| Home » 文章分类_德语 » Kritik an Sexualpraktiken |
IS SEX BETWEEN A SPIRITUAL TEACHER AND STUDENTS HARMFUL? (2) |
Most Rigpa students reading the comment from lalatee, even those who did not attend the Dzogchen Beara retreat, will identify this experience with those they have experienced themselves. Defenders of Sogyal will say that he works with people’s egos in ways that reflect his genius and realization. Indeed, the writer of the response piece reports experiences of realization she has experienced as a result of Sogyal’s harsh methods. This same student suggests strongly that BTT was motivated by the ire of x-Rigpa students who became disenfranchised with Sogyal’s teaching methods:
I personally find such an attitude deeply disturbing and cold. It is one based on a very self-centered approach to the dharma. The writer is applauding her own advanced state in being able to work with Sogyal’s harsh methods, while disregarding any harm caused to others. Whether those others are suffering or simply mad and discouraged with the Buddhist path, I suggest that the methods which Sogyal uses are not benefitting them and are instead causing obstacles to their practice of dharma. I also question a practice said to be diminishing ego if that same practice causes one to denigrate others. It was my own impression from my year with Rigpa that the harsh methods were for the initiation of a few chosen students, while the rest of us, such as lalatee and myself sat in horror, dejection and confusion, watching on. Indeed, the core purpose of all the Buddha’s teaching is for the diminishing of ego. HH Dalai Lama outlines these teachings as ones that either diminish self-cherishing or diminish self-grasping. Practices that diminish self-cherishing are practices of method, such as cultivating love, compassion, tolerance, charity, warmheartedness, kindness etc. Practices that diminish self-grasping are practices of wisdom, such as studying, reflecting and meditating on impermanence and emptiness. This is a huge canon of teaching, all aimed at diminishing ego. Yet, instead of those approaches, Sogyal has decided that he has a better, more effective approach. Nowhere do I see such approaches in the main scriptural sources, though I agree that they are described in biographies of the great masters, as in Tilopa’s treatment of Marpa and Marpa’s treatment of Milarepa. My only question there is how many Milarepas do we believe have been born in the West? Are these approaches really suitable for all or even for many or are they approaches only for highly advanced students? Sometimes it seems that perhaps Rigpa students who have experienced these harsh techniques might think they are special, like Milarepa. They might become more arrogant instead of less! Perhaps I would not object to this so forcibly if I didn’t question whether Sogyal’s Dzogchen teachings and methodology was backed by a strong education program. Without this, harsh Dzogchen methods have no context in which to become a true practice of dharma. I once asked the Dzogchen teacher Shyalpa Rinpoche if it was important to have a good understanding of the Madyamaka teachings in order to practice Dzogchen. He replied that practicing Dzogchen without a full understanding of Madyamaka would be like climbing a rock cliff without hands. In the same vein, HH Dalai Lama said during Dzogchen teachings he gave in 1989,
In the forward to this same text, Sogyal gives a brief description of his first meeting with HH Dalai Lama: “His Holiness asked me my name and my age. He then held me in a piercing gaze and told me pointedly to make sure I studied hard. It was a moment I have always remembered, for it was probably one of the most important of my life.” (p. 9) This indicates that within mainstream Tibetan Buddhism, education is considered to be important for both student and spiritual teacher. While I do not have Mary’s courage to question the level of Sogyal’s dharma education, I do question whether that advice is central to the approach taken within the Rigpa program itself. Are Sogyal’s harsh methods used on students who haven’t studied the Four Noble Truths? On students who have never studied the madyamaka teachings? On students who have no understanding of lojong or never meditated on compassion or emptiness? I question the efficacy of harsh methods when a foundation of understanding core Buddhist concepts and practices is not laid. These are questions that I suggest every Rigpa student needs to find answers for, in order to assess the current situation fully. In Mahayana Buddhism, the primary goal of practice is to cultivate a state of mind where concern for others’ welfare is more important than concern for oneself. Justifying Sogyal’s behaviors on the basis that one’s own practice has benefitted and others who have been harmed are in some way deficient is a very disturbing attitude in this context. This attitude has prevailed throughout much of the comment line. IS SEX BETWEEN A SPIRITUAL TEACHER AND STUDENTS HARMFUL? I wish to question three underlying assumptions evident throughout the comment line, in A Response to the Blog BTT and within mainstream Tibetan Buddhism. The first is that sex between a spiritual teacher and his/her student is not wrong in itself and does not harm nor constitute abuse in itself. Only if it resembles the sort of abuse that would occur in an everyday relationship should it be called abuse. The second is that women are free to say yes or no to Sogyal; they are free agents. The third is that it is an honor and spiritual practice to have sex with a renowned Dzogchen master such as Sogyal. Immediately, I will point out that there is a contradiction between the last two assumptions. If it is an honor and a spiritual practice to have sex with your “master” then immediately there is less free will. Saying no entails refusing to practice as your lama has instructed—this is a much more difficult act than simply turning down sex, as one would with an ordinary person. So we can’t have it both ways. Either having sex with Sogyal is no big deal, no more than sex with the everyday Joe on the street, or it entails a power differential, with women being less free to refuse. Certainly, the Buddha himself has given us permission to say no to our teachers if they ask us to do something which is incorrect. The difficulty here, however, lies squarely with my earlier points about the lack of education within Rigpa programs. If a woman is not well read on the scriptures and Sogyal tells her that having sex will help her progress on the spiritual path, then how is she to have the resources to question this view? How can she know her rights of refusal, if she has no thorough knowledge of the Buddha’s instructions in this regard? If she has no knowledge of what tantric sex is even about?
