[moderating]
Ambu, please do not copy long blocks of other people’s text (especially without permission) from other websites and paste them here. We are respectful of other’s copyright, and would prefer that you simply include a link to the text and a sentence or two summarizing what it says. I have edited your post to remove the majority of the lengthy copy & paste job. If you wish to add a link so that people can read it, please feel free to do so.
[/moderating]
Well, as I’ve been saying from early on, what the rules are and what reality is are two very different things. Kalu Rinpoche didn’t leave monastic life even though he had secret consorts. (OK, granted, he didn’t marry.) He was Kagyu. The 16th Karmapa had American consorts (in abusive relationships according to reports) but continued to wear robes. Traleg Rinpoche, who married an Australian, still wears robes and runs a sangha (Kagyu)’ I’ve had to fend off unwanted attention (some quite persistent) from Gelug lamas. I’ve concluded that this attention (from them and others) was probably due to the fact that it’s easier to hide an affair if they have it when they’re in residency abroad. Much more difficult to maintain the secrecy in India.
At any rate, this problem is much more widespead than most people know. And recall that I mentioned earlier that the DL himself said that there are no true tantric masters (presumably that statement would include himself), implying that something other than bonafide tantric sex is going on. Even if it were tantric sex, coercing women into it is not the way to go. Oh, and another comment on “the rules”: You say Sakya rules don’t allow monks/lamas to be close to women after they have sons?? What kind of a rule is that?! Lots of married Sakya lamas have sanghas and teach to women, and Sakya Trizin is pretty out-of-control, but…he’s the head of the entire sect, so I guess he’s in charge of the rules, isn’t he.
Gedun Chopel was a gelug monk, and was sleaze incarnate. He admits that he was “living in self-deception” while he was a monk. At least he had the honesty to eventually give up his vows and pursue his sexual obsession outside of the monastic system.
“Wikipedia” is hardly a definitive authority on this matter, but I guess it’s a starting point. Mostly, people need to wake up and smell the coffee. It reeks. I don’t think this is a question of a few bad apples. Most of the barrel is rotten. It’s about power, not compassion and loving-kindness.
Dear Ambu:
-
Look up censorship in a dictionary.
-
Read the rules of our board before participating.
-
Look up what a copyright is.
-
No need to be a lawyer. We already have one.
-
Bye-bye.
-=- Gary -=-
Original, creative works of expression are protected under copyright law as soon as they are created. It looks like you copied someone else’s writing and posted it here. You certainly didn’t say you did it with the author’s permission.
Why didn’t you summarize the content of the other person’s work in your own words in the first place?
I imagine Ambu was trying to save time by reprinting a post her friend had made on Ambu’s own website. And first-person narrative is more powerful than someone else’s summary. Do the rules require that one state that permission to reprint has been given? I’ve posted references to info sources here, and it seems that no one has bothered to look them up. Oh well; live and learn.
To get back to the subject at hand;
Dzongar Khentse Rinpoche, the Butanese filmmaker, posted a statement on the internet saying that the husbands of Western women dharma students are/have been “naive” to allow their wives to travel to Asia to study with lamas! In other words, don’t send your wives to any lamas anywhere! They will be putting their physical integrity at risk! He would know–straight from the horse’s mouth.
Here’s an interesting story from Tibetan Buddhism professor Turrel Wylie (now deceased), who set up the system of romanization of the Tibetan alphabet currently in widespread use, and who set up the original Tibetan community/Sakya monastery in Seattle, WA. He told his class the following story:
After he had transferred a branch of the Sakya “royal” family to Seattle from Dharamsala, he was accompanying one of the monks near the university when the monk saw a student getting off a bus. He began to run after her, yelling excitedly that she was a khandroma, a type of female deity who has the power to bestow enlightenment on anyone who has sex with her. The monk clearly intended to assault her then and there, in the middle of the sidewalk, as was the custom in Tibet. Wylie had to physically restrain him, and explain that he couldn’t do that in the US or he’d get into serious trouble. He had to brief all the monks/lamas on this in order to avoid problems. None of them had any clue that they couldn’t just jump on women in public.
The Sakya kids would go into grocery stores and take whatever they wanted without paying, as they had always done in the markets in Tibet. They also had to learn that customs were different here. Everyone had to learn that they no longer had the privileges of royalty (not to mention: monkhood) in their new home.
