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.
@Victorious said:
I am gonna do a proper dig into the Theravada tradition! If I find out something even in the vicinity of this I am gonna be really pissed!!
orious said:
This is horrendous .
/Victor
Just a year or two ago there was a criminal case in the US against a Theravada monk, I think he was from Thailand, who was running an after-school tutoring service for middle school and highschool kids in Chicago. He took advantage of a young girl he was tutoring, I'm not sure how far it went, maybe just "molestation", but the mother reported it to police, and the monk fled the state, and was later found in a sangha in CA. The Chicago sangha refused to tell police where he'd gone or how long he'd been with them, as I recall.
Anyway, stuff happens. The thing is, the Buddha recognized that monks had trouble with their "discipline" (keeping celibacy vows per the Vinaya) even in the absence of women, let alone in their presence, so he made rules prohibiting monks from being close to women. With Buddhism coming to the West, all that's been cast by the wayside in favor of bringing Buddhism to as many people as possible. It's not always working out.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
There was a news story a few years back of a Monk raping a tourist but I'm not sure where. As I recall he was so disgusted and remorseful that he committed suicide....
Basically, no matter what status is achieved, these people are as human as the next person.
Look at the monks in Myanmar.... Look at the transgressions of so many eminent public figures who one could declare with certainty should all have known better.
The facts are two-fold:
One is the abuse of personal power and authority.
Two is the question of whether their actions invalidate any memorable, sincere and worthwhile teaching.
If so, how?
No matter how they are defined, no human can 'naturally' be ranked higher than another; however, how they define themselves may be interpreted in other ways.
OP, since you brought this up and posted this link (that's a great website/blog, btw), I'd like to discuss the issue in the linked blog for a moment. Khandro Rinpoche, a well-respected Tibetan reincarnate female teacher, says this:
“It wasn’t the discrimination from the men but the naivete of the women that struck me. How much we are responsible—are we going to be so awestruck, so insecure, so indecisive, so emotional that we throw out all logic?”
The answer in too many tragic cases, is "yes", some of us are going to be "so awestruck, so insecure"...etc. The point she's missing is that spiritual traditions (of whatever stripe, Western or Eastern) tend to draw wounded people, people who have been traumatized or physically or emotionally abused in childhood. These people typically aren't able to assert themselves in the face of spiritual authority making inappropriate demands. They tend to place all their trust in the authority, view them literally as a refuge, and often see them as surrogate parents, the "healthy" parent they never had in childhood. (Some Tibetan and Zen teachers tell the student to view the teacher as a representative of the Buddha, and encourage blind trust.) Such people are by their nature extremely vulnerable to suggestion and manipulation. They can lack "common sense", as Khandro Rinoche later asks (Whatever happened to common sense?) This can especially be true in the case of younger sangha members, still in their teens.
This is why the ultimate responsibility belongs with the teacher. Yes, students should question inappropriate demands, and speak out in the case of unscrupulous teachers. But not all students are capable of that. There's got to be a way to maintain integrity in the institution. Some form of oversight and accountability is needed. It's not enough to put the onus on the students. To do so is to put the weaker students at risk, throwing them to the lions, as it were. That's not what compassion is about.
I highly recommend the book, "Sex and The Spiritual Teacher", by Scott Edelstein, for further clarification of the thorny issues involved in this matter. He's counseled sanghas and churches on these issues, and on prevention of problems, and is a respected authority in this field.
The facts are two-fold:
One is the abuse of personal power and authority.
Yes, but it's not all that cut-and-dry. It can be and often is situational. In the case of CTR, who was having sex with many students over the years, can simply having sex with someone constitute abuse of authority? If he was forcing himself on someone, yes. If it was using the authority to extort sexual favors, yes. If it was consensual?
Unlike Citta, I wasn't there. Unlike many of CTR's online detractors, was at least alive in those days and today know many of CTR's students personally. Back then, everyone was sleeping with everyone. It was no big deal. His community has always been very up-front and you never hear anything about him being forcefull. Some say that many of his female students were propositioning him.
Considering the times none of that was unusual. Add to that a young man, in his sexual prime, having been cloistered for his entire life up till that time, it's not surprising and entirely understandable that he'd fall for the situation. Is there a male here who could say in all honesty, that he'd resist? Not for long.
That's not to say I think it's right, but I can't condemn the man, either. I've done much worse.
Two is the question of whether their actions invalidate any memorable, sincere and worthwhile teaching.
In CTR's case, I know his students. I'm close to the sangha he founded. I've read his books. I've taken trainings he created. It's all good. In my mind it's the product of a realized being. The fact he was a drunk and horn-dog doesn't change any of that.
I would have liked to have known him. I would have liked to have studied and practiced under his direction. I would like to have had a drink with him. I'm not a woman and he wasn't bisexual, so sex is out.
There is a reason in the thinking of TB to have the guru as a representative of Buddha. The reason is that they are teaching the dharma given by Buddha. In TB the upadesha, adhistana ,and samaya of a guru and student has a special power to be transformative. Part of the idea is that you will work harder when you have a partnership with someone else. This can be seen in exercise. It is easier to exercise when you have a friend that you promised to get up early and run or go to the gym.
Another part of the relationship is that the teacher is supposed to have an intellectual grasp of the dharma (at least) and have made and kept vows for morality. That is the minimum. There are more qualities that better tiers of teachers should have. For example if the teacher is a bodhisattva ('IS' not just vows) then they have access to the blissful body of the Buddha. When you teach others such as this forum in part it is a transmittance of the power of your guru to whomever you are trying to help. That part is totally reliant on the relationship of the guru. And then the other way you can help is with your own understanding that you worked for and earned.
The state of ignorance and vulnerability makes the collusion, excusing and justification part of the problem.
There are sufficient trustworthy and more than able sangha, teachers etc. Once you have a practice, a cushion and inspiration . . . the darkside is like the fantasy dharma of glitter and sparkle . . .
Don't be sad Victor, I managed to steal some cookies . . .
:crazy:
Purity and piety is part of the dark side (those who deny the cookie impulse). In a sense we have to know how to limit our attraction to virtue, in essence, sometimes killing our Buddha or Daath Invader heritage and nature . . .
Sith Cookie Meditation
Place choc chip cookie on dharma shrine.
Bow to inner Cookie Monster
Sit on cushion, feeling the rise of the Cookie Monster
As a general comment I think beginners can put teachers on a pedestal, which potentially leaves them open to abuse and disappointment.
1
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@Yagr brought up a salient point in another thread (ericcris10sen's) about psychological studies (The Stanford Papers among others mentioned in the links) revealing the egregious behavior of people in positions of power seemed to be triggered by situations as opposed to some kind of personality or temperament issue in the individual.
That power is abused in any hierarchical system is a no-brainer. The abuse is sexual, physical, emotional, psychological, and common in religious and secular organizations.
Abuse happens regularly perhaps BECAUSE of the power differential, regardless of the individuals proclivities, these studies seem to say.
Buddhist organizations are naturally not exempt because they are populated and conducted by human beings.
Where there are human beings, there will be sex and aggression no matter what the group represents. We are horny beings most of our lives, built into the system.
