Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Here's a thought I have often: what's the reality of the (possible) situation?
The reality is that there's no way I'm going to walk into Deer Park Temple, see the elderly Geshe up there giving teachings, and then on day one go ask him after teachings (if I can even catch him, which I probably can't) if he's celibate and how he feels about sex.
I'm just not.
I'm not going to do that to my violin teacher, either, nor my linguistics professor nor my husband's male cousins and uncles. I'm just not. Maybe some people will, but the reality is that I'm not going to do that.
The reality is that in any man-woman situation I'm going to just be a normal, polite human and expect that other people are normal, polite humans as well.
Once in a great while I will get a bad vibe off someone--and then I will leave. I will *not* stick around and ask this person what their views on sex are--I will leave.
I think that's one of the flaws in this theoretical discussion, and one which I haven't been able to put my finger on until today. If the vibe is bad, our approach should *not* be to tell the woman to stick around and push the sangha to adopt a code of ethics and try to trap the bad-vibe guy into some ethical cage--the approach should be to tell the woman to *leave* the situation, right now.
So, it's a double flaw, from what I can see: 1) treating good people with an air of judgmental suspicious before even taking the time to know them--not giving them the courtesy and compassion of decent, human respect , and 2) thinking that the solution to bad teachers is a code of ethics.
I just think this is wonky; the good person should be treated politely and respectfully, and the bad person should be avoided like the plague. Reversing that to treat the good person with nasty suspicion (just in case we catch a bad guy) and then sticking around bad guys feeling we're protected by a code of ethics is, I think, unfortunate two times over.
Let the teacher be who they are, for all to see; don't fetter him/her. We want their real persona to shine through as much as possible so we can judge with our brains. There is nothing more powerful than human instinct; the fact that it sometimes betrays us doesn't mean it's not the most powerful tool. I think our advice to new students should be what (I see) it always is, and what it has been for 2500 years: take teachings if you want to, and observe the teacher. This means asking questions of sangha, too, and even researching the institution ahead of time. But don't go into it with an air of paranoid suspicion, just simple awareness.
The numbers do not support the allegation that students of Tibetan Buddhism are somehow more likely to experience a sexual interaction with their teacher. If it has happened here or there, and we use it as a reason to put out leaflets or something saying, "Because sex has happened in rare circumstances, you must be on the lookout for sex," I think that would be seen as just as weird and unhelpful as if someone posted that kind of leaflet at a music school or medical facility. Yes, theoretically it's probably true that sex has probably happened somewhere, but what actual purpose are you serving other than to possibly send someone's natural instincts haywire by introducing a sense of trumped-up danger, which by actual risk assessment, is a statistical fallacy?
A student of Buddhism is statistically more likely to be sexually harassed by a family member, co-worker or stranger, upon leaving morning services. If we are really concerned about these students, why not post leaflets about all these dangers as well?
This is not denial, this is statistical reality. It's not that we can't talk about sex or deal with it or figure out how to make the world a better place, but that this heavy-handed approach of insinuating students of Buddhism are in grave danger (er, only Tibetan Buddhism and maybe Zen) is off-base, and hinky. Talk about risks, absolutely, but assess them honestly and accurately.
Edit: Thought of one more problem. I think there's a reason the Buddha told us to observe and asses the teacher *ourselves.* Because only we can assess the vibe for our personal relationship with a particular human/teacher. The hitch with suspending that observation and replacing it with codes of ethics devised by councils or boards is that we think they have assessed for us--and those are not the instructions of the Buddha. The instructions of the Buddha are to see with our own eyes, and decide. Many boards and councils would filter out teachers who may be great for other people--it's simple human subjectivity working against someone else's human subjectivity. Board-mind is very like borg-mind: councils and boards tend to develop weird vibes themselves, and time and time again, board-think can be very iffy and riddled with interpersonal politics, clouding the issues. Operating with the primary instruction to "judge other humans" is a huge power-trip that generally causes massive problems; it's the same kind of power-imbalance we allegedly detest.
Some of the very best, unforgettable college teachers of my life would very likely not have made it past certain boards.
Sorry for all the verbiage, but in researching cosmetic ingredients I came across the Skin Deep database which lists ingredients and their dangers. On seeing lavender oil rated as hazardous, I became curious and found the following great article by Dene Godfrey.
