Buddhism: the untold story

recedite

roosh, you are a very slippery customer.

*slippery not necessarily meaning what you think it means.

roosh

recedite wrote: »

roosh, you are a very slippery customer.

*slippery not necessarily meaning what you think it means.

why thank you!

Ambersky

Ambersky said
It will be interesting to see if this examination is actually willing to look for errors or if it will follow the same path as other revalations i.e. denial, blaming the messenger, citing the good nature of the accused, silencing etc.

I forgot ignore, dismiss, pretend it didnt happen and wasnt spoken about.

roosh

Ambersky wrote: »

This thread seems to me to be a kind of call to look at the shadow side of Buddhism. It is a fair point that Buddhism is usually presented in the West as a peaceful, eco friendly, indeed idealistic and harmless religion.
It must however have its shadow side and in Buddhist tradition it would be thought of as beneficial to examine it. It will be interesting to see if this examination is actually willing to look for errors or if it will follow the same path as other revalations i.e. denial, blaming the messenger, citing the good nature of the accused, silencing etc.

Having grown up in the Patriarchal Hierarchical Roman Catholic tradition I am reluctant to subscribe to any other religion without making sure I am not jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

I like the fact that Buddhism is reflective and I have at least read that discussion and examination of what is really happening is encouraged before taking anything on as a belief.

One of my main measuring sticks to evaluate the difference between the theory and the practice of the compassion espoused by any religion is the issue of child protection and the treatment of vulnerable adults particularly by teachers or those who hold positions of power or respect.
If a religion or culture has a history of abuse I want to know how was the revelation of that abuse treated and I want to know what beliefs or practices within this religion can foster and or protect abusers.
Given the recent history in Ireland and how this issue has for many people brought into question everything about Christianity it is only fair I think to look into any beliefs within Buddhism that might lead to the endangerment of the vulnerable among us.

There is quite a bit written about teachers in America during the 70s and 80s taking advantage of their positions in Buddhist Communities saying that sex with them was spiritually beneficial and any partners of chosen bedfellows who objected were having problems with jealousy and their egos. I have also heard things about the sexual abuse of young monks.
http://thebuddhistblog.blogspot.ie/2010/04/sexual-abuse-isnt-just-catholic-issue.html

There are a few issues common to the practices of Patriarchal Buddhism and Patriarchal Christianity, well patriarchy for a start , oh and a denial it is a patriarchy in the first place. A look around at the guys in skirts giving all the orders/teachings or allowed to be priests monks etc should be a clue we are in a patriarchy.
Both systems have a Hierarchy while thinking of themselves as a non dualistic tradition despite only allowing men to have positions of power. Both deny the the existence of power, describing men in the highest positions as servants. Both have a tradition of encouraging followers to distance themselves from the body and women and even the earth itself. Some proponents of both traditions put spirituality over ordinary earthly things and finally there is an unhealthy over emphasis on debate and the superiority of the mind.

I dont believe either Buddhism or Christianity has to remain Patriarchal dualistic or anti body. I think Christianity is getting its shake up now. I have more hope for Buddhism particularly in the West where we are more familiar with being critical of these ideas and of seeing where they can lead to. Unfortunately in my opinion this familiarity can also lead us to adopting these trends too easily or even of misinterpreting some eastern thinking on ego and healthy identity, individuation and individualism. Intellectual ping pong games on who's ego is the smallest, finding the I and concluding that as there is no I to commit a crime in the first place, there is no crime, can lead to a kind of comfort and justification being given to abusers.

Some of you may find the link below makes for very uncomfortable reading and viewing . I have not fully examined it myself but came across it while searching for more information on this issue from a Buddhist perspective. I am going to do a bit more research on it but if this article and video is accurate it could represent a shattering of illusions for the Buddhist tradition that could be upsetting but illuminating.

Revelations of Sexual Abuse and Dehumanization in Tibetan Buddhism.
http://www.elephantjournal.com/2011/12/the-sex-lives-of-monks-confessions-of-kalu-rinpoche/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalu_Rinpoche

Hey Ambersky,

I just had a read of the blogpost; the elephant journal.

Firstly, I don't think there's much room for discussion on the issue of sexual abuse, or other forms; there is no justification for it. All we can ever hope to do is to have compassion for the victims for the suffering they have encountered; but also to try and have some compassion for the perpetrators for whatever it was that lead them to a point that they could perpetrate such a heinous act.


With regard to the contents of the blogpost, and the depiction of spiritual philosophy, there was much in there for debate. At the very least I would look for clarification of the vast majority of the statements made with regard to spiritual philosophy. The most notable were the repeated comments about "mind-body" duality. It seemed that the author was maintaining that Buddhism, and other spiritual philosophies, were fundamentally dualisitic; which patently isn't the case with Buddhism.

Statements such as " Buddhist ... traditions teach us to not grieve the dead, for all things are impermanent" is at the very least a gross misinterpretation of what buddhist philosophy actually teaches. Also, Buddhist philosophy doesn't teach anything about "militating against the body".

Tulkus
The issue of Tulku's is a separate matter, and I think I read a comment somewhere - possibly in one of the threads on here - about how some buddhist leader was suggesting that it was an institute that could have serious negative effects for the future of Buddhism. Personally, I have my own understanding of the concept of re-incarnation, which might be different from that practiced in Tibet or elsewhere. It might also be worth stating that the concept of re-incarnation is different from the concept of re-birth; with the former arguably not even a buddhist concept, striclty speaking - to my understanding that is.


Charicature
To charicature what buddhism is about, essentially you have a guy who practiced the kind of asceticism that the guy talks about in his blogpost; figured that such an approach to sprituality was misguided; practiced meditation and found an approach that was not body denying.

Through this method he purportedly attained enlightenment, or freedom from attachment to the subconcious thoughts and behaviours that cause us and other suffering. He passed this message on to others.

To the best of my knowledge there was no part of his philosophy that condoned abuse of any kind, sexual or otherwise; I would say that actually the opposite was the case.

As part of the philosophy he pointed out some of the dangers of the Ego, such as the fact that we can selectively practice and selectively choose the parts of the philosophy that suit us; we can delude ourselves into believing we have attained enlightenment, when we haven't; we can misinterpret the concepts contained in the philosophy; and we can twist the philosophy to try and exploit others for our own gain. Such are the pitfalls of human nature; buddhist philosophy is aimed at overcoming those - but there is no guarantee that we will succeed.


As I say, I don't think there is anything in buddhist philosophy that would, even remotely come close to condoning the sexual abuse of anyone.

18AD

roosh wrote: »

We could probably get into a nitpicking argument over whether buddhism is necessarily for or against anything, but it's probably neither necessary or in the spirit of the philosophy/religion/practice/etc.


With regard to the claim about "eternal life", the concept is so open to interpretation that it is essentially meaningless; what banbh means by "eternal life" could be wildly different to what someone else means.

The confusion probably arises from the idea of re-incarnation and the idea that there is no death; but these cannot be understood in isolation, they have to be understood in the context of "no self"; the idea that "you" or "I" were never born, so we cannot die.

That would just be my understanding anyway.

Lets nitpick! :pac:

While I don't wish to have said precisely what buddhism is for or against I think it is clear enough that Banbh's account of the purpose of buddhism is wildly reductionist and misses the mark completely.

I think it's a bit unfair to render the concept of eternal life meaningless. The very fact that it may have many various interpretations is the reason it's not meaningless and is up for discussion. Some clarity of what we mean with the term would be helpful.



I think the points raised with regard to embodiment and detachment are perhaps big enough to warrant a new thread. While I don't think buddhism is against having a body, it's something that is not immediately clear. On a personal level, meditation often leads to a state of bodily unawareness and while this may not be the "goal" it is certainly a consequence. It is also clearly an approach that is favoured by some branches of buddhism.

roosh

18AD wrote: »

Lets nitpick! :pac:

I've been known to

18AD wrote: »

While I don't wish to have said precisely what buddhism is for or against I think it is clear enough that Banbh's account of the purpose of buddhism is wildly reductionist and misses the mark completely.

The point about buddhism not being for or against anything was more directed to the point that buddhism is against telling people what to do; I'm not sure that is necessarily true, even without getting into a nature of reality level discussion. I think buddhism would probably be against trying to force someone to do something as opposed to telling them to do something.

This of course being separate to banbh's point, bcos the obvious point that will get raised here is that the monks are telling the Rohingya to get out, etc. etc.

I would, of course, agree that Banbh's representation of Buddhism is largely misguided, and doesn't accurately represent the philosophy.

18AD wrote: »

I think it's a bit unfair to render the concept of eternal life meaningless. The very fact that it may have many various interpretations is the reason it's not meaningless and is up for discussion. Some clarity of what we mean with the term would be helpful.

I wouldn't necessarily render the concept meaningless, although that was far from clear, or possibly even compatible, with what I said. I would probably have been better served to say that, in the given context, without any clarification as to what banbh's interpretation of the term was, the term, or rather it's use, was essentially meaningless; due to the fact that it is so open to interpretation that anyone using the term would have to clarify what they meant when using; thereby instilling it with meaning.

I offered a possible interpretation of the term, and how it might apply to buddhism, which could potentially have offered a jumping off point for a discussion of the term; or perhaps would have been sufficient to address any potential issues arising from the pre-conceptions people may have had.

18AD wrote: »

I think the points raised with regard to embodiment and detachment are perhaps big enough to warrant a new thread. While I don't think buddhism is against having a body, it's something that is not immediately clear. On a personal level, meditation often leads to a state of bodily unawareness and while this may not be the "goal" it is certainly a consequence. It is also clearly an approach that is favoured by some branches of buddhism.

I would, again, agree that a separate thread could prove beneficial as the idea, and indeed the practice, of non-attachment is a big part of buddhist philosophy.

