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.
In my opinion yes. Neither the American Psychology Association nor HHDL has authority here.
This is an important point. I've checked with clergy in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, to see if I was somehow mistaken in the belief that it was a universally held expectation on the part of believers and a generally held rule of office regarding professional ethics for clergy that they were not to have romantic involvements with members of their "flock". He said I wasn't mistaken. He said it doesn't come up often, but the Church acts swiftly when it does, and defrocks the offending priest. The Church takes pride in maintaining a high reputation, he said. So this raises another question. I've read in relation to this issue that there are "cultural differences" involved that contribute to the problem, but I've never seen an explanation of those cultural differences. Might this be one of them? Is it acceptable in Tibetan sanghas for the lamas to take lovers from among the sangha members? Is this difference in expectations between communities in the Himalayan Buddhist tradition and those in Western (and some Eastern) spiritual traditions the crux of the problem?
In any case, visiting lamas to centers such as Spirit Rock will be required to abide by the new rules. I see this as an important step in the right direction.
I found a mention on the Geshe Kelsang Gyatso thread of abuse by lamas who living in a housing facility together with students. (See Yeshe's post, #3, I think). I'd hoped this problem was letting up this last decade, but maybe not.
Note to Karmadorje: I answered your question about "delving" back when it first came up, weeks ago on the "Criticism of Buddhism" thread, please see post #71.
This is an important point. I've checked with clergy in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, to see if I was somehow mistaken in the belief that it was a universally held expectation on the part of believers and a generally held rule of office regarding professional ethics for clergy that they were not to have romantic involvements with members of their "flock". He said I wasn't mistaken. He said it doesn't come up often, but the Church acts swiftly...
I don't understand... You ask if it's "universally held expectation," and conclude that it is because the Eastern Orthodox Church has a policy against it?
It would be interesting if all clergy were required to marry outside of their religion...
What? No, certain professional and ethical standards are observed in the West (and parts of the East). I was only noting that most Eastern Orthodox traditions are particularly vigilant against transgressions by their clergy. The question is: do Himalayan Buddhists operate from the same values/standards?
P.S. My friend did say (OK, I ommitted this part by mistake) that this is common throughout the West, with the possible exception of the FLDS church, the non-mainstream Mormons.
I don't know about Himalayan Buddhist policy on this matter. I know the Cambridge Zen Center has a policy against -- I think this is the wording -- "unwanted touching."
This is a lay institution; people rent rooms and work for a living. However, there is a mild distinction between "teachers" and "residents." (There are one or two Zen Masters who are part of the set-up; but most Dharma teachers are basically just deputized residents with some coursework behind them.)
The manual explicitly says that there is no policy against romantic or sexual relationships between teachers and residents; but there is a very strict policy against unwanted touching.
I don't know how this relates to Masters' vows, or if they have any that are different from other members'. OTOH, I don't think any Zen Masters actually reside at the Center.
I imagine you could mail around a few large, self-addressed, stamped envelopes to American Buddhist communities, with a nice note asking for their handbooks. The policies stated in the handbooks would give your research a well-grounded start, and could direct your further questions.
So why exactly does the eastern orthodox christian religion have any say over tibetan lamas?
I think this is not only a moral issue for you. Lying, threatening, and raping I believe are wrong and I wouldn't want to fall prey to moral relativism. But on the other hand I do think that sexual behaviour in one religious culture is not expected to be the same. For example in the christian religion homosexuality is an abomination. In buddhism there are some old texts forbidding homosexuality and some quotes by HHDL stating it is wrong. Yet HHDL also said if two consenting adults enjoy a sexual relationship (same sex) that is fine.
I think it is also a cultural issue for you. You were raised with different expectations.
So I am not arguing for moral relativism but I am saying that the Christian churches views may actually not be best for non-Christians. My compass is harm. If a practice is harmful then it should be dropped. And in this case I find what the lamas are doing is harmful. So I agree with you to an extent. At the same time I think the woman (are there any men too? There are female lamas)... are also a cause of the harm. Buddhism says that there are always multiple causes to each phenomenon. The expectation of the lamas is a wide gulf between the expectations of the women. And it is harming the woman.
But NOT because the lamas are evil immoral people (assuming the rape, lying, and threatening behaviour is not prevalent in the particular hypothetical lamas which I am refering to). The harm comes from different expectations. Just as a husband who wants to spend money and a wife who wants to be frugal get harmed due to different expectations. Or a man who wants a one night stand and a woman (or reverse ) who wants a relationship. Friendship versus romance is another big one.
I am however adamant that threats, lying, and assault are not ok. I would leave a lama who did that. And in the case of threats (of a material rather than supernatural) and assault I would contact the authorities.
I'd like to address the OP's question about whether Vajrayana is more prone to this type of problem. I think it's not the fault of Vajrayana theory and practice that some of its authority figures are misusing the traditions. If these guys were in a different Buddhist tradition, they'd probably find a way to get what they're after. I'm wondering if part of the problem might be due simply to superior numbers of Vajrayana centers compared to Zen, etc. I'm looking at it this way; if you have 100 Tib. Buddhist centers in the US, and let's say around 10% of the teachers are not observing their vows nor the norms of professional ethics, then you have 10 errant teachers, not a lot. But if you have 1000 centers in the US, then you have 100 errant teachers. That could cause more than just a ripple of discontent in the community. We don't know how many centers there are, nor what the percentage of teachers is, who are behaving out of their integrity. But this illustrates what could be a contributing factor to the problem, I think.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Conrad.
Lots of good points, CC. You're absolutely right about students dropping their guard, thinking they're safe with their teachers. That is the answer to my question about Dzongsar Khentse's statement about Western husbands being naive to send their wives to Asia to study alone with lamas. (and by implication, women are naive to trust their teachers in general.) You nailed it. And your point about educating students fits in with this too. The word needs to get out in a constructive way about the correct view of the student-teacher relationship, about over-idealizing teachers, about what's a reasonable request/demand by the teacher and what isn't, etc.
Interesting analysis about the effect of sanctions on teacher activity--the threat of sanctions drives the activity underground and results in cover-ups. On the other hand, if there are no sanctions, then there's no reason for teachers to stick to the rules. What's the solution? Empowering/educating the students, but from the teachers' side, what? I guess it's more about students doing their homework and researching teachers.
I'm coming back to the idea of ordaining more nuns. Thinking about Western monastic traditions, the monks and celibate clergy traditionally are cloistered, and don't mix with the public. The monastery is their world. They rarely see women. Maybe it doesn't work to mix male teachers and female students...? Some teachers do fine (I've heard great things about Dudjom Rinpoche and Gyatrul Rinpoche, for example. And Compas. Warrior says the Seattle Sakyas are impeccable. I'm sure there are others I haven't heard about), some don't. Is ordaining more nuns an idea whose time has come? There have been comments here to that effect. On the Vajrasattva Empowerment thread, it's clear that nuns bring a different perspective to the teachings, they use different stories to illustrate their points. I like that.
About the workplace; I don't know about lawsuits, but one problem is that if there are workplace romances that fall through, then the workers involved can suddenly be very awkward around each other or worse, vindictive and so forth, and work suffers. How is it handled in your part of the world?
... if there are workplace romances that fall through, then the workers involved can suddenly be very awkward around each other or worse, vindictive and so forth, and work suffers. How is it handled in your part of the world?
Er, badly. With drama. That's another argument against workplace romance, in fact. Goes along with the idea that your emotions and humanity should be "checked at the door" when you enter the workplace, in my view.
You know the saying: Americans live to work, while Europeans work to live.
At one job, two managers surprised everyone by getting married. I don't think it added to productivity, while if they'd gotten divorced, it would likely have reduced it. No, I don't see any incentive for companies to permit workers to have romances.
On the other hand, if there are no sanctions, then there's no reason for teachers to stick to the rules. What's the solution?
Why is it desirable for the teachers to stick to the rules?
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.
This goes back to the question I raised earlier; does celibacy work? If it doesn't work, why maintain the tradition? Maybe it could be more of a specialty; I think it takes gifted individuals and a lot of commitment to make it work (HHDL has managed all these years, and there are others, no doubt). It's not for everyone.
This goes back to the question I raised earlier; does celibacy work?
It depends by what you mean "does it work".
If it doesn't work, why maintain the tradition?
To try and get men and women to change so they can grow past their animalistic impulses is one of the purposes of Monastic tradition.
Maybe it could be more of a specialty; I think it takes gifted individuals and a lot of commitment to make it work (HHDL has managed all these years, and there are others, no doubt). It's not for everyone.
And of course when you get to a point where you purge such impulses and you grow in spirituality it makes it even more chilling to see that the coverups have happened by people who are covering for the failings of the lesser capable in their tradition, because they try to convince themselves that a person can eventually get ahold of themselves and grow but to screw up is worse than to admit that they're not ready for monastic life.
Er, badly. With drama. That's another argument against workplace romance, in fact. Goes along with the idea that your emotions and humanity should be "checked at the door" when you enter the workplace, in my view.
Why is it desirable for the teachers to stick to the rules?
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
How sad; checking one's humanity at the door. So at work, everyone is supposed to be an automaton?
Thank you, BTW, about the info re: Cambridge Zen Center policy, and the suggestion to study other centers' policies. It would be a good project, and simply raising the question with some dharma centers (I think many of the smaller ones don't have teacher ethics policies yet) may stimulate discussion at least, and possibly the development of a policy.
After thinking about your comments re: the effects of the threat of sanctions on clergy, I'd just like to clarify that in Buddhism, there doesn't appear to be a threat of sanctions, especially for older monks/lamas. Maybe there is for young monks, but I think sanctions are rarely applied. The "defrocking" thing seems to be mainly in the Christian churches. I gather from a comment Karmadorje made on the "Teacher-Student Relationship" thread, that there is no authority in the different sects that oversees behavior and applies sanctions. So it's incumbent on the student to do thorough research before choosing a teacher. If it's a matter of addressing physical needs, as you mentioned earlier, there are plenty of local women, and the occasional willing tourist, to address that, no? In theory, there's no need to be coercing students into a physical relationship they don't want.
What I gather from the discussion here and on the other thread is that to prevent unfortunate incidents from occurring between student and teacher, the following strategies are recommended:
1) Students should research teachers before choosing them.
2) Students should study the guidelines for a correct interpretation of the student-teacher relationship, and should not hesitate to walk out on a teacher who makes inappropriate suggestions. Guidelines are available in books and may be available on internet sites (a site dedicated to this and related topics wouldn't be a bad idea).
3) Info needs to be disseminated to students regarding not over-idealizing teachers, and not making any assumptions about trustworthiness of teachers. Awareness-raising, basically, in a diplomatic and sensitive way.
4) In institutional settings (dharma centers), the centers can enact their own code of ethics for teachers.
5) Students should not only choose their teacher carefully; if joining a sangha, they should choose the sangha carefully. This includes asking about the teacher code of ethics.
