Womanizing: gurus versus famous

Jeffrey

Why is it that people have a less negative reaction to Leonard Cohen womanizing than they have of Trungpa Rinpoche womanizing. For example. For example suppose someone is LCs singing student?

The topic is womanizing, not rape, and accordingly please start your own thread if you wish to discuss rape (or tantra).

Dakini

I had to look up Leonard Cohen. Here's why: Trungpa Rinpoche presented himself as a spiritual master, thereby raising expectations of virtuous behavior, and also triggering issues of abuse of trust, power, authority. Spiritual guides are held to a higher standard than regular schmoes, famous or not. Not that that excuses the behavior of the schmoes. But it does make the moral failings and abuses by those who preach spirituality and morality to be that much more egregious.

Didn't he also have "affairs" with some male followers, too?

A student-teacher relationship also has a potential power imbalance, so the teacher, professor, music instructor is supposed to observe ethical standards for the profession. Still, when spirituality is involved, priests and other spiritual guides are held to a higher standard, especially if they're presenting themselves as masters, enlightened masters, and so on.

HHDL on teacher misconduct: "If a teacher's actions are unethical, then, even if they have practiced for many years, their practice has been wrong-footed. Quite simply, they lack a proper understanding of the Dharma. There is a gap between the Dharma and their life."

taiyaki

the spiritual ego is the largest ego one must overcome.
everyone is on their path. who are we to judge?
we must practice. practice, practice and only have concern about our minds.

does womanizing give peace of mind? maybe or maybe not.

if the bodhimind is here then can dirt truly blind it?

Dakini

if the bodhimind is here then can dirt truly blind it?

No. It means: if there's dirt, then there's no true bodhimind present.

But, could you explain about the spiritual ego being the biggest ego to overcome? That sounds interesting.

Jeffrey

Dakini, that makes sense, but what do you think of diversity in outlook? For example many may feel just as you describe, but others see it with different eyes? For example to me a priest is nothing special. Its like the wizard of Oz. The man behind the curtain is no different from you or me. In fact I think its holding the schoes in very low regard to say that they are doing something dirty....sooooo dirty that a priest is not allowed to do it. I think its like a double standard.

I am not pushing that view on you I am just putting it forward as an example of the diversity of values which people hold.

Its hard for me to see these things so black and white.

Jeffrey

There is a slight disconnect in taking the HHDL quote as a paragon. Well two. First isn't there diversity in views such that HHDL's is not a prime directive? Second HHDL showed the pit falls of lack of ethics, but he did not describe his own views on womanizing. Indeed this is linked with the first 'spike' to his quotation in that HHDL was raised in a monastery with little contact with women in a different culture from me or you.

Ada_B

I met someone recently who knew Trungpa Rinpoche well. She said he was a good man, but flawed. We seem to assume that only morally perfect people can be wise, but Trungpa was known as an exceptional teacher, despite his imperfections.

She told me that in current terminology, he'd probably be referred to as a sex addict. Addiction is something that can happen to the best of us - it is no respecter of persons. And it brings great suffering, for which we need to have compassion.

Unfortunately, being a great teacher of the dharma does not make one immune to error or mental health problems. Even the Buddha had problems with disciples who went off the rails.

But sometimes I wonder if someone who is flawed, but knows that they are flawed, is not an easier person to learn from than someone who appears to be perfect? (and therefore far removed from the sort of everyday problems that we suffer from). It did seem to be that Trungpa's difficulties were accompanied by great compassion, and he experienced great sadness at his inability to control his behaviour. Often it seems me that those most in need of compassion who are best at given it out.

As for Leonard Cohen, he has been on his own journey, and I'll admit, I'm quite a fan. Cohen has studied Zen for many years, and even gave up his career entirely to spend time in a monastery. He said in an interview recently that the happiest times of his life were making tea for his Roshi (teacher). It is my opinion that wherever he was once, he is a good man.

Mountains

Why is it when men chase women it's "womanizing" but when women chase men it's not "manizing"?

Talk about your double standard...

Dakini

Yes, Ada B, and also Tai, on another thread, have raised the issue of flawed teachers giving great teachings. This was Master Sheng Yen's point, too. So that's up to individual taste, I guess--for some, the important thing may be great teachings, and they're able to overlook the behavior.

But how enlightened can someone be, who has serious "attachments", even to the point they may hurt other people? And here's the crux for me, apparently it's not an issue for some others: how can they inspire people to follow the Dharma, to believe that the method works, if their behavior doesn't demonstrate integrity and doesn't conform to the principles they teach? Even those who don't claim enlightenment--a major disconnect between the Dharma and their behavior would be a turn-off for me. I don't get the "Do as I say, not as I do" message.