While the current topic (danger in spiritual community) is always contentious, I think it serves several great purposes, including fostering a general conversation on how to deal with any dangers inherent in samsaric life.
Let me just say again - I am not in denial about the existence of hazards. As a woman with daughters, I really truly want to know about hazards, but I want to rate those hazards in order of risk so that I have half a chance of dealing with the ones that matter most.
---
"The basic issue with Skin Deep: it is entirely based on "hazard," with no attempt whatsoever to evaluate risk. It is not possible to evaluate safety of the basis of hazard alone. If a chemical were in existence that required only a single molecule to kill a human, that would be described as extremely hazardous. However, if only one molecule of that chemical actually existed, then the chance of human exposure is insignificant, and the risk to human health is also insignificant. I use an extreme example to better explain the relationship between hazard and risk, which may be summarised as follows:
RISK = HAZARD x EXPOSURE
Because the database only highlights the hazard of the ingredient, there is no possible way the consumer can know the actual risk involved in its presence in a cosmetic product. In our daily lives we constantly assess risk, albeit mostly subconciously. If we avoided every hazard without ever considering risk, we would never cross a road, and we would never stay in our homes (as the majority of accidents occur in the home, so there is a definite hazard associated with being at home). As it is nonsensical to live our lives without assessing risk, it is equally nonsensical to avoid any particular chemical without assessing the risk. It may even be the case that high exposure to a product classified by Skin Deep as "zero" is less safe than low exposure to a product classified as "10" on this database. Therefore, the database offers no useful information on the safety of cosmetic products, and is misleading to consumers." (Dene C Godfrey)
Sile said: Let me just say again - I am not in denial about the existence of hazards. As a woman with daughters, I really truly want to know about hazards, but I want to rate those hazards in order of risk so that I have half a chance of dealing with the ones that matter most.
@Sile I think the chances of encountering sexual advances from a teacher depend on a number of factors. Maybe the most important factor is how close you want to get to the teacher. When you want to be his personal assistant or when you want to work on personal problems in the relationship with the teacher chances are considerable. When you just listen to the talk, do the meditation and leave, chances are far smaller.
I would talk to my daughters about the possibility.
I think the chances of encountering sexual advances from a teacher depend on a number of factors. Maybe the most important factor is how close you want to get to the teacher. When you want to be his personal assistant or when you want to work on personal problems in the relationship with the teacher chances are considerable. When you just listen to the talk, do the meditation and leave, chances are far smaller..
I wouldn't agree. Teachers have been known to make overtures to students who just attend, listen, and leave. It's not uncommon.
Well--I have both elderly and young Geshes. They're all great, kind, patient, funny teachers. Frankly, I wouldn't say to my daughters, "These guys might hit on you--beware" any more than I'd say that about their 10th grade strings instructor or any of their male teachers at school, or their young male cousins (who, statistically, are the most likely to do such a thing). It's just not a good life philosophy, and serves to foster an unnatural paranoia, and a certain amount of unjustified "man-hating," which, in my opinion, is harmful to the psyche.
At the same time, we do talk about the dangers of life and having ones radar up in general, and they know quite well that smart girls keep their wits about them. This, I think is the approach necessary. Not picking out specific humans by name ahead of time, who have done no wrong, and saying, "Because Sogyal Rinpoche had a civil lawsuit levied at him in 1994 you must be aware that our dear Geshe of 40 years who has never been accused of anything but having too much patience, may spontaneously hit on you."
It's truly no more admirable to encourage fear of good people than to encourage distance from bad people. It has been my opinion, from early on in life, that it's actually worse to do so.
Tibetan Buddhist teachers hitting on students is not the norm--not even close. Not even within striking distance. You are more likely to be mugged on your way to services than to be "hit on" by a Tibetan teacher of either sex.
Talking about danger is not a problem--but overhyping it is.
I think I mentioned before that part of the problem (and I do see a problem) is that the relationship with the spiritual teacher is seen as quite different from the relationship with schoolteachers, music teachers or nephews.
The spiritual teacher is often surrounded with uncritical adoration and servile behavior (unlike the nephew). The spiritual teacher is supposed to help us make psychological/spiritual breakthroughs. We are challenged to open up to the spiritual teacher in a way we certainly would not open up to the nephew. We make ourselves a lot more vulnerable. And that’s why the chances of being abused are greater. That’s why we should not ignore the problem but try and do something about it.
