Lama Osel (Hita Torres) renounces the FPMT

[Alexis]

Hello everyone,

I thought about this and I think its a mistake to say that since Hita Torres is behaving the way he does he cannot be Lama Yeshe's reincarnation.

What are we going to say about Trijang Rimpoche after that: ''Atisha's now disrobed and is contemplating raising a family in a cosy Vermont estate?" or worst: "He is not really the true reincarnation of the great Trijang Dorjechang".

There are quite a few gelug tulkus who have disrobed and have faced massive obstacles in their practice in a manner similiar to Hita Torres.

This has to do with the times in which we live which makes it difficult for inner realisations to surface rapidly in a new incarnation.

Also, remember we are taught to see even our school teachers as buddhas (those who thought us the alphabet, etc.).

Here is a case from my own experience:

At one time I was having a huge disagreement and tensions with my Ph.D thesis director, to the point of breaking the relationship. So I (with the help of my wife) decided to call Nepal and ask Kyabje Dagom Rimpoche to do a MO to check if it was not better to change director (yeah, I know, disturbing high lamas for petty matters...but I was really discouraged, anyway...). But Rimpoche never did the MO, he instead told me to visualize my teacher as a buddha. I was, at first, really disapointed with the advice, but I slowly started applying the painfull mind training (the medecine) had Rimpoche prescribed. Eventually, all the obstacles disapeared and now our relationship (me and my teacher) is harmonious, which will allow me to complete the thesis smoothly and achieve all my objectives (I even recently had a dream in which I saw my teacher as an actual incarnation of Shariputra!!!)

A similiar point can be made with the Dalai-lama. Wether or not he is the real Chenrezig has no importance. If a practitionner has faith in him he will receive Chenrezig's full blessings (remember the Lam Rim story about the dog tooth relic)- this is Tsem Tulku's approch which is pure and faultless. The same is valid for Hita Torres, Trijang Rimpoche, troublesome friends, unjust parents, mean spirited dakinis, etc. A big part of our obstacles comes from our ways of seeing things. Our ways of seeing things forces us in particuliar action sequence with, most of the time, unfortunate results because we think we are smart and right to do the things that we do, but in fact we are, most of the time, dumb and wrong.

The unique mind training present in buddhism allows us to put a stop, or more accurately, to transform our natural causalistic attitude of seeing phenomenas (he did that to me, so I'll behave like that to him...). If we do not use this mind training to change ordinary causality into a path to enlightenment (instead of vengence, turn the other cheek...), we remain caught up in the world of samsaric determination and we will never be able to put to use the teachings on the Wheel of Dependent Arising or Pratitya-samutpada (Buddhist causalistic theory) to get out of samsara.

Mind training about our teachers, friends, enemies, etc. is to put a stop to ordinary causal sequences of though/action patterns and transform our thought and behaviour into a cause for enlightenment.

Since we all have received this teaching many times over but have failled to even consider applying it to our own mind, why don't we all do like Pabonkha and stop the quest for more "outside reasons" and actually practice inside NOW by (painfully!) changing our perspective on things...If we don't actually make the move, we might still actually be caught up in samsaristic determination even after Buddha Maitreya has long been gone.

[theloneranger]

Hello everyone,

I thought about this and I think its a mistake to say that since Hita Torres is behaving the way he does he cannot be Lama Yeshe's reincarnation.

What are we going to say about Trijang Rimpoche after that: ''Atisha's now disrobed and is contemplating raising a family in a cosy Vermont estate?" or worst: "He is not really the true reincarnation of the great Trijang Dorjechang".

There are quite a few gelug tulkus who have disrobed and have faced massive obstacles in their practice in a manner similiar to Hita Torres.

I personally don't care if someone has the title of this tulku or that tulku, i'm interested in how he/she keeps there moral discipline, whether he sets a good example and how well he expounds the dharma.  The Tulku system is corrupt as hell in Tibet and beyond.  Deluded people seem to want to praise and devote themselves to teachers who don't set a good example.  Better to find another teacher who sets a good example and will lead you on the right path.  Do you remember Buddha Shakyamuni and his disciples having a tulku system?

Do i consider Trijang Dorjechang's reincarnation to be the real reincarnation?  No, i consider him to be a disrobed monk that broke his vows. He sets a bad example.  This doesn't mean i don't have respect and compassion for him. 

I agree it is good to see all beings as buddha's, but we have to be careful not to delude ourselves in following unqualified spiritual guides and teachers who set a bad example.  In my opinion dharma disciples need to earn there stars through hard work and devotion.  Tulku system is messed up!

For instance i like Tsem Tulku Rinpoche because he sets a good example and expounds pure dharma not because he has the title of Tulku!

