Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:
Dan74 wrote:As for your other claims, you have said nothing to substantiate the label 'junk'. I think the onus is on you, Bhante.
You already admitted that it is not the teaching of Sakyamuni, so what more evidence do we need to provide to substantiate that the label "junk" is valid?
Whatever contemporary Buddhist teachers say, if it's their own invention, and cannot be traced in the Dhamma and Vinaya, then one should rightly conclude that it is not the Buddha's teaching.
We can find no basis for reciting "Om Mane Padme Om," or arranging coloured grains in complex patterns. Nor can we find any esoteric teachings in Buddhism. The Buddha's teachings are open to all to study as they wish — even the Vinaya rules.
There is no secret that sexual intercourse via any orifice is an offence of defeat for a bhikkhu, but the Dalai Lama apparently teaches such Tantric practices
. Is it not so?
1. I did not ' admit that it is not the teaching of Sakyamuni', I just said I am not claiming that it is. I have no way of knowing, but just to rely on the scholar's opinions. This is a fine point, maybe even pedantic, but I try not to claim what I do not know.
2. Many contemporary teachings both in Theravada and in Mahayana cannot be traced in the Dhamma and Vinaya verbatum, does it mean it is not the Dhamma? Of course this would rule out much of Abhidhamma which was well-accepted for millenia. And what of the criterion “…whatever is well said is a saying of the Blessed One, the Worthy One, the Rightly Self-awakened One” from Uttaravipatti Sutta?
3. How is Om Mani Padme Hum so different to Buddho? How is arranging coloured grains in a mandala contrary to the Dhamma? What is precisely the problem with these practices?
4. Sexual tantra is a very small and very seldom-practiced aspect of this system, but one that gets bandied about as 'proof' that it is adhammic. If sexuality is such a powerful force, it only makes sense that practices evolve to deal with this energy and transform it away from the coarse physical manifestation and revert to its original state. As for the Dalai Lama, he does not teach such tantras as he has not practiced them, being a celibate monk, so you are not well-informed there.
On this subject Alexander Berzin (from the link above) says:
As mentioned above, part of the exercises in tantric practice are involving controlling and transforming bodily energies. Sexual energy happens to be one of the strongest forms of physical energy; simply said, it is built-in by nature to ensure the survival of the species. Also these sexual energies need to be completely controlled and transformed. What is usually overlooked is that sexual practices in tantra should be free from the ordinary desires and lust, and only very advanced practitioners should try these practices after permission from their teachers. Simply said, it has very little to do with ordinary sex. Arousal of the sexual energy is preferably done by just visualising a consort.
The union of male and female are symbolic for the union of compassion and wisdom, or more specific in tantra, the union of bliss and emptiness.
5. Dave, this was a pretty funny post both in style and substance but lets be mature and not take it as representative. Anyone can post on these fora.
Edit: I am sorry about my part in taking this thread off topic, especially to members who resent Mahayana intrusions as it were. So I will withdraw. People can find the relevant information readily enough. For the record, I have the highest respect for Ven Pesala and many of his contributions here but clearly on this topic we disagree.