the less savory aspects of spiritual persuasion

genkaku

Is there an spiritual endeavor without its worm holes, without its less savory aspects? I doubt it. But what I find more interesting than any imagined "hypocrisy" or "harm" is how institutions or individuals choose to address those unsavory and seemingly inescapable aspects. Some people find denial the best course. Some resort to psychology. Other sing their hymns at a greater volume. Some find other means of tending their own fields.

In Zen Buddhism, as one bright example, there is the case of Eido Shimano, a teacher whose lies and manipulations are documented in the Shimano Archive. The on-going sexual abuses in the Roman Catholic Church are endlessly documented in Abuse Tracker. And there are plenty of other examples from other spiritual persuasions.

I guess what got me thinking about this was a small article I wrote for the local paper. Although it concerns Vatican abuses that are revolting, still the fragilities and failures of any formatted spiritual endeavor -- whether organizational or individual -- interest me.

Not sure that there's a question in all this. Just thought I'd run it up the flag pole.

RebeccaS

You can find people doing such awful things in any area, I guess it's just a bit more jarring when they're of a spiritual persuasion because they're supposed to be the shining beacons of good in the world.

I don't think spirituality is at fault here, I think it's down to the individual.

Plus, I guess some of them choose that path because (certainly at one time) it put them above suspicion so they could engage in their activities without fear of being found out.

genkaku

they're supposed to be the shining beacons of good in the world.

@RebeccaS -- I agree, the disconnect between stated goals and on-the-ground actions can be a jolt.

But I wonder if, in the same breath, my own longing for or acceptance of "beacons" couldn't use a reality check.

Or maybe that's just the way things go ... buy a beautiful bowl, care for it, clean it, savor it ... and one day break it. Glue it back together again, care for it, clean it, savor it ... and break it all over again....

how

I have questions of just how well I'd do over time, if I was consistently surrounded by folks who idolized me. In Asia there was a history of Zen monks going off on extended pilgrimages when it seemed that they might be next in line to be chosen as the next abbot.

genkaku

I have questions of just how well I'd do over time, if I was consistently surrounded by folks who idolized me.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Zen teacher Shunryu Suzuki spoke with his good friend Trungpa Rinpoche about the loneliness he felt. To be constantly trying to redirect the admiration of those around you ... how goddamned exhausting would that be? And the alternative -- wallowing in the honey trap -- would make for a sad sight in the bathroom mirror.

With no disrespect towards any other practice, this is one of the reasons I have always been grateful to Zen practice: No one can be holy or elevated on a meditation cushion. But this begs the question of the potential for all the elevated folderol when off the cushion. Ikkyu was right: "Easy to enter Nirvana. Difficult to enter difference."

And all I can think (tongue in cheek and a bit unsympathetically) is: Better them than me.

Vastmind

@genkaku said ".....With no disrespect towards any other practice, this is one of the reasons I have always been grateful to Zen practice: No one can be holy or elevated on a meditation cushion."

None taken.

I agree. This was also a benefit of the group I was taught by.
Meditation and Breath were taught to remind everyone that the
ego can be chipped at or can also break off in big chunks like
an iceberg. lolololol

As to what was thrown up the flag pole.......
I liked your article. The group mentality whether it
be denial or praise is indeed an interesting topic.

zenff

Is there an spiritual endeavor without its worm holes, without its less savory aspects? I doubt it. But what I find more interesting...is how institutions or individuals choose to address those unsavory and seemingly inescapable aspects.

Yes, it’s interesting to look at how “less savory aspects “are dealt with.

It appears to me that in religious groups all three main factors of groupthink are present.

1. Overestimation of the group (We happen to have access to the Ultimate Truth)
2. Closed -mindedness (It takes faith or trust and abandoning doubt)
3. Pressure toward uniformity (There’s a perceived huge gap between “us” and these other guys from the cult which actually believes 99% of the thing we believe)

It was a real lesson in life when I was so lucky to experience such groupthink falling apart. It was amazing to see how my perception shifted within the hour; how things suddenly fell into place in a different way. We could hear other people talk like we would have talked the day before; and witness them making this same shift a couple of days later. Weird!