In this respect, they have absolutely no tools with which to question him if he tells them that sex will help their spiritual progress. They have few tools with which to say no. In fact, it is a contradiction in terms to say no to any “master,” is it not? In fact, this is a key, central tenet of Dzogchen, the role of the master. Dzogchen is about the “master” leading the student into unknown territory; it is about the student having complete trust that where the master leads is a safe territory. This is central to many Dzogchen techniques. From the outside, we shudder to hear of such practices. From inside Rigpa, such an outlook is common and not questioned. I personally believe that the true Dzogchen lies somewhere in between. The true Dzogchen can only be practiced after the student has spent years investigating the teacher and the primary texts of Buddhism. These years have to be years where the Dzogchen teacher is not seen as a “master” but is seen as a lecturer who is put on trial. I fear that many of the stories of sexual abuse that one hears in regard to Sogyal have occurred with students who have never spent anywhere near that requisite time. Add to this trouble the outlook of tantra, where one is required to see the lama as perfect and you have further trouble. Indeed, HH Dalai Lama speaks very strongly about the dangers inherent in seeing everything that the lama does as perfect:
I suggest that most of us in the West are beginners who are ignorant of the dharma and ignorant even of our own ignorance. We are being faced with a culture of seeing the actions of the guru as perfectly wise and we have no tools with which to question that. It is for this reason that I further suggest that there is no situation by which sex between a Tibetan Buddhist lama and his/her student is safe from harm. None. The power differential is simply too huge. This is not merely my opinion, but a reality supported by western psychotherapists. It is known in the west, for example, that sexual relations between doctors and patients, therapists and clients and teachers and students are all relationships that cause harm. This is because the power differential is too large. It is accepted among therapists that this same trouble exists in the relationship between spiritual teachers and their students. However, I have not studied this matter thoroughly and I don’t work with sexual abuse victim, so I refer readers to two books written on this subject matter. The first is Sex in the Forbidden Zone by Peter Rutter and the second is Sex and the Spiritual Teacher, by Scott Edelstein. I beg Rigpa students who question this to study and investigate. Discussions on the comment line about this matter in particular have been disturbing because individuals comment as if they have professional knowledge of this, when in fact, they are simply giving unsubstantiated opinion. BellaB frequently speaks of women who are victims of sexual abuse with Sogyal in the same context that she might judge a woman in a relationship with any man on the street or her past boyfriends. Sheila frequently states that if there is a crime, then women should go to the police and if there is no crime, then there is nothing to complain about. She completely dismisses the fact accepted among western therapists that any sexual relationship between a spiritual teacher and his student, even one that is legal, is going to cause psychological damage to the student. She also dismisses the fact that women statistically are reluctant to file charges and endure the ordeal of being grilled over their experiences. I encourage any Rigpa student who doubts western psychological evidence indicating that sex between spiritual teachers and students is harmful to investigate further and make certain of this. While Scott Edelstein is not a psychologist himself, he has investigated these problems extensively and is a longtime Buddhist student who has relationships with many teachers and students alike. He writes:
This brings the discussion to the final point, which is the Tibetan Buddhist perspective of sexual relations between teacher and student. I would like to address this from two perspectives, one being the Tibetan Mahayana Buddhist definition of sexual misconduct and the other being consideration of tantric sex. The following excerpt is from Gampopa, who is an 11th century kadampa and Mahamudra practitioner and the founder of the Dakpo Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism. It is written for male practitioners. For female practitioners, the genders need to be reversed. What is of significance in this code of conduct is the ethnic and historical orientation, as the reader will immediately notice. Already there has been an outcry from gay and lesbian Buddhists about this code and HH Dalai Lama has stated that the code can only be changed through a careful collective effort, not by a decree from him or any other Buddhist leader. Indeed, current troubles with sexual misconduct by TB lamas could well be the catalyst needed for careful reform of the code to begin.
