrel. I think it is likely that whatever he was falls somewhere between those two extremes.

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

The litmus test will be his experience of his own karma—whatever that may be. None of our opinions will influence that. So there’s no need to try to come to a conclusion.

The only actions called for is to admit that our judgmental minds are woefully inadequate, and to have a positive attitude regardless of his actions.

Or so I’ve been taught.

[Adamantine]

What were the purported signs upon Sogyal Rinpoche’s passing?
Were there any? Did he leave relics? Asking sincerely all I heard
was just simply that he passed away.. nothing extraordinary.. Was he in tukdam for any period?

[Könchok Thrinley]

I have wondered the same Adamantine and I have found nothing about it. No mention, nada.

[Simon E.]

Give it time....

[Norwegian]

What were the purported signs upon Sogyal Rinpoche’s passing?
Were there any? Did he leave relics? Asking sincerely all I heard
was just simply that he passed away.. nothing extraordinary.. Was he in tukdam for any period?

He rested in tukdam for three days. This was reported some days after. One of the teachers who confirmed this, i.e., the tukdam process, was Tulku Rigdzin Pema Rinpoche.

[Sonam Wangchug]

But neither you nor I think what was going on with Lakhar and that nun was that, do we?

She is an adult. She is apparently ok with it. According to one eyewitness report communicated to me personally, immediately after Sogyal punched her in the stomach, they both started giggling and embraced.

Moreover if Lakhar were still alive now, and someone you knew decided to take him as a student after all his issues had become public, and he subsequently abused that person; wouldn't you perhaps feel that they should have been more circumspect? So perhaps common sense isn't completely useless in this context.

I know people who have been subject to being hit with Sogyal's famed backscratcher. Not only was it more startling than painful, they swear it really helped them understand the nature of the mind.

It is not my place to judge him in his role as a guru. That is between him and his students. I am not going to criticize those who felt they had to bring him down, not even Mary Finnegan, but neither am I going to participate in outright condemnation of Sogyal either. He was not my teacher, I never met him, and apart from criticisms of him in the press, I have no personal knowledge of the goings on in Rigpa; other than having heard some of the other side of the story which up till now, has been met with derision and accusations of cult brainwashing.

This is probably so obvious a point that it doesn't need stating. I don't disagree with your broader point that any and all skilful means are valid in the context of the relationship with the guru.

I think that we are not really in a position to judge. After all, Drogmi Lotsawa stated that even if his guru, Gayadhara, was burning in hell, he still would regard the latter as a perfect buddha.

I am not certain that Sogyal deserves the near universal scorn he receives in many quarters. I can understand it from those who are not Vajrayānis. They cannot understand Vajrayāna at all, much less the meaning of guru devotion.

I have no problem with people who have no devotion towards Sogyal. I also have no problem with those who remain devoted to him. It just isn't any of my business.

It might just be my perception, but I seem to detect a much different tone about Sogyal Rinpoche than you had when this had originally happened and in the trending threads at that time. (in which you seemed to be much more critical of him)

Just wondering

Any reason for this shift?

[PeterC]

I have no problem with people who have no devotion towards Sogyal. I also have no problem with those who remain devoted to him. It just isn't any of my business.

This is good advice. Thank you.

[Queequeg]

I think a lot of the confusion is that people don’t want to acknowledge that there is a middle ground between Sogyal being a Buddha and Sogyal being a complete scoundrel. I think it is likely that whatever he was falls somewhere between those two extremes.

Then he's just ordinary... and not appropriate to hold as a guru, no? That's the big controversy, isn't it? The point that causes so many people to be so distressed?

[Malcolm]

It might just be my perception, but I seem to detect a much different tone about Sogyal Rinpoche than you had when this had originally happened and in the trending threads at that time. (in which you seemed to be much more critical of him)

Well, when there is smoke on a hill, there is generally fire. I am not defending Sogyal's temperament, I am defending his student's right to regard him however they wish. Also, I have had time and opportunity to speak with people who both have left Sogyal in tremendous disappointment, and people who never experienced anything from him other than kindness, and people in between, whose experience of him was mixed. I have also seen that certain people have sought to use the Sogyal affair to smear Vajrayāna in general, namely a certain people who know nothing about our tradition. This bugs me.