At the basis of the cover-up is the idea that our group is something holy. We may want to protect this priceless thing, our group, our religion, our road to salvation, whatever. This can make us really blind for the warning signs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
Type I: Overestimations of the group—its power and morality
1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
2. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
Type II: Closed-mindedness
1. Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
2. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid.
Type III: Pressures toward uniformity
1. Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
2. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
3. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty"
4. Mind guards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

Bunks

My wife was a christian and a member of a church youth group as a teenager. Her friend (then 13) was in a very manipulative sexual relationship with a 25 year old youth group leader.

The church knew about it and apparently did nothing.

She is now very suspicious....in fact, downright anti.....about any kind of religious group.

She was very wary when I started down the buddhist path. I explained to her that I'm a 40 year old man whose been around a bit so know what I'm doing!

If people want to manipulate others they often seem to turn to churches as they know there'll be a lot of vulnerable people there...

Sile

Is there an spiritual endeavor without its worm holes, without its less savory aspects?

That's why I am not in favor of "ethics boards" or "codes of conduct" as a solution - it just puts the power in yet another person's (or group of person's) hands, and there is no endeavor on this earth, including ethics boards, without wormholes. What's a board that sits in judgement, if not a power imbalance between people?

The power must be with ourselves. Very few people who check out a teacher thoroughly will end up betrayed, because 1) people can and do smell garbage a mile away and 2) almost no teacher of any subject is out to betray anyone.

When we get into problems with youth group leaders, priests supervising altar boys, schoolteachers and so forth it is generally because we do not check them out ahead of time. We say, "Well, it's probably fine," and that's that.

Why not check them out? What do we have to lose except time? We know the world is an imperfect place. It's good to be able to trust people, but make it a reasoned trust--not a completely blind one.

DairyLama

If people want to manipulate others they often seem to turn to churches as they know there'll be a lot of vulnerable people there...

Yes, and people often are vunerable when they turn to religion.

genkaku

Yes, and people often are vunerable when they turn to religion.

@PedanticPorpoise -- I agree ... both when they turn to spiritual endeavor AND when they get serious about practice. These can be fragile and confusing times, which is part of what makes me doubtful about simplistic answers like "caveat emptor" or "use your common sense" or "ethical guidelines can save the day." If people were using their common sense exclusively, would they get involved in spiritual endeavor in the first place?

Sile

If people were using their common sense exclusively, would they get involved in spiritual endeavor in the first place?

Actually, it's the high level of common sense inherent in Buddhism that I found attractive in the first place. It's so measured and undramatic compared to other things, and allows for so much individual difference. The first instruction, "Try to do good, but if you can't, at least try not to harm" was an "aha moment" for me. I thought, wow, finally a system that gets it. A system that doesn't throw you away for not conforming yourself exactly to a set of rules too rigid to possibly work for all people.

It dawned on my over time--finally, a system which actually works for real humans. And then on top of that didn't require me to deny the validity of other religions.

In my opinion, humans are very spiritual. This doesn't mean religious-y, but thinking of life as a whole instead of just "life as me." When you're mind starts going there, you look for philosophical knowledge, and in Buddhism (and still in many other places) I find phenomenal philosophical knowledge.

genkaku

@Sile -- Yes, I agree ... a common-sensical approach is one of Buddhism's appeals. But then there is that dollop of off-the-charts, jumping-into-deep-water lunacy that goes with a firm practice. Common sense, after all, is limited. Buddhism is not constrained in this way.

Sile

@Sile -- Yes, I agree ... a common-sensical approach is one of Buddhism's appeals. But then there is that dollop of off-the-charts, jumping-into-deep-water lunacy that goes with a firm practice. Common sense, after all, is limited. Buddhism is not constrained in this way.

Climbing Everest is lunacy by anyone's standards, lol.

But no Buddhist teacher or sangha member has ever encouraged me to jump into deep water. The constant message I get, and hear others getting, is "Slowly, slowly, slowly. Don't be in a rush." Constant references to the benefit of studying one text or practice for years or even decades.

I've been wondering whether this varies by school, possibly? I'm not talking radical offshoots--obviously, radical offshoots almost imply jumping, or do in my experience--but what about the mainstream schools? My experience is largely with Gelug, where I have seen nothing but extreme patience. Students want to jump all the time, but are not encouraged to. So maybe in other traditions, there's a faster pace possibly? Can someone report from the other schools?

