Author Topic: THE TWO VIEWS OF THE DL CAN AGREE ON ONE THING  (Read 3005 times)


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 616
« on: July 25, 2016, 06:28:42 AM »

1) He is a suffering sentient being
2) He is a Buddha

My personal view is that he appears to me to be a sentient being engaged in harmful and inappropriate actions that completely disqualify him as a valid teacher and Buddhist, so I train in love and compassion for this suffering sentient being because the negative karma he has created is very heavy. In fact, there is no heavier negative karma than abandoning and disparaging the Guru and his lineage. However, this leads me to the next point.

People who have taken him as a Guru, understanding the dangers of abandoning and disparaging their Guru, choose not to abandon or disparage the Dalai Lama because of this. They fight respectfully to lift the ban, but they do not disparage, and while I do respect this approach, because he has abandoned and disparaged his lineage and Gurus and continuously acts in contradiction to the Dharma, practically and conventionally speaking he has disqualified himself as a valid teacher and his students would be wise to distance themselves from receiving further teachings and instead seek teachings from teachers that show the aspect of being qualified by the conventions of both society in general and Buddhist society especially. Some can do this easily, but others, especially those deeply entrenched in his community whether in India or abroad such as international fpmt practitioners for instance, it is very complicated. Those who can should, but this doesn't mean they have to lose pure view, it is merely that it is possible to acknowledge the aspect being shown and to respond accordingly, so if a Lama is engaged in criminal behavior, they need to be held accountable. This is specifically speaking to his students who have a commitment to maintain pure view, and in fairness, it is important to respect their commitment to that.

Also, there are various teachings and things even within the Kangso sadhana itself that prove that:

1) Unless we are a Buddha, we do not know for certain who is and is not a Buddha
2) That Buddhas can appear or emanate anything
3) That we may in fact be the last sentient being, and the entire world and its inhabitants has been emanated for us to develop great compassion, without which we cannot become a Buddha.

To develop compassion for someone we conceive to be a Buddha is called 'wrong compassion', because a Buddha cannot suffer, otherwise many absurd consequences follow. So, in order to not have wrong compassion, although we have the understanding it could be an emanation, we drop this conception of them being an emanation and focus more acutely on the aspect that is appearing.

I am now speaking to those who do not conceive the Dalai Lama as a Buddha, who do not have a commitment to maintain pure view of the Dalai Lama:

So what aspect is the Dalai Lama appearing as? Well, do I really even need to go into it? Just read Harold's list, think about Buddha Shakyamuni's teachings, then tell me whether or not these are the actions of a person following the Buddhist way of life or of a person qualified to be a Buddhist teacher. If you have abandoned your Guru and disparaged his lineage, it is a fact, according to the Lamrim, Sutras, Tantras, Dohas of the Mahasiddhas, and many commentaries, that such a person is not a suitable vessel to transmit lineage blessings.

So, what is the most appropriate response to this according to Dharma? Out of love and compassion, to take actions that accord with the basic laws of human and Buddhist society, call it for what it is, remove such a person from office, and subject them to the same criminal laws of justice that apply to us all.

For the person who regards him as a Buddha:
It is not necessary to abandon pure view of your Guru nor does it follow that you have abandoned it if you were to take the same actions as the person above motivated by love and compassion. Rather than compassion for your Guru, while believing his actions are pure, you must relate to the conventional aspect he is showing which is teaching you the path of abandonment, and out of compassion for the sentient beings suffering as a result of his actions, take action to remove him from his position and subject him to the laws of society. Since you yourself believe he is a Buddha, you need not worry that incarceration will cause him suffering, right? He will experience nothing but uncontaminated great bliss regardless of what appears to us to be happening to him.

So, for those who regard him as a Buddha, understand that when people use the term 'monster' or 'evil dalie' or 'criminal', they are (ideally) out of compassion relating to the conventional appearances and calling it for what we all commonly understand to be criminal behavior that is not fitting for a Buddhist teacher. When I say he is not a valid teacher, it is because according to the conventional criteria of both common society and especially Buddhist society, he has disqualified himself. From the point of view of the 'aspect' being shown, he has shown the aspect of disqualification. If you disagree, it necessarily follows that you believe (one example is enough) a person who has abandoned their Gurus and disparaged their lineage is qualified to transmit the blessings of that very lineage! If you believe that, it also follows that you believe the qualifications of a teacher explained in the Lamrim and Tantras are not true or valid. Remember, we are talking about the 'aspect' being shown. Your pure view is a personal internal view, and keeping it is admirable, but it also makes you believe that he is still qualified. The problem there is yes, from the point of view of internally being a Buddha, of course a Buddha is qualified, but we are not talking about the internal qualifications of a Buddha, we are talking about the external behavior of the aspect that contradicts all the things that would qualify him as a valid teacher.

Since he is not qualified to represent the Three Precious Jewels either from the point of view of a person who has compassion for him as a sentient being, or the point of view of someone who sees him as a Buddha but whose aspect contradicts the required behavior of teachers, he should be removed from his position as a spiritual leader, and he should be held accountable for his actions regarding the ban and other atrocities. In that sense, the two views of the Dalai Lama are in agreement.