| Home » 文章分类_English » Criticism of Lamaism |
Don’t Bend It Like Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse |
Tibetan Buddhist Lamas living in the West—and in India, Nepal, Bhutan, and China too—are subject to the laws of the land as much as other citizens are. There is no ‘tantric exemption’ exonerating and exculpating Vajrayana Lamas simply by virtue of being Vajrayana Lamas. It will not hold up in criminal or civil courts, not even in Tibet. Neither will quasi-excuses and -justifications such as ‘crazy wisdom,’ ‘guru devotion,’ ‘pure perception,’ and ‘samaya‘ shield Tibetan Lamas against criminal and civil liability for abuse, battery, and fraud. A Pipe Dream Does Dzongsar still think, in the #MeToo era, that he and Lamas like him have a birthright to special pleading on their behalf? Will he take the law into his own hands now? If he does, it shall remain a pipe dream: the King can in fact do wrong, even if he is an ‘Edgelord Lama‘ with a contract. Dzongsar’s favoured modus operandi is to act as if he were a jester in a medieval court. He mocks the powers that be, only to help legitimise their power—the self-same power that fell into his own lap by mere virtue of his supposedly enlightened pedigree. Judged by the deprecating remarks on social media, however, more than a few Western Buddhists are starting to see through his pseudo-heroic escapades. Would Dzongsar have the courage to draw up a spoof ‘Deed of Agreement’‘ by “Bender & Boner Lawyers” in the Tibetan language and have it circulate amongst the exiled Tibetan community? Or in Tibet proper? Such daring would really be an eye-opener! If someone with the appropriate language skills would send a faithful translation of this text to the Dalai Lama’s Office or the Tibetan Department of Religion & Culture, it might make for an interesting response. Casually Deceptive “Frankly,” he said, “for a student of Sogyal Rinpoche who has consciously received abhisheka [initiation into any Vajrayana teaching] – and therefore stepped onto the Vajrayana path—to think of labelling Sogyal Rinpoche’s actions as ‘abusive’, or to criticise a Vajrayana master even privately, let alone publicly and in print, or simply to reveal that such methods exist, is a breakage of samaya [the sacred spiritual bond between student and teacher]. [But] if no proper warnings and no fundamental training were given prior to the Vajrayana teachings, then Sogyal Rinpoche is even more in the wrong than his critical students.” Dzongsar Khyentse seemed to be having a bet each way. He also expressed puzzlement that “intelligent” students hadn’t better analysed their teacher before signing up. “I really don’t understand why they waited 10 or even 30 years before saying anything. How come they didn’t see all these problems in the first or second year of their relationship with Sogyal?” To which Dzongsar responded on December 9, 2017: Your article on Sogyal Rinpoche concluded that I “seemed to be having a bet both ways” (“The Tibetan book of living and denying”, Good Weekend, December 2-3). This is a perennial problem with selectively taking quotes out of context. I certainly was not trying to have it “both ways” and have no interest in Sogyal Rinpoche’s rise and fall, or in being “pro” or “anti” him or his victims. My sole concern in what I wrote was to correct serious misinterpretations of Vajrayana Buddhism being voiced at the time. Because he doesn’t do things by half-measures, Dzongsar sent a similar letter to the Australian newspaper The Age. He failed to mention, though, that by the time he submitted these letters to the editor, he had been guiding Sogyal and Rigpa for months as their Spiritual Advisor. As Sogyal—who died in hiding in 2019—wrote to his followers in July 2017: ‘Already, I am seeking advice from masters who have a genuine care and concern for Rigpa, such as Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche and Mingyur Rinpoche and others, about what we should do. And I will honour their guidance.’ Apparently, the two Australian newspapers did not deign to investigate and challenge Dzongsar’s false pretense of being unbiased. Close scrutiny of his running commentary reveals that Dzongsar tends by nature to be casually deceptive. He once posted—”just to clarify”—a brief videoclip on his Facebook page, showing one of the Dalai Lama’s statements on criticising tantric gurus during the Western Teachers Conference in 1993, thereby suggesting that he and the Dalai Lama are on the same page. Whoever watches the entire video, however, will note that the Dalai Lama was speaking about authentic, bona fide Vajrayana Lamas at the time—not about charlatans who pose as Vajrayana Lamas. It was rather disingenuous of Dzongsar to refer to this one remark out of context, while he requested others to read his 10,000 word statement on ‘Guru and Student in the Vajrayana‘ (14 August 2017) in full, word for word: ‘Please summon up all your patience and read the whole thing from beginning to end; this text is meant to be read all the way through, not in bits.’ ‘Dildos, The Color Of Uncooked Chicken’ In the West, women have wanted more and more freedom and so have engaged in the feminist movement, saying that men and women should be equal. Of course, in order to better their country and help other beings without seeding hatred between men and women, it is right for women to have equal education, equal pay, and equal job opportunities, including being equally able to run for president. According to the Mahayana system, all sentient beings have the same Buddha nature, so since women and men are the same human beings, why can’t women have the same opportunities as men to use all of their mind’s qualities freely? Even so, in some ways women and men do not have the same opportunities because from the beginning their energies are different from each other as a result of their previous karma. For example, according to outer phenomena, in the worldly system men are usually physically stronger, so they can do certain kinds of heavy work more easily than women. Yet according to inner phenomena in the inner tantric system, women have more magic mind power with sensitivity than men, so they are closer to the source of phenomena. If women could be wise and plan to ultimately benefit all beings, they would also naturally liberate themselves, like Sublime Tara. But sometimes, just like men, women try to excessively increase their temporary ordinary power and make many banal issues into big issues, making vinegar energy without thinking how to increase their positive honey energy and pure wisdom power. Women lose their attractive feminine aspect and become weird, even walking like marching Nazi soldiers, scaring all men. As a result, both men and women may use each other only temporarily for pleasure since they have no interest in the continuous power of spiritual energy’s extraordinary love. So, love between men and women may turn into a power struggle. In this life, because of karmic result, some beings took a female body. If they don’t like their body, they can pray that in their next life they will be reborn with a man’s body rather than doing bodybuilding exercises in order to create and exhibit a powerful male body with veins and bulging muscles. Many of these bodybuilder women start to organize palm-rubbing phenomena with each other, or buy lifeless dildos, the color of uncooked chicken. Instead of this, if they can create a graceful, beautiful, refined female body, they will be able to be naturally alluring to men, which will give them natural power instead of equality. Many American gentlemen are afraid of these powerful body-building ladies, so they run away to other men to dig shit, just as many years ago people came from everywhere to the Land of Opportunity to dig gold, thinking this is their unassailable right. Just because men and women are born with different bodies doesn’t mean that one is superior or inferior to the other. They are just different, so instead of trying to compare or compete with each other physically, pushing to be equal or better, which often creates negative energy, women should learn to cooperate with men in order to create balance and harmony and positive energy within family and country. Even if women want to have physical equality with men, how could female athletes compete with male athletes instead of with each other? How could one strong heavyweight female boxer fight with someone like Mike Tyson for the championship? Because of this equality idea, the American government has considered the right of women to engage in military combat. But this is a wrong right rather than a right right. It is unnecessary for women to risk their lives in a war in combat that relies on physical strength, which is different between men and women, when there are so many other opportunities for them to serve their country and benefit others graciously instead of aggressively. They can raise and educate children, and they can have many different kinds of meaningful professions, including political positions. In feminism, the best role models women can have are Tara and Yeshe Tsogyal. But if they cannot be like them, they should try to be like Mother Teresa. And if they cannot be like her, they should at least try to be like Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir, who were dignified political leaders who wisely protected their own countries and wisely communicated with other countries rather than quarrelling about petty issues. Sometimes feminist ideas cause hatred and anger toward men. For example, the news reported that many women congratulated a lady who killed a rapist. But these are reverse congratulations since they are influencing and encouraging other innocent women to commit murder and be criminals, making them lawless, which decreases the natural honor of women. It is strange that Americans are so concerned about human rights in other countries, while in their own country they become lawless and uncivilized because of their excessive freedom, which often creates human wrongs instead of human rights. Through their anger, women feel they have the freedom to do anything. Because of the influence of women’s rights, one lady cut off her husband’s penis, just like cutting a sausage for dinner. Then she threw it into a field. It is ridiculous that even though policemen often cannot find criminals, they easily found the missing piece of his penis to bring back to the husband. It is wonderful that because of America’s advanced medical technology, the penis was put back on the man. But I am worried that it is not working normally with a woman