I wouldn't necessarily say that a state of bodily unawareness is experienced, other than perhaps becoming lost in thought, which is something we experience on a daily basis; if anything I would say that greater awareness of the body is actually experienced and cultivated.

I'm not overly familiar with all of the branches of buddhism unfortunately, and in particular any branch that favours an "anti-body" approach, as I think the blogger wrote in their piece (I'm assuming we're talking about the points raised by Ambersky here).

Ambersky

Banbh said in the op
Buddhism is sometimes regarded, in Europe anyway, as a more tolerant religion, a religion of peaceful meditation and begging baldy monks.
But like all organisations seeking control of society it has its darker side.

I am keeping to the general topic of the darker side or shadow side of Buddhism. Knowing more about abuse than war so thats the dark side I am writing about.

roosh said
Firstly, I don't think there's much room for discussion on the issue of sexual abuse, or other forms; there is no justification for it.
As I say, I don't think there is anything in buddhist philosophy that would, even remotely come close to condoning the sexual abuse of anyone.

Thanks roosh for taking the time to read the blog but I am not suggesting Buddhists or indeed Christians condone abuse what I am saying is there is a need to look at what it is about communities and in this case religious communities, their structures and their beliefs that seem to create the environments for abuses to happen.
There is nothing in the teachings of Jesus Christ that condones abuse either but christians and catholics in particular have been forced into looking at their own communities.
We can look at the theory of any religion but the real revelation is in the practice. eg "see how those Christians love one another" (or not as the case may be)

Roosh says
All we can ever hope to do is to have compassion for the victims for the suffering they have encountered; but also to try and have some compassion for the perpetrators for whatever it was that lead them to a point that they could perpetrate such a heinous act.

No I dont think thats all we can do. The above quote sounds like something the catholic bishops said about revelations withing their own community thinking the public would be satisfied with a vague spiritual nice response.
Spirituality can and in my opinion should, also incorporate courage, tenacity and the strength to say No Stop. If a religion or philosophy is nothing but sweet and nice it fails the weakest and most vulnerable. Buddhism has a tradition of invoking the Guardians, beings who understand and are up to the task of fending off attacks they are capable of action and know when and what is appropriate. Maybe we need to learn how to honor and take on this spirit.

Many of the criticisms I brought up and that are mentioned in the blogspot like the mind body dualism, power, sexism, etc. are perhaps unfamiliar here.
They are hot topics within a form of Buddhism called engaged Buddhism.
I think by having the courage to address these issues and others we can make our communities safer for the vulnerable and much better for ourselves as well. I think by looking at issues of power, sexism and dualism we will learn to reveal our own shadow sides maybe sides we have be avoiding in the pleasantness of transcendent spiritual meditations. Wouldnt that be a thought.

http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2234&Itemid=243

Thich Nhat Hanh: Engaged Buddhism is just Buddhism. When bombs begin to fall on people, you cannot stay in the meditation hall all of the time. Meditation is about the awareness of what is going on-not only in your body and in your feelings, but all around you.

When I was a novice in Vietnam, we young monks witnessed the suffering caused by the war. So we were very eager to practice Buddhism in such a way that we could bring it into society. That was not easy because the tradition does not directly offer Engaged Buddhism. So we had to do it by ourselves. That was the birth of Engaged Buddhism.

Buddhism has to do with your daily life, with your suffering and with the suffering of the people around you. You have to learn how to help a wounded child while still practicing mindful breathing. You should not allow yourself to get lost in action. Action should be meditation at the same time.

http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1579&Itemid=243

Buddhist meditation as practiced in the West frequently suffers from a profound disembodiment. Often we meditate from the neck up, as floating heads, completely cut off from the life of our bodies and our physical existence in the world. We meditate in this way because we believe, often without realizing it, that the ideal meditative state should somehow be devoid of the pain, complexity, ambiguity and physicality—in other words, the full embodiment—of our natural human condition.

You may object that the Buddha taught a dharma whose goal was to show the way out of suffering. Quite true. But often in our Western practice of Buddhism, we mistake the goal for the path, seeing the Buddha’s statement of the goal as a description of how we should go about meditating.

http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1874&Itemid=243

Before you can truly know what compassion is, you have to develop equanimity towards that which is threatening, disagreeable or fearful. Equanimity and compassion don’t come from transcending these things; they come from moving closer to what scares you, threatens you, causes you to become aggressive and selfish, and so forth.

This requires a lot of courage, but I find that’s a message people can accept. Interestingly, the idea of developing courage doesn’t seem to trigger people’s inadequacies. I think they know they have some courage. The problem is they think they’re supposed to be courageous in facing the outside world, whereas what is so profoundly transformative is the courage to look at yourself. It’s the courage to not give up on yourself, even though you do see your aggression, jealousy, meanness, and so on. And it turns out that in facing these things, we develop not self-denigration but compassion for our shared humanity.

18AD

roosh wrote: »

I wouldn't necessarily say that a state of bodily unawareness is experienced, other than perhaps becoming lost in thought, which is something we experience on a daily basis; if anything I would say that greater awareness of the body is actually experienced and cultivated.

I'm not overly familiar with all of the branches of buddhism unfortunately, and in particular any branch that favours an "anti-body" approach, as I think the blogger wrote in their piece (I'm assuming we're talking about the points raised by Ambersky here).

I would be referring more to meditation relying on focusing the mind on a specific object. The result is often a dissolution of bodily awareness, in the regular sense of being aware of the body. I don't think being unaware of the body in a general day to day fashion, which of course occurs a lot. I think to cultivate awareness in a day to day sense means to be completely aware of the body. Anything else is ignorance towards embodied being, a vital fact of existence.

The notion of detachment is quite tricky and I don't know if I'm totally clear on what that entails myself. I know from meditation it means to simply observe the flow of the present withouth judgement. I guess I don't understand how exactly one could not judge and go about doing the right thing. Surely right and wrong are conceptually useless from a strictly detached viewpoint.

18AD

Ambersky wrote: »

Many of the criticisms I brought up and that are mentioned in the blogspot like the mind body dualism, power, sexism, etc. are perhaps unfamiliar here.
They are hot topics within a form of Buddhism called engaged Buddhism.
I think by having the courage to address these issues and others we can make our communities safer for the vulnerable and much better for ourselves as well. I think by looking at issues of power, sexism and dualism we will learn to reveal our own shadow sides maybe sides we have be avoiding in the pleasantness of transcendent spiritual meditations. Wouldnt that be a thought.

There's some really interesting points there. I'm not very familiar with the criticisms in a buddhist context. I had only started two threads along these lines recently.

One was about Ikkyu Sojun who was very critical of the sexism and falsity propounded by many buddhist monasteres and individuals.

The other was about Zen and War and how zen is perhaps linked, in its own philosophy, to support war.

Power, gender and embodiment are all things that interest me greatly. I wonder to what extent you can ever separate these things. Are they simply facts of human existence that take different forms amidst various contingent philosophies or are they part of the philosopies themselves? I wonder are religions and philosophies simply ways of dealing with these human given facts of gender, sexuality and politics.

Edit: Just to clarify, I don't mean for that to let buddhism off the hook for these crimes. They should be discussed in full.

roosh

Ambersky wrote: »

Thanks roosh for taking the time to read the blog but I am not suggesting Buddhists or indeed Christians condone abuse what I am saying is there is a need to look at what it is about communities and in this case religious communities, their structures and their beliefs that seem to create the environments for abuses to happen.
There is nothing in the teachings of Jesus Christ that condones abuse either but christians and catholics in particular have been forced into looking at their own communities.
We can look at the theory of any religion but the real revelation is in the practice. eg "see how those Christians love one another" (or not as the case may be)

I would completely agree that there is a need to look at the communities and structures in which abuse occurs, and to understand the environments and mentalities that can foster such an environment. I also think it is very important to do so with a sense of detachment. The issue of abuse is a very emotive one and not easily viewed in such a light however; this, unfortunately, can often lead to the baby getting thrown out with the bathwater.

If we juxtapose the fact that abuse occurs in some, or perhaps many, of these environments with the fact that there is nothing in the philosophy which encourages or condones it, then there must be some intervening factor which is the root cause. That intervening factor would appear to be the baser side of human nature. In very broad brushstrokes, if there is nothing in the philosophy that encourages or condones abuse, and you are abusing someone, then you must be doing it wrong.


There does appear to be an issue within religious communities where too much reverence for "superiors" is developed; it's not at all uncommon that a sort of cult mentality can arise, where the "leader" is revered and can do no wrong. While buddhist philosophy would actually warn about the dangers of such occurences, situations like this regularly occur within buddhist communities. This is because people are prone to do such things, it's human nature to try and associate with someone "higher" than ourselves and so vicariously raise our status, if only in our own minds. This, unfortunately, can have disastrous consequences; it can lead to unquestioning devotion to a "master" such that the master can be seen to do no wrong; every seemingly insane request from a "master" is blindly followed because "the master knows best".

Again, there is nothing necessarily within the philosophy that promotes such behaviour; instead, the philosophy warns that such behaviour can occur, given the nature of the subject at hand. People will still fall into these traps, because it is a simple matter of human nature.

There are answers, within the philosophy, as to why these kinds of thing happen; this is because the philosophy, or more accurately, the practice is concerned with developing awareness of ones own human nature and thereby facilitating an understanding of human nature in general.

Ambersky wrote: »

No I dont think thats all we can do. The above quote sounds like something the catholic bishops said about revelations withing their own community thinking the public would be satisfied with a vague spiritual nice response.
Spirituality can and in my opinion should, also incorporate courage, tenacity and the strength to say No Stop. If a religion or philosophy is nothing but sweet and nice it fails the weakest and most vulnerable. Buddhism has a tradition of invoking the Guardians, beings who understand and are up to the task of fending off attacks they are capable of action and know when and what is appropriate. Maybe we need to learn how to honor and take on this spirit.