I might make a final suggestion that dharma center staff and retreat organizers should raise their own awareness of the possibility of problems developing, and be prepared to offer support to any aggrieved student, as per SimonthePilgrim's suggestions, in the event that an incident occurs. Hopefully with the implementation of the above strategies, the occurence of incidents could be minimized or eliminated.
Thanks to everyone who contributed to addressing the issues presented here.
If it's a matter of addressing physical needs, as you mentioned earlier, there are plenty of local women, and the occasional willing tourist, to address that, no? In theory, there's no need to be coercing students into a physical relationship they don't want.
If you're talking about traditional set-ups in Asia, my understanding is that monks and nuns live in sex-segregated communities. There is some minimal contact; but largely, nuns are trained by nuns and monks by monks. This is in the old-fashioned, traditional set-up.
The way it works practically in these cases is that a monk's love-life would strictly be on the sly, catch as catch can while doing his begging rounds. Nuns, as I understand, are generally women who have been married, had kids, and gotten permission from their husbands to become nuns (probably resulting in an effective divorce).
Historically, traditional monks *have* had affairs on the sly. We see this in some of the rules laid down for monks, namely, that you're not supposed to set up a household with a woman in the forest, and then go out for short jaunts begging from there: you're supposed to be homeless and celibate. This tells us that people were doing that; if they weren't, there wouldn't be a rule against it.
I have a book of erotic Chinese poems (in English), one of which a woman wrote about monks. I can track it down and post if you want. It's kind of entertaining.
Keep in mind that in some countries, nearly the entire population is Buddhist. So telling a monk he should find a non-Buddhist woman so he can have a proper scandalous love affair is sort of a complicated proposition.
But in these cases, I don't think there's any supposition that the monk has some kind of spiritual authority, in the context of the relationship. A Cambodian waitress told me that these were "bad monks" -- the ones who chase women, in other words.
If you're talking about traditional set-ups in Asia, my understanding is that monks and nuns live in sex-segregated communities. There is some minimal contact; but largely, nuns are trained by nuns and monks by monks. This is in the old-fashioned, traditional set-up.
The way it works practically in these cases is that a monk's love-life would strictly be on the sly, catch as catch can while doing his begging rounds. Nuns, as I understand, are generally women who have been married, had kids, and gotten permission from their husbands to become nuns (probably resulting in an effective divorce).
Historically, traditional monks *have* had affairs on the sly. We see this in some of the rules laid down for monks, namely, that you're not supposed to set up a household with a woman in the forest, and then go out for short jaunts begging from there: you're supposed to be homeless and celibate. This tells us that people were doing that; if they weren't, there wouldn't be a rule against it.
I have a book of erotic Chinese poems (in English), one of which a woman wrote about monks. I can track it down and post if you want. It's kind of entertaining.
Keep in mind that in some countries, nearly the entire population is Buddhist. So telling a monk he should find a non-Buddhist woman so he can have a proper scandalous love affair is sort of a complicated proposition.
But in these cases, I don't think there's any supposition that the monk has some kind of spiritual authority, in the context of the relationship. A Cambodian waitress told me that these were "bad monks" -- the ones who chase women, in other words.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
"On the sly"; that's what I meant; instead of having affairs with Western students on the sly (women report that lamas vehemently enforce secrecy, according to June Campbell (who still has a credibility issue with some people) and others), they could see local women on the sly. Not all local Buddhist women are as conscientious as your Cambodian informant, from what I read. (All societies have a few loose women, no?) But probably the fact that the Western students are right there, easily accessible, as it were, plays a role, even though they, too, are Buddhist and many aren't interested in a physical relationship. Probably some are, and that contributes to the problem. Speaking of India and Nepal, here. I don't know to what extent Western students seek out teachers in SE Asia.
In Taiwan, monks and nuns have always been housed in the same building, with disasterous results for the nuns. Times seem to be changing slowly, though; a few years ago a nun filed criminal charges against her monk-tormentor, the first time a nun has ever done so there. (Asia Times newspaper, I think; I can give you the link if you want.) I don't know how the case turned out.
In the Tibetan world, since there are so few ordained nuns, lamas often teach the nuns, and a few have founded nunneries. I've heard of no problems in that regard.
hmm....Chinese women's (Buddhist?) erotica? Not really what this thread is about. You could start a separate threadlet for it, and see what discussion develops. That would be something new and different for readers...
Not all local Buddhist women are as conscientious as your Cambodian informant, from what I read. (All societies have a few loose women, no?) But probably the fact that the Western students are right there, easily accessible, as it were, plays a role, even though they, too, are Buddhist and many aren't interested in a physical relationship. Probably some are, and that contributes to the problem.
Dakini,
I find this passage confusing; and I may be blocked from getting through it correctly, or it may be confused.
I understand that it's important to you that spiritual leaders should not lie about promises of spiritual benefits to convince students to have sex with them. In my opinion, spiritual leaders should not lie about possible spiritual benefits at all. It seems that, in your opinion, spiritual leaders simply should not have sex, or only ever with people outside of their religion.
And specifically, it seems you're so worried about this that you consider students or laypeople who want to have sex with spiritual leaders "part of the problem" and "loose."
Whatever we may believe about the spiritual benefits of renunciation -- of sex or of other things -- surely we can agree that consenting adults ought to be permitted to do what they like with their naughty parts, without being subjected to shame or ridicule?
(Or not much, anyway.)
Shouldn't this freedom extend to any people who find that gurus turn them on?
Some clarification is in order. Regarding the comment about "loose women", I didn't want to get into all the complexities of the question we were discussing, so I tried to keep it short, and made an unskillful comment. More on this below. But I thought I was clear when I said, in response to some interesting points on your part, that there are alternatives to imposing a sexual relationship on students; my main concern is how to avoid the problem of manipulative or coercive sex. In the case of celibate clergy, that might be a good topic for a separate thread, to explore the points you made in that regard, and their implication for the celibacy tradition. If you're referring to comments I made earlier on this thread, about clergy maintaining professional and ethical standards, and not using the spiritual community/parish/sangha for gratuitous sex, I think that's a principle of professional ethics that's held across cultures (see comment #6 on the "Student-Teacher Relationship" thread, and #56 on the "Problems in Buddhism" thread. The Cambodian woman's comment you site also supports this view). I'm not concerned with the relatively rare occurence of a genuinely committed relationship developing between clergy and a member of the congregation or sangha. "Abuse of Power" is about manipulative or coercive situations.
About what "contributes to the problem", to clarify what I perceive to be "the problem" in a broader context:
Western women worldwide experience persistent harrassment of various sorts and even assaults due to the perception that they are sexually free, wild, etc. Male colleagues of mine in developing countries have said point-blank that this is caused by the behavior of some female tourists, who create the impression that all Western women are easy marks. Some colleagues have added to that the fact that the US (and possibly other countries, I don't know) markets B-grade movies and worse, to developing countries, and men watch those movies and get their idea of Western women from that source.
I've come to the conclusion recently that a similar phonomenon is playing a role in the matter of coercive sex with women dharma students. Shamar Rinpoche hints at this when he writes about the influx of "hippies" into the Himalayan region and India in the 1970's, "living the hippie lifestyle", plus people like Ole Nydahl and his wife turning up to study tantric sex techniques, and convincing the 16th Karmapa, Shamar and others that this is what the West wants. Also, I think that stories of Chogyam Trungpa's exploits filtered back to Asia, creating a certain impression of Westerners, and women in particular. And the behavior of some tourists and probably some students reinforces the stereotype, which is what I was referring to when I said some women's behavior contributes to the problem, i.e. to the creation and maintenance of this steroptype. So when dharma students arrive for serious and devout study, they sometimes fall into a trap. And as you and others have mentioned in this discussion, several other factors contribute to the abuse issue. The "loose women" comment was about something else entirely, not relevant really, to the abuse issue, my mistake.
I hope this clarifies my perspective. I think you and I are agreed on some points, but for whatever reason, understanding has gotten a little tangled up. Sometimes I'm in a hurry (I have limited comupter time) and don't do the best job of articulating my position clearly, sorry for that, and my view has evolved as I consider comments coming in.
At any rate, I think some good suggestions and strategies have resulted from this discussion. Most of the responsibility seems to rest with the students.
You have a tendency to take things out of context and weave them into your pre-existing beliefs. When hearsay supports what you already believe, you grasp it firmly and believe it's True. When it does not, you work it around until it does, or discount it.
As far as I can see, you've used the Cambodian waitress's comment in two different ways to support your preconceptions, in wrong ways both times. I mean they appear to have nothing to do with what she said.
If you want to prove a hypothesis (In this case, that whatever kind of abuse goes on in whichever context, that you think is so pervasive), you need to:
* Make a prediction before you collect data: that of women who have spent ---this--- much time in a certain kind of institution, ---this--- many percent of them will report ---this--- level of discomfort at the sexual culture there. Or whatever.
* Then collect the data.
* Then see if it refutes the hypothesis.
If it refutes the hypothesis, the hypothesis is not true. If it does not refute the hypothesis, the hypothesis still might not be true, so you think up another prediction and have at it again.
The other method, of collecting a scrapbook of stories and weaving them together into a narrative, is a great way to come to any conclusion you like -- but not convincingly. Therefore I urge you to take a testing-based, data-driven approach.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
ps - I'm in favor of "gratuitous" sex, too -- sex for sex's sake -- when it's between two consenting adults. If this gives Society the terrible idea that humans like sex, we'll all just have to deal with that.
I agree with your posts on this topic. As a physician, we are trained in these matters as part of our license renewal process.
The problem is that anyone who is perceived as an authority figure is less likely to be questioned. The greater the perceived influence, the greater the demands that will not be questioned. This is why doctors, teachers/professors, and spiritual leaders are often in these situations. Sometimes, the exploitation is intentional and premeditated. Other times, it is not premeditated, but the position of authority makes it much easier. I've had patients practically throw themselves at me on more than one occasion (including some very attractive ones), but I resisted.
This is a serious matter, but this thread is getting a bit dark, so if I may bring in a college joke on the matter... (I am a part time professor, so I can get away with this.)
An middle-aged professor is teaching a fairly difficult class, and one of his students is a very attractive young lady who seems to be struggling with the material. One afternoon, toward the end of the day, she goes to his office wearing a loose blouse and a short skirt. The professor is at his desk, and the young lady goes into his office and closes the door.
"Professor... I really need to pass your class, or I won't be able to graduate."
"I see. It is still possible to pass if you do well on the final exam."
"But I do not understand the material... and I can't fail."
She leans over and looks at the professor, and while doing so unbuttons a button or two on her blouse to reveal just a glimpse of her red lace bra that is straining against its ample cargo. "I'll do anything, professor, to pass."
"Anything?", the bemused professor asked, trying to maintain eye contact.
She leaned a little closer, trying to give the professor a good glimpse of what rests beneath her blouse. "Anything."
I'm going to try to address as many concerns as possible, but probably won't get to all of them.
...
Also HHDL's suggestion that any aggrieved parties should go to the media and to the police, if necessary, and not remain silent. But I think that the best medicine is preventive medicine, so the media and criminal justice systems don't have to be involved.