I think professionals who are working in mental-healthcare get prepared for the pitfalls of sexual attraction interfering with their work. I hope that in the USA there’s some kind of supervision for them; a place where people can file a complaint.
The blame on the Catholic Church is not so much that some priests behaved unprofessionally and the harm done by that; the blame is that the Church did not respond to the problem properly.
@Sile The spiritual teacher is often surrounded with uncritical adoration and servile behavior (unlike the nephew). The spiritual teacher is supposed to help us make psychological/spiritual breakthroughs. We are challenged to open up to the spiritual teacher in a way we certainly would not open up to the nephew. We make ourselves a lot more vulnerable. And that’s why the chances of being abused are greater.
I agree, and there is a big responsibility on the teacher not to take advantage of the situation, and indeed not to encourage adoration, dependence and servile behaviour. Even teachers who like the ladies.
Dealing with cases where this has actually happened, and talking about why, is totally worthy. Extrapolating it out to be representative of a culture or religion is not.
If these frequent conversations were usually accompanied by balanced risk assessment, I would find that somewhat fixated, but at least healthier--but they almost never are, in my experience. If, infrequently, someone ventures to point out that in the scope of Buddhist experience these incidents are statistically rare, that person is generally accused of being naive or worse. What can one say to that, and for that matter, to the accusation that "Many Tibetan teachers are bad people?" The accusation is, by accident or design, all but impossible to address. I think this goes a bit to @RebeccaS's fallacy thread; worth rereading.
We can have a similar conversation about men in general being dangerous, and that something must be done about it, but we need balanced evidence before we can possibly understand what our reaction should be to such a statement. That's what I see as the chief problem in the "Tibetan gurus are out to get you" threads--lack of data. And it's not as if, for example, this thread, judging by its title, was meant to inspire a balanced search for data.
We have come a long way as a society in supporting women's rights and safety--to the point that when an accusation is made, a certain amount of deference is given the woman, at least in the public eye. There are positive and negative things about that. What I see as a negative is that we have not developed a companion philosophy, a well-worn mechanism in place to encourage balance in finding out the truth of any particular accusation. It's kind of off-limits; the minute you try to investigate, you are hailed with accusations of being anti-woman, being "part of the problem," being a naive man-worshipper, etc. I understand the instinct--I really do--life is fearful. I am fearful, often. But that instinct of assuming the worst doesn't really help get to the truth of things. If we're really after the truth, that's a problem.
My sister once carried a kid she was babysitting to bed, after the child refused repeatedly to go upstairs to bed. The child told her parents my sister "threw her off the couch" (to the parents' credit, they listened to both sides, and went with my sister's less-startling account). No matter how innocent or vulnerable the alleged victim, neutral investigation is necessary, always.
We very much need this neutral investigative philosophy to apply to these issues of women's safety--something that renders investigation possible, instead of unpopular. In the courts neutrality is fortunately the rule; it's in the court of public opinion that we would be wise to avoid mistaking neutrality for denial.
Sadly, if one side is convinced of something, any attempt to sound neutral will ring in the ears as "slick denial" and so forth. Armed with our preconceptions, it will be almost impossible to come to many agreements on such issues. Hopefully, though, if we realize that seeking the truth is in the end beneficial to women's safety, and to the safety of all parties, we can make progress in the future.
The spiritual teacher is often surrounded with uncritical adoration and servile behavior .
@zenff, the uncritical adoration and servile behavior need to change, through education/awareness-raising, too.
True, but in some groups this kind of thing is encouraged by those at the top.
Well, that's what the education and awareness-raising is for. So students will have the knowledge that that stuff really isn't kosher, except possibly in Highest Yoga Tantra, and they can either call their lamas on their stuff, or leave and look for a better sangha.
We can have a similar conversation about men in general being dangerous, and that something must be done about it, but we need balanced evidence before we can possibly understand what our reaction should be to such a statement. That's what I see as the chief problem in the "Tibetan gurus are out to get you" threads--lack of data. And it's not as if, for example, this thread, judging by its title, was meant to inspire a balanced search for data.