[heart]

It might just be my perception, but I seem to detect a much different tone about Sogyal Rinpoche than you had when this had originally happened and in the trending threads at that time. (in which you seemed to be much more critical of him)

Well, when there is smoke on a hill, there is generally fire. I am not defending Sogyal's temperament, I am defending his student's right to regard him however they wish. Also, I have had time and opportunity to speak with people who both have left Sogyal in tremendous disappointment, and people who never experienced anything from him other than kindness, and people in between, whose experience of him was mixed. I have also seen that certain people have sought to use the Sogyal affair to smear Vajrayāna in general, namely a certain people who know nothing about our tradition. This bugs me.

It bugs me to.

/magnus

[Malcolm]

I think a lot of the confusion is that people don’t want to acknowledge that there is a middle ground between Sogyal being a Buddha and Sogyal being a complete scoundrel. I think it is likely that whatever he was falls somewhere between those two extremes.

Then he's just ordinary... and not appropriate to hold as a guru, no? That's the big controversy, isn't it? The point that causes so many people to be so distressed?

No, that is not the controversy. Most Buddhist gurus are ordinary people, who have expertise in certain ritual systems and the conferral of certain kinds of teachings.

Fundamental to this system is pure vision. Pure vision is from our side. We are supposed to understand that the guru from whom we receive empowerment is same as the buddhas of the three times. If we do not have this idea, it is held, than we cannot benefit from their teaching. As practitioners on the path, we are supposed to understand the universe and all the beings in it as members of the same mandala, sublime deities, buddhas; not hell beings, pretas, etc. We exercise our pure perception by practicing deity yoga and guru yoga. When we realize that everything has never been different than the state of buddhahood, and that everything has always been the state of buddhahood from the very beginning, this realization is called mahāmudra, the great symbol; or mahāsandhi, the great perfection.

The controversy exists because there are teachings which indicate that prospective students need to be vetted on the basis of their intelligence, devotion, and lack of concepts. Likewise, gurus are vetted on the basis of their education, expertise, and personal qualities, but not their ultimate realization—how can any normal person perceive that?

Plainly put, sometimes qualified gurus pick unqualified students, and this causes problems. Likewise, qualified students sometimes pick unqualified gurus. Thus, some in the Sogyal scandal think Sogyal was an unqualified guru. Others think that Sogyal chose unqualified students, or students who broke their samaya. Frankly, from a traditional point of view, there is no way one can argue that those letter-writing students did not injure their samaya when they composed their letter, since they all received empowerments from and with Sogyal. The whole point of samaya vows is to maintain the integrity of the Vajrayāna Sangha. The very first samaya vow is that one should not harshly criticize one's guru. This is even worse than criticizing the Buddha himself. The second one is that one should not cause conflict with vajra siblings.

Vajrayāna disciples are expected to regard everything their guru does as sacred, unless it directly violates Dharma ethics. Hitting a disciple with the intention to benefit them is well within that range. It is not acceptable in our culture, but it is quite acceptable in Tibetan culture. Having multiple sexual partners (if unmarried) is fine, so is being a sybarite.

What is not acceptable is taking life, taking what is not given, speaking with intent to deceive, and sexual misconduct, the four basis of training. Of course, excluding sex crimes, these four can also be given a pass if performed with bodhicitta motivation.

Anyone can leave the company of a given guru with or without cause, but if someone has taken samaya vows with someone who is qualified to give them, then one should never harshly criticize that person.

