Open Buddha

Has no one ever watched Life of Brian?

Jayarava

At the retreat I recently attended, Thrangu Rinpoche advised us against judging a teacher _as a teacher_ by his/her private conduct, and I’ve also heard that “samaya” requires that if one hears unfavorable (whether true or not) things about one’s chosen teacher, one should at least remain neutral. The other side of that is that if information on a teacher’s extra-curricular sexual tendencies is not made available to new and potentially vulnerable students, a lot of harm can occur to those students and the ability of the particular school to transmit Dharma, and we should not remain indifferent to the fact that our silence in such situations can harm people. There is, that is to say, a lot of self-serving rationalization on the part of some students of some teachers that needs to be cut through, and we all need to acknowledge some individual responsibility, of which samaya does not absolve us.

There are probably some very skillful ways of dealing with this kind of thing that are worth looking for, because the usual responses on one side or the other often do not make the situation any better.

“The gourd!!”

Bill, I follow the general advice to treat a teacher as a spiritual friend in the sense of being like an older uncle or brother, rather the normal Vajrayana tendency to treat the teacher as the Buddha (moreso than we treat everyone as a Buddha).

If I have a good friend whose advice I trust who also has some personality oddness (perhaps he likes Chuck Norris movies), as long as it doesn’t impinge on the Dharma or my understanding of ethical behavior, it is not my business or a problem. People are people, after all. If the person has a personality quirk that involves screwing students (literally or out of money, for example, both common problems), then, just as I would with a friend, I’m unlikely to stay close or trust the advice…

I love this stuff. I’m sorry but I really do. And here is why ~ So many Zen practitioners put so much emphasis on the “direct transmission” of the Dharma and thus almost deify Roshis. The dance around like their teachers have never stepped in a pile of shit before.

I love the fact that my teachers are as human as I am. Make the same mistakes and fumble just as much as I do. That being said, I judge these teachers as much as I judge myself. Do they rationalize their actions and try to explain it away or do they own up to their mistakes.

As much as students get caught up in the “Roshi-Ideal” I think the Roshis themselves start believing their own hype.

Thanks for the link and info.

Cheers,
John

Celebrity teachers complete with predictable sex scandals are, in my opinion, precisely what Americans want and expect and deserve. THIS is American Zen. And the prurient hand wringing is an essential component as well.

I disagree that this is what anyone wants. What evidence do you have to support that position? I know of a number of people who lost faith in the Dharma when they found out about these sorts of incidents. I think they should be discussed in the open and I think people should be aware of this sort of thing happening coming in.

The fact that these incidents often go back 20 or 30 (or even 40 years in this case) means it is not a new development with the idea of celebrity teachers. It’s been here as long as non-Buddhist Americans have been converting to Buddhism, lurking in the background. In fact, the teacher of your lineage (and mine) Apuleius is known to have slept with students, something that helped fracture his sangha following his death.

Al says: “people who lost faith in the Dharma when they found out about these sorts of incidents.”

people who lose faith in the Dharma after these kinds of incidents don’t really have faith in the Dharma. their faith was projected on teachers.

here’s good reminder tho – “How to deal with disappointment in your spiritual teacher” ~ http://integrallife.com/node/2030 (and Ken Wilber should know :))

~C

Thanks for bringing this forward Al. Some folks believe that damaging information about the misconduct of teachers will “ruin Buddhism” as I have heard it described. I strongly disagree. If convert Buddhism in America is to thrive dealing with these issues now rather than in another generation or two is likely easier (though it is not “easy” in any way) and can prevent a lot of damage. Am seeing at some Sanghas codes of ethics being posted. This could become the norm rather than the exception. I would really like to see that sort of thing being introduced to newcomers to any Sangha at their first attendance. A simple statement such as “We maintain a code of ethics at this Sangha. It is available at x website or in this place. Please familiarize yourself with it when you have a moment.” People then have a framework with which to compare their experience and if their experience falls beyond that at least it can given an indication of the time to start questioning involvement.

Here are a few examples of codes of ethics now in place.

From Morgan Bay Zendo:

http://www.morganbayzendo.org/code-of-ethics.html

It is based on the precepts and encompasses a basic ethical foundation.

San Francisco Zen Center has several pages on it’s ethical policy and a framework for addressing behavior that goes beyond it.

http://www.sfzc.org/zc/display.asp?catid=1,5,13&pageid=29

Berkeley Zen Center’s page with a detailed PDF document

http://www.berkeleyzencenter.org/ethics.html

Zen Center of Denver (Diamond Sangha)

http://www.zencenterofdenver.org/Lineage/ethics.html

So such things are in the works in numerous places. This is a common practice in many other religions. Hopefully teachers will take it upon themselves to introduce such things. Even for the practical reason that to not do so could involve lawsuits if someone affiliated with a center abuses a situation.