@Jeffrey To me, teachers aren't exactly like the Wizard of Oz, well...maybe some are outright charlatans, but few. To me, they're more like highly educated Sunday School teachers. Many make no pretense or claim to be anything special. Even those who are considered to be superstars and have huge followings are still basically people. But because of their position, they're required to follow strict ethical guidelines. Except many Eastern teachers don't seem to be aware of that requirement in the West.
I was not knocking regular joes. I was just answering your op question.

We do know what HHDL thinks about womanizing. It's in the same source as the quote I gave above. He says he publicly denounced the lama who was his childhood regent, for womanizing, among other things. (Although he seems to still be friends with Sogyal...) It's in Stephen Batchelor's report on the meeting between the DL and Western Dharma leaders.
www.westernchanfellowship.org/shaping-the-future.html

haha! Mountains!! Because when women chase men, it's called "being a floozy", or prostitution, or something. Double-standard back atcha! ^_^

Jeffrey

To me if you say the guru is unethical then I am too. I hold everyone to the same standard with the caveat that I cannot judge them unless I walk a mile in their shoes.

Dakini

I cannot judge them unless I walk a mile in their shoes.

This is good, too. But as soon as someone puts on a cleric's robes, or sets him(her)self up as a spiritual teacher, certain ethical standards and regs click into place. That's why it's worse than if some movie star or college student collects women. To answer your OP. But misconduct is misconduct, no matter who does it, is that what you're saying? There's truth to that, too.
Normally, people expect clergy to hold to a higher standard. They prefer their place of worship to be free of scandal. For some reason, Eastern teachers in some people's eyes get a free pass in that regard.

possibilities

IMO the position of clergy and of teacher is identified with being *trustworthy* - a musician not so much!
Women who are preyed on by teachers are victims - women who hook up with womanizing musicians are Not Victims.

@Dakini makes a lot of valid points.

zenff

The job of a singer is to sing nice songs. What he does in his spare time is relatively unrelated.
It depends on the job-description of the teacher. If he is just the guy who makes great dharma-talks, it is relatively unrelated that he is a womanizer in his spare time,

Often though, the teacher is presented (by himself and by his followers) as a lot more. He can be something like a therapist to you, but on a deeper, on a spiritual level. The relationship with the teacher (so could be said) is crucial for your enlightenment. You have to trust the teacher. When he tells you to jump off a cliff, you jump. (Again, I don’t say that, but this kind of attitude can be observed. I’ve seen it.)

In such a relationship it is abusive for a teacher to seek and to have sexual relationships with students. Imho.

Power corrupts
In my mind, this kind of abuse – in such a relationship - is inevitable. And the conclusion is that the relationship with the teacher should be more balanced.
There is no reason at all for students to have such complete trust in, and surrender to, the person of their teacher. There’s nothing wrong with some critical evaluation of the teacher’s words and actions. There’s nothing wrong with thinking for yourself.

zenff

For a Therevada monk things are pretty clear.
Having sex is the end of being a monk.

But even in such clear circumstances abuse happens.
And the cause is – again - unrealistic ideas about the person of the teacher/monk; unbalance in the relationships with him; and lack of checks and balances in the organization around him.

Ada_B

I don't believe Trungpa had disciples when my friend knew him - his relationships (aka "womanising", even though some of them were men) were all sorts of people he met, many weren't even Buddhists. He was never abusive, secretive or took advantage of people. In fact, a lot of Tibetan Buddhists would have been happier if he had been a bit more secretive about his problem.

My friend, who wasn't in any kind of sexual relationship with Trungpa, incidentally, says that Trungpa never made the choice to be a teacher - the role was foisted on him as a child and he really didn't cope with it. Perhaps that was part of the reason for his problems with sex and alcohol. I do think the Tulka system is problematic - especially since the Tibetans have left the protective traditional monestary system and moved to the West. It is one thing to choose to be a monk. Quite another to have no choice.

daemyo

Why is it that people have a less negative reaction to Leonard Cohen womanizing than they have of Trungpa Rinpoche womanizing. For example. For example suppose someone is LCs singing student?