RE: the keeping of vows, Gelugs, etc: please refer to the testimony mentioned further above given by a senior monk, former mayor of Lhasa, and close friend of the Dalai Lama, stating that monks routinely jump the monastery walls at night to be with women. All the literature I’ve read states that monks caught with women will be excommunicated. In reality, few take their celibacy vows seriously, and no one that I’ve ever heard of has been defrocked. And according to a Tibetan Buddhism scholar at the U of CA, Santa Cruz, the mutual masturbation thing is also prohibited in the same text that prohibits oral and anal sex. According to him, it states that the space inbetween the thighs is also a “prohibited organ”. How realistic is it to expect people to be celibate who are required to meditate on the sex act?
Let’s also bear in mind that the women who get abused by lamas (this takes place in the US, not just Asia) are young (early to mid-20’s usually), like our readers here, they believe all the hype about lamas being celibate, gentle people (if you don’t believe what I’m saying on this site, why would you expect these young women to be more savvy than you?), and unfortunately, many of them have been abused as children. They’re looking for people to trust, and the lamas betray that trust and misuse their positions of authority. These are not isolated incidents. When you collect enough “isolated incidents” (hundreds), suddenly they’re not so isolated anymore.
Compassion and loving-kindness don’t apply to women.
MissTyk, if you want to rant and rave, please start a pit thread. If you want to have an honest debate, start a new Great Debates thread instead of resurrecting a 5 year old zombie thread. If you do want to make a Great Debate, please keep things simple. Hearsay on Tibet (which you admit you know nothing about, hearsay on India (which you have no experience of), and other claims would probably be best either defined or left out of the debate.
I’m not unsympathetic as I do have some knowledge of Chogyam Trungpa Tulku. And there are some other people on these boards who have some first hand experience of Tibetan Buddhism that can contribute to the debate.
Also, FYI, we kinda like to have citations aka cites for claims in Great Debates. Things like “I heard x said y” are generally treated with skepticism.
And women in their 20’s are legally considered adults in the US of A. As a father of 3 girls, I strongly believe that women and especially naive women should not be abused. That said, IMHO, it also does not imbue women of legal age with zero responsibility for their own safety, well being and judgement.
“Ranting and raving”? I was backing up my statements with experts’ statements. I can provide urls for some of these, if that’s what you require. BTW, I spoke with Ambu’s friend just now, and she said of course permission is given to publish her entire statement, and Ambu’s husband is a copyright lawyer. They know what’s reprintable and what isn’t. I don’t understand your comments about setting up different threads. I’ve been sticking with the original topic of this thread.
As I understand it, this is not the “Great Debates” forum, it’s the “General Questions” forum (see heading at top of page), where reviving old threads is acceptable. No one objected to it being an “old thread” before, why raise this issue now? This is a topic that’s always timely and relevant. We should be seeing more media attention to this problem in the coming months/year, as some of the women whose cases are mentioned here will be interviewed by media soon.
I’ve given references before, but apparently more/better documentation is required, so I’ll do a little catch-up. For a thorough article on child sex abuse in the monasteries in India and Nepal, see: www.lamashree.org/dalailama_08_childabuse_tibetanbuddhistmonasteries.htm Also see Tashi Tsering’s book, “The Struggle For Modern Tibet” for corroboration of Lama Shree’s testimony.
For details of ritual rape of 8, 10, 12 and 15 or 16-year old girls, see Victor and Victoria Trimundi’s book, “The Shadow of the Dalai Lama”, chapter on the Kalachakra Tantra. You could also read the Hevajra and other tantras, and find the same. For corroboration, see Gedun Chopel’s “The Tibetan Arts of Love”.
I’m still looking for the quote from Dzongsar Khentse Rinpoche discussed above. Everything in the paragraph on the Sakyas in Seattle is from a lecture by Turrel Wylie, one of the foremost Tibetologists of his time. None of it is my opinion. (How could it be? I’ve never been to Tibet.) I thought the anecdote would be elucidating.
June Campbell’s book, “Traveller in Space” has a thorough analysis of how the mindset in the monasteries leads to abuse of women.
Hello, I just found this website and thread. I hope it’s not too late to join.
The OP says Tibetan Buddhism sounds cultish and abusive. There are websites that deal with cults and have special sections dealing with Tibetan Buddhism. That would seem to answer that question. I’ve been participating on a Buddhist chat board, and some really strange things have been mentioned as to Tibetan Buddhism. It doesn’t really sound very Buddhist. There are nude weekend retreats lead by lamas, students are sometimes required to disrobe completely in front of the lama (this is called “stripping the ego”), and then there’s the tantric sex, which apparently, gets out of hand. I don’t know what sex has to do with Buddhism, anyway–it seems like a situation ripe for abuse. I had a girlfriend once who said she’d been harassed by a couple of lamas over the years.
By the way, Dakini, I read the article on the abuse of the boy novices. I saw a PBS program on Tibet about 10 years ago that presented the same information. The program featured a teen monk who talked about his experience with that abuse in his boyhood. But I didn’t know the problem is as widespread as the web report indicates. I’m about addressing human rights issues when they come up. Do you have any ideas about what to do about the boys? A letter-writing campaign to the Dalai Lama, possibly? That article is gut-wrenching.
Thanks for caring, Compassionate_warrior. A letter-writing campaign isn’t a bad idea, but the problem is that HHDL has no authority over monasteries outside his sect. But still, it’s a good idea. Do you have a group or sangha that could be mobilized for this? Also, it’s not unusual for some families to give away a child to the monasteries due to poverty. One less mouth to feed, body to clothe. So some sort of financial aid would have to be provided for such families. It’s not a simple issue. The other route would be to somehow pressure the gov’t of India to pass a law similar to Sri Lanka’s, prohibiting children from entering the monastery. There’s a minimum age in Sri Lanka.
Tibetans say that stuff about naked retreats and stripping naked in front of the lama (called “stripping the ego”) is nonsense. I’m sure this outrageous stuff doesn’t take place in the Tibetan community. Except that Chogyam Trungpa said his teacher required him to strip naked, that’s how he found out about the practice. I can’t explain why such strange things happen when Westerners are involved. It creates a very bad impression of Tibetan Buddhism.
I have new info from a high authority in the Kagyu sect. Shamar Rinpoche, second in authority after the Karmapa, says that after 30 years of observing the tantric sex “movement” (he calls it) in the West, he thinks it “wasn’t helpful”. He seems to feel that all the Kagyu lamas who made a bee-line for the West in the 70’s, after discovering that Westerners were keen on tantric sex (his, and their, impression) made a mistake. (All the women I’ve been in touch with say they had no idea sex was part of Buddhism. The interest seemed to come from the men, like Lama Ole Nydahl, as Shamar details on his website, www.shamarpa.org) So Shamar now has set up dharma centers where Vajrayana practices are not allowed. He’s getting back to the tried-and-true basics of Buddhism: meditation practice, study of basic texts, just what most people thought Buddhist practice was about. I find it interesting that a Vajrayana master has decided Vajrayana is “not appropriate for the West”. Better late than never, I guess.
Joining this thread way late, but I will say I know a lot of people in the Boulder Shambhala Community, many of whom are\were students of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche - and though his many, many misguided tendencies pervaded his life here in the US, he was friends with many movers and shakers who were not Tibetan Buddhists, [Ginsberg, Kerouac, Vonnegut, Waldman] and he started the Naropa Institute now Naropa University, as well as Charme Choeling, and the students, teachers and practitioners who have carried his message and the message of Shambhala - including his son the Sakyong all in their own ways denounce the misguided tendencies of Trungpa. I’ll read further into this thread in the morning but for now, I’d just like to understand where **Misstyk **is coming from, because it sounds [on a cursory note] to be accusatory of a sect of Buddhism and seems to be blanketing that sect as being something other than it’s true nature. I apologize for not reading the whole thing through, I will in the morning…
Compassionate_warrior, about your concern re: “strange” practices in Tibetan Buddhism, I’ve been chatting with a couple of Tibetans on a Buddhist discussion board, and they say that none of these “extreme” practices happen in the Tibetan community (nude retreats, stripping naked in front of the lama, the lama pressuring women into a “tantric practice”). It seems like the lamas (some lamas) save that stuff for their Westerner sanghas. I don’t know why, but maybe Shamar Rinpoche’s writings give us a hint; maybe some of the people who went to the Himalayan region/India in the 70’s were a bit wild, and so the lamas got the impression that they were the norm, and that Westerners were all into tantric sex…?
This isn’t about any one sect, it’s about abuses in TB in general. I just happened to come across Shamar’s website recently, and thought his comments to be revealing and thought-provoking. I think his new approach will help clean up some of the tarnished image TB has gotten over the years.
I’ve been talking to some Tibetans about the guru-chela relationship, and about problems that can come up in the sangha re: how the lamas behave with some women in the sangha. They had some really interesting feedback. They said from what they’ve heard, Westerners misunderstand the nature of the guru-chela relationship, and think they have to obey the lama’s every command. The Tibetans say this is incorrect, and that it sounds like some lamas are deliberately giving Western women (and sometimes men, in the case of nude retreats) the wrong impression in order to take advantage.
They also said that if a teacher is harassing a student/students, it’s ok to take them aside, have a firm but respectful talk with them, remind them of their vows (if they’re celibate monks), and recommend a cold shower! I’ve never heard that before. I think sangha members and sangha “administration” should be more pro-active in preventing inappropriate behavior. But sometimes the leaders are too invested in a given teacher, or have an agenda, and sometimes the sangha members are too starry-eyed toward the teacher. The only way around that is to choose a sangha very carefully.
Actually, Shamar’s centers do sound interesting. Back-to-basics Buddhism. Vajrayana doesn’t really sound like Buddhism, it sounds like an adaptation of aspects of medieval Hinduism, or something…
Someone recommended a book on the guru-chela relationship. this sort of thing should be required reading for all in the dharma community, and for anyone going to Asia to look for a teacher. Once prepared with accurate information, students would be less likely to be manipulated by a teacher. And women need to be more assertive, and simply walk away if inappropriate demands are made.
This is inaccurate. There are several different accepted systems of categorizing Vajrayana, and multiple contesting theories and accounts of its inception, but the general consensus is that it rose to prominence following the decline of the Gupta Empire, whose antagonists often criticized Mahayana Buddhism for its tight association with the Gupta court.
It is difficult to conduct scholarly research of Vajrayana, but in general qualified teachers tend to be extremely careful about who they teach, because it can be easily misunderstood and isn’t particularly useful for some practitioners. Most traditions advise or outright require extensive background in Mahayana before teaching Vajrayana, and in general I would be extremely skeptical of anything taught casually. The most effective parts of Buddhism are extremely simple practices that anyone can do, so there’s no reason to chase after exotic-seeming practices for their own sake.
Good info, Omi no Kami. My comment was made in the context of abuses of students that have occurred over the years, in relation to those “exotic-seeming practices” (which, according to accounts, the students themselves weren’t even interested in; their teachers took advantage of them. That’s why I began a discussion about the proper understanding of the guru-chela relationship. I’ll post more on this later).
The highest tantric practices, according to my recent exploration of this issue, come from India, Oddiyana/Uddiyana, according to scholars.
The Oddiyana region was a fairly major source of dissemination of Tantric Buddhism. Regarding the actual effectiveness of the practices, it depends very heavily on which region you’re talking about: the actual categorization of Tantra varies somewhat by region.
It’s also important to understand that tantric practices are not, by definition, superior: mahayana, theravada and vajrayana are all roughly equivalent, and generally speaking the important thing isn’t to study the highest level teaching you can receive, it’s to find which teachings work for you, whether they are very high-level techniques or lamrim or anything else.
You keep talking about the guru-chela relationship, which makes me think that you might be conflating Hindu and Buddhist practices. Regardless, the relationship of student and teacher in Tibetan Buddhism is often misunderstood. As in every other tradition in the world, there are teachers who try to take advantage of people and students who have unhealthy levels of devotion or idolization toward their teachers. However, a great deal of Tibetan texts have been written concerning how to find a teacher and maintain a healthy relationship, and even for very proficient teachers and students it can be a matter that require great care.
There are two essays I think might be of interest to people. They’re both from the archives of Alexander Berzin, who spent over 29 years in Tibet, India and Nepal studying with some of Tibetan Buddhism’s most renowned masters. The first one is a brief history of Buddhist sexual ethics, and the other is a fairly extensive work on building a healthy relationship with a spiritual teacher.
More good information, and thank you for those references. I was using the term “guru-chela” applied broadly, but to avoid confusion, I’ll use “student-teacher” in the future.
RE: choosing a school or path that works best; I suspect that so many people choose Vajrayana simply because it has the most centers in the US; every city has at least half-a-dozen, if not more, so it appears to be the most accessible (or the most aggressively advertised…??) That was the case for me; I’m not sure how/where to find Mahayana or Hinayana centers that aren’t geared toward ethnic practitioners (i.e. the teachings would be in Chinese, Korean, etc.)
Here is what I’ve come up with re: the student-teacher relationship. There is some contradiction here, so if you could provide any clarification, I’d appreciate it. Excellent point, BTW, re: “unhealthy level of devotion”. According to some testimony that has come up on another site, though, some lamas encourage this. But there are also psychological issues involved with some of the students, as noted below.
Patrul Rinpoche, in “The Oral Instructions of My Excellent Lama” states the following:
“Although the lama is pleased by three types of service, it is said that the supreme type is the offering of practice. This means persevering in the practice of all the teachings taught by the lama and enduring all hardships. The intermediate way … is serving your lama by doing whatever he wants you to do with your body, speech and mind. The lowest way to please your lama is by making generous offerings of material things such as food and wealth.”
Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Taye Rinpoche, in “The Teacher-Student Relationship” states the following:
“Although Naropa, Marpa or Milarepa would offer everything to the lama, including wife, children or his own body, speech and mind, for most students today these types of offerings are not only not expected, but strongly discouraged.”
I think the latter policy is clearly the one for contemporary students to follow. Some women have said that their lama told them he is a representative not only of the Buddha (or words to that effect), but of the Holy Truth, that he works for the benefit of all sentient beings, and has the best interests of the student at heart. When the lama makes inappropriate demands, and may aggressively insist that the students comply, they become confused, and think either a) this is a test of their devotion or, b) maybe the teacher is right, maybe they would be missing out on an important practice. It should be noted that those who give in are students who typically come from family backgrounds with a history of abuse. They don’t have the normal psychological defenses that others would have. This is, indeed, unfortunate. I’m hoping that a correct elucidation of the teacher-student relationship will help prepare students, so that they will be better able to handle this type of incident. It also seems that students should be better informed about the path they have chosen. The women say they were interested mainly in meditation and studying texts. I’d have to say that’s how I feel as well.
I don’t know what can be done to avoid lamas with less-than-ethical behavior, other than, as many recommend, thoroughly researching the teachers in advance. This isn’t possible when students travel to India for 6 months or a year or even two, nor is it possible when retreats are marketed in the West, and eager students attend these retreats. But it may be that Vajrayana simply isn’t appropriate for most Westerners. Most of us aren’t interested in “exotic practices”, but in the fundamentals of Buddhism and meditation.
These are painful and unpleasant matters, but I feel something needs to be done to prevent further problems. I’m trying to understand the root causes, to figure out how best to address the issue. Thank you for your feedback.
First of all, I’m pretty sure cut & pasting the same question to multiple boards is frowned upon. Second, Patrul Rinpoche’s work was a modern one, and it’s important to realize that The Words of My Perfect Teacher wasn’t intended to be an introductory text, and it contains a lot of references and allusions that it’s assumed will be familiar to readers.
Regarding the offering rituals, there are a few things to keep in mind here with regards to your quote: the first is that the point of that particular quotation wasn’t to assert granting one’s body, speech, and mind as a valid form of offering: it was to emphasize that following a teaching, conducting diligent practice based on the teaching as an offering was the highest form of offering.
Second, the note regarding Milarepa and the others was likely apocryphal as well, historically there’s little evidence that his comment is accurate. Regardless, that particular section was referring to two major things: one was the need to have faith in a spiritual teacher, which does not mean following his instructions without question. It rather refers to the fact that such trust is necessary, and that a teacher and student who don’t trust each other are likely to have an unproductive and generally unhealthy relationship regardless of their intent.
Generally speaking, a lot of the stuff written in the last 700 years surrounding adoration of the teacher tends to at least in part refer to Guru Yoga, which has nothing to do with literal worship of or obedience to the teacher, although this is frequently misunderstood.
When it comes to Patrul Rinpoche’s position regarding the healthy relationship between student and teacher I think it’s more helpful to look at the Patrul Rinpoche’s citation from the Thorough Realization of the Instructions on All Dharma Practices that he gives within The Words of My Perfect Teacher. Essentially, he states that it is helpful for the student to practice the six perfections (generosity, virtue, patience, effort, concentration, wisdom) with regards to their teacher. His quotation recommends practicing the six perfections with regards to one’s teacher by 1) offering flowers, a throne, and other standard stuff before the teaching begins, 2) comporting onesself humbly and arranging (cleaning) the area where the teaching will be held, 3) not harming any living creature 4) having complete devotion to the teacher 5) undistractedly listening to the teacher, and 6) asking questions immediately to address doubts.