Please do not be so quick to dismiss Dakini's comments.
The issue, I believe, is about perceived authority. Certain roles in society are what we term "positions of trust". These individuals are trusted in specialized matters and in situations where we would not necessarily trust other people. For example, I doubt that Dakini would remove her clothing for just anyone who asks her, but if her OB/GYN asks her to disrobe for a pelvic exam in the appropriate setting, there is a certain trust there that allows her to do so. The setting is important, because it usually needs to be in the person's place of authority. A doctor in his or her clinic, in the exam room, for example. A professor on campus. A teacher in school. A spiritual leader in the appropriate setting, be it retreat, church, or whatever.
We all know that anecdote is not the singular of data, but in cases such as sexual coercion, without third-party witnesses (persons or video recordings), all we have is a "he said / she said" situation.
Given that these types of abuse are common in many professions and religions, it is dangerous to assume that Buddhism is somehow immune to these abuses. The burden of proof should rest upon the plaintiff, and this is often difficult for the plaintiff due to emotional reasons.
Again, these are positions of trust. Societies in general place special trust in physicians, spiritual leaders, law enforcement officers, and teachers (amongst others). That is also why impersonating these people is a common tactic for criminals and why when these people commit offenses, they are often punished more severely than laypeople for the same offenses.
Dakini is making sense in her statements.
A problem is that the "victim" often truly believes, at least at the time, that it is what he or she wants. (There have been several cases lately here where female school teachers have had sex with male students.) The issue is that the trust, combined with the authority of the "perpetrator", interferes with sound judgment.
You have a tendency to take things out of context and weave them into your pre-existing beliefs. When hearsay supports what you already believe, you grasp it firmly and believe it's True. When it does not, you work it around until it does, or discount it.
As far as I can see, you've used the Cambodian waitress's comment in two different ways to support your preconceptions, in wrong ways both times. I mean they appear to have nothing to do with what she said.
If you want to prove a hypothesis (In this case, that whatever kind of abuse goes on in whichever context, that you think is so pervasive), you need to:
* Make a prediction before you collect data: that of women who have spent ---this--- much time in a certain kind of institution, ---this--- many percent of them will report ---this--- level of discomfort at the sexual culture there. Or whatever.
* Then collect the data.
* Then see if it refutes the hypothesis.
If it refutes the hypothesis, the hypothesis is not true. If it does not refute the hypothesis, the hypothesis still might not be true, so you think up another prediction and have at it again.
The other method, of collecting a scrapbook of stories and weaving them together into a narrative, is a great way to come to any conclusion you like -- but not convincingly. Therefore I urge you to take a testing-based, data-driven approach.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
ps - I'm in favor of "gratuitous" sex, too -- sex for sex's sake -- when it's between two consenting adults. If this gives Society the terrible idea that humans like sex, we'll all just have to deal with that.
Thanks for the story, Q. As far as I know, all caregivers are required to take ethics classes on a regular basis in order to maintain their license. Clergy (I'm not sure, I'm looking into this) isn't state-regulated, but I'm guessing they have their own internal requirements in that regard. As I understand the standard for caregivers, if a client comes on to them, they are required to verbally address the situation and make clear to the client that the relationship is strictly professional. If the client persists, the caregiver can refer the client to someone else, ending the therapeutic relationship. In some cases they're allowed to end the therapeutic relationship at the first sign of impropriety. This is for the caregiver's own protection, in case a client might decide to later file a complaint for whatever reason (vindictiveness, etc.) I'd guess that the standards are the same for clergy.
In the case of Buddhist teachers/lamas, however, the picture isn't so clear, because no one is overseeing them. But I construe the numerous suggestions I've received on different threads (and I've read the same coming from the Dalai Lama and other high Buddhist authorities) that students check out teachers thoroughly before studying with them to mean that in the Buddhist world, the same expectations regarding spiritual leaders' professional ethics apply as in the non-Buddhist world. I'm going to do a little research in that regard shortly.
The exact procedure varies from state to state, but what you've described is close enough for jazz.
Religious institutions are under their own control in the USA, so that can mean anything from careful monitoring to absolutely nothing and no mechanism for recourse for a victim. It is unfortunate.
Thanks for the story, Q. As far as I know, all caregivers are required to take ethics classes on a regular basis in order to maintain their license. Clergy (I'm not sure, I'm looking into this) isn't state-regulated, but I'm guessing they have their own internal requirements in that regard. As I understand the standard for caregivers, if a client comes on to them, they are required to verbally address the situation and make clear to the client that the relationship is strictly professional. If the client persists, the caregiver can refer the client to someone else, ending the therapeutic relationship. In some cases they're allowed to end the therapeutic relationship at the first sign of impropriety. This is for the caregiver's own protection, in case a client might decide to later file a complaint for whatever reason (vindictiveness, etc.) I'd guess that the standards are the same for clergy.
In the case of Buddhist teachers/lamas, however, the picture isn't so clear, because no one is overseeing them. But I construe the numerous suggestions I've received on different threads (and I've read the same coming from the Dalai Lama and other high Buddhist authorities) that students check out teachers thoroughly before studying with them to mean that in the Buddhist world, the same expectations regarding spiritual leaders' professional ethics apply as in the non-Buddhist world. I'm going to do a little research in that regard shortly.
Conradcook; your idea for a research project is just what I'm embarking on. I've said earlier that I'm just in the beginning stages of researching these questions. On this thread my goal was to try to arrive at an understanding of the cause of the problem of students experiencing abuse from their teachers, and to formulate some strategies for resolving the problem. I feel like both goals were reached, at least to my satisfaction. Answering other questions that relate to these main two will take more time.
RE: sex between consenting adults; this isn't relevant to this discussion. We're discussing coercive sex between a religious authority (or other types of authority figures) and individuals subordinate to them. And tangentially, the question of sex between a religious (or other) authority and a willing individual subordinate to them has come up, insofar as that is still an ethical issue. What authority figures do with whom outside of the professional context isn't a concern here, nor is what peers do privately between themselves.
Querist; I wanted to thank you for bringing up the issue of the emotional confusion that can ensue after an incident such as we're discussing. I avoided discussing that, because I didn't think anyone would believe me. But you did a good job of describing the situation. I think the perpetrators of this type of crime strive to set up an ambiguous situation, to confuse the victim. Even in instances where the victim is clear that the attention is unwanted, resulting trauma can discombobulate the mind (that's a clinical term ). It can take months or years to recover mental clarity over the incident. Very sad. So sometimes charges aren't filed because a statute of limitations has run out before the victim is able to come to grips with what has happened. Possibly in the last 20 years, in the US the statute of limitations for this type of crime has been extended, I don't know. Maybe it goes state-by-state.
You're welcome, Dakini. That is exactly how it was explained to us in school and how it is discussed in the continuing education classes to renew our licenses. It is confusion surrounding the boundaries of the authority combined with some neediness on the part of the victim. It is rare that a "completely together" person is victimized (while conscious), but people who are insecure can see the closeness and intimacy with an authority figure as something that bolsters their own (damaged) self-image.
I am not sure that discombobulate is a clinical term, but I went to school many years ago, so it may be a newer term. :rolleyes:
Statue of limitations is normally (NORMALLY) 7 years from the event or 7 years from the date that the victim reaches the age of majority, whichever is later. This allows those who were victimised as minors to have time act once they are adults. There may be specific exemptions to the normal 7 year statute of limitations term for certain offences.
(I am NOT a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I am basing this on my understanding of the law as a licensed health-care practitioner in the state of South Carolina.)
Querist; I wanted to thank you for bringing up the issue of the emotional confusion that can ensue after an incident such as we're discussing. I avoided discussing that, because I didn't think anyone would believe me. But you did a good job of describing the situation. I think the perpetrators of this type of crime strive to set up an ambiguous situation, to confuse the victim. Even in instances where the victim is clear that the attention is unwanted, resulting trauma can discombobulate the mind (that's a clinical term ). It can take months or years to recover mental clarity over the incident. Very sad. So sometimes charges aren't filed because a statute of limitations has run out before the victim is able to come to grips with what has happened. Possibly in the last 20 years, in the US the statute of limitations for this type of crime has been extended, I don't know. Maybe it goes state-by-state.
I think we're starting to run out of slack in this conversation. I hope it's understood that I am against abusive sexual relationships.
I hope we can all do our best to take one another's posts in good faith, and to try to ensure that we're not allowing our pre-conceived ideologies to alter too much our perceptions of others.
Before this thread plays out, I notice something remarkable. The topic is authority figures who seek out a predatory relationship with their followers... and yet, when the totality of that scheme was challenged, you both responded with images of followers who were "loose women" and deliberately tried to establish relations with authority figures.
I did not intend to be interpreted that way. In fact, I was going the opposite direction. I did state that perhaps these victims (there are male and female victims in these types of abuses) may have had some other issues surrounding their self-esteem, but I certainly did not intend to imply that they were loose or sexually immoral.
The "deliberateness" of establishing a relationship with an authority figure was a RESULT of the abuse of the authority, not a cause of the relationship with the authority figure. It was an abuse of trust and authority.
Just as bullies look for vulnerable targets, so do these predators. They look for emotionally vulnerable targets. Victims of long-term abuse generally had some issues before they were victimized. I AM NOT SAYING THAT IT IS THE VICTIM'S FAULT. But, as I said, these predators look for vulnerable targets.
I apologize if I did not communicate effectively. I am fairly sure that we, in fact, agree on these points and it was simply a miscommunication between us that resulted in this misunderstanding.
I think we're starting to run out of slack in this conversation. I hope it's understood that I am against abusive sexual relationships.
I hope we can all do our best to take one another's posts in good faith, and to try to ensure that we're not allowing our pre-conceived ideologies to alter too much our perceptions of others.
Before this thread plays out, I notice something remarkable. The topic is authority figures who seek out a predatory relationship with their followers... and yet, when the totality of that scheme was challenged, you both responded with images of followers who were "loose women" and deliberately tried to establish relations with authority figures.
Probably a lot of problems would be solved if the lamas posted on match.com or eharmony.com rather than have relationships with students. Or even get hookers sometimes.
I also believe the lamas behaviour is unskillful as a teacher because it is not practicing the ethics paramita. That is debatable but we can see it is true by the argument that it is making them less attractive as a teacher. The wisdom paramita is the liberating wisdom that can set you free from samsara. The other five paramitas are largely for the purpose of making the bodhisattva attractive to other beings so that they can share dharmic teachings with them.
Because of those lamas behaviour they are less able to share teachings. Presuming that they had some degree of the wisdom paramita to share.
But no I don't think they are immoral from a judgemental judeo-christian sensibility. For me good and evil is about harm.
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.
.
Dakini isn't wrong in her assumption that spiritual leaders are expected to observe professional and ethical norms across cultures. On my "Disciple-Teacher Relationship" thread, Karmadorje said, "If there is a pattern of preying on students for sexual favor, that obviously is a grave fault." Does that settle it for everyone? I think the suggestion that Tibetan culture doesn't share these universal behavioral norms, frankly, sounds ignorant. I find it disturbing that there are people in our sangha here online who feel that lamas preying on students to meet their sexual needs is acceptable.