Poor behavior is poor behavior, and yes, we should hold ourselves and others to standards of decency. But the student-teacher relationship is unique. It’s an intense and personally intimate one in which the student has placed a great deal of trust in the teacher and in some ways is dependent upon him/her (not neurotic dependency, but…). When a sexual or romantic relationship develops, it invariably comes with strings, baggage, etc. When the relationship ends or becomes public, the student is left holding an empty bag. No teacher, no sangha, and a relationship to get over. “Bereft” would be quite an understatement. This situation isn’t conducive to one’s long-term practice.

When a teacher forms sexual relationships with students, what he is doing is satisfying his desires at the potential (and probable) expense of the student’s practice. That’s the height of “unethical”.

But, as others have said, teachers are human beings too. It is up to students to act wisely as well, and to recognize that teachers are not gods.

Dakini

Power corrupts
In my mind, this kind of abuse – in such a relationship - is inevitable.

zenff, do you really think it's inevitable? Do you think it's naive to think there might be teachers out there who are able to maintain their integrity?

I agree there needs to be a more balanced, down-to-earth view of the teacher, and a more balanced student-teacher relationship. But even the more run-of-the-mill teachers try to start affairs with students. I think one thing that would help is to inform teachers who are not native to Western countries about sexual harassment policy, about fiduciary trust law, and so forth. Sanghas can enact strict rules, as some did back in the 1990's, and even have teachers sign a contract to observe the sangha rules with regard to student-teacher relations. Some teachers may feel that this puts too many constraints on the path to enlightenment, eliminating devotion (guru yoga) as an element on the path. But I think that if they want to come to the West to teach and share their traditions, accepting Western (or "modern", as this issue is also come up in Taiwan) ethical norms needs to happen, and that's not a bad thing.

@AdaB I didn't know Trungpa felt his position was foisted on him. People have given back their robes and renounced their tulku status, he could have chosen that. One of his sons made that choice, and now has produced a film about Western-born tulkus. As a graduate of Oxford, Trungpa could have chosen an academic career. But he didn't. Still, I think you make a good point in raising the issue of potential emotional conflicts in what was clearly a troubled, though gifted, personality.

zenff

zenff, do you really think it's inevitable? Do you think it's naive to think there might be teachers out there who are able to maintain their integrity?

When a group of people consists of one elevated leader and a lot of completely uncritical admirers, that group will lose touch with reality.
For keeping in touch with reality the group needs some negative thinking. Negativity is good as an ingredient - not as the main ingredient- but it is an indispensable ingredient.

I didn’t invent that. It’s in the “six hats of De Bono” for instance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Thinking_Hats

So when a teacher is surrounded by admirers and the whole group has absolutely no correcting power in its repertoire; that teacher will sooner or later lose it.
The teacher’s teacher may supply correcting power or the teacher’s wife; but without it he doesn’t stand a chance. I’m convinced it is inevitable that such a group will go berserk.
That would be something like Murphy’s Law. It has the tendency to go wrong and at some point it will.

taiyaki

we forgot the important element here.

we are speaking of human beings. even if they are enlightened or have insight into truth they are still human beings.

infinite potential = the good and the bad.

human beings are human beings.

it's fine to have idealistic projections of perfection onto an authority figure.
but all of this is coming from us and not at us.

want to know how i know this? nothing is perfect and if you live a little bit a of life then you realize that nothing is perfect. should we all strive for perfect? yes! but with the wisdom and knowledge that we will fail and fail and fail but we will also put one foot forward at a time.

because things are constantly in flux we all have the potentiality to improve.
it's a double edge sword.

Dakini

Would it help to clarify the question if instead of talking about gurus we substitute psychologists or doctors? Do we expect medical and mental health professionals to maintain professional boundaries, or is it ok if they manipulate their patients into sex? If they maintain professional boundaries, does that mean they're perfect? No, it just means they're being professional.

Ada_B

Do I think womanising gurus, or doctors, or psychologists are a good thing? No. Do I think if a guru/doctor/psychologist has acted unprofessionally in that way can ever have anything useful to say? Could they ever be redeemed? That is a very different question.

Someone may be unprofessional, uncompassionate, inappropriate etc. IMHO we should have compassion on them, especially if their bad behaviour leads to some sort of sanctions. Not that the sanctions are necessarily unfair - they may well be.

Some gurus have many wise words to say, despite the inconsistency in their life. I would not suggest taking vows with such a person, but they may still have wise things to say that are worth listening to. Especially if its as one flawed human being to another.

For instance, if they were a doctor and they diagnosed you, but were later struck-off due to an inappropriate relationship with a patient, would that mean their diagnosis was incorrect?

