[Buddha-l] Victim? - was Victimized vegans?

[Joy Vriens]

Hi Eric,

>I accept that June Campbells book is disputed. But that was not the only  
>case. The lama who kissed me was Pawo Rche, I recall now. I remember  
>that of course Trungpa and his clan were a bit loose on the Buddhist  
>precepts and Sogyal (who is not a Kargyudpa, but close) sowed also some  
>wild oats. There was an affair with a lama Wangchen who lived in Holland  
>and screwed his translator untill she preferred the fresh young son of  
>the miller nearby above the dirty old man.

The situation of TB is quite complex. It is not simply a question of some "rotten apples". Some behaviour is orthodox and institutional as June Campbell points out. As I see it, the complexity is mainly due to the dominating position that the highest yoga tantra practices have taken from about the 15th century onwards, after a period of polemics. The highest realisation, "full Buddhahood", was only possible through the highest yoga tantras (HYT) and the HYT taught in resume that there was "no mahaamudraa without karmamudraa". Purely a question of a combination of alchemy and hathayoga in order to obtain an immortal body (i.e. the formal bodies needed to work for the benefit of all). For Indians the question of lineages may have been a bit of a loose concept, for the Tibetans it - and transmission in general - became a very serious matter. That is why the growing success of HYT as the unique path to the highest realisation became a problem for the more monastically enclined s!
 chools that had lineage holders with vows as heads. In order to be able to keep a lineage alive, the practises need to be re-actualised before being transmitted further. This means that even lineage holders with vows, monks, have to practice in person the means that lead to full awakening before transmitting them further. And that is where the problem lies. 

There are three solutions : either internalising the karmamudra (through visualisation) or making it into a symbolic practice, but this is too heavy a concession to the alchemical requirements which are very materialistic. Practising karmamudraa secretly with a gsang yum, which is the solution chosen by many lineageholders with vows. The third that I see as a possibility see would be to remain a monk, but to allow for the karmamudraa practice in all transparancy but within well defined boundaries. At very specific times, surrounded by specific rituals, the lineage holding monk, fully identified with the god, so no longer a monk, could do what he thinks he has to do for full awakening...

Of course lineages such as Nyingmapa and Sakyapa, that are not headed by monks don't have the same problem. But it doesn't safeguard their gurus against rogue behaviour either. From the point of view exposed above, IF Kalu Rinpoche and Bokar Rinpoche and the Karmapas or any other vow holding lineage lamas, did practice karmamudraa, secretly, this isn't misbehaviour or abuse in itself, but orthodox behaviour for a lineage holder with vows. The means used to bind their partners to secrecy is IMO. I am not condining anything here, I am simply trying to see things from their POV.         

That's why I would suggest to make HYT simply one of the means that lead to "full awakening". IMO this would get rid of useless pressure and a lot of issues Tibetan Buddhism gets criticised for. This sort of decision seems to be possible since the current Karmapa has already made a decision that goes into that direction:

"His Holiness also quoted spiritual masters from the past who had condemned the practice of using Tsok (offerings during a gathering) as an excuse for eating meat and drinking alcohol. Leaving absolutely no room for interpretation, Karmapa said that anyone who uses meat and alcohol as Tsok is not part of Karmapa’s lineage."
http://shabkar.org/teachers/tibetanbuddhism/orgyen_trinle_dorje.htm

>Lama Wangchen told her to  
>leave the house because she was screwing the devil. I loved the story,  
>it was a soap right around the corner.

Isn't his name Lama Gawang?