Buddhism: the untold story

roosh

Ambersky wrote: »

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.

Just to distinguish this non-dualism, from the non-dualism were discussing earlier; that is, the non-duality of mind and body, which is, as mentioned, a part of buddhist philosophy.

I think, though, to say that it is important to see the workings of the collective and the individual would be more dualistic than non-dualistic, for obvious reasons.

The question we must ask ourselves, however, is what exactly is "a collective"? The answer is that it is a collective of individuals; and while it is helpful to look at what behaviours a collective will exhibit, in order to understand why the collective exhibits those behaviours we need to examine the psychology of the invidividuals. If we only look at the collective we will only ever get information such as "the collevtive does X", we will never get an answer to the question "why does the collective do X.

In the context of this discussion, when we look at the macro-level [of the collective] we get the information "some members of the collective engage in sexual abuse". In order to get an answer as to the question "why do some members engage in sexual abuse, while others don't" we can no longer look at the collective, because the collective doesn't distinguish between those members who engage in sexual abuse and those who don't.

Ambersky wrote: »

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.

Again, we have to look at the question "what is a collective?"; the answer to this question is that it is a collection of individuals. When we talk about understanding the workings of the collective, in the context of "why does abuse occur within the collective", we have to ask the question of "how do the workings of the collective manifest themselves; how does sexual abuse become part of the workings of the collective?". The answer to this question is that "some individual members of the collective engage in sexual abuse, while other individuals don't".

To then understand why some individuals engage in sexual abuse, while other individuals don't, we need to further understand those individuals that engage in abuse, and those that don't.


When we understand that individuals develop attachment to certain ideas and beliefs, such as the authority and infallibility of the church, as well as fear of reprisal form their peers and superiors, we can understand why members of the collective might cover up abuses within that organisation.

When we understand the psychology behind why an abuser engages in abuse and why some people, of the age of consent, will subjugate themselves to a "superior"; when this is understood at the level of the individual, then we can understand how such behaviour manifests itself "in the collective"; that is, why certain individuals in a collective will engage in a certain type of behaviour, while other individuals in the same collective don't.

Ambersky wrote: »

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.

On the one hand you say that looking at the collective and the individual is a non-dualisic way of viewing things, but on the other you are suggesting that the dual nature of things should be looked at; I'm not sure I follow that.

It should perhaps be highlighted that the suggestion isn't to ignore the collective, rather it is to see the collective for what it is; a collection of individuals.

Ambersky wrote: »

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.

My own understanding is that the Boddhisattva path does not encourage "staying on the fringes" and "not committing".

Ambersky wrote: »

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.

It's good to here that you are not throwing the baby out with the bathwater; it was probably just an issue of communication, because the language that you were employing was very general; instead of saying that "some buddhists do this" or "some buddhists do that", you were saying "buddhism does this" and "buddhism doesn't do that". Which, while probably unintentional was all or nothing language.

I think it is a very positive thing that you are raising these issues, because they are important issues that need to be considered, and investigated. It certainly helps to knock any idealised views that can easily develop, when it comes to traditions such as buddhism. I certainly wouldn't judge the validity of the issues solely based on the writings of people I encounter on an online forum; just as I hope you wouldn't judge the validity of buddhist philosophy on the sole basis of what other peole tell you about it.

While everyone here, myself moreso than anyone perhaps, may not fully understand the issues of abuse, I wouldn't mistake opposition to your posts as being solely attachment to a position - although I know in my case that was, to a degree, a factor. Part of the issue also lies in how you have stated your criticisms; the use of broad and general statements, such as "Buddhism doesn't protect it's vulnerable" are ill defined and inaccurate and require clarification.

Ambersky wrote: »

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

It isn't simply all or nothing thinking, it is a logical deduction. If we want to understand the issue "why does abuse happen within a collective?", we need to understand how the issue of abuse manifests itself within the collective. When we examine this we can see that some individuals within the collective engage in abusive behaviour, while others (the majority perhaps?) do not. To understand why some individuals engage in this kind of behaviour, while other individuals do not, we need to understand those individuals respectively.

When we understand them we can see that the process of individual psychology ( and spirituality perhaps, because I'm not sure how advanced the field of psychology is with regard to attachment to beliefs and emotions) is what determines the behaviour of those individuals who engage in certain types of behaviour, and those that don't. This then manifests itself as some people, within a collective engaging in abuse.

Ambersky wrote: »

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.

