I visited a Meditation centre today where the teacher claims he 'IS' a BUDDHA (fully enlightened)

buddhacoe

He is suppose to be ''Buddha Maitreya''
And says he has fully achieved all stages of ENLIGHTENMENT..

He was a nice bloke but how do we know if one is Fully enlightened??

Here is his website.

http://www.buddhamaitreya.co.uk/

((apparently alot of other people in past and present have claimed to be Buddha maitreya aswell, so no one knows for sure if any are real)) (you can find more info on Buddha MAITREYA on 'WIKIPEDIA'

SherabDorje

:screwy:

buddhacoe

RUN!!! RUN AS FAST AS YOU CAN!!!

elaborate please!

Talisman

He is not Matreya. The teachings of the living Buddha have not yet faded from this world.

SherabDorje

Edited my comment. The site is quiet and understated. But if someone claims to be Maitreya without fulfilling the predicted criteria, I would only follow him out of idle curiosity and I would not cross the street to listen to him.

That's why I edited my comment (I have a slow signal). No need to run. As you say, probably a nice enough bloke, but not the real Maitreya.

person

He was a nice bloke but how do we know if one is Fully enlightened??

I'll let you in on a secret. He's not Maitreya Buddha.

RUN!!! RUN AS FAST AS YOU CAN!!!

elaborate please!

Put on some comfortable shoes and put one foot in front of the other in an alternating fashion as quickly as you possibly can. :ninja:

buddhacoe

jeez people, You not acting very Buddhist-like!!!

'Person' - i know you were jokin with your comment but 'come on man' im trying to be serious here!! I visited this centre today and wanted your true thoughts on how do we know if someone is a Buddha or not?? Why would people like this make it up?? I would like to know!! Thanks.

Jeffrey

Its not what he says he IS that matters. Its what you understand and realize from his teachings.

Even if he is a buddha if he isn't helping your practice then it is no good. Of course you can give a chance.

I would have my danger sense dialed to max because a lot of frauds say things like that and seriously hurt their students. If you are vulnerable person to manipulation I would be VERY careful.

If he doesn't follow any norms of behaviour I would just take his teachings on an intellectual basis rather than getting involved in the energetics of his sangha.

santhisouk

Try to get him angry with an argument or something. If he fails miserably, then he is not enlightened.

compassionate_warrior

This isn't someone I'd take seriously. he makes an outrageous claim for himself, has no lineage (not that that's a guarantee of integrity...), seems like just the typical lost teenager who later completed university study in Buddhism, and has taught meditation. Notice that his self-description doesn't say anywhere that he's actually taught Buddhism.

The way you tell if someone's enlightened is by how they treat others, and by how well they understand Buddhist concepts. Does he ever display anger, annoyance, or impatience, or does he become offended by students who have to leave his lecture before he's done talking? (I've run into all the above with various lamas.) Does he cozy up to any of the women in the group? How is his behavior in general?

If you're only interested in guidance with meditation, maybe this guy's ok. I wouldn't expect miracles from him, or anything more than a typical academic lecture on Buddhism.

person

jeez people, You not acting very Buddhist-like!!!

'Person' - i know you were jokin with your comment but 'come on man' im trying to be serious here!! I visited this centre today and wanted your true thoughts on how do we know if someone is a Buddha or not?? Why would people like this make it up?? I would like to know!! Thanks.

Every enlightened teacher (enlightened here doesn't mean the same thing as a fully enlightened Buddha) I've heard has never claimed themselves to be enlightened, they just skillfully teach the Buddhist path and help you on your way, thats the first clue.

People make this up for two reasons I think. One they want attention or money that comes with the status and are deliberatly putting up a false front to decieve people. Two, they become very attached to the idea of being a "spiritual" person and genuinly delude themselves that they've achieved an advanced state, so they probably aren't out to hurt anyone or decieve them but end up doing so because they think that what they are saying is right when its not.

Jeffrey

good post cw

SherabDorje

@buddhacoe- what were the criteria specified for the coming of Maitreya listed in the article in Wikipedia? Are they anywhere close to what this "nice bloke" presents?

Talisman has a very good point. Only when the teachings of the Buddha of the current era have disappeared completely will Maitreya come.

If this nice bloke does not meet the criteria specified for being Maitreya, then he's not and he's certainly not a Buddha because he's either deluded or lying. From the looks of his website, I'll cautiously say he's deluded.

person

From the front page of his website.