Querist raises the additional question of whether a consensual relationship can ever be possible when there is a power differential, when the situation involves a trust relationship between the authority figure and a client or student. He implies that the fundamental nature of the relationship makes that possibility doubtful. "The issue is that the trust [relationship] combined with the authority of the 'perpetrator' interferes with sound judgement." Spiritual and other authorities are held to a higher behavioral standard precisely because of the nature of their position and the potential vulnerability of their charges. That's why any transgressions that occur are the authority's fault; blame is not shared with the victim. The authority figure holds full responsibility for maintaining professional boundaries with his or her charges. The maintenance of professional boundaries is a required part of the job.
Perhaps Tibetan Buddhism makes an exception in the rare instance of mutual interest in a genuine committed relationship (also see Karmadorje's comment on my thread). I would think that would be a rare occurrence, especially in view of the fact that students studying in Asia are usually there temporarily, and lamas coming to the West often do so for limited residencies. Under such circumstances, a long-term committed relationship is unlikely to happen. It is more likely to happen when the lama is a permanent resident of the community that he serves, as in the Tibetan communities.
I agree with you compassionate warrior on the basis of harmfulness rather than judeo christian norms of behaviour. For whatever reason it is causing distress when these two parties succumb to a sexual relationship.
I agree with you compassionate warrior on the basis of harmfulness rather than judeo christian norms of behaviour. For whatever reason it is causing distress when these two parties succumb to a sexual relationship.
What have "Judeao-Christian norms of behaviour" (whatever you mean by that) have to do with the behaviour of Buddhist teachers?
Simon I was trying to say that its not that the sexual thing is sinful or icky. Or universally wrong. The point is the students are being harmed because the men and women (or homo) student/teacher are choosing to have sex with each other.
They should stop choosing that because due to the nature of the authority relationship it has been empirically demonstrated that it causes the student harm.
At least within our culture. One could conceive of a hypothetical culture in which the high priestess or priest ceremonially had sex with followers. Which is why I reject the notion of universality. But in this world as I say it has been empirically demonstrated.
Another point I make is that the teacher shares some of the responsibility to change this negative phenomenon assuming their student isn't mentally retarded or something. These students are making equally unwise decisions and they are adults.
People might notice that some of my posts are inconsistent and that is because I have thought about this and changed my mind.
Simon I was trying to say that its not that the sexual thing is sinful or icky. Or universally wrong. ..............
I agree entirely. Sexuality is, in itself, neutral. How we use it is what matters, just like any other activity. Neither Judaism nor Christianity, at their best, would disagree.
Sexuality is, in itself, neutral. How we use it is what matters, just like any other activity. Neither Judaism nor Christianity, at their best, would disagree.
Christianity, at its most populous, in the form of Catholicism, would, in the person of its leader, the Pope, who is understood to speak for God, say that any form of sexual activity, by anyone, which is not intended to conceive a pregnancy, is a serious sin that will send one to hell.
The Pope might claim moral authority over more souls than does any other living person on Earth but, being bound by a lifetime of celibacy to have almost no personal understanding of sex, as are all of his advisors, almost certainly is not the best person to be setting rules and giving advice.
But apparently the only alternative to celibacy that the scrupulous good people of this thread might have to offer him is that he take up with an atheist, or hire a hooker.
And if you think that's funny, or that it isn't a problem to be taken seriously, look at the recent history of the Catholic church.
My opinion is that celibacy isn't for everyone, those who choose that path should be sure they're up to the challenge. HHDL has managed all these years; I think the ability to maintain celibacy is evidence of a spiritually-gifted individual, and such individuals are fairly rare worldwide, I'm guessing. If it's not working on a broader basis, then maybe a change is in order. Otherwise, you end up with secret liaisons, and then the monks or priests are not only violating their vows, they end up living dishonestly, hiding their illicit activities, living a lie. Allowing priests to marry would restore honesty and integrity to their lives. Otherwise the celibacy is just a pretense. Personally, I'm for honesty and integrity, but there may be other considerations involved that I'm not aware of, that make the perpetuation of the celibate tradition (whether East or West) desirable. I'm far from an expert on that, I just happen to think that honesty and transparency are better than pretense and secrecy. But...maybe that's just me. In Asia, I understand that the monastic tradition is a very long and proud one, dating back to the Buddha's time, so making any fundamental changes might be difficult, due simply to proud tradition.
I'm not sure where the impression came from that the issue of manipulation or abuse of dharma students in the disciple-teacher relationship was about whether sex was "sinful" or bad inherently. What I and, I thought it was clear, Dakini have been addressing is inappropriate behavior and sexual advances on the part of lamas in the student-teacher relationship. Possibly someone was projecting Christian attitudes onto the discussions? I'm glad that misconception has been cleared up.
Conrad, if I read your earlier contribution correctly, you were the one who suggested celibacy doesn't work, suggesting monks and celibate priests need a sexual outlet. No one is advocating they "take up with an atheist or hire a hooker". I thought Jeffry's post in that vein was in jest. I think the question of whether it's realistic to require celibacy is a good one; start a thread on that topic and I'll join you. I take your point that maintaining celibacy, or for non-celibate lamas who go abroad for a residency--addressing their needs without harassing their students, may be a challenge. But the monks' or lamas' problem shouldn't be the student's problem. That much is clear, that's all we're trying to address in the 2 related threads, though I see this thread has gotten a little off-track now and then. How to address the issue you've presented would best be discussed on its own thread. (BTW, I suspect some lamas take consorts from their home communities. Dilgo Khentse Rinpoche is said to have chosen the non-celibate path of the tantrika, and I don't think he was married, so he may have had local consorts. There may be a tradition of doing that, but I'm too new to that aspect of the Vajrayana tradition to know for sure.)
This seems like a thread from American Buddhist, a hate-filled ranters site where every Buddhist teacher who is anybody is routinely trashed with no basis at all in fact. What seems to be fueling this thread is a bunch of unproven hearsay and paranoia. Like the old lady said, "Where's the beef?" Yes, there have been cases of sexual abuse by a few teachers (the one at the San Francisco Zen Center comes to mind), but they were dealt with. I also see a lot of misinformation and confusion, like the difference between the practice of Hindu tantra (which is highly sexual) and Buddhist tantra (which is not). I think we could spend our time better practicing true guru yoga than by engaging in nonvirtuous speculation.
Does it really seem that bad? I thought the last page or so had moved into discussing questions related to the teacher's responsibility in the teacher-student relationship, which is a constructive thing, to my mind. I assume that if a group of Western dharma leaders made the significant investment of time and money to meet with HHDL in Dharamsala to discuss problems that have come up, that more than a few isolated incidents must have motivated that. I'm fairly new to this issue, but I have witnessed harassment by a lama in one sangha I was in, and heard women complaining about that in another sangha. All I'm trying to do on my thread ("The Disciple-Student Relationship) is figure out how to create an environment where all students can study on an equal footing. I see this thread as contributing to that goal in its own way. My philosophy regarding spiritual communities is that members should be concerned about the wellbeing of all. I think it could be informative to find out in detail what motivated Western dharma leaders to raise the issue with HHDL and to subsequently draw up guidelines for teachers. I don't think they took that step out of paranoia. They must know something we don't know. Is anyone in touch with Jack Kornfield?
Did you read the link to the Sogyal article? (I assume he was an extreme case, but aspects of the report and analysis are instructive.) As far as I can tell in the limited time I've spent trying to follow up on some of the names and cases mentioned here and elsewhere, it's some of the teachers who confuse (apparently deliberately?) Hindu and Buddhist tantra. I've read reports that Ole Nydahl presented Tibetan Buddhism as a sexual practice. I think Shamar Rinpoche complains about that on his website. But he doesn't deny that sexual practices are involved; he says Nydahl learned those practices from the 16th Karmapa. As I mentioned much earlier, it's very confusing to a relative "newbie" to hear contradictory versions of what the practices entail. Not that we need to sort that out here. I'm not taking sides on that question; I don't know anything about it. Rather, I'm supporting the effort to concoct some "preventive medicine", as it were. I think some good guidelines for students and teachers have been presented here. At this point, some of us are just clarifying certain principles, like fiduciary trust, which is a new concept for some.
The term vajra (Sanskrit: “thunderbolt,” or “diamond”) is used to signify the absolutely real and indestructible in a human being, as opposed to the fictions an individual entertains about himself and his nature; yana is the spiritual pursuit of the ultimately valuable and indestructible.
All schools of Buddhism is applying yana to regain back vajra. Though there are various term of vajra and yana mentioned in different schools of Buddhism, it is still signify the absolutely real and indestructible. The true understanding of vajra is important so that yana is in perspective, either yana from dharma talks, dharma lecture, meditation among others :cool:
This seems like a thread from American Buddhist, a hate-filled ranters site where every Buddhist teacher who is anybody is routinely trashed with no basis at all in fact. What seems to be fueling this thread is a bunch of unproven hearsay and paranoia. Like the old lady said, "Where's the beef?" Yes, there have been cases of sexual abuse by a few teachers (the one at the San Francisco Zen Center comes to mind), but they were dealt with. I also see a lot of misinformation and confusion, like the difference between the practice of Hindu tantra (which is highly sexual) and Buddhist tantra (which is not). I think we could spend our time better practicing true guru yoga than by engaging in nonvirtuous speculation.
Palzang
Palzang, are you so certain that there have NEVER been any such incidents? Have you even bothered to read the posts? No names have been given. No one was named or implicated. In fact, Daniki was very careful to be sure that such things did not happen.
What is the misinformation you report?
The whole point behind the discussion seems, at least to me, to discuss the problem, potential causes, and how best to address the problem. Why are you so defensive? No one is accusing anyone on this forum of any wrongdoing. All we are trying to do is consider a known problem that exists. This problem exists in many situations, not just religious settings. This is a common, well known and well-documented problem.
This is also important as a warning to people who are interested in attending retreats. People need to be careful and well-informed. I view this along the lines of warning people travelling to Bangkok or New York that they need to watch out for pickpockets, except the consequences of sexual assault are much worse.
It seems that Palzang didn't stick around for a response, so I'm not going to respond to what was essentially a hit-and-run dump of negativity. As for guru yoga, I read a comment somewhere that part of the problem is that some women conflate guru yoga with an ordinary student-teacher relationship. According to the women I've spoken to, their teachers actively promote a misunderstanding along those lines. Some clarification of guru yoga and its role (if it plays one) in the student-teacher relationship would be helpful.
So sorry, Dakini, I've been just a tad busy. If you want to know what guru yoga is about, I suggest you find a teacher and ask him or her. Guru yoga has nothing at all to do with an "ordinary student-teacher relationship" (I'm assuming you meant like a high school teacher or a college teacher and their students). Once again, though, you throw in a comment about teachers actively fostering an ordinary view of such a relationship that is completely unsupported by any hard facts. I personally have never heard a Dharma teacher do that, and I've heard quite a few of them. Do you have any evidence, or is this more guilt by innuendo?