Again, I wouldn't mistake a reluctance to fully accept all the criticisms for fear and resistance of the idea that the issues occur and need to be addressed; much, and in this case most, of the resistance comes from sweeping generalisations being made and the need to clarify the issues.

People are prone to think in general terms and to conceptualise, to the degree that it can obscure the issues at hand and hinder communication. What we need to do is examine the concepts we use and see what the true issues are.

Ambersky wrote: »

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.

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

Thanks for posting the videos, they do make for intersting watching; but I think it is important to examine what she actually says.

The very first thing she says on the topic is that these kind of abuses are "human" behaviour; they're not buddhist behaviour, they're not christian behaviour, they're not atheistic behaviour; they're human behaviour; this is how some humans behave.

Again, it might be worth re-iterating that what is being discussed in the video, as she mentions, is that these abuses are the actions of some, not all. When this is the case, that some, not all, engage in a certain type of behaviour, we have to ask ourselves why this is; what is the mitigating factor?

Around the 1m21sec mark she points to what this might be; she says that some people get the idea that they are enlightened; they delude themselves into thinking they are enlightened and believe they are above ethics. She re-iterates this again around the 3min 30sec mark. In these cases she is talking about individuals.

Around the 5min mark she points out the fact that the students "need their teacher to be amazing" so they take everything they do as being enlightened; again, this is problem that afflicts the invididual; and while it might be more prevalent within a collective, this is only because each individual might feel a certain level of compeition and want to be "the number one student", or they might fear not being on par with their peers.

Sorry, I'm too tired at the moment to go through the rest of it. She mentiones cultural and group coersion, which are points you may wish to raise, and which we can take a look at, to understand the dynamic and the underlying causes and effects.

For anyone who has engaged with buddhist practice more than very casually, I'm sure they will probably agree that they have "become enlightened" quite a few times already. The teachings point out the possibility of this happening, and the dangers of it.

Ambersky wrote: »

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

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

Sorry, too tired to go through that one as well, but I'd be happy to if there are any issues from it.

Jellicoe

bluewolf wrote: »

There cannot be an immortal life, because there is no soul. Our lives are already eternal in a sense, because of the cycle of rebirth. To end that is the aim.

And anything that aims for self extinguishment as the goal of life is also complete bullsh1t

roosh

Jellicoe wrote: »

And anything that aims for self extinguishment as the goal of life is also complete bullsh1t

"self extinguishment" suggests there is actually something there to be extinguished; buddhist philosophy points to the fact that there is nothing there to extinguish in the first place; it's just a delusion.

Jellicoe

roosh wrote: »

"self extinguishment" suggests there is actually something there to be extinguished; buddhist philosophy points to the fact that there is nothing there to extinguish in the first place; it's just a delusion.

To complete the delusion of gravitas grasshopper, you should have dressed up as yoda. aaaUUUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM . . . . .ding
lol

recedite

roosh wrote: »

Thanks for posting the videos, they do make for intersting watching; but I think it is important to examine what she actually says.

The very first thing she says on the topic is that these kind of abuses are "human" behaviour; they're not buddhist behaviour, they're not christian behaviour, they're not atheistic behaviour; they're human behaviour; this is how some humans behave....
Around the 1m21sec mark she points to what this might be; she says that some people get the idea that they are enlightened; they delude themselves into thinking they are enlightened and believe they are above ethics. She re-iterates this again around the 3min 30sec mark. In these cases she is talking about individuals.

No, she is talking about certain "schools of buddhism" not just some individuals. She mentions that they teach the idea of an "awakening", after which the individual will have attained a state "beyond ethics". She is a bit vague in identifying who these schools are, at first saying it is a modern idea, and then later, pinning it on Zen buddhists.

This is a common problem for religions without a centralised control and dogma. For example in Islam, some Imams will say there is nothing in the koran to justify suicide bombings and that jihad is only justified in self defense. Others teach a contrary position, that it is more of a crusade against the enemies of Islam.
Once a religion takes people "beyond ethics" the problems really start for everyone.

conor.hogan.2

Banbh wrote: »

A misunderstanding I share with all the dictionaries I can find, Wikipaedia, the United Nations, the governments of Burma, Japan and just about any other website you care to check.
I suppose when one deludes oneself into believing in supernatural forces, magic powers and eternal life, it is easy to make any word be what you want it to be.

I do not believe in any supernatural forces as again this is not a religion.

You sound like another angry (likely young) new atheist, not knowing one can be both.

maguffin

For clarification......

The practice of Buddhism entails consistent meditation and mindfulness for the purpose of reducing one's poisons or delusions and arriving at a clear state of mind - the Enlightened Mind of the Buddha.