It's not good, but its human. It happens.

BTW Dakini, there is a big difference between having an inappropriate relationship and manipulating people into sex. You cannot assume these situations are always a case of manipulation - sometimes adults make choices, and sometimes those choices are unwise. Sometimes the patient seduces the doctor, and not the other way around.

Dakini

@Ada_B, yes, right, but the doctor is still supposed to refuse a seductive patient. There are also cases of congregants trying to initiate an affair with the priest or lama. The priest is required to refuse the member of his flock, and if the problem persists, to recommend the congregant move to another church.

In any case, the topic was about celebrities and gurus "womanizing", not the other way around. And unfortunately, much abuse is passed off as "mere" womanizing. It's not unusual for authority figures to strive to create ambiguity in the situation, to try to convince the object of his/her attention that it's a consensual affair or act that's happening, rather than manipulation, etc.

But if Jeffrey wants to keep the topic strictly to womanizing, then, ok. Sorry for broadening the topic.

And yes, I acknowledged earlier that some people are able to learn from the teachings and ignore the behavior of the teacher. That's an individual choice, a situation that doesn't seem to bother some people. For me, integrity is important.

Gumbercules

Why is it when men chase women it's "womanizing" but when women chase men it's not "manizing"?

Talk about your double standard...

I think the difference is almost our entire culture is based on the first one Not to mention how much money goes into keeping it like that while at the same time condemning it as wrong.

Jeffrey

I think thats expanding the field to include doctors and psychologists. The topic is gurus and students. Versus famous people and fans/students. Its an arbitrary decision to say a doctor is analogous to a priest. You could extend that to plumbers or house painters or checkout clerks. Arbitrarily.

The fact is that this is legal. My government teacher had a sign on the wall. "Let the buyer beware".

Dakini

Its an arbitrary decision to say a doctor is analogous to a priest. You could extend that to plumbers or house painters or checkout clerks. Arbitrarily.

No, you couldn't extend it to tradesmen and grocery clerks. There is no trust relationship there. There is a trust relationship between doctors and patients, just as there is between priests and their flock. When the doc tells you to take your clothes off, you do. You do so because you trust him or her not to assault you or try to seduce you. It's a required part of their job to observe professional boundaries, and the client is in an especially vulnerable position in these professional practices Same with priests. This exact situation was discussed a year ago in my misconduct thread.

But if you don't want to expand the discussion to professionals other than gurus, that's ok. I thought mentioning these other examples would shed some light on the guru-disciple relationship and the trust involved there. But we don't have to go there if you don't want.

Gumbercules

I think thats expanding the field to include doctors and psychologists. The topic is gurus and students. Versus famous people and fans/students. Its an arbitrary decision to say a doctor is analogous to a priest. You could extend that to plumbers or house painters or checkout clerks. Arbitrarily.

The fact is that this is legal. My government teacher had a sign on the wall. "Let the buyer beware".

Owning people used to be legal too.

Jeffrey

I trust my tax man. Is it ok if I have sex with my tax man?

@Gumbercules, you failed to mention Hitler

Gumbercules

I trust my tax man. Is it ok if I have sex with my tax man?

@Gumbercules, you failed to mention Hitler

My point was, being legal has absolutely nothing to do with morals.

Jeffrey

That was my point too and the whole argument I am making. Legality has to do with factual procedures. Morality in the Judeo Christian west is based on the will of God. But that is not how I view morality. I view it as an individual matter. In my opinion slavery is immoral, sure.

I interpreted your argument as illogical. It does not logically follow that if slavery is immoral then sexual behaviour is also immoral.

I think you are going for a moral absolute when really we are just stumbling bumbling sentient beings.

Dakini

Maybe Gumbercules' point was something like this:

Owning slavery used to be within the definition of morality. Then humanity matured, and slavery became immoral.
Owning women used to be within the definition of morality. Then much of humanity matured, and the idea that the wife was part of the man's property changed. Women became people in the eyes of the law.
Spousal abuse used to be legal. It no longer is.
During Tibet's theocracy, lamas had absolute power, and could demand and receive women. They seem to still expect to be able to do that, especially with Western women who come to them to study. Western sanghas used to let lamas and roshis get away with that. That is changing. The sooner the better.

Why would Western clergy not be allowed to have sex with their congregants, but brown guys in red robes (or in Zen robes) can? How about that for a thread topic?

Jeffrey

So you believe morality is a question of definitions? We define it one way and then we define it another way.

For example I define one day it is moral for me to eat chocolate and then the next day I say it is immoral?