Yes, apologies, the statement did sound a bit warm and fuzzy; however, buddhist practice is as much about action as it is about anything else; in transforming the mind we automatically transform our actions. In the context of buddhism, compassion isn't simply a feeling, it isn't sitting around and saying "isn't it terrible what has happened"; in the context of buddhism thoughts inspire actions and having compassion leads to compassionate action. Having compassion for the victims of abuse means putting a stop to it where possible, it means providing the emotional and physical support needed to overcome such a life shattering ordeal. It also means having compassion for the abuser and understanding that they too were once and innocent child, that something must have happened to bring them to the point where they would abuse someone else; and trying to give them the help that they need to transform themselves.

Ambersky wrote: »

Many of the criticisms I brought up and that are mentioned in the blogspot like the mind body dualism, power, sexism, etc. are perhaps unfamiliar here.
They are hot topics within a form of Buddhism called engaged Buddhism.
I think by having the courage to address these issues and others we can make our communities safer for the vulnerable and much better for ourselves as well. I think by looking at issues of power, sexism and dualism we will learn to reveal our own shadow sides maybe sides we have be avoiding in the pleasantness of transcendent spiritual meditations. Wouldnt that be a thought.

The issue of power and sexism I would take as distinct from mind-body dualism. I am familiar with the term "Engaged Buddhism" and familiar, to an extent, with Thich Nhat Hanh and some of his teachings. I'm not familiar with anything in his teachings which promote mind-body dualism.

I am familiar with one of his teachings in which he specifically states that the idea of dualism, in terms of body-soul dualism, is incorrect.


I couldn't comment on the issues of power and sexism though bcos I'm not sure what the charge is.

Ambersky wrote: »

http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1579&Itemid=243

I think there is one statement, or even word which summarises the issue of disembodiment:
"But often in our Western practice of Buddhism, we mistake the goal for the path, seeing the Buddha’s statement of the goal as a description of how we should go about meditating. "

The idea of disembodiment is to mistake what the teachings say.

Ambersky wrote: »

http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1874&Itemid=243

The last paragraph about compassion is very insightful; the need to develop equanimity for those things we find fearful or disagreeable; it is the need to develop compassion for the abuser as well as the abused.

There is a story I've heard in the context of buddhism which is about a man beating a dog; the idea is not just to have compassion for the dog, but also for the man beating the dog; this isn't always easy, because we can see the man as a beast, not worthy of compassion. But if we think about the fact that he is human and that he was once a child who would never have conceived of doing such a thing, what has happened to bring him to the point where he beats a defenseless dog?


To highlight something in the blogpost, where the author mentioned that buddhism teaches people not to grieve the dead; if we consider it in the context of the quote you posted above:
"we believe, often without realizing it, that the ideal meditative state should somehow be devoid of the pain, complexity, ambiguity and physicality—in other words, the full embodiment—of our natural human condition."

Buddhism doesn't teach us to avoid pain, it teaches us to experience the pain, to go through it, to not avoid it i.e. not have aversion to it.



Summary
The issue of abuse is a very serious issue, and one you rightly suggest needs to be understood and looked at; it is however a very emotive issue, and it is one in which it is all too easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

For all of the abuses of power within a buddhist establishment, there is something in the philosophy which points to the dangers of it occurring. The issue is that it is people who practice the philosophy and people are subject to human nature. As soon as we start conceptualising and putting the blame on inanimate concepts such as "crimes of buddhism" we lose sight of the real problem and with it our ability to address it adequately. We also risk losing any of the positives that might be garnered from such things as "buddhism" or indeed "christianity".

Ambersky

I would completely agree that there is a need to look at the communities and structures in which abuse occurs, and to understand the environments and mentalities that can foster such an environment. I also think it is very important to do so with a sense of detachment. The issue of abuse is a very emotive one and not easily viewed in such a light however;

I think there is something of a cultural difference as in a difference between the way women and men view emotion here. It is part of the dualism of thinking which is quite western and male in tradition to place intellect and detachment over emotion. It is quite right to get emotional or emotive about the abuse of a child. I think this idea of detachment is also popular in the Christian male tradition and there has been a fear of women who have little control over their emotions (eg hysteria a word for uncontrolled emotion coming from the womb).
This detachment was the downfall of many Christian bishops and clerics who if they had right response, an emotional human response, would have been outraged, stopped the abuse and prevented it from ever happening again.
Instead in their detachment they did not see or more importantly feel the pain of the child but saw the need to understand the man. They took a spiritual view of his sin, accepted his confession/or not, believed once the sin was ritually forgiven that he could be sent out to be in charge of children once again.
That is not to say we dont need to look at the perpetrator as you say but I think we need to look at the words compassion and help. Having compassion for and helping the perpetrator is not the soft option the bishops for example thought it meant. It means understanding the deviousness, the lies, the delusions, the very dark and shadowy side of pedophilia. It means really looking at it and I think if people in charge of children don't look at it they will not be able to adequately protect the children or vulnerable adults in their care. When it is seen and understood it can be challenged and I would say after that it must be understood and accepted that the pedophile never gets to work with or around or for children again, because that is often part of the delusion.

The ideal of detachment and the idea that we must not get too emotional over an issue like the abuse of children is a very good example of how spiritual philosophies or belief systems that initially sound benign can have dire consequences. It is probably also part of the argument for the equal involvement of women and men in organizations. That is not to say that all women or men think alike indeed women who grow up in patriarchy can be the most vocal defenders of it especially if they have managed to find success within it. But it is saying that in an organization that is exclusively male for centuries there is bound to have developed a culture with a bias in its thinking.

roosh says
I couldn't comment on the issues of power and sexism though bcos I'm not sure what the charge is.

Its odd really that I rarely hear any mention of sexism in buddhism.
We are very aware of it in Western Christianity, familiar with the debate on women priests and the effect centuries of male only celibate priesthood has had on the institution of the church and on its attitudes and teachings.
http://buddhism.about.com/od/becomingabuddhist/a/sexism.htm

Buddhist women, including nuns, have faced harsh discrimination by Buddhist institutions in Asia for centuries. There is gender inequality in most of the world's religions, of course, but that's no excuse. Is sexism intrinsic to Buddhism, or did Buddhist institutions absorb sexism from Asian culture? Can Buddhism treat women as equals, and remain Buddhism?

Let's begin at the beginning, with the historical Buddha. As told in "The First Buddhist Women," the Buddha originally refused to ordain women as nuns. He said that allowing women into the sangha would cause his teachings to survive only half as long –- 500 years instead of a 1,000.

The Buddha's cousin Ananda asked if there was any reason women could not realize enlightenment and enter Nirvana as well as men. The Buddha admitted there was no reason a woman could not be enlightened. "Women, Ananda, having gone forth are able to realize the fruit of stream-attainment or the fruit of once-returning or the fruit of non-returning or arahantship," he said.....

Can Women Enter Nirvana?

Buddhist doctrines on the enlightenment of women are contradictory. There is no one institutional authority that speaks for all Buddhism. The myriad schools and sects do not follow the same scriptures; texts that are central to some schools are not recognized as authentic by others. And the scriptures disagree.

For example, the Larger Sukhavati-vyuha Sutra, also called the Aparimitayur Sutra, is one of three sutras that provide the doctrinal basis of the Pure Land school. This sutra contains a passage usually interpreted to mean that women must be reborn as men before they can enter Nirvana.

On the other hand, the Vimilakirti Sutra teaches that maleness and femaleness, like other phenomenal distinctions, are essentially unreal. "With this in mind, the Buddha said, ’In all things, there is neither male nor female.’" The Vimilakirti is an essential text in several Mahayana schools, including Tibetan and Zen Buddhism.

Im not saying Buddhism particularly in the West is not changing and the article quoted speaks of the changes that are gradually happening in the East as well but it is odd that sexism is so rarely discussed I would say many people are unaware of it.
This isnt just individual personal sexism although it would be hard to say that doesnt exist, despite how nice everyone is, this is institutional sexism built into the structure the culture and the thinking.

roosh said
As soon as we start conceptualising and putting the blame on inanimate concepts such as "crimes of buddhism" we lose sight of the real problem and with it our ability to address it adequately. We also risk losing any of the positives that might be garnered from such things as "buddhism" or indeed "christianity".

In a way this sounds like the response of the american army to the torture photos or once again the catholic church. It sounds like a defense of the institution saying it wasnt anything intrinsic in the institution that allowed these abuses to happen it was just a few bad apples and people will be people.
Well of course I am saying I dont agree but I also dont share your fear that we will loose the positives of buddhism if we examine these issues closely.
Maybe Buddhists could learn from the Christians and examine this and learn to address the issues before and not just after they have grown out of hand.

roosh

Just wanted to say that I hope my tone hasn't been coming across too confrontational; I was trying to get replies typed up before classes, so didn't allow myself the time to try and write in a less confrontational manner.

roosh

18AD wrote: »

I would be referring more to meditation relying on focusing the mind on a specific object. The result is often a dissolution of bodily awareness, in the regular sense of being aware of the body. I don't think being unaware of the body in a general day to day fashion, which of course occurs a lot. I think to cultivate awareness in a day to day sense means to be completely aware of the body. Anything else is ignorance towards embodied being, a vital fact of existence.

Assuming that we are talking about the same practice, that would be the practice I regularly did, before becoming indisciplined, over the past few months.

While I can't say that the result isn't dissolution of bodily awareness, I can only say that I haven't experienced that. The practice of focusing on an object isn't too much different to focusing on the breath, or focusing on bodily sensations; the point, or so I believe, is just to provide an anchor to which we can return our attention when we find we have become lost in thought. This trains the mind, or creates a habit, of returning to awareness.