All Buddhists share this common goal: to bring an end to suffering by taming the mind. Since the human condition contains many different forms of suffering, the Buddha taught many paths to liberation, which are now practiced throughout the world.

Buddhism was brought to Tibet in the 8th Century, and has flourished there ever since, transmitted from Gurus to disciples in an unbroken lineage. The Tibetan practices share a distinctive motivation: they are undertaken to end not only one's own suffering, but also the suffering of all other beings, to each of whom we owe a karmic debt. The understanding is that since we are all linked to one another, one person's liberation is incomplete until all other beings have been liberated.
So with the help and guidance of the Teacher, Tibetan Buddhist practitioners work to develop the pure perception which arises out of meditation. That clarity is then used to awaken and increase their compassion for others until it equals the unconditioned compassion of the Buddha.

Some forms of Buddhism (mostly older) have deities, and concepts of heaven very similar to Christianity. Others (like Zen) are so esoteric as to seem completely non-religious. That all these different interpretations can claim the same source is one reason Buddhism is regarded more as a philosophy than a religion.

No Creator figure
Most Buddhist thought states that the universe has always existed in one form or another, and always will. The idea of "creation" is a chiefly (but not exclusively) Western concept. It could be said that creationist theologies fit very neatly with cultures based on accumulation and exploiting natural environments, the very model of society bequeathed to us from the Greek & Roman empires

Instead of a Supreme Being, Buddhism offers two primary devices for believers to find a moral compass:

--The Law of Cause and Effect:
In Western terms, this can be explained by the adages: "What goes around, comes around", and "You reap what you sow". In simple terms, this theory states that every action creates an Effect, one that is registered within the universe, and this Effect will manifest itself in the future as the Cause for another action. Since the universe is said to be without beginning or end, this process of Cause and Effect will continue endlessly for eternity. Buddhism also contains a concept to explain the human component of this phenomenon: Karma. It can be thought of as the storehouse of individual actions (Causes), and the medium by which these actions manifest themselves in the future (Effects).

Unlike theologies that requires a deity to pass judgment, the Law of Cause and Effect is a benign force, akin to force of gravity. When we push a glass from the table, most of us don't suppose there is any Being that "decides" whether or not that glass will fall and break---it just does. God may have created gravity, but He doesn't need to regulate it on a constant basis. Likewise with Cause and Effect---actions create reactions, no need for a referee.

Therefore, Buddhism states that each individual is responsible for his own actions, and it is this process of Cause and Effect, not a Judgment Giver, that determines each individuals' fate.

--Absolute Proof:
The other major distinction between Buddhism and many other religions is that while faith is required, blind faith is discouraged. Many interpretations of Buddhism state that whatever a believer is told or taught, they must have exact proof that it holds true for them. The burden of this "proof" is entirely personal, and can range from experience, to information that is received and contemplated. Without this "absolute" proof, any Buddhist (or other) philosophy is considered meaningless.

Thus, Buddhists are encouraged to openly question, and different interpretations are a natural occurrence. This willingness for continuous re-examination is probably what Buddhism has most in common with agnostic philosophy.

To Summarise the Essence of Buddhism
The greatest achievement is selflessness.
The greatest worth is self-mastery.
The greatest quality is seeking to serve others.
The greatest precept is continual awareness.
The greatest medicine is the emptiness of everything.
The greatest action is not conforming with the worlds ways.
The greatest magic is transmuting the passions.
The greatest generosity is non-attachment.
The greatest goodness is a peaceful mind.
The greatest patience is humility.
The greatest effort is not concerned with results.
The greatest meditation is a mind that lets go.
The greatest wisdom is seeing through appearances.

Ambersky

magumuffin that sounded lovely but Im still not clear if the question you were intending to answer, or clarify questions on, was
"Is Buddhism a Religion or not?"

How about an answer that says, It is and It isnt.

But really all this word play, circular thinking and argument, its hard to see the usefulness of Buddhism when everything is treated with such ambiguity, especially moral ambiguity. If and I say If, it is all about compassion, truly I dont hear too much about it in most of the writing I see in places like this forum. The liberation of all sentient beings! not hearing much about that
Maybe Im not being fair to Buddhism though, if we cant even agree here on whether Buddhism is a religion or not, well maybe this isnt a Buddhist forum. Maybe its a little bit of Echart Tole, a little bit of The Secret, deductions from some books on Buddhist teachings, a few retreats, a crash course on Enlightenment and some New Age interpretations on Quantum Physics.
Thats asking not only is Buddhism a Religion but what is and what isnt Buddhist thinking and writing? Is it anything and everything and would that make it nothing in the end.