I don't see egregious human behavior no matter how predictable it is as being a reflection upon the Buddha's teachings. What dishonest, horny individuals do because they can isn't a measure of the value of the Buddha's or Jesus' teachings. It's too late at night for me to come up with a good metaphor for how the teachings remain unsullied by the behavior of Buddhism's religious leaders. Religious and secular leaders every where and across time display inappropriate sexual behavior and aggression when they occupy positions of power. It is THAT that ought to be 'blamed' rather than the teachings, which clearly condemn such behavior.
@federica said:
The thing that matters most is to practise discernment, evaluate intelligently and be selective in whose teaching you take on. Even the most corrupted people can say insightful things.
Chögyam Trungpa's "Training the Mind" is still one of my top list Buddhist books to read ever. Despite CT's shortcomings.
Training the Mind is awesome, I use it (and another similar by a different author) when I work with my lojong stuff each day.
Buddhism, and no other religion, is exempt in any way from the effects of the very worst of human suffering. Perhaps, in some ways, it attracts some of those people as an answer to their suffering. Going into anything expecting it to be free from the darkness that inflicts all of humanity just makes no sense.
But as I have said before, too, one has to pay attention to the cultural differences over time periods, too. It doesn't make things that happened in the past ok, but it is part of understanding to realize that some things happened across time periods in humanity. If they are still going on today, that is a different things. But it does not good to hang onto ills of the distant past, regardless of which religion you are looking at.
The more serious problem is that of sexual abuse notoriously associated with all forms of institutionalized monasticism --Gananath Obeyesekere
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15507304 According to the BBC's investigation, while only 3 monks have been prosecuted for the sexual abuse of child novices, in a 10-year period, 110 monks were formally accused of same.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@Victorious, is this helping you in the way you hoped?
@Chaz said: Yes, but it's not all that cut-and-dry. It can be and often is situational. In the case of CTR, who was having sex with many students over the years, can simply having sex with someone constitute abuse of authority? If he was forcing himself on someone, yes. If it was using the authority to extort sexual favors, yes. If it was consensual?
This is the crucial question, and it goes back to the issue raised in the discussion by Khandro Rinpoche, linked by the OP earlier. Psychologists hold that students with a history of abuse, low self-esteem, trauma, and related issues are incapable of giving true consent, due to the psychological factors involved. These are highly vulnerable individuals prone to idealizing spiritual authorities when placed in that environment. For this reason, in the West, legal systems generally recognize that the responsibility for ethical conduct lies with the teachers/clergy, and that these authorities are obligated by the principle of fiduciary trust , to maintain high ethical standards and always act in the best interests of the students/congregation.
Granted, some students are capable of giving true consent. But does that justify a teacher's overstepping his bounds? "Oops, I'm only human" doesn't cut it. (Especially when repeated countless times.) People expect their spiritual guides to walk their talk, and be exemplars of the virtuous life they espouse. CTR himself observed in his autobiography that incarnate lamas who, for whatever reason, leave the cloistered environment of the monastery, often lose their bearings and give in to self-indulgence. Teachers can't demand that students view them as representatives of the Buddha (a paragon of non-attachment and enlightenment) while at the same time demonstrating extreme forms of attachment with their own behavior.
John Steinbeck IV and his wife, Nancy, discuss in their book, "The Other Side of Eden", that many of CTR's students came from deeply troubled families (as did Steinbeck, himself), and that in the sangha they found a familiar milieu. Rather than help them rise above the chaos and trauma of their pasts, and to find equanimity, the sangha re-created the deeply samsaric environment to which the students had become accustomed in childhood, thereby deepening their neuroses (and, consequently, their suffering). Clearly, this is not what refuge in a spiritual community is for. This provides a good case study in what can go wrong, and in why, as Khandro Rinpoche laments, some students lack common sense and the strength to speak out or walk out.
@Dakini and @Chaz Normally even consensual sexual relationships with a minor is considered rape by Swedish law. It is deemed that children are not able to make that kind of decision. I say I have to agree. It is not difficult to extend that to psychologically hurt people.
And in many cases even without any psychological drawbacks the teacher pupil relationship can be seen as a relation leaves the pupil pretty vulnerable. But that can also be a normal behavioural pattern. And not always destructive. I can understand those who defend CTR. Where exactly to draw the line?
After all I hooked up with one of my students in Aikido. She is one year younger than me and now we got two kids. (Been together 16 years)
I read some articles by Gananath Obeyesekere and am not really sure what to make of him but I will persue. And maybe even get in contact with him. Thanks.
@federica
Yes and no. I was interested in finding out more about the political and social (demonstrations, gambling, drugs and alcohol) corruptions in the sangha and not only sexual misconduct. And even if there is irrefutable evidence of bad things going on I have still not found out how these situations are handled in the sangha.
According to some here these monks are dis-robed. But the control between different temples seems to be so bad that a monk can easily leave one monestary and continue in another.
Also it feels worse when this kind of thing happens in a Sangha and the perpetrators are people we hold to high standards. But is ite really more common in the sangha than any place else? Probably not.
Also are the dis-robed monks then prosecuted by the law? Maybe these things are handled in an acceptable manner in accordance with when it happens in other places in society?
I will dig some more in that direction.
After all I hooked up with one of my students in Aikido. She is one year younger than me and now we got two kids. (Been together 16 years)
In universities in the US, and in some Buddhist centers in the US that have policies on this issue, instructors are required to wait until a student has completed the course and is no longer in the instructor's charge before pursuing a personal relationship.
"Clergy" could observe the same rule. If they want to have an affair with a follower, the two could agree that the follower would leave the sangha/congregation. Though I'm not sure that would solve anything regarding the more psychologically vulnerable members. There's also the matter in US law that as long as "clergy" (I'm using the term loosely, to include Buddhist teachers) wear the robes of office when interacting with anyone, they're considered to be "on the job". (There was a court case years ago that established this.) So a monk or teacher would have to wear civilian street clothes when pursuing any personal liaisons outside the sangha to be free from prosecution. In theory.
On GP...Teachers should not be hooking up with students.
There is no good reason except for the lack of self control.
And no, I don't believe in love at first sight or 'soul mates'...so if you
cant have or be with a specific person..I highly doubt you will die bec of that reason.
@Victorious said:
Dakini and Chaz Normally even consensual sexual relationships with a minor is considered rape by Swedish law. It is deemed that children are not able to make that kind of decision. I say I have to agree. It is not difficult to extend that to psychologically hurt people.
And in many cases even without any psychological drawbacks the teacher pupil relationship can be seen as a relation leaves the pupil pretty vulnerable. But that can also be a normal behavioural pattern. And not always destructive. I can understand those who defend CTR. Where exactly to draw the line?
I don't know what you mean here. Could you explain?
@Dakini Speaking of policies. There has been so much unrest toward christians and muslims from buddhists fuelled by political monks in SL that the government has instituted a separate police force to handle religious crime.
That is really sad and I for one blame the monks. Not all of them obviously but those who take political stands.