"Maitreya, for the purpose of becoming a meditation master, went on to university to complete an MA degree in Buddhist Theology..."

Would an actual Buddha need to get a university degree to teach the Dharma?

But he does have a really nice garden... so maybe?

Jeffrey

I would be most careful to avoid a liar. Also somewhat careful though less a problem to avoid a deluded teacher. If he is deluded and you keep your clear head, then you can eventually see that and learn from it. But if he is a liar then everything from the get go is based on a lie and it would be painful to realize that. Not to mention any head games etc.

On the other hand if he is somewhat enlightened it would be a shame to miss out on the opportunity.

Jeffrey

My teacher has a degree person. She wrote a doctoral thesis even which I hope to read eventually. Just because you are a famous novelist does not mean you cannot get a degree in english lit.

compassionate_warrior

On the other hand if he is somewhat enlightened it would be a shame to miss out on the opportunity.

And that's how they hook you. "Well, what if he IS enlightened...?" Has anyone here ever run into a lama who claimed to be enlightened? They don't. They usually say they have a geshe degree, or whatever it is. All this guy has is a confused adolescence and an MA in Buddhist Theology. Well....maybe that's roughly equivalent to a Geshe degree, but I don't think so.

I suppose you have a point, Jeffrey. HHDL is said to be the reincarnation of Avalokitishvara, but he had to get a Geshe degree, just like everyone else.

person

My teacher has a degree person. She wrote a doctoral thesis even which I hope to read eventually. Just because you are a famous novelist does not mean you cannot get a degree in english lit.

An education is pretty essential for a teacher. But does an actual Buddha need one? Shakyamuni Buddha's teachings weren't based on intellectual learning but his actual experience, and they were pretty extensive.

aura

You might care to read the "Benefits of out of body experience (astral travel)" discussion thread and discern for yourself whether you believe
a) that this individual has indeed achieved ultimate enlightenment
or
b) that this individual has been sufficiently immersed in and deluded by his own out of body/astral/other realm travels/consciousness such that he either honestly believes (or perhaps simply dishonestly promotes for personal gain) his own delusion of having achieved ultimate enlightenment (just like every other cult leader on the block, some of them with horrifically predatory intent).
What is a good simple test for "ultimate enlightenment"?
Ultimate enlightenment never makes a business of claiming ultimate enlightenment.

person

I think that following a deluded teacher can be dangerous too. If their world starts to become unraveled they can often go to extreme lengths to maintain their position. Jim Jones and David Koresh were probably deluded teachers. I'd stay away either way, there must be some place else you can go to for teachings.

Cinorjer

A beautiful garden. If I lived close, I'd pay the admission to visit and meditate once in a while. I haven't experienced a Zen garden since I left Korea.

So, how would I handle someone who tells me he is Maitreya Buddha? I suppose I'd say something like, "THE Maitreya Buddha? Pleased to meet you. How's that working out for you?"

I couldn't care less what he calls himself, or who or what he believes himself to be. Reincarnated Lama? Maitreya Buddha? Or just a Preacher who talks to God? Don't care. What matters is what he does with his life. Does he gather a cult around him and insist on the right to tell people what to do while claiming nobody can judge his own actions? Then he could be Jesus Christ himself and nothing but another source of suffering in the world. Is he a nice guy who cares about people and tries to help them? Then he's doing more than most of the people out there. In other words, is he trying to be a Buddha? If so, then good luck to him.

Here's the thing. He either is or isn't the Maitreya Buddha, and nobody has any way of knowing. Considering all the self-deluded people who even now claim that title, if pressed I'd say probably not. But really, I just don't care. People who are looking for someone to worship are going to find someone.

vinlyn

This is one of the problems I see in the lack of organization in the Buddhist world. There is no real accountability. Anyone can say anything or make any claim, and no one regulates it.

Vincenzi

if someone is free from the ten fetters, there's a very high possibility that it is a buddha.

genkaku

He was a nice bloke but how do we know if one is Fully enlightened??
-------------------

@buddhacoe -- Short answer ... you can't unless you are fully enlightened yourself. Anything less is pure eye wash.

But as a matter of taste, if you like the fellow and find his teachings support your practice for the moment, give it a whirl. See where it leads you. See what actually happens. If this guy is the Angel Gabriel, maybe you can learn something from that. If he is nothing but another Buddhist snake-oil salesman, you can also learn something from that. Just keep up a strong and determined practice and see what actually happens.