There's a difference between saying "men are dangerous", and examining fiduciary responsibility and the trust relationship between spiritual guides and their charges, and raising public awareness about that. And I don't think the OP's intent was to spur us all to conduct surveys, studies, research, and then report back. That's a very painstaking process, and not a very realistic expectation for a forum discussion. Furthermore, data are very hard to collect in this regard, because so many women are reluctant to come forward and actually speak about traumatic experiences they want to put behind them. Not all come-ons by Buddhist teachers are traumatic, though; one could take a survey of sanghas across the country and ask women and men if they've ever had a teacher behave inappropriately with them, or had to leave a sangha due to a teacher trying to get too personal. That would be more do-able, but still, it could take years. In the meantime, I think we're having a very constructive discussion right here and now.
The Archdiocese of Sydney (Australia) recently issued a statement (linked) about the priest sexual abuses that have wracked the Roman Catholic Church in Australia (and by extension elsewhere). One line stuck out in my mind and seems to me applicable to any spiritual institution or venue:
Helping victims always takes precedence over any concern to protect the church or the priesthood.
I can't imagine the Vatican will be pleased with such a statement, but I can imagine human beings might be.
Helping victims always takes precedence over any concern to protect the church or the priesthood.
I can't imagine the Vatican will be pleased with such a statement, but I can imagine human beings might be. Awesome quote. That's how I always felt about these things.
I agree--however, we mustn't mischaracterize striving for the truth as protecting the priesthood. Truth, by definition, protects the innocent, be they student or teacher.
To my knowledge, neither psychiatrists nor law enforcement have recommended, for example, that our response to the Catholic abuse issue should be to systematically, forum by forum, generate a feeling of panic and general distrust toward the Catholic church, Catholic teachers, and Catholic experiences.
It's not the subject of abuse that is the problem, but the concerted over-generalization. This over-generalization seems in fact, oddly, to be the rule on Buddhist forum threads, where one sees time and time again statements such as, "Very few monks keep their vows," and "Any woman who walks into a Buddhist center could be a victim."
Statements like these strike me as coming either from a perspective of panic, or from a desire to generate panic. No evidence, from any religion we are speaking of, supports the accusation that most monks and priests hurt people, nor that entering a Catholic church or Buddhist center puts one in immediate danger.
What would our reaction be to the forum post, "Very few fathers are innocent of incest?" The numbers on abuse within families dwarf those for abuse within spiritual communities--but would such a statement strike us as genuine, informed, or helpful in any way? Would a young girl would benefit from that statement?
How do you account for the harm that statement does to the millions of fathers, or in our case members of the spiritual community, who are completely innocent of wrongdoing? Why is it wrong for abusers to harm people, but okay for us to in turn harm people who have done no wrong?
All human beings count. Spiritual teachers are not simply a cabal of "priests" with no human worth; it matters every bit as much whether an innocent teacher is harmed by false accusation, or general insinuation, as it does that a student be harmed by a teacher (or fellow student). And future students of these wonderful teachers are harmed if they in turn miss out on teachings which may have benefited, encouraged, and healed them. Teachings which may in fact have given them precious advice for safety on the Buddhist path.
It is natural to have extremely strong emotions about abuse, but directing criticism in a retaliatory spray pattern only ensures more innocent people--both students and teachers--experience harm.
Everyone who is harmed is a victim, and everyone who creates harm is a perpetrator.
If a young rinpoche, nun, lama or gorgeous yidam wishes to have sex with someone as old and hideous as me, it would be a mark of their attainment. This maybe would be a test of intent, get out your randy tantric grandmas and granpas . . . :vimp:
Of course the sangha and teachers also have to contend with groupy practitioners who like to get into lamas beds for their reasons. False, sex starved disciples are much more of a problem . . . I have seen much of such inappropriate behaviour.
The issue is simple. The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, makes some claims of fantastical witnessing. It was written by a partial liar. So that explains it. Most of the book is excellent.
Behave, it goes for all of us. Still working on it . . . myself . . . :hiding:
Comments
The reality is that there's no way I'm going to walk into Deer Park Temple, see the elderly Geshe up there giving teachings, and then on day one go ask him after teachings (if I can even catch him, which I probably can't) if he's celibate and how he feels about sex.
I'm just not.
I'm not going to do that to my violin teacher, either, nor my linguistics professor nor my husband's male cousins and uncles. I'm just not. Maybe some people will, but the reality is that I'm not going to do that.