[Alexis]

The Loneranger,

If you have read my posts on this forum last year, you know I couldn't agree more with you concerning the Tulku system.

But in the end, what the teachings of Buddha point out to is that, there is a limit to ordinary conceptual mind and that this reliance on conceptual mind alone will not take you out of Samsara (we also know that Gelugpas assert that conceptual mind is essential in the begining to get a clear understanding of the path and especially to get a generic, correct, understanding of emptiness used as a basis for meditation that will eventually take the practitionner beyond conceptuality).

The limits of conceptuality, however, and the problem it poses for actions (karma) as described in my previous post, are the reasons why Tsem Tulku (for example, not wanting to focus on him...) trains himself to see no faults in the Dalai-Lama despite all the proofs derived from ordinary conceptions. This is also why Kyabje Rimpoche told me to see no faults in my teacher despite all the evidence to the contrary (derived from my ordinary conceptuality).

The painfulness and difficulty associated with the "letting go" of conceptuality is probably the reason why lojong (and emptiness, to a certain extent) teachings were kept secret for so long...they straightfowardly go against (realistic) common sense...as does receiving blessings from a dog's tooth or getting real sustenance by eating rock soup or seeing that 'stinky old fool' lying wretched on the floor as an emanation of Manjushri!!!

Anyway, I guess we both know this issue cannot be resolved by words because there are always two truths, not a single truth, and that whatever we say only finds its meaning in practice.

Yours....

[theloneranger]

I agree with alot of things you are saying alexis but my my main point is not to follow a teacher who is not qualified to be a spiritual guide.  We must be careful who we choose as our spiritual guide and check he/she is duly qualified by following what is says in the scriptures.  So if my teacher is a monk and having sex with lots of his students, drinking beer and  gambling, i should ignore his bad behaviour and only focus on his good points?  At some point we have to draw a line and decide whether we are going to keep this individual as our teacher.  If we are following a teacher who sets a bad example , maybe there is a chance we will be influenced by him and end up engaging in degenerate behaviour.  Sometimes there are times in our practice that we rely on sutra methods alone to overcome delusions and other times we rely on Tantric methods alone. Alot depends on our capacity to practice.  What i'm saying that at some point we have to apply some common sense in what we are doing. If our teacher is not duly qualified, enlightenment will be harder to come by.  Am i making sense   I know there are many stories of the past, like milarepa's teacher marpa, and naropa's teacher tilopa where spiritual guide's appeared in many forms. It could be that everyone on this forum is a buddha except me and that you are all teaching me how to drop my pride!, lol.   

[a friend]

Hi friends, I'm happy to see that most of us are in agreement that we should not interpret the actions of Osel Hita the way they are being publicly interpreted in the cover of our website. We don't need to put more obstacles in the path of our young tulkus, present and future.

One should be careful, though, in the way we publicly apply the teachings.
One thing is to use privately the Training of the Mind teachings, and this is something that everyone of us should do. Another thing is to publicly use the devices of this training and confuse people's minds, confuse non-buddhist people's minds, confuse novice practitioner's minds. One should ponder why these teachings were esoteric.
To be clear. Our Lord Buddha declared that he loved Devadatta as much as he loved his own child, Rahula. But he never justified the bad actions of his cousin.
Now let's take the Dalai Lama. Some among us love him very much just in a natural human way, because we have a history with him. This sentimental love is not necessary, whereas all of us should love him with the love of the Boddhisattva, with the love of the mother for the only child.
But none of us should tell the world that he is a Buddha. Nor a superior Bodhisattva.

Excuse me friends, but the only way the Buddhas have to help people out of samsara is by teaching Dharma. How can we teach Dharma and point to a person who incites hatred in the individuals of his own nation against their compatriotes, who produced a schism in the Sangha, who did what he did against his Lama and the lineage --to point to such person and say: this is a Buddha, this is a superior Bodhisattva?
And by pointing to him and labeling him in such way, telling people: act like him, this is the way of Dharma.

All of this is tragic enough.
Let's apply the teachings to our minds.
In public, let's just not talk any more about the Dalai Lama, except when it is necessary to protect his victims.

[Alexis]

Hmmmmm...

This is quite a thorny issue and, as I said, there are may ways to see it.

A Friend, nobody is saying Dalai-Lama's action are good, NO! I wrote that an attitude like that of Tsem Tulku, who has indeed many samayas with "The King", cannot be said to be faulty. Nobody here is excusing "the King".

Now the teaching on lojong are not that esoteric anymore, you will hear stories like the ones I was mentionning in just about every Lam Rim teaching you will attend.