Vastmind

@sile said....."I've been wondering whether this varies by school, possibly? I'm not talking radical offshoots--obviously, radical offshoots almost imply jumping, or do in my experience--but what about the mainstream schools?....."

My 'hippy-dippy' commune, which I think would be considered an offshoot
definetly stressed slow. Cultivating the mind is a slow process.
Being too hungry for lessons was addressed by the teachers. It was taught that
it was normal. I think the difference may be the
individual vs the group accountability and how that ties
to ones spiritual beliefs.

how

@Sile
Soto Zen has
a pretty slow entry for aspiring monks. A layterm of 3 monastic months followed by a postulancy for another year before ordination is considered to become a junior monk..
Our practise is not graduated but constant. The cliff (or self) we all eventually step off occurs whenever or as often as the student is truly willing.

However..so what when we are speaking of a student's vulnerability.
The issues we all worry of come back to the Masters training. All the constraints to protect others becomes worthless if that goes sideways just as an absense of constraints will not cause harm to a student when the Master is doing their job.

genkaku

@Sile -- I intended more metaphorical than literal jumping into deep water, although there are some traditions that encourage a pedal-to-the-metal effort to see into the nature of things. Metaphorically, I was trying to point to that willingness any individual might express, as @how put it, to step off the cliff of 'self.' Whether the practice is slow and patient or hell-for-leather intense, still I think all practicing Buddhists are faced with the prospect of stepping off that cliff, however large or small.

Sile

@Sile -- I intended more metaphorical than literal jumping into deep water, although there are some traditions that encourage a pedal-to-the-metal effort to see into the nature of things. Metaphorically, I was trying to point to that willingness any individual might express, as @how put it, to step off the cliff of 'self.' Whether the practice is slow and patient or hell-for-leather intense, still I think all practicing Buddhists are faced with the prospect of stepping off that cliff, however large or small.

Well, that's the nature of Buddhist teachings. So if we choose that path, yes, we'll have to deal with that most foreign of things--changing our view of self.

I actually find it incredibly comforting, thinking that I am part of a larger consciousness--instead of feeling like I'm losing myself, I feel like I'm gaining eternity.

zenff

However..so what when we are speaking of a student's vulnerability.
The issues we all worry of come back to the Masters training. .

That’s in interesting question, how well does a teacher get prepared for his job anyway?

What I’ve seen, often there is hardly any specific training for it at all. They’re just senior students and that’s what they know mainly; how to be an uncritical student.
There are the various jobs and responsibilities in the zendo, so okay they’ve been jikido and learned to yell at people?

There could be something to gain here. You can’t give a person Dharma transmission and then let them figure out how to teach on their own.

On a side note; making “stepping off that cliff” of ego look like a big deal is one of the tricks of ego, the way I see it. It really is nothing. Just be your own boring self.
So we don’t have to make ourselves vulnerable to an abusing maniac to be able to do it.

imho

DairyLama

But no Buddhist teacher or sangha member has ever encouraged me to jump into deep water.

It's happened to me.

mindatrisk

I wonder how it occurs. My guess is that they entered their spiritual vocation with good intent and an impulse took over them. It's easy to find yourself on a slippery slope. Maybe one time you and an other find each other attractive and you have a sly kiss, you feel bad about it, determine to retain discipline in future, only for the impulse to out muscle your determinations, and then you keep sliding from there. It's easy for the human mind / ego to fool and confuse us. For example, I was fully celibate for ten months, and then began masturbating again briefly under the ego justification that I could use the energy to activate my chakras... which might be true, but very quickly sexual thoughts arose in me, and so I stopped again. I've no doubt that the ego is devious enough to have fooled, befuddled, masked etc. into behaving and continuing to behave in not-so-spiritual ways.

DairyLama

I've no doubt that the ego is devious enough to have fooled, befuddled, masked etc. into behaving and continuing to behave in not-so-spiritual ways.

:thumbup:

genkaku

On a side note; making “stepping off that cliff” of ego look like a big deal is one of the tricks of ego, the way I see it. It really is nothing. Just be your own boring self.
So we don’t have to make ourselves vulnerable to an abusing maniac to be able to do it.

@zenff -- What you say may be true, but no one I know ever let the truth get in the way of a good fantasy. Just try taking a pacifier from a baby and you'll see what I mean. So-called ego is not important AND it's the only importance anyone may know at the moment. No sense in being dismissive of someone else's searing fires.