Hey Al,

In general I agree with you, and would find it difficult to stick with a teacher who did some of that stuff too, as an abstract proposition. But, I just got done reading the history of Naropa’s studying with Tilopa, where T. ordered, for example, N. to jump on an elephant, grab a bride on the way to her wedding, and drag her to the ground. Then, there’s the biography of Jigme Lingpa, founder of the Longchen Nyintig lineage, who was noted for bringing his students to enlightenment by sleeping with the women and beating the men with sticks. I mean, people got stuff from Jigme Lingpa that they couldn’t get from Jim Baker, or even Richard. Some of this stuff is not simple, and at some level, I no longer feel confident that I understand everything that’s going on.

I felt a bit depressed reading the link…

@apuleius platonicus I tend to agree that this is what Westerners want, expect and deserve in general: business feeds on the people via the media, the media feeds on scandal, and people feed on the media and business – it is a symbiotic, if necrotic, relationship. Scandal is like a high sugar food.

But I do doubt that anyone involved (including the Roshi) wanted this precise unhappy situation for themselves. And I seriously doubt that having “open investigations” and the like – that is exposing everyone to the glare of a public spectacle – will help anyone except those people publishing the letters and the producers and consumers of media scandal. Follow the money…

We do worship our guru figures as messiahs and this leads us into stupidity. I was thinking about the phenomena of groupies and wondering what kind of pressure the Roshi was under from his disciples – how much sex was being implicitly and/or explicitly offered to him I wonder. Or to put it another way – did Monica ask to suck Bill off, or merely make it clear that she wouldn’t object. Did the Roshi simply make the mistake of accepting an unconscious proposition? I note that he’s not accused of rape, just underspecified ‘inappropriate’ behaviour. Inappropriate, not illegal. So what does this even mean?

None of the now legion scandals has resulted in a far-reaching self-examination of our own attitudes to sex. We look for someone to blame. The weird thing is that it follows the Judeo-Christian moral principles for establishing guilt and exacting punishment (which always involves inflicting harm on the guilty party). Done in a way that provides a public spectacle – for we like nothing better than a public hanging. The veneer of our civility is very thin in places.

I think it speaks to our attitudes to sex generally: the combination of wantonness and puritanism which creates these bizarre situations. That we fight for the right to publicly flaunt sexuality, for men and now women to make themselves sexual desirable (but ambiguously available); and then we condemn some people for having sex at all. Images designed to be sexually stimulating are everywhere, they saturate the media, and yet we scorn those who respond to them sexually. There is a fundamental hypocrisy that never gets addressed.

We Western Buddhists seem to have little or no faith that karma works. Like angry Christians meting out God’s justice, we seem to think that we must give karma a hand by punishing wrong doers. That unless there is some public retribution then justice is not served. It is a sickness amongst us.

Follow not the gourd (Al is a heretic) follow the Shoe, the Holy Shoe… and let us also remove our shoes… for he has shown us the way. And kill that man that says it’s a sandal.

Jayarava

All that may be true but one thing that we *have* learned in the last 40 years about power dynamics is that it is almost always inappropriate for people in a power relationship with others where they have control and influence to have a sexual relationship with those over whom they have this control and influence, regardless of whether we’re talking about government, schools, or religion. There are many many books and studies on this and its effects.

Wm. Bainbridge:

You are confusing two different traditions. Samaya is something uniquely of the vajrayana, or (tantric) diamond-vehicle of Buddhism, and Zen is of the mahayana, or great-vehicle. Therefore, -while there are vows in Zen, and general codes of ethical conduct aside from those vows.. the vows of Zen are generally minimal. The basic 10 do’s and don’ts of any practicing lay Buddhist. This of course includes avoiding sexual misconduct. However, Samaya is a vow taken at the time of tantric-empowerment, and usually includes the general 14-root vows of the vajrayana as well as any specific vow that the presiding guru gives at that time.. in general one promises to do whatever the guru wishes. Because total trust in the guru is a requirement in the vajrayana path, it is generally recommended in the tradition to study the prospective teacher for a period of twelve years prior to making this leap of faith. Examining them for their inner qualities and outer conduct. It seems that many of our (western) foibles when it comes to suffering through these scandals with gurus would be vastly diminished if not completely eliminated if we were to follow this simple advice. However we are incessantly impatient, -that’s part of our cultural model.

In terms of the Zen transmission, it seems that a great deal of emphasis is placed on the Roshis’ Dharma transmissions to their lineage heirs, -and it does take on the feel of an almost tantric level event. However there seem to be as many flaws in this tradition as any other, -and apparently there is room for worldly concern where there shouldn’t be. So it’s left to the buyer to be beware. Perhaps all Buddhists should subscribe to this 12 year examination period before they put undue faith or trust in a teacher to guide them to Enlightenment. Until then, maybe it is better to see them as an uncle, as one poster said. No one would hesitate to out a pervert uncle, would they?

Whether we would hesitate or not, if you knew your uncle was a “pervert” and engaging in unethical and unlawful acts, you have a moral duty to out him to authorities, not to just hide it as a family secret.

This kind of behavior only thrives when people are willing to hide it in the dark.