Certainly when one reads this description of sexual misconduct, one’s immediate reaction will be that reform is needed! It is outdated and irrelevant to our troubles! Women are not “owned” any more! I myself question the efficacy of such an outdated code at restraining the behavior of Buddhists. However, while Buddhists are not encouraged to follow any stricture blindly, once we allow for easy exceptions to any code of conduct, then flagrant abuses will occur. I suggest that this fact is very alarming. It appears that Tibetan Buddhists have a choice: They can either follow this code blindly, which speaks of such things as a woman being owned by her husband or they can update it in their own ways, which then allows for a dangerous crack to form in ethical discipline. This is a serious concern, I believe, that could lie at the center of the current trouble. Of central concern to this discussion is the fact that there is no mention made of sexual relations between lama and student.
As for the tantric perspective on sexual relations between a spiritual teacher and his/her teacher, the practice of a consort, I will again refer to those more knowledgeable than myself. John Powers, a university professor and Buddhist practitioner, states:
According to the Dalai Lama, only a person who views all the phenomena of cyclic existence with complete impartiality is qualified to engage in tantric sexual practices:
(John Powers, Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism, Snow Lion Publications, 1995, p. 252.) I am certain that there might be other stories about the purpose of a lama taking a consort other than tantra, but I know of no scriptural sources for this. I know that in Dzogchen, the famous relationship of Yeshe Tsogyal and Padmasambhava is often referred to, with an inference that being a consort is a common highly honored practice. However, I will remind the reader that Yeshe Tsogyal herself was a highly realized woman, who had no other desire, from an early age, than to practice dharma. I am no expert and stand to be corrected, but I know of no authentic practice of sexual union in Buddhism outside of advanced tantric practices. From this viewpoint alone, I question whether it is indeed an honor for any woman to have sexual relations with her teacher, Sogyal Lakar. Though I would never presume to state that none of these women are bodhisattvas on the 10th bhumi, my impression is rather the opposite. These women are tender newcomers to Buddhism who are vulnerable to harm. * Added Sat June 2, 2012 The following is a clarification and correction: As I have said, I am no expert (nor am I a practitioner of Dzogchen). I have recently uncovered references to practices of sexual union in Dzogchen which are separate from tantra. In a recent translation of teachings of Padmasambhava on this topic, it is stated:
Also, in the same text:
And in the same text: “At the time of intercourse when passionate attachment and the concepts associated with it arise, this is experienced as the creative energy of pristine awareness. If one does not know this, it is just attachment. Transforming this into pristine awareness means that by working with passionate attachment itself, passionate attachment is purified.” And in the same text:
(Secret Teachings of Padmasambhava: Essential Instructoins on Mastering the Energies of Life, Edited and Translated by Kennard Lipman, PHD) Indeed, I have very little personal understanding of Dzogchen. However, there are several distinctive features of this description of the Dzogchen approach to sexual union which are significant to this discussion. One is the assertion that the Dzogchen form of sexual union can be practised outside of tantra. I presume this means it is therefore also outside of the boundaries of tantric vows and commitments. Next is the reference to Dzogchen being a “non gradual” path. The inference is that practices such as sexual union, which in tantra can only be practised by very advanced practitioners, could conceivably be allowed for more beginning practitioners of Dzogchen. There is also no emphasis in this text by Padmasambhava on the need to withhold semen during practices of union. I suggest that these features make Dzogchen practices of sexual union more prone to misconduct. In tantra, because of the vow prohibiting practitioners from ejaculating, immediately the practice is one that entails a large degree of self-discipline. It is difficult to imagine that an individual with such control could be engaged in the activity for mere, mundane sexual pleasure. My impression of Dzogchen, however, is that the student only has the lama’s word for it that the practice is different from any other mundane sexual intercourse—because outwardly, it might appear to be the same. In addition, because Dzogchen teachings do stress a non gradual path, then this situation can presumably cause more risks to a beginning student, who is told that sex with the master will help her realize Dzogchen. It is more difficult to establish that essential boundary of safety, which is cultivating the understanding that only a very advanced practitioner can use sexual union on the path. More significant still is the fact that presumably a woman does not need to spend the requisite years of study and critical reflection before finding herself committed to her lama through sexual union. Though many great teachers of Dzogchen would presumably require those prerequisites of their students, there appears to be room for leniency too. Of course, in my ignorance I could be misinterpreting these passages as well as others. Nothing would please me more than for a great master of Dzogchen to enter into these discussions and resolve our concerns about the risks posed by sexual relations between a lama and his students. Nonetheless, tantra or no tantra, there does seem to be a large permissiveness within Buddhist canon for a non-monastic teacher to have sex with his/her students. Does anyone know of a scriptural source for this being harmful to the relationship? I have found none. I suggest that if this is true, if this is the perspective from which mainstream Tibetan Buddhist leaders are exonerating the sexual behaviors of lamas such as Sogyal, then that fact needs to be made known. Students who walk in the door of any Tibetan Buddhist dharma center need to be informed from the very beginning that: 1. sexual relationships between this teacher and his/her students are considered ok; 2. Only students on a very high level of spiritual attainment can use this sexual relationship for spiritual progress; and 3. It is ok for any woman to refuse to have sex with the “master.” It does not break any samaya or commitment she has to her spiritual practice. This is the protocol and educational program that needs to be instigated within our dharma centers. With those three clear guidelines, then at least the playing field would be more level. Students could judge before their judgment became impaired whether they even wanted to enter that door again—whether they could tolerate practicing in such a permissive community. Women would stand a better chance of being able to say no and understand the boundaries of the relationship. Surely, making these issues clear is the least that Sogyal and the Rigpa establishment could do. In the west, there are certain expectations and assumptions about conduct. Tibetans also have certain expectations and assumptions about conduct. At the very least, these current troubles should be a call for better communication on all sides. At least they call for some honesty. If it’s considered ok for Sogyal to have sex with his students, this needs to be broadcast aloud—it needs to be put on Rigpa websites. It needs to be put on fliers. It needs to be made known. So after all this discussion, what is a Rigpa student to think? The answer to this must come from the conscience of each and every student. Even those of us who are Buddhist practitioners but not Rigpa students need to explore our own consciences and our own attitudes towards our teachers. The answers will come one by one, from students themselves. This can be painful and slow, but it is the ground for real change.
[For every Rigpa student who feels that there is simply too much smoke to sit quietly while the fire burns, we advise you to contact Dialogue Ireland as we have been collecting testimony from victims and can give you information, albeit anonymously. Ways to contact Dialogue Ireland include email, info@dialogueireland.org or telephone us on, or 353 872396229 or Skype mikergarde We offer free advice and information, and will publish testimonies either with your full name or anonymously of those still in a process of healing. We do not personally offer therapy but have a list of those that do. We also would recommend those seriously affected by their involvement to consider a visit to this location for in depth support.
Also in the USA and the UK there is help provided by RETIRN (Re-Entry Therapy, Information & Referral Network http://www.dreichel.com/About_RETIRN.htm ] |
| Home » 文章分类_德语 » Kritik an Sexualpraktiken |
简体 | 正體 | EN | GE | FR | SP | BG | RUS | JP | VN Tibetischen tantrischen Wahrheit Zuhause | Gästebuch | LOGIN | LOGOUT
- Betroffenengeschichte des Tantrismus
- Chinmoy-Abuse
- Journal of True Enlightenment
- Krimineller Dalai Lama und Tibet - Gewalt
- Krimineller Dalai Lama und Tibet - Sexualpraktiken
- Kritik an Aggressivität
- Kritik an Dalai Lama
- Kritik an Lamaismus
- Kritik an Sexualpraktiken
- Ole Nydahl-Event
- Recommendable books
- Roach-Event
- Samyukta-Agama Sutra
- Swami-Abuse
- Thai Buddhist Scandal
- True Face of the Dalai Lama
- True Heart News
- True Meaning of Sutras
- True Wisdom of Buddhism
- Truth from insider of Lamaism
- Wahre Bedeutung der Sutren
- Wahre Weisheit des Buddhismus
- Wahrheit aus Insider des Lamaismus
- Behind the Facade of Tibetan Buddhism
- Widerlegung gegen Lamaismus
Sexuelle Skandale der Lamas und Rinpoches
Bevor der Buddhismus in Tibet eingeführt wurde, hatten die Tibetaner "Bön" als Volksglauben gehabt. Bön verehrt Geister, Gespenster und Götter, um ihren Segen zu erhalten. Bön gehört also zu lokalen Volksglauben.
Während der chinesischen Tang Dynastie, führte der tibetische König Songtsän Gampo den Buddhismus in Tibet ein und machte ihn zur Staatsreligion. Der sogenannte "Buddhismus" ist aber tantrischer Buddhismus, der sich in der Spätzeit des indischen Buddhismus ausbreitet. Der tantrische Buddhismus wird auch "linkshändigen Pfad" genannt, weil er die tantrische sexuelle Praxis macht. Um zur tibetischen Kultur zu passen, wird der tantrische Buddhismus mit "Bön" gemischt. Er wird dann noch exzessiver wegen dessen Glaubens an Geister und Gespenster.
Der tantrische Meister Atiśa lehrte die tantrische Sex heimlich. Padmasambhava lehrte sie dann aber offen. Der tibetische Buddhismus weichte nicht nur von buddhistischen Lehren ab, sondern auch von buddhistischer Form. Der tibetische Buddhismus gehört nicht zum Buddhismus und muss "Lamaismus" genannt.