Hi, Palzang. I posted on another thread the testimony of a woman who had run into abusive situations with lamas, specifically her words about what one or more lamas had told her regarding the lama being a representative of the Buddha and of the "Holy Truth", how the student is supposed to have complete devotion to the teacher who has the student's best interests in mind, Milarepa is given as an example to emulate, etc. I can find it if you want to see it, but maybe you get the gist. But bear in mind that you wouldn't have encountered that yourself, or heard of it from male dharma students. Some women (not all women who seek out a one-on-one relationship with gurus) get a different line, according to what the few women I've communicated with so far have said.
Here's the deal, Palzang. This is by nature an underground problem. Aside from formal documentation in the most spectacular cases (Sogyal, and everyone's heard stories about Trungpa), there is no documentation other than the testimony of victims. So if that's not acceptable documentation (June Campbell, for example, and testimony available online), then we can't discuss the problem. So it will continue to fester, people will continue to suffer. I'm not ok with that.
Dzongsar Khentse Rinpoche does have a letter posted on his website that addresses this issue (he misses the point entirely), and he says at the end that a colleague of his is in the West and has several "consorts", and "no complaints", as if this were some badge of honor. I can get you that link, if you want. At any rate, "stuff" is happening. (I'm trying to get in touch with Jack Kornfield, BTW, to find out more about what motivated him to institute the teacher-student guidelines presented earlier.) All I'm trying to do is to come up with a way to minimize the number of incidents or ideally, eliminate the problem altogether. This will not only prevent victimizations, but also restore the somewhat tarnished image of the tradition (which image you don't believe exists, I get that). I'm sorry people are offended by the truth (which they don't believe is, in fact, the truth). I feel this is a constructive process we've gone through here, even if here and there, there have been some speculative comments. In the end, we've come up with some good guidelines. Who could object to that? As far as I'm concerned, our work here is done. I really would prefer not to rehash case histories or wrangle about what's believable, etc. I'm interested in the end result, which is student guidelines and teacher/guru guidelines. I'd like to focus on the positive.
After what I've heard about what (some) teachers/gurus tell (some) women, I'm not sure I'd trust a teacher to give me the straight story on guru yoga and a proper interpretation of the disciple-teacher relationship. Depends on the teacher. I can look guru yoga up online or in a book. No, I didn't mean schoolteachers. My point was simply: if you want to contribute here, why not contribute something positive? I know you have a lot of experience, so why not help out?
RE: Hindu tantra and Buddhist tantra--you should check out some of Caz Namyaw's comments here and there on this site. He's clearly from a different tradition/school than you.* Did you look up Shamar Rinpoche's comments on his website? (Shamarpa.org) He says Kalu Rinpoche and the 16th Karmapa were adepts of tantric sexual techniques, which they taught to Westerners. I'm not making this up, in fact I'd never heard of it until I came across women's complaints.
* #10 on "Another thread about...sex and sensual pleasure" :
"Transforming desirous attachment into the path by generating great bliss is a very skillful practice."
Excuse me, but my sangha is predominantly women (lots of nuns, only a few monks) and I have a woman teacher, so please don't write me off as a misogynist. I also know that Trungpa had sex with many of his close students (male and female). Trungpa Rinpoche was a great crazy wisdom teacher who was particularly adept at reflecting the minds of his students. Such a lama is always misunderstood and reviled by those who have no understanding of how a crazy wisdom lama works, but the history of Tibetan Buddhism is replete with them and they are able to lead students to enlightenment very quickly. Of course, there will be students who fail to get what their teacher is about and end up turning on him/her. It is sad but it happens all the time, particularly in the West where we have no tradition of understanding esoteric Buddhism (or Buddhism at all). As for Sogyal Rinpoche, he appeals, for some reason, to young European women. Whenever I have seen him (which hasn't been often, admittedly) he has been accompanied by a coterie of them. How he interacts with them I have no idea. I know there have been stories of inappropriate sex, but I don't know if they are true or not. Not my business as he's not my teacher, but I suspect the same applies as with Trungpa; some people just don't get it. Remember that we are creatures of habit. If we have the habit of feeling abused, then that is what will manifest in our lives. If we have the habit of being happy, then we'll be happy. That's the way it works. Teachers work to cut through these habits, and the methods they may employ may well be out of the norm of ordinary rules of behavior. They do it for the benefit of their students, not to get their rocks off. I know that's hard to understand, but that's the way it is. And thank Buddha for it!
Yes, but a good ledge. And what do you mean by "finally"? :rolleyes:
Dunno exactly. Was probably just having fun.
I must say, though, that Palzang-La's post rather surprised me by its bluntness and some possible ramifications it might have in this discussion. I hasten to add that although I have not been participating in this thread vocally I have been following it.
I myself think that Americans have too many hang-ups about sex and I view the current fashion of serial monogamy as basically utter selfishness. Also, I do not buy into the concept of "cheating" too much, either. If you truly love someone, you'll want them to be free to live more spontaneously every now and then. I feel very strongly about this. But that's just me.
I am glad, Dakini, that you are now focussing your questions on matters such as these in one or two threads. It was getting rather tiresome for a while a ways back. Now, it really is something that I, for one, find tolerable to follow. Although, I must say, my credulity has real, finite limits. If something is outside the scope of my experience or of my powers of imagination, I falter badly.
Dunno exactly. Was probably just having fun: I guess I was just hoping you'd engage Palzang-La's "objections."
Thank you for your response, Palzang. Several comments have popped up on this site from students with female teachers, which intrigues me. I haven't run into any women teachers, but there's an ordained Tibetan nun who comes to the US on tour each year; I'll check her out next time she's in town.
My comment had nothing to do with misogyny. I was pointing out that male students experience some teachers completely differently than some female students. If a teacher is covertly harrassing women students or manipulating them into a sexual relationship, male students would have no way of knowing. Likewise, if white students or business clients of a prejudiced professor or bank loan officer, or other authority don't know that the individual is singling out students/clients of color and behaving in a demeaning manner or steering them toward dodgy loans or second-rate products, the more privileged students/clients aren't racist if they have no idea such behavior is taking place. I would hope, however, that upon discovering that there is a problem, they would speak out and demand equitable treatment for all, rather than asking each other "Who are these whiners?", or worse, denying the problem altogether. When we become aware of our privileged status, we open the door to awareness of potential wrongdoing toward more vulnerable members of society, and we can become agents for positive change.
Whether or not Trungpa was a legitimate "crazy wisdom" lama is debatable, but we don't need to debate that here. As for some people being "habituated to abuse" or to perceiving abuse, I'd say the issue is more profound and more complex than that, but yes, people who have experienced emotional or physical or sexual abuse in childhood or adolescence tend to get victimized again. As Querist pointed out, they are emotionally needy and may seek validation from authority figures. Also, they don't have the normal defenses that psychologically "whole" people do. The sad thing is that some of these women looked to Buddhism and to their studies with a teacher as a potentially healing experience, but it turned out quite differently for them. If, in fact, the teachers initiated a sexual relationship with them for the student's benefit, and the students were traumatized afterwards, I'd say that's not very skillful means. But I don't believe this was done for the students' benefit.
Are you aware of the implications of what you're saying? One could conclude from your comments that a) TB is a tradition in which it's acceptable (perhaps even customary?) for teachers to initiate sexual relationships with students "for the students' own good", and b) that if a student is traumatized as a result of a relationship she (or he) didn't want, (or perhaps thought she/he wanted, due to faulty judgement) then it's because she/he is habituated to abuse. Are you sure you want to be sending that message? There's a good reason for the ethical guidelines spiritual authorities are required to follow in a more structured setting. You're describing Tibetan Buddhism as a bit of a free-for-all. I'd say it's best that students investigate teachers before signing on, in order to avoid the Trungpas, the Sogyals, etc. Personally, I experience sexual harrassment from lamas as a form of discrimination; I have to fend off unnwanted attention and either avoid the teachings, or attend and feel uncomfortable, while my male counterparts can participate without a care in the world. (For those who might raise the question, I am aware that female teachers can behave just as inappropriately as male ones. There is one (who shall remain nameless, due to lack of documentation) who is said to be just as bad in that regard as some of her male counterparts.)
I'm not going to cavalierly write off students who (in typical cases) come from a history of abuse, as "abuse junkies". This is where compassion comes in. I prefer to first, understand the psycho-emotional factors involved, then explore ways of informing and empowering students so that such situations no longer occur, recommend effective therapy to those who need it, and implement appropriate behavioral guidelines for teachers where that's an option. And hey, while I'm at it, wouldn't it be great to eliminate child abuse as well, so everyone can grow up to be well-adjusted adults? (I'm a dreamer: so shoot me. --haha Figure of speech. Buddhists don't shoot anybody.) If we deny that a problem exists, we not only deny ourselves the opportunity to practice compassion, we deny victims the opportunity to receive compassion.
Excuse me, but my sangha is predominantly women (lots of nuns, only a few monks) and I have a woman teacher, so please don't write me off as a misogynist. Remember that we are creatures of habit. If we have the habit of feeling abused, then that is what will manifest in our lives. If we have the habit of being happy, then we'll be happy. That's the way it works. Teachers work to cut through these habits, and the methods they may employ may well be out of the norm of ordinary rules of behavior. They do it for the benefit of their students, not to get their rocks off. I know that's hard to understand, but that's the way it is. And thank Buddha for it!Palzang
Comments
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
This is an important point. I've checked with clergy in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, to see if I was somehow mistaken in the belief that it was a universally held expectation on the part of believers and a generally held rule of office regarding professional ethics for clergy that they were not to have romantic involvements with members of their "flock". He said I wasn't mistaken. He said it doesn't come up often, but the Church acts swiftly when it does, and defrocks the offending priest. The Church takes pride in maintaining a high reputation, he said. So this raises another question. I've read in relation to this issue that there are "cultural differences" involved that contribute to the problem, but I've never seen an explanation of those cultural differences. Might this be one of them? Is it acceptable in Tibetan sanghas for the lamas to take lovers from among the sangha members? Is this difference in expectations between communities in the Himalayan Buddhist tradition and those in Western (and some Eastern) spiritual traditions the crux of the problem?
In any case, visiting lamas to centers such as Spirit Rock will be required to abide by the new rules. I see this as an important step in the right direction.
I found a mention on the Geshe Kelsang Gyatso thread of abuse by lamas who living in a housing facility together with students. (See Yeshe's post, #3, I think). I'd hoped this problem was letting up this last decade, but maybe not.
Note to Karmadorje: I answered your question about "delving" back when it first came up, weeks ago on the "Criticism of Buddhism" thread, please see post #71.
I don't understand... You ask if it's "universally held expectation," and conclude that it is because the Eastern Orthodox Church has a policy against it?
It would be interesting if all clergy were required to marry outside of their religion...