@Dakini said:
I don't know what you mean here. Could you explain
Well I guess that is a bit fuzzy. I just mean that taking my own example teacher student relationships is not always destructive. And it might be difficult to draw a line where it becomes destructive as in the case of CTR and other teachers like him.
@Victorious said:Well I guess that is a bit fuzzy. I just mean that taking my own example teacher student relationships is not always destructive. And it might be difficult to draw a line where it becomes destructive as in the case of CTR and other teachers like him.
Right, but whether or not it's destructive is irrelevant, when you're dealing with someone who's preaching one thing but doing another. Also, don't forget that CTR took marriage vows, and obviously wasn't keeping those, let alone the vow against "illicit sexual relations", as he refers to it in his autobiography. If spiritual communities, church congregations, sanghas and temples are to be sexual free-for-alls, hotbeds of samsara, as it were, especially for the teachers/guides/clergy leading them, what's the point in going? What kind of guidance in non-attachment is that? What kind of refuge is that?
What I meant in CTR:s case is that I can understand people defending his conduct not that I actually would condone it.
I must respect that others have other opinions. For myself I would never choose him as my tutor. Knowing what I know. The double message he is sending could be pretty devastating if not handled correctly. Why take the risk?
@Dakini said:
This is the crucial question, and it goes back to the issue raised in the discussion by Khandro Rinpoche, linked by the OP earlier. Psychologists hold that students with a history of abuse, low self-esteem, trauma, and related issues are incapable of giving true consent, due to the psychological factors involved.
Of course, but what if the student isn't beset with all those afflictions? Not everyone is.
Granted, some students are capable of giving true consent. But does that justify a teacher's overstepping his bounds?
What are the bounds? And if you view your teacher as a realized being, are the bounds then? If a realized being oversteps our precieved notions and limitations, then what?
Teachers can't demand that students view them as representatives of the Buddha (a paragon of non-attachment and enlightenment) while at the same time demonstrating extreme forms of attachment with their own behavior.
Seeing as we're talking about Trungpa, I'm not so sure he made any such "demands". And if we look for teachers who don't demonstrate attachment, we'd never find a teacher. Has your teacher relinquished attachment?
John Steinbeck IV and his wife, Nancy, discuss
Ah yes, John Steinbeck 4th. Largely discredited in the Shambhala community (where it counts), with drinking problems that rivaled his guru. Interestingly, he's the only commentator to touch on those subjects. He is without support.
Besides, everyone was troubled back in those days. They were troubled times. Weren't you there? We made our mistakes. We had our neurosis. We were !@#$ed up. I find it curious that we've become so self-righteously prudish about it.
I'm not being prudish...I'm being realistic. It still continues and goes on in religious communities to this day. We have to keep discussing what we think is unacceptable in order for change to happen.
I'm not giving away free cards for men who use sex as an 'attachment default'.
Don't robe if haven't developed the chops yet. Unrobe if you can't straighten up and fly right. Simple. I'm not holding anyone to any standards I don't require of myself.
@Chaz said: What are the bounds? And if you view your teacher as a realized being, are the bounds then? If a realized being oversteps our precieved notions and limitations, then what?
Then he's not very realized. Stuart Lachs (former Zen monk, scholar, and commentator/analyst on Buddhism and sangha dynamics) has a couple of good essays about the pitfalls inherent in the mythologizing of Buddhist masters as enlightened beings. http://lachs.inter-link.com/ See essays: "Dressing the Donkey", "Means of Authorization", and "Coming Down From the Zen Clouds". http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/Zen_Master_in_America.html
Besides, everyone was troubled back in those days. They were troubled times. Weren't you there? We made our mistakes. We had our neurosis. We were !@#$ed up. I find it curious that we've become so self-righteously prudish about it.
Well, that's the point. Refuge in the sanga isn't supposed to exacerbate followers' neuroses. That type of scene contradicts the fundamental concept and purpose of "refuge".
It wasn't just John Steinbeck, it was also his wife who commented. She didn't have a drinking problem. And Stephen Butterfield, author of "The Double Mirror".
But this discussion shouldn't be about CTR, I didn't mean it to bash CTR. It's just that since you brought it up, I thought it would be useful to use him as an example of this type of problem in Buddhism in general. Zen has certainly had its share, and there are many other examples in TB.
@Vastmind said:
I'm not being prudish...I'm being realistic. It still continues and goes on in religious communities to this day. We have to keep discussing what we think is unacceptable in order for change to happen.
I'm not giving away free cards for men who use sex as an 'attachment default'.
Don't robe if haven't developed the chops yet. Unrobe if you can't straighten up and fly right. Simple. I'm not holding anyone to any standards I don't require of myself.
I'm not in robes.
Good points, but unfortunately, not so simple. CTR gave back his robes after he came to the West, but continued to teach and to exercise spiritual authority. And his students bought into that authority, some for the better, some for the worse. He still had his extensive monastic training backing him up, along with his recognition as a reincarnate master. Sogyal Rinpoche also doesn't wear robes, but claims great spiritual authority, and does much damage.
All anyone can do in cases like that is publicize the importance of checking out the teacher thoroughly before joining the sangha, caveat emptor . It just seems sad and ironic that a path that purports to end suffering for sentient beings ends up causing more suffering. But that's samsara for you! Unending.
While I certainly have compassion for those who suffer at the hands of their teachers, I'm aware of some pretty big limitations on my part. While I certainly desire to help people, I've found that it is helpful to know what help for that person looks like prior to saddling up the white horse.
Too, though I've never had a formal teacher, I have had hosts of informal teachers. Abuse, addiction, poverty, torture...and the list goes on. Each one pushed me toward the path in ways that I didn't have the impetus to prior to their arrival. Each one was horrific in it's own way and I wouldn't trade one of those experiences for a smooth ride.
There's so many things I don't know - can't know, at least at this particular point in my life. Are even the unscrupulous teachers doing more good than harm and I just can't see it? Will a 'bad' experience someone has with such a teacher be their abuse, addiction, poverty or torture that pushes them further down their path? I don't know. All I know is that I have a path as do others. I can't even predict where my own path will take me - I certainly can't predict where theirs will take them.
The actual robe doesn't mean much if you still have enough people telling you that your shit don't stink....and even though you do bad things,.... we still think your an angel....bless your heart. hahaha
.. :wtf: ...
Yes! Please check out the teacher/groups. Birds of a feather flock together.
If you don't do something....why are you with people who do?
@yagr Not all people are like that. Some people are like you and like a sailing boat nomatter from where the wind is blowing you tend toward the path.
But far from all people are like that.
And to even get to that stage you need a period of cultivation. A period that might not happen if you are dissuaded by seeing corruptions in the sangha.
@Vastmind said:
I'm not being prudish...I'm being realistic. It still continues and goes on in religious communities to this day. We have to keep discussing what we think is unacceptable in order for change to happen.
Discussing it won't do dick. We've been discussing this for decades and it still happens.
I'm not giving away free cards for men who use sex as an 'attachment default'.
How about women?
Do words like "sexist" mean anything?
Don't robe if haven't developed the chops yet. Unrobe if you can't straighten up and fly right. Simple. I'm not holding anyone to any standards I don't require of myself.