When it comes to Dharma ethics, we in the West tend to treat these as legal frameworks, but they are not. If anything, the Rigpa affair points to the deficit in corporate-style Buddhism; where feeder programs are created in order to introduce people into the path; who are in turn vetted for their actual interest in higher teachings and so on. Most of the people in Rigpa are not Vajrayāna students, just as most of the people in Shambhala Centers are not Vajrayāna students. So if these people think that Sogyal and Mukpo suck, there is no problem. But it becomes a problem when one enters into a samaya relationship.

The whole system of Vajrayāna is based on the unassailable authority of the guru. So, caveat emptor.

[Queequeg]

No, that is not the controversy. Most Buddhist gurus are ordinary people, who have expertise in certain ritual systems and the conferral of certain kinds of teachings.

Fundamental to this system is pure vision. Pure vision is from our side. We are supposed to understand that the guru from whom we receive empowerment is same as the buddhas of the three times. If we do not have this idea, it is held, than we cannot benefit from their teaching. As practitioners on the path, we are supposed to understand the universe and all the beings in it as members of the same mandala, sublime deities, buddhas; not hell beings, pretas, etc. We exercise our pure perception by practicing deity yoga and guru yoga. When we realize that everything has never been different than the state of buddhahood, and that everything has always been the state of buddhahood from the very beginning, this realization is called mahāmudra, the great symbol; or mahāsandhi, the great perfection.

Thank you for the clarification. That makes sense. My impression and from what I've heard, Guru Yoga is a really advanced practice, though. I can understand how in practical terms it has become an open secret, but its still surprising to me how openly it is presented. Not to toot my own horn, but I've been immersed in Mahayana my whole life, and from what has been explained to me and I've read about Guru Yoga that's like... spacefarer stuff compared to the average person on the street. It would seem one needs a lot of preparation and learning to practice this correctly and effectively.

I'm sure you've remarked on this before but I'm not in a position to go search it out and since I have your attention, what do you think of how widely guru yoga is "out there"? Maybe I'm missing something and it doesn't need to be as rarefied as I think. This brings us to:

The controversy exists because there are teachings which indicate that prospective students need to be vetted on the basis of their intelligence, devotion, and lack of concepts.

The vetting process seems... compromised. If me, as a relative outsider, can hear about these breakdowns, something is clearly wrong. It would seem that we ought not even know about the vetting process... unless we've been approached as having been vetted.

I realize I'm putting this in very idealized terms.

Plainly put, sometimes qualified gurus pick unqualified students, and this causes problems. Likewise, qualified students sometimes pick unqualified gurus. Thus, some in the Sogyal scandal think Sogyal was an unqualified guru. Others think that Sogyal chose unqualified students, or students who broke their samaya. Frankly, from a traditional point of view, there is no way one can argue that those letter-writing students did not injure their samaya when they composed their letter, since they all received empowerments from and with Sogyal. The whole point of samaya vows is to maintain the integrity of the Vajrayāna Sangha. The very first samaya vow is that one should not harshly criticize one's guru. This is even worse than criticizing the Buddha himself. The second one is that one should not cause conflict with vajra siblings.

Putting it that way, then your view expressed above make sense - paraphrasing - if one is not directly involved, there is no opinion to be drawn from the controversy. The one observation I can make is that something went very wrong for sure. And that is very concerning to me as a Buddhist because whatever the back story, as a symbol, it has taken a life of its own, and nothing about it reflects Buddhism well.

When it comes to Dharma ethics, we in the West tend to treat these as legal frameworks, but they are not. If anything, the Rigpa affair points to the deficit in corporate-style Buddhism; where feeder programs are created in order to introduce people into the path; who are in turn vetted for their actual interest in higher teachings and so on.

That relates to my comments above about my surprise at how openly guru yoga is known. Just seems like its a teaching and practice that really ought to be held in deep reserve. And your point is taken that this sort of "corporate-style" is flawed. Speculating, its that organization that might have been conducive to the "corporate" way in which the issues were brought to light. It followed the pattern you see throughout our society - 1. Complain to HR; 2. Escalate; 3. Go public. In making that observation I don't mean to discount what is alleged to have happened and the suffering experienced.