Lack of standard definition of "religion:"

Whether Buddhism is, or is not, a religion depends upon how the word "religion" is defined. Lots of people have their favorite definition; some think that theirs is the only valid meaning for the term.
bullet Some definitions required a religion to include belief in the existence of one or more deities; this would classify most expressions of Buddhism as a non-religious since it is essentially a non-theistic religion.

bullet Other definitions do not require religion to include belief in a deity; these would probably include Buddhism as a religion.

For example:
bullet Webster's New World Dictionary (Third College Edition): defines religion as: "any specific system of belief and worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy."

Buddhism would not be considered a religion under this definition, because it is basically non-theistic: it does not generally involve worship of a supernatural entity.

bullet Wikipedia once defined religion as: "... a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen being, or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, traditions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought." 1

Buddhism could be considered a religion because its various forms share a system of thought that is considered to be the highest truth. It involves moral codes, practices, values, traditions and rituals.

More recently, Wikipedia have adopted the definition of the late Clifford Geertz, an anthropologist from Princeton: Religion is: "an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth. 2,3

Here again, Buddhism would be considered a religion.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism8.htm

maguffin

Ambersky wrote: »

magumuffin that sounded lovely but Im still not clear if the question you were intending to answer, or clarify questions on, was
"Is Buddhism a Religion or not?"

How about an answer that says, It is and It isnt.

From the Oxford Dictionary:
Definition of religion
noun

[mass noun]

• the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

Since Buddhism as taught and practiced today does not have a Creator/God, it is NOT a religion.


Just pointing out that from what I have learned from my being a Buddhist (since 1982) is that it is NOT a religion. A practicing Buddhist can, if he/she so wishes infer the qualities of religion to it if that is what makes it work better for them.

But really all this word play, circular thinking and argument, its hard to see the usefulness of Buddhism when everything is treated with such ambiguity, especially moral ambiguity.

The usefulness of any philosophy or religion can only be assessed by those who choose to practice it. For me, in my life, it is very usefull and offers a guide or Path, if you like, for me to follow so that I can best show compassion for, and be of help to those around me.

If and I say If, it is all about compassion, truly I dont hear too much about it in most of the writing I see in places like this forum. The liberation of all sentient beings! not hearing much about that

Probably because that is not the focus of the posters in this Forum.

Maybe Im not being fair to Buddhism though, if we cant even agree here on whether Buddhism is a religion or not, well maybe this isnt a Buddhist forum. Maybe its a little bit of Echart Tole, a little bit of The Secret, deductions from some books on Buddhist teachings, a few retreats, a crash course on Enlightenment and some New Age interpretations on Quantum Physics.
Thats asking not only is Buddhism a Religion but what is and what isnt Buddhist thinking and writing? Is it anything and everything and would that make it nothing in the end.

Human nature is such that no matter what the topic for discussion is, there will ALWAYS be dissagreement, differing definitions, intolerance, argument, claims and counter-claims......it's just the Human Condition....exhibited nicely here as in any other Forum/Forum topic you wish to choose.

Ambersky

Thank You maguffin for your straight answers. Whew!

maguffin

Ambersky wrote: »

Thank You maguffin for your straight answers. Whew!

You're welcome!!

conor.hogan.2

Ambersky wrote: »

Maybe Im not being fair to Buddhism though, if we cant even agree here on whether Buddhism is a religion or not, well maybe this isnt a Buddhist forum.

"What is the use of you searching books for the sources of various quotations you have heard?* When the question is yours you will find the answer also."

*or just going on forums asking questions that could be answered in seconds in some peoples cases.

roosh

Jellicoe wrote: »

To complete the delusion of gravitas grasshopper, you should have dressed up as yoda. aaaUUUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM . . . . .ding
lol

I figured using incorrect grammatical structure would just confuse the situation; but, if at any point you wish to discuss the issue rationally, by all means feel free.

roosh

recedite wrote: »

No, she is talking about certain "schools of buddhism" not just some individuals. She mentions that they teach the idea of an "awakening", after which the individual will have attained a state "beyond ethics". She is a bit vague in identifying who these schools are, at first saying it is a modern idea, and then later, pinning it on Zen buddhists.

Yes, but within that she says that not everyone within those schools will engage in abusive behaviour; she highlights the idea of people believing they have attained liberation when they haven't; of people believing the master has attained liberation and treating everything they say and do as being infallible; and how this just feeds the Ego. This isn't true of everyone, it is only true of some people. She even goes on to name two individuals to make her point.