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
P.S. My friend did say (OK, I ommitted this part by mistake) that this is common throughout the West, with the possible exception of the FLDS church, the non-mainstream Mormons.
I don't know about Himalayan Buddhist policy on this matter. I know the Cambridge Zen Center has a policy against -- I think this is the wording -- "unwanted touching."
This is a lay institution; people rent rooms and work for a living. However, there is a mild distinction between "teachers" and "residents." (There are one or two Zen Masters who are part of the set-up; but most Dharma teachers are basically just deputized residents with some coursework behind them.)
The manual explicitly says that there is no policy against romantic or sexual relationships between teachers and residents; but there is a very strict policy against unwanted touching.
I don't know how this relates to Masters' vows, or if they have any that are different from other members'. OTOH, I don't think any Zen Masters actually reside at the Center.
I imagine you could mail around a few large, self-addressed, stamped envelopes to American Buddhist communities, with a nice note asking for their handbooks. The policies stated in the handbooks would give your research a well-grounded start, and could direct your further questions.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
I think this is not only a moral issue for you. Lying, threatening, and raping I believe are wrong and I wouldn't want to fall prey to moral relativism. But on the other hand I do think that sexual behaviour in one religious culture is not expected to be the same. For example in the christian religion homosexuality is an abomination. In buddhism there are some old texts forbidding homosexuality and some quotes by HHDL stating it is wrong. Yet HHDL also said if two consenting adults enjoy a sexual relationship (same sex) that is fine.
I think it is also a cultural issue for you. You were raised with different expectations.
So I am not arguing for moral relativism but I am saying that the Christian churches views may actually not be best for non-Christians. My compass is harm. If a practice is harmful then it should be dropped. And in this case I find what the lamas are doing is harmful. So I agree with you to an extent. At the same time I think the woman (are there any men too? There are female lamas)... are also a cause of the harm. Buddhism says that there are always multiple causes to each phenomenon. The expectation of the lamas is a wide gulf between the expectations of the women. And it is harming the woman.
But NOT because the lamas are evil immoral people (assuming the rape, lying, and threatening behaviour is not prevalent in the particular hypothetical lamas which I am refering to). The harm comes from different expectations. Just as a husband who wants to spend money and a wife who wants to be frugal get harmed due to different expectations. Or a man who wants a one night stand and a woman (or reverse
I am however adamant that threats, lying, and assault are not ok. I would leave a lama who did that. And in the case of threats (of a material rather than supernatural) and assault I would contact the authorities.
Lots of good points, CC. You're absolutely right about students dropping their guard, thinking they're safe with their teachers. That is the answer to my question about Dzongsar Khentse's statement about Western husbands being naive to send their wives to Asia to study alone with lamas. (and by implication, women are naive to trust their teachers in general.) You nailed it. And your point about educating students fits in with this too. The word needs to get out in a constructive way about the correct view of the student-teacher relationship, about over-idealizing teachers, about what's a reasonable request/demand by the teacher and what isn't, etc.
Interesting analysis about the effect of sanctions on teacher activity--the threat of sanctions drives the activity underground and results in cover-ups. On the other hand, if there are no sanctions, then there's no reason for teachers to stick to the rules. What's the solution? Empowering/educating the students, but from the teachers' side, what? I guess it's more about students doing their homework and researching teachers.
I'm coming back to the idea of ordaining more nuns. Thinking about Western monastic traditions, the monks and celibate clergy traditionally are cloistered, and don't mix with the public. The monastery is their world. They rarely see women. Maybe it doesn't work to mix male teachers and female students...? Some teachers do fine (I've heard great things about Dudjom Rinpoche and Gyatrul Rinpoche, for example. And Compas. Warrior says the Seattle Sakyas are impeccable. I'm sure there are others I haven't heard about), some don't. Is ordaining more nuns an idea whose time has come? There have been comments here to that effect. On the Vajrasattva Empowerment thread, it's clear that nuns bring a different perspective to the teachings, they use different stories to illustrate their points. I like that.
About the workplace; I don't know about lawsuits, but one problem is that if there are workplace romances that fall through, then the workers involved can suddenly be very awkward around each other or worse, vindictive and so forth, and work suffers. How is it handled in your part of the world?
Thanks for your comments.
Er, badly. With drama. That's another argument against workplace romance, in fact. Goes along with the idea that your emotions and humanity should be "checked at the door" when you enter the workplace, in my view.
You know the saying: Americans live to work, while Europeans work to live.
At one job, two managers surprised everyone by getting married. I don't think it added to productivity, while if they'd gotten divorced, it would likely have reduced it. No, I don't see any incentive for companies to permit workers to have romances.
Why is it desirable for the teachers to stick to the rules?
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
This goes back to the question I raised earlier; does celibacy work? If it doesn't work, why maintain the tradition? Maybe it could be more of a specialty; I think it takes gifted individuals and a lot of commitment to make it work (HHDL has managed all these years, and there are others, no doubt). It's not for everyone.
It depends by what you mean "does it work".
To try and get men and women to change so they can grow past their animalistic impulses is one of the purposes of Monastic tradition.
And of course when you get to a point where you purge such impulses and you grow in spirituality it makes it even more chilling to see that the coverups have happened by people who are covering for the failings of the lesser capable in their tradition, because they try to convince themselves that a person can eventually get ahold of themselves and grow but to screw up is worse than to admit that they're not ready for monastic life.
How sad; checking one's humanity at the door. So at work, everyone is supposed to be an automaton?
Thank you, BTW, about the info re: Cambridge Zen Center policy, and the suggestion to study other centers' policies. It would be a good project, and simply raising the question with some dharma centers (I think many of the smaller ones don't have teacher ethics policies yet) may stimulate discussion at least, and possibly the development of a policy.
After thinking about your comments re: the effects of the threat of sanctions on clergy, I'd just like to clarify that in Buddhism, there doesn't appear to be a threat of sanctions, especially for older monks/lamas. Maybe there is for young monks, but I think sanctions are rarely applied. The "defrocking" thing seems to be mainly in the Christian churches. I gather from a comment Karmadorje made on the "Teacher-Student Relationship" thread, that there is no authority in the different sects that oversees behavior and applies sanctions. So it's incumbent on the student to do thorough research before choosing a teacher. If it's a matter of addressing physical needs, as you mentioned earlier, there are plenty of local women, and the occasional willing tourist, to address that, no? In theory, there's no need to be coercing students into a physical relationship they don't want.
What I gather from the discussion here and on the other thread is that to prevent unfortunate incidents from occurring between student and teacher, the following strategies are recommended:
1) Students should research teachers before choosing them.
2) Students should study the guidelines for a correct interpretation of the student-teacher relationship, and should not hesitate to walk out on a teacher who makes inappropriate suggestions. Guidelines are available in books and may be available on internet sites (a site dedicated to this and related topics wouldn't be a bad idea).
3) Info needs to be disseminated to students regarding not over-idealizing teachers, and not making any assumptions about trustworthiness of teachers. Awareness-raising, basically, in a diplomatic and sensitive way.
4) In institutional settings (dharma centers), the centers can enact their own code of ethics for teachers.
5) Students should not only choose their teacher carefully; if joining a sangha, they should choose the sangha carefully. This includes asking about the teacher code of ethics.
I might make a final suggestion that dharma center staff and retreat organizers should raise their own awareness of the possibility of problems developing, and be prepared to offer support to any aggrieved student, as per SimonthePilgrim's suggestions, in the event that an incident occurs. Hopefully with the implementation of the above strategies, the occurence of incidents could be minimized or eliminated.
Thanks to everyone who contributed to addressing the issues presented here.
If you're talking about traditional set-ups in Asia, my understanding is that monks and nuns live in sex-segregated communities. There is some minimal contact; but largely, nuns are trained by nuns and monks by monks. This is in the old-fashioned, traditional set-up.
The way it works practically in these cases is that a monk's love-life would strictly be on the sly, catch as catch can while doing his begging rounds. Nuns, as I understand, are generally women who have been married, had kids, and gotten permission from their husbands to become nuns (probably resulting in an effective divorce).
Historically, traditional monks *have* had affairs on the sly. We see this in some of the rules laid down for monks, namely, that you're not supposed to set up a household with a woman in the forest, and then go out for short jaunts begging from there: you're supposed to be homeless and celibate. This tells us that people were doing that; if they weren't, there wouldn't be a rule against it.
I have a book of erotic Chinese poems (in English), one of which a woman wrote about monks. I can track it down and post if you want. It's kind of entertaining.
Keep in mind that in some countries, nearly the entire population is Buddhist. So telling a monk he should find a non-Buddhist woman so he can have a proper scandalous love affair is sort of a complicated proposition.
But in these cases, I don't think there's any supposition that the monk has some kind of spiritual authority, in the context of the relationship. A Cambodian waitress told me that these were "bad monks" -- the ones who chase women, in other words.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
"On the sly"; that's what I meant; instead of having affairs with Western students on the sly (women report that lamas vehemently enforce secrecy, according to June Campbell (who still has a credibility issue with some people) and others), they could see local women on the sly. Not all local Buddhist women are as conscientious as your Cambodian informant, from what I read. (All societies have a few loose women, no?) But probably the fact that the Western students are right there, easily accessible, as it were, plays a role, even though they, too, are Buddhist and many aren't interested in a physical relationship. Probably some are, and that contributes to the problem. Speaking of India and Nepal, here. I don't know to what extent Western students seek out teachers in SE Asia.
In Taiwan, monks and nuns have always been housed in the same building, with disasterous results for the nuns. Times seem to be changing slowly, though; a few years ago a nun filed criminal charges against her monk-tormentor, the first time a nun has ever done so there. (Asia Times newspaper, I think; I can give you the link if you want.) I don't know how the case turned out.
In the Tibetan world, since there are so few ordained nuns, lamas often teach the nuns, and a few have founded nunneries. I've heard of no problems in that regard.
hmm....Chinese women's (Buddhist?) erotica? Not really what this thread is about. You could start a separate threadlet for it, and see what discussion develops. That would be something new and different for readers...
Cheers,
Dakini
Dakini,
I find this passage confusing; and I may be blocked from getting through it correctly, or it may be confused.
I understand that it's important to you that spiritual leaders should not lie about promises of spiritual benefits to convince students to have sex with them. In my opinion, spiritual leaders should not lie about possible spiritual benefits at all. It seems that, in your opinion, spiritual leaders simply should not have sex, or only ever with people outside of their religion.
And specifically, it seems you're so worried about this that you consider students or laypeople who want to have sex with spiritual leaders "part of the problem" and "loose."
Whatever we may believe about the spiritual benefits of renunciation -- of sex or of other things -- surely we can agree that consenting adults ought to be permitted to do what they like with their naughty parts, without being subjected to shame or ridicule?
(Or not much, anyway.)
Shouldn't this freedom extend to any people who find that gurus turn them on?