The reality is that in any man-woman situation I'm going to just be a normal, polite human and expect that other people are normal, polite humans as well.
Once in a great while I will get a bad vibe off someone--and then I will leave. I will *not* stick around and ask this person what their views on sex are--I will leave.
I think that's one of the flaws in this theoretical discussion, and one which I haven't been able to put my finger on until today. If the vibe is bad, our approach should *not* be to tell the woman to stick around and push the sangha to adopt a code of ethics and try to trap the bad-vibe guy into some ethical cage--the approach should be to tell the woman to *leave* the situation, right now.
So, it's a double flaw, from what I can see: 1) treating good people with an air of judgmental suspicious before even taking the time to know them--not giving them the courtesy and compassion of decent, human respect , and 2) thinking that the solution to bad teachers is a code of ethics.
I just think this is wonky; the good person should be treated politely and respectfully, and the bad person should be avoided like the plague. Reversing that to treat the good person with nasty suspicion (just in case we catch a bad guy) and then sticking around bad guys feeling we're protected by a code of ethics is, I think, unfortunate two times over.
Let the teacher be who they are, for all to see; don't fetter him/her. We want their real persona to shine through as much as possible so we can judge with our brains. There is nothing more powerful than human instinct; the fact that it sometimes betrays us doesn't mean it's not the most powerful tool. I think our advice to new students should be what (I see) it always is, and what it has been for 2500 years: take teachings if you want to, and observe the teacher. This means asking questions of sangha, too, and even researching the institution ahead of time. But don't go into it with an air of paranoid suspicion, just simple awareness.
The numbers do not support the allegation that students of Tibetan Buddhism are somehow more likely to experience a sexual interaction with their teacher. If it has happened here or there, and we use it as a reason to put out leaflets or something saying, "Because sex has happened in rare circumstances, you must be on the lookout for sex," I think that would be seen as just as weird and unhelpful as if someone posted that kind of leaflet at a music school or medical facility. Yes, theoretically it's probably true that sex has probably happened somewhere, but what actual purpose are you serving other than to possibly send someone's natural instincts haywire by introducing a sense of trumped-up danger, which by actual risk assessment, is a statistical fallacy?
A student of Buddhism is statistically more likely to be sexually harassed by a family member, co-worker or stranger, upon leaving morning services. If we are really concerned about these students, why not post leaflets about all these dangers as well?
This is not denial, this is statistical reality. It's not that we can't talk about sex or deal with it or figure out how to make the world a better place, but that this heavy-handed approach of insinuating students of Buddhism are in grave danger (er, only Tibetan Buddhism and maybe Zen) is off-base, and hinky. Talk about risks, absolutely, but assess them honestly and accurately.
Edit: Thought of one more problem. I think there's a reason the Buddha told us to observe and asses the teacher *ourselves.* Because only we can assess the vibe for our personal relationship with a particular human/teacher. The hitch with suspending that observation and replacing it with codes of ethics devised by councils or boards is that we think they have assessed for us--and those are not the instructions of the Buddha. The instructions of the Buddha are to see with our own eyes, and decide. Many boards and councils would filter out teachers who may be great for other people--it's simple human subjectivity working against someone else's human subjectivity. Board-mind is very like borg-mind: councils and boards tend to develop weird vibes themselves, and time and time again, board-think can be very iffy and riddled with interpersonal politics, clouding the issues. Operating with the primary instruction to "judge other humans" is a huge power-trip that generally causes massive problems; it's the same kind of power-imbalance we allegedly detest.
Some of the very best, unforgettable college teachers of my life would very likely not have made it past certain boards.
While the current topic (danger in spiritual community) is always contentious, I think it serves several great purposes, including fostering a general conversation on how to deal with any dangers inherent in samsaric life.
Let me just say again - I am not in denial about the existence of hazards. As a woman with daughters, I really truly want to know about hazards, but I want to rate those hazards in order of risk so that I have half a chance of dealing with the ones that matter most.