Regarding offerings, once the teaching is finished Patrul Rinpoche suggests (via the Torch of Certainty) that the teacher dedicate any merit he gained from his teachings to all sentient beings, and then proceed to make offerings to the so-called Three Spheres, which are the subject, object, and action of the offering. In return, the student is expected to show his or her gratitude by offering prostrations and an offering mandala (which is a kind of recitation), followed by dedicating the merit of his or her practice to all sentient beings.
I think that westerners need to behave in the same way as locals do when working with teachers: use common sense, and take your time getting to know people. Most teachers aren’t interested in becoming magical sources of inspiration for westerners: they want to effectively instruct as many people as possible, and a lot of the good teachers are either inaccessible outside of their own institution, or only teach large seminar-style lectures.
I think anybody outside of any indigenous community who expects to get value from studying Buddhism needs to identify the region they’re interested in working in and make a very serious effort to learn the language and work in the culture first: most schools of Buddhism are of limited use if you don’t understand the linguistic and culture context in which they are being presented, and haphazardly going around reading and interpreting advanced texts that you read in translation without feedback from a teacher is just asking for massive confusion. In Tibet and other traditions of Buddhism most people who grow up in the tradition focus on consistently and regularly engaging in the most basic practices, and without that basis I think most of the advanced components are of very limited use. Westerners tend to seek instant gratification, but Buddhism is a tradition of gradual accomplishment. In the case of Tibetan Buddhism, I would suggest that anybody seriously interested in the tradition 1) Use their common sense, 2) Start studying Lamrim, 3) Make a real and serious effort to learn colloquial Tibetan at the very least, and from there start on Literary Tibetan. Most Tibetan monks spend years of their lives studying exceptionally rudimentary works before they even start studying formal, sitting meditation, and I think that trying to jump ahead without making an honest effort to start in the same place that the teachers you respect did is just asking for trouble or disappointment.
Thanks for your patience in addressing this, ONK. I’m not aware of board protocol, since I’m new to the discussion board scene.
What do you mean by “modern” in reference to Patrul Rinpoche’s book? It was written in the 1800’s. (Just looking for clarification.) I see that pat of the misunderstanding regarding the two quotes comes from taking them out of the larger context of each book. I read the material online, I don’t actually have the books.
Some of the women who have run into problems did speak Tibetan, one was a translator.
Regarding item 4) having complete devotion to the teacher; devotion as in respect and acceptance of the teacher as a thoroughly knowledgeable authority with the best of intentions, not devotion as in, “I have to do whatever the teacher says”, right? (This may seem obvious, but it’s a potential source of misunderstanding, needing to be clarified.)
About the Milarepa story being apocryphal; I’ve heard that this is what some teachers present as the truth and as an example for students to follow. I don’t know if maybe they present this only to female students, as part of a manipulation. But if the story isn’t supposed to be taken literally, that would be useful information to circulate, so students can evaluate the statements their teachers are making.
You’re right; part of the problem seems to be a suspension of common sense, possibly due to the fact that the practices come from an unfamiliar and seemingly exotic culture, so students don’t know what the norms are in the other culture. So they end up going along with anything.
This has been a helpful exchange, thanks again. Sorry if some of the questions seem stupid, but this is what needs to be discussed in order to rectify some of the misunderstandings and misrepresentations that have occurred in the past.
I was mainly just trying to clarify that it was an extremely recent edition to the canon: scholars and monks have been doing fairly prolific work surrounding Tibetan Buddhism since its introduction to the region, but there are a few periods in particular that a lot of frequently-cited texts come from. A lot of the stuff that gets used as introductory materials was actually written in India around 400 CE, and some of the most extensive and detailed commentaries on the Sanskrit canon were written in Tibet in the 1300s. By saying it was modern, I was just specifying that it was a fairly recent work of scholarship, which means you have to keep a different set of priorities, traditions, and context in mind than you would reading, for instance, a 14th century text on the same topic.
I’m not even close to being an authority on anything approaching Tibetan Buddhism, but that’s the healthy way to interpret it in the modern period I think.
This is the first time I’ve heard that quote, and so I don’t have anything useful to say about it- you would want to ask someone who knows a lot more than me. 
[/QUOTE]
Anyway you guys are totally welcome, my only real contribution is to suggest that people exercise common sense- bad stuff tends to happen less as a result of that. Good luck!