Personally, I don't much care for teachers who claim they are teachers. It's just a matter of taste. I prefer the ones who offer what they offer, suggest what they suggest, and encourage others to find out for themselves. But ...

Taste is taste.

compassionate_warrior

This is one of the problems I see in the lack of organization in the Buddhist world. There is no real accountability. Anyone can say anything or make any claim, and no one regulates it.

Worse yet, anyone can DO anything, and no one regulates it!

Mountains

I don't know much about Buddhism, but I know enough about life to know that if someone feels the need to advertise how enlightened he is, he probably isn't enlightened. It's just basic common sense (that most uncommon of things in the universe).

Mountains

Worse yet, anyone can DO anything, and no one regulates it!

Or *not* do anything!

robot

But as a matter of taste, if you like the fellow and find his teachings support your practice for the moment, give it a whirl. See where it leads you. See what actually happens. If this guy is the Angel Gabriel, maybe you can learn something from that. If he is nothing but another Buddhist snake-oil salesman, you can also learn something from that. Just keep up a strong and determined practice and see what actually happens.

When I was 20 I met another youngster who claimed to be an enlightened monk. Since I had no idea what enlightenment was, I assumed that he could teach me something. Of course he was not enlightened. Still, at one point in our conversation he said quite forcefully, "never drink alcohol". Well, those words burned into me and several years later I stopped drinking permanently. I believe that my encounter with that fellow set me on the road to sobriety. I think that the level of a persons realization has little to do with what can be gained from interacting with them. It may not be helpful to prejudge someone based on what they claim to be. It is also probably a bad idea to give yourself over to anyone enlightened or not.

zombiegirl

i wonder if the buddha would charge people to listen to him talk and chant... somehow, i think not.

SherabDorje

i wonder if the buddha would charge people to listen to him talk and chant... somehow, i think not.

From the website posted in the OP:

Activities at the Centre
Individual tuition
Two hours of relaxation and meditation guidance and practice.
£65 for one person, £100 for two people.
"Pure Relaxation and Meditation" CD is included.
Individual consultation
One hour of personal consultation with Maitreya.
£40 for one person, £60 for two people.

http://www.buddhamaitreya.co.uk/activities.html

compassionate_warrior

haha! Sounds like this guy has a lot of nerve!

Cinorjer

Actually, if he was just another ego wanting to establish a cult around himself, he'd probably do it for free. It's one sign he at least believes his hype.

According to legend, Shenguang had to pay Bodhidharma his left arm before the old man would become his Teacher.

taiyaki

Money is a good way to weed out a lot of people. also puts food on the table.

either way good for this guy.

genkaku

This is one of the problems I see in the lack of organization in the Buddhist world. There is no real accountability. Anyone can say anything or make any claim, and no one regulates it.

@vinlyn -- Probably the single most infuriating thing about Buddhism is that it places responsibility on the shoulders of its adherents. People may be delighted that Gautama taught "find out for yourself," right up to the moment when they realize that he meant exactly what he said. When that realization kicks in, there is a lot of squirming and wriggling and organizational analysis: Too anarchic, too egotistical, too open to fakes, too lonely, too hard, too scary, too ... well, the downside possibilities roll off the mental tongue like water over a rock. And it's not that the critiques and analyses are wrong. There is plenty of evidence they are right.

But there is also plenty of evidence that Gautama hit the nail on the head: Find out for yourself. How infuriating!

buddhacoe

Thanks everyone!!
When i said 'he was a nice guy' i just meant polite and friendly..

Also someone has mentioned 'would a buddha charge for his teachings?) But in this day and age how would we buy food and provide for our loved ones if we didnt charge?

I guess he could teach for free, and go get a normal paid job...
(I DONT KNOW...)

iN MY OWN OPINION - i think perhaps he isnt a complete FAKE!! Perhaps he has experienced Satori??? (I REALLY want togo back now and ask him lots of questions but im not in the area now. :-(

vinlyn

This is one of the problems I see in the lack of organization in the Buddhist world. There is no real accountability. Anyone can say anything or make any claim, and no one regulates it.