I still don't view morality as an absolute. There are threads on newbuddhist about karma which are quite interesting. I think that is the way buddhism handles morality. The important thing is to keep a pure intention for the welfare of sentient beings.

Why would guys with crosses opinion apply to brown guys with malas? Maybe western clergy has a wrong view?

Jeffrey

The crux of it Dakini is that you are saying your notion of morality is absolute. I entirely agree that we define things as such. But that is exactly what buddhism says. That is a conditional thing. If it is a definition then it is mentally labled as something. Buddhist philosophy says that if something is merely labled then it is conditional. If it is conditional then it is impermanent, non-self, and suffering when clung to.

That is all saying that there are no absolutes.

Consequentally their are individuals rather than absolute rules. We would like to have a net of perfect absolute rules to keep us safe. Unfortunately it is an uncertain world.

I don't know what will happen with rules now that buddhism is contacting the west. We'll see. And I repeat that the important thing is to think of the welfare of individuals rather than to develope attachment to absolute definitions of moraltity.

Dakini

I don't know what will happen with rules now that buddhism is contacting the west. We'll see. And I repeat that the important thing is to think of the welfare of individuals rather than to develope attachment to absolute definitions of moraltity.

We have a preview of what will happen, by looking at the strict rules of conduct for teachers at Spirit Rock dharma center. There are rules for both students and teachers in a retreat situation, as well. There rules were put together precisely because the welfare of individual students was a concern. Upaya Zen Center is in the process of drawing up rules, too. This may be an indication of the direction in which this issue is headed.

Dakini

So you believe morality is a question of definitions? We define it one way and then we define it another way.

Not at all. The things I mentioned were always wrong. It just took society a very long time to mature and wake up to the fact, and pass laws making what was already immoral illegal.

Why would guys with crosses opinion apply to brown guys with malas? Maybe western clergy has a wrong view?

All guys with malas (aka "rosaries") wearing the robes of spiritual office should observe the same rules. I don't understand why some people are willing to give the brown guys a free pass.

compassionate_warrior

My 2 cents'-worth: I don't like to go to sanghas where there's hanky-panky going on between the teacher and students, or flirtation, or any of that stuff. I go to the place of spiritual inspiration and guidance to get away from the games and samsaric goings-on of the mundane world. The last place I want to see that stuff is in the sangha or temple. I expect the teacher to set a good example of the doctrine he's teaching. Otherwise, why would I listen to him? The whole scene would seem phony. There's already enough inauthenticity in the world.

The sangha is supposed to be a refuge from the world's turmoil, not a soap opera. That's how I see it. I'm not going to take refuge in a place of subterfuge, hypocrisy and disrespect for the sanctity of the temple. I'll seek refuge in a place of tranquility, inspiration and honesty. But maybe I'm just old-fashioned. :-/

taiyaki

but you forgot.

these are human beings you are talking about.

hahahahahahhahaa.

Gumbercules

That was my point too and the whole argument I am making. Legality has to do with factual procedures. Morality in the Judeo Christian west is based on the will of God. But that is not how I view morality. I view it as an individual matter. In my opinion slavery is immoral, sure.

I interpreted your argument as illogical. It does not logically follow that if slavery is immoral then sexual behaviour is also immoral.

I think you are going for a moral absolute when really we are just stumbling bumbling sentient beings.

Whoooooooooooooooooa there could not have been more of a misunderstanding here... The only reason I said legality has nothing to do with morals was you seemed to be justifying something as ok because it's legal, then said something about "buyer beware" like that's good enough. There is zero evidence that consensual and informed sex is ever immoral...

Jeffrey

I wasn't justifying anything. I was saying opinion is opinion. And fact is fact.

X Sexuality is immoral = opinion
X Sexuality is illegal = fact

I think you people are attached to your beliefs and thus must view your opinion as an ontological facet of the universe. I think we have some topics about karma that you could look up. Or start. This is a buddhist forum.

Jeffrey

slavery is immoral = opinion
eating meat is immoral = opinion
murder is immoral = opininion
mozart had skill = opinion
over 1000 people watched the movie star wars = fact
hitler was evil = opinion
I think hitler was evil = fact

Jeffrey

And remember, the topic of this thread is not morality in general. And it is not slavery.

The topic of the thread is the psychology. The psychology of why a teacher of buddhism is viewed negatively for behaviour that a teacher of music is not. I think it is due to a buddhist teacher stereotypical image. A music teacher stereotype is not that they are safe and paternal. Thus they get away with it due to having a different stereotype?? Just thinking out loud.

