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

[John Whalen-Bridge]

Dear Buddha-L denizens  

I know I've asked about this before but am not sure I got quite what I
was looking for. Prof. Blumenthal's lay- vs. nonj-lay lama clears up
questions about Michael Roach and the Dalai Lama's response quite
adequately, but I would like to hear more about unconventionality and
Buddhist pedagogy. My question, in response to the idea that some
tantric teachings flaunt unconventionality, is: What are the textual
manifestations of such an anticonventionality and/or iconoclasm?  I know
some siddhis where weird dudes.  What would be the most well-established
antecedants to "crazy wisdom" teachings, and what was that status of
such texts before, say, "the swans came to the lake"?  I'd like to have
a better idea about whether such traditions are mainly considered
aberrations that arise now and then or if they are considered as party
of the array of resources that the tradition may regularly access.
There were some "unconventional" popes along the way, but they are not
currently embraced by parts of the Catholic Church. On the other hand,
if I'm not oversimplifying, there is a mystic tradition that is
definitely not mainstream but which is considered (eg in the Catholic
Encyclopedia) with pride.

Thanks for your help with this matter.  My aim in thinking through this
matter is to be able to better consider the debates about authenticity
in Western Buddhism.  Certain behaviors could easily be categorized as
orientalist projection in the service of mere self-empowerment (the guru
system, when it is accompanied by sexual access to devotees), or "crazy
wisdom" teachers may well argue that their risky/unconventional teaching
practices are not without precedent.

Maha dhanyavada,   JWB

_______________________________________
To: "Buddhist discussion forum" <buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com>
Thomas Fink wrote:
		>In Tibetan Buddhism there is only one lineage who takes
the celibacy
		>vow seriously. That are the Gelugpas. 
	Actually, every Tibetan Buddhist lineage takes vows of celibacy
seriously.  Some lineages have more lay lamas than others.  Some place
more of an emphasis on the importance of monasticism. But none consider
taking monastic vows such as celibacy, then breaking them a non-serious
offense. A monk, by definition, holds a vow of celibacy.  There are lay
teachers in many Buddhist traditions.  There are non-celibate Buddhist
priests in Japan, but they are not monks. If Michael Roach had given
back his vows and ceased to identify as a monk, I think a lot of the
problem regarding his sexual relations would not have arisen. Claims
about being an 8th ground bodhisattva may have been another matter.
     Jim Blumenthal, Department of Philosophy, Oregon State University
     102-A Hovland Hall  Corvallis, OR 97331
<snip>