I'm not in robes.
Same here, but I don't condemn anyone for having the same weaknesses I do.
@Vastmind said:
...doesn't mean much if you still have enough people telling you that your shit don't stink....and even though you do bad things,.... we still think your an angel....bless your heart. hahaha
My wife tells me this all the time...of course, my name is Angel.
Come to think of it, she always hahaha's afterwards too - just like you did. Hmm.
@Chaz.....
So...what are your ideas on breaking this bad behavior besides talking about it?
Whether it's male or female....what should happen after or to prevent teachers and students from partying together? ...... Sex, drinking, drugs, shopping,, etc.
I'm all ears.....Now...if you think this behavior is acceptable. Just say it. Don't try to defend it for someone else...own it for you. Say..." Hey...I thought there was/is something wrong..or there isn't" Remember? Take a stand.... Isn't that what you asked me?
I'm not personally condeming any teacher. I'm calling them on the rug for their behavior.
Who is untouchable around here? Not my teacher. Yours?
@Chaz said: Same here, but I don't condemn anyone for having the same weaknesses I do
I think it's fair and normal to hold our spiritual leaders to a higher standard. It's not unreasonable. As the OP pointed out, people do look to them to be role models.
I think a good deal of the problem is due to the nature of Buddhism in the West. In Tibetan society, most people don't go to the teacher for weekly teachings. The monks and lamas give teachings on certain special days, or for a certain festival week (like the Dalai Lama's week-long teachings during Tibetan New Year), but they don't have sanghas with weekly teachings like they do in the West. In Tibetan society promiscuous behavior by a lama is considered scandalous, and it would trash his reputation. Westerners are unaware of this, and in the cultural divide, don't know what is reasonable behavior and what isn't.
@Victorious I don't think anyone, at least not here, has defended CTR's behaviors. He may be defended as a valid teacher/speaker on the dharma but that does not mean his behavior is condoned or accepted or defended. I don't know anyone who defends his behavior, personally.
Overall, I think the entire thing (sexual conduct with students) is just difficult. Ideally, yes, I agree with what @Vastmind says. But teachers are also just people, and oftentimes they spend 20 years in monastery without temptations and one day they are told by a teacher "you will go here, and you will teach" and all of a sudden they are thrust into a world they don't know, and have little training in how to manage because they were sheltered from it their entire growing up and young adult years. That doesn't mean I condone the behavior when it arises, just that I understand how it can arise, and that they are just people like the rest of us, subject to all those temptations.
When you look at CTR, how many students attended his teachings, his seminaries? How many of them did CTR know personally, on a level that he could or would know their abuse or psychological histories? Obviously, when one doesn't know, the best policy is "therefore, touch none at all" but at the same time, at what point does someone judge 100% that an act is consensual? I have never been through such difficult struggles myself, but I know people who have and of those I know, the last thing they want is to be considered damaged to the point they are incapable of making decisions for themselves.
I just think everything has to be taken on a case by case, person by person basis, and not knowing any of the people involved personally I think it's pretty hard to judge the sexual relationships. For me, anyhow. I know people who are barely adults who are leagues more mature, and probably more ready for sexual relationships than some middle aged people. But because they are months why of adulthood, they would be considered unable to make those decisions. BTW, every country has different laws for this, and in the US each state makes their own laws. In some cases, common sense applies. In others, it does not. But again, everyone has different perceptions of what common sense is.
@Vastmind said:
Chaz.....
So...what are your ideas on breaking this bad behavior besides talking about it?
Determining what problems are, establish means to determining if there are, in fact, problems in the first, and when there are, actually do something about it other than talk. Vajradatu kicked the Vajra Regent to the curb for having unprotected sex with people after being diagnosed with AIDS. Something like that.
Whether it's male or female....what should happen after or to prevent teachers and students from partying together? ...... Sex, drinking, drugs, shopping,, etc.
Remember, I'm a Tibetan Buddhist. It's quite alright to "party" with the Guru in my lineage. In fact we have practices that might be construed as "partying". I've been drinking, splitting a joint and shopping with various sangha members. I haven't sex with any of them, but that's largely because I don't seek it.
I'm all ears.....Now...if you think this behavior is acceptable.
I don't see any problem with free, informed, and consenting adults having sex, whether it be in a commited or recreational setting.
If someone is in some way vulnerable, that should be provided to the other party so they can decide if they want to get involved.
I think adults should take full responsibility for their actions
I'm not personally condeming any teacher. I'm calling them on the rug for their behavior.
Is there a difference?
Who is untouchable around here? Not my teacher. Yours?
Nope. But then I tend to mind my own business. I've heard that my guru has a girlfriend. I don't know who it is. I'm not even sure it's true. Ultimately, it's none of my business.
@Dakini said:
I think it's fair and normal to hold our spiritual leaders to a higher standard. It's not unreasonable.
It's certainly "normal". I'll give you that. Fair? Unreasonable? Niether. It's often unfair, because it's arbitrary. Do you live to the exact same standard? Do you believe everyone should? Generally, holding someone to a "higher" standard is wholly unreasonable, because most of the time ... in fact all of the time, sooner or later, those you hold to a "higher" standard won't make the grade.
Here is what the Dalai Lama had to say on the matter of teacher misconduct in a meeting in the mid-1990's with Western Dharma leaders (report by Stephen Batchelor):
There are many factors involved here. The student, he noted, often fails to examine sufficiently the person's ethical and spiritual qualities before accepting him (it's usually "him") as a teacher. Yet the Tibetan tradition states clearly that one should devote up to twelve years of close scrutiny before taking such a step - in particular with a tantric teacher. The Dalai Lama declared bluntly that one should "spy" on one's potential teacher. He compared the promotional methods of Tibetan lamas who fly around the world freely bestowing initiations to that of Chinese Communist propagandists. (Except, he chuckles, when the Dalai Lama gives the Kalachakra empowerment.)
The fault can also lie with the teacher. The Dalai Lama observed: "Many of my friends I knew here were very humble, but in the West they became proud." A simple monk catapulted from an impoverished settlement in India to a city in Europe and America to be revered and showered with wealth would understandably be prone to let such treatment go to his head. "Alcohol," His Holiness commented, "is often at the root of these problems." Of course: a tempting strategy for someone uprooted from his home-culture then thrust into a bewildering and demanding world for which he lacks the necessary social and emotional skills to cope.
Batchelor comments: This would be all very well except for the fact that most of these Asian teachers (and their Western successors) are supposed to be enlightened. But what does "enlightenment" mean if those who have it are still subject to those less than edifying forms of behaviour from whose grip we poor unenlightened souls are struggling to be free? At the very least, one would hope, enlightenment would imply a degree of contentment. But if someone were contented, why would they succumb to the conceit of self-importance? Why would they become dependent upon alcohol? Why would they indulge in a series of transient sexual encounters? Even unenlightened contented people have no need for these things.
If a teacher's actions are unethical, responded the Dalai Lama, then even if they have practised for many years, their practice has been wrong. Quite simply, they lack a proper understanding of the dharma. There is a "gap" between the dharma and their lives. He challenged the idea that once one has insight into the ultimate truth of emptiness, then one is no longer bound by the norms of morality. On the contrary: through revealing the web of relationships that ethically connects all living beings, the understanding of emptiness does not mystically transcend morality but grounds it in experience.
@Chaz said:
I don't see any problem with free, informed, and consenting adults having sex, whether it be in a commited or recreational setting.
If someone is in some way vulnerable, that should be provided to the other party so they can decide if they want to get involved.
The teacher, especially a highly educated incarnate lama, is supposed to be able to discern between those who can handle certain "teachings"/behaviors, and those who can't. He's supposed to know after teaching the group for some time, which are vulnerable, and which are strong. It's not up to the students to provide him with a memo, or letters from their therapists.
It's not a simple matter of consenting adults having sex. It's a matter of leadership in whom the group has placed their faith and trust betraying the trust placed in them, and behaving unethically. The spiritual guide isn't just another free, consenting adult. By definition of his office, he has responsibility for the well-being of his charges within the parameters of his role, and he's expected to uphold certain ethical standards. If he (or she) wants to have a partner from outside the sangha, that's a different matter, assuming s/he hasn't taken vows of celibacy. There would be no betrayal of trust involved, then.
@Dakini said:
The spiritual guide isn't just another free, consenting adult.
Actually, he/she is.
By definition of his office, he has responsibility for the well-being of his charges within the parameters of his role, and he's expected to uphold certain ethical standards.
What standards would those be and what are the sources?
If he (or she) wants to have a partner from outside the sangha, that's a different matter, assuming s/he hasn't taken vows of celibacy. There would be no betrayal of trust involved, then.
Actually I don't personally care if a teacher wants a partner within the sangha. I don't see anything wrong with that. If he/she breaks vows of celibacy that's something else, but if he/she hasn't or has disrobed ....
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think you're looking for a teacher that is super-human. You're making it virtually impossible for you to ever find a teacher in this life. It's impossible because a person who can live up to this "higher" standard simply does not exist.
Comments
Sshh dont scream. I am watching Evil Kirk!
Gnite.
to go boldly forth
I prefer the more humble approach
but this is more fun
Just a year or two ago there was a criminal case in the US against a Theravada monk, I think he was from Thailand, who was running an after-school tutoring service for middle school and highschool kids in Chicago. He took advantage of a young girl he was tutoring, I'm not sure how far it went, maybe just "molestation", but the mother reported it to police, and the monk fled the state, and was later found in a sangha in CA. The Chicago sangha refused to tell police where he'd gone or how long he'd been with them, as I recall.
Anyway, stuff happens. The thing is, the Buddha recognized that monks had trouble with their "discipline" (keeping celibacy vows per the Vinaya) even in the absence of women, let alone in their presence, so he made rules prohibiting monks from being close to women. With Buddhism coming to the West, all that's been cast by the wayside in favor of bringing Buddhism to as many people as possible. It's not always working out.
There was a news story a few years back of a Monk raping a tourist but I'm not sure where. As I recall he was so disgusted and remorseful that he committed suicide....
Basically, no matter what status is achieved, these people are as human as the next person.
Look at the monks in Myanmar.... Look at the transgressions of so many eminent public figures who one could declare with certainty should all have known better.
The facts are two-fold:
One is the abuse of personal power and authority.
Two is the question of whether their actions invalidate any memorable, sincere and worthwhile teaching.
If so, how?
No matter how they are defined, no human can 'naturally' be ranked higher than another; however, how they define themselves may be interpreted in other ways.
OP, since you brought this up and posted this link (that's a great website/blog, btw), I'd like to discuss the issue in the linked blog for a moment. Khandro Rinpoche, a well-respected Tibetan reincarnate female teacher, says this:
“It wasn’t the discrimination from the men but the naivete of the women that struck me. How much we are responsible—are we going to be so awestruck, so insecure, so indecisive, so emotional that we throw out all logic?”
The answer in too many tragic cases, is "yes", some of us are going to be "so awestruck, so insecure"...etc. The point she's missing is that spiritual traditions (of whatever stripe, Western or Eastern) tend to draw wounded people, people who have been traumatized or physically or emotionally abused in childhood. These people typically aren't able to assert themselves in the face of spiritual authority making inappropriate demands. They tend to place all their trust in the authority, view them literally as a refuge, and often see them as surrogate parents, the "healthy" parent they never had in childhood. (Some Tibetan and Zen teachers tell the student to view the teacher as a representative of the Buddha, and encourage blind trust.) Such people are by their nature extremely vulnerable to suggestion and manipulation. They can lack "common sense", as Khandro Rinoche later asks (Whatever happened to common sense?) This can especially be true in the case of younger sangha members, still in their teens.
This is why the ultimate responsibility belongs with the teacher. Yes, students should question inappropriate demands, and speak out in the case of unscrupulous teachers. But not all students are capable of that. There's got to be a way to maintain integrity in the institution. Some form of oversight and accountability is needed. It's not enough to put the onus on the students. To do so is to put the weaker students at risk, throwing them to the lions, as it were. That's not what compassion is about.
I highly recommend the book, "Sex and The Spiritual Teacher", by Scott Edelstein, for further clarification of the thorny issues involved in this matter. He's counseled sanghas and churches on these issues, and on prevention of problems, and is a respected authority in this field.
Yes, but it's not all that cut-and-dry. It can be and often is situational. In the case of CTR, who was having sex with many students over the years, can simply having sex with someone constitute abuse of authority? If he was forcing himself on someone, yes. If it was using the authority to extort sexual favors, yes. If it was consensual?
Unlike Citta, I wasn't there. Unlike many of CTR's online detractors, was at least alive in those days and today know many of CTR's students personally. Back then, everyone was sleeping with everyone. It was no big deal. His community has always been very up-front and you never hear anything about him being forcefull. Some say that many of his female students were propositioning him.
Considering the times none of that was unusual. Add to that a young man, in his sexual prime, having been cloistered for his entire life up till that time, it's not surprising and entirely understandable that he'd fall for the situation. Is there a male here who could say in all honesty, that he'd resist? Not for long.
That's not to say I think it's right, but I can't condemn the man, either. I've done much worse.
In CTR's case, I know his students. I'm close to the sangha he founded. I've read his books. I've taken trainings he created. It's all good. In my mind it's the product of a realized being. The fact he was a drunk and horn-dog doesn't change any of that.
I would have liked to have known him. I would have liked to have studied and practiced under his direction. I would like to have had a drink with him. I'm not a woman and he wasn't bisexual, so sex is out.
The drink would be fine.
There is a reason in the thinking of TB to have the guru as a representative of Buddha. The reason is that they are teaching the dharma given by Buddha. In TB the upadesha, adhistana ,and samaya of a guru and student has a special power to be transformative. Part of the idea is that you will work harder when you have a partnership with someone else. This can be seen in exercise. It is easier to exercise when you have a friend that you promised to get up early and run or go to the gym.
Another part of the relationship is that the teacher is supposed to have an intellectual grasp of the dharma (at least) and have made and kept vows for morality. That is the minimum. There are more qualities that better tiers of teachers should have. For example if the teacher is a bodhisattva ('IS' not just vows) then they have access to the blissful body of the Buddha. When you teach others such as this forum in part it is a transmittance of the power of your guru to whomever you are trying to help. That part is totally reliant on the relationship of the guru. And then the other way you can help is with your own understanding that you worked for and earned.
Well said @Dakini.
The state of ignorance and vulnerability makes the collusion, excusing and justification part of the problem.
There are sufficient trustworthy and more than able sangha, teachers etc. Once you have a practice, a cushion and inspiration . . . the darkside is like the fantasy dharma of glitter and sparkle . . .
@Dakini
@federica
I found this http://www.womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=8715. Probably a Christian site. They are keen on pointing out the splinter in others eye.
And I also found this and some similar articles. The site is somewhat (read a lot) biased. But it has some references that seems serious.
http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.se/2010/12/sri-lankan-grandmother-who-reported.html
And then this.
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=32675
I found more but I am gonna stop now.
Not pissed. Just sad.
:-/
/Victor
Don't be sad Victor, I managed to steal some cookies . . .
:crazy:
Purity and piety is part of the dark side (those who deny the cookie impulse). In a sense we have to know how to limit our attraction to virtue, in essence, sometimes killing our Buddha or Daath Invader heritage and nature . . .
Sith Cookie Meditation
Place choc chip cookie on dharma shrine.
Bow to inner Cookie Monster
Sit on cushion, feeling the rise of the Cookie Monster
yum, yum, yum, yum
Sorry guys and gals, the Sci Fi forum was denied by management. Please keep the newsletter coming though....
As a general comment I think beginners can put teachers on a pedestal, which potentially leaves them open to abuse and disappointment.
@Yagr brought up a salient point in another thread (ericcris10sen's) about psychological studies (The Stanford Papers among others mentioned in the links) revealing the egregious behavior of people in positions of power seemed to be triggered by situations as opposed to some kind of personality or temperament issue in the individual.
That power is abused in any hierarchical system is a no-brainer. The abuse is sexual, physical, emotional, psychological, and common in religious and secular organizations.
Abuse happens regularly perhaps BECAUSE of the power differential, regardless of the individuals proclivities, these studies seem to say.
Buddhist organizations are naturally not exempt because they are populated and conducted by human beings.
Where there are human beings, there will be sex and aggression no matter what the group represents. We are horny beings most of our lives, built into the system.
I don't see egregious human behavior no matter how predictable it is as being a reflection upon the Buddha's teachings. What dishonest, horny individuals do because they can isn't a measure of the value of the Buddha's or Jesus' teachings. It's too late at night for me to come up with a good metaphor for how the teachings remain unsullied by the behavior of Buddhism's religious leaders. Religious and secular leaders every where and across time display inappropriate sexual behavior and aggression when they occupy positions of power. It is THAT that ought to be 'blamed' rather than the teachings, which clearly condemn such behavior.
@Spinynorman I think so too. But these were only children.
Of course this kind of thing happens everywhere not only in the sangha.
/Victor
Chögyam Trungpa's "Training the Mind" is still one of my top list Buddhist books to read ever. Despite CT's shortcomings.
Training the Mind is awesome, I use it (and another similar by a different author) when I work with my lojong stuff each day.
Buddhism, and no other religion, is exempt in any way from the effects of the very worst of human suffering. Perhaps, in some ways, it attracts some of those people as an answer to their suffering. Going into anything expecting it to be free from the darkness that inflicts all of humanity just makes no sense.
But as I have said before, too, one has to pay attention to the cultural differences over time periods, too. It doesn't make things that happened in the past ok, but it is part of understanding to realize that some things happened across time periods in humanity. If they are still going on today, that is a different things. But it does not good to hang onto ills of the distant past, regardless of which religion you are looking at.
@victor More on monks in Sri Lanka, from a Harvard professor of anthropology who's from Sri Lanka and is advocating reform, and from the BBC:
http://infolanka.com/org/srilanka/cult/13.htm
The more serious problem is that of sexual abuse notoriously associated with all forms of institutionalized monasticism --Gananath Obeyesekere
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15507304 According to the BBC's investigation, while only 3 monks have been prosecuted for the sexual abuse of child novices, in a 10-year period, 110 monks were formally accused of same.
@Victorious, is this helping you in the way you hoped?
This is the crucial question, and it goes back to the issue raised in the discussion by Khandro Rinpoche, linked by the OP earlier. Psychologists hold that students with a history of abuse, low self-esteem, trauma, and related issues are incapable of giving true consent, due to the psychological factors involved. These are highly vulnerable individuals prone to idealizing spiritual authorities when placed in that environment. For this reason, in the West, legal systems generally recognize that the responsibility for ethical conduct lies with the teachers/clergy, and that these authorities are obligated by the principle of fiduciary trust , to maintain high ethical standards and always act in the best interests of the students/congregation.
Granted, some students are capable of giving true consent. But does that justify a teacher's overstepping his bounds? "Oops, I'm only human" doesn't cut it. (Especially when repeated countless times.) People expect their spiritual guides to walk their talk, and be exemplars of the virtuous life they espouse. CTR himself observed in his autobiography that incarnate lamas who, for whatever reason, leave the cloistered environment of the monastery, often lose their bearings and give in to self-indulgence. Teachers can't demand that students view them as representatives of the Buddha (a paragon of non-attachment and enlightenment) while at the same time demonstrating extreme forms of attachment with their own behavior.
John Steinbeck IV and his wife, Nancy, discuss in their book, "The Other Side of Eden", that many of CTR's students came from deeply troubled families (as did Steinbeck, himself), and that in the sangha they found a familiar milieu. Rather than help them rise above the chaos and trauma of their pasts, and to find equanimity, the sangha re-created the deeply samsaric environment to which the students had become accustomed in childhood, thereby deepening their neuroses (and, consequently, their suffering). Clearly, this is not what refuge in a spiritual community is for. This provides a good case study in what can go wrong, and in why, as Khandro Rinpoche laments, some students lack common sense and the strength to speak out or walk out.
@Dakini and @Chaz Normally even consensual sexual relationships with a minor is considered rape by Swedish law. It is deemed that children are not able to make that kind of decision. I say I have to agree. It is not difficult to extend that to psychologically hurt people.
And in many cases even without any psychological drawbacks the teacher pupil relationship can be seen as a relation leaves the pupil pretty vulnerable. But that can also be a normal behavioural pattern. And not always destructive. I can understand those who defend CTR. Where exactly to draw the line?
After all I hooked up with one of my students in Aikido. She is one year younger than me and now we got two kids. (Been together 16 years)
I read some articles by Gananath Obeyesekere and am not really sure what to make of him but I will persue. And maybe even get in contact with him. Thanks.
@federica
Yes and no. I was interested in finding out more about the political and social (demonstrations, gambling, drugs and alcohol) corruptions in the sangha and not only sexual misconduct. And even if there is irrefutable evidence of bad things going on I have still not found out how these situations are handled in the sangha.
According to some here these monks are dis-robed. But the control between different temples seems to be so bad that a monk can easily leave one monestary and continue in another.
Also it feels worse when this kind of thing happens in a Sangha and the perpetrators are people we hold to high standards. But is ite really more common in the sangha than any place else? Probably not.
Also are the dis-robed monks then prosecuted by the law? Maybe these things are handled in an acceptable manner in accordance with when it happens in other places in society?
I will dig some more in that direction.
In universities in the US, and in some Buddhist centers in the US that have policies on this issue, instructors are required to wait until a student has completed the course and is no longer in the instructor's charge before pursuing a personal relationship.
"Clergy" could observe the same rule. If they want to have an affair with a follower, the two could agree that the follower would leave the sangha/congregation. Though I'm not sure that would solve anything regarding the more psychologically vulnerable members. There's also the matter in US law that as long as "clergy" (I'm using the term loosely, to include Buddhist teachers) wear the robes of office when interacting with anyone, they're considered to be "on the job". (There was a court case years ago that established this.) So a monk or teacher would have to wear civilian street clothes when pursuing any personal liaisons outside the sangha to be free from prosecution. In theory.
On GP...Teachers should not be hooking up with students.
There is no good reason except for the lack of self control.
And no, I don't believe in love at first sight or 'soul mates'...so if you
cant have or be with a specific person..I highly doubt you will die bec of that reason.
I don't know what you mean here. Could you explain?
@Dakini Speaking of policies. There has been so much unrest toward christians and muslims from buddhists fuelled by political monks in SL that the government has instituted a separate police force to handle religious crime.
That is really sad and I for one blame the monks. Not all of them obviously but those who take political stands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jathika_Hela_Urumaya
I know that there are controversies like this in Thailand too.
/Victor
Well I guess that is a bit fuzzy. I just mean that taking my own example teacher student relationships is not always destructive. And it might be difficult to draw a line where it becomes destructive as in the case of CTR and other teachers like him.
/Victor
It's not difficult for me to draw a line. The lines are bright as hell.
I think it's also the old "Parents are trying to be your friends" thing.
They're a teacher. Not a booty call. Not a friend. Not a drinkin' buddy.
Not someone to kick it with. Teachers need to stay in their lane.
Keep it business. Buddha business. ..
..
Right, but whether or not it's destructive is irrelevant, when you're dealing with someone who's preaching one thing but doing another. Also, don't forget that CTR took marriage vows, and obviously wasn't keeping those, let alone the vow against "illicit sexual relations", as he refers to it in his autobiography. If spiritual communities, church congregations, sanghas and temples are to be sexual free-for-alls, hotbeds of samsara, as it were, especially for the teachers/guides/clergy leading them, what's the point in going? What kind of guidance in non-attachment is that? What kind of refuge is that?
What I meant in CTR:s case is that I can understand people defending his conduct not that I actually would condone it.
I must respect that others have other opinions. For myself I would never choose him as my tutor. Knowing what I know. The double message he is sending could be pretty devastating if not handled correctly. Why take the risk?
/Victor
Of course, but what if the student isn't beset with all those afflictions? Not everyone is.
What are the bounds? And if you view your teacher as a realized being, are the bounds then? If a realized being oversteps our precieved notions and limitations, then what?
Seeing as we're talking about Trungpa, I'm not so sure he made any such "demands". And if we look for teachers who don't demonstrate attachment, we'd never find a teacher. Has your teacher relinquished attachment?
Ah yes, John Steinbeck 4th. Largely discredited in the Shambhala community (where it counts), with drinking problems that rivaled his guru. Interestingly, he's the only commentator to touch on those subjects. He is without support.
Besides, everyone was troubled back in those days. They were troubled times. Weren't you there? We made our mistakes. We had our neurosis. We were !@#$ed up. I find it curious that we've become so self-righteously prudish about it.
@Chaz jeez Dude, how old are you? "back in those days"? What does that mean?
I'm not being prudish...I'm being realistic. It still continues and goes on in religious communities to this day. We have to keep discussing what we think is unacceptable in order for change to happen.
I'm not giving away free cards for men who use sex as an 'attachment default'.
Don't robe if haven't developed the chops yet. Unrobe if you can't straighten up and fly right. Simple. I'm not holding anyone to any standards I don't require of myself.
I'm not in robes.
Then he's not very realized. Stuart Lachs (former Zen monk, scholar, and commentator/analyst on Buddhism and sangha dynamics) has a couple of good essays about the pitfalls inherent in the mythologizing of Buddhist masters as enlightened beings.
http://lachs.inter-link.com/ See essays: "Dressing the Donkey", "Means of Authorization", and "Coming Down From the Zen Clouds".
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/CriticalZen/Zen_Master_in_America.html
Well, that's the point. Refuge in the sanga isn't supposed to exacerbate followers' neuroses. That type of scene contradicts the fundamental concept and purpose of "refuge".
It wasn't just John Steinbeck, it was also his wife who commented. She didn't have a drinking problem. And Stephen Butterfield, author of "The Double Mirror".
But this discussion shouldn't be about CTR, I didn't mean it to bash CTR. It's just that since you brought it up, I thought it would be useful to use him as an example of this type of problem in Buddhism in general. Zen has certainly had its share, and there are many other examples in TB.
Good points, but unfortunately, not so simple. CTR gave back his robes after he came to the West, but continued to teach and to exercise spiritual authority. And his students bought into that authority, some for the better, some for the worse. He still had his extensive monastic training backing him up, along with his recognition as a reincarnate master. Sogyal Rinpoche also doesn't wear robes, but claims great spiritual authority, and does much damage.
All anyone can do in cases like that is publicize the importance of checking out the teacher thoroughly before joining the sangha, caveat emptor . It just seems sad and ironic that a path that purports to end suffering for sentient beings ends up causing more suffering. But that's samsara for you! Unending.
While I certainly have compassion for those who suffer at the hands of their teachers, I'm aware of some pretty big limitations on my part. While I certainly desire to help people, I've found that it is helpful to know what help for that person looks like prior to saddling up the white horse.
Too, though I've never had a formal teacher, I have had hosts of informal teachers. Abuse, addiction, poverty, torture...and the list goes on. Each one pushed me toward the path in ways that I didn't have the impetus to prior to their arrival. Each one was horrific in it's own way and I wouldn't trade one of those experiences for a smooth ride.
There's so many things I don't know - can't know, at least at this particular point in my life. Are even the unscrupulous teachers doing more good than harm and I just can't see it? Will a 'bad' experience someone has with such a teacher be their abuse, addiction, poverty or torture that pushes them further down their path? I don't know. All I know is that I have a path as do others. I can't even predict where my own path will take me - I certainly can't predict where theirs will take them.
The actual robe doesn't mean much if you still have enough people telling you that your shit don't stink....and even though you do bad things,.... we still think your an angel....bless your heart. hahaha
.. :wtf: ...
Yes! Please check out the teacher/groups. Birds of a feather flock together.
If you don't do something....why are you with people who do?
@yagr Not all people are like that. Some people are like you and like a sailing boat nomatter from where the wind is blowing you tend toward the path.