and that it might be dismantled again. Some women are so angry at men that they don’t want to depend on men for anything. If they decide to have children, they are proud that they don’t need men and can just go to a sperm bank. But this sperm is from men and not from donkeys, so they still depend on men. Also, even if these women hate men, sometimes the sperm bank babies they have are boys who will become men. Some American psychologists say that women hate men because they had bad fathers. Then, even though men are not like their fathers, they still hate them. Many psychologists have unwise and incorrect explanations about our behavior that only cause more hatred between human beings, which can seed problems for a whole country. But, of course, there are also good psychologists who benefit others. Many of them have nervous breakdowns and afterward treat patients who have nervous breakdowns. Although men and women may think they will be free and have some power if they separate from each other, they usually suffer from loneliness as a result of their power struggles. Ordinary power must have an object in order to exist, so ordinary people lose their sense of power when they are alone. Rather than remain alone, they again seek out the comforting company of a new object. Of course, if they become good practitioners, they can learn to create real, unlosable spiritual power, and though they appear to be outwardly alone, inwardly they can be comforted by the companionship of their wisdom deity’s appearance. Still, I am grateful that through this increased freedom idea, many women are more open to vast Dharma than before. But sometimes I am frightened by some terrifyingly arrogant and shallow women, and then I am reminded of the general Hinayana theory that to be born a woman is a lower birth. In any case, since I try to have faith in the inner Vajrayana view, which admires women as the support for increasing wisdom energy, I like to respect women and pray always, until I reach the state of Vajradhara, that I will be a wisdom hero who always has wisdom heroines with complementary energy as companions to attain desireless wisdom bliss. (pp. 59-62) To call Thinley’s views the misogynist bedrock of the impressionable Dzongsar’s budding relationship with a prime male role model, who himself was a major Tibetan Vajrayana teacher to boot, certainly seems appropriate. Troubling Stories He drew me in until he began to speak of sex and said it was a path I was qualified for – a spiritual thing. He also said my biggest obstacle was not thinking I was sexy! When I asked about other women, he said it was something he did with just a few women and that it was hard work – whilst also keeping a public longterm girlfriend. He also, confusingly, said it would be for his pleasure. I was so young and would have done anything to ‘progress’ but when he initiated the physical activities then asked me flat out one night if I wanted sex, I said no as what I had in in mind was nothing so mundane and the everyday term put me off. I thought it was a test of sorts. This was not the first time I came across anecdotes about Dzongsar’s ‘way with women.’ Indeed, Dzongsar proactively acknowledged that he has girlfriends, as did his staunch advocate Orgyen Tobgyal Rinpoche (OTR): It’s not true to say that Dzongsar Khyentse does many strange things. On the odd occasion he might wear unusual clothes or a funny hat or wig in public, in plain sight of everyone. And he might, of course, hug and kiss girls. But this kind of behaviour is commonplace in the western world—it’s part of western tradition, right? On television you even see people kissing His Holiness the Dalai Lama! … No one in this world is able to act 100% in accordance with the Dharma. It’s just not possible. But if Dzongsar Khyentse was “giving” monks Vinaya vows having not kept them himself, that would be bad. Or if he lied, or was said to be fooling people, or did things that have nothing to do with the Dharma. But the main criticism against Dzongsar Khyentse seems to be that he has girlfriends. What’s so very surprising or unique or special about that? Why is it so extraordinary for Dzongsar Khyentse to have a girlfriend? How many billions of men are there in the world, and how many of them have a girlfriend or a wife—or several of each! In our Nyingma lineage alone, thousands of masters had far more girlfriends and partners than Dzongsar Khyentse. Oane Bijlsma too shared a troubling story about Dzongsar’s behind-the-scenes behaviour while Sogyal fêted him at his temple Lerab Ling in France. Dzongsar actually made a hoped-for girlfriend bend over repeatedly, to take a blissful look at her buttocks. Martin Luther King I’m sorry to say, not only Vajrayana, whole Buddhadharma is above the law. If you want [to] put one foot firmly grounded on samsara and have the little advantage of nirvana, I would suggest you download mindfulness apps. Don’t become—don’t follow Buddha. It’s really, it’s a bad news. I actually don’t understand why there’s this question, because even people like Martin Luther King—”Human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law”—you know, he believed there’s more beyond human law. I’m talking about Martin Luther King. Dzongsar really seems to believe this, but he misconstrues the meaning of