I think the reason for this is that we now live at a time of strife and conflict. Our egos are on steroïds, and we are just about as individualistic as i'll get during the time of 4th Buddha's teachings. We publicly need such mind training teaching because our mind naturally critizise teachers (we find many faults in them, etc.), despise our friends, lacks respect for parents, etc.

If we remove the talk of lojong publicly (such as in this forum) we end up following our strife-prone conceptual mind. We need something like a locking mechanism in order to avoid our minds falling on the slippery path of critizism, which leads to anger, which in turn leads to unskillfull actions and then suffering.

Now, I agree with you that we shouldn't talk about "The King's" unskillfull actions unless necessary. But I think that we also cannot do without talk of lonjong, especially in forum settings which are places were tongues (or shall I say fingers...) are not rolled seven times before writing...(see all my posts... !).

Yours,

[a friend]

Alexis, I know that you are not saying that the Dalai Lama's actions are good, what I am saying is that at the time of talking about your Training of the Mind practice, please do not give him as an example because we practitioners might understand (not all of us though, not everybody has the same maturity in Dharma) but definitely non-practitioners are only going to say, oh, he is the Buddha, or oh, he is a great Boddhisattva, ergo, his actions are correct.
This would go against the basic of the Buddhas' deeds, i.e., their teaching of what we should adopt and what we should abandon.
I have to remind you that in the Mantrayana the view is still more radical, and the fact that there are tantric teachings explicit around the world should not give us the permission to talk openly about something that again, would confuse the mind of others.
I suggest again that we limit our talking about the Dalai Lama to the minimum indispensable. When we have to state what we know, we might want to give him and others a type of way out ... I think we should always with kindness state that his role, that he didn't choose, as political leader, certainly made things difficult for him as a religious person.
The Loneranger, dear friend, I think you might want to re-think your sayings about our protector Trijang Rinpoche. You do not have the authority to judge his private actions neither as a monk nor as a lay person, this is something that he fixed with his Lamas and it's not for any of us to judge. Nowadays, if you judge a tree by its fruits then we should prostrate to him in unison, because it's been a while now that he's become a great Lama, not only a great teacher but one of the few who is gathering the complete transmission of our lineage's teachings.
As for your hatred towards the Tulku system, don't forget that anything you say about it can be said about any institution, even the Sangha instituted by our Lord Shakyamuni Buddha. Read the things he, the immaculate one, had to witness and endure. With the Tulku system, as with any other institution, we have to be careful not to throw the baby with the tub's water, since this is a system that has many advantages and could be very excellent in the future, when politics and greed are going to play a lesser role than in the past. Alexis is so right in reminding us that we should always, always, try to apply a view other than the mundane view.
Best to all.

[Alexis]

I, by no mean, want to be argumentative. But I think you cannot have it both ways here, my Friend.

You cannot ask us to understand (to read) the Dalai-Lama's actions from an ordinary, realistic standpoint and then ask us to perceive Trijang Rinpoche's, Osel's (or other tulkus) actions from an extra-ordinary (lojong or tantric) standpoint.

What I mean is that, if your "public", "official" or "explicit" perspectice on behavior is to read actions from an ordinary standpoint, then you have to apply it consistently to both "king" and "priest".

You consistent standpoint will then inevitable take you to a perspective similiar to that of the Loneranger (who never said, by the way, that he "hated" the tulku system) being a realist about behavior toward both DL and tulkus alike.

If, on the other hand, you defend an uncommon standpoint on lama behavior, such as not blaming tulkus for their sometimes misguided behavior, then you have to apply this across the board and extend it to "the King".

Maybe you have something more nuanced in mind, but I havn't seen its trace in your writing. I'm not sure what I wrote is clear anyway...

In any case, these posts are helpfull even to me as they help me clarify my own mind on these issues. For example, I just noticed that I was in fact a hypocryte in defending the uncommun standpoint in the above posts because my daily attitude is very severe, realistic and critical on behavior.

What do you think?

[a friend]

Alexis, you are right about clarifying through an honest discussion. So this is what I think, although I had not tagged my writings as being according to this or that view, now you make me do it, and I welcome it.

And what I discover is, in any case did I apply a view other than a valid conventional one, and I am trying to obtain the same from others.

No need of any special view to know that Trijang Choktrul Rinpoche has become a great Lama and somebody that is gathering the treasury of our lineage's teachings, any person attending his teachings can tell you about it.
No need of special view to demand from somebody to abstain to judge the private actions of a Lama that is today in such holy position, who already fixed his way of life in agreement with his own Lamas. Who are we to meddle with that? Who has the authority to judge beyond Trijang Rinpoche's Lamas and himself? This has nothing to do with any special view, we are talking simple human common sense and respect for conventional situations that deserve respect.