Please start a new thread if you would like to change the topic.

Jeffrey

If something is declared an opinion it does NOT mean it is worthless or not useful. Perhaps an opinion should be listened to? Yet I feel we fall into confusion when we present an opinion as a fact.

Dakini

Expecting your spiritual leader or clergyperson to be safe is not a stereotype. It's a requirement of their job to maintain ethical boundaries with their disciples, for the purpose of safeguarding the safety of their disciples when disciples are in their presence. If it weren't, it wouldn't be considered scandalous when they go outside the norms for their profession. "Paternal"?? Where did that come from? Who expects their guru to be "paternal"? Did you mean "kind", maybe? Yes, I used to expect them to be kind, but I've never met one who was, so I no longer expect that.

Jeffrey

Its not a job as I understand in buddhism. They do not receive a salary. Even in some jobs such as a plumber would you say sexuality is off limits? Probably their supervisor would think so But that is due to company policy. Does a buddhist sangha have a policy? All or just some? What if there is no policy? Then what happens?

All I see is you saying "thou shalt do this". And it is 100% opinion.

Does kind mean non-sexual? In all relationships or just some?

Dakini

Why are we discussing sex in relation to the gurus behavior in the sangha in the first place? What kind of a crazy conversation is this? Who expects to be hit on by their spiritual guide when they go to church or temple?! The "non-sexual" part comes under "safe", see above.

If my plumber made a sexual come-on to me, I'd report him to his boss, if he had one, and I'd hire a different plumber next time. What are you talking about, Jeffrey??

From another thread: Suzuki Roshi had a disciple who was completely infatuated with him, and confessed her feelings to him. He said it's ok to have feelings for your teacher. "I have enough discipline for the both of us". That's how spiritual teachers are supposed to behave. Does that help clarify the matter?

Jeffrey

Dakini, I have consistently told people not to get involved in romance in the sangha. I would also say the same thing to two workers at Kmart. If you're in eachother's space all the time there is bound to be problems.

My point is that its a personal choice whether to do it or not. And its imposing your opinion to forbid it.

Dakini

My point is that its a personal choice whether to do it or not. And its imposing your opinion to forbid it.

Clergy are not allowed to exercise that personal choice, especially on a habitual basis. Genuine love does happen, but in Western churches, clergy are usually required to report a potential budding relationship to a higher-up. Anyone who displays a habit for getting intimately involved with congregants is fired in some churches. In other churches, as we've seen in the news, it's covered up. But there are strict guidelines. Apparently, those ethical rules exist also in Zen, though not all roshis have followed them. This has nothing to do with my opinion, and I'm not in a position to forbid anything, anyway.

Jeffrey

You are applying rules that apply to christian sects to buddhist sects. Therefore you have put buddhist sects under the rule of christian sects. That would be like if I said "clergy should not take the Lords name in vane" and applied that to buddhist sects.

Or alternatively apply the fifth precept to the sacrement of communion?

Ada_B

I find it a bit uncomfortable the assumption that if a woman has sex with a guru, that is tantamount to sexual abuse. It might be unwise, immoral, disrespectful, a bad example etc. But unless you know the details of the relationship and the situation, you cannot assume it is abusive.

I am not denying that there are sexually abusive relationships, even, sadly sometimes in Buddhist settings, but not every inappropriate relationship is as the result of abuse. These are adults we are talking about and I feel it infantilises women to assume that they are always the victims in such situations.

I am reminded of a few years ago, in which a male, doctor colleague of mine was sexually assaulted be a female patient. She then claimed he had raped her, after he had made a complaint against her. The fact that she had a personality disorder and had done it before didn't help her case, nor the fact that it was in front of witnesses (other patients), and my colleague was gay. The case was dropped, but the doctor was very traumatised.

Even despite the details of the case, many people in the town immediately concluded my colleague was guilty, simply because he was a man and she was a woman and his patient. But it ain't necessarily so.

If you hear about inappropriate relationships, it could be abuse (in either direction), or it could be a mutual relationship in which neither are victims, albeit still wrong.

Dakini

No, I said those ethical rules are in Zen as well. They also seem to hold true of Ch'an, which has been remarkably free of scandal, AFAIK.

Jeffrey

Dakini that is still applying one grouping of clergy rules to another.

Jeffrey

So that is like not allowing Catholics to pray to saints because Protestants don't allow that. Though they are both Christian and get along mostly ok.