---
"The basic issue with Skin Deep: it is entirely based on "hazard," with no attempt whatsoever to evaluate risk. It is not possible to evaluate safety of the basis of hazard alone. If a chemical were in existence that required only a single molecule to kill a human, that would be described as extremely hazardous. However, if only one molecule of that chemical actually existed, then the chance of human exposure is insignificant, and the risk to human health is also insignificant. I use an extreme example to better explain the relationship between hazard and risk, which may be summarised as follows:
RISK = HAZARD x EXPOSURE
Because the database only highlights the hazard of the ingredient, there is no possible way the consumer can know the actual risk involved in its presence in a cosmetic product. In our daily lives we constantly assess risk, albeit mostly subconciously. If we avoided every hazard without ever considering risk, we would never cross a road, and we would never stay in our homes (as the majority of accidents occur in the home, so there is a definite hazard associated with being at home). As it is nonsensical to live our lives without assessing risk, it is equally nonsensical to avoid any particular chemical without assessing the risk. It may even be the case that high exposure to a product classified by Skin Deep as "zero" is less safe than low exposure to a product classified as "10" on this database. Therefore, the database offers no useful information on the safety of cosmetic products, and is misleading to consumers." (Dene C Godfrey)
Let me just say again - I am not in denial about the existence of hazards. As a woman with daughters, I really truly want to know about hazards, but I want to rate those hazards in order of risk so that I have half a chance of dealing with the ones that matter most.
@Sile
I think the chances of encountering sexual advances from a teacher depend on a number of factors. Maybe the most important factor is how close you want to get to the teacher. When you want to be his personal assistant or when you want to work on personal problems in the relationship with the teacher chances are considerable. When you just listen to the talk, do the meditation and leave, chances are far smaller.
I would talk to my daughters about the possibility.
At the same time, we do talk about the dangers of life and having ones radar up in general, and they know quite well that smart girls keep their wits about them. This, I think is the approach necessary. Not picking out specific humans by name ahead of time, who have done no wrong, and saying, "Because Sogyal Rinpoche had a civil lawsuit levied at him in 1994 you must be aware that our dear Geshe of 40 years who has never been accused of anything but having too much patience, may spontaneously hit on you."
It's truly no more admirable to encourage fear of good people than to encourage distance from bad people. It has been my opinion, from early on in life, that it's actually worse to do so.
Tibetan Buddhist teachers hitting on students is not the norm--not even close. Not even within striking distance. You are more likely to be mugged on your way to services than to be "hit on" by a Tibetan teacher of either sex.
Talking about danger is not a problem--but overhyping it is.
I’ll give it a rest after this.
I think I mentioned before that part of the problem (and I do see a problem) is that the relationship with the spiritual teacher is seen as quite different from the relationship with schoolteachers, music teachers or nephews.
The spiritual teacher is often surrounded with uncritical adoration and servile behavior (unlike the nephew). The spiritual teacher is supposed to help us make psychological/spiritual breakthroughs. We are challenged to open up to the spiritual teacher in a way we certainly would not open up to the nephew. We make ourselves a lot more vulnerable. And that’s why the chances of being abused are greater.
That’s why we should not ignore the problem but try and do something about it.
I think professionals who are working in mental-healthcare get prepared for the pitfalls of sexual attraction interfering with their work. I hope that in the USA there’s some kind of supervision for them; a place where people can file a complaint.
The blame on the Catholic Church is not so much that some priests behaved unprofessionally and the harm done by that; the blame is that the Church did not respond to the problem properly.
If these frequent conversations were usually accompanied by balanced risk assessment, I would find that somewhat fixated, but at least healthier--but they almost never are, in my experience. If, infrequently, someone ventures to point out that in the scope of Buddhist experience these incidents are statistically rare, that person is generally accused of being naive or worse. What can one say to that, and for that matter, to the accusation that "Many Tibetan teachers are bad people?" The accusation is, by accident or design, all but impossible to address. I think this goes a bit to @RebeccaS's fallacy thread; worth rereading.
We can have a similar conversation about men in general being dangerous, and that something must be done about it, but we need balanced evidence before we can possibly understand what our reaction should be to such a statement. That's what I see as the chief problem in the "Tibetan gurus are out to get you" threads--lack of data. And it's not as if, for example, this thread, judging by its title, was meant to inspire a balanced search for data.