I don't apply any special view either to the case of Tulku Ösel. About himself I am not saying anything, I never saw him in my life and don't know anything about him. I only talked about us. What special view do we need to say the following: 1-we do not have the capacity to judge the karmic situation of this being, only the enlightened ones have such capacity and 2- we should be wise and abstain from easy interpretations, because I believe in the law of karma, as you might've noticed, and I know that with such actions we are creating obstacles for Ösel and hence for our Tulkus in the future.
And now I want to say something that I didn't say before: who are we to declare that any given person is a true or false Tulku? And also: I wish Ösel the best as a movie director, if that is what he wants to do today, and I wish that one day he will meet with a true Teacher that is going to give him what was denied to him so far, the true heritage of Lama Yeshe. And I ardently wish that he becomes a great Lama in the future.

I was wrong in mentioning "a view other than the mundane view" when I said that the Tulku system has  advantages that should not be so easily discarded because all institutions are flawed with the flaws of samsara. Probably what I should have said is: "a view other than the lowest mundane view, other than the view that views everything as being bad and negative, having instead a view that reasonably sees advantages and disadvantages and chooses to focus on the first ones". Something like that.

What I am trying to say with the subject of the views is that the special views should not be publicized, we should keep our practice to ourselves, and more so our more secret practices. We should apply the Training of the Mind as much as we can to our own mind, but this should not be publicized. Let alone with examples that are going to counter the simplest of teachings of the Buddha about what to abandon and what to adopt, like in the case of proclaiming that somebody that is having a behaviour beyond description is a Buddha or a Superior Boddhisattva. Imagine the confusion. The view of the Training of the Mind, the view of the Mantrayana, of course we have to develop them, but to talk about them in public is another matter.

Good talking to you, Alexis.

[Alexis]

These are all very interesting points. Thanks to you two.

In the end, if we read the contents of this page (page 2) carefully, I think we are all generally of the same opinion on these matters. We disagree with what's written and/or how it's written but I think we all think the same.

Nevertheless, the writing helps us clarify issues for ouselves and think twice about these matters, which is a thousand times better than abiding firmly by ourselves in our own little fuzzy convictions.

Thanks to you all,

 

[a friend]

Alexis, thank you for your patience.
Yes, I agree, we think the same, that's why we can discuss.
I apologize for the intensity and the urgency of my expression, that might even appear arrogant. I should learn how to say things in a more moderate way. Beyond the fact that my words reflect, no doubt, my nature, I have to say that this issue has caused me more pain than I can explain, and it still anguishes me, although incomparably less than before the existence of this Forum.
This Forum has forced me to confront issues that before, because my Lamas had died, only caused me an infinite pain and fear. The fear of the sacred is a terrible one to endure. Your presence and the dialogue with you, friends, has caused me to face things, to remember the Logic I'd learned and to apply it to this difficult matter.
Thank you for your presence.

[Alexis]

A question that I had in the back of my mind for a while is...can they reordain later in life?

I've heard "Yes" and "No" on this question from knowledgable people. But what does the Vinaya actually says?

I know theravadins are allowed to reordain after having disrobed, and they are more strict than us on discipline, so what is it?

Anyone with a copy of the Vinaya in front of him or her can clarify this issue? Are there variants within the tibetan tradition on this topic?

If a Hita Torres or a Trijang Rimpoche could reordain later in life, that would definately change our perspective on things, no?

[kelsang]

re-ordain possible or not?

As far as i know its possible but not a common thing. I know someone who re-ordained so I think its up to the Lama if he will grant the vows again or not. Dont know about Gelong though, this guy was Getsül when he disrobed.

I have a question too... how come that there is pictures of Trijang Chogtrul Rinpoche in robes wich look like they were taken after he disrobed... Does he wear robes sometimes and if why and wich occasion?

And last thing: Did anyone of u read one of the secret biographies of Je Tsongkhapa, I have a question burning under my nails.. please write me a personal message here.

Thank u and lots of love and prayers

Kelsang

[Alexis]

Kelsang,

I think I know what your question is and the answer is NO!

[kelsang]

Well i can write my question here but i am not sure if it should be discussed publicly.
I read in an interview ( with a Geshe ) that Je Rinpoche had a consort. I am wondering wether that is true.
To me Je Tsonkhapa embodies this pure vinaya aspect, keeping everything tantric completely secret so i had some doubts on the validity of this statement, also there were no sources mentioned.  If u ( Alexis ) were refering to that i would like to know on what basis u say no.
Thanks for that fast reply anyway