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.
Do speak ill of the three treasures !
On this link http://buddhism.about.com/od/theprecepts/a/preceptsintro.htm I found: “The Ten Grand Precepts”
1. Not killing
2. Not stealing
3. Not misusing sex
4. Not lying
5. Not abusing intoxicants
6. Not talking about others' errors and faults
7. Not elevating oneself and blaming others
8. Not being stingy
9. Not being angry
10. Not speaking ill of the Three Treasures
When at some point (quit a few years ago) I joined a Buddhist group, I took ten precepts which were identical or similar to these quoted here. So I think they are still in use in Buddhist groups.
Three times they say roughly the same thing:
- don’t talk about others errors
- don’t blame others
- don’t speak ill of the three treasures.
Now my question is, if someone takes these precepts seriously, how on earth can he/she let people know when something is seriously wrong?
Where does the whistleblower fit in?
These precepts ensure that if something abusive is going on in your sangha, the world will never know. The organization is more important than the victims. The approach is similar to that of the Catholic church (in the past).
Isn’t it a damaging attitude to wish to protect the good name of the sangha in general or of your Buddhist community in particular?
Isn’t it much better to be open to criticism and to be transparent, so abuses can not persist?
1. Not killing
2. Not stealing
3. Not misusing sex
4. Not lying
5. Not abusing intoxicants
6. Not talking about others' errors and faults
7. Not elevating oneself and blaming others
8. Not being stingy
9. Not being angry
10. Not speaking ill of the Three Treasures
When at some point (quit a few years ago) I joined a Buddhist group, I took ten precepts which were identical or similar to these quoted here. So I think they are still in use in Buddhist groups.
Three times they say roughly the same thing:
- don’t talk about others errors
- don’t blame others
- don’t speak ill of the three treasures.
Now my question is, if someone takes these precepts seriously, how on earth can he/she let people know when something is seriously wrong?
Where does the whistleblower fit in?
These precepts ensure that if something abusive is going on in your sangha, the world will never know. The organization is more important than the victims. The approach is similar to that of the Catholic church (in the past).
Isn’t it a damaging attitude to wish to protect the good name of the sangha in general or of your Buddhist community in particular?
Isn’t it much better to be open to criticism and to be transparent, so abuses can not persist?
0
Comments
6. Not to speak of others’ faults but to speak out of loving-kindness.
7. Not to praise self at the expense of others but to be modest.
10. Not to do anything to diminish the Triple Treasure but to support and nurture it.
One could even argue that doing nothing about abuse in a sanga is actually breaking number 10.
This however might not always be the case.
Gurus can turn out to be unable to handle the blind adoration from their followers and start abusing them. The group can turn out to be unable to correct him/her and things get worse.
It happens everywhere so it happens in Buddhist groups too.
My point is that these precepts seem to discourage whistle blowing and may prevent people to speak up when things are going wrong.
Seeker 242 pointed out that the intention of these precepts is certainly not to cover up abuses. And I agree.
These precepts (or their undesirable interpretation) limit peoples’ sense of responsibility.
They could be misread saying our responsability does not stretch to what other people do as far as this concerns the direction our group is taking.
One may -incorrectly – argue that our own behavior is our only concern and that it even is wrong to interfere with others faults (even when they happen under our eyes and affect the group we belong to).
The law of karma may get drawn in. Speaking ill of a bodhisattva or of a stream-enterer is extremely bad karma. If you do that you will go to some Buddhist hell for a kalpa or two.
Such attitudes make Buddhist groups vulnerable to losing direction and allow abusive practices to continue.
One such factor is the (wrong) idea that the teacher is so advanced in his/her practice that our silly dualistic standards of moral behavior do not apply.
It is our limitation that makes us see abuse; when all there can be (coming from such an advanced teacher) is compassion and wisdom. It’s simply beyond our understanding. It is all empty anyway.
Don’t believe it.