@vinlyn -- Probably the single most infuriating thing about Buddhism is that it places responsibility on the shoulders of its adherents. People may be delighted that Gautama taught "find out for yourself," right up to the moment when they realize that he meant exactly what he said. When that realization kicks in, there is a lot of squirming and wriggling and organizational analysis: Too anarchic, too egotistical, too open to fakes, too lonely, too hard, too scary, too ... well, the downside possibilities roll off the mental tongue like water over a rock. And it's not that the critiques and analyses are wrong. There is plenty of evidence they are right.

But there is also plenty of evidence that Gautama hit the nail on the head: Find out for yourself. How infuriating!

I think you're taking it too far.

If I read about a Methodist minister or church, I can find out from the national Methodist body if the minister/church is truly associated and teaching Methodist doctrine. Same with any mainstream minister/church in the U.S.

But, no Buddhism. No, any quack can preach it and say he has reached the highest state.

And when it is false, it reflects on Buddhism as a whole (as we have seen in the tantric posts in another thread).

compassionate_warrior

Vinlyn, people have on rare occasion written the Dalai Lama's office to find out if a lama was legit. There was one who was doing very aggressive fundraising during his teachings, and someone wrote the DL, and received the answer, "NO, this is not a legit lama" . A different problem is the letters to his office about respected lamas who misbehave. Those letters don't receive responses. And what do you do if it's the head of an entire sect who misbehaves? This is why there's no accountability.

Dakini

Buddhacoe, you can only tell by going and checking out the teacher in person. Of course, it's always good to try to see if anyone you know or the internet has any info on or experience with a teacher. But checking him out in person is also good, if there's a way to do that without spending a lot of money. Usually there are some sort of public-access teachings or sangha, but not always. I think charging for classes would be a lot more legitimate if there were a free (or donation only) sangha available once a week. idk. People on this forum have commented that BUddhism is mainly a middle-class peoples' pursuit in the West. Maybe charging stiff fees for teachings is one reason. I've never been able to pay the price, that's one reason I haven't had too much sangha experience.

Dakini

Vinlyn, I appreciate your sentiments. These things aren't so easily addressed. For example, what about the Catholic Church? It turns out that higher-ups have been sheltering the guilty parties for years, for much of the career-span of some. So then, the only recourse it like the Dalai Lama says, denounce publicly, go to the papers and the criminal justice authorities. This is the only way the problem in the Catholic Church finally came out, if I'm not mistaken. Of course, it's beyond sad that it got to that point. But if there's indifference or corruption at the top, or in the upper echelons, what else can be done?

(Dang, we're off-topic. We might have to move this to one of the TB threads...)

genkaku

This is one of the problems I see in the lack of organization in the Buddhist world. There is no real accountability. Anyone can say anything or make any claim, and no one regulates it.

@vinlyn -- Probably the single most infuriating thing about Buddhism is that it places responsibility on the shoulders of its adherents. People may be delighted that Gautama taught "find out for yourself," right up to the moment when they realize that he meant exactly what he said. When that realization kicks in, there is a lot of squirming and wriggling and organizational analysis: Too anarchic, too egotistical, too open to fakes, too lonely, too hard, too scary, too ... well, the downside possibilities roll off the mental tongue like water over a rock. And it's not that the critiques and analyses are wrong. There is plenty of evidence they are right.

But there is also plenty of evidence that Gautama hit the nail on the head: Find out for yourself. How infuriating!

I think you're taking it too far.

If I read about a Methodist minister or church, I can find out from the national Methodist body if the minister/church is truly associated and teaching Methodist doctrine. Same with any mainstream minister/church in the U.S.

But, no Buddhism. No, any quack can preach it and say he has reached the highest state.

And when it is false, it reflects on Buddhism as a whole (as we have seen in the tantric posts in another thread).

@vinlyn -- I really don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but I think we are talking apples and oranges. Buddhism does contain elements of doctrine and there are some who can unduly emphasize it. But the essence of Buddhism does not lie in belief. It lies in experience. Hence, comparing (to cite your example) an investigation of Methodists and an investigation of Buddhists is likely to come up confused at best.

Not trying to fault your argument that there is a "lack of accountability." But after you have tried to nail Jell-O to a wall enough times, eventually you give up and figure, "OK, you can't nail Jell-O to a wall ... is there any other potential benefit/harm to this Jell-O?" And then -- what do you know!? -- you set out to find out for yourself.