what Martin Luther King actually wrote while speaking about civil disobedience in the face of racial segregation: The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.” … Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. I doubt that the fallacies and inconsistencies in Dzongsar’s oh-so convenient ‘philosophy of law’ are obvious to him: after all, he did counsel Sogyal Lakar and Rigpa to sue former devotees for defamation and thereby test his Vajrayana beliefs in court. So much for being above the law! Even so, Dzongsar decided later not to include his view of the law in his book Poison is Medicine: Clarifying the Vajrayana (2021), which was based on the talks during his Rigpa-tour, perhaps to evade further reputation damage. Commenting on some further ideas Dzongsar scattered about, Joe Loizzo had this to say: In his recent statement, Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche identified Trungpa Rinpoche, around whom allegations of sexual misconduct also swirled, as his paradigm of an effective Vajrayana master in the West. Although there is no denying the imposing footprint of the community and institutions Trungpa left behind in the U.S., I don’t see the “crazy wisdom” style of mentoring he embodied as the right fit for America or the West going forward. Bearing in mind the recent revelations on the rampant (child) abuse within Trungpa’s organisation Shambhala since the 1970s, it seems clear that Dzongsar’s judgment of Vajrayana in the West is less than authoritative. “Crushing The Ego” Where are the traditional commentaries that explain the practice of battery in minute detail? Are there ceremonies that initiate teachers into the practice of having serial sexual contacts with underages novices? Indeed, do Vajra masters expound the theory and practice of “crushing the ego with beatings and sex” during Vajrayana teachings in the West? Are these teachings available in book form or online for those who should like to learn more about Vajrayana pedagogy, didactics, and developmental psychology? If anything, Dzongsar’s facile pronouncements leave a lot of explaining to do. Likewise, Dzongsar Khyentse’s rhetorical stance betrays a pervasive tendency to skirt issues such as the victims’ traumas, Sogyal’s complete lack of qualifications as a teacher, and Rigpa members’ habitual neglect of other people’s suffering altogether. This seems to be endemic, pre-programmed in Dzongsar’s perspective on Buddhist practice. Witness the questions that were read out during his European tour, as well as his audiences’ responses and laughter, the remaining Rigpa members also tend to skirt these issues too, which may well be systemic, pre-programmed in their understanding of Buddhist practice. It is little wonder, with such teachers guiding them. Very rarely does Dzongsar even pay lip service to the victims’ plight. Not a single question from his Rigpa audience in 2018 focussed on the victims’ suffering first and foremost. In all, Dzongsar and his audiences spent considerably less than one percent (eight minutes) of the allotted time on entertaining the victims’ perspective on the abuses at all, and on the neglect of their suffering by Rigpa members. Toxic Remark We can’t deny the fact that, you know, there have been people who have suffered. People who have returned the letters, people who have suffered, whether their suffering is correct or not [my italics]. How their suffering has come, what reason, all of this is something different, but there is suffering. Take a moment to reflect on Dzongsar’s thoughtless use of the word ‘correct’ here, which suggests that the victims’ traumas might somehow be ‘incorrect.’ Was it really the time and the place for him to make this “subtle” distinction at all? The truth of the matter is: Dzongsar’s callousness is very common amongst religious believers, across the board. It comes naturally. Most every religious leader who is confronted with sexual abuse instinctively focusses on institutional interests alone, and Dzongsar is no exception. Academic research into sexual abuse by religious leaders, psychotherapists, and so on, has resulted in standard lists of “excuses” and “justifications” with which they attempt to “sanitize” the abuse. And Dzongsar routinely uses many of those clichés. He and his gullible audiences seem quite unaware of just how banal and specious such “excuses” and “justifications” really are. Practicing Buddhists will find much in Dzongsar’s talks highly embarrassing: his performances do not exactly amount to solid advertising for Tibetan Buddhism as a whole, for that matter. Members of the Roman-Catholic clergy may well act the same when confronted with sexual abuse, but not so ostentatiously. They know better than that. Indeed, Dzongsar habitual self-centeredness and compulsive need to keep his audiences amused may well strike them as tasteless. Unresolved Questions Most Vajrayana teachers remain unaware that Dzongsar’s trope “Is Vajrayana a cult?”—triggered by reports on the abuses by Sogyal Lakar and Rigpa, conflating the latter’s fate with that of Vajrayana as a whole—does indeed concern them directly. The pernicious truth is: the abuse does in fact concern Vajrayana as a whole, but not quite in the way Dzongsar imagined. Vajrayana teachers who do not openly, unambiguously distance themselves from the aberrations that are called Rigpa and Shambhala, play into the hands of abusive Buddhists who hide in plain sight, using Vajrayana as a cover. Abusive Vajrayana teachers, their enablers, and sycophants have a clear motive to identify their personal fate with Vajrayana as a whole and (re)frame discussions on abuse as discussions on Vajrayana per se. They need to be called out for such rhetoric by other Vajrayana followers every time, on pain of Vajrayana effectively being hijacked by abusers and their enablers. Their predicament is not so different from that of religious believers confronted by fundamentalist terrorists using Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, or Christianity as a cover for their crimes. Ask yourself: how can an outside observer distinguish bona fide from mala fide Vajrayana teachers when the first always stop short of making any such distinction? This may well be the Achilles heel of Vajrayana proponents like Dzongsar, who prevaricate, excusing themselves from publicly confirming that a particular Buddhist teacher who presents himself as one of their own is a fraud. Perhaps he’s just not brave enough for that. Speaking Truth To Power A pseudo-journalist posted a still from their video online and asked the public to make their identities and contact details known to him, because he had “a right to know.” The brave souls who raise a solitary protest against the covering up of sexual and physical abuse, however, have every right to decide themselves when, where and how to explain their motives and the full facts of the matter—if ever. Those who believe they have “a right to know,” or that they have a “right” to determine when, where and how a protester must throw light on his or her actions, should stop for a moment and reflect on the following: Whatever the motive, whatever the facts of the matter, anyone who is brave enough to step into the lion’s den, so to speak, in an attempt to voice his heartfelt concerns about sexual and physical abuse—and even suicide—in the name of his or her religion, has thereby earned the right to determine where, when and how to speak again. No one should push such people around. No one should gossip about them. No one should ask them to condone the sharing or publishing of single quotes. No one should coax them into sharing observations that may be taken out of context. Let them be until they’re ready to speak or act publicly in ways that do justice to the actual subject matter: abuse and its cover-up by Buddhist teachers who were as complicit as Dzongsar always was. It’s about time that Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse’s failed attempts at bending modern understandings of sexual abuse and the rule of law to his will are seen for what they are: a chicken-livered defense against encroachments on his faux aristocratic life of entitlement, indolence, ennui, and sensuality by contemporaries who are no longer in thrall to the medieval myth of high-born seers. This article has been edited and expanded for clarity and weblinks have been added. The reference to Ms. Elegance’s comments on Dzongsar Khyentse now includes a direct quote and a link to the original version that was archived by The Wayback Machine. The original webpage that presented Dzongsar’s A Message from Rinpoche regarding the Longchenpa Transmissions was removed after this article was published, but an archived version of it is available below. openbuddhism.org/regions/north-america/2023/dont-bend-it-like-dzongsar-jamyang-khyentse/ |
| Home » 文章分类_English » Criticism of Lamaism |
简体 | 正體 | EN | GE | FR | SP | BG | RUS | JP | VN The Truth of Tibetan Buddhism Home | GUEST BOOK | LOGIN | LOGOUT
- Reports of Tantric Victims
- Chinmoy-Abuse
- Journal of True Enlightenment
- Criminal Dalai Lama and Tibet – Force
- Criminal Dalai Lama and Tibet – Sexual Practice
- Criticism of Force
- Criticism of Dalai Lama
- Criticism of Lamaism
- Criticism of Sexual Practice
- Recommendable books
- Roach-Event
- Samyukta-Agama Sutra
- Swami-Abuse
- True Face of the Dalai Lama
- True Heart News
- True Meaning of Sutras
- True Wisdom of Buddhism
- Truth from Insider of Lamaism
- Behind the Facade of Tibetan Buddhism
- The Secrets of Tibetan Buddhism
- Ole Nydahl-Event
Sexual scandals of Lamas and Rinpoches
Before Buddhism was brought to Tibet, the Tibetans had their believes in "Bon". "Bon" is a kind of folk beliefs which gives offerings to ghosts and gods and receives their blessing. It belongs to local folk beliefs.
In the Chinese Tang Dynasty, the Tibetan King Songtsän Gampo brought “Buddhism” to the Tibetan people which became the state religion. The so-called “Buddhism” is Tantric Buddhism which spreads out during the final period of Indian Buddhism. The Tantric Buddhism is also named "left hand tantra" because of its tantric sexual practices. In order to suit Tibetan manners and customs, the tantric Buddhism was mixed with "Bon". Due to its beliefs of ghosts and sexual practices, it became more excessive.
The tantric Master Atiśa spread out the tantric sex teachings in private. Padmasambhava taught it in public, so that the Tibetan Buddhism stands not only apart from Buddhist teachings, but also from Buddhist form. Thus, the Tibetan Buddhism does not belong to Buddhism, and has to be renamed "Lamaism".