At no point could I say that I was ever unaware of my body, except for when I was lost in thought maybe; essentially you rest in the naked awareness that is the body and the senses of the body; or at least, that would be my understanding of it.

We could go further and question the existence of "a body" but that probably isn't necessary in this context.

18AD wrote: »

The notion of detachment is quite tricky and I don't know if I'm totally clear on what that entails myself. I know from meditation it means to simply observe the flow of the present withouth judgement. I guess I don't understand how exactly one could not judge and go about doing the right thing. Surely right and wrong are conceptually useless from a strictly detached viewpoint.

My own understanding of attachment and aversion, and their opposites might be easier to explain by way of examples.

Aversion
Let's say you wake up in the morning and you think to yourself, "oh, god, I don't want to get up; I don't want to go to work [or college or wherever]". That is what I think aversion is. Now, I've been in the situation where this thought can really take hold, it can be really strong and cause some distress at the thought of going to work; there will be an accompanying physical response. Aversion is itself a form of attachment, negative attachment in a sense.

Through meditation we can loosen the grip of the thought; while the thought might arise it is quicker to fall by the wayside and the physical reaction may not be as strong or as prolonged. The practical effect is that we get up earlier and don't make ourselves miserable at the thought of going to work.


Attachment to objects
Let's say you get a new car. You've saved for ages to get it, and you absolutely love the new car - it doesn't have to be a car, just any material possession that you could cherish.

For ages you try to maintain the car perfectly, not letting people eat or drink in the car; one day though, due to certain circumstances you allow your girlfriend to drink in the car. She spills the drink and you get angry; this causes you stress and there is a physical response and it strains relations with your girlfriend. In this case it is your attachment to the car and the idea of keeping it pristine that causes you to get angry with your girlfriend; her spilling the drink is an obvious contributory factor, but if you were not so attached to the car and the idea of it, then you could change the karma that results from that situation; if there is no attachment there may be no anger, and you don't have an argument with your girlfriend.


Attachement to ideas
One of the best examples of attachment to ideas is one that is perhaps pertinent to this general discussion; that is, attachment to religious beliefs. I think we all know the power of such attachment.

A personal example would be the notion of God; personally I have my own understanding of God that sees God as being the universe, of which we are all a part; I think this is what all the spiritual/mystic traditions point towards, even if the idea has been buried deep in dogma and ritual.

Now, on a conscious and rational level this is a conclusion I have come to; however, in a discussion a while back someone was very obviously challenging the anthropomorphic idea of "the man in the clouds"; I found myself reacting to this and defending the concept of God. On some level I still had a subconscious attachment to the concept of God and perhaps even the anthropomorphic idea of God.

This attachment lead to a more emotional and confrontational response, which in turn lead to a more confrontational response in the person I was discussing with; both with a underlying hint of anger perhaps, which of course affected our ability to see each others points objectively.



Right and Wrong
I would agree that right and wrong are conceptually useless from a detached point of view; but in a detached point of view we will still be compelled to action, just not on the basis of attachment to subconscious beliefs.

The judging of that action as "right" or "wrong" will be done by someone else, who views the action.

I suppose, to again use broad brushstrokes, the chances are that the actions will be viewed as "good" when they come from a place of non-attachment.

roosh

Ambersky wrote: »

I think there is something of a cultural difference as in a difference between the way women and men view emotion here. It is part of the dualism of thinking which is quite western and male in tradition to place intellect and detachment over emotion. It is quite right to get emotional or emotive about the abuse of a child. I think this idea of detachment is also popular in the Christian male tradition and there has been a fear of women who have little control over their emotions (eg hysteria a word for uncontrolled emotion coming from the womb).
This detachment was the downfall of many Christian bishops and clerics who if they had right response, an emotional human response, would have been outraged, stopped the abuse and prevented it from ever happening again.
Instead in their detachment they did not see or more importantly feel the pain of the child but saw the need to understand the man. They took a spiritual view of his sin, accepted his confession/or not, believed once the sin was ritually forgiven that he could be sent out to be in charge of children once again.
That is not to say we dont need to look at the perpetrator as you say but I think we need to look at the words compassion and help. Having compassion for and helping the perpetrator is not the soft option the bishops for example thought it meant. It means understanding the deviousness, the lies, the delusions, the very dark and shadowy side of pedophilia. It means really looking at it and I think if people in charge of children don't look at it they will not be able to adequately protect the children or vulnerable adults in their care. When it is seen and understood it can be challenged and I would say after that it must be understood and accepted that the pedophile never gets to work with or around or for children again, because that is often part of the delusion.

I think we need greater clarity when we speak about having an emotional response to the abuse of a child or when speaking about non-attahcment in the context of Buddhism.

Fear is equally an emotional response and, I believe, is the one through which those in positions of power acted when confronted with the abuse of children by priests; this was coupled with their attachment to their belief in the position of the church and the need to protect the church.

Anger is another emotional response and directing anger towards a priest while neglecting the emotional needs of the child isn't helpful either.

There is nothing in the idea of non-attachment, in the buddhist context, which is about denying emotions. Indeed, buddhist philosophy teaches the exact opposite; it teaches that we should allow ourselves to experience our emotions and to be fully present with them, not oppress them as those in the church undoubtedly did.

The ideal of detachment and the idea that we must not get too emotional over an issue like the abuse of children is a very good example of how spiritual philosophies or belief systems that initially sound benign can have dire consequences. It is probably also part of the argument for the equal involvement of women and men in organizations. That is not to say that all women or men think alike indeed women who grow up in patriarchy can be the most vocal defenders of it especially if they have managed to find success within it. But it is saying that in an organization that is exclusively male for centuries there is bound to have developed a culture with a bias in its thinking.

Ambersky wrote: »

Its odd really that I rarely hear any mention of sexism in buddhism.
We are very aware of it in Western Christianity, familiar with the debate on women priests and the effect centuries of male only celibate priesthood has had on the institution of the church and on its attitudes and teachings.
http://buddhism.about.com/od/becomingabuddhist/a/sexism.htm


Im not saying Buddhism particularly in the West is not changing and the article quoted speaks of the changes that are gradually happening in the East as well but it is odd that sexism is so rarely discussed I would say many people are unaware of it.
This isnt just individual personal sexism although it would be hard to say that doesnt exist, despite how nice everyone is, this is institutional sexism built into the structure the culture and the thinking.

Again, I'm not aware of anything in Buddhist philosophy that promotes or encourages sexism; my exposure to buddhism would suggest the very opposite; so if there are "buddhists" who are guilty of sexism then there must be an intervening factor.

In the piece you mentioned above, it says that the buddha "originally" refused to ordain women as nuns; do you know if this was something that continued until his death, or at what point in history it changed? I'm fairly sure there are female monks now, but I'm not sure when this came to be.

Are you familiar with the buddha's reasoning for, orginally, not ordaining women, other than the supposed longevity of his teachings? I'm not familiar with it myself, but I could hazard a guess it might have something to do with men and women living together in closed spaces and their propensity to distract each other. That's not to suggest that such relationships are unhealthy, but when it comes to monastic life they can be a distraction.

Ambersky wrote: »

In a way this sounds like the response of the american army to the torture photos or once again the catholic church. It sounds like a defense of the institution saying it wasnt anything intrinsic in the institution that allowed these abuses to happen it was just a few bad apples and people will be people.
Well of course I am saying I dont agree but I also dont share your fear that we will loose the positives of buddhism if we examine these issues closely.
Maybe Buddhists could learn from the Christians and examine this and learn to address the issues before and not just after they have grown out of hand.

No one is suggesting that we don't examine these issues closely; buddhist practice and philosophy is, itself, the act of looking at human behaviour closely.

Again, once we start dealing with conceptualisations such as "the american army" or "the catholic church" you lose sight of the real problem. If we say that "the american army" tortured prisoners, then how do we punish "the american army"; what steps do we take against "the american army" to stop this from happening?

How do we stop "the catholic church" from abusing children, given that it wasn't "the catholic church" that abused children.

In every case it is members within the organisation that commit these crimes, and people who cover them up are individuals as well. These "institutions" are just made up of individuals and it is an individuals fear of what other individuals reactions would be that lead them to cover up such issues.

EDIT2: when you discuss things in terms of abstract concepts such as "the catholic church" or "the american army" what you do is tarnish everyone with the same brush; not every priest in the church was a paedophile and not every monk in a buddhist monastery abuses children, just as not every soldier tortures prisoners. When you talk in such broad and general terms you lose sight of the real perpetrator of these crimes and the real reason for why they occur, and in so doing you don't get any closer to understanding the problem you say you want to understand.

To an limited extent it might be helpful to talk about institutions, because istitutions are just psychological phenomena with no material existence, in essence; what makes an institution an institution are the people who adhere to the rules of that institution; but those rules were devised by individuals too.

What causes priests to cover up sexual abuse scandals isn't detachment form emotion, it's severe emotional attachment to the idea of the church. If there was no emotional attachment to the idea it would be much easier to openly deal with such things.

EDIT: it might be worth mentioning that I consider myself neither a buddhist nor a christian; I'm simply discussing what I perceive to be misconceptions with regard to buddhist philosophy and other issues.

18AD

roosh wrote: »

Assuming that we are talking about the same practice, that would be the practice I regularly did, before becoming indisciplined, over the past few months.

While I can't say that the result isn't dissolution of bodily awareness, I can only say that I haven't experienced that. The practice of focusing on an object isn't too much different to focusing on the breath, or focusing on bodily sensations; the point, or so I believe, is just to provide an anchor to which we can return our attention when we find we have become lost in thought. This trains the mind, or creates a habit, of returning to awareness.

At no point could I say that I was ever unaware of my body, except for when I was lost in thought maybe; essentially you rest in the naked awareness that is the body and the senses of the body; or at least, that would be my understanding of it.

