Reposting something Svan came across: http://www.tricycle.com/blog/himalayan-buddhist-a...

Just so you know, LC did not grant the Shri Devi empowerment to everyone who went into the candlelit dome. It appears that she didn't grant it to the people who didn't seem to feel a burning need to have it.

The first link is an interview of a monk in FPMT who completed a three year retreat. The next three are from centers that have or are running three year retreats.
http://www.mandalamagazine.org/archives/mandala-i...
http://siddharthasintent.org/centres/retreat-cent...
http://www.kdk.org/three-year-retreat.html
http://www.garchen.net/fundraising.html#longterm

It is not normal to break retreat and teach. Communications with the outside world are generally limited to your caretaker (foods, medicines, supplies, repairs). In some three year retreats I've heard of, participants come together in the temple every day for maybe 2 of their 4 meditation/sadhana sessions doing the earliest and latest ones of the day in their own rooms/cabins so it ends up being more like a group retreat. Other three year retreats I've heard of are just solitary. A person in retreat should make arrangements with one or two main teachers or mentors to whom they can write if they become depressed or anxious or have important practice questions. There is often an arrangement with a local doctor or dentist who will come to the retreat if needed so the participant doesn't have to leave in case of minor injury or illness (such as a flu maybe needing antibiotics).

It seems like long-term study with a teacher opens the door for entering a three year retreat at their center if they do that and not many centers do. I'm not sure if all three year retreats have a retreat leader on the inside. I think it may depend on whether or not participants are getting together during the retreat. But most centers are well-developed with residential staff and volunteers who live in real buildings with heat and a commercial kitchen. The largest retreat I've seen online had 28 people.

Practice depends on the particular lineage, but if it's a tantric retreat, there are typically 4 sessions a day where the sadhana is recited and there are places within that to meditate. There are also mantras to recite. Generally, you are too busy to get into much mischief other than maybe developing anxiety or sleeplessness or depression from meditating so much.

Some retreat centers say once their people have finished a three year retreat they are qualified to be called lamas. The participants are supposed to keep all their previously taken vows: lay vows, monk or nun, bodhisattva, tantric, and refuge commitments.

I have only heard of two current day couples ever doing long retreat together and I heard about it a long time ago. They were not part of a group retreat and were under the guidance of a lama with friends as caretakers providing food. Those retreats were sometime back in the 80s or 90s I think.

The Buddha admonished students not to believe everything he said at face value but to check it out, analyze it. He taught something called the Four Reliances:

"Rely on the teaching, not on the person;
Rely on the meaning, not on the words;
Rely on the definitive meaning, not on the provisional;
Rely on your wisdom mind, not on your ordinary mind."

So students are supposed to take the words and see if they function as dharma, giving the results that dharma teachings would give. So if teachers say - think of yourself as a tantric diety (as it is part of tantric sadhana practice) - you have to figure out what that means. I think a holy being can fly. You mean I can fly? Great. Oops, big problem. I can't fly and now I'm hamburger on the pavement. You see the problem with taking things literally? But maybe a holy being loves like Mother Teresa loves so maybe I can try to be more loving and caring. In this case emulating good qualities of good people would be a good thing, once you analyze what qualities you think are sacred and good. And you look at your own capacity and see what you can really do at any time, not beating yourself up when you fall short and not inflating yourself when you do well.

It's a balance and it takes careful consideration, not headlong blind faith.

I really believe he was just trying to convey that sometimes very good intentions are met with conflict and disparagement. The Beguines (religious women teachers around 1000-1300 a.d.) taught in the vernacular and helped a lot of people and refused to become nuns and were eventually squashed by the Church. There's the Occupy movement, as I said, whose protests are now being touted as terrorist activities. I think he was trying to use an example that the average person could relate to. Not too many people know about the Beguines. lol

We do have a vow about not contributing to conflict among the students as that can have a harmful effect on the teacher (50 Verses on Guru Devotion). I suspect his comment about his stress may have something to do with promoting a peaceful manner in students. But that still doesn't mean we can't question, review, and analyze.

Anonymous Snake, I was not entirely accurate and here I claim such a love for it. I should not have said I'm not a good Buddhist. I should have said - I don't consider myself a nice Buddhist, as in meek or mild or always gentle although I have been known to be gentle at times.

Just because i don't throw away good teachings doesn't mean I can't have a personality - grating though it may be at times. As for preserving my ego, I happen to like my ego. It's endlessly entertaining and unlike others who want to reach enlightenment by negating theirs, i revel in the complexities of contradictions of life. It makes for a good story. And there's nothing like a good story and a cup of tea to round out the day. And maybe a really good burp.

Now don't forget to leave a scathingly dull and unremarkable comment finding fault with me and my post. There's a bet going on how long it will take you to do so.

Thank you, Phurba. I am listening to it again.

What I prefer is accuracy when quoting or pointing to someone's words. To say GM compared himself to Jesus when he states "I'm not comparing myself to Jesus" is just difficult for me to understand. I prefer something like: although he said he wasn't comparing himself to Jesus, it still sounded like it to me. That seems fair.

It's just that people who do not go listen to the audio will walk away thinking someone said outright how like Jesus they are. That's not the same as extrapolation. Critical thinking understands the difference. And critical thinking requires clarity and accuracy.

What I heard reminds me of the Occupy movements around the world. People trying to speak out against corrupt banking, corporations, government practices. And they are being stomped on massively. Obama praised the Egyptian people for doing the same thing and allowed unnecessary and unconstitutional force to be used against Americans doing the same thing. I took what GM said to be like that. That when people try to do good things, it can bring about counter attacks that seem disproportionate to the original actions.

Does the video answer all the very good questions people have? No. Does it address questions people have about teacher morality? No. Of course not. And it is important for people to feel Ian's death and circumstances are addressed. I'm not poo-pooing that at all. I'm not suggesting it's a bed of roses. I'm just looking for some accuracy. Let people say honestly what they feel, but they should also be responsible for stating their position clearly without putting words into someone else's mouth.

I hear you about the 'don't think of turtles'. I guess I just didn't think of the parallel because I already don't think of GM as Jesus, so it just didn't occur to me to make that parallel now. It didn't move me to think that way. I can see how it might move someone else to think of that parallel. Thanks for being responsive.

The owner of the first retreat land told me himself the sale of that land to DM did not go through because of something else rather than a dislike of the DM folks. If I am mistaken on that point, then it is because of what I was told directly. If you have other direct information, then I respect that. I don't claim first hand knowledge of things that I have only 'heard' second hand as some folks do. You have related things you're heard second hand and also things you've heard directly from the source. It's hard to tell one from the other. I appreciate all your first hand knowledge. If you want to call my first hand knowledge rabbit pellets, then go ahead. It only means we have conflicting first hand info.

I agree and even GM said that this current land was mostly unbuildable and was going to be very difficult to develop. At the same time it was appreciated that they did the work to find land for the center.

Khedrup, I totally agree with the above. You are supposed to examine your teacher and Atisha's 12 year sizing-up of his teacher is often brought up at DM by the teachers there.

My reason for contributing that little portion of Lama Zopa's advice is because there are a lot of people here who have never actually attended a teaching by LC or GMR and are hearing things about not criticizing your teacher and how you are supposed to see your teacher as a holy being. And they think it's some crazy teaching of DM meant to subdue the masses and convert followers.

I offer it to show that these ideas did not originate with GMR and LC. These are Tibetan buddhist teachings fair and square.

I do believe many DM/ACI students are teaching who are not ready or qualified to teach and many DM/ACI students are misinterpreting teachings. There are stories here of students using karma to justify and blame partners and friends and remove themselves from their former world; there are students using 'deep inner winds' practice to justify outer consort practice which is just masking random sex; there are students holding to creation stage view of the divine who are using it to pretend very dangerous mind sets.

Personally, I do not understand how they came to practice that way. That's not how we were taught to behave. I sat in the DM temple and many times GMR and LC expressed deep concern and shock at students for going off the deep end and not analyzing the teachings, running all around and doing things they should not be doing, teaching without proper training. Too many people took GMR and LC literally.

I have never been taught anything that didn't completely jive with all other teachings I have received elsewhere. I don't have to agree with everything a teacher does and I don't have to pretend a teacher hasn't done them, just as HHDL is saying. But that doesn't mean I'm going to throw away many years of good teachings that are consistent with other lamas respected among contributors here.

Come on, Ekan, you just said he compared himself to Jesus when he opened the story with exactly the opposite disclaimer. It's what many people keep doing here. I might say, hey, I'm not condoning or condemning, just saying what I experienced and then I get comments saying that by NOT condemning, I AM condoning.

In these comments, if we are not pointing out faults, we are seen as having an unreasonable, fairy tale, misguided view of reality. There are good questions here. But this is the poison that runs through and bubbles up still.

Lama Zopa's advice concerning how we view the lama:

If we put on blue glasses, everything we see is blue and if we put on red glasses, then everything we see is red. Therefore, if we have an obscured mind, mistaken thoughts and past negative karmic imprints, it is like putting on red or blue glasses and we see the guru in that way—as having mistakes, delusions, sicknesses, the shortcomings of samsara, problems, mistakes in actions, sexual immorality and so forth. This is how we see with our mistaken, obscured mind, which is due to past negative karma and imprints. It is exactly the same as the example of the colored glasses. Depending on what type of glasses we wear, we see everything like that.

With a negative mind we see everything as negative and with a pure mind we see everything as pure. With a mind full of guru devotion, we see the guru as Buddha and with that mind we see everything as pure. We see the guru as Buddha, and we see no delusions, no sufferings of samsara, and no mistakes in actions; what appears is just a manifestation of an act. It’s like somebody is acting his or her life story in the theatre. That’s how we see it. Even though there is an appearance, we don't believe in that because we see the guru as Buddha, so it doesn't harm us or make us lose devotion.

That is why the fifth Dalai Lama said, rang dzin log shay... “In the view of the perverted mind all your mistakes manifest in the guru’s action. This is definite—that your heart is broken from the bottom. By realizing this, your own mistake, then abandon this poison.” An appearance is one thing, then believing it is true is an obstacle to achieving enlightenment.
http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&a...

So he says if we see problems and sexual immorality and other things, it's because "we have an obscured mind, mistaken thoughts and past negative karmic imprints".

But if we see the guru as a Buddha, then all is well. "Even though there is an appearance, we don't believe in that because we see the guru as Buddha, so it doesn't harm us or make us lose devotion."

So this is guru devotion advice from a well-respected lama that some have cited as being critical of GMR. Yet, he seems to be saying to fix our own view and not focus on appearances as they are coming from a mistaken mind.

Just throwing it in the mix.