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
About what "contributes to the problem", to clarify what I perceive to be "the problem" in a broader context:
Western women worldwide experience persistent harrassment of various sorts and even assaults due to the perception that they are sexually free, wild, etc. Male colleagues of mine in developing countries have said point-blank that this is caused by the behavior of some female tourists, who create the impression that all Western women are easy marks. Some colleagues have added to that the fact that the US (and possibly other countries, I don't know) markets B-grade movies and worse, to developing countries, and men watch those movies and get their idea of Western women from that source.
I've come to the conclusion recently that a similar phonomenon is playing a role in the matter of coercive sex with women dharma students. Shamar Rinpoche hints at this when he writes about the influx of "hippies" into the Himalayan region and India in the 1970's, "living the hippie lifestyle", plus people like Ole Nydahl and his wife turning up to study tantric sex techniques, and convincing the 16th Karmapa, Shamar and others that this is what the West wants. Also, I think that stories of Chogyam Trungpa's exploits filtered back to Asia, creating a certain impression of Westerners, and women in particular. And the behavior of some tourists and probably some students reinforces the stereotype, which is what I was referring to when I said some women's behavior contributes to the problem, i.e. to the creation and maintenance of this steroptype. So when dharma students arrive for serious and devout study, they sometimes fall into a trap. And as you and others have mentioned in this discussion, several other factors contribute to the abuse issue. The "loose women" comment was about something else entirely, not relevant really, to the abuse issue, my mistake.
I hope this clarifies my perspective. I think you and I are agreed on some points, but for whatever reason, understanding has gotten a little tangled up. Sometimes I'm in a hurry (I have limited comupter time) and don't do the best job of articulating my position clearly, sorry for that, and my view has evolved as I consider comments coming in.
At any rate, I think some good suggestions and strategies have resulted from this discussion. Most of the responsibility seems to rest with the students.
You have a tendency to take things out of context and weave them into your pre-existing beliefs. When hearsay supports what you already believe, you grasp it firmly and believe it's True. When it does not, you work it around until it does, or discount it.
As far as I can see, you've used the Cambodian waitress's comment in two different ways to support your preconceptions, in wrong ways both times. I mean they appear to have nothing to do with what she said.
If you want to prove a hypothesis (In this case, that whatever kind of abuse goes on in whichever context, that you think is so pervasive), you need to:
* Make a prediction before you collect data: that of women who have spent ---this--- much time in a certain kind of institution, ---this--- many percent of them will report ---this--- level of discomfort at the sexual culture there. Or whatever.
* Then collect the data.
* Then see if it refutes the hypothesis.
If it refutes the hypothesis, the hypothesis is not true. If it does not refute the hypothesis, the hypothesis still might not be true, so you think up another prediction and have at it again.
The other method, of collecting a scrapbook of stories and weaving them together into a narrative, is a great way to come to any conclusion you like -- but not convincingly. Therefore I urge you to take a testing-based, data-driven approach.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
ps - I'm in favor of "gratuitous" sex, too -- sex for sex's sake -- when it's between two consenting adults. If this gives Society the terrible idea that humans like sex, we'll all just have to deal with that.
I agree with your posts on this topic. As a physician, we are trained in these matters as part of our license renewal process.
The problem is that anyone who is perceived as an authority figure is less likely to be questioned. The greater the perceived influence, the greater the demands that will not be questioned. This is why doctors, teachers/professors, and spiritual leaders are often in these situations. Sometimes, the exploitation is intentional and premeditated. Other times, it is not premeditated, but the position of authority makes it much easier. I've had patients practically throw themselves at me on more than one occasion (including some very attractive ones), but I resisted.
This is a serious matter, but this thread is getting a bit dark, so if I may bring in a college joke on the matter... (I am a part time professor, so I can get away with this.)
An middle-aged professor is teaching a fairly difficult class, and one of his students is a very attractive young lady who seems to be struggling with the material. One afternoon, toward the end of the day, she goes to his office wearing a loose blouse and a short skirt. The professor is at his desk, and the young lady goes into his office and closes the door.
"Professor... I really need to pass your class, or I won't be able to graduate."
"I see. It is still possible to pass if you do well on the final exam."
"But I do not understand the material... and I can't fail."
She leans over and looks at the professor, and while doing so unbuttons a button or two on her blouse to reveal just a glimpse of her red lace bra that is straining against its ample cargo. "I'll do anything, professor, to pass."
"Anything?", the bemused professor asked, trying to maintain eye contact.
She leaned a little closer, trying to give the professor a good glimpse of what rests beneath her blouse. "Anything."
"Even....study?"
The issue, I believe, is about perceived authority. Certain roles in society are what we term "positions of trust". These individuals are trusted in specialized matters and in situations where we would not necessarily trust other people. For example, I doubt that Dakini would remove her clothing for just anyone who asks her, but if her OB/GYN asks her to disrobe for a pelvic exam in the appropriate setting, there is a certain trust there that allows her to do so. The setting is important, because it usually needs to be in the person's place of authority. A doctor in his or her clinic, in the exam room, for example. A professor on campus. A teacher in school. A spiritual leader in the appropriate setting, be it retreat, church, or whatever.
We all know that anecdote is not the singular of data, but in cases such as sexual coercion, without third-party witnesses (persons or video recordings), all we have is a "he said / she said" situation.
Given that these types of abuse are common in many professions and religions, it is dangerous to assume that Buddhism is somehow immune to these abuses. The burden of proof should rest upon the plaintiff, and this is often difficult for the plaintiff due to emotional reasons.
Again, these are positions of trust. Societies in general place special trust in physicians, spiritual leaders, law enforcement officers, and teachers (amongst others). That is also why impersonating these people is a common tactic for criminals and why when these people commit offenses, they are often punished more severely than laypeople for the same offenses.
Dakini is making sense in her statements.
A problem is that the "victim" often truly believes, at least at the time, that it is what he or she wants. (There have been several cases lately here where female school teachers have had sex with male students.) The issue is that the trust, combined with the authority of the "perpetrator", interferes with sound judgment.
In the case of Buddhist teachers/lamas, however, the picture isn't so clear, because no one is overseeing them. But I construe the numerous suggestions I've received on different threads (and I've read the same coming from the Dalai Lama and other high Buddhist authorities) that students check out teachers thoroughly before studying with them to mean that in the Buddhist world, the same expectations regarding spiritual leaders' professional ethics apply as in the non-Buddhist world. I'm going to do a little research in that regard shortly.
Thanks for your input.
Religious institutions are under their own control in the USA, so that can mean anything from careful monitoring to absolutely nothing and no mechanism for recourse for a victim. It is unfortunate.
RE: sex between consenting adults; this isn't relevant to this discussion. We're discussing coercive sex between a religious authority (or other types of authority figures) and individuals subordinate to them. And tangentially, the question of sex between a religious (or other) authority and a willing individual subordinate to them has come up, insofar as that is still an ethical issue. What authority figures do with whom outside of the professional context isn't a concern here, nor is what peers do privately between themselves.
I am not sure that discombobulate is a clinical term, but I went to school many years ago, so it may be a newer term. :rolleyes:
Statue of limitations is normally (NORMALLY) 7 years from the event or 7 years from the date that the victim reaches the age of majority, whichever is later. This allows those who were victimised as minors to have time act once they are adults. There may be specific exemptions to the normal 7 year statute of limitations term for certain offences.
(I am NOT a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I am basing this on my understanding of the law as a licensed health-care practitioner in the state of South Carolina.)
I think we're starting to run out of slack in this conversation. I hope it's understood that I am against abusive sexual relationships.
I hope we can all do our best to take one another's posts in good faith, and to try to ensure that we're not allowing our pre-conceived ideologies to alter too much our perceptions of others.
Before this thread plays out, I notice something remarkable. The topic is authority figures who seek out a predatory relationship with their followers... and yet, when the totality of that scheme was challenged, you both responded with images of followers who were "loose women" and deliberately tried to establish relations with authority figures.
I find that remarkable.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
I did not intend to be interpreted that way. In fact, I was going the opposite direction. I did state that perhaps these victims (there are male and female victims in these types of abuses) may have had some other issues surrounding their self-esteem, but I certainly did not intend to imply that they were loose or sexually immoral.
The "deliberateness" of establishing a relationship with an authority figure was a RESULT of the abuse of the authority, not a cause of the relationship with the authority figure. It was an abuse of trust and authority.
Just as bullies look for vulnerable targets, so do these predators. They look for emotionally vulnerable targets. Victims of long-term abuse generally had some issues before they were victimized. I AM NOT SAYING THAT IT IS THE VICTIM'S FAULT. But, as I said, these predators look for vulnerable targets.
I apologize if I did not communicate effectively. I am fairly sure that we, in fact, agree on these points and it was simply a miscommunication between us that resulted in this misunderstanding.
I also believe the lamas behaviour is unskillful as a teacher because it is not practicing the ethics paramita. That is debatable but we can see it is true by the argument that it is making them less attractive as a teacher. The wisdom paramita is the liberating wisdom that can set you free from samsara. The other five paramitas are largely for the purpose of making the bodhisattva attractive to other beings so that they can share dharmic teachings with them.
Because of those lamas behaviour they are less able to share teachings. Presuming that they had some degree of the wisdom paramita to share.
But no I don't think they are immoral from a judgemental judeo-christian sensibility. For me good and evil is about harm.
Dakini isn't wrong in her assumption that spiritual leaders are expected to observe professional and ethical norms across cultures. On my "Disciple-Teacher Relationship" thread, Karmadorje said, "If there is a pattern of preying on students for sexual favor, that obviously is a grave fault." Does that settle it for everyone? I think the suggestion that Tibetan culture doesn't share these universal behavioral norms, frankly, sounds ignorant. I find it disturbing that there are people in our sangha here online who feel that lamas preying on students to meet their sexual needs is acceptable.
Querist raises the additional question of whether a consensual relationship can ever be possible when there is a power differential, when the situation involves a trust relationship between the authority figure and a client or student. He implies that the fundamental nature of the relationship makes that possibility doubtful. "The issue is that the trust [relationship] combined with the authority of the 'perpetrator' interferes with sound judgement." Spiritual and other authorities are held to a higher behavioral standard precisely because of the nature of their position and the potential vulnerability of their charges. That's why any transgressions that occur are the authority's fault; blame is not shared with the victim. The authority figure holds full responsibility for maintaining professional boundaries with his or her charges. The maintenance of professional boundaries is a required part of the job.
Perhaps Tibetan Buddhism makes an exception in the rare instance of mutual interest in a genuine committed relationship (also see Karmadorje's comment on my thread). I would think that would be a rare occurrence, especially in view of the fact that students studying in Asia are usually there temporarily, and lamas coming to the West often do so for limited residencies. Under such circumstances, a long-term committed relationship is unlikely to happen. It is more likely to happen when the lama is a permanent resident of the community that he serves, as in the Tibetan communities.
What have "Judeao-Christian norms of behaviour" (whatever you mean by that) have to do with the behaviour of Buddhist teachers?
They should stop choosing that because due to the nature of the authority relationship it has been empirically demonstrated that it causes the student harm.
