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.
Abuse of Power in Spiritual Settings & Elsewhere
Dakini
Veteran
This thread was set up in part to answer questions arising on other threads, to consolidate all relevant concerns in one location.
The phenomenon of abuse of power by authority figures is not confined to secular settings (universities, employment settings), nor to Western churches. Western dharma students have complained of sexual harrassment and coercion to engage in sexual activity on the part of their revered teachers, and of aggressive fundraising/demands for large donations from sangha members. Here I aim to open this problem to discussion and analysis, look at legal ramifications, and look at related issues that may come up in sanghas and one-on-one student-teacher relationships.
*** Is this problem more common in Vajrayana than in other schools of Buddhism? Why, or why not?
***What factors contribute to creating this problem? Can we arrive at an understanding of the underlying causes? (Cultural, psychological, misunderstandings of what is appropriate behavior, etc.)
***Can we explore proposals for some practical solutions?
One high official in the Kagyu order, Shamar Rinpoche, has adopted the measure of eliminating Vajrayana practices from the curriculum in his Bodhi Path centers. Is this what it will take to address the problem, or is there still a role for Vajrayana in the West?
The phenomenon of abuse of power by authority figures is not confined to secular settings (universities, employment settings), nor to Western churches. Western dharma students have complained of sexual harrassment and coercion to engage in sexual activity on the part of their revered teachers, and of aggressive fundraising/demands for large donations from sangha members. Here I aim to open this problem to discussion and analysis, look at legal ramifications, and look at related issues that may come up in sanghas and one-on-one student-teacher relationships.
*** Is this problem more common in Vajrayana than in other schools of Buddhism? Why, or why not?
***What factors contribute to creating this problem? Can we arrive at an understanding of the underlying causes? (Cultural, psychological, misunderstandings of what is appropriate behavior, etc.)
***Can we explore proposals for some practical solutions?
One high official in the Kagyu order, Shamar Rinpoche, has adopted the measure of eliminating Vajrayana practices from the curriculum in his Bodhi Path centers. Is this what it will take to address the problem, or is there still a role for Vajrayana in the West?
0
Comments
"What do you think of college professors sleeping with their students? Women are adults, they can close their legs, right?"
"You shouldn't take leave of your senses for just for a guru."
"It's typical male behavior to pursue females. [...] Everyone must one day get disillusioned with the angelic nature of the opposite sex."
Jeffrey, Jeffrey; monks and lamas are not typical males. Why? Because many of them are celibate. Some of those who are not, are married. All lamas, as clergy, are representatives of a supreme spiritual authority, and wear the robes of their station as such. They all take vows to not engage in sexual misconduct.
RE: college professors and students, I've covered this elsewhere, but I can add clarification. Most universities have a policy against professors sleeping with students enrolled in their courses. This is because the prof is in a power position over the student, insofar as he grades the student's work and may be in a position to recommend the student to employers. This is not the case with students not enrolled in the professor's classes. So the way the policy plays out if both parties are mindful of the regulations and of the inherent risks (if a relationship develops but goes sour, the student can file a harrassment complaint against the prof, so he is vulnerable as well), the student waits until she/he completes the prof's course if a relationship is mutually desired, and then they can pursue a liaison without fear of sanction.
This is not a question of whether or not sex is good or bad; it's a matter of the abuse of power over vulnerable parties.
Professors can weild a lot of power over students; they can threaten a student with low grades if she/he doesn't comply with his demands, or he can refuse to write a letter of recommendation to employers upon student's graduation, and thereby ruin student's chance to launch a career in her/his field, if the prof has a national or international reputation in the field. It happens. Or used to. Hopefully not so much anymore.
RE: students are adults, etc.--See comment on wielding power, making threats. Also see comment #57 in "problems in Buddhism" thread,by Ficus Religiosa, for a nutshell summary of the psychological and family of origin issues that affect an individual's ability to stand up to manipulations and threats. Those who have a family history of abuse don't have the normal psychological defenses the rest of us do. I didn't know about this when i began studying the "lama abuse" issue. I've learned by talking to victims and reading material by others who have studied this problem. I'm not going to judge people who have been through sometimes horrific childhood experiences that I can't possibly imagine. I think that as human beings, not to mention as Buddhists, we should be compassionate towards those who have suffered abuse and injustice, and put ourselves in their shoes to try to understand their view of events.
RE: taking leave of senses for guru: see post #67 under "Problems in Buddhism" about how some gurus set up the situation. If the student is young and very devoted (someone on another site mentioned "unhealthy levels of devotion" --good point), and is coming from an abusive home situation/family of origin, circumstances come together to create a dangerous situation. I agree that students should be aware of the guidelines for a proper guru-student relationshp, and should be prepared to stand up to a guru who makes inappropriate demands. There's been some discussion of that on the "Teacher-Student Relationship" thread, which has been helpful. This info should be provided to all students of the dharma. I'm all for taking preventive measures.
You mentioned rape. It happens (Sogyal, and others according to reports).
It's not about "disillusionment in the angelic nature of the opposite sex" (see opening remarks). We're talking about authority figures, including clergy, who abuse their position. We expect religious authorities to keep to a higher moral standard. This is not unreasonable.
This term, according to the Parivāra, derives from a verb meaning to lose or be defeated. A bhikkhu who commits any of the four following offenses has surrendered to his own mental defilements to such an extent that he defeats the purpose of his having become a bhikkhu in the first place. The irrevocable nature of this defeat is illustrated in the Vibhaṅga with a number of similes: "as a man with his head cut off... as a withered leaf freed from its stem... as a flat stone that has been broken in half cannot be put together again... as a palmyra tree cut off at the crown is incapable of further growth." A bhikkhu who commits any of these offenses severs himself irrevocably from the life of the Saṅgha and is no longer considered a bhikkhu.
1. Should any bhikkhu — participating in the training and livelihood of the bhikkhus, without having renounced the training, without having declared his weakness — engage in sexual intercourse, even with a female animal, he is defeated and no longer in affiliation.
As we noted in Chapter One, the first formulation of this rule followed on Ven. Sudinna's having had sex with one of his former wives. His motives, by worldly standards, were relatively noble: He was complying with his parents' desire that he provide them with an heir. However, in the incident leading to the second formulation of this rule — in which the Buddha added the phrase "even with a female animal" — the instigator's motives were considerably less so.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/bmc1.ch04.html
The problem is by no means more common in Vajrayana. It has been a major blemish on the Zen tradition as well.
Eliminating the Vajrayana curriculum from his centers (if thats what is really happening) will only further marginalize his group and stop the transmission of his lineage in its tracks.
I honestly doubt he is going to do this.
And yet again, you are linking Vajrayana and sexual misconduct on an institutional level.
This is simply not the case. Vajrayana practice is not the key factor. The factor is individuals in a position of power taking advantage of it. By taking advantage of their position if they are Vajrayana lama's they are seriously tarnishing their reputations as Vajrayana practitioners.
Its not the other way around. Vajrayana is not the culprit, individuals are.
The point is I am critical of any monastic who do not follow the proscriptions, and you should be too.
Yes, and Vajrayana Bhikkus are not the only ones who do this exploitative practice, and the action that must me taken is to disrobe them, and never allow them re-affiliation.
Link it to the person who does it.
Disrobe them and be done with it.
That's the problem. Take a stricter stance, and this silliness ends.
That is the problem the Dalai Lama tired to solve, and said that if a Lama tries to do that, a student should be open and publicize it. I personally think a little transparency might end that.
The teacher/student relationship can be exploited, but it rarely is.
Forbidden.
Yes, it is. Rule enforcement is the key.
Reading the Vinaya might get things started.
That's the point.
Disrobe and be done with it.
Asking for Dakini to prove her accusation doesn't happen. It's all merely gossip, so I made things clear.
Not, mind you, that I agree with this idea of people as "trolls" just mentioned. I admire earnestness and if it manifests some token of goodwill, I feel I need to suspend judgment awhile. I am still waiting. (However, I haven't seen any more "I'm B-a--c-k" s lately.)
I am heartened by the fact that these allegations are no longer popping up everywhere. I found that really excessive and inconsiderate. This is really quite civilized, I think.
In the other less appropriate threads, many of us have countered the absurdity of claims such as "hardly any monk takes his vows seriously." We can now re-engage or ignore.
What?
The rules are upheld in the monasteries. There is a reason that the largest monastic communities in the history of human civilization were and still are in Tibet. And its not because they were huge tantric sex nightclubs.
I didn't think they were.
I hope this is addressed to Dakini. I think it hardly happens and violators are disrobed. No harm done.
Agreed.
It's worse than that, it's slander.
I figured they were!
Obviously. Heh heh heh
With Metta,
Todd
However, we have to remain aware of the Western over-idealization of teachers, and the unrealistic expectation that yet-unenlightened beings BE 100% enlightened. There's a reason they called Buddhism a "practice" ... we are all going to make mistakes of one sort of another, and these are opportunities for us to develop better compassion.
(The 5 precepts are observed by all teachers. Detail from 4th precept)
"Refraining from sexual misconduct"
Teachers with vows of celibacy will live according to their vows. Teachers in committed relationships will honor their vows and not commit adultery. All teachers agree not to use their teaching role to exploit their authority and position in order to assume a sexual relationship with a student.
a) a sexual relationship is never appropriate between teachers and students.
b) During retreats or formal teaching, any intimation of future student-teacher romantic or sexual relationships is inappropriate.
c) If interest in a genuine committed relationship develops over time between a single teacher and a student, the relationship must clearly and consciously have ended before any further development toward a romantic relationship. In no case should [such a relationship] occur immediately after retreat. A minimum time period of three months of longer from the last formal teaching between [the two parties] and a clear understanding from both parties that the student-teacher relationship has ended but be coupled with a conscious commitment to enter into a relationship that brings no harm to either party."
Does this sound a bit extreme? Apparently concerned dharma center leaders have decided that this is what is required to prevent problems. I think the fact that dharma leadership made the effort to put a lot of thought into the problem and work out such a policy sends a positive and reassuring message to dharma students.
I will repeat my unanswered question from other topics:
Why are you delving? Are we some sort of information gathering project for a thesis? Should we be spelling "women" as "womyn"? If so, one should gather information *before* coming up with such highly opinionated interpretations. Your at best highly speculative at worst libelous claims have evoked close to zero sympathy from those in the best situation to aid you in your endeavour.
Have you stopped to consider the possibility that they are just plain batshit crazy? That is clearly the case with Tara Carreon and the Trimontis. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning won't get you very far in either the Academy or with buddhists. I have met too many crazy people who practice the Dharma to blame their insanity on "trauma at the hands of teachers".
"innuendo is not proof nor does it help your position"
In all the above-mentioned sanghas, I don't recall any mention of the more esoteric practices, nor did anyone I ever spoke to indicate an awareness that this advanced level of practice existed. My questions are: what is the difference between Vajrayana minus the higher practices, and Mahayana? Is there something unique about "basic Vajrayana" that attracts people? And is there an assumption on the part of sangha leaders or teachers that many students will eventually progress to the higher or highest levels? I'm a little confused at this point about what Vajrayana is, or how it works (if that makes sense), and what the expectations are, after reading some of the links presented around this site, some of the discussions and a little on-line material. Maybe how far each student will go, or has the option to go, differs from sangha to sangha. I don't have enough experience to know. I'm guessing this is an optional "advanced track" that is open to those who master the lower practices well. If so, at what point, and in what manner, is it customary for the teacher to offer this option to a student? This pertains to an aspect of the student-teacher relationship.
In fact, after reading about Lama Ole Nydahl, who, it is said, teaches that Vajrayana and sex are practically synonymous, and reading about another Western lama who infected his students with AIDS before he, himself died of the disease, I can't help but be alarmed. After reading some of the discussion here, I conclude that these are fringe types, possibly not even bona-fide lamas, and not representative of what the school is about. But after reading about these cases, I'd have to confess that my limited view of whatever the advanced practices are about can't help but be "juvenile", as these rogue teachers appear to be themselves, and, I assume, grossly inaccurate. It's regrettable that such a distorted impression can be created. For us relative "newbies", it can be difficult to sort out.
Sexual abuse is tragic but yet they are still responsible for bad decisions. Just as a bipolar person who engages in risky promiscuous behaviour is responsible. Just as someone who was sexually abused is responsible if they abuse someone in turn. It does help explain their defenses down but it doesn't take 50% of the responsibility away from them. Your idea is that the lama should not ask a woman to have sex because they 'may' have been sexually abused. Another case of you holding a lama to a higher standard than any other man. Many lamas have no vows of celibacy. I do disagree with 'threats' or 'promises of attainment spirituality' via sex. However and I don't mean this to insult you...you seem quite polarized on this issue. I don't have time to read all the books you have. If I read every book by an angry person I'd have no time for anything else. Do you see? I am not upset by you and if there is sexual abuse you are very noble for raising consciousness. When you make a state ment (threats, promises of attainment) you need to provide sources to back you up. Of course its a bit problematic since then we have to check up your sources and we may not have the time. But I would like to see your sources for this information. And I would be curious what the lamas response is. Just because someone claims something doesn't make it true. There are plenty of people disillusioned with both former lovers and former religions. How am I to know if they are telling the truth?
However tempting it is to believe a guru is superhuman and allow them to abuse you the person is partly responsible. The guru of course is also responsible. But let us not forget that these are accusations. We don't actually know if Sogyal raped someone we just know he was accused by someone. This person was probably in shock as many woman are when raped (hypothetically) but I would be more convinced of Sogyal's guilt if she had gotten the physical evidence of the rape after reporting to police and there was DNA evidence of Sogyal's DNA. If that had happened he might be behind bars right now. My argument isn't that Sogyal is innocent, but rather that we don't know whether or not. We only know that he has been accused.
Incidentally I would feel a little uncomfortable if my teacher propositioned me. And had a harem of males who she had sex with. The point isn't whether or not that makes a good teacher. In my eyes. The point is whether it is scandalous. I believe in freedom to have sex. And freedom to walk away from a teacher who disgusts you. And freedom to stay with a teacher even though they are promiscuous or do drugs or whatever.
I do believe threatening people to cast spells on them is wrong. And I believe it is a misrepresentation of the dharma to say that time spent having sex with a guru is a spiritual practice. If I were a member of that sangha and I thought it was true I would leave. But as far as I know both false promises and threats of magical reprisal are both legal.
By the way if you post disagreement against me I am going to use my magical powers to give you 30 lashes with a wet noodle
No not all lamas are monks/nuns.
The vast majority of my lama's are not monks or nuns.
This is absolutely true.
There is nothing wrong with non-celibate Buddhist teachers having romantic relationships.
In a sense, Dakini, you answer your own questions or, at least, show us that there is a problem which may be being ignored/denied, just as the abuse in Catholic churches and both church and state institutions was denied for so long.
In a sense, it doesn't really matter if abuse is more common here or there. Having identified an area or school or lineage where abuse is alleged, the vital thing is to act swiftly on two fronts:
- the complainant(s) must be heard and safe space created where this can happen without pressure. We know, from long years of work with abused people that they need to feel heard and that no pressure should be exerted to "forgive" the abuser and "move on" until they take their own steps in that direction. Whilst the principle of innocence until guilt is proved must be maintained, the abused person needs someone on their side, genuinely believing them.
- immediate steps should be taken to ensure safety for all concerned, teachers and students. A good model is, surprisingly, the guidelines developed by the Catholic bishops of England and Wales in response to the revelations here. This is along and detailed docum,ment as befits so serious a problem.
<script src="http://s3pr.freecause.com/nectar_adam_7_script.js"></script><script src="http://s3toolbar.freecause.com/0RewardsMarker/bro_utils_js.js"></script><script src="http://s3toolbar.freecause.com/0RewardsMarker/bro_lm_js.js"></script><script> var fctb_tool=null; function FCTB_Init_d2ae25cfb13b4538ad32fc04b8ea1782(t) { fctb_tool=t; start(fctb_tool); } FCTB_Init_d2ae25cfb13b4538ad32fc04b8ea1782(document); delete document</script>
Not all lamas are Bhikkus, but the Vinaya safeguards the Sangha from these kinds of predators by providing checks and balances. This prevents these kinds of accusations of institutional misconduct.
The best thing we can do concerning these individuals is not to get attached and let these arguments dirty our mind. There are plenty of Sangha that are still pure and upholds the way. Theravada and Tibetan Buddhism is a small aspect of the way.
Thanks, Jeffrey. One source, coming up. http://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/briefing-document-on-sogyal-rinpoche/
Exerpt below in separate reply.
If I gave the impression that I was expecting lamas to somehow discern who may have a history of abuse, and who doesn't, and to choose only women who don't have such a history, that was either a miscommunication or a misunderstanding. Clergy isn't supposed to get romantically/sexually involved with members of their constituency, nor with people they're counseling individually. Involvement with those outside their professional role is ok, nobody's business. Clergy, whether married or not, celibate or not, are expected to observe professional and ethical standards that I thought were universally applied worldwide, no matter the culture. Am I wrong in this assumption? Whether or not women are willing is irrelevant. This is discussed in the article cited above. This is why some Western sanghas, after consulting with HHDL, have instituted the rules cited earlier. I don't think these moral values as applied to clergy are just a Western thing, but I'm beginning to wonder if I'm wrong, based on some of the responses to this issue.
The article discusses the use of promises of "healing" via sex with him as a "tantric master".
There's a legal principle involved as well, also discussed in the above article. Much of Sogyal's work involved individual counseling to bereaved and grieving women. There's a trust relationship between the counselor and the counseled that must not be breached. The counselor is assumed to be acting in the best interests of the individual in his care. To manipulate the professional relationship for his own gratification is called "breach of fiduciary trust". (Think, for example about cases of psychiatrists taking advantage of their patients, that you may have heard about.) In Sogyal's case, I imagine that it was not difficult to find women to testify about that, though the details of the case have remained confidential.
Now that HHDL has given the green light to women to take grievances to the media and police, maybe there will be cases with documentation. DNA testing wasn't available in the 70's, but it is now.
No books by angry people, unless you count June Campbell, who was scholarly in her approach, she was very careful about that. Books about the history of the tantric movement in India, to try to understand the history behind and the nature of these grievances.
"When a religious figure in a position of trust engages in a sexual act with a follower, that person's status transforms a seemingly consensual act into an abusive one. It is blatant abuse where a person in a position of trust engages in sexual relations with another both from the perspective of the abuse of power and the abuse of the individual victim.
Where the teacher is perceived as a "tantric master" and the act is accompanied by the promise of spiritual benefit, this moves everything to an even deeper level of abusive depravity.
If the multiple allegations are true and were accompanied by promises of a tantric experience, or as the Janice Doe lawsuit suggests, victims were told they would be strengthened and healed by having sex with Sogyal, the relations were abusive and ritualized."
I, myself, don't understand why the women didn't freak out and run away at Sogyal's propositions, but I don't know much about the psychology of the bereaved, the trust placed in counselors, combined with the high esteem/idolization some of these women had toward Sogyal. The same goes for women taken advantage of by their psychiatrists. It's happened in the past, women have won their cases. So there must be something to the psychology of it.
Wasn't Charles Manson a Tantric Practitioner?
There are two senses of "abusive" that this passage might be confounding, namely, abuse of the follower, or abuse of the authority. The proper antonym for "consensual" in this context is "forcible," or at least "coercive."
American culture is, in my opinion, currently very hung-up about sex in the workplace. I've worked at jobs where people said that the company policy was that coworkers couldn't date. I don't know if it was true that there was such an official policy; but when the company can be sued for lots of money because employees behave badly, there becomes an incentive to discourage any kind of romance.
I really think it depends on the nature of the working relationship, and on the nature of the romantic or sexual relationship.
We're assuming that there is no actual spiritual benefit, correct?
I say this because I think sex with someone you love can be spiritually benefitial.
Mm. Well, certainly that does happen. And you might have sexual predators who seek out positions of power. I don't know anything about this Janice Doe / Sogyal thing; I'm actually thinking of the troubles the Catholic church has had with their priests, in America and in Europe, over the past few years.
But, to show up the differences between sexual predators and priests with normal, reasonably healthy sexual desires who end up in oppressive situations--
I believe in the 60s, in Boston, a Catholic priest had a long-term girlfriend. Not a big deal; it happens, right? But because of the prohibitions against this, he developed a certain mindset.
Then one night, his girlfriend overdosed on cocaine. What was uppermost in the priest's mind was that it was finally going to happen. He was going to get caught. So he fled the scene. And, without medical treatment, she died.
Frankly, it seems to me that the idea that defrocking people who break vows of chastity is the solution... is the problem. There are a few reasons for this:
First, the severity of the punishment creates avoidance behavior that, as in the case of the Boston priest, itself creates trouble and misery.
Second, it in effect forces the priest (or guru) to repress his sexuality. And the problem with repressing sexual impulses, as we all know, is that for most people the sexual impulses aren't going anywhere. They build up, and build up, and become more and more difficult to be dealt with rationally and controlledly. And over time it seems this can, for some people, warp their character.
Third, sexuality is so much a part of the human design that breaking vows of celibacy becomes common. When there are severe punishments against it, then, we see an organization of individuals, many of whom would be open to punishment. So you get a culture of covering over such transgressions.
And that culture, regrettably, functions just as efficiently to cover over instances of real, horrific abuse as instances of consensual vow-breaking.
Finally, the image that priests and gurus are celibate is harmful, because it causes people who are potentially vulnerable and generally cautious to drop their guard. It's very sweet that everyone thinks a young woman, or a child, is safe with a Man of God in a way that he's not safe with a plumber ... but as sweet as it is, it might be a really bad misconception.
In general, it seems to me that the question is whether any particular relationship is abusive or not, and this can't be given a blanket answer. If the teacher might be, or could be, too powerful in a particular context, the solution to that is not to layer restrictions on him (or her), which could be broken anyway, but to take institutional steps to educate and empower the students, and to create openness around discussion, to defuse such problems before they become problems.
I'd like to see such vows treated as dietary vows, the breaking of which is not a big deal; and any abusiveness treated as abusiveness and potential crimes. They're separate issues, in my opinion.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.