Mr. Bainbridge is well acquainted with Tantra and Buddhism in general so you aren’t telling him anything that he doesn’t already know. His personal point of view is as a tantric practitioner though.

I don’t know if your reply was an attempt to clarify what I already said, -but I don’t see any disagreement at all with my statement in your response. I was encouraging “outing” the pervert uncle, in the sense of revealing their crimes or criminal intent. Of course, as in the article in question “authorities” in this context aren’t always the proper forum to report to: Aitken did report the vow-breaking and ethically problematic behavior to their mutual teachers and those teachers chose to ignore it in favor of the benefits of keeping the perpetrator as their translator. So as the Dalai Lama himself suggests, -it is good to publicly expose charlatans like this, -something Aitken was too worried to do on his own volition apparently.

And then Al, despite your regards for Mr. Bainbridges acquaintance with Tantra and Buddhism in general, -however I think it is problematic to bring up the issue of “samaya” when discussing the conduct of a Zen priest. There is no samaya within a Zen Buddhist’s relations with their teachers. Likewise discussing the stories of Jigme Lingpa’s conduct with his close students, -or Naropa and Tilopa, or even Drukpa Kunleg for that matter– these are all examples of Tantric gurus from a non-dual tradition, one in which the students have voluntarily taken vows of pure-perception in regards to the teacher. I think it’s important here to emphasize that there is a recommended examination period before one makes this commitment and that it is a huge commitment, -and a voluntary act. Once one makes that commitment then one’s devotion may be tested, and ones normal attachments to pleasure, aversions to pain, and all kinds of other dualistic patterns may be thrown in the crucible of the guru’s play. But that is what one signed on for. None of the behaviors of most of the great Tantric gurus through history would hold up well to conventional moral or legal scrutiny….and that seems to be what Bainbridge is touching on. However, this is not the issue at hand in the article above. And even within Vajrayana Buddhism, -it is believed that before one just starts publically exhibiting the conduct beyond conventional norms, -one should be able to at least exhibit some spiritual powers (siddhis) to inspire faith (and avoid inspiring doubt) . An example is the 6th Dalai Lama who when people were up-in-arms about all his apparent romantic partners, climbed to the top of the Potala palace and publicly urinated down, -then midway-down and midstream sucked all the liquid back into his “vajra”.

Obviously this case in question has none of the trappings of the “skillful means” of a tantric yogi, and the fact that his female partners were ending up in mental institutions speaks volumes. How one could reconcile keeping silent about this seems hard to comprehend.

What you have here is horny, manipulative men justifying their precept breaking.

Agreed. These bastards should be outed for what they are and they should not be allowed to teach.

A point of clarification: There are five precepts for lay people — those are the BARE MINIMUM. There is the Vinaya for teachers. Yet we are supposed to accept teachers who drink and use their students as sexual fodder???

You should not underestimate the damage this sort of behaviour does. Talk about some bad karma. There is RIGHT and WRONG in Buddhism. Go back and READ THE BUDDHA’S WORDS in the Pali cannon. You may find it doesn’t jibe with your “new age” watered down hippy-dippy variant.

Jake, you are mistaken in one sense directly and one sense indirectly as far as your points of clarification go. You’re crossing traditions.

The Vinaya is not followed by most Zen practitioners. That’s why my lineage uses the term “priest” instead of “monk” (and a number of others do the same). Within Japanese Zen (and, in fact, all of Japanese Buddhism) the Vinaya is not a part of the life of an ordained practitioner. The schools follow the ordination reforms originally promulgated by Saicho 1200 years ago. Japanese Zen does not expect its teachers to be celibate and temples are actually commonly passed down within families these days.

The Pali Canon is only canon, officially, for Theravada. Others, especially in modern times, may read it, but that specific collection, in Pali, is not part of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Tibetan, etc. Buddhism. There are sutra collections, often derived from Chinese organization, that are canon for those traditions. Additionally, for the Tibetan tradition and some Japanese traditions, there are tantric texts as well.

As far as being “allowed” to teach, well, we aren’t Catholics. There is no official Church or Pope that decides who can and cannot teach. Making information available concerning who was ordained by whom, where the lineage comes from, etc. is pretty much the best that we can do. Speaking negatively about teachers also goes against vows and the Dharma, oftentimes.

I guess you don’t read much of this stuff. These charges have been around more or less for decades. The question of what to do with them (they may or may not be true remember, we’re only parties to at best hearsay) is another matter.

“All beings, we vow to care for them.”

Eido Shimano’s misconduct has gone beyond zen, he refuses to step down, does he think this will pass? When he is the only one left at DBZ will he then realize it? We must all call for his resignation, to protect other innocent people from his abuse. Where is his compassion for the sangha?

By his own cultural standards he should quitely retire. (falling on ones sword is longer required) As an American I am appauled that he has refused to step down, as a second generation Japanese I am mortified.

Perhaps instead of blogging, sending letter writing campaign would be more effective.

Shimanosan minasmama no tameni yamete kudasai.

[...] blogged about the sexual scandal associated with Eido Shimano Roshi last year with Aitken Roshi’s [...]