At least within our culture. One could conceive of a hypothetical culture in which the high priestess or priest ceremonially had sex with followers. Which is why I reject the notion of universality. But in this world as I say it has been empirically demonstrated.
Another point I make is that the teacher shares some of the responsibility to change this negative phenomenon assuming their student isn't mentally retarded or something. These students are making equally unwise decisions and they are adults.
People might notice that some of my posts are inconsistent and that is because I have thought about this and changed my mind.
I agree entirely. Sexuality is, in itself, neutral. How we use it is what matters, just like any other activity. Neither Judaism nor Christianity, at their best, would disagree.
Christianity, at its most populous, in the form of Catholicism, would, in the person of its leader, the Pope, who is understood to speak for God, say that any form of sexual activity, by anyone, which is not intended to conceive a pregnancy, is a serious sin that will send one to hell.
The Pope might claim moral authority over more souls than does any other living person on Earth but, being bound by a lifetime of celibacy to have almost no personal understanding of sex, as are all of his advisors, almost certainly is not the best person to be setting rules and giving advice.
But apparently the only alternative to celibacy that the scrupulous good people of this thread might have to offer him is that he take up with an atheist, or hire a hooker.
And if you think that's funny, or that it isn't a problem to be taken seriously, look at the recent history of the Catholic church.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
I'm not sure where the impression came from that the issue of manipulation or abuse of dharma students in the disciple-teacher relationship was about whether sex was "sinful" or bad inherently. What I and, I thought it was clear, Dakini have been addressing is inappropriate behavior and sexual advances on the part of lamas in the student-teacher relationship. Possibly someone was projecting Christian attitudes onto the discussions? I'm glad that misconception has been cleared up.
Conrad, if I read your earlier contribution correctly, you were the one who suggested celibacy doesn't work, suggesting monks and celibate priests need a sexual outlet. No one is advocating they "take up with an atheist or hire a hooker". I thought Jeffry's post in that vein was in jest. I think the question of whether it's realistic to require celibacy is a good one; start a thread on that topic and I'll join you. I take your point that maintaining celibacy, or for non-celibate lamas who go abroad for a residency--addressing their needs without harassing their students, may be a challenge. But the monks' or lamas' problem shouldn't be the student's problem. That much is clear, that's all we're trying to address in the 2 related threads, though I see this thread has gotten a little off-track now and then. How to address the issue you've presented would best be discussed on its own thread. (BTW, I suspect some lamas take consorts from their home communities. Dilgo Khentse Rinpoche is said to have chosen the non-celibate path of the tantrika, and I don't think he was married, so he may have had local consorts. There may be a tradition of doing that, but I'm too new to that aspect of the Vajrayana tradition to know for sure.)
Palzang
Did you read the link to the Sogyal article? (I assume he was an extreme case, but aspects of the report and analysis are instructive.) As far as I can tell in the limited time I've spent trying to follow up on some of the names and cases mentioned here and elsewhere, it's some of the teachers who confuse (apparently deliberately?) Hindu and Buddhist tantra. I've read reports that Ole Nydahl presented Tibetan Buddhism as a sexual practice. I think Shamar Rinpoche complains about that on his website. But he doesn't deny that sexual practices are involved; he says Nydahl learned those practices from the 16th Karmapa. As I mentioned much earlier, it's very confusing to a relative "newbie" to hear contradictory versions of what the practices entail. Not that we need to sort that out here. I'm not taking sides on that question; I don't know anything about it. Rather, I'm supporting the effort to concoct some "preventive medicine", as it were. I think some good guidelines for students and teachers have been presented here. At this point, some of us are just clarifying certain principles, like fiduciary trust, which is a new concept for some.
All schools of Buddhism is applying yana to regain back vajra. Though there are various term of vajra and yana mentioned in different schools of Buddhism, it is still signify the absolutely real and indestructible. The true understanding of vajra is important so that yana is in perspective, either yana from dharma talks, dharma lecture, meditation among others :cool:
Palzang, are you so certain that there have NEVER been any such incidents? Have you even bothered to read the posts? No names have been given. No one was named or implicated. In fact, Daniki was very careful to be sure that such things did not happen.
What is the misinformation you report?
The whole point behind the discussion seems, at least to me, to discuss the problem, potential causes, and how best to address the problem. Why are you so defensive? No one is accusing anyone on this forum of any wrongdoing. All we are trying to do is consider a known problem that exists. This problem exists in many situations, not just religious settings. This is a common, well known and well-documented problem.
This is also important as a warning to people who are interested in attending retreats. People need to be careful and well-informed. I view this along the lines of warning people travelling to Bangkok or New York that they need to watch out for pickpockets, except the consequences of sexual assault are much worse.
Palzang
Here's the deal, Palzang. This is by nature an underground problem. Aside from formal documentation in the most spectacular cases (Sogyal, and everyone's heard stories about Trungpa), there is no documentation other than the testimony of victims. So if that's not acceptable documentation (June Campbell, for example, and testimony available online), then we can't discuss the problem. So it will continue to fester, people will continue to suffer. I'm not ok with that.
Dzongsar Khentse Rinpoche does have a letter posted on his website that addresses this issue (he misses the point entirely), and he says at the end that a colleague of his is in the West and has several "consorts", and "no complaints", as if this were some badge of honor. I can get you that link, if you want. At any rate, "stuff" is happening. (I'm trying to get in touch with Jack Kornfield, BTW, to find out more about what motivated him to institute the teacher-student guidelines presented earlier.) All I'm trying to do is to come up with a way to minimize the number of incidents or ideally, eliminate the problem altogether. This will not only prevent victimizations, but also restore the somewhat tarnished image of the tradition (which image you don't believe exists, I get that). I'm sorry people are offended by the truth (which they don't believe is, in fact, the truth). I feel this is a constructive process we've gone through here, even if here and there, there have been some speculative comments. In the end, we've come up with some good guidelines. Who could object to that? As far as I'm concerned, our work here is done. I really would prefer not to rehash case histories or wrangle about what's believable, etc. I'm interested in the end result, which is student guidelines and teacher/guru guidelines. I'd like to focus on the positive.
After what I've heard about what (some) teachers/gurus tell (some) women, I'm not sure I'd trust a teacher to give me the straight story on guru yoga and a proper interpretation of the disciple-teacher relationship. Depends on the teacher. I can look guru yoga up online or in a book. No, I didn't mean schoolteachers. My point was simply: if you want to contribute here, why not contribute something positive? I know you have a lot of experience, so why not help out?
RE: Hindu tantra and Buddhist tantra--you should check out some of Caz Namyaw's comments here and there on this site. He's clearly from a different tradition/school than you.* Did you look up Shamar Rinpoche's comments on his website? (Shamarpa.org) He says Kalu Rinpoche and the 16th Karmapa were adepts of tantric sexual techniques, which they taught to Westerners. I'm not making this up, in fact I'd never heard of it until I came across women's complaints.
* #10 on "Another thread about...sex and sensual pleasure" :
"Transforming desirous attachment into the path by generating great bliss is a very skillful practice."
Palzang
Palzang
Dunno exactly. Was probably just having fun.
I must say, though, that Palzang-La's post rather surprised me by its bluntness and some possible ramifications it might have in this discussion. I hasten to add that although I have not been participating in this thread vocally I have been following it.
I myself think that Americans have too many hang-ups about sex and I view the current fashion of serial monogamy as basically utter selfishness. Also, I do not buy into the concept of "cheating" too much, either. If you truly love someone, you'll want them to be free to live more spontaneously every now and then. I feel very strongly about this. But that's just me.
I am glad, Dakini, that you are now focussing your questions on matters such as these in one or two threads. It was getting rather tiresome for a while a ways back. Now, it really is something that I, for one, find tolerable to follow. Although, I must say, my credulity has real, finite limits. If something is outside the scope of my experience or of my powers of imagination, I falter badly.
Dunno exactly. Was probably just having fun: I guess I was just hoping you'd engage Palzang-La's "objections."
Maybe not-so-deep-down I'm a moral reprobate? Eh?
My comment had nothing to do with misogyny. I was pointing out that male students experience some teachers completely differently than some female students. If a teacher is covertly harrassing women students or manipulating them into a sexual relationship, male students would have no way of knowing. Likewise, if white students or business clients of a prejudiced professor or bank loan officer, or other authority don't know that the individual is singling out students/clients of color and behaving in a demeaning manner or steering them toward dodgy loans or second-rate products, the more privileged students/clients aren't racist if they have no idea such behavior is taking place. I would hope, however, that upon discovering that there is a problem, they would speak out and demand equitable treatment for all, rather than asking each other "Who are these whiners?", or worse, denying the problem altogether. When we become aware of our privileged status, we open the door to awareness of potential wrongdoing toward more vulnerable members of society, and we can become agents for positive change.
Whether or not Trungpa was a legitimate "crazy wisdom" lama is debatable, but we don't need to debate that here. As for some people being "habituated to abuse" or to perceiving abuse, I'd say the issue is more profound and more complex than that, but yes, people who have experienced emotional or physical or sexual abuse in childhood or adolescence tend to get victimized again. As Querist pointed out, they are emotionally needy and may seek validation from authority figures. Also, they don't have the normal defenses that psychologically "whole" people do. The sad thing is that some of these women looked to Buddhism and to their studies with a teacher as a potentially healing experience, but it turned out quite differently for them. If, in fact, the teachers initiated a sexual relationship with them for the student's benefit, and the students were traumatized afterwards, I'd say that's not very skillful means. But I don't believe this was done for the students' benefit.
Are you aware of the implications of what you're saying? One could conclude from your comments that a) TB is a tradition in which it's acceptable (perhaps even customary?) for teachers to initiate sexual relationships with students "for the students' own good", and b) that if a student is traumatized as a result of a relationship she (or he) didn't want, (or perhaps thought she/he wanted, due to faulty judgement) then it's because she/he is habituated to abuse. Are you sure you want to be sending that message? There's a good reason for the ethical guidelines spiritual authorities are required to follow in a more structured setting. You're describing Tibetan Buddhism as a bit of a free-for-all. I'd say it's best that students investigate teachers before signing on, in order to avoid the Trungpas, the Sogyals, etc. Personally, I experience sexual harrassment from lamas as a form of discrimination; I have to fend off unnwanted attention and either avoid the teachings, or attend and feel uncomfortable, while my male counterparts can participate without a care in the world. (For those who might raise the question, I am aware that female teachers can behave just as inappropriately as male ones. There is one (who shall remain nameless, due to lack of documentation) who is said to be just as bad in that regard as some of her male counterparts.)
I'm not going to cavalierly write off students who (in typical cases) come from a history of abuse, as "abuse junkies". This is where compassion comes in. I prefer to first, understand the psycho-emotional factors involved, then explore ways of informing and empowering students so that such situations no longer occur, recommend effective therapy to those who need it, and implement appropriate behavioral guidelines for teachers where that's an option. And hey, while I'm at it, wouldn't it be great to eliminate child abuse as well, so everyone can grow up to be well-adjusted adults? (I'm a dreamer: so shoot me. --haha