> Zen and Buddhism in general is full of people like Alan Watts and Trungpa. Both were highly intelligent, inspiring writers, and alcoholics who presented themselves as masters.

Pretty sure you're wrong about Watts as I vividly remember reading in his book that he did not consider himself a guru. He also said something along the lines of there exists only one guru for you and that's you. Here's the first quote I could find, in its entirety:

> This is what gurus have used to trick you into seeing. All these trials they put you through are simply to convince you that you can’t do anything about it, but not “convince you” in a theoretical way. I’m not a guru—I don’t give individual spiritual direction to people—so maybe it’s not the best thing that I’m giving away the guru’s tricks, but I might as well. You can struggle and struggle and struggle, and you will do so for as long as you have the feeling inside you that you’re missing something. And everyone will encourage you to think this way, because they also feel they’re missing something, and they think they can get it by such and such a method, so they’re going to try to convince you that their method is the thing to do. - Out of Your Mind

Phew, that was a royal pain and a half to copy/paste from kindle cloud reader. Anyway, everyone knows about Watts's personal history by now, but no one could ever explain how it changed anything he wrote. He certainly didn't take himself very seriously at all, which is in line with his philosophy.

Chris Wallis, author of Tantra Illuminated had written to clarify what makes someone a "tantric master", specifically, one is a master of self. I think that is a useful distinction when you are searching for guidance.

Another way to look at it is something I've heard Adyashanti (another teacher) spoke about in an interview on batgap.com -- someone's relationship with their teacher is often a reflection of of their relationship with the whole of the spiritual search, whether that be idealization or cynicism, both responses to that searching for perfection.

There is whole Tibetan sutra with instructions of how to have sex with prepubescent girls. After their first menstrual cycle they become impure and don't help monk in his spiritual journey.

If you have religion and status, you can always find ways to rationalize fucking around as spiritual development.

I have respect for Buddhism in general and I have practiced meditation with a teacher 20 years. I understand the need to have a teacher and the need for guidance, but it's human nature for people to abuse others when given too much authority.

There is also a whole Tibetan teaching that evolved from ritual cannabilism that shares its roots with practices from India. That particular teaching evolved to use visualizations, and the one being offered for sacrifice in those visualization is the practitioner and not someone else. When done that way, it's an extreme, but beautiful teaching relating to impermanence and the Bodhisattva ideal. The lotus growing from the mud -- and that mud is very muddy.

I don't think people outside realize just how dark of a place the Tibetan people came from before the Buddhist Vajrayana practitioners came in to "tame" the land gods of Tibet. There was a monastic order that attempted to bring the Dharma (with the Tibetan king's blessing) and were hounded out. The last monk that left told the king, he needed to bring one of the Vajrayana people. The level of intensity of the dark and negative stuff was just that bad.

There had always been and likely, always will be the Guru syndrome. Even sincere teachers getting themselves trapped by that. (And that was one of my few favorite parts of the Last Jedi). It is as much as the failings of the guru as it is people seeking for something projecting all sorts of idealizations and failings onto their teachers. It doesn't matter whether it is Tibetan or not. This happens with any religion or spiritual path.

One last note, something I heard from several teachers: you can be awakened and still be an ass. You would just be very clear, realized ass.

Have you ever been to a Tibetan temple? The walls are filled with detailed, vivid drawings of their "masters" doing horrific things to them.

No I have not. I am not surprised though. Content is endless, and shadow conntent is endless.

It sounds surprising, I think, because the Western, or perhaps popular view of spirituality is one of idealization. Focusing excessively on Light is as problematic as focusing excessively in Shadow.

I have a reprint of one of the mandalas to Vajrayogini on my personal altar. Most of the imagery and iconography will evoke the reaction you described. At the bottom is the most wrathful form of Vajrayogini, naked and all black with fangs, an intense, fiery aura, standing on a corpse. She holds a butchering knife in one hand, and a tantric staff (with three skulls) in the other. Various entrails being eaten by various animals. Yet the top one depicts a peaceful Vajrayogini, reposing in a meditational posture.

Both are Vajrayogini. What is not apparent is how any of this is an act of compassion. The middle Vajrayogini is red and she holds a cup made from severing the top of someone's skull. There is blood in it. How is _that_ an act of compassion? Isn't that just a depiction of evil and corruption? And Tibetan Buddhist will take this depiction as a yidam, ritually become this diety/Buddha. Why would anyone do that? Why do I have that on my altar?

Vajrayogini takes the most horrific karma and spiritual poisons and drinks it. She is called the trauma goddess for that reason. All the horror and abuses one might experience in this life and in past lived, she takes and drinks. And because she is a full Buddha, that karms burns and dies within her. In many ways, it is an extreme form of empathy, yet at the same time, the Buddha nature remains unstained.

Her two wrathful forms looks horrific because the pain and trauama she takes on are that horrific. That is why she is depicted in those wrathful forms. She enters fearlessly into your hell to give you the chance to awaken and to heal.

And this is why she is appealing to some people.

I have never set someone's broken bone or worked as an EMT or a nurse. Yet when I hear stories from them, it is like this. Giving care to the person even when really horrible things happen to them. I am not one of those Japanese cleaners who clean a houses after someone dies, or that Austrailian woman who clean hoarder's houses after they die. They clean away the pain, when no one else will do it. It is like that.

Are there abuses? Yup, there are. Is it excusable? No. And yet, there is a lor more going on than what is apparent.

You’re kind of describing the whole point of Zen, no?

”don't hesitate get laid that's wisdom sitting around chanting what crap” - Ikkyu

What do you think of this proposal that, at least for a short time, there indeed was what could be considered Tibetan Zen? https://tricycle.org/magazine/lost-tradition-tibetan-zen/

It's certainly possible both geographically and historically.

There is also 'cross pollination' across history when teachers learn from other traditions and sometimes very similar styles are developed independently. For example, Trekcho practice in Dzogchen is very similar to Zen training of shikantaza or 'silent illumination'. On the other hand it's very fundamental practice just like following the breath, so it can be traced back to the beginning of Buddhism.

Jnana-vichara (self-enquiry method) taught by hindu guru Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi is very similar to Zen koan practice. The question of "Who am I" is often used as first koan in Zen.

Where are you quoting from? I didn't see anywhere in the article "Tibetan Zen Buddhist monk Chogyam Trongpa" was mentioned.

Either I commented on the wrong tread and you were the only person commenting who read the article, or they changed the link.

https://qz.com/1196408/scientists-studying-psilocybin-accide...