Re: answering in public speaking to more selective group

Here is something to look at. Our friend Dzongsar mentions one answer given in public vs. a different answer given to a smaller, more selective group.

How is it possible to do interfaith dialogue with people who say one thing in public gatherings and say something different when speaking to "smaller more selective" groups?

Those who hasten to say all religions are essential the same need to pay attention to this:

Some religions state clearly that there is one teaching for all, with no special teaching set aside for a select group of initiates -- a teaching
so special that one must regard one's master as utterly infallible, and abandoning one's practice or revealing it publicly entails punishment in Vajra Hell.

Let us ask again whether Dzongsar has genuine respect for the way other faith traditions understand compassion and how to put it into action?

For to the unenlightened outsider the excerpt quoted below makes interesting reading -- especially for those of us who practice in faith traditions other than Vajrayana.

I was once at a two day jamboree lovefest lecture given by the Dalai Lama. Will not forget a Franciscan priest who was also a professor at a Catholic college, who taught comparative religions. The DL had given a detailed lecture in which he stated that in Mahayana Buddhism there is nothing that inherently exists no God, no first principle.

However, the DL used Tskongkapa's text, Praise of Dependent Origination.

Here is the text.

Father X looked rather blissed out. I asked him what he thought of the lecture. Father X, Roman Catholic priest and professor said he found the material difficult and unusual. He then said he was happy to enjoy the event. He showed no interest in the differences between his faith tradition and the entirely different doctrine as presented by the DL.

This said, Father X though he probably did not agree with the DL's doctrine, clearly respected the DL and the DL's faith tradition.


But..do our Vajrayana friends reciprocate that respect toward us?

Look at the nastiness of DZK exhibited after decades of the different Vajrayana sects enjoying **tax exempt** status for their projects in Western nations.

And the torrents of money donated over decades from the West to the refugee Tibetan communities abroad, and for building monasteries abroad?

Despite this, for decades, the Vajrayanists keep calling us Westerners ego driven, materialistic. If we were that materialistic, we would have required
the Tibetan monks to pay taxes as a condition of setting up monasteries and sanghas in the USA.

So, Corboy makes a case that in the USA at least, we have not only been respectful, we have been financially generous and downright trustful of the Vajryanists.

So, friends and readers, are Vajrayanists like Chogyam Trungpa, Sogyal Rinpoche, Penor and Gyaltrul Rinpoche, and DZK -- have they reciprocated
any of our respect and material generosity, our trust?

Do our Vajrayana friends actually respect our efforts at social justice?

Or do they regard our efforts as inferior to that of Vajrayana, eh?

ONGCHEN NYINGTIK PR LONGCHEN NYINGTIK PR LONGCHEN NYINGTIK PR LONGCHEN NYINGTIK PRACTICE MANUAL

MANUAL
ADVICE ON HOW TO PRA ADVICE ON HOW TO PRA ADVICE ON HOW TO PRA ADVICE ON HOW TO PRACTICE CTICE CTICE CTICE
by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche
Based on Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo`s
Short Preliminary Practice
Edited by Chanel Grubner
© 2004 by Khyentse Eoundation
All rights reserved. Distribution oI this text is restricted to those who have been

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

Google cache text only

DHARMA Dzongsar Khyentse Longchen Nyingthig Practice Manual

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

Quote

he Highest Gift The Highest Gift The Highest Gift The Highest Gift

In generating the mind oI bodhicitta, we really have to train our minds. Eor this, the
relative bodhicitta is virtually the most crucial oI all. Now what is the bodhicitta mind?

Certainly, it is not simply a matter oI thinking, 'Those poor men need help.¨ Compared to
the bodhicitta, the humanitarian mind is oI a much lower class. Bodhicitta is literally the
wish to enlighten all sentient beings.
Dismantling the delusion oI sentient beings is the best giIt you could ever give.

What better giIt could you oIIer? Make sentient beings see their own true natures. Make
them see this endless net oI delusion. What could be better than seeing sentient beings
released Irom this endless cocoon that they themselves have Iormed? This is not a mere
mind oI wanting to sort oI help someone` with a temporal problem.

During big public gatherings, on many occasions I have been asked why Buddhists
are not doing things to contribute in the same way that Christians do. Why are there no
Buddhist Hospitals, or Buddhist hospices?


II answering in public, I would say, 'Because
Buddhists are lazy, and being lazy and selIish, Buddhists only talk about compassion.¨
Indeed, this is partially true. And then, in a more inner group, I would say: 'We should
really rejoice Ior those Christians, Muslims and Hindus. But even that we don`t do.¨

Then,
iI speaking to a smaller, more selective group, I might explain in the Iollowing way.
Suppose there is this religious group building thousands oI childcare Iacilities or
hospices. Again, this is a big generalisation, because perhaps among them there is a
bodhisattva as a Muslim, a Christian or Hindu. But let`s say that although these religious
workers are doing a lot oI caring work, there is no wish to enlighten sentient beings. Their
main aim is to provide Iood and education.

Now imagine there is one hermit living
somewhere in the mountains oI the Himalayas who is doing none oI this. In Iact, within
close range oI him, there are a lot oI babies dying, yet outwardly he is doing nothing about
this. Inwardly however, he is actually meditating, 'May all sentient beings be enlightened¨
and he continues to do this every day.

I would say, purely because oI the enlightenment
aspect, this person is worthier oI homage than the Iirst group. Why? Because it is so
diIIicult to truly and genuinely wish enlightenment Ior others. It is much easier to give
people Iood and educate them.

Most oI us don`t really appreciate this Iact. We have never beIore genuinely wished
Ior someone else to achieve enlightenment. Likewise, iI someone were to come over and
say to us: 'Here you go, you have a ticket Ior enlightenment. There is only one ticket.¨ I
don`t think we would even think about giving it to someone else! We`d grab it and go Ior
it. Enlightenment is such a valuable thing.

Here is another difference, an important difference between Vajrayana and the Abrahamic faith traditions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam)

In the Abrahamic traditions, the faithful accept that God is separate from creation, and that it is impossible for any creature, including ourselves to become God. God is worshipped in gratitude by those who accept they cannot become God.

Here is Dzongsar K's description of the Mahayana and Vajrayana understanding of taking refuge in Buddha.

Quote

It doesn`t matter how you take reIuge, the most
essential part oI the theory oI reIuge exists both within the mahäyäna and especially, in the
vajrayäna. When we say, I take reIuge to the Buddha, the ultimate meaning is 'I accept
that I can be enlightened and that I have the buddha nature.¨ This is very important to
understand.

Without knowing the essential theory, iI you just Iollow the pith instructions,
you may be just like one oI the many vajrayäna practitioners who think the Buddha is
there,` and then prays. It is very theistic. II taking reIuge in this way, there is not such a
big distinction to be made between Christianity and Buddhism.

AIter all, apart Irom the
name diIIerentiation oI Buddha and Jesus Christ, what is the diIIerence? It is like treating
the Buddha as a god. This is why you need to know the theory oI reIuge. When we say, 'I
take reIuge to the Buddha,¨ we mean, 'I accept that I can be the Buddha,¨ that 'I am
Buddha,¨ actually.

Well, there is a diIIerence. 'I can be Buddha` is the mahäyäna attitude.
'I am Buddha¨ is the vajrayäna attitude. This example is one I have given many times, Ior
it is important.

Finally, some dialogue between DKR and a student.

Quote

Basically, if a social worker has this notion of destroying the ego, you are talking
about a social worker doing social work with bodhicitta. But let`s say a social worker is
doing a lot oI work to heal temporal pain, but has no bodhicitta. Then there is this man in a
cave, doing nothing, or at least, he is not helping in the physical sense. All he does is
aspiration bodhicitta. Strictly speaking, our man in the cave is more worthy oI homage.

Though of course, for the general audience this is not easy to accept because the general
audience does not understand the value of enlightenment. Shäntideva has actually taught
on this, in the first chapter where he says:

Could our fathers or our mothers
Ever have so generous a wish?
Do the very gods, the rishis, even Brahmã
Harbor such benevolence as this?

If there is someone healing your pain, which is temporal, while another is not doing
much temporal healing, but is genuinely planning on helping you permanently, it is that
person you need to appreciate more.

Student|: But many people are more ready to accept this temporal help, aren`t they?

Rinpoche|: Oh yes, oI course, this is what I am saying, the general audience wants all the
pain relieI and the painkillers; they cannot understand.
The view or the Action, Which is Higher?

Student|: But doing social work will destroy the ego kind of automatically, won`t it?


Rinpoche|: :: : Not necessarily. It can also create a lot of ego. In fact, for many social
workers, not only have they not destroyed their egos, but also they have ended up abusing
much of the funds being collected. It is a question of 'which has the greater value, the
view or the action?¨ I am saying the view has to be valued more.

Student|Isn`t the motivation more important than the action?


Rinpoche| Yes, but the motivation is usually triggered by the view. Depending on what
view you have, you then have the corresponding motivation.

Student Aren`t the motivation and the view almost completely the same?

|Rinpoche : Yes, but this depends on the view. Not many people have the right view.
Likewise, we think oI Muslim terrorists as terrorists and identify them as such, but they
consider themselves to be some kind oI social worker. They believe they have good reason
to think oI themselves as holy humanitarians. Actually, I cannot entirely reject their
reasons, simply due to their not being accepted by a massive legal system. This world is
often unfair. Each of us harbors a multitude of ideas, and yet these are our own views.

Who knows what is really happening? Bombarded with all this news of violence in the
Middle East, once while I was in retreat, these newspaper reports really stirred up my
emotion. But one can`t really respond in this way. It`s better to wish enlightenment for
both the victims and the oppressors.