PS. Within the realm of accountability (as mentioned above), there are cops, lawyers and courts to help address misdeeds. But there is also the internet, which offers a venue in which to shape the court of public opinion ... as, for example, in the case of one Zen teacher whose activities gave rise to http://www.shimanoarchive.com/

Dakini

Great post, genkaku. But Tibetan lamas are now telling their students not to believe scandal reports they may see on the internet. But obviously, this is one venue, and it seems to be having an effect.

OK, let's not compare apples and oranges, Methodists and Buddhists. Let's compare apples with apples: Catholics and Buddhists. Make more sense? It does to me. But I guess it depends on whether we're discussing misconduct, or correctness in teachings.

Jello melts in the light of the sun. Let's shine some light on errant clergy.

Vinlyn, I'm up for any practicable suggestions you may have. It's a difficult question, given the circumstances I outlined earlier.

buddhacoe

Buddhacoe, you can only tell by going and checking out the teacher in person. Of course, it's always good to try to see if anyone you know or the internet has any info on or experience with a teacher. But checking him out in person is also good, if there's a way to do that without spending a lot of money. Usually there are some sort of public-access teachings or sangha, but not always. I think charging for classes would be a lot more legitimate if there were a free (or donation only) sangha available once a week. idk. People on this forum have commented that BUddhism is mainly a middle-class peoples' pursuit in the West. Maybe charging stiff fees for teachings is one reason. I've never been able to pay the price, that's one reason I haven't had too much sangha experience.

I DID MEET HIM IN PERSON!!

vinlyn

Great post, genkaku. But Tibetan lamas are now telling their students not to believe scandal reports they may see on the internet. But obviously, this is one venue, and it seems to be having an effect.

OK, let's not compare apples and oranges, Methodists and Buddhists. Let's compare apples with apples: Catholics and Buddhists. Make more sense? It does to me. But I guess it depends on whether we're discussing misconduct, or correctness in teachings.

Jello melts in the light of the sun. Let's shine some light on errant clergy.

Vinlyn, I'm up for any practicable suggestions you may have. It's a difficult question, given the circumstances I outlined earlier.

Not from you, but what I am hearing is that we can't have accountability because THIS IS BUDDHISM (wish you could hear the inflection in my voice to fully understand what I am saying). THIS IS DIFFERENT because this is my religion.

I don't want the "court of public opinion" to judge Buddhism, because we all know how non-Buddhists will think in that court of public opinion.

I want Buddhists to clean up some aspects of Buddhism.

zombiegirl

i wonder if the buddha would charge people to listen to him talk and chant... somehow, i think not.

From the website posted in the OP:

Activities at the Centre
Individual tuition
Two hours of relaxation and meditation guidance and practice.
£65 for one person, £100 for two people.
"Pure Relaxation and Meditation" CD is included.
Individual consultation
One hour of personal consultation with Maitreya.
£40 for one person, £60 for two people.

http://www.buddhamaitreya.co.uk/activities.html

that's quite expensive, isn't it??? you know, i worked in retail for years and as a self employed individual, i spend a lot of time working on my prices and studying the market, as well as keeping keeping stats on my sales. i understand the concept that if you charge something, people will automatically assume it is worth something and cherish it more. but his rates seem rather high to me, personally. as a massage therapist, i could charge whatever i want to, but i always keep my rates on the mid-low end so that i can be affordable to all people because i see my services as helpful and healing, not a luxury. this should be along the same vein, no?

i've never been asked to pay at a buddhist center. at most, there is a requested donation. but who knows, perhaps this is a common practice in some places. if that's the case, then let's discuss his prices. are they on par with others' experiences?

Dakini

I DID MEET HIM IN PERSON!!

Yeah, I know. But only long enough to determine that he was polite and nice. Some of us are recommending that you check out his teachings, and how he behaves with a group, with individuals in the group, and so on. There's so much more to checking out a teacher than a meet-and-greet. (sheesh! You don't have to yell.)

Great post, genkaku. But Tibetan lamas are now telling their students not to believe scandal reports they may see on the internet. But obviously, this is one venue, and it seems to be having an effect.

OK, let's not compare apples and oranges, Methodists and Buddhists. Let's compare apples with apples: Catholics and Buddhists. Make more sense? It does to me. But I guess it depends on whether we're discussing misconduct, or correctness in teachings.

Jello melts in the light of the sun. Let's shine some light on errant clergy.

Vinlyn, I'm up for any practicable suggestions you may have. It's a difficult question, given the circumstances I outlined earlier.