But far from all people are like that.
And to even get to that stage you need a period of cultivation. A period that might not happen if you are dissuaded by seeing corruptions in the sangha.
In that way good role models are important.
/Victor
Discussing it won't do dick. We've been discussing this for decades and it still happens.
How about women?
Do words like "sexist" mean anything?
Same here, but I don't condemn anyone for having the same weaknesses I do.
My wife tells me this all the time...of course, my name is Angel.
Come to think of it, she always hahaha's afterwards too - just like you did. Hmm.
@Chaz.....
So...what are your ideas on breaking this bad behavior besides talking about it?
Whether it's male or female....what should happen after or to prevent teachers and students from partying together? ...... Sex, drinking, drugs, shopping,, etc.
I'm all ears.....Now...if you think this behavior is acceptable. Just say it. Don't try to defend it for someone else...own it for you. Say..." Hey...I thought there was/is something wrong..or there isn't" Remember? Take a stand.... Isn't that what you asked me?
I'm not personally condeming any teacher. I'm calling them on the rug for their behavior.
Who is untouchable around here? Not my teacher. Yours?
I think it's fair and normal to hold our spiritual leaders to a higher standard. It's not unreasonable. As the OP pointed out, people do look to them to be role models.
I think a good deal of the problem is due to the nature of Buddhism in the West. In Tibetan society, most people don't go to the teacher for weekly teachings. The monks and lamas give teachings on certain special days, or for a certain festival week (like the Dalai Lama's week-long teachings during Tibetan New Year), but they don't have sanghas with weekly teachings like they do in the West. In Tibetan society promiscuous behavior by a lama is considered scandalous, and it would trash his reputation. Westerners are unaware of this, and in the cultural divide, don't know what is reasonable behavior and what isn't.
@Victorious I don't think anyone, at least not here, has defended CTR's behaviors. He may be defended as a valid teacher/speaker on the dharma but that does not mean his behavior is condoned or accepted or defended. I don't know anyone who defends his behavior, personally.
Overall, I think the entire thing (sexual conduct with students) is just difficult. Ideally, yes, I agree with what @Vastmind says. But teachers are also just people, and oftentimes they spend 20 years in monastery without temptations and one day they are told by a teacher "you will go here, and you will teach" and all of a sudden they are thrust into a world they don't know, and have little training in how to manage because they were sheltered from it their entire growing up and young adult years. That doesn't mean I condone the behavior when it arises, just that I understand how it can arise, and that they are just people like the rest of us, subject to all those temptations.
When you look at CTR, how many students attended his teachings, his seminaries? How many of them did CTR know personally, on a level that he could or would know their abuse or psychological histories? Obviously, when one doesn't know, the best policy is "therefore, touch none at all" but at the same time, at what point does someone judge 100% that an act is consensual? I have never been through such difficult struggles myself, but I know people who have and of those I know, the last thing they want is to be considered damaged to the point they are incapable of making decisions for themselves.
I just think everything has to be taken on a case by case, person by person basis, and not knowing any of the people involved personally I think it's pretty hard to judge the sexual relationships. For me, anyhow. I know people who are barely adults who are leagues more mature, and probably more ready for sexual relationships than some middle aged people. But because they are months why of adulthood, they would be considered unable to make those decisions. BTW, every country has different laws for this, and in the US each state makes their own laws. In some cases, common sense applies. In others, it does not. But again, everyone has different perceptions of what common sense is.
Determining what problems are, establish means to determining if there are, in fact, problems in the first, and when there are, actually do something about it other than talk. Vajradatu kicked the Vajra Regent to the curb for having unprotected sex with people after being diagnosed with AIDS. Something like that.
Remember, I'm a Tibetan Buddhist. It's quite alright to "party" with the Guru in my lineage. In fact we have practices that might be construed as "partying". I've been drinking, splitting a joint and shopping with various sangha members. I haven't sex with any of them, but that's largely because I don't seek it.
I don't see any problem with free, informed, and consenting adults having sex, whether it be in a commited or recreational setting.
If someone is in some way vulnerable, that should be provided to the other party so they can decide if they want to get involved.
I think adults should take full responsibility for their actions
Is there a difference?
Nope. But then I tend to mind my own business. I've heard that my guru has a girlfriend. I don't know who it is. I'm not even sure it's true. Ultimately, it's none of my business.
^^^ Fair enough. No dicking around there.
Party on .....
There is a mechanism that is important to remember. The ideals we have will impact on the path we choose in a very subconscious way.
The ideals we embrace are the one we will strive towards. So having a good teacher is instrumental in that case.
At a later level that Dhamma provides instruments not to fall for things like that. But that is much later.
So embracing a teaching of a teacher and not embracing his morals can be very tricky for a beginner. Or even for an advanced practitioner.
/Victor
It's certainly "normal". I'll give you that. Fair? Unreasonable? Niether. It's often unfair, because it's arbitrary. Do you live to the exact same standard? Do you believe everyone should? Generally, holding someone to a "higher" standard is wholly unreasonable, because most of the time ... in fact all of the time, sooner or later, those you hold to a "higher" standard won't make the grade.
Here is what the Dalai Lama had to say on the matter of teacher misconduct in a meeting in the mid-1990's with Western Dharma leaders (report by Stephen Batchelor):
Batchelor comments: This would be all very well except for the fact that most of these Asian teachers (and their Western successors) are supposed to be enlightened. But what does "enlightenment" mean if those who have it are still subject to those less than edifying forms of behaviour from whose grip we poor unenlightened souls are struggling to be free? At the very least, one would hope, enlightenment would imply a degree of contentment. But if someone were contented, why would they succumb to the conceit of self-importance? Why would they become dependent upon alcohol? Why would they indulge in a series of transient sexual encounters? Even unenlightened contented people have no need for these things.
http://www.stephenbatchelor.org/index.php/en/the-future-is-in-our-hands
If someone is in some way vulnerable, that should be provided to the other party so they can decide if they want to get involved.
The teacher, especially a highly educated incarnate lama, is supposed to be able to discern between those who can handle certain "teachings"/behaviors, and those who can't. He's supposed to know after teaching the group for some time, which are vulnerable, and which are strong. It's not up to the students to provide him with a memo, or letters from their therapists.
It's not a simple matter of consenting adults having sex. It's a matter of leadership in whom the group has placed their faith and trust betraying the trust placed in them, and behaving unethically. The spiritual guide isn't just another free, consenting adult. By definition of his office, he has responsibility for the well-being of his charges within the parameters of his role, and he's expected to uphold certain ethical standards. If he (or she) wants to have a partner from outside the sangha, that's a different matter, assuming s/he hasn't taken vows of celibacy. There would be no betrayal of trust involved, then.
Actually, he/she is.
What standards would those be and what are the sources?
Actually I don't personally care if a teacher wants a partner within the sangha. I don't see anything wrong with that. If he/she breaks vows of celibacy that's something else, but if he/she hasn't or has disrobed ....
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think you're looking for a teacher that is super-human. You're making it virtually impossible for you to ever find a teacher in this life. It's impossible because a person who can live up to this "higher" standard simply does not exist.