We could go further and question the existence of "a body" but that probably isn't necessary in this context.

The breath would be the "object" I'd use to concentrate on too.

After long periods of focusing on the breath certain peak experiences occur, or have done for me anyway. Perception goes wonky if it's focused on one object for a prolonged time. Sh!t gets weird!

Things like out of body experiences and "astral" bodies seem to make a whole lot of experiential sense and provide for strange pathways of experience. Perhaps you're aware of something like lucid dreaming? You can be completely aware of yourself, but you're not in your physical body. I guess I'm trying to say that awareness doesn't necessitate bodily awareness.

Then there're heavier experiences of boundary dissolution where you and the outside world are indistinguishable. To this extent things like "unity" and "oneness" are experientially verifiable. In modern parlance, the experience is where it's at.

With that said, I think there is certainly some truth to experiencing something "beyond" the body. Can't quite put my finger on it. I think they happen more often than people care to mention. Perhaps during great sex, deep sleep, intense exercise or during highly focused skills like music or writing. They aren't simply experiences of being lost in thought without bodily awareness but rather highly focused moments of a different kind.

In relation to the topic at hand it would seem clear that there are experiences that are not of a bodily nature. I don't really know if that entails mind/body dualism though. I'd be inclined to say it doesn't, and I'd say so just because it would seem harder to reasonable justify that it's not dualism. I'll think that through some more.

Keep it compassionately confrontational! :pac:

Ambersky

New Age spirituality and Buddhism have a lot of cross overs but I think both of them as expressed in the West are very individualistic.
It is very difficult for someone to use to this kind of thinking to go on to look at the working of systems, organizations and cultures. They tend to always put the responsibility and focus on the individual saying the institution is just an abstract concept.
I am saying for example that if you grow up in a society like ours that has been very sexist and still has influences of that kind of thinking that you will almost always grow up sexism in your head, in your subconscious, it will be whats normal to you.
You wont see sexism even if the only teachers you ever had were male and you met several Lamas but not one of them was a woman and are aware there is a debate as to whether a woman had to be born a man to be enlightened or become a Buddha.
Even the Buddha living in the sexist culture of his time originally refused to ordain women as nuns and changed his mind after being challenged by a woman. Jesus too changes his mind about the law when he was challenged by the outcast or Samaritan woman at the well.

Accepting that all or most people in this culture grow up more or less sexist homophobic racist etc can be kind of comforting because it takes the blame for being a bad person off your shoulders in a way. It is what is normal to you until you see it for what it is. When you actually see your own racism sexism homophobia and see how it effects others and it is harder to go on with it.
Seeing it in yourself you can have compassion for others who have it too.
Then you also find yourself understanding how you were taught these things and how they tend to keep particular organizations going the way they are going.
So it all comes from compassion and a knowledge of how things are interconnected. Unfortunately it is often those who have experienced the pain of these isms that are the most vocal and those who have not experienced them are often content in their own bubble as it were. I am saying that even if these things do not seem to affect you seeing them in yourself is a liberation and freeing allowing you more interconnectedness not less.

Ways in which a spirituality including Buddhism can incorporate connectedness with the body and the earth are for example seeing teachings in the changing and different nature of the seasons, talking about that, appreciating it and reflecting on how that is also experienced in our lives.
It can also be experienced in the world of work getting satisfaction or lessons from the experience of routine, our responses to it, what we learn from it.
We also learn from what life puts before us and from the changing cycles and stages of our own lives.
We learn from our bodies, the messages it gives us, the way it speaks the truth even when our minds try to contradict what it is telling us.
We learn especially from our relationships with real people here in our lives. Some of the most profound teachings, lessons it would be difficult for us to learn otherwise come from facing one another in relationship. Yet in some spiritual circles relationships are presented as ok if you need that kind of thing but celibate monasticism is presented as the ideal.

Some of the reasons I have come to the idea that Buddhist practitioners are divorced from their bodies is because I rarely hear conversations about the things quoted above but I do hear loads of conversation about controlling the mind along with instructions on how to achieve spiritual ephemeral highs.
Actually I think these feelings are like a natural highs they are the sparkly glittery aspects of any spirituality, they are attractive even addictive at times but they dont actually get you through the joys and the pains of life. I think their lessons are very limited.
People who present themselves as spiritual sometimes talk as though this life, this world is a burden. It can sound as if death is the point of their spirituality refusing to see or experience the joy and the pain of this auspicious human life.
I also think many Buddhist practitioners are divorced from their bodies and the earth because I have heard young men anxiously asking questions like "Is it ok to take out a pension in my job or am I getting away from living in the Now" or "Is it ok to be successful in my job".
What kind of a message is being given out by a spirituality that could give anyone the impression that to provide for themselves and their loved ones in the world of work and to just to grow up into a responsible adulthood might not be a spiritual path.

recedite

roosh wrote: »

There does appear to be an issue within religious communities where too much reverence for "superiors" is developed; it's not at all uncommon that a sort of cult mentality can arise, where the "leader" is revered and can do no wrong. While buddhist philosophy would actually warn about the dangers of such occurences, situations like this regularly occur within buddhist communities.

The situation particularly in Tibetan Buddhism is extremely hierarchical, from the Dalai Lama down. While you might argue that scepticism is built into the teachings of Buddhism, it is similar to other religions in that the system is set up to promote reverence for "superiors".

Apart from all the warm and fuzzy stuff discussed above, there is the concept of "wrathful bodhisattvas" in which monks can absolve themselves of culpability when they are involved in unsavoury activities or crimes, on the basis that good and evil are two sides of the same coin.
Then there is the puritanical killjoy stuff; the ban on singing, dancing, nice clothes etc.. Wheres the fun in that?

18AD

Ambersky wrote: »

Some of the reasons I have come to the idea that Buddhist practitioners are divorced from their bodies is because I rarely hear conversations about the things quoted above but I do hear loads of conversation about controlling the mind along with instructions on how to achieve spiritual ephemeral highs.

I'm not really sure this is the case. Obviously the spiritual highs are something people will chase after and I'd agree that they are simply one experience among many. Maybe strived for simply because they are uncommon.

But I would say that buddhism has also spawned some of the most acute bodily awareness practices in the form of martial arts and the "internal" martial arts. Hinduism even has it's yoga, which is precisely to gain mastery of the body. There is no way about this other than extremely high levels of awareness about the body.

A lot of forms of meditation are geared towards bodily awareness also.

As you mentioned controlling the mind, this goes hand in hand with controlling the body. In meditation practice you have to calm the body before you can calm the mind. It is a prerequisite.

I'd be curious as to where you think the detachment occurs in this process? Personally I don't see the disembodied "spiritual" experiences as teaching that one should be disembodied, or that those experiences are truer than embodied experience.

Again, it would appear to be a case of some buddhists are and some aren't.

roosh

18AD wrote: »

The breath would be the "object" I'd use to concentrate on too.

After long periods of focusing on the breath certain peak experiences occur, or have done for me anyway. Perception goes wonky if it's focused on one object for a prolonged time. Sh!t gets weird!

Things like out of body experiences and "astral" bodies seem to make a whole lot of experiential sense and provide for strange pathways of experience. Perhaps you're aware of something like lucid dreaming? You can be completely aware of yourself, but you're not in your physical body. I guess I'm trying to say that awareness doesn't necessitate bodily awareness.

Then there're heavier experiences of boundary dissolution where you and the outside world are indistinguishable. To this extent things like "unity" and "oneness" are experientially verifiable. In modern parlance, the experience is where it's at.

With that said, I think there is certainly some truth to experiencing something "beyond" the body. Can't quite put my finger on it. I think they happen more often than people care to mention. Perhaps during great sex, deep sleep, intense exercise or during highly focused skills like music or writing. They aren't simply experiences of being lost in thought without bodily awareness but rather highly focused moments of a different kind.

In relation to the topic at hand it would seem clear that there are experiences that are not of a bodily nature. I don't really know if that entails mind/body dualism though. I'd be inclined to say it doesn't, and I'd say so just because it would seem harder to reasonable justify that it's not dualism. I'll think that through some more.

Keep it compassionately confrontational! :pac:

There are parts of that that I, unfortunately, can't relate to, such as out of body experiences or "astral" bodies. I'm familiar with the concept of lucid dreaming but not the practice; I'd love to be able to do it, but haven't really devoted anytime to trying to experience it.

There are other parts that I can relate more easily to, although with conceptualisations there's always the possibility that we aren't necessarily talking about the same experience; but what you say with regard to boundary dissolution and the experience of "unity" and "oneness" I think I can relate to. This may be where we have been talking at cross purposes, and where conceptualisation needs clarification.

While I think I can relate to the experience, I would distinguish between boundary dissolution and unawareness of the body. Firstly, it might be worth stating that the body is a concept like any other, but a bit more persistent perhaps. As such, there is no such thing as "the body" and experiencing boundary dissolution - assuming it means what I think it means - doesn't lead to a lack of awareness of the body, rather a realisation that the body is one with the surrounding environment. The body doesn't disappear, and "bodily" sensations can still be felt, "the heart" continues to beat and can be felt, "the breath" can still be felt going into the lungs, etc. but there isn't the attachment to the idea of "my body"; that thought doesn't arise.

That would just be my understanding of it, or at least an attempt to conceptualise that understanding. In relative terms though, I would probably be very much the novice.

roosh

Ambersky wrote: »

New Age spirituality and Buddhism have a lot of cross overs but I think both of them as expressed in the West are very individualistic.

I would be inclined to agree; although the term "new age" might be somewhat misleading. I would be inclined to distinguish between "new age" philosophy and "new age" spirituality; where "new age" spirituality includes the practices of spirituality, such as meditation. Without the practices I think it is difficult to realise the truth of the philosophy and to attain liberation from the subconscious attachments we have to conscious and subconscious beliefs. Which of course affect our actions.