Not from you, but what I am hearing is that we can't have accountability because THIS IS BUDDHISM (wish you could hear the inflection in my voice to fully understand what I am saying). THIS IS DIFFERENT because this is my religion.

I don't want the "court of public opinion" to judge Buddhism, because we all know how non-Buddhists will think in that court of public opinion.

I want Buddhists to clean up some aspects of Buddhism.

For perhaps the umpteenth time, I agree with you wholeheartedly, Vin. I'm just saying, it's easier said than done. I can't see a way to do it, can you? I said I'm all for any concrete, do-able ideas you may have. And I totally feel the same: this is my religion, so I want to see it do right. This is my religion, so I have a right, if not even an obligation, to speak up when things go wrong. Will it help if we jump up and down and pound our fists on the table together? I'm with you, Vin.

genkaku

Great post, genkaku. But Tibetan lamas are now telling their students not to believe scandal reports they may see on the internet. But obviously, this is one venue, and it seems to be having an effect.

OK, let's not compare apples and oranges, Methodists and Buddhists. Let's compare apples with apples: Catholics and Buddhists. Make more sense? It does to me. But I guess it depends on whether we're discussing misconduct, or correctness in teachings.

Jello melts in the light of the sun. Let's shine some light on errant clergy.

Vinlyn, I'm up for any practicable suggestions you may have. It's a difficult question, given the circumstances I outlined earlier.

Not from you, but what I am hearing is that we can't have accountability because THIS IS BUDDHISM (wish you could hear the inflection in my voice to fully understand what I am saying). THIS IS DIFFERENT because this is my religion.

I don't want the "court of public opinion" to judge Buddhism, because we all know how non-Buddhists will think in that court of public opinion.

I want Buddhists to clean up some aspects of Buddhism.

@vinlyn -- Oh dear. I certainly did not want to say anything like "This is different because this is my religion." Ick, ick and more ick! First of all, I don't consider Buddhism as religion, though I recognize that others might. But more important by far, second, I agree with you 100% that Buddhism deserves a scrutiny that will clean up its act where necessary. Third, I agree that the internet can be a two-edged sword, providing as it does both a wealth of information and an equal if not greater wealth of misinformation.

But accountability is an odd duck. Former U.S. President Harry S. Truman had a plaque on his desk that read, "The buck stops here." The Catholic Church has a Vatican from which to issue its judgments. But where does the buck stop in Buddhism? I don't want to go all airy-fairy here with mystical terminology: If someone fucks up, then it's a fuck-up, whether Buddhist or any other. But when there is no Vatican and if the Buddhist instructor in question refuses or fails to acknowledge a mistake ... what then? As far as I can see, the sangha has to pick up the ball... blow the whistle, call a meeting, throw the guy/gal out, call the cops if warranted, make the mistake known so that others may not have to suffer on account of it.

I'm not saying it's perfect or that it works all the time, but it's the best I can think of when it comes to oversight and accountability.

Jeffrey

"Great post, genkaku. But Tibetan lamas are now telling their students not to believe scandal reports they may see on the internet. But obviously, this is one venue, and it seems to be having an effect."

Have you heard of some lamas in particular? I would be interested in knowing rather than painting a broad brush.

genkaku

@Jeffrey -- Not sure if it's what you want, but there is this: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/buddhist-lama-apologises/2149026.aspx?src=rss

Jeffrey

Yeah thats what I wanted genkaku. I think it is a clearer message if you say Lama Choedak Rinpoche as opposed to 'Tibetan lamas'. Don't you think thats clearer? Then the allegation is pointed at the party who is said to be responsible.

genkaku

@jeffrey -- Perhaps the word "parties" would be more apt than "party?" As, for example,

The women were also able to provide documents to the Sunday Canberra Times that showed complaints about Lama Choedak's conduct were met with stern warnings from senior foreign figures in the Tibetan Buddhist movement, who said talking to the media or telling new group members what had happened could be spiritually damaging and prevent other Canberrans from ''achieving enlightenment through buddhism''.

I agree that a broad brush is often too wide. But I also agree that ignoring a wider evidence of complicity -- in Catholicism, in Buddhism or wherever there is a potential for or evidence of sociopathic behavior -- is a bit too facile.

Dakini

I'm going to have to either print out or write down every reference I find on the internet for these conversations. :rolleyes:
Are you an Aussie, genkaku?