It might be worth pointing out that, just like the rest of us, she is quite capable of using broad conceptual language also; what we need to do is break down those concepts, examine them, and see the underlying dynamics.

In every case, where you have broad and general statements, you can break it down to "some people do; some people don't". Once you can make this distinction you are talking at the level of the individual.

recedite wrote: »

This is a common problem for religions without a centralised control and dogma. For example in Islam, some Imams will say there is nothing in the koran to justify suicide bombings and that jihad is only justified in self defense. Others teach a contrary position, that it is more of a crusade against the enemies of Islam.
Once a religion takes people "beyond ethics" the problems really start for everyone.

Again, we have the phenomenon where "some people do; some people don't"; the question is, why, if there is one book that people are reading from, are is there more than one interpretation; given that the book does not interpret itself, it must come down to each individuals interpretation.

When we say that it belongs to a particular "school" of philosophy, we must further examine what we mean by "school"; what we find is a collection of individuals whose individual psychology combines to create a group dynamic. Each individual has their own interpretation of the philosophy; even where many individuals share a nearly homogenous interpretation, there will still be nuances within each individual, however minute. Even assuming a homogenous interpretation passed on by a teacher, it is the individuals attachment to their belief in that particular interpretation, and their fear of reprisal from their peers that causes them not to go against the grain.


For every group that exhibits a certain kind of dynamic, it is the individuals within that group, and their individual - although common - psychology which drives that group dynamic; and which must be understood, in order to understand how the group dynamic occurs.

roosh

Ambersky wrote: »

magumuffin that sounded lovely but Im still not clear if the question you were intending to answer, or clarify questions on, was
"Is Buddhism a Religion or not?"

How about an answer that says, It is and It isnt.

Ambersky, it seems as though you're failing to understand the issues that arise out of conceptualisation. The list of definitions you provide below only serve to highlight that issue; when you ask the question "is buddhism a religion?" you have to state precisely what you mean by religion, because for every person there is on this planet there is an interpretation of the concept "religion".

Buddhist philosophy, and spiritual philosophy in general, highlights the problem of speaking in such vague generalisations; it teaches about going beyond concepts so that we can get to the root of issues, instead of getting caught up in meaningless statements such as "buddhism does this, and budhhism does that". It highlights the issue of attachment to those concepts as being a major issue; attachment to the idea of what relgion is and rejecting anything and everything said within a religious context, is part of the issue. It's a bit like a murderer saying "it's bad to murder people" and then rejecting the idea that it's bad to murder people, just because a murderer has said it.

Ambersky wrote: »

But really all this word play, circular thinking and argument, its hard to see the usefulness of Buddhism when everything is treated with such ambiguity, especially moral ambiguity. If and I say If, it is all about compassion, truly I dont hear too much about it in most of the writing I see in places like this forum. The liberation of all sentient beings! not hearing much about that.

Any ambiguity that exists in the discussion is a result of the use of ill defined concepts, and sweeping generalisations.

The reason you're not hearing much about compassion, is because the intention of your posting isn't to foster a discussion on compassion; if you start a thread entitled "what is compassion?", or "how could buddhist philosophy be used to help the victims of abuse?" then you will hear a lot more about it. Instead, the obvious intention of your posting is to question the validity of buddhism on the basis of abusive behaviour of, if I am not mistaken, the few, not the many.

Indeed, it is very difficult to see the usefulness in buddhist philosophy when we lack even a basic understanding of it; it is impossible to realise the usefulness of the philosophy without engaging in the practices, such as meditation, on which the philosophy is based.

Ambersky wrote: »

Maybe Im not being fair to Buddhism though, if we cant even agree here on whether Buddhism is a religion or not, well maybe this isnt a Buddhist forum. Maybe its a little bit of Echart Tole, a little bit of The Secret, deductions from some books on Buddhist teachings, a few retreats, a crash course on Enlightenment and some New Age interpretations on Quantum Physics.
Thats asking not only is Buddhism a Religion but what is and what isnt Buddhist thinking and writing? Is it anything and everything and would that make it nothing in the end.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism8.htm

The issue isn't that we can't agree on whether or not buddhism is a religion, it's that no one can agree on what a religion is; it is the use of such vague concepts, and in particular certain peoples attachment to them that is the issue in the first place - what does it matter if buddhism falls into a certain ill defined category or not; what difference will that make to the victims of abuse?