Sogyal Rinpoche in the US this November
PalyulNYC
November/December.
Go to http://www.rigpa.org for details.
Mary Finnigan
>Venerable Sogyal Rinpoche will be teaching in the United States this
>November/December.
>
>Go to http://www.rigpa.org for details.
guard. Strongly advise not to accept invitations to private interviews.
Mary
pat_...@hotmail.com
Thinking people reading Mary's post should also be aware that she "knows" for
a fact that Richard Gear did indeed stuff a hamster up his arse. Let's all
use our own best judgemnt re: Sogyal Rinpoche, hamsters, Richard Gear and
Mary Finnigan's views.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mary Finnigan
>
>Thinking people reading Mary's post should also be aware that she "knows" for
>a fact that Richard Gear did indeed stuff a hamster up his arse. Let's all
>use our own best judgemnt re: Sogyal Rinpoche, hamsters, Richard Gear and
>Mary Finnigan's views.
personally that the Richard Gere story is true. I said that it had been
thoroughly investigated by journalists and substantiated by accredited
correspondents in the USA. There is no comparison between this old
chestnut and the volume of evidence on Sogyal's abusive behaviour. The
fact that the writer uses personal malice to make his/her point says
more about him/her than it does about me.
Mary
pat_...@hotmail.com
Mary, the followuing is a copy of my a post by me, responding to a post by you
to another correspondent. If you or anybody else want to follow the tread, you
will all find that I have not slandered you - I've merely parapharsed you.
Please read you own words.
RE: more options
Author: pat_ryan
Email: pat_...@hotmail.com
Date: 1998/05/06
Forums: alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
more headers
author profile
view thread
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary, please have heart for a newbie, but... I've been reading your and
other's postings re: many subjects in this news group for the past few
weeks... some interesting, many well thought out and some (to me) quite
controversial... but when you *insist* that this urban myth is true, what am
I to think re: your other "insists" ? are all of your "insists" as well or
badly founded as this? curiously, but with best wishes, Patrick
In article <rNmztHAJ...@pema.demon.co.uk>#1/1,
Mary Finnigan <ma...@pema.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "Michael B." writes:
> >I have to confer with Mick's post here Mary...how could you believe this
> >even if it was published in US mags; that's no barometer of truth...I
> >have found your postings reasonable until this!
> I knew it was a mistake responding to this one... but alas I do have to
> insist...it *is* true.
> Mary
Mary Finnigan
>> "Michael B." writes:
>> >I have to confer with Mick's post here Mary...how could you believe this
>> >even if it was published in US mags; that's no barometer of truth...I
>> >have found your postings reasonable until this!
>> I knew it was a mistake responding to this one... but alas I do have to
>> insist...it *is* true.
series, in which I painstakingly explained that the RG story had been
checked out by journalists and substantiated. On this basis, I stuck to
my guns. I should have known better of course and it was inevitable that
it would haunt me.
Mary
Michael B.
ridiculous urban myth had been " checked out by journalists and
substantiated"....you said it came over the wire while you were working
for a news agency in LA....I don't think that means the story had been
substantiated by any means....also, you only gave your "source" after
being jumped on by many in this news group who were incredulous that you
could actually believe this and post it as "true"...My comment stands
that what you post as "truth" from your "sources" is questionable in
this light. Michael B.
Mary Finnigan
>....Mary, In your responses to this thread you never said this
>ridiculous urban myth had been " checked out by journalists and
>substantiated"....you said it came over the wire while you were working
>for a news agency in LA....
Mary
Mick_G
You have contribute much to this newsgroup over the time I've been reading
and posting here. But I remember that interchange on Geer, and frankly
after much typing on both sides, I think you came up short on evidence and
logic. I wouldn't keep talking about it if I were you, you are just digging
a deeper hole. As for Sogyal Rinpoche, I've heard in this area a lot of
allegations by you, not a lot of proof. You say it is well documented, but I
don't believe I've seen any reference by you to someplace I can look this
up? Also despite a lot of complaining, as far as I know Sogyal Rinpoche, is
not a monk, so has no vow of celibacy, so his sex life is his own?
Mick
Mary Finnigan wrote in message <85d2QBAW...@pema.demon.co.uk>...
pat_...@hotmail.com
Mary Finnigan <ma...@pema.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> "Michael B." writes:
> >> >I have to confer with Mick's post here Mary...how could you believe this
> >> >even if it was published in US mags; that's no barometer of truth...I
> >> >have found your postings reasonable until this!
> >> I knew it was a mistake responding to this one... but alas I do have to
> >> insist...it *is* true.
> Flogging of dead horse continues....This post came at the end of a
> series, in which I painstakingly explained that the RG story had been
> checked out by journalists and substantiated. On this basis, I stuck to
> my guns. I should have known better of course and it was inevitable that
> it would haunt me.
> Mary
>
Does this mean that you accept that I have not slandered you, Mary?
Slander is an unkind allegation - an allegation which should be sparingly made
(especially by one so "active" on this news group).
I did not mean to upset you so - obviously I did and for that I am sorry.
Let's all try to remain cival - let's not mistake healthy arguement and, in
this case, irrevential banter and/or teasing, for personal attacks warranting
angry reactions.
best wishes,
Patrick
Edwin Crabbe
>
>>
>>Thinking people reading Mary's post should also be aware that she "knows"
for
>>a fact that Richard Gear did indeed stuff a hamster up his arse. Let's all
>>use our own best judgemnt re: Sogyal Rinpoche, hamsters, Richard Gear and
>>Mary Finnigan's views.
>This is an inaccurate and slanderous message. I never said I knew
>personally that the Richard Gere story is true. I said that it had been
>thoroughly investigated by journalists and substantiated by accredited
>correspondents in the USA. There is no comparison between this old
>chestnut and the volume of evidence on Sogyal's abusive behaviour. The
>fact that the writer uses personal malice to make his/her point says
>more about him/her than it does about me.
>Mary
exact words, but you wanted to take it from you as gospel that this
ridiculous and apparently unsubstantiated story was true, and that you
*knew* it.
To your credit, you have not tried to hide your occupation, but it is that
sort of carelessness with the evidence and jumping to conclusions that makes
so many people look down on journalists.
When all regular readers know that MF is "just a Sogyal basher", it doesn't
help your cause.
Ed
Mary Finnigan
No, Sogyal's sex life is not his own business. He is in a position of
power, which he abuses. Despite pleas from HHDL, his superiors in the
Nyingma order, heartbroken requetsts from several of his former
followers, a lawsuit and widespread publicity which has done much harm
to the reputation of Tibetan Buddhism, he has never shown any remorse
for his self-indulgent behaviour. The abuse which Sogyal perpetrated
against women was not just a matter of sleeping with his disciples. It
went much further than that. I use the past tense here because I have no
direct evidence that he still behaves in this way, although I have heard
consistent rumours. I accept that I have been cagey about making the
material I have collected over time available on this ng. The reason for
this is twofold:
1. If I were to unpack it here, I would have to write at great length
and also seek permission from the people who have spoken to me on tape.
They did this on the understanding that their testimony would be used in
a book and that I would check what I write with them prior to
publication.
2. Without detailed exposition as above, I would run the risk of a libel
suit.
In terms of existing published material, I refer you to The Telegraph
Magazine cover story of 25 february 1995. This was exhaustively
researched and written by the distinguished journalist Mick Brown. As
you may know, the Daily Telegraph is an up-market, responsible
broadsheet newspaper.
>
In response to Patrick:
Your original post suggested that I had personal knowledge. I objected
to this because it is not correct and I never said this. By all means
let us remain civil -- and also be careful not to use unconnected
subject matter as ammunition in an entirely different debate. Your aim,
it seemed to me, was to cast doubt on the reliability of my information
about Sogyal. Anyone who knows me personally (there are several on this
ng) would inform you that I am meticulous in my research and that I
never make allegations which I cannot substantiate. Indeed, when many
people were sniping at me in an extremely malicious manner some time
ago, Chris Fynn posted a supportive message on my behalf, for which I am
very grateful.
Mary
The Puddies
I would like to say that I have corresponded for some time with Mary
Finnegan, and find her to be a very knowledgeable person regarding Tibetan
Buddhism, and a long time practitioner of this path, and believe she is
motivated not by hatred, in posting this kind of warning, but by compassion
and a desire to protect.
Regarding the claims about Sogyal Rinpoche, or any teacher, the idea should
always be "buyer beware" when it comes to sex with students. Presumably we
are adults here, but Mary has apparently had some very real information on
his activities involving students, which is not really quite what I, or
presumably anyone would want in a teacher for say, my sweet and
impressionable young friends for example.
Mary is warning people of a situation she feels could be damaging and I for
one respect that effort. Not everyone is as sharp about such things, and
some people need to be warned.
I think it is time for a repost of my "What to look for in a teacher" One
of those is that the teacher should NOT be hitting on the students for
sexual favors.
I personally have enjoyed Sogyals book and given it as a gift a couple of
times too. I would not be so foolish as to say he is not a valid or a good
teacher, but I think from what Mary has heard, it is definitely in order to
post a warning about his sexual interest in students. The gullible are
always with us, and some people need to be told.
Nuff said.
Evelyn
Mary Finnigan
>I would like to say that I have corresponded for some time with Mary
>Finnegan, and find her to be a very knowledgeable person regarding Tibetan
>Buddhism, and a long time practitioner of this path, and believe she is
>motivated not by hatred, in posting this kind of warning, but by compassion
>and a desire to protect.
effective, it is true. I am wary of statements of personal intent and
prefer to hope that comments on topics which move me also convey the
feeling behind them. The sadness I feel around Sogyal is intense,
because at one time I too had confidence in him. I also feel for all the
others who were betrayed. And I try, not very successfully, to feel for
Sogyal. This would be easier if he had shown some repentance and/or
apologised to those whose lives were blighted by his abuse. I am aware
that I am concerned in this context with relative world phenomena. At
Norbu R's recent teachings in Wales, I engaged in debate on this topic
with my friend Keith Dowman. His view on the behaviour of the teacher
and the absolute nature of samaya are in contradiction to my own. When
confronted with his authoritative explanations and vast knowledge of
Tibetan Buddhism, I am thrown into doubt. How do I know for sure that my
perspective is genuinely motivated by compassion? Do we misinterpret
this in our efforts to be kind and helpful? I have no answers to this
dilemma. It seems to me to be one of many aspects of Buddhism that has a
sting in its tail.
Mary
pat_...@hotmail.com
Mary Finnigan <ma...@pema.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In response to Micky-G:
...
snip
...
> >
> In response to Patrick:
> Your original post suggested that I had personal knowledge. I objected
> to this because it is not correct and I never said this. By all means
> let us remain civil -- and also be careful not to use unconnected
> subject matter as ammunition in an entirely different debate. Your aim,
> it seemed to me, was to cast doubt on the reliability of my information
> about Sogyal. Anyone who knows me personally (there are several on this
> ng) would inform you that I am meticulous in my research and that I
> never make allegations which I cannot substantiate. Indeed, when many
> people were sniping at me in an extremely malicious manner some time
> ago, Chris Fynn posted a supportive message on my behalf, for which I am
> very grateful.
> Mary
>
Thank you for your response, Mary.
Firstly, I don't quite understand the relevance of the distinction you make
re: <you accepting the truth of RG's intimacy with a hamster> vs. <you having
personal knowledge of the event>... What importance has difference between
"accepting" and "knowing"? Your acceptance of this urbane myth, and
insistance of it's truth is, say we say, rather odd and, for me, does little
to bolster your claim to reliability and the meticulous and accurate nature
of your research.
Maybe the best thing you can do is to just say sorry - you made a mistake re:
RG.
Secondly, we don't know each other - you cannot know my opinions or aims and I
cannot just accept, as your aquaintenes do, your meticulous-ness. We only know
each other from what we have written. Please feel free to power-search me to
your heart's content.
Lastly, do you now retract you acusation of slander?
Legal Beagle
Thank you for providing a service too few Buddhists like to
acknowledge. We all need to know who are teacher is before taking
Samaya vows. The more information one can get the better, IMHO. One
need not accept all the info, use your own discriminating wisdom, but I
believe that information should always be available.
I certainly wish I had known Mary before I entered into an unpleasant
acquaintanceship with a teacher I found exceptionally abusive of her
students' trust. Though Mary may be wrong, isn't it worth it to check
out her allegations before taking vows with a potentially abusive guru.
Thank you Mary ;-)
lita
Mary Finnigan
>
> I know Mary & would like to echo Evelyn's support of the
>motivation behind her postings. I also remember the time that she told
>us how difficult her role in the group sometimes is for her & the
>purification practice that she had dedicated to it. It is always heavy
>to talk about someone who isn't there to respond, even moreso a
>Teacher but sometimes it just must be done.
Thanks Barry. Sorry we did not get a chance to talk at Norbu R's
teachings. Caught and responded to your smile in my direction a couple
of times. NNR was awesome as always n'est-ce-pas? Re: Sogyal -- it would
be a major breakthrough in teacher-student relations if he were to
appear in our midst here to explain his position and answer the
allegations against him. I offered him the chance to speak for himself
several times, but to no avail.
Mary
Mary Finnigan
> Thank you for providing a service too few Buddhists like to
>acknowledge. We all need to know who are teacher is before taking
>Samaya vows. The more information one can get the better, IMHO. One
>need not accept all the info, use your own discriminating wisdom, but I
>believe that information should always be available.
>
> I certainly wish I had known Mary before I entered into an unpleasant
>acquaintanceship with a teacher I found exceptionally abusive of her
>students' trust. Though Mary may be wrong, isn't it worth it to check
>out her allegations before taking vows with a potentially abusive guru.
>Thank you Mary
Sogyal. In others it seems possible that the courage of *Janice Doe* in
bringing the lawsuit and that of the people who re-lived their painful
experiences for me may eventually lead to a more mature, discriminating
perspective among western Buddhists.
Mary
Richard Menninger
> Mary:
> You have contribute much to this newsgroup over the time I've been reading
> and posting here. But I remember that interchange on Geer, and frankly
> after much typing on both sides, I think you came up short on evidence and
> logic. I wouldn't keep talking about it if I were you, you are just digging
> a deeper hole. As for Sogyal Rinpoche, I've heard in this area a lot of
> allegations by you, not a lot of proof. You say it is well documented, but I
> don't believe I've seen any reference by you to someplace I can look this
> up? Also despite a lot of complaining, as far as I know Sogyal Rinpoche, is
> not a monk, so has no vow of celibacy, so his sex life is his own?
The worst part of Mary's getting involved in the RG
discussion is that it really sets the tone of bashing
any buddhist for potentially being a samsaric schmuck
in an earlier part of their life, which is quite a bit
different than worrying about teachers hitting on those
who would be their direct students, particularly teachers
that one had a role in the establishment of their early
connections in the west, what I have gathered is a fairly
reasonable description of Mary and Sogyal. To be upset
with what that turned out to be like and feeling that one
has some responsibility to warn students because of that
early connection has some validity to it. To go after
any potential early idiocies of some students who happen
to be public figures who now are advocates for Tibetan
causes puts one in the company of Gui and Liguo and the
real trashy rags and it tarnishes one's other acts.
Look at that one. If you assume the worst that it is true
that he managed to be dumb enough in the past to have used
a gerbil as a stunt double for having his head up his arse
then he just winds up being an example for us of how we
all start out being samsaric schmucks. Heck, that would
not even be very far into the tarpit of bad acts compared
to what all of us have done in our early days. It did not
even involve another human being directly harmed. If you
have a problem with this one, you better stay out of the
prison ministry as you are not suited for it. Many of
those who have gone on to hold these lineages have been
much worse, real felonious types, to start out. SO if that
is the worst dirt someone can try to pin on him, heck he is
rather tame to be really memorable in the annals of Tibetan
Buddhism. Personally, I DON'T assume it is true, but I
don't really care either way and it does not affect my
opinion of RG either way.
Take care of yourself
Dick Menninger
r...@dante.mh.lucent.com or rmenn...@lucent.com
Michael B.
something to this effect...Michael
Dennis Conkin
one about Rock Hudson and Gomer Pyle--etc. etc.), it is true that Sogyal
Rinpoche was sued in Santa Cruz, California several years ago over sexual
misconduct issues by "Pat Doe," and the $10 million civil claim was
eventually settled without trial. San Francisco Chronicle reporter Don Lattin
broke the story.I posted the news about Lattin's piece on a.r.b.t when it
happened. Civil lawsuits are public record, althrough the terms of the
settlement with Rigpa was confidential.
Mary's concern about the potential for abuse predates that particular
incident and her 'heads up' is an expression of her v. genuine concern. It's
very healthy that it is openly discussed and revisted periodically
in response to Rigpa spam or newbie questions about his book. Keith D
and others have a different view about the situation and those views are
also voiced.
dorje g
Mary Finnigan
>it is true that Sogyal
>Rinpoche was sued in Santa Cruz, California several years ago over sexual
>misconduct issues by "Pat Doe,"
woman who sued Sogyal was *Janice Doe*.
>and the $10 million civil claim was
>eventually settled without trial.
settlement was that only one other woman was prepared to face
questioning in open court in support of the allegations against Sogyal.
> San Francisco Chronicle reporter Don Lattin
>broke the story.I posted the news about Lattin's piece on a.r.b.t when it
>happened.
London, Jonathan Treasure, posted his view of the situation on arbt. I
have only one print-out of one of his postings, but I believe he did
make his reasons for leaving Rigpa clear.
> Civil lawsuits are public record, althrough the terms of the
>settlement with Rigpa was confidential.
would maintain strict secrecy on the terms and would not discuss the
suit. This was effectively a gagging order, which prevented Janice Doe
from talking to the media.
>
>
>Mary's concern about the potential for abuse predates that particular
>incident
Reply by e-mail if you wish.
> and her 'heads up' is an expression of her v. genuine concern.
> It's
>very healthy that it is openly discussed and revisted periodically
>in response to Rigpa spam or newbie questions about his book.
them to be there.
> Keith D
>and others have a different view about the situation and those views are
>also voiced.
long time who view the samaya between teacher and student as sacrosanct
and who believe that one should not criticise the guru, no matter how
serious apparent misconduct might be. I have remained friends with most
of these people, including one or two who are still devoted to Sogyal.
Equally, I have many friends who support my position wholeheartedly.
Mary
Michael
peace,
Michael
Mary Finnigan wrote in message ...
pat_...@hotmail.com
Thank you, Michael :)
A simple reminder...
Peace!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
PatSpahr9
Mary Finnigan
>yup. i saw rinpoche with HH Dalai Lama on just last Sunday...
following the defection from Rigpa London of several prominent members
concerned about his sexual excesses -- and the Janice Doe lawsuit, the
little fellow has devoted most of his time and energy to re-building his
power base. He has always cosied up to HHDL, but this has not always
been reciprocated. In a taped interview with me in January 1997, His
Holiness went on record, saying that he had warned Sogyal privately
about his sexual behaviour. In 1996, Sogyal tried to set up a showcase
Living and Dying Conference in California, with HHDL has the headline
speaker. When news of the lawsuit broke, HHDL declined to attend and the
conference was cancelled. There was also considerable embarrassment in
Tibetan circles when Sogyal attended the Third Conference of Western
Buddhist Teachers with HHDL in Dharamsala in 1997. Many delegates to
this conference were outraged -- not only by Sogyal's barefaced cheek in
turning up there, but also by the tone and content of his speeches.
Asked why Sogyal had been allowed to take part, officials in HHDL's
office explained that an announcement of the conference had been sent to
Tibetan dharma centres world-wide -- and that for this reason they could
not exclude Sogyal if he chose to attend.
Mary
Chris J Fynn
<ma...@pema.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Keith is only one of many people connected with TB I have known for a
> long time who view the samaya between teacher and student as sacrosanct
> and who believe that one should not criticise the guru, no matter how
> serious apparent misconduct might be. I have remained friends with most
> of these people, including one or two who are still devoted to Sogyal.
> Equally, I have many friends who support my position wholeheartedly.
> Mary
The samaya pledges in the vajrayana are pretty absolute - this is why
it is so important that a student should be 100% sure of a teacher
before making these solom comitment.s
In America, Chogyam Trungpa wisely made his students do several years
of sitting practice and have a good understanding of his teachings
before he even gave them refuge vows - let alone vajrayana
empowerments and samaya. This gave time for a students first flush of
enthusiasim to cool down - and plenty time for them to find something
out about the teacher.
People who have taken empowerments from a lama and then feel that
they are being abused or taken advantage of by that lama are in a
very difficult position. One way to sort out a problem like this
might be to take up the matter directly with a lama senior to the
lama concerned - i.e. his own teacher, the head of his tradition or
even the Dalai Lama.
pat_...@hotmail.com
your post re: HH the Dalai Lama's comments to you re: Sogyal Rinpoche has
greatly disturbed me.
Could you please post a transcript of this interview?
Thank you,
Patrick
In article <aA4vOAA0...@pema.demon.co.uk>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Mary Finnigan
writes
>Hello Mary,
>your post re: HH the Dalai Lama's comments to you re: Sogyal Rinpoche has
>greatly disturbed me.
>Could you please post a transcript of this interview?
and I do not, at this, stage wish to make it public. However, I can tell
you that it was part of a Q and A on the subject of degenerating moral
and ethical standards among lamas who come to the west. During this
exchange, HH mentioned an encounter with Sogyal, which happend some
years ago, prior to the Janice Doe lawsuit. HH was specific about the
advice he gave Sogyal. He was also specific that he has no control over
how lamas conduct themselves in the west and that all he can do is
advise. He also made it clear that he would never publicly denounce
individual lamas. In view of this position, his on the record statement
about Sogyal to me was execeptionally outspoken.
Mary
Mary Finnigan
>People who have taken empowerments from a lama and then feel that
>they are being abused or taken advantage of by that lama are in a
>very difficult position. One way to sort out a problem like this
>might be to take up the matter directly with a lama senior to the
>lama concerned - i.e. his own teacher, the head of his tradition or
>even the Dalai Lama.
I know several people who tried this approach, but most of them did not
feel they had achieved anything as a result. For example, HHDL received
a steady stream of letters about Sogyal at one stage. During a
particularly sticky patch in the history of Orgyen Choling/Rigpa,
several people approached Dudjom R-- and several people wrote to Penor R
to complain about Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo. I have also been given copies of
letters to HHDL about other lamas -- and also more generalised ones
about issues arising from alleged sexual and financial misconduct.
AFAIK, in most instances the complainants received anodyne replies,
expressing sympathy, but without any idications that steps would be
taken to put things right. It seems to me that solidarity among Tibetans
of all ranks and persuasions is still dominant -- especially in their
dealings with foreigners.
Mary
gonpog...@my-dejanews.com
This is tantra. Radical, total transformation of the student, through,
largely, the blessing of the lama. Once one has taken empowerment at a
certain level, samaya is the only issue-no matter what. Read about Naropa,
Mila, etc.
If a student enters into relationship with a teacher, regardless of what the
nature of that relationship is, responsiblity rests with the student, as
well as the teacher. Now, if a teacher is using his/her power or position
for sexual or financial ends, which I'm sure none of us supports, then the
students must not allow this to occur--by discussing with the teacher, and,
if no other course of action is feasible, by ending the relationship. I
don't think there have been students who were forced to donate large sums of
money, or have sexual relations, with Tibetan masters. Rape and robbery are
serious charges, mind you.
If Naropa were in America today, do you think he'd sue Tilopa for asking him
to jump of the roof, or for slapping him in the face with his shoe?
Michael B.
evidence for her statements....other than name dropping...not saying I
know any better but from observing Mary's responses over time to people
requesting evidence of her accusations as in the Richard Gere/gerbil
nonsense...take what she says with a grain of salt...also, I don't think
it helps her credibility that she is working on a book on these topics.
Just some observations...I certainly keep some of what she says in the
back of my mind as possible and I don't completely disregard all she
says but I'm not going to place my faith in lamas based solely on her
info and "sources" which always seem to elude the light of day. Michael
gonpog...@my-dejanews.com
Mary,, I don't know you, really, but I have been reading your posts on these
newsgroups, and most recently the above-included post. A couple questions,
if I may--
Why are you writing this book? What good do you hope to serve by publishing
something of this nature? Perhaps I'm misinterpreting this, but it sounds
like an expose, if you will...does Dharma in the West really need such a
thing? I will assume that your motives are more honorable than just
capitalistic--because you seem to be a genuinely concerned person. It seems
to me that the vast majority of practitioners in the Tibetan traditions here
in the West have been made aware, several times, of the potential pitfalls of
entering into relationships with Tibetan lamas. Who is your book's target
audience?
Mary, do we really need a Dharma cop? Please understand--I'm not saying that
some of these allegations don't carry weight, or that the issue of power and
abuse is not important. I'm just concerned about the way these issues are
presented, and who they're presented to, and why. I'm asking you to examine
your motivations, as well as to share them with us here, who are all
interested in making sure that the Dharma, in its Tibetan form, continues to
flourish.
Mary Finnigan
woman. Can anyone let me know if this is true or false?
Mary
Mary Finnigan
> I
>don't think there have been students who were forced to donate large sums of
>money, or have sexual relations, with Tibetan masters.
who have been seduced into both of these situations.
> Rape and robbery are
>serious charges, mind you.
saying this is an item for the BBC's Radio 4 Sunday programme. The lama
in question was not identified publicly.
>
>If Naropa were in America today, do you think he'd sue Tilopa for asking him
>to jump of the roof, or for slapping him in the face with his shoe?
Mary
Mary Finnigan
>Why are you writing this book?
> What good do you hope to serve by publishing
>something of this nature?
history. One thing I do know though, is that nothing beneficial comes
from trying to pretend that problems do not exist. Under the rug, they
fester and the burst forth with more destructive power than they would
have if they were faced with open integrity.
> Perhaps I'm misinterpreting this, but it sounds
>like an expose, if you will...does Dharma in the West really need such a
>thing?
There are elements of my work which *expose* some aspects of the conduct
of Tibetan lamas in the west which may not previously have been examined
in public. However, this is not the main focus of the book. Its overall
theme is the *influence* of Tibetan lamas in the west. It dwells as
much, if not more, on the positive as it does on the negative. It also
explores cultural dissonance, from both sides -- Tibetan and western. It
has a sociological perspective, but also one of a committed
practitioner.
>
snip
>
> Who is your book's target
>audience?
General readership -- but probably more of interest to people with some
knwoledge of TB.
>
>Mary, do we really need a Dharma cop?
What do you mean by this? AFAIK, there are hundreds of people who
observe with concern. I am told that HHDL voiced his concern about
issues connected with the tulku system and how this is being over-
interpreted in the west, at his most recent public teachings in
Dharamsala.
> I'm asking you to examine
>your motivations, as well as to share them with us here, who are all
>interested in making sure that the Dharma, in its Tibetan form, continues to
>flourish.
Yawn-- sorry I don't mean to be rude, but I have covered this ground ad
nauseam. See Deja News.
Mary
Don Martin
****** This 'rumour' has now been spread all over the internet!
--
Don,
( Foolishness personified and a friend of Sam Sara.)
Don Martin
Mary Finnigan <ma...@pema.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm sorry, but this material is destined for my book (long time coming)
> and I do not, at this, stage wish to make it public. However, I can tell
> you that it was part of a Q and A on the subject of degenerating moral
> and ethical standards among lamas who come to the west. During this
> exchange, HH mentioned an encounter with Sogyal, which happend some
> years ago, prior to the Janice Doe lawsuit. HH was specific about the
> advice he gave Sogyal. He was also specific that he has no control over
> how lamas conduct themselves in the west and that all he can do is
> advise. He also made it clear that he would never publicly denounce
> individual lamas.
****** You say that H.H. 'made it clear' that he would never publicly
denounce individual lamas, and at the same time you are telling us that
this material is destined for your book. Would that not amount to
denouncing him on H.H.'s behalf without his permission?
I also have some difficulty it seeing how you intend to ensure that
'fact' is separated from 'well spread rumours' about certain lama's
activities. To what length are you willing to go to substantiate what you
have been told? I know of more than one instance where individuals with a
grievance have set out to trash a teachers reputation. With so many well
known scandals already in the public forum, I would urge you to seek
'absolute confirmation' of any new smut being exposed, otherwise your
intended book could well do more harm than good.
Mary Finnigan
>
>****** This 'rumour' has now been spread all over the internet!
or not.
Mary
Mary Finnigan
>****** You say that H.H. 'made it clear' that he would never publicly
>denounce individual lamas, and at the same time you are telling us that
>this material is destined for your book. Would that not amount to
>denouncing him on H.H.'s behalf without his permission?
means that anything he/she says is on the record and can be used as
published material. In these circumstances, often the inetrviewee will
ask for the atpe to be switched off, if they wish to say something which
is for *background* only and cannot be quoted. HHDL did this a couple of
times during the interview in question, but not when he spoke about his
advice to Sogyal. After the interview, Tibetan officials also present
remarked on the strength of the statements HH had made. It is also worth
noting that during the first Conference of Western Buddhist Teachers, HH
was questioned in detail by several western teachers, about what
measures students can apply to remedy absusive situations. HH replied
that students should address the pereceived problem with the teacher and
try to resolve it. If this does not work, he said, try approaching a
senior lama. If this brings no results, he continued, then *tell the
newspapers.* It was clear that HH saw the latter option as a last
resort, but also a valid course of action.
>
> I also have some difficulty it seeing how you intend to ensure that
>'fact' is separated from 'well spread rumours' about certain lama's
>activities.
professionalism. Nothing that appears in print or is broadcast with my
by-line is unsubstantiated rumour. In the early days of my working life
with the BBC, I was a sub in the World Service Newsroom. It was there
that I learned to present my sources, so that editors could see at a
glance where the material had come from. No World Service story goes out
without at least two sources. This is a discipline I have maintained
ever since.
>have been told?
> I know of more than one instance where individuals with a
>grievance have set out to trash a teachers reputation.
that Tibetan lamas are a special case -- that they should be exempt from
accountability and/or scrutiny by people who have placed their trust in
them? Are you suggesting that if this trust is abused, we should pretend
that no harm has been done? That we should allow abuse to continue
unchecked? Where else in your daily life do you apply these principles?
To the supermarket which sells you a bottle of corked wine? To an
unnfaithful lover?
>known scandals already in the public forum, I would urge you to seek
>'absolute confirmation' of any new smut being exposed, otherwise your
>intended book could well do more harm than good.
not at ease with the role of smutfinder...and that I do not adopt this
attitude towards my work.
Mary
Michael B.
> that I learned to present my sources, so that editors could see at a
> glance where the material had come from. No World Service story goes out
> without at least two sources. This is a discipline I have maintained
> ever since.
> > To what length are you willing to go to substantiate what you
> >have been told?
> See above
Richard Gere and gerbil story...I'm just trying to point out your own
inconsistencies that lead me to take what you say with a grain of
salt...you repeatedly posted on this newsgroup how you had reliable
sources to verify this as true...then when many were incredulous this
was your "source" (quoted from Deja News):> Dates back from my time as a
reporter. LA correspondent did some
> checking. Helpless laughter in the office, but we did not use the story.
> I wish I had never jumped in. Deserve the flak this time.
> Vale.
> mary
This hardly seems like one let alone two verified sources...Michael
Edwin Crabbe
>without at least two sources. This is a discipline I have maintained
>ever since.
Don Martin wrote:
>> To what length are you willing to go to substantiate what you
>>have been told?
Mary Finnigan wrote:
>See above
Don Martin wrote:
>> I know of more than one instance where individuals with a
>>grievance have set out to trash a teachers reputation.
Mary Finnigan wrote:
>More often than not these grievances are genuine.
Ed now asks:
How do you know? Because you have more than one source? That's what you
claim above. That means that once a malicious lie starts to spread and to
become a rumour, you'll treat it as true? That's what makes someone a
rumour-monger. Isn't that how you went wrong with the gerbil story?
Or because the source agrees with your presumption of guilt?
I don't doubt that you are probably addressing important issues, and I don't
doubt that *some* of the stories you report are true, but from what you say,
your book will only be another collection of rumours.
Or are you going to clearly identify your sources if the book comes out?
Ed
Mary Finnigan
>Richard Gere and gerbil story
Mary
gonpog...@my-dejanews.com
Apples and oranges are a good source of vitamins an fiber; I don't know if
they can provide you with much information about Richard Gere, Buddhism, or
anything else, however....:-)
Seriously, though, Mary--
What he's getting at is your methodology--no matter what the issue is, it's
the methodology he's concerned about--apples and apples, I say.
(I missed the whole gerbil thing...and I'm not going to go back and look!!)
gonpog...@my-dejanews.com
Perhaps because no one cares.
What difference does it make if a lama marries a western woman?
Mary, I've read all your answers, to my questions as well as to questions
posed by others. All I ask is that you make certain that whatever
information you publish, here or in a book, is relevant. It is true that one
needs to be careful when deciding upon any aspect of relationship with any
teacher, much less with a Tantric Guru....and it is also true that there have
been instances of Tibetan, and non-Tibetan, Gurus who have "taken advantage"
of such relationships. But I'm still not certain that your work will do
anything but harm. Do you think that those who claim to have been in such
negative relationships would have been helped, had they had your handy
"Guidebook to Philandering Buddhists?" In such situations, common sense is
the most helpful tool.....and I don't think you can instill common sense.
It's been my experience that westerners are "respected" by their Tibetan
teachers. Perhaps there have been some students who were not "respected,"
and who were taken advantage of, on an individual basis. But to infer, as
you do, that Tibetan teachers do not give westerners the respect we "deserve"
smacks of cultural superiority. You didn't mean that, did you? "Oh, those
backwards Tibetans..." or "Oh, those backwards Indians, slapping each other
in the face with their shoes, for goodness sake...."
Sometimes "respect" is what you think you deserve, when what you really need
is a healthy dose of "disrespect." (I knw I'm going to catch some flak for
this--oh, well).
Michael B.
>
> >Mary, You didn't seem to check two sources on your postings about the
> >Richard Gere and gerbil story
> Apples and oranges.
> Mary
could be so easily dismissed. The issue is your credibility and the
verifiability of what you report as true...Michael
CervenFinn
When will your book be coming out?
What is it called? Who will be pub-
lishing it?
Regards, - Rick
pat_...@hotmail.com
preserving a "scoop" for your "book" (to be published when? please inform)is
more important than setting the record straight re: your posting re:
statements made to you by HHDL re: Sogyal Rinpoche? In your post you say the
interview was in January 1997 - that is almost two years ago - is it not time
to post a transcript? As I said, your posting has disturbed me... the words,
example and teachings of HHDL mean a great deal... Please reconsider your
actions re: withholding such information in the light of the effect your
posts are having - certainly on me, if no one else.
Patrick
In article <2vxUVCAU...@pema.demon.co.uk>,
Mary Finnigan <ma...@pema.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <72h50m$s5v$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, pat_...@hotmail.com
> writes
> >Hello Mary,
> >your post re: HH the Dalai Lama's comments to you re: Sogyal Rinpoche has
> >greatly disturbed me.
> >Could you please post a transcript of this interview?
> I'm sorry, but this material is destined for my book (long time coming)
> and I do not, at this, stage wish to make it public. However, I can tell
> you that it was part of a Q and A on the subject of degenerating moral
> and ethical standards among lamas who come to the west. During this
> exchange, HH mentioned an encounter with Sogyal, which happend some
> years ago, prior to the Janice Doe lawsuit. HH was specific about the
> advice he gave Sogyal. He was also specific that he has no control over
> how lamas conduct themselves in the west and that all he can do is
> advise. He also made it clear that he would never publicly denounce
> individual lamas. In view of this position, his on the record statement
> about Sogyal to me was execeptionally outspoken.
> Mary
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Mary Finnigan
I do not wish to contribute further to this thread, but I do understand
that facing up to the issues it has raised could be a painful
experience. Many people have been through this process and some of them
have contributed to the debate here. I sympathise, but I also know that
shedding illusions is a *wake up* that many of us need and eventually
find to be beneficial. I will not publish any material destined for my
book on this ng. I have already explained my reasons for this, which are
largely based on respecting the wishes of people who provided me with
details of their experiences. I cannot tell you now when the book will
be published, but I will post a notice here when I know this. And yes,
it is taking a long time. If you wish to discuss this further, please e-
mail me.
Mary
The Puddies
pat_...@hotmail.com wrote in message <72rbjc$5ei$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Hello again, Mary, I'm a little troubled... Am I to understand that
>preserving a "scoop" for your "book" (to be published when? please
inform)is
>more important than setting the record straight re: your posting re:
>statements made to you by HHDL re: Sogyal Rinpoche? In your post you say
the
>interview was in January 1997 - that is almost two years ago - is it not
time
>to post a transcript? As I said, your posting has disturbed me... the
words,
>example and teachings of HHDL mean a great deal... Please reconsider your
>actions re: withholding such information in the light of the effect your
>posts are having - certainly on me, if no one else.
>
>Patrick
Patrick,
Forgive me for cutting into this discussion, but if it turns out to be true,
that Sogyal has been a bit more of a ladies man than we think he ought to
be, would you throw out all that he has taught you as garbage?
Would discovering that your teacher was human with human needs and desires
make you cast him away completely? So what if he is a human being, and as
I understand it, he has not been ordained as a celibate monk, he has acted
as a free agent, a single man, and to some degree a bit predatory...... Have
you gained nothing from him?
This attitude is what bugs me about so many people.... seeking perfection in
an imperfect world from imperfect human beings. Throwing away the baby
with the bath water. (Not to bring up the analogy of those who presently
bash Clinton....)
Sogyal is NOT my teacher, but I enjoyed his book "The Tibetan Book of Living
and Dying" very very much. I gave it to my brother in law who was dying of
cancer, and he got great comfort and understanding from it. I have given
it out as gifts to several people. I would still do so.
Does it make 'sense' that he can speak words of wisdom on the one hand and
behave like a male predator on the other? I stopped looking for 'sense'
in the universe a long time ago.
If he has behaved foolishly he will reap the reactions of that foolishness,
but that does not mean that he has not spoken the truth from time to time
and been very helpful to many people. I wrote a letter a long time ago,
which I did post a couple of times about a situation where a famous teacher
was accused of having a sexual relationship with a woman. I weighed all
the factors and concluded then, that finding that ones revered and inspiring
teacher may have actually at some time or other, behaved like a human being,
eating, shitting, having sex, did NOT preclude their having been wise, or
having been able to help human beings too.
If you are interested, write me and I will send you a copy.... it seems that
you are wrestling with some of those ideas right now, Patrick..... maybe my
letter will help you to see what I thought when hearing such things about a
formerly and still- revered teacher. The truth or non truth of such
allegations is less important than how you deal with it.
Remember the zen saying "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him"??????
Do you know what it means?
Regards,
Evelyn
pat_...@hotmail.com
I appreciate all and any gestures of kindness on this website - g/God(s)
knows, we need them! I am trying very hard not to post harsh and critical
ripostes on this website - sometimes it is very, very difficult.
I've already been accused of malicious and slanderous posting - not a pleasent
experience (poor me!).
I hope my subsequent attempts to post more carefully have not appeared
crestfallen and sad along-side all the other confident, positive, certain
opinions on this site.
Yes, as I said to Mary, I'm a little troubled...
part (but, by no means all) of my troubles are re: her campaign against Sogyal
Rinpoche and then her dismissal of all requests for facts with excuses of
protecting sources, English libel laws etc.
In the case of her interview with HHDL, she has already "blown his (i.e.
HHDL's) cover" - so let's hear the facts!
Doe's anybody actually know (and is willing to post) details of the Janet Doe
court case?
Mary has alluded (in a post re: samaya) to having been personally
disappointed by Sogyal - maybe she should reflect a little further on this...
I don't think any of us (inc. me, me, me - okay?) are alone in being
personally dissapointed by encounters with teachers, fellow travelers and
experiences on the path...
But...
At the end of the day, what has this long series of posts accomplished? Have
we behaved well? Have we angered others, been dismissive or cutting? Have we
lost our sense of perspective? Have we reacted a little obsessively? I know
I'm guilty on all counts...
Have we unearthed any facts? I dunno... what are facts?
and as for the buddha in the bathwater?
I don't think s/he really cares :)
peace :)
Patrick
In article <72rjc5$1g8o$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
gonpog...@my-dejanews.com
Thank you for posting this. The fact that a teacher can have a "private"
life, relationship, or even (gasp) relationships, while still being an
effective, and even, perhaps, and enlightening teacher, is important. While
I certainly support Mary F's attempts to banish abuse, sexual and otherwise,
in the dharma community, it is vitally important to recognize the above
view--
Having said that, the Dalai Lama recommends that westerners aspire to find
teachers who are monks. We don't wonder why, do we??
Konchog Norbu
Tsewang Gyatso. He pointed out that in this degenerate
time it was probably impossible to encounter an actual
Buddha. So one searches for the most qualified teacher
one can find. If you find one that is, say, 75% qualified,
just focus on that 75% and you receive 100% qualities.
Just leave the other 25% alone. If one is practicing
as a bodhisattva, one is striving for the wisdom and
power of enlightenment to spontaneously benefit others.
How is that possible if one is just focussing on the
faults? It's the qualities we need for our path, not
the faults. So to obsess over faults is, in this
scenario, to betray the sentient beings one has
pledged to liberate, and therefore quite serious
negative karma. Plus, it may be that our omniscience
has failed us just a little and the "faults" are
not at all what they seem. How much more intelligent,
then, to simply seek and apply positive qualities
and recognize and avoid negative ones?
Konchog
Avyorth Rolinson
Konchog Norbu <kon...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:365250...@radix.net...
>We had a very helpful teaching on this matter by Khenpo
>Tsewang Gyatso. He pointed out that in this degenerate
>time it was probably impossible to encounter an actual
>Buddha.
Still peddling this old mythic 'fairy tale' stuff, Konchog? "Degenerate
times", my bottom!
Yours in the Dh (ark)
gonpog...@my-dejanews.com
Konchog Norbu <kon...@radix.net> wrote:
> We had a very helpful teaching on this matter by Khenpo
> Tsewang Gyatso. He pointed out that in this degenerate
> time it was probably impossible to encounter an actual
> one can find. If you find one that is, say, 75% qualified,
> just focus on that 75% and you receive 100% qualities.
> Just leave the other 25% alone. If one is practicing
> as a bodhisattva, one is striving for the wisdom and
> power of enlightenment to spontaneously benefit others.
> How is that possible if one is just focussing on the
> faults? It's the qualities we need for our path, not
> the faults. So to obsess over faults is, in this
> scenario, to betray the sentient beings one has
> pledged to liberate, and therefore quite serious
> negative karma. Plus, it may be that our omniscience
> has failed us just a little and the "faults" are
> not at all what they seem. How much more intelligent,
> then, to simply seek and apply positive qualities
> and recognize and avoid negative ones?
>
> Konchog
Konchog--
I agree with you, largely, with some additional comments--
Sometimes the 25% "negative" can be the overwhelming and deciding part. (In
which case, I guess, it wouldn't be the 25%, huh??)
What I'm trying to say, is that Mary has some valid concerns and points, in
a general way, about the teacher-student relationship, and the potential for
abuse. Physical and sexual abuse have no place in the Dharma--(although I
define abuse a bit differently than most--I'd love to be smacked on the head
with Tilopa's sandal--what a payoff!)--
In my opinion, if I discovered that a teacher was abusive, I would have a
tough time overlooking that fact, even if the teachings were wonderful. We
do have to be realistic--in this day and age--which is what I'm reading in
your post.
Regarding some of Mary's allegations, I have no clue. I thought that a
court of law had dismissed the Sogyal case. Mary seems to feel that Sogyal
isn't a "true" teacher--based on what I've seen, she has no way of proving
that he's not qualified. She claims his book was not written by him--so
what? In the Tibetan tradition, plagiarism is the highest form of
compliment. I guess she implies it was "ghostwritten"-- I've read his book,
and it all strikes me as right on the mark, with a unique approach which suits
some western-culture-oriented folks, while still remaining true to the Dharma.
Mary has an agenda, it seems--and we must seperate her valid concerns, which
may in fact include specific allegations or incidents, from her other issues,
whatever those may be. The real question; whether to enter into a
relationship with a given teacher, remains a personal choice, and all that
has been said before regarding making this choice--the necessity of
researching the teacher, getting to know him/her before entering into a
"serious" committed relationship, and above all, remaining realistic and
realizing human limitations-should be repeatedly emphasized.
Richard Menninger
> Konchog Norbu <kon...@radix.net> wrote in message
> news:365250...@radix.net...
> >Tsewang Gyatso. He pointed out that in this degenerate
> >time it was probably impossible to encounter an actual
> >Buddha.
> times", my bottom!
Avyorth,
If you don't think the current time is rather degenerate,
then I would shudder to think of living in a time that
would be considered degenerate by you. But the meaning
is rather specific as dharmic use. It references how
many actively practice out of the total human population
and how well the teachings continue to be thoroughly and
accurately transmitted among those practicing. By calling
it 'fairy tale' stuff you are actually contributing to it
being accurately characterized as a degenerate time in
terms of transmission of the teachings. So your statement
unwittingly reinforces the classification.
By the way, what IS degenerate times about your bottom?
:-)
Take care of yourself
Dick Menninger
r...@dante.mh.lucent.com or rmenn...@lucent.com
Mike Austin
>We had a very helpful teaching on this matter by Khenpo
>Tsewang Gyatso. He pointed out that in this degenerate
>time it was probably impossible to encounter an actual
>one can find. If you find one that is, say, 75% qualified,
>just focus on that 75% and you receive 100% qualities.
>Just leave the other 25% alone.
Last year, when Rizong Rinpoche was teaching at our Centre, he said that
there are an absolute minimum of two qualifications for a valid mahayana
spiritual guide. Firstly, he considers future lives more important than
this life. Secondly, he considers the welfare of others more important
than his own welfare. The question is, how do we check this? They say up
to 12 years may be necessary.
Let us not forget, there are requirements from the student's side also -
and those are something we are more able to work on.
--
Mike Austin
Konchog Norbu
>
> Avyorth Rolinson wrote:
>
> > Konchog Norbu <kon...@radix.net> wrote in message
> > news:365250...@radix.net...
> > >Tsewang Gyatso. He pointed out that in this degenerate
> > >time it was probably impossible to encounter an actual
> > >Buddha.
>
> > times", my bottom!
>
> Avyorth,
>
> If you don't think the current time is rather degenerate,
> then I would shudder to think of living in a time that
> would be considered degenerate by you. But the meaning
> is rather specific as dharmic use. It references how
> many actively practice out of the total human population
> and how well the teachings continue to be thoroughly and
> accurately transmitted among those practicing. By calling
> it 'fairy tale' stuff you are actually contributing to it
> being accurately characterized as a degenerate time in
> terms of transmission of the teachings. So your statement
> unwittingly reinforces the classification.
>
look at Buddhist history and, you know, just look around,
it's totally accurate. I mean, is it even conceivable we
would ever experience a time like, say, 17th-18th c. Tibet
again? With the general orientation of people's minds?
It hurts me to say it, but I really doubt it.
Konchog
Legal Beagle
you wrote:
> I mean, is it even conceivable we
> would ever experience a time like, say, 17th-18th c. Tibet
> again? With the general orientation of people's minds?
> It hurts me to say it, but I really doubt it.
Why would we want to? Do you think that Dharma can exist only within
the confines of one ethnic group? You say earlier that these are
degenerate times. Yet it seems that we move toward a more humanitarian
world day to day. Surely there was more of man's inhumanity to man
during the Dark Ages? Witch Burnings, torture....endless. Of course it
goes on now too, however, we as a society value human life and by
extension are more humanitarian. I think anyone who studies history
will find that at this time, the turn of the millenium, in spite of all
the doomsday predictors, we are generating more merit than at any other
point in history.
take care of yourself,
lita
Mike Austin
<lilt...@hotmail.com> writes
>You say earlier that these are
>degenerate times. Yet it seems that we move toward a more humanitarian
>world day to day. Surely there was more of man's inhumanity to man
>during the Dark Ages? Witch Burnings, torture....endless. Of course it
>goes on now too, however, we as a society value human life and by
>extension are more humanitarian. I think anyone who studies history
>will find that at this time, the turn of the millenium, in spite of all
>the doomsday predictors, we are generating more merit than at any other
>point in history.
In the centre of the wheel of life, there is a snake coming out of the
mouth of a cockerel which comes out of the mouth of a pig. The pig, in
turn comes out of the mouth of the snake. The pig (ignorance) is at the
root of suffering, out of which arises the cockerel (attachment), and
the snake (aversion). These enforce and perpetuate one another.
We may be living in relative peace and comfort at the moment (at least
in the West) but I think this is because we are partaking of the finite
resources from our planet at an increasing rate. This is based not just
on the greed which arises from fundamental ignorance, but also on quite
obvious stupidity! Moreover, there is generally very little attempt to
really cut at the root of the problem - not much real dharma practice.
Then, the resources will gradually dwindle and there will be scrambling
to maintain lifestyle to which we've become attached. Then, there will
rise aversion towards those who compete for these reduced resources and
then will arise conflict. In the conflict, few will be able to practise
and the dharma will reach a very low ebb.
I'm sure we can see all these factors in place now. Never before has it
been possible to take so much 'enjoyment' from this earth. It is going
to be very hard to accept losing it. So, the fortunate ones amongst us
who have met with Buddhadharma, now is the time to practise!
--
Mike Austin
Legal Beagle
While I agree with almost all you write, I still think this is a time
when Dharma is flourishing throughout the world. Elements of Dharma
have entered the western conciousness for good. While many Buddhists
look down at the 'New Agers', it is the New Agers who are bringing
Buddhist concepts, albeit bastardized, to the general public.
Of course suffering exists as it always has. I grew up in a place
called Lagos, Nigeria. The center of Hell. The value of a human life
there is nothing. Dead humans and animals alike rot where they fall if
no relative arrives to dispose of the body. That said, I still say that
Dharma is more widely circulated now than ever before. With mass
communication and, of course, cyberspace, Dharma is everywhere,
compassion is growing. Why do some Buddhists insist on a Christian type
of Revelations situation going on now?
lita
Mark Dunlop
>>Hello again, Mary, I'm a little troubled... Am I to understand that
>>preserving a "scoop" for your "book" (to be published when? please
>inform)is
>>more important than setting the record straight re: your posting re:
>>statements made to you by HHDL re: Sogyal Rinpoche? In your post you say
>the
>>interview was in January 1997 - that is almost two years ago - is it not
>time
>>to post a transcript? As I said, your posting has disturbed me... the
>words,
>>example and teachings of HHDL mean a great deal... Please reconsider your
>>actions re: withholding such information in the light of the effect your
>>posts are having - certainly on me, if no one else.
>>
>>Patrick
>
Patrick,
There is a 1993 report from Stephen Batchelor about Western Dharma
Teachers meeting HHDL, in which some of these issues are discussed:
http://www.dzogchen.org/wbtc/sbatchelor.html
HHDL's views as reported there seem consistent with what Mary has
reported earlier in this thread, eg.:
If a teacher's actions are unethical, responded the Dalai Lama , then
even if they have practised for many years, their practice has been
wrong. Quite simply, they lack a proper understanding of the dharma.
There is a "gap" between the dharma and their lives. He challenged the
idea that once one has insight into the ultimate truth of emptiness,
then one is no longer bound by the norms of morality. On the contrary:
through revealing the web of relationships that ethically connects all
living beings, the understanding of emptiness does not mystically
transcend morality but grounds it in experience.
[and later on]...
What is at stake here is the standing and repute of Buddhism itself,
which, for the Dalai Lama , serves not least as a crucial component for
our times in creating peace in the world. Even if one has received great
personal benefit from a teacher - even if one has taken tantric vows of
discipleship with him, the integrity of the Buddhist tradition must take
precedence over guarding that teacher's reputation when he is justly
accused of ethical misconduct. When there is incontrovertible evidence
of wrong-doing, then it is one's responsibility to take action. "Make
voice!" he insisted. "Give warning! We no longer tolerate!" The Dalai
Lama encouraged us repeatedly to criticise such behaviour openly, even,
if all else fails, to "name names in newspapers." As his own example
showed, this does not mean that one has to abandon one's spiritual
relationship with that teacher. Such actions are, of course, hardly
likely to endear one to him. So what to do? The Dalai Lama had a simple
answer: "Pack your bags. A teacher can kick out your body, but he cannot
kick out your mind."
>
.................
The Puddies wrote:
>Forgive me for cutting into this discussion, but if it turns out to be true,
>that Sogyal has been a bit more of a ladies man
The allegations and stories are quite a lot stronger than that SR is/was
a bit of a ladies man. Serial rapist seems closer to the mark, if the
stories and allegations I have heard are true. I read Mick Brown's(?)
article in The Telegraph (a respectable UK newspaper) and have also
talked to a couple of strongly dissaffected ex-Rigpa women. I cannot
know 100% for sure whether these stories are true or not, but certainly
the stories and allegations amount to a lot more than that Sogyal is/was
a bit of a ladies man. He is alleged by various sources to have
repeatedly used his religious status to coerce sexual relations with
female students, and to have been in various ways psychologically
abusive. This is a long way different to having a girlfriend (or two) on
the side.
>than we think he ought to
>be, would you throw out all that he has taught you as garbage?
>
You certainly ought to question it.
>Would discovering that your teacher was human with human needs and desires
>make you cast him away completely?
'human' covers such a wide range, from saint to psycopath.
> So what if he is a human being, and as
>I understand it, he has not been ordained as a celibate monk, he has acted
>as a free agent, a single man, and to some degree a bit predatory
*very* predatory, if the stories are true.
>...... Have
>you gained nothing from him?
>
>This attitude is what bugs me about so many people.... seeking perfection in
>an imperfect world from imperfect human beings.
But you have to draw the line somewhere though, otherwise there is no
difference between right and wrong, skillful and unskillful, ethical and
unethical.
> Throwing away the baby
>with the bath water. (Not to bring up the analogy of those who presently
>bash Clinton....)
>
>Sogyal is NOT my teacher, but I enjoyed his book "The Tibetan Book of Living
>and Dying" very very much. I gave it to my brother in law who was dying of
>cancer, and he got great comfort and understanding from it. I have given
>it out as gifts to several people. I would still do so.
>
>Does it make 'sense' that he can speak words of wisdom
There are tons of books containing words of wisdom. Its a whole
industry.
>on the one hand and
>behave like a male predator on the other? I stopped looking for 'sense'
>in the universe a long time ago.
>
>If he has behaved foolishly he will reap the reactions of that foolishness,
and so will his victims.
>but that does not mean that he has not spoken the truth from time to time
>and been very helpful to many people.
The village postmistress and many ordinary people acheive the same,
without going round claiming to be giving spiritual teachings.
>
> I wrote a letter a long time ago,
>which I did post a couple of times about a situation where a famous teacher
>was accused of having a sexual relationship with a woman. I weighed all
>the factors and concluded then, that finding that ones revered and inspiring
>teacher may have actually at some time or other, behaved like a human being,
>eating, shitting, having sex, did NOT preclude their having been wise, or
>having been able to help human beings too.
>
The issue is not 'human-ness', but deception and manipulation, and
degrees thereof.
The relationship between a teacher and a student is a special one. It is
a relationship of trust. A student would be unwise to completely trust a
teacher, but equally a student must have *some* trust in and respect
for a teacher, otherwise they may never learn anything new. If a teacher
abuses that trust, you cannot necessarily blame the student for having
been gullible in having had a degree of trust in that teacher. The
teacher, or the institution which supports them, may bear some
responsibilty.
>If you are interested, write me and I will send you a copy.... it seems that
>you are wrestling with some of those ideas right now, Patrick..... maybe my
>letter will help you to see what I thought when hearing such things about a
>formerly and still- revered teacher. The truth or non truth of such
>allegations is less important than how you deal with it.
>
>Remember the zen saying "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him"??????
>Do you know what it means?
>
Yeah, it means nuke those new age platitudes!
--
Mark Dunlop
Tibetbud
>spiritual guide. Firstly, he considers future lives more important than
>this life
pretty much everything heard in at least popular culture over the last 30 years
has been about the benefit of living in the here and now and now being deluded
my mental perceptions of the past and future. so, a logical question is of
what benefit is it to ignore this life (that we are all living) and consider
FUTURE lives more important than this one? When, in the Buddha's own thought,
contemplation of the future was no more than idle speculation.
The Puddies
Tibetbud replied in message <19981119033002...@ng102.aol.com>...
to this comment;
Yes, that is true..... Buddhism is almost unique in the thought that it
deals with the here and the now far more than some future afterlife.
Buddhism is all about putting an end to our suffering by cutting it off at
its roots,..... our cravings.
It seems to me that almost every other religion is makes all these promises
about some heavenly afterlife, or railing at you for some inborn sin you
don't even remember committing! But buddhism is definitely a faith for
dealing with your present situation with proven, active, methodology.
Before you know it, if you are working with your present, you have
inadvertantly improved your future as well!!
Evelyn
The Puddies
Please see my other post which I made this morning regarding Mary's upcoming
book. I am completely in favor of Mary's book, and the fact that these
situations can and do take place is apalling to me. You misunderstood the
entire content and tone of my post to which you replied here.
To clarify, I am saying that you must take the good and reject the bad and
NOT be a totally trusting and willing victim. One MUST beware of abusive
individuals and take that abuse as a symptom of their LACK of spiritual
advancement. There must be the ability to discriminate between the correct
and the incorrect views expressed by a teacher.
I have often said that even a broken clock is correct, twice a day!!!!!
The fact that it is incorrect the other 22 hours, does not make that fact
disappear. I think that one must always use the special kind of
discriminating wisdom known as 'common sense' in all situations, including
dharmic ones...... maybe ESPECIALLY dharmic ones.
Regards,
Evelyn
Mark Dunlop wrote in message ...
>>pat_...@hotmail.com wrote
>
>>>Hello again, Mary, I'm a little troubled... Am I to understand that
(huge post of several replies to several people snipped for the sake of
space)
Mary Finnigan
may have overlooked -- the fact that you understand and appreciate my
work gives me inspiration and courage. Please forgive me for copping out
of this and other threads. On a roll with the writing now, so time is
precious. So too is TB -- and all who hang in with it.
Mary
Mary Finnigan
I wanted to e-mail you, but noticed that deleting nospam meant no domain
name, which would probably cause a bounce. Would you be kind enough to
e-mail me please?
Mary
Avyorth Rolinson
>If you don't think the current time is rather degenerate,
>then I would shudder to think of living in a time that
>would be considered degenerate by you.
A rather extreme generalisation from my point, Richard, surely?
> But the meaning
>is rather specific as dharmic use. It references how
>many actively practice out of the total human population
>and how well the teachings continue to be thoroughly and
>accurately transmitted among those practicing. By calling
>it 'fairy tale' stuff you are actually contributing to it
>being accurately characterized as a degenerate time in
>terms of transmission of the teachings. So your statement
>unwittingly reinforces the classification.
>
Speaking personally, these times are much less degenerate dharmically than
earlier times (eg when I was involved with the nkt). Collectively I believe
that these times are less dharmically degenerate than when the buddha first
taught in 'India'
>By the way, what IS degenerate times about your bottom?
Depends a lot upon my current diet, actually! I'll spare you the details.
Avyorth Rolinson
>>
>Yeah, that is actually what I was referring to, and if you
>look at Buddhist history and, you know, just look around,
>it's totally accurate.
No it's not, Konchog, grow up!
>I mean, is it even conceivable we
>would ever experience a time like, say, 17th-18th c. Tibet
>again? With the general orientation of people's minds?
>It hurts me to say it, but I really doubt it.
>
It hurts me to say it, Konchog, but you really are bonkers!
God, I pray that neither the Tibetans or anyone else would have to go
through such feudalistic suffering again.
Randy J
Mike Austin wrote in message ...
>I'm sure we can see all these factors in place now. Never before has it
>been possible to take so much 'enjoyment' from this earth. It is going
>to be very hard to accept losing it. So, the fortunate ones amongst us
>who have met with Buddhadharma, now is the time to practise!
right, renunciation of samsaric pursuits is such
a big part of dharma, but receives so little attention
in most teaching siutations. Renunciation is the hardest
lesson we modern folks need to learn.
Renounce greed, attachment and aversion!
rj
Richard Menninger
> Richard Menninger <r...@dante.mh.lucent.com> wrote in message
> >If you don't think the current time is rather degenerate,
> >then I would shudder to think of living in a time that
> >would be considered degenerate by you.
> A rather extreme generalisation from my point, Richard, surely?
No it isn't. That is the point. You seem to have some
personal way of interpreting it to discard it.
> > But the meaning
> >is rather specific as dharmic use. It references how
> >many actively practice out of the total human population
> >and how well the teachings continue to be thoroughly and
> >accurately transmitted among those practicing. By calling
> >it 'fairy tale' stuff you are actually contributing to it
> >being accurately characterized as a degenerate time in
> >terms of transmission of the teachings. So your statement
> >unwittingly reinforces the classification.
> Speaking personally, these times are much less degenerate dharmically than
> earlier times (eg when I was involved with the nkt).
Each personal situation varies. Finding some connection as
an individual does not erase the general tone of an age.
Thinking that it would IS very egocentric.
> Collectively I believe
> that these times are less dharmically degenerate than when the buddha first
> taught in 'India'
There are two levels of degenerate here. The large-scale
age that is much larger than the time the current teachings
have been extant is a degenerate age in terms of general
spiritual tone. Don't confuse mundane material sophistication
with the basis of measure being talked about. As for the
second level, it is the state of decay of the transmission of
the dharma. For that one you are correct and that is a given,
as decay of the previous turnings of the wheel of dharma is
what is a prerequisite for a historical buddha to restart the
teachings. But degenerate is used to describe the state of
the latest turning rather than comparing it to cause of a new
turning. Even with some very powerful realized beings helping
to keep transmission going (and we have had that), some of the
tone decays over time. Some of it is the using up of existing
karmic ties by having many who could be reached already be
reached and developed and being gone beyond. We are into the
secondary, tertiary, ..., ties mostly. But the time of decay
is also one where is also most effective, most fertile. So all
is not lost. But stuff starts mis-firing more often and does
eventually lead to decay where even the basics are lost. All
of the cultural transitions where there is major bias against
many of the teachings and the bias is projected as reason and
science are part of such patterns. The age is in flux during
such times and can stabilize in a degraded state or it can
lost the whole thing or it can retain most of its strength.
To us in the West, it seems like a renaissance even if the
result is a degraded state. But our culture is less rich in
many ways, more fixated in many ways, even if we do have many
more gadgets and weapons. But we also have wider spread of
basic schooling even if some of its content is suspect. It is
that which gives us the best chance while also being part of
the problem. Schooling without the counterpart of effective
investigative spirituality leads heavy into fixated
intellectual sophistication at the expense of true spirituality.
In fact, much of the spiritual path is about understanding what
that means as a statement.
Mike Austin
writes
> While I agree with almost all you write, I still think this is a time
>when Dharma is flourishing throughout the world. Elements of Dharma
>have entered the western conciousness for good. While many Buddhists
>look down at the 'New Agers', it is the New Agers who are bringing
>Buddhist concepts, albeit bastardized, to the general public.
Yes, this is the case at the moment but the I think the underlying trend
is one of degeneration. The reason I say this is because the people who
are 'practising' like myself have a very comfortable existence. In fact,
it is so easy, that the practice is rather weak. I notice this in myself
and in others. From my experience, when some material comforts are lost
or under threat, compassion goes out the window. When I was coming back
from HHDL's teachings in Germany a few weeks back, I was unwell on the
ferry. All I cared about was my headache and my gutache. I just couldn't
muster a care for anyone else. I also spend a lot of money on things for
myself and this becomes more important than the homeless guy in the shop
doorway. So many nice things to chase after - and they're all so sticky!
In such an environment, there is an atmosphere of leisure. It is easy to
be 'nice' to others. But a deeper practice of dharma is very difficult.
The number of times that we exhibit bad behaviour when bound by worldly
concerns are certain to become more frequent as those concerns are based
on an environment which is increasingly incapable of supporting us this
way. When we succumb to worldly concerns at the moment, we can look to a
worldly solution to temporarily overcome it - purely because it's there.
So there is a two-fold problem here - a looming time of austerity which
is preceded and caused by conditions which lull us into a false sense of
security that we have to overcome in order to do effective practice.
So, I think the degeneration is happening now. The results of this will
manifest later. But I don't intend to be pessimistic here. I like to see
it the way it is. We all have a great opportunity to recognise the state
of these times and put effort into our practice. I say this more as an
exhortation to myself to practice more earnestly (a la Shantideva) than
to preach to anyone else. When I see, on the one hand, HHDL and my own
teacher putting so much effort in to their daily practice and me, on the
other hand, trailing behind and actually doing far less practice, it is
indeed a stark comparison!
The following quote (if I can remember it correctly) from Dilgo Khyentse
Rinpoche is quite apt:
"The problem for westerners is that they have too high expectations
pursued with too little diligence in an environment of too many
distractions."
--
Mike Austin
Mike Austin
<tibe...@aol.com> writes
> >there are an absolute minimum of two qualifications for a valid mahayana
>>spiritual guide. Firstly, he considers future lives more important than
>>this life
>
>pretty much everything heard in at least popular culture over the last 30 years
>has been about the benefit of living in the here and now and now being deluded
>my mental perceptions of the past and future. so, a logical question is of
>what benefit is it to ignore this life (that we are all living) and consider
>FUTURE lives more important than this one? When, in the Buddha's own thought,
>contemplation of the future was no more than idle speculation.
>
holiday; we service our car to guard against breakdowns; we invest money
into a pension scheme for our old age etc, etc. All the time we do this,
we are not 'living in the moment' either. If we are disposed to do this
anyway, on the basis that we have a future of some sort, then we might
as well do it properly and think even longer term. I think most people
would appreciate that, when are concerned for our future, the long term
is more important than the short term. Is it not the case that we can
undergo hardships for future benefit? When we take what we can now, do
we not experience regret afterwards?
In a paradoxical way, I think that having the long term view is actually
more liberating. It is like self discipline - we don't allow ourselves
to fall prey to our momentary whims which cause us hassle. It sets our
direction and purpose. Then, 'the moment' becomes truly enjoyable and, I
think, will eventually become indistinguishable with the future anyway.
Who would have thought that caring for others brings more happiness than
caring for ourselves either? Yet, when we do this, it is manifestly the
case. Such is life!
--
Mike Austin
The Puddies
Mike Austin wrote in message ...
>The following quote (if I can remember it correctly) from Dilgo Khyentse
>Rinpoche is quite apt:
>
>"The problem for westerners is that they have too high expectations
>pursued with too little diligence in an environment of too many
>distractions."
An excellent quote, Mike..... and very true.....I love it!!
Evelyn
Antoine van Gelder
Tibetbud wrote in message <19981119033002...@ng102.aol.com>...
> >there are an absolute minimum of two qualifications for a valid mahayana
>>spiritual guide. Firstly, he considers future lives more important than
>>this life
>
>pretty much everything heard in at least popular culture over the last 30
years
>has been about the benefit of living in the here and now and now being
deluded
>my mental perceptions of the past and future. so, a logical question is of
>what benefit is it to ignore this life (that we are all living) and
consider
>FUTURE lives more important than this one? When, in the Buddha's own
thought,
>contemplation of the future was no more than idle speculation.
Good, so you have proved to yourself that the mahayana spiritual guide has
nothing to offer you.
Purely out of curiosity, how are you going to save yourself now ?
- antoine
Tibetbud
you quote incorrectly, you attributed a quote to me that i did not make.
That being the premise of your argument, you have set up a straw man.
Let the straw man answer your question.