Ambersky wrote: »

It is very difficult for someone to use to this kind of thinking to go on to look at the working of systems, organizations and cultures. They tend to always put the responsibility and focus on the individual saying the institution is just an abstract concept.
I am saying for example that if you grow up in a society like ours that has been very sexist and still has influences of that kind of thinking that you will almost always grow up sexism in your head, in your subconscious, it will be whats normal to you.
You wont see sexism even if the only teachers you ever had were male and you met several Lamas but not one of them was a woman and are aware there is a debate as to whether a woman had to be born a man to be enlightened or become a Buddha.
Even the Buddha living in the sexist culture of his time originally refused to ordain women as nuns and changed his mind after being challenged by a woman. Jesus too changes his mind about the law when he was challenged by the outcast or Samaritan woman at the well.

Accepting that all or most people in this culture grow up more or less sexist homophobic racist etc can be kind of comforting because it takes the blame for being a bad person off your shoulders in a way. It is what is normal to you until you see it for what it is. When you actually see your own racism sexism homophobia and see how it effects others and it is harder to go on with it.
Seeing it in yourself you can have compassion for others who have it too.
Then you also find yourself understanding how you were taught these things and how they tend to keep particular organizations going the way they are going.
So it all comes from compassion and a knowledge of how things are interconnected. Unfortunately it is often those who have experienced the pain of these isms that are the most vocal and those who have not experienced them are often content in their own bubble as it were. I am saying that even if these things do not seem to affect you seeing them in yourself is a liberation and freeing allowing you more interconnectedness not less.




Ways in which a spirituality including Buddhism can incorporate connectedness with the body and the earth are for example seeing teachings in the changing and different nature of the seasons, talking about that, appreciating it and reflecting on how that is also experienced in our lives.
It can also be experienced in the world of work getting satisfaction or lessons from the experience of routine, our responses to it, what we learn from it.
We also learn from what life puts before us and from the changing cycles and stages of our own lives.
We learn from our bodies, the messages it gives us, the way it speaks the truth even when our minds try to contradict what it is telling us.
We learn especially from our relationships with real people here in our lives. Some of the most profound teachings, lessons it would be difficult for us to learn otherwise come from facing one another in relationship. Yet in some spiritual circles relationships are presented as ok if you need that kind of thing but celibate monasticism is presented as the ideal.

Firstly, the ideas of "an organisation", or "a culture" are exactly that, ideas; they are just abstract concepts, which has no objective or physical reality. "A system" is essentially the same, except when we consider the overall system that is the universe.

But if we take the concept of "an organisation" or "a culture" then spiritual philosophy and, more pointedly, practice can prove to be one of the best vehicles for looking such concepts. It might be due to a lack of exploration of spiritual philosophy and practice, or perhaps just a misunderstanding of either, but you actually reinforce the point being made.

You say "when you actually see your own racism sexism homophobia and see how it effects others and it is harder to go on with it.
Seeing it in yourself you can have compassion for others who have it too.
Then you also find yourself understanding how you were taught these things and how they tend to keep particular organizations going the way they are going."

This is precisely one aspect of what spiritual practice and philosophy is about, looking at oneself and understanding the workings of ones own mind and emotions. On the one hand you are saying that spiritual philosophy tends to put the focus on the individual, but on the other you are saying that when an individual develops awareness of their own prejudices they can understand how "the organisation" works and is perpetuated. The latter is precisely what I am saying.

"Organisations" don't have an objective, physical reality; they are made up of individuals; it is individuals who write (or wrote) the rules of the organisation and it is individuals who see that they are upheld; it is individuals who choose to follow the rules and individuals who choose to fight against them.

To return to the point you made about the detachment of priests when it came to the abuse of children, what you may not have realised was that their emotional detachment from the horror of the cases was countenanced by the subconscious emotional attachment to the church.


Everything else you say about compassion, awareness of ones own prejudices, learning from life, relationships etc. is echoed in buddhist, and spiritual teahings in general.

As for monastic life being seen as the ideal, that isn't necessarily the case. Indeed, many teachers would say that there is no need to become a monk to practice buddhism; some people may choose to become monks because they themselves feel there are too many distractions in life. I can see why from personal experience, because my own practice has suffered greatly with a change in job and relocation.

Ambersky wrote: »

Some of the reasons I have come to the idea that Buddhist practitioners are divorced from their bodies is because I rarely hear conversations about the things quoted above but I do hear loads of conversation about controlling the mind along with instructions on how to achieve spiritual ephemeral highs.


Actually I think these feelings are like a natural highs they are the sparkly glittery aspects of any spirituality, they are attractive even addictive at times but they dont actually get you through the joys and the pains of life. I think their lessons are very limited.

Only if the mind and body were separate could a focus on mastering the mind be considered divorced from ones body; it is perhaps a pre-conception about spirituality that leads to this conclusion. Buddhist philosophy sees the mind and body as one, but actions are born in the mind, so mastering the mind has dramatic effects on our actions and behaviours.

Indeed, buddhist philosophy talks about inhabiting the body fully and cultivating awareness of the senses, and not getting lost in the conceptual mind. Of course, people can get caught up in looking for these "ephemeral highs" as you put it, but again, buddhist philosophy discusses this and points to the dangers of it.

Ambersky wrote: »

People who present themselves as spiritual sometimes talk as though this life, this world is a burden. It can sound as if death is the point of their spirituality refusing to see or experience the joy and the pain of this auspicious human life.
I also think many Buddhist practitioners are divorced from their bodies and the earth because I have heard young men anxiously asking questions like "Is it ok to take out a pension in my job or am I getting away from living in the Now" or "Is it ok to be successful in my job".
What kind of a message is being given out by a spirituality that could give anyone the impression that to provide for themselves and their loved ones in the world of work and to just to grow up into a responsible adulthood might not be a spiritual path.

I can't remember what practice it is exactly, I think it's part of "the 7 points of mind training", but one of the contemplations is to meditate on the preciousness of human life; buddhist philosophy overwhelmingly points to living this life, living in the present and not projecting into the future about what will happen when we die. Part of "the seven points of mind training" is to contemplate the uncertainty of the hour of death; the idea that life can be taken from us at any time. The purpose of this isn't to cultivate a morbid fascination with death, it's to make us realise just how precious our existence is and how precious the present moment is.

While there may indeed be some people who practice buddhism who are divorced from their bodies, again, there is nothing in the teachings which, to my mind, encourages this. Buddhist philosophy points to the possibility of such occurring and to the dangers of this.


There is nothing in spiritual philosophy or practice that suggests it is not alright to provide for ones family, or to be successful in their job; it's a bit like asking what message is being taught by science if someone thinks "the observer principle" means that conscious observation of an object affects it's state; perhaps it's just a case that they don't fully understand the science.

roosh

recedite wrote: »

The situation particularly in Tibetan Buddhism is extremely hierarchical, from the Dalai Lama down. While you might argue that scepticism is built into the teachings of Buddhism, it is similar to other religions in that the system is set up to promote reverence for "superiors".

It is indeed hierarchical, but then most organised structures are. Without some form of hierarchy then you could have a person who walks into a monastery for the first time teaching the monks how to meditate.

Such hierarchical structures tend to evolve organically, for various reasons, but all of them due to human nature. I would guess a large part of the reason for the evolution of such hierarchical structures in Buddhism, was for the organised dissemination of buddhist teachings.

When human beings organise themselves in such ways there are always psychological consequences; in businesses, military organisations or even charities, a reverence for "superiors" often materialises; dare I say usually. I don't think the primary aim is to promote reverence for "superiors", although there are those who undoubtedly, either consciously or subconsciously, exploit these organic structures and the people "below" them.

While buddhist philosophy encourages devotion to the teacher and the teachings, it is tempered by warnings about the dangers of it and an encouragement to only do or accept what stands up to reason, and is beneficial to the good of all.

recedite wrote: »

Apart from all the warm and fuzzy stuff discussed above, there is the concept of "wrathful bodhisattvas" in which monks can absolve themselves of culpability when they are involved in unsavoury activities or crimes, on the basis that good and evil are two sides of the same coin.
Then there is the puritanical killjoy stuff; the ban on singing, dancing, nice clothes etc.. Wheres the fun in that?

While I'm familiar with the concept of "wrathful boddhisattvas", I'm not familiar with any interpretation which allows monks to absolve themselves of culpability when they are involved in unsavoury activties. I would be interested to know where you have got this from, so that I could look into it more myself.

As for the a ban on singing, dancing, nice clothes, etc.; again, I'm not familiar with any such teachings in buddhism, but I would be interested to hear them if you could point me in the direction.

Ambersky

Banbh said starting this thread
But like all organisations seeking control of society (Buddhism) it has its darker side.

I know little of the warfare Banbh was talking about but I do know something about another dark side to religion and religious organizations.
So I thought maybe it would be interesting to see a Buddhist response to abuse within its own communities.

18AD said
I'm not really sure this is the case. Obviously the spiritual highs are something people will chase after and I'd agree that they are simply one experience among many. Maybe strived for simply because they are uncommon.

18AD I dont think they are uncommon these kinds of highs are experienced in all kinds of practices including rolling a good joint and thats part of the problem, Buddhist speak and stoner speak are often very alike.

I think my basic question has been answered. Looking at my measuring stick as to whether Buddhists would be any better at protecting the young and vulnerable from abuses from within their own communities I guess the answer I am gathering is No.
As I have said before I think any organization or religious community that can not protect its young and vulnerable can talk all the talk and theory they like but as far as I am concerned that's all it is, talk.

I have given a few examples of abuses that were silenced and hidden until recently in Buddhist communities and there are many more.
It sounds as though the round and round spiritual speak where anything from the body to an organization can be called an illusion without an objective physical reality makes it impossible to look at what it is within the culture and traditions of Buddhism that has allowed abuses to happen and to be covered up so often.

All religious organizations and communities are capable of wringing their hands and saying "oh its terrible, couldn't condone that kind of thing at all".
The RC church is being asked not just to apologize ( which they are only learning to do and are not very good at yet) but to also look within its structures, within its ethos and thinking to examine what is it about their organizations that has fostered and protected abuse.
I thought the Roman Catholic church was bad at taking the attention off the actual things that happened within their own organizations, by deflecting the attention onto round and round arguments about whether it was cannon law, divine law, universal law or social laws they were talking about.
Buddhism has even more potential to use its language to take attention off the abuses that happened within its communities because it can question the nature existence objective physical reality of the I, or the abuser, or the abused, or the community within which these occurrences happened, or that there is a religion at all to bring into question, or an organization to bring into question. Indeed we dont exist at all and there is no such thing as time, there is no I to be abused and anyway its all in the mind and the individual created the situation themselves if we " really look deeper at it".

I appreciate that some of you tried but I dont think you know what I am talking about. Unfortunately Ive been here before and still they say "But nobody told us what was happening, we didnt understand at the time, none of us understood, did we?"

So no refuge in Buddhism either, sigh!

18AD

Ambersky wrote: »

It sounds as though the round and round spiritual speak where anything from the body to an organization can be called an illusion without an objective physical reality makes it impossible to look at what it is within the culture and traditions of Buddhism that has allowed abuses to happen and to be covered up so often.

Just to clarify my own position which I think you're misrepresenting. I did not say the body was an illusion.

So no refuge in Buddhism either, sigh!

There is no refuge anywhere! No one escapes the trappings of humanity.

Ambersky

On Buddhism and Refuge

Taking Refuge And Generating Bodhichitta
I take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the supreme Sangha,
Until I attain Enlightenment.
By the merit I accumulate from practicing generosity and the other perfections,
May I attain Enlightenment in order to benefit all living beings.

Please remember I am talking about real pain and the need for compassion for real people who know all about the trappings of humanity.
There is a saying that Religion is for people who dont want to go to hell and spirituality is for those of us who have already been there.

18AD

Ambersky wrote: »

Please remember I am talking about real pain and the need for compassion for real people who know all about the trappings of humanity.
There is a saying that Religion is for people who dont want to go to hell and spirituality is for those of us who have already been there.

I'm still not quite sure what point you are trying to make. Maybe I'm just not reading your post properly.

Is it that the structures and teachings of certain forms of buddhism are easily used to excuse immoral behaviour? Because I don't think anyone is disputing that.

What I think is being disputed is that you are saying all buddhism allows or causes this type of behaviour. You throw out all buddhism because of the actions of a few (which relatively speaking is probably a big number anyway).

Ambersky

18Ad said
What I think is being disputed is that you are saying all buddhism allows or causes this type of behaviour. You throw out all buddhism because of the actions of a few (which relatively speaking is probably a big number anyway)

I suppose this is the fear when looking at the shadow side. All of us and all organizations, families or groups have a shadow side and it does not mean that when we look at it and see how nasty or dysfunctional it may be that it is the sum of all we are. Its ok we all have a shadow side, no need to deny it, but we mostly try not to look at it, or to hide it.
I dont think Buddhism is all bad. But. I don't think Buddhism is special and any different than many other religions, families or organizations when it comes to protecting the vulnerable among them.

I think we can use any language, system of thought or religion to clarify and communicate with one another. But. I also think we can use any language, system of thought or religion to hinder real communication.
Different religions will use different ways to block the message of their shadow side. I have already expressed how I think some Buddhists use language to block communication.

I would imagine many of us here dont have access to a Sanga and if we do some form of spiritual practice it may be solitary with a bit of knowledge from here and a bit from there. For these people the issues that come out of abuses happening within communities may not arise or they might not consider them applicable. In the spirit of interconnectedness I am saying these issues do need to be looked at by all whether it is affecting you now or not. It is not pleasant to look at but there are some very powerful teachings to be had from looking at the issues of power, sexism and mind body dualisms and I think communities and religions will be stronger for having addressed these issues.
I have been a member of a community and before I would jump out of the frying pan and into the fryer, I would need to examine Buddhism to see how is it different than what I left behind.
Unfortunately for me I dont think it is that different and I think it will be a while before people are ready to see the shadow side I am talking about.

So no jumping for me for a while.

roosh

Ambersky wrote: »

I know little of the warfare Banbh was talking about but I do know something about another dark side to religion and religious organizations.
So I thought maybe it would be interesting to see a Buddhist response to abuse within its own communities.

The problem is that you seem to be taking the stance that "one rotten apple spoils the bunch", or maybe, that a minority of individuals spoils the overall collective; you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater; tarnishing everyone with the same brush, and the myriad other idioms which describe your stance on the issue.

Ambersky wrote: »

18AD I dont think they are uncommon these kinds of highs are experienced in all kinds of practices including rolling a good joint and thats part of the problem, Buddhist speak and stoner speak are often very alike.

To be fair, I don't think part of the problem is that buddhist speak and stoner speak are often very alike; I think the overarching problem is that people develop preconceived ideas about various philosophies, including buddhism, and develop the mistaken belief that they understand what these philosophies say; particularly without engaging in the practices essential to developing such an understanding. Such is human nature unfortunately.

If you believe that smoking a joint and the practice of meditation are even similar, not to mind the same, then you are grossly, grossly mistaken. I say smoking as opposed to rolling, because rolling a joint doesn't have the same effect as smoking one.

Ambersky wrote: »

I think my basic question has been answered. Looking at my measuring stick as to whether Buddhists would be any better at protecting the young and vulnerable from abuses from within their own communities I guess the answer I am gathering is No.
As I have said before I think any organization or religious community that can not protect its young and vulnerable can talk all the talk and theory they like but as far as I am concerned that's all it is, talk.

Your basic question if flawed and incoherent, because it contains ill defined concepts.

If we take what you say though and apply it: a family is an example of an organisation or a collective; children in families suffer abuse; therefore, families cannot protect their young and vulnerable. Everyone on the planet is a member of a family, in some form or another; therefore everyone on the planet can talk all the talk nd theory they like, but, as far as you are concerned , that's all it is, talk.

So we are left with no one who can discuss the problem; including yourself, if you are, or ever have been, part of a family

Ambersky wrote: »

I have given a few examples of abuses that were silenced and hidden until recently in Buddhist communities and there are many more.
It sounds as though the round and round spiritual speak where anything from the body to an organization can be called an illusion without an objective physical reality makes it impossible to look at what it is within the culture and traditions of Buddhism that has allowed abuses to happen and to be covered up so often.

Whether or not "the body" or "an organisation" is an illusion without physical reality is open to question, but you may opine the fact that the discussion would have to be rational. Ultimately the answer is either yes this is true, or no it is not true. Knowing the answer to this question doesn't make it impossible to look at the real cause of abuse, and the real reasons why it happens. Not knowing the answer does make it impossible.

In order to understand how the culture and traditions of buddhism allow abuses to happen, you must first look at what exactly "a culture" is and how "traditions" are maintained. In developing such an understanding you will, inexorably, be lead to examining the behaviours and psychology of individuals. Develop such an understanding and you will understand how abuses can occur in the first place and how people can be so apparently callous in covering them up. Don't develop such an understanding and you will be left tilting at windmills.

Ambersky wrote: »

All religious organizations and communities are capable of wringing their hands and saying "oh its terrible, couldn't condone that kind of thing at all".

All families, schools, and individuals are capable of this.

Ambersky wrote: »

The RC church is being asked not just to apologize ( which they are only learning to do and are not very good at yet) but to also look within its structures, within its ethos and thinking to examine what is it about their organizations that has fostered and protected abuse.

What do you think such an examination will reveal?

Ambersky wrote: »

I thought the Roman Catholic church was bad at taking the attention off the actual things that happened within their own organizations, by deflecting the attention onto round and round arguments about whether it was cannon law, divine law, universal law or social laws they were talking about.
Buddhism has even more potential to use its language to take attention off the abuses that happened within its communities because it can question the nature existence objective physical reality of the I, or the abuser, or the abused, or the community within which these occurrences happened, or that there is a religion at all to bring into question, or an organization to bring into question. Indeed we dont exist at all and there is no such thing as time, there is no I to be abused and anyway its all in the mind and the individual created the situation themselves if we " really look deeper at it".

Buddhist philosophy, much like the english language, has potential to be used to take attention off abuses. Just as buddhist philosophy has the potential to help victims overcome the trauma of their abuses by realising that the negative self-image that they have developed of themselves as a result of the abuse, is not real and has no objective reality; by cultivating non-attachment to the torturous memories that haunt them; by cultivating compassion that will help them to forgive not only their abuser, but themselves as well.

But guess who it is that has to use that potential; you got it, individuals!

Ambersky wrote: »

I appreciate that some of you tried but I dont think you know what I am talking about. Unfortunately Ive been here before and still they say "But nobody told us what was happening, we didnt understand at the time, none of us understood, did we?"

"Who's they, the basket makers??"
- Tommy Tiernan

Ambersky wrote: »

I suppose this is the fear when looking at the shadow side. All of us and all organizations, families or groups have a shadow side and it does not mean that when we look at it and see how nasty or dysfunctional it may be that it is the sum of all we are. Its ok we all have a shadow side, no need to deny it, but we mostly try not to look at it, or to hide it.
I dont think Buddhism is all bad. But. I don't think Buddhism is special and any different than many other religions, families or organizations when it comes to protecting the vulnerable among them.

Nobody is denying that we all have "a shadow side"; it's you that seems to be denying the role of the individual, the individuals shadow side and the overall role individuals play in cases of abuse.

Also, no one is saying that buddhism is special, what we are saying, or what I am saying at least, is that the manner in which you employ the term i.e. saying "buddhism doesn't protect the vulnerable" is so ill defined that in this case it definitely is meaningless. "Buddhism" doesn't protect vulnerable people because buddhism is an abstract concept and abstract concepts cannot protect people; do you know who protects people? You guessed it, other people, other individuals.

Ambersky wrote: »

I think we can use any language, system of thought or religion to clarify and communicate with one another. But. I also think we can use any language, system of thought or religion to hinder real communication.

When you say "we" who are you referring to? Is it individuals by any chance? Because yes, we can use any language , system of thought, or religion to hinder real communication; but again, who is it that exploits this potential? Yes, again you are correct, it is individuals.

Ambersky wrote: »

Different religions will use different ways to block the message of their shadow side. I have already expressed how I think some Buddhists use language to block communication.

Different religions don't do anything, different people who practice different religions use different ways to block the message of their "shadow side". "Religion" is an inanimate concept, it isn't capable of doing anything; it's people who use and abuse these concepts that are capable of doing things.

Try search for "religion", not on the internet, in the physical world; try to find the object called religion; you won't find it; what you will find is people who practice religion, you will find buildings, built by people and books written by people; there is no physical entity called religion. When you use such concepts anthropomorphically, without realising this, then you obscure the issue you wish to clarify.

Ambersky wrote: »

I would imagine many of us here dont have access to a Sanga and if we do some form of spiritual practice it may be solitary with a bit of knowledge from here and a bit from there. For these people the issues that come out of abuses happening within communities may not arise or they might not consider them applicable.

While access to a sangha is probably more widely available than you think, I think we might have found the first thing we agree on; many of us are removed from the issue of abuse.

This doesn't mean, however, that we are removed from the human condition, which both the abuser and the abused are afflicted with. I think everyone has experience of suffering; while it may not be the exact same level of suffering that the survivor of abuse has endured, it doesn't mean that we are totally incapable of compassion or insight into the suffering.

Ambersky wrote: »

In the spirit of interconnectedness I am saying these issues do need to be looked at by all whether it is affecting you now or not. It is not pleasant to look at but there are some very powerful teachings to be had from looking at the issues of power, sexism and mind body dualisms and I think communities and religions will be stronger for having addressed these issues.

A second thing we agree on!

We should most definitely look at these issues; I just think when we look at these issues we need to move beyond ill defined conceptual ideas and look at the real factors that cause someone to betray the trust of their students, or to subject an innocent child to such a cruel act. We need to look at the kind of suffering that victims of abuse endure and to develop true compassion for them, so that we can provide them with the support and care that they really need.

I think we also need to learn to move beyond any anger we feel towards abusers, because anger will obscure our ability to fully understand the causes and conditions that lead to abuse. We need to develop compassion for the abuser as well as the abused. Perhaps if we were to create an environment of openness and compassion in which those with tendencies towards paedophilia could come forward and seek help before they ever abused a child, then maybe we could prevent abuse from ever happening.

The only way we can do this is through understanding each other on an individual basis, not by railing against conceptual entities that are incapable of action i.e. "religion".


When looking at these things we should also maintain an awareness of our own emotional attachments and how they affect our actions; maybe what we think is compassion isn't true compassion; maybe it's just pity and a sense of guilt. Maybe we want to be the champion of a cause for less altruistic reasons that are subconscious, but which affect our behaviour nonetheless.

Ambersky wrote: »

I have been a member of a community and before I would jump out of the frying pan and into the fryer, I would need to examine Buddhism to see how is it different than what I left behind.
Unfortunately for me I dont think it is that different and I think it will be a while before people are ready to see the shadow side I am talking about.

I hope you can be open, honest, and courageous in your examination, because buddhism is more about examining yourself, not anyone else. If you're examination of buddhism only extends as far as examining what "buddhists" say, then you won't have gone very far in your examination.


Just as a matter of interest, in the community you left behind were you encouraged to question everything that the head of the community told you?

Asiaprod

"Buddhism" doesn't protect vulnerable people because buddhism is an abstract concept and abstract concepts cannot protect people; do you know who protects people? You guessed it, other people, other individuals.

This has been a very interesting thread. Roosh, your comment above sums up my position on this debate.

Ambersky

Ok so we are talking about non dualism.
I am saying it is important to see the workings of the collective and the workings of the individual.
I am saying that for those who are only used to seeing things from the point of view of the individual it is very difficult for them to see the nature of the collective.
Also I am saying that the individual having and acknowledging experiences of sexism racism etc in themselves often find it easier to see and understand the workings of these things in the collective. So its kind of round and round, yin yang the circle goes around, the individual or the collective, it doesnt always start at one or the other and it doesnt always end at one.
This is a non dualistic way of viewing things.

Always going on about guess who it ends with or guess who it begins with--- the individual -- is dualistic. This thinking refuses to see the dual nature of things or it puts the individual in the most important place.

The idea or concept of staying on the fringes of something of not committing to something, even buddhism and allying yourself with other outsiders who are wounded, is not a concept alien to buddhist spirituality It can be a part of the the Bodhisattva Path. On the bodhisattva path one vows to liberate all sentient beings before attaining one's own liberation.

I am not engaging in all or nothing thinking. I see much good in Buddhism. I am not saying I will never commit to Buddhism and I think I am offering a gift to Buddhism in raising these issues but at the moment I am standing in this place of learning. I have criticisms but that doesn't mean that I am rejecting everything, not fully committing to something and being critical of it is not outright rejection of every aspect. I remain critical.

I am not alone in this questioning, even if posters here do not understand the questions or issues yet but remain attached to their positions. I am not judging Buddhism solely on the responses here.
Please do not judge the validity of the issues based on my writing. These are my interpretations my experiences and take on the issues.
We do not know one anothers backgrounds or expertise in these matters as indeed I think a fair few presumptions have been made about mine. I get the idea that a lot of posters on this forum talking about Buddhism have a basic knowledge or experience of buddhism.

roosh says
The only way we can do this is through understanding each other on an individual basis, not by railing against conceptual entities that are incapable of action i.e. "religion". .

(note the all or nothing thinking - this is the only way the in di- vid- ual- way.)

However there are many Buddhists much more experienced and qualified than I, who have written, spoken and are giving interviews on abuse within Buddhist communities.
It is a very important topic but unfortunately when people are first confronted with it there is a lot of resistance and fear. This is so in Buddhist communities just as it is in Christian ones and this is not evidently my first experience of it.

Worldwide there are many individuals and yes groups, who are working on looking at the issues within Buddhism that have led to abuses of vulnerable people by those in positions of authority and they are developing a code of practice based on their findings. Unfortunately here in Ireland I have met very few people involved in Buddhism who are aware of the issues and even worldwide those engaging with the topic are in a minority meeting much resistance.
If I was near some of those people I could take a greater part in it. I was hoping that writing this would help in that understanding and maybe it has helped someone. Perhaps there are others who could word things in such a way that more of you could understand it or it would seem less confrontative.

Based on scandals with respect to power and sexual abuse within Buddhism the members of the German Buddhist Union gave in April 2011 an unequivocal vote to create a Buddhist Council or authority within the German Buddhist Union which people can approach for support, advice, information or for someone who listens, and which can offer qualified support in case someone had to experience power, emotional, financial or sexual abuse. Based on this vote there formed a group within the German Buddhist Union to work out an Ethical Charter and an Ethics Council

http://thedorjeshugdengroup.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/sogyal-rinpoche-and-the-silence-of-the-tibetan-buddhist-community-and-the-dalai-lama/

Here are a couple of interviews by highly qualified people knowledgeable in several Buddhist traditions with many years of lived experience talking about the issues around sexual abuse in Buddhist Communities. You may by now be familiar with some of the themes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8DfH6BYZ3w

Martine Batchelor (born 1953), a former Jogye Buddhist nun, is the author of several books on Buddhism. In addition to writing books, she leads meditation groups with her husband that incorporate aspects of Zen, vipassanā, and Tibetan Buddhism. She studied Jogye Zen Buddhism for ten years at Songgwangsa with her former teacher Master Kusan Sunim, being ordained as a nun in 1975. Batchelor served as Kusan's interpreter on speaking tours of the United States and Europe from 1981 to 1985, the year she left monastic life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYIcsdzS20w

Stephen Batchelor is a British author, teacher, and scholar, writing books and articles on Buddhist topics and leading meditation retreats throughout the world. He is a noted proponent of agnostic or secular Buddhism.
in February 1972, at the age of eighteen, he embarked on an overland journey which eventually led him to India. He settled in Dharamsala, the capital-in-exile of the Dalai Lama, and studied with Geshé Ngawang Dhargyey at the Library of Tibetan Works and Archives. He was ordained as a novice monk in the Gelug tradition in 1974. A few months after ordination, he sat a ten-day Vipassana meditation retreat with the Indian teacher S.N. Goenka, which proved a lasting influence on his practice, and aroused his curiosity about other traditions of Buddhism.
He left India in 1975 in order to study Tibetan Buddhist philosophy and doctrine under the guidance of Geshé Rabten, first at the Tibet Institute Rikon then in Le Mont-Pèlerin (both in Switzerland), where he helped Geshé Rabten to establish the Tharpa Choeling (now Rabten Choeling). The next year he received full ordination as a monk. In 1979 he moved to Germany as a translator for Geshé Thubten Ngawang at the Tibetisches Institut, Hamburg.
In April 1981 Batchelor travelled to Songgwangsa Monastery in South Korea to train in Zen Buddhism under the guidance of Kusan Sunim.

http://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/sex-scandals-in-religion-sogyal-rinpoche/

Jellicoe

Buddhism = Bullsh1t, particularly in the 'West'