We have come a long way as a society in supporting women's rights and safety--to the point that when an accusation is made, a certain amount of deference is given the woman, at least in the public eye. There are positive and negative things about that. What I see as a negative is that we have not developed a companion philosophy, a well-worn mechanism in place to encourage balance in finding out the truth of any particular accusation. It's kind of off-limits; the minute you try to investigate, you are hailed with accusations of being anti-woman, being "part of the problem," being a naive man-worshipper, etc. I understand the instinct--I really do--life is fearful. I am fearful, often. But that instinct of assuming the worst doesn't really help get to the truth of things. If we're really after the truth, that's a problem.
My sister once carried a kid she was babysitting to bed, after the child refused repeatedly to go upstairs to bed. The child told her parents my sister "threw her off the couch" (to the parents' credit, they listened to both sides, and went with my sister's less-startling account). No matter how innocent or vulnerable the alleged victim, neutral investigation is necessary, always.
We very much need this neutral investigative philosophy to apply to these issues of women's safety--something that renders investigation possible, instead of unpopular. In the courts neutrality is fortunately the rule; it's in the court of public opinion that we would be wise to avoid mistaking neutrality for denial.
Sadly, if one side is convinced of something, any attempt to sound neutral will ring in the ears as "slick denial" and so forth. Armed with our preconceptions, it will be almost impossible to come to many agreements on such issues. Hopefully, though, if we realize that seeking the truth is in the end beneficial to women's safety, and to the safety of all parties, we can make progress in the future.
And I don't think the OP's intent was to spur us all to conduct surveys, studies, research, and then report back. That's a very painstaking process, and not a very realistic expectation for a forum discussion. Furthermore, data are very hard to collect in this regard, because so many women are reluctant to come forward and actually speak about traumatic experiences they want to put behind them. Not all come-ons by Buddhist teachers are traumatic, though; one could take a survey of sanghas across the country and ask women and men if they've ever had a teacher behave inappropriately with them, or had to leave a sangha due to a teacher trying to get too personal. That would be more do-able, but still, it could take years. In the meantime, I think we're having a very constructive discussion right here and now.
To my knowledge, neither psychiatrists nor law enforcement have recommended, for example, that our response to the Catholic abuse issue should be to systematically, forum by forum, generate a feeling of panic and general distrust toward the Catholic church, Catholic teachers, and Catholic experiences.
It's not the subject of abuse that is the problem, but the concerted over-generalization. This over-generalization seems in fact, oddly, to be the rule on Buddhist forum threads, where one sees time and time again statements such as, "Very few monks keep their vows," and "Any woman who walks into a Buddhist center could be a victim."
Statements like these strike me as coming either from a perspective of panic, or from a desire to generate panic. No evidence, from any religion we are speaking of, supports the accusation that most monks and priests hurt people, nor that entering a Catholic church or Buddhist center puts one in immediate danger.
What would our reaction be to the forum post, "Very few fathers are innocent of incest?" The numbers on abuse within families dwarf those for abuse within spiritual communities--but would such a statement strike us as genuine, informed, or helpful in any way? Would a young girl would benefit from that statement?
How do you account for the harm that statement does to the millions of fathers, or in our case members of the spiritual community, who are completely innocent of wrongdoing? Why is it wrong for abusers to harm people, but okay for us to in turn harm people who have done no wrong?
All human beings count. Spiritual teachers are not simply a cabal of "priests" with no human worth; it matters every bit as much whether an innocent teacher is harmed by false accusation, or general insinuation, as it does that a student be harmed by a teacher (or fellow student). And future students of these wonderful teachers are harmed if they in turn miss out on teachings which may have benefited, encouraged, and healed them. Teachings which may in fact have given them precious advice for safety on the Buddhist path.
It is natural to have extremely strong emotions about abuse, but directing criticism in a retaliatory spray pattern only ensures more innocent people--both students and teachers--experience harm.
Everyone who is harmed is a victim, and everyone who creates harm is a perpetrator.
This maybe would be a test of intent, get out your randy tantric grandmas and granpas . . . :vimp:
Of course the sangha and teachers also have to contend with groupy practitioners who like to get into lamas beds for their reasons. False, sex starved disciples are much more of a problem . . . I have seen much of such inappropriate behaviour.
The issue is simple. The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, makes some claims of fantastical witnessing. It was written by a partial liar. So that explains it.
Most of the book is excellent.
Behave, it goes for all of us.
Still working on it . . . myself . . . :hiding: