Articles by alphabetic order
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 Ā Ī Ñ Ś Ū Ö Ō
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0


MONASTICS MUST BE CELIBATE – ALSO IN VAJRAYANA?

From Tibetan Buddhist Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
70038.jpg




By Joanne Clark


“Following in the Buddha’s Footsteps” – A book by His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Thubten Chodron

Some time ago, I recall a comment on Facebook that caused something of a stir. A person posted a memory of HH Dalai Lama saying during a teaching or question/answer session (or some other public event) that as long as there is no emission, a monastic may engage in consort practice without breaking his/her vows. This statement never sat well with me. And of course, it was simply one person’s memory of an oral statement, taken out of context, so it couldn’t be verified or clarified.

So I was happy today, while reading the latest volume of HH Dalai Lama and Thubten Chodron’s multi-volume series on the Buddhist path to have the matter clarified. In fact, it is clarified quite emphatically. In my opinion, there is a great need for such clarity at this time! Here is the quote from the text entitled Following in the Buddha’s Footsteps:

Monastics must be celibate. There are no exceptions: abstention from sexual intercourse is one of the FOUR ROOT PRECEPTS, transgression of which means that person is no longer a monastic. While we sometimes hear stories of great practitioners who have consorts, these people are not monastics. If a monastic reaches the level where he or she is capable of doing the consort practice—isolated mind on the completion stage—he should give back his monastic precepts

and return to lay life. Tsongkhapa had attained the stage where he was capable of practicing with a consort in order to dissolve the winds into the indestructible drop at his heart. However, with great compassion for sentient beings and great respect for the Vinaya, he chose not to do this and remained a monk for the rest of his life. He knew that living as a pure monastic would be a clearer and more inspiring example for future generations of monastics. At the time of his death, when the winds naturally dissolve, he meditated on the clear light and attained the next level of tantric realization.

Discipline in monasteries must be strict regarding this point. The Indian yogi Virupa (8th-9th century), from whom the Sakya lineage stems, was a monk at Nalanda Monastery in India. While he studied Paramitayana, he also practiced highest yoga tantra. One night the disciplinarian at Nalanda was making the evening rounds, and from Virupa’s room he heard women’s voices. Opening the door, he saw women who, although they looked like prostitutes, were dakinis. We

don’t know if the disciplinarian recognized them as such, but in any case he said that because this was a monastery for monks, they must leave. He also expelled Virupa from the monastery. Even though Virupa was highly realized, no exception was made for him—in the monastery everyone had to keep the root pratimoksha precepts no matter their level of realization. I think that is wonderful. Someone who has developed internal Tantrayana realizations should return his or her monastic precepts and practice tantra outside the monastery.

I doubt that everyone who thinks they are at the level of doing consort practice is capable of doing it. A person does not make this decision for himself; he follows the instructions of his lama. A previous incarnation of Serkong Dorje Chang was a monk when he attained the level in which practice with a

consort would be beneficial. Following the advice of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama, he returned to lay life and married even though he was capable of intercourse without emission. This demonstrated his compassion for others—he did not want them to lose faith in the Sangha—and his respect for monasticism.

Kindle Location 2510-2527 from the section entitled “Maintaining the Purity of the Sangha” in Chapter 5: Sangha: The Monastic Community from Following in the Buddha’s Footsteps (4) Library of Wisdom and Compassion; 2019, by HH Dalai Lama and Thubten Chodron.



Comments

Sexual Union in Tantra: Distinguishing Between Sexual Abuse and Buddhist Practice – Guidelines from HH Dalai LamaTibetan Buddhism – Struggling With Diffi·Cult Issues on October 27, 2019 at 12:59 am Reply […] Monastics Must Be Celibate – Also in Vajrayana? – Joanne Clark (quoting HH the Dalai Lama) […]


matilda7 on October 27, 2019 at 8:32 am Reply

Joanne, while it’s on my mind, and being relevant to your above post and the general issue of abuse by lamas & other TB practitioners, there has been some discussion on the Shambhala Open Discussion fb page (in comments, on various posts, and on the Reddit page) about the Vajrayana texts which prescribe intercourse with 12 year olds, or the visualisation of VY as a gorgeous 16 year old!

It certainly seems timely to attempt to open a discussion with open-minded Lamas & other Vajrayana teachers about the inappropriateness of such ‘requirements’ for spiritual development. On the above fb page the rational suggestion is that such advice encouraged the paedophilia which has occurred in the Sham community and for which thus far two arrests have been made. If i recall correctly, Project Sunshine mentions other relevant anecdotes relating to under-age women being brought by their parents to service the master (yes, horrific, i know).

I think if pressure was brought to bear many Lamas would have to agree that it’s time to revise & update such texts by issuing contrary advice. Of course i’m not suggesting that archaic scriptures could be physically altered. Or even overtly contradicted. Agreeable Lamas could simply advise that those texts were written before the real consequences of underage sexual activity – always non-consensual due to the power imbalance unless engaged in with a peer – were understood: a traumatic impact on the developing brain frequently leading to addiction or other self-destructive behaviours in adolescence and beyond.

It would require a concerted campaign. A handful of dynamic women could work on this, and we know how much support there is out there for reform. It’s presumptuous of me to assume you will be in agreement, but in any case…… Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo could be approached to get on board and i guess the first Lama to contact would be HHDL. Once the imprimatur of those two beacons was secured, there’d be no holding back.

Perhaps something to think about for next year???


Joanne Clark on October 27, 2019 at 10:08 am Reply @matilda7, good grief– what Vajrayana texts are these??!! Horrific. I absolutely think strong action is needed!


tenpel on October 27, 2019 at 11:06 am Reply Just only briefly. It’s true, I heard from a (female) professor that such texts exists. I suggested to her to have more public education on these matters. When I remember correctly, she somewhat replied, it will be hard to discuss these things in public or so.

However, I think, if it is not properly and contextually discussed in public, “secret knowledge” can be abused to manipulate people or to justify abuse. Discussing it in public risks on the other hand to just start the “outrage machine” with a total lack of differentiation and contextualisations.

It needs open and informed discussions – I think this will be difficult to achieve.

In general to marry very young girls (children) was a custom in different cultures. When I remember correctly Dipa Ma was also married with 12 years in India to her husband. These things must be seen in historical context (historically it was not uncommon in different cultures or tribes) and it must be investigated in how that was lived too. How did it feel for those, how were it lived? When I remember correctly, Dipa Ma stressed that her husband was very respectful and gentle. It didn’t sound harmful what she reported. I inferred he didn’t touch her when she was still so young (which needn’t be the case with other child marriages of course). (Please don’t misunderstand that I in any way defend such customs, but I want to understand it from within the respective context and time first. And it is clear we live in another time and age with other values, understandings and insights where this is banned as criminal in most countries.) And then there is still a difference to marry a girl of that age or “taking” her as a consort of course.

As a side note, tantric texts argue when you are qualified for consort practice (which is a very high level) that you must rely on a consort (to dissolve the all pervasive wind into the drop at the heart chakra,) Only a few opponents disagree that to rely on a consort is a must at that level. It is then even understood if it’s a monk, he can engage and does not break his vows because there is (at that level) no attachment involved.

So, you see, viewed in detail it gets more complex.

I wonder if Dr Nida’s book “The Yoga of Bliss” gives the appropriate background information and sound analysis? Or the interview with Prof Ben Joffe? I linked to material at the end of this post: https://buddhism-controversy-blog.com/2017/08/06/sexual-union-in-tantra-distinguishing-between-sexual-abuse-and-buddhist-practice-guidelines-from-hh-dalai-lama/

But this post is about monastics. And in the Gelug tradition, where the Dalai Lama is coming from and from which context he sets his reasoning, the general stance is, that a monk – even when qualified for consort practice (the consort should be qualified too btw) – should NOT engage but follow Lama Tsongkhapa’s example.

However, the respective tantric texts still say, he can engage, even a monk, when he is qualified. And the latter stance is followed by Nyingma and Kagyu pa. I remember a well respected and now very famous Kagyu master. He is a fully ordained monk. He is a genuine master and monk. I have no doubts about his integrity. He was asked in an interview if he would engage in consort practice as a monk. He said, yes, if he is qualified to do it and all the signs are there. He added the signs are certain specific dreams and that his own master says to him that he should now engage. He added also that all these signs must be carefully and critically examined and that where he is now, there is no need spiritually to engage. But if the time is ripe, he would.


tenpel on October 27, 2019 at 3:46 pm Reply To add on this (copy and paste from Facebook discussion):

There are different explanations or views regarding how the three vows collaborate, co-exist, are overwritten or even can’t coexist.

For Tsongkhapa all three set of vows coexist as their own sets, they are like three ribbons independently winded on a column up to the top. Academic research by Jan-Ulrich Sobisch – much based on Nyingma and Kagyu texts (so at least it was told to me by a Tibetologist) – found out that actual, this coexistence of the three set of vows is also the view of the majority of authentic texts in these traditions.

Professor Sobisch will by far be more qualified to give informed details on this. You can buy and read his book: “Three-Vow Theories in Tibetan Buddhism: A Comparative Study of Major Traditions from the Twelfth Through Nineteenth Centuries”. I bought it but still have to read it. https://reichert-verlag.de/buchreihen/geographie_reihen/geographie_contributions_to_tibetan_studies/9783895002632_three_vow_theories_in_tibetan_buddhism-detail

I just saw that a PDF copy of his book is available on http://www.academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/12478726/Three-Vow_Theories_in_Tibetan_Buddhism_A_Comparative_Study_of_Major_Traditions_from_the_Twelfth_Through_Nineteenth_Centuries

The description on Academic.edu says: “The four major Tibetan schools on the way how the vows of individual liberation (pratimoksa), of the bodhisattvas, and of mantra can co-exist without contradiction in a single mental continuum.”

For a German article on this – including the image of the ribbons from pov of Gelug school – see Geshe Thubten Ngawang here: “So wie drei Bänder, die man um eine Säule wickelt, nicht zu einem einzigen Band werden, bleiben auch die drei Gelübde in einer Person einzeln bestehen.“ “Just as three ribbons wrapped around a column do not become a single ribbon, the three vows in one person remain separate.”

https://www.tibet.de/fileadmin/migration/pdf/tibu/2007/tibu081-2007-29-tn-traditionen.pdf

According to this Tibetologist – who gave me these two sources – Prof Sobisch’s academic book comes to the same conclusion.



Source