Another factor is secrecy. If some “advanced” types of practice are to be kept secret for the outside world and even for fellow practitioners, something is probably wrong.
There’s nothing in Buddhism that’s unfit to bo out in the open.
However, before we launch into a potentially hurtful criticism of someone else, we really need to consider our words, try to empathise with how the person might feel and be certain our advice is based on genuine compassion, not on a sense of superiority or anger.
Like surgery, if you are going to cut into someone's heart you'd better make sure you're skilled and it's for a good reason.
"The only way for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing". By doing nothing about something that is destructive to the Sangha, you are not nurturing or being supportive of the Sangha. By doing nothing about something that is destroying it, you are in effect, condoning it's destruction thereby violating number 10. This all assumes that something can be done to begin with.
What's the source of your quote? Here's a fave of mine, along the same line:
"The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."
--Albert Einstein Rinpoche
But originally, the Sangha referred exclusively to the "Noble" or "Enlightened" Sangha.
In some traditions, the meaning is retained.
If a teacher gives great sermons on 'Emptiness' but practises sexual misconduct, they are not enlightened (imo); they are not "Sangha" (imo).
Where do you practice? Traleg Rinpoche is in Australia, do you have any experience with him?
BTW, the message you sent me got erased, somehow. :-/
And Beta noted: “Like surgery, if you are going to cut into someone's heart you'd better make sure you're skilled and it's for a good reason.”
It is difficult.
In an open and transparent community criticism is tolerated and taken seriously. But then, in such a community abuse is unlikely to happen anyway.
More likely is that abuse happens in a community which has some mechanisms facilitating it.
I think those mechanisms have been discussed on this forum.
In such a group I have seen only two scenarios.
The general outcome is that the whistle blower gets isolated, he /she will be ignored, slandered and despised and he /she ultimately leaves. The group strengthens its sense of exclusiveness.
The other outcome is that the whistle blower finds informal leaders and is able to make an alliance with them. It is a serious thing, and indeed like in heart surgeory, the patient may die. In our case it did. The group fell apart.
Again in a group of wise (or just reasonable) people issues can be solved.
And the key is to prevent serious abuse from happening in the first place.
So emphasize from the beginning the benefits of sincere criticism. It’s a contribution to the wellbeing of your sangha and all its members. It is not “wrong speech”.
Is it beneficial to expose abuse so that it stops? Yes, of course it is. You tell them that the Buddha disagrees. Then explain what "right speech" actually means. If they are saying that, then they have a misunderstanding of it. I would think the Buddha has a better understanding than they do, of what right speech is. Rely on the scriptures of what right speech is and isn't, because they clearly show that it is not wrong speech.
I found this interesting too:
How to admonish another skillfully
"O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who desires to admonish another should do so after investigating five conditions in himself and after establishing five other conditions in himself. What are the five conditions which he should investigate in himself?
[1] "Am I one who practices purity in bodily action, flawless and untainted...?
[2] "Am I one who practices purity in speech, flawless and untainted...?
[3] "Is the heart of goodwill, free from malice, established in me towards fellow-farers in the holy life...?
[4] "Am I or am I not one who has heard much, who bears in mind what he has heard, who stores up what he has heard? Those teachings which are good alike in their beginning, middle, and ending, proclaiming perfectly the spirit and the letter of the utterly purified holy life — have such teachings been much heard by me, borne in mind, practiced in speech, pondered in the heart and rightly penetrated by insight...?
[5] "Are the Patimokkhas [rules of conduct for monks and nuns] in full thoroughly learned by heart, well-analyzed with thorough knowledge of their meanings, clearly divided sutta by sutta and known in minute detail by me...?
"These five conditions must be investigated in himself.
"And what other five conditions must be established in himself?
[1] "Do I speak at the right time, or not?
[2] "Do I speak of facts, or not?
[3] "Do I speak gently or harshly?
[4] "Do I speak profitable words or not?
[5] "Do I speak with a kindly heart, or inwardly malicious?
"O bhikkhus, these five conditions are to be investigated in himself and the latter five established in himself by a bhikkhu who desires to admonish another."
— AN V (From The Patimokkha, Ñanamoli Thera, trans.)
If blowing the whistle on (admonishing) another is wrong speech, then why do the scriptures contain advice about how to do it skillfully? The scriptures contain advice on how to engage in wrong speech skillfully?? I don't think so!
"How would you suggest preventing any problem from developing? Although it seems to me that once such a lama has arrived at the sangha, it's already too late. This brings up the question: how to screen for this type of problem when selecting a lama? Sangha members never have input into who the administration chooses to invite for a residency."
My experience is not in Tibetan style Buddhism, but the problem is probably the same in any Buddhist group.
I don’t think unfortunate accidents can be avoided. But I do think structural abuse can be prevented.
Taking the problem seriously is a good start.
Don’t expect teachers to be perfect and don’t interpret every one of their farts as an expression of ultimate wisdom.
Keep your feet on the ground.
Don’t give all the power to one person. Keep the control over the money away from the spiritual teacher.
Get some lay people in charge of the organization who can fire the teacher when he makes a mess.
It’s probably all in the guidelines you mentioned.
I would be interested in reading them.
Also create a culture of transparency. Welcome people to participate in talks about the way things are going in the group. Don’t leave it all up to the teacher.
Abuse happens when too much power is given to a person who is unable to handle it.
Recognize unrealistic ideas about the person of the teacher as a danger.
Speak up when “dissidents” are being humiliated and ridiculed.
When I look back this is what embarrasses me the most.
People were humiliated in public and the lot of us thought that such behavior from the teacher was probably very wise in some deep hidden way.
My guidelines didn't delve as deeply as yours, but you can see them on the "The Teacher-Disciple Relationship: How to Get It Right, What TO Do When It Goes Wrong" thread. Not all my questions went answered. What we got was the best we could do given the climate here at the time. If you feel you have something valuable to add, you could revive the thread.
“i'm pretty sure zen and lay zen especially allows a lot of flexibility in moral uprightness or whatever you should call it.”
I think I understand what you’re saying.
There’s no need to be overly moralistic between zen-practitioners and I don’t think I’m being narrow minded.
So what exactly is abuse?
For me it comes down to taking advantage of people who think you are something like a living Buddha.
Or taking advantage of the fact that people think their relationship with you (no matter what you do to them) will bring them closer to enlightenment.
People who get abused are on unknown territory when they are with their spiritual teacher.
The teacher is not.
This should make him/her very reluctant to do anything that could be seen as taking advantage of the student. Don’t you agree?
I will look for that thread and read it soon; but this weekend I ‘m busy with the family.
Sangha members need to wake up.
"When teachers break the precepts, behaving in ways that are clearly damaging to themselves and others, students must face the situation, even though this can be challenging, criticize openly, that's the only way." HH the IV Dalai Lama
More on the meeting between Western dharma ctr leaders and HHDL on the subject of teacher abuse of students here: http://viewonbuddhism.org/controversy-controversial-teacher-group-center-questionable.html
However, in the world, if a school teacher, doctor, manager, etc, transgress their fiduciary trust responsibilities, they generally cop 100% of the repercussions.
If it were made a law that selling heroin is illegal but shooting it is legal. And someone dies of an overdose. Then technically 100% of the legal blame is on the seller. Yet at the same time it is unreasonable to say the user played no causitive role in the outcome.
That being said it doesn't mean that the user or dupee is 100% causitive either.
When I was in highschool the classroom was very naughty and abusive to one of my teachers. They did nothing legally wrong but they were jack asses. Eventually the teacher snapped and threw his desk at one of the students. He was a big guy. Now the teacher is to blame but the students had a causitive role. That teacher switched to teaching prison inmates and those people treated him with respect and he enjoyed it.