We have no Priests, but we have non-Priests

[rotting bones]

Regarding whether there are priests in Buddhism: Buddhists are required to take refuge in the Sangha. According to every orthodox school, the Sangha includes the monastic community.

---

My understanding is that Early Buddhism really wasn't focused on gods. Who knows if that's really true, but it's possible since there were full-fledged atheist movements in Ancient India (Carvaka). As for gods in Mahayana Buddhism, those are like the "gods" in cynical ceremonial magic, not like gods in Western theology.

Amitabha offers salvation, but Buddhists are supposed to try and achieve enlightenment. If you call Amitabha's name, he will try and get you reborn into his Pure Land (heaven) where you can try and become enlightened full time. Buddhas are only omniscient, not omnipotent, so there's no guarantee he will succeed in saving you.

Interestingly, Amitabha's heaven is not in the sky. It is far to the west like the Undying Lands.

As is typical in Mahayana, Amitabha's Pure Land is also a state of mind that unfolds around his vow to save anyone who calls his name. The virtues following from this state of mind are visualized as a mandala, and this is his real Pure Land. In other words, what you are really trying to do by calling Amitabha's name is to internalize the state of mind that led him to make his vow to save all beings who call his name. That's the actual thing that is likely to lead you to enlightenment.

As for whether Amitabha's Pure Land is a state of mind or a physical place, the answer is, "Yes." Mahayana Buddhism doesn't believe in physics in the Abhidharma's sense. When Mahayana Buddhism says Amitabha's Pure Land is in the west, it means Amitabha's enlightened state of mind has qualities associated with the west in a sense not unlike what you'd find in ceremonial magic.

PS. Vajrayana gurus say that other methods work over multiple lifetimes. Tantra is a dangerous method that can try and get you to enlightenment in one lifetime. All you have to do is to find a guru you can trust (from long observation) and have faith that he or she is an enlightened Buddha. Losing this faith later on could drop you into Vajra hell. Just writing this is giving me flashbacks of the NXIVM documentary Seduced.

[Civil War Bugle]

One thing I would be really curious about is how much one could be a devout Irreanist and disregard some of the metaphysical stuff. Life after death is something they're explicitly described as agnostic about; if a person dumps the material/mental dualism and things like Jeerio's beloved alchemy, as much as we may hate to disappoint Jeerio, can the person still be an excellent Irreanist if she is committed to Good and lack of ritual? Or are the 'pure' Irreanists going to be looking askance?

There's a part of me that would like to describe myself as an Irreanist of the naturalistic type implied here, but I want to make sure it wouldn't be heretical, etc.

[zompist]

One thing I would be really curious about is how much one could be a devout Irreanist and disregard some of the metaphysical stuff. Life after death is something they're explicitly described as agnostic about; if a person dumps the material/mental dualism and things like Jeerio's beloved alchemy, as much as we may hate to disappoint Jeerio, can the person still be an excellent Irreanist if she is committed to Good and lack of ritual? Or are the 'pure' Irreanists going to be looking askance?

There's a part of me that would like to describe myself as an Irreanist of the naturalistic type implied here, but I want to make sure it wouldn't be heretical, etc.

The description of Irreanism in the Almeopedia is accurate for 3480, but not for later... I'll get to considering more modern beliefs as part of the Almea+400 project. In particular, Irreanists won't hold to alchemy.

On dualism, I expect they'll consider-- as many of our own philosophers do-- that dualistic terminology is still useful, even if we don't maintain that mind is composed of some separate metaphysical substance. That is, an Irreanist would be dismayed if you denied that minds or reason (to say nothing of good and evil) exist, but not bothered much if you maintain that minds are emergent behavior. That is, they can accept philosophic materalism, but not if it's a way to dismiss consciousness, reason, and morality.

[Raphael]

If Irreanism was a real-life religion, rather than something someone invented for his conworld, I might well have converted to it by now.

[Raholeun]

PS. Vajrayana gurus say that other methods work over multiple lifetimes. Tantra is a dangerous method that can try and get you to enlightenment in one lifetime. All you have to do is to find a guru you can trust (from long observation) and have faith that he or she is an enlightened Buddha. Losing this faith later on could drop you into Vajra hell. Just writing this is giving me flashbacks of the NXIVM documentary Seduced.

I am not exactly sure if you're just being hyperbolical, but it's definitely flippant. Here is not the time and place to discuss the karmic implications of breaking with your teacher. There is much more to Vajrayana practice than slavishly following a teacher: almost all initiations come with responsibilities that are quite demanding. Abuse from a teacher to a disciple can occur, if that is what you are getting at, but your wording is quite disrespectful.

[rotting bones]

PS. Vajrayana gurus say that other methods work over multiple lifetimes. Tantra is a dangerous method that can try and get you to enlightenment in one lifetime. All you have to do is to find a guru you can trust (from long observation) and have faith that he or she is an enlightened Buddha. Losing this faith later on could drop you into Vajra hell. Just writing this is giving me flashbacks of the NXIVM documentary Seduced.

I am not exactly sure if you're just being hyperbolical, but it's definitely flippant. Here is not the time and place to discuss the karmic implications of breaking with your teacher. There is much more to Vajrayana practice than slavishly following a teacher: almost all initiations come with responsibilities that are quite demanding. Abuse from a teacher to a disciple can occur, if that is what you are getting at, but your wording is quite disrespectful.

Vajrayana practice is intimately tied to visualizing the guru (lama) as a living Buddha. There have been many lamas like Chogyam Trungpa who have abused this trust. I posted that quote based on my reading of the original practices, as well as testimonials of practitioners who later lost faith.

The only part that's my personal opinion is the similarity with the cult. That would be an exaggeration only if you interpret it as strict equivalence. I agree that the NXIVM cult will probably do a much more thorough job of ruining your life. Eg. Vajrayana initiations probably don't cost as much. Another point that could be construed as an exaggeration is that it is totally possible to be a lapsed Vajrayana practitioner who's not haunted by visions of Vajra hell, but I don't think I said you can't be a lapsed practitioner.

[Raholeun]

Vajrayana practice is tied intimately to viewing all sentient beings as living Buddha's, I would say. In fact, you are encouraged to see and treat even the biggest troublemakers in your life as living Buddha's. Not only Tibetans can be living Buddha's, but that hobo on the train that is being obnoxious and smelly and disturbing your commute could very well be a manifestation of Chenrezig who is granting you the chance to earn immense karma, or if not that, to at least practice moderate equanimity and patience.

I am not saying that no guru's have ever abused their students. Perhaps for from it. But I do not see how that uniquely discredits Vajrayana Buddhism or other forms of Buddhism. Teachers like those exist in any spiritual tradition, and even more so outside of the church or sangha.

In my mind, the core teaching of compassion includes having love for yourself too. You too are a sentient being that deserves compassion. Letting yourself be berated and abused by a guru is not an act of kindness to anyone.

[rotting bones]

Vajrayana practice is tied intimately to viewing all sentient beings as living Buddha's, I would say. In fact, you are encouraged to see and treat even the biggest troublemakers in your life as living Buddha's. Not only Tibetans can be living Buddha's, but that hobo on the train that is being obnoxious and smelly and disturbing your commute could very well be a manifestation of Chenrezig who is granting you the chance to earn immense karma, or if not that, to at least practice moderate equanimity and patience.

I am not saying that no guru's have ever abused their students. Perhaps for from it. But I do not see how that uniquely discredits Vajrayana Buddhism or other forms of Buddhism. Teachers like those exist in any spiritual tradition, and even more so outside of the church or sangha.

Theoretically, yes. According to Vajrayana, the problem with the world is not its material conditions, but that hobos fail to realize how they are enlightened masters already. (This is another unrelated problematic element in Buddhism.)

However, that's not what the vast majority of practitioners visualize. They visualize that their guru is a fully enlightened Buddha, and that they are somehow relieving the suffering of the world. Eg. By sucking up the pollution of negative emotions, or feeding meat to a world full of hungry ghosts, etc. Remember, practices are more significant than creeds in non-Western religions, including Eastern Christianity.

In Tibetan Buddhist circles, it's unfortunately common behavior for disciples to aggressively defend their gurus. This is prevalent even for gurus who are not considered abusive, such as the Dalai Lama. There seem to be no systemic barriers against the spread of this behavior. It may even have played a role in the conversion of the Tibetan Empire into a Buddhist theocracy.

In my mind, the core teaching of compassion includes having love for yourself too. You too are a sentient being that deserves compassion. Letting yourself be berated and abused by a guru is not an act of kindness to anyone.

These gurus were feudal lords. Some of them still treat their dharma centers as personal fiefdoms. Are you aware of what Chogyam Trungpa did? At one point, he didn't let some people leave his dharma talks. "Letting" others be kind or unkind to you makes no sense to me when they have this kind of power over you.

[keenir]

I am not saying that no guru's have ever abused their students. Perhaps for from it. But I do not see how that uniquely discredits Vajrayana Buddhism or other forms of Buddhism. Teachers like those exist in any spiritual tradition, and even more so outside of the church or sangha.

Theoretically, yes. According to Vajrayana, the problem with the world is not its material conditions, but that hobos fail to realize how they are enlightened masters already. (This is another unrelated problematic element in Buddhism.)

Whats a problem? That not everyone knows they're enlightened?

In Tibetan Buddhist circles, it's unfortunately common behavior for disciples to aggressively defend their gurus. This is prevalent even for gurus who are not considered abusive, such as the Dalai Lama.

Why is it unfortunate for people to defend their teachers? Particularly when the teachers are not abusive?

or by "aggressively" do you mean "violently"?

If the latter, then are you saying the problem is both that some teachers abuse their authority and some students go overboard in defense? Heck, those aren't even restricted to theological matters - its part of being human. So unless your argument is "SkyNet didn't do enough", I don't see what you're aiming towards in citing problems with students and teachers.

(unless your aim is to bring those problems to an end; thats an admirable goal, but i'm not sure it can be solved here...but i'm happy to be wrong)

[rotting bones]

Whats a problem? That not everyone knows they're enlightened?

Yes. I believe one lama put it as something like: Buddhism teaches you to cover your feet in leather instead of the whole world.

More like it helps you develop calluses to the point that you become insensitive to abusive power dynamics. Then again, it's possible that most of the people willing to put themselves in this position had an authoritarian bent to begin with.

Why is it unfortunate for people to defend their teachers? Particularly when the teachers are not abusive?

Authoritarian cults of personality open the doors to systemic abuse. Frankly, I find the fact that you don't see this as problematic more disturbing than everything in Vajrayana put together.

or by "aggressively" do you mean "violently"?

The same way that a tankie defends Stalin. Cultishly.

If the latter, then are you saying the problem is both that some teachers abuse their authority and some students go overboard in defense? Heck, those aren't even restricted to theological matters - its part of being human. So unless your argument is "SkyNet didn't do enough", I don't see what you're aiming towards in citing problems with students and teachers.

If joining cults of personality is a normal part of being human, then I oppose all human endeavors. Praised be SkyNet!

(unless your aim is to bring those problems to an end; thats an admirable goal, but i'm not sure it can be solved here...but i'm happy to be wrong)

My only aim is to make true statements. I don't believe authoritarian social structures can be "reformed" without being made egalitarian. It's not clear to me how to accomplish this when authentic Vajrayana practice depends on strict subordination to the guru following an observation period.

[Raholeun]

You describe cultish behavior. Again, I cannot possibly say that no sangha on this earth operates like a cult. It could be true, sure. However, the friends I have who are long time dharma practitioners, and who study with some Rimpoche, all see their teacher like a very dear friend. And like a very dear friend, you would hold them to boundaries.

But again, please tell me how this is specific to Vajrayana Buddhism? Could you name one religion, ideology or even large organization where no misconduct exists or has existed? You talk of egalitarianism, but the ideal of egalitarianism is really not a mitigating factor. People want to belong to a group, and others may exploit that, regardless of creed. Your local trotskyite club is probably rife with all forms of misbehavior.

The Living Buddha thing and misconduct are not inherently related; humans and misconduct are related.

[rotting bones]

You describe cultish behavior. Again, I cannot possibly say that no sangha on this earth operates like a cult. It could be true, sure. However, the friends I have who are long time dharma practitioners, and who study with some Rimpoche, all see their teacher like a very dear friend. And like a very dear friend, you would hold them to boundaries.

But again, please tell me how this is specific to Vajrayana Buddhism? Could you name one religion, ideology or even large organization where no misconduct exists or has existed? You talk of egalitarianism, but the ideal of egalitarianism is really not a mitigating factor. People want to belong to a group, and others may exploit that, regardless of creed. Your local trotskyite club is probably rife with all forms of misbehavior.

The Living Buddha thing and misconduct are not inherently related; humans and misconduct are related.

I'm not arguing that every Vajrayana guru is an abuser. My point is that Vajrayana operates within an authoritarian social system that enables bad faith actors to get away with abuse. The idea that Tibetan Buddhism is not authoritarian sounds like willful delusion to me. The idea that authoritarian social structures are not conducive to abuse is still wrong but less obviously so.

Note that I'm only pointing out how Tibetan Buddhism falls short of perfection. If "freedom fighters" "liberated" me from "SkyNet", saying that I must choose a traditional religion or die, Tibetan Buddhism would be among my top picks. Why not? The Dalai Lama said he's a Marxist. I've been told by multiple Vajrayana practitioners that they would be Marxists if they were materialist. Other traditions that are high on my list include Judaism and Sikhism. By all accounts, Judaism is unfriendly to converts. Sikhism requires you to wear a weird costume (traditionally rising to WH40K Farseer levels), and actually existing Sikhism is riddled with caste discrimination.

Also note that I consider all Marxism-Leninism to be authoritarian.

[keenir]

I'm not arguing that every Vajrayana guru is an abuser. My point is that Vajrayana operates within an authoritarian social system that enables bad faith actors to get away with abuse.

given that you consider all social systems (religion, government, etc) to be authoritarian, is rather a circular argument, since IF i recall correctly (and i may not be), you consider them authoritarian because bad actors can show up and mistreat people.

Other traditions that are high on my list include Judaism and Sikhism. By all accounts, Judaism is unfriendly to converts

No.
No, it is not unfriendly to converts. Judaism is wary of converts -- and if you don't know why, then I take it you haven't heard of anything from the last two thousand years of history.

Sikhism requires you to wear a weird costume

*gasp* OH NO, you have to wear a bracelet! and you need to keep your hair from getting tangled in things. heavens to betsy, to murgatroid evenenenen!
(i think thats how that theatric cartoon lion said it)

Why is it unfortunate for people to defend their teachers? Particularly when the teachers are not abusive?

Authoritarian cults of personality open the doors to systemic abuse. Frankly, I find the fact that you don't see this as problematic more disturbing than everything in Vajrayana put together.

I'm very disturbed by cases of abuse. I am however unsurprised that abuse is possible in religions and other places where one or more people exist to teach other people.

I assume you mean "it is possible" when you say "open the doors to"

or by "aggressively" do you mean "violently"?

The same way that a tankie defends Stalin. Cultishly.

If you don't want to answer my question, please just say so. Repeating the word "cult" with various suffixes, does not answer my question, given that you are referring to all religions and other systems as cults.

If the latter, then are you saying the problem is both that some teachers abuse their authority and some students go overboard in defense? Heck, those aren't even restricted to theological matters - its part of being human. So unless your argument is "SkyNet didn't do enough", I don't see what you're aiming towards in citing problems with students and teachers.

If joining cults of personality is a normal part of being human, then I oppose all human endeavors. Praised be SkyNet!

case in point.

(unless your aim is to bring those problems to an end; thats an admirable goal, but i'm not sure it can be solved here...but i'm happy to be wrong)

My only aim is to make true statements. I don't believe authoritarian social structures can be "reformed" without being made egalitarian. It's not clear to me how to accomplish this when authentic Vajrayana practice depends on strict subordination to the guru following an observation period.[/quote]

You have to do what your teacher tells you? My ghod, how horrific!

Seriously, how did you learn to read and write, if you never had to obey a teacher?