If anyone thinks they could have a pleasing and equal lover in a Rinpoche, they couldn't be more incorrect. Certain Rinpoches, those known as great teachers, would by definition be the ultimate bad partner, from ego's point of view. If one approaches such great masters with the intention of being gratified and wishing for a relationship of sharing, mutual enjoyment etc., then not only from ego's point of view, but even from a mundane point of view, such people would be a bad choice. They probably will not bring you flowers or invite you out for candlelit dinners.

Anyway, if someone goes to study under a master with the intention to achieve enlightenment, one must presume that such a student is ready to give up his or her ego. You don't go to India and study with a venerable Tibetan master expecting him to behave according to your own standards. It is unfair to ask someone to free you from delusion, and then criticize him or her for going against your ego. I am not writing this out of fear that if one doesn't defend Tibetan lamas or Buddhist teachers, they will lose popularity. Despite a lot of efforts to convince the world about the pitfalls of the Dharma and the defects of the teachers, there will still be a lot of masochists who have the misfortune to appreciate the Dharma and a crazy abusing teacher who will make sure to mistreat every inch of ego. These poor souls will eventually end up bereft of both ego and confusion.

I know there are plenty of people who will disagree with much of what I have said. For as much as I am set on my interpretations, so are others set on theirs. I have met great teachers whom I admire enormously and although I may be a doomed sycophant, I pray I will continue to enjoy the company of these teachers. On the other hand, people may have other ideas and be happy with them. My practice is devotion to the Buddhist path; others may choose doubting the Buddhist path. But as Dharmakirti said, ultimately we must abandon the path. So I hope in the end we will meet where we have nothing to fight over.

Kyabje Dudjom Rinpoche on the "Three Yanas" A Short Excerpt From Arnaud Desjardins's "he Message of The Tibetans" Drawing an analogy which I was often to meet again later, Dudjom Rinpoche answered: All these obstacles - call them sins if you like - can be thought of in three ways. Think of them, for example, as a poisonous plant. There are three possible attitudes to adopt before a poisonous plant. First of all, fear and caution. That is a poison: I shall not touch it, I shall not even look at it; I shall turn away from it. This, Dudjom Rinpoche went on, is the attitude of Hinayana, with its rules and monastic disciplines: chattering is a stone of stumbling, so I keep silent; money is a stone of stumbling, so I say no to it, I refuse to touch it; sex is a stone of stumbling, so I have nothing to do with women, I do not even look at them... The second attitude... is that of Mahayana, of the Madhyamika teaching of Nagarjuna: I can approach this poisonous plant, and even eat the fruit of it, because I know the antidote. The antidote is experience of unreality, of the Void. The Mahayanist knows how to wipe out Karma... how to make it disappear by one's experience of the non-reality, the insubstantiality of everything; for this can dissolve "like snowflakes falling into boiling water". Whatever comes, nothing comes. Whatever happens, nothing happens. And then, Dudjom Rinpoche told me, there is a third attitude, that of Tantrayana (or Vajrayana), founded on the total absence of fear, which consists in deliberately eating the fruit of the poisonous plant, because one knows how to digest it, without its doing the slightest harm, because one knows how to transform it, assimilate it, eliminate it. Where the way is concerned, it is this idea of transformation which is fundamental.