[Buddha-l] Re: H.H. The Dalai Lama vs Geshe Michael

[curt]

I dunno. Perhaps one should recall that the period in which Buddhism 
really first gained a foothold in the west was a period marked by a 
(much needed and still far from complete) revolution in sexual mores and 
the (again, much needed) widespread use of marijuana, lsd and other mind 
altering drugs. It is unlikely that this is a coincidence.

What, after all, does one expect from a religious movement (ie, Buddhism 
in the west) that was pioneered, quite literally, by beatniks and 
hippies? A prudish attitude toward matters of sexuality and intoxicants 
among western Buddhists is, it looks to me, completely illogical. It is 
also very much pissing in the wind.

Buddhist monks take all kinds of vows (and nuns take even more) and for 
whatever reason Buddhism has been very reticent to revisit even the 
silliest: not having pets, not eating garlic or leeks, not sleeping on a 
bed, not riding in a vehicle driven/piloted/commanded by a woman, etc. I 
consider celibacy to a potentially useful practice - but having no moral 
value whatsoever. I consider engaging in sexual activity to completely 
normal and having absolutely no inherent negative connotations. I have 
known quite a few monks and nuns and a good number of them were sexually 
active at least to some extent. Of course a great many people, monastic 
or lay, prefer (for a variety of reasons) to be discrete about their sex 
lives - so nobody really knows for sure.

America is a sick country that is obsessed with "sex scandals" - we 
prefer a president who lies about mass murder to a president who lies 
about sex. When are people going to wake up and start paying attention 
to what is important and stop being so easily distracted by the Buddhist 
equivalents of Geraldo Rivera and Nancy Grace??????

- Curt

Michael LaTorra wrote:
> The Geshe Michael Roach scandal -- and that's truly what it is -- is one more 
> example of a spiritual teacher who abuses his position. We've all seen or 
> heard about such things before. I could name half a dozen similar cases.
>
> This is not about Roach's claimed level of spiritual realization; it's about 
> his violation of his vows, and his attempt to cover up his activities. Several 
> remarkable, charismatic, apparently "realized" spiritual teachers have had 
> illict sex with their students (including married ones), misappropriated 
> funds, abused drugs, and generally behaved in a way that makes you want to 
> smack them upside the head. Being gentle Buddhists, however, we are advised to 
> take less drastic measures. After all, many of us have taken vows to save 
> miscreants just like Mr. Roach.
>
> In wide-open, "liberal" Western societies, Mr. Roach is certainly free, as a 
> matter of law, to live like Playboy magnate Hugh Hefner if he so chooses. (The 
> 80-year-old Mr. Hefner, as you may know, lives with 4 young women in his 
> palatial Los Angeles mansion. He makes daily offerings to the god Viagra.)  
> However, Mr. Hefner never took a vow of celibacy; Mr. Roach did.
>
> If Mr. Roach were to start "The Church of the Roach" and preach polymorphous 
> perversity, he could probably do it (again, as a matter of law). However, if 
> Mr. Roach claims to represent Tibetan Buddhism, then the Office of H.H. the 
> Dalai Lama certainly has the right, and indeed the duty, to anathematize and 
> formally eject him. 
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael LaTorra
>
> mlatorra at nmsu.edu
>
> Department of English